Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Torah commentaries and informed (dis)belief

Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 7:35:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 7:34:36 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
I'm curious: We here owns and, when appropriate, references a decent modern Torah commentary:
Sorry, that should have been "Who here ""
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 2:45:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 7:34:36 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
I'm curious: We here owns and, when appropriate, references a decent modern Torah commentary:

Forgive my ignorance, but is the Old Testament (more or less) the Torah? If so, I have many biblical commentaries that include the OT.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Cassius
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 2:52:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 2:45:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/2/2014 7:34:36 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
I'm curious: We here owns and, when appropriate, references a decent modern Torah commentary:

Forgive my ignorance, but is the Old Testament (more or less) the Torah? If so, I have many biblical commentaries that include the OT.

The Five Books of Moses (in Greek, the Pentateuch) are the Torah in the Jewish tradition. The entirety of the Old Testament, which adds the Prophets, etc., is the Tanach.
I used to be Nur-Ab-Sal.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 3:19:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 2:52:26 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 12/2/2014 2:45:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/2/2014 7:34:36 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
I'm curious: We here owns and, when appropriate, references a decent modern Torah commentary:

Forgive my ignorance, but is the Old Testament (more or less) the Torah? If so, I have many biblical commentaries that include the OT.

The Five Books of Moses (in Greek, the Pentateuch) are the Torah in the Jewish tradition. The entirety of the Old Testament, which adds the Prophets, etc., is the Tanach.

Thank you!
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 5:42:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 2:45:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/2/2014 7:34:36 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
I'm curious: We here owns and, when appropriate, references a decent modern Torah commentary:

Forgive my ignorance, but is the Old Testament (more or less) the Torah? If so, I have many biblical commentaries that include the OT.

You might wish to consider supplementing them with a modern Torah commentary.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 5:46:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 5:42:06 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 12/2/2014 2:45:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/2/2014 7:34:36 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
I'm curious: We here owns and, when appropriate, references a decent modern Torah commentary:

Forgive my ignorance, but is the Old Testament (more or less) the Torah? If so, I have many biblical commentaries that include the OT.

You might wish to consider supplementing them with a modern Torah commentary.

Is there a drastic difference in interpretation?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Gentorev
Posts: 2,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 5:57:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 5:42:06 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 12/2/2014 2:45:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/2/2014 7:34:36 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
I'm curious: We here owns and, when appropriate, references a decent modern Torah commentary:

Forgive my ignorance, but is the Old Testament (more or less) the Torah? If so, I have many biblical commentaries that include the OT.

You might wish to consider supplementing them with a modern Torah commentary.

What about a commentary from the Hebrew Zohar?
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 6:53:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 5:46:16 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/2/2014 5:42:06 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 12/2/2014 2:45:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/2/2014 7:34:36 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
I'm curious: We here owns and, when appropriate, references a decent modern Torah commentary:

Forgive my ignorance, but is the Old Testament (more or less) the Torah? If so, I have many biblical commentaries that include the OT.

You might wish to consider supplementing them with a modern Torah commentary.

Is there a drastic difference in interpretation?

There certainly can be, although some 'Christian' commentaries can be quite good. NICOT, for example, produces high quality texts.

Still, if you want to understand how Jews understand their meta-narrative the best source (IMO) is Jewish scholarship, e.g., Sarna and/or Plaut.
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 6:55:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 5:57:50 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 12/2/2014 5:42:06 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 12/2/2014 2:45:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/2/2014 7:34:36 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
I'm curious: We here owns and, when appropriate, references a decent modern Torah commentary:

Forgive my ignorance, but is the Old Testament (more or less) the Torah? If so, I have many biblical commentaries that include the OT.

You might wish to consider supplementing them with a modern Torah commentary.

What about a commentary from the Hebrew Zohar?

After I have a better understanding of Torah I'll consider the Zohar. I'm simply not ready to take it seriously.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 7:15:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 6:55:50 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 12/2/2014 5:57:50 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 12/2/2014 5:42:06 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 12/2/2014 2:45:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/2/2014 7:34:36 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
I'm curious: We here owns and, when appropriate, references a decent modern Torah commentary:

Forgive my ignorance, but is the Old Testament (more or less) the Torah? If so, I have many biblical commentaries that include the OT.

You might wish to consider supplementing them with a modern Torah commentary.

What about a commentary from the Hebrew Zohar?

After I have a better understanding of Torah I'll consider the Zohar. I'm simply not ready to take it seriously.

Well for what it's worth, here is a commentary from the Zorah.

According to one school of thought Enoch was taken by God and transformed into Metatron, explaining the mysterious passage "Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away (Genesis 5:24 NIV). However, this viewpoint is not shared by many Talmudic authorities.

There may be two Metatrons, one spelled with six letters, and one spelled with seven. The former may be the transformed Enoch, while the latter is the Primordial Metatron.

The Zohar calls Metatron "the Youth", identifies him as the angel that led the people of Israel through the wilderness after their exodus from Egypt, and describes him as a heavenly priest.

Metatron is also mentioned in the Pseudepigrapha, most prominently in the Hebrew Book of Enoch (also called Third Enoch), in which his grand title, "the lesser YHVH" resurfaces. According to Johann Eisenmenger, Metatron transmits the daily orders of God to the angels Gabriel and Sammael. Metatron is often identified as being the twin brother to Sandalphon, who is said to have been the prophet Elijah.

Enoch was carried to the throne of the Most High in the creation and anointed as his successor. Elijah was also taken to heaven to stand before the face of Enoch into all eternity. Elijah was not the twin to Enoch, but the duplication of Enoch as he had evolved to at that particular point in time.
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 7:17:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 7:15:32 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 12/2/2014 6:55:50 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 12/2/2014 5:57:50 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 12/2/2014 5:42:06 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 12/2/2014 2:45:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/2/2014 7:34:36 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
I'm curious: We here owns and, when appropriate, references a decent modern Torah commentary:

Forgive my ignorance, but is the Old Testament (more or less) the Torah? If so, I have many biblical commentaries that include the OT.

You might wish to consider supplementing them with a modern Torah commentary.

What about a commentary from the Hebrew Zohar?

After I have a better understanding of Torah I'll consider the Zohar. I'm simply not ready to take it seriously.

Well for what it's worth, here is a commentary from the Zorah.


Do you have a point?
Gentorev
Posts: 2,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 7:50:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 7:17:13 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 12/2/2014 7:15:32 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 12/2/2014 6:55:50 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 12/2/2014 5:57:50 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 12/2/2014 5:42:06 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 12/2/2014 2:45:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/2/2014 7:34:36 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
I'm curious: We here owns and, when appropriate, references a decent modern Torah commentary:

Forgive my ignorance, but is the Old Testament (more or less) the Torah? If so, I have many biblical commentaries that include the OT.

You might wish to consider supplementing them with a modern Torah commentary.

What about a commentary from the Hebrew Zohar?

After I have a better understanding of Torah I'll consider the Zohar. I'm simply not ready to take it seriously.

Well for what it's worth, here is a commentary from the Zorah.


Do you have a point?

Because the Zohar is said to be a collection of commentaries on the Torah, intended to guide people who have already achieved high spiritual levels, I thought it appropriate to add it here.

And as Enoch is recorded in the Torah as having been taken to God at the age of 365, the number of days in a calendar year which is the age of the one year old unblemished lamb, and was translated (To change from one form to another) and according to the Zohar, it was the translated Enoch who guided the Israelite through the wilderness, I believed it might stimulate the minds of the readers.
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 8:09:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 7:50:05 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 12/2/2014 7:17:13 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 12/2/2014 7:15:32 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 12/2/2014 6:55:50 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 12/2/2014 5:57:50 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 12/2/2014 5:42:06 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 12/2/2014 2:45:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/2/2014 7:34:36 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
I'm curious: We here owns and, when appropriate, references a decent modern Torah commentary:

Forgive my ignorance, but is the Old Testament (more or less) the Torah? If so, I have many biblical commentaries that include the OT.

You might wish to consider supplementing them with a modern Torah commentary.

What about a commentary from the Hebrew Zohar?

After I have a better understanding of Torah I'll consider the Zohar. I'm simply not ready to take it seriously.

Well for what it's worth, here is a commentary from the Zorah.


Do you have a point?

Because the Zohar is said to be a collection of commentaries on the Torah, ...

Are you intentionally seeking to derail and/or mock this thread?
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 8:11:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 6:53:07 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 12/2/2014 5:46:16 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/2/2014 5:42:06 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 12/2/2014 2:45:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/2/2014 7:34:36 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
I'm curious: We here owns and, when appropriate, references a decent modern Torah commentary:

Forgive my ignorance, but is the Old Testament (more or less) the Torah? If so, I have many biblical commentaries that include the OT.

You might wish to consider supplementing them with a modern Torah commentary.

Is there a drastic difference in interpretation?

There certainly can be, although some 'Christian' commentaries can be quite good. NICOT, for example, produces high quality texts.

Still, if you want to understand how Jews understand their meta-narrative the best source (IMO) is Jewish scholarship, e.g., Sarna and/or Plaut.

Yes, I understand and agree. I was curious if you had any specific differences between the two.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 8:16:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 8:11:50 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/2/2014 6:53:07 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 12/2/2014 5:46:16 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/2/2014 5:42:06 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 12/2/2014 2:45:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/2/2014 7:34:36 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
I'm curious: We here owns and, when appropriate, references a decent modern Torah commentary:

Forgive my ignorance, but is the Old Testament (more or less) the Torah? If so, I have many biblical commentaries that include the OT.

You might wish to consider supplementing them with a modern Torah commentary.

Is there a drastic difference in interpretation?

There certainly can be, although some 'Christian' commentaries can be quite good. NICOT, for example, produces high quality texts.

Still, if you want to understand how Jews understand their meta-narrative the best source (IMO) is Jewish scholarship, e.g., Sarna and/or Plaut.

Yes, I understand and agree. I was curious if you had any specific differences between the two.

I think you might appreciate the intellectual honesty and scholarship to be found in such works as The JPS Torah Commentary, The Plaut Commentary, Etz Hayim, and The Jewis Study Bible.
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 8:26:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Perhaps an example. In the JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Nahum Sarna addresses the phrase "in our image, after our likeness: (see Genesis 1:26) as follows ...

in our image, after our likeness This unique combination of expressions, virtually identical in meaning, emphasizes the incomparable nature of human beings and their special relationship to God. The full import of these terms can be grasped only within the broader context of biblical literature and against the background of ancient Near Eastern analogues.

The continuation of verse 26 establishes an evident connection between resemblance to God and sovereignty over the earth's resources, though it is not made clear whether man has power over nature as a result of his being like God or whether that power constitutes the very essence of the similarity. A parallel passage in 9:6-7 tells of God's renewed blessings on the human race after the Flood and declares murder to be the consummate crime precisely because "in His image did God make man." In other words, the resemblance of man to God bespeaks the infinite worth of a human being and affirms the inviolability of the human person. The killing of any other creature, even wantonly, is not murder. Only a human being may be murdered. It would seem, then, that the phrase "in the image of God" conveys something about the nature of the human being as opposed to the animal kingdom; it also asserts human dominance over nature. But it is even more than this.

The words used here to convey these ideas can be better understood in the light of a phenomenon registered in both Mesopotamia and Egypt, whereby the ruling monarch is described as "the image" or "the likeness" of a god. In Mesopotamia we find the following salutations: "The father of my lord the king is the very image of Bel (shalam bel) and the king, my lord, is the very image of Bel"; "The king, lord of the lands, is the image of Shamash"; "O king of the inhabited world, you are the image of Marduk." In Egypt, the same concept is expressed is expressed through the name Tutankhamen (Tut-ankh-amun), which means "the living image of (the god) Amun,: and in the designation of Thutmose IV as "the likeness of Re."

Without doubt, the terminology employed in Genesis 1:26 is derived from regal vocabulary, which serves to elevate the king above the ordinary run of men. In the Bible this idea has become democratized. All human beings are created "in the image of God"; each person bears the stamp of royalty. This was patently understood by the authors of Psalm 8, cited above. His description of man in royal terms is his interpretation of the concept of the "image of God" introduced in verse 26. It should be further pointed out that in Assyrian royal steles, the gods are generally depicted by their symbols: Ashshur by the winged disk, Shamash by the sun disk, and so forth. These depictions are called: "the image (shalom) of the great gods." In light of this, the characterization of man as "in the image of God" furnishes the added dimension of his being the symbol of God's presence on earth. While he is not divine, his very existence bears witness to the activity of God in the life of the world. This awareness inevitably entails an awesome responsibility and imposes a code of living that conforms with the consciousness of that fact.

It should be added that the pairing of the terms tselel and demut, "image" and "likeness," is paralleled in a ninth-century B.C.E. Assyrian-Aramaic bilingual inscription on a statue at Tell Kekheriyeh in Syria. The two terms are used interchangeably and indiscriminately and obviously cannot be used as criteria for source differentiation. [pg. 12]

It is this type of intellectual scope that I greatly appreciate.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 8:48:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 8:09:58 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 12/2/2014 7:50:05 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 12/2/2014 7:17:13 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 12/2/2014 7:15:32 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 12/2/2014 6:55:50 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 12/2/2014 5:57:50 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 12/2/2014 5:42:06 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 12/2/2014 2:45:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/2/2014 7:34:36 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
I'm curious: We here owns and, when appropriate, references a decent modern Torah commentary:

Forgive my ignorance, but is the Old Testament (more or less) the Torah? If so, I have many biblical commentaries that include the OT.

You might wish to consider supplementing them with a modern Torah commentary.

What about a commentary from the Hebrew Zohar?

After I have a better understanding of Torah I'll consider the Zohar. I'm simply not ready to take it seriously.

Well for what it's worth, here is a commentary from the Zorah.


Do you have a point?

Because the Zohar is said to be a collection of commentaries on the Torah, ...

Are you intentionally seeking to derail and/or mock this thread?

I am sorry that you think that way, but I was not trying to derail nor mock your thread.

The Zorah is a collection of commentaries on the Torah and one of those commentaries is on Enoch who is mentioned in the Torah.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 10:43:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 8:26:47 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
Perhaps an example. In the JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Nahum Sarna addresses the phrase "in our image, after our likeness: (see Genesis 1:26) as follows ...

in our image, after our likeness This unique combination of expressions, virtually identical in meaning, emphasizes the incomparable nature of human beings and their special relationship to God. The full import of these terms can be grasped only within the broader context of biblical literature and against the background of ancient Near Eastern analogues.

The continuation of verse 26 establishes an evident connection between resemblance to God and sovereignty over the earth's resources, though it is not made clear whether man has power over nature as a result of his being like God or whether that power constitutes the very essence of the similarity. A parallel passage in 9:6-7 tells of God's renewed blessings on the human race after the Flood and declares murder to be the consummate crime precisely because "in His image did God make man." In other words, the resemblance of man to God bespeaks the infinite worth of a human being and affirms the inviolability of the human person. The killing of any other creature, even wantonly, is not murder. Only a human being may be murdered. It would seem, then, that the phrase "in the image of God" conveys something about the nature of the human being as opposed to the animal kingdom; it also asserts human dominance over nature. But it is even more than this.

The words used here to convey these ideas can be better understood in the light of a phenomenon registered in both Mesopotamia and Egypt, whereby the ruling monarch is described as "the image" or "the likeness" of a god. In Mesopotamia we find the following salutations: "The father of my lord the king is the very image of Bel (shalam bel) and the king, my lord, is the very image of Bel"; "The king, lord of the lands, is the image of Shamash"; "O king of the inhabited world, you are the image of Marduk." In Egypt, the same concept is expressed is expressed through the name Tutankhamen (Tut-ankh-amun), which means "the living image of (the god) Amun,: and in the designation of Thutmose IV as "the likeness of Re."

Without doubt, the terminology employed in Genesis 1:26 is derived from regal vocabulary, which serves to elevate the king above the ordinary run of men. In the Bible this idea has become democratized. All human beings are created "in the image of God"; each person bears the stamp of royalty. This was patently understood by the authors of Psalm 8, cited above. His description of man in royal terms is his interpretation of the concept of the "image of God" introduced in verse 26. It should be further pointed out that in Assyrian royal steles, the gods are generally depicted by their symbols: Ashshur by the winged disk, Shamash by the sun disk, and so forth. These depictions are called: "the image (shalom) of the great gods." In light of this, the characterization of man as "in the image of God" furnishes the added dimension of his being the symbol of God's presence on earth. While he is not divine, his very existence bears witness to the activity of God in the life of the world. This awareness inevitably entails an awesome responsibility and imposes a code of living that conforms with the consciousness of that fact.

It should be added that the pairing of the terms tselel and demut, "image" and "likeness," is paralleled in a ninth-century B.C.E. Assyrian-Aramaic bilingual inscription on a statue at Tell Kekheriyeh in Syria. The two terms are used interchangeably and indiscriminately and obviously cannot be used as criteria for source differentiation. [pg. 12]

It is this type of intellectual scope that I greatly appreciate.

I can appreciate that. I looked earlier for Torah commentaries on kindle, but it seemed many were from Christian scholars. I'll look for this one when I get a chance.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 6:32:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 10:43:55 PM, Skepticalone wrote:

I can appreciate that. I looked earlier for Torah commentaries on kindle, but it seemed many were from Christian scholars. I'll look for this one when I get a chance.

Just a warning. The JPS Torah Commentary is a five volume set, well worth having but rather expensive. You might wish to start with the Plaut Commentary.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 7:10:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 6:32:31 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 12/2/2014 10:43:55 PM, Skepticalone wrote:

I can appreciate that. I looked earlier for Torah commentaries on kindle, but it seemed many were from Christian scholars. I'll look for this one when I get a chance.

Just a warning. The JPS Torah Commentary is a five volume set, well worth having but rather expensive. You might wish to start with the Plaut Commentary

Ahh, the old bait and switch! I don't have either of these available to me in the format I prefer. It looks like "Commentary of the Torah" by Richard Elliott Friedman may be the best, but he is a biblical scholar and the only one providing commentary.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 9:41:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 7:10:46 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/3/2014 6:32:31 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 12/2/2014 10:43:55 PM, Skepticalone wrote:

I can appreciate that. I looked earlier for Torah commentaries on kindle, but it seemed many were from Christian scholars. I'll look for this one when I get a chance.

Just a warning. The JPS Torah Commentary is a five volume set, well worth having but rather expensive. You might wish to start with the Plaut Commentary

Ahh, the old bait and switch! I don't have either of these available to me in the format I prefer. It looks like "Commentary of the Torah" by Richard Elliott Friedman may be the best, but he is a biblical scholar and the only one providing commentary.

Friedman is not bad, but neither is he particularly good. Plaut should be available at any Barnes and Noble and is easily available on line.

By the way, Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible is a reasonably good introduction to the Documentary Hypothesis.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 10:05:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 9:41:34 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 12/3/2014 7:10:46 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/3/2014 6:32:31 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 12/2/2014 10:43:55 PM, Skepticalone wrote:

I can appreciate that. I looked earlier for Torah commentaries on kindle, but it seemed many were from Christian scholars. I'll look for this one when I get a chance.

Just a warning. The JPS Torah Commentary is a five volume set, well worth having but rather expensive. You might wish to start with the Plaut Commentary

Ahh, the old bait and switch! I don't have either of these available to me in the format I prefer. It looks like "Commentary of the Torah" by Richard Elliott Friedman may be the best, but he is a biblical scholar and the only one providing commentary.

Friedman is not bad, but neither is he particularly good. Plaut should be available at any Barnes and Noble and is easily available on line.

It looks like Friedman is all that is available currently unless I go to the extremely cheap commentaries, and you get what you pay for on those. I could only find Plaut in hard copy.

By the way, Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible is a reasonably good introduction to the Documentary Hypothesis.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten