Best old testament commentary books according to redditors
We found 126 Reddit comments discussing the best old testament commentary books. We ranked the 77 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 126 Reddit comments discussing the best old testament commentary books. We ranked the 77 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
Here's my reading list on Reformed Perspectives on Creation. I don't agree with everything written by all of the authors, but they are all worth reading. The also aren't all written from a Reformed perspective, but many of them are. If you are looking more for a Scientific perspective I'd particularly recommend Collins, Jelsma, and Haarsma since those are the ones written by scientists instead of theologians. If you didn't see it already, I also listed a number of other resources by Collins yesterday in the post about his AMA.
Did choose one - Jesus was a Jew.
Scholars will make it a course of study...Has been done since the Church was first started, as in "The Book of Hebrews"...
> https://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Study-Bible-Publication-Translation/dp/0195297512
> The Jewish Study Bible: Featuring The Jewish Publication Society TANAKH Translation: Adele Berlin, Marc Zvi Brettler, Michael Fishbane: 9780195297515: Amazon.com: Books
> The Jewish Study Bible is a one-volume resource tailored especially for the needs of students of the Hebrew Bible. Nearly forty scholars worldwide contributed to the translation and interpretation of the Jewish Study Bible, representing the best of Jewish biblical scholarship available today. A committee of highly-respected biblical scholars and rabbis from the Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Judaism movements produced this modern translation.
> No knowledge of Hebrew is required for one to make use of this unique volume. The Jewish Study Bible uses The Jewish Publication Society TANAKH Translation.
> Since its publication, the Jewish Study Bible has become one of the most popular volumes in Oxford's celebrated line of bibles. The quality of scholarship, easy-to-navigate format, and vibrant supplementary features bring the ancient text to life.
>* Informative essays that address a wide variety of topics relating to Judaism's use and interpretation of the Bible through the ages.
It's not really clear what's going on there. The Jewish Study Bible, which is usually the first thing I consult for questions about Tanakh, says merely this:
>The relationship of the Lord to the men is unclear. Perhaps, as in some Canaanite literature, we are to imagine a deity accompanied by his two attendants.
That seems to make sense of the text. In verse 22, the men move on to Sodom while Abraham remains with the Lord. In 19:1 we're told that two angels arrive at Sodom. So it seems that two of the men are angelic figures, and the third is the Lord. It looks like that's how Jon D. Levenson, who wrote this section of the JSB, reads it. And if there's precedent for this in Canaanite literature, that makes even more sense.
But like Levenson says and as you've observed, it's unclear.
How to Think About God: A guide for the 20th Century Pagan
Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity
Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief
Biblical Games: Game Theory and the Hebrew Bible
The Probability of God: A Simple Calculation That Proves the Ultimate Truth
The Abolition of Man
Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time: The Historical Jesus and the Heart of Contemporary Faith
Reading the Bible Again For the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously But Not Literally
An excellent choice would be Introduction to the Bible (The Open Yale Courses Series) by professor Christine Hayes: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B009NCO3FY/ref=oh_aui_d_detailpage_o05_?ie=UTF8&psc=1
If you are really motivated, this book is the companion to the Yale Open Course, Introduction to the Old Testament, available for viewing here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo-YL-lv3RY&list=PLh9mgdi4rNeyuvTEbD-Ei0JdMUujXfyWi
I should point out that there is no such thing as an unbiased book on any historical subject. In every case, the author brings her own biases to the project, even by the choose of which items to include or exclude in the book.
https://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Games-Theory-Hebrew-Bible/dp/0262523329
I don't think so. The first line is translated as
> in the summit “Elohiym [Powers]” fattened the sky and the land
The translation of בְּרֵאשִׁית as "in the summit" is a very uncommon conjecture made to strengthen the parallel between Genesis and the Babylonian Enuma Elish, which opens with "when on high". There are indeed parallels between the two texts, but the translation of that particular word is a non-literal interpretation. Literally, it means something like "at the head".
The translation of בָּרָא as "fattened" is something that I've never seen before. At best it's a fringe theory.
Skimming the rest of the lines, I can see many more of these unusual translations which were likely made to fit into some sort of specific non-standard interpretation. For example, the simple word "טוֹב" (good) is translated as "functional".
I recommend the Jewish Study Bible, which is often used in university courses. It uses the latest JPS translation, which is decent, but more importantly it includes ample commentary by unbiased experts.
Scholars Christopher Wright and Michael Grasanti state this is referring to those who were born from rebellion (the intermarrying of the Israelite people and pagans), incest, temple prostitutes, adultery, and any other unlawful sexual relationship.
To allow these children to attend would be to snub your nose at the Law and commands of God. It would be almost as though they were boasting in their rebellion. It is further thought that if one is participating in this kind of relationship, the parent is also guilty and would be cut off from the assembly.
The tenth generation, according to Grasanti, is a permanent ban to be enacted on unrepentant sinners. This suggests that if one born of an illicit union was to place themselves under the Law and worship YAHWEH alone, they could join the assembly.
Sources:
Christopher Wright - Understanding the Bible Commentary
Michael Grasanti - The Expositor's Bible Commentary
edit - typo
Reader, thanks for your time and thoughts! OP, thank you for your kindness! I served a mission in Russia 10 years ago, I'm a current practicing member of the LDS Church, living in China now. JBP caught my attention last year and I have devoured his Bible series. I also love listening to Jonathan Pageau and Paul Vanderklay. Really enjoyed Matthieu Pageau's book, The Language of Creation.
My own take on Mormonism and JBP: Sure, claims of visions of God and a the gold plates (Book of Mormon) may seem ridiculous and even disprovable to some extent. But so is the resurrection of Christ. The fundamentalist sits on the opposite side of the coin as the atheist. Both insist that the Bible is literal, the former believes the stories, the latter disbelieves. Jordan Peterson rejects this false dichotomy by showing that our existence is primarily a forum for action, not a place of things. This in mind, stories of the Garden of Eden, the virgin birth, the resurrection of Christ, and a host of other nearly "disprovable" Christian foundations become valuable not for their historical occurrence as described, but for how they influence behavior in the world's forum for action.
If you sit on either side of the fundamentalist/atheist coin, the LDS Church's history, doctrines and current stances are concerning and puzzling. Getting off of this coin in the past year has led me to realize that these puzzlements are not great enough for me to reject the community and framework for families and life in general that has proved so valuable to my own young family as well as to my pioneer ancestors on both sides, 8 generations back. My faith is not a science textbook, it's guidebook for life's forum for action.
Some of my extended family members have left the Church over various concerns. That's fine and I respect their choice. Their concerns are valid and need to be addressed. If there's any change that needs to be made to the church's doctrine or policies, I hope I can be a force for changing it from the inside, rather than from without. This needs to be said with a grain of salt: "What do I know about changing the doctrine and policies of a 16M member institution that rests on thousands of years of Judeo-Christian history?" Indeed, if any changes are to be made, they will be made by God (substitute JBP's definition of God here if you will).
I keep one thing in mind regarding my personal faith that has been helpful to me...
These two are probably the most respected in academia. If you want to get just one, I'd go with the NRSV for both Jewish Bible and New Testament.
Just the TANAKH (Old Testament): The Jewish Study Bible: Featuring The Jewish Publication Society TANAKH Translation
TANAKH and New Testament (The Christian Bible): The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version
Do patristic commentaries count, or do you mean just by modern authors? Robert Hill did a translation of St. John Chrysostom's homilies on Job. His [Hill's] end notes are sometimes more of a nuisance than anything else as he gripes that St. John doesn't ruminate on the sapiential theme of Job.
For a scholarly translation: The JPS Study Bible
For a more "traditional" translation, The Artscroll Tanach
However, I need to note that you won't learn about Judaism or Jewish practice from reading the Tanach. I hear Jewish Literacy by Rabbi Telushkin is a very good starting place.
Good study bibles: The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible or The HarperCollins Study Bible.
Another good one for great insights into the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament): Jewish Study Bible
Right now I'm reading Unsettled, by Melvin Konner. I'm not sure how much cultural things count, but it's a thing I'm studying.
My last book before that was The Grammar of God by Aviya Kushner, which I found super interesting since I'm busy power-studying liturgical Hebrew.
Mostly, that's what I study. Hebrew. I have an excellent teacher and we meet via phone on Wednesday nights to study for a few hours. I'm kind of proud to say that in six months time, I went from having zero knowledge to being able to read, pronounce, and understand the Four Questions (with vowels, but no transliteration). I mean, I know it's for kids, but the reason it's for kids is because it's a primer for learning...or...maybe the other way around...? Point is, I can read sentences, I can pronounce things decently, and I can even recognize a few unfamiliar words without vowels.
I'm reading from the Torah for the first time in June and feeling...okay about it.
These Yale Religious Studies lectures are a fantastic introduction to critical scholarship. The OT series is particularly well done and this lay reader would think they'd give you all the background you need to explore topics more in depth on your own. IIRC, the OT series has the JPS study bible as recommended reading, which would also offer introductory essays for each biblical text.
If you have your heart set on a book, you would probably be best served by a proper introductory textbook, but FYI they do have the material from these courses in book form. The OT one reads pretty much like a transcript of the lectures, while the NT professor said he had to recreate the text from the ground up because of how freeform his lectures are ;)
I'd recommend the Jewish Study Bible. If you get something like an Artscroll Tanakh, a lot of the translations are influenced by rabbinic traditions, which probably isn't what you're looking for.
Also if you find something labeled "Jewish Bible", it might be a Messianic translation, and those are completely 100% bogus and should be avoided.
I’ve been meaning to check this book out myself. The Grammar of God: A Journey into the Words and Worlds of the Bible
“Aviya Kushner grew up in a Hebrew-speaking family, reading the Bible in the original Hebrew and debating its meaning over the dinner table. She knew much of it by heart—and was therefore surprised when, while getting her MFA at the University of Iowa, she took the novelist Marilynne Robinson’s class on the Old Testament and discovered she barely recognized the text she thought she knew so well. From differences in the Ten Commandments to a less ambiguous reading of the creation story to a new emphasis on the topic of slavery, the English translation often felt like another book entirely from the one she had grown up with.”
https://www.amazon.com/Grammar-God-Journey-Words-Worlds/dp/0385520824
I've found the OT background commentary to be a helpful place to begin. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament https://www.amazon.com/dp/0830814191
You could then move to Walton's Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible https://www.amazon.com/dp/0801027500
This is much more in depth, but could be another good place to go if you end up looking for more. The World around the Old Testament: The People and Places of the Ancient Near East https://www.amazon.com/dp/0801039185/
Read Edith Hamilton's Mythology and then read the Bible. If your university offers a Bible as Literature class take it, otherwise you could look into taking one in the religions department. You'll have more motivation to get through it if your grade depends on it. Plus, the benefits of actually learning the material so you can recognize it on your own while you are reading, with the ease of the subconscious. I also highly recommend this book
http://www.amazon.com/Five-Books-Moses-Translation-Commentary/dp/0393019551
It's a new translation of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) and it's written in a modern literary style which is quite impressive.
The IWC is occasionally used in Hebrew poetry, but in those circumstances the poetry is generally detailing out a piece of history. A common rebuttal is to cite 2 Sam 12, where Nathan gives David a story, and we see the IWCs there as well. The reason is because Nathan is presenting David a story as though it were true. It would be difficult to extrapolate from that the idea that we can begin applying to any number of texts the status of parable/historical fiction. This is particularly true for Genesis because of the genealogies.
C. John (Jack) Collins has an "Okay" book with a good section on this called Genesis 1-4. This is important because Collins isn't a literal 6 day guy, but helpfully explains why Myth isn't an option with regards to Genesis 1-4.
My Dad's book, everyone. The whole thing done in this type of format. It's fucking awesome.
You mean like the Jewish Study Bible?
Note that the reason there is only one of these (and I don't even know if this is what you're looking for), is probably because Jews and Christians take different approaches to learning the bible. I've found (and this is purely personal observation, not a scientific study) that Christians read much more finely taking single passages and sentences and analyzing them in their own right. Jews take a step back and usually consider each passage in it's larger context. Jews also tend to try to look at things through the prism of our sages first to see how things were interpreted by our ancestors, while Christians ask "what does this mean to me, today" and ignore older interpretations.
I think the Oxford Bible Commentary is a great resource in general. They publish commentary on sections of the Bible in separate volumes, including one on the Pentateuch, which includes an overview of the history of Pentateuch criticism and the development of the JEPD Documentary Hypothesis.
The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library has a lot of good resources in biblical criticism too. They recently released this hefty renewal/evaluation/overview of JEPD. It received a good review from the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, which I think is considered a respectable representative of mainstream biblical studies.
Also, Robert Alter (The Art of Biblical Narrative) is always fun to read for a fresh, literary perspective. He might have an interesting take on JEPD in his edition of the Pentateuch.
There's also an associated book for that course.
Here is the mobile version of your link
Thanks for the reply! That about fits my expectations. Looking back at the references for most of the celestial deity claims, they seem to lean much more heavily on Goldziher, though he cite's Gunkel's Genesis commentary pretty frequently for other claims. There is one point in relation to this where he cites Gunkel, but he's citing Goldziher in the same paragraph, and he doesn't go into any detail about what he's pulling from either:
> Below the surface we can detect visages of earlier myths. First, we have another story of the perpetual rivalry between the sun and the moon. Esau is the sun, as noted above; Jacob is the moon. This is why he is described as a "smooth man" (Gen. 27:12) as opposed to his brother who is a "hairy man." [Goldziher, Mythology, pp. 127-28, 134-37, 139-50] There are flaming solar rays but only a gentle lunar halo. Similarly, Elijah, "a hairy man" (2 Kings 1:8), is the sun, replaced by the bald Elishah (2 Kings 2:23), the moon. Physical descriptions of Bible characters are very rare. When they do occur, they are clues. Who gets the priority? Who gets to rule the heavens? Which one will succeed the old, declining sun, the blind Isaac? [Gunkel at pp. 105-106]
"Gunkel" refers to this volume: https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Mercer-Library-Biblical-Studies/dp/0865545170
"Golziher" to a 1967 edition of Mythology among the Hebrews and its historical development
This is the accompanying textbook for Yale's excellent Old Testament introductory course by Christine Hayes.
It made me think of the perfect study Bible for you: the one by Madame Jeanne Guyon. I've read many commentaries in my time and never found any with the level of her depth and insight.
Unfortunately her commentaries, originally written in the 18th century, are difficult to find. There's one here on Amazon and you could find the same book on Ebay if you wanted.
I think that it is important to keep in mind that the 70 weeks is already a reinterpretation of Jeremiah's prophecy of 70 years. Cyrus' decree allowing the return of those exiled and the rebuilding of the temple occurred just shy of 50 years after the destruction of Jerusalem. The 70 week prophecy then serves to give new life to Jeremiah's prophecy while introducing what at least Newsom identifies as an intentional hermeneutical ambiguity so that the prophecy could be fluid enough to apply to multiple interpretations.
But concerning your question more directly, here are some brief excerpts from Brenan's reception history included in Newsom's commentary. First Christians deviated from Jewish interpreters:
> Christian predictions differed from those of Jews for several reasons, the first of which was the textual divergences between the Jewish MT and Theodotion’s version (Th), which was preferred by Christians... Second, Christians read Daniel through the lens of the New Testament, which itself had been deeply influenced by the apocalyptic portions of Daniel....
And finally quoting more fully the part on the early Christians:
> Early Christians were eager to think in terms of such numerology. The second-century theologian Justin Martyr, for example, in thinking about the “time, times, and half a time,” concluded that the “man of iniquity must reign at least 350 years” (Dial. 32.3). Clement of Alexandria, also from the second century, began his calculation of the eschaton with the rebuilding of the second temple, counting the end of the 62 weeks with Christ’s incarnation and a last week that encompasses the Roman emperors Nero, Vespasian, and Titus, who were all involved in the war that led to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 (Strom. 1.125–26; cf. Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 8). Origen, bemused that he could not use the text allegorically (cf. Jerome on 9:24–27), took a more universal focus and interpreted the 70 weeks as 4,900 years, calculated from Adam to the end of the first century C.E., which constituted the close of the apostolic period (Origen, Comm. Matt. 24.14–18). Hippolytus of Rome, writing at the turn of the third century, seems to have introduced several important features of apocalyptic thought into Christian discourse, starting with his use of the Jewish model of a 6,000-year world history to situate the prophecy of the 70 weeks. According to Hippolytus, the 6 days of creation refer to 6,000 years of the world, followed by a 1,000-year period of rest, which represents the age to come (Comm. Dan. 2.4). Since Christ was born in the year 5500 after creation, Hippolytus argues, it stands to reason that 500 years remain. Hippolytus (Comm. Dan. 4.35) argues that Daniel confirms this: 62 weeks after Jesus’ death, the abomination of desolation, referring to the antichrist, will arrive, and the free offering of salvation to the nations will be taken away. When Daniel “spoke of the one week, he was referring to the last week at the culmination of the whole cosmos,” putting the final date of the eschaton sometime near the year 500, but with a final “week” of amorphous length (Hippolytus, Antichr. 43).
> Yet Hippolytus also used the 70 weeks to trace the time between Cyrus’s order to restore the Jerusalem temple and Jesus’ birth; according to Jerome (on 9:24–27), “the dates do not agree at all,” since from Cyrus’s decree to Jesus’ birth is 560 years. Hippolytus also argued that the distinction between the 1,290 days and the 1,335 days signified a 45-year period of respite and repentance for the faithful before the end; this idea, championed by Jerome (on 12:11–12), became a mainstay in medieval theology and gained the name “the refreshment of the saints” (Lerner 97–144). Sextus Julius Africanus, a contemporary of Hippolytus, argued that the 490 years began with Artaxerxes’ order that Nehemiah rebuild the city and ends with Jesus’ birth, but this is clearly about 15 years off, since it is 475 years from the twentieth year of Artaxerxes until the year 1 C.E. Julius claims that the 490 years are lunar years, not solar ones, and thus are of shorter duration; converted to solar years, the prophecy seems to align with Jesus’ presumed birth date (Adler 221–22). Following Theodotion, Julius also proposes that the final week could be severed and enacted at a much later date, but he does not formalize this thought. Apollinarius, a fourth-century theologian, argued that the 490 years began with Jesus’ birth and that the end would arrive near the year 500 without interruption; Jerome (on 9:24–27) responded that “by breaking away from the stream of the past and directing his longing toward the future, he very unsafely ventured an opinion concerning matters so obscure.”
> A major event occurred in the interpretation of Daniel when Augustine, following the exegetical arguments of Tyconius, dampened the millennial fervor of the early church through his polemics against calculating the eschaton; though some Christians continued to ponder the numbers in Daniel and Revelation, the decrease in speculation following Augustine is remarkable (Civ. 20).
I've got to put in a plug for the translation and commentary of R' Hirsch, of which I'm a big fan. I love his elegant, holistic, thoughtful take on the whole Torah, especially the ritual stuff in Leviticus (Temple offerings, ritual purity, etc.) that's otherwise most difficult to understand from a modern perspective. When I read R' Hirsch, everything fits together so well, and I'm in awe at the elegance with with God constructed the Torah.
The original English translation (He wrote in German.), which I'm familiar with, is now out of print. The new English translation uses a more contemporary English. I haven't studied it carefully enough to say anything else about it, but I can certainly recommend the ideas is came from.
The cheapest I see on Froogle is a bit above your mother's subsidy, but IMO, well worth it.
Physicist turned Anglican Priest John Polkinghorn has written on this. So has C. John Collins in his work Genesis 1-4. John Sailhammer's work in Genesis Unbound might also be able to fit in that framework. Let me know.
Pick up:
Schiffman's From Text to Tradition, a History of Judaism in Second Temple and Rabbinic Times: A History of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism
Ben Sasson's A History of the Jewish People (parts 3 & 4)
The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature
Lee Levine's The Rabbinic Class of Roman Palestine in Late Antiquity
Hershel Shanks' Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism: A Parallel History of Their Origins and Early Development
Jeffrey Rubenstein The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud
Safrai, Shmuel, ed. The Literature of the Sages. Vol. 1 and 2. Assen- Van Gorcum; Philadelphia- Fortress Press, 1987-2006.
Stemberger, Günter and Hermann Strack. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash.
Avi-Yonah, Michael. The Jews of Palestine- a Political History from the Bar Kokhba War to the Arab Conquest.
Neusner's A History of the Jews in Babylonia (several parts)
>they are if they are telling you a lie like that documentary hypothesis isn't widely accepted as the academic basis for torah studies.
I'll call my friends cross multiple universities world wide and tell them some poloni on the internet knows more than their decade + time devoted to the subject.
>i'm serious. look into this a bit more. there's some debate as to what constitutes specific documents here and there, but only in minute details. nobody seriously argues that the torah is not made of separate documents.
No one needs to argue it because it's a dead topic. It's like the people arguing for the round earth because the flat earth society exists. No one needs to argue for the round earth because it's over. It's as dead as the non sense Reza Aslan brings up in his book Zealot that the academic world rejected over 50 years ago, another thing you can learn if you talk to people with masters and doctorates in theological studies from different parts of the world.
>that is, in fact, not what they are doing. thank you for continuing to prove your ignorance on this matter.
I'm ignorant and you won't read a book on the topic to actually learn on it. Bizarro world much?
>it is based on linguistic style, which is much more complex than simple choices of words. breaking it apart based on writing style leads to answers about word choices (for instance, the differing ways of referring to god) but is not based on those word choices.
I study Torah. I've read the criticisms DH people bring up. I don't see them. I give them a real chance, but I see their failings in their arguments. Unfortunately my notes on this were on an old computer that crashed so I have nothing to show on it, but I've done research myself and know where I'm going to settle.
Can you read Hebrew? Do you study Torah? Or do you just deal with translations and see the words as arbitrary?
>and i'd highly recommend "who wrote the bible?" and "the bible with sources revealed" by richard elliot friedman. they are rebuttals to the books written well after cassuto was discredited.
Just make sure you follow up with http://www.amazon.com/Really-Wrote-Bible-Eyal-Rav-Noy/dp/0980076307 so you get the whole argument and not continue living in your bubble dude.
As for me, I have bigger fish to fry. DH is moot. I have university professors who attest to this. In fact, just google search a university with a decent theological studies dept and ask to speak to a professor and ask, "where does academia stand with the DH?" Shouldn't take much time.
Indeed. I am using the Robert Alter commentary to assist: http://amzn.to/1mTl5W4 I also have C.S.Lewis NSRV bible to help along the way. I certainly found it very challenging to read Leviticus and Numbers. With regards to moral quandaries, it certainly helps to have a reference section to guide you. I see the first 5 books in my own opinion a narrative of God trying to find the use for man. Abraham and Moses temper the wrath of God by debating his retribution on humanity at several points. These bits are where I feel chills down my spine..
> I'll call my friends cross multiple universities world wide and tell them some poloni on the internet knows more than their decade + time devoted to the subject.
actually, why don't you call your friends at multiple universities around the world and ask them what the scholarly consensus is on the documentary hypothesis. feel free to post the results here. or not. you probably won't, because i think we both know what they will say.
> No one needs to argue it because it's a dead topic.
evidently, they do, because even though this has been the dominant view in secular academia for years, religious motivated individuals have felt hard done by the argument, and tried to argue against it.
> another thing you can learn if you talk to people with masters and doctorates in theological studies from different parts of the world.
gosh, i'm sorry. i didn't realize that dr. richard elliot friedman, ThD from harvard, or dr. harold bloom, PhD from yale, didn't count. nor did my professors in college. nor do those i read online.
> I'm ignorant and you won't read a book on the topic to actually learn on it.
did i say i wouldn't read it?
> Can you read Hebrew? Do you study Torah? Or do you just deal with translations and see the words as arbitrary?
note that in my other post, which you replied to skeptically, i posted the masoretic hebrew text of a verse, followed by the corresponding fragment of the DSS.
i'd be lying if i said i was anywhere near fluent in hebrew, but i have studied it a little. if i find some more time, i'll study it more.
> I've read the criticisms DH people bring up. I don't see them.
this sounds like a personal failing. i think even in translation (at least, good translations) some of the differences are obvious. but surely in hebrew you can tell see some stylistic differences. i think the repetitive nature of the genealogies sticks out like a sore thumb. you don't agree? you don't see a difference between repeated roots in genesis 1 and repeated sounds in genesis 2?
> I give them a real chance, but I see their failings in their arguments. Unfortunately my notes on this were on an old computer that crashed so I have nothing to show on it, but I've done research myself and know where I'm going to settle.
fantastic. i've debated a fair number of people before who have insisted that -- if i were just to refer to this book they can't find, or haven't published -- all of my criticisms will be addressed. and there's no sense arguing it, it's in the book! most of these people, of course, were fond of headwear made of maleable sheets of thin aluminum.
> Just make sure you follow up with http://www.amazon.com/Really-Wrote-Bible-Eyal-Rav-Noy/dp/0980076307 so you get the whole argument and not continue living in your bubble dude.
the religiously motivated and biased arguments are the bubble, dude.
> DH is moot. I have university professors who attest to this. In fact, just google search a university with a decent theological studies dept and ask to speak to a professor and ask, "where does academia stand with the DH?" Shouldn't take much time.
aren't we lucky that there's a community of bible scholars right here on reddit, and people routinely ask exactly this question?
For a good intro from the very basics in video format check this out
The guy that runs the channel has a website where you can get more info and study materials if you want as well. He is more on the reformed side and not conversion focused, rather education focused so it's a good starting place.
In book form there are these two which are excellent starting points:
Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash
Everyman's Talmud: The Major Teachings of the Rabbinic Sages
However as you go through this journey you will run into a lot of Judaic concepts, words and meanings. The best place to get the core canonized understandings of these IMO is Chabad’s Q&A section.
One thing to keep in mind when accessing info from Chabad is that they are very conversion focused and very conservative. Telling someone to learn about Judaism from Chabad is like telling someone to go talk to the Vatican to learn about Christianity, keep that in mind.
Once you get comfortable with the basics and core concepts I wholeheartedly encourage you to explore other expressions of Judaism as in addition to Hasidics (Chabad, etc…), there are conservatives (think Ben Shapiro) and reformed Judaism with there own interpretations. Then there is messianic Vs. non messianic schools so enough rabbit holes for a few lifetimes 😊
Hmmm, I don't personally know of any good intro to Jewish philosophy books, but I'm sure they exist. Maybe other redditors can give us some good suggestions? I wouldn't recommend that Talmud though. It basically assumes prior knowledge of Tanakh (the Jewish bible), and is the size of a full set of encyclopedias. I do really like The Jewish Study Bible however. It's basically an English translation of the bible and lots of commentary. It might be a decent intro to Judaism, but it might be a little too involved to read without background or someone to talk to about it.
That's such a nice idea! It's not secular but you might appreciate the commentary of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Raphael_Hirsch there is a popular edition here
The Jewish Study Bible if you want a more scholarly analysis.
Counter book,if you are interested in counter arguments. http://www.amazon.com/Really-Wrote-Bible-Eyal-Rav-Noy/dp/0980076307/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331092982&sr=1-2
Well, my two cents:
Some of my family are Jewish, but I'm not halakhically Jewish and I grew up with basically agnostic parents. My religious upbringing was a hodgepodge of Catholicism and neo-paganism. I'm your age and an Orthodox conversion candidate.
I'll just get this question out of the way: why are you Reform?
Unlike many other patrilineal Jews, I don't have an internalized Jewish identity. I'm cultivating it from scratch, like you. I basically think that since we didn't have the advantage of being born Jewish, the only framework we have for becoming Jewish is halakha. I don't really question Reform Jews who had a Jewish upbringing - the halakha is irrelevant to them. They don't need Orthodoxy validating them.
But how can we as potential converts possibly assert that kind of confidence in a Jewish identity? I'm very sorry to seem skeptical, but what is the difference between a Reform convert and a righteous gentile/Noahide with lots of Jewish friends? I just don't see how I can claim to be Jewish without first becoming observant and fulfilling a halakhic conversion. Otherwise I feel like I'm playing Jewish.
If you're open to Orthodoxy, of course, I definitely recommend it. If you're shying away from it, I'm really curious about why. And if you are doing well financially, perhaps you can travel for shabbat. I know a man who travels 5+ hours to Brooklyn every week, since he moved to a town devoid of Jews and he grew up "as Orthodox as they come", so he says.
Anyway, some resources:
Those first two will keep you busy for awhile.
Feel free to PM me about conversion stuff. I can sound like kind of a hardass but I'm honestly bursting with enthusiasm. :-)
What do you mean by "critical?" I frequently use the IVP Bible Background Commentary for both the New Testament and the Old Testament but I'm not sure if that exactly fits what you're looking for.
It may be helpful to study the poetic structure of Genesis. One such example can be found here: http://speakingofyhwh.blogspot.com/2010/07/structure-and-poetic-parallelism-of.html?m=1
One popular source for information of this nature is [Genesis: A Commentary] (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0310224586/ref=cm_sw_r_an_am_ap_am_us?ie=UTF8). I haven't read it myself but it is on my to do list.
One site I do subscribe to and read on a regular basis is Biologos. They are a fantastic resource and I highly recommend checking them out.
Science and religion are not contradictory, no matter what hardcore fundamentalists want you to think.
Another popular book is Belief in God in an Age of Science.
Sorry for the scattered collection of thoughts. I am typing this on my phone.
Ancient Christian Commentary: http://www.amazon.com/Job-Ancient-Christian-Commentary-Scripture/dp/0830814760/
Johanna Manley’s compilation of commentary on Job: http://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Let-Us-Attend-Testament/dp/0962253642/
St. John Chrysostom’s Commentary: http://www.amazon.com/St-John-Chrysostom-Commentary-Sages/dp/1885652771/
St. Gregory the Great: in this edition: http://www.amazon.com/Gregory-Great-Reflections-Preface-Cistercian/dp/0879071494/
Or this edition: http://www.amazon.com/Moralia-Job-Morals-Parts-Books/dp/1478343850/
Neither of which seems to be the complete text, and so future volumes should be forthcoming.
For the Tanakh/Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, "The Jewish Study Bible" (http://www.amazon.com/The-Jewish-Study-Bible-Publication/dp/0195297512) has pretty fantastic analytical commentary. While I can't attest to the quality of the translation itself, the extensive discussion of the midrash and modern historical analyses may give you the sort of nuanced details that you're looking for.
The professor for this class on the Old Testament (lecture videos here) suggests the Jewish Study Bible.
Yale offers a course for the New Testament as well (videos here), and the professor suggests The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha as a good study bible.
One more claim for today. It has been stated at least three different times that we have copies of Daniel dating to about/in 200 BC. Our earliest copies actually date to about 125 BC.
This is only 75 years – what does it matter? It is pretty undeniable that Daniel describes events from the sixth century until about 165 BC. He clearly describes the persecution under Antiochus IV, 175-164 BC. It would be very hard to find a scholar, mainline or conservative, who disagrees with this.
Does Daniel CLEARLY describe anything after this date? No. (I know the response some Xenos people will give. Daniel 9 predicted Jesus' death to the exact date. Scroll down to the bottom of this page. But even if Daniel 9 really was so specific and accurate--why is it ok to make false claims about the date?)
Again, the newbie to Daniel hears the false claim that we have copies of Daniel that date to, or about 200 BC (false)--and finds out that Daniel describes events in the 160s BC (true). What other conclusion is there to reach? Daniel must have written no later than 200 BC, and thus predicted events at least three decades in his future.
Here are the time stamps.
I included the context...in addition to the false 200 BC claims--if you listened to these quotes, almost everything you just heard is false (eg 'scholars used to date Daniel to 100 BC, then they found a copy dated to 200 BC, and started dating Daniel to 200 BC', which is designed to prop up their claims by making these scholars look ridiculous.)
These '200 BC' claims go back to 2009. Where do they come from? I have no idea. Someone, please ask these teachers for their source. Any legitimate scholar you read will tell you the earliest copies of Daniel date to late second century, or possibly early first century. Here are just some resources that back this up.
Carol Newsom, Daniel (2014) https://www.amazon.com/Daniel-Commentary-Old-Testament-Library/dp/0664220800
p 3--Earliest copies 4QDan(c) and 4QDan(e)--late 2nd to early 1st cent BC
https://www.amazon.com/Great-Courses-Dead-Sea-Scrolls/dp/1598036300/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1488416930&sr=1-2 (can get this with free Audible.com trial) Dead Sea Scrolls Gary Rendsberg 2010 – audible.com Lecture 11 14:45ff. The Daniel manuscripts (plural) are dated circa 125-100 BCE...only 1/2 century at the most after it was written (165 BC)
Making of the Dead Sea Scrolls 2002--there are eight Daniel copies in the Dead Seas Scrolls 125 BC (4QDanc) to 50 A.D. (Every recent source I have ever looked at confirms that there are 8 copies, meaning there have apparently been no recent discoveries, as suggested at Xenos teachings above
Daniel Apollos Commentary Lucas 2002 (conservative) p 17--earliest copy of Daniel is from late 2nd century
Meaning and mystery of Dead Sea Scrolls – Shanks space 1998 p 142 – earliest scrolls date to late second century BC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel (see 'Manuscripts')
This actually might take a bit of work to verify this... But consider this. If we really had copies of Daniel that date to 200 BC, Christian apologists would be shouting this from the rooftops. You would have no trouble finding proof of this. Also, conservative scholars would stop making this argument found here https://www.amazon.com/Daniel-Story-God-Bible-Commentary-ebook/dp/B00VEYHY1E/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1510792030&sr=1-1&keywords=widder+longman+daniel Daniel Story of God Commentary, Widder and Longman, phDs, conservative scholars. (2016) Introduction (Who Wrote Daniel?) “Most critical scholars think the book was written by an anonymous Jew…during tumultuous events of the early second century BC…involving Antiochus IV. [175-164 BC[…Proponents of a late date situate the completed book…with the earliest possible date being a few years after 167 BC. Yet the manuscript evidence found at Qumran indicates the book was considered significant and sacred as late as late second to early first century BC, no more than 50 years after its proposed completion date." (This argument would be obsolete if we had copies dating to 200 BC. They would just say 'Daniel can't have been written in 165 BC, we have copies decades earlier!)
I emailed some very well-known scholars-- one has written commentary on Daniel, in addition to a book on the Dead Sea Scrolls. This scholar told me that dating the Daniel copies (at 180 BC) is based entirely on guesswork, but there's no reason to date that early (the date I asked him about was 180 BC, not 200, because I found a very questionable source making a similar claim, using 180 instead). The other scholar told me that the 180 date was false, and confirmed that the source of this claim is not legitimate.
Again, these teachers at Xenos are the ones making the claims. They are the ones who need to provide evidence.
Now, back to Daniel 9. It's not a clear passage. Do some research on alternative views. Just one example of this: the other major interpretation favored by conservative scholars, that agrees that it predicts Jesus, disagrees with Xenos' interpretation on five different points--the start date (458/7 vs 445/4), date of Jesus death (29 or 30 vs 32 or 33), the meaning of 'comes' refers to Jesus' baptism/start of ministry (not the triumphal entry), no 'gap', no 360-day lunar conversion. A specific, clear prophecy does not have five (there are more) legitimate points of disagreement among scholars. A specific, 100% clear prophecy has ZERO legitimate points of disagreement. That's all Daniel 9 is, nothing but questions and no answers. (It's not even clearly referring to THE Messiah; the word mashiach never refers to THE Messiah in most OT translations; it is always translated as 'anointed', referring to a high priest, a prophet, military leader or king--thus Isaiah 45:1 calls Cyrus God's meshiach, his anointed--that doesn't mean he's THE Messiah.) Just read this article by Gleason Archer, who holds this alternative view. This is the conservative scholar that wrote the article that Xenos hands out, to demonstrate that the Aramaic of Daniel is not consistent with 2nd century Aramaic. Incidentally he says here that the majority of conservative scholars date Jesus' death to 30...This doesn't mean that the 33 date is wrong, but if it's so obviously 33, why do conservative scholars not know this? https://verticallivingministries.com/tag/gleason-archer-on-daniels-seventy-weeks/
In addition to this, the 8 events described in Dan 9:26-27 very accurately match events that occurred from 171-164 BC (7 years, or a 'week'.) While some are vague, some of these are incredibly rare and specific, such as the Abomination of Desolation in 167, or the stopping of sacrifices. All center around the persecution of Antiochus IV. This suggests that Daniel 9 has nothing to do with 'The Messiah'. (That doesn't invalidate Christianity; many Christians hold the view that the 70 sevens end in 164 BC. See https://infidels.org/library/modern/chris_sandoval/daniel.html#war. This is obviously from an atheist, but he describes the 8 events of Dan 9:26-27, and how they match actual events 171-164 BC. (Even if the historical fulfillment of Daniel 9 really ended in 164 BC, those who believe in dual fulfillments in prophecy can find a second fulfillment in Jesus. That would actually make Daniel 9 even more impressive, if it were true.)
I am not trying to prove that Daniel 9 is not about Jesus. I'm only showing that it's up for debate. Why? I say that it is very important NOT to tell people that we have copies of Daniel in 200 BC, because it (falsely) demonstrates that Daniel predicted the future (160s BC). Some at Xenos will respond 'It doesn't matter when the copies date; Daniel 9 is so specific and accurate.' And, I tried to showed how this objection is wrong. (This argument, that I know will be used, that it doesn't matter when our copies date, is exactly the argument made by one of these teachers at Xenos. See Xenos Summer Institute teaching 2014, Predictive Prophecy in Evangelism, 12:35)
My understanding is that, theologically, there are two major groups of Jews today: Reform and Orthodox. The Orthodox are the fundamentalists who generally take the Jewish Bible as literally true. Reform Jews are much more numerous and much more liberal, and would not see the early chapters of Genesis as literally true.
I picked up a copy of The Jewish Study Bible a few years ago, when I started watching the Yale Online courses on the Old Testament (because that was the translation recommended by the professor). And the commentary in this version will tell you that these stories in Genesis are not literally true.
Your main confusion is about how I use symbolism in the Biblical context. I will try to elaborate.
Think of the concept of a triangle. Add no material or image to it. Just let it be a concept in your consciousness. Now, let us manifest it in reality in two examples. To do this, lets take three wooden sticks and place them in the shape of a triangle. After that, second example, let us take three ropes and place them in the shape of a traingle again.
Now he wooden sticks and the ropes are not the same material. But, if we examine them, we find that they both point towards the concept of a triangle.
In the same way, exiles and dreams are like those wooden sticks and those ropes. They are not the same thing literally, yet they point towards the same concept.
This book makes it more clear if you want: https://www.amazon.com/Language-Creation-Cosmic-Symbolism-Genesis-ebook/dp/B07D738HD8