Talk:List of biblical commentaries

Organization

The baseline is out of the CE, so it is currently Catholic POV. Can we make separate sections in here for different POVs?

This series of topics is spread all over the place. People involved in the Jewish Project consider it all theirs, which is POV IMO. The trouble with the opposite is that Christian scholars do not always perceive the Jewish scholars in the identical light with Jewish ones. And most (but not all) important scholarship work was done in the first millenia by Jewish philosophers.

Topics are included in this article and, Jewish Encyclopedia on Bible Exegesis, Wikipedia on Exegesis, Jewish Philosophy, etc. So if you want to know about Philo, you would have to look in about six places that I know of and there may be about another dozen or more that I don't know about! This does not seem good, but keeps conflicting factions confined to their own playpen, as it were!

I suspect that there is already sufficient commentary on Mishna, etc. that we may not need that in here - just a capsule. Who knows, there might be something in here that should be included elsewhere. Just noticed that the article is missing from the Jewish Encyclopedia as well. Needs to be incorporated somewhere

Trying to edit this to NPOV.Student7 21:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The Midrashim

Need help with cross reference link here. I put two links in for Midrash Haggadah. I have the suspicion that it needs only oneStudent7 21:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Karaite Commentators

Lots of undefined bios here. Other articles reference them, as well.Student7 21:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Modern

Don't know which of two famous scholars Luzzato the CE article was referring to. Need help here.Student7 21:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Page structuring for modern commentaries

Hi Student7 (and other editors), thanks for your email. Regarding the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, I did actually put it in the Protestant section, and created a new section because I didn't see one for 20th C commentaries. I think the commentary would be fairly described as "semi-popular" - incidentally I note that most of the commentaries in this article are "popular". It is linguistic-historical-critical, and based on the original languages of the Bible. Its aim is to be useful for scholars, but also accessible by laypersons. It is also a many-volume series. If a clearer concept of which commentaries are notable enough to make it into this article were to be suggested, I would not complain if this commentary was removed if it did not make the standard. However, there is currently vast inconsistency as to what is included and what is not. This is not an attack on anyone's neutrality, as I assume in good faith that the contributors have merely lacked either the time or the expertise in this area.

The Word Biblical Commentary is the very best current commentary according to many scholars, yet it is not even mentioned here. I notice there is currently no article for Bible Dictionaries - should such content be included on this page? I notice that a few dictionaries are mentioned, yet there is no mention of the Anchor Bible Dictionary, the best one according to many scholars, at least at the time it was produced. As another example, certain historic commentaries such as Matthew Henry's stand out in notability, yet they are simply listed along with a whole range of other authors. I would like to see more use of a "summary style" in this article to introduce and summarise important points before giving the details. Regards, Colin MacLaurin 06:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I have a "Catholic Study Bible" which is very reputable but not on here because it is derivative. And too short and would not add anything to the current list. It's probably more readable but that is not necessarily a criterion. Observations need to be unique and not merely summaries (as mine is) of previous scholars. They should recognize the contributions of others, such as Philo, Origen, Maimonides, etc. and not analyze the bible "from scratch" as it were. Looking at the bible with "brand new eyes" is sectarian, IMO. It does not build on the shoulders of those who have gone before. It would not be "part of" this article which recognizes scholarship.

I've seen the Anchor Bible linked from other articles. You might check the article for that and see what references it. There are a bunch of studies that are peripheral yet similar here that someone may merge someday, who knows.

This article was originally ported from an early 20th century Catholic enclyclopedia article. The editor who put "with no edits" is wrong, but it is still out of date. You are correct in that observation. It needs updating with modern scholarship if they make unique contributions.Student7 14:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

merge

The article Jewish commentaries on the Bible repeats what is said here in the "Jewish" section. Is there any reason for this article? is there any objection to a redirect? (both are cut a pasted from the Catholic Encyclopedia and need to be cleaned up tremendously). Jon513 (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

See the talk page for that article. I propose that material here on Jewish commentary should be summarized, and that the remaining material be merged with Jewish Commentaries on the Bible. That article is itself so long now - and growing - that it deserves its own article. 70.20.50.75 (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

My reasons for putting NPOV on the Rationalist Commentaries section

I tagged that section as NPOV due to language that implies that these rationalist commentaries are somehow inaccurate. "They were ably refuted by such men as" "These replies were so effective that in England deism practically died with Hume." "The rationalists, however, soon realized that the Scriptures had too genuine a ring to be treated as the results of imposture." "proved that Strauss ran counter to the most clearly established facts of early Christian history, and showed the folly of denying the historical existence of Christ and His transcendent personality. Even Strauss lost all confidence in his own system." There are many statements like this throughout the section and probably the article as a whole. 206.251.3.37 (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Commentary list - proposed deletion

The list of commentaries at the bottom of the article, based on a list compiled in 1903 and supplemented since, seems of little value in a contemporary encylopedia. Most of the commentaries reviewed in 1903 would be far out of date now, and the assessments are misleading. Furthermore, the list is selectively supplemented with contemporary commentaries, with no criteria given for this supplementation. Any contemporary list of commentaries would need to be selective, and the criteria for that selection would need to be explicit and well founded. I propose to delete this list form the article unless good reason can be given for its retention. --Iacobus (talk) 05:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Please do not reinstate without justification. --Iacobus (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This article could be a useful survey of the contemporary state of biblical commentary, as well as a survey of the history of biblical commentary. It needs lots of shearing and a complete rewrite - relying on up-to-date references, and not out-of-date public domain sources. --Iacobus (talk) 05:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the original article was taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia 1903. This was the reason that Protestant commentaries were listed separately. Student7 (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the entire article is structured that way! Once you start throwing out the bath water, can the baby be kept?  :) Student7 (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Jewish commentaries on the Bible

I think some material currently in the "Judaism" section of this article should be summarized, and then the rest should be moved to and merged with the text currently at Jewish commentaries on the Bible. RK (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that this would be a mistake, but I also agree that the current situation is not best. Taking your suggestion would amount to the title of this page being incorrect. Perhaps it should say "Christian commentaries on the Bible", and then this and Jewish commentaries on the Bible could point at each other in the See Also. But part of the problem with such an approach is that modern commentaries on the Hebrew bible, while written by people of one religious conviction or another, are very often written without specific theological commitment, and it would be confusing. Another solution would be to have one page, and merge this with Jewish commentaries on the Bible. Tb (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should ignore my initial idea, then. I think that the Jewish commentaries on the bile article will continue to grow, and having all Christian and Jewish commentary in one article will eventually turn into a very long article. RK (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree it will likely grow, but the solution it seems to me is to split it, when it does so, by what is commented on rather than who does the commenting. In otherwords, "commentaries on the pentateuch", "commentaries on the psalms", etc... Tb (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of separating the details for both the Jewish and Christian commentaries, and providing brief summaries on this page. This page could be retained as a "header" that provides a rough chronology and links for all Bible commentary traditions. Then different Christian tradition commentary pages similar to Jewish commentaries on the Bible could be created and details added without bulging this article beyond what it should be. Lamorak (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That is not a bad idea. RK (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a great idea to me. Rgcrgcrgc (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Overstatement?

A sentence reads "their magnificent Great Synagogue of which they were justly proud." I changed this to remove pov and was reverted. For starters, the "Great Synagogue" of Alexandria does not have an article (there are several other "Great Synagogues" which do). The word "magnificent" seems hype and unnecessary, as does "justly proud". I am not at all sure about recording someone's feeling a couple of millenia ago and placing a value on them. If this was a quote from Philo, well, maybe. But a paraphrase? I think it should be left out in the interests of trying to keep our audience. Intelligent readers are put off by hype. Student7 (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Nature of the Talmud

The following was rm, perhaps for lack of a citation and worded somewhat pov. "When the nature of the Talmud and other such writings is considered, it is not surprising that they produced a violent reaction against Rabbinism even among the Jews themselves. In spite of the few gems of thought scattered through it at long intervals, there is nothing in any literature so entirely uninviting as the Talmud. The opposition to these "traditions of men" finally took shape."

It seems to me that a comment like this, if true, would have a WP:RS someplace and could be re-inserted in a somewhat less pov fashion. Student7 (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of burial places of Biblical figures which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 02:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

19th century Protestant Commentaries

Several of the (incomplete) names listed wrote commentaries to individual books (as did many others omitted). It would be preferable to list these commentaries by name (since there are one or perhaps two by each author), or omit authors who wrote only individual commentaries. For example (Keil &) Delitzsch wrote perhaps the most influential 19th century commentary, still in use and in print. It is this type of works that deserve inclusion and priority in this article (Freiherrvonleib (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)).

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Organization Can Be Improved

After a section on Protestant 19th Century commentaries, the next section is not introduced by a short outline-style title, but by a longish paragraph: "There were many commentaries published at Cambridge, Oxford, London, etc. (see publishers' catalogues, and notices in "Expositor", "Expository Times", and "Journal of Theological Studies"). Other notable writers include:"

One expects the section after 19th Century to be "20th Century," rather than a conversational paragraph. The division of Roman Catholic vs. Protestant is not completely accurate. I suggest that if you must pit RCC vs non-RCC, the other category should be "non-RCC." For not all who are non-RCC consider themselves Protestant. For example, F.F. Bruce was a member of the Plymouth Brethren movement, a movement not really "Protestant." Likewise, Baptists are likely to deny being "Protestant." There have always been Christians who did not consider themselves under the Pope and his system, but also did not come out of the Pope's organization and protest against him -- neither do they consider their primary spiritual fathers to be those who protested against the papacy. (EnochBethany (talk) 05:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC))

Organization Can Be Improved - certainly agree - in fact it is soo "messy" with no real coherant sytle / theme that it could do with a complete reworking. Do you have any suggestions. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

At the very least, we should either rename the article "List of Christian biblical commentaries" or else open the article up to Jewish scholarship. Notice how the first paragraph in the lead explicitly excludes Jewish commentaries from the list. In my personal opinion, we shouldn't even have a list of "Christian" commentaries, because of the enormous number of edge cases that will be created. Is a commentary that does not take explicitly Christian stances, but is written by someone who considers themselves a Christian, allowed on the list? Who counts as a Christian? It could get messy. Plus, many scholars today attempt to write at least some of their scholarly works in a sort of "neutral" historical mode, without bringing their personal religious beliefs into it. So if there's a commentary of this sort by a person who is officially part of some Christian group, and a similar commentary by a Jewish person, do these really belong on two religiously separated lists?Alephb (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)