From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	Judaism Portal List of Biblical commentaries is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do: edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Jewish and Biblical Units of Measurement or some such name, to include material of Ancient Hebrew units of measurement but also Talmudic units and use in Halacha (a la the Hebrew Wikipedia article he:מידות ומשקלות תורניים) Collaboration of the week { Cleanup: Jewish mythology - needs to be rewritten to be inline with our other mythology articles. Expand: Yom Ha'atzmaut - quite short for an article of such importance Wikiversity: School of Jewish Studies. Part of the new open content university, Wikiversity. Stubs: Category:Judaism stubs, Category:Tanakh stubs, Category:Synagogue stubs Update: Portal:Judaism is WikiProject Judaism's frequently updated portal. You can help make this the best portal on Wikipedia. Look at the talk page to see how you can help. Template loop detected: Template:WikiProject Judaism
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Organization 2 The Midrashim 3 Karaite Commentators 3.1 Modern 3.1.1 Page structuring for modern commentaries 3.2 merge

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Karaite Commentators

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)