Talk:Jewish commentaries on the Bible

Structure and Organization
Considered porting the entire article from the Jewish Encyclopedia on Bible Exegesis. The JE links to this from "Commentaries on the Bible." However, most of the articles seem to have been covered in existing articles. Porting would only confuse casual users and seriously annoy editors who have probably been through this exercise once already.

Articles, however, are scattered. This is a drawback, not only for Jewish researchers/editors, but for Christian ones as well since nearly all the serious research in the first millenia CE was done by Jewish researchers. "Commentaries on the Bible" has been ported from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

The quality is fair. It is not up to date. It may be missing much research that has gone into Jewish articles. There is no clear way to take advantage of this.

With a different Canon, Christians necessarily draw different conclusions about the commentators results, than do Jewish ones.

In my opinion, the material needs reorganizing.Student7 21:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Start class
Normally an article of this length would be B class, but it needs to be longer and better organized. Biblical commentaries are an important topic which should receive more attention, with full paragraphs (at least) for each of the major medieval commentators. Also, there needs to be less redunancy between this article and List of Biblical commentaries. Shalom Hello 03:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge to biblical commentaries?
This was one of my first projects way back when. I had taken it from the CE 1913 to start the article List of Biblical commentaries. Recognizing it's potential for inadequacy for it's derivation, I guess (can't really remember) I thought it would survive better as a separate article with, presumably Jewish scholars working on it, rather than non-Jewish ones. I could have been wrong. But that is why (if I remember correctly) there are two separate articles covering identical material. If what I say is true, it might be easier to apply what few changes there are here to the original article if you want to change. Alternately, keep this one separate and delete most of the material from Biblical Commentaries and "fork" the article to here with changes ported from List of Biblical commentaries. Student7 (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * One of the copies has to go. Both need cleanup and I don't see the point in doing it twice.  If you want to summarize the information at List of Biblical commentaries and remove the merge notice that would be great. Jon513 (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The two articles should have very little in common. From a Christian POV, the Mishna's main value is a commentary on the life and times of Jesus, which is the main focus of their Bible. From a Jewish POV, the Mishna is an embodiment of the oral law, and rarely quotes the Jewish Bible. CF Oral Torah Phil burnstein (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You could be right, of course. Who am I to judge? But the article doesn't seem to reflect a Christian bias particularly (which surprised me at the time. 1913 after all). Now the article List of Biblical commentaries(Christian) which arrived at the same time probably does quote Mishna etc., what a Jewish scholar might say, is out of context. That's why the two articles were separate. Or maybe separated (can't remember now). Student7 (talk) 03:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * IMHO Any article using the term "Old Testament" (implying that there is a newer one) shows a Christian bias. Add to that a section on commentaries to the "Old Testament" that lists no Jews at all, its obvious that this article is needed.


 * I am going to try to do a full rewrite. Wish me luck. Phil burnstein (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've joined the effort to upgrade this article. We need some contributions on 20th and 21st century Orthodox bible commentaries outside of Mesorah (Artscroll)! RK (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary commentaries are often written without specific confessional bias, and often by folks who are not religious at all. In such a world, dividing between "Christian" and "Jewish" commentaries would make some extremely difficult to place. I would therefore suggest that the best approach is to merge the two articles. Tb (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite done
The old article is at Talk:Jewish commentaries on the Bible/Former Article Jewish commentaries on the Bible. We're missing a couple of Rishonim and a whole bunch of early Acharonim. Phil_burnstein (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Jewish commentaries on the Bible. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081211071116/http://www.judaicapress.com:80/product_info.php?ref=1330&products_id=47 to http://www.judaicapress.com/product_info.php?ref=1330&products_id=47

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Universe
The second sentence (Translations into Aramaic and English, and some universally accepted Jewish commentaries with notes on their method of approach and modern translations into English with notes are listed) seems to imply that these are some of the universally accepted. A better wording is needed. Perhaps the word some can be repeated, together with the word "also" per:
 * Translations into Aramaic and English, and some universally accepted Jewish commentaries with notes on their method of approach and also some modern translations into English with notes are listed. Pi314m (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)