The Jewish Study Bible isn't Christian. It's an academic look at the Tanakh based on the JPS translation; it's quite useful and has some terrific essays.
​
​
I believe you're thinking of the "Complete Jewish Bible" and the "Complete Jewish Study Bbile", which are Christian.
There are plenty of pesharim found within the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as writings of Jews like Philo of Alexandria that find their home during the Second Temple period.
A good overview of Second Temple interpretation that quotes from these sources extensively and would act as a great starting point is:
How to Read the Bible, James Kugel
I would highly recommend it.
Just going to plug Robert Alter's excellent (imo) translation and note on these verses. He has an even more nuanced take than the blah-blah-blah that conveys the nonsense of it in more hebrew terms. He translates this section as follows
>“7 And these, too, blundered through wine
and through strong drink went astray.
Priest and prophet blundered through strong drink,
were confounded through wine,
went astray through strong drink,
blundered with the seer,
juddered in judgment.
8 For all the tables were covered with vomit,
filth, with no space left.
9 To whom will they teach knowledge
and to whom will they convey lessons?—
to the milk-weaned,
to babes pulled from the breast?
10 For it is filth-pilth, filth-pilth,
vomit-momit, vomit-momit,
a little here, a little there.
11 For in a barbarous tongue
and in alien language
He shall speak to this people
12 to whom He said, “This is rest—leave it for the weary,
and this is repose,” and they did not want to listen.
13 And the word of the LORD became for them—
filth-pilth, filth-pilth,
vomit-momit, vomit-momit,
a little here, a little here.
So that they should walk and stumble backward,
and be broken, snared, and trapped.”
and his comment on the word choice
>“Wildly divergent interpretations have been proposed for these words. The literal sense would seem to be: “precept precept, line line.” But if precepts are at issue here, they are precepts that have been turned into gibberish by these drunkards. The phonetic kinship between tsaw, precept or command, and tsoʾah, filth or excrement, and between qaw, line, and qiʾ, vomit, is surely not accidental. The translation seeks to convey both this correspondence and the effect of gibberish.”
I really recommend it! His major intention (as I read him) is to illuminate the basic structure of the original text, so you really get a feel for the poetic and narrative forms/tropes these bronze age poets found powerful. Personally, I love thinking about texts that way: trying to see what the author is doing on an intellectual level. It's absolutely wild to me, being pointed to subtle linguistic effects crafted three thousand years ago that have retained the power to move a reader. Makes you think about just how hardwired language is in the brain.
The whole set is kinda expensive, but the second volume has the book of Job, which IMO is his best translation of the Hebrew Bible's most interesting book, for 10 bucks.
Jewish Publication Society translation for the Old Testament and New Revised Standard Version translation for the New Testament.
Read the King James Bible if you want to understand English literature.
I linked the study bibles on Amazon because they offer crucial insight into the interpretation and meaning of passages that are too confusing without the relevant historical context and commentary from academic scholars.
Yes! Very accessible place to start: Richard Friedman’s “Who Wrote the Bible?”
That looks really interesting, thank you! For anyone else reading this, if you are looking for a digital copy, it has an alternative title: Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why
Fr. Stephen De Young recently wrote <em>God is a Man of War</em>, which you may find relevant to your question. If you, like me, struggle with printed text, the books is available on Audible, narrated by its author.
You should give this book a read. Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Elliott Friedman
Once you "see" how human and political the bible is, you can't "unsee" it.
The book is better the more of the bible you remember and have studied
https://www.amazon.com/Wrote-Bible-Richard-Elliott-Friedman-ebook/dp/B07M7S79BT
I'm looking for a companion work to the Bible that comes from a sort of a cultural anthropology angle. Hebrew Bible in particular. Maybe Revelation of John too, because it's cool.
How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now by James L. Kugel seems in the right wheelhouse, I'll check it out.
I'm hoping for a book or series of books that essentially gives footnotes to what's in the Biblical texts. For instance: Background on the various tribes or cities mentioned, comparison with similar stories in non-biblical sources, customs at the time, what we see in the archeological record, and so on.
I'd prefer a non-religious approach. That is so say, I'm not interested in the spiritual truth of the text and have no interest in being convinced one way or another.
Highly recommend Robert Alters translation for all your Tanakh needs. He is an expert in ancient Hebrew, a professor at UC Berkley, and his commentary/context is fantastic.
To really understand the Tanakh you need the commentary to give you an idea of what was going on in the Era it was written.
It's not
​
The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, a book published in 2001, discusses the archaeology of Israel and its relationship to the origins and content of the Hebrew Bible. The authors are Israel Finkelstein, Professor of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University, and Neil Asher Silberman, an archaeologist, historian and contributing editor to Archaeology Magazine.
There's no archeological evidence for Hebrews ever being slaves in Egypt, we're all literally the descendants of cannanites who were already in Israel.
I'm not trying to attack faith here, if you believe in the Bible as fact, then just look there or resources around the bible.
It was a great read! A lot of archeological work was ironically done by the Church in an attempt to prove that the bible was "true".
I don't know the specific verses he uses, but this book might be helpful to you:
God is a Man of War: The Problem of Violence in the Old Testament
Tim Mackie speaks a lot about Robert Alter. He has written a lot about translation. Look at his books on amazon. He has translated the entire Hebrew Bible (with commentary). https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07BN5HWWX/
He focuses a lot on the literary style of the books and has an excellent argument on translations in his introduction to the book called "The Bible in English and the Heresy of Explanation" You can actually read all of this (or at least I was able to) by going to the link above and making sure the kindle version is selected. Then click on the Image of the book so you can "Look Inside" from there you will be able to scroll down to the introduction and read his arguments there.
In summary, he states that while we try so hard to explain what the text says in our language we tend to diminish some of the original poetic-ness and art form of the Bible. It is a fascinating read and has helped me think much clearer about translations. I urge anyone to read this. (again, free from the link above)
OH hey! I got a question. Someone recommended me "The Hebrew Bible" translation with commentary by Robert Alter. I don't remember if this was you or not, I've had so many comments the past few days. Is this something you would recommend buying? I got the free sample and love it so far but I've only read chapter 1 of Genesis. Here's a link:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07BN5HWWX/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?\_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
You should read his book on the subject - "Who Wrote the Bible?"
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07M7S79BT
By the way, I'm not necessarily saying I agree with either perspective (who wrote the Bible or the Exodus) - but these are very interesting takes on the subjects.
If so, then perhaps this: https://www.amazon.com/Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Vision-Ancient-ebook/dp/B000FBJG86/ref=mp_s_a_1_14?crid=3EV6TY3VMDG7P&keywords=bible+origins&qid=1640381501&sprefix=bible+origi%2Caps%2C78&sr=8-14
Defining the baseline to be used in the thesis might be very intriguing.
What is meant, exactly, by the word, “demon”? Or, is it more accurate to say, “diamon”? Personally, think this difference is at the root of the comparison and to deploy the Bible as a standard without digging into its dirt (pun) is to avoid the heavy lifting that should be done.
Great timing for this question. Father Stephen De Young just released a book on this very topic from an Orthodox/ancient perspective: https://www.amazon.com/God-Man-War-Violence-Testament-ebook/dp/B09H3K1C4W
Fellow Protestant here(although my theology is quickly changing), and this book is my next read.
If you're looking for a broad overview of church history, check out Justo González's two-volume The Story of Christianity. It's an excellent big-picture sprint from the patristic era until today. One of the things he does really well is place key individual and key developments in thought in their proper historical context.
Two minor caveats which don't in any lessen my recommendation: (1) His focus is much more clearly the church in the West. You're not going to get a ton of meat about Eastern Orthodoxy after the Great Schism. While Vol. 1 is pre-Reformation history, there's a clear eye in his text towards leading to the Reformation. (2) González is not from the Reformed camp. He's a methodist, and his academic history has all been at mainline seminaries. That's not at all a warning, just an FYI.
He's a biblical scholar who wrote the book how to read the bible, which is considered a must read to anyone interested in the composition of the Torah. And yet he's a self-identified Orthodox Jew.
> The burden of proof is on you.
Nope you started the discussion so the burden of proof is on you.
Rule 1 in Debate a Christian: Posts must contain (i) a clear thesis or claim to be proven and (ii) some effort at demonstrating the truth of said thesis via a provision of evidence, argument, consideration, etc.
It's intellectually dishonest to make a claim and then try to wiggle out of your responsibility for making that claim.
>The burden of proof must first be met by the person who originally made the claim.
That's you.
>Sure. Go ahead and dismiss my evidence.
You presented no evidence in the OP - you actually admitted that it was a logical fallacy, an Argument from Silence.
>Do you still beleive the Exodus happened?
This is irrelevant since I'm examining your claim about there is no evidence for the Exodus.
But this is easily refuted:
Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition
Five Views on the Exodus: Historicity, Chronology, and Theological Implications
Now you, the OP, or anyone else may disagree with the conclusions in the above but that is a far cry from proving that there is no evidence for the Exodus.
Not really. I really suggest reading Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart Ehrman, who is a biblical scholar https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000SEGJF8/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?\_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Sacred Texts by Israel Finkelstein is a must-read for anyone wanting to contrast "Biblical Archaology" with actual archaeology.
provide an actual link to a source that says common ancestor is 1000CE. not true at all (humans did not almost go extinct 1000 years ago so your panda example is not relevant)
​
the amazon page for the source you just posted
lol read the description
Scholars of the Hebrew Bible have in the last decade begun to question the historical accuracy of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt, as described in the book of Exodus. The reason for the rejection of the exodus tradition is said to be the lack of historical and archaeological evidence in Egypt.
provide an actual link to a source that says common ancestor is 1000CE. not true at all (humans did not almost go extinct 1000 years ago so your panda example is not relevant)
​
the amazon page for the source you just posted
lol read the description:
"Scholars of the Hebrew Bible have in the last decade begun to question the historical accuracy of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt, as described in the book of Exodus. The reason for the rejection of the exodus tradition is said to be the lack of historical and archaeological evidence in Egypt."
try reading some of the sources I posted in the original post and youll see the clear academic conensus that the Exodus is not real. the Jews did were not enslaved in and did not live in Egypt
Ah, seems like you had a somewhat interesting job there, I'm like a collection box of vague and useless information myself. Also, since you mention Josephus, I think the opinion of most scholars today is that that minor mention of Jesus was added by later Christian monks. The region at the time was full of cranks who claimed to be the messiah so perhaps Josephus made a slight mention of one and later christian writers jumped on that and 'corrected' it to be about Jesus. If you're still interested in this sort of thing I'd recommend Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart D. Ehrman
What's really great about this guy is that he started out as a born-again christian who took everything said about Christianity as a given, so much so that he studied to be a biblical scholar so he could handle the oldest texts we have and read them in their original languages. However, over time, the amount of inconsistencies and pure fabrications that his scholar's eye saw began to clash so much with his faith that he finally gave it up, his faith I mean.
It's called "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Sacred Texts"
https://www.amazon.com.au/Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Vision-Ancient-ebook/dp/B000FBJG86
It's an extremely well received book in academia.
I'll throw out these two recommendations as well as they are excellent academic (not religious) works which contain a wealth of valuable notes, commentaries and essays by many leading scholars that go into the socio-historical context of the bible, (much of which is honestly missed by many other commentaries, particularly for the NT):
Hebrew Bible: The Jewish Study Bible
New Testament: The Jewish Annotated New Testament
The Canaanites weren't given a chance to change their ways. Yahweh choose the Israelites as his people, and gave his laws to them. How were the Canaanites supposed to change their ways when they hadn't been told to? It's like beating a child for breaking a rule you never told them.
Also, archaeological evidence shows that the Israelites were Canaanites; there was a gradual transition from Canaanite culture to polytheistic Israelite culture, and eventually monotheistic Judahite culture.
Finally, Moloch wasn't a Canaanite god. He was Phoenician, and the authors of the Pentateuch didn't know the difference; this is actually excellent evidence that the books were written much later than has been traditionally thought, because the writers couldn't distinguish between the two groups anymore. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Canaanites performed human sacrifice, and yet you're actually trying to justify the wholesale slaughter of an entire people, including children. Why did Yahweh have the children killed if it was about right practices? Surely they could have been taught proper religious practices. The reason is because that's not what it was about; it was ethnic cleansing, the killing was supposed to remove all the non-Israelite blood from the area to show explicitly that the Israelites were distinct from the Canaanites, that their religious practices were unique, and that they were untainted.
You're actually trying to justify a genocide. Stop for a moment and think carefully about whether you're the kind of person who thinks that genocide is acceptable under some circumstances, and then tell me where you get your morals.