^^^ Does anybody understand his objection here? It concerns me because it seems like he has some perspective on the matter, but I don't follow the critique far enough to do anything useful (or even gain much insight) based on it.

@Susan I think he feels like historical criticism in general is a waste of time because it makes certain anti-supernatural assumptions and then (shockingly enough) concludes that the text has no supernatural aspects

@ThaddeusB OK, thanks. It hadn't occurred to me that any anti-supernatural assumptions were required. I thought he was indicating that something about the history of Isaiah scholarship in particular made the question inappropriate, but maybe you're right that it's just a general peeve.

@ThaddeusB - Not for textual variants, no. For myself, they have always served two principle functions: 1) Etymology - for example the citation I brought from the Targum Yonason on the question about bats Are bats described as birds? 2) Oftentimes the targums, particularly Targum Yonason, weave medrashic interpretations from rabbinical sources into their "translations" (continued...)

(continued) in a way that allows one to see that the medrashim are not simply fanciful stories or traditions that have been forced into passages without regard to the text, but have a clear basis in the nuances and subtleties of the of the text itself. I don't have an example offhand right now but they are many examples of it. We regard the targums, particularly Targum Onkeles, to be first and most authorative "commentaries". Rashi's commentary refers to Onkeles extensively (continued)

(continued) - often using it for etymology which he then extends into interpretation on the basis thereof. (continued)

(continued) Ibn Ezra was a very interesting fellow and his commentary is held at a bit of a distance by strident traditional scholars because not infrequently he explains verses in a manner inconsistent with rabbinical tradition. Still, he is universally cited and Maimonides himself was one of Ibn Ezra greatest supporters. His commentary is very concise, sometimes to the point of being cryptic unless you have in-depth knowledge. (continued)

(continued) and I'm not sure exactly if or how he would work in English. Check out Abraham Ibn Ezra and Abraham ibn Ezra for information about this extraordinary man.

(continued) Ibn Ezra relied on his own knowledge of grammar, etymology, the natural sciences, Arabic and Aramaic in his work - he was clearly an "independent" (continued)

(cont) IE : Ibn Ezra adheres to the literal sense of the texts, avoiding... allegories... though he remains faithful to the Jewish traditions...does not prevent him from...independent criticism that... exhibits...tendency toward rationalism, to the extent that he judged other biblical commentary "against his twin standards of accuracy, grammatical precision and reliability...

@Susan Not necessarily required, but generally made. My own view is that higher crit. in general has some use, but because it is by nature mostly subjective people tend to "find" whatever they expect to find.

@Vector Very interesting stuff, thanks for sharing your perspective. I wonder if you would ever consider the LXX. I know it got a "bad rap" because the early Christian Church treated it as authoritative (and the Eastern Orthodox Church still does), but that was definitely not an "anti-Jewish" perspective at the time. The Torah translation is pretty literal, which means it is helpful for determining the nuances of word meaning (IMO).

The other books vary in translation philosophy, some being loose paraphrases, but paraphrases have their own use - helping to see how ancient Jews interpreted the text.

The bat answer was very informative - when you have time, I would like to read more answers like that from you. We get a lot of Hebrew questions around here, so your knowledge and perspective could be very useful.

I would also be interested in comments you have about this question and in particular my answer to it.

@ThaddeusB-The LXX is a bit problematic because the original is in Greek, and so not very accessible to later Jewish scholars. That, and also the fact that it was embraced by the Church seems to have made Jewish scholars shy away. We tend to rely on the Targums. But if I'm not mistaken, some of early rabbinical sources do sometimes refer to the LXX. I have often been curious about it but I never pursued it much, a good translation into Hebrew or Aramaic not readily available. (continued)

Genesis 1:2 is a difficult verse. That whole first section section of Genesis is very abstract and obscure - readers and commentators have struggled with it since it was written. I like what you did in your answer with but from the context, a description of the primordial physical creation, the classical Hebrew commentaries and the Targums seem to lean towards translating as a physical "wind" or "breeze", giving us earth, air and water at the opening of of the Creation narrative.(continued)

(continued) - the Hebrew word נפש would be more appropriate if the intent was "spirit". "when you have time"... that's the one thing I have very little of. I take a peak over here occasionally and if something shows up that I know about offhand or particularly piques my interest I will post an answer. I have a decent hebrew library here at my disposal but not all the material required for in-depth research, so getting too involved in this forum is not really an option for me, unfortunately.

@ThaddeusB - another commentary which I think you would find interesting and helpful is Sforno , Sforno. He was also very independent and sticks close to the literal text, but is more verbose and accessible than ibn Ezra (lived much later) and doesn't relish playing the role of provocateur, ibn Ezra style. (continued)

Sforno has always been one of my favorites because he is accessible, relatively verbose and clear, novel, and sticks close to the literal text. Unlike ibn Ezra, his commentary is considered "kosher" even by the most tradition-bound of modern scholars. (Perhaps more because of his attitude than his material.) There is a good English rendering of his commentaries on T'nach with annotations - ArtScroll

@ThaddeusB - BTW, I have spent a great deal of time with the early sections of Genesis because I have a secular background in History and have read a good deal about ancient civilizations in India, China and Central/South America so doing "compare" and "contrast" with biblical sources is always fascinating.

@ThaddeusB - once in my "travels" I came across a fairly reliable source that claimed that the names of those mentioned in Genesis V subsequent to Adam: Seth, etc -correspond to figures mentioned in the history of ancient India, and that there is an ancient tomb in India which may be that of the person referred to in Genesis 5-21 as "Chanoch" (note that there are several exceptional points made about "Chanoch" there in Genesis)

@Vector Thanks for your thoughts on Gen 1:2. Based on my research, I do agree with your assessment that Hebrew commentaries lean toward "wind", although there was a sizable minority that saw "spirit" as more probable. ... I hear you on not having time; I always wish I had more of that. :)

@Vector Thanks for the commentary recommendations; I will certainly check them out.