I am looking for your favorite commentaries on the book of Leviticus! What commentaries—available from Logos—are your go-to studies when studying the third book of the Pentateuch?
What commentaries—available from Logos—are your go-to studies when studying the third book of the Pentateuch?
Milgrom, Jacob. A Continental Commentary: Leviticus: A Book of Ritual and Ethics. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2004.
Jayson Bradley:What commentaries—available from Logos—are your go-to studies when studying the third book of the Pentateuch?
If I told you I have a 'go-to' commentary on Leviticus, I'd be lying. However if I needed to check something in Leviticus I'd turn to Wenham in the NICOT first, then either Hartley in WBC or Rooker in NAC.
Pastor, North Park Baptist Church
Bridgeport, CT USA
BradN:Milgrom, Jacob. A Continental Commentary: Leviticus: A Book of Ritual and Ethics
I would not always recommend a more devotional commentary...only when they are outstanding, and I have personally benefited from them (moreso then the more academic offerings)...so it would be remiss of me not to mention...
http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/item_detail.php?4398
BradN: Milgrom, Jacob. A Continental Commentary: Leviticus: A Book of Ritual and Ethics. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2004.
Logos4catholics Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."
Milgrom from the Continental Commentary series is in many respects a companion to his work in the 3 volume Anchor Bible set on Leviticus (over 2700 pages of exegetical goodness). I'd all of Milgrom.
Rooker - NAC
Harrison - TOTC
Harris - EBC
Lindsey - BKC
A.P. Ross - Holiness to the Lord
Vincent Setterholm: Milgrom from the Continental Commentary series is in many respects a companion to his work in the 3 volume Anchor Bible set on Leviticus (over 2700 pages of exegetical goodness). I'd all of Milgrom.
on both counts!
BTW: how long till you can break Milgrom out of the AYB?
TCBlack-Truth Is Still Truth Even if You Don't Believe It |
Is it unusual for the same person to do a book of the Bible for two different commentaries? Or are the Continental and AYBC somehow connected?
AFAIK Paul, they are connected through the Author. The Continental commentary is dubbed a distillation of the AYB material.
Milgrom writes with a distinctly Jewish Flavor (See bestcommentaries which lists Milgrom Lower because of his overly critical stance).
By all accounts he is a stellar Levitical scholar.
Thomas Black:Milgrom writes with a distinctly Jewish Flavor (See bestcommentaries which lists Milgrom Lower because of his overly critical stance).
The problem with Milgrom is not merely his critical stance, but that he cannot engage in Biblical theology because he doesn't hold Christian beliefs. If the purpose of all of Scripture is to point to Jesus Christ, Milgrom (and other Jewish and other non-Christian exegetes) miss the main point - however good their exegesis and understanding of cultic background and so on.
That said, we must understand the original meaning of the text if we are to truly see how the Scriptures point to Christ. In that, Milgrom can be a great help. But he could never be the main commentary I go to. I guess Wenham (NICOT) or Hartley (WBC) would be my first choice. But Rooker (NAC) makes up for Milgrom's lack without much repetition, so Milgrom+Rooker is a pretty powerful combination.
How to ask for help ● Logos Videos ● Search Help ● Bibliographic Report ● My Library
Paul Newsome:Is it unusual for the same person to do a book of the Bible for two different commentaries?
It happens reasonably regularly when you have a scholar who has devoted a very large portion of his life to one biblical book, and then a more accessible version is created. I can think of Alec Motyer's two volumes on Isaiah (one in TOTC, the other not in a series), Doug Moo on James (Pillar and TNTC) and Romans (NICNT and NIVAC), John Oswalt on Isaiah (NIVAC and NICOT), Anthony Thiselton on 1 Corinthians (NIGTC, the other not in a series), Gary Smith on Amos (Mentor Commentary and NIVAC), Darrell Bock on Luke (BECNT and NIVAC). There are probably others.
For Leviticus: Kleinig (Concordia Commentary Series)
Mark Barnes: Thomas Black:Milgrom writes with a distinctly Jewish Flavor (See bestcommentaries which lists Milgrom Lower because of his overly critical stance). The problem with Milgrom is not merely his critical stance, but that he cannot engage in Biblical theology because he doesn't hold Christian beliefs.
The problem with Milgrom is not merely his critical stance, but that he cannot engage in Biblical theology because he doesn't hold Christian beliefs.
Correct. To be fair I was paraphrasing from the bestcommentaries site.
Mark Barnes:The problem with Milgrom is not merely his critical stance, but that he cannot engage in Biblical theology because he doesn't hold Christian beliefs.
Are you telling me I have to call it Tanakhian theology?
Tanakhian. Good point.
I wonder at the requirement for 'Christian beliefs'. One, they're quite broad. And two, a sizable share of my Logos library wouldn't qualify.
MJ. Smith:Are you telling me I have to call it Tanakhian theology?
You can call it what you like - I know better than to start a discussion with you defining what I mean by 'Bible'
Denise Barnhart:I wonder at the requirement for 'Christian beliefs'. One, they're quite broad. And two, a sizable share of my Logos library wouldn't qualify.
For the purposes of this discussion, I am content to allow commentators to speak for themselves regarding their approach to the Old Testament. Milgrom is quite open that his discussion of Leviticus is not one shaped by Christian or New Testament beliefs.
My library too has much that is non-Christian, and I recognise its value — as I hope I made clear above. But I also recognise its limitations, and for a Christian the limitations of a non-Christian approach are more pronounced in a commentary on the Biblical text than they would be (for example) in a Hebrew lexicon, or in a discussion of archaeology. Supplemented by Christian writers, Milgrom can wonderfully aid our understanding. But on its own, it can never be adequate for me - as Paul puts it (2 Corinthians 3:14-16) his understanding of Leviticus was veiled.
Mark Barnes: MJ. Smith:Are you telling me I have to call it Tanakhian theology? You can call it what you like - I know better than to start a discussion with you defining what I mean by 'Bible'
And here I expected some scrollical comeback I don't really disagree with you - you just left such an opportunity, I couldn't resist.
Just coincidentally this afternoon, I was reading the section from McNamara's Targum and Testament on 2 Cor 3:14-16. The Targums demonstrate much of Paul's usage.
It's strange to end up on the same passage and probably along the same vein.