Possible wrong type of a resource?

"The Rabbinic Messiah" is categorized as type Bible Commentary. While it's quotes classified in canonical order, there is very little category. I have excluded form my Collection of Commentaries, do you think this has the wrong type or am I being picky?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Dave Hooton

The product description states "Since this is simply a collection of the quotes themselves with very little commentary by the author..." so I doubt you are being picky! You can make a suggestion for change at http://wiki.logos.com/Metadata_correction_proposals

fgh

Personally, I want it exactly where it is! The 'author' isn't really an author, but rather an editor, and the book is essentially a collection of quotes from various midrashim. Midrashim are, by definition, bible commentaries. In other words, this is exactly the same kind of work as the Catena Aurea or the ACCS, only with Jewish exegesis instead of the Church Fathers'. Do you want them excluded from type:"bible commentary" as well?

Personally, I did the opposite of what you did: I made sure to include this book in several commentary collections. I find it very interesting to see what verses Jewish rabbis interpret as Messianic in nature. It reveals a lot about what the Messianic expectations were at the time of Jesus. And more than that, it adds insight into what Jesus may have taught when, in Lk 24:27, he expounds on how all the Scriptures talk about Him. And it's also interesting so see what verses Jewish rabbis don't interpret as Messianic (though that, of course, will depend on how good a job the editor did). All in all, and for all its shortcomings, this book provides info you're not likely to find in any other commentary in your library. To me that makes it more valuable, not less.

I just wish Logos had all these Midrashim, so that I could click on the links and read them in context... [:(]

Logos, if you see this, please please please make the Talmud links work by the time the Talmud is shipping, and also the links to the Classic Midrash Collection! And add more midrashim to CP or prepub!

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/214314#Comment_214314

Personally, I did the opposite of what you did: I made sure to include this book in several commentary collections.

I have it in a collection of early church fathers and rabbinic literature which has a real mishmash of entries in the type field. But I do think of it as rabbinic commentary.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/214314#Comment_214314

Midrashim are, by definition, bible commentaries. In other words, this is exactly the same kind of work as the Catena Aurea or the ACCS, only with Jewish exegesis instead of the Church Fathers'. Do you want them excluded from type:"bible commentary" as well?

Fair comment. I spoke in ignorance of that resource, but I have kept the Catena as a commentary!

Bohuslav Wojnar

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/214631#Comment_214631

Midrashim are, by definition, bible commentaries. In other words, this is exactly the same kind of work as the Catena Aurea or the ACCS, only with Jewish exegesis instead of the Church Fathers'. Do you want them excluded from type:"bible commentary" as well?

Fair comment. I spoke in ignorance of that resource, but I have kept the Catena as a commentary!

Yes, I agree. I have the resource and I wholly agree with fgh (funny to call you this way [:)] )