We’re still blessing our Publisher Relations Department for this one. It went live on Friday.
50 volumes. 25,000 pages of chunky searchable goodness.
We’ve been checking at the office just how many links in our Logos books go to the Talmud. Hundreds of thousands. Just a click away.
This is one of those “don’t pretend to be doing biblical study with primary sources while not having this” titles. Get it while it’s on the pre-pub discount. $1200 retail for just $159. For real.
What has the Talmud ever done for us?
informed us as to how Jews of Jesus’ day and after viewed their own Bible.
Already ordered it. 🙂 When is Logos gonna have the complete literature of the Greco Roman Empire searchable? 🙂 🙂
you just can’t please some people!! 🙂 (hint: you can get that through the Perseus website for free — but Logos actually does have a license to that treasure-trove and so all of it will be in Libronix as well, while still being in HTML online at Perseus). See http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/
A little off the subject, but…
I am kind of curious as to how the academic community views the
source of the Pentateuch. I have read parts of “Understanding the Old Testament” by Bernard W. Anderson. It makes sense to me that there is a J, E, P and maybe D source to the Pentateuch. My primary motivation is that I cannot believe that God provided detailed instructions on the sacrifice of animals (in view of the KJV translation of Jer 7:22), and the cleansing process(Leviticus 14). These seem to me to be something motivated by a priesthood with something to gain. I cannot rationalize much of the old testament with the new, unless I believe that the old testament was heavily influenced by man’s translation/influence, and not God’s inspiration (except a little, in the overall concept.) Anyone with opinions? I am hoping that someone will say that the J, E, P, and D sources are an established belief (other than specific details) in the academic community. Don’t mention symbolic, because there is nothing sybolic in Lev 14, in my opinion. It boarders upon mysticism.
In a nutshell, the dominant view (by far) in scholarship is that the Pentateuch is composed of at least four sources (JEDP) and perhaps more, each written by a different author (none of them Moses) and then edited/redacted into the coherent whole we now know. A smaller number of scholars accept the basic “sources” idea behind the Pentateuch but are critical of the standard theory for several reasons (dating of sources, whether “E” is a coherent document on its own, that sort of thing). Others argue that there may be fewer sources and some of the “source” notion is the result of editorial work. Still others wonder if it really matters since two of the presumed sources (J,E) would have had to arisen first by oral tradition, and the traditions themselves could have had the same point of origin (the Israelite prophetic [= religious leadership] community). And, finally, if one takes a providential oversight view of inspiration, who cares how it was put together; God would be behind it. (The only real issue being the references to the “law of Moses” — a genitive/Hebrew construct phrase that doesn’t have to mean Moses was the source).
Thanks. That makes me feel better. Going to a church, although it’s offical position is open-minded, the location means that most of the people are exteemely conservative. Conservative, meaning most believe Moses must have writtem the entire Pentateuch except the part about his own death. Even my own common sense tells me that it had to be an oral tradition to start with, then put together/added to/edited, etc. Many would not agree. But with this, I can accept the OT and NT compatibility issues I have.