Text חֲכַם־לֵב יִקַּח מִצְוֺת וֶאֱוִיל שְׂפָתַיִם יִלָּבֵט׃
Some initial thoughts about the first volume of Joseph Ratzinger’s trilogy, Jesus of Nazareth.
Text זֵכֶר צַדִּיק לִבְרָכָה וְשֵׁם רְשָׁעִים יִרְקָב׃
Is neo-source-criticism a thing? Is it actually possible that so many recent PhD candidates and recipients don’t realize that source-criticism is dead, buried, and mostly decomposed? Source-criticism as a method has proven a completely unsatisfactory way to do diachronic study since at least the 1970s because of what it assumes about the texts under consideration and about what may be discerned with certainty from certain kinds of features of those texts.
Text בְּרָכוֺת לְרֺאשׁ צַדִּיק וּפִי רְשָׁעִים יְכַסֶּה חָמָס׃
Commentaries are helpful, but the proper posture towards them, regardless of your knowledge of scholarship in the field, is one of resistance. By asking “How do we know that?”, you are positioning yourself to get the most out of your conversation with the Bible and out of the commentary.