Some resources for accessing sources, including manuscripts
a list of online materials that I have found helpful
Hi everyone - I’m still working on my next long thing (it has got considerably longer, as happens, and as a result requires editing to not be a sprawling mess) but I thought that, as I am putting in a fair bit of work using online resources to access manuscripts and the like, I’d put together a list of said resources for others who may not be aware of them - this includes well-known ones that a bunch of you are probably very familiar with, but some may not be, and more obscure ones. I’m not going to share any means for pirating anything, if you’re ok with that there are other ways to find that information.
Finding standard versions of texts is relatively easy, but what about variants? what about manuscripts and tracking the development and change of texts over the centuries?
The first stop, as always, has to be Sefaria. This is the one stop shop for easily accessible online texts. You may roll your eyes at this, and say “of course I know Sefaria is there,” but not everyone knows all of the features, much less uses them. Sefaria is not just a repository of texts, or tool for creating source sheets on a particular topic, nor does it just have extensive cross-referencing (though I know people who haven’t known about that!) so you can select a passage and see what other texts cite it, to find the particular midrash that cites this particular verse but you’re not sure if it’s Pesikta D’Rav Kahana or Rabbati, or maybe Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer - Nor does it just have dictionaries that you can double-click a word to find a definition (or search, including BDB and Jastrow) - it also has manuscripts. In the “resources” panel one can access many high quality manuscripts - solely Codex Leningradensis for much of the Bible, but even when there is only one MS, they are often of very high quality, like CL, or like Kaufmann for Mishnah and Munich and Efurt for Tosefta. And, for Tosefta, Sefaria also has the (unfortunately never completed) Lieberman critical edition, with extensive cross-referencing and variant readings.
But what if you want to look at older material? Then there is the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library. The indexing system here for individual fragments is somewhat frustrating (and really needs standardizing) but they’ve got high-resolution full-colour and infrared images of most of the scrolls currently in Israel, and as far as I can tell at the very least all the original plates from the DJD volumes of every scroll. This is also a handy resource for learning to read Hasmonean and Herodian era scripts, provided you have access to a transcription (that last bit is the tricky part). This is very useful for seeing the basis on which various scholars reconstruct particular texts.
But what if you want to find something more obscure, later, or far more specific? Then, aside from academic critical editions and synopses, one is most likely going to need to turn to individual libraries and their digitization projects. Some of those I have used recently are the Princeton Geniza Project, the Bodleian (at Oxford), the JTS Library. Columbia also has an extensive collection digitized on the Internet Archive. Some of these catalogues are infuriating to navigate, but the resources are there. Other libraries that house extensive collections of MSS and of Geniza fragments have their own digitization projects.
Unfortunately, many of the most useful resources require institutional access, but these are some that are freely available.
From Bodleian Library MS. Huntington 511, Job with Arabic translation and commentaries by Saʻadia ben Joseph, Moses ben Samuel Gikatilla ha-Kohen, and an anonymous author. f21r, Job 4:17-19.
Simone could you respond to this week response to you think Simone is pre-assuming what is in a text (in my case, pre-assuming what I will say in my book), then reading the text against the grain of its actual wording and context to get it to fit that preconception, and then getting bewildered when they are told they didn't actually read the text as written and are projecting claims into the text that aren't there.
This is of course backwards epistemology. One should not pre-assume things, but read with charity and steel- man the text you intend to critique. This would result in far less pedantry and much more utility.
For example, consider the nuances of the evolutionary links between Phariseeism and later Rabbinical thought: one could acknowledge what I am saying accommodates all that (because it literally does), and recognize that it even strengthens the point I am actually making (as it demonstrates even less rigidity and even more innovativeness, than some scholars-usually Christian apologists-have claimed for Judaism, which is the entire purpose of my Element 5 to dispel), and then build-out a discussion of that with even more evidence proving my point.
Instead, Simone mistakes me for denying this, and burns tons of words on the futile task of "correcting" something that didn't need correcting, rather than building on the point already (actually) made so as to reinforce it.
This is what David Mitchell does with his sources, and thus why I find him so useful to cite. Which might be why Simone throws such shade at him. She doesn't want anyone (even herself) to recognize that he's better at this than she is. She has since confirmed her gender here. But I'll correct that to keep the article in a consistent neutral style.
I have a question who do you think founded Christianity Jesus or Paul some scholars I've read said Jesus just wanted to reform Judaism well Paul created a whole new religion