Talk:It is time to work for the Lord

Judaism Low‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bible Mid‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Needs for this article[edit]

Notability is adequately documented within the text. However, additional sources should be added, esp for specific Modern Orthodox and liberal Jewish uses.

Perhaps somebody is familiar with any Christian or Islamic exegesis of this verse?

The Psalm itself is unusually long. Any liturgical uses worth noting for the verse?

Need wikifying of citations, maybe categories (a stub? Jewish project?), etc., hence the wiki tag. Thanks. HG | Talk 13:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to a PROD, I've added Birnbaum, Rosenzweig and Emden, etc. This just scratches the surface of notabilty. Perhaps Katz or Feiner would explain the modern context in their works. Thanks! HG | Talk 14:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

npov[edit]

It isn't appropriate for WP to pronounce which interpretation of a Biblical verse is correct, nor to say definitively what is the original meaning, nor to state that the shift in meaning occurred because of [whatever]. what you can say is that "according to X, the original meaning is ..." The tone needs to be that of an encyclopedia, not an essay, and words like "obviously" and "of course" are usually out of place. As it happens, I generally agree with your conclusions, but that is just your view and mine. You can even say it is the consensus of modern commentators, but if your do that you should give the consensus of contemporary Orthodox commentators as well. As I understand it, in orthodox Judaism all the meanings are implied from the beginning, and the genius of the rabbis is in uncovering them. (Wasn't there also an interpretation that it is time for Jews to rise up and destroy the enemies who have made void your Torah?--I can see why this might not have remained prominent in Talmudic discussions, but I've always thought that this must have been one of the understood meanings. ) DGG (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(from our Talk pages) Thanks, let me just say why I used phrasing about how the rabbis "shifted" meaning and "re-interpreted." The rabbis are not merely presenting another point of view, they are fully aware that they are shifting from what they call the "plain" (pshat) meaning. They aren't offering simply another reading of the text, they are writing a midrash to alter the meaning for other purposes (here, legal purpose). I'm glad to keep your edits there, just wanted to let you know this background. Thanks for your interest and help. HG | Talk 18:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, & you may want to add something to that effect, probably best as a short quote. I made some additional comments towards tightening the article. Great to have someone working on these. I've expressed the opinion at AfD that every individual biblical verse is probably notable and can be shown to do so if it is expanded from he commentaries and some work is done on the sourcing. You are doing just that, and doing it well, and I'll keep track of objections to them. DGG (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback, DGG. Don't have a quote, off the top of my head, about how midrash changes the meaning , but I'll at least check the midrash article. Good idea. HG | Talk 18:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]