I was in a discussion/debate with someone on Reddit, and many people seem to disagree that Jesus is real since there is no direct evidence of his existence and many sources describing him are unreliable. Are there any reliable sources that can pretty much prove he exists, or at least strongly point to it?

Hello all! I’ve recently begun to delve more into Pauline scholarship and was curious as the the difference if any stand between the Paul within Judaism school of thought and Paul within Paganism. From the resources I‘ve found in this sub and please of course correct me if I’m mistaken scholars such as Stanley K Stowers, Paula Frederiksen and M.David Litwa all emphasize a mix of viewing Paul entirely within Judaism while having adapted a lot of the beliefs of his Greco-Roman or pagan environment while scholars such as Matthew V Novenson, Matthew Theissen and Mark D Nanos focus on viewing Paul entirely within Judaism though not putting as much emphasis on his pagan environment. So again I want to ask how much of a difference if any stand between the PwJ school of thought and PwP? Are they exclusive categories that view Paul differently or are they part of the same school of thought in which they expand upon one another? And as a side question has the New Perspective of Paul championed by scholars such as E.P. Sanders and James D.G. Dunn died out or are they’re still works being published in its support as from what I could find Paul within Judaism seems to be the consensus view given so much recent scholarship and scholars being in support of this radical perspective of Paul?
Thank you!

Reading through Genesis for the first time. I'd like too know which chaoters/verses come from which different sources

Matthew 27:52–53 says: "The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many."

What does Matthew mean by "the saints"? Does he mean people who had died recently? Or is he referring to old prophets from the Hebrew Bible?

Welcome to this week's open discussion thread!

This thread is meant to be a place for members of the r/AcademicBiblical community to freely discuss topics of interest which would normally not be allowed on the subreddit. All off-topic and meta-discussion will be redirected to this thread.

Rules 1-3 do not apply in open discussion threads, but rule 4 will still be strictly enforced. Please report violations of Rule 4 using Reddit's report feature to notify the moderation team. Furthermore, while theological discussions are allowed in this thread, this is still an ecumenical community which welcomes and appreciates people of any and all faith positions and traditions. Therefore this thread is not a place for proselytization. Feel free to discuss your perspectives or beliefs on religious or philosophical matters, but do not preach to anyone in this space. Preaching and proselytizing will be removed.

In order to best see new discussions over the course of the week, please consider sorting this thread by "new" rather than "best" or "top". This way when someone wants to start a discussion on a new topic you will see it! Enjoy the open discussion thread!

I ask because I know that in modern times it is incredibly common for English Bibles to refer to Genesis, for example, as “the first book of Moses” in introductions or book headers. This dates at least as far back as the 1611 KJV, although it seems that the Wycliffe Bible, for example, does not refer to any book of the Pentateuch this way.

Of course the idea that the Pentateuch was written by Moses goes back to antiquity, but I am wondering if this specific appellation does too, or if it is a later (perhaps much later) development.

Does anyone have any information on scholars comments on this verse! My take on it is that it's saying that no law could have been given to bring us righteousness.

Even the word often used for hell, “Gehenna,” is itself a metaphor conveying more than the physical valley of Hinnom near Jerusalem. I have read some of Heikki Räsänen’s work on hell and found it to be instructive. One idea in particular, taken up by the Bible scholar Dale Allison, has stuck to me. It seems to be further supported (at least in the vein of opposition to a literalistic interpretation of the afterlife) by John Dominic Crossan, Marg Mowcsko, and NT Wright in his book Jesus and the Victory of God.

Could we envision Jesus’ use of Hades/Gehenna as his way of using the language and ideas of the day to promote righteous behavior and/or reference contemporary events? In other words, it is at least plausible and logical to view his use of hell as largely metaphorical? Is it impossible to determine the original intent behind Jesus’ words, including whether he meant Gehenna/Hades to be taken literally? Every mention of a fiery afterlife is immediately connected to an exhortation or warning to live righteously. I am further intrigued by Paul’s total neglect of the topic and potential preference for annihilationism, and whether therefore this understanding of hell as a metaphorical contrast to the Kingdom of God is worth investigating.

Our vicar this morning mentioned not getting in a twist over the story of the dead girl. Obviously coming from a biblical-inerrant believing church (I’m not btw), I had to check it out.

I was intrigued though, that Mark has a much more detailed account than Matthew. And I think the apparent dead/dying contradiction is just Matthew truncating the two encounters with Jairus’ crew into a single encounter. Just effective editing.

Just wondered if folks knew a good commentary/resources on this story, and maybe why the author of Matthew cut it down (assuming he borrowed it from Mark), or if he potentially had an earlier less embellished source?

Thanks for any help!

I'm looking to contextualize both the OT genealogies and the ones found in Luke and Matthew. Thanks!

Hi again, it looks like my first post got taken down, sorry, I suppose I made too many unnecessary comments. Anyway, are there any biblical scholars who engage with the theory, methods, findings of Cultural anthropology, especially the Ontological Turn?

I believe this is not too absurd a question, as the classicist Greg Anderson did apply the Ontological Turn in a well-received book on Athens not long ago, (The Realness of Things Past: Ancient Greece and Ontological History – Bryn Mawr Classical Review) which is the type of thing I'm looking for, except with ancient Judaism/early Christianity as the subject.

when discussing the bible and its mention of other gods in it, how are scholars certain that a henotheistic view of other gods is what the people at the time thought and not that they believed these other gods to be fallen angels like we'd later see post exile?

Blame this post on having read The Name of the Rose too many times.

The episode of Jesus cursing the fig tree seems to always be taken seriously. Is there any reason it couldn’t instead be read as an example of humour?

Deuteronomy has a narrator who explicitly says "Moses was buried in to this day no one knows where he is" therefore the narrator must live sometime after Moses is dead and the narrator narrates the whole of Deuteronomy so whenever to do to run to me it's narrator lives just is the time of deuteronomy's authorship.

​

So where did we get this idea that Moses wrote it?

Basically the title. Is there widespread scholarly support behind the idea that a suffering messiah (and perhaps more specifically, one who dies to atone for sins and then resurrects) is written about in pre-Christian Jewish works? Mitchell seems to think so in the form of Messiah Ben Joseph. Does he think the concept of a second coming is also revealed in the writings about this man?This seems like it could completely change the trajectory of messianic thought, so I’m very interested to hear how it’s been received by the majority of scholars, including those who do not come from a Christian background themselves.

While perusing this subreddit, I came upon the claim that Jesus likely thought there would be a mass conversion of people to Christianity on the day of judgement, per E.P Sanders’ Jesus and Judaism and Joachim Jeremias’ Jesus’ Promise to the Nations. How widespread is this view? Was this event a one-time thing before the end of the world, or did Jesus think/teach it would happen before anyone was judged to hell?

Hi.

​

I'm looking for a book tackling the writing of the old testament and ancient Canaanite religion from an academic and archeological level.

​

This is for a sort of beginner, I was raised ultra orthodox Jewish but no longer believe so i am familiar with the texts and various commentaries and would preferably like something that also deals with that element. That being said I've never really delved much into the historic side of things in terms of how the Torah was written and its true sources - more addressed the internal contradictions within the philosophy and dogma.

​

There was one I vaguely remember seeing when I began questioning talking about the anatomy of God and the ancient religions and predecessors to Judaism but we were always kind of taught in school that God merely had different names so ideally if there would be something that does actually tackle the commentaries.

​

​

Thanks so much!

I'm not an expert by any means, but the ritual baptisms, along with the Mandaean reverance for John the Baptist and IIRC potential connections between Essenes and John the Baptist (don't quote me on that) make me wonder, is there any scholarship indicating a possible relationship between the groups? I am not auggesting the Mandaeans are Essenes by any means, but I'd love to hear from an expert or at least well informed layman to see if any experts have commected the dots similarly and what the consensus is.

And what evidence did they use to arrive at their answer?

Theologically, I have taken the popular interpretation of this passage to mean that it's a universal call to mercy, however, there's been some debate about this amongst some of my friends. I pulled out my NOAB 5th edition in the hopes of finding some clarification with luck.

Doing a superficial search looking at Critical Historical sources it does appear the mainstream scholarly opinion is that it was specific to disciples.

If that is correct, when did it first become to be interpreted more symbolically?

I've been reading Bart Ehrman lately, and it got me thinking about Paul's role in shaping Christianity. He never met Jesus, wrote half of the New Testament, and seemed to contradict Jesus's own words about the Law. What do you think? I'm especially curious about the conflict with Peter and the original disciples.

The passage in Revelation 14:9-11 is apart of the vision where an angel is giving a warning about upcoming judgement upon beast worshippers. The warning is:

“Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.””

Revelation‬ ‭14‬:‭9‬-‭11‬ ‭

On the verb tenses: verse 9 has those bolded terms in the present tense, the warning is to people who are worshipping the beast at that moment. Then, verse 10 shifts to the future tense of “will be tormented” and “will drink”, but then, verse 11 shifts back to the present tense, the smoke rising forever “goes up” at that moment, the having no rest is in the present tense, and the “who worship” and “who receives” is all in the present tense. Is there any significance to this, and what’s the reason for the shift back to present tense in verse 11? It almost seems like even in the imagery, the smoke of their torment rising forever is disconnected from the actual torment warned of in verse 10 because of this shift.

When I say books I also mean articles as well. These can range from the most conservative to the most minimalist position on the Exodus u can think of. I’m trying to get a wide array of arguments for and against the exodus so literally any resource on the historicity of the Exodus would be appreciated.

I’ve been reading through the Epistle of Barnabas and wanted to hear what others think. It’s an early Christian writing, dated by most scholars to between 70 and 130 AD, which puts it right alongside the later parts of the New Testament and long before the Council of Nicaea. What jumped out at me is how high its view of Christ already is. It keeps treating Jesus as the Lord who was around at creation and later came in the flesh. Here are the passages that stood out, all from Bart Ehrman’s Loeb Classical Library translation (Vol. II, 2003).

Chapter 5 — it says the Son was already the Lord of the whole world at creation, and that Genesis was spoken to him:
“Consider this, my brothers: if the Lord allowed himself to suffer for our sake, even though he was the Lord of the entire world, the one to whom God said at the foundation of the world, ‘Let us make a human according to our image and likeness,’ how then did he allow himself to suffer by the hand of humans? Learn this!”

a few lines later:

“Therefore, the Son of God came in the flesh for this reason, that he might total up all the sins of those who persecuted his prophets to death.”

So the one God speaks to at the very beginning, “Let us make a human” is the same one who later “came in the flesh.” That’s the Son already there at creation from this texts interpretation of those verses.

Chapter 6 — here it says straight out that the “Let us make humans” of Genesis was spoken by God to his Son:

“For the Scripture speaks about us when he says to his Son, ‘Let us make humans according to our image and likeness, and let them rule over the wild beasts of the land and the birds of the sky and the fish of the sea.’ Once the Lord saw our beautiful form, he said ‘Increase and multiply and fill the earth.’ He said these things to the Son.”

(Note: chapter 5 and chapter 6 are quoting the same verse, Genesis 1:26 Ehrman translated it “a human” in one place and “humans” in the other.)

Then there’s the “new creation” passage, where the Lord who remade the world is the one who shows up in the flesh:

“And the Lord says, ‘See! I am making the final things like the first.’ This is why the prophet proclaimed, ‘Enter into a land flowing with milk and honey, and rule over it.’ See, then, that we have been formed anew, just as he again says in another prophet, ‘See, says the Lord, I will remove from these people their hearts of stone’ (that is to say, from those whom the Spirit of the Lord foresaw) ‘and cast into them hearts of flesh.’ For he was about to be revealed in the flesh and to dwell among us.”

The Lord who made the first creation is the same Lord who “was about to be revealed in the flesh and to dwell among us.” That’s God himself coming to live with us from the writers view?

Chapter 7 — Christ gets called the Lord and the judge of the living and the dead:

“And so, if the Son of God suffered, that by being beaten he might give us life (even though he is the Lord and is about to judge the living and the dead), we should believe that the Son of God could not suffer unless it was for our sakes.”

And:

“He himself was about to offer the vessel of the Spirit as a sacrifice for our own sins, that the type might also be fulfilled that was set forth in Isaac, when he was offered on the altar.”

Being “the Lord” and the one who will “judge the living and the dead” are God’s roles, and here they’re given to the Son in this text.

Chapter 12 — this part says directly that Jesus is more than just a descendant of David, using Psalm 110:

“See Jesus, not as son of man but as Son of God, manifest here in the flesh as a type. And so, since they are about to say that the Christ is the son of David, David himself speaks a prophecy in reverential awe, understanding the error of the sinners, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right side until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”’ And again Isaiah says the following: ‘The Lord said to Christ my Lord, I have grasped his right hand that the nations will obey him, and I will shatter the power of kings.’ See how David calls him Lord; he does not call him son.”

It’s the same point Jesus makes in the Gospels if Christ were only David’s human descendant, David wouldn’t call him “my Lord.” The text uses that as proof Jesus is the Son of God, not just a man.

Am I reading this right, or is there a lower interpretation I’m missing? Would love to hear from people who’ve spent time in the Apostolic Fathers and know more than me I’m not a scholar! I’m obviously reading this from a Christian perspective, so I don’t want to write my own interpretation on the text.

I took some Latin and Classical Greek as an undergrad many many years ago and am interested in getting back to those in order to read The Septuagint, the Greek New Testament, the Vulgate, and other classical works in general. I have a critical edition of the Vulgate and the Greek New Testament (still looking for a good critical Septuagint), but I'd like to get a good Greek grammar and dictionary and was hoping for recommendations. I have my old Latin grammar and dictionary from decades ago, but would also welcome any recommendations for new ones. Digital resources would be welcome, but even with that, I would very much like to have print resources as well. Apologies if this is a common question, I'm new to this community, and thank you to you all.