What are
/r/AskBibleScholars'
favorite Products & Services?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The most popular Products mentioned in /r/AskBibleScholars:
The most popular Services mentioned in /r/AskBibleScholars:
Academia.edu
LibraryThing
Step Bible
LibriVox
The most popular reviews in /r/AskBibleScholars:
Matthew 25:41 is probably the first reference to connect Satan to Hell.
> Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels
The idea of Satan as ruler of hell is first developed in the writing of 17th-century poet John Milton in his epic poem Paradise Lost.
> …the most important contributions of both Paradise Lost and The Inferno with regard to hell, come when they flow from their literary sources into the main current of Christian thought. The blending of these two poems with biblical texts, creeds, and systematic theologies creates a new vision of hell and of Satan that will endure for centuries. This vision of a terrifying, after-death torture is rendered even more frightening with the addition of a warden, Satan, the overseer of hell.
If you want to understand the basis behind the doctrine of infallibility among evangelicals, then a good place to start is here: Chicago Statement on Inerrancy. The Chicago statement was produced by the Evangelical Theological Society. There is also a chapter on infallibility in Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology (Chapter 5). Grudem is a well-known evangelical theologian, and his systematic theology is widely used in evangelical higher education.
This isn't a biblical question. Your question is about homo sapiens and neanderthals, which isn't discussed in the Bible. On that question, you may enjoy this podcast, where the relationship between them is discussed.
In terms of your hypothetical, "If Adam and Eve were the first humans", there are different ways you could approach that question. One is in terms of what Genesis is trying to do (on that you might enjoy John Walton's "the lost world of Adam and Eve), but also you might note Eden is not the whole earth, and we find out fairly quickly in the Genesis story that there are things going on outside Eden (including people to marry and to populate cities (4:17)); Eden is depicted rather as the starting point for Yhwh's transformation project of those areas and people beyond Eden (of course, not all will agree with this reading).
I believe reading Josephus' Jewish Wars can fundamentally change someone's interpretation of Revelation. The texts are uncannily similar and has lead me to believe they are essentially talking about the same historical event - the judgement of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. However, the real challenge here is first convincing people that there exists strong arguments that suggest that Revelation was written pre-70 AD. Kenneth Gentry's books "Before Jerusalem Fell" and "The Beast of Revelation" are excellent resources for this. All this comes together and helps readers understand that when John writes "what must soon take place", "because the time is near", and "Look, I am coming soon!" he actually meant it plainly.
> I often get asked why, in my opinion, Jesus never wrote anything. According to some stories, he did indeed write. There is the famous account of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery found in later manuscripts of the Gospel of John, chapter 8, and familiar to Bible readers today both because it can still be found in most English translations (even if it is normally bracketed as not being original) and because it is the darling of every Hollywood director who has ever made a movie about Jesus. In that story, both before and after Jesus tells the Jewish leaders who want to execute judgment on the woman, “Let the one without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her,” he stoops down and begins to write on the ground. Unfortunately, we don’t know what it was he wrote, even though later interpreters, down till today, have made numerous suggestions: Possibly he wrote a scripture verse about false judgments? Possibly a list of the sins of the woman’s accusers? Possibly divine threats against those who oppose him? There are lots of options.
I think you answered your own question. It is wrong to say that individuals could not communicate with God through prayer before Jesus, if that is what some people are saying. Examples are too numerous to cite. The biblical narrative is more interested in particular people usually in leadership positions, but there are also many little references to the people as a whole crying out to God for various reasons.
For academic reading on the nature of prayer in the Hebrew Bible, I will recommend the classic They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer, by Patrick D. Miller.
In all fairness to Dershowitz, he did also publish an article in <em>Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel</em>.
> During the late Hellenistic and early Roman period the term archon, in both singular and plural forms, began to be used in early Judaism and early Christianity and then in Neoplatonism and Gnosticism as designation for supernatural beings such as angels, demons and Satan and planetary deities who were thought to occupy a particular rank in a hierarchy of supernatural beings analogous to a political or military structure.
> The context for the conception of Satan as ruler of this world or age is the apocalyptic worldview which consisted in a temporal or eschatological dualism in which the present age ('this world or age') is dominated by wickedness through the influence of Satan, while the imminent future age ('the coming world or age') will be inaugurated by the victory of God over all evil.
> In Ephesians 2:2, Satan is called "the prince of the power of the air", i.e. the prince whose domain is the air. This title is clearly a designation for Satan, for he is also described as "the spirit now at work in the sons of disobedience" (Eph 2:2). The air was regarded as the dwelling place of evil spirits in the ancient world (Philo. De gig. 6; 2 Enoch 29:4; Asc. Isa. 7:9).
An accessible work written about this subject is Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth.
More about this subject can be found at the wiki/FAQ pages here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskBibleScholars/wiki/faq
Specifically, numbers 12, 32, and 34.
You'll have some idea of how I felt working on Babylonian references to Nibiru, then... ugh. Couple of good references:
Blenkinsopp (2011), Creation, Un-creation, Re-creation: A discursive commentary on Genesis 1-11, T&T Clark
Hendel (2004), 'The Nephilim Were on the Earth: Genesis 6:1-4 and its ancient Near Eastern context' - available for free here
'Nephilim' in the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, available for free here (warning, big pdf!)
Page (1996), The Myth of Cosmic Rebellion: A study of its reflexes in Ugaritic and biblical literature, Brill
My time to author a comprehensive comment is limited, but I believe you may derive some benefit from reading "A Roadmap for Aspiring New Testament Scholars," by Wayne Coppins (University of Georgia), and particularly the section entitled, "Choosing a Master’s Program: MA-PhD, MA, MTS, MPhil, ThM, MDiv," as it is germane to your question above.
Though geared for biblical studies, you should also look at Nijay K. Gupta's <em>Prepare, Succeed, Advance: A Guidebook for Getting a PhD in Biblical Studies and Beyond</em> , available for about $20 (USD).
Best wishes on your future studies!
Edit: added Gupta's book
My year long course used The Elements of New Testament Greek by Jeremy Duff. amazon link
I wouldn’t say language is my strongest trait but this book also has study guides online, audio guides, and exercises with keys in the back. I found it to be pretty comprehensive.
A fascinating work (a bit academic) on the subject which covers the teachings of the Bible as well as the near universal application of those teachings throughout church history is called Unchanging Witness. If you are interested in reading/studying deeper on the subject it is well worth your time.
Edit for clarity.
To be honest, it's not so easy to just pick up a Talmud and read it and get what's going on. It's primarily a legal text and the parts you'd find interesting are the occasional tangents it goes on, but even those are there to make a point about the law and are presented in the same argumentative style.
So you'd probably be more interested in an anthology of "Aggadot" ("tales"), such as this one (I have no idea whether that particular one is good or not, I just found it through a Google search, though the Amazon reviews are good).
From a historical-critical methodology, I'm not sure if we could ascertain exactly what Jesus said. There are scholars such as John Paul Meier, who authored the Marginal Jew series, that would contain more information about this subject matter.
You might be interested in this one, Quest for the Historical Apostles, which traces what can and can't be known, from history and mythology. I've only skim read it but I found it at least interesting in terms of what the early church believed about them, even if our access to the actual disciples is (not surprisingly) marginal.
Apparently I can't post this as a direct reply, but:
Richard Elliott Friedman's new book The Exodus talks quite a bit about this topic. I found this part of the book not quite so interesting to me personally so I won't try to muff my way through a detailed explanation, but in short according to Friedman it started with the Levites, the group he proposes as the only ones who were actually enslaved in Egypt and left for Canaan as the book of Exodus describes. When the Levites arrived in Canaan they were allowed to assimilate into the lands owned by the other tribes. The Levites brought with them the idea of YHWH and as the priest and teacher class were able to integrate the idea that their YHWH (their only god) and the god the Israelites worshiped, El, were one and the same. They worshiped no other gods at this point, hence "monotheism". I generalize of course, but this is the basic chain of events. Read the book for the details.
Luckily the book as has a lengthy free preview on the topic on Amazon although I didn't look to see how many pages on this topic could actually be read in free preview.
Here's a link: The Exodus.
I got it for about 30 bucks on Amazon. So it’s more expensive than your standard pocket bible but it’s not bad as far as study bibles go. Considering the use I’ve gotten out of it and how much it’s helped me with both my studies and my faith, I would’ve gladly paid twice that. As a brother in Christ (sorry mods, I know that kind of language is kinda frowned upon here), I’d encourage you to splurge on it.
That doesn’t sound like a bad price for the ESV student bible if that’s the kind of thing you’re looking for, but I wouldn’t consider that and the New Oxford as alternatives to each other. They’re really trying to accomplish two different things. If you already have a decent grasp on fundamental Christian theology, I don’t think you’ll gain a lot from the ESV student bible, unless you just want to keep it around to compare certain passages, which I do still use it for occasionally.
Link on amazon: The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version https://www.amazon.com/dp/019027607X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_nqH6CbC9THYR6
> The tradition of the matchmaker traces its human origins to the "super-shadkhan" of all time, Abraham's masterful servant Eliezer, who arranged no less a marriage than that of the patriarch Isaac to the matriarch Rebekah.
...
> The significance of the function of the shadkhan in ancient times can be seen from the derivation of its root word shidukh (match). The Aramaic translation has it as sheket, "silence," and the term shidukh signifies tranquility or peacefulness. The connotation is that the shadkan pacifies parents who are anxious about their child's marital prospects. It also implies a sense of tranquil arrived for two people tired of the dreams, the frustrated expectations, and the long search for a loving spouse.
There were no historical official records such as birth certificates and the like. The kind of records you could expect for Jesus would be mentions by Jesus’ contemporaries or by historians who reported what they knew, or thought they knew, about Jesus.
Philo of Alexandria was a contemporary of Jesus and wrote about every important movement or person of whom he knew in Judea, but never mentioned Jesus or a movement founded by Jesus. Nicolaus of Damascus (official court historian of Herod the Great) could have mentioned the amazing events surrounding the birth of Jesus, and Justus of Tiberias (King Agrippa’s personal secretary) could have mentioned the events in the life of Jesus, but it seems that neither did. Richard Carrier says, in On the Historicity of Jesus:
>We do not have the works of Nicolaus or Justus. but we have the works of Josephus, who used them as sources, and we can safely conclude that if either author had mentioned anything about Christ, Christians or Christianity, later Christian authors would have preserved at least mention of it, if at the very least to rebut it or make note of their attestation to Jesus or early Christians or Christianity.
The first-ever non-biblical reference to a Jesus of history is in the Annals of Tacitus, dating to around 116 CE.
Biblical scholars? It's laughable. The hermeneutical assumptions in that document bear no relation to the assumptions made by critical biblical scholars. I'd recommend from an academic Christian point of view, Peter Enns' How the Bible Actually Works.
Scholars reject not only the concept of inerrancy itself, but also their the assumptions that the Bible is totally internally consistent, that God "used the personalities" of the authors rather than those texts being the work of human authors, and that the concept of "original autographs" is anything other than fantasy.
Oxford Annotated NSRV is the default choice, but I personally prefer the Jewish Annotated New Testament for NT studies
Find an interlinear LXX and English version. That will help. And tbh I’m not sure how one can study the Greek text without learning how to translate Koine. I would start with a good book called “When God spoke Greek” by Law. https://www.amazon.com/When-God-Spoke-Greek-Septuagint-ebook/dp/B00E3PN7IK
This is where I started while in Seminary learning Koine.
That’s exactly what everyone saw him as. May I recommend this book https://www.amazon.com/After-Jesus-Before-Christianity-Exploration-ebook/dp/B08VNDPPFP
What piece did you read if I may ask out of curiosity?
Haven't read it, but if I were gonna research this, I'd start with Peter in the New Testament, a collaboration between Catholic and Protestant scholars. https://www.amazon.com/Peter-New-Testament-Collaborative-Assessment/dp/1579109144
When I was designing a Koine Greek class, we leaned into the Mounce products. I don't have the laminated sheet, but we recommended it for students who wanted to practice reading the Koine Greek text. It helps with initially reading the text and can aid in memorizing the most common patterns in Koine Greek.
From the feedback I received, it was most helpful as a reference when we began reading directly from the Koine Greek Bible.
To check out a few more of the pages, you can check out the pictures posted on Amazon here, they are not great images but they can give you a sense of what they entail.
Here is what the sheet includes-
Front page: Greek Alphabet Case Endings and 8 Noun Rules Definite Article, Relative Pronoun First and Second Declension Nouns Preposition diagram
Second page: Personal Pronouns, Demonstrative, Interrogative, Indefinite Relative Adjectives Third Declension Master Personal Ending Chart Master Verb Chart 3 Verbal Root Patterns
Third page: Indicative Master Nonindicative Verb Chart Contract Verbs Liquid Indicative Overview of Subjunctive
Fourth (back) page: Principle Parts of Common Verbs Master Participle Chart Athematic Conjugations
In my opinion: it is worth the money if you are serious about learning how to read the New Testament in Koine Greek. You probably would not need it if you are just looking to pass a class.
- What is the goal of this field?
To study Biblical-related texts much in the same way Classicists study the Classics.
- What is the difference between this field and apologetics and counter apologetics?
Most notably, methodological naturalism, that miracles are the least likely explanation for the narrative content found in the texts. The presumption is that these texts are just like any other writing from antiquity, for better or for worse.
- What general conclusions does it have?
That these texts are not disconnected from their historical contexts. That the library we call “The Bible” was composed over thousands of years by disconnected writers from different cultures and geographies and religious understandings. Later authors react to earlier authors, but the library was not written as one cohesive unit and reflects different religious attitudes.
- Are biblical scholars mostly christian or atheists?
Originally the field was pretty much entirely theological but over time, particularly in the last couple generations, there has been an influx of non-theologically committed scholars. That being said, the most cited scholars in the field know how to remove their faith-hat when putting on their historian-hat, keeping both perspectives separate.
- Are biblical scholars against apologetics?
As a rule, no. But since apologetics tends to dismiss or contradict the historical and literary approach to the texts, they will invariably end up at odds with each other.
A good introduction to the scholarly way of studying the Bible is James Kugel’s How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now
I'm looking for a companion work to the Bible that comes from a sort of a cultural anthropology angle. Hebrew Bible in particular. Maybe Revelation of John too, because it's cool.
How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now by James L. Kugel seems in the right wheelhouse, I'll check it out.
I'm hoping for a book or series of books that essentially gives footnotes to what's in the Biblical texts. For instance: Background on the various tribes or cities mentioned, comparison with similar stories in non-biblical sources, customs at the time, what we see in the archeological record, and so on.
I'd prefer a non-religious approach. That is so say, I'm not interested in the spiritual truth of the text and have no interest in being convinced one way or another.
Quick answer: I don’t know of any visual aid that depicts what you’re looking for. The closest thing I can think of is the critical apparatus of a Greek New Testament.
Longer answer: Scholars use the “critical apparatus” of a Greek New Testament to evaluate variants in a text. There are essentially two commonly used Greek New Testaments: The UBS Greek New Testament and Nestle-Aland. The texts of these two are the same, but the Nestle-Aland has a more detailed critical apparatus.
The critical apparatus appears at the bottom of the page. Reading a critical apparatus is like reading another language. It is a highly coded short-hand that takes time to learn how to use. This PDF from Marquette gives a quick overview of it: https://www.marquette.edu/maqom/ApparatusGuide.pdf
The UBS also offers a “textual commentary” as a companion to the GNT. Bruce Metzger explains the justifications behind many of the significant textual issues. You can find that here: https://www.amazon.com/Textual-Commentary-Greek-Testament-Ancient/dp/1598561642
> Is it possible that there is a version of these books of the Bible that were written by one author
It’s probably the opposite. They all sound like they’re written by a single author, but if you look close enough you can see the seams of the independent sources yourself.
For example: Why are there two separate, contradictory creation stories? Why do they both talk about God using a different name? In one of the stories, God comes off as disconnected and all-powerful, but in the other story he’s very present and anthropomorphic and his powers are somewhat limited.
It’s likely they were originally two separate myths that were smashed together as Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 of what would later be “the Book of Genesis.” And if you continue reading Genesis you’ll find similar repeating narrative cycles. There’s at least three separate women who have the same exact story: They’re barren but God allows them to have a miracle child who will go on to be a father to the nation. It’s almost as if the same story is being retold over and over by different authors.
Another fun example: Did you know two different people killed Goliath? And there are at least four different versions of the story all mixed together in the same book of Samuel?
For this topic I highly recommend Joel S. Baden’s The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis
If the idea of pseudepigraphy in the Bible is distressing to you, ypu should be warned that almost half the books in the New Testament (13 out of 27) are regarded as forgeries. Only seven of Paul's letters are undisputed as authentic by mainstream critical scholars. Those seven are Romans, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon and 1 Thessalonians (but not 2 Thessalonians). The Episitles of Peter, John, James and Jude are likewise viewed as 2nd Century epigrapha.
How to reconcile this with inerrancy has no academic answer. The scholars who have concluded the above have almost all been believing Christians and they find personal ways of doing it. usually, they drop the idea of literalism. Many will say that inerrant truth does not have to mean literal truth.
John Dominic Crossan, a New Testament scholar, one of the founders of the Jesus Seminar and still a practicing Catholic (though no longer a Priest) wrote a book called <em>The Power of Parable</em> that you might find helpful in explaining how at least some critical scholars reconcile their commitment to their faith with what they feel is a commitment to the integrity and honesty of their research.
Stylometric analysis shows that a lot of the unique vocabulary in the Pastoral Epistles (words/phrases that are not found in the seven undisputed letters of Paul) are statistically more common in the 2nd Century than the 1st, but there are other elements which also point to a 2nd Century date of composition. One of those things is that they describe a church with a developed structure and hierarchy more consistent with the 2nd Century than the 1st, but what I think is the real cincher is that the Pastoral Epistles were not part of Marcion's canon. Marcion had other Deutero-Pauline letters but not the Pastorals.
The Pastorals were arguably written as a response to Marcionism.
See e.g. R. Joseph Hoffman's Marcion, on the Restitution of Christianity: An Essay on the Development of Radical Paulist Theology in the Second Century
Yeah, I would say there are some better resources out there for you than those two.
Roger Olson writes a good book called The Mosaic of Christian Belief serves as a solid intro to the scope of different topics in Theology.
NT Wright writes a book on Justification. That's fairly thorough on the biblical sources. Now, NT Wright as a passable scholar is probably up for debate here. But, there's no denying his books are incredibly accessible and scholarly honest than others.
A more advanced book would be Jesus, Our Priest by Gerald O'Collins. Read this in seminary for a class on the Person of Jesus. I don't remember it being inaccessible, and I appreciate he takes a historical approach from Judaism through Luther/Calvin about Christ's priesthood. That should back up some of the larger conversation around the crucifixion and help connect it with some other theological ideas of what's going on.
I may have a few other ideas, but I'll have to check my shelf tomorrow.
You might want to look into Fleming Rutledge's <em>The Crucifixion: Understanding the Death of Jesus Christ.</em> The book is scholarly, but very accessible. It comes from an explicitly Christian standpoint and is one of the better (recent) resources on understanding what the death of Jesus means theologically.
Todd Beall's monograph on Josephus' description of the Essenes is a good example of this kind of scholarship. He concludes that Josephus is pretty accurate and the few divergences between Josephus' account and what we know from other sources can mainly be explained as Josephus trying to make Jews seem more attractive to their (Pagan) "cultured despisers."
Mounce was what I used, and it is clear and good. You also finish knowing all words that appear above a certain frequency (I think it is 30x), which sets you up to use a Reader's NT, which will define less frequent words in the margins.
If you go with Mounce, be sure to get the affordable workbook that goes along with it – language learning happens in the use of the language, not during the lecture. He also has an affordable set of vocab cards going through words with a 10x frequency and higher. But as a language learner, I can testify that making your own flashcards is a helpful tool in its own right!
After you finish an introductory course (whether Mounce or Biblingo – sorry I can't speak to the latter), if you'd like to do some translation work of your own for practice, get Wallace's Beyond the Basics or something similar as a reference. The Johannine writings, especially 1-3 John, are a great place to start, but Paul is also approachable. I also highly, highly recommend this book, which defines less frequent words by verse, as well as a book-specific glossary of less frequent words, which is much easier than using a physical or digital lexicon.
Never heard of him. I'd recommend reading a biblical scholar's thoughts on Revelation instead. Maybe Adela Yarbro Collins: https://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Catharsis-Adela-Yarbro-Collins/dp/0664245218/
What a great question! The Bible certainly depicts (verbally, that is) God as having a body with wings (e.g., Ps 91:4)! Perhaps his body is like that of the six-winged seraphim (Isaiah 6:2; Revelation 4:8).
Whether the ancient Israelites believed that God actually had a body as described is another matter. Like us, they were certainly capable of understanding metaphor. Throughout the history of Christian interpretation, there has always been a minority opinion that God does have a body. And this opinion, while a minority among theologians, may have been the default majority opinion of regular people. There's a whole book about this by Christoph Markschies: God's Body: Jewish, Christian, and Pagan Images of God
If you want all three in one volume with introduction and scholarly translation and notes, then you want James Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. [Link goes to amazon for the two-volume set in paperback, poke around for volume one since that has the Enoch literature]. Fortress Press published the Hermenia translation of 1 Enoch in an inexpensive paperback, but not 2 Enoch or 3 Enoch.
I wrote this on reading translations of Enoch a few years ago.
I'd encourage you to investigate both this book by Anathea Portier-Young, or the book by John Collins that Amazon recommends you buy together with it. Both excellent and reasonably priced. You'll probably want at least one if not both of these.
You'll find it in this book. https://www.amazon.com/dp/3161538838/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_glc_fabc_3102RMRQ92R9G5NG5B7B
The state of the debate has currently descended into a stalemate between Baden's modified traditional documentary hypothesis and the evolutionary, European view of Konrad Schmid. I intend to publish on this sometime, because I favor the Enneateuch being written (based on a previous southern and northern tradition) in the 500s BCE (within decades of the exile; it was the rvent that prompted its writing), which i think does justice to most of the evidence. Baden's argument has the strength of simplicity and weakness of simplicity, Schmid's strength of complexity and also the weakness of too much complexity...
First of all, good for you for asking questions and seeking answers and not giving into the pressures of just taking what you're told by family and friends at face value. In my opinion, deciding to seek truth for yourself is the reset button, but it can take a very long time to load another operating system into your mind.
I believe the best way to restart is to ditch fundamentalism/literalism and begin to encounter the Bible -- and ultimately all of life -- as something besides a black-and-white belief system. Hellfire teachings instill this worldview, and it's incredibly difficult to get out of it (but people do! I did!)
I can recommend some intro-level books on Biblical criticism if you are interested , but it might be best to start with something like Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism by Spong. He deconstructs several of the problems caused by literalism in an easy-to-digest way and, being a Christian himself, gives perspective from someone coming from inside Christianity rather than from without.
Just let yourself explore and be okay with letting go of the stuff you were taught. The Bible actually gets much more interesting when you start to explore it for what it is.
Ehrman's popular book How Jesus Became God was a response to Hurtado's work where he (Ehrman) has Jesus as a mal’akh.
It seems, also, that Boyarin, Hurtado, and Ehrman build off of the work of Segal.
Would you care to comment about this?
Here is a readers Bible that is designed to be read like a regular book.
Both of you are still making something like conservative Protestantism the default for 'Christianity,' and thus treating other expressions of Christianity like aberrations that need to be explained. This is problematic from any kind of historical perspective. There have been millions and millions of Christians throughout history - including today - whose Christianity is quite different and who do not care about things like inerrancy. And they do not feel the need to explain it.
Also, as Christian Smith (a Christian sociologist, btw) has shown, many Christians who identify with church traditions that are officially inerrantist do not operate as though the Bible is inerrant - and it's not a problem for them. Obsessing with inerrancy is more a phenomenon of evangelical elites trying to make their polemical and symbolic markers seem like they are natural, obvious, and cosmically important.
When you claim that non-inerrantist Christians are less "consistent" (b/c they affirm the truthfulness of their faith but not every detail in their Bible), this is a repetition of inerrantist propaganda about Christianity and it assumes their version of Christianity as the default. It neglects their own many internal "inconsistencies," let alone how they have to maintain a parasitic, shadow world of 'scholarship' to make their approaches to their Bible seem legit to their own people.
there are some false assumptions in that list. Daniel is 2nd Century. Jeremiah is wrong (maybe slot that in where Daniel is). The poetic/wisdom books are also generally viewed as much later - this falsely assumes that Solomon wrote the three which are often attributed to him.
The other issue you have is the setting versus writing versus editing. Books set earlier may have reached their final form (for example, the book of the twelve) centuries earlier.
That said, it's pretty vague and maybe it's intended to be read like that.
I think one helpful thing can be reading them in groups, northern, southern, pre-exilic, pan-exilic, post-exilic. Some are so anonymous that it's really a guess.
Comparing things like oracles against the nations (OAN) in different books is a fun exercise, as is how they talk about the Day of the LORD.
Paul House has a good book on reading the book of the twelve as a narrative - it's in one of those Supp. series. Here's a link (but obviously find it somewhere not owned by amazon)
As others have pointed out there is no where in the Bible that alcohol consumption is outrightly condemned. However, misuse is. Also it is worth considering if your consumption will cause another to stumble.
From an antidotal perspective it is hard to level the claim at Jesus being a drunkard if the wine they consumed would not get someone drunk.
One book that you might find interesting and helpful is “What Would Jesus Drink: What the Bible Really Says About Alcohol” https://smile.amazon.com/dp/1937274136/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_fabt1_ewaSFb4TSK5AA
Im not an evangelical, and within evangelicalism there is a wider range of beliefs than we often give credit. So I don’t think I can really answer your question directly. Some others may be more equipped for that.
However, a resource you may be interested in reading that I found fascinating is this book of essays and responses from five Christians who all have different views on biblical inerrancy. They contend for their view in an essay and then respond to one another. I found it helpful to understand what other people believe about inspiration/inerrancy which helps me understand the way others view the text I dedicate my life to researching and studying. You might like it based on your question.
I welcome any scholar here to correct me. However, I am going to directly quote a scholar that has spent most of his life studying Paul:
> In 2 Corinthians 12 Paul mentions an ecstatic experience that he had “fourteen years ago” in which he was taken up into the heavenly realms, and even entered paradise, seeing and hearing things that were so extraordinary he was not permitted to reveal them. He uses the third person, for irony’s sake, but in the context he is obviously talking about himself:
> I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows—and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter. (2 Corinthians 12:2–4)
Since nobody knows who the author was ("Luke the Physician" is a late 2nd Century attribution to originally anonymous texts) all anyone can do is speculate. It could be an a specific person, but it could also just be an address to the reader. ("Lover of God").
Since Luke-Acts almost certainly went through an eccelesiastical redaction in the early 2nd Century (see, e.g. David Trobisch, * The First Edition of the New Testament *, but this theory is at least partially supported by Bart Ehrman as well), then we can't even be sure what century to look in.
I do like the theory that Polycarp was the redactor. This is not as crackpot as it might look at a glance. It's based on stylistic analysis as well as the fact that Polycarp was at least in a position to be able to do something like that and he was friends with Theophilus of Antioch who was an anti-Marcionite crusader, in keeping with the anti-Marcionite tone of Acts.
That's still pretty conjectural, but no other theory really has any evidence at all, not that we should necessarily expect to find any.
In college, I was told it was best just to read "Theophilus" as the reader, regardless of whether it was ever literally addressed to a person of that name. MY NT prof thought the author probably would have intended the dual meaning anyway.
Two resources that I would highly recommend for you to get are:
How To Read the Bible Book by Book by Fee and Stuart. How to Read the Bible Book by Book: A Guided Tour https://smile.amazon.com/dp/0310518083/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_OtexFbCWTWVEF
Also a good study Bible. The ESV is my preferred one but there are several good options.
Both of these resources will give you the cultural context of the material, the themes of each book, and things you take note of. This should help you grasp the point that each author is trying to make.
Kingdom through Covenant by Gentry and Wellum might be a resource for what you are asking.
To be a voice of confirmation, I believe I understand what you're getting at.
To u/studyhardbree and u/CaptainShitPee, or anyone else who is having trouble comprehending the gist of this reply, I would recommend reading <em>Saved from Sacrifice</em> by S. Mark Heim.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but what I gather is that, essentially, OP has a concept of "substitutionary sacrifice" locked in as the primary lens through which he/she is viewing atonement. The trouble is that "substitutionary sacrifice" is only one metaphor among several that the New Testament uses to convey truths about the atonement. And, by virtue of being a metaphor, there are limitations on how far we can push the concept and it still be communicating truth about the reality of atonement.
There are a plethora of answers, which all vary depending on which denomination is answering the question.
In my opinion, St. Athanasius has an excellent perspective on on the Atonement (Jesus dying "for our sins") and the problem of Sin and Death. He describes Death as a corrupting power, a "sickness" if you will, one which infected humanity when the first human Sinned. To read his full explanation, see his book <em>On the Incarnation</em>.
The following is an excerpt from section 9 of On the Incarnation that I believe directly answers at least some of your questions:
>The Word perceived that corruption could not be got rid of otherwise than through death; yet He Himself, as the Word, being immortal and the Father's Son, was such as could not die. For this reason, therefore, He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all, and, itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling, might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well, by the grace of the resurrection.
>
>It was by surrendering to death the body which He had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from every stain, that He forthwith abolished death for His human brethren by the offering of the equivalent. For naturally, since the Word of God was above all, when He offered His own temple and bodily instrument as a substitute for the life of all, He fulfilled in death all that was required. Naturally also, through this union of the immortal Son of God with our human nature, all men were clothed with incorruption in the promise of the resurrection. For the solidarity of mankind is such that, by virtue of the Word's indwelling in a single human body, the corruption which goes with death has lost its power over all.
The general consensus is that they started off very polytheistic, then henotheistic (believed there were multiple gods, but one who was best), and then monotheistic. You can see it in the Bible, with several of the oldest books referring to other gods almost neutrally, then referring to them as inferior, and eventually referring to them as false.
Mark Smith's "The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel" is quite good, and offers substantially more than what I've posted.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/080283972X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_P01kFb3SEZWZH
We don't know exactly how his immediate followers reacted, but based on the gospel traditions that were later written it's clear that they struggled with it.
We can see already in gMatthew and gLuke how the rhetoric shifts and changes to “pushback” both the imminence and tone of this Doomsday.
Eventually early Christians postponed it into a hazy, abstracted event at some point somewhen. All doomsday scenarios in history suffer the same fate; see: <em>When Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group That Predicted the Destruction of the World.</em>
Unfortunately, allowing the Day of Judgement to become “unstuck” from its original cultural context has the noxious side-effect of letting it crop up randomly throughout history as a nutjob-magnet, leading to <em>real-world harm</em> pretty much every time it rears its ugly head.
> Is this an unfulfilled prophecy?
Depends on what kind of Christian you are. This question is more of a theological question than a historical one. I mean it can be a historical question, but the answer wouldn't satisfy most people—Prophecies, within a historical-critical analysis, are outside the bounds of methodological naturalism—i.e.: They're not part of any equation, i.e.: Un-ask the question.
The Akkadian number system used a sexagesimal number system so things were often in thirds.
But you are correct. Many Hebrew Bible scholars spend a lot of time studying the languages and cultures of Israel and Judah’s neighbors. For a very good and accessible introduction, check out Christopher Hays’ “Hidden Riches: A Sourcebook for the Comparative Study of the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East.Here is the Amazon link
Not a textual synthesis, but a synthesis of the texts, The Passion is the Servant by Don Howell is really good. It’s expensive, but easy to find used. amazon link
As far as a "high" christology in Paul's letters, the one book that has been most helpful with this subject, IMHO, is Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity.
Glad it helped!
If you want a book to read about the canon development, see this one:
The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: Texts and Analysis
It's been a long time since I delved into the topic of the documentary hypothesis, but Duane Garrett has a book called "Rethinking Genesis: The Source and Authorship of the First Book of the Pentateuch". In this book he acknowledges that Genesis seems to be made up of different sources, but he also acknowledges Mosaic authorship. He goes on to explain where the sources came from and defend how those sources came to be under Moses' redaction while rejecting JEPD.
Insomuch as the editors and contributors of Introduction to Messianic Judaism (2013) have excellent academic credentials and reasoned arguments, Messianic Judaism (by some definitions) is a respectable contribution to the academic discussion of how New Testament writings and community of faith relate to the Hebrew Bible. It is worth noting, however, that "Messianic Judaism" is not monolithic, but rather has many branches and flavors.
> IMO, statements like this could be used in a politically inappropriate manner.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? (Certainly, I see how it could be abused, but what are you suggesting practically? Many comments, even many biblical ones, are often applied inappropriately in a political setting, so I don't understand the point of your comment.)
> Also, there is a very interesting and well-informed earlier thread concerning this subject matter here.
>
> Furthermore, some may be interested in checking out Dale Allison's collection of essays entitled: Sex and the Single Savior: Gender and Sexuality in Biblical Interpretation.
Thank you for the referrals. Out of curiosity, though, did you mean them as a response to my comment or as general recommendations for all readers of the thread?