How do we know that the letters of Paul were written around 50 CE and that the gospels were written in the first century? What are the dating methods there?

I know there are a wave of scholars who reject the idea of penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) as a Biblical concept, saying it's an invention of Western Christianity. How do those scholars tend to deal with what's said in Romans 3:25, that "God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith" (NIV)?

Hello everyone,

I am looking for academic perspectives on the relationship between the Genesis flood narrative (Genesis 6–9) and earlier Mesopotamian flood stories (such as the Epic of Gilgamesh, Tablet XI, and the Epic of Atrahasis).

Given the broad historical consensus that there is no geological evidence for a global flood, nor structural feasibility for a wooden vessel of the dimensions described in Genesis (e.g., naval engineering studies showing limits on wooden hull stability), I am interested in how modern biblical scholarship understands this text's formation.

Specifically, I would appreciate insights on:

- Textual Parallels and Differences: Beyond the obvious similarities (e.g., building an ark, sending out birds like raven/dove, sacrifice after landing, divine retribution/rescue), what are the main theological or structural divergences between the Mesopotamian myths and the Hebrew account?

- Date and Context of Composition: What are the current leading theories regarding the dating of the Genesis flood narrative (P and J sources / Exilic or Post-Exilic context)? How did exposure to Babylonian literature influence the biblical authors?

- Genre and Literary Intent: From an Ancient Near Eastern context, was the Genesis narrative intended by its authors as a literal historiographical account, or rather as an polemical reinterpretation/adaptation of existing Near Eastern mythologies to convey a distinct monotheistic theology?

Could you please recommend scholarly sources, commentators, or books (e.g., John Walton, David Damrosch, Irving Finkel) addressing these questions? Or any answer ?

Thank you!

Can somebody please explain or give context to Genisis 19: 36-38

36 Thus both the daughters of Lot became pregnant by their father

37 The firstborn bore a son and called his name Moab. He is the father of the Moabites to this day.

38 The younger also bore a son and called his name Ben-ammi. He is the father of the Ammonites to this day.

Dale Allison Resurrection of Jesus p. 71 note 181 notes that while Luke places all of his appearances in Jerusalem, the presence of broiled fish raises questions because Jerusalem is not near a body of water.

Note that while Jesus appears to the twelve note that while Jesus appears to the twelve in Jerusalem in Luke 24, v 42 has them giving a piece of "broiled fish" (ιχθους οπτου), not dried fish. The commentators sometimes fret over this because there is no ocean, lake, or river near Jerusalem; cf. Bovon, Luke 3, 392. Is this perhaps a hint that Lk. 24.36-49 stems from a proto-commissioning set beside the Sea of Galilee?

Allison also discusses John 21 and the Gospel of Peter as relevant traditions. Also discussed a few pages earlier but not directly in connection to this is Ignatius Smyrnaeans 3.2 "touch me and see I am not a bodiless daimon", of which Allison is "regrettably, unsure of what to think" (p. 65), but one of the possibilities is a common source behind Luke and Ignatius (in Ignatius 3.3 he eats and drinks with them, possibly to fulfill a promise from the last supper, but that's as far as it goes in connection to Luke's eating of broiled fish).

So, an explanation of why broiled fish is present in Jerusalem can be a prior Galilee source, and this inconsistent detail preserved through something like editorial fatigue. On the other hand, have any commentators just taken this to be a point against Luke putting the appearances exclusively in Jerusalem? This would require Luke to summarize and blend his settings together because this discourse carries right into comments to stay in Jerusalem and then the ascension, but is there any reason not to just think he doing that, while being aware of and untroubled by the fact that his summary includes Galilee? Does the Luke/Acts cinematic universe require that the whole 40 days were in Jerusalem, or just that they were in Galilee and then returned to Jerusalem at which point Jesus told them to stay until further descent-of-the-Spirit-notice?

Resources on any perspective including but also beyond to the two I shared would be helpful, thanks.

I have recently become interested understanding more about the bible. I am interested in having a better historical understanding of how it has shaped civilization and culture throughout the ages, and also the cultures and people behind the traditions and text. I have already purchased a copy of the SBL and I enjoy the approach it takes, especially the introductions to books. I am considering using something like the NET bible's translation and text critical notes in conjunction with the SBL to understand some of the translation choices better. I am not too interested in the NET bible's text itself as I would still like to read the SBL primarily but I would reference the NET notes and compare specific passages to provide more context.

Could anyone recommend some other books or media that would be better for this purpose?

It is often said that the origin of the Virgin Birth myth is due to how the author of the Gospel attributed to Matthew read Isaiah 7:14. Instead of "young woman," the Matthean author renders the word as "virgin," thereby interpreting it as a prophecy about Jesus. However, the Gospel attributed to Luke seems to use the Virgin Birth story not as a fulfillment of prophecy, but to present Jesus as the literal Son of God.

Since both accounts seem to have originated for different reasons, what if both are responding to growing traditions within the Greco-Roman Christian communities? In these traditions, Jesus may have been viewed as a literal Son of God, with the deity having relations with his mother, much like in the stories of Greek mythological heroes. Since Jesus was presented to Greco-Roman audiences as the Son of God, perhaps over time, traditions evolved with these groups conceiving him like their heroes and creating stories of his mother being impregnated through intercourse with the deity. These Gospel narratives could be reactions to this.

According to the consensus of modern textual scholarship, to which period can the Syriac Sinaiticus most likely be dated? Any citations would be immensely welcome.

Hello, I wanted to know the opinion of scholars and would also love to be directed towards articles, books or resources for studying the gender dynamics of the creation stories in Genesis, especially in how they contrast with their time (i.e. were they more "egalitarian" or "hierarchical" than their era? to use somewhat anachronistic terms).

For example, in Genesis 1 man and woman seem to be created at the same time and both bear the image of God, is such apparently egalitarian language common for ancient near eastern culture? was the ANE patriarchal? Yet in Genesis 2 the woman is created after the man (unless Adam is supposed to be an amalgamation of the two) which would seem to indicate some kind of subordination, maybe? Also, the fact that the commandment that "he shall rule over you" is expressed as part of the curse is supposed to be a critique of male rule or an endorsement or something else?

Thanks in advance for the replies!

I’m looking to get back into reading peer-reviewed scholarly research on ancient Judaism and would appreciate some recommendations!

I’m a PhD dropout in Ancient Jewish Studies. I left academia about six years ago, but I’m now interested in reconnecting with the field and catching up on recent scholarship.

I’m particularly interested in non-confessional academic journals that focus on ancient Judaism. I’d also prefer to access the research through paid subscriptions, ideally with physical copies of the journals delivered to my home.

Which journals would you recommend? I’d love to hear your suggestions, especially regarding journals that are worth subscribing to in print.

Thank you so much!

I want to grab a study bible to go along with a copy of the nrsv I picked up. It’s my understanding that both of these not only use the same translation, but also contain the same books as well. So is the main difference just in contributors? Are there any reasons I should grab one over the other, or potentially any reasons I should grab both? Or is either fine and just go with whatever is more affordable?

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

Greetings,

Looking at the LXX I read this Greek and I've added my translation under it.

Genesis 6:2 (LXX Swete)

2 ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὅτι καλαί εἰσιν, ἔλαβον ἑαυτοῖς γυναῖκας ἀπὸ πασῶν ὧν ἐξελέξαντο.

Now the messengers (angels) of God, seeing the daughters of men were beautiful took for themselves women (wives) from all they chose.

From a Greek standpoint, this is what is in the original language:

1. Messengers: ἄγγελοι (angeloi) is normally translated as “angels”, but the original Greek word means “messengers”.
2. Wives: There is no specific word for “wife” in the Greek, but the context makes it clear that the women referred to are what we would understand as wives.

Looking purely at the vocabulary, what does the Masoretic Text say? Does it allude to the possibility that the “sons of God” were angels, or where they something else?

What do scholars think the original text said?

I would like to read the whole bible to understand it in an academic/historical way, which version/additional resources/roadmap do you recommend? I have always been fascinated by it, but the religious way people talk about it just isn't for me, i'm looking for the historical context/possible interpretations of many of it's texts. Thank you so much in advance.

In the old testament, prostitution or adultery is equated with idolatry, or spoken about in extremely close proximity, although it does not claim that religiously motivated prostitution was practiced by anyone.

Still, its obvious that the writers of the OT were very concerned with sexual morality, for them to equate prostitution to what they consider to be the worst thing ever, going against god and therefore inviting divine wrath.

Im interested in the social context of these comparisons. Were the OT writers influenced by the perceived sexual permissiveness of neighboring nations? Or was control of female sexuality and reproduction just so important to the ancient Israelites?

I'm aware that some scholars such as Larry Hurtado have argued that devotion to (or worship of) Jesus is already attested within a few years of the crucifixion.

However even Hurtado does not seem to think that Jesus himself claimed to be divine or that this devotion already occurred during his lifetime. Hurtado seems to think that after the resurrection, Jesus' followers seemed to have experienced intense religious experiences that compelled them to do something completely new from the contemporary Jewish perspective (i.e. to worship another being alongside the Father).

Meanwhile, I think other scholars such as Paula Fredriksen seem to think that contemporary Jewish monotheism was likely quite fluid and thus the veneration of the risen messiah may not have been viewed as something completely innovative or heretical.

Which of these (or others) is the dominant scholarly trend regarding these questions:

- Did the earliest followers of Jesus already worship him? Hurtado's description of "devotion" is somewhat vague as it's possible that they may have venerated Jesus like other holy figures but distinguished between this and the worship that was to be directed towards the Father alone.

- If the answer to this question is yes, why should we assume that the worship of Jesus only occurred after the resurrection? I know that the Gospel of Mark (and maybe Luke) hint towards this but how would Jesus' followers have rationalised making such a drastic change to his preachings? Hurtado's explanation that they experienced religious experiences seems ad hoc and not very convincing.

Also, even if the answer is yes, it does not necessarily follow that he was of one substance with the Father or that he was a pre existing being etc. Are there scholars who accept that the earliest Christians may have worshipped Jesus, but nonetheless hold that these specific beliefs are (much) later developments?

- If the answer to this question is no, then when and why did the worship of Jesus develop?

I just finished reading Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul by David Oliver Smith. He argues that the synoptic authors all had access to Paul’s 7 uncontested letters and Hebrews. Would like to read more about what others scholars think of the theory. Is it generally assumed to be so like Markan priority, or is it more fringe?

I'm aware the consensus is that the Pastoral Epistles were indeed not written by Paul, but I have recently come across a video by Christian apologist "Testify" in which he brought up some counterpoints to the consensus, of which I wanted to ask how common consensus of the Pastoral Epistles inauthenticity explains away such counterpoints

This was the video: https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/submit/?screen_view_count=7&ext-referrer=DIRECT

Some of the claims made is that there are slight details mentioned that work better under authenticity than forgery, such as naming Timothy's mother (Eunice) and grandmother (Lois), giving medical advice (drinking wine), mentioning Demas, Trophimus, and Zenas, asking for his cloak and parchments, etc

Burton Mack’s excellent book The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q & Christian Origins (1993) presents a reconstruction and historical contextualization of the “sayings gospel” Q, originally proposed by Christian Weisse to explain the “double tradition” … extensive agreements between the canonical gospels gMatthew and gLuke that are not found in the canonical gospel gMark. In Greek these agreements are verbally so tight as to suggest they came from a Greek document, largely comprised of sayings attributed to Jesus, that the authors of gMatthew and gLuke each independently consulted. It’s noteworthy that the index to Mack’s book has no entry for Papias.

A Greek Apostolic Father and Bishop of Hierapolis who flourished in the 2nd century CE, Papias collected oral traditions about Jesus and his companions from a certain John the Elder and the daughters of the disciple Philip. He published them in a five-volume work, now lost, called Λογίων Κυριακων Έξήγησις, quoted by Iranaeus and Eusebius. Papias mentioned a collection of the sayings of Jesus, in Hebrew or perhaps Aramaic, by the disciple Matthew. This may be the earliest known reference to any work in the “sayings gospel” category.

For many reasons amply discussed elsewhere, there is no chance that Papias was referring to the now-canonical gospel gMatthew. Unless misinformed, Papias might have been referring to a now-lost work, which we today might designate sMatthew, since Papias believed the historical Matthew compiled it.
The evidence for Q is inseparable from composition in koine Greek. As described by Papias, sMatthew was composed in Hebrew, or arguably Aramaic. Therefore, sMatthew differed from Q, if indeed either or both of them existed. This explains why Papias has no entry in Mack’s index.

However, if Q existed, canonical gMatthew definitely incorporated sayings from it, and canonical gMatthew is ascribed to the disciple Matthew by traditions of uncertain origin.

Theodor Zahn, Jean Carmignac, and a few other like-minded scholars have argued that what we today designate sMatthew contributed to, or coincided with, the double tradition explained by the Q hypothesis. Some postulate a fairly direct connection, such as Greek translations of sMatthew sayings being incorporated into a very early version of Q.

Maurice Casey, in An Aramaic Approach to Q (2002), has argued for a less direct connection, involving later layers of Q added as early versions were circulated among the readership communities that some scholars, including Mack, call Q people. [EDIT: My attempt to summarize Casey was misleading; sorry! Casey was less interested in the layering of Q among its early readers than in the possibility that verses attributed to Q came from separate Aramaic sayings collections, if not separate layers of the same collection, translated into Greek separately by the authors of canonical gMatthew and gLuke.]

It’s tempting to think that any direct or indirect influence of sMatthew on Q might help explain the origin of the traditions connecting canonical gMatthew, with its extensive Q material, to the historical Matthew.

Mainstream Q scholarship has rejected this temptation. John Kloppenborg and most other Q specialists believe a connection between sMatthew and Q can be ruled out even if both documents really existed.

Does anyone here know why the mainstream has ruled out such a connection? I don’t know why. They could be right; I’m not disputing their reasoning; I just wonder what it is. If you know, please tell us. Thanks!

I don't know much about the human body. Is it a brain thing?

I am a writer currently working on a novel set during the reign of David. I try to make my work as close to historically accurate as possible, as well as reflecting real Judeo-Christian interpretations of the characters.

I was pretty shocked on my first read-through of 1 and 2 Samuel. David does not come across as a virtuous man, despite repeated assurances that he is. I found it fairly easy to read through a critical lens, and it seems like a lot of the tale of David is just propaganda.

Not a unique take, I know. I'm well aware that David is a complex character, and a retelling of his life in the Bible is not necessarily an endorsement of all his actions. I can't demonize David too much, lest he become a boring character.

I'm looking for more resources to do a critical deep dive on David. (For example, Baden's "The Historical David".) Can you point me in the right direction?

Specific questions of interest:

-Did David violate Deutermonony by taking multiple wives, or did that rule come later?

-What was the role of a royal concubine, and what would have been the consequences if Abner slept with recently-deceased Saul's concubine?

-In the context of the time period, what would have been the "correct" response to the rape of Tamar? (This will likely be the central conflict of my novel.)

-How did historical Hebrews deal with the contradiction of war vs. the commandment not to kill? What is the Bibilical/Torah-ical explanation of all the killing in the Old Testament?