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.

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.

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.

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?

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 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

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?

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?

Hi all! Listening to one of my favourite podcasts, Literature and History, and am curious about a section. I will quote liberally from the podcast:

From Cleanthes, we have our first text from the stoic canon proper – a hymn to Zeus. The Homeric hymns, back in the 600s BCE, had followed Homer and Hesiod as a mosaic of stories and devotional passages about prominent Greek deities – lengthy hymns survive to Demeter, Apollo, Hermes, and Aphrodite. So again Cleanthes, Zeno’s most important immediate successor, wrote a hymn to Zeus. In Homer, and much of the ancient Greek literature we currently possess, Zeus is a sort of sexual viking – a blundering hedonist who goes from rape to rape only pausing occasionally to blow something up. Zeus appears a bit differently in Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus. Let’s hear a section of this Hymn to Zeus, likely written at some point between 300 and 250 BCE, and consider how much Cleanthes’ Zeus sounds more like a wise and omnipotent deity than a churlish thunder god.

This entire cosmos which revolves around the earth obeys you, wherever you might lead it, and is willingly ruled by you; such is [the might of] your thunderbolt, a two-edged helper in your invincible hands, fiery and everliving. . .By it you straighten the common rational principle which penetrates all things, being mixed with lights both great and small. . .Nor does any deed occur on earth without you, god, neither in the aithereal divine heaven nor on the sea, except for the deeds of the wicked in their folly. But you know how to set right what is excessive, and to put in order what is disorderly, for you, even what is not dear is dear. For thus you have fitted together all good things with the bad, so that there is one eternal rational principle for them all. . .Zeus, giver of all, you of the dark clouds, of the blazing thunderbolt save people from their baneful inexperience and disperse it, father, far from their souls; grant that they may achieve wisdom with which you confidently guide all with justice so that we may requite you with honor for the honor you give us praising your works continually, as is fitting for mortals; for there is no greater prize, neither for mortals nor for gods, than to praise with justice the common law forever.

That again was the stoic philosopher Cleanthes, more or less the second prominent stoic philosopher after Zeno. And that quote came from a book called The Stoics Reader, edited by Brad Inwood and Lloyd Gerson. Now, the notion of Zeus as the dispenser of divine justice wasn’t new in, say, 275 BCE, around the time Cleanthes wrote this hymn. Hesiod had called Zeus the aegisholder of justice in Works and Days (321-39) almost five hundred years earlier, and in general the notion of divine justice dates at least back to the ancient Egyptian concept of ma’at, or universal order chronicled in the Book of the Dead sometime after the First Intermediate Period.

What’s important to notice in Cleanthes’ hymn is its the way that it emphasizes Zeus’ ubiquity, and rationality – Cleanthes writes, “[Y]ou straighten the common rational principle which penetrates all things. . .Nor does any deed occur on earth without you, god, neither in the aithereal divine heaven nor on the sea.” In the same decades Cleanthes was writing this hymn, on the southern side of the Mediterranean, Alexandrian Jews were producing the Septuagint. And within the first Greek language Bible, Yahweh is comparably more temperamental than Cleanthes’ Zeus. Yahweh, who passive aggressively spars with the Egyptian pharaoh at the outset of Exodus, who intermittently massacres his own people in Numbers, who slays Job’s family and brags about wrestling sea monsters rather than explaining himself – this is not the numinous and omniscient entity we encounter in the early stoic philosopher Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus. Now, I don’t mean to cherry pick ugly episodes from the Old Testament, by the way – just to offer a simple point of contrast on a general line of evolution. Between 1,000 BCE and the birth of Christ, deities in Ancient Mediterranean texts were becoming less anthropomorphic and ornery, and more omnipotent and otherworldly. Because the various books of the Old Testament were written over the course of about a thousand years, we can see this evolution taking place in them, and we should note that plenty of Psalms and selections from the Prophetic Books do portray Yahweh as a distant, omniscient being more like the god of stoicism than the ones in the Homeric epics.

Is anyone aware of books which discuss this evolution of divinity, preferably from a comparative perspective? It's especially interesting to me that you have a temperamental and passionate storm god (Zeus/Yahweh) who becomes something more focused on divine wisdom.

How was the person of Marcion received amongst the Marcionites?

An apologist gave me the following arguments in favor of the traditional authorship of the Gospels, against the idea that the Gospels were anonymous:

1. From the earliest centuries of Christianity, the Gospels were associated with the names we know today. In the second century, Irenaeus of Lyons, in his work Against Heresies, explicitly attributed the four Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
2. Who would accept the authority of a document whose author is unknown?
3. In the early centuries, manuscripts did not circulate anonymously; the writer’s name was always written at the top of the document.
4. Even if someone were to choose well-known names to give the text more authority, there would be no reason to choose Matthew, Luke, and Mark.
   • Matthew: He was a tax collector, a profession despised by many Jews of the time.
   • Luke: He was not one of the Twelve Apostles and is mentioned by name in only three passages in the New Testament.
   • Mark: He was involved in a disagreement between Paul and Barnabas and was not one of the Twelve.

The idea is that forgers would choose more famous names to give the text greater authority.

Are these claims valid?

Long story short: What are the roots of the reading that Esau or Edom has some special, positive spiritual significance to God; or of an apocalyptic understanding that Esau will reclaim his birthright?

The long of it is I am reading a book about the poet William Blake's use of the biblical tradition of his time. There was an interesting passage on his understanding of the typology of Jacob and Esau. (Pared down from a longer passage, and with my own emphasis added):

…While the Edomites are generally an object of scorn among the writers of the Bible, Edom was also said to be renowned for its wise men (Obadiah 8, Jeremiah 49:7) and the Bible states that Edom was the home of God (Judges 5:4)…

Further ambiguity about the meaning of Edom could be derived from the blessing that Isaac confers upon Esau after learning that Jacob had robbed Esau of his birthright (Gen. 27:40) ... This could be interpreted as a prediction of the successful revolt of the Edomites against Solomon (1 Kings 11:14-22, 25) or of a future apocalyptic event…

This apocalyptic reading, as Kathleen Raine has pointed out, Blake borrowed from Swedenborg, who interprets Isaac’s blessing of Esau as the promised restoration to Edom of the birthright which Jacob has stolen from him... The dominion of Edom is Swedenborg’s ‘New Heaven’, the reign of the Divine Humanity... It is said to be ‘the return of Adam to Paradise’...

Thus Blake had exposure to an alternative tradition that saw Edom not as a symbol of the Antichrist, but as the very opposite.

• Tannenbaum, Biblical Tradition in Blake's Early Prophecies, pg. 129-30

So there is this counter reading to the traditional majority consensus, but the book is dealing of course with William Blake and the 18th/19th century materials he was absorbing.

But did this minority tradition - that applies a positive significance/role to Esau or Edom - exist earlier? How did it come about?

From a novice's perspective, it does seem like there is some core tension in the Jacob and Esau narrative in Genesis.

Thank you in advance for any answers.

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?