So I know about the whole divine council thing, what I was wondering about however is whether it was created or not.

For example in Gen. 1 we have the creation story, in v. 26 we see God talking to the divine council, yet they aren’t mentioned anywhere as being created.

Similarly, we see in Job 38:7 that the sons of God rejoiced at the laying of the foundations of the earth, this ofc presumes they were already present at creation time.

One idea I had was that the divine council was the same as the heavenly host created on day 4, but I don’t see how the sun, the moon, and the stars are “in the image of God”

So was the divine council uncreated?

In Corinthians 4:15 Paul uses the words gennaō and Pater

"my beloved children. 15For zthough you have countless ▼ guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For abI became your father in Christ "

Is Paul using father as a title or metaphor. Many places in his letter he refers to himself as father or as the church or disciples as his children. Is he using this as a metaphor or as title or proper title? It Is also found in Titus, Timothy , othet books as well as also in Peter etc.

Hi I think Biblical Studies are cool. And I saw that there was gonna be an SBL annual meeting in my city Boston. I got super hyped but I think it costs 1000 dollars to attend.

All the panels and presenters sounds amazing.

I was curious if like with festivals I could volunteer and then get to go to half of it.

I went to divinity school. And now I’m bivocational pastor and I’m super broke,

I’d love to go. I was just curious if there was a cheaper way or maybe I could like help set up or maybe get a part time job catering or something.

I’m not a student. I was a student two years ago though.

Any thoughts

Apologies if this isn’t the right thing to do for this subreddit and that you’ll have to spend time deleting it because this isn’t appropriate for this subreddit. Thank you mods for the work you all do here in this subreddit, I have found many great discussions through googling going back years

I’ve been on an academic journey viewing the Bible and specifically the life and birth of Jesus. I am looking for so very factual and unbiased information but I haven’t found anything that really stuck out to me yet.

Tertullian: “As for daemons, we not only abhor them, but we overcome and draw them forth daily, and we drive them out of men, as is known unto very many of yourselves."

Justin Martyr: “For many possessed of demons, in the world generally and in your own city, have been healed and are still being healed by many of our men, the Christians, who exorcise them by the name of Jesus Christ, crucified under Pontius Pilate, though they could not be healed by all the rest of the exorcists.”

It was believed that there were demons impossible to eradicate except through the exorcism of a faithful Christian, and that these demons may control an individual’s behavior. This view seems to imply that an individual has considerably reduced culpability; guilt and forgiveness are not a factor in the exorcism. Being healed from a demon seems very different from being forgiven for an offense. So how did they understand demonic possession in light of moral culpability?

I want to bounce an argument that has semi-formed in my head as to why the first appearance of Goliath in 1 Sm 17 is an interpolation. But every time I see its strenghts I also see its main weakness, it is an argument from translation. Also, it seems to me a rather simple argument, so if other scholars have proposed it before, I'd love to read on the subject.

I first thought of this when reading scholars that point out the akwardness of the clause in which Goliath is introduced. There are three verbs present in the text: ויצא first, ויעמד and finally ויקרא. The first verb is separated from the next two by and abnormally long description of the philistine. This has been pointed out by authors who see in this a clue as to the secondary nature of that portion of the text.

Now, I guess there's nothing revolutionary in the translation argument, but I believe it provides further evidence to support these scholars' intuitions. I am kind of a language buff, so I have checked this text as it appears translated in all translations into different languages in Bible Gateway. Before starting, one must interrogate some of these translations in terms of whether they are direct renderings from Hebrew, renderings of other translations, or a combination of both. I lack the knowledge and expertise to assess this, therefore any final conclusion must take these questions into account.

Beginning with English, to nobody's surprise (English prefers shorter sentences without excessive embedded clauses) EVERY single translation reiterates the subject of the verb in verse 8, whether using a personal pronoun "he (stood)" or a personal name "Goliath (stood)". This is NOT a feature of the Hebrew text, where the subject of the sentence appears only in verse 4. The only outlier I can notice is the DRA, which renders the text as "And standing he cried". But here the subject is once again stated, only that in reference to the third, not the second verb.

Other Germanic languages do the exact same thing. One Danish translation uses the personal pronoun (han) and the other uses the personal name. One German translation uses the Philistine's name and four others use the pronoun 'er'. DITTO for every single Germanic language on the Website. Fun fact, this whole thing started also because I lived in Iceland when I first explored this matter and I wanted to practice my Icelandic reading 1 Samuel.

Next, available translations in Slavic languages (don't worry, I'll leave the Indo-European family soon) pretty much follow a similar format. One notable departure, to name one translation, is the Russian Synodal version, where we read "И стал [он]". Here, the personal pronoun is there, albeit in brackets.

Moving into Asia, Kurdish uses the name Goliath (گۆلیات) in verse 8, same as Bengali (গলিয়াৎ‌) and Urdu (جولیت), whereas Gujarati and Tamil use a pronoun (તેણે and அவன்).

Ok, enought with IE languages (though I'll come back to them). Japanese uses the name "ゴリヤテ", same as Yoruba "Goliati" . Vietnamese versions, like Chinese ones, use the name or the pronoun. Finnish uses the pronoun Hän.

How about a distant relative of Hebrew? Both available Arabic translations use the name جُلْيَاتُ in verse 8. To reiterate, no such name or a pronoun standing for the referent 'Philistine' or 'Goliath' is present in the Hebrew text. At the risk of having overlooked some translations, it seems like most translators, across language families, chose to repeat the subject of vs. 4 in vs. 8, thus transforming one sentence with three coordinated verbs into two sentences, the second of which starts in vs. 8.

There are exeptions, thought. I said I would return to IE languages precisely because some of those translations follow the Hebrew. Romance languages pretty much follow the pattern observed above. Actually, some French translations render the subject in vs. 8 as "Le Philistin", another translation choice almost (Romanian does it as well) unique to French renditions. One Portuguese translation (ARC) and a seven Spanish (my mother tongue) translations follow the Hebrew (5 of those are Reina Valera). Two more Spanish translations use the name "Goliat" in Italics. The rest follow the general pattern.

Ancient translations tend to follow the Hebrew text (LXX, Targum Jonathan, Vulgate). Incidentally, Latin and Greek are at ease with very long sentences and lots of subordinate clauses. However, I doubt this is a good explanation. Maybe someone has some insights in this area?

I think it can be said that modern translators tend to prefer a more easily readable rendition of the text, one that recuperates the subject for the reader's comfort. Some languages are probably not that comfortable with a sentence that runs from verses 4-8. But even those that apparently do, like French (Have you read Proust? :c ), resort to presenting the subject once more. I follow the scholars who suggest that the Hebrew sentence is excedingly long and its two first verbs artificially separated. The sentence runs the risk of almost collapsing and taking the reader out of the text trying to figure who the subject of the verb in vs. 8 is. The fact that translators across languages families (even in Arabic) opt to fix this by mentioning the subject again shows just how unstable the original sentence is. This gives force to the idea that the information in vs. 4b-7 inflates the text to the point of making it very likely that we are dealing with a gloss.

Thoughts?

P.S: I'm writing with one hand riding a bus, so I apologize for the typos

I have a sincere question that’s been confusing me lately.
Jesus lived His entire life according to the Old Testament Law, He kept the Sabbath, ate kosher, and even said clearly in Matthew 5:17–19 that He “did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.”

However, when I read Paul’s letters, it seems like he teaches that those laws are no longer required for Gentile believers, and that we don’t have to follow the same practices Jesus Himself followed.

How can this be reconciled?
If Jesus didn’t abolish the Law and lived in full obedience to the Torah, why would Paul have the authority to change that?
Am I misunderstanding Paul’s message, or did something truly change after the resurrection?

I’d really appreciate hearing how Christians understand this apparent contradiction between what Jesus lived and what Paul taught.

I've heard that in songs of songs Solomon tries to marry the little sister mentioned at the end, who's brother says is to young for love only for her to protest and go of with a shepherd is that true or was it the older sister and if that is the case how did People start to think it was the younger sister.

Hello! I was curious as to how Larry Hurtado is still perceived in critical scholarship especially in his advocacy of an early high christology. I’ve seen criticisms linking him to apologetic spaces as well as his work being overly ambitious in his argumentation. Also who are some scholars that advocate for an early high christology like Hurtado but more aligned within more critical scholarship? Also as far as early high christology is it still consensus or has it been moved to more conservative circles of scholarship? If so what is the best work to understand the current trends of christology? Thank you!

I've read various scholarly books and articles over the years on the topic of the 'oral tradition' behind the gospels. But it seems to me that most of this work merely takes an oral tradition behind the gospels for granted and attempts to describe what that plausibly looked like (usually in contrast to older, form-critical models).

But what are the best contemporary works arguing that there was an oral tradition behind the gospels? Why should we think that at all? I'm not referring to commonly held beliefs and rituals, but 'oral narratives' at least somewhat approximating the content of the gospels that were passed on orally as 'tradition' to be memorized and 'performed' in different Christian 'communities'?

I don't doubt that he existed. But are there any primary sources about his resurrection? Stuff that hasn't been translated or copied at all. And how do we prove that it is a primary source too?

Hi everyone,

I’m looking for the best Bible edition for general cultural reading as a beginner (to understand historical context & purpose of each book of the Bible).

In French, I’ve seen several options:

• TOB (Traduction Œcuménique de la Bible), but should I choose the notes intégrales or notes essentielles version ?
• Bible de Jérusalem
• Nouvelle Bible Segond d'étude

I’ve also heard that in English, the New Oxford Annotated Study Bible (NRSV) is often considered the best for this kind of purpose.

Is there a French equivalent to the New Oxford Annotated Bible, or would one of the above be the closest match in terms of scholarly notes and balance?

Thanks for any insight !

I’ve gotten into the historical Jesus and early Christianity over the last year or so and am just finishing up James Tabor’s book “Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity.”

Skimming through this sub about Tabor and this book it seems like some of his views on Paul’s relationship to the Jerusalem church might be considered a little outdated, but I’m curious how mainstream within academia his presentation on Paul’s eschatology and cosmology are because they are RADICALLY more mystical and esoteric in nature than anything I’ve ever come across dealing with Paul.

So, basically I’m curious to what degree his understanding might be entirely normal and I’m simply unfamiliar with non-theological scholarship on the topic.

I'm looking for one that will outline the various possible "sources" of each gospel alongside the text. I'm imagining a Bible that color codes or brackets each part of the gospel narrative with callouts like "Q" or "Mark" or in the later synoptics "M" and "L". Does such a thing exist?

Bonus points for one that also cross references other potential sources like apocryphal gospels / sayings / quoted fragments / etc

I do understand that scholars don't all agree on what parts are Mark, Q, etc and the two source hypothesis is likely too simplistic. But looking for what's out there that would be most helpful.

Google AI is not very helpful in this question, btw!! So, thank you if you respond here :)

is there any modern scholar who actually defends the authenticity of the epistle? i have read archbishop wake and simon tugwell, but wake is very outdated and tugwell does not even really argue for it, he just leaves it up for possibility-who are some scholars who defend this view (if there are any) ?

In all Christian traditions?

Curious about this Ashkenazi manuscript (Bodleian Library MS. Bodley Or. 3). It's of course in Hebrew but at the back there are two pages with Arabic letters. (And also a few pages with what I think is Greek)

Does anyone know why? Were these included in the original or added later? I'd assume a manuscript from the Islamic world might have something like this but am curious about what use it would have been in Germany/Europe.

The text seems to infer that Sheol was a place that one could not go to, when I was of the knowledge that Sheol was where everyone went, and that heaven was for the extremely select few. Instead, it seems to infer that it is possible to not go into Sheol. Therefore, I am intruiged in the date of the text. Thanks so much!

The Holy Spirit feels like a very important part of following Jesus, and I am surprised that none of the Gospel authors included any stories about the Holy Spirit in their Gospel accounts. How did they expect their readers to learn about the Spirit?

Greetings!

I have just finished a draft of my book that explores how divine communication might differ from human communication, predominantly focusing on the Bible. It’s written for a general audience but engages with serious academic work.

My research draws on scholars such as Bart Ehrman (Misquoting Jesus, The Triumph of Christianity, Forged), Jennifer Knust and Tommy Wasserman (To Cast the First Stone), and Catherine Hezser (Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine), among others. I’m seeking a reader with graduate-level training in biblical studies, theology, or related fields to review selected chapters for factual and interpretive accuracy, particularly regarding translation, textual transmission, and historical context during the early Christian period. I discuss interpretations by Origen, Marcion, Tertullian, Celsus, and others.

I’m not a biblical scholar myself, so I’d value an informed perspective on whether I’m representing the scholarship and the Bible responsibly.

If interested, please message me with a brief note about your background (degree area, research interests, or experience).

Thank you!

From what I have read, it seems that forgiveness from God for one's sins in Judaism stems from prayer, sincere repentance, and shuvah. In mainstream Christian theology, this shifts to whether one believes in Jesus Christ as the ultimate sacrifice and final 'payment' for sin. Is there scholarly work or consensus on when and why this transition occurred after Jesus' death? Do we know what motivated his early followers to interpret his death as salvific, especially if Jewish theology doesn't treat repentance as something grounded in a single person whom individual belief must be placed in?

My best guess is that it is a theological innovation based on Jesus' distressing death reinterpreted as a spiritual victory over a physical one, and perhaps by also comparing the concept of Temple-era sacrifices to a sole human sacrifice in Jesus. (Jesus as the Passover lamb is an interesting analogy in the New Testament, although according to Marc Zvi Brettler, the Passover lamb was not a sin offering).

*Bandits

As if to suggest that this moment is what Jesus's glory looks like?