Hi everyone! Firstly, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to read this question :)

My question is this: How were the Exodus and similar narratives of Israelites fleeing Egypt received and interpreted among early Christians and Jews? People today seem to get hung up over the 600,000 number, but are there any conflicts (within the biblical narrative or secondary literature) that contradict this? I know the historicity of it (a massive exodus, at least) is very dubious.

That's why I was wondering more about its reception than historicity. Did early theologians believe the group was small, big, or somewhere in between? How did interpretations vary among scholars and religious authorities? Were interpretations rich and diverse, or were they relatively uniform until the advent of modern biblical criticism?

Also, a small question (but one none have to answer) is, in your opinion, do you believe the Bible to be painting a mass exodus narrative or a small-scale one, or perhaps even both depending on the rhetorical goals of the author(s)?

Again, thank you all very much!

I know there's lots out there written on this topic, but I want to give some background to explain why I am not satisfied with most of the answers I find online to this topic.

I have recently had an interest in learning about the changing norms related to our notions of love and affection in modern western countries (particularly the U.S., my nationality) as compared with premodern, and particularly preromantic, societies.

The below article provides a snapshot of some of the questions I am pondering about how our notions of love and affection (particularly what is and is not sexual) are not really the same as the pre-moderns.
https://tobinstitute.org/holy-friendship-in-a-hypersexualized-world/

I understand that the word eros is not used in the New Testament, while phileo or philostorgos occasionally are used, essentially as synonyms for agape, and astorgos is condemned. There are many, many articles out there on blogs describing eros as "romantic love." There's also this generalized notion I have encountered in the culture of emotional entanglements between two individuals, longing for the company of another, spending time missing another person, or anything else that might be called "emotional intimacy" as falling under the category of romantic love, e.g. eros or non "platonic love." A lot of this is very ingrained in modern thinking, but when I look carefully at the arguments and sources used, the associations seem pretty thin. Which is not to say the associations are incorrect, but just that I cannot see whether they are correct or not.

For instance, there's the myth in contemporary culture that "the Greeks believed in soulmates." However as far as I can tell, the origin of this notion is a humorous story in Plato which seems to be about the origin of sexual orientation more than it relates to the modern notion of "soulmates." There is also admittedly, to the modern ear at least, a romantic element to the story, and Plato uses the word eros, as I understand. But the story itself is used as a foil against which Socrates (the narrative device, not the actual person) will eventually set up agape, rather than being a prescription of what Plato apparently believes or envisions.

On the other hand, there is plenty evidence I see of the pre-moderns describing their affection for one another in ways that simply sound, well, romantic, even though that clearly was not the intent. For instance this quote from St. Gregory Nazianen about his friend St. Basil:

Such was the prelude to our friendship, the kindling of that flame that was to bind us together. In this way we began to feel affection for each other. When, in the course of time, we acknowledged our friendship and recognized that our ambition was a life of true wisdom, we became everything to each other: we shared the same lodging, the same table, the same desires the same goal. Our love for each other grew daily warmer and deeper.

The same hope inspired us: the pursuit of learning. This is an ambition especially subject to envy. Yet between us there was no envy. On the contrary, we made capital out of our rivalry. Our rivalry consisted, not in seeking the first place for oneself but in yielding it to the other, for we each looked on the other’s success as his own.

We seemed to be two bodies with a single spirit. Though we cannot believe those who claim that everything is contained in everything, yet you must believe that in our case each of us was in the other and with the other.

We also have Paul using very affectionate language such as "how I long for all of you with the tender affection of Christ Jesus." and "It is right for me to think this way about all of you, because I hold you in my heart" Phil. 1:8b, 7a.

Clearly, the above quotes use language that we are not necessarily used to between friends. "I long for you," and "you are in my heart" and "two bodies with a single spirit" sound "romantic" as much as "platonic." And so my long-winded but hopefully understandable question boils down to this: How would typical readers or listeners in the New Testament era understand the distinction between eros and phileo/storge? Would they have viewed phileo/storge as having an emotional component, or did they view these primarily as duty- and action-based concepts? What source materials can we draw on to understand this? Are the writings of Plato from 500 years earlier as good as it gets, or are there contemporary writings and correspondences that we can draw on to understand what people used these words to mean?

Thanks for giving this a read over, and if there are follow up questions, I will try to respond in the comments.

The Kingdom of Israel is recorded with other names throughout history (Kingdom of Samaria & House of Omri).

Did the Kingdom of Judah also have other names?

The only other one I know of would be "House of David".

Hello Biblical Scholar folk, I have a few questions that perhaps you could assist with.

To start off, I am an Atheist, and content as such, however I still believe in remaining respectful and open minded to belief and views, so I wanted to reach out about my thought process for the Bible.

So going into it: 1. Sin is described as “breaking God’s law”, which from my understanding somewhat vague and up to interpretation. 2. The Bible essentially boils down that all Sin is viewed as equal. 3. Jesus’ sacrifice cleansed all of humanity for their past, present and future sins.

With all of that, would that basically mean, from a Biblical standpoint, there’s no reason to really worry about committing sins, because even if one were to not believe in God nor his message, they would still be forgive because of Jesus’ sacrifice?

Sometimes, browsing this subreddit, i see people pop up critical bible scholarship, as it, bible scholarship without any confessional bias.

While i understand why this research area might need to push for a neutral space, it seems kind of odd to me at the same time.

As i understood, since the postmodern turn in the 80's, social sciences and the humanities have ditch the idea of neutrality and bias-free social sciences.

Therefore i was thinking if there exist or were any criticism of critical bible studies by a more postmodern perspective.

I recently got two books written and translated by Jeremy Payton one is a collection of Gnostic Gospels and the other is on the Gospel of Thomas. I have been struggling to find any information about him and his website keeps his credentials vague and I was wondering if anyone knew anything about him. I also searched for the photo of his on Amazon and I found a lot of similar stock photos so I'm a little concerned or confused.

https://preview.redd.it/u8l7lfh3s46e1.jpg?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d4172a7701250c0b9fe8e4f3eb3a1f265a786080

Would love to hear your thoughts on this. I understand they were trying to repent and clean the land of foreign wives. But divorce? Casting away their children? Two wrongs don’t make a right. Am I missing something? Just because they are pagan and they are trying to purify the land it kind of makes them out to be bad husbands and fathers. Why can’t they just be the head of the household and lead them to follow God? This was something Ezra and the leaders chose to do not a commandment of God at this point? TIA

Now we know that marriage is only between a man and woman Matthew 19:4-5, and that sex before marriage is a sin 1 Corinthians 7:2. So would a romantic same-sex relationship, that isn't married and doesn't have sex, be sinful? (To clarify im not gay, this is just a hypothetical scenario, I just want to have a more concrete stance on this)

So I am not Christian but I think Christianity is definitely an interesting religion but I'm a bit confused on the difference between Lucifer the devil and Satan, I know that Lucifer is a mistranslation from the Latin Vulgate (isaiah 14-12 NKJV) and Satan is a title not a name but I'm unsure about everything else and translations, if someone could give me more information that'd be appreciated.

Given that, as I understand it, full open access and publication of the DSS didn’t occur until the late 80’s early 90’s and that interaction with the Nag Hammadi texts didn’t get going in earnest in the English language at least until the 70’s, both of these fields seem to me to be still very much “new frontiers” in comparison to the wider mainstream of Biblical and Christian origins scholarship.

When it comes to the DSS, before doing my own research as a layman, the only knowledge I had about them (and the only thing I’ve heard my Christian peers say about them) was the basic apologetic narrative—ie that “we discovered very ancient copies of Biblical texts that prove our modern Bibles have the same text as people in the time of Christ” no mention at all about the theological speculations of the scroll community or their interpretive models and how they shed light on early Christianity, or that they were essentially Messianic Jews over 100 years before the Christians.

In terms of the Nag Hammadi texts, it seems that the whole DaVinchi code frenzy in the popular Christian subculture has really muddied the waters when it comes to communicating the full significance of these texts to the general Christian community. Again, it seems that all one hears at the popular level when Nag Hammadi is brought up is the essential apologetic narrative “Oh, we know these texts came way later than the NT, and they have views of Christ, cosmology, and salvation that disagree with the canonical gospels, so we know they’re wrong”

It is from these observations and my reading and listening to scholars such as James Tabor, Michael O Wise, Kipp Davis, Elaine Pagels and M David Litwa that leads me to answer the original question of this post: “not even close”

Am I way off base in this assessment?

I want to know about the subject but it seems that 90% of this topic is about Jesus, like I'm a believer but as a preterist I'm interested in knowing what really happened at the time of Antiochus IV.

• When did the seventy weeks begin?
• Was there really a 70 week period in which certain thing happened around 175-167 BCE? is this weeks thing historical?
• What is the difference between the first 7 and the 62? why no just 7+62? they look like the same
• Onias III is killed in the middle of the final week (3,5 days)? or at the end of week 69 and the beginning of week 70?
• Is the first seven an allusion to 1 Jubilee Year?
• Antiochus IV Epiphanes destroyed Jerusalem?
• Is the first 7 and 62 about the Cyrus Edict after the conquer of Babylon?

Hi r/AskBibleScholars, I'm no Greek scholar in any way. I've been following a discussion about the Biblical principles and guidelines about speaking in tongues and interpretation in a worship service and what/if any application this may have on modern day multilingual services.

The question was raised if it was scripturally permissible for a man to both speak a foreign language and then to provide the interpretation in another language. The claim is made that the Greek forbids such a practice and that one man may speak in one language, but there MUST be a separate man to translate. This argument was based heavily on some Greek grammar, particularly the use of the "active voice" and the "imperative mood" with the verb.

I've included the Greek argument below and wanted to see if anyone here could comment on the validity of it. (It is a little long, sorry about that! However, there is a summary and conclusion at the end which may be enough to give you the gist of the argument.) Thanks in advance!

___________________________________________________________________

Self-Translating—Thoughts

1 Corinthians 14:27

27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret.

  "and let one interpret" (καὶ εἷς διερμηνευέτω) =

• The lemma of the verb is διερμηνεύω.
• The morphological form (διερμηνευέτω) of this verb is: present, active, imperative, 3rd person, singular.

First: Consider the voice of the verb: Active voice.

Q: What is the significance of the active voice?

Concerning the voice of a verb, Ray Summers writes the following:

 "Voice. The quality of the verb which indicates the relationship of the subject to the action is voice. The active voice means the subject is acting, and the passive voice means the subject is passive or being acted upon. These are the same as in English. Greek has a third voice called the middle, which expresses the action returning to the subject. You will study this in greater detail in lesson 11."

Ray Summers and Thomas Sawyer, Essentials of New Testament Greek, Rev. ed. (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 11–12.

Applying the above information (active voice) to the verb in 1 Corinthians 14:27 means that a man is translating what another man has spoken. Two men are clearly in view here.

• One man speaks and
• A different man translates (interprets).

Q: How do we know two men are involved? How do we know a man is not translating himself?

A: We know this by the voice of the verb. If the speaker is translating himself, the voice of the verb would be the middle voice.

Summers explains the middle voice in lesson 11. I have highlighted the portion of the text which pertains to the question of self-translating a sermon.

 "11.2 Middle and Passive

English has the active and passive voices. In Greek these voices are the same as in English: active—the subject is performing the action "The church sees the messenger" (ἡ ἐκκλησία βλέπει τὸν ἄγγελλον); and passive—the subject is being acted upon by another agent "The messenger is being seen by the church" (ὁ ἄγγελος βλέπεται ὑπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας). Greek also employs a third voice which English must express with reflexive pronouns, the middle voice "The messenger sees himself" (ὁ ἄγγελος βλέπεται). This voice depicts the subject as participating in the action, either directly or indirectly, and yet the action is also upon the subject itself."

(Ray Summers and Thomas Sawyer, Essentials of New Testament Greek, Rev. ed. (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 49.)

The above comes from Summers' revised edition. His first edition has the following:

 "(1) In the middle voice the subject is acting so as to participate in some way in the results of the action. There is no English equivalent for this Greek construction. The subject rather than the action is the point of emphasis. Special attention is called to the subject."

(Ray Summers, Essentials of New Testament Greek (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1950), 38.)

There are different functions of the middle voice which Summers elaborates on:

 "11.4 Function of the Middle Voice

Although the middle voice has many shades of meaning, the following uses are important for understanding this construction:

a. Direct Middle

• The reflexive use is the one nearest the basic idea. It refers the result of the action directly to the agent. ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐγείρεται (The man is raising himself up).
• The reciprocal is similar except in this usage a plural subject engages in an interchange of action, οἱ ἄνθρωποι διδάσκονται (The men are teaching one another).

b. Indirect Middle. Here the subject is acting with reference to itself or in behalf of itself. λαμβάνεται δῶρα (She is taking gifts for herself).

c. Intensive Middle. The stress is on the agent producing the action rather than participating in it. The word "self" may be used to show the strong involvement of the subject in the action. διδάσκεται τὴν ἀλήθειαν (He [himself] is teaching the truth). The idea is that he and no other is doing the teaching.

d. Defective Middle. Some verbs are "defective," which some also call "deponent" verbs. They appear in the middle form but are active in function. The word deponent implies that they have laid aside their active voice. It is more likely that they never had an active form and thus were "defective." Many of these verbs are intransitive and not action verbs; thus they do not need an active voice. An example is the verb ἔρχομαι (I come). Defective verbs appear in the vocabulary in the middle or passive form. Sometimes defective verbs use the passive form, but this will be the same as the middle in the present tense."

(Ray Summers and Thomas Sawyer, Essentials of New Testament Greek, Rev. ed. (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 50–51.)

Look carefully at the above highlighted (quoted) material. If God wanted men to translate themselves while they preached, He would have used the middle voice in 1 Corinthians 14:27. He would have used either the reflexive or the indirect middle which would have been worded something like, "and let one interpret himself," but He did not do this.

Second: Consider the mood of the verb: Imperative mood.

 The mood of the verb is described by Summers:

 "c. Mood. This aspect of the verb shows the relation of the action to reality. Mood (which some refer to as mode) tells whether the action is real or potential. In Greek there is only one mood which demonstrates the reality of the action—the indicative. This is the only mood you need learn presently. Remember that the indicative mood confirms the reality of the action from the viewpoint of the speaker. The three potential moods, which you will study later, are subjunctive, optative, and imperative."

Ray Summers and Thomas Sawyer, Essentials of New Testament Greek, Rev. ed. (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 12.

The verb in 1 Corinthians 14:27 is the imperative mood—which means the action of the verb is "potential"—the action may or may not happen depending on whether the subject obeys or disobeys.

Concerning the imperative mood, Summers writes:

 "25.3 Function of the Imperative Mood

In Greek, as in English, the imperative mood expresses a command. One person is attempting to exert a will upon another. In English only the second person is used and the implied subject is you, as in the sentence “(You) go away!” Greek has forms for the second and third persons. No forms for the first person occur since the hortatory subjunctive expresses this idea (see 24.4.c.1). Translate the second person into the usual English command with “you” implied. In the third person you normally use the word “let” to express the idea, as in λυέσθω (Let him be loosed!).

As in the subjunctive the distinction between the present and aorist tenses is kind of action and not time. For this reason the aorist has no augment. The present imperative denotes action in progress: λῦε αὐτόν (continue loosing him!) The aorist imperative conveys action which has not yet started: λῦσον αὐτόν (Loose him!).

The main uses of the imperative are:

• The imperative is the usual way to express a command. Example: γίνεσθε δὲ ποιηταὶ λόγου (Be doers of the word) (James 1:22).
• The imperative can also mean prohibition. Example: μὴ γίνεσθε δοῦλοι ἀνθρώπων (Do not become slaves of men) 1 Cor. 7:23.
• Sometimes the imperative is softened to entreaty, especially when speaking to a superior or to God.    Example: πάτερ ἅγιε, τήρησον αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου … (Holy Father, perserve them in your name …) John 17:11.
• The idea of granting a permission can be stated by the imperative. Example: ὀργίζεσθε καὶ μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε ([You may] be angry but do not sin.) Eph. 4:26.
• In some cases the imperative expresses a condition, and functions as a conditional sentence. Example: λύσατε τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον καὶ ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις ἐγερῶ αὐτόν ([If you] destroy this temple, in three days I will raise it.) John 2:19."

Ray Summers and Thomas Sawyer, Essentials of New Testament Greek, Rev. ed. (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 127.

As noted above, the third person imperative is normally translated using the word "let." Hence, the command in 1 Corinthians 14:27 is translated, "and let one interpret."

Summary and conclusion

 The active voice of the verb in 1 Corinthians 14:27 implies that two men are under consideration in the passage. One man is speaking and a separate man is translating (interpreting). If self-translation were authorized, the middle voice would have been used ("translate yourself"). The point to focus on is: The middle voice was not used and to change the voice of the verb to allow for self-translation would be tampering with the divine word.

In Matthew 5:17, Jesus says:

"Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose."

Was he just saying that he was no threat to the laws of Moses so that the Jews would first accept him and, only then, could he convince them to behave in other ways? Because he says this but he seems to demand Jews act in ways contradictory to the Torah. I imagine there would have been a lot of stigma attached to Jesus if he outright said he didn't follow the Torah. And maybe he was lying to relieve himself of pressure and persecution from the Pharisees since he was accruing a following. Is this the case?

I am extremely curious about academic literature produced by biblical scholars on the definition, use and background of Hebraisms.

Of course somebody could give me a brief definition here, but I want some books that cover this.

You know, like books that give biblical examples and literary lines of evidence that explain Hebraisms.

I would be thankful if I could get some books on this.

I don’t care if it’s from conservative scholars, liberal scholars, or scholars in-between when it comes to the books.

This is the general discussion thread in which anyone can make posts and/or comments. This thread will, automatically, repeat every week.

This thread will be lightly moderated only for breaking Reddit's Content Policy. Everything else is fair game (i.e. The sub's rules do not apply).

Please, take a look at our FAQ before asking a question. Also, included in our wiki pages:

• Recommended Readings
• Podcasts
• Biblical Languages
• Hall of Fame

Proof with scripture

I’ll cut right to the chase with this:

Is there a literary layer within the books of Exodus through Joshua that is formatted in a way to have the Hebrews leaving Avaris/Pi-Ramesses outright avoid going through Philistine territory?

Exodus 13:17 details God thinking better of leading his people through Philistine territories because the people may face war & be disheartened and want to return to Egypt.

Immediately after in Exodus 13:18b you get: The Israelites went up out of the land of Egypt prepared for battle

Then, in Exodus 15:13-14, we see the Song of Moses detailing God leading his people through lands and the impact it had on those lands. The first listed is Philistia.

Later on, due to certain shenanigans at Sinai, the Israelites have to wander the desert for 40~ years and end up entering the Promised Land from the east (Abraham’s path) & go on a conquest that conquers the land except for Philistine territory.

This sets up the conflict moving forward between the two groups.

—-

What’s going on here? It seems as if later authors really wanted to steer the narrative & origin of the people away from going through Philistia during their Egyptian exodus. Why? What would have been the intent behind this literary move? What would have been the intent of demonizing the Philistines afterwards throughout the narrative?

Is there an older layer that’s being co-opted with additions like the golden calf, parting of the Red Sea, etc. to convince folks that the “easy” route wasn’t taken? Why would that be important if so?

I would like to see the calendar for myself.

Who is Jesus talking about when he says no one should know of the hour?

Who is Our Lord talking about when he says that no one should know of the hour? Do scholars actually have the answer to this? Opposing religions seem to use this against the faith but wonder if anyone can step up to it.

This is not a pro-choice/pro-life argument nor question . Don’t care and I’m just asking because im curious. Did Gabriel ask Mary if she wanted to carry the son of God before she got pregnant or did he just impregnate her and then say “well, good luck”

I will try to make this brief. I was raised Southern Baptist and fell away from the church in my 20's. I struggle with the validity and interpretation of the Bible on many things.

As an adult I feel I am becoming more spiritual and believe that we are all connected and God is in all of us. I believe that there are psychics and that there is something to astrology, tarot, etc. One of the people I follow, Doreen Virtue suddenly came out a few years ago and said she had listened to something on false prophets and she renounced tarot.

I guess I question what is a false prophet? What does the Bible really say about things like this? My reasoning is that many cultures, for example native Americans have a strong past with the spiritual realm. There are countless other peoples who have various other spiritual histories and practices. So I feel like I am being asked to believe that all of these other cultures are sinners and if they never know of the Bible they will go to hell?

Can someone help my brain navigate this?

I am currently preparing a bible study on Sin, Transgression and Iniquity. The topic is based on Psalm 51 and David distinctly describing the three. So far, the first two I found resources to help with, however iniquity seems to be a difficult one to clarify. Any articles, studies or videos that are theologically correct that I can lean on?

I assume you all know that in Daniel 11 the writer describes with surprising accuracy the life and reign of Antiochus IV, at least up to Daniel 11:40 where the writer talks about a new war between the reign of the north (associated with the Seleucid empire in the precedent verses) and the reign of the south (Egypt), a new wave of conquests and finally Antiochus’ death which is implied to have happened in Judea. However this last war never happened, neither did the new wave of conquests described and Antiochus died in Persia, not in Judea. Apologists defend this by saying that the writer suddenly stops talking about Antiochus and instead stars talking about the end times and the Antichrist. However “at the end time” here seems more to refer to the end of Antiochus’ story than to the end of the world. There is no indication whatsoever that the writer is changing his subject. Could Daniel 11:40-45 be some sort of summary of Antiochus’ reign with him fighting back against Egypt, winning, conquering multiple lands, ruling over Judea and finally dying alone without any help?

my interest is mainly for personal education and personal bible study, i want to know the tense a word is used context etc. i would prefer one where the comparison also showed me how many different original manuscripts, tablets (basically where did the text originally come from)

this is something that should come from confirmed educated scholars please, i dont care about learning the language, i want big brain people that literally didnt feel motivated by anything but truth, i dont want this coming from someone that was influenced by anything but facts

If my understanding is correct, the chapter begins with Jesus saying concerning what was the second temple that not a stone would be left on another. This prompted the disciples to ask Jesus when the temple would be destroyed in addition to when He would return/the accompanying signs. His response to their questions begins at the fourth verse, where He provides the disciples with a summary of the birth pangs and tribulations that are to be endured (does not address the temple).

He then leads into the abomination of desolation in verse 15. I use to have the understanding that this was where Jesus answers that the second temple will be destroyed, but I no longer think this is true. For starters, He is of course referencing the Daniel prophecy and the 70 weeks period. Based on the 70 weeks prophecy and other mentions of the event, doesn't the abomination of desolation reveal the antichrist? And doesn't this ultimately lead to the end and Jesus' return? Additionally, in Daniel 9:24-27, it references the destruction of fhe city and temple and AFTERWARDS the ceasing of sacrifices and abomination lf desolation is seemingly being described. To me, this insinuates that another temple is to be built where the abomination will be.

My view could of course need some correction, as I've just started studying this subject recently, but if Matthew 24:15-31 isn't speaking of the destruction of that temple standing at the time of the Olivet discourse, then when does Jesus address this if at all?

I’m curious what the first century idea of the appearance of angels was or if we know? As I understand, the depictions as beautiful, haloed, winged men and women appeared much later, and in the Hebrew Bible there are many different depictions, often seems as the angels are just normal looking people. Do we have an idea of what first century Jews and or early Christians or would have imagined? Humanlike? Glorious light? Something in between?

Just read thus passage for the first time. I've seen in many places that this pertains to only the millenial reign and isn't eternal/forever, but if so then why does God seemingly say in Ezekiel 43:7 that the house is the place where He will dwell with his children forever?

I would understand if Christianity didn’t have as many denominations and branches as it does, but the truth is we have over 100 denominations, some more popular than others. I overheard this one girl say she was going to make her Catholic boyfriend Christian.

(edit: I've seen this belief be shared on both sides I just see the Catholic side doing more)

I do see many say that Catholics have their own book unlike Christians, but there are several different types of Bibles based on denominations. Why is there such a divide I don't necessarily see any other denomination fight this like Catholics