I’m not sure if this type of question is allowed and am okay with its deletion if it is not.

I am always curious about the contributors on here and the sister subs.

Basically, I wanted to know what ushered you all into the field. For those who attained advanced degrees, do any of you work outside of academia or religious institutions? For quality contributors who do not have these degrees, what are your day jobs?

Hey, all you Bible scholars. Not to bore you with another question about Ehrman’s Heaven and Hell, but I came across his explication of Matthew 25:31-46 in Chapter 8 of his book and have a question for you Greek/NT specialists. 

The Son of Man separates all the peoples into two groups, the sheep to his right and the goats to his left. He then addresses the sheep, welcoming them into the amazing kingdom God has prepared for them as a reward for all the good they did during their lives, because “when I was hungry you gave me something to eat, when I was thirsty you gave me drink, when I was a stranger you welcomed me, when naked you clothed me, when sick you visited me, when in prison you came to me” (Matthew 25:35–36). The sheep are completely confused and ask what he can possibly mean. They have never even seen him before. How could they have done any of these things for him? He replies, “Truly I say to you, as much as you did these things to the least of these, my brothers and sisters, you did them to me” (Matthew 25:40).

Ehrman, Bart D.. Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife (p. 163). Simon & Schuster. Kindle Edition. 

My question concerns his assertion, “They [the sheep] have never even seen him before. How could they have done any of these things for him?” The Bible versions I have consulted say something like, “Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink?…” (NASB 2020). I don’t take this to mean “when did we see you,” but rather, “when did we see you hungry.” Ehrman’s explanation appears to assume a viewpoint not immediately apparent in the English text, principally that the sheep do not recognize/know the Son of Man, not simply that they never saw him when he was hungry.

Is Ehrman’s analysis here fair, or am I missing something in the original Greek (or even English)? If so, this seems to have soteriological implications contrary to a salvation by grace/faith assertion.

Thanks y’all.

I have questions about the commonly-cited verses suggesting that no words can be added to, nor subtracted from, scripture. In my circles, Revelations 22:18 is most commonly used to drive home this point. Yet, when I examine Revelations 22:18, it appears to be written as an "if/then" statement warning people as to what will occur if they actually do change the scripture. Specifically, I am asking why God would provide a warning and putative consequences for people if changing the scripture) weren't possible?

Secondly, as someone who is just getting started in seminary, I have heard that "a mile high stack of papyrus" implies the NT copies are remarkably faithful to the autographs. But do we have any evidence that the autographs were fully representative of the original texts? I contextualize this question with my observation that the gospels in particular appear so punctuated and jumps from topic to topic, thought to thought, in such a way that it almost appears to be stitched together. I appreciate any and all thoughts.

Just getting started in this journey

I'm doing a bible study on Romans that asks for various words to be translated from the Greek. This week, "Suppress" in Rom1:18 was asked. I've been using the BibleHub site to access the Strong's Concordance and Thayer's Greek Lexicon, but the Thayer's entry for "Suppress" doesn't make much sense to me in the context of Rom 1:18.

Now, granted I don't understand a lot of the structure of Thayer's Lexicon, but I've been able to muddle through all the definitions/translations so far.

From Thayer's, it specifically mentions Rom 1:18 here, then starts talking about the Antichrist. However, I can't figure out how that applies. My understanding is that Rom 1:18 is generally talking about God's wrath when the truth about God is "suppressed" by unrighteousness (of men). ie. (Rom 1:19-20) God shows himself (eternal power and divine nature) to the unrighteous (in creation), then the unrighteous man rejects/ignores/whatever thus "suppressing" the truth, resulting in wrath. But how does the Antichrist factor in?? Is that whole section actually talking about something entirely different perhaps?

"b. to restrain, hinder (the course or progress of): τήν ἀλήθειαν ἐν ἀδικία, Romans 1:18; absolutely, τό κατέχον, that which hinders, namely, Antichrist from making his appearance (see ἀντίχριστος); the power of the Roman empire is meant; ὁ κατέχων, he that hinders, cheeks, namely, the advent of Antichrist, denotes the one in whom that power is lodged, the Roman emperor: 2 Thessalonians 2:6f (cf., besides DeWette and Lünemann at the passage (Lightfoot in B. D. under Thessalonians, Second Epistle to the), especially Schneckenburger in the Jahrbücher f. deutsche Theol. for 1859, p. 421f). "

(from: https://biblehub.com/greek/2722.htm )

I consider the arguments that says that 1-2 Timothy and Titus are forgeries pretty solid, but Colossians, Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians?

Paul is the co-author of 2 Thessalonians and Colossians, so some differences may be expected. Also, many of the arguments that I see are about Paul changing his theology, such as Paul saying in 1Thess that Jesus' Second Coming is imminent, but 2Thess says is thru signs. Why this necessarily indicates that he didn't write the letter? it could be that Paul and the other authors just changed their minds.

Title pretty much says it, but I'll expand a bit. I'm looking to understand what denominations or schools of theological thought welcome ideas from critical scholarship of the Bible? Not only that, but are there any that will actually teach ideas from critical scholarship? For example, if they teach the story of Jonah, which groups are going to teach that it didn't really happen and teach the moral lessons from the story versus talking about it like it really happened while behind the scenes acknowledging that it isn't considered history?

I didn't want to ask this in the theology sub as to me I'm not asking a theological question, I would like to hear from scholars about what schools of theological thought most resonate with what they believe (critically, not theologically) is true about the Bible.

What was the intent of this book? This book looks like a guy "midrashing" the Old Testament, through the lens of Pauline and Judeo-Christianity, while polemicizing with Judaism (Old Covenant).

When was this book written? pre-70?

Didn't Jesus speak Aramaic?

Luke 23:38

And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, This Is The King Of The Jews.

Didn't Paul say otherwise in Hebrews 11:40 and 1 Thessalonians 4:15?

Hebrews 11:40

God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

1 Thessalonians 4:15

For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.

Luke 20:37

37 Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.^(38) For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.

The Documentary Hypothesis, and its successor the Supplementary Hypothesis, were formulated because it's very obvious to language experts that the Torah was definitely not written by a single author. This is something that scholars have been aware of for well over 200 years now. It was this same linguistic analysis that we employed to determine how many and which ones of the Pauline epistles were genuinely written by Paul, because the verified ones share a distinct wiring style in common.

But what confuses me is that despite linguistic analysis being the primary tool scholars use to determine who wrote which parts of the Bible for most parts of it, they're eerily silent on it when it comes to the synoptic gospels. Instead, the arguements given for Marcan priority are that it's the shortest of the three, contains little unique material of its own, exhibits a more primitive theology and a less refined grammar. And while I do find these arguements to wield some merit, I don't find them to stand up as well under scrutiny against the sheer success linguistic analysis had boasted. They also consider the synoptics as whole works rather than considering the respective proportions of them.

If Mark was written first, then under my understanding, we should be able to use linguistic analysis to demonstrate enough coherence to suggest that it was written as an original work rather than a derivation of another; in other words, the triple tradition, the material shared between Mark and Matthew, the material shared between Mark and Luke and the material unique to Mark should be more linguistically coherent with each other than the double tradition or the material unique to Matthew and Luke respectively. Why haven't scholars given linguistics much weight with regards to the synoptics? And if any linguistic analysis has been applied to them, have they produced any results?

And did they consider it as the “Word” of God?

Revelation was written by a male Jew who had terrible Greek grammar, according to tradition, unlike the Gospel of John and 1-3 John, which are later attributions and the author does not identify himself as directly as John, the author of Revelation "John" identifies himself from the beginning, the Apostle John died around 100CE.

Could John of Patmos be the Apostle John?

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

I've been sensing a call to do doctoral work in the New Testament for years. I completed my MDiv 2 years ago and decided to take time off to just work in a church.

Reasons I feel called:

-I think God has told me directly multiple times

-I've had multiple dreams about doing doctoral work, despite my resistance

-I love teaching

-I have had multiple seminary professors encourage me to pursue doctoral work

Reasons I resist the calling:

-it feels like a huge time and financial commitment with very little tangible reward (why spend 3-5 years living in poverty to end up earning the same or less than you can with just an MDiv)

-job prospect are grim as religion is a dying field (seminaries are struggling and society is becoming more secular)

-competition is fierce for faculty positions so it feels like an unwise vocation to pursue

-though I'm interested in theology, I am not passionate enough about it to sustain a PhD

-writing a dissertation terrifies me

-I'm a single woman in my early thirties who would like to have a family someday. I don't want to waste the last of my childbearing years getting a useless degree

-I don't feel smart enough

Any advice from those who have done doctoral work in biblical studies?

May God The Father Most Holy Most Heavenly And Most High Bless you all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why does technical terms become personal/individual names? like Satan, "satan" was a technical term for an adversary, but became the name of a divine singular evil creature "Satan", or Christ/Messiah, the "messiah" was a technical term for anointed people like kings, Moses and High priests, but at some point became an end times eschatological figure.

• Why do words like Messiah/Christ, Satan and Son of Man become individual?

What is your view on the allegorical interpretation or de-historicizing of large portions of the Old Testament, such as the Noah's Flood, the Tower of Babel, Exodus and the Canaanite warfare?

For example, the allegorical interpretations of Scripture used by Origen and Gregory of Nissa with regard to the troubling descriptions of violence commands described in the Old Testament, like the battles led by Joshua, who taught that it was not meant to be taken literally, and instead saw these passages as allegories for the spiritual battles Christians face against their own internal enemies, such as lust, greed, and other negative passions.

Or, for example, Peter Enns thoughts on Noah's flood, who does not believe that God literally drowned people at the beginning of time, and instead argues that the biblical writers believed this because they lived in an ancient world where such explanations were common, and that the real significance of the story lies in what it reveals about the ancient Israelites' understanding of God, etc.

Hey, I've been really curious about this recently, it's (I think?) he only food prohibition for Christians and it seems to have been completely ignored in most European countries. Please let me know if this is out of scope for this subreddit, I know this might be more of a history question.

Hi Bible scholars! I was wondering if anyone could shed some light on the similarities between the story of Idomeneus and Jephthah, specifically when they vow to their god (Poseidon and YHWH, respectively) to sacrifice the first living thing they see, and it happens to be their child. I was wondering if these stories share a same source or if one is riffing off the other, if we can even know that for certain. Any information would be greatly appreciated! Thank you!

I've heard one of the things that made Christianity convincing is it's historical evidences, but I've never quite looked into that yet.

And if it really is, why would Jesus be recorded in the Gospel of Mark referring to Daniel as if he was an actual living, breathing man/prophet?

Hi, so I currently doing some research on the Epistles of John and I have come across some sources that claim that there is a growing voice in Biblical scholarship that the “antichrists” in the texts were not docetic, instead it is a polemic against Jewish members who believed in Christ, but after suffering excommunication from their synagogues, renounced the Messianic status of a Christ, and returned to their synagogues.

There are a few voices yes (such as Streett) but as it stands right now, I’m really not finding much weight to this claim that scholarship is shifting towards this theory. The majority of papers and articles still seem to consider that these individuals were docetic (at least in their lack of belief of an incarnation).

So my question is, is there an actual shift in scholarship towards these beliefs or is the traditional attribution still majority view?

Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

2 Thessalonians 2:3-5

Differently from the Beast from Revelation whom is explicitly Nero, I'm unsure if the Man of lawlessness referenced by the author is Nero, I've seen a theory that says that it is a reference to Caligula, whom planed to put a statue of himself inside of the Jerusalem Temple, but Caligula was already dead when the author wrote (Caligula Redivivus?).

• Who is the Man of lawlessness?
• Is he someone personal like the Beast(Nero) of Revelation or impersonal like the Antichrist of 1-2 John?

Hello! Not sure if this is the correct subreddit but I was wondering if anybody had any scholarly sources on the first instance/instances of the Mark of Cain being interpreted as dark/black skin. Thank you!

There are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree

[...]
And this is the testimony: God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
1 John 5:6-7,11

The three (I suppose the Father Son and the Holy Spirit) agree that God gave eternal life and that Jesus possesses eternal life, at the end of this chapter there is a very suggestive verse:

And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

1 John 5:20

Questions:

1. What is the message of 1 John 5:6-7,11?
2. Does the end of the chapter suggest that Jesus is God? The only “He” of that verse I can think of is Jesus himself.

For those who don't know, the Johannine Comma is some kind of Midrash/commentary interpolated into 1 John, that goes by:

[There are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth:]