r/AcademicBiblical

As a layperson, I’ve been surprised to learn about the complicated supernatural beliefs of the gnostics. As far as I know, entities like the demiurge, aeons, and archons do not have their origins in second temple Judaism, or Jewish scriptures. Also, as far as I know, there’s no reason to believe the historical Jesus believed in or taught about these kinds of entities.

So where did gnostic Christians get these ideas? Were they imported from another religion or culture? Why did the gnostics come believe in such an idiosyncratic supernatural landscape?

Title

Sorry if this question doesn’t belong here.

I’m also looking for academic resources on what led to the Reformation in Western Europe and why a similar movement didn’t emerge in Eastern Orthodoxy. I would be glad if anyone recommend any book, article on this topic. Thank You.

Nowhere in all of Scripture does "this" precede a specific name versus just the word "man" or something ("this man"), right? Why did the angels use this language? It's not as if the disciples would have been confused about some different person returning if they didn't use that language, right? I'm surprised that no one has ever questioned this that I can see...

I was wondering, out of the multiple editions that exist on the Book of Enoch, which one would y'all consider among the best?

Ideally, I want an academic edition that includes notes and whatnot; perhaps even some comments at the start by the editor.

If a an academic book that also includes 2 and 3 Enoch, that would be even better, though a book on just 1 Enoch will suffice.

Is there a scholarly consensus on to what extent the Gospel of John was influenced by Platonism? The prologue famously has platonic themes but does the influence go deeper than that?

How did early Christians developing trinitarian theology reconcile Luke 22:42, in which Jesus makes a clear distinction between his own will and that of the Father?

I don't mean this from any kind of "gotcha" standpoint, I mean, like, how did it work? Are there any written records of early treatment of this moment in the patristic fathers and so forth?

I want to do a deep dive into Luke-Acts and I am looking for recommendations for academic sources and/or commentaries.

Can someone please tell me which specific Bible or Study Bible is normally utilized in the academic research field and/or at the graduate course level? I have alternately heard the RSV, SBL, etc. and so I am not sure. Thanks!

There is an open discussion thread conversation on Irenaeus' quotations of Mark 1.1-2 and how he is apparently a witness to two different textual variants for the opening of Mark and how that's surprising given that these are all in the same volume. I will first do some context setting on all of the texts involved, but my ultimate question is if 3.11.8 is a pre-existing source incorporated by Irenaeus.

I would also like to thank the people who already said a bunch of things in the discussion thread for getting me to re-collect some prior thoughts on this. Good discussion there already for anyone who wants more context.

The variant in Mark 1.1 is whether to include Son of God or end the verse at gospel of Jesus Christ. See in Ehrman, Orthodox Corruption, p. 72-75, Ehrman lists it as an "anti adoptionist" corruption, although interestingly Irenaeus in the context of 3.16.3 seems to be using it to refute separationists not adoptionists. Irenaeus is also listed as a witness to the omission in the NA28 notes to verse 1.1

The variant in Mark 1.2 is between as it is written in the prophets and as it is written in Isaiah the prophet

In 3.10.5,

>Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God*; as it is written* in the prophets, Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, which shall prepare Your way. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the Lord, make the paths straight before our God. Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him at once, whom they confessed as God and Lord

In 3.11.8,

>Mark, on the other hand, commences with a reference to the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying, The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ*, as it is written* in Esaias the prophet,— pointing to the winged aspect of the Gospel; and on this account he made a compendious and cursory narrative

In 3.16.3,

>Wherefore Mark also says: The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God*; as it is written* in the prophets. Knowing one and the same Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was announced by the prophets, who from the fruit of David's body was Emmanuel, the messenger of great counsel of the Father;

I definitely agree with Adela Yarbro Collins p. 112-114 (cited in the prior thread) that the lines with of Son of God aren't because Irenaeus had the short reading in all three places and scribes or the Latin translator wanted to harmonize him with the longer reading. Son of God is embedded in the context of 3.16.3 with all of the other scriptures that call Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it serves to prove the heresiological point. Collins' own solution is that Irenaeus' copy of Mark has the longer reading and he just cited the shorter one in 3.11.8 as a paraphrase, because Son of God was not required for that citation. Since he definitely did have the longer reading available for 3.16.3, and it doesn't make sense to say he was going back and forth between two manuscripts, it makes sense to just say he had the longer and paraphrased once on the shorter where Son of God wouldn't be required to make the point.

With enough stage setting, my own speculation is that 3.11.8 is a prior source and that this source is an actual witness to a text with the other reading. Instead of two manuscripts of Mark, why not just have one manuscript, with the reading in 3.10.5 and 3.16.3, and the information 3.11.8 was written earlier (by Irenaeus or someone else) and incorporated into Against Heresies book 3?

I could see it being the case that there is a standalone source dedicated to a mystical exegesis of the number 4 and the first verses of the 4 gospels, in light of the 4 corners of the compass, the 4 winds, the 4 faces of the cherubim in Revelation, the quadriformity of all living creatures (I have no idea what this is referring to), and the 4 covenants with humanity (Adam/Noah/Moses/Jesus). Per Carol Newsom, Commentary on Daniel chapter 7, four is widely used to symbolize totality and completeness so it makes sense that someone would write up a meditation on the quadriformity of the gospels and reflect on that here. Irenaeus would then be familiar with the source and add the information as a mystical/symbolic line of evidence in his project to promote the four gospels, and promote their reading together in canonical context, unlike Valentinians, Marcionites, Ebionites, and Christ/Jesus Separationists, who only read one and don't interpret it correctly.

Is there any reason to think this is the case? Has anyone argued for it? Collins discusses a few views of different scholars for what is going on with Irenaeus and the variants, but not this one. Ehrman doesn't say anything at all about Irenaeus as a witness in Orthodox Corruption. To me it would make sense of why there is the reading of Mark unique to Irenaeus here and why the other two readings before and after both align with each other. Even if this theory has already been considered and already been discredited by some obscure 19th century scholars, I would still love to see a discussion of that, wherever it may have been written.

Welcome to this week's open discussion thread!

This thread is meant to be a place for members of the r/AcademicBiblical community to freely discuss topics of interest which would normally not be allowed on the subreddit. All off-topic and meta-discussion will be redirected to this thread.

Rules 1-3 do not apply in open discussion threads, but rule 4 will still be strictly enforced. Please report violations of Rule 4 using Reddit's report feature to notify the moderation team. Furthermore, while theological discussions are allowed in this thread, this is still an ecumenical community which welcomes and appreciates people of any and all faith positions and traditions. Therefore this thread is not a place for proselytization. Feel free to discuss your perspectives or beliefs on religious or philosophical matters, but do not preach to anyone in this space. Preaching and proselytizing will be removed.

In order to best see new discussions over the course of the week, please consider sorting this thread by "new" rather than "best" or "top". This way when someone wants to start a discussion on a new topic you will see it! Enjoy the open discussion thread!

When did the concept of Hell as a place of fiery punishment for the evil become an popular, and is this idea evidenced in Judaism prior to the rise of Hellenism?

I’m trying to find studies on how ancient Jews interpreted the Great Isaiah Scroll in regards to messianism. Does anyone know where I should look?

I just finished the Bible unearthed by Israel Finkelstein and How to read the Bible by Kugel. I'm looking for some good and relatively broad books about the Hebrew bible (old testament), the evolution of Judaism, or ancient Israelite history. I'm not looking for absolute beginner books, but nothing super advanced either. Give any books/resources that you've enjoyed.

I can read biblical Hebrew pretty well, so don't be afraid to recommend books that directly deal with the Hebrew prose.

First of all, this is less a question about translation and more a question about the history of translation, so I apologize if this is the wrong space for that.

Isaiah 3:12 is a notoriously sticky passage that can sometimes seem, at least to me, almost a perfect storm of ambiguity. And when we look at ancient translations, that seems to be borne out: texts like the OG and Aquila's translation assume nshm is noshim, or creditors, whereas the MT and Vulgate assume it is nashim, or women. With alal, it seems to be more uniform, with most older translations leaning *away* from children/infants.

However, looking at modern English translations, rendering nshm as women and alal as children or infants seems to be the majority view, with NASB, NRSV, ESV, RSV, NIV, NLT, HCSB all taking it, and other renderings like extorters and creditors being a minority view, only appearing in NRSVUE, CEV, and a couple others.

My question is: why? Has there been some development that has clarified the original text? Is it just a case of translation editors saying "When in doubt, do what the KJV did because that's what people know?" Is there something else entirely that I'm completely missing?

Hello everyone. Recently, while I was reading the Jahwist source reconstruction on Wikiversity, I was struck by how weird Seth's mention is in that source (and by that I mean Genesis 4:25 - 26, not the passages associated to him from the P source, ie. the ones in chapter 5).

After tracing Cain’s entire lineage down to Lamech (line which is very similar to Seth's own line in the P source), the narrative suddently shitfs back to Adam's third son, Seth, briefly mentions that he fathered Enosh, and adds that “then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.” From there, the Jahwist material appears to jump directly to Noah in Genesis 5:29: “And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.”

Interestingly, Wikiversity proposes that a verse may be missing between these passages, something among the lines of "And Enos begat a son."

How have scholars approached this? Did Seth belong originally to the J source and we are missing that verse, as Wikiversity suggests (or perhaps his own genealogy for that source) or was he added by a redactor to bridge J and P?

I'm working on a Bible-based webgame/study tool. Currently it uses the Blayney KJV, which is public domain, so free to use.

I also want to include a version of Bible in it's original languages, but I don't have much expertise with those texts. 

According to my research, the best option for Hebrew would be the Leningrad Codex, and for Greek it would be the Textus Receptus, Byzantine Majority Text, or Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament. 

Maybe in the future I could include multiple versions, but right now I'd like to stick to one – ideally one people find authoritative. 

It's my understanding that most Christian organizations lean towards the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, and the closest non-copyrighted version to that is the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament.

Any advice or guidance would be greatly appreciated!

I have heard some who say that Luke 1-2 contain stylistic elements which indicate that these sections of Luke's gospel were not original to it but were composed as separate works by different hands and incorporated into the text at a later date. What elements within these two chapters indicate a Palestinian origin and how confident are scholars that these sections of Luke were not original to the text but were written by different authors? Alternatively, how strong is the evidence that they were originally part of the text?