r/AcademicBiblical

Greetings, everyone. I am compiling a reading list on the late Second Temple period and the formation of the Jewish canon (or Tanakh). I would like to know which books or primary source collections are currently regarded by historians as benchmarks of excellence.

Specifically, I aim to understand and investigate how Jewish thinkers and communities of the final centuries BCE and the first century CE conceived the authority of texts (for example, Paul, Josephus, or Philo). I am looking for literature that addresses:

1. The concept of inspiration or authority: how the Ruach (or divine breath) was understood to act upon the authors (exploring ideas akin to those later described by Philo or Josephus), or the question of authority, specifically, whether the Writings held the same status and importance as the Torah and the Prophets.
2. The chronology of the canon: moving beyond obsolete theories such as that of Yavne/Jamnia, what academic or historical studies and works reflect a consensus on how the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings came to acquire their definitive structural form?
3. Primary sources from the 1st century BCE or earlier: recommendations for texts or commentaries that shed light on how ancient Jews classified their sacred literature prior to the destruction of the Temple, or even before its construction.

I would greatly appreciate any recommendations for classic textbooks, recent peer-reviewed studies, or critical editions that you consider essential. Many thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge, and have a good morning, afternoon, or evening.

This is a very "layperson question" but it feels very shocking to me how Zoroastrianism was not mentioned in either the old or new testament despite how much influence Zoroastrianism had on the development of monotheism in Jewish religion.

Is there any explanation how there's an absence of such a large religion during that time? Also, am I mistaken when it is mentioned?

Thank you in advance.

At first glance, the story of Jacob's sons feels like an obvious just-so story for the twelve tribes of Israel. Jacob AKA Israel has twelve sons and these are the twelve tribes. Except Joseph isn't a tribe, instead his two sons have a tribe each. And while Levi is Jacob's son, the Levites sit outside the twelve tribes.

It seems odd that someone wanting to invent an origin story for the twelve tribes and the Levites would make things so complicated. Why not invent that Jacob had thirteen sons, including Levi, Manasseh and Ephraim and forget about Joseph entirely?

Are there any authors who have suggested some pre-established traditions that place Joseph as Jacob's son and insist that he only had twelve sons? Or have there been any other interesting theories on this?

In Romans 13:1 Paul writes "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment." Most researchers think it's written 55 AD while Nero was the ruler of Rome. Why should a Christian missionary legitimize the political authorities which killed Jesus? Like Thessalonians 2:14–16 which could anticipate the fall of the temple 20 years earlier, it could be an Interpolation like J.C. O’Neill says. But with both there is no evidence because there is no single writing without those phrases which sound not fitting for the time and the biography of the person, who claims to be a radical missionary. So was it an Interpolation, is it a reason to question the early dating (we know that Pseudepigraphy often used the right historical facts to make it plausible and some Paul Epistles and other writings are known to be forgery) and the authenticity of the author? Like Thessalonians it would fit perfectly in a time where Christians had a big need to claim to obey the leadership and many years after the murdering of Jesus. I think it's not plausible that a missionary which obeys a religious leader who was killed by Romans would tell to obey the roman leadership. Or was the early Christian movement lead by Paul just an antijudaistic and pro-rome sect?

Is the position argued for by Geza Vermes (that Jesus likely never predicted his death and resurrection because his disciples reacted in a way which makes it appear that they had no prior knowledge of the event of the crucifixion and resurrection) the standard scholarly position? Or would scholars nowadays hold to what Dale Allison argues in his book “the resurrection of Jesus” (pages 187-192) that these are historical but the exact wordings in the gospels have been developed over time the standard scholarly position??

Hello Reddit historians. I recently realized that despite liking the bronze age, I knew nothing about the ancient Israelites and the real history behind the Torah.

I am not a religious person but I would like to educate myself on this topic and know more about who these people were, where they came from, what became of them and the real history behind their religion, as I recently heard the monotheistic capital G God may have once been part of a larger pantheon which I think is really interesting.

Anyway if you guys have any books, articles or documentaries about these topics it would be my pleasure to go through that, thanks in advance and sorry for my akward English which isn’t my native language :)

I am reading the first 5 books of the bible - pentateuch and I am encountering the genealogies a lot.

What is the importance of genealogy?

and what is the cultural significance of it in the ancient culture?

1 Thessalonians 2:15–16. There it says of the Jews: “They killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and persecuted us... They hinder us from preaching to the Gentiles for their salvation, so as to fill up the measure of their sins at all times. But wrath has come upon them to the end [or: to the utmost / finally].” That part would make much more sense if the Person who wrote it knew about the fall of the temple. I know that authors like Daryl Schmidt or Birger Pearson think it's a later Interpolation. And others came to the conclusion it's about the decrete of Claudius and the Hunger in his time. But the text sounds like a way more traumatic event.

What do you think? I think the whole Paul corpus would make much more sense after the fall of the temple, because it's very anti-judaic and pro-rome.

What can be historically deduced regarding the life and power of David and of his son Solomon? Is there any indication that they were the mighty Kings portrayed in the Bible, ruling over vast areas of the coastal eastern Mediterranean? Or were they perhaps more akin to regional tribal kings and warlords of the Judean hills? Any academic citations would be immensely welcome.

My understanding is that there is no consensus, but there are three main interpretive options:

-Refering to Self, but using a plural pronoun

-Referring to the members of the Trinity

-Referring to members of the Divine Counsel

What I’m curious about is if there are any other major interpretations and roughly how popular each interpretation is among actual scholars.

Do most scholars believe it’s a reference to the Divine Counsel or is it fairly evenly divided between various options?

Does any reputable scholar outside evangelicalism take the Trinity interpretation seriously or is that mostly considered a theological view and not a serious scholarly one?

Why dead sea scrolls considered as a revolutionary finding? what did they reveal? why they are so important to understand christianity origins? can someone explain please?

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 a woman is raped in this scripture, is she treated as property? Is this a property crime?

28-29 Talks of a woman as property, is there more to this?

Acts 10:9-16 describes a scene in which a voice, identified by Peter as "Lord," offers Peter a number of animals to eat. Peter initially rejects these animals as "profane [and] unclean," to which the voice replies that these animals are "made clean" by God and therefore should not be "call[ed] profane."

It's my understanding that some NT scholars understand Acts as a harmonizing account of the theological differences between Paul and Peter. In that light, Acts 10:9-16 could be understood as an example of a reconciliation between their beliefs. I'm interested, however, in whether the pericope reflects an authentic belief of the historical Peter. What, if anything, can the historical evidence tell us about the extent to which Peter actually regarded Jewish dietary purity laws as no longer binding? Or should this episode instead be understood as a theological construction by the author of Acts?

Hello! I’ve recently delved into the christology debate within Paul’s letters and while most scholars regard them as containing an early high christology due to the creeds and hymns found throughout Paul’s letters their appears to be more speculation in regards to wether they pre date Paul as much as some scholars state. I wanted to know what is the evidence for the creeds in hymns in Paul’s letters being pre Pauline? To what extent do they reflect the beliefs of the earliest Christian’s? Could Paul be writing them himself? Thank you!

In the Hebrew Bible, it seems like there is a conceptual distinction between the worship of other gods (which are real) and the worship of idols (which are merely wood or stone). Are these in fact distinct concepts or are they fundamentally the same thing?

This question is prompted by the rhetoric in the latter half of the Wisdom of Solomon. In particular 14:12-14, which proffers the belief that "the idea of making idols was the beginning of sexual immorality." (NRSVUE) Paul picks up on this idea in Romans 1 ("they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles" but cf. a few verses later, "they . . . worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator"). It seems like Paul is combining ideas that were distinct in the Hebrew Bible.

When Wellhausen developed the Documentary Hypothesis, he hypothesized that Exodus 34 was the law code of the Yahwist School.

I'm surprised to see neo-documentarian Dr. Friedman attribute the laws there to the Redactor instead of "Rabbi J":

https://www.thetorah.com/article/after-the-golden-calf-is-the-covenant-renewed-with-a-ritual-decalogue

Then Dr. Rabbi Yoreh suggested that the original Elohist Decalogue had seven commandments instead of 10:

https://www.thetorah.com/article/speculating-about-the-original-text-of-the-decalogue

Since he supports the Supplementary Hypothesis, he suggested that what is known today as the Decalogue in Exodus and Deuteronomy was enumerated as ten by the Yahwist School.

Fellow supporter of the Supplementary Hypothesis, Dr. Rabbi Frankel, pointed out the possibility of a lost Mosaic Torah after Exodus 24:12.

Putting two and two together, it looks like:

1. The original beginning of the Covenant Collection, the Elohist Torah, consisted of seven negative commandments.

2. Then came the Covenant Collection.

3. Then came Exodus 24:12 and a missing law code.

Could this lost Mosaic Torah be the Torah of J?

Whose original beginning was indeed the Ethical Decalogue?

And which contained numerous commandments?

Could this law code have contained the Deuteronomy 27 curses before they were moved to Deuteronomy 27?

been reading other posts regarding the trinity but how are we certain the trinity was a later development and not what earlier writers like Paul believed in regarding logos? did early Christians not believe in trinity or were there other explanations to it?

If Paul knows that women pray and prophesy, and he is capable of giving instructions for how they should do so, why does he say to Timothy, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man”? What distinction does Paul himself think he is making?
I’m interested specifically in how scholars understand the distinction Paul is making between the women speaking/ministering in 1 Corinthians 11 and the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2—not simply in arguments for or against women pastors.

A few months ago I listened to this 2000 lecture by David L. Gard, “‘We Are Yours, O David’: The Eschatology of Chronicles,” and I have to admit I was never quite sure what exactly his argument was or what to make of it. It seemed more devotional than academic, at least by the end, but still I find the idea that the books of Chronicles have an eschatology of their own very fascinating, hence this post.

So is this a more widespread view than I thought it was?