Top products from r/AskBibleScholars

Sure thing!

If you want something accessible on a college level that I have used in my courses, I'd recommend The Hebrew Bible for Beginners by Lohr and Kaminsky.

Another magnificent but weightier text that touches directly on source critical issues and the history of scholarly theories is James Kugel's How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture Then and Now.

Those are both broad surveys for beginners. On the more narrow question of dating and good for someone with a bit of Hebrew background, an important new-ish book is How Old is the Hebrew Bible: A Linguistic, Textual, and Historical Study by Ron Hendel and Jan Joosten. They do a great job of summarizing the current state of the question. It's the closest thing I have to offer as a consensus or mainstream view.

For a more "minimalist" or skeptical view that focuses on the historical origins of biblical narratives, I would recommend beginners take a look at The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts by Neil Asher Silberman and Israel Finkelstein.

Later this summer, I am really interested to see John Barton's forthcoming book A History of the Bible: The Story of the World's Most Influential Book. I haven't seen it, but he's great and it seems like a serious piece of scholarship.

Conservative usually just refers to holding traditional views on a topic. I could have conservative views on changing rules in major league baseball, for example, and argue against the designated hitter rule or inter-league play since that is not the way the game was played originally.

Fundementalism originally defined itself as traditional theological views in contrast to the rise of modernism in mainline denominations in the early 20th century. Modernism denied inerrancy of scripture, miracles, the virgin birth, literal six-day creation, etc., conservative Christians published a series of booklets called The Fundementals defending traditional Christian doctrine against modernism.

By mid-century, fundementalism was increasingly associated with hyper conservative views and conservative politics (KJV only for example, or joining the John Birch Society, protesting integration, etc.) Many conservative Christians began using the designation "evangelical" for those who held to traditional doctrines like miracles and inerrancy, but were not necessarily right-wing radicals.

I highly recommend two books by George Marsden on Fundementalism and Evangelicalism: Fundamentalism and American Culture and Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism.

The designation "evangelical" has slipped in the last few election cycles, now it is used in the media for hyper-conservatives who have confused support for right-wing politics and gun laws with evangelical theology.

The Evangelical theological Society, for example, has two points on their doctrinal statement, the Triune God and Inerrancy. The society defined inerrancy in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, and there are a wide range of theological views in the ETS, and papers offered at the national ETS meetings are generally non-political. There are a few (southern baptists) who might be conservative politically, but there is nothing in the ETS requiring a conservative political view, and there is a great deal of angst over the current use of the word evangelical and the use of the word by the president as he tries to portray himself as a Christian.

One example: Within the ETS, there is a wide range of opinion on creation, from Young Earth to theistic evolution. All those views are acceptable since they all agree "God created the Universe" even if they disagree on the mechanics of that creation since the mechanics are not clear in Scripture. On the other hand, there would not be a range of opinion on the Virgin Birth or Jesus doing Miracles, since these things are stated in Scripture.

I got it for about 30 bucks on Amazon. So it’s more expensive than your standard pocket bible but it’s not bad as far as study bibles go. Considering the use I’ve gotten out of it and how much it’s helped me with both my studies and my faith, I would’ve gladly paid twice that. As a brother in Christ (sorry mods, I know that kind of language is kinda frowned upon here), I’d encourage you to splurge on it.

That doesn’t sound like a bad price for the ESV student bible if that’s the kind of thing you’re looking for, but I wouldn’t consider that and the New Oxford as alternatives to each other. They’re really trying to accomplish two different things. If you already have a decent grasp on fundamental Christian theology, I don’t think you’ll gain a lot from the ESV student bible, unless you just want to keep it around to compare certain passages, which I do still use it for occasionally.

Link on amazon: The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version https://www.amazon.com/dp/019027607X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_nqH6CbC9THYR6

Apparently I can't post this as a direct reply, but:

Richard Elliott Friedman's new book The Exodus talks quite a bit about this topic. I found this part of the book not quite so interesting to me personally so I won't try to muff my way through a detailed explanation, but in short according to Friedman it started with the Levites, the group he proposes as the only ones who were actually enslaved in Egypt and left for Canaan as the book of Exodus describes. When the Levites arrived in Canaan they were allowed to assimilate into the lands owned by the other tribes. The Levites brought with them the idea of YHWH and as the priest and teacher class were able to integrate the idea that their YHWH (their only god) and the god the Israelites worshiped, El, were one and the same. They worshiped no other gods at this point, hence "monotheism". I generalize of course, but this is the basic chain of events. Read the book for the details.

Luckily the book as has a lengthy free preview on the topic on Amazon although I didn't look to see how many pages on this topic could actually be read in free preview.

Here's a link: The Exodus.

I'm not an NT scholar (though I do a lot of NT study through the Judaic studies lens) so I'm not exactly focused on Ehrman, but I've just found his introductory material to be well composed. At this point, I usually suggest checking out the Jewish Annotated New Testament as it does an excellent job of putting the NT in its Judaic context, both within the text with cross references, as well as without via essays from most major scholars in the back.

>what I liked about Zealot...

If you want a nice fictional book that does something similar, read As a Driven Leaf by Milton Steinberg. If you want a historical retelling, I think Josephus himself does a decent job of getting this across.

> IMO, statements like this could be used in a politically inappropriate manner.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? (Certainly, I see how it could be abused, but what are you suggesting practically? Many comments, even many biblical ones, are often applied inappropriately in a political setting, so I don't understand the point of your comment.)

> Also, there is a very interesting and well-informed earlier thread concerning this subject matter here.
>
> Furthermore, some may be interested in checking out Dale Allison's collection of essays entitled: Sex and the Single Savior: Gender and Sexuality in Biblical Interpretation.

Thank you for the referrals. Out of curiosity, though, did you mean them as a response to my comment or as general recommendations for all readers of the thread?

> So, does Jesus specifically address homosexuality? No. Does he establish and apply Genesis 1-2 as normative and authoritative for human sexual and marital relationships? Yes. Does that passage have implications for homosexuality? Also yes.

IMO, statements like this could be used in a politically inappropriate manner.

Also, there is a very interesting and well-informed earlier thread concerning this subject matter here.

Furthermore, some may be interested in checking out Dale Allison's collection of essays entitled: Sex and the Single Savior: Gender and Sexuality in Biblical Interpretation.

I've been reading "A History of the Bible" by James Barton. He's an Anglican priest who taught at the University of Oxford. He lays out the historical-critical approach to understanding the books of the Bible and the Bible as a whole.
I think it's a great read. It does assume that you are already familiar with the stories of the Bible and how the Bible lays out ANE history.

Bayes' Theorem is an interesting method when applied to ancient history.

It should be noted that although Hart has robust argument, made in his NT translation, and supplemented in his 'All Shall Be Saved' -- it is a clear break from most scholarship. For a more robust scholarly undertaking Ilaria Ramelli's tome on apokatastasis deals with this favorably -- but again, a break from most scholarship (and orthodoxy, but we aren't concerned with that here).

> Dictionary of Demons and Deities in the Bible

https://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Deities-Demons-Bible-Second/dp/0802824919 - it's not cheap, but there is a digital version that's more reasonably priced.

Scholars Christopher Wright and Michael Grasanti state this is referring to those who were born from rebellion (the intermarrying of the Israelite people and pagans), incest, temple prostitutes, adultery, and any other unlawful sexual relationship.
To allow these children to attend would be to snub your nose at the Law and commands of God. It would be almost as though they were boasting in their rebellion. It is further thought that if one is participating in this kind of relationship, the parent is also guilty and would be cut off from the assembly.
The tenth generation, according to Grasanti, is a permanent ban to be enacted on unrepentant sinners. This suggests that if one born of an illicit union was to place themselves under the Law and worship YAHWEH alone, they could join the assembly.
Sources:
Christopher Wright - Understanding the Bible Commentary
Michael Grasanti - The Expositor's Bible Commentary
edit - typo

Gog of Magog is likely a Hebrew cipher for Babylon. The Hebrew letters for Gog of Magog are גגממגג. (Which in English script is GGMMGG). Cut the palindrome in half and shift each letter up one in the Hebrew alphabet, and the what you’re left with is בבל (BBL), which is “Babylon”. The nation that the Jews just so happened to be in exile to at the time that Ezekiel was prophesying.

Likely, Gog of Magog is just a stand in for all of the enemies of the Jews (reinforced by the super-army of nations in Ezekiel 38), with Babylon being the most pressing one, considering their exile.

Gog of Magog is not actually an enemy or plague that will usher in the end of time. Gog of Magog is an enemy archetype first utilized by Ezekiel, but later as a common apocalyptic threat whose overwhelming power (and subsequent overthrowing) set up an oracle of hope for the Jews who were experiencing sustained suffering with no discernible escape.

For more reading about Gog of Magog, let me recommend Daniel Block's Commentary on Ezekiel, or the relevant entries in the Dictionary of the Deities and Demons in the Bible and the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis.

Also, while you can change vowels all day long and still argue common root, consonants are pretty set in stone. MQQ is a very different word from MGG, in the same way that in English, ball is a very different word from bass.

For the purposes of dating Thomas, it doesn't matter if there was a Q document or not. The point is that Thomas shows a lack of knowledge of some of the double tradition material and while it contains many sayings which are similar to sayings found in the Synoptic Gospels, especially Mark, it words them differently and does not show dependency on them^1. There are a number of scholars (e.g. Stevan Davies, JD Crossan, Helmut Koester)who argue strongly that Thomas is independent from the Synoptics or even that Mark used Thomas.^2



In a number of cases, scholars think that Thomas appears to be more primitive or sometimes more "difficult" than the synoptics. For example, Th.71:

>Jesus said, "I shall destroy this house, and no one will be able to build it.


There is no qualifier that he will rebuild it. So the question is, why would someone remove that to make the saying more radical? Is it more likely that a scribe would add a qualifier or remove one. Bear in mind that as a general rule of thumb, scribes were far more likely to add material than to remove it in any case^3 and this is a case where the addition of a softening or theological qualifier by one writer is far less difficult to explain than the removal of such a qualifier.

With regards to the Q sayings (it doesn't matter if you think there was a Q gospel or not because we are tautologically defining "Q" only as that material common to Matthew and Luke), Thomas does not show any awareness of the apocalyptic sayings, which further indicates independence from the Synoptics.

So if Thomas is not dependent on the Synoptics, and sometimes shows more primitive development that the synoptics, then it cannot be proved to be later than the Synoptics.

However, Thomas does not appear to have been written all at once but to have been a compilation of sayings added to cumulatively over time,^4, so the question of when it is "dated" can't be limited to a single date, It had a period of composition, not a date of composition and that period can be strongly argued to have begun independently of and possibly even prior to the Synoptics.

An argument can also be made that the Gospel of John shows knowledge of and is specifically responding to at least some parts the Gospel of Thomas^5, which would delimit at least those parts of the GTh to the first Century.

Q is a whole different argument, but I have to say that your dismissal of the theory really mischaracterizes it and expresses no actual knowledge about it. I notice you have also offered no alternative explanation for the double tradition, but the choices are limited. Matthew and Luke contain a large amount of material which is word for word the same in Greek but which is not found in Mark (their other shared source). So either one of them copied the other, or both were using a shared source. If you are rejecting the latter hypothesis (and you seem to be doing so only on the basis of a lack of extant manuscripts, which is hardly persuasive), then you have to be claiming that one of them copied the other. I would ask you who you think copied the other, but it really doesn't matter, my only real question is this. If A copied B, then where did A get the material? If A had a source then there was a Q by definition. If A did not have a source, then he was making it up himself and Jesus is not really the source of the core ethical teachings attributed to him.

So who do you think composed the Sermon on the Mount/Plain? Matthew or Luke.


^1 Stevan Davies Statistical Correlation Analysis of the Order of the Sayings
in Thomas and in the Synoptics.

^2 Stevan Davies Mark's Use of the Gospel of Thomas

^3 Bart Ehrman The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture

^4 John D. Crossan The Birth of Christianity pg. 247

^5 Gregory J. Riley, Resurrection Reconsidered: Thomas and John in Controversy