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!
I hope it is fine that I'm commenting on your post here, since my comment won't fit the criteria for dedicated posts on here.
I had a somewhat similar experience to you some years ago, at least if you are talking about the most common atheist subreddit. They actually had an essay on the historical Jesus on their wiki in the sidebar. It didn't straight up say that Jesus didn't exist, but it heavily leaned that way in ways that I found suspicious. I asked people here what they thought of the essay. Unfortunately, I think I deleted the comment, but people pretty widely disliked that essay. It did include things like claiming that only Christian researchers support an historical Jesus, which simply false.
My impression is that, at least on atheist spaces here on reddit, that 'atheism' is a more respectable label for what could better be called anti-theism or anti-religionism. Mythicism is both an existing theory that is easy to incorporate within that and a controversial statement that fits well if one has a view of one self as an underdog against old, institutional powers. Be they a religion, church or academia.
Anyway, hope this comment has been helpful to you. I am sure other people commenting on your post can give you some credible resources for you to study on your own.
I was wondering, how do I cite different translated versions of the Bible in MLA 9th format? I need it for my English essay on a certain religion using equivocation fallacy in one of their church services, I am open to suggestions about it as well !! I’ll send you a link if you want to read it
I want to investigate a bit more about historical figures in history, whose life was full of mythical and supernatural deeds like for example Jesus. We know that there was a historical Jesus but after decades his death, we have people creating different miracles and other events in his life.
Is there a book out there that takes similar cases to the life of Jesus, men who after their death they have multiple mythical or miraculous deeds?
Constantine didn't have a very high opinion of the bishops at Nicea, and he regarded himself as a secular overseer of them. They offended him by their stubbornness and argumentativeness. He essentially had to force an agreement on the creed, and the term homoousios was introduced by him, though it was presented through Ossius, whom the emperor had made president of the council. The bishops had to agree on a a final statement before the council could end.
So yes, there there was an element of duress there. The Trinitarian creed, though agreed to in writing, had not actually settled anything. Until 380 when Theodosius took charge, the nature of relationship of the elements of the trinity continued to be debated at regional councils, and emperors supported non-homoousians. The Germanic tribes became Christian under "Arian" emperors and bishops. Julian the Apostate, according to Ammianus Marcellinus, encouraged the bishops to keep on arguing, since it would distract Christians from his plans to reinvigorate customary Roman rites.
In the end, Theodosius required bishops who wanted to continue receiving state support to agree in writing that the Father, Son, and Spirit were equal in majesty, and to promote a revised Nicene Creed. Imperial duress upon bishops continued to be a factor for centuries after 380.
Eusebius wrote a letter to his church about the council. He says he proposed his own creed that didn't include homoousios, but that certain bishops and Constantine himself supported using homoousios, and Eusebius accepted the wording for the sake of "peace" and on his own interpretation of it which sounds distinctly non-trinitarian.
The core of Eusebius' creed:
We believe in one
God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:—and in one
Lord, Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of God, Light of light, Life of life,
the only-begotten Son, born before all creation, begotten of God the Father,
before all ages, by whom also all things were made; who on account of our
salvation became incarnate, and lived among men; and who suffered and rose again
on the third day, and ascended to the Father, and shall come again in glory to
judge the living and the dead. We believe also in one Holy Spirit. We believe in
the existence and subsistence of each of these [persons]: that the Father is
truly Father, the Son truly Son, and the Holy Spirit truly Holy Spirit;
On "homoousios" being included:
When these articles of faith [Eusebius' creed] were proposed, there
seemed to be no ground of opposition: nay, our most pious emperor himself was
the first to admit that they were perfectly correct, and that he himself had
entertained the sentiments contained in them; exhorting all present to give them
their assent, and subscribe to these very articles, thus agreeing in a unanimous
profession of them, with the insertion, however, of that single word “
homoousios”
(consubstantial), an expression which the emperor himself explained, as not
indicating corporeal affections or properties; and consequently that the Son did
not subsist from the Father either by division or abscission: for said he, a
nature which is immaterial and incorporeal cannot possibly be subject to any
corporeal affection; hence our conception of such things can only be in divine
and mysterious terms. Such was the philosophical view of the subject taken by
our most wise and pious sovereign; and the bishops on account of the word
homoousious, drew up this formula of faith.
...
Now this declaration of faith being propounded by them, we did not neglect to
investigate the distinct sense of the expressions “of the substance of the
Father, and consubstantial with the Father.” Whereupon questions were put forth
and answers, and the meaning of these terms was clearly defined; when it was
generally admitted that
ousias (of the essence or substance) simply
implied that the Son is of the Father indeed, but does not subsist as a part of
the Father. To this interpretation of the sacred doctrine which declares that
the Son is of the Father, but is not a part of his substance, it seemed right to
us to assent. We ourselves therefore concurred in this exposition; nor do we
cavil at the word “
homoousios” having regard to peace, and fearing to
lose a right understanding of the matter. On the same grounds we admitted also
the expression “begotten, not
made”: “for made,” said they, “is a term
applicable in common to all the creatures which were made by the Son, to whom
the Son has no resemblance. Consequently he is no creature like those which were
made by him, but is of a substance far excelling any creature; which substance
the Divine Oracles teach was begotten of the Father by such a mode of generation
as cannot be explained nor even conceived by any creature.” Thus also the
declaration that “the Son is consubstantial with the Father” having been
discussed, it was agreed that this must not be understood in a corporeal sense,
or in any way analogous to mortal creatures; inasmuch as it is neither by
division of substance, nor by abscission nor by any change of the Father’s
substance and power, since the underived nature of the Father is inconsistent
with all these things. That he is consubstantial with the Father then simply
implies, that the Son of God has no resemblance to created things, but is in
every respect like the Father only who begat him; and that he is of no other
substance or essence but of the Father. To which doctrine, explained in this
way, it appeared right to assent, especially since we knew that some eminent
bishops and learned writers among the ancients have used the term “
homoousios”
in their theological discourses concerning the nature of the Father and the Son.
Yeah he was a straight-up Arian if we're using that polemical label, but being Constantine's friend and admirer he verbally accepted just enough to avoid persecution. This website has a good list of known 'Arian' bishops of the period: https://www.fourthcentury.com/arius-map/
This is probably too specific to hope a specific source speaks to it entirely, it’s really a composite question, so I’ll ask it here:
How early do you think it might not have been overly weird to wind up with a Christian in your advanced rhetoric class? Like I’m imagining some elite rhetorician hosting a whatever-frequency class in his own home, hosting maybe a dozen or two dozen 14-20 year olds from elite families to teach them the most advanced exercises in rhetoric.
At what point is it not super shocking for one or two of those teenagers to be Christians? And in decades without an active persecution, might we expect them to be open about this fact, or hold their beliefs pretty close to their chest?
Is this realistic in 80 CE? 110 CE? Presumably by 150 CE.
Sort of a random question I realize, I’m just thinking about how pretty dang early we seem to have Christian writers trained in pretty advanced techniques. Some of these will have been people converted after their education no doubt, but it gets me thinking about Christians in the classroom.
Hear me out: why not 40 CE or even earlier? If a wealthy family that already planned to place sons with such teachers is involved, there doesn't really need to be a transition period to build up to when it would happen. It could just happen almost immediately, even if not common. Someone could even just come back the next week and 'be Christian'.
Since we don't really have any data on it, consider the case of Falun Gong. It started in 1992 and didn't face restrictions from the government for its first few years. It had university-educated participants and people who were well-ranking in communist party politics, just about immediately after being started. There wasn't a need to wait a number of years to be able to start seeing that.
The analogy also primes an intuition that it could be relatively easy at the earliest point in time to see full integration with the rest of society, while later on that could change.
I love this question and I hope you don't mind me yapping about it.
Where do you even start tackling this? I'm thinking something like,
Establish a working model of elite, urban education in the Roman Empire in the first and early second century. How were the children of well-to-do families educated? What role did rhetoricians play in that education?
Establish a working mental model of rhetoricians as instructors. Did they typically move in a specific social circle? Did they open their doors widely?
Establish a working sociology of the early church communities. I know, vaguely, that there have been studies of the likely socioeconomic distribution of the church in Corinth from Paul's letters. Would a head of household who converted, also lead his family to convert? Would, and I'm just picking out names here, Erastus (Romans 16:23) or Crispus (1 Cor 1:14) or Sosthenes (1 Cor 1:1) or Gaius (1 Cor 1:14) or Stephanas (1 Cor 16:15) have sons? Would those sons have converted? Would those sons (or someone like them, we're being generous) have been "enrolled" in a school of rhetoric?
Some healthy speculation about the spread of the early church community. Presumably there were enough Christians in Rome by the mid 60s that persecuting them was a meaningful thing (Tacitus).
Justin (150s) mentions studying various kinds of philosophy before settling on Christianity (which would have been, working backwards...early second century?) but that's not quite what you want. You want, "son of a convert to Christianity, who also converts, who also is in a school of rhetoric," or even better, "the son raised in a Christian household -- that is, a son who grew up with parents who were longtime Christians," which would necessarily have to be a bit later.
There are biological constraints on the latter, right? Paul shows up in Corinth in the 50s and converts some people. If an elite converted household has a son, it takes 15 years for their kid to even be old enough to be relevant to the question, which puts the earliest date around ~70 CE. And that's just for existence, not commonality.
Middle of the first century for it to be "not impossible to occur"? End of the first century to be "not especially shocking, in some cities, with some specific instructors of rhetoric who moved in certain social circles"? Later to be "not especially shocking in a randomly selected city with a teacher of rhetoric"?
I wrote a short story and was not sure there was another better venue for sharing it, so I posted it on my blog. Many of you will know that this is by no means my first time dabbling in the writing of fiction.
come fanno gli ebrei ortodossi a credere che la legge orale fu comunicata a Mosé sul Sinai quando già la Mishna è una raccolta di commenti di rabbini di 1500 anni dopo il presunto Mosé?
I'm going to repost my comment since the post was deleted, but I've also edited to add (in bold):
This is going to be long, so buckle your seatbelt. In short, oral tradition and unwritten customs are sometimes seen as having greater authority and antiquity than written texts, especially in cultures where most people were not literate. By the time that the Rabbanites became hegemonic (probably by the fifth or sixth centuries, perhaps even slightly later), much of classical rabbinic literature was hundreds of years old. Various local communities probably could not easily assess whether rabbinic interpretations or practices were as old as they claimed. Indeed, the followers of Anan ben David in the eighth century and the rise of the Karaites in the ninth century (originally distinct but later Karaites claimed Anan as their founder) might suggest the degree to which rabbinic culture had not become hegemonic.
Notably, the concepts of Written Torah (תורה שבכתב) and Oral Torah (תורה שבעל פה) are relatively rare in classical rabbinic literature. Both terms appear in Pesikta de-Rav Kahana 10:5 and 15:5, Lamentations Rabbah 2:2, Song of Songs Rabbah 1.3.2, b. Shabbat 31a, b. Yoma 28b, and b. Kiddushin 66a. However, it is presupposed in certain texts (e.g., b. Berakhot 5a; b. Menachot 29b). Other similar phrases exist, such as halakhah le-moshe mi-sinai (“a law to Moses from Sinai”). Christine Hayes interprets this phrase narrowly ("Halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai in Rabbinic Sources: A Methodological Case Study," in The Synoptic Problem in Rabbinic Literature), whereas Azzan Yadin-Israel suggests that any mention of halakhah abbreviates the aforementioned phrase (Yadin-Israel, "The Halakhic Midrashim," 427 n.11). Moreover, while some early texts seem to distinguish between the “words of Torah” (דברי התורה) and the “words of the scribes” (דברי סופרים), it’s not clear that this distinction necessarily presupposes the concept of the Oral Torah. Later texts will distinguish between "Pentateuch law" (אורייתא) and "rabbinic law" (רבנן).
These conceptual distinctions matter because it is not always clear that the early rabbis had a clear conception of the Written versus Oral Torah. For instance, if Yadin-Israel is correct, they might have thought that halakhah, whether understood as halakhah or as the longer phrase halakhah le-moshe mi-sinai, is entirely Mosaic. Indeed, Yadin-Israel has written two books: one on the hermeneutics of the school of Ishmael (as "Azzan Yadin," Scripture as Logos: Rabbi Ishmael and the Origins of Midrash [Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004]) and one on the hermeneutics of the school of Akiva (Scripture and Tradition: Rabbi Akiva and the Triumph of Midrash [Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015]). He has also written an article, "The Halakhic Midrashim and the Canonicity of the Midrash," pages 425-443 in What Is the Mishnah? The State of the Question, ed. Shaye J.D. Cohen (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2022), which synthesizes the two books (and it is more accessible to those less familiar with the technical details of rabbinics). Yadin-Israel essentially argues that there were early rabbis that emphasized the notion of "scripture interprets scripture": "One important indication is that the Rabbi Ishmael midrashim have a trenchantly scripturalist orientation. Stated briefly, the Mekhilta and Sifre Numbers view midrash as a process that takes place “within” Scripture, playing out between two hypostases of the Hebrew Bible—torah and ha-katuv. The former is the text of the Torah, the latter a personification of Scripture as an interpreter that explicates torah and serves as hermeneutic model for rabbinic interpretation. Such a thoroughgoing commitment to scriptural authority leaves little room for extra-scriptural tradition" (p. 430). These are those associated with the School of Ishmael. The School of Akiva, by contrast, was more inclined to accept extra-biblical traditions (i.e., halakhah) that may not have initially had scriptural support. For instance, there are times in the Akivan midrashim where 1) the interpretation does not clearly follow the interpreted word, phrase, or verse and 2) there is no attempt to draw on other biblical passages for support.
Why do I raise this distinction here? Because early on, there is already some ambivalence about authorizing extra-biblical practices that are later deemed "Akivan." Indeed, in more pro-Akivan texts like the Mishnah and Tosefta, there is ambivalence about the relationship between scripture and extra-biblical tradition (e.g., m. Hagigah 1:8) or treating both written and oral tradition as Torah without distinction (t. Eduyyot 1:1). Akiva is, in some sense, victorious, but I think extra-scriptural traditions as well as the Akivan way of midrashic interpretation will be a continuous issue. Moreover, the kind of shoehorning we sometimes see in Akivan midrashic interpretation might result from the School of Ishmael (i.e., individual rabbis now had to root their halakhot in the written text, even when the interpretation is forced).
A good book on the subject is Rebecca Wollenberg's The Closed Book, which I reviewed here. In brief, Wollenberg argues that the rabbis, as a whole, were suspicious of written textuality. There is good reason for this. Texts are fragile. Anyone who has done text criticism knows texts can be altered over time (cf. the more recent debates about Marcion's Evangelion). Wollenberg argues that the rabbis developed what she calls a "third Torah" or "spoken scripture." The way that I would gloss Wollenberg's argument is to actually appeal to text-critical language. Both the Oral and Written Torahs are two different manuscripts, whereas spoken scripture constitutes a kind of Urtext.
Finally, it is worth noting an older article by Peter Schäfer ("Das 'Dogma' von der mündlichen Torah im rabbinischen Judentum," in Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des rabbinischen Judentums), which sought to trace the development of the Oral Torah as a concept. He concludes that, "It was not until the amoraic period that the "dogma" tracing the entire Oral Torah back to Moses became firmly established. The school of R. Yohanan [b. Napacha] in Tiberias played an important role in this process" (Erst in amoräischer Zeit verfestigt sich das "Dogma" von der Rückführung der ganzen mündlischen Torah auf Mose. Eine wichtige Rolle spielt hier Schule R. Yohanans in Tiberias, p. 197).
Here, I focus less on how the rabbis could project later traditions back into the past. One thing to remember is that Greek discourses discuss unwritten versus written law. Yair Furstenberg raises this in his book chapter, "The Shared Image of Pharisaic Law in the Gospels and Rabbinic Tradition," in The Pharisees. Bracketing the assumption that the Pharisees and rabbis were directly connected, as Furstenberg seems to imply, his observations about Greek (and later Roman) notions of unwritten law are salient. Philo argues that "for customs are unwritten laws, the decisions of approved men of old, not inscribed on monuments nor on leaves of paper which the moth destroys, but on the souls of those who are partners in the same citizenship. For children ought to inherit from their parents, besides their property, ancestral customs which they were reared in and have lived with even from the cradle, and not despise them because they have been handed down without written record" (Philo, Spec. Laws 4.149-50). Both Plato (Laws 7.793b-c) and Aristotle (Rhetoric 1.14.7) seem to accept that unwritten law is more compelling than written laws. Part of this may be because most people could not read or write, so oral ancestral customs were seen as more authoritative.
Indeed, Hayes notes that the Palestinian rabbis move toward collapsing the distinction between scriptural commands and extra-biblical traditions, whereas the Babylonian rabbis reinforce it. In the Palestinian Talmud, a phrase appears periodically: "custom nullifies halakhah" (ha-minhag mebatteil et ha-halakhah). This was polemically taken up by medieval Babylonian Rabbanites (e.g., Pirqoi b. Baboi's letter) as evidence that Palestinian rabbinic traditions were corrupted due to Christian persecution. However, Palestinian rabbinic traditions seem to have continued to emphasize the authority of oral ancestral customs, to the point that they could nullify rabbinic law. Of course, this dynamic continues into modernity, where a well-established custom might trump rabbinic law. (I believe Daniel Sperber has collected various customs in a multi-volume series, though it is in Modern Hebrew.) The earlier rabbis might have exploited a similar dynamic, though it is not always clear (and in many cases unlikely) that the extra-biblical traditions they expound are very old.
u/GrouchyRiverRun I'll quickly answer your latest comments on Job here because I don't have resources at hand for proper sourcing, and there seem to be misconceptions that go beyond the scope of the ancient studies in them.
The book of Job isn't just about Job's tribulations, the dialog between Job and his friends notably includes Job countering "traditional wisdom" models by pointing to the injustice of the world. See as an example Job's speech in Job 9:
22It is all one; therefore I say,
he [God/YHWH] destroys both the blameless and the wicked.
23When disaster brings sudden death,
he mocks at the calamity of the innocent.
24The earth is given into the hand of the wicked;
he covers the eyes of its judges—
if it is not he, who then is it?
Or Job 21 (focusing on how the "wicked" often prosper).
Job's children didn't do anything special to deserve being killed, and are mostly just "props" for the story's themes, but as another commenter pointed out, were killed in the story precisely because Job was so exceptionally just. The lack of discernable divine justice is a central theme of the book.
Chapter 3 of Newsom's The Book of Job: a Contest of Moral Imagination offers a pretty good discussion of the book in the context of ancient "wisdom literature", and notably how eschewing a clear resolution is an integral part of the "genre", in chapter 3 (partly accessible here, you can use the menu to navigate. Hamori's God's Monsters, recommended by another user, is fantastic and very digestible as well.
Assuming that God in the book (or other parts of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament) is "omniscient and omnipotent" (or benevolent) is shoehorning later theological models into the texts rather than engaging with their own cosmology/context. It feels like you are engaging with modern (mostly Christian) pious representations of Job rather than the story and dialogs, or are at least projecting those on your reading.
I really have to go, but hopefully this feedback and the sundry resources recommended under the post will end up being insightful to you.
Reposting this question for more visibility and to gather more responses: What are some of your favorite long pieces (like 600+ pages) of biblical scholarship, whether they be traditional academic books, commentaries on individual Bible books, or something else?
I really like using a combination of the Miqra'ot Gedolot and the JPS Torah commentary, I feel like they offer a nice blend of ancient versus modern commentary,
I also find reading the Talmud Yerushalmi pretty fun, I don't know if that would be considered biblical academia though I guess it depends on how you define it, but I like reading it because it's has such interesting debate, and it's more extensive than the Mishnah, while at the same time not being as extensive as the Talmud Bavli, and it's interesting to see a kind of alternate version of the Talmud.
The Scribes of the Torah: The Formation of the Pentateuch in its Literary and Historical Contexts (SBL Press, 2023), by scholar Konrad Schmid.
The Origin and Character of God: Ancient Israelite Religion Through the Lens of Divinity (Oxford University Press, 2020), by scholar Theodore J. Lewis.
The claim in this Wikipedia article "Slavery in Antiquity" at the end of this paragraph seems false to me, but it cites a PhD (likely overstating his case), and I hesitate to edit or remove it because I have no credentials and no experience disputing bad info on Wikipedia. Thoughts? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_antiquity#In_the_Bible
14
u/DositheosModerator | MA - Biblical Studies (New Testament)6d agoedited 5d ago
The PhD that it cites is Peter J. Williams, a conservative evangelical apologist and New Testament scholar. Williams believes in the inerrancy of the Bible (see his debates on YouTube with Bart Ehrman, where he explicitly mentions it as such). The website it's linked to, "BeThinking", is not an academic site or peer-reviewed journal article; it's a Christian ministry. I am not aware of whether Williams has actually published any peer-reviewed scholarship on slavery in antiquity, but this article is Christian apologetics, not scholarship.
Whoever added this link to Wikipedia and/or wrote this section is obviously a Christian apologist trying to make the Bible look different and morally superior to other ancient slavery contexts. I guess the quality problem of this article has been noted since 2019, but no one has bothered to update it and remove the link. Wikipedia in general is probably not the most reliable way to get information about currents in biblical scholarship. Anyone with any motive can add something, and they are often subject to Wikipedia wars. I've noticed some other articles are sometimes heavily overrepresenting conservative evangelical views, not mainstream, secular critical scholarship on religion/the bible.
Joshua Bowen is a much better source for this, but see also Jennifer Glancy, Slavery in Early Christianity, Expanded Edition (2024), and the recent volume Ancient Slavery and Its New Testament Contexts, edited by Christy Cobb and Katherine A. Shaner (Eerdmans, 2025). Dan McClellan also has innumerable videos on this topic in the Bible.
Sounds like the classic mistake Joshua Bowen complains about in which we compare the regulations of one system of slavery to the actual practice of another system of slavery, rather than anything apples to apples.
1
u/WantonReader 10h ago edited 10h ago
hi u/levi_snieder
I hope it is fine that I'm commenting on your post here, since my comment won't fit the criteria for dedicated posts on here.
I had a somewhat similar experience to you some years ago, at least if you are talking about the most common atheist subreddit. They actually had an essay on the historical Jesus on their wiki in the sidebar. It didn't straight up say that Jesus didn't exist, but it heavily leaned that way in ways that I found suspicious. I asked people here what they thought of the essay. Unfortunately, I think I deleted the comment, but people pretty widely disliked that essay. It did include things like claiming that only Christian researchers support an historical Jesus, which simply false.
My impression is that, at least on atheist spaces here on reddit, that 'atheism' is a more respectable label for what could better be called anti-theism or anti-religionism. Mythicism is both an existing theory that is easy to incorporate within that and a controversial statement that fits well if one has a view of one self as an underdog against old, institutional powers. Be they a religion, church or academia.
Anyway, hope this comment has been helpful to you. I am sure other people commenting on your post can give you some credible resources for you to study on your own.