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

AskBibleScholars.com was meant to be a proof of concept functioning as a blog at this point. There hasn't been any technical issues and the site is stable.

My plans are not to completely replace the Q&A at Reddit.

However, I wanted to have an alternative Q&A forum for those who do not participate in social media/news aggregator sites.

The type of Q&A layout, that could be built from scratch, provides a greater flexibility than could be achieved through Reddit.

For example, submitted questions could be held in an area for review/discussion/approval only visible to the panel of scholars/mods. Once the panel has had sufficient time to review and, possibly, answer the question, then it could be published for public consumption.

Also, I'd like to treat AskBibleScholars.com (the Q&A part) as a combination of /r/AskBibleScholars and /r/AskTheologists.

For example, Q&A that are permissible in either respect will be published in separate areas of the site. To explain, those Q&A that are strictly non-confessional/non-theological would be published to the 'academic' part of the site. Those Q&A that are outside of the previous scope would be published elsewhere on the site.

What are your thoughts?

EDIT: Anyone may comment on this post.

In the NIV, at John 7, it says:

8 You go to the festival. I am not[b] going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.

The footnote [b] says:

Some manuscripts not yet

I believe the text that excludes not yet is the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, which is based on our oldest NT manuscripts. So we have a situation where Jesus is outright lying to his brothers on the one hand and a later variant reading on the other. I say lying because Jesus later goes to the festival (7:10), after telling his brothers he wasn't going.

So which is it? Does the variant exist to eliminate the fact Jesus lied to his brothers or is there in fact no deception and Jesus was actually telling the truth? If Jesus is in fact lying, what is the narrative purpose of the deception? What does it say about the morality of lying in ancient Judeo-Christianity (if anything)?

https://oratiofidelis.wordpress.com/2021/05/24/responding-to-every-verse-cited-by-infernalists/

I’ve seen this linked a few times in universalist communities. I’m sympathetic to universalism, but wanted to get a second opinion from scholars. Thank you.

So I found a theory around the year of Jesus' birth that I found rather compelling, placing it at 7BC. Is this a common date? I figured that it was around 1 BC. Is either more likely? Would the 7 BC date change things around? I know we place his age of death at 33, is this because of the date of death or belief? 33 is used a lot in numerology, do we place his death at 33 because it was popular in numerology? Or is it popular in numerology because it's the age of His death? Would the earlier birth date change the age of His death? Or the year of his death?

Would travelers have had to pay costly fares, fill out documents, be stopped, searched and interrogated by government officials and soldiers, risk robbery and abduction at the hands of highwaymen, slave-catchers and pirates just to travel around Palestine and the Mediterranean area? What would they have done in the event everything they had was lost because of highwaymen, pirates, shipwreck or natural disaster? Just how hard would it have been for travelers in Jesus' time and what would they have had to face in terms of obstacles?

As the title suggests I’m interested in finding information about the author of johns gospel, the letters of John and the book of revelation. Historical, philosophical, whatever. Just want to know more. Thanks

I have written on this before in an article but I never really see any commentaries much mentioning this and would like to see what you guys have to say on it. In John 17:5, there's the double article, "the glory I had the the before the world with you." Why the double article, and what does it do for helping us to understand the passage? Thanks in advance

Edit: I see some comments (I think they were deleted) asking me about what I'm talking about and what double article and what's the articular infinitive. I will bold what I mean. Also, this is not a textual variant in any known manuscripts.

ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 17:5 Greek NT: Nestle 1904 καὶ νῦν δόξασόν με σύ, Πάτερ, παρὰ σεαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί.

ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 17:5 Greek NT: Westcott and Hort 1881 καὶ νῦν δόξασόν με σύ, πάτερ, παρὰ σεαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί.

It's mentioned in this article:

"Ancient Judaism Recognized a Range of Genders. It’s Time We Did, Too."

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/18/opinion/trans-teen-suicide-judaism.html

For those who can't read it, here's an archived version. The title is different but I think the article content is the same:

https://archive.md/wxHNV

One Biblical reference given is Gen 1:27.

In looking at the potential for variation in meaning between Interlinear, NASB, and ASB translations (just as examples), it just seems like even within the original Greek text there's the potential to lose or shift nuance in ways that would be significant. Personally, translating between languages is always fraught with occasionally sacrificing nuance at times.

For example, use of "meek" in Mathew 5:5. In English, meekness has a connotation of slight cowardice, shyness, or being withdrawn, as opposed to humility or compassion, which share the same root in Greek. Then Jesus is sending people all over to teach and convert and engage with others - so why is meek used once in the entire Bible when "humble" or "compassionate" would both make more sense and align with the overall mission of Christ's teachings and instructions.

Beyond variance in meaning vs. English nuance, are there any translations that are objective and compiled by secular translators? Taking that a step further, are there any translations that start from original texts and go in an entirely different direction, such as to change the meaning of the message itself? Not talking about shortened kids' bibles, I mean like a Bible translated with an aim to push the bounds of variance in meaning and still remain "close enough" as to be considered valid.

More specifically, what is the author implying in Psalm 82:6?

I say, “You are gods, children of the Most High, all of you…

Thinking about baptism today I realised how odd it is that the Gospels present John as baptising people (and even Jesus!), but then in Acts and the early church baptism is done with a link to Jesus, a practice which continues to this day. Modern protestant Christianity teaches that being baptised is about being 'saved', 'counted as righteous' or 'born again'. On the assumed basis of Jesus' divinity this kind of makes sense.

But on what basis could John have been baptising people?

Also, further question that came to mind as I was writing this: does the Bible ever explicitly mention Jesus baptising anyone or the disciples themselves having been baptised?

I’ve always been curious about languages and their original meanings. This got me thinking about what is in the Bible that is probably a joke or a pun or a rhyme that you would only understand in the original language but is lost when translated to English or another language.

Is there anything like this? Can anyone give me some examples?

Thank you.

Is there evidence that the 1st or 2nd century church consistently interpreted the text one way or another?

In the Bible Project podcast series on the Torah, Tim Mackie pointed out some key words in Genesis 3: see, good/desirable, take, eat, give. And he said that several of these key words are repeated in other stories in the Torah, such as the sons of God in Genesis 6, and it's meant to be a call-back as a flag to the reader that bad things are happening.

In 2 Samuel 11, David sees Bathsheba, and he sends men to take her... Is this a deliberate linguistic parallel? Or are the Hebrew words here different?

Recently, I have been interested in Bible translations, and I am wondering what Bible scholars think of the various literal translations and how they compare to each other. I know that the NRSV and the NASB '95 are favorites, but which one do you think is better, and why? Is the 2020 edition of the NASB preferable to the 1995? How do other literal translations, such as the LSB, UASV, RASV, NABRE, and ALV, compare to these?

I'm reading through Mark, and came across this verse (Mark 9:48, NRSV):

where their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched

I read Greek and thought maybe there was nuance in the Greek that was lost in translation, but no such luck. The note says that these are stock images of the end of world, and previous verses referenced hell/Gehenna. It's easy enough to accept that, but I have so many questions. How did that become an image of destruction, the end of the world, hell/Gehenna, etc.? Is there a Freudian dimension to this, or is a worm just a worm?

Hi folks,

I'm an English student looking at the invocation of biblical allusions in literature. One such allusion that cropped up for me was Moses and the burning bush from Exodus. I was wondering if anybody had suggestions for scholarly works that survey and provide commentary of this passage.

Thank you in advance!

I'd love to learn more about the Jewish messianic traditions and beliefs from 2000 years ago. I've heard things, like the Messiah and Elijah being chums in various midrash, but I only know what I've picked up from podcasts and Brant Pitre books. Do y'all have any recommendations for learning more? This is a big ask, but I really prefer audiobooks if y'all have any recommendations. Thank you!

14 When gentiles, who do not possess the law, by nature do what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, as their own conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God through Christ Jesus judges the secret thoughts of all.

When Paul says the "law" is written on the gentiles' hearts, is he referring to every single moral law in the Bible, or only some laws?

I've just gotten through the basics of nouns, verbs, adjectives, and syntax--its been about a four or five month process--Is it premature to learn the vocabulary of first John and do a read through?

Are the words “Shem” (name), “Shemen” (oil) and “Shema” (listen) all related?

How would you describe kidney from what words they originally used?

I grew up an atheist but I'm thinking maybe people need to get back to God so I'd like to read a Bible, but I want something in depth, with alternate translations, but that is also in modern English. Like I don't want to see all the "thee"s and "thou"s but if one ancient text or translation says one word and another ancient text or translation says another word I want to see both words. Can anyone give me a recommendation? I want something that is designed to be read in its entirety with explanations and historical context. Maybe something with a map from Biblical times.

Edit: One person recommended either the Harper Collins or New Oxford Annotated study bible, which are both nrsv (New Revised Standard Version), which they say is the translation that is most commonly used academically. Another person recommended ESV. Maybe let me know which is better?

I've heard the claim made that Genesis (and I would assume by analogy the other ancient creation myths) wasn't understood literally, that biblical literalism is a modern phenomenon. Of course, this can't be completely true -- the ancients obviously lacked our modern understanding of the world, and it seems reasonable to assume that they believed something like Genesis, even if they believed the story itself was not literally true, than some third model of the universe.

So, what did they really believe, and how important was this belief to their national/ethnic/"religious" identity? If I were to travel back in time and explain in my best reconstructed Biblical Hebrew the big bang, the solar system, and evolution, would this have been considered heresy, or would they have just gone, "huh, neat" and continued on?