Best products from r/AcademicBiblical

We found 146 comments on r/AcademicBiblical discussing the most recommended products. We ran sentiment analysis on each of these comments to determine how redditors feel about different products. We found 717 products and ranked them based on the amount of positive reactions they received. Here are the top 20.

4. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts

    Features:
  • Zendure: Originated from one of the most successful external battery projects on Kickstarter. Trusted by hundreds of thousands of fans worldwide. Join the Zendure experience today.
  • ZEN+: Ultimate compatibility. Each port automatically detects your device and fine tunes the output to charge it at maximum speed (up to 2.1A). Enjoy top charging speed with a "Zen" peace of mind. In addition, it's one of the very few external batteries in the market with 4 USB outputs, a total of 3.1A max output, and an LED digital display.
  • Durability & Style: Crush proof composite material, dual-injection molding and a shock-absorbing central belt make it one of the most durable and yet stylish external batteries available.
  • 1) Charge-Through - Charge Zendure while charging your devices with a single wall charger, a feature rarely seen in other power banks. (2A power source required). 2) Auto-On - Turns itself on automatically when connected to compatible devices so you don't need to push the power button on the external battery. 3) Long-Term Standby - Maintains up to 95% of charge after six months in standby (when USB disconnected). A great feature for emergency backup.
  • What You Get: Zendure A8 Portable Charger External Battery Power Bank, Micro USB cable, travel pouch, thank you card, product guide, 18-month warranty and friendly customer service.
The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts
▼ Read Reddit mentions

Top comments mentioning products on r/AcademicBiblical:

u/thelukinat0r · 18 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

I can't say that I'm familiar with the writings about Romulus, Asclepius, or Hercules; however, the Gospels seem (at least in their final form) to be written and redacted by people who were trying to portray a somewhat historically accurate picture of Jesus of Nazareth. Whether they are wholly or in part actually historically accurate is a totally different question, which I won't delve into here. The genre of the Gospels is sometimes referred to as a subset of Greco-Roman Biography or of Ancient Biography or simply of ancient Lives (βίοι, bioi; vitae) writings.^1



Ancient Biography^2 | Gospels^2
---|---
In ancient biographies, the subject’s name is listed at the very beginning of the text or immediately following the prologue. | All four Gospels mention the name of their subject (Jesus) in or directly after the prologue (though they lack a formal title signaling that they are ancient biographies).
Authors of ancient biographies could present the subject’s words either chronologically or topically. They could also highlight one time period of the subject’s life over and above others (e.g., a particular battle, time in office, death, etc.).| The Gospels aren't too concerned with the chronology of Jesus' life/teaching. Each of the Gospels devotes a considerable amount of attention to Jesus’ death, which aligns with ancient biographers’ tendency to devote more attention to the events or attributes that they believed best portrayed their subject.
Authors of ancient biographies maintained a singular focus on the subject (unlike ancient historiographers, who could offer treatments of several key characters). The individual focused on in the biography was the subject of the verb more than any other character. | Jesus is the subject of the verb in the Gospels far more often than any other individual.
Ancient biographies were typically written in narrative form and typically ranged from 5,000–25,000 words. | The Gospels were written in narrative form and fall within the 5,000–25,000 word count common to ancient biographies.
Ancient biographies were often framed by the birth and death of the individual (although some could start at adulthood) and then filled out with various stories, speeches, or actions from the life of the subject. | Two of the Gospels (Matthew and Luke) open with the narration of Jesus’ birth, while the other two begin in His adult ministry.
Authors of ancient biographies predominantly highlighted specific character traits of their subjects through the inclusion of a subject’s words and deeds, rather than direct analysis or commentary. | The bulk of the narrative is composed of miracle stories, discourses on various topics, sayings, and parables that contribute to the author’s portrayal of Jesus.
Authors of ancient biographies often used a wide variety of both oral and written sources and had greater freedom than historiographers in deciding which information to include or exclude. | The Gospel writers seem to have used a variety of sources in composing their Gospels.
The authors of ancient biographies deployed a range of styles in their writing—from formal to more popular literature—and wrote in both serious and light tones. | The Gospels have a serious tone, and the writers predominantly used a simplistic or popular writing style.
Most ancient biographies cast their subject in a positive light. In some cases the portrayals seem too positive, which makes the characterization seem contrived or stereotypical. | The writers of the four Gospels cast Jesus in a positive light and exhibit the same intentions or purposes for writing as other authors of ancient biographies.

If I understand the Greco-Roman Biography genre correctly, they were normally intended by their authors to be historically factual, but often integrated with ideology (or in the case of the Gospels, theology). The important thing to note is that they didn't pen history or biography in the same way moderns do. They took certain liberties in their telling of the story of someone's life. We wouldn't always see that as a responsible way to do history, but they didn't have the same concept of historiography as us moderns. Furthermore, I'd like to quote at length from Brant Pitre^3 regarding Jesus quotes and gospel/historical Jesus research:

> First, with reference in particular to the sayings of Jesus, it is important to be precise about what I mean when I speak about the "historicity" or "historical plausibility."
> On the one hand, there are some readers of the Gospels who come to them looking for the ipsissima verb Jesu (the "exact words of Jesus"). As contemporary scholarship rightly insists, rarely, if ever, is it possible for us to reconstruct the exact words of Jesus.^4 Indeed, as even a cursory comparison of the sayings of Jesus in a Gospel synopsis shows, on many occasions, the evangelists themselves do not seem bent on giving us anything like the exact words of Jesus.^5 ... On the other hand, it is much more popular in the scholarly realm to come to the Gospels seeking the ipsissima vox Jesu, an expression sometimes used to refer to "the basic message of Jesus" or "the 'kind of thing' he usually or typically said."^6 Although at first glance this may seem like a more helpful formulation, upon further reflection, there are several problems with it. For one thing, "the exact voice of Jesus" (ipsissima vox Jesu) reflects the peculiarly modern preoccupation with exactitude (ipse), and hence smacks both of historical positivism and philosophical foundationalism. Moreover, the emphasis on the exact "voice" (vox) of Jesus is precisely the wrong emphasis. The image of a "voice" lends itself to a focus on how someone sounds (form), rather than what someone says (content), for a "voice" can be completely without substance or meaning... However, for historical research, a case can be made that it is not so much the form of Jesus' teaching that is most important, but the content or substance... Once again, even a quick glance at any Synopsis of the Gospels should show us that a representation of the exact forms of Jesus' sayings does not seem to have been a primary goal of the evangelists.^7 ...
> In this study, I will be pursuing what I would like to refer to as the substantia verb Jesu—i.e., the substance of the words of Jesus. In other words, I am interested in what he said and did and what it might have meant in a first-century Jewish context. Hence, whenever I conclude that a particular saying or action is historical or historically plausible, I am not saying that Jesus said exactly these words (ipsissima verba), nor am I just saying the text "sounds exactly like Jesus" (ipsissima vox). Instead, I am claiming that the basic substance or content of the teaching or action can be reasonably concluded as having originated with him.^8 That is what I mean by historical — no more, and no less.^9


[Edit: I'd like to say that /u/Nadarama and /u/o_kosmos have great points against what I've presented here. I wish I had time to give each the response it deserves, but right now I don't, so I apologize. What I will say is this: the view I've presented is one popular theory among scholars, but is not without its problems. If I understand correctly, its something of a majority view, but I'm open to being corrected on that. Its certainly no "scholarly consensus," if such a thing can be found.]

***

  1. See David Aune, Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament: Selected Forms and Genres (Atlanta: SBL, 1988), 107 and Burridge, R. A. “Gospel: Genre” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels Edited by Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), 335-343.
  2. Adapted from Edward T. Wright, “Ancient Biography,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).
  3. Brant Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 46-47.
  4. E.g., Geza Vermes, Jesus in His Jewish Context (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 74.
  5. Emphasis mine
  6. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1:174
  7. Emphasis mine
  8. Emphasis mine
  9. See Theissen and Winter, The Quest for the Plausible Jesus (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 197-99.
u/TooManyInLitter · 6 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

Not a scholar, but a hobbyist.

The position presented by FRANKEL fits well with the predecessor (pre- Exilic period, prior to 5th-8th century BCE) where Yahweh was just one of 70 sons of El, the Father God/God Most High, in the large El polytheistic Pantheon, and during the process of the advancement of Yahweh and Yahweh worship from polytheism to henotheism (a monolatry for Yahweh; Yahweh is in charge, there are other Gods to worship) to an aggressive monolatrist polytheistic belief (Yahweh is the most important God, there exists other Gods but worship of these other Gods is to be actively rejected) to, finally, a monotheistic belief system (there is and, somehow, always has been, only Yahweh) was not yet complete. To me, this is just one of many verses in the Torah/OT that survived editing/redaction.

An area that I am interested in (as a hobbyist) is the origin story of Yahweh and Yahweh worship that precedes, and leads to, the Torah. If you are interested some references on the growth of monotheistic Yahwehism from a historical polytheistic foundation of holy scripture to the development of the henotheism and then monotheism of early Biblical Israelites:

u/EntropyFighter · 3 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

This is from "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong (pp. 20-21 in the paperback version).

> The Israelites called Yahweh "the God of our fathers," yet it seems that he may have been quite a different deity from El, the Canaanite High God worshiped by the patriarchs. He may have been the god of other people before he became the God of Israel. In all his early appearances to Moses, Yahweh insists repeatedly and at some length that he is indeed the God of Abraham, even though he had originally been called El Shaddai. This insistence may preserve the distant echoes of a very early debate about the identity of the God of Moses. It has been suggested that Yahweh was originally a warrior god, a god of volcanoes, a god worshiped in Midian, in what is now Jordan.^17 We shall never know where the Israelites discovered Yahweh, if indeed he was a completely new deity. Again this would be a very important question for us today, but it was not so crucial for the biblical writers. In pagan antiquity, gods were often merged and amalgamated, or the gods of one locality accepted as identical with the god of another people. All we can be sure of is that, whatever his provenance, the events of the Exodus made Yahweh the definitive God of Israel and that Moses was able to convince the Israelites that he really was the one and the same El, the God beloved by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

^17 - L.E. Bihu, "Midianite Elements in Hebrew Religion," Jewish Theological Studies, 31; Salo Wittermeyer Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, 10 vols., 2nd ed. (New York, 1952-19667), I. p. 46.

It's also worth noting that Yahweh originally was a mid-level deity in a Canaanite religion (as also detailed in the Karen Armstrong book and the book "The Evolution of God".) Baal was another mid-level god in this religion, which helps to explain why he's in the Bible. There are poems to El (the high god in the Canaanite religion) that have been found rewritten to be for Yahweh. In a literal sense, gods were transmuting and evolving in this time. This makes the answer to your question likely 'no'. But I'm extrapolating from the referenced sources. It's more like they didn't think about gods the way your question asks about them.

u/OtherWisdom · 3 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

Right. That's an important question. I've read Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity and the rub is that when Paul spent his time in Arabia, the resurrected Jesus took him into the "heavens" and showed him numerous things. These things Paul encapsulated into what he called "my gospel" that he states was not taught to him by other humans, but rather by this risen Christ figure.

EDIT: Here's an excerpt from the aforementioned book:

> According to Paul this new genus of Spirit-beings of which Jesus was the “firstborn” is part of an expanded cosmic family (Romans 8:29). Paul believed that Jesus was born of a woman as a flesh-and-blood human being, descended from the royal lineage of King David, so he could qualify as an “earthly” Messiah in Jewish thinking. But for Paul such physical Davidic lineage was nothing in comparison to the glorification of Jesus as the firstborn Son of God. Paul describes it thus: “The gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh but appointed Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness through the resurrection of the dead” (Romans 1:4). What this means is that God, as Creator, has inaugurated a process through which he is reproducing himself—literally bringing to birth a “God-Family.” Jesus, now transformed into the heavenly glorified Christ/Messiah, is the firstborn brother of an expanded group of divine offspring. Those who “belong to Christ” or are spiritually “in Christ,” to use Paul’s favorite expressions, have become impregnated by the Holy Spirit and like tiny spiritual embryos are growing and developing into the image of Christ until the time comes for their transformative “birth” from flesh and blood to life-giving Spirits. As Paul says, “He who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.” Paul compares this union of “spirits” to that of a man and a woman when “the two shall become one flesh” (1 Corinthians 6:17).

u/extispicy · 1 pointr/AcademicBiblical

Ha! Be careful what you are offering there - I will definitely reach out next time I'm stumped!

I've been working on biblical Hebrew for six months or so, being frustrated that much of the scholarship assumes you can read the language. I started out with The First Hebrew Primer, but it was too intense for my 20-minutes-a-day plan, so I dumbed it down and am just about done with Prayerbook Hebrew the Easy Way. Not sure where I'm going from here; I actually picked up a couple used books this weekend that I'm going to thumb through.

I signed up for a Hebrew class at a local synagogue, which they graciously allowed me to tag along in. It's only been three classes so far, but it is an interesting dynamic. On one side, you've got a class full of people that grew up saying these prayers, but have only a minimal understanding of what they say. Then you've got me on the other side who can kinda sorta stumble through the text, but have never heard them even spoken, let alone chanted! While the textbook they use isn't rigorous in any sense, I think the group setting and hearing it spoken (and chanted!) will do a lot for comprehension - and it seems like a great group of people to hang out with on Sunday mornings :)

u/SF2K01 · 3 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

My main recommendation here is usually James Kugel's How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture Then and Now. I do like Ehrman, I really enjoyed his dissection of NT studies, but Kugel definitely covers areas that Ehrman does not.

>are there perhaps any in-depth commentaries that are widely accepted that would make a good starting point for someone like me?

I guess that depends on what sort of commentary you are looking for.

One fantastic one I can recommend is The Jewish Annotated New Testament which gives both a lot of sorely needed context to NT texts with essays from many important scholars of Jewish studies, but also provides numerous cross-references in Rabbinic literature (probably only relevant for scholars more like myself) on relevant ideas.

u/Quadell · 10 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

Raymond Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament, published in 1997 from the Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library, includes attempts to review and summarize scholarly opinion on authorship (and date and purpose and audience) of all the books in the New Testament Canon. Here are some passages relevant to your question.

From "Did Paul Write II Thessalonians?" (pp. 592-594):

> In 20th-century German scholarship, running from W. Wrede in 1904 to W. Trilling in 1972, arguments presented against Pauline writing gradually made this minority view more and more accepted. English-speaking scholarship (e.g., Aus, Best, Bruce, Jewett, L. T. Johnson, Marshall, and Morris) has tended to defend writing by Paul, but more recently Bailey, Collins, Giblin, Holland, and Hughes have been among the increasing numbers opting for pseudonymity.

Of the scholars defending Pauline authorship, the most relevant might be R. Aus, Augsberg Commentaries, 1984; and R. Jewett, The Thessalonian Corresponandance, 1986. Brown also goes on to list the main arguments for and against Pauline authorship, which is worth reading.

From "Did Paul Write Colossians?" (pp. 610-615):

> At the present moment about 60 percent of critical scholarship holds that Paul did not write the letter.

A footnote here says that R. F. Collins, in Letters that Paul Did Not Write (1988), "surveys the various scholars and the nuances of their views." The footnote also says, "Cannon's detailed study favors Paul as the writer", referring to G. E. Cannon's 1983 publication "The Use of Traditional Materials in Colossians". Though Brown doesn't dwell on which scholars have which opinions, he does survey arguments for and against. I suppose Collins would be a good place to look for more.

From "Ephesians: To Whom and By Whom?" (pp. 626-630):

> Although some scholars continue to accept Paul as the writer of Eph, the thrust of the evidence has pushed 70 to 80 percent of critical scholarship to reject that view, including a significant number who think that Paul wrote Col.

Though Brown does not here list scholars who argue Pauline authorship, a previous footnote states "See in Cross, the debate over the Pauline writings of Eph (for, J. N. Sanders; against, D. E. Nineham." This refers to F. L. Cross's Studies in Ephesians (1956), and presumably earlier scholars he cites. Brown gives an analysis of arguments both for and against pseudonymity, though he doesn't list a single paper published after 1970 that argues Pauline authorship, which is telling.

In "Who Wrote Titus and I Timothy? (pp. 662-668), he gives a wide array of reasons to doubt the authority of the Pastorals, also explaining traditional reasons to suppose Pauline authorship, and concludes:

> About 80 to 90 percent of modern scholars would agree that the Pastorals were written after Paul's lifetime.

He indicates that more information can be found in R. F. Collins's Letters that Paul Did Not Write, which argues pseudonymity. But the only modern scholars Brown mentions who might still hold Pauline authorship of the Pastorals is G. W. Knight, from the New International Commentary on the New Testament, 1992, and L. T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament, 1986. When discussing II Timothy, Brown only mentions that some scholars still hold Pauline authorship without naming them specifically, though he indicates that Johnson may be one.

All in all, I'd say Brown somewhat understates the likelihood that a modern scholar will think these letters are pseudonymous. But if you read the percentages as "percent of New Testament scholars still alive in 1997 who hold this opinion, regardless of when their most recent relevant publication was", it may not be far from the mark.

Brown also includes an entire chapter, "25: Pseudonymity and the Deuteropauline Writings" that examines the issues holistically, giving a great deal of insight about the complex issues involved in determining authorship of ancient texts. It's definitely worth reading, if you get a chance.

u/[deleted] · 2 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

I sense a common thread in some of these answers: The Revised Standard Version. The NRSV is a descendent of the RSV, while the NASB a reaction to perceived flaws of the RSV:
>The NASB is a revision of the American Standard Version of 1901. This translation was an alternative to the Revised Standard Version (1946–1952/1971), itself a revision of the ASV, but considered by many to be theologically liberal. Wikipedia

Do you guys have a favorite "dynamic equivalence" translation?

And do some scholars respect the RSV or ESV enough to use them? I'm reading EP Sanders' 2001 entry on Paul in the Very Short Introductions series, and he quotes the RSV because he believes it's the "best translation" (p.150) even though the NRSV had been out for over a decade.

u/LogiWan · 12 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

Biblical Studies major here.

The consensus I have gathered from my B.S. professors is that the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) is a relatively accurate English translation backed by a lot of scholarship. In my classes (at Azusa Pacific University) we always use the New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, which uses the NRSV translation and is full of relevant scholarly annotations, introductions, and brief commentaries. I consider it indispensable. You can check it out here.

I've heard critiques that the NRSV can be biased toward "liberal/progressive" scholarship and translation. The ESV is also considered accurate, but has a more "conservative" bias, if that helps. Neither the KJV or the NIV are usually thought to be accurate, as both are dynamic equivalent translations (KJV is meant to sound pretty, and also has dogmatic translator's bias, and the NIV is meant to be relevant and easy to read for contemporary Christians. Neither is foremost striving for accuracy, which would be more of a direct equivalent translation approach).

TL;DR: The New Oxford Annotated Bible and New Revised Standard Version in general are relatively trustworthy and accurate the original texts. If you are looking for precise translation, NIV and KJV are not the best.

u/matt2001 · 5 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

There seems to be a large gap between what is taught in the churches and what is thought to be accurate - like Abraham, Moses, Exodus, etc. A growing number want to know if their beliefs are backed by evidence.

From this sub, I found reference to Tabor's Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity This is not what I learned in Sunday school. I watched a lecture referenced here: What Was The Exodus? Again, excellent and not what I was taught.

Academics sharing thoughts and references makes a difference. I hope a solution can be found and agree with a FAQ with links to books, lectures, articles, etc.

u/SabaziosZagreus · 46 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

1.) I think the wording of this title is hilarious.

2.) I just finished Benjamin Sommer's book The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel which examines the different theologies that Israelites had regarding the body and bodies of God, and related beliefs from other Near Eastern cultures. It was amazing. I could go into it, but it's better if you listen to Sommer himself. Here's parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 of lectures he gave. If you don't want to listen/read, you can still always ask me questions and I'll do my best to provide a general gist.

u/doofgeek401 · 5 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

That depends on what you are academically studying.

If you are studying the text, the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) holds close to the original Greek New Testament.

The standard English translation used for academic study is the NRSV, in particular, the Oxford Annotated Bible and Harper Collins is widely used in major universities. It has the great advantage of being ecumenical, translated by people with a wide variety of theological viewpoints, rather than sectarian translations like the New World or NIV Bibles; and of being modern and thus based on a pretty up-to-date set of manuscript traditions, where the KJV (for example) suffers simply because the translators had less to go on.

Also, check out:

The Jewish Study Bible

Jewish Annotated New Testament

I would recommend, however, that if you want to academically study the Bible, you need a Greek New Testament and a Hebrew Old Testament, a Greek Lexicon and Grammar, a Hebrew Lexicon and Grammar, and several years of study.

subreddit posts on Bible versions/ translations:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/b0d0ac/probably_ask_before_but_what_is_the_best_version/

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/3vtige/which_translation_should_i_read_for_cultural_and/

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/8ovjr7/which_translations_of_the_bible_are_considered_to/

List of essential commentaries for each book of the Hebrew Bible:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/9p7ois/what_are_some_of_the_more_academic_bible/

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/8myk8y/the_most_essential_commentary_for_each_book_of/

approachable resources for lay people on biblical scholarship and reading Recommendations for newbies:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/d21gz4/is_there_an_academic_bible_equivalent_of_the_book/

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/c1c4ll/reading_recommendations_for_newbies_to_gospel/

u/appleciders · 8 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

No. The New Revised Standard Version is the most common translation used in academic formats that prohibit working in the original language (e.g. undergraduate students who do not speak Greek or Hebrew). I'd recommend this version, which has excellent annotations and introductory essays about each book.

"Most literal" isn't necessarily useful in understanding the texts. Translating a saying or phrase too literally can result in mangling a euphemism, metaphor, or other non-literal saying. We speak and write non-literally in our everyday lives; it's a major part of language to understand which phrases are to be taken literally and which aren't. The New Oxford, which I recommended above, will note when the original text is using metaphorical language and give you a scholar's opinion of how to understand it as well as the actual words in question. It also give variant readings, which is hugely important in NT studies because we have many variant wordings in the manuscripts that have come down to us and sometimes those readings have significantly different meanings.

u/ElderButts · 3 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

Yes, very much this. I bought the Jewish Study Bible a little while ago, and I can't recommend it enough. The translation is excellent, and the annotations, maps, and essays are out of this world. It's my go-to reference for anything Old Testament. (I've also been eyeing the Jewish Annotated New Testament, which is by the same editor.)

One thing to keep in mind is that all of these bibles, as well as the NOAB, are rather large from the extensive annotation and commentary. They're not something you could comfortably read on your lap or pack around to church. If that's your use case, you might think about getting a smaller NRSV without the annotations.

u/fasterthan3E8mps · 4 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

Another potential good read for those interested:
Paul and the Faithfulness of God https://www.amazon.com/dp/0800626834/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_4-wJAbN6F1NS6

u/franks-and-beans · 3 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

Can you recommend a specific work by him? I'm particularly interested in the various gods worshiped in Palestine and and how they relate to YHWH. Like this one?

u/brojangles · 5 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

A lot of what's been listed is devotional stuff, not critical stuff.

For a good critical intro to the New Testament, try Raymond Browns Introduction to the New Testament

Or Bart Ehrman's The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings

Just about anything by Geza Vermes is also very good.

For the Old Testament, I'd recommend James Kugel's How to Read the Bible

or even Asimov's Guide to the Bible.


u/ConceptuallyHebrew · 2 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

Benjamin Sommer, a conservative Jew and ANE scholar, has a fascinating book that shows how the roots of trinitarian theology can be traced back to the Ancient Near East and their conceptions of what it means to be divine.

https://www.amazon.com/Bodies-God-World-Ancient-Israel/dp/1107422264

u/caffeinosis · 1 pointr/AcademicBiblical

For scripture, you just need to read Paul at face value and understand that the version in Acts is a fiction meant to harmonize the two factions when Luke writes two or three generations later.

This book might be a good jumping off point:

https://smile.amazon.com/Paul-Jesus-Apostle-Transformed-Christianity/dp/1439123322/

u/moootPoint · 5 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

In regards to understanding the psychological impetus driving the mythic themes/archetypes of the early Levant cultures I found the work of Joseph Campbell to be an excellent starting point.

The Oxford Annotated Bible is another book i've found useful for its addition of supplementary historical context.

u/nightaces · 4 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

I'm a big N.T. Wright fan for the perspective he gives on the context and world of 2nd Temple Judaism and Jews in the Grecko-Roman world.

For more academic and lengthy reading, Paul and the Faithfulness of God. For more casual and accessible reading, Paul: A Biography

u/Warbane · 6 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel by Mark S. Smith is a good resource. Densely references primary sources but still accessible to an interested non-academic audience.

u/ChristianRemington · 1 pointr/AcademicBiblical

There's an excellent book entitled Jewish Views of the Afterlife written by Simcha Paull Raphael. It can be found here

u/AractusP · 1 pointr/AcademicBiblical

> See E.P. Sanders' The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition. He shows there's really no direction of expansion/condensation.

Yet the Ehrman textbook says otherwise:

"A final and related point is that Mark is the shortest of the three Synoptics. If the author had used one of the others as his source, why would he have eliminated so many good stories? Did he want to produce a shorter version of the life of Jesus? This may sound plausible, but a close examination of the Gospel texts shows that it can't be right: in almost every instance that Mark and Matthew tell the same story, Mark's is longer." (Ehrman 1997 p.75, emphasis added).

The point being, that if you wish to have the theory of Matthean priority you have to explain why Mark both reduced the content of gospel so dramatically from the source material, yet expanded many of the narratives he decided to keep. Doesn't make sense. You can say there's no direction, but clearly there's a direction - we both agree that the direction is Mark written first and then Matthew used it as source material for his gospel.

If you look at a table showing the triple tradition in parallel it becomes immediately obvious, unfortunately I don't have a link handy.

u/steppingintorivers · 5 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

For those interested, there is a Cambridge University text The Bodies of God that expands on these passages and much more, also from the prophets, illustrating a corporeal conception of God.

u/w_v · 277 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

The original authors (and later editors and redactors) weren't children of the Enlightenment like us. There's nothing to suggest they would have seen these as “plot holes” the way we do.

One scholarly perspective is that the authors intended to demythologize already familiar Sumerian myths in order to generate Yahweh-centric backstories for themselves—consistency be damned. See: From Gods to God: How the Bible Debunked, Suppressed, or Changed Ancient Myths and Legends.

That's why questions such as “Where did Cain get his wife?” make little sense. That type of world-building isn't found in the original Farmer vs Shepherd myths (e.g. Dumuzid and Enkimdu) and isn't a concern for the Genesis authors either. By the way, the answer is that Cain got his wife from the same place all unjustified plot devices come from: Out of the writer's own ass. In modern times we call this sloppy storytelling and that's okay because this isn’t modern literature.

According to Assyriologist Samuel Kramer, this Sumerian baggage is most apparent when examining Eve in light of Ninti, goddess of childbirth, as found in the story Enki and Ninhursanga which presents many themes later incorporated into Genesis: a utopian garden, forbidden plants, and the creation of entities from various body parts.

At the end of Enki and Ninhursanga is a pun-filled section where eight deities are extracted from eight body parts—each body part sharing a core syllable with the deity's name. Ninti (whose name means Giver of Life) comes from Enki's rib because ti is also the word for rib.

This pun is completely lost in Hebrew which is why Eve's creation is such a head-scratcher for those who don't read Sumerian literature. The mystery disappears when you understand Eve as a demythologized Hebrew Ninti.

The following quote is from Janet Smith's Dust or Dew: Immortality in the Ancient Near East and in Psalm 49:

> “Eve has subsumed Ninti's identity as the Mother of all the Living [but] it would be an error to think that a simple borrowing has occurred here. The borrowing is polemical which deliberately modifies the old tradition in order to establish a new paradigm. It is unique to Israelite theology that Eve is a human, representing Yahweh and is no goddess.”

These traditions may represent some of the narrative commitments that the authors of Genesis were saddled with when crafting the Adam and Eve story.

u/TheMainEvant · 5 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

Many academic institutions standardly use the the New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha--containing scholarly annotations, introductions, and commentaries, it is an excellent option.

u/LelandMaccabeus · 4 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

I never got around to reading it but I would check out "God in translation" by Mark Smith.

here's the amazon page.

u/Torlek1 · 2 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

"Messianic Jewish" stuff? Really?

Orthodox Jew Daniel Boyarin and Conservative Jew Benjamin Sommer made more palatable references from the Rabbinic, Judaic side. Heck, there's this article by Yishai Kiel!

u/Crotalus9 · 1 pointr/AcademicBiblical

http://www.amazon.com/Paul-A-Very-Short-Introduction/dp/0192854518

Too much to type, but this super short, very well written book deals primarily with what the author calls "being righteoused through Christ."

u/Loknik · 4 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

Came here to recommend the same Yale course, and combine that with Bart Erhman's book Introduction to the new testament.

u/SirVentricle · 5 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

Smith all day every day. Also check out God in Translation.

Finkelstein and Silberman is still a very good read, but could be updated with 15 more years of archaeological finds!

u/benjaman_kyle · 15 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

I've seen people bash him as biased, which basically translates to 'expressing an opinion that isn't mine', but his textbook is used by Yale.

http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Testament-Historical-Introduction/dp/0199757534/ref=pd_sim_b_5?ie=UTF8&refRID=0Q6BZ93J12DD40QV0N3R

I've also never seen him engage in polemic ... the guy maintains an even tone in the face of retards, and acts like a teacher should.

u/Novalis123 · 27 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

You are correct, your professor is a fundamentalist. Check out The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings by Bart D. Ehrman and An Introduction to the New Testament by Raymond E. Brown.

u/plong42 · 2 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

I highly recommend Paul: A Very Short Introduction by E. P. Sanders, Luke Timothy Johnson on the New Testament, or Timothy Lim on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Richard Bauckham did the one on Jesus, but I have not read it.

u/totallynotshilling · 8 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

>I'm also open to other suggestions if I have possibly missed other options that fit my needs.

The following two books are often recommended:

The Jewish Study Bible

Jewish Annotated New Testament


Both of these are academic in nature. You will find stuff about source criticism and they have scholarly articles about various things in there too. The Jewish Study Bible is also used in the Yale Online Course on the Hebrew Bible by Christine Hayes(you can find the lecture series on YouTube).

u/Ike_hike · 6 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

If you want to read extra-biblical sources, you can start with something like Old Testament Parallels., which has excerpts arranged by their possible similarity with the OT canon. For more comprehensive coverage, look at Outside the Bible (3 vols).

Heiser has his defenders on here, but from a historian's perspective my view is that his approach to those ancient texts has been unduly shaped by his theological agenda. You can compare his approach with the work of some others, including David Penchansky, Twilight of the Gods, Mark Smith, The Early History of God, Elaine Pagels, The Origin of Satan, Adam Kotsko's The Prince of This World, and Thomas Römer, The Invention of God.

On Enoch and the Apocalyptic tradition in particular, look at John Collins's The Apocalptic Imagination, and Anathea Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire.

Now that I type this out, these would make a kick-butt course syllabus. Hmmm...