Best products from r/AskBibleScholars

>Also, that doesn't explain why the other Gospels include it because there would have been people to illustrate the Resurrection account.

I agree that you've made a salient point, but I think we can resolve this by examining the facts a little bit more closely.

First, we can take a hint by looking at the scholarly datings for the synoptic^1 Gospels: late 50s-late 70s for Mark, early 60s-100 for Matthew, early 60s-110 for Luke (see my original reply above for citations). The vast majority of scholars agree that Mark is earliest. Many agree that Matthew was written after Mark, and then Luke was written after Matthew. If we approximate Mark to AD 65-70, and posit that (for instance) Matthew came about a decade later and Luke about another decade after that, then the reason why Matthew/Luke include the resurrection information becomes clear. That is: the witnesses to the resurrection, who were alive to orally "fill in the blanks" while Mark was being disseminated, were beginning to die off due to passage of time. Therefore, collecting the resurrection testimony and putting it in written form would have felt like an imminent and important task to the authors of Matthew and Luke.

Second, the above hypothesis fits well into what we already know about Matthew and Luke's use of Mark as a source (more than 90% of Mark's Gospel is used in Matthew, and more than 50% of Mark's Gospel is used in Luke).^2 If one of the primary goals of Matthew/Luke's authors was to expand Mark's Gospel to create a fuller written account including the resurrection testimony, then it only makes sense that they'd cite Mark rather extensively in the process of doing so.^3

---

Footnotes and Citations

1. I'm leaving John out of this line of thought purposefully, as I believe there is strong evidence that the author of John was, in fact, the apostle John, who himself was an eyewitness (to Jesus' ministry, as well as to His crucifixion and resurrection). An excellent resource on this topic is Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard J. Bauckham (see especially, chapters 14-17 for a discussion of John as an eyewitness; however, the whole book goes into substantial detail on the general topic of eyewitness evidence for Jesus). Here's a link to the Amazon listing if you want to purchase it.
   
   
2. Encyclopedia Britannica, "Gospel According to Mark"
   
   
3. This doesn't mean that Mark was their only source of genuine information, of course. Luke, for example, begins his Gospel by explicitly referencing multiple lines of attestation: "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught." (Luke 1:1-4)
   
   ---
   
   Anyway, thanks for the interesting discussion! God bless you my friend, and may the peace of Christ be with you. :)

>when instead of a comma…comma instead of a period after earth

Both are interpretive choices. Literally speaking, neither are in the text. There is no punctuation or “when”. The text is written in a way that is very difficult to translate. It literally reads “In the beginning of (‘beresit’) he created (‘ba-ra’) god (‘elohim’) the heavens and the earth and the earth was formless and void and darkness over the face of the deep and…” Obviously the first three words are nonsensical as literally rendered into English so some translation choices need to be made. The NSRV interprets this to be scene-setting, while the ESV interprets this as a direct statement of creation.

Both interpretations are possible, but both are bringing their own theological interpretations into the passage. I believe that the NRSV makes the more accurate interpretation. I think it is more accurate to render the passage something like “In the time when God was beginning to create the heavens and the earth…” rather than “The first thing that happened was God created the heavens and the earth.”

(For a detailed explanation of the issue with the first three words, see here for an interesting post)

>wind from God swept over instead of Spirit of God was hovering over

Again, both are interpretive choices. The text literally reads “…and breath god grew soft over the face of the waters”. But this makes little sense and so some interpretive choice needs to be made. “Grew soft” is an idiom for resting or brooding over. I cannot see how “swept over” is warranted, as it indicates to me a degree of sudden activity, which is opposite to the meaning of the word, which indicates restful activity. I can see how “hovering over” is more warranted, though this is more of a poetic interpretation than truly accurate translation.

The choice of “wind from” or “Spirit of” are both interpretive choices. The word “ruach” can equally refer to both, as wind, breath, or spirit, were commonly understood to be the same thing. In ancient thought the breath or wind that moves within us is itself the lifeforce that animates us. But to choose “wind” ignores this deeper meaning as the word in the English language doesn’t convey the same meaning of a personal animating force as the Hebrew. Choosing “breath” at least distantly conveys the sense that it is a part of God’s being, but “wind” is probably the worst possible option, being utterly impersonal. I think that “spirit” is more reflective of the author’s intended meaning behind the word.

Whether it is “from” or “of” God, is again a necessarily interpretive choice. I don’t think there’s a massive distinction; although “from” further gives the impression that it is not a part of God, but a product from Him, which I don’t think is the most accurate reflection of how the author would have seen it. I think “of God” makes more sense. But it would be better to not choose either and just say “God’s spirit”.

Incidentally Robert Alter translates these two verses in his new translation as: “When God began to create heaven and earth and the earth then was welter and waste and darkness over the deep and God’s breath hovering over the waters, God said, ‘Let there be light’.” Alter purposely tries to convey the poetry of the Hebrew (notice the lovely alliteration) rather than a strictly literal translation. But even so, I think he does a much better job of conveying the literal meaning than any of the popular translations.

I'm not sure if you were trying to respond to me, but I'll reply nonetheless.

Tertullian and Justin Martyr were not trinitarians in any orthodox sense of the term. Tertullian believed in a two-stage logos theory, whereas Justin probably believed in a one-stage theory (if I recall correctly). Take a look here. They were both subordinationists, as was common in the 1st and 2nd century. They believed that the son was of an inferior and a derived nature with respect to the Father. They also emphasized the uniqueness of the Father when then were challenged about their monotheism.

Whether Jesus is called God in Romans 9:5 is controversial. This verse far from settles the matter in favor of trinitarianism in Paul. Here are two translations which differ:

RSV
> to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen

Moffatt
>the patriarchs are theirs, and theirs too (so far as natural descent goes) is the Christ. (Blessed for evermore be the God who is over all! Amen.)

Here is a brief article defending these interpretations.

On the other hand, the author of Hebrews and perhaps the author of John felt comfortable applying the term "god" to Jesus in certain contexts. Whether they thought Jesus was identical to the monotheistic deity is a different question, and likely not the case given how these authors differentiated Jesus and God (see for example John 17:3).

You write:
> Even prior to the Nicene creed, we have writings dating from the NT through the centuries up to it and afterward when persons clearly called these three Persons the one God.

What writings do you have in mind here? The view that the one God just is the three persons together is a statement of orthodox trinitarianism, which you certainly don't find articiculated in the New Testament. If there existed such a passage, the issue of the trinity would hardly have ever been controversial. Personally, I haven't found anyone who thought this prior to 381; And even then, you need to wait until Augustine to see it clearly.

What Paul intended to express vis a vis the Shema in 1 Corinthians 8:6 is also controversial. Some scholars such as NT Wright have recently argued that Paul is inserting Jesus into the Shema; saying that the one God of Israel is the Father and Jesus together. At most this is binitarianism, since it lacks any mention of the spirit. However, when thinking about this, it's important to keep in mind that historically this verse has never been regarded as an important Christological text. Presumably, previous readers assumed that Paul was simply asserting that Christians have one lord (or ruler) in addition to having one God, who is also a lord (or ruler) in a different capacity. So, the subtlety that Wright is picking up on was lost on everyone before him, evidently. In any case, use of language in this verse is tricky. James McGrath argues against NT Wright here.

For further reading, I recommend Larry Hurtado's book on early Christian devotional practices. He explores the Old Testament themes that the early church drew upon to understand Jesus. He argues that while they spoke of Jesus in uniquely exalted terms, they were nevertheless careful to distinguish Jesus from God (a theme which is illustrated in Philippians 2). The understanding of the church, according to Hurtado, in the first few decades was that while there was a close association between Jesus and God, there was not numerical identity. In other words Jesus and God were two things to them; two separate objects of worship — not one and the same object. Hurtado suggests that the early Christian community (which was Jewish, no less) simply did not see this practice as in conflict with their monotheism. This tension was picked up on later. It was what inspired centuries of Christological speculation, which eventually led to a formulation of the doctrine of the trinity.

> We know very little about Jesus’ early life and upbringing. When
he went back to Nazareth with the disciples, the people were amazed to see
their carpenter as teacher and prophet (Mark 6:1–16), from which we can be
fairly certain that they thought he lacked the education needed for such
work, and thus had little in the way of learning. This comment also tells us he
had never taught there before.

> Of late much work has been done on the intertextuality of both the First
and Second Testaments. We have learned about the numerous allusions to
Scripture in, for example, Deutero-Isaiah, Matthew, and Paul. What needs to
be remembered is that such intertextuality was at home in oral performances:
Deutero-Isaiah, Matthew, and the Epistles of Paul were, like all other
writings in antiquity, intended to be read aloud. This means that their scriptural
allusions were designed to be perceived by ears, not eyes. This matters
so much because Jesus’ teaching was, from every indication, oral. We have no
evidence that he ever wrote anything. Indeed, we do not know what sort of education he might have had, nor even know for sure whether he could read,
although this may be the best guess. But our ignorance in these particulars
is no argument against Jesus’ ability to allude. Even if he did not write
anything, and even if he could not read at all, the evidence is that he and his
hearers, whether formally educated or not, had heard Scripture recited often
enough that large portions of it were quite familiar to them, sufficiently so
that oblique and sometimes even subtle references to it could be appreciated.

> We may surmise that he experienced the socialization of a typical boy in
that culture. Growing up in a Jewish home, most likely he attended school
from roughly age six to at least twelve or thirteen, as a system of “elementary
education” was widespread in Palestinian Judaism. His “primer” would have
been the book of Leviticus. Whether he had formal training as a teacher of
the Torah beyond the schooling given to every boy, we do not know.

> As a boy and young man, Jesus almost certainly attended the synagogue
(a place of Scripture reading and prayer in local communities) every Sabbath,
and perhaps on Mondays and Thursdays as well. As a faithful Jew, he would
have recited the Shema upon rising and retiring each day, the heart of which
affirmed: “Hear O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love
the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all
your might.” Presumably, he participated in the Jewish festivals and went on
pilgrimages to Jerusalem. From the gospels, it is clear that he was very familiar
with his Scriptures, the Hebrew Bible. He may have known it from memory,
a feat not uncommon among the learned. The Psalms were probably his
“prayer book.”

• The Historical Jesus in Recent Research

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.

The most famous popular book that challenges this view is by Rabbi Harold Kushner, When Bad Things Happen to Good People. From a conservative Jewish perspective, he approaches the classical problem of evil (how could an all powerful, good God allow evil to happen) and offers that God is in fact not all powerful. This isn't the first modern book to champion the position but the most famous by millions of copies.

Another very popular version of this position was popularized in The Shack by Wm. Paul Young. This brought many more people out who jumped on this odd bandwagon, such as a man I went to grade school with, C. Baxter Kruger, who wrote The Shack Revisited
. This book goes into great details about the impact of "Openness Theology" or "Open Theism" that offers a position similar to Kushner.

If you look up the term "Open Theism" you'll find many books on this topic, advocating it and disagreeing with it. I recommend Dr. John Frame's free articles against it as fair and discerning.

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.

Andy Stanley wrote a new book concerning all Old Testament laws and how they do not apply to the Church age.

I am still working through this, but the idea should produce an interesting discussion.

1. Jewish scholars can support me here if it applies, but the Old Testament covenant is between Israel, descendants of Abraham, and God, not Gentiles. So unless your a Jew, or a “God Fearer,” it should not apply anyways.
   
   
2. The establishment of the New Covenant replaces the Old. For a Christian, in Christ we have a new, “better” covenant, and the old should be discarded. (Hebrews 7:22, 8:6, 13)
   
   
3. Therefore, while the Old Testament is precious and completely God’s Word, for the New Covenant Christian it is Holy History and used for wisdom and inspiration, not prescription.
   
   Again, this is a fairly new idea to me and I would have to revisit Stanley’s exact ideas to elaborate. However, I will simply leave it here for the sake of discussion.
   
   Edit: The book is called Irresistible
   
   Irresistible: Reclaiming the New that Jesus Unleashed for the World
   
   https://www.amazon.com/dp/0310536979/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_OQY1DbZ650JAP

The Trail of Blood is actually a pretty late entry into the realm of Baptist Landmarkism.

Landmarkism develops out of what is known as Successionism, which is, properly speaking, what the Trail of Blood is about. Successionism is a (major) part of the larger system of Landmarkism, which was popularized by figures like J. R. Graves and B. H. Carrol in the 19th century.

Successionism was developed in response to something called Campbellism or the Stone-Campbell movement. This movement was a Restorationist movement that broke away from the Baptist church, claiming that they had better restored the New Testament Church than the Baptists had. The Stone-Campbell movement eventually led to the founding of the Disciples of Christ and Church of Christ/Christian Church denominations.

​

The Baptist response to the Stone-Campbell movement was Successionism, developed by figures like G. H. Orchard in the 1850s. The purpose was to argue that Baptists did not need to restore the New Testament church as the Stone-Campbell movement claimed to because the Baptist church had always been the New Testament Church.

Successionism was integrated into the theology of J. R. Graves, which became known as Landmarkism. Landmarkism emphasized not only successionism but also the invalidity of non-Baptist churches.

​

The Southern Baptist Convention rejected Landmarkism in 1859. Successionism was first formally disproved by William H. Whitsitt in 1896 when he published "A Question in Baptist History."

​

Despite these condemnations of Landmarkism/successionism, the theory was popular enough among the laity that Whitsitt was forced to resign as President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. The movement reached its height in the early 20th century under the leadership of figures like Ben Bogard.

​

Today, the best academic refutation specifically focused on this issue is by William McGoldrick: "Baptist Successionism: a Crucial Question in Baptist History." (Note the similar title to Whitsitt's work. It can be found here: https://www.amazon.com/Baptist-Successionism-Crucial-Question-Monograph/dp/0810827263

​

Successionism is, as others have already noted, bogus. But, it is not propaganda for propaganda's sake. It was a theory developed in a context to help the Baptist church survive the enormous competition for believers in the 2nd Great Awakening and the westward expansion of America.

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?

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.