Biblical Scholarship Puns

I was reading a post earlier where OP asked about the dating and composition of Genesis. The comments were mostly flooded with those who supported Mosaic authorship, with a small number arguing in favour of the scholarly consensus, which is that Genesis is a composite text likely compiled from multiple textual traditions.

The conversation was less civil than I would have liked, and I personally admit some anger at reading the less charitable comments. The comments that I particularly lament include:

• Bible scholars are 'secular' (and therefore not to be trusted)
• That scholars are 'liberal' (and again, therefore not to be trusted)
• That rejecting Mosaic authorship is 'denying the hand of God in Scriptures'

Now, these are patently false claims, yet they have been happily circulated around this sub for some time now.

1. The majority of Bible scholars are religious, as this survey from r/AcademicBiblical demonstrates. Virtually all the scholars I have read are Christians, some even more conservative than I am.
2. There are many scholars whom I would deem quite conservative, John Walton, Tom Wright and Michael Heiser as key examples. Most Catholic scholars are quite conservative, yet they would accept the claims of critical scholarship post-Vatican II. Again, this accusation of liberalism rings hollow.
3. Since the majority of scholars are Christians or Jewish (such as the good folks at TheTorah.com), I find myself deeply dissappointed at the unwarranted and unfair claim that rejecting Mosaic scholarship is denying divine inspiration. It most certainly is not.

If those Christians wish to stand up for Mosaic authorship, I'd recommend that they do so with facts, rather than attacking the character of those they disagree with. Surely we Christians can do better than stooping so low to make our perspective known!

-----------

Now, time for some good evidence for why Moses did not write Genesis.

(again, notice I do not attack the character of those whom I disagree with, I simply point out evidence for others to consider)

• Genesis contains many doubled narratives, or narratives with duplicate motifs. Take for example the two Creation narratives, God giving two commands to Noah, God giving two promises to Noah after the Flood etc. Now if we take these doublets, and organize them into two categories, we'd notice the following:

On my list are:

The prophetic imagination - Walter Bruggeman

Paul and the gift - John Barclay

Paul and Palestinian Judaism - E.P. Sanders

Part 1: Old Testament Genesis through Kings

Part 2: Isaiah and the Prophets

Part 3: New Testament

Part 4: Where Mormon Theology and Biblical Scholarship Collide

Intro

In part 1 I went over the four major sources that scholars have identified were used to make the Pentateuch, and how they are connected to Joshua-Kings. This got two long so I could not fit everything into one post, so in this part I’ll start by going over a quick summary of the events leading up to and following 586 BCE since that date is crucial in understanding the Old Testament as it is formed today. And I’ll wrap up the Old Testament going over Isaiah and a few other prophetic books with connection to LDS ideas. Then I’ll hopefully fit the Yale New Testament course in one reddit post, and then finally I’ll be able to show where biblical scholarship intersects with LDS scripture/teachings in another. I was trying to go more in depth on Malchi and Ezekiel for church topics, but I need to just post what I have since I’m way too far down the New Testament rabbit hole now.

Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Rule

A quick summary of events from the 700s leading up to and following 586 BCE is crucial for understanding the biblical books. You can group different books and date them to different times based on which group is in power (Assyria pre 612 BCE, Babylon 612 to 540 BCE, and Persia post 539 BCE). And you can identify layers in the text based on these dates, as well as the ability to connect the biblical stories to historical events.

Israel’s geographic location unfortunately put them in the crosshairs of many superpowers over the years. In 722, the Northern Kingdom of Israel was destroyed by the Assyrians, and the Southern Kingdom of Judah became a vassal state to Assyria. Assyria is eventually replaced as Babylon and Egypt rise to power, which then puts Israel in a tough position of being stuck in the middle of two competing superpowers.

Assyria defeats Egypt and Judah becomes a vassal state under King Jehoiakim. The result is two sieges and the background for King Zedekiah. From the Yale lectures:

>King Jehoiakim rebels and in response, the Babylonians lay siege to Jerusalem. There will be two sieges of Jerusalem by the Babylonians just as we’ve had two sieges earlier — two sieges: one in 597, one in 587, both under Nebuchadnezzar. He lays siege to Jerusalem in 597, and doesn’t destroy Jerusalem. He kills the king, takes the king’s son into captivity in Babylon an

Intro

My current pet project was listening through a free yale bible course and looking at where the bible came from and exploring areas of biblical scholarship. From there I went down a major rabbit hole into various topics. I’m also looking at the New Testament, but I feel like I need to write down all the Old Testament stuff now before I move on and forget it. My goal is to fit as much of the relevant Old Testament scholarship as I can in this post, then wrap it up with a Part 2, followed by New Testament Scholarship in another, and finally I will use both of them to go through the different LDS works and teachings that relate to them. And I should add that I’m just trying to share what majority scholarship says. Anyways, here is what I've been able to fit in one post with a logical splitting point:

Two Creation Accounts?

Where else to start other than the beginning. Before getting into the weeds it’s a good idea to read Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 and pay attention to the order. Genesis 1’s order is Light and Dark, Firmament/Dividing Waters, Dry Land, Night and Day, Fish and Birds, Animals and Humans, and rest. Genesis 2’s order is Plants, Water, Man, Fish and birds and animals, and finally Woman. Now try as you might to explain it away, the order is different. Biblical Scholars have concluded that there are two creation accounts that were put together at some point. They come to this conclusion because Creation isn’t the only thing that happens twice, and when scholars took a step back they saw patterns between the various versions of the different stories.

Genesis 7:8-9 has Noah bring 2 of every animal whether clean or unclean, but just before that, Genesis 7:2 emphasized that there were 7 of every clean animal. There are also multiple accounts of Abraham calling Sarah his sister (Gen 12:13, 20:5), Multiple contradicting accounts of how Joseph got to Egypt (Gen 27:28,36), and Jacob is named Israel twice (Gen 32:28 and 35:10). These parallel stories and contradictions go all the way through the Pentateuch, and themes and specific styles begin to emerge.

The Four Sources

There are multiple theories about these sources, but the existence of multiple sources is not debated. Scholars will agree that there are multiple authors, Moses did not write it, and will have some form of the following four sources in their theories. I will be using quotes here, and throughout this post, from Dr. Christine Hayes Yale course on Hebrew Bible to explain th

Or maybe more up to date on scholarship would be better phrasing. Is it a false thought to think that mainline churches are more open to newer ideas through scholarship?

I'd love to start reading biblical scholarship consistently as a lay person (so, just around reading a scholarly book every two weeks or so). I just find this stuff fascinating.

Where would you recommend starting out? What are 5–10 books that you'd recommend to someone starting out (for those first ten or so weeks)?

I'm open to different levels of accessibility. Preferably beyond what a typical popular Ehrman work would give you, but also not anything ridiculous like a one-thousand page dense tome that requires years of background knowledge.

Any suggestions are welcome!

TL;DR Do you think Catholic content on biblical scholarship is very sparse compared to Protestants? If so, any theories on why? Are there any prominent Catholic biblical scholars I'm unaware of that are making content?

---------------------------------------------

Like, seriously. Go on YouTube, and you’ll find tons and tons of videos by Catholic apologists on social issues like abortion, LGBTQ+, climate change, etc, or on responding to Protestants, or dipping their toes into philosophy with questions like “Does God exist?” But look for Catholic content on things like Markan priority, the historical reliability of the gospels, pseudonymous letters in the New Testament, …it’s almost complete silence.

Now, sure, biblical scholarship is not an easy discipline at all. Learning languages, comparing manuscripts, examining evidence for and against theories…it’s a full-time job. But come on. There’s tons of Protestants making content on this topic. There’s a billion Catholics in the world. Why the huge blind spot?

My theory: I suspect Catholic content creators are hesitant to venture into topics where the Church’s authority isn’t taken for granted, where they can’t just point to the Church teaching and rely on how reliable such an ancient tradition must be. Even if the plan is to discuss the topic with a Catholic who’s maybe more knowledgeable but not as well-known. Social issues? The Church says X, end of story. Protestants? The Church says X, and Protestants are 1700 years late to claim authority. Philosophical questions? Philosophy is nebulous; and all you have to do is make something sound reasonable; you can’t really be “disproven.”

But biblical scholarship? Hoo boy. Do we really want our viewers to become more aware of an evidence-based discipline that strongly disagrees and explains against many things the Church has taught about Scripture for centuries? Probably not. Better stick to issues where it’s easier to preach to our choir like social issues and poking fun at Protestants. Viewers like being told they’re right for easy reasons.

I suspect Protestant apologists aren’t as hesitant with engaging this topic, because they’re more focused on the Bible itself, and more than happy to point out how the Catholic Church got things wrong about the Bible.

Catholicism hasn’t really done itself any favors in this area, either. Any apologist who tries to cover the topic is going to have to work hard to convince people of some things that are anti-mainstrea

For example, is part of the reason why we date Revelation post-AD 70 because if we assume that prophecy isn't real, Revelation could not have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem?

I know that Biblical scholarship will never assume prophecy is real just from a methodological perspective, but do they specifically use the assumption that it isn't real to come to any conclusions or do they simply exclude whether it can or can't happen from discussion altogether, taking a more neutral view?

His page can be found here.

He is actually a/the scripture translation supervisor for the church. He mainly keeps his own views out of it and tries to keep things scholarly. Occasionally he'll answer things about Mormonism or his own views (he usually says something along the lines of he has a few cores beliefs and the rest he is agnostic about).

I know a few here are into the topic.

ETA: he also is big on correcting things, so he often calls out believers who twist history to fit their needs.

Am interested since modern Orthodox Jews unlike their charedi counterparts do not shy away from biblical criticism and scholarship but rather engage with it and come up with their own apologetics

However my question is how did you reconcile your religiosity with academic biblical scholarship and criticism that has arguments and views that go against the orthodox conception of the Tanach. Did you deal with it by cognitive dissonance?

I’ve been looking for a good scholarship for biblical and religious studies for some time and I found the university of Kansas scholarship to be good.

However, I can’t find much information about it, for example funding or fields of study, so can someone give some information about it?

Another thing is the time, I will get my high school diploma in the next august (8/2022). Will the scholarship expire by that time or is it annual?

Thanks

I am a layman. It is often very difficult to discern the best way to approach disagreements about various things, particularly when it involves scholarship and knowledge of original languages. That said, I do try to take these matters seriously because I am a Christian. I enjoy reading about and learning various theological disagreements and try to look to scholarship where I can. But as you all know, there is often disagreement in scholarship.

In instances of disagreement (which I am apt to find in nearly every topic I look into), it is difficult for me to parse things. I can generally follow along with the argumentation, but I can typically not verify these things conclusively. I think the biggest example is likely my lack of knowledge of Biblical languages. Many times in various arguments, the presenter will give an argument based on the syntax, grammatical structure, semantic range, and familiar uses of a word, phrase, or passage. In these instances, I can't really verify whether or not what they are saying is accurate and so if its an instances where two people disagree about what it means, I would need to know how the Greek or Hebrew actually works in order to see which argument has more weight.

Obviously, I won't be able to read and weigh issues on the same level as a scholar. But, as scholars, what advice would you give to a layman that is interested in these things but is unsure how to parse them?

As my faith deconstruction progresses, I find myself wanting to dig deeper into the Bible from an academic perspective, to hopefully find some place to settle on what, if anything, I really believe about Christianity in general. Has anyone gone through a process like that, and if so, can you recommend any books or other resources for that kind of quest?

I go to Notre Dame. As part of our requirements, we have to take two THEO courses. I took my intro class sophomore fall (2019) and liked it so much I decided to pick up a minor (or supplemental major... TBD). This semester I started learning biblical Hebrew and took an intro to OT/HB course. Just providing this for some background (if this even matters or helps).

I recently finished Kugel's "How to Read the Bible" and walked away with more questions than I went into. Given my background, I was already familiar with some of modern biblical scholarship's ("MBS") findings/evidence/research, but I always turned my eye away and didn't want to confront what I discovered and try to reconcile MBS with my faith (I come from a tradition in which the OT/HB is seen as factually accurate). Now, I feel like I have (and want) to do the "dirty work" and see where it leads me, so a few questions for anyone who wishes to help out:

1. What are some further resources (books, articles, etc.) people recommend as I go about this?
2. Does it matter if what the OT/HB says is factually accurate (i.e. the parts that have not been historically verified/are disputed amongst scholars, such as Gen. 1-11, the Exodus, the book of Daniel, etc.)? If so, why?
3. If the OT/HB is not factually accurate, how does this impact the way in which we view God?
   1. If it is not factually accurate, is the OT/HB just a compilation of stories meant to convey certain truths about God?

Hey! I'm quite new to this subreddit and have been reading through other people's questions and the scholarly responses to them, including the FAQ. In doing so, I became curious about this topic, but I couldn't find a satisfactory answer. I'm trying to understand how religious scholars, particularly religious scholars of faith (particularly, but not necessarily, Christians), distinguish between things that are of scientific or historical significance, but not relevant for modern Christians or modern religious practices, and things that are of theological significance. It seems to me that, if scholars can reasonably conclude/come to a consensus that "the early church did x" or "early Christians believed y," then, as modern Christians, we should seek to follow the lead of the early church as closely as possible (though, obviously, wherever there is a conflict between the beliefs and practices of the early church and science or history the church should be willing to recognize that human knowledge on these subjects has developed over time). If that is the case though, than wouldn't it mean that modern Christians should care a lot about what form of polity (episcopal, presbyterian, congregational, or something else entirely) the early church had, who the early church ordained and what roles the clergy played in life of the church, what traditions the church followed, and who they allowed to be included within their ranks, among other questions, making these questions not only scholarly ones but theological ones as well (and, in some cases, would mean that there are correct and incorrect answers, which would mean that some modern groups are not only out of sync with the early church, but possibly even "heretical"). On the other hand, It seems difficult to determine where exactly the cut-off between the "early church" and the "post-early church" is because the church developed differently depending on the exact time and place. If we were, for example, to put that cut off before the ecumenical councils, would that not mean that the developments and changes that came from them were wrong (the result of which would be that most modern Christians would probably have to be considered heretical or something)?

My point is that it feels like some of the basic questions that are relevant to religious studies, biblical scholarship, and early church history (etc.) should also be relevant to the foundations of Christian theology; but I'm unsure what exactly those question

A bit of a strange question , but seeing as that it’s no secret that charedim(the men more ) ignore the Bible except of course for the Chumash(since it’s part of Keriat Ha Torah/Shanyim Mikra Targum Ve Echad which is Halacha ) and focus more on Talmud.

I was wondering if there are formerly charedi people here who because of the neglect of biblical study in the charedi world ; became interested by secular biblical academic scholarship. Since learning Tanach altogether was a taboo and also the Tanach is really the foundational and primary text of Judaism ?

In the interest of my Amazon wish list, I wanted to propose an interesting challenge for this sub to find which highly influential works of biblical scholarship are a “must-have” for the library of any respectable (or prospective) biblical scholar. Ideally their top five for the Hebrew Bible and/or their top 5 works for the NT.

Like the Gospel of Thomas? The Epistle of Clement? The Epistle of Polycarp? The Acts of Paul and Thecla? Why were these rejected, but something like the Johannine epistles considered canon?

As I've posted in recent weeks, I'm trying to work on a group of 'overview' pages for issues that biblical scholarship creates for the Book of Mormon/Joseph Smith.

I don't want to cover every possible topic, but try to highlight the biggest ones. With that in mind, here's the short list I have in my head.

• Pentateuch (Book of Moses) not written by Moses
• Adam and Eve
• Global Flood
• Tower of Babel
• Deutero-Isaiah
• Sermon on the Mount issues vs Sermon on the Temple (Q source)
• Long Ending of Mark in the Book of Mormon

Are there any topics you would add? I am going to try and go in order from this point on, but I've done the first draft of Adam and Eve and the Tower of Babel -- figured that will be easier to write as well since I can reference back to the earlier articles since there is some overlap esp with the Genesis stories/events.

Adam and Eve: www.ldsdiscussions.com/adam

Tower of Babel: www.ldsdiscussions.com/babel

Just curious what topics others have come across that seem to be problematic for Mormonism - As Anthony Miller pointed out a while back, you don't even need the CES Letter when you look at these problems against the truth claims of Mormonism.

Thanks!

View Poll

Lifelong Christian, ex Baptist, and learning a lot about textual criticism. I'm curious how many people lose religious faith as a result of these studies, or how your faith has evolved.

As it relates to their methods and approaches to the bible and biblical interpretation. What exactly?

Has modern biblical scholarship been influenced by the insights of other reformers?

I wanna get a deeper view of the Bible, free from alot of modern cultural lenses, but concerned about what the title says.

This will be added to our FAQ.

There has often been tension between the latest scholarly trends in biblical studies versus confessional and traditional commitments. Examples are the debate on the New Perspective on Paul, or John Walton's new way of reading Genesis in light of discoveries of similar creation myths among Israel's neighbors. Of course there are many more extreme examples in liberal scholarship. Seeing this, my observation is: what is the point of scholarship, really, if we are already committed to a pretty expansive confessional statement like WCF and the 3FU?

What I see as ironic is that the trend to "go back to the sources" and dive more deeply into the literary, historical, and cultural context of Scripture was originally started by the Reformers, who did not want to blindly commit to tradition if it contradicted Scripture. Yet, there seems to be an inherent tension between upholding any kind of tradition and scholarly, text-based study. If one needs to study Scripture very carefully to understand its original intended meaning, then no doubt it is possible that people in the past who did not have as much information as us (including the Reformers themselves) could have gotten some things wrong about properly interpreting Scripture, perhaps even rather major things.

I see that there are two solutions to this conundrum:

1. Prioritize scholarship. Allow major revisions of doctrine and/or interpretations of particular passages based on the latest findings of scholarship.
2. Prioritize tradition. Have faith that the universal church got everything right (despite not having as much information and manuscripts as we do now) because of God's providence, and interpret everything through that lens. This is divided into two options:
   1. Promote a human authority to define which of the latest scholarship are traditional. This is the practice of Roman Catholics.
   2. Promote a set of documents (e.g. confessions) as authoritative and demand that latest scholarship conform to them. This is the practice of confessional Protestants. Thus, for example, N.T. Wright's New Perspective cannot be fully accepted as it modifies justification by faith, which was the traditional view of the Reformers.

The problems with 1) are clear, as it will simply lead to untethered liberalism. 2.1 has its own problems, as human authority can itself err and deviate from the original faith (as we see in the case of the Roman Catholic church).

So we are left with option 2.2. Now, I thin

Do you view your relationship with biblical scholars as akin to the relationship between chemists and biologists? How does that metaphor fit, and how doesn't it fit?

Do you view your relationship with theologians as akin to the relationship between chemists and biologists? How does that metaphor fit, and how doesn't it fit?

They aren't all the same thing, are they?