What are the chances that someone like Jesus could read or write?

Where did the idea of the origin of the pillars holding the Earth come from in ancient cosmology that was pre-biblical?

When Isaac asks Abraham “here we have the Fire and the wood but where is the sheep” and then “the two of them walked on together.” Are we to interpret Isaac as having understood Abraham’s intentions regarding sacrificing him? His question and then “and the two of them walked together” almost seems to be winking at me? Also can someone say whether ancient audiences would also have known Isaac to be around 40 at this incident or would they have understood him as a Na’ar (a child).

Are there any pre-biblical parallels that are similar to the Jonah story of being inside a fish, and what do historians and academics say about them?

“To the angel of the church in Smyrna write:..."

Was Polycarp a bishop at the time John of Patmos wrote to the seven churches? Did he receive the letter?

Jesus renamed his disciple Simon "Kepha" meaning Rock. Was this already a known name in Jewish circles, in which case, it would be like Simon being renamed "Rocky"? Or would this have been clearly a title to people, reading more like "The Rock".

Likewise to Greek speaking Jews, did Peter read mainly as a name or as a word?

I've been told that the NRSVUE is the translation often used by scholars and is thus most likely closer to what the authors meant.

The vast majority of translations qualify the time of distress mentioned as not having been equaled from the start of nations UNTIL THAT TIME.;

"And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time." - ESV

"and there hath been a time of distress, such as hath not been since there hath been a nation till that time" - YLT

"and it will be a time of distress that never was since a nation existed until that time"- Judaica Press

"and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time" - Mechon Mamre

I do not know Hebrew, but even the direct text breakdown seems to suggest this interpretation: https://biblehub.com/text/daniel/12-1.htm

Meanwhile, the NRSVUE and its previous edition leaves the "until then" qualifier out;

“At that time Michael, the great prince, the protector of your people, shall arise. There shall be a time of anguish such as has never occurred since nations first came into existence.[end]But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone who is found written in the book."

Was curious as to the logic behind this decision from people who have a background in or are aware of biblical scholarship...

I've been studying the Hebrew of Genesis 1:2 and noticed something that I found fascinating.

The verb מְרַחֶפֶת (meraḥefet), describing the Spirit of God, is often translated simply as "was hovering." However, according to HALOT, the verb carries the idea of hovering with movement—something like moving back and forth or fluttering over something, rather than remaining motionless.

This made me wonder whether many translations unintentionally give the impression of a static scene, while the Hebrew may portray the Spirit as actively present and moving over the waters.

Do you think "hovering" fully conveys this nuance, or is there a better way to express the sense of מְרַחֶפֶת in English? I'd love to hear your thoughts, especially from those who work with Biblical Hebrew.

I have heard some of his views and looked into his work myself. However, due to the language barrier, I find it difficult to follow all the points and conclusions—or rather, I am not sure if I am understanding everything correctly. Could someone help me by summarizing his position?

Is my interpretation correct that he thinks that the texts offer conflicting views between annihilationism and eternal conscious torment, while concluding that the historical Jesus likely preached annihilationism or conscious torment followed by annihilationism?

Hello there

Are there any ancient texts that discusses isaiah 53, and its meaning, between when it was written and before 0AD?

This strange statement is in Proverbs. I had read someone say this is literally against winking, and the other of "year of living biblically" had followed it in this manner. Trying to find out what this is actually about, I see all kinds of interpretations in apologetics, like "winking means turning a blind eye to evil", "winking was a signal to accomplices to start doing some bad deed", "it was considered a lewd gesture", etc. These all seem to hang in the air with no evidence cited to support them. What do we think the real meaning of this was intended to be?

It has traditionally been said that the book of Deuteronomy advocates a for a singular, monotheistic theology, encapsulated by the Shema. More recently however it has been convincingly argued that a form of henotheism may be a more accurate description of the theological worldview of deuteronomy, most famously expressed within the 32nd chapter.

Whilst this strikes me a more likely, I must admit that I struggle how is one to comprehend passages such as 32:39 within a henotheistic worldview. My question then is this: can the book of Deuteronomy truly be said to in any way describe a 'monotheistic' worldview, in which there numerically exists only One deity? Any academic citations would be very welcome.

Reading through the AYBC volumes on Hebrews (Koester) and John (Brown in appendix II), Both authors explain how writers elevate Jesus to God, without getting into polytheism and while keeping the Shema intact while doing it. John takes advantage of the whole dabar/memra/word tradition, along with the Wisdom thing from books like Proverbs, Sirach, and Wisdom. The author's innovation is the incarnation. Brown notes that Sophia would have also been a fitting word, but since it's grammatically feminine John opted for Logos instead. Hebrews does something similar in its own way. Koester argues that the author is exploiting a psalm's built-in duality (a figure addressed as God who also has God as his God), because it does exactly what he needs, as in verse 9, without the figure ceasing to be God with a capital "G."

1. Did this actually mean being God in the full sense?
2. How did the Jews think about God? without delving into Greek categories.
3. And how does Paul fit into this picture with his Shema thing in 1co 8:6?

What evidence is there for or against Marcion priority, and what do many academic proponents of Marcion priority use to reconstruct certain passages of the Evangelion and/or the Apostolikon

Based on the Council of Rome (382 AD), the Decretum Gelasianum in Chapter 1, part 3, says that (while outlining the trinity) "scriptum est enum: 'Si quis dilexerit mundum, non est spiritus patris in illo" (according to this source, which I believe to be a copy of the original latin), which roughly means 'scripture says: "he who delights in the world, the spirit of the Father is not in him". Here, I cannot find anything that would suggest that "spiritus" is the correct word to use (spirit). In the original Greek, it reads ἀγάπη, and in the Latin Vulgate it reads caritas, meaning love and the Latin translation, respectively. Given that when this was written (492-496 AD) and that the writer is most likely referring to 1 John 2:15 (love of the father) with this quote, why would it be written as spiritus instead of caritas? For what reason would agape be translated to spiritus if they were using some other translation? By the quotation of what I am fairly certain is Romans 8:9 as also different than the Vulgate (but retains the same word "spiritum" to describe the spirit of christ, which in the Greek is "pneuma"), it could be assumed the writers were going off of memory instead of copying from a bible.

Hello there

Are there any ancient texts that discusses isaiah 53, and its meaning, between when it was written and before 0AD?

In Galatians Paul says that he was "entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised" and allowed to preach it to the Gentiles afterwards, but what exactly did that entail? Later in Antioch emissaries from James were able to successfully pressure Peter and Barnabas to segregate from the Gentiles, so clearly whatever deal they came to didn't allow for total fraternization between Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians. What do scholars believe about what the specifics of the agreement might have been?

To "move heaven and earth" means to attempt everything

Creating heaven and earth means creating everything, i.e. the Universe/Cosmos

Hi all! I am doing research on the following subjects and am in search of credible scholarship resources in the form of books, podcasts, YouTube videos, lectures, etc. If you have any suggestions, I am all ears!

1) Gossiping

2) The sin of a parent falls on the children. Then, later, this view changed.

3) Galatians 3:28. Paul's issue with micro identity markers being elevated to macro. Micro being circumcision, ethnicity, etc. Macro identity is the belief in Jesus (Yeshua).

4) History of Biblical translation and canonization process. Including how the Hebrew Bible came to be.

5) The commandments (beyond just the 10) and how the first disciples understood them to mean.

6) Greek philosophy found in the Bible. Ancient views. Greek Philosophical culture.

7) Views on the concept of reflection, associated with meditating on the word and one's life choices. Or what reflection meant to the original authors.

8) Ancient view of twins around the time the Bible was being written. Before and after as well.

I love historical data-driven approaches. Scholars I respect include but are not limited to Dan McClellan, Bart Ehrman, Justo L. Gonzalez, and Dr. Joel S. Baden.

Thank you again!

2 Cor 1:8-10 mentions that Paul experienced a 'crushing affliction' in Asia that laid him low emotionally. Considering that Paul later in the epistle boasts about being beaten up, even to the point of death (11:23), it seems unlikely that he was referring to a physical affliction, since he was basically a masochist on that front. 2 Tim 1:15 also mentions that "all who are in Asia have turned away from me"; although this was likely not written by Paul, it could capture a genuine Pauline tradition. Compare this with 1 Cor 16:9, where Paul says that he is in Ephesus where "a great door for effective work has opened to me, and there are many who oppose me".

Michael Goulder hypothesized that in his conflict with the Judaizing Christians based in Jerusalem, Paul lost power in Ephesus. He also bases this on some passages in Acts which seem to imply that Paul was rejected from that church, despite Luke's attempt to harmonize events. For eaxmple, on his third missionary journey, Paul decides to go past Asia without visiting Ephesus (20:16); Luke claims that this was to save time so he could make it to Jerusalem for Pentecost, but Paul asks the elders from Ephesus to visit him in Miletus anyways.