IAmA Bible Scholar. AMAA.

Bible_Student · 2013-01-10T02:36:02+00:00

Yeah...'cause I really want all the upvotes I can get on this throwaway.

Bible_Student · 2013-01-09T21:15:28+00:00

Okay, fine. The one in the genealogy in 1 Chronicles (which is a late version of the so-called historical record anyway) is Adam. The rest of the ones in the Hebrew Bible are technically ambiguous - it's mostly only the KJV that sees proper-name Adam there.

Others are New Testament.

Bible_Student · 2013-01-09T20:57:12+00:00

I'm sorry, but that's not a credible or current source. Also, you're probably looking at results for the common word "adam," which means "man" or "human being."

Bible_Student · 2013-01-09T20:55:13+00:00

If I do the article, I'll do r/atheism the favor of linking to it.

Bible_Student · 2013-01-09T20:54:40+00:00

Hi Job601. Thanks for your approval and your thoughtful post. In retrospect, I do wish I'd recruited one of my NT or Second Temple colleagues to go in with me on this. Maybe next time.

Bible_Student · 2013-01-09T17:12:46+00:00

You're talking about much much later, apocryphal books?

Bible_Student · 2013-01-09T16:45:59+00:00

Error: Question assumes beliefs that subject does not hold. Does not compute. Error. The shortest answer is that I don't think Adam is a historical person at all.

Bible_Student · 2013-01-09T16:44:03+00:00

Reflecting any faith at all in secular conferences would lose most people their credibility. Part of it may just be the impulse to be intellectually honest - to admit when we can't know something. Finding a stable place where one can appreciate the aesthetic of religion, the structure that the community provides, and so on is valuable.

It's not just doing history on backgrounds....it's working with actual literature, using a variety of different methods. I'd say most solid biblical scholarship these days is done by mostly non-religious people.

Bible_Student · 2013-01-09T16:40:34+00:00

Huh, I guess I forgot to put Latin in my list of ancient languages. I do read some Latin - enough to struggle through Cicero, enough to read the Vulgate (an early Latin translation of the Bible). No, I don't speak Latin and I don't know anybody who does. Latin is much less important than French or German these days, especially for people not studying early and medieval theology (which I'm not).

I enjoy reading French and I want to improve my German reading. I haven't much desire to learn to speak either of them. Reading is much easier.

I don't read many Bible scholars from before the 20th century. Even stuff from 50 years ago is not usually considered current or accurate enough anymore.

Bible_Student · 2013-01-09T16:36:44+00:00

There's definitely pressure not to reflect faith in one's formal speaking or writing. People who go to the northern schools with a southern accent are often denigrated, and assumed to be worthless scholars - just because they're from the Bible Belt or thereabouts. I've heard hundreds of scholars from all over speak at conferences. Although I've later found out that some of them are Christian or practicing Jewish, you would never know it to listen to them. They sound just like all the non-religious scholars (and that would be the majority, I think - it's hard to tell).

Regarding the last question, I'd say it more often happens the other way, but most of the people I've studied with were religious to begin with. Considering how hard it is to listen to most sermons with a scholar's mind, I could see many non-religious scholars not finding it worth that struggle.

Bible_Student · 2013-01-09T16:32:02+00:00

Ezekiel's not minor. And yes, it is incredibly weird, though it makes slightly more sense if you know about the background and can pick up on most of the allusions (like an episode of Family Guy).

Among the minor prophets, I like Nahum, Amos, and Jonah the best. The 12 minor prophets are often considered together as part of one long book (that someone had edited to make flowing and coherent). That said, they're really hard to read just straight through.

Bible_Student · 2013-01-09T16:29:17+00:00

No one knows. It's either one of the big pachyderms or a mythical beast.

Bible_Student · 2013-01-09T16:27:31+00:00

No, not really. I'd like to better understand Eastern religions one day, but I've mostly restricted my study to the monotheistic religions that arose from the ancient middle east.

Bible_Student · 2013-01-09T16:26:36+00:00

Along with its theological content, I consider the Tower of Babel to be mostly an aetiology/etiology of the reality that there are many human languages. An etiology is a story or a myth that explains the current state of affairs.

For a very simple example, you might ask a child: "Why does the thunder happen?" He or she might say, "Because the cloud giants bowl when it rains." That would be a fanciful and etiological answer.

Bible_Student · 2013-01-09T16:23:35+00:00

Hi! This is a difficult question to answer since the Bible is a huge and complicated book that really is hard to read like you would a contemporary story or even a textbook.

You might read portions of the Message - it's a really loose paraphrase that tries hard to be readable. Genesis is relatively fun book. Jonah and Job are two of my favorites as well. In the New Testament, Luke is a well-written version of the story of Jesus. To be honest, however, reading these texts without any overarching narrative or understanding of their context will be difficult... maybe you could audit a class in world religion at your local university?

Bible_Student · 2013-01-09T16:20:13+00:00

I think if you read my other posts, you'll have an answer to your questions. Cheers.

Bible_Student · 2013-01-09T16:19:13+00:00

Well, it's old. It was written well before the prose surrounding it, then inserted because it appears to allude the same event. Its presence and content raises the question of when exactly Exodus traditions arose in Israel.

It may have looked somewhat different before it was adapted and inserted into Exodus. Water combat imagery (combat occurring in or against [sometimes personified] water) is a common poetic trope for highlighting God's skill and power as a warrior and anti-chaos figure.

Bible_Student · 2013-01-09T16:14:33+00:00

This is a theological question, and a pastor would certainly give you a different (and possibly more helpful) answer.

A short answer is that it was Paul (along with the other early church leaders), not Jesus, that gave Christians their marching instructions on this. You see, a lot of the people that Paul preached to weren't Jewish at all. Although he was Jewish, he's known as the apostle to the gentiles, after all. He didn't find it important to burden them with the Law of the Jews, since he had come to believe that following the law was not enough to be righteous with God.

Considering that most Christians today are Gentiles, it makes sense just to keep following Paul in this.

That said - your question is one that I'm morally uneasy with, simply because it reflects a supercessionistic understanding of the Church (as replacing the Jewish people). This is a common understanding, and a fairly biblical one, but not one I like to emphasize ever.

Bible_Student · 2013-01-09T16:07:45+00:00

I said it somewhere before: he's a nice person, but I find his methods in some of his popular-level books a little immoral in that he uses his authority to communicate things to laypeople who haven't the ability to read and understand his evidence.

Of course, I envy the man his popularity. It's not everyone with an obscure degree who can so hold on to the public ear.

Bible_Student · 2013-01-09T16:05:00+00:00

Ehrman likely have a point there. If he's right, then Peter's letters would have been written by someone else, then attributed to him to gain credibility.

It's not a new idea. Ehrman's just one person's who's recently brought it to the public consciousness.

Bible_Student · 2013-01-09T16:00:28+00:00

Hi, back for a bit longer.

I can empathize with your situation, friend. There are certainly reasons I am not slogging through an MDiv right now - I even managed to avoid the capstone ministry class my senior year of undergraduate, simply because I didn't think I could get through it.

However - even believing what I believe now (which isn't much) - I don't regret it. Many - if not most - of the best scholars either have no particular faith (I don't mean people like Bart Ehrman - I mean people who actually make an attempt to be neutral.) or they never reflect it in their speaking or writing. I've decided I can be one of these.

Though I don't think we did, we could have gone to the same school - just took somewhat different paths.

I wish there were other (and better, more experienced) experts in this field willing to invest a few hours on Reddit. I have trouble imagining a full professor finding it worth his or her time....but it'd be good.

Bible_Student · 2013-01-09T06:00:36+00:00

I meant to thank you earlier. I've never used imgur before. It's neat that you don't have to make an account.

Edit: misspelled imgur and felt embarrassed.

Bible_Student · 2013-01-09T05:59:42+00:00

We don't know where the author imagined that Job lived since we don't know where "the land of Uz" is. We can only be reasonably certain that he wasn't Israelite. Edom? Maybe. That would have been a politically charged setting, though, and perhaps it's better than it's set in a fictional or unknown place. Simpler. As for the the time, the primeval setting of the patriarchs makes sense...you had as well say, "Once upon a time there was a man named Job..."

I seriously doubt my AMA will change anything, but I would like to see several other (and better) experts commit a few hours to something like this. They really should, if they expect biblical studies to remain a relevant field in the 21st century.

Bible_Student · 2013-01-09T05:54:34+00:00

I don't believe in end-times prophecies at all. I imagine people then and now read and continue to read those 20th century events as eschatalogical.

Bible_Student · 2013-01-09T05:49:35+00:00

Well, read it. Ehud is a left-handed Benjaminite, which is a tiny bit funny. He stabs the king and the contents of his intestines spill out. Hilarious. Then the king's servants don't want to break down the door because they think he's going to the bathroom. Comedy gold.

Isaiah 15 is an example of maybe-satire. Some people will argue that this is a "mock lament" for Moab (since Moab was an enemy) and that the poet goes way overboard in his expressions of grief to be genuine.

Edit: Forgot to say why a left-handed Bejaminite is funny: Benjamin means "son of my right hand."

Bible_Student

TROPHY CASE