Best christian commentary books according to redditors
We found 415 Reddit comments discussing the best christian commentary books. We ranked the 212 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 415 Reddit comments discussing the best christian commentary books. We ranked the 212 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
![Bible and the Holy Fathers for Orthodox, The [hardcover]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/31uWDtHetfL.jpg)
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.
You wanted to be part of the intelligentsia, but throughout your philosophical journey, you always based your convictions only on authority and tradition instead of on evidence and arguments. Don't you realize that this is the epitome of anti – intellectualism?
It is correct that the New Atheists aren't the pinnacle of atheistic thought and didn't contribute many new ideas to the academic debate of atheism vs. theism or religion. But this was never their goal, and it is also unnecessary, since the academic debate is already over for many decades. If you want to know why the arguments for theism are all complete nonsense and not taken seriously anymore, why Christianity is wrong just about everything and why apologists like Craig are dishonest charlatans who make a living out of fooling people, your reading list shouldn't be New Atheists, but rather something like this:
Colin Howson – Objecting to God
George H. Smith – Atheism: The Case Against God
Graham Oppy – Arguing about Gods
Graham Oppy – The Best Argument Against God
Herman Philipse – God in the Age of Science
J. L. Mackie – The Miracle of Theism
J. L. Schellenberg – The Wisdom to Doubt
Jordan Sobel – Logic and Theism
Nicholas Everitt – The Non-Existence of God
Richard Gale – On the Nature and Existence of God
Robin Le Poidevin – Arguing for Atheism
Stewart Elliott Guthrie – Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion
Theodore Drange – Nonbelief & Evil
[Avigor Shinan – From Gods to God: How the Bible Debunked, Suppressed, or Changed Ancient Myths and Legends] (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0827609086)
Bart Ehrman – The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings
Bart Ehrman – Jesus, Interrupted
Bart Ehrman – Misquoting Jesus
Burton L. Mack – Who Wrote the New Testament?
Helmut Koester – Ancient Christian Gospels
John Barton, John Muddiman – The Oxford Bible Commentary
John Dominic Crossan – Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography
Karen Armstrong – A History of God
Mark Smith – The Early History of God
Randel McCraw Helms – Who Wrote the Gospels?
Richard Elliott Friedman – Who Wrote the Bible?
Robert Bellah – Religion in Human Evolution: From the Paleolithic to the Axial Age
Robert Walter Funk – The Gospel of Jesus
The two best books for getting a basic understanding of the writing and transmission process of the Bible are:
Richard Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible? for the Hebrew Scriptures
Burton Mack's Who Wrote the New Testament? for the Christian Scriptures
> hard from an intellectual point of view
I'm sorry, I had to snicker when I read this. There is no other organization that has more intellectual underpinnings than the Catholic Church.
If you are having problems reconciling Scripture (exegetically or hermeneutically), you need to start reading academic books, such as those by Brown, Meier, Gonzalez, and Martos, just to name a few.
Helpful for me was Thomism and modern Thomists such as Feser.
Books and Concepts:
A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam:
http://www.amazon.com/History-God-000-Year-Judaism-Christianity/dp/0345384563
Well-sourced Wikipedia articles describing the evolution of Jewish monotheism from polytheism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism#Origin_and_development
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah#Religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh#Early_history_of_Yahweh-worship
Enuma Elish:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En%C3%BBma_Eli%C5%A1
Library of Ashurbanipal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Ashurbanipal
Canaanite Religion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanite_religion
Did Jewish Slaves Build the Pyramids?:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4191
Taanach Cult Stand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh#Development
Israel Enters Recorded History in Egypt at 1200 BCE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah#Iron_Age_I
Jeremiah's Monolatrist Polytheism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_heaven_(Antiquity)#Hebrew_Bible_references
Exodus Renaming by P verified in The Bible with Sources Revealed:
http://www.amazon.com/Sources-Revealed-Richard-Elliott-Friedman/dp/0060530693
--
All excerpts used in this video are either copyright-free or covered under "fair use" in Title 17 § 107 of the USC, including:
The Prince of Egypt:
http://www.amazon.com/Prince-Egypt-Val-Kilmer/dp/B00000JGOQ
Vector Attributions:
A huge thanks to Snap2Objects for the many businessmen vectors I use:
http://www.snap2objects.com/freebies/
Iron Age Israel and Judah:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kingdoms_of_Israel_and_Judah_map_830.svg
Cloaked Israelite Women:
http://all-silhouettes.com/super-girls/
Gods and Israelites of War:
http://all-silhouettes.com/fighting-people/
Tiamat:
http://all-silhouettes.com/vector-oriental-dragons/
Asherah and Baal:
http://all-silhouettes.com/jumping-people/
Israelites:
http://all-silhouettes.com/miscsilhouettesofpeople/
Sun:
http://greeengirl.deviantart.com/art/free-simbols-sun-81174695?q=boost:popula...
Clouds:
http://all-silhouettes.com/vector-clouds/
Plants:
http://www.vecteezy.com/Flowers/127-13-Free-Vector-Foliage-Ornaments-Pack-01
Babies:
http://browse.deviantart.com/resources/?q=baby#/d1cnta1
Ares:
http://browse.deviantart.com/resources/vector/?q=ares#/d2b8aai
Deuteronomy Flourishes:
http://all-silhouettes.com/vector-flourishes/
Blood:
http://www.vecteezy.com/Spills-Splatters/15375-Free-Splatter-Vector-Set
Paint Splatters:
http://www.vecteezy.com/Spills-Splatters/466-Vector-Splatters
Image Attributions:
Badlands:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2003-08-15_Badlands_National_Park_smal...
Heaven:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sky_between_cloud_layers.jpeg
Babylonian Tablet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Venus_Tablet_of_Ammisaduqa.jpg
Babylonian Exile:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_history#Babylonian_captivity
Baal Epic:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Baal_epic_mp3h8930.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Baal_epic_mp3h8950.jpg
Books and Concepts:
A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam:
http://www.amazon.com/History-God-000-Year-Judaism-Christianity/dp/0345384563
Well-sourced Wikipedia articles describing the evolution of Jewish monotheism from polytheism:
Enuma Elish:
Library of Ashurbanipal:
Canaanite Religion:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4191
Taanach Cult Stand:
Jeremiah's Monolatrist Polytheism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_heaven_(Antiquity)#Hebrew_Bible_references
Exodus Renaming by P verified in The Bible with Sources Revealed:
http://www.amazon.com/Sources-Revealed-Richard-Elliott-Friedman/dp/0060530693
From this video.
> The universe must be closed in order for it to have emerged from quantum fluctuation. - I know nothing on this one, so I'll have to leave it unanswered.
Schroder is not a cosmologist, he has a degree in nuclear physics. While it is from MIT that does not automatically make him qualified to talk about cosmology. In his book, The Science of God, where he tries to merge the big bang and a literal 7 day creation, me made it clear he knows very little about cosmology or even relativity. He made a few mistakes that I was able to catch and a few that I read about on a critique of the book. The most glaring is that he talks about special relativity then turns around and treats somewhere as if it has a special frame of reference. A more subtle, but equally serious, issue was that he misused the variable e in a few equations, he took a special case of energy and used it as if it were a general. A cosmologist would have caught that in a second.
Shcroder makes material that looks convincing to a lay person and doesn't invite further investigation to those who are already convinced. What he does not do is real research (on this subject), he makes secondary material that doesn't undergo the peer review process and isn't subject to scrutiny from others in the field. This is not by accident, he does this because his religious arguments are nonsense and he knows the common person won't be able to call him on it. If he wants to be taken seriously he needs to get this stuff published then turn it into a secondary resource. That's what everyone else has to do.
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.
Did choose one - Jesus was a Jew.
Scholars will make it a course of study...Has been done since the Church was first started, as in "The Book of Hebrews"...
> https://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Study-Bible-Publication-Translation/dp/0195297512
> The Jewish Study Bible: Featuring The Jewish Publication Society TANAKH Translation: Adele Berlin, Marc Zvi Brettler, Michael Fishbane: 9780195297515: Amazon.com: Books
> The Jewish Study Bible is a one-volume resource tailored especially for the needs of students of the Hebrew Bible. Nearly forty scholars worldwide contributed to the translation and interpretation of the Jewish Study Bible, representing the best of Jewish biblical scholarship available today. A committee of highly-respected biblical scholars and rabbis from the Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Judaism movements produced this modern translation.
> No knowledge of Hebrew is required for one to make use of this unique volume. The Jewish Study Bible uses The Jewish Publication Society TANAKH Translation.
> Since its publication, the Jewish Study Bible has become one of the most popular volumes in Oxford's celebrated line of bibles. The quality of scholarship, easy-to-navigate format, and vibrant supplementary features bring the ancient text to life.
>* Informative essays that address a wide variety of topics relating to Judaism's use and interpretation of the Bible through the ages.
666 was likely the code for Nero, some translations have it as 616 to reflect the Latin version of the spelling.
/r//r/AcademicBiblical has a simple two part reference that talk about this and some other small issues.
1
2
if you are into lots of reading you can try "Revelation And The End Of All Things" that was recommended reading by some professors teaching courses on the NT and revelation that I've been though (not LDS). The book will turn your LDS belifes and teachings about Revelation's on their head and expose a lot of the BS and nonsense that you where taught as a member of the church.
If you like the bible so much, you should also know who actually wrote it.
I suggest you read this book.
If by 'lacking' you mean 'nonexistent', then yes.
I went to public school but with heavy influence from my folks and church, all of whom seem to be involved in some sort of Fundamentalism competition. I learned exactly as much as I had to in order to pass the test, but I was always convinced it was a lie because scientists are all "out to get" Christianity.
I'm still wrapping my head around just how unhealthy this worldview can be.
I'll echo /u/Cognizant_Psyche - kudos on taking that first step and deciding to get smart on this topic.
I talked to my church pastor, who passed me off to his wife (who has apologetics degrees out the ass). She recommended The Language of God, a tactic which soundly backfired on her. That book was fantastic. It explains evolution from a DNA perspective but then tries to tell me I can still believe in God if I want to. For me, from such a fundamentalist, literalist background, the bible had to be true word-for-word, yet this book flew in the face of the entire Genesis account of creation. If that wasn't real, how could I trust any of the rest?
Once I was 'cleared' to learn about Evolution, I grabbed Dawkins' The God Delusion. I watched the Ham-Nye debate. I grabbed Who Wrote The New Testament, and Misquoting Jesus. That pretty much did it for me.
These are some of the better books I've accumulated in school:
I don't think so. The first line is translated as
> in the summit “Elohiym [Powers]” fattened the sky and the land
The translation of בְּרֵאשִׁית as "in the summit" is a very uncommon conjecture made to strengthen the parallel between Genesis and the Babylonian Enuma Elish, which opens with "when on high". There are indeed parallels between the two texts, but the translation of that particular word is a non-literal interpretation. Literally, it means something like "at the head".
The translation of בָּרָא as "fattened" is something that I've never seen before. At best it's a fringe theory.
Skimming the rest of the lines, I can see many more of these unusual translations which were likely made to fit into some sort of specific non-standard interpretation. For example, the simple word "טוֹב" (good) is translated as "functional".
I recommend the Jewish Study Bible, which is often used in university courses. It uses the latest JPS translation, which is decent, but more importantly it includes ample commentary by unbiased experts.
Honest answer - if you are genuinely interested in why religion is a problem, read this book
These two are probably the most respected in academia. If you want to get just one, I'd go with the NRSV for both Jewish Bible and New Testament.
Just the TANAKH (Old Testament): The Jewish Study Bible: Featuring The Jewish Publication Society TANAKH Translation
TANAKH and New Testament (The Christian Bible): The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version
I think the best you can get is some surveys of the debates. Some texts (esp introductory ones) attempt to present the major debates without taking a side. The closest you can get IMO to a consensus is scholars agreeing about what the questions are, or perhaps a survey of the relevant literature on a given passage. And while even that has plenty of variety and disagreement, you can generally call it a safe consensus.
Although, since the field is so massive, I'm not aware of a single text which would encompass all of biblical scholarship. So, I'll recommend some (IMO) good surveys of the literature and questions:
Old Testament (general introduction, forthcoming) I've seen some embargo copies of this, and even though it says "catholic" in the title, its very nuanced and pays attention to the different scholarly debates, in such a way that it is pretty darn objective.
Pentateuch
Historical Books
Prophets
Psalms & Wisdom Literature
New Testament (general introduction)
Paul
Canonization
History of Biblical Interpretation: Ancient
History of Biblical Interpretation: Ancient-Medieval
History of Biblical Interpretation: 1300-1700 (probably my favorite on this list)
History of Biblical Interpretation: Enlightenment-20th century (with overlap from the previous one)
I would also recommend a good biblical dictionary. They're not just definitions, they're filled with entire scholarly articles on various topics in a given field. My favorite is the IVP Bible Dictionary Series. I use it all the time (individual volumes can be purchased separately).
>As I said, I grew up as Catholic as one can.
You also said you attended seminary for four years. One would think that you have studied the Summa upon immediate entry into your pre-theology.
>I actually studied for a year the Acts of the Apostles.
Then surely, as a former Seminarian, you have a Reverse Interlinear and a Greek Primer to study Scripture as in-depth as possible? Because, as every good seminarian knows, Scripture is written in Koine Greek, and we need to study various facets of language to understand the full meaning of what is recorded.
>Do I try to seek answers? Everyday I do. I visit /r/Christianity to check on discussions often
I would not qualify visiting an online forum as a means of seeking answers.
>I read a lot about the history of the Bible.
Whom have you read?
Surely, as a seminarian, you have read An Introduction to the New Testament by Brown and Reading the Old Testament by Boadt. Both are standard readings in seminary.
>I would never have known that creationism is a Jewish folklore.
Eh...I wouldn't say that "creationism if a Jewish folklore." I would say that Creationism is a non-Catholic interpretation of the Genesis myth (here I do not mean today's understanding of "myth").
Sure thing. The books are NOT from his disciples. They were written decades after his death. This is mainstream scholarship for non-fundamentalist Christians (i.e., what regular seminaries teach people).
You may want to read: http://www.amazon.com/Who-Wrote-New-Testament-Christian/dp/0060655186
Two gospels mention the virgin birth. Two do not.
Jesus appears to four different sets of people and at different times.
Judas dies in two different ways.
So this thoroughly undermines the credibility of the New Testament (and there are dozens and dozens of such examples).
To take just a few:
http://www.thinkatheist.com/notes/101_Contradictions_in_the_Bible/
I just picked up Beale and Carson's Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament but haven't cracked it yet. I expect it to cover your (1) thoroughly.
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.
What about his book impressed you, specifically? I always felt that the author's attempt to mathematically justify the Genesis creation myth was as embarrassing contrived as Bible codes.
For a scholarly translation: The JPS Study Bible
For a more "traditional" translation, The Artscroll Tanach
However, I need to note that you won't learn about Judaism or Jewish practice from reading the Tanach. I hear Jewish Literacy by Rabbi Telushkin is a very good starting place.
If you can get your hands on a copy of this you'll spend the whole day reading it: http://www.amazon.com/Textual-Commentary-Testament-Ancient-Edition/dp/1598561642
You're looking for a good critical commentary. That should survey the current state of the field and consider specific and general approaches.
Yale's Anchor commentaries has had a new Revelation a few years ago, which is good, perhaps a bit heavyweight if you're buying for curiosity, but if you can get it from a library, the introduction (which is about a third of the book) is readable and comprehensive.
The author of that book (Craig Koester) also has a smaller book on revelation for a more general reader. Though I haven't read it to vouch for it, personally, apparently it is consistent with his academic work.
Good study bibles: The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible or The HarperCollins Study Bible.
Another good one for great insights into the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament): Jewish Study Bible
Gerald Schroeder has two great books on it. The Science of God and Genesis and the Big Bang.
He provides one possible framework showing that Creationism and Evolution are not at odds. He also has audio version available at Aishaudio.com.
See Father Raymond Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament. You will probably find his perspective and presentation to be both insightful and invaluable.
These Yale Religious Studies lectures are a fantastic introduction to critical scholarship. The OT series is particularly well done and this lay reader would think they'd give you all the background you need to explore topics more in depth on your own. IIRC, the OT series has the JPS study bible as recommended reading, which would also offer introductory essays for each biblical text.
If you have your heart set on a book, you would probably be best served by a proper introductory textbook, but FYI they do have the material from these courses in book form. The OT one reads pretty much like a transcript of the lectures, while the NT professor said he had to recreate the text from the ground up because of how freeform his lectures are ;)
The only one currently in print that I know of is The Bible with Sources Revealed. Read it through along with the footnotes, and so many weird things in the Pentateuch will start to make sense. (But don't get the Kindle edition. Apparently it doesn't work properly with the text colours.)
Your argument gives me the impression that little care was taken in choosing the 4 Gospels, which is not the case. The narratives in each of these 4 Gospels center around Jesus the Son of God. They each have different perspectives but they tell the same story.
I would encourage you to seek out other sources than the one you listed. It is chock full of half-truths and unsubstantiated claims.
An excellent scholarly book that I recommend is the Bible Background Commentary by Dr. Craig Keener
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0830824782/ref=pd_aw_fbt_14_img_3?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=EH9584H2HJYY87QJF9T9
For the New Testament, I recommend Brown
https://www.amazon.ca/Introduction-New-Testament-Raymond-Brown/dp/0300140169
I'd recommend the Jewish Study Bible. If you get something like an Artscroll Tanakh, a lot of the translations are influenced by rabbinic traditions, which probably isn't what you're looking for.
Also if you find something labeled "Jewish Bible", it might be a Messianic translation, and those are completely 100% bogus and should be avoided.
I've been reading Dr. William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith and finding it to be pretty stimulating so if you want something on the more academic end then that could be good.
CS Lewis's The Great Divorce is a good, quick read with an interesting take on the natures of Heaven and Hell.
Rev. Dr. Mary Kathleen Cunningham is a very good scholar who I studied under during undergrad and who has put together a very nice reader which surveys the spectrum of belief in the creationism/evolution debate called God and Evolution which is good if you're interested in that kind of thing.
Dr. Craig Keener has a good, cohesive commentary on the New Testament which you can buy as a single volume called The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament.
So there's a few to start out with. Let me know if you're looking for anything more specific and I can try to help (I have a budding theological library in my apartment).
I've found the OT background commentary to be a helpful place to begin. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament https://www.amazon.com/dp/0830814191
You could then move to Walton's Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible https://www.amazon.com/dp/0801027500
This is much more in depth, but could be another good place to go if you end up looking for more. The World around the Old Testament: The People and Places of the Ancient Near East https://www.amazon.com/dp/0801039185/
Revelation is apocalyptic, so much of its allusions are a muddled conglomeration of thematic ideas -- not usually a specific one to pin point. So be careful when trying to specify exactly. But the book as a whole really "drips of the OT", as I had a prof once state (i.e. references the OT without explicitly referencing the OT). So when I read, I'm looking for OT allusions or echoes. So would agree that the Isaianic references are likely. These demonstrate more of supremacy rather than oneness -- although the latter really demonstrates the former, so it could be both -- especially if you hold to a Johannine authorship since "oneness" is a key theme in the Johannine corpus.
Also note where in the book these references occur. The "first and the last" in chps 1 and 2 and "the beginning and the end" in the final chapter. In the final chapter, God/Jesus have demonstrated their supremacy in their victory over death, sin, Satan, etc. so 22.13 is really the final proclamation of this supremacy. And note the three-fold repetition of the proclamation, denoting completion. They also serve as inclusio (i.e. thematic "bookends") for the book as a whole. The idea in the inclusio generally represents a guideline for authorial intent, and thus interpretation. It's also (possibly) an inclusio to the Johannie corpus as well (cf. Jn 1.1). So there's a good bit going on here, both intercontextually and intracontextually.
Just my initial thoughts. But if you're really wanting further info, I'd recommend these two commentaries: NT Use of the OT, Revelation (NIGTC). I would consider the first source a must-have reference for any NT student worth his salt.
EDIT: gloss, grammar
Read Edith Hamilton's Mythology and then read the Bible. If your university offers a Bible as Literature class take it, otherwise you could look into taking one in the religions department. You'll have more motivation to get through it if your grade depends on it. Plus, the benefits of actually learning the material so you can recognize it on your own while you are reading, with the ease of the subconscious. I also highly recommend this book
http://www.amazon.com/Five-Books-Moses-Translation-Commentary/dp/0393019551
It's a new translation of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) and it's written in a modern literary style which is quite impressive.
No, actually, they did not. Might I recommend "Who Wrote The New Testament?: The Making of the Christian Myth" by Burton L. Mack?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0060655186
G.K. Beale - Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament
You mean like the Jewish Study Bible?
Note that the reason there is only one of these (and I don't even know if this is what you're looking for), is probably because Jews and Christians take different approaches to learning the bible. I've found (and this is purely personal observation, not a scientific study) that Christians read much more finely taking single passages and sentences and analyzing them in their own right. Jews take a step back and usually consider each passage in it's larger context. Jews also tend to try to look at things through the prism of our sages first to see how things were interpreted by our ancestors, while Christians ask "what does this mean to me, today" and ignore older interpretations.
You could also just go all out with the commentary and buy the St. Jerome Commentary. This is a masterpiece.
I think it's not a struggle to understand the NT, but a struggle to understand the OT for me. There is grace and love in the OT that we don't see. I'm no theological scholar of any standing, and certainly not an OT scholar, but despite God's earthly wrath against men in the OT, I think it only stands as a testament to his loving faithfulness to the covenant he made with Abraham and, through Abraham, with Israel.
It is tough to reconcile, sometimes. A book I've had on my Amazon wishlist has been the Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament edited G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson, hoping that it will help me resolve some of these issues in my own heart.
Edit: I hope your dissertation goes well! You chose a good season in which to write on that topic.
Check out something like Burton Mack's Who Wrote the New Testament?: The Making of the Christian Myth
I'm reading that now, he makes a reasonable argument for the Christ mythology idea, and provides an in depth analysis of the writing of the NT in a historical context.
Am reading Henrietta Lacks ATM and really liking it.
I also recommend ...
The Selfish Gene - Richard Dawkins
The Demon Haunted World - Carl Sagan
God Is Not Great - Christopher Hitchens
Risk - Dan Gardner
Bad Science - Ben Goldacre
Why People Believe Weird Things - Michael Shermer
How We Know What isn't So - Thomas Gilovich
EDIT : MOAR
Quirkology - Prof. Richard Wiseman
Tricks Of The Mind - Derren Brown
59 Seconds: Think a little, change a lot - Prof. Richard Wiseman
How to Lie With Statistics - Donald Huff
I'd definitely go with the New Oxford Annotated Bible. It's fantastic. Apparently there's a new edition out.
Also worth checking out for more detail is the Oxford Bible Commentary.
A study Bible just doesn't provide the space needed for such a project; prooftexting is bad, whether it's the Bible itself or the Fathers. You'll need a separate volume of commentary. Two I'm aware of are Grace for Grace: The Psalter and the Holy Fathers and The Bible and the Holy Fathers for Orthodox.
It's a surprise to exactly no one that there is an official hermeneutics for each expression of christianity, as the entire literary exegetical process has its start in widespread bible study over the past 400ish years. If you go from that notion, however, to buying the line that there is a consistent agenda that can be interpreted among the bible's authors, then you have limited yourself to non-academic, religious sources. Researchers in the fields of anthropology, history, and religious studies agree upon the conflicting political aims of the various authors of both the old and new testament. Some relevant works would be this overview of scholarship on the authors of the old testament and this overview of scholarship on how the gospels were written.
I can't help you there I'm afraid. I was lucky enough to do new testament studies at school and that was very helpful. I have no idea where to start - you're looking for something like this - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Oxford-Bible-Commentary-John-Barton/dp/0199277184
Do some research and ask around.
This is the accompanying textbook for Yale's excellent Old Testament introductory course by Christine Hayes.
There's also an associated book for that course.
God Is Not Great
https://www.amazon.com/Textual-Commentary-Greek-Testament-Ancient/dp/1598561642
Get yourself a copy. Read the introduction. Get back to me.
If the Bible is the word of God, it'd have certain properties. I'd expect it to be right about the history and nature of the world. All evidence suggests that it isn't. Biblical understanding of history and nature is right in line with what you'd expect from ancient people.
I would expect God to be able to keep his facts straight. The Bible does not. From what I've read, scholars seem to have a pretty good handle on who wrote the various parts of the Bible based on the agendas revealed by these contradictions.
Finally, if the Bible was the word of God, all his prophecies would come to pass. They have not.
Finally, I'd like to note that there are Biblical scholars that hold this view. They include Robert M. Price, Bart D. Ehrman, Richard Elliot Friedman, and Burton L. Mack. I guess they're all misinformed too. If only they had studied the Bible.
I read the bible with the aid of a commentary (The New Jerome Biblical Commentary), and a Bible Dictionary (HarperCollins Bible Dictionary). It slowed the pace a bit, but I got a lot out of it. I also had some good intros to the New Testament (An Introduction to the New Testament by Raymond Brown and The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings by Bart Ehrman).
Some other interesting study aids:
Good Luck.
>What if I told you the only group of Christianity that really opposed Evolution is a specific, small subset out of the world-wide population of Christians? It is only really prominent within Conservative Evangelical Christianity (which happens to be, unfortunately, the largest, the most vocal and the most influential religious demographic within the USA, world-wide however is a different story)
I wouldn't call them small considering the influence they wield in government.
>Would you be surprised if I told you that the evidence for Jesus' existence is so overwhelming that no serious Ancient History, Classics, or Christian/New Testament Studies department in any university would deny that he was a real figure?
There are scholars that have put forth the theory he is an amalgam of characters of history and I'm not sure they are wrong. This aside even if a person name Jesus existed in this time frame there is nowhere near the evidence to substantuate the claims of the Bible.
>Would it surprise you if I told you that we know there are contradictions, and that a lot of us don't think they are significant enough to undo our faith?
Nope... I found plenty of Christians willing to cherry pick what they believe, nothing new here.
>We have a lot more complex and nuanced view than simply "everything the Bible says is true" and "the Bible never contradicts itself".
How can you expect us to believe its the word of god if it doesn't demonstrate divine like qualities? For example if the Bible was readable regardless of your language to everyone without translation this would be evidence there is something more here.. Or perhaps if Bibles were impossible to destroy. Two things a divine, all powerful being could do in order to demonstrate there is something special about this book. Instead the Bible appears to be a poorly written book, riddled with contradictions and historical inaccuracies.
>However, scholars generally believe that the NT is basically reliable in giving an account of his life, and along with the external evidence provided, is enough to explain who Jesus was and what he did in his historical context.
Very wrong here. Please go read 'Who wrote the New Testament'
https://www.amazon.com/Who-Wrote-New-Testament-Christian/dp/0060655186
>. I've actually been wanting to look into the history of the Earth and see how different periods in our planetary history (when the planet cooled into recognizable "land," the first appearance of the oceans, the first appearance of complex life, the first appearance of the species homo sapien etc) and see how that corresponds to the "days" in Genesis. It would be really cool if there were some discernible pattern or correlation between the two!
There is!!! And it is actually more complex and staggering than you can imagine..
http://www.amazon.com/The-Science-God-Convergence-Scientific/dp/076790303X
This book single-handedly jumpstarted my faith back .
Thanks for this AMA
Exegetical Fallacies is great, and I really like Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility.
Hope this helps!
200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball
https://www.amazon.com/Terra-Firma-Planet-Proved-Scripture/dp/1445507897
https://www.amazon.com/100-Proofs-That-Earth-Globe/dp/1523463317
https://www.amazon.com/Zetetic-Astronomy-Earth-Not-Globe/dp/1523612126
https://www.amazon.com/Zetetic-Cosmogony-Conclusive-Revolving-Stationary/dp/1534909184
https://www.amazon.com/Atlantean-Conspiracy-Final-Eric-Dubay/dp/1304634396
https://www.amazon.com/Bible-Heaven-Earth-Globe/dp/0986130540
https://www.amazon.com/Flat-Earth-Clues-Skys-Limit/dp/1523851430
https://www.amazon.com/Firmament-Vaulted-Earth-Zen-Garcia/dp/136507384
https://www.amazon.com/Babylon-Rising-updated-expanded-First/dp/1492170097
https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Conspiracy-Societies-Descendants-Humankind/dp/1632692902
https://www.amazon.com/Great-Inception-Satans-Psyops-Armageddon/dp/0998142646
https://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Torah-Book-Portions-Testament/dp/1492112097
https://www.amazon.com/Books-Enoch-Watchers-Extensive-Commentary/dp/1936533073
https://www.amazon.com/Zetetic-Astronomy-Earth-Globe-Forgotten/dp/1605064173
https://www.amazon.com/Worlds-Beyond-Poles-Physical-Continuity/dp/0986130532
https://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Lie-Earth-Proof-Moving/dp/1943056013
For the New Testament read this http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Testament-Anchor-Reference-Library/dp/0300140169
For the Old testament Read this
http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Old-Testament-5th-Edition/dp/013092380X/ref=pd_sim_b_78
I think the Oxford Bible Commentary is a great resource in general. They publish commentary on sections of the Bible in separate volumes, including one on the Pentateuch, which includes an overview of the history of Pentateuch criticism and the development of the JEPD Documentary Hypothesis.
The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library has a lot of good resources in biblical criticism too. They recently released this hefty renewal/evaluation/overview of JEPD. It received a good review from the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, which I think is considered a respectable representative of mainstream biblical studies.
Also, Robert Alter (The Art of Biblical Narrative) is always fun to read for a fresh, literary perspective. He might have an interesting take on JEPD in his edition of the Pentateuch.
If it were me, I would argue two points.
One, religions poor track record. See books like God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
Two, the Christian religion is based on the bible, which itself was born in an era where both intelligence and ethical standards are well below what we have today. It is evident that the book (even if divinely inspired) has been well corrupted (read Bart Ehrman) and thus should not be allowed to influence modern law.
I don't think this is exclusive to Matthew, the NT writers seem to use the OT in a way that modern folks would get totally blasted for.
I've been meaning to pick this book up for a while, but haven't got around to it. Might be worth considering for tackling these types of questions.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0801026938/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1484612155&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=commentary+on+the+new+testament+use+of+the+old+testament
With all due respect to psstein's post, I cannot endorse his syntopic problem list. For sure read Goodacre, but read it knowing that it is highly contentious and still not accepted by the majority of scholars. Streeter is a light and easy read, but he is outdated, having written almost 100 years ago. Farmer's theory, too, has few adherents, and the other two are redundant if you just read Goodacre.
My suggestions include first this article. This will quickly get you caught up on the basics.
For books, Pheme Perkins' Introduction to the Synoptic Problem is a great beginner's guide. I heartily recommend it before diving into the particulars of each major theory.
Speaking of major theory, Kloppenborg's Excavating Q is right up there as the most important book on Q. If you want to understand 2ST, start here.
psstein has it covered with Historical Jesus, though I would also recommend Erhman's Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium.
For textual criticism, you'll want Metzger's Textual Commentary on the New Testament for sure, but do check out Tov's guide on the Hebrew bible while you're at it. (Older version is cheaper.)
I've not read it myself, but have heard good things about Who Wrote The New Testament
Idea of how the Christian Movement began
For details about which parts of the Bible are from which era, you'll need to do some research. Because bible sources before the King James are so thin on the ground (very few of them around) each part is an area of expertise. I would look for the parts relating to prophecies in the OT that are linked to such events in the the NT.
>Every now and then, we notice that a scribe messed something up or edited something.
And what happens when you don't have enough historical evidence to compare different manuscripts? We have evidence changes occured, and you ask me to believe changes did not occur when the historical evidence becomes to light to track it. Sorry, but that is nonsense.
>Additionally, even before the earliest extant full texts, we have the numerous quotations by the early church fathers, dating back to within the 1st century.
And they show ample differences.
>Adding to this is the sheer difficulty of applying significant changes to these texts, even in their earlier years.
To the extent it is widely accepted two of the gospels were most likely fabricated as derivative works of Mark, and we have a plethora of manuscript variants, and tons of apocrypha, I would suggest we have ample evidence that early christianity was in a strong state of flux. That is the oppositve of what you are trying to claim.
>what historical evidence do you have that the texts were changed prior to our extant copies?
This book is nicely sourced
It's syntax and grammar. I'm not going to give you a third year Greek course on Reddit. Grab Dan Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics and make it your best friend.
After that, grab Moises Silva's Biblical Words and their Meaning. And remember the central rule - just because it's the first definition listed doesn't mean it's the definition of the word you're looking at.
Finally, grab a copy of D.A. Carson's Exegetical Fallacies. That'll help you out quite a bit.
That's assuming that you would actually read non-Watchtower approved materials. I know how touchy they get when people branch out from the approved list.
The professor for this class on the Old Testament (lecture videos here) suggests the Jewish Study Bible.
Yale offers a course for the New Testament as well (videos here), and the professor suggests The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha as a good study bible.
Hmmm, I don't personally know of any good intro to Jewish philosophy books, but I'm sure they exist. Maybe other redditors can give us some good suggestions? I wouldn't recommend that Talmud though. It basically assumes prior knowledge of Tanakh (the Jewish bible), and is the size of a full set of encyclopedias. I do really like The Jewish Study Bible however. It's basically an English translation of the bible and lots of commentary. It might be a decent intro to Judaism, but it might be a little too involved to read without background or someone to talk to about it.
>they are if they are telling you a lie like that documentary hypothesis isn't widely accepted as the academic basis for torah studies.
I'll call my friends cross multiple universities world wide and tell them some poloni on the internet knows more than their decade + time devoted to the subject.
>i'm serious. look into this a bit more. there's some debate as to what constitutes specific documents here and there, but only in minute details. nobody seriously argues that the torah is not made of separate documents.
No one needs to argue it because it's a dead topic. It's like the people arguing for the round earth because the flat earth society exists. No one needs to argue for the round earth because it's over. It's as dead as the non sense Reza Aslan brings up in his book Zealot that the academic world rejected over 50 years ago, another thing you can learn if you talk to people with masters and doctorates in theological studies from different parts of the world.
>that is, in fact, not what they are doing. thank you for continuing to prove your ignorance on this matter.
I'm ignorant and you won't read a book on the topic to actually learn on it. Bizarro world much?
>it is based on linguistic style, which is much more complex than simple choices of words. breaking it apart based on writing style leads to answers about word choices (for instance, the differing ways of referring to god) but is not based on those word choices.
I study Torah. I've read the criticisms DH people bring up. I don't see them. I give them a real chance, but I see their failings in their arguments. Unfortunately my notes on this were on an old computer that crashed so I have nothing to show on it, but I've done research myself and know where I'm going to settle.
Can you read Hebrew? Do you study Torah? Or do you just deal with translations and see the words as arbitrary?
>and i'd highly recommend "who wrote the bible?" and "the bible with sources revealed" by richard elliot friedman. they are rebuttals to the books written well after cassuto was discredited.
Just make sure you follow up with http://www.amazon.com/Really-Wrote-Bible-Eyal-Rav-Noy/dp/0980076307 so you get the whole argument and not continue living in your bubble dude.
As for me, I have bigger fish to fry. DH is moot. I have university professors who attest to this. In fact, just google search a university with a decent theological studies dept and ask to speak to a professor and ask, "where does academia stand with the DH?" Shouldn't take much time.
> I'll call my friends cross multiple universities world wide and tell them some poloni on the internet knows more than their decade + time devoted to the subject.
actually, why don't you call your friends at multiple universities around the world and ask them what the scholarly consensus is on the documentary hypothesis. feel free to post the results here. or not. you probably won't, because i think we both know what they will say.
> No one needs to argue it because it's a dead topic.
evidently, they do, because even though this has been the dominant view in secular academia for years, religious motivated individuals have felt hard done by the argument, and tried to argue against it.
> another thing you can learn if you talk to people with masters and doctorates in theological studies from different parts of the world.
gosh, i'm sorry. i didn't realize that dr. richard elliot friedman, ThD from harvard, or dr. harold bloom, PhD from yale, didn't count. nor did my professors in college. nor do those i read online.
> I'm ignorant and you won't read a book on the topic to actually learn on it.
did i say i wouldn't read it?
> Can you read Hebrew? Do you study Torah? Or do you just deal with translations and see the words as arbitrary?
note that in my other post, which you replied to skeptically, i posted the masoretic hebrew text of a verse, followed by the corresponding fragment of the DSS.
i'd be lying if i said i was anywhere near fluent in hebrew, but i have studied it a little. if i find some more time, i'll study it more.
> I've read the criticisms DH people bring up. I don't see them.
this sounds like a personal failing. i think even in translation (at least, good translations) some of the differences are obvious. but surely in hebrew you can tell see some stylistic differences. i think the repetitive nature of the genealogies sticks out like a sore thumb. you don't agree? you don't see a difference between repeated roots in genesis 1 and repeated sounds in genesis 2?
> I give them a real chance, but I see their failings in their arguments. Unfortunately my notes on this were on an old computer that crashed so I have nothing to show on it, but I've done research myself and know where I'm going to settle.
fantastic. i've debated a fair number of people before who have insisted that -- if i were just to refer to this book they can't find, or haven't published -- all of my criticisms will be addressed. and there's no sense arguing it, it's in the book! most of these people, of course, were fond of headwear made of maleable sheets of thin aluminum.
> Just make sure you follow up with http://www.amazon.com/Really-Wrote-Bible-Eyal-Rav-Noy/dp/0980076307 so you get the whole argument and not continue living in your bubble dude.
the religiously motivated and biased arguments are the bubble, dude.
> DH is moot. I have university professors who attest to this. In fact, just google search a university with a decent theological studies dept and ask to speak to a professor and ask, "where does academia stand with the DH?" Shouldn't take much time.
aren't we lucky that there's a community of bible scholars right here on reddit, and people routinely ask exactly this question?
ok here it goes
riddle 1 - this Why a spoon, cousin? Well, upon further review of my wishlist one would see that this spoon and a kettle are missing tools of a beer brewing kit. And if you need to ask HOW a beer brewing kit would help in school ... you haven't been to school. "but Pax" you say in an impatient tone "the answer to the riddle isn't beer. True ... the kit can also ferment wine (mind ... blown)
riddle 2 - this I don't have a broom on my wishlist. But with, your broom is my broom...
riddle 3 - this I have two beautiful and awesome toddlers. They like cate in the hat. Who is not awesome. But who is hearing ... a hat! What else s he wearing? A bowtie. Awesome, right?
riddle 4 - the books in latin is biblia - which means that the bible really just means book. This would help me understand it better.
riddle 5 - well, this, obviously the purpose of a trunk is among other to keep things safe (like my spoon, biblia commentary and so) This would help me keep everything safe.
extra point - be honest, when thinking about wearing a cap, one should also wear this
Um... okay, how do I put this...
do you have any extrabiblical sources for that?
And I mean archaeology, not tradition. (This means Science, not Dogma)
EDIT: Here are a few books which might help you understand the question.
Who Wrote the New Testament and The New Testament a Historical Introduction are both good places to start. The latter is by Bart Ehrman, who Bikewer mentioned.
Counter book,if you are interested in counter arguments. http://www.amazon.com/Really-Wrote-Bible-Eyal-Rav-Noy/dp/0980076307/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331092982&sr=1-2
chapter 3. page 45
The Bible With Sources Revealed.
A quick overview by Evid3nc3.
The Bible and the Holy Fathers for Orthodox and On the Prayer of Jesus, easily
I got this version a few years ago. It has all three books of Enoch and some other books not included in the Bible with commentary. It’s an interesting read. Its been a few years since I’ve read it, but I recall the author of the commentary showing that, whether we believe the book (First book of Enoch), many people in the Bible do, as they quote it on a few occasions. https://www.amazon.com/Books-Enoch-Watchers-Extensive-Commentary/dp/1936533073/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1549575404&sr=8-3&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=book+of+enoch&dpPl=1&dpID=51nJmpZ1PRL&ref=plSrch
Ive been instructed by a priest to use the Authorized King James with a good translation of the Septuagint (and to avoid the Orthodox Study Bible).
I'm currently using an old, badly translated Catholic bible that we've had for a while until I can afford to buy a AKJV.
This has been heavily recommended by a number of people due to the Patristic commentary
I'd go with the The IVP Bible Background Commentary(volume for both testaments) or the Cultural Background Study Bible with the same (limited) notes.
Not from a scientific point of view, but from an undremine theism argument would anyone recommend a Christopher Hitchens book? God Is Not Great perhaps?
Thanks!
>I have never tried in the Greek.
You should! It's quite rewarding.
As for what I'm using. I thankfully was a step ahead, as I'd studied Classical Attic when I was in college. That was awhile ago, but the alphabet and basic grammar was still floating around my memory. Vocabulary was and is my biggest shortcoming.
To refresh my grammar (and help me with changes in the language from Athens ca. 600 BC to the 1st century Roman Empire), I bought this textbook: Reading Koine Greek by Rodney Decker. It's an introductory one, so I was able to blow through the early lessons quickly enough, while focusing mainly on vocabulary. He structures his vocab lists based on word frequency in the New Testament and Septuagint, meaning you learn more common words first, which in turn helps to quickly build reading comprehension. It also focuses on the grammar of that time period and specifically early Christian writing (with reading exercises mostly from the NT, but occasionally the Septuagint or something like the Apostolic Fathers).
Once I was ready for some more advanced references, I picked up Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, which is a more general reference book (focused on the NT) recommended by Prof. Decker. I also splurged, thanks to some spare cash, and bought myself the BDAG, an incredibly thorough dictionary of Biblical Greek. The amount of scholarship in that one book is nothing short of mind-boggling. It has an incredible number of references to both the New Testament and tons of other contemporary usage, as well as citing to journal articles about certain words, the works. Oh yeah, I also got a dual-language (Greek and English) edition of the Apostolic Fathers somewhere along the line, although I haven't read it much yet.
So that's where I am. As I said, it's slow going for now since my vocabulary is still pretty bad, but it's improving. And I find that learning by seeing things in context is much better for me than just trying to do flashcards or something (although I may supplement with those).
I have two more books on the way: Metzger's Textual Commentary (where he talks about the decisions that went into which reading they chose in the UBS edition of the NT), and the most recent edition of his The Text of the New Testament (as updated by Bart Ehrman), which is an introduction to NT textual criticism and a kind of summary of various scholarly research on the subject.
So yeah, it's quite an undertaking!
The textual notes will be footnotes that tell you what manuscripts have different versions - either insertions/omissions/transposed wording, etc. It's a language to learn all in it's own both what each critical mark means and what the symbols for all the manuscripts means.
The Reader's Edition is great for translating. If you really want to dive into the textual critical part, I'd suggest getting this one. I'd also get the one with textual notes and the accompanying commentary explaining the text selection. It's really a different world from translating, unless you are doing a commentary.
For the Tanakh/Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, "The Jewish Study Bible" (http://www.amazon.com/The-Jewish-Study-Bible-Publication/dp/0195297512) has pretty fantastic analytical commentary. While I can't attest to the quality of the translation itself, the extensive discussion of the midrash and modern historical analyses may give you the sort of nuanced details that you're looking for.
Agreed. Here is a link.
An excellent book to read regarding the depiction of the end times in the Bible is Revelation and the End of All Things ” by Kraig Koester.
While it’s primary focus is on the book of Revelation it also looks at the eschatological passages in other books such as Daniel.
Well, my two cents:
Some of my family are Jewish, but I'm not halakhically Jewish and I grew up with basically agnostic parents. My religious upbringing was a hodgepodge of Catholicism and neo-paganism. I'm your age and an Orthodox conversion candidate.
I'll just get this question out of the way: why are you Reform?
Unlike many other patrilineal Jews, I don't have an internalized Jewish identity. I'm cultivating it from scratch, like you. I basically think that since we didn't have the advantage of being born Jewish, the only framework we have for becoming Jewish is halakha. I don't really question Reform Jews who had a Jewish upbringing - the halakha is irrelevant to them. They don't need Orthodoxy validating them.
But how can we as potential converts possibly assert that kind of confidence in a Jewish identity? I'm very sorry to seem skeptical, but what is the difference between a Reform convert and a righteous gentile/Noahide with lots of Jewish friends? I just don't see how I can claim to be Jewish without first becoming observant and fulfilling a halakhic conversion. Otherwise I feel like I'm playing Jewish.
If you're open to Orthodoxy, of course, I definitely recommend it. If you're shying away from it, I'm really curious about why. And if you are doing well financially, perhaps you can travel for shabbat. I know a man who travels 5+ hours to Brooklyn every week, since he moved to a town devoid of Jews and he grew up "as Orthodox as they come", so he says.
Anyway, some resources:
Those first two will keep you busy for awhile.
Feel free to PM me about conversion stuff. I can sound like kind of a hardass but I'm honestly bursting with enthusiasm. :-)
There is a wide variety of beliefs within christianity. For example, there are some christians that hold to trinity theology while others do no. There are some who believe that you need only grace to be saved while some others think those who will be saved through predestination while some yet believe you need works too to be save. All of these people can point to chapters and verses in the bible to support their beliefs. To quote Jeff Dee, "the bible is the big book of multiple choice."
When it comes to reading the bible, I don't know that I have the only correct approach but what I did was get some really good scholarly books and videos on the bible. Some of the things I used are:
Videos
Introduction to the Old Testament
New Testament History and Literature
Divine Inspiration and Biblical Inerrancy: The Failed Hypothesis
Matt Dillahunty's Atheist Debates Project
Books
Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman
The Human Faces of God by Thom Stark
The Oxford Bible Commentary
Podcasts
Reasonable Doubts Podcast
Thinking Atheist Podcast
The Jewish Study Bible if you want a more scholarly analysis.
>Why do you think Apollo was the patron god of Rome?
>From what I've read, Jupiter (Zeus) was the patron god of Rome.
The Julio-Claudian dynasty claimed it's legitimacy via their Apollo (at least according to the podcast The History of Rome. The idea of divine kingship was new to Rome (but old in the Crescent Valley) and very much a part of the perceived legitimacy of the new Emperor system (which replaced a Republic system). And though you are correct in the 3000 year history of Rome there has been numerous different patron deities including Jupiter, Apollo, Sol Invictus and eventually Jesus Christ. But at the writing of Revelation the emperial cult was Apollonian (also see Rev 9:11 where Abaddon (Hebrew) is Appollyon (Greek).
>In Rev 1, he writes to churches in 'Asia' (which were of course within the Roman empire).
The subject of Revelation pretty obviously appeals to more than the seven churches in Asia!
Also for future reading I was influenced by Revelation and the End of All Things and Revelation: Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Revelation is the only book I have gone full scholarly research.
>the original text is no longer in circulation. What is read now has been changed and altered a countless amount of times.
How does one prove that claim? Please state specifically where has the text in the manuscripts been changed? And then of course to show that any change has relevance please you'd have to show what doctrine is affected by the difference and to what degree.
Note: citing differences in translations (KJV or ESV vs NLT or LB for example) won't do the trick since those are differences based on different translation methodologies (formal equivalence vs dynamic equivalence)
Edit: Here I will help you out: Here is a site the on textual variants See is any can prove your claim. And then there is a Wiki list of NT variants. Here are two brief videos from Daniel Wallace on New Testament Textual Variants Here is another interesting site and of course one could always get this book You don't "need" to read Greek to glean a lot from it.
Seconding Beale. Also see: http://www.amazon.com/Commentary-New-Testament-Use-Old/dp/0801026938
Jerome Biblical Commentary
New Jerome Biblical Commentary
Indeed. I am using the Robert Alter commentary to assist: http://amzn.to/1mTl5W4 I also have C.S.Lewis NSRV bible to help along the way. I certainly found it very challenging to read Leviticus and Numbers. With regards to moral quandaries, it certainly helps to have a reference section to guide you. I see the first 5 books in my own opinion a narrative of God trying to find the use for man. Abraham and Moses temper the wrath of God by debating his retribution on humanity at several points. These bits are where I feel chills down my spine..
If you want to help him in his studies rather than buy something especially for his soul, every seminarian should have Carson and Beale's Commentary on NT use of OT. It's a wee but pricy and probably won't be required for a specific class so he probably won't end up buying it himself. However, it is immensely valuable. I think that makes it a great option as a gift.
>But I think to say Christianity has absolutely no possibility of being >possible is a really cocky thing to say.
I can't speak for every atheist, but I can speak for myself and people like Sam Harris when I say that we're not closed off to the idea of there being a god, it's just that there is no substantial evidence for such an entity. There's tons of claims that god exists, but so far they've all been dead ends. And all those teachings that are in the gospels are actually a greek philosophy that existed a few hundred years before Jesus. Burton Mack touches on that in Who Wrote the New Testament? I think there probably was a historical Jesus, I just doubt the supernatural claims.
"When censored for keeping bad company, Antisthenes replied, "Well, physicians attend their patients without catching the fever." which parallels Jesus eating with tax collectors and prostitutes.
There are other parallels as well, like living a life free from wealth, rejecting worldly possessions, rejecting fame (like when Jesus told people to not show their good works in Matthew 6:1-4). This shouldn't be too much of a surprise that greek philosophy was inserted considering that the new testament was written in greek.
There really is very little in official Christian writings about angels. You can read about the nephilim which were supposed to be the offspring of angels and human females during the antideluvian period. They are kind of mentioned in passing in the bible I think 1 Enoch has a bit more info, you can find a book on that here which should help you out.
It's my understanding that much of the Christian idea of angels comes from Zoroastrianism so you might consider looking into that tradition as well.
My understanding is that, theologically, there are two major groups of Jews today: Reform and Orthodox. The Orthodox are the fundamentalists who generally take the Jewish Bible as literally true. Reform Jews are much more numerous and much more liberal, and would not see the early chapters of Genesis as literally true.
I picked up a copy of The Jewish Study Bible a few years ago, when I started watching the Yale Online courses on the Old Testament (because that was the translation recommended by the professor). And the commentary in this version will tell you that these stories in Genesis are not literally true.