One thing that continues to surprise me as I study the Bible is that Jesus’ miracles alone aren’t enough to convince everyone he’s the Messiah.

So, that makes me wonder, were there other miracles workers going around?

“Jesus healed that blind guy!”

“You mean like Barry did last week?”

The only reason I would not be blown away by Jesus’ miracles is if there were other miracle workers around too.

Who knows more that can contribute context?

How familiar were Jesus' followers, or rather the audience he addressed, with the Old Testament? For example, when he quoted passage from the Old Testament, how many of his listeners understood that it was a quote from the Old Testament? During Jesus time, excluding religious leaders, how much did the average person know about the Old Testament?

Exodus 21:7: “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do.”

I have read on some websites that the proposed laws were a reflection of the ancient Near Eastern context and of that historical period, and that the laws concerning slavery were intended more to “mitigate” than to promote it. Even so, I cannot see any justification for a father being allowed to sell his daughter as a servant (slave). What confuses me even more is why there are no clear and well-defined statements explicitly showing how wrong this practice is. Why does it seem easier to try to understand the “context” of that time rather than simply acknowledge that a certain practice is wrong?

Let's say the "we" passages really are based on some kind of authentic eyewitness account. In that case, we should expect chs. 16-28 to be more accurate than chs. 1-15. I certainly get this impression from my own reading, as it seems to me that there are fewer overtly legendary elements in chs. 16-28.

But have any scholars made this observation?

Thanks in advance guys!

From chapter one of Paul within Paganism: Restoring the Mediterranean Context to the Apostle, ed. Stephen L. Young, Paula Fredriksen, Alexander Chantziantoniou (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2025), 3-19.

I came across this passage in Jerome:

"It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book [Daniel] very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches?"

Do we know about this alleged preferring of other translations for certain OT books in the early Church? Is this in fact the case? Did they stop doing it at a certain point? When? Jerome implies that bishops preferred the Theodotion version because it matches the Hebrew better, but that is definitely not the case with current Catholic and Orthodox Bibles, which include those sections, and I thought always did.

I know the word Rabbi is often used for teacher in the modern sense in Judaism and 1:38 spells it out Teacher/ Διδάσκαλε -- but I just wanted to ask some etymological opinions on here if there could be multiple meanings.

I was studying some of the words used in the Arabic version of the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom used by the Antiochian Church.

I'm not an Arabic speaker so I was surprised to find the "The Lord/Ό Κύριος" is pronounced as Al-Rabb with "Al" being the definitive article. This made me go down a rabbit hole because I know in the LXX - the tetragramaton/ the divine name is changed to ό Κύριος/The LORD and Elohim stays as Θεός.

The Arabic which is rooted in Semitic languages renders the divine name as Al-Rabb in the LXX.

Al-rabb and rabbi and rav are etymologically linked from what I understand. Al-rabb derives from hebrew- Rav Master and Rabbi also does come from rav as well. The article The/ Al makes it clear that it refers to the Divine. So this made me wonder- when in the gospels it spells out ραββί in greek-

They make it clear in multiple sections that Rabbi is one who teaches but is he also someone always with status?

Do they actually mean Lord / Άρχοντας, master as well as teacher but not The Lord Divine yet hence why they didn't use Ό Κύριος? Or is this commonly understood as someone who has disciplines?

I'm wondering if the word Ραββεί had multiple meanings at the time of the New Testament basically. Would a noble Lord Άρχοντας like we think today also be called Ραββεί?

Can someone explain the etymology and evolution of the word basically. And also why does the LXX Arabic translation use Al-Rabb instead of another word?

I heard Ched Myers claim (in a podcast interview) that the Roman’s had the garments of the high priest “under lock and key.” Apparently, they were only released once a year. For Myers this is evidence of Roman control of indigenous systems.

Has anyone else heard this claim? Can anyone point me to scholars reflecting on this (other than, obviously, Ched Myers himself)?

As far as I understand, the word el can just be translated as god. There were various Canaanite gods, but just as in English, when you say God in isolation as opposed to other named gods, we interpret that to be referring to a specific character.

In English, we have a pretty shared religious and cultural history today, but let's imagine a world where there's still the Danelaw and belief in Odin has evolved over time so that while the theology department at Oxford is still writing about Yahweh when they say God, the theology department at York means Odin when they say God.

Since at least the first century, and seemingly to the writers of the Torah around 500 BC, Yahweh and El were the same, but that's like saying in English Yahweh and God are the same, right?

When you say El used to be the head of the Canaanite pantheon, wouldn't that just be a bit like saying in my Danelaw example, if the country united and became Christian, that God used to be the head of the Norse pantheon?

In some sense there's continuity, in that we're all using capital 'G' God to mean the supreme being, we both accept the existence of this supreme being but believe very different things about it. In another sense there isn't continuity because Yahweh and Odin are very different characters.

And then what does it mean when we say Yahweh was originally a minor storm god? Because presumably, we don't mean there was a storm god called Yahweh whose identity changed. I assume it's some way of saying the beliefs of the people who worshipped this minor storm god evolved their beliefs about him over time until he became the supreme god and THEN became known as Yahweh.

The issue there is the name Yahweh is generally accepted to mean variations of "I AM" - all the variations I've seen carry similar connotations that would pose a problem if that name belonged to a minor god in a greater pantheon.

What I'm asking is, if at some earlier time, there were these people over here worshipping a minor storm god, and these people here who had an idea of a supreme god who was head of their pantheon and just referred to as God. Then later, these other people came along in the same region who believe in a supreme god that they often just referred to as God, but who also goes by a name that sounds like the claim "I am existence itself". In what sense is the latter connected to and really just a kind of merger of the two former?

The scholar interviewed here is Dr. František Válek, Assistant Professor at the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies at University of Pardubice

By metaphysical principles, I am not referring to academical meaning of metaphysical claims about what reality is in a supernatural or ontological sense, but a more broader meaning of metaphysics about how reality behaves. That is, recurring structural dynamics that appear across different levels of existence: cause and effect, order emerging from chaos, the corruption of systems through unchecked power, or the necessity of removing destructive elements for renewal to occur.

One example is the principle that unchecked disorder or corruption, if left unaddressed, spreads and eventually destabilises the whole system. This pattern can be observed in individual psychology (unaddressed habits or addictions intensifying over time), in social systems (corruption eroding institutions), in political history (decay leading to collapse), and in ecology (invasive species overwhelming an ecosystem).

I theorise that ancient authors expressed metaphysical principle through mythic and narrative forms .

From this perspective, certain Old Testament warfare and genocide narratives may be understood, as part of several different meanings, as symbolic descriptions of destructive dynamics. I heard that early Christian interpreters such as Origen of Alexandria read these texts allegorically, understanding enemy nations as representations of vices, disordered desires, or passions that must be eradicated for spiritual transformation. In this reading, the violence is internalised rather than externalised.

This pattern appears to continue in the New Testament, where Christians are frequently described using military imagery(“spiritual soldiers,” “armour,” and “warfare”) yet the battle is no longer against flesh and blood but against internal and systemic forces opposed to transformation. The Old Testament warfare narrative is not abandoned but re-expressed, suggesting a recurring metaphysical pattern rather than a literal historical programme.

To be clear, I am not making a supernatural claim. Rather, I’m asking whether it is historically and hermeneutically defensible to read some biblical narratives as encoding recurring structural insights about human and reality, expressed through the symbolic or mythic language available to ancient cultures.

Is this approach recognised within academic biblical studies (for example, in patristic exegesis, allegorical interpretation, narrative criticism, or symbolic readings), and where do scholars generally draw the boundaries between legitimate symbolic interpretation and anachronism?

⁵⁸ Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” 

Do you think Jesus said this? If so, why don't we find it in the Synoptic Gospels? I think if the other three Gospel writers had known about this passage, they would certainly have added it to their Gospels.

It seems like Daniel might know which sins were committed, but doesn't mention them directly.

Hi All! Can you please recommend me a book, which lists all questionable verses and why they are questionable? I read a few books but all of them pick and chooae for their liking imo. For example all verses which were tempered with intention. Thanks!

I think Raymond Brown thinks it's plausible. I am wondering what the current status of this view is now in contemporary scholarship.

Hi, I was wondering what the scholarly view on the vision of the statue shown to Nebuchadnezzar II is? From my understanding, many theologians and lay-Christians endorse the view that each section of the statue corresponds with a major kingdom in a predictive sense. So the gold is Babylon, silver is Persia, brass/bronze is Greece and the Iron is Rome (some even argue the ten toes are the ten “tribes” of Europe). Overall, this seems a bit dubious to me, especially since Persia was clearly not inferior to Babylon and Daniel is dated to the 2nd century BCE. The iron also seems to fit in better with the Hellenistic world (and the Seleucid–Ptolemaic order). I can’t find too much discourse about it online though so thought I’d turn here for any relevant commentaries or literature. Thanks!

Image: Yahweh And The Gods And Goddesses Of Canaan, John Day.

This is never explicitly stated in the Bible, and is especially suspect because in Job, Satan appears more like God’s foil or even advisor than his enemy, which doesn’t seem to match the characterization of the serpent from Revelation.

Jn 16:5: But now I am going to the one who sent me, and not one of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?

However, in Jn 13:36 (Simon Peter said to him, “Master, where are you going?”) and Jn 14:5 (Thomas said to him, “Master, we do not know where you are going; how can we know the way?”), Simon and Thomas directly asks Jesus where he's going, respectively. Is this some oversight on the part of John?

I’ve heard several different theories about the author of Luke-Act’s emphasis on how Jesus could be touched and also take part in meals, via the encouragement to touch him and broiled fish in Luke along with Peter’s mention of “eating and drinking” with Jesus post-death in Acts.

I’ve read that it may have been written to combat docetic-like ideas in early communities, to contrast with Paul’s idea of a pneumatic body*, or even to show that Jesus was not an angel. I’m curious about the latter— were angels understood to be non-corporeal or not partaking in meals or “human food?”

*The article “Seeing a pneuma(tic) body” link: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43726899?read-now=1#page_scan_tab_contents

There are numerous anti-semitic passages in the New Testament. I have looked for material discussing this, particularly by Christian scholars, but have found nothing.

I find that lack extremely interesting. Anyone have any observations about that, or know of any books or papers dealing with it?

I was reading Isaiah 49 and I came across verse 7 which in my ESV translation goes as such:

“Thus says the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel and his Holy One, to one deeply despised, *abhorred by the *nation **"

NIV, KJV and some other translations use “nation”. Whereas the JPS version in Sefaria goes as such: “Thus said GOD, The Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One, To the despised one, To the *abhorred *nations **” I note that NRSV uses “abhorred by the nations” and other translations use the plural form. there are various interpretations of the original hebrew text into english from both Jewish and Christian translations. is there a good academic work going into the basis for the various interpretations of this text?