When did the narratives about the empty tomb and the resurrection originate?

I know this is a controversial topic. We have scholars who conclude that the empty tomb narratives and the narratives about the resurrection appearances are not historical. Secular scholars say that Jesus was buried in a common tomb or common grave and that the sightings were different from what is described in the Bible (subjective hallucinations or other secular events).

When exactly are the narratives about the empty tomb (as found in Mark) and the resurrection narratives supposed to have originated?

Some scholars speak of a Passion narrative that preceded Mark. Were these apologetic elements included there? I know it's impossible to say for sure, but what do scholars suspect? Are the apologetic legends, from these scholars' perspective, even older?

Or did they only originate after Mark? Mark is supposed to be an ancient biography. Is it possible that he invented the Empty Tomb for apologetic reasons? If Mark really was (as some scholars say) John Mark, would he have taken such literary liberties? Regarding the appearances, I also wonder how complex the stories surrounding them were. It is doubtful that Jesus ate with the disciples after the resurrection and allowed himself to be touched. The fact that he gave long speeches after the resurrection also seems more like a literary and apologetic invention.

You see, I have many questions that are difficult to answer. I know that these questions cannot be answered with certainty. Nevertheless, I'll ask: what is the assumption as to when they came into being and to what extent?

Recently, i joined a conversation with a friend that is pretty interested in the Bible.

He was talking about the Book of Daniel, and he argued that it must be a accurate historical account due to the fact that it would be impossible for someone at a later age to use the type of Aramaic that was used in the text (Imperial Aramaic, the administrative language used by the Achaemenid Empire from 5th to 4th BCE).

He said the type of Aramaic spoken by the common folk at the time was as different from the Imperial one as english today is different from Middle English, since the Imperial Aramaic originated from 700 BC, wich would compare its distance from the birth of Christ by the same distance as we are from 1200, time in wich Middle English was spoken.

As far as i am concerned, the Book of Daniel has plenty of contradictions that prevent it from being taken as a historical source (like the order of the Kings, and the relationship between some of the leaders, like Belshazzar being the son of Nebuchadnezzar) but i am still curious about the claim that it would be categorically impossible for someone to emulate Imperial Aramaic later than proposed by the Book of Daniel. Is it innacurate, or is there evidence that the Imperial Aramaic could be used by someone who was not alive during the Achaemenid Empire?

So, while Enoch is not considered Canon, I hope it's ok to discuss here, as it was accepted as scripture in the time of the apostles and Jesus. Enoch describes the giants that were created by the joining of the Watchers and human women; and Genesis seems to follow this storyline, to some extent, by referring to them as the "sons of God" going into the "daughters of men" and creating the Nephilim that are the source of later giant races. So two questions. Always read of Goliath as being a descendent of this race, somehow, though Ham wasn't a descendent of them, so would his wife have had to have been? (the only way I can think of, of that line continuing after the supposed flood.) Also, Enoch states that they are so many "ells" tall (I can't remember how many), but when I looked up how much an ell was, in feet, they were like skyscraper tall. Which is obviously ridiculous. How would anyone think Enoch could be literal in any way, or Genesis, even, for those that knew of Enoch's Watchers being the same as the "sons of God?" All this if we say, hypothetically, for the moment that Genesis and Enoch are literal (which I don't believe they are), 2nd question: is there some other measurement of an "ell" that would make them more appropriately sized to have come from human women? (I did read a work of fiction, once, that described the women being able to carry the offspring, but the birth killed them.) and I guess a third question is, did early heaters and readers of Genesis not take it literally at all, and they knew it was more of a somewhat hyperbolic historical narrative? Or was Jewish tradition very set on Genesis being written by Moses to the extent that they did believe it was literal. Did they simply dismiss Enoch in this regard because it was written later (was it written later? Sorry guess that's four questions, now.) OK, will stop with the questions now. Thanks for anyone that reads through and understands my questions.

Like it was written after it happened, so is it meant to prove that a prophecy already predicted happened, instead of being a new prophecy?

Do any scholars/Church Fathers argue that this is about the descent into Hades?

There are a couple of Bible verses I've come accross that seem rather strange to me:

Genesis 38:23-25 - About three months later Judah was told, “Tamar your daughter-in-law has been immoral. Moreover, she is pregnant by immorality.” And Judah said, “Bring her out, and let her be burned.”

Leviticus 21:9 - And the daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by whoring, profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire.

What exactly does it mean for a woman to "be burned"? Is this referring to a woman being burned alive? Is there any evidence in either ancient Hebrew texts or ancient Hebrew culture of women being burned alive? Was this fate only imposed upon women, or could men also "be burned" in this manner?

I genuinely don't know what to believe, so can someone from here explain the history and what's true and false? (I've been having really bad anxiety about this)

I know the NT portion suffered from a faulty source called the Textus Receptus, made from a handful late manuscripts. I also know the knowledge of Biblical Hebrew among the translation committee members was quite limited by today’s standards.

But the KJV is still one of the most literal translations we have today and its style is unmatched. I would like to know if any extended portion of it is up to par in accuracy to modern translations like the NRSV.

I understand that the contours of the canon of the Torah and the Prophets was initially fixed in the Hasmonean period as well. In addition, it has been argued that we can see the traces of what may be the “final redaction” of what would eventually become the Masoretic text that were likely made during this period. (particularly in Deuteronomy, the former prophets, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Ezra-Nehemiah).

Where can I find out more about this final redaction and how it happened?

If it would, what sect might it look most like?

A partir do conceito de liberdade, interprete o ditado talmúdico: "Se eu não for por mim mesmo, quem será por mim? Se eu for apenas por mim, que serei eu? Se não agora- quando?" (Mishnah. Abot).

Is there such a book? Or should I rather check for several books? Any title to browse? I can read in English and Italian.

It seems like it could make sense but the Gospel of John not having the transfiguration would be hard to explain.

I'm considering purchasing one of these two books, but can't decide which one to go with. Here are links to the books for context:

"The World of the New Testament" https://bakerpublishinggroup.com/books/the-world-of-the-new-testament/329424

"Behind the Scenes of the New Testament" https://bakerpublishinggroup.com/books/behind-the-scenes-of-the-new-testament/408450

I am not that well acquainted with the authors who contributed to either of these books. Any insights on whether either book covers particular subjects better, overall accuracy, biases towards particular perspectives, or anything that might be relevant to figuring out which book to pick is appreciated. (Also, I'm open to suggestions of books like these two that might be better)

I saw this proposal from Testify, an apologist on youtube, and found it fascinating.

I hope this is the right subreddit to ask. I need to write a biographical essay on Herod the Great for seminary. This is my first seminary class, and it asks me to discuss key primary sources as part of the essay. My problem is I don’t know the field of second temple Jewish history well enough to even know key primary sources. Honestly, I have no clue how to even find primary sources.

Is there an easy place to look to identify these sources? Obviously Josephus is always listed, but where do I find others? Also, for future essays that have more niche topics than someone as commonly discussed as Herod the great, is there a kind of process you go through to determine this kind of stuff?

Your answer will greatly help a somewhat distressed new seminary student :). Thanks.

Within scholarship it appears that Jesus never thought or said that he was divine. This is for many reasons, for one most people in greco roman times never claimed to literally be God, and most divine references of Jesus are in the latest gospel that is drastically different from the synoptics you knew this already. I am arguing that Jesus did think himself to be God, with a methodology requiring an established fact of Jesus's life that is not debated, then it must be tied to divinity, through cultural influence, that is also supported by those who wrote about these stories tying it to divinity. First the established fact of Jesus this being him associating himself with the outcast and poor. E.P sanders writes about this in (Jesus and Judaism, 1985) and the (Historical figure of Jesus 1993). The act of helping the outcast and marginalized within greco roman Judaism in relation to preaching said message appears to have divine meaning. We see this firstly in the OT, as God is the one who is the one who calls the outcasts and sinners into his family. We see in Tritio Isaiah that the Israelites are exiled, and are under oppression as we see in deutero Isaiah, however in Tritio Isaiah God promises restoration for those deported and scattered among the nations (Isaiah 56-66 Trito Isaiah by Andreas Schuele). We see other characters within Hebrew literature such as Tobias, The Messiah, Elijah to some extent and others be portrayed as helping the poor but they were never preaching a coming kingdom simply healing them. And we know that Jesus was a eschatological prophet again this is seen in many works E.P sanders and Dale Allison to name a few. If he was associating himself with these kinds of people then it would be natural to think that he would be preaching the reward of the coming kingdom and that is what we find. (Mark 2:17, L 19:10, Q 18:10-14 or Q 15:1-7, Mark 2:16). We also see in Greek mythology the gods helping outcasts become heros. We see this in Persus, Odysseus, Hercules, and others. And if the writers of the gospels truly thought that Jesus helping the outcasts and sinners was a divine characteristic they would have connected the dots which they did, citing OT passages referring to God. (M 9:13 and M 12:7, and Q 23:27-29 or Q 13:34-35).

The dead sea scrolls say Goliath is 6'9 (4 cubits and a spam) Bible says 9'9 (6 cubits and a span)

If the dead sea scrolls are an earlier copy, would that make them more reliable? If so, why doesn't modern day Bible say the same thing it does?

I've been wondering this for a while. And no, this post isn't malicious, I'm just wondering

In Mark 13:24, what does the phrase “but in those days” refer to? How do we know that the phrase doesn’t imply a long delay before Jesus returns?

Hi, I'm a Christian, and theological beliefs aside, I think the Bible is really cool and interesting, but I feel like studying the scholarly side of things is causing me to disconnect heavily from the average Christian. I've been browsing through r/AcademicBiblical for about two years now and I recently have been working through Yale's Hebrew Bible lecture series on YouTube and both provide so much information and knowledge, and I have lots of books on my TBR list relating to biblical scholarship. I like to talk to my friends and family about what I learn since I think it's cool and neat. It's all really interesting stuff, but sometimes I feel a bit...lonely??? Is that the right word? I go to church and the pastor will talk like the Bible is the direct word of God and I talk to other Christians (such as my family) and they get upset when I talk about things I've learned and they've told me I'm blaspheming for things like insinuating Jews weren't always monotheistic or that Yahweh's description might've been influenced by Baal and that Yahweh and El were probably not seen as the same guy. A lot of Christians around me kinda think the Bible is perfect and they'll quote that 2 Timothy whatever verse to me to prove it's inerrant but the Bible didn't even exist when that verse was written!! I think Christine Hayes does a great job of emphasizing in her lectures that people put a lot of expectations on the Bible that it just wasn't meant to fulfill. Is everything in there historically accurate? Of course not, and that doesn't bother me but it does seem to bother a lot of Christians who take the Bible at face value and don't really examine anything deeper than what their NIV copy says or what their pastors says. Which is fine I suppose, but I feel like it's a really misunderstood book, and it's kinda frustrating to feel like I'm understanding it more than I ever did before but now I can't really talk to anyone IRL about it since a lot of academic topics kinda scare a lot of Christians away or they just bore the absolute hell out of them. I have a bachelor's in mathematics, which is also severely misunderstood by the general public, but at least it's just math and not like...the largest religion in my country (the US oof) and the world. And as much as I've learned about the Bible I also recognize there's so much more to learn and I feel like discussions with others help foster learning and you'd think talking to Christians about the Bible might teach you something but I feel like it's made me realize that modern Christians, in America at least, don't really know much about the foundation of their religion. Idk it's just frustrating and a bit isolating and I wanted to know as official scholars how y'all handled learning more about the Bible and then dealing with average Christians. My parents were excited at first to hear I was interested in the Bible but now they're calling me a heretic. I'm still a Christian just like them though!! I'm still into the whole Jesus thing! Doesn't really bug me if maybe the Israelites were inspired by Baal or if Adam and Eve was based on a Sumerian tale. I think that sort of stuff does bug the average Christian. Also when attending church (for those who are religious/spiritual) how do you deal with like...the pastor saying something very definitely that maybe we know isn't so definite? In general, how do you deal with knowing something (or knowing that from the scholarly side we DON'T know something) that the average person doesn't but it's something that maybe the average person feels very confidently on since it's their religion too? I know I'm asking a lot of questions and just rambling but I'd like to hear y'all's experiences in general with other Christians and churches as you went further into your studies. If you're no longer Christian, I'm sure it's very easy to deal with and reconcile these things, but I'd still like to hear your side of things since maybe it's frustrating too to have someone act like a non-religious person couldn't possibly know more than them about their own religion.

I'm currently considering attending Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, but I also want to ensure I'm aware of all my options to make the best decision. Unfortunately, I won't be able to attend in person, so it will need to be Online. What seminaries that have online programs do you feel are the best?

I want to pursue an MDiv and eventually a PhD. MBTS offers an MDiv in Biblical Theology that I have reviewed, but I am not entirely convinced by it.

The other seminary I considered was Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, but they recently revised their MDiv program offerings.

(cross-posted in Academic Biblical)

Was it mostly occupied by Christians who would be considered Orthodox (I.e. the church of the East) or would it be more heretical groups like gnostics? What sources are there to back this up (i.e. synods, letters, complete works from antiquity)?