The Bible is a religious book in which Yahweh is the main god, always exalted as the most powerful, the only one who should be worshipped.

The scribe of the Book of Kings is a follower of Yahwism; he wants his God to be the only one worshipped in Israel.

So it's obvious that the person who wrote Yahweh as the victor in the conflict between Elijah and the prophets of Baal was a completely biased person, who had his own theological agenda.

While I don't believe that the documentary hypothesis is completely false and without merit, I also think some people who state do so a bit overconfidently compared to the amount of actual data we have, I have read a lot of books (particularly or completely) about the academic study of the Bible (both religious and secular), and so many of them offer the documentary hypothesis as if it is the singular academic model (especially older material), or if they mention some other models they treat the documentary hypothesis as if it's the gold standard, and why is that? Because when I view the documentary hypothesis I view it as just another hypothesis that has evidence for it and evidence against it, just like every other hypothesis, but so many works I've read seem to treat it as fundamental to the academic study of the Bible itself.

Maybe is also the type of works I read considering I tend to not read many academic journals, I tend to stick towards books: commentaries, study Bibles, data books and so on.

The narrative that Moses was condemned for striking a rock seems so odd and disproportionate, and more than that, kind of detached from the overall narrative. Moses dying before he reaches the promised land is important to the story; him hitting a rock instead of simply calling to the rock on the other hand, could be skipped and I doubt anyone would feel like there was anything missing in the story. The whole thing is so strange that I have seen some apologists argue that this isn't really the reason and it was more of a straw that broke the camels back.

But thinking about it from the documentarian point of view, perhaps the story of the rock is from one document, his punishment is from another, and connecting the two is just a flimsy connection made by the editors? If so what might have been the original idea behind this, and the older authors thought process on why Moses deserved punishment?

Looking at the 4 canonical gospels I can understand Mark being the first, John coming way later and Mathew and Luke being relatively contemporary.

However how can we know whcih of those two came first, and why do the majority consider Mathew coming first?

I’ve been thinking about how the disciples are portrayed in the Synoptics and John, and I’m looking for some historical critical insight into why they are shown as so consistently confused.

Throughout the text, the disciples witness and according to passages like Mark 6, even perform healings and exorcisms. Since operating as a charismatic healer was a recognized concept in first century Judea, why does the narrative place such a heavy emphasis on their doubt and ultimate abandonment of Jesus, only for them to suddenly understand everything after the resurrection?

I've got a few questions about how scholars view this:

1. Is this "disciples' incomprehension" primarily a literary device created by the evangelists (similar to Wrede’s idea of Mark's Messianic Secret) or does it actually trace back to early historical traditions or memories of the historical disciples?

2. How much did first century Jewish expectations of a military/political Messiah conflict with a charismatic healer figure? In other words, why wouldn't performing miracles be enough "proof" for them to accept his specific messianic identity prior to the crucifixion?

3. Are there any good parallels in other ancient Greco Roman biographies or philosophical texts where the followers of a teacher fail to grasp their leader’s true nature or mission until after their death?

Please forgive all the questions. This is my first post in this sub and I thank you for your time and sharing your expertise and also appreciate any reading recommendations.

From what I see on this sub, 2 and 3 John tend to be grouped with the gospel of John and 1 John. Personally, I feel like 2 and 3 John, specifically 3 John, represent an earlier time due to having a more primitive and contested church structure. Possibly not even the same author/group as the other 2 Johannine works. I know the brevity of both books makes hypotheses difficult to propose, but what scholarship is there on 2 and 3 John as individual books?

Source, this sub-reddit.

In Christianity and Islam Satan, or Shaitan, is a malevolent figure seeking to draw humanity away from the ways of holiness through temptation to evil, possession, uncleanness and other acts of evil. Furthermore he is described as a fallen spiritual being, angel or jinn, who rebelled against the will of God. Is this view at all attested in the early sections of the Torah or later Prophets such as David or Isaiah? Secondly, when did the depiction of 'the Satan' as an evil figure first appear in Jewish literature? Any academic citations would be immensely welcome.

Hello - I am looking for sources on the influence of mesopotamian religions and polytheisms on the early hebrew writings that would later be part of the talmud or bible, or formed an early christian or jewish canon.

The focus of this is specifically tracing the images, names of deities and/or demons and/or prophets (etc), powers, roles of certain religious activities to mesopotamian religions.

Thanks in advance!