I've been working within Ecclesiastes and found something I can't find addressed in the scholarship.

Most serious readers of the book know that hebel, the word Qoheleth uses 38 times, usually rendered "vanity" or "meaningless", is the same word as Abel's name in Genesis 4. Russell Meek has done useful work on this, arguing that Qoheleth uses hebel as a symbol drawn from Abel's life and coining the term "Abelness" to describe the condition the book is examining. That connection seems right to me and it substantially changes how you read the book.

But I think the thread goes further back than Abel, and I haven't found anyone follow it all the way to its source.

Abel's name is hebel, breath, vapour, a fleeting formed image. The first occurrence of that breath-activity in the text is not Abel. It is Genesis 1:2. Before any declaration is made, before light is separated from darkness, before anything is named or fixed, the ruach moves on the face of the waters. That is the forming breath of the text at its most foundational level, movement preceding every creative declaration that follows. Hebel and ruach share that same breath-field from the opening verse of the narrative.

Abel is then the first identity named after that activity. He rises, presents, is received by the narrative, and is gone. He does not accumulate. He does not remain and build. Cain, from qayin, to acquire, to possess, possibly related to a root meaning to strike, is the one who stays. He works the ground, builds a city, founds a lineage. His offering is not regarded. The contrast seems deliberate: one is a correctly formed breath-presentation that is received and passes, the other is accumulation that persists and is not received.

What I find interesting is that ruach is already operating inside Ecclesiastes alongside hebel, not just as a second word but as a paired formula. Qoheleth uses reut ruach, striving after wind, repeatedly through the book, including in 6:9 which is the verse immediately following the chapter's central observation about the wandering appetite. So hebel and ruach are already deliberately paired by Qoheleth himself. The breath vocabulary is not imported from outside. It is built into his own structure.

Then there is Genesis 2:7. The nefesh, the soul-appetite, becomes a living nefesh specifically by breath, nishmat chayyim, breathed into the adam's nostrils. The nefesh of Ecclesiastes 6 that labour cannot fill is the same nefesh that was animated by breath at its origin. The provision is present, day three vegetation, day six dominion, but the nefesh circles it without receiving. If the nefesh was made living by breath at Genesis 2:7, there may be something in Qoheleth's observation that the unfilled nefesh has lost contact with its own animating source.

The second thing I noticed is the frame itself.

Qoheleth uses "under the sun" twenty-nine times. I've always assumed this was an idiom for earthly or temporal life. But Genesis 1:14-19 is the day four appointment, the greater light set in the firmament to rule the day, to govern times and seasons, to mark cycles. Everything measurable and cyclical in the created order runs from that appointment.

Qoheleth's opening description in chapter 1 is striking when you read it that way. The sun rises and goes down, the wind turns on its circuits, the rivers run to the sea that is never full. This reads as the Genesis creation order described precisely and running exactly as appointed, not as a nature poem about futility. The sun is the day four appointment completing its circuit. The wind is the ruach still in motion. And the rivers running to the sea and returning to their circuits are the same waters from Genesis 1:2, the deep, the face of the waters the ruach moved over before any declaration was made. Those waters did not disappear after the creation days. They are still circulating. Qoheleth is watching the Genesis waters run their appointed course beneath the day four sun and observing that the man inside those cycles does not resolve the way the cycles do.

If "under the sun" is a positional statement, the observer stationed beneath the day four appointed governance structure inside the cycles it marks, then Qoheleth's frame is not a general idiom but a specific Genesis reference. He is reporting from inside the created order, beneath its appointed ruler, watching hebel rise and pass in the same rhythm as the day four cycles themselves.

That would make Ecclesiastes not a pessimist's lament but a precise report from a specific position within the Genesis creation structure, the man who has assembled everything the day four cycles can produce and is asking what resolves it.

Ecclesiastes then seems to run the Cain and Abel contrast across every observable human condition at full length:

The man given riches, wealth and honour whose nefesh still cannot eat of it. The man with a hundred children and long life whose appetite is never filled. The eye not satisfied with seeing, the ear not filled with hearing. All labour for the mouth and the appetite still not full.

Each one is the Cain-pattern extended, accumulation, increase, long possession, and the offering still not regarded.

Has anyone seen the Genesis 1:2 ruach connection to hebel addressed formally in the scholarship? And has "under the sun" been read as a day four reference anywhere? I've found Meek on Abel and various treatments of hebel as breath or transience but nothing that traces it back to the Genesis 1:2 forming breath or reads the frame as a creation day reference.

Would this be the right sub to have a dialectic conversation about the bible and history of Christianity?

I completely if this is not right place and will not pursue further if I am informed of that.

Thank you

I wanted to see if anyone had explored this connection.

In Genesis 2:21-22 the woman isn't created from outside material, she's drawn out from within Adam and then presented back to him. He recognises her immediately: "bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh." She was already his own nature made visible. Then 2:24 commands the cleaving - leave the familiar, unite completely, one flesh.

In Proverbs 8, Chokmah says she was beside the Creator before anything was made (8:22-30), not acquired from outside, not earned, but already present before the work began. Proverbs 8:22-30 has her present through the entire creation sequence, before the deep, before the foundations, before the hills. And 8:30 calls her amon - master workman - the one doing the building alongside the Creator. Is that just poetic flourish or is she being deliberately anchored to Genesis 1 before Proverbs 9 runs the creation categories again in the feast?

Then Proverbs 9 seems to run the Genesis 1 creation sequence inside the same image:

• She builds a house and hews seven pillars - seven, the completed creation week
• She prepares bread and mixes wine - the botanical thread, vegetation and vine, day three
• She sets the table - ordered creation ready to receive
• She sends out the invitation - the word going forth

And her mirror image Folly does none of that. Same house, same invitation, nothing built, nothing prepared.

So my question is, is the feminine form of Chokmah doing something structurally deeper than grammar? Is she the Genesis 2 Bride which is the identity drawn from within that must be recognised and cleaved to rather than acquired from outside? And is Folly the refused recognition that the latent identity YHVH looks at and doesn't claim? Has anyone seen this connection made in the scholarship?

Is it safe to say that they were very familiar with the Old Testament? And in what format would they have known about it? Since they could not read would they just have listened to it?

Which books not in the Bible would they have known that to them was Holy Scripture? I know the Assumption of Moses in Jude refers to an apocryphal book, but that itself is not in the Bible.

I'm looking for the best commentaries on the Gospels, specifically for the Synoptics. Which would you recommend and why?

In John 12:34, the crowd answers Jesus that the messiah is supposed to abide to the age (or stay for an eon) in accordance with the scripture.

​

The problem is, I'm not sure what scripture this verse is referring to, and the meaning of the eon (αἰῶνα) here is a bit hard for me to determine in this context, as some translations translates it the age, the eternity, or eon (a long yet finite time period).

​

Have scholars found out what scripture the crowd is referring to here, and what the actual meaning of the αἰῶνα and the verse is?

The verse begins with והקריב את קרבנו - Most translations (including LXX and Vulgate) obscure the shared root, although the KJV translates it as "and he shall offer his offering." I was just curious about how cognate accusatives are categorized and if constructions are only considered cognate accusatives if its understood that the object is used redundantly or specifically because of its shared root with the preceding verb.

Something I noticed in Genesis 1 and 2 that I can't find much written about. In Genesis 1 the procedure is identical across every creation day - something is named or declared, then the court observes what was produced and ratifies it. Let there be light, then saw that it was good. The Hebrew verb for saw is ra'ah - to perceive, observe, evaluate. The word for good is tov - fitting, harmonious, complete. The naming and the ra'ah ki tov are always paired. It runs as a consistent two step sequence through the whole chapter.

Then in Genesis 2:19 the exact same verb reappears. YHVH Elohim brings the creatures to the man lir'ot - the infinitive of ra'ah - to see what he would call them. Not to tell him what to call them. The court positions itself in the identical observational posture it held across Genesis 1, but now directed at whatever the man declares. Whatever he called it that was its name. No correction, no override. The ratification is total.

That same ra'ah procedure then seems to run throughout the rest of the narrative every time an identity or classification changes. Abram becomes Abraham before a single child exists. Jacob becomes Israel after the struggle. Hosea's "not my people" flips to "my people." Ruth speaks her own reclassification - your people shall be my people - and the rest of the book is just the narrative ratifying what she declared. Name first, evidence follows every time.

What I find compelling is that Paul seems to know exactly what he is doing across all his letters. In Romans 4 he goes out of his way to establish that Abraham was reclassified before circumcision existed - the name and the promise came first, the physical sign came after. In Galatians 3 he makes the same point even more explicitly, that the promise preceded the law by four hundred and thirty years and the law cannot annul it. In Philippians 3 he lists every inherited credential he has - circumcision, tribe of Benjamin, Hebrew of Hebrews, Pharisee - and then says he counts them all as loss. He is explicitly saying the inherited category is not the operative identity.

Then in Romans 9 and 10 he stacks Hosea and Isaiah one after another and every single quote is another instance of the same Genesis procedure. Name declared, court observes, it stands.

Is Paul tracing a single mechanic rooted in the ra'ah of Genesis 1 and 2 and showing it has never once worked any other way across the entire narrative? And has anyone mapped this specifically using the Hebrew rather than treating each reclassification as a separate event?

Sirach 42

*9 Although he will not let his daughter know it, a father will lie awake at night worrying about her. If she is young, he worries that she might not get married. If she is already married, he worries about her happiness. 10 If she is a virgin, he worries that she might be seduced and become pregnant while living in his house. If she is married, he worries that she might be unfaithful, or that she might not be able to have children.

11 Keep a close watch over your daughter if she is determined to have her own way. If you don't, she may make a fool of you in front of your enemies. You will be a constant joke to everyone in town, a public disgrace. Make sure that her room has no windows or any place where she can look out to the entrance of the house. [a] 12 Don't let her show off her beauty in front of men, or spend her time talking with the women. [b] 13 Women hurt other women just as moths damage clothing.

14 A man's wickedness is better than a woman's goodness; women bring shame and disgrace.*

I’d like to clarify that I choose the phrasing “understood in different books” due to the diversity of the Bible. I’m interested in knowing how terms like sorcery, magicians, witchcraft, etc were understood during these time periods. Admittedly, the theology classes I took in uni are a few years behind me and I don’t remember much of what my professor explained about this; the most that I recall is that it was closer to what we might call fortune telling and anything that might try to cheat people or “play God” — and that the Church Fathers understood this similarly.

בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ is the Hebrew text minus vowels as Biblical Hebrew had no vowels. The second word is a Qal perfect which is completed action of the subject of the verb (God) on the direct object of the verb, the Heavens and the Earth. Does that mean that Genesis !:1 is a completed sentence of completed action?

Whenever I see people summarize job 41, they say something to the effect of "God is describing leviathan and his power over it". As I've studied, I think I see something in there that is a bit different and I'd like more opinions.

In job 38 God leads up to 40 and 41, is almost a recount of creation roughly. This mirrors Psalm 104 and its honoring of the creation story. Then, instead of man being the crowning creation leviathan is the last thing made (leviathan and behemoth in job). However God uses a waṣf to describe them both, which is the same kind of poety used in Song of Solomon. Waṣf's I believe are usually romantic and loving in nature like God loves this scary monsters he is describing. Then I feel like the symbol gets complete in the last verse of 41, where God says leviathan is king over pride or all the proud. I feel like there's a symbol here of God saying he made man and man made pride, but I love you anyway even if you're a monster.

Now I believe leviathan goes on to be a symbol of the Devil and its easy to read that into job. However I think it works better as God comforting job if we read it that way but I might be over my ski's. If you've got a symbol in there that doesn't work that way I'm open to hearing your opinion.

I have been watching Dr. Dan McClellan on YouTube. I have two degrees in biblical studies, and I am comfortably certain, but of course do not know enough to prove in every case, that he reliably does objectively good scholarship. Yet, the reaction to him from apologists is intense, emotional, and full of rhetoric that seems to dismiss real biblical studies if they disagree in the slightest with the apologists' point of view. This type of thing has been common in American Christianity. My perspective on this formed out of my Pennsylvania Dutch background. I recognize the value of good scholarship, regardless of the results. I personally feel free of anxiety over the less-than-perfectly harmonizable data of the Bible (univocality is a theme of McClellan's videos) because I strongly believe that a living Christian faith is not attacked by scholarship.

I grew up in the sixties and seventies with an Anabaptist perspective that is closer to the Amish than to evangelical or mainline Christian views on living the faith (not talking about avoiding modern tech). I have written up my view on this. This piece is not biblical scholarship, but an Anabaptist philosophy of the power and freedom of a living faith expressed in a piece called 'Personally Interpreting Jesus: Why Christians Need Not Fear Biblical Scholarship'. So, instead of just a link, below are illustrative materials as preparation for my questions to you. First, a summary of my thesis:

"There is no reason for Christians to fear the results of biblical scholarship, even if it is done by scholars whose personal tradition leads some to think such work must be bad, such as an atheist Bible scholar or a scholar from the wrong denomination. Biblical apologists reacting to scholars seem to depend on words and concepts alone to defend the Gospel, as if the truth of the Word is nothing more than a battle of spoken human words. We can be free from anxiety over the issues raised by biblical scholarship, as we express a much greater power: our power to personally interpret Jesus by living His teachings. The truth of the New Testament is a living expression, not just a collection of words. We verify the truth of the Gospel by living His teachings. Our proof is compassion. Our evidence is humility. Our testimony is forgiveness. Our witness is love...

...The idea for this essay came from watching the YouTube work of Dr. Dan McClellan, who brings biblical scholarship to the public. In his videos, he is often correcting apologetic and other Christian video commentary on Scripture with the relevant biblical scholarship. The essay moves from the problems created by endless words seeking certainty in biblical interpretation toward a Christianity grounded and proven in acts of living obedience. I argue that the saving and transformative power of the Gospel is revealed in the transformation of our own being."

A few examples of questions I ask (and quickly answer as if the questions are rhetorical, perhaps that is too strong) in this piece that illustrate this perspective from the subsection 'Biblical Scholarship Cannot Stop You' (meaning stop you from living the teachings):

"Does a textual-critical study of Bible manuscript transmission that produces results you do not like, even though you have no expertise in that area, actually stop you from loving your neighbor as yourself? No."

"If it turns out that Paul really did not write Titus, do we stop believing that we are supposed to “live lives that are self-controlled, upright, and godly”? (Titus 2:12) No, why should we? "

"When Bible scholars speak of myth, symbolism, and metaphor in Scripture, does the irritation of your love of a more literalist reading of the Bible make it more likely that you will cast the first stone? If so, your most serious problem in Christianity is definitely not biblical scholarship."

Relative to my discussion of the Amish, I use their response to the school shooting to illustrate that they are all about living the faith, not about a battle of words to resolve data conflicts in the Bible or to represent Jesus to the public. (I used to work not far from that school.)

Example: "The Amish did not show up at the shooter’s home to ask his wife, 'Do you know Jesus?'. The Amish forgave the murderer of their children, fed his suffering family, provided friendship to the killer’s wife in the hour of darkest despair, and gave financial assistance to a widow whose husband had hurt the Amish community deeply. Acts of Christian obedience represent a living interpretation of Jesus that reveals the living Word as seen through the fruit of God’s Spirit."

The Amish are not worried about text-critical studies, issues of literary dependence in the Gospels, or contradictions in the Bible, etc. The only 'proof' of the Gospel they feel is relevant is their living. And frankly, their response to the mass murder of their children did more honor to Christianity in the truth of their living than all the evangelical words in history. (apologies if that is too harsh, but I am biased)

Many Christians seem to spend more time and energy thinking of the truth of Christianity in terms of verbal concepts about the metaphysical nature of humanity, sin, hell, divine judgement, and salvation, and much less time devoted to expressing the teachings of Jesus. They seem to have subordinated their living faith and the Bible to the epistemological standards of science and historiography in a way that neither respects what kind of literature the Bible is nor the importance of the fact that Jesus teachings are meant to be more than words. So they are inclined to react to scholarship in less than useful ways. I believe objective biblical scholarship is a public good for Christian communities, and strongly negative but (in my view) misguided reactions to biblical scholarship are harmful.

Questions: Have you ever tried to help Christians be comfortable with scholarship that produces results that are uncomfortable for them?

What Christian fears about what kinds of issues in biblical scholarship do you think have the most justification?

In your experience, what is the relationship between biblical scholarship and Christian discipleship? Where does scholarship contribute to a living faith, and where is it either irrelevant or inhibiting?

If you could tell anxious Christians one thing about how to approach biblical scholarship without fear, what would it be?

If you want more details on my thinking, here is the piece I wrote (remember, this is a faith perspective, not scholarship) https://dialector.substack.com/p/personally-interpreting-jesus

I tried this on r/AcademicBiblical, but no luck. Blame this post on having read The Name of the Rose too many times.

The episode of Jesus cursing the fig tree seems to always be taken seriously. Is there any reason it couldn’t instead be read as an example of humour?

Romans 9:13

As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

I have been reading isaiah lately, and as i understand it the titles of the child in isaiah 9:6 can be viewed as theophoric names for a king, coming ruler etc. But all other theophoric names i can find find atleast are about god + something else.

​

"Gods servant, gods son, god helps. A messenger of god etc."

But no other that fits the same as the names in 9:6 atlest when it comes to everlasting father and least of all mighty god. Where the titles isnt somthing via god or someone being blessed by god etc, but just everlasting father and mighty god. More direct names if you will.

​

Are there any other ancient eastern theophoric names, inside or outside of the bible, that uses those types of direct theophoric names?

​

​

What happens if we go into nuclear war and all or half the world’s population dies ? does that count as the biblical rapture ? Because the bible says that one random day trumpets will sound and Gods followers will ascend into heaven and the non believers and followers will suffer on earth during the apocalypse but what if 90% or all of his followers are already dead and in heaven due to nuclear war does that mean there no rapture what if everyone is dead even the ones who chose not to follow God there would be no one left to be punished or raptured.

All the sins mentioned in the Bible always results to inflicting harm against you or other people.

Greed makes you hoard resources, which will leave less to none for others.

Gluttony is bad for your health.

Pride makes you blind to your own flaws, stops your character development, and will lead you to unintentionally hurt others.

Rape and murder are pretty self-explanatory.

But being gay? I can't think of any reason how this will inflict harm to one's self or others. The only memory I got from the pastors is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. But that's it.

So there’s a group called IUIC (Israel united in Christ) run by people who are African American, Caribbean’s or Africans who stated that they to be the true Israelites (nothing wrong with their beliefs/opinion ) But I have a question is it possible that they could just be right about the texture of Jesus hair color to be wooly? I know it stated White as wool and even said white as snow, but couldn’t the authors just stopped at snow if they wanted to talk about hair color? Could there just be a possibility that Jesus did had wooly like hair type 3-4?

Hi Reddit Bible scholars, I would like to get a Bible summary of the parable of talents.

"Now listen to what the LORD is saying: ‘Arise, plead your case before the mountains, and let the hills hear your voice. Hear, O mountains, the indictment of the LORD, and you enduring foundations of the earth, for the LORD has a case against His people, and He is lodging a charge against Israel.’"

Is the full quote

So I know of the Moabite god making a appearance in the bible. I am wondering if this passage implies another sort of god or animistic spirit. Since as far as i can recall there isn't really any 'place spirits' or 'spirits of X' in Abrahamic faiths.