The Hebrew text of the Bible contains the Tetragrammaton many many times. This is used as a name, not as a title. And yet, the vast majority of Bible translations render this as LORD, not as a name. Prominent exceptions are the Jerusalem Bible, which uses Yahweh, and the New World Translation, which uses Jehovah, the traditional rendering in English. There are very few translations which transliterate or otherwise retain the Tetragrammaton in their text.

I believe that the intent of most translators is to imitate Jewish practice of not pronouncing the Divine Name; however, Jews do write the name in their holy texts. Similarly, Catholic practise is not to pronounce the Name, but the Catholic Jerusalem Bible still contains it in written form. Why do most translations omit it?

I have asked this question before at Christianity Stack Exchange, but I thought I might get better answers here.

If you google the 12 disciples you'll find numerous graphics and websites stating how all of the disciples (except John) were martyred. Are these accounts typically considered reliable? And/Or what do we actually know about the fates of the 12?

In the middle of Jacob's story there is a seemingly out of place chapter about Judah and Tamar, even though most of the other brothers receive little characterization (exceptions for Benjamin, and kind of Levi has the head of the priestly tribe).

I think in Samuel or Kings there are a few descriptions of battles which single out the Judahite warriors' performance, either by specifying their plunder, or by mentioning that the battle was a decisive defeat for the Israelites but the Judahites fought bravely before breaking.

I'm guessing these pro-Judahite references were added through Biblical revision between the fall of Israel in 720 BC and the fall of Judah in 587 BC. Except the constant singling out of Judah represents more of an agenda than a mere literary construct.

Is it realistic to think that a Roman Governor like Pontius Pilate would free a criminal like Barabbas (who was a rebel and murderer) for any reason? Given the Romans' general ruthlessness, it seems strange that they would free a serious criminal just as a Passover gift to the crowd.

I understand that this question is complicated by the fact that in very early Christian history many followers of Jesus/Christians were Jews who thought of themselves as Jews. But if we make the distinction as between “people who thought of themselves as Christians, not as Jews” and “people who thought of themselves as Jews, not Christians” when did the former surpass the latter in overall population size?

I’ve seen it explained in some places that Pilate didn’t have Jesus’s followers arrested and executed alongside him because the Romans didn’t consider the movement a real threat, and only wanted to make an example of Jesus.

But if they wanted to make an example of Jesus, why did they allow Joseph, a follower of the movement, to retrieve his body for burial?

Hey guys, here's a random technical question. I'm looking for an example of where the KJV preserves second person plural vs singular, and ChatGPT gave me this example from Luke 22.31-32:

31 Σίμων Σίμων, ἰδοὺ ὁ σατανᾶς ἐξῃτήσατο ὑμᾶς τοῦ σινιάσαι ὡς τὸν σῖτον· 32 ἐγὼ δὲ ἐδεήθην περὶ σοῦ ἵνα μὴ ἐκλίπῃ ἡ πίστις σου· καὶ σύ ποτε ἐπιστρέψας στήρισον τοὺς ἀδελφούς σου.

The KJV reads:

³¹ And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: ³² But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

It looks about right to me, but I wanted to double-check with a real human.

Going to be a long post.

In Mark 9:38-40 and in Luke 9:49-50, we have an interesting story where John the apostle tells Jesus about someone who does not personally know Jesus but is doing works in Jesus' name. John mentions how the apostles (or whoever "we" is) were insistent in stopping him. The mystery preacher is never named, but he has similarities to Paul (I'm not suggesting he is Paul). Jesus' response to John though, is that there's nothing wrong with this preacher and he is on their side. But Paul's later activity, and the problems he describe with churches not believing his authority, fits this mystery preacher. Mark and Luke have this story, but Matthew omits it interestingly enough.

Now, Joel Marcus in "Mark - Interpreter of Paul" makes a (in my opinion) valid case that the author of Mark is a "Paulinist". Cameron Ferguson in "The Oxford Handbook of the Synoptic Gospels" also argues that Mark 9:38-40 is essentially the author having Jesus justify the Pauline mission. It's interesting that this Paulinist has John be the one to attack Paul, rather than Peter or James. Paul in his letters only mentions John once but maybe they had bad relations or their churches had bad relations or maybe there's nothing, who knows.

Next we get to the author of Luke-Acts being a Paulinist. Well, just based on the focus of Paul in Acts, one could propose that the author is a fan of Paul. But can't jump to conclusions. Andrew Gregory in his essay review of "Acts and Christian Beginnings" looks at how Richard Pervo (I didn't want to mention him) argues for the author of Acts used Paul's letters to write. Lars Aejmelaeus also argues in "The Pauline Letters as Source Material in Luke-Acts" that this "Luke" figure used Paul's letters. Although I haven't seen much arguing for the gospel of Luke itself depending on Paul's letters but its dependence on Mark makes things messy. So we will only look at Mark as our representative of Paulinism here.

Now for the main point, there is a contrast here between Mark versus Gospel of John and 1 John. Mark seems to argue that you don't have to have personally met Jesus to be able to preach or do works in his name. The Johannine community appears to take the opposite stance. John has an eyewitness in the story, in contrast with Mark, which is purely coming from a narrator. John 19:35 is a random insertion into the crucifixion story to affirm to the reader that the story is coming from someone who was actually there and so he is trustworthy. John 21:24 tells us this is coming from a disciple of Jesus who is testifying (as in he was there) and his testimony is true.

John 20:24-29 at first seems to imply that "you don't actually have to see Jesus yourself, just believe" but its message is more complex than that. Verse 29 has Jesus tell Thomas he has seen him so he believes. Then those who believe the testimony of those who have seen are blessed for believing. But ultimately, Christian belief rests on the testimony of those who have seen. There is a hierarchy presented and the 2 other verses I gave as examples in the previous paragraph help enforce this point.

Furthermore, 1 John talks a lot about "what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what our hands have touched". After that, the rest of the epistle gives instructions, gives teachings and combats docetism. Docetism appears to have been a big feature of a lot of gnostic groups, interestingly Marcion as well.

Finally, Revelation, though not usually seen as the same corpus as John and 1 John, has this interesting relationship with Paul as well. Revelation 2 contrasts with 1 Corinthians 8. Rev 2:14 bashes those in the Pergamum church who eat food sacrificed to idols. Rev 2:20 bashes those in the the Thyatira church also committing the same act. 1 Cor 8 takes a surprising position in that it seems to imply that eating foods sacrificed to idols can be acceptable (correct me if I'm wrong).

Interestingly, Ephesus is the only one of the 7 churches mentioned in Revelation that the Paulinist author of Acts has Paul explicitly visit, rather than just their vague regions. I have an interesting proposal about the author of Acts possibly disassociating Paul with the "negative" behavior of the churches found in Revelations by mentioning him travelling to their regions instead but that's irrelevant here and I don't have any sources that go into it.

To conclude my very long post, my question is, what do scholars have to say about the relationship between the Johannine churches and the Pauline churches? Feel like there's something there that's been smoothed over

"for the anger of man doesn’t produce the righteousness of God." (World English Bible version)

So to start I am not looking for whether the Jewish religion has thought of YHWH as a God of the Dead through interpreted through the lenses of their scripture.

But in regard to EL, the chief Canaanite God within the Ugaritic texts and His role within the universe: what was His relation to dead humans?

I've been looking at Mark 13:33-37. Here, Mark has Jesus warn

"Therefore, keep awake, for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening or at midnight or at cockcrow or at dawn"

He then goes on to depict Peter falling asleep and denying Jesus before the second cockcrow.

It seems like foreshadowing on the one hand, and also as if the story that follows is an enacted interpretation of this discourse.

Mark does this elsewhere. For example, the Didache suggests that there was a saying about giving what is holy to the dogs:

But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs."

Mark has Jesus enact this dialogue with a Syrophoenician woman, and ultimately accept that even the dogs deserve scraps - possibly subverting or adding context to the polemical way in which this saying may have otherwise been being used.

My question is whether scholars have thoughts on Mark's sources. Do they suspect that the sayings were floating around and Mark developed these into narratives? Do they suspect that the narratives were floating around and Mark developed these into sayings? Or perhaps both predate Mark? Or neither? Or am I imagining a connection where none exists?

EDIT: I suppose some other examples might be:

1. the saying "If anyone wants to become my follower, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me," is illustrated narratively by Simon of Cyrene.
2. The blooming of the fig tree tells the seasons (Mark 13:28-32) and the narrative cursing of the fig tree for failing to bloom (11:11-25).

Paul is insistent throughout his corpus that former Gentiles seeking to become followers of Christ shouldn't circumcise themselves in order to join the Jesus movement, yet he isn't awfully clear on whether ethnic Jews could/should circumcise their children. What were his thoughts on the idea?

My first question is this: What are some strong arguments for and against retaining the manuscript variant "without a cause" in this verse?

My second question is as follows: What is/are the meaningful difference(s) between 'raca' and 'you fool', since they both seem so similar and almost seem to communicate the exact same thing?

My first question is more pressing to me, and what I find more important between the two of these, but answers for the second question would still be very much appreciated.

Here is the verse in question, in the King James (i.e., based on the Textus Receptus):

"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

Here is the verse in question, in a more modern translation (i.e., based on Nestle-Aland manuscripts; it's the NIV):

"But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell."

Acts 4:19-20 makes Peter and John mention what they have "seen and heard". 1 John 1:1 also has similar phrasing but also not exact. Not sure if there's any other similarities between Acts and 1 John.

Acts has a very interesting relationship with 1 Peter as well. Acts 4:11 has Peter quote Psalms 118:22, 1 Peter 2:7 also has this quotation by Peter.

1 Peter 2:24 has Peter say Jesus "bore our sins in his body on the tree", Acts 5:30 has Peter say Jesus was killed by "hanging him on a tree", Acts 10:39 has Peter say something similar again about Jesus being hung on a tree.

Acts 2:33-34, Peter says Jesus has been "exalted to the right hand of God". 1 Peter 3:22 says Jesus is at "God's right hand".

Finally in Acts 4:10 Peter says "God raised him from the dead" and in 1 Peter 1:21 says "God raised him from the dead". This one is a bit weaker and I had to paraphrase it but it's still an interesting observation nonetheless.

Eusebius seems to indicate that Papias knew 1 Peter and 1 John (interesting) and it could be proposed that the author of the first half of Acts knew those 2 epistles as well. It would make sense. But the problem I'm having is the allusions to both texts seem so loose. Are there any secular scholars who propose that the stories of Peter and John in Acts are based on actual knowledge of those two apostles' preachings and teachings? I get the feeling Acts is very complex in its composition.

Thank you if you have any answers.

Based on the rich Hellenistic Logos concept, an English translation of John 1:1 is: “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with the divine, and divine was the Logos.” (Here** **θεόν/theon and θεός/theos function as a description of divine quality or nature - it could not logically both be the non-personal Logos and be a personal «God»).

So what did Logos mean for the Hellenist writer John? I’ve been searching for years - what do you think of the following definition of Logos?

LOGOS: Supreme Truth; the basic principles of that Truth; transcendent spiritual qualities; the Jesus’ Teaching. First and foremost, Logos is the quintessential nature of perfect harmony existing
in and of itself, independent of all phenomena, yet permeating every aspect of sentient existence. Logos is the right natural order of things that forms the underlying basis for all existence, though it is not dependent on or conditioned by any form of existence. Ultimately, Logos is the sum of those transcendent qualities, such as detachment, loving kindness and wisdom, the spiritual perfection of which brings the mind into harmony with the Supreme Truth. By further extension, Logos encompasses the basic principles that are the essence of Jesus’ Teaching, including the patterns of behavior that should be practiced so as to harmonize oneself with the right natural order of things.

I’m trying to understand the scholarly debate over mark 9:1 / matt 16:28 and, more broadly, imminent eschatology in mark and matt. I understand that some scholars distinguish between (1) what the historical jezus/pre-synoptics tradition originally meant and (2) how mark/matt themselves understood or reinterpreted it.

Would these be reasonable categories?

Imminent → imminent: The original saying meant an imminent parousia, and mark/matt also understood it as an imminent parousia.

Imminent → reinterpretation: The original saying meant an imminent parousia, but mark/matt reinterpreted it as fulfilled by something like the transfiguration, resurrection, pentecost, etc., rather than continuing to expect an imminent parousia.

Non-imminent → non-imminent: The original saying did not mean an imminent Parousia, and mark/matt likewise did not interpret it that way.

Imminent + partial/staged fulfillment: The original saying meant an imminent parousia, and mark/matt still expected the final parousia relatively very soon, but also understood the trans/resurrection/etc. as an initial or partial fulfillment of the same eschatological process.

Original staged eschatology: He himself meant a staged eschatological process (e.g. initial manifestation/resurrection → final paraousia), with the final parousia still expected within the relevant generation, and mark/matt preserved essentially the same understanding.

Are these reasonable categories, or am I missing important positions or making distinctions scholars wouldn’t normally make?

More importantly, which scholars fit into which category?

What does this sub think of this blogger's interpretation of this verse in its original Greek? Is it accurate, inaccurate? Misleading?

Conclusion

It’s about the desire to posses (covet) another man’s wife that Jesus warns about here. It’s perfectly normal and natural to find women attractive; just don’t cross the line and covet another man’s wife.

Hello, I have been made aware somewhat recently of the didache. I heard it may have a complex recension history. I'm wondering which portions of it are older vs which are later in terms of their integration into the text.

I did try to search this question before I posted and couldn't find anything, so sorry if this exists somewhere already.

As a point of specificity, I'm interested in what the oldest and least altered version is. And to go along with that question, if I'm going for "oldest", is it better to go w/ the Torah for Old Testament stuff? And then, even though this might not be the best subreddit for it, same question as the title- how many versions of the Torah are there and what are the differences?

We know from early Christian literature that the early Jesus movement anticipated an imminent parousia or epiphaneia, which was accompanied by warnings regarding false messiahs or false prophets.

Most of the lists I've found focus on post-Enlightenment figures. Is the phenomenon of pretending to be Jesus something that only really kicked off in the modern post-Enlightenment era? From an academic perspective, what is the earliest textual or historical evidence we have of an individual either claiming to be the returned Jesus or being proclaimed to be the returned Jesus? (Or some manifestation thereof)

Bonus question. How do critical historians evaluate figures like Dositheus of Samaria or Simon Magus in relation to early high Christology and the evolution of the parousia expectation? Are there any primary sources outside the canonical New Testament that address this phenomenon?

I’ve been curious about how the original biblical texts seem to have morphed into almost a completely different religion after watching Dan McClellan’s content. I know there are probably many posts from Christians whose entire religious worldview is thrown for a loop after watching him, so apologies.

It seems that the original biblical texts have no depiction of hell, that those who are saved will not go to heaven but will be resurrected on a perfected earth after Jesus returns, there is no Satan or similar evil entity, that there is no trinity mentioned but is perhaps a logical consequence of other Christian doctrines, that there is no one set of Ten Commandments, etc.

I’ve heard that many of the modern views of Christianity are influenced by Platonic thought, especially with the idea that our souls will go to heaven if we are saved. I think this is related to Platonic anthropomorphic dualism or a dualism which necessitates a special soul inhabiting a temporary body.

To what extent did Plato’s philosophy affect Christian doctrine, and how did the philosophy of Christianity morph so radically in such a way that would probably be unrecognizable to the biblical authors?

Hello all,

I’m currently working my way through the Gospel of John, and in so doing have been using The Gospel According to Mark by James R. Edwards as my guiding commentary.

To preface, I downloaded the commentary without doing the necessary due diligence prior, and have since realized that it’s probably not the most critical of commentaries. Despite that, I came across this interesting excerpt in studying the first few verses of Mark’s gospel:

“It is often assumed that Elijah, whom Mark here identifies with John the Baptizer, would be the forerunner of the Messiah. But in pre-Christian Jewish texts preserved in the OT and intertestamental literature Elijah prefigures not the Messiah but the appearance of God himself. This fact considerably elevates the importance of the OT quotation in 1:2-3. In the quotation, several of the pronouns and “the way for the LORD” refer to God. Mark, however, applies these texts with reference to Jesus. This indicates that the Baptizer is not simply the herald of the Messiah but of God himself, appearing in Jesus of Nazareth.”

Is this reflective of the scholarly consensus? That is, do scholars generally agree that Mark’s likening of John to Elijah means that he understands John as prefiguring the coming of Yahweh in the person of Jesus? This has caught me totally off guard and I’m unsure of where to look for a more secular-academic understanding of the passage, so I came here.

Thank you :)

"We have no king but caesar" - lynch mob 30 ad

The romans supposedly took great pains to avoid the title king.

Yet the bible periodically calls the roman leader king.

This makes me wonder if they new better or if Rome couldnt be bothered to police the language of foreigners

Do we actually know the policy of Rome in regard to forighers calling the Emperor king.

Any readings would be appreciated.