I've become aware of him through the YT channel Gnostic Informant, and it's quite interesting, seemingly going against the grain from what I generally hear in the critical scholar circles, so I'm curious about him.
Any thoughts please, on his work and the datings.
For example, one thing I caught was that the Moses Tradition was around 700 BCE, but he would argue that it's around 300 BCE.

I was reading the Roberts-Donaldson collection of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and the tenth fragment of Papias stuck out to me: not only would it be the earliest defense of the perpetual virginity of Mary, but it also very clearly attests to John's authorship of his gospel. However, if this was some undisputed fragment from a reasonable source, I know it would be cited in debates on both issues.

After 45 minutes of research, I can't find a straight answer telling me if Fragment X is genuine or not. I saw a few random people strongly questioning it's genuinity, and a blurb of the story of its discovery, but I am finding nothing other than individual questioning of the fragment not done by experts. Really, I am not seeing any discussion of the fragment at all.

Can someone give me a straight answer about the genuinity of Fragment X, and its stance in modern scholarly circles?

Do we know if there were actually sub-groupings or territories in the kingdom of Israel prior to the Assyrian conquest? If so, do they correspond with the tribes named in the Pentateuch?

I understand sort of the broad strokes of the dispute over whether there was ever a united monarchy, and the general thinking that a lot of that narrative may have been related to an attempt to integrate Israelite refugees into the kingdom of Judah after the conquest. But where/how do the tribes fit in?

Also, same question for the tribes alleged to have been surrounded by, or dispersed within Judah, like Benjamin, Simeon and Levi.

I was inspired to ask this based on another recent post, but I thought I should make a separate post because I suspect that one may be removed soon due to it being largely theological.

Like the title says, I’m looking for recommendations for either bindings of the Bible that compare these three sources side by side in full. Or, if that doesn’t really exist, books that examine the sources and their differences. Thanks in advance!

Hey all,

I seem to recall a biblical verse referring to Jonathan and David's covenant as being made "before God." It seems to have occurred later in the OT or maybe even in the NT than the story itself, it isn't 1 Samuel 18:3, which doesn't include any reference to God's witness to the covenant. Does this sound familiar to anybody? Google has not been helpful in this case which is making me doubt my own sanity. Help appreciated!

Complete quote:

Computer analysis of all the known New Testament manuscripts reveals only 0.1 percent variance. That means that 99.9 percent of the manuscripts’ contents are in perfect agreement. “Most of the small percentage of actual differences are in spelling (such as the English ‘honour’ versus ‘honor’), word order (‘Paul the apostle’ versus ‘the apostle Paul’), and grammar (‘Father who art in heaven’ versus ‘Father which art in heaven’.) And none of the variations affects any basic doctrine.” (How the Bible Became a Book, Victor Books, A Division of Scripture Press Publications, Inc. USA, Canada, England, 1990, p. 135)

This cannot possibly be true, can it? A digital database of all known NT MSS in 1990?

I don't think that is possible to "computer analyze" all known manuscripts even today, is it?

Ezekiel 48 describes the future millenial kingdom, with land alloted to the 12 tribes.

Where are they? How will they be identified?

Haven't the tribes intermarried enough by now that any distinction is arbitrary?

Perhaps these are jurisdictions granted to resurrected members of the tribes?

I'm trying to understand what the millenial kingdom will look like.

I have a few scattered thoughts I just want to throw out there at you guys (I am not a scholar so I've probably made mistakes and I think this whole theory is tenuous anyhow).

I've noticed that throughout the Johannine literature that references to the devil and then to the "evil one" appear to be speaking about two different but interlinked entities. The evil one has control over the world (1 John 5:18-19, John 14:30), whereas the devil is the author of sin and the spiritual father of those who practice sin (1 John 3:8-10).

I want to turn attention to John 8:44, where Jesus says of the Judeans: "ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστὲ". Two plausible translations of this are:

1. You are of your father, the devil
2. You are of the father of the devil

The first option is the orthodox interpretation, but the second option fully accords with the grammar. Indeed when we recognize that there seems to be two different malevolent entities in Johannine literature this starts to make sense. Is the evil one/ruler of this world the father of the devil? Well 1 John 3:12 mentions how Cain, who murdered his brother, was "from the evil one". Is Cain possibly being identified with the devil? Is the murder of Abel the etiology of sin/the fall for the Johannine community? Since the discussion is within the parameters of the Judeans as descendants of Abraham, perhaps by linking the Judeans with being of the father of the devil instead of from Abraham, a more direct link is tied between the Judeans and Cain or the Judeans and the progenitor of Cain as opposed to those who simply imitate Cain's sin.

This may all seem a little tenuous when we read the second part of John 8:44 which says, "ἐκεῖνος ἀνθρωποκτόνος ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ οὐκ ἔστηκεν, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἀλήθεια ἐν αὐτῷ." What else could the demonstrative be referring to other than the thing previously mentioned i.e. the "father of the devil" if we assume this translation? In that case there really doesn't seem to be a reason to assume a distinction between the evil one and the slanderous one [the devil] because it becomes awkward in that we have established distinct roles between them. It'd be better to drop this assumption and consider them synonymous.

However, ἐκεῖνος is considered a "far" demonstrative pronoun in contrast to οὗτος which is a "near" demonstrative pronoun, thus ἐκεῖνος could be translated as "that [other one]" which suggests the presence of two things and, again upon our realization that πατρὸς τοῦ διαβόλου could be speaking about the "father of the devil", it would seem natural to assign ἐκεῖνος to the more remote of the two, namely the devil. This actually makes a lot of sense when we read the final part of the verse "ὅτι ψεύστης ἐστὶν καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ." Generally this is translated as "Because he is a liar and the father of it." But this could also just as validly be translated as: "Because he is a liar and [so is] his father" since αὐτοῦ could be a masculine noun referring back to the devil thus demonstrating that there are two entities being spoken about here, the devil and the father of the devil.

i know theres a lot of views on the ages and the similarities between the names of cainite and sethite genealogies, but this is purely about the names and there meaning, since there are a few unique names and a lot of names with dubious meanings/etymologies. heres the list of names and their (possible) meanings

• adam - general term for man and possibly related to "adamah" meaning dirt
• seth - im sure this one means "appointed" since eve herself said he was appointed
• enosh - another word for man, but with a more mortal and weak connotation
• kenan - unclear. possibly weaver or acquired
• mahalalel - act of praise of God, or just praise of God
• jared - descent, or he who descends. possibly a reference to the sons of men who "descended" and had nephilim (book of jubilees backs this up)
• enoch - most likely means "taught" or "trained". same root as the word "hanukkah"
• methuselah - unclear. most likely meaning is man of the spear/arrow, though some say it means "when he dies, it shall come"
• lamech - unclear. some associate it with an unused root LMK, meaning to be humbled or low (or from the particle ל (le), to or towards, and (2) the verb מוך (muk), be low.). others say it means powerful
• noah - 100% certain this means comfort or rest. in lamechs own words, “This one will give us comfort from our work and from the hard labor of our hands caused by the ground which the LORD has cursed.” (gen. 5:25)

thanks for even reading this. may peace and grace be with u lol. if this post gets attention, i will make another post on the names in the postdiluvian genealogy (shem, arphaxad, selah, etc.)

I don't know how founded my hunch is: that Jesus was in training to be a religious leader at some point in his pre-ministry days. But how likely is it?

I sometimes get into creationism-vs-evolution debates, and one thing I oftentimes notice is that people will state that some part or parts of Genesis are allegorical and not useful for the creationist side of the debate. I think the arguments themselves are based on the logic "science and Genesis conflict, science is right, therefore Genesis must be allegory", but IMO this is flawed because this tells me nothing of what the author(s) of the Torah actually intended.

From a linguistic standpoint, it's well established that Genesis 1 contains poetic elements, and is argued to be a form of elevated prose (not quite a poem but close). This is oftentimes used to argue that it is allegorical. But the story of Noah and the Flood is also argued to be allegorical, and as far as I can tell, that story does not contain poetic elements (though I could be wrong here). Genesis 2 also contains elements of the creation story, but most of it doesn't seem to be poetic either. So poetry can't be the only hint as to what is literal and what is allegorical, assuming of course that these stories are allegorical.

Does the Torah have any textual or linguistic hint beyond poetic elements as to what parts were intended to be literal and what parts were intended to be allegorical? Where exactly are the parts that the author(s) intended to be allegorical?

(Note: I am not interested in biology-based answers here. I'm looking for an answer based on the author's intent, and I think we can reasonably assume the author(s) did not have an understanding of biology matching the majority of modern-day society.)

Hi, I ordered the NOAB online and accidentally got an old edition. It's the "expanded edition" and it's the RSV instead of the NRSV. The copyright says 1977.

Is this going to be considerably different/worse than the latest editions? What kind of differences are there? Should I just keep this or return it and get the latest edition? Thank you!

Hello all, for the past few months I've been reading a lot Bart Ehrman and jus learning about new testament stuff but I'm curious about the old testament too. Could anyone recommend some authors or jus a place to start? Thank you!

Passages like Matthew 16:18-29 and 18:17 are often spoken on in church settings as being Jesus’ teachings on church life and how the church ought to conduct itself, etc. As I’ve peered into historical studies a bit, it’s become apparent that what we moderns think of as “the church” didn’t exist until the 2nd and 3rd centuries, so I’m compelled to wonder what the 1st century author and audience of Matthew would’ve heard in these sayings.

I’ve heard some people say in passing that “the assembly” has eschatological/apocalyptic connections, but I don’t know details. Anyone have any resources or places to start?

I am not sure if this is the appropriate place to post, but I was reading about ancient ethiopian religion, when I came across Waaqeffanna. I thought that it would be similar to most pagan religions, but I realized that it was closer to monotheism than polytheism. I also looked at a lot of their teachings on morality. They seemed closer to Christianity than Judaism or any ancient pagan religion.

I understand that Ethiopia became Christian in the 4th century, while Waqaffenna remained, but are the similarities between Waaqeffanna and Christianity due to the former influencing the latter, or vice versa?

So, while the ancient near east and Mediterranean were obviously quite patriarchal we are certainly at least aware of some instances of women in these cultures taking on important religious roles, such as the Oracle of Delphi, or the “sacred prostitutes” in the Bible. But is there anything we can glean from sources that indicates whether women had any kind of role in Israelite religion? Judges indicates that women, like Deborah, were permitted to serve as judges and prophetesses but how reliable is this and does the role of women evolve over time?

This doubt came to me when I finished reading some of Michael Heiser's papers on Deut 32 and Psalm 82.

Generally I heard that Elyon is a greater God and YHWH is a lesser god (one of the "Sons of God"), Heiser says that YHWH and El are the same God in these verses, Yahweh-El separated the nations with the Sons of God and stayed with Israel, Yahweh-El is the one who presides the Divine council.

• Are Yahweh and Elyon the same deity in Deut 32 and Psalm 82?
• Is Heiser's work on Deuteronomy 32 and Psalm 82 reliable?

Sources:

Heiser, Michael, "Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God" Bibliotheca Sacra 158 (2001)

Heiser, Michael, "Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible" (2008)

Heiser, Michael, "Are Yahweh and El Distinct Deities in Deut. 32:8-9 and Psalm 82?" (2006). LBTS Faculty Publications and Presentations. 278

Jeremiah 7^(21) Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices, and eat the flesh. ^(22) For in the day that I brought your ancestors out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. 

I'm not sure if I'm reading this wrong or not but verse 22 reads "I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices"

Quite literally the first chapter in Leviticus concerns burnt offerings. So is he talking about something else here and I'm reading it wrong, or is Jeremiah apparently unaware of Leviticus?

I do know that he still accepts that the Israelites/Hebrews conquered Canaan in part by force. He believes that the city of Hazor, the largest Canaanite city, was destroyed by the early Israelites.

But does he think about the origins of the early Israelites?

Since he worked at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, I suspect he had some sort of complex theory about it. At the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, mainly centrist researchers teach, who admit that many early Israelites came from the Canaanites, but at the same time point out that they were certainly joined by other nomadic Semitic groups coming from outside Canaan, for example from the Sinai Peninsula/Egypt or from the east, From Transjordan and Syria. Among old researchers, she worked with Yigael Yadin, and among modern researchers, she worked with Amihai Mazar, and both held similar views, although Yadin emphasized the nomadic origin in the last century.

What does Ben-Tor think about this?

Ok so Genesis 1:1 I guess I’ve accepted that it isn’t Gods created because the verb is singular. However, Genesis 1:26 the verb is plural “let US make” in “our” image. What’s the explanation for why god is not translated Gods here even though the verb is plural. Thank you!

It seems universally agreed by Rabbis that the Pentateuch has 5845 verses.

When were these verse divisions instituted? Are they an objective quality of the text itself that make you recognize these verse divisions?

Did the dead sea scrolls have these verse divisions as well? Or is this purely a Masoretic invention and there is a lot of subjectivity involved?

In other words: is there an objective feature of the text of the Pentateuch that makes you distinguish verses objectively--and was this the basis of the verse divisions we have today?

I have been reading The Idea of Israel in Second Temple Judaism and Paul and the Resurrection of Israel. Both by Jason Staples and have been greatly enjoying them.

One of the points that he has made is that Israel is not a synonym for Jew. And that throughout the second Temple period, the term Jew was not used to refer to someone who wasn't from one of the tribes that came from the Babylonian Captivity (Judah, Levi and Benjamin).

I have been doing bit of research on Acts use of Isaiah and keep running into an issue in Acts 2:5-11. That passage contains the infamous speaking in tongues scene that occurred on Pentecost, and the other goes to great specificity in listing all the countries/regions that the Jews present were from. It seems readily apparent that the author of Luke-Acts is deliberately trying to draw a parallel between the events on Pentecost and Isaiah 11. The list of places in Isaiah 11:11-12 and Acts 2:9 are too identical for someone who isn't trying to make a point.

But if the author of Luke-Acts is arguing that Pentecost fulfilled Isaiah 11, why did he say in Acts 2:5 that there were Jews from every nation? Per second temple usage of the term, shouldn't he have said Hebrews or israelites from every nation?

Can anyone shed some light on this or recommend any books or articles?

*what are the academical [...]

What can be said of this response Jesus makes to his mother at the marriage feast?