Hello all,

Not too versed in Bible studies but reading Luke in Greek (4.5 and 6) and have a question about if there's a potential connection to the Lord's Prayer.

Last bit of the Lord's Prayer (apparently an interpolation? would love to know more about that!):

ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. ἀμήν.

and then the Luke:

Καὶ ἀναγαγὼν αὐτὸν ἔδειξεν αὐτῷ πάσας τὰς βασιλείας τῆς οἰκουμένης ἐν στιγμῇ χρόνου: καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ διάβολος Σοὶ δώσω τὴν ἐξουσίαν ταύτην ἅπασαν καὶ τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν, ὅτι ἐμοὶ παραδέδοται καὶ ᾧ ἂν θέλω δίδωμι αὐτήν:

Is there a connection here? If so, what's going on?

I'm reading the introduction to the Hermeneia Commentary on Mark written by Dr. Adela Yarbro Collins and I have a few questions about the following statement made in the section regarding the date of writing of Mark (part of interest my emphasis in italics):

"...The transition to the next section shows that Mark expected the coming of the risen Jesus as Son of Man to occur at the climax of the war, “But in those days after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers that are in the heavens will be shaken. And then the Son of Man will be seen coming in clouds with great power and glory” (13:24–26). The prophecy of Daniel about the desolating sacrilege was to be fulfilled first and then his prophecy of the “coming of one like a son of Man” (Dan 7:13)......It is important for us twenty-first century readers to remember that Jews and Christians in Mark’s time did not understand Daniel as an apocalyptic interpretation of the crisis created by the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes. Rather, they understood Daniel as a prophecy of the eschatological kingdom of God, which was about to be inaugurated, perhaps during their own lifetimes. Thus, for Mark, the passages in Daniel about the “desolating sacrilege” did not refer to the profanation of the altar in the second century BCE, but to an event of the future that would precede the establishment of the rule of God through the Son of Man who was about to come..."

First, what is a good resource on Daniel and it's relationship with New Testament writings with regards to the idea in italics, there isn't a source cited for that particular idea? Second, was the interpretation that this part of Daniel was about the "persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes" the earlier interpretation that then later changed into the idea about the "Son of Man who was about to come?" Or was it the other way around?

Disclaimer: I am not at all affiliated with this program/product; I just signed up for the free trial about 2 weeks back. It’s been great. He has full, multi-lecture courses on the Pentateuch and the new testament. It also features other lecturers, quizzes curated by both him and the community, and a pretty good-sized community to discuss the bible and even sections of it to discuss theology if that suits your fancy. It even has live events (Pete Enns did an AMA there last week).

Again, I am not affiliated with this program and I hope I am not breaking rules by posting this so feel free to remove if I am. It just seemed like a good resource to share.

https://ehrman.thrivecart.com/the-biblical-studies-academy/

I've recently been looking into Matthean Posteriority, and this article argues for its validity on the basis that "Q" probably consisted of more than one work or document, and one of those works/documents seems to have been an earlier recension of the Didache for Matthew, while Luke (which would've been used by Matthew as a source) probably used the original Didache as gLuke seems to be more primitive whenever using it. These findings can support an argument for (Proto) Lukan Primacy instead of the often held view of Markan Primacy + "Q" (in the way "Q" is traditionally understood by most of its proponents, anyway), though obviously a proponent of Lukan Primacy would need to also explain why Mark removes or abridges so much of "Proto-Luke" after establishing Matthean Posteriority.

This got me thinking: if "Q" could've been multiple different documents, and one of them could've been some form of the Didache, why can't "Q" also consist of the Book of James alongside the Didache as sources for both gLuke and gMatthew? It seems fairly obvious to me that the epistle of James (or at least, the book named after him) was a source used by canonical Luke and Matthew if one just compares James with the two gospels; James seems to have more primitive versions of the sayings often attributed to or put on the lips of Jesus by gLuke and gMatthew whenever one simply compares the letter to each of these gospels wherever relevant, respectively.

Is there anyone doing research on a potential tie between the E source of the Documentary Hypothesis and the Elohistic Psalms?

Eusebius quotes a letter written by St. Irenaeus directed at the Gnostic Florinus.

These opinions, O Florinus, that I may speak sparingly, do not belong to sound doctrine. These opinions are inconsistent with the church, and bring those who believe in them into the greatest impiety. These opinions not even the heretics outside the church ever dared to proclaim. These opinions those who were presbyters before us, who accompanied the apostles, did not hand on to you. For while I was still a boy I knew you in lower Asia in Polycarp's house when you were a man of rank in the royal hall and endeavoring to stand well with him. I remember the events of those days more clearly than those which happened recently, for what we learn as children grows up with the soul and is united to it, so that I can speak even of the place in which the blessed Polycarp sat and disputed, how he came in and went out, the character of his life, the appearance of his body, the discourses which he made to people, how he reported his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord, how he remembered their words, and what were the things concerning the Lord which he had heard from them, and about their miracles, and about their teaching, and how Polycarp had received them from the eyewitnesses of the word of life, and reported all things in agreement with the Scriptures. I listened eagerly even then to these things through the mercy of God which was given me, and made notes of them, not on paper but in my heart, and ever by the grace of God do I truly ruminate on them, and I can bear witness before God that if that blessed and apostolic presbyter had heard anything of this kind he would have cried out, and shut his ears, and said according to his custom, 'O good God, to what time hast thou preserved me that I should endure this?' He would have fled even from the place in which he was seated or standing when he heard such words. And from his letters which he sent either to the neighboring churches, strengthening them, or to some of the brethren, exhorting and warning them, this can be made plain.

Quoted by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical history. Letter to Florinius.

Here Irenaeus seems to appeal to Florinus’ own memory of how Polycarp recounted what he had learned from John and the other eye witnesses(something he would not have done if this were made up or embellished as Florinius could have called him out).

In another text, "The Martyrdom of Ignatius”, allegedly written by Philō of Cilicia and Rheus Agathopus, 2 people who personally knew Ignatius, he is described as:

"[...]Ignatius, the disciple of John the apostle, a man in all respects of an apostolic character"

(Chapter 1, line 1)

So what do you make of Irenaeus’ claims directed at Florinus? And do you think the Martyrdom of Ignatius is a reliable source? The fact that Ignatius’ connection to John is in the first line of the text and is only a few words makes it seem unlikely to have been interpolated or embellished by later forgers if that’s even possible.

sources:

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-eusebius.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrium_Ignatii

Was recently looking at the 2011 and 2024 surveys of New Testament scholars on the authorship of the Pauline Epistles and noticed there is a small minority of scholars who defend the authorship of one or two of the Pastorals, but not all 3. The 2011 survey saw 26 scholars argue for Pauline authorship of 2 Timothy, but only 23 for 1 Timothy and 25 for Titus. Similarly, the 2024 survey saw 50 scholars arguing for Pauline authorship of 2 Timothy, but only 42 for 1 Timothy and 41 for Titus (an even more significant gap). This seems very strange to me — most scholarly writing I've read on the subject argues for or against the Pastorals' authenticity as a single unit, since the three texts are so similar in structure and content.

Which scholars defend the authenticity of just one (or just two) of the Pastorals while dismissing one of the three as pseudepigraphic? Is there a reason more scholars are willing to go to bat for 2 Tim being authentic than the other two Pastorals?

Hello, I am looking for a good book on early church history and the conflicts and ideas they had. For the scope of this sub assume before or at the Council of Nicea, but if you have suggestions for books that continue later or are later I would be happy to hear.

I would like if it is about more of the ideas and tensions of early Christianity than other areas of study.

Thanks

Why don’t we have any writings from Jesus, pseudepigraphical or otherwise? Given his prominence and the fact that we’ve found writings from people claiming to be Peter, Thomas, Paul, and other people whom he was associated with, I think it would be reasonable to expect to find writing attributed to him.

In Micah 5:2, it says “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”

What does “origins from of old, from ancient times” mean?

Hi everyone,

I was wondering about your thoughts on this quote from the Damascus Document (translation by John Collins in the The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism, Vol1: The Origins of Apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity):

from the day of the gathering in of the unique teacher until the destruction of all the men of war who turned back with the man of lies there shall be about forty years...All these, each one according to his spirit, shall be judged in the holy council.

Is this an example of date-setting the apocalypse (or judgment day)? Do any works go into depth about this specific passage? And can this help us increase our confidence in the apocalyptic expectations of the early Jesus movement, as they also seemingly date-set the coming of the apocalypse to very soon ("this generation shall not pass until", etc.)? Thanks

Without necessarily litigating the legitimacy of either side of the equation, does late-dating the gospels at all affect things like Dionysian reliance?

[Background: I watched u/ReconstructedBible's video about Ammon Hillman, which sent me on a weird video-after-video path where I am now watching a 90-minute video about how the links between Jesus and Dionysus are "deeper than you think." I leave as unanswered whether or not that is true; but I was curious if any meddling with the current scholarly dating of the texts affected arguments from those areas of the discipline -- mythicists, etc.]

In Daniel 9:27 it says “He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.”

Can this apply to 70 AD when the temple was destroyed? I was wondering this because it talks about “putting an end to sacrifice and offering” and that “he will set up an abomination of desolation.”

Putting an end to sacrifice sounds like a formal declaration to stop sacrifice, not the destruction of the temple, thereby making sacrifices impossible. Moreover, destroying the temple doesn’t sound like an abomination of desolation is being “set up.”

Is this a correct assessment?

I’ve got a gap in my knowledge I need help in closing, namely, Who are the critics of the NPP? and On what grounds do they argue? I don’t mean facile arguments that boil down to “But the Reformation!” I mean arguments that tackle Sanders’s central thesis that Palestinian Judaism was not a system of works-based salvation. What have you got for me?

Is Jesus talking about hardcore disciples in Luke 14 or regular followers? does He mean if you are going to be a disciple (possibly a martyr) that would be incompatible having a family and probably unfair to them or is He talking about every believer?

Back then was there a difference?

Does this raise questions about Mark’s claim that the apostles fled Jerusalem?

If they did flee, how do they wind up back in Jerusalem and establishing a community, and going something like ten years before another of them is murdered?

Obviously there are some unanswerable historical questions here, but I’d just be really interested to know if scholars have inferred anything in particular from the church seeming to start in Jerusalem.

Alternatively, maybe scholars challenge that assumption. Maybe they speculate there was a church in Galilee and it moved to Jerusalem. I don’t know, but I’d be interested in anything related to this.

Thanks!

Our AMA with Dr. Kipp Davis is live; come on in and ask a question about the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Hebrew Bible, or really anything related to Kipp's past public and academic work!

This post is going live at 5:30am Pacific Time to allow time for questions to trickle in, and Kipp will stop by in the afternoon to answer your questions.

Kipp earned his PhD from Manchester University in 2009 - he has the curious distinction of working on a translation of Dead Sea Scrolls fragments from the Schøyen Collection with Emanuel Tov, and then later helping to demonstrate the inauthenticity of these very same fragments. His public-facing work addresses the claims of apologists, and he has also been facilitating livestream Hebrew readings to help folks learning, along with his friend Dr. Josh Bowen.

Check out Kipp's YouTube channel here!

Is it cause the gospel writers were Greek gentiles

I often hear that the concept of the trinity was developed in order to explain how Jesus was God. I don’t understand why this was needed.

Why would Jesus being God incarnate necessitate the trinity? Couldn’t Jesus have just been regarded as God in the flesh?

For an interesting parallel, in Hinduism Krishna is viewed as God incarnate. He’s considered to be fully God and fully man and this never seemed to pose a theological problem for Hindus.

Is there any Jewish (non-Christian) account of Jesus teaching in the temple? Should we expect there to be?

I have two scholars here with differing views, and I would like to know which one is **most likely** to be correct based on the data we have.

"The Didachist changed the well known formula of "Hosanna to Son of David" to "Hosanna to God of David" In explicit reference to Jesus.

In fact, the Didachist changes the well known and celebrated Liturgical formula 'Hosanna to Son of David' to 'Hosanna to God of David' in explicit relation to Jesus. (Did. 10.6). The purported low Christology of Jewish Christianity is an urban myth waiting to be debunked." (Michael F. Bird, Jesus among the gods, p.231-232)

"Remarkably, in two of these references, Jesus is called God’s servant rather than God’s son. Scholars would call this is a low Christology. A high Christology, on the other hand, would mean that Jesus is equal to or one and the same with God, much as we find in the Gospel of John.

The double reference to Jesus as God’s servant in the Didache makes Jesus’ status equivalent to that of the ancient Hebrew prophets without calling him divine. Jesus is God’s chosen one and yet fully human in the Didache."

-Joshua Schachterle, Ph.D., The Didache: Author, Dates, and Why It's Not in the Bible (https://www.bartehrman.com/the-didache/)

Thank you very much!

There's a million books on the covenant, and I have no clue where to start. I am hoping to write a paper on the covenant theme/promises in Ezekiel. One book I think will be relevant is Covenant: The Framework of God's Grand Plan of Redemption by Daniel Block, especially because he wrote the NICNT commentaries on Ezekiel. Beyond that, I am not sure what direction to go.

Hello everyone,

Does someone know the historical context of Jeremiah 16:16-21 ?

A reply would be appreciated

Is there any work that documents the shift from looser, more charismatic structure to the emergence of bishops? They appear so early that I can’t think that people thought that they were in some way an aberration. On the other hand, the highly structured organizational scheme of the bishoprics seems to be missing even from the pseudo-Pauline pastorals. Anybody got something that will scratch this itch?

By self-harm, I mean practices like cutting, self-flaggelation, self-castration, or even suicide or extreme attempts to become "martyred."

Looking at Biblical scholar consesus, I've seen that many different Scholars are in favour of Pauline colossian autorship, some are dubious, and many others aren't.

What are the arguments that both sides bring to the table? And what is your opinion?

Daniel talks about Antiochus Epiphanes and Revelation refers to Nero, for instance, who both were alive very close to the time of the book's/section's compositions. Do any other works do the same? I know the Apocalypse of Abraham gives an overview of history, similar to Daniel, but I'm unsure whether it or other apocalyptic writings get as contemporary as Daniel and Revelation do to their audiences' days.

Any thoughts on where to find the dissertation titled "Star-god: Enki/Ea and the biblical god as expressions of a common ancient Near Eastern astral-theological symbol system" by Tony Ormond Nugent?

It's an interesting somewhat old work, discussing the possible connection between Yahweh and the Akkadian god Ea something rarely talked about these days, the thesis is only available to members of Syracuse University apparently so was wondering if anyone here has it by an astronomical coincidence.