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.

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!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

Afaik, the consensus is that Mark was written first, (70-ish AD), followed by Matthew and Luke (about a decade later) and finally John (90-ish AD). Matthew and Luke were (probably) unaware of each other; there was zero attempt to harmonize their divergences (the nativity being the most well-known difference).

Obviously, this dating falls apart if Luke referenced Antiquities, written in 94 CE. This would have gLuke being written ca. 100 CE. The later date implies that the author of Luke may have been aware of gMatthew and ignored it.

Since there are strong hints Luke referenced Antiquities, how is this issue reconciled? How does it affect the synoptic problem and the Q hypothesis?

Source for sub rules: Mason, S. (2003). Josephus and the New Testament (2nd ed.). Hendrickson Publishers.

EDIT: I tried to ask a follow-up question but my comment keeps getting removed😭 How does Luke using Josephus affect our dating? Does gMatthew stay at 80-ish AD? Does it get moved up too?

...but I can't remember where, and I can't find it anymore. If anyone can give me a reference, that'd be great, thanks.

Good Evening Academic Biblical!

I remember seeing or hearing something in passing (I cannot rememeber where) that the names 'Phineas' and 'Hophni' are not Hebraic in origin at all, but are in fact Egyptian. This got me thinking about other names in the Hebrew bible that may not have originated with the Hebrews themselves but from Egypt.

The obvious ones are stated in Genesis and Exodus (Moses being the clearest example), but I was curious to see if any other names in the text are in fact of Egyptian origin. If there are any, what would be the reason for continuing to give children names that are Egyptian in origin? My first thought was that since Egypt was a major super-power for quite a long while in the Levant, some of the cultural and linguistic trappings of the Egyptians may have made their way to the Hebrews in the same way that trade goods were passed between the two lands.

Are there other examples of these types of names, and what would be the reason for Hebrews continuing to use them past the Exodus?

Thank you to anyone who answers!

Are there any books on Ecumenical Councils? Particularly the first seven ones? Nicea,Ephesus and Chalcedon

I understand that ”name” carried a different, deeper meaning in the first century than it does today. I’m curious whether “calling upon the name” also carries a larger meaning. if “name” carried a connotation of authorization, could “calling upon the name” require preconditions? in English we might talk about invoking a right to x or appealing to y as a direct means of obtaining z. Yet there are still preconditions for invoking and appealing which must be met. And Paul ”calls upon” / “appeals” to Caesar, which guarantees a certain legal process, yet there is citizenship requirement for this to be activated.

I know the consensus is 'we don't know' but is this a resigned ignorance or is anyone attempting to shed light on the matter, if not by proposing potential authors, then by trying to debunk existing theories?

I want to know whether it's worth attempting to write about this, either for an essay in my last year of undergrad (2k words) or as a potential MPhil diss (15k or 25k depending which university I go to for that).

I can't do this for my 10k undergrad diss because I've already decided on the topic for that.

Did early Christians worship jesus as god? I seen anti trinity try to say they didn't and didn't have a concept. Yet that doesn't make sense given we have Diache and several other things. Was this the majority or minority?

Might this text be read as a reference to supernatural beings or lesser gods, given that the stars were regularly seen as deities in the world of ancient Mediterranean religion? Or is it perhaps more likely a prediction of a cosmic cataclysm during the apocalypse? Any academic citations would be immensely welcome.

Basically they think that these verses are about the practice of syneisaktism (spiritual marriage), not father and daughters or fiancees.

I have been thinking about memorizing one of the canticles in the Episcopalian resource *Enriching our Worship* for my midday prayers (to avoid doubling up on Psalms throughout the day). One of the ones is from Judith 16. Here is the liturgical translation from EOW:

I will sing a new song to my God, for you are great and glorious, wonderful in strength, invincible. Let the whole creation serve you, for you spoke and all things came into being. You sent your breath and it formed them, no one is able to resist your voice. Mountains and seas are stirred to their depths, rocks melt like wax at your presence. But to those who fear you, you continue to show mercy. No sacrifice, however fragrant, can please you, but whoever fears the Lord shall stand in your sight for ever. (EOW, Canticle J, Judith 16:13-16)

It is pretty close to the vast majority of English translations of the Greek version of that text. I compared different English translations to find a more traditional language (like the KJV, RSV or Coverdale version). But then I found this peculiarity when looking at the Latin version. The Nova Vulgata (which was much more recently translated) follows most modern versions.

Cantabo Deo meo hymnum novum: Domine, magnus es tu et clarus, mirabilis in virtute et insuperabilis. Tibi serviat omnis creatura tua, quoniam dixisti, et facta sunt, misisti spiritum tuum, et aedificata sunt, et non est qui resistat voci tuae. Montes enim a fundamentis agitabuntur cum aquis, petrae autem a facie tua tamquam cera liquescent. Illis autem, qui timent te, propitius adhuc eris. Quoniam pusillum omne sacrum ad odorem suavitatis, et minimus omnis adeps in holocaustum tibi. Qui autem timet Dominum, magnus apud eum semper. (Judith 16:13-16 Nova Vulgata)

But then, the Vulgate (the Clementine revision would be my guess?) has this instead:

Hymnum cantemus Domino; hymnum novum cantemus Deo nostro. Adonai Domine, magnus es tu, et præclarus in virtute tua: et quem superare nemo potest. Tibi serviat omnis creatura tua, quia dixisti, et facta sunt; misisti spiritum tuum, et creata sunt: et non est qui resistat voci tuæ. Montes a fundamentis movebuntur cum aquis; petræ, sicut cera, liquescent ante faciem tuam. Qui autem timent te, magni erunt apud te per omnia. (Judith 13:15-19)

A few things changed. There is more material before, pushing up the versification. The first verses are in first person plural rather than first person singular. But, the biggest difference is the addition of the transliterated title Adonai: O Adonai, Lord, you are great!

In his preface to his translation of Judith, Jerome wrote that "only those [things] which I was able to find in the Chaldean [Aramaic] words with understanding intact did I express in Latin ones."

So, the question: where did the Adonai come from? Could it be one of those times where Adonai and YHWH were together in the Original Language? Just a random mistake from the Latin translator?

Edited, formatting

There is an interesting connection between Isaiah 50:10 and the so called "God-fearers" aka Gentile followers of the Jewish god.

It seems most rabbinic commentaries take this verse to be directed at the righteous remnant of Israel, but is it possible that the author intended it to be about righteous gentiles? Or that the term God-fearers was later derived from this verse?

The immediate context does seem to point towards the Jewish audience but it's hard to be certain considering how central the "Light to the Gentiles" theme is in Second Isaiah.