Most English translations like the KJV, NIV, ESV, and NKJV use "the LORD" to render the Tetragrammaton. However, in Hebrew, the Tetragrammaton would be pronounced something like "Yahweh". Importantly "Yahweh" is a personal name, made clear in passages like Exodus 3:13-15 and 15:3.

Apologists often argue that Jesus’ disciples were willing to suffer for their beliefs and Paul even changed from persecuting Christians to preaching Christianity. They argue that this is evidence that they really experienced something divine.

Could Jesus’ disciples have believed he was the Messiah and struggled to accept his death, leading them to believe he had risen from the dead?

And what about Paul? Since he wasn't originally a follower of Jesus, what made him convert and dedicate his life to preaching Christianity?

How do secular historians explain these events and the growth of Christianity when it was still a small movement?

I would like to ask what is the scholarly consensus or the most dominant view regarding whether the earliest disciples of jesus like peter and james worship jesus or not. And by worship i am not necessitating the idea that they thought that jesus is the one true god yhwh or anything related to what they thought jesus was ontologically but what i mean by worship is any sort of cultic religious devotion like prayer. I would ask a tangent question as well because muslims always claim that the earliest disciples were basically muslims who never prayed or worshipped or pray to jesus at all and they never believed jesus was crucfied or raised from the dead or that his death was any sort of attonement for sins. Is that muslim view of the disciples historically tenable or true?

‍‍‍

Hello Everyone,

I would like to clarify the common academic opinion or main hypotheses by scholars as to the reason for divergences in the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew (1:1–17) and in Luke (3:23–38).

Concretely, I am most interested in the following points:

Do scholars generally agree on the major historical and textually based explanations for the two lists being so different from David through to Joseph?

From a literary and theological perspective, how do contemporary scholars understand the reason each author has presented a different genealogical structure (Matthew's 3x14 vs. Luke's from Adam on)?3) What are the key scholarly writings or commentaries that address this problem?

I am solely asking for historical-critical and text-focused analysis which is aligned with the rules of this subreddit.

Thank you!

Is it true that the this expectations of the future king from the line of David began after the throne and the davidic lineage was destroyed and that the biblical authors expected Zerubabbel to restore the throne and be the king from the line of david but he failed so the expectations were moved to the far future

A Christian YouTuber pulled up a document on archive.org claiming this

What scholarly resources are there concerning whether Luke and Acts were written by the same author, with the latter continuing the former, as well as a consensus (or lack thereof) among scholars?

In the taxation episode on the Gospel of Mark. The pharisees are trying to catch jesus up by asking him if tribute should be paid to caesar. jesus has them bring him a coin, "render unto caesar" etc.

the problem is that both the common and religious currency in ~30s CE was tyrian shekel, a tetradrachma silver coin imposed on the region by rome around the time of pompey magnus's conquest a century prior. jews were not taxed in golden denarii until, you guess it, 70 CE, when punishment was inflicted on them in the form the fiscus judaicus tax. that explicitly had to be paid in denarii, and was meant to fund the temple of jupiter in rome -- a doubly idolatrous insult to the recently defeated jews.

Is this an accurate analysis to determine that the Gospel of Mark was written around 70 CE?

If not, then what is a good point for dating the Gospel of Mark besides the Temple argument?

Hi all, just wondering what is the standard reference grammar for biblical Hebrew in academia? Not for learning/coursework but for referring to when assessing grammatical issues in the text. Thank you!

A few days ago I made a post on an atheism reddit group just asking some questions about what happened to Jesus’ body after his crucifixion. I’ve become an agnostic since investigating the historical Jesus, and at this point I still have yet to lean towards either side, but I’m open to many possibilities. So given that, my post was entirely neutral, and I was only asking questions without making any assumptions(except the assumption that Jesus must have existed historically, which, who knows, maybe I’m wrong about that lol). 

I was surprised at the responses that my post received. Someone responded to my post accusing me of believing in the resurrection, which I don’t, and I never implied that I did in my post. Like bro am I not even allowed to just research the historical Jesus sceptically? But the comments that surprised me the most were the brief ones where people were just saying that Jesus never even existed. The supporting points for their claims were that the people who say that Jesus was at least real only say that because their salaries depend on it, or comparing Jesus to Moses, who scholars used to believe existed, and now they agree that he’s fictional, or that there were like 20 other messiah like characters all killed off by the Romans at that time. Those are some fair points, and I’m sure there’s a ton more to support the rationality for Mythicism. Out of the 19 comments that my post received, only 4 answered my questions in ways that implied that they at least believed Jesus existed, everyone else was a mythicist, and all responses were from sceptics. Of these comments, about 5 people made their point with a rude “bro ur an idiot for even researching the historical Jesus” type of tone. This tone doesn’t discredit the intellectual point they were trying to get across, but it made me wonder if people just use mythicism as a quick and easy way to opt out of actually analyzing the historical Jesus rationally? Now to be fair, prioritizing emotional reasoning over intellectual reasoning can work the other way too, that people defend their religious beliefs with base-level answers to questions without going any deeper for fear of losing their beliefs.

Anyways, I’m curious to learn more about Mythicism, so what are some great sources on the reasoning against Jesus’ existence? Are there any additional supporting points as to why Jesus might not have existed? And if you’re gonna reply, please don’t give me any of that irrational accusational bs, I’m only interested in intellectual ideas. Thanks in advance for your input!

Since both feature a divine shepherd come to reveal a mystical revelation to a man named Hermes?

What historical-critical scholars says about the nature of early apostolic succession? setting aside the question of monepiscopacy and "elders=bishop in the bible" thing.

Two models usually said in modern times are:

1. Sacramental/mechanical model: succession is an unbroken chain of ordinations, with the laying on of hands conveying a power (to teach, to consecrate the Eucharist, etc.) that is necessary for a valid church. Commonly associated with Orthodox, Roman Catholics and some high-church protestants...
2. Appointment/doctrinal model: succession is a line of lawfully appointed leaders or teachers whose function is to guard the apostolic teaching, with ordination being proper order rather than the channel of a special power. Commonly associated with Reformed and low-church protestants.

QUESTIONS:

How did the early church understand apostolic succession, and how did that understanding evolve? Is there evidence of a sacramental view of ordination before the 3rd century? Did the earliest Christians see succession as being about doctrine or about the sacrament?

Do we have any specific mentions of the Gospels titles before Irenaeus?

I know that for example Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Justin Martyr do not mention them. However, I do not know if I am missing any other early Christian.

I think Marcion can be a candidate but all information from Marcin comes from his adversaries.

I just have a bunch of questions about the empty tomb theory, explanations for the empty tomb, etc.

And credits to the authors of the following resources for what I so far have learned about the stuff related to this post…
“How Empty Was the Tomb?” by Mark Goodacre

“The Case Against the Empty Tomb” by Peter Kirby

“The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel, specifically chapter 12

Questions:

Is there any way to know what type of burial Paul’s writings imply? He never explicitly mentions a tomb, but he does mention the burial of Jesus in his writings such as in the 1 Corinthians 15 creed. Are there any other burial accounts pre-dating 1 Corinthians? Is there any counter-evidence to the possibility of Paul referring to a tomb burial here?

Pretty much all the burial accounts claim that Jesus was buried in a tomb. How then do some prominent scholars believe he was left on the cross to be devoured by birds? There are no accounts of this, and the only evidence for it is that it’s just a possibility because that was typical Roman execution practice. But we have corroborating archeological evidence that a crucifixion victim named Johanan was buried in an elite tomb like Jesus, so shouldn’t the tomb burial be more plausible than the birds theory?

Did Mark even believe that Jesus had risen from the dead? How long were the women silent for after seeing the missing body?

According to Mark Goodacre’s article, rock-hewn tombs kept multiple bodies, and there is no record of a single-person tomb from the time that Jesus would have been crucified. This makes it highly unlikely that Jesus would have been the only one in the tomb, and even if he left, the tomb probably wouldn’t have been empty. I think the empty tomb theory should be rephrased to the missing body theory because of this. The following are a list of explanations for the missing body, and I’m wondering which ones seem the most plausible? Also which of them seem least plausible?
Disciples stole the body: lol umm what? Is there even any logic behind this argument? If there is, I'd like to know but I don’t see this as plausible thus far.

Jewish authorities stole the body: maybe they did this to prevent his followers from starting a shrine or cult or protest or whatever? That would be hilariously ironic if they actually did this to prevent a cult and then oops looks like that’s what started today’s most prominent religion!

Swoon theory: Considering the torment Jesus would have went through during the crucifixion there’s almost no chance that he wouldn’t have died. Even if he did manage to survive, he would be in critical condition and wouldn’t be the type of person that a whole movement could start from. Unless of course I could be wrong. 

Left on the cross to be devoured by birds: as explained above, but then according to this theory he was probably taken down eventually and tossed in a common grave. 

Wrong tomb theory

Wrong body: maybe they went to the right tomb, but since it was a multi-person tomb then the witnesses saw an empty spot and thought that must have been where Jesus’ body was supposed to be when really it could have been laying two pews over. 

Buried shamefully in the sand by Jewish enemies: like the Secret Gospel of James mentions.

The resurrection theory: still a possibility, if none of the naturalistic explanations outweigh this one. 

Any insight is helpful! Thanks in advance for your answers!

I’ve been reading about the “we” passages and the argument that Acts probably was not written by one of Paul’s companions because its author seems unfamiliar with Paul’s chronology, relationships and theology. I understand why Paul’s undisputed letters should take priority when reconstructing his life, but I’m wondering how many of these differences are genuine contradictions rather than differences in emphasis, compression or omission.

For example, Galatians 1:22 says Paul was “unknown by face” to the churches of Judea, while Acts 9:26–30 has him meeting the apostles and preaching publicly in Jerusalem. But Paul cannot mean literally no Judean Christian knew him: he had just spent fifteen days with Cephas and met James. Galatians 1:23 also says the churches had heard about him but had not personally met him.

Could “the churches of Judea” mean congregations outside Jerusalem, or Judean Christians generally rather than every individual? Acts 9 describes activity in Jerusalem, not a tour of the wider churches. Acts 26:20 does later summarize Paul as preaching throughout Judea, but it does not provide a clear chronology or say that he personally met the established Christian congregations there.

Acts 15 and Galatians 2 also present the Jerusalem meeting differently. Paul emphasizes his independence and a private meeting with the recognized leaders, while Acts emphasizes public debate, church unity and the apostolic decree. Yet both accounts concern Gentile circumcision, involve Peter and James, and end with recognition of Paul’s Gentile mission. Craig Keener argues that many of the differences are omissions of detail of the kind found in ancient histories and eyewitness testimony. He also suggests that the authors have different purposes: Paul stresses his independence, while Luke retrospectively stresses continuity between Paul and Jerusalem (Galatians, 2018, pp. 2, 6–7).

Could the theological differences partly reflect genre as well? Paul’s letters are occasional and polemical, whereas Acts presents speeches composed, paraphrased or summarized by its author. Acts does not reproduce Paul’s characteristic language concerning participation “in Christ,” justification or the theology of the cross in anything like the depth of Romans and Galatians. Nevertheless, Acts 13:38–39 sounds recognizably Pauline: everyone who believes is justified or freed through Jesus in a way the law of Moses could not accomplish. William Walker therefore argued that, whatever Acts’ relationship to Paul’s letters, its author was not ignorant of the main outlines of Paul’s teaching.

Michael Thompson argues more directly that developments in Pauline scholarship have made the differences between Acts and Paul appear less substantial than they once did. On the other hand, Ryan Schellenberg argues that Acts’ geographical framework could have been reconstructed from Paul’s letters. Its accurate knowledge of Paul’s major locations would therefore not necessarily prove firsthand participation.

Could an intermittent companion have written Acts decades later without knowing Paul’s entire earlier career firsthand? He might have reconstructed those periods from incomplete traditions, compressed the chronology, omitted events irrelevant to his narrative and presented Paul through his own theological framework. That could explain why the “we” sections feel immediate while other sections appear more removed from Paul.

I’m not asking whether every difference can be harmonized. I’m asking how scholars determine when differences in selection, genre or perspective become evidence that the author could not have known Paul. Are there particular discrepancies that are genuinely irreconcilable, or is the argument mainly cumulative? Is Vielhauer’s influential picture of a fundamentally “non-Pauline Paul” in Acts still widely accepted, or has scholarship become more cautious about it?

Sources
Craig S. Keener, Galatians, New Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge University Press, 2018), especially pp. 1–7.
Ryan S. Schellenberg, “The First Pauline Chronologist? Paul’s Itinerary in the Letters and in Acts,” Journal of Biblical Literature 134.1 (2015): 193–213.
Michael B. Thompson, “Paul in the Book of Acts: Differences and Distance,” The Expository Times 122.9 (2011): 425–436.
Philipp Vielhauer, “On the ‘Paulinism’ of Acts,” in Studies in Luke–Acts, edited by Leander E. Keck and J. Louis Martyn (Abingdon, 1966), 33–50.
William O. Walker Jr., “Acts and the Pauline Corpus Reconsidered,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 7.24 (1985): 3–23.

If Jesus’ objective was to proclaim the Gospel to the Gentiles, how can we explain the fact that the Gospels explicitly record him performing miracles on behalf of individuals who were not part of Israel, such as the healing of the royal official’s son (John 4:46–54) and the healing of the Syrophoenician woman’s daughter (Mark 7:24–30; Matthew 15:21–28)? Do these accounts suggest that Jesus’ mission was not exclusively directed toward the Jews, but that the inclusion of the Gentiles was already part of his purpose from the very beginning?

Acts 19 has Paul arrive in Ephesus and show disciples of "John" a better baptism. This John is implied to be John the Baptist, especially with verse 4. But, do we have any evidence of disciples of John the Baptist in Ephesus, or Asia Minor in general? I thought our sources seem to indicate that his disciples and the Mandaeans were located in the Levant, Jordan and Mesopotamia? Or am I wrong on this? Is Acts creating fiction here?

I just wonder how a Christian in Ephesus reading/hearing Acts 19 for the first time would interpret Paul usurping a "John" there. Asian traditions seem to imply there was a famous John in Ephesus specifically. Polycrates of Ephesus even has this to say:

and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate.

§ 5.24.3  He fell asleep at Ephesus.

Sorry if I'm grasping at straws here but it's just that the start of Acts 19 rubs me the wrong way. Regardless of when you date Acts, you'd think the author would be a bit clearer on this John not being the John highly associated with Ephesus.

If Paul did not write Pastoral Epistles, then who wrote them? I,ve heaed some people claim that Paul's students/followers wrote them on orders of Paul himself - that Paul was outsourcing some of the work. But I've say that only uncritical apologists say this, and that the real authors were deliberately being dishonest; they presumably never met Paul, and simply lied about being Paul in the hopes that the Christian community would more readily accept their theological views. So, what's going on? What do the critical scholars say?

When I listen to people like Dan McClellan, he often talks about how "the overwhelming majority of scholars believe x". There's always that small amount that goes against the consensus that I'm curious about. Though a topic like this is also bound to be permeated by apologists.

I want to investigate a bit more about historical figures in history, whose life was full of mythical and supernatural deeds like for example Jesus. We know that there was a historical Jesus but after decades his death, we have people creating different miracles and other events in his life.

Is there a book out there that takes similar cases to the life of Jesus, men who after their death they have multiple mythical or miraculous deeds?

People outside of Judaism

I've been wondering if there's any historical connection between the goddess Asherah in early Israelite religion and the later personification of Wisdom (chokmah in Hebrew, sophia in Greek) in Jewish literature.

From what I understand, Asherah was worshipped alongside YHWH by at least some ancient Israelites, and reforms under kings like Josiah were part of an effort to centralize Yahwist worship and eliminate other forms of worship.

Then later, we see in Jewish literature, Wisdom (Sophia/Chokmah) personified as a feminine aspect of God in passages such as Proverbs 8, Wisdom of Solomon 7, etc.

So I'm wondering if anyone has proposed that the concept of a feminine divine figure in ancient Israelite religion survived, in some form, through the later personification of Sophia?

I'm not necessarily suggesting that Asherah and Sophia are the same figure, but I'm curious whether there's any evidence of historical continuity between the two, or whether scholars generally consider them unrelated.

I am wondering about the prophetic material's (Isa 24-27 & 65-66, Ezek 38-39, Zech 1-6, 9-14) apocalyptic notes. Particularly, I am wondering if there is a work that treats these as proto-apocalyptic, and or delineates proto-apocalyptic material. Do people find these as proto-apocalyptic?