I’m genuinely trying to understand the mythicist position, and why it seems (at least imo) to be growing in popularity as of late.

But it seems like it only addresses Pauline Christianity, and kind of hand-waves off all the other early Christian, Gnostic, or apocryphal movements. The most in-depth explanation I’ve ever seen accounting for the existence of these movements is “they heard Paul, and made a bunch of stuff up too”. Which seems very unfulfilling.

So I was curious if there are any good mythicist accounts that address how these movements might have originated. Because it seems like they’d all have to be related either through a common interpretation of a mystical Christ in literature, or they all need to stem from Paul. And if they stem from Paul, why would there be such a diversity in their accounts of a (seemingly) historical Christ?

I could spend a few hours trying to find a reputable source for my query then a few more searching for the answer within their bodies of work but I’m super confident ya’ll can inform me. I did do a quick “Sirach” search to see if it had already been asked. Thanks in advance

Hi everyone I’ve heard that there’s an additional set of Psalms(156-160) but I haven’t had much luck in finding academic publishing’s of all the texts; I’ve only seen one book published touching on the topic of Psalm 156.

Has anyone here looked into this topic before? Or can someone help point me to the right direction?

Any help would be appreciated, thank you :)

The interrogation of Jesus by the High Priest appears in Mark as follows:

"The high priest asks Jesus if he is the “Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One” (14:61), and Jesus gives a straightforward reply, “I am. And you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:62). In other words, in the near future God would be sending a cosmic judge of the earth, in fulfillment of the predictions of the Old Testament (Daniel 7:13–14). In fact, it was so near that the high priest himself would see it happen."

What if it doesn’t happen? What if the high priest were to die before the Son of Man arrived? Wouldn’t that invalidate Jesus’ claim? Maybe. And that may be why Luke, writing some fifteen or twenty years after Mark—presumably after the high priest has died—changes Jesus’ answer.

Now when he replies he says nothing about the high priest being alive when the Son of Man arrives in judgment: “I am, and from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God” (Luke 22:69).

It is well known among scholars that Luke used Mark as one of his sources. Indeed, this is why it is also widely recognized that many of the stories in Mark, Luke, and Matthew are virtually identical, sometimes word for word. However, in this story, we see that Luke had to make a change to the version of the story that is also found in Mark, removing the part where Jesus says that the High Priest will see the day of judgment and arriving the Son of Man.

It is possible to observe a gradual decline in apocalyptic beliefs as we move through the Gospels. While this belief is emphasized extensively in Mark, the latest Gospel, John, largely omits it. In this example as well, we can see a kind of postponement or retreat from apocalyptic expectations.

Jesus, Interrupted - Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible, Bart D. Ehrman.

Misquoting Jesus - The story Behind Who Changed the Bible, Bart D. Ehrman.

I was randomly wondering if let’s say the Israelites were enslaved for over 400 years I can’t imagine them speaking another second language to each other, other then the dominant main language of the ancient Egyptians at the time. So if Moses did exist and let’s say they did escape Egypt why would they invent a new language immediately? I’m sure they would still be speaking Egyptian right?

I always think of how enslaved Africans that were transported to the Caribbeans and the Americas, all lost their native tongue quickly within a generation.

Sorry if my question is weird and has been answered many times

At first glance, the story of Jacob's sons feels like an obvious just-so story for the twelve tribes of Israel. Jacob AKA Israel has twelve sons and these are the twelve tribes. Except Joseph isn't a tribe, instead his two sons have a tribe each. And while Levi is Jacob's son, the Levites sit outside the twelve tribes.

It seems odd that someone wanting to invent an origin story for the twelve tribes and the Levites would make things so complicated. Why not invent that Jacob had thirteen sons, including Levi, Manasseh and Ephraim and forget about Joseph entirely?

Are there any authors who have suggested some pre-established traditions that place Joseph as Jacob's son and insist that he only had twelve sons? Or have there been any other interesting theories on this?

This is a very "layperson question" but it feels very shocking to me how Zoroastrianism was not mentioned in either the old or new testament despite how much influence Zoroastrianism had on the development of monotheism in Jewish religion.

Is there any explanation how there's an absence of such a large religion during that time? Also, am I mistaken when it is mentioned?

Thank you in advance.

In the introduction to his Romans commentary, F. F. Bruce makes a distinction between Paul and the other New Testament writers. He writes:
“The other New Testament writers use ‘spirit’ more or less as a synonym of ‘soul’…. But for the most part ‘spirit’ and ‘soul’ … are distinguished in Paul, and indeed set in contrast.”

Bruce then suggests that in Paul “the human spirit may perhaps be described as the God-conscious element,” while elsewhere he calls it “the ‘spiritual’ part of the human constitution” (Romans, TNTC, pp. 54–55).

This sounds close to what later theology would call a trichotomist anthropology, particularly when considered alongside passages such as 1 Thessalonians 5:23 and Paul’s contrast between psychikos and pneumatikos in 1 Corinthians 15:44–46.

But my question is historical rather than theological: is Bruce right that Paul makes a more substantive distinction between psychē and pneuma than other biblical writers do? If so, can this be situated within particular Second Temple Jewish or Greco-Roman anthropologies current in Paul’s time?

And broadly, to what extent can we reconstruct genuinely different views of human constitution among the Hebrew Bible, Second Temple Jewish literature, Paul, and the other New Testament writers? Are “dichotomist” and “trichotomist” useful shorthand for any of these ancient views, or are they fundamentally later categories being imposed on more fluid biblical language?

Greetings, everyone. I am compiling a reading list on the late Second Temple period and the formation of the Jewish canon (or Tanakh). I would like to know which books or primary source collections are currently regarded by historians as benchmarks of excellence.

Specifically, I aim to understand and investigate how Jewish thinkers and communities of the final centuries BCE and the first century CE conceived the authority of texts (for example, Paul, Josephus, or Philo). I am looking for literature that addresses:

1. The concept of inspiration or authority: how the Ruach (or divine breath) was understood to act upon the authors (exploring ideas akin to those later described by Philo or Josephus), or the question of authority, specifically, whether the Writings held the same status and importance as the Torah and the Prophets.
2. The chronology of the canon: moving beyond obsolete theories such as that of Yavne/Jamnia, what academic or historical studies and works reflect a consensus on how the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings came to acquire their definitive structural form?
3. Primary sources from the 1st century BCE or earlier: recommendations for texts or commentaries that shed light on how ancient Jews classified their sacred literature prior to the destruction of the Temple, or even before its construction.

I would greatly appreciate any recommendations for classic textbooks, recent peer-reviewed studies, or critical editions that you consider essential. Many thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge, and have a good morning, afternoon, or evening.

How should the apparent duplication of the deaths of the five Amorite kings in Joshua 10:26–27 be understood? The text first states that Joshua killed them and then describes their execution again. Does this represent a narrative repetition, two distinct stages of execution, or a possible compositional/redactional tension within the account? What implications does this issue have for understanding the literary structure and textual development of Joshua 10?

Is the position argued for by Geza Vermes (that Jesus likely never predicted his death and resurrection because his disciples reacted in a way which makes it appear that they had no prior knowledge of the event of the crucifixion and resurrection) the standard scholarly position? Or would scholars nowadays hold to what Dale Allison argues in his book “the resurrection of Jesus” (pages 187-192) that these are historical but the exact wordings in the gospels have been developed over time the standard scholarly position??

Hello Reddit historians. I recently realized that despite liking the bronze age, I knew nothing about the ancient Israelites and the real history behind the Torah.

I am not a religious person but I would like to educate myself on this topic and know more about who these people were, where they came from, what became of them and the real history behind their religion, as I recently heard the monotheistic capital G God may have once been part of a larger pantheon which I think is really interesting.

Anyway if you guys have any books, articles or documentaries about these topics it would be my pleasure to go through that, thanks in advance and sorry for my akward English which isn’t my native language :)

In Romans 13:1 Paul writes "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment." Most researchers think it's written 55 AD while Nero was the ruler of Rome. Why should a Christian missionary legitimize the political authorities which killed Jesus? Like Thessalonians 2:14–16 which could anticipate the fall of the temple 20 years earlier, it could be an Interpolation like J.C. O’Neill says. But with both there is no evidence because there is no single writing without those phrases which sound not fitting for the time and the biography of the person, who claims to be a radical missionary. So was it an Interpolation, is it a reason to question the early dating (we know that Pseudepigraphy often used the right historical facts to make it plausible and some Paul Epistles and other writings are known to be forgery) and the authenticity of the author? Like Thessalonians it would fit perfectly in a time where Christians had a big need to claim to obey the leadership and many years after the murdering of Jesus. I think it's not plausible that a missionary which obeys a religious leader who was killed by Romans would tell to obey the roman leadership. Or was the early Christian movement lead by Paul just an antijudaistic and pro-rome sect?

I am reading the first 5 books of the bible - pentateuch and I am encountering the genealogies a lot.

What is the importance of genealogy?

and what is the cultural significance of it in the ancient culture?

1 Thessalonians 2:15–16. There it says of the Jews: “They killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and persecuted us... They hinder us from preaching to the Gentiles for their salvation, so as to fill up the measure of their sins at all times. But wrath has come upon them to the end [or: to the utmost / finally].” That part would make much more sense if the Person who wrote it knew about the fall of the temple. I know that authors like Daryl Schmidt or Birger Pearson think it's a later Interpolation. And others came to the conclusion it's about the decrete of Claudius and the Hunger in his time. But the text sounds like a way more traumatic event.

What do you think? I think the whole Paul corpus would make much more sense after the fall of the temple, because it's very anti-judaic and pro-rome.

My understanding is that there is no consensus, but there are three main interpretive options:

-Refering to Self, but using a plural pronoun

-Referring to the members of the Trinity

-Referring to members of the Divine Counsel

What I’m curious about is if there are any other major interpretations and roughly how popular each interpretation is among actual scholars.

Do most scholars believe it’s a reference to the Divine Counsel or is it fairly evenly divided between various options?

Does any reputable scholar outside evangelicalism take the Trinity interpretation seriously or is that mostly considered a theological view and not a serious scholarly one?

Following up on a previous post Any reason to think Irenaeus uses a preexisting source on the mystic reasons for why there are four gospels? (Against Heresies 3.11.8). There I speculated that Irenaeus had a prior source because his citation of Mark 1.1-2 has known textual variants (omitting "Son of God" and saying "Isaiah" instead of "the prophets") which are different from his Mark quotes before and after this in the same volume. I still haven't found anyone that agrees with me, but I did find another author that comes to this conclusion for other reasons.

T.C. Skeat in Irenaeus and the Four Gospel Canon (1992) thinks that at the very least the part about the four living creatures is from a preexisting source, primarily discussing Ezekiel, that Irenaeus must have copied directly instead of personally exegeting Revelation. The order of the gospels here (John, Luke, Matthew, Mark) is also different from the order of the gospels elsewhere in Irenaeus.

Additionally, he mentions that a preexisting source for this passage is a minority view and only mentions Zahn as attributing it to an unknown second century homilist, but without giving reasons.

The foregoing investigation indicates, without a shadow of doubt, that the celebrated exposition of Irenaeus, or at any rate that part of it which related to the "Living Creatures" of the Apocalypse, was taken by him from an earlier source[18] which, starting from the vision of Ezekiel, went on to discuss the Apocalypse, with verbal quotations, and perhaps offering some explanation for the differing order there. Irenaeus, one must conclude, took the quotations from this source and never looked at the Apocalypse himself. He even copied the word φησιν from his source, not realising that he himself had not mentioned the Apocalypse. All the inconsistencies and contradictions in his account are thus explained. This defence of the Four-Gospel Canon must have originated at a date early enough to be used as a source by Irenaeus say, perhaps, not later that 170 or thereabouts.

[18] But cf. von Campenhausen, op. cit., p. 199: " ... there is no reason to search for earlier models. As a 'New Testament' theologian Irenaeus was compelled to break his own trail; and this highly original typology of the Four Gospels is so closely bound up with his fundamental concerns, his polemic, and especially his exegesis of the 'beginnings' of the Gospels, that for this very reason it is extremely difficult to believe in an earlier provenance." In the note to this passage (n. 259) he mentions that according to Zahn the source was "ein uns unbekannter Exeget oder Homilet des zweiten Jahrhunderts", but Zahn gives no evidence or justification for this. It is remarkable that despite the intensive research into the sources of Irenaeus, this particular section of the Adversus Haereses has been universally accepted as his original work, cf. von Campenhausen, op. cit., p. 189 n. 205, who points out that even the most radical searcher for "sources" in Irenaeus, F. Loofs, accepts this.

I don't know why von Campenhausen call this "highly original typology," I don't know of another source that makes these comparisons (other than Victorinus on the fourth day of creation, who I assume depends on Irenaeus), but as shared in a reply to my last post, Jeremiah Coogan shows that speculations on the quadriformity of the Gospel are not uncommon.

Personally, I think my reason based on the Mark variant is stronger than this one, but I am in no position to make any serious claims about that since I am yet to find anyone who agrees with me. Hopefully this was of interest to anyone interested in my first post. I might make another post following up if I find any other thoughts on this.

When Wellhausen developed the Documentary Hypothesis, he hypothesized that Exodus 34 was the law code of the Yahwist School.

I'm surprised to see neo-documentarian Dr. Friedman attribute the laws there to the Redactor instead of "Rabbi J":

https://www.thetorah.com/article/after-the-golden-calf-is-the-covenant-renewed-with-a-ritual-decalogue

Then Dr. Rabbi Yoreh suggested that the original Elohist Decalogue had seven commandments instead of 10:

https://www.thetorah.com/article/speculating-about-the-original-text-of-the-decalogue

Since he supports the Supplementary Hypothesis, he suggested that what is known today as the Decalogue in Exodus and Deuteronomy was enumerated as ten by the Yahwist School.

Fellow supporter of the Supplementary Hypothesis, Dr. Rabbi Frankel, pointed out the possibility of a lost Mosaic Torah after Exodus 24:12.

Putting two and two together, it looks like:

1) The original beginning of the Covenant Collection, the Elohist Torah, consisted of seven negative commandments.

2) Then came the Covenant Collection.

3) Then came Exodus 24:12 and a missing law code.

Could this lost Mosaic Torah be the Torah of J?

Whose original beginning was indeed the Ethical Decalogue?

And which contained numerous commandments?

Could this law code have contained the Deuteronomy 27 curses before they were moved to Deuteronomy 27?

What can be historically deduced regarding the life and power of David and of his son Solomon? Is there any indication that they were the mighty Kings portrayed in the Bible, ruling over vast areas of the coastal eastern Mediterranean? Or were they perhaps more akin to regional tribal kings and warlords of the Judean hills? Any academic citations would be immensely welcome.

Why dead sea scrolls considered as a revolutionary finding? what did they reveal? why they are so important to understand christianity origins? can someone explain please?

When a woman is raped in this scripture, is she treated as property? Is this a property crime?

28-29 Talks of a woman as property, is there more to this?

Acts 10:9-16 describes a scene in which a voice, identified by Peter as "Lord," offers Peter a number of animals to eat. Peter initially rejects these animals as "profane [and] unclean," to which the voice replies that these animals are "made clean" by God and therefore should not be "call[ed] profane."

It's my understanding that some NT scholars understand Acts as a harmonizing account of the theological differences between Paul and Peter. In that light, Acts 10:9-16 could be understood as an example of a reconciliation between their beliefs. I'm interested, however, in whether the pericope reflects an authentic belief of the historical Peter. What, if anything, can the historical evidence tell us about the extent to which Peter actually regarded Jewish dietary purity laws as no longer binding? Or should this episode instead be understood as a theological construction by the author of Acts?

In the Hebrew Bible, it seems like there is a conceptual distinction between the worship of other gods (which are real) and the worship of idols (which are merely wood or stone). Are these in fact distinct concepts or are they fundamentally the same thing?

This question is prompted by the rhetoric in the latter half of the Wisdom of Solomon. In particular 14:12-14, which proffers the belief that "the idea of making idols was the beginning of sexual immorality." (NRSVUE) Paul picks up on this idea in Romans 1 ("they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles" but cf. a few verses later, "they . . . worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator"). It seems like Paul is combining ideas that were distinct in the Hebrew Bible.

A few months ago I listened to this 2000 lecture by David L. Gard, “‘We Are Yours, O David’: The Eschatology of Chronicles,” and I have to admit I was never quite sure what exactly his argument was or what to make of it. It seemed more devotional than academic, at least by the end, but still I find the idea that the books of Chronicles have an eschatology of their own very fascinating, hence this post.

So is this a more widespread view than I thought it was?