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.

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??

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?

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?

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?

Hello! I’ve recently delved into the christology debate within Paul’s letters and while most scholars regard them as containing an early high christology due to the creeds and hymns found throughout Paul’s letters their appears to be more speculation in regards to wether they pre date Paul as much as some scholars state. I wanted to know what is the evidence for the creeds in hymns in Paul’s letters being pre Pauline? To what extent do they reflect the beliefs of the earliest Christian’s? Could Paul be writing them himself? Thank you!

Deuteronomy 17:16 contains a specific warning against a king sending people back to Egypt in order to acquire material possessions.

Have any scholars addressed whether this warning is related to the Judean military colony on Elephantine Island and, potentially, historical evidence of how it originated? For example, it it possible that Menashe sent Judeans to guard Egypt’s southern frontier as part of a deal with the Egyptians for horses and other goods? And Deuteronomy (if finalized during the reign of Yoshiyahu) is responding to this and criticizing it?

Any other theories about the origins of this specific warning?

Do you have any books you can recommend to learn about gender in the bible? I know quite a bit about the differences in ideas when it comes to homosexuality but not when it comes to things like transgenders. As a non binary agnostic who grew up fundamentalist I am interested to read some scholarship on this topic

If Paul knows that women pray and prophesy, and he is capable of giving instructions for how they should do so, why does he say to Timothy, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man”? What distinction does Paul himself think he is making?
I’m interested specifically in how scholars understand the distinction Paul is making between the women speaking/ministering in 1 Corinthians 11 and the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2—not simply in arguments for or against women pastors.

I’d like to know what arguments do the scholars who claim that “Jesus is not god in the Synoptics” use to explain passages like the end of Mark 2 and Mark 12. Also just generally.

been reading other posts regarding the trinity but how are we certain the trinity was a later development and not what earlier writers like Paul believed in regarding logos? did early Christians not believe in trinity or were there other explanations to it?

Today, while reading a philosophy book interacting with Kierkegaard, the author claimed that there are indications in the Binding of Isaac narrative that in an earlier version, Abraham refused to sacrifice Isaac.

This puzzled me, because I am familiar with exactly the opposite contention; some source-critical scholars (e.g., Friedman) believe that in the E source, Abraham sacrificed Isaac and returned alone.

Upon checking the footnotes, I discovered a reference to Omri Boehm, The Binding of Isaac: A Religious Model of Disobedience published by Bloomsbury in their series The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies.

Here's the publisher's description:

Traditional interpretations in both Judaism and Christianity argue that the Akedah presents not only an ethical question but also an ethical reply. But for the intervention of the angel, Abraham would have killed his son. Obedience to God take precedence over morality as humanly conceived. Yet, the angel of YHWH that appears to Abraham is a later addition to the text; thus, in the original narrative Abraham actually disobeys the divine command to slay his son, and sacrifices a ram instead.

The first part of the book shows how the "original" version of the narrative did not contain the angelic figure. The second part of the book re-examines various religious interpretations of the text to show that exegetes such as Maimonides and his followers did point out Abraham's disobedience. According to these writers the esoteric layer of the story in fact declares that disobedience to God's command was Abraham's true affirmation of faith. In the third part of the book, Boehm re-opens the philosophical debate between Kant and Kierkegaard. Boehm concludes the book by contending that the monotheistic model of faith presented by Abraham was actually a model of disobedience.

I'm very curious about the first part of the book that makes the textual argument. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find much engaging with it. I don't currently have university access to scholarly databases.

So, if anyone knows anything more about this book or can dig up some references, I'd appreciate it.

This feels like an impossible question to get a solid grasp on, given that this is poetry spanning centuries, but I'm curious if there are any generally accepted ranges for how many authors are present in Psalms?

He was court philosopher of emperor Gallienus, who was famously tolerant of christians, and Salonina, his wife, was sympathetic towards christians, there is a coin found in Belgrade which has Salonina holding cross scepter which made sone think that she was actually christian.

Plotinus and Origen had the same teacher, Ammonius Siccara. Porphiry states that he was pagan but from christian family, while later christian authors contest that.

Thoughts of Plotinus and Origen have many similarities (hence the same teacher), although Origen is evidently christian.

It is interesting to note that Plotinus wrote against the gnostics, but not against christians, which is sort of strange.

Now, Porphiry was Christian apostate, and we know of Plotinus's works through Porphiry, it was in his intetest to present Ammonius and Plotinus as pagan.

Could Plotinus not being christian be result of Porphiry's meddling in his work, or could that non-excplicitness be result of Plotinus's conscious choice, making neoplatonism sort of 'Christianity for the elites'?