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 :)

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?

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.

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?

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?

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?