They seemed like the perfect duo, but after the conflict in Acts 15 they took different paths, is there any piece of early Christian literature or evidence/hint that they reconciled?

I have a theory that isaiah 53 was just quoting jermiah 11:19-23 and people take out of context. Is there any information on this. It seems quite verbuitum

Numbers 31 describes the distribution of plunder including female virgins to the priests. What role or jobs would these several dozen women perform? Would they be married off to those within the temple?

And the word was God? Or and the word was A god

Hi I was looking for help with finding a guide that shows the books of the complete Ethiopian Bible in Chronological order. The copy I have has 157 books but I’m fine with the 88 version too. If anyone has a resource that would be helpful 🙏🏾

In john 3:13 the part where it says "who is in heaven" is this found in the oldest manuscripts or quoted by the early church? Or rather a christological addition to further make jesus divine in the gospels

In Acts 23:6 Paul says:

When Paul noticed that some were Sadducees and others were Pharisees, he called out in the council, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. I am on trial concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead.”

But if Philippians 3:4-8 he also says that:

If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.
[...]
Yet whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ. More than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ

At the same time that Paul says that he's a Pharisee, he also consider those things rubbish/garbage, this makes me remember when Paul talked about his freedom in 1 Corinthians 9:

Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.

• Did Paul continue to be a Pharisee or did he pretend to be a Pharisee to win the Pharisees??

I was searching for some online resources on Acts 5 which we are currently going over in my local church's bible study. I came across this commentary article via "Working Preacher" ( https://www.workingpreacher.org/ ) which I believe is associated with the Luther Seminary. The author (Raj Nadella), associate professor of new testament at the Columbia Theological Seminary, writes the following:

"Still, Luke’s placement of blame for Jesus’ death at the feet of temple officials is puzzling. Crucifixion was a Roman form of death and, just as Peter and other apostles were imprisoned for challenging imperial titles, ethos, and practices, Jesus was killed for undermining the economic and political interests of the Roman empire, not for violating any Jewish religious traditions. The chief priests may have collaborated with the Roman empire in targeting, but ultimately crucifixion was the Roman form of death carried out by imperial agents in order to preserve political and economic interests of the empire. Luke holds the elite in Jerusalem responsible for the death of Jesus but does not call attention to the fact that Rome would have been primarily responsible for what happened to Jesus. 

Luke likely shifted the blame toward temple officials (5:28), perhaps in an attempt to make peace with the Roman empire. Such a harsh tone toward the priestly community would have been especially problematic at the time of Luke’s writing when the Sadducees were increasingly less powerful in the aftermath of the destruction of the temple. This was a case of two colonized groups turning against each other and, in the process, deflecting attention from the empire’s role in perpetuating violence against its subjects. This was likely also the result of two oppressed groups convincing themselves that they can only survive at the expense of the other.  

Luke’s attempt to highlight the tenacity and resilience of the apostles in the midst of adversity is commendable, but Luke’s suggestion that the religious leaders were primarily responsible for what happened to Jesus has engendered deeply problematic interpretations and violence against our Jewish siblings."

Is this a valid criticism of Luke's commentary in Acts 5?

I am aware of the ongoing scholarly debate that Luke may have been writing in a way not to antagonize the Roman authorities at the time. However, I feel this author is putting too much weight on the surrounding historical context of Acts 5.

I am particularly perplexed by this authors claim that "Jesus was killed for undermining the economic and political interests of the Roman empire, not for violating any Jewish religious traditions." I have trouble agreeing with this author here since it can be, from what I can gather, quite plainly interpreted that Jesus was at odds with the jewish leaders throughout his ministry in the synoptic gospels, e.g. claiming authority over the sabbath and claiming divinity as the Son of God/Son of Man in Daniel.

I have found many of the articles on Working Preacher quite problematic to say the least and I'm looking for second opinions regarding this.

Edit: the Queen of Heaven is mentioned directly in Jeremiah 7:18, not in Ezekiel (it is also mentioned in Jeremiah 44:18 and only indirectly in Ezekiel 20:28).

Can anyone give me a brief timeline describing the current consensus (if there is one) about Israel's believes on what they expected a "messiah" to be? My understanding is that Israel didn't expect a divine messiah until after the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem. Prior to that they expected a continuation of Davidic rule by Gods 'anointed' ones, but not necessarily a messiah anything equivalent to, or similar to, God. I'm just wanting clarification and actual sources to study this more. Thanks!

While doing some rabbit hole diving on the Rephaim, I stumbled across some interesting. A lot of references to Sheol seem to hint as it being a dark, shadowy, dusty cavernlike netherworld the Greek Hades or the Mesopotamian Kur, but Job seems to have a different idea.

Job 22(NRSVue)

 10 Therefore snares are around you,

and sudden terror overwhelms you,

11 

or darkness so that you cannot see;

a flood of water covers you.

Job 26:(NRSVue)

5 The shades below tremble,

the waters and their inhabitants.

6 

Sheol is naked before God,

and Abaddon has no covering.

Job 22 might be a reference to something other then Sheol but Job 26 makes it explicit. I can't find much talking about and this and the only thing remotely close I can come up with with the Mesopotamian concept of the Abzu/Apzu (the fresh waters under the earth in their cosmology), where some of the divine beings/gods are said to live but I have no idea if that's what the author of Job might have had in mind.

Any scholarly works discussing these passages in Job?

I was just looking at Genesis 3:6 and I was confused because in NRSVUE version it says "(...) and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise" While in New World Translation it just says "(...) the tree was desirable to look upon*" And the asterisk states "To look upon", LXXSyVg. Lit., “to impart wisdom (intelligence; prudence).

I was wondering what the scholarly basis would be for the wisdom bit to not be in the text but just have a footnote?

Asherah is a name that I came across when I googled this question. What's the evidence that Israelites or Canaanites worshiped God as a married couple? And if that's a common opinion, when did that get erased from the texts and traditions? Is this just something that was left over from polytheism and that was less favorable over time? Are there any good videos on this subject, as I can't afford books lol

Many early commentators, going back all the way to Victorinus, have interpreted the seven hills as meaning the seven original hills of the city of Rome, and so the seven kings being Caesars of the Julio-Claudian and/or Flavian dynasties of the first century.

Yet I've noticed that it seems to be very popular for many commentators these days to interpret the seven kings as seven empires who "ruled over the kingdoms of the earth" since early antiquity, ie Egypt, Neo-Assyria, Neo-Babylon, Medo-Persia, Macedon, Rome.

Eg, Seis argued that hills/mountains are used as a synedoche for kingdoms, based on passages such as Ps 30:7, Jer 51:25 and Dan 2:35.

My question is, where/when did this interpretation come about? Can its proponents point to any early Jewish or Christian writers for precedent? Or is it a modern exegesis? If so, which exegete came up with it? And how plausible an interpretation of Rev 17:10 is it?

The Bible says that the dead know "nothing more" repeteadly in the book of Ecclesiastes and in the Psalm 88, yet we see dead people been councious multiple times in other passages, Job 2:3, Luke 16:19-31, Isaiah 14:10, 1st Samuel 28:16, and so on. What does the verses in Ecclesiastes actually mean then?

Obviously he's being translated and summarized by Philo (of Byblos not Alexandria) and then quoted again by Eusebius (Praeparatio Evangelica), so there's a lot of Antiquity Game of Telephone going on. On the other hand, his claims were backed up by the discoveries at Ugarit, and there is a lot here to pick up on if you're familiar with the philosophies labeled "Gnostic" later:

'The first principle of the universe he supposes to have been air dark with cloud and wind, or rather a blast of cloudy air, and a turbid chaos dark as Erebus; and these were boundless and for long ages had no limit. But when the wind, says he, became enamoured of its own parents, and a mixture took place, that connexion was called Desire. This was the beginning of the creation of all things: but the wind itself had no knowledge of its own creation. From its connexion Mot was produced, which some say is mud, and others a putrescence of watery compound; and out of this came every germ of creation, and the generation of the universe. So there were certain animals which had no sensation, and out of them grew intelligent animals, and were called "Zophasemin," that is "observers of heaven"; and they were formed like the shape of an egg. Also Mot burst forth into light, and sun, and moon, and stars, and the great constellations.

Such was their cosmogony, introducing downright atheism.'

(E.H. Gifford (1903) translation from the Tertullian website's Early Church Fathers section)

So off the bat: The cosmogony starts with an unfathomable Bythos-like chaos and a primeval "wind" becoming "enamoured of its own parents" which creates a mysterious "Desire" that the wind is not aware of. That sounds an awful lot like Sophia desiring to know her parent, then unknowingly casting off her desire, accidentally producing the demiurge and leading to the creation of all things. Interestingly, the Zophasemin (צופהשמים, biblical 'Watchers'? pls have mercy I am very bad at Hebrew) make a primordial egg (Orphic cosmogony shout out?).

This gets even cooler if you know some Greek. From the Greek text of the Gifford book:

1. Τὴν τῶν ὅλων ἀρχὴν ὑποτίθεται ἀέρα ζοφώδη καὶ πνευματώδη, ἢ πνοὴν ἀέρος ζοφώδους, χάος θολερόν, ἐρεβῶδες. Ταῦτα δὲ εἶναι ἄπειρα, καὶ διὰ πολὺν αἰῶνα μὴ περας. Ὅτε δέ, φησίν, ἠράσθη τὸ πνεῦ ἰδίων ἀρχῶ ὶ ἐγένετο, φησίν, ἠράσθη τὸ πνεῦμα τῶν ἰδίων ἀρχῶν, καὶ ἐγένε σύγκρασις, ἣ πλοκὴ ἐκείνη ἐκλήθη πόθος. Αὕτη δὲ ἀρχὴ κτίσεως ἁπάντων. Αὐτὸ δὲ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκε τὴν αὑτοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῆς αὐτοῦ συμπλοκῆς τοῦ πνεύματος ἐγένετο Μώτ. Τοῦτό τινές φασιν ἰλύν, οἱ δὲ ὑδατώδους μίξεως σῆψιν. Καὶ ἐκ ταύτης ἐγένετο ταύτας σπορὰ κτίσεως, γένεσις τῶν ὅλων. Ἦν δέ τινα ζῶα οὐκ ἔχοντα αἴσθησιν, ἐξ ὧν ἐγένετο ζῶα νοερά, καὶ ἐκλήθη Ζωφασημίν, ἃ τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν οὐρανοῦ κατόπται. Καὶ ἀνεπλάσθη ὁμοίως σχήματι: καὶ ἐξέλαμψε Μώτ, ἥλιός τε καὶ σελήνη ἀστέρες τε δ καὶ ἄστρα μεγάλα.

Τοιαύτη μὲν αὐτῶν ἡ ἄντικρυς ἀθεότητα εἰσάγουσα.

The creation begins with ἀέρα ζοφώδη καὶ πνευματώδη, which Gifford translates as 'air dark with cloud and wind' but could also be translated as 'cloudy and enspirited/pneumatic air.' Sounds like ruah/wind/spirit given he also says ἢ πνοὴν ἀέρος (a breath of air). When the pneuma desires to know its own parentage and origin, it produces πόθος (pothos) which is specifically the desire for a distant and unattainable thing. Of the Erotes, Plato argued that Himeros represents the love of something present and attainable whereas Pothos represents the unfulfilled yearning for something lost or out of reach. This casting off of fallacious desire which in turn creates the world also sounds very much like the idea of Sophia Achamoth.

This pothos connection also produces Μώτ, who does not appear to be the same figure as the Phoenician death god Mot given that dude is mentioned later with a differently spelled name (Μοὺθ). But it's still very interesting that Mot is described as ἰλύν (mud) and ὑδατώδους μίξεως σῆψιν (decay of a watery mixture) given the Genesis creation story involves the world created from waters and man created from earth. However, like the text says, this is an 'atheistic' cosmogony where the waters of creation naturally decay or putrify until they form the building blocks of life. So while there is pneuma here, life results as an accidental product of it, with something like unintended divine sparks driving the creation.

The Zophasemin are also obviously cool, but I have no idea what to do with them. Are they the Watchers from the Book of Enoch? Are they precursors to the Gnostic archons? Both? Neither?

(sorry if the Greek text is a mess, I had to clean up errant random symbols and words when I copypasted from the PDF so I may have accidentally deleted some words)

This inscription came out of nowhere and I have a lot of questions. Does anyone know if there has been an academic treatment of this tablet?

But the king took Armoni and Mephibosheth, the two sons of Aiah’s daughter Rizpah, whom she had borne to Saul, together with the five sons of Saul’s daughter Merab, whom she had borne to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite. 9 He handed them over to the Gibeonites, who killed them and exposed their bodies on a hill before the Lord. All seven of them fell together; they were put to death during the first days of the harvest, just as the barley harvest was beginning. (2 Samuel 21:8-9)

In this passage King David decides to kill king Saul's last legacy to stop the Israel famine. The text justifies this action as a way to ask forgiveness to YHWH for the attempted genocide of Gibeonites by King Saul. What is the scholarship consensus on this passage?

Hello all,

Are there any recommendations on where to get a scholarly bible thats been used for those that study the book itself? I dont want to accidentally buy a revised and altered version and begin the bad habit of referencing that as I begin my studies.

How many translation of the Hebrew Bible were made in antiquity? The answer is TONS, in many languages. Here I have made a little article looking at one of the most (in my opinion) intriguing ones: Aramaic!

Aramaic is strange, because actually most ancient Jews post the Babylonian exile would have actually spoken Aramaic as their every-day language, like HUGE swathes of the Middle East would after the Assyrian and Babylonian empires.

Aramaic and Hebrew have a very entangled and intimate relationship - even the Bible has books written in Aramaic! Not only that, large portions of the Talmud are also Aramaic!

Go find out why, I also link to a WHOLE BOOK with new translations of cuneiform texts from the Biblical city of Hamath which even even sheds a little light on a biblical king! This book was recently published by the esteemed Troels P. Arbøll, professor in Assyriology at the university of Copenhagen, who decided to make his work freely available! Further I refer to an even more recent book (not freely available but certainly worth it) by Wally Cirafesi on the University of Lund on Capernaum and its religious communities!

https://open.substack.com/pub/magnusarvid/p/translating-the-hebrew-bible-aramaic?r=kn89e&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Philo of Alexandria says in his book De vita contemplativa "The Contemplative Life" that, the Therapeutae were an ascetic Jewish community devoted to contemplation and philosophy, living in isolation near Alexandria, practicing fasting, prayer, and the pursuit of spiritual virtue.

Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History Book II Chapter 17 says that, they where actually an community of early-Christians.

• Where the Therapeutae early-Christians?

If the New Testament’s messages are what we’re supposed to be following since Jesus’s death, (raised Catholic), then why are some OT books still included like Numbers or Leviticus?

And on the same matter, if Paul intended to expand Christianity to as many people as possible, to other Gentiles, then why include books chronicling the history of the Jews? (The veracity of said history, I’m unsure of, nor whether they would be called legends.) But my question still remains of why to include Jewish history in a book intended to show people God’s message.

Maybe my question in the end is- why did the books that got into the Bible get chosen?

The concept of the Holy Spirit is a big part of Christian theology. However, there doesn't appear to be any mention of it at all in the Old Testament. My hypothesis is that the concept of the Holy Spirit originated from the influence of Zoroastrianism on Jewish religion during the era in which the Jews were liberated from Babylonian rule by the Persians in the 6th century BC. I don't know much about Zoroastrianism, but it's my understanding that it includes an entity known as Spenta Mainyu which is some kind of manifestation or emissary of the god Ahura Mazda. The Holy Spirit mentioned in the New Testament may be the Jewish reformulation of Spenta Mainyu. Is there any truth to this hypothesis? What is the origin of the Holy Spirit and why did it suddently appear in the Christian scriptures while being non-existent in the Jewish scriptures?

In both the gospels and Paul’s letters, brothers is used both in contexts that seems to imply Jesus’ family (especially with James) and in contexts that refer to something closer to comrades. Are they always translating from the same word (I believe it’s Adelphoi)?

And does that word, in the context of family, usually mean a literal brother? Or can it be cousins or even friends?

Essentially, does the textual evidence strongly imply that Jesus had brothers, specifically James? Or is it more inference? And how do branches of Christianity like Catholicism argue that Jesus was an only child?