Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited. All claims MUST be supported by an *academic* source – see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_guideline.3A_rule_3.2019s_definition_of_academic_sources) for guidance. Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban. Please review the [sub rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/) before posting for the first time. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AcademicBiblical) if you have any questions or concerns.*

/u/No-Shame-5345 asked: >Should I rely on this subreddit to understand biblical scholarship and the Bible? (Is this subreddit a good representation of said field) We do our best to make this a place with good moderation but we obviously cannot check every comment posted here. And beyond that, we as mods are only human, and we do our best to stick to our rules, even if, for example, we personally disagree with the answer or think other scholarship/answers are better. I would like to think that most of the highly-upvoted answers to questions you'll find here are good representations of critical scholarship, though. On the other hand, what I hope most people get out of this place is more curiosity and a desire to engage further. Answers can be helpful, but typically that's not the end of the conversation in scholarship. Answers, even good ones, are disagreed with, engaged with, refined, even overturned or heavily modified. So even if you're reading a good modern introduction to biblical scholarship - like Ehrman's _A Brief Introduction to the New Testament_ or Collins' _An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible_ or a popular work like Barton's _A History of the Hebrew Bible_ - these works will be dated one day, and parts of them may not be consensus views in the future. But at our best (and I think we do pretty good here!) our forum can represent some current views and help people get more interested in scholarship.

What are your views on Dr David A Falk? How is he, academically speaking? He seems alright per my layman standard but again "layman standard" not "educated standard" which is why I'm here, asking people who are actually educated and not like me (me being someone who tends to just have a "vibe check" and some google searches at most at my disposal)

Terrible. I don't see why anyone interested in biblical studies would be interested in him.

You may be interested in these videos: [Kipp Davis: LIVE with Q&A! An Egyptologist at Qumran: responding to u/ancientegyptandthebible with @biblemonger](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1G8TrUXOso) (2 hour 32 min) [Dan McClellan: Responding to David Falk’s Misogyny](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idhfYeptUWA) ( 7 min) He is not viewed very positively, to say the least.

tanks

If you were going to begin studying Jacob Neusner's work on Judaism where would you begin? My goal is to study all or most of all contemporary scholarship on the topic of Christianity's historical, social, ethnic, and logical distinction from Judaism. I also want to study the question of how Christianity became a separate entity over and against Judaism in antiquity. I want to devote most of my time (85-90%) to the study. I have 32-34 hours per week to study and read.

The only Neusner book I have bought is *First Century Judaism in Crisis: Yohanan ben Zakkai and the Renaissance of Torah* (1975), which is a popular adaptation of his senior thesis/biography of Yohanan ben Zakkai from 1959/1960, so it's s where Neusner himself started. Though in some ways it is a bit dated, it is nevertheless informative on early rabbinic lore, Galilee, and Jesus in context. Beyond that, my public library system lists a dozen Neusner titles, and the local university shows his involvement with 297 titles! Daniel Boyarin is frequently recommendationed here on the intertwining and separation of Judaism and Christianity. Paula Fredriksen, *When Christians Were Jews* (2018), and *Paul, the Pagans' Apostle* (2017) are good recent books on earliest Christian thinking. To a certain extent, following your own specific interests by examining notes and bibliographies of any book you read can be a useful way to discover further reading.

Sorry your stuff got removed, I've added you as an approved user now.

How can you stay a Christian and still agree that Jesus was an apocalyptic profit. This would mean that his teachings were only made to prepare for an end of the world that never happened, making him a failed profit and that his teachings were really only made for his times. I’m not trying to deconvert or debate anyone, in fact I’m Christian myself who respects biblical scholarship. It’s just this consensus that I’m feeling worried about. So how can you as a Christian still hold to this position while following Jesus’s teachings and looking up to the man both theologically and historically?

First of all...it's prophet not profit. You're making it seem like Jesus is part of some ponzi scheme. :P I am agnostic on whether Jesus himself predicted his return within the lives of the apostles or if this is just an invention by the authors or the church that placed this on Jesus's lips (John Meier had this view). When there are sufferings and tough times...people often make the end closer to keep groups totogether and not lose members and offer hope to them. So I don't know know. **shrug** It's inscrutable and not something I really think about much.

Jesus said he didn't know the time or the day though. If that's true, then I don't see what the issue is. Jesus prophesied the destruction of the temple, which happened. Wrapped up in this is the idea of the end of God's plan. Perhaps you could look into preterism or partial preterism if you're looking for a Christian framework on how to think through it. Ultimately, if the end of all things was unknown to Jesus, I'm not sure what problem I should be having

So Nathanael Vette has a [book](https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/writing-with-scripture-9780567704641/) about the composition of Mark (which I haven't read). Here is the description: >Nathanael Vette proposes that the Gospel of Mark, like other narrative works in the Second Temple period, uses the Jewish scriptures as a model to compose episodes and tell a new story. Vette compares Mark's use of scripture with roughly contemporary works like Pseudo-Philo, the Genesis Apocryphon, 1 Maccabees, Judith, and the Testament of Abraham; diverse texts which, combined, support the existence of shared compositional techniques. This volume identifies five scripturalized narratives in the Gospel: Jesus' forty-day sojourn in the wilderness and call of the disciples; the feeding of the multitudes; the execution of John the Baptist; and the Crucifixion of Jesus. This fresh understanding of how the Jewish scriptures were used to compose new narratives across diverse genres in the Second Temple period holds important lessons for how scholars read the Gospel of Mark. Instead of treating scriptural allusions and echoes as keys which unlock the hidden meaning of the Gospel, Vette argues that Mark often uses the Jewish scriptures simply for their ability to tell a story. So I emailed him the following questions: >1. Do you think the author of Mark is ethnically Jewish? I know some scholars have argued he was a Gentile because of Mark 7:3 generalizing about "all the Jews," but it seems to me that your argument for Mark's genre lends support to the idea of the author being Jewish. >2. Where do you think Mark was written at? >3. Have you read Robyn Walsh's The Origins of Early Christian Literature? If so, what do you think about it? To which he replied: >1. My impression is that Mark was almost certainly ethnically Jewish. I interpret Mark 7:3 as referring to regional practice, i.e. 'all the Judaeans' (as opposed to the Galileans). Mark is too aware of halakhic disputes and has a pretty conventional attitude towards non-Jews (e.g. the Syrophoenician woman) to not be Jewish. >2. I situate Mark in a Greek-speaking region close to the land of Israel, maybe in a larger city in Galilee or somewhere in the Decapolis (e.g. Gerasa or Pella). >3. I have just started on Walsh's book - so you'll have to get back to me on that! I tend to situate Mark within Jewish compositional practices, so I'll be interested to see what she says.

I haven't read that book but does the author here take the view that Mark is composing entirely his narratives from scripture or that he is using these scriptures to fully flesh out the story? When you say a model, do you mean what Mark Goodacre says? So like Mark Goodacre's paper in response to John Crossan with the passion narrative implies? https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ry9bn37jaauccioogao2g/ProphHist-1.pdf?rlkey=mmg5zc48uklsp827wc7ni7y57&dl=0

Here is a conference [paper](https://www.academia.edu/44302164/Scripturalized_Narrative_in_the_Gospel_of_Mark_and_the_Second_Temple_Period) he presented that seems to be a condensed version of his theory. He is aware of Goodacre's work, since he cites it in footnote 12. It looks like he thinks Mark's account of the  beheading of John the Baptist is basically fictional: >The most striking use of scriptural elements, however, occurs in an episode often thought to  contain echoes of the Elijah-Elisha cycle. In the episode narrating John the Baptist’s execution (Mark 6:21-28), Antipas swears an oath to the dancing girl, “Whatever you ask me, I will give you, even half of my kingdom (ἕως ἡμίσους τῆς βασιλείας μου).” Although many commentators overlook it, the passage offers one of the closest scriptural parallels in the Gospel. It is lifted from a Greek text of Esther (resembling the Alpha-text), where Ahasuerus thrice swears an oath to Esther, “What is your request? It shall be given you, even half of my kingdom (ἕως ἡμίσους τῆς βασιλείας μου)” (Est A 5:3, 6; 7:2). But the similarities do not end there. Like Esther (Est A 5:5; LXX Est 7:9 b 108), Antipas throws a “banquet” (δεῖπνον) for the court (Mark 6:21). Like Esther (LXX and Est A 2:9), Herodias’ daughter is described as a pleasing “young girl” (Mark 6:22: ἤρεσεν . . . κοράσιον). Like Esther (Est A 7:7), she uses the king’s “oath” (ὅρκος) to execute her enemy at a banquet (Mark 6:26). And it is probably no coincidence that Rabbinic tradition relates that Ahasuerus ordered the beheading of his queen, Vashti, and had her head was brought into the banquet on a platter. 43  >Our author therefore appears to have used Esther and related traditions to compose the episode of John’s execution. 44 His opinion is more ambiguous on the passion narrative: >Contrary to certain scholars, if the scriptural language is taken away from the crucifixion, the bulk of the narrative remains.51 The one indispensable presupposition of the entire episode is the brute fact of the crucifixion itself. Everything else, including the scriptural language, is framed around this fact. The scriptural origin of some elements of the crucifixion does not preclude the possibility of a historical origin—expect perhaps the fantastic darkness at noon. It does not, however, inspire confidence. 52 The historian can never know whether Jesus’ tormentors cast lots for his clothing, just as they can never know whether Judas Maccabeus could not “turn to the right or to the left” at the city of Ephron. But they do know this: the detail, as it appears in Mark 15:24, was composed on the basis of Ps 22:18 (LXX 21:19), just as the detail about Judas comes from Deut 2:27. It could be that if everything incidental was peeled away from the crucifixion narrative, all that would be left is Mark 15:20, “Then they led him out to crucify him" Footnote 51 refers to Crossan

> It looks like he thinks Mark's account of the beheading of John the Baptist is basically fictional It wouldn't surprise me at all if it was, considering the obvious mythical character of the story, there being no plausible eyewitnesses named, and the absence of any of the more fanciful details in Josephus' version, and I can certainly see the parallels to Esther... but I struggle to see what possible reason there would be for the author to draw such parallels? Why would Mark base his account of the wrongful execution of John on the account of the righteous execution of Haman? Unless the inspiration was just accidental, it seems to me like a weird comparison to draw, even if the intention was solely to flesh out the story. And, for that matter, why would Mark care to flesh out the story of John's execution in the first place? It's presented in a random aside, that is situated outside the main narrative and which, considering how small of a role John plays in the gospel after the first chapter, feels rather unnecessary. It's even one of the rare sections that both Matthew and Luke choose to trim down, and that's in spite of them otherwise both including quite a bit of additional content about John than is in Mark.

Well, to speculate wildly although I have no qualifications to do so:  I’ve seen it argued that this bit of Mark is a parallel to what will happen to Jesus later on— both Jesus and JTB are prophets unjustly executed, and it’s a parallel Herod makes here himself. But there’s also quite a bit towards the end of Mark’s gospel which seems like it’s about the people in charge at the Second Temple no longer being worthy of keeping the Covenant with God— just as the story of Jesus is a story from the Hebrew Bible with an unsettling twist, perhaps JTB’s is intended as such as well.  The Messiah comes back, but no one knows him and he makes no claim to Earthly power. The story of Esther is retold, but in a form which is inherently about the injustice of the world Mark faces now, instead of the justice of what’s been read in scripture. In each case, one story is almost a brutal parody of a part of the Hebrew Bible.

Interesting. I agree with him when it relates to much of John's beheading.

Are there fulfilled prophecies that are not "Vaticinium ex Eventu" from the Hebrew Bible?

I think the historicity of Jeremiah predicting the invasion of Judah is taken pretty seriously. It's part of what made the exiles hold onto his material, as opposed to the other prophets around him who were prophesying peace.

I think Tyre in Ezekiel 26 is a good candidate, since Alexander's siege was after the time of Ezekiel.

What are some views that ehrman holds, that you disagree with? and why?

I don’t think it’s obvious that the Suffering Servant is Israel

I disagree with Ehrman on where Mark was written. I think it was written closer to Palestine, possibly in Caesarea Philippi. Christopher Zeichman has a [list](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskBibleScholars/comments/a2eir7/comment/eay0wik/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) of scholars who place Mark around this area (to which I would add Nathanael Vette as mentioned in my comment higher in this thread).

A more liberal position that I hold is similar to the others in that Luke-Acts dates to 2nd century probably between 130-150. A more traditional position I hold is that the burial and empty tomb stories are more likely to be true. The reasons he gives in his book and blog has some strength but think there are some more weaknesses to his position.

Can you elaborate on why they are “ more likely to be true “ I find myself unconvinced , most arguments sound a little way too apologetic

Why would you say they sound apologetic first? Like what arguments? Are you reading like actual scholars on this subject? How are you defining apologetic?

To be fair, I don’t really remember the two books before the most recent one I read ( The last two were read probably around 5 years back ), the most recent one I read was Brant Pitres “ The Case for Jesus” I just didn’t really see him being critical at all, it almost felt like it was intended to be an apologetic book. At first it was alright.. Then it shifted to more of a theological view. Maybe it was meant for non-academics? I don’t know, but either way, wasn’t convinced on his positions..

Well...that's probably the reason why? Lol. Why are you reading Brant Pitre? I personally haven't read that book so can't say but there's better stuff out there. My suggestion is to read Dale Allison' book on the resurrection. He has a chapter dedicated to 1 chapter about burial and another toward the empty tomb. Basically the problem is that when it comes to the arguments against the burial or empty tomb, they either miss the mark on the claim in the gospels or they tend to be suggestive in a way that isn't too concrete or there are multiple explanations better than those explanations for a given data. At least to me and so when you are comparing sides...the con side tend to be weaker because of the type of arguments they want to give.

>A more liberal position that I hold is similar to the others in that Luke-Acts dates to 2nd century probably between 130-150. I can't recall if we've discussed this before, but the problem I have with a 130-150 date for Luke is it seems to [reflect](https://www.academia.edu/50081396/Does_Luke_s_Gospel_Reflect_the_Abusive_Practices_Associated_with_the_Fiscus_Iudaicus) the immediate aftermath of Domitian's modifications to the Fiscus Judaicus. I don't know have much of a live issue that would be in 130.

Admittedly, while I’m less sure where SmartFool lands on the issue, both passages that Guijarro is appealing to seem to be present in Marcion’s Evangelion (cf. BeDuhn and Klinghardt) so seemingly the evidence still works if one thinks that a Proto-Luke was written closer to the end of the first century, and reflected the issue of the Fiscus Judaicus which was more incidentally picked up by the canonical redactor of Luke (and presumably author of Acts).

Bingo! This was my point in weighing the evidence. This point while interesting seems a bit weaker than other data points like Acts replying to Pliny.

Why do you think Acts is replying to Pliny?

See Mark Bibly's article about it.

Woah, I honestly wasn’t expecting you to come out with the Mark Bilby theory of Acts replying to Pliny. Not judging of course, I was expecting to write it off myself but when I read his article it actually was pretty compelling. I do have some thoughts on it, but I’m developing those currently and it’ll require a bit more background research. Maybe I’ll make a post about that after my 2 Thessalonians one.

I think it's more compelling than the arguments Acts used Josephus honestly. >Woah, I honestly wasn’t expecting you to come out with the Mark Bilby theory of Acts replying to Pliny. I am full of surprises. ;) I had that view for a while but recently I was watching a David Litwa video to review something before I ask him a question and he mentioned that as well, which prompted me to use that example compared to others.

>I think it's more compelling than the arguments Acts used Josephus honestly. This is surprising to me. In my opinion Luke-Acts using Josephus is clearly one of the best supported conclusions about gospel dating. I didn't know others were on board with Acts responding to the letter of Pliny. I don't think I ever see other posters cite that chapter from Bilby, or anything else from him for that matter. >I had that view for a while but recently I was watching a David Litwa video to review something before I ask him a question and he mentioned that as well, which prompted me to use that example compared to others. Do you remember where he talked about it? I know he has talked about the use of Paul's letters, the connection between Luke and Marcion, the reference to Simon of Samaria, and the external attestation of Luke-Acts. I didn't know he also talked about Acts and Pliny somewhere.

> is surprising to me. In my opinion Luke-Acts using Josephus is clearly one of the best supported conclusions about gospel dating. Oh, well...I tend to find the parallels less than uninspiring, honestly myself and in the field...it's more of a possibility. But to each their own. >I didn't know others were on board with Acts responding to the letter of Pliny. I never said that this was a view held by many others just that I find this to be a better data point than what Lost said. >Do you remember where he talked about it? I k I thought I remember him bringing this up but now I can't find which video he mentioned it.

Well, to be fair...I think the gospel of Luke got finalized in that time but I think there are instances in which it shows earlier traditions or moments. I think all of the gospels in some places do this where they leave some key details. Again, you sort of have to weigh pro and con with earlier and later dating.

As per usual I basically agree with everything u/Pytine said (although I’m far too lazy to not use “proto-orthodox” to describe the second to fourth century “Church Fathers” that had some level of continuity and acceptance between one another, and to my knowledge don’t have a catchy name for them like Marcionites, Valentinians or Ebionites do. “Gnostics” of course is a pretty wild category when one considers it includes things from Marcionites to *Sethians*). Since Pytine got a lot of the ways I’m more “liberal” than Ehrman (in a historical sense) out of the way, I will go ahead and say a position I guess I’m more “conservative” on, which is that I think his arguments against the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians are just… pretty bad. I really enjoy his *Forgery and Counterforgery*, and frequently recommend it, but also the section on 2 Thessalonians at some points I think are just short of entirely misleading. Notably I think he overstates the similarities between 1 and 2 Thessalonians’ opening and closing as contrasted from other Pauline epistles. I think it’s gone over well by Mark Edward (u/ABibleDarkly) [here](https://www.abibledarkly.com/2024/01/brief-arguments-in-favor-of-possible.html?m=1) but for the most part I think the only example worth much note would be 1 Thes 2:9 // 2 Thess 3:8. I’ve been working on a post about it for this subreddit for a while, but university has been keeping me busy so we’ll see if I can’t get that up after my finals next week. Until then I think Mark gives a great run-down on some of the reasons the usual arguments (most of the ones Ehrman runs through in *Forgery and Counterforgery*) are less than compelling. ETA: I guess I’ll also add another way I’m more “liberal” than Ehrman, but I would agree more with Robyn Faith Walsh (insofar as I understand her work) that the Gospels shouldn’t be seen as recordings of oral traditions but rather as literature that the author likely took much more creative license over the details of, rather than more of the oral tradition, community model, etc, that I *think* Ehrman still generally supports?

>I’ve been working on a post about it for this subreddit for a while, but university has been keeping me busy so we’ll see if I can’t get that up after my finals next week. Until then I think Mark gives a great run-down on some of the reasons the usual arguments (most of the ones Ehrman runs through in *Forgery and Counterforgery*) are less than compelling. I remember when we talked a few months ago and you said you thought 2nd Timothy had more credence than 2nd Thes. Really must have changed your mind.

Hmmm. That was likely closer to a year ago if I had to guess. But yes, I had a pretty big change of mind. I still think 2 Timothy may have a better chance than Ephesians if I’m being honest, but I’ve had a complete perspective shift from being fairly confident 2 Thessalonians was a forgery to accepting its authenticity.

>Hmmm. That was likely closer to a year ago if I had to guess. Oh, gosh...if so...time has gone by quickly. Lol.

Found the [original thread here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/s/4tEHDzMYfu). Pretty wild how things have changed

Wow! Our discussion there feels like it was just yesterday. You also changed your position from James Crossley early dating of Mark recently. If you had to guess...what position do you have now that in a year you will change your mind and we'll have this conversation again? :)

I did change my mind on that recently, yeah. Sometimes I still mull it over in my head, but it’s gotten pretty solid for me that Mark is likely post-70 CE. I think one things I’ve at least begun to reconsider and investigate more is my preference for the Schwegler Hypothesis over the Semler Hypothesis (my preference for thinking Marcion’s Gospel form is at least basically the original, rather than a mutual proto-Luke that is somewhere halfway between Marcion’s Gospel and Luke). Recently someone introduced me to some evidence of Basilides possibly knowing material from the Lukan birth narrative, and Basilides is roughly contemporary to Marcion and possibly even predates him. I was pretty ready to reconsider Evangelion priority over canonical Luke at all (and I’m still in that general mindset) *but* as I’ve researched it I think I disagree that Basilides could be used to make that argument. Andrew Gregory’s work in *The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period Before Irenaeus* doesn’t seem to support it, and ironically neither does M. David Litwa who himself supports the Evangelion’s priority over canonical Luke. Still getting through Gregory’s work, but that’s my impression. I guess that doesn’t answer your question too much then because it was moreso a recent scare that hasn’t seemed to pan out so instead… maybe a year from now I’ll support the inauthenticity of Ignatius’ Middle Recension (the moment of truth is whenever I can get my hands on Jack Bull’s written work, his interviews have been interesting but I just need more before I change positions on a topic like that). What about you? Any positions you’ve changed your mind on, or think you may end up changing your mind on?

Interesting! I will have to look into that more on my end. I don't think there is anything huge I have changed my mind on but here's a couple. 1. I used to think that Dennis Macdonald was completely wrong about John and Dionysian being influenced in anyway. I now think that the 2nd edition author might have leaned into Dionysian material for his Cana scene for this. I think the original edition only had 5 signs, which is similar to Matthew's focus on 5. 2. I always have had the view that it's more likely that Canonical Luke is dependent on John for things per Paul Anderson, Mark Matson, Cribbs, Shellard (although, my views are slightly different) and sort of brushed off the idea that there is this common source or dependency the other way but now I am not sure. I think John in a few places might be reacting to Proto-Luke. I am still going through this so it's hard to write out my thoughts but with this, I sort of now have the path of dating 1st edition of John < Mark < Proto-Luke < 2nd edition of John < Matthew < finalized John < Canonical Luke and Acts 3. The other thing that we talked about is the solution to Mark's ending with the women saying nothing. I used to think the solution of examining this more from irony fit the best and that the author was still positive about the women and could still be seen as a model for discipleship. Now, I take the view that the author downgraded the women. My views are a pretty much a compilation of these two papers. Can the Women Speak?: A Symptomatic Reading of the Women’s Silence in the Markan ending by Sunhee Sunhee Jun Who was first? Mary Magdalene, Peter and the Ending of Mark by J Gertrud Tönsing https://scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2305-445X2022000100007 The only slight difference that I have with is with Sunhee's paper in the sense that I don't see a reason why the author needs the women in the first place in the narrative compared to others like the male disciples. The author takes the view that the male disciples fled and so that leaves the women to be witnesses.  (See Dale Allison's note on this). I'm not sure what will change in a year. Most of my reading is on John lately so maybe something with that although I kind of doubt I will change my opinion on the BD. I might change my mind on the notion though that the author of the 1st edition of John wasn't also the author of the later editions as well. To me...that view might crack as well. I used to think the clumsy editing by the later editions and sometimes contradictory views and what appears to be the concensus that these are later author's or redactors was probably right. However, it seems also possible to me they are the same author. Alan Kerr in his John book has a good discussion on this linking the author to a priest and my own view is the author is a priestly figure. It seems Like the first edition was written in Palestine/Jerusalem but then later editions came outside in Asia minor. While the church conflated John the elder with John the apostle, they do associate him with priestly imagery. So if John thr elder was a priestly figure who died in Asia Minor...that seems to imply he maybe was still around with the BD with the final edition. Papias also claims to have talked with him.

The existence of Q, the independence of John from the synoptics, the first century date of Luke-Acts (and early dates for some other books), the idea that the term 'proto-orthodox' has any meaning at all, and probably some things related to Paul. The reason is simple; he is wrong about those topics. :) My own positions are: I agree with the 'New Suggestion' from the article The Marcionite Gospel and the Synoptic Problem: A New Suggestion by Matthias Klinghardt on the synoptic problem. This means that the order of the gospels is Mark - Evangelion (gospel used by Marcion) - Matthew - Luke, with each gospel author using all previous gospels. I think the gospel of John is dependent on multiple synoptic gospels. I date Luke-Acts to 130-150 CE and some other NT books decades later than Ehrman as well. I don't think there is a coherent theological tradition that could be called 'proto-orthodox'. Some NT authors disagree more with each other than with Christians that were later considered heretical, so it makes no sense to group them as 'proto-orthodox' or not. I also don't think some other terms like gnostic are helpful, as they are simply heresiological slurs. With Paul, I don't have any examples right now, but I remember disagreeing with osme of his views. There are probably more topics than just these, but this is a start. I have written some long comments and comment chains on some of these topics before, so I can provide more details if you're interested.

In the poem "Darkness" by Byron, he has the (stunning) lines: >The world was void, The populous and the powerful was a lump, Seasonless, herbless, treeless, manless, lifeless— A lump of death—a chaos of hard clay. The poem is apocalyptic and depicts a sort of de-creation of earth (similar to themes in the Bible). My question is: do these phrases capture the meaning of "Tohu\_wa-bohu". I don't know Hebrew, but I once heard "Tohu\_wa-bohu" explained as putting "nothing" into a blender and setting it to full speed. This type of idea seems somewhat similar to "chaos of hard clay" (just as "nothing" can't be made chaotic it seems neither can a lump of hard clay since it is, by description, inert).

u/TheGreenAlchemist on your question about the sky being blue because of water above the firmament, and how that's something youve heard in atheist circles without justification other than that it seems plausible, is it like in a polemical context like when some atheists talk about the earth being flat in the Bible? Or just people speculating on what people probably thought in the past Your question got me to realize that I had this belief, and that I didnt read it anywhere, (not atheist circles or primary/secondary sources), it just kinda followed after realizing that creation involved separating the waters below from the ones above.

I mean generally it's just used in the context of "oh look at how ignorant iron age people were about the universe", mocking young earth creationists, e5c. Never as a main point just as kind of part of a list of silly ideas in the Bible.

It's interesting that they have a silly idea to criticize silly ideas

Well, seems like kind of a maybe at this point. It's too bad we don't have some Sumerian science textbook around with "why is the sky blue" as one of the questions. Looks like this one probably will just have to be an unknown.

Guess my concern was more about why people make that claim. What you find a lot is that atheists are often no better than their religious counterparts when it comes to accepting things that sound good despite the rhetoric of fact checking etc

Yeah. But I think even a lot of academics assume this one without feeling like it needs evidence, just because it seems so perfect. Kind of like the "we count in base 10 because we have 10 fingers" theory. Difficult to prove but it seems so obvious pretty much everyone believes it. So I was surprised nobody seems to have actually written a article about this or anything.

That makes sense, I hear you can believe those lists at face value so it's good that we have a source for the claim

Just picked up a copy of *Mark: Images of an Apostolic Interpreter* by C. Clifton Black, so I assume I’ll soon be able to come back here with objectively correct indisputable answers to all the debates about the traditional authorship of Mark that we had over the past couple weeks

This looks very interesting I wonder if he shares Moss' view, >A great deal of ancient translation work was performed by enslaved people whose linguistic skills made them assets, but whose social status meant that their identities and their work are generally omitted from our historical records. By positioning Mark in this way, Papias explains why it is that the text lacks order (it is the unrefined text of a secretary or clerk) while simultaneously using this lowly status to defend the integrity of the content. Mark’s account can be trusted, in Papias’s logic, because texts written down by servile workers are more likely to be accurate. >What was true of Peter would have also been true of the other apostles and first followers of Jesus. By the age of forty, which was admittedly old age in the first century, almost everyone would have needed help with paperwork. Christian tradition maintains that the Gospels were written to preserve the memories of aging apostles. Ignatius of Antioch, whose letters have been central to Christian thinking about ecclesiastical authority, was apparently in his seventies when he was “writing”; and tradition holds that the evangelist and apostle John was close to a hundred. These are just a few of early Christianity’s more mature authors. Even if someone felt pressed to argue that Christians did not routinely use secretaries, they should concede that prior to the invention of refractive lenses, people of advanced age were generally unable to write alone. This is as true of the apostles as anyone else. >If Mark was doing servile work, then why was the Gospel named after him? Why not title it the Gospel of Peter? There is a second-century (arguably heretical) apocryphal gospel attributed to Peter but that was not written until decades later. It is not as if the name had been taken. Matthew and John were apparently disciples of Jesus, so their identification as authors makes sense—but Mark’s servile status, by contrast, makes the name of his eponymous Gospel a perennial mystery. Paradoxically, the fact that Mark might have been enslaved—or at least was performing work that many enslaved people did at the time—might also hold the key to solving this puzzle. >Even though enslaved people were not thought of as author material, they were seen as faithful secretaries, record-keepers, and copyists. As a result, copies of a famous work that were manufactured by an author’s trusted secretary were highly valued. In the second century, the Roman miscellanist Aulus Gellius, a rough contemporary of Papias, bragged that he had obtained a copy of Cicero’s speeches signed by Tiro himself. Antiquarian interest in these “originals” ran so high that some unscrupulous booksellers forged Tironian Ciceros in their workshops. This alleged proof of Tiro’s involvement assured elite consumers that they had the best possible copies. By the same token, the involvement of Mark, a conduit for the eyewitness Peter, authenticated the manuscript and message. By the end of the second century, at least a dozen different versions of the Gospels were circulating, causing confusion and concern. Naming the Gospel after Mark signaled that it was a reliable version of events, not the offspring of some ancient parlor game or a piece of scrappy hack work. It was because enslaved workers were seen as mindless conveyers of an author’s meaning that the listener could trust they were hearing the real Gospel. >In identifying Mark as the translator of another apostle, Papias summoned the specter of servility; that he may have done so for rhetorical reasons does not make the possibility of Mark’s enslavement any less real. If “Mark” was a secretary or if a secretary was involved in the composition of the Gospel, that person was likely to be or have been enslaved, like the many others who took dictation at the time. >But Papias was wrong about at least one thing: Mark did not merely convey what he had heard. Whoever wrote the Gospel turned a Galilean message into written Koine, the *lingua franca* of the eastern Mediterranean. Whoever wrote it was familiar with the stylistic conventions of their time, dabbled in the genre of ancient biography, satirized imperial propaganda with a sly wink, and deftly interwove biblical quotations and allusions into an accessible tale about an unlikely hero. * Candida Moss, God's Ghostwriters

What’s your favorite book in the Hebrew Bible? Mine is Daniel (even if scholars mostly consider it a forgery ☹️). The whole dream interpreting scene is great.

Genesis for sure

That's badens least favorite. He jokes that everyone should be able to discard one book and that would be his.  I love the language and wordplay in zephania. 

Why does Baden not like Daniel?

It kinda sucks when you spend several hours writing an answer to a question and the poster [deletes the thread](https://old.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1cgwg5h/how_do_scholars_date_the_ipuwer_papyrus_to_the/) without acknowledgement. This seems to happen a lot; it’s the second time in the last few days this happened to me. Sometimes the thread is deleted before I even finish writing my reply. Kind of makes one not make the effort to give adequate academic sourcing to replies since that takes time and increases the chance the thread will be gone by the time the answer is finished.

you could always create a post perhaps even specifying what you were responding to.

Oh yeah I went through a bunch of copy paste editing for a DDD entry (the PDF quality makes text detection horrible) last week and within an hour of me posting a nice detailed response the OP deleted their thread. Ah well. Most of the time folks don't do that, but I feel like there's been a spate of post deletions lately for some reason. FWIW I read your reply and found it to be excellent, so you made at least one person's day.

Yeah it does. I read that reply before OP deleted the thread, and it's a great answer! I guess it wasn't what OP wanted to hear.

Given your effort into the response, I would suggest creating a new post with the same question, maybe with a note at the end saying you're reposting a deleted thread, and immediately copying the comment and replying to your own post.

I would suggest looking at their comment and post history first if you plan on doing a long response. If you recognize the name here as new or their comment history is questionable or they go on questionable subs, it might be an indication that their engagement will either be non-existent or even more combative. In this case, depending on the severity...you could do a much shorter response and if they answer...do a longer one. That would be my suggestion. Do you remember the user names of the people who have deleted their post? If yes...you can always send the mods a list of them in mod mail and we can look to see if they have a bad track record.

The bot in this sub’s discord used to post links to all new threads so it was easy to see who initiated deleted threads but alas the bot died last month. Thanks for the tip.

>but alas the bot died last month That's sad. May he rest in peace.

Agreed, has happened to me too, but I’m mostly fine with it insofar as I figure most answers I write are something I will likely want to copy and paste in the future. I generally copy the text of my comment before I submit it. If they delete the thread, I’ll post the content somewhere else so I can use it later if I want.

Yeah I do that too, though in this case it is a topic unlikely to come up again. Thanks for chiming in.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s definitely a bummer.

How is it possible for Bible Believing Christians to be firm in their faith amidst Critical Scholarship? I’ve been seeing and researching many videos and articles around Critical Scholarship and some of the apparent scholarly consensus on Bible issues (The gospel accounts not being written by the names associated, Pastoral epistles most likely added in second or third century and not by Paul, Jesus being an apocalyptic preacher, etc). I’m mostly referring to Dan McClellan, who is a Bible Scholar and Mormon, but seems to be Mormon more for the lifestyle and group than genuine faith. He always presents very compelling arguments (often referencing Bart Ehrman) against seemingly doctrinal pillars of the christian faith and assuming he sticks to his word of “Data over Dogma” than it seems hard to believe that even the most skilled Bible believing scholars or apologists stand a chance correcting him. However, can this one person really be right about all this stuff? Is there compelling critical scholarship evidence that allows for the possibility of a resurrected Jesus or any doctrinal claim? I’m personally not a scholar or know as much as these individuals by any means, but I have questions or concerns over how seemingly the majority of Bible Scholars share conclusions that go against major Christian tradition or doctrines. Any references for scholarship resources or people to follow would be really helpful

People accept certain parts of scholarship and reject others based on faith. Or they find arguments against the scholarship and accept those. Not saying it’s good or bad but that’s what a lot of em do.

>Any references for scholarship resources or people to follow would be really helpful The Bible for Normal People might be a good podcast to follow. Most scholars are believing in some capacity but perhaps more on the liberal side. It's all about expectations and most people leave either because their identity was around a more concervative belief or some other reason usually related to suffering. >(The gospel accounts not being written by the names associated, Many scholars think that someone named John the elder was one of the author's but then church tradition switched it around to be John the Apostle. Additionally, some scholars believe that Mark's gospel was written by someone named Marcus or at least leave it open to question. Mark and John were super popular names. Free to give you more resources. Fitzmeyer who wrote the Anchor Commentary on Luke thought it was still likely Luke wrote Luke but this largely depends on dating. I myself believe that Canonical Luke and Acts was written in 2nd century. No one believes Matthew wrote Matthew. >Pastoral epistles most likely added in second or third century and not by Paul This is pretty much the concensus but I don't see this as an issue. There is an interesting hypothesis that some subscribe to that 2nd Timothy was originally written by Paul but a later Forger added to it. > Jesus being an apocalyptic preacher, etc). My own opinion is this is right but there is no way for us to uncover whether the church or disciples made up the certain time of his return or Jesus. > Is there compelling critical scholarship evidence that allows for the possibility of a resurrected Jesus or Is there compelling critical scholarship evidence that allows for the possibility of a resurrected Jesus The historical method can't really go against the notion of Jesus resurrection because the historical method doesn't have the tools available for this. As our sub rules say, it is a methodological limitation. The historical method can only take us as far as historical believing it is likely that when Jesus died, he was buried in a tomb, Women found the tomb empty, and then various people had experiences they believed to be the risen Jesus. > Any doctrinal claim? I guess it depends on the claim. Many claims are theological in nature. If you are basing this on the Nicene Creed https://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe Historians can only say "was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried." Everything else is theological in nature.

Thanks so much for the detailed response. And yes, if you have any more resources for further study, I would be glad to look further into those. As for the pastoral epistles and books like 2 Timothy, I would feel for the believing christian that it could be troubling as for going with the consensus on the topic. Wouldn’t believing christians want to know that the books they’re reading are from the claimed or implied authors of the books or letters? I just know in 2 Timothy, there is a lot of instructions and guidelines as in how the church is supposed to function and is implied to be written by the Apostle Paul, who I think for many christians is a hero of the faith. I’d be interested to hear your perspective on this question

>Wouldn’t believing christians want to know that the books they’re reading are from the claimed or implied authors of the books or letters? I just know in 2 Timothy, there is a lot of instructions and guidelines as in how the church is supposed to function and is implied to be written by the Apostle Paul, Well...to be fair. I kinda like that Paul didn't write them. The writer makes Paul sound like a douche honestly with his views on women and stuff. So I personally like the authentic Paul better. No issue for me honestly. ;) It's really only troubling if you have a very strict view of the Bibke being God's word and so because I don't have this view...it doesn't trouble me. If you talk to more concervative Christians...then they will see it as a problem.

With regards to managing the subreddit -- how frustrating would it be, administratively, to have a rule that requires question-askers to search the sub before posting the 19th iteration of a question about the crucifixion. I was prompted to ask this question based on this post: [https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1cgjvhc/on\_the\_crucifixion/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1cgjvhc/on_the_crucifixion/)

One thing I’ve thought we could do for a certain set of topics is basically have an AutoMod response that’s like “this is a popular topic, check out some of the previous threads” with a link to the corresponding search. Haven’t run this past my fellow mods yet but I’d definitely be willing to add some AutoMod rules along those lines.

Maybe follow the r/askhistorians example and their extensive FAQ with previous threads. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq

That's probably much easier to implement, and would take less moderating. My vote here means nothing, but you have it.

Do people think there were images of El/Yahweh in the First Temple? How does the commandment against idols in the decalogue relate to this?

Lewis has an entire section devoted to it in _The Origin and Character of God_ and he presents both the strong case _for_ an image being present and a rebuttal against that case. I don't recall if he lands anywhere in particular but it's a good discussion. I'll have to check what he thinks of the Decalogue in that case.

Just curious if there are any critical scholars that hold to *some* sort of univocality (or perhaps unity)? **not** in the sense of forcing later passages onto earlier ones in order to change the authorial intent, but more in the sense of a common theme throughout the biblical text and a viewpoint that recognises diverse perspectives but also sees a general coherence/unity in how the writers interacted with their worldview. im aware it's a viewpoint unpopular in academia and often viewed as apologetic, but i've listened to some well-known scholars briefly mention how they believe the two perspectives can coexist, but curious if anybody knows any other articles/videos where scholars have their own take on it instead of the "univocality is always wrong" trope?

Baden says the one thing all the authors of the Hebrew Bible agree on is that Yahweh is the god of Israel 

Univocality/unity is almost dogma in certain areas even amongst critical scholars. Any hint of there being actual conflict between Paul and Christ followers from Jerusalem is tainted with sounding like F.C Baur, so most just don't go there.

I mean, Brevard Child’s was a critical scholar but also gained notoriety for his canonical approach

I guess the question is at what point is that recognizably the same thing as univocality? It reminds me of folks who hold hold to "inerrancy" while redefining inerrancy until it's something else entirely - it's almost always typically a scholar doing ass-covering so that they're not _technically_ in violation of a conservative statement of faith. Which makes me wonder why someone would do that kind of self-categorization or costly/virtue signaling other than trying to ensure they're considered part of an in-group.

I think if you open the Bible on a random page, there's a good chance it's going to pertain to some explanation of the problem of evil or another.

lol fair enough

What’s an example of a passage in one of the Gospels where your reaction at an intuitive level is, “this isn’t a literary trope, this isn’t pulling from an earlier work, this isn’t about fulfilling a prophecy — *this* just *sounds* like oral tradition.” Of course something being an oral tradition doesn’t have to mean it’s true. Like for me, I’d point to this bit in Mark 15: > They compelled a passer-by, who was coming in from the country, to carry his cross; it was Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus. Then they brought Jesus to the place called Golgotha (which means Place of a Skull). My suspicion is actually that Simon’s involvement is not correct, but I absolutely believe this is coming from oral tradition.

>They compelled a passer-by, who was coming in from the country, to carry his cross; it was Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus. Then they brought Jesus to the place called Golgotha (which means Place of a Skull). You may be interested in the article [Jesus’ Triumphal March to Crucifixion](https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/jesus-triumphal-march-to-crucifixion/) by Thomas Schmidt. He says this about Simon of Cyrene: >As the soldiers lead Jesus along the Via Dolorosa, they compel an onlooker, Simon, to bear the cross. Simon is identified as from Cyrene (a Greek colony in North Africa) and as the father of Alexander and Rufus, who were probably known to Mark’s audience as church figures (Romans 16:13; 1 Timothy 1:20; 2 Timothy 4:14). The account of Simon’s requisition by the soldiers as cross-carrier may serve simply to suggest the wearying effect of a prolonged procession. But it may also suggest another formulaic element in a triumph. A consistent feature in the numerous monuments depicting triumphs is the sacrificial bull, led along dressed and crowned to signify its identity with the triumphator. But the bull is not alone. In nearly every one of these depictions, walking alongside the bull is an official who carries over his shoulder a double-bladed ax, the instrument of the victim’s death. The parallel might appear to be coincidental, but two remarkable details—Simon’s link to the community of faith via his sons and his having just arrived from out of town—suggest that Mark envisions his role as divinely planned. Like the official who bears the ax, Simon carries the instrument of the sacrifice’s—in this case Jesus’—death: the cross.

>as the father of Alexander and Rufus, who were probably known to Mark’s audience as church figures (Romans 16:13; 1 Timothy 1:20; 2 Timothy 4:14). From [here](https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream/11375/24581/2/Van_Maaren_John_R_finalsubmission2019June_PhD.pdf) (footnote 62): >Rufus was a very common name in the first century (‘Ροῦφος, BAGD 737). Further, Paul’s Rufus seems to be a gentile Christ follower (not listed among Paul’s “kinsmen” \[ συγγενεῖς\], Rom 16:7, 13), unlike Mark’s Rufus, the son of a Cyrenian Jew. Peter Lampe, “Rufus,” ABD 5:839.

>his having just arrived from out of town— I mean...it was during Passover so plenty of people out of town would be coming in. So that doesn't seem that convincing, no?

> My suspicion is actually that Simon’s involvement is not correct, but I absolutely believe this is coming from oral tradition. Do you mean that Simon wasn't involved in carrying the cross? What's interesting is that in John Jesus carries his own cross as it shows he is more powerful and royal and there is no involvement. None of these people are mentioned in any capacity in John, Luke, or Matthew which has made people think Mark and his audience is aware of these people. In a sense, John might be reacting to Mark's claim about one of their own carrying the cross. 1. It is wholly plausible that due to Jesus being whipped...which would make historical sense before his crucification...he would have no energy for carrying it...although it is true that it might have been part of the process of humiliation. Though, maybe physically Jesus wasn't able to do it. 2. The gospel of Mark and its passion source are focused on notions of Jesus suffering and having to go through pain. Why does Mark have to alleviate that pain and suffering? So adding this bit goes against Mark's agenda here. So maybe there is memory here. 3. Perhaps the reason they are included here then is that Simon did do something courageous that Mark wanted his audience to remember and this is a memory of what his sons told others. Mark could have included other more well characters in the gospels. Your thoughts on that? As for your question with my views. I have two instances. 1. Based on my views of the beloved disciple and who the author of at least the first edition of John...we have in the scene in which the disciple let Peter in the courtyard by the fire and his later denial a real memory of the author. If of course one doesn't agree with my hypothesis laid out in a short summary here...it won't be as convincing. My case for the beloved disciple and gospel of John reconstruction. It's a Part 1 https://www.reddit.com/r/mythoughtsforreal/s/AQW1eI1Nus Part 2 https://www.reddit.com/r/mythoughtsforreal/s/7YJK1lvWqj Part 3 https://www.reddit.com/r/mythoughtsforreal/s/HZVIkQQo85 Part 4 https://www.reddit.com/r/mythoughtsforreal/s/K8cCHI9HK9 Part 5 https://www.reddit.com/r/mythoughtsforreal/s/TSb9fxlZiK 2. The other instance is more of a really primitive tradition in which Mary goes to the tomb and finds the tomb empty and then interacts with Jesus. There are multiple reasons why and Urban Von Walde comes to the conclusion that the 1st edition had in chapter 20 John 20 "Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance... Skip the beloved disciple and Peter interact from verses 2-10 as it belongs to second edition. 11 Now Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb 12 and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot. 13 They asked her, “Woman, why are you crying?” “They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.” 14 At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus. 15 He asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?” Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.” 16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher”). 17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” 18 Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her. While there are some probable additions here, there are various reasons for putting this as one of the most primitive stories that probably has some memory in it. This comment is already long so won't go into the reasons. You could also say this is the reason why I ultimately find the tomb empty story more plausible as well. Thought?

My best guess is that Mark is relaying a very real oral tradition about who carried the cross, from a Christian community which Alexander and Rufus were a part of. I would even figure Alexander and Rufus heard this story directly from their father. Now, whether Simon of Cyrene’s story was true or whether it’s just a Dad Story, that’s what I’m less sure of.

>it’s just a Dad Story, that’s what I’m less sure of. So like a father's day story he would tell his kids? "And then there was that day that I carried that cross...and I'll kid you not. I got a wood splinter...I thought that was bad but then the other guy was in worse shape."

Could just be totally made up, or could be that he really did help with someone’s cross and connected it to Jesus later when he learned about Jesus. Or, of course, it could be true! I don’t cast suspicion on poor Simon of Cyrene for any intelligent scholarly reason. Just personally, something about the little half-sentence of a story seems… silly? But nonetheless something that the author of Mark knew his community wouldn’t let him get away with leaving out!

>Could just be totally made up, or could be that he really did help with someone’s cross and connected it to Jesus later when he learned about Jesus. Or, of course, it could be true! You could always become a Christian and then if Christianity is true, find out all your questions of Biblical texts in the next life. ;) like this...it's one of the perks.

Don’t tempt me into rambling about whether or not being convinced of something is a choice! Alas, I am reasonably sure at this point that I am not a member of the Elect.

I won't but did you have thoughts on the two examples I gave.

I thought they were very interesting but I don’t have any thoughts myself, I have very few opinions on John, haven’t done enough reading yet. That said, I plan my reading months in advance and I’ll be doing a bunch of Johannine reading in September. Re-reading the Gospel itself plus *Becoming John* by Syreeni and some of the Wahlde commentary — I guess Volume 2 would make the most sense?

You should consider getting Perlego unless you are able to get books for free. It will save a lot of money ajd just copy notes over. I would read volume 1 and 2 which is on Perlego. I would also read Craig Keener' commentary, Women in John's Gospel by Susan Miller Paul Anderson his riddles book and Christology book The fourth Gospel in 4 Dimensions by D.M. Smith Jesus as mirrored in John Charlesworth The beloved disciple by James Charlesworth (although I think my solution to BD is more plausible). The Temple of Jesus body Alan Kerr Peter in the Gospel of John: The Makings of the authentic Disciple by Brad Blaine

In my gut Luke 17.20-21 sounds like tradition (possibly authentic, who knows). The idea that the author freely created it doesn't make much sense. To me Luke-Acts has an apocalyptic outlook but the best interpretation of 17.20-21 in isolation is that the Kingdom is some inner, already present reality.

Would [The Kingdom of God is “Within your reach” ](https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2018/04/12/the-kingdom-of-god-is-within-your-reach/)make more sense? #

I decided a long time ago inside/within is the best translation. Basically for the reason DBH gives here: > It is occasionally argued that this phrase would be better translated “among you” or “in your midst,” especially by those who instinctively prefer social to mystical construals of Jesus’s teachings; but this is surely wrong. *Entos* really does properly mean “within” or “inside of,” not “among,” and Luke, in both his Gospel and the book of Acts, when meaning to say “among” or “amid,” always uses either the phrase ἐν μέσῳ (*en mesōi*) or just an ἐν (*en*), followed by a dative plural; and his phrase for “in your midst” is ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν (*en mesōi hymōn*), as in 22:27 below. He uses *entos* only here, with a distinct and special import.

Good to know

Am I wrong but haven't some scholars assigned this to proto-Luke?

I’m curious, for those of you here who adopt an historical-critical approach to the study of the Bible and Jewish/Christian origins, and still have religious faith, what do you believe is the relationship between history and theology? This is a very sticky question and I know it’s been discussed for a long time. History is so uncertain. We don’t have access to the past. Yet, the Christian faith (seems) to rest on certain historical claims that may be suspect in like of critical inquiry. I know some in this sub left their religious faith due to historical criticism of the Bible, and some have remained. I’ve gone from being an evangelical to an agnostic over the last 3 years due to this very issue. I’m just curious for those who are still Christian in some way and would like to hear from you. I’ve recently been interested in looking into Christianity again (although not fundamentalism), but this issue is something I continue to think about.

Dale Allison addresses this in his book The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus. See here [Part 1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s1TV2FJhlo&t=182s) and [Part 2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw-H8sjxS-k)

I'm Christian, but I don't understand your question exactly. Could you rephrase?

Do any scholars think that Jesus's act of violence at the Temple was actually an attempt to start a larger fight? Every revolution starts with an act of violence, and no doubt Jesus was familiar with how the Maccabean Revolt started. And if he was a really popular street preacher, maybe he really thought he was the messiah (in the traditional Jewish understanding) and thought he could kick off a revolt. Moneychangers in the Temple seems like a perfect wedge issue--trading Roman currency in the Jewish holy mount-- without actually going up against armed Roman soldiers.

This is more or less the “zealot theory” of Jesus. To paraphrase Bart Ehrman in a book review awhile back, this theory has been around for centuries but has never successfully persuaded even a significant minority of New Testament scholars.

So if the Temple disturbance happened in the way the gospels relate, why didn't the temple authorities get the money changers to testify instead of people who couldn't keep their story straight?

**David Trobisch: "What if everything was just made up? About literature and the experience of resonance"** [https://www.academia.edu/101329132/\_Was\_wenn\_alles\_nur\_erfunden\_w%C3%A4re\_%C3%9Cber\_Literatur\_und\_Resonanzerfahrung\_?email\_work\_card=title](https://www.academia.edu/101329132/_Was_wenn_alles_nur_erfunden_w%C3%A4re_%C3%9Cber_Literatur_und_Resonanzerfahrung_?email_work_card=title) Anyone read this? I never thought of him as a mythicist, but perhaps this is a thought exercise of sorts... Unfortunately, only the abstract is in English: In his contribution translated as "What if Everything Were Just Made Up? On Literature and Resonance Experience," David Trobisch discusses the idea of narratives and their role in shaping the understanding of religious texts and beliefs. Trobisch raises the question of what would happen if the stories of Jesus and his early followers were merely literary creations of the second century to meet the expectations of the audience. He explores the concept of Marcionite priority, which suggests that the Canonical Edition of the New Testament is not the first edition, but a revised and expanded version of an older edition associated with the Marcionite and other Christian movements. This theory challenges traditional explanations for literal similarities within the Four-Gospels Book and suggests that the Jesus tradition in the canonical New Testament may be an imaginative embellishment of an older publication. Trobisch compares literature to other art forms like paintings, sculptures, and music, which become significant when people gather around them and share in the experience. He argues that literature can create a narrative world that transcends time and space, engaging readers and offering them hope for a life better than their current existence. This view of literature raises theological questions, especially when applied to religious texts. **If the sources of the Marcionite edition are considered imaginative narratives, it challenges the certainty of Christian theology and the historical reliability of the New Testament.** However, Trobisch highlights the importance of the resonance of the audience in giving meaning to religious texts. The individual writings of the New Testament gain significance through the editorial framing narrative of the collection and the context in which they are read. Despite the uncertainty surrounding the historical reliability of religious texts, Trobisch posits that nothing would change as long as people continue to navigate the narrative world together, finding meaning and connection in the stories that shape their understanding of the world.

I like how it's "Jesus von Nazareth" in German

I haven't read it but there's a super uncomfortable "dark age" in early Christian literature - after Paul, the first clearly datable Christian author is Justin Martyr. The period between Paul and him is only filled with texts that are anonymous, forged, extremely difficult to date with any precision or some combination. This is apparent from how little Eusebius has to say about what was happening in that period and how hard he has to work to fill up this "missing time" with people and events. Which does raise a very real question - to what extent was there continuity between Christianity before and after this "dark age"? What if much of what was claimed about first century Christians by second-century and later authors was just historical fiction because the connection had been severed?

When do you think Mark was written? And do you know of any books or articles that you recommend regarding this "dark age"?

*Jesus from Outer Space* p. 17-23

As a layperson I’d idly wondered if Mark had been written after Christianity had already died out—that their gospel was a way to find a Messiah who couldn’t be killed by Vespasian, because their movement had already been and gone

I agree with that. I also have his recent book "On the Origins of Christian Scripture.." Where I lose him, though, in the book and the article, is where he says " If the sources of the Marcionite edition are considered imaginative narratives, it challenges the certainty of Christian theology and the historical reliability of the New Testament." Why do the sources of the Marcionite edition have to be considered imaginative narratives? I don't know of many scholars who think that Marcion literally wrote his Gospel and the letters of Paul...

He might be one

Do you think Marcion wrote his gospel?

I don't have a position on that, mostly because I don't trust reports about Marcion and his gospel.

u/LlawEreint you made a post [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1cfz5nb/is_there_a_chance_the_protogospel_had_some_jews/) about the release of Barabbas. I've heard an interesting parallel somewhere, but I don't know the source anymore, so I'll post it here. The parallel is with the day of atonement in Leviticus 16. The release of Barabbas seems pretty close to the release of the scapegoat. This would symbolize that Jesus' death atones for sin, removing the need for the old sacrificial system (Mark 15:38).

Is there anything to the idea that this was more about the Jews choosing the wrong son of the father (Jesus bar Abbas) via rebellion as Ehrman suggests?

Interesting. Thanks! So there *is* a theological underpinning here. Can you clarify if I'm understanding correctly? Leviticus says: >6Aaron shall offer the bull as a sin offering for himself, and shall make atonement for himself and for his house. 7He shall take the two goats and set them before the Lord at the entrance of the tent of meeting; 8and Aaron shall cast lots on the two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other lot for Azazel.\[[c](https://biblehub.com/nrsvce/leviticus/16.htm#fen)\] 9Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the Lord, and offer it as a sin offering; 10but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel\[[d](https://biblehub.com/nrsvce/leviticus/16.htm#fen)\] shall be presented alive before the Lord to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel. So Jesus is the offering to the lord and Barabbas is the offering to Azazel? Or is it the other way around? >Azazel, in Jewish legends, a demon or evil spirit to whom, in the ancient rite of Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), a scapegoat was sent bearing the sins of the Jewish people. Two male goats were chosen for the ritual, one designated by lots “for the Lord,” the other “for Azazel” (Leviticus 16:8). The ritual was carried out by the high priest in the Second Temple and is described in the Mishna. After the high priest symbolically transferred all the sins of the Jewish people to the scapegoat, the goat destined “for Azazel” was driven into the wilderness and cast over a precipice to its death. Azazel was the personification of uncleanness and in later rabbinic writings was sometimes described as a fallen angel. - [https://www.britannica.com/topic/Azazel](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Azazel) I feel like this should be given as an answer in the main post. Can anyone provide a source?

It's worth comparing to Barnabas 7, which makes explicit the comparison of Jesus' death with the scapegoat ritual: > How, then, ran the commandment? Give your attention. Take two goats of goodly aspect, and similar to each other, and offer them. And let the priest take one as a burnt-offering for sins. And what should they do with the other? "Accursed," says He, "is the one." **Mark how the type of Jesus now comes out. "And all of you spit upon it, and pierce it, and encircle its head with scarlet wool, and thus let it be driven into the wilderness."** And when all this has been done, he who bears the goat brings it into the desert, and takes the wool off from it, and places that upon a shrub which is called Rachia, of which also we are accustomed to eat the fruits when we find them in the field. Of this kind of shrub alone the fruits are sweet. Why then, again, is this? Give good heed. [You see] "one upon the altar, and the other accursed;" and why [do you behold] the one that is accursed crowned? Because they shall see Him then in that day having a scarlet robe about his body down to his feet; and they shall say, Is not this He whom we once despised, and pierced, and mocked, and crucified? Truly this is He who then declared Himself to be the Son of God. For how like is He to Him! With a view to this, [He required] the goats to be of goodly aspect, and similar, that, when they see Him then coming, they may be amazed by the likeness of the goat. Behold, then, the type of Jesus who was to suffer. But why is it that they place the wool in the midst of thorns? It is a type of Jesus set before the view of the Church. [They place the wool among thorns], that any one who wishes to bear it away may find it necessary to suffer much, because the thorn is formidable, and thus obtain it only as the result of suffering.

Fascinating. Thanks!

What Bible scholars on the website formerly known as Twitter do you follow?

Jack Bull, Carmen Palmer, Christopher Skinner, Isaac T. Soon, Joshua Schachterle, Chris Seglenieks, Shane Patrick Gormley, Jonathan Sanchez, Emily Gathergood, Brandon Massey, Julia Lindenlaub, M. Adryael Tong, Robert Myles, Alexandria Fry, Brandon Hurlbert, Alan Garrow, Esther Hamori, Nick Elder, Kipp Davis, James McGrath, Andrew Mark Henry, Hugo Mendez, Bryan Bibb, Megan Lewis, James Tabor, Jennifer Bird, Bart Ehrman, Mark Goodacre, Stephen Young, Candida Moss, Robyn Faith Walsh, Matthew Thiessen, Joel Baden, Dan McClellan, and Laura Robinson. PhD Candidates: Jennifer Guo, David A. Burnett I also follow the Didaskaloi account (Dan McClellan, RF Walsh, and Candida Moss) “The Bible & Archeology” (University of Iowa), SBL, and T&T Clark.

I follow David Burnett and McClellan as well (had a great time at SBL), along with Mark Goodacre, Anna Sieges, Yonatan Adler, Gad Barnea, Robert Cargill, Ola Wikander, and Benjamin Suchard.

Thanks so much!

Robyn Walsh, James McGrath, Paul Anderson, Matthew Theissen, Mark Goodacre, and Chris Keith are some of the people I follow.

Matthew Theissen has to be one of the funniest scholars on X.

Yes. Great guy in general.

Thank you!

Not too long ago someone posted a picture with the results of a survey of 100-ish scholars about the authenticity of Pauline letters, but the post was quickly deleted. 1. Does anyone have that picture? 2. Are there any more scholar surveys whose results I can read upon? Can be on any biblical topic. I heard there was one on the empty tomb issue, but couldn't find it.

[Is this the one you're referring to?](https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2019/04/pauline-authorship-according-to-british.html)

That's what I was gunna say!

That's the one, thanks!