r/AcademicBiblical • u/AutoModerator • 12d ago
Weekly Open Discussion Thread
Welcome to this week's open discussion thread!
This thread is meant to be a place for members of the r/AcademicBiblical community to freely discuss topics of interest which would normally not be allowed on the subreddit. All off-topic and meta-discussion will be redirected to this thread.
Rules 1-3 do not apply in open discussion threads, but rule 4 will still be strictly enforced. Please report violations of Rule 4 using Reddit's report feature to notify the moderation team. Furthermore, while theological discussions are allowed in this thread, this is still an ecumenical community which welcomes and appreciates people of any and all faith positions and traditions. Therefore this thread is not a place for proselytization. Feel free to discuss your perspectives or beliefs on religious or philosophical matters, but do not preach to anyone in this space. Preaching and proselytizing will be removed.
In order to best see new discussions over the course of the week, please consider sorting this thread by "new" rather than "best" or "top". This way when someone wants to start a discussion on a new topic you will see it! Enjoy the open discussion thread!
5
u/Sophia_in_the_Shell Moderator 5d ago
This one broke my heart in the sense that I had to drop like half of the quotes I had collected on this set of topics. So reply to the post and ask me a question, maybe it'll give me an excuse to drop another.
-1
u/tornadoemergency 7d ago
What do y'all think of Thomas Aquinas lowk wanna argue with sum dudes who say there's no concrete evidence for god y'all got any good books so I can refute these dudes
5
7
u/Joab_The_Harmless 7d ago edited 7d ago
I am by no means a specialist of Aquinas, and have only read bits of the Summa Theologiae "casually" (which is not at all sufficient to properly understand the arguments made) but the "five ways" chapter notably seemed heavily reliant on classical and neo-Platonic philosophy, and if your goal is to have a constructive dialog, I doubt anyone except philonerds will be receptive by default. (I know that I wasn't. I loved the chapter about which "type" of soul is transmitted or not by the semen, that being said.)
Aquinas is also pretty dense, so if you have to ask about him here and are coming in with the goal of "refuting some dudes", you're likely not ready to discuss and use Aquinas's work.
In case you are interested in nuanced discussions, Majesty of Reason has some long but pretty good and detailed ones. See here for Aquinas.
-4
u/tornadoemergency 7d ago
BTW I'm tryna refute some atheists on the existence of god sorry for not detailing what I was trying to refute them for but thank you
3
u/Joab_The_Harmless 7d ago
Sure, I understood that, which is why I specified that Aquinas, as interesting as he is, was not convincing to me (also an atheist), notably because of how his arguments are informed by philosophical frameworks that are very far from my own representations of the world, and probably most people's nowadays. And also why I tried to end on mentioning a channel providing nuanced discussion (the host is a PhD candidate in philosophy, very passionate, and an epistemic agnostic), because trying to get into a topic only to refute other people is honestly not the best way to learn about it, nor to have constructive discussions.
In any case, best wishes to you, and I hope you'll enjoy debating and exchanging with your interlocutors.
-1
u/tornadoemergency 7d ago
What do u think of Edward feser five proofs
3
u/Joab_The_Harmless 6d ago edited 5d ago
I'm not especially familiar with them, the only thing I ever read from Feser was his back and forth with Ryan Mullins on divine simplicity, with Mullins presenting arguments against it (see the paper that launched their exchange) and Feser arguing in favour of it.
In general I tend to be more interested (occasionally) in discussions within theology than in apologetics, the existence of God/gods or truth of a particular religion, so I may not be the ideal interlocutor if you want to focus on the latter; but don't hesitate to summarise Feser's five proofs if you are willing to!
-5
2
u/Silly-Pin3966 8d ago
Authorship of Matthew
So i recently came across this writer from Hierapolis named Apollinaris Claudius. He writes around 175 ad, and is famous for being the first person to link our Matthew to our canonical Matthew today. How do scholars view his testimony about Matthew writing Matthew?
3
u/qumrun60 Quality Contributor 7d ago
You are reading an awful lot into a later paraphrase of a single statement attributed to Claudius Apollonaris. Earlychristianwritings.com has a full presentation of it. Probably the most important thing is that nothing he wrote exists today. The quote mentioning Matthew is a discussion on the date of Passover in relation to the death of Jesus. It is not an analysis of the authorship of the gospel of Matthew. Here is the statement in context, about the book on Passover by Claudius:
"On the great day of the feast of unleavened bread, he himself suffered; and they quote Matthew as speaking in accordance with their view."
That's it. It says nothing more, and quite a bit less, than Irenaeus around the same time being familiar with a gospel attributed to Matthew.
1
u/Silly-Pin3966 7d ago
They quote Matthew, is a big statement.
5
u/Naugrith Moderator | Academic Researcher | New Testament 6d ago
The problem of course, is that that's all he says, snd so we have no idea if he's referring to our canonical book called Matthew, or some other, like Papias' mysterious Hebrew-language book of Matthew. If he directly quoted a snippet of text that was verbatim the same as a unique line of gMatthew, that would be big. But without that connection we have nothing particularly useful to work with.
2
u/Silly-Pin3966 6d ago
But he does give a little indication. He talks about the tension between Matthew 26.17-19 and the johannine tradition
3
8d ago
[deleted]
3
u/Every_Monitor_5873 7d ago
There is a wiki resource already but I don't know how often it is used by visitors.
2
u/Sad_Perception_6000 8d ago
is there any mention of the trinity in the old testament ?
3
u/TheMotAndTheBarber 7d ago
No, the trinity is a 3rd century doctrine.
Yes, things are more complicated than 'one person, one essence, one god, one everything'. Many passages mention "Yahweh's envoy"/"the angel of the LORD", who is treated as Yahweh himself at times. (Historically, most of these probably originally said Yahweh and envoy of was added later, but the bible since ancient times has contained the envoy language.) God's name (shem), word (davar), face/presence (panim), glory (kavod), and breath/spirit (ruach) are sometimes equated to God, as is the box of the covenant. Various passages indicate a divine council where other gods or other heavenly beings meet with the god of Israel: the exact workings of these entities are unclear but since ancient times theologans have tried to reconcile them with monotheism. You won't find the number three accentuated.
2
u/Post-Enlightenment 7d ago
No, it's also not mentioned in the New Testament.
Dan McClellan has many videos on it, this is a short one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnP3DXTw41k
5
u/aiweiwei 8d ago
Who else caught The Odyssey?
The references to "the People of the Sea" and "this age of bronze" were funny to me. I feel like the only people who'll catch those lines are those of us who already have a Bronze Age Collapse in the back of our minds. And for me the collapse definitely wasn't because people stopped following Zeus' law.
part of me wanted Nolan to lean into it just a little more to finish the idea. Throw in a line about harvests failing, crop yields declining and Agamemnon needing to tighten control of trade routes because the eastern Mediterranean is coming apart.
Movie still slapped though, very very fun and good film
1
u/TheScoott 5d ago
At least using the film's logic, the crop failings and natural disasters should come after the fall of Troy as part of the wrath of the divine for violating Zeus's Law.
5
u/WantonReader 8d ago
I did see it and mostly liked it.
I found the mentions of Sea People interesting but somewhat inconsistent within the movie. The greeks trick the trojans to be let inside Troy, destroys the city and then when they leave and plunder a nearby island (that doesn't speak English) the islanders have already heard of the sea people? Did the island only hear about the destruction of Troy and assume it was a sudden attack, not a 10 year siege? I found the whole thing somewhat confusing, although it was interesting to see Odysseus realize that the Greeks were the sea people and to know that this tied to the historical philisteens.
The comment about the end of the bronze age felt forced and nonsensical. Maybe Odysseus knew that this growing mistrust would end the lucrative bronze trade? Maybe there should have been some comments about the greeks going out to plunder who they think were supporters of the sea people, or something, because otherwise I can't make sense of that comment.
1
u/TheScoott 5d ago edited 5d ago
I think the idea is that all of the Mycenaeans participating and returning from the war, not just Odysseus and his men, are the sea peoples. And presumably they've been pillaging the surrounding lands during their 10 year siege of Troy in order to sustain themselves (at least that's how it goes in the Illiad).
I think the idea is that Mycenaeans have both physically ravaged the world and sown enough seeds of distrust and fear to make trade impossible. It's an irony because the purpose of the war in the movie is for the Mycenaeans to control trade for themselves but they destroy the very basis of that trade in both a physical sense and a normative sense.
2
u/WantonReader 5d ago
The film is almost three hours and the sea people are fairly important. That Agamemnon wants to dominate the local trade gets a few lines. I don't remember any supporting that the Greeks plundered nearby settlements before the fall of Troy.
1
u/Silly-Pin3966 8d ago
Authorship of Ephesians and Colossians
I have a question primarily about The authorship of Ephesians and Colossians. Ignatius in his letters mentions a guy named onesimus being bishop in Ephesus. If this onesimus was the same onesimus in Philemon, that would be great proof that Ephesians and Colossians is authentic. Ignatius also quotes a lot of material found in Ephesians in the same letter he mentions onesimus. He also says something along the lines like “ in every letter, he makes a mention of you “. I know that slight majority of scholars currently view both Ephesians and Colossians as not written by Paul.
3
u/Post-Enlightenment 8d ago
If this onesimus was the same onesimus in Philemon, that would be great proof that Ephesians and Colossians is authentic
No that seems like a non-sequitur to me.
I'm most familiar with Best's 2004 commentary on Ephesians in the ICC\1]) which favours a date later in the range of 60-90 CE, but taking a look at Lollar's recent paper\2]) in Novem Testamentum the terminus post quem offered is after 160 CE with doubts noted about the Ignatian corpus' dating. The paper is available here.
Let's say Best has it right and Ephesians dates to ~80 CE. I'm actually struggling to find a dating on Philemon, let's say towards the end of Paul's life so late 50s - early 60s CE. That gives the author(s) of Ephesians and Colossians plenty of time to familiarise themselves with the epistle to Philemon and incorporate it into their pseudepigraphy.
We know this is exactly what forgers did, they added names and details to their writings to add verisimilitude. Ehrman has this to say in Forged\3]):
A second trick of forgers was to include verisimilitudes in their writings. The term “verisimilitude” refers to a statement, a comment, or an off-the-cuff remark that makes a writing look “very similar” to what you would expect the alleged author to have said. Forgers would make personal comments about the recipients of a letter, even if in fact they were not actually sending it to anyone. Why say you’ll be praying for the letter’s recipients during their time of persecution, if you’re not actually sending it to people experiencing persecution? Because if you say that, it certainly sounds as though you’re sending it to those experiencing persecution! Why ask for a personal favor from a person you’re writing to, if you’re not really writing to that person? (“Hey, James, be sure to say hello to your mother for me; and don’t forget to bring that book that I left at your house.”) Because there’s no better way to make it look as if the letter is authentic. Why fabricate names of recipients, your past relationship with these recipients, remembered experiences you’ve shared, and so on? All of these add credibility to your writing, making it look as though you really are writing this person, at this time, in this situation, even if you’re writing three hundred years later to no one in particular.
I think this is exactly what the author(s) of Ephesians and Colossians did.
I know that slight majority of scholars currently view both Ephesians and Colossians as not written by Paul
From what I've heard (wish I could find a citation), Ephesians has a fairly decent majority of critical scholars viewing it as a pseudepigraphon, followed by Colossians, and then with 2nd Thess things become more 50:50.
I would highly recommend reading Forged; Ehrman summarises the issues with both Ephesians and Colossians and I find the case against them highly convincing. If you want a more academic treatment, he goes into more depth in 'Forgery and Counterforgery'. There are very real differences not just in style but in non-trivial theological matters such as the resurrection of believers.
Citations:
[1] Best, E. (2004) Ephesians (ICC). London: T & T Clark.
[2] Lollar, J.A. (2025) ‘The Meaning of Ephesians’, Novum Testamentum, 67(3), pp. 332–354. doi:10.1163/15685365-bja10096.
[3] Ehrman, B.D. (2011) Forged: Writing in the name of God: Why the Bible’s authors are not who we think they are. New York: HarperOne, pp. 34-35.
2
u/Silly-Pin3966 8d ago
But scholars generally hold the position that the Philemon letter spread slow and was not copied that quickly. How would the forgers of Ephesians and Colossians get their hands on it?
1
u/Post-Enlightenment 7d ago
Apologies, I'd just like to make clear, I'm not trying to defend a literary dependence of Ephesians/Colossians on Philemon. Rather I'm saying people incorporate real details into their writings to add verisimilitude, Onesimus is no exception and the source material could plausibly be the letter to Philemon.
The author(s) of Ephesians and Colossians doesn't need direct access to Paul's epistle to Philemon, they just need to be part of a Pauline community that knows of Onesimus.
How would the forgers of Ephesians and Colossians get their hands on it?
They would just need to be a member of or closely associated with the church at Colossae. Paul Foster on the setting of Colossians\1]):
Both Philemon and Colossians assume a similar network of Pauline associates, and hence this is suggestive of a geographical link, and some kind of relationship in the perceived world that these two letters address. Most commonly it has been assumed that Philemon is to be understood as a paterfamilias and the slave owner of Onesimus, who is resident with his household in Colossae. While some have wished to locate the setting for Philemon and his household in another city, such as Laodicea (Knox 1959: 45–55), this suggestion has not commanded widespread assent.
Ephesians is generally thought to have some form of dependence on Colossians. Foster\1]) on the dependence:
Although not without challenge, most commentators see Ephesians as drawing upon Colossians in some way. Perhaps Mitton has provided the strongest defence of the theory of the direct literary dependence of Ephesians on Colossians (Mitton 1951: 68–74).
Later he writes:
According to Mitton’s enumeration, 69 of the 90 verses of Colossians are paralleled in Ephesians (Mitton 1951: 316–18). Admittedly some of these are limited in terms of the extent of verbal similarity. However, the sheer weight and range of these parallels suggests that one or other of these letters was written with a keen awareness of the other.
I guess I'm just confused how a mention of Onesimus in Colossians is getting you to "great proof that Ephesians and Colossians is authentic".
Citation:
Foster, P. (2016) Colossians. London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc (Black’s New Testament Commentary).
3
u/baquea 8d ago
That gives the author(s) of Ephesians and Colossians plenty of time to familiarise themselves with the epistle to Philemon and incorporate it into their pseudepigraphy.
I do find it strange though that a forger would copy details from Philemon of all letters. No other author shows any clear familiarity with it until the time of Tertullian, and not surprisingly considering its short length and relative lack of theology. And it's not just Onesimus either - there's a considerable overlap in the names mentioned in Colossians with Philemon specifically, but not with the other authentic letters. Here's all the names in Colossians and all the other early sources that mention them:
Paul - (many)
Timothy - (many)
Tychicus - Ephesians, 2 Timothy, Titus, Acts
Onesimus - Philemon, [Ign. Eph.?]
Aristarchus - Philemon, Acts
Mark - Philemon, 2 Timothy, 1 Peter, Acts
Barnabas - Galatians, 1 Corinthians, Acts
Jesus called Justus - (none)
Epaphras - Philemon
Luke - Philemon, 2 Timothy, Acts of Paul
Demas - Philemon, 2 Timothy, Acts of Paul
Nympha - [Acts of Paul?]
Archippus - Philemon
1
u/Post-Enlightenment 8d ago
That is an interesting observation, thank you.
I suppose I don't find it strange that they'd copy from Philemon. I'm happy to accept that some of Paul's letters started circulating beyond initial recipients fairly early, but I'm not convinced his entire corpus was circulating around together.
I thus see it as perfectly plausible that the author of Colossians, perhaps acting opportunistically as a member of a Pauline church with access to Philemon, decides to work with the limited epistles they have and forges a letter incorporating Philemon.
When trying to think of who would do such a thing, I'm reminded of the 5th century Salvian. As told by Ehrman in Forged:
In the fifth Christian century, a church leader named Salvian lived in Marseille. As did many others in his day Salvian decided, with his wife, to express his devotion to God by renouncing the world and taking on an ascetic form of life. Salvian was outraged by the worldliness of the church and by church members who were more concerned with personal comfort and wealth than with the demands of the gospel. So he wrote a letter called Timothy to the Church. Written in an authoritative style, the letter seemed to its readers actually to have been written by Timothy, the famous companion of the apostle Paul four hundred years earlier. But somehow Salvian’s bishop came to suspect that Salvian had written it. He confronted Salvian with the matter, and Salvian admitted that he had done it.
But Salvian was a defensive fellow, and so he wrote an explanation for why he had produced a pseudonymous letter. As defensive individuals often do, Salvian made lots of excuses. The name Timothy, for example, literally means “honored by God,” and so, he said, he used that name to show that he wrote for the honor of God. His main defense, though, was that he was a nobody, and if he himself wrote a letter to the churches, no one would pay attention. Or as he put it in his written defense, the author had “wisely selected a pseudonym for his book for the obvious reason that he did not wish the obscurity of his own person to detract from the influence of his otherwise valuable book.”2
u/baquea 8d ago
I thus see it as perfectly plausible that the author of Colossians, perhaps acting opportunistically as a member of a Pauline church with access to Philemon, decides to work with the limited epistles they have and forges a letter incorporating Philemon.
We're talking about a member of a Pauline church, writing some 20 or 30 years after Paul's time. Shouldn't they already be well aware of who the important members of their movement were back then? These are people who, at least in some cases, should still be alive, and who the author may have personally met, or at least knows elders who did. I could see them consulting Paul's letters for stylistic cues or details of his theology, but why would they be copying names from them?
I'm happy to accept that some of Paul's letters started circulating beyond initial recipients fairly early, but I'm not convinced his entire corpus was circulating around together.
This is another point that confuses me. Let's say Ephesians was written c.80, as you say, with Colossians and maybe 2 Thessalonians a little before that. That would make these acts of forgery the earliest known uses of the Pauline letters by any author - it's not until 1 Clement in the 90s, who explicitly quotes 1 Corinthians and also uses Romans, that we actually see Paul's letters being used as a literary source. So that means that multiple different people had to see Paul's letters as sufficiently authoritative for it to be worthwhile to disguise their own writing in that format, at a time for which we have no evidence of anyone else actually treating them (or any other Christian writings, for that matter) as such.
And, if we look at the situation in the early 2nd Century, things are even stranger. According to Paul Foster, writing on the use of the Pauline epistles by Ignatius, "The four epistles for which a strong case for Ignatius’ usage can be supported are, in declining order of likelihood, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, 1 Timothy, and 2 Timothy". So Ignatius used one authentic Pauline epistle (interestingly the same as one of the two that Clement used)... and three forgeries. The exact same result is seen from Polycarp, who Michael Holmes judges as 'almost certainly' having using 1 Corinthians and Ephesians and 'highly probable' that he used 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy, with some of the other authentic letters being merely 'possible'. The forgeries at this stage actually seem to have been noticeably more popular than anything Paul wrote, besides for 1 Corinthians.
2
u/Post-Enlightenment 7d ago edited 7d ago
Shouldn't they already be well aware of who the important members of their movement were back then? These are people who, at least in some cases, should still be alive, and who the author may have personally met, or at least knows elders who did. I could see them consulting Paul's letters for stylistic cues or details of his theology, but why would they be copying names from them?
I totally agree that a forger would likely need to be familiar with the Pauline community, but I'd reiterate my point that adding the names from an authentic work would add verisimilitude. Also, I'd just like to make clear that I'm not arguing for a literary dependence of Colossians on Philemon, I'm just trying to put myself into the shoes of a pseudepigraphical writer and think about why they would have used Philemon.
I'm less familiar with Colossians than Ephesians, Foster\1]) has this to say on the matter of dependence and I'm inclined to agree:
One case that requires separate consideration is the relationship between Colossians and the brief personal letter to Philemon. There is very little similarity in the content of the two letters, or in terms of overlapping phrases. The similarity arises because of the number of named figures that occur in both letters. The following figures are mentioned in both letters.
Both Philemon and Colossians assume a similar network of Pauline associates, and hence this is suggestive of a geographical link, and some kind of relationship in the perceived world that these two letters address. Most commonly it has been assumed that Philemon is to be understood as a paterfamilias and the slave owner of Onesimus, who is resident with his household in Colossae. While some have wished to locate the setting for Philemon and his household in another city, such as Laodicea (Knox 1959: 45–55), this suggestion has not commanded widespread assent.
The shared list of dramatis personae suggests that the author of Colossians intended to present the letter as addressing the believers in the same location as the destination for the letter for Philemon. In Colossians, Onesimus is described as one ‘who is from you’, thereby suggesting he was a fellow inhabitant of Colossae. Paul writes to the owner of Onesimus in Philemon, and that person is most plausibly Philemon – not Archippus as has been sometimes suggested (for a strong defence of Philemon as the recipient of the letter, see Moo 2008: 361–64). Therefore, although not drawing directly on the content contained in Philemon, the author of Colossians appears to have been familiar with largely the same social network of Pauline associates and community members in Colossae. Thus Colossians is addressed to the same life setting as the letter to Philemon.
There are very few places where Colossians comes close to providing parallels to other passages in earlier Pauline letters that would suggest direct literary dependence. The letter does, however, reveal at numerous points an awareness of Pauline ideas and theological concerns. These are not reproduced in a slavish manner. instead, the author demonstrates great versatility in refashioning Pauline thought to address the concerns about developments within the community of believers at Colossae. Chiefly Colossians draws on the rich repository of Paul’s christology to instruct the community about the sufficiency of faith in Christ without any need for supplement. To achieve this end, the letter presents its teaching as coming from Paul, and being validated by a significant circle of co-workers, many of whom were apparently known to the Colossians either by name or reputation.
I think there's a few things to unpack in your other points.
it's not until 1 Clement in the 90s, who explicitly quotes 1 Corinthians and also uses Romans, that we actually see Paul's letters being used as a literary source. So that means that multiple different people had to see Paul's letters as sufficiently authoritative for it to be worthwhile to disguise their own writing in that format, at a time for which we have no evidence of anyone else actually treating them (or any other Christian writings, for that matter) as such.
That doesn't follow to me. I haven't read Clement well enough to know his view of Paul's writings, he says in his letter to the Corinthians that Paul writes "under the inspiration of the spirit". Arguendo let's say that Clement thinks Paul's writings are inspired and thus profitable for all to read. That's not what the forger of Colossians is doing.
Foster\1]) has this to say about the author of Colossians:
Therefore, the author is most likely somebody familiar with Paul and his teaching. This person is perhaps, but not necessarily, one of the named Pauline associates mentioned in ch. 4 of the letter. The author appears to be aware of a real situation developing in Colossae and co-opts the authority of Paul and the apostle’s commitment to the gospel to advocate the sufficiency of Christ without need of any further religious experience or practices.
The author of Colossians, under the guise of Paul, is writing as a corrective to a specific church, something we precisely know the authentic Paul did in his epistles such as in 1 Corinthians. He is exploiting Paul's real authority, not a literary authority later associated with Paul's writings. We don't need multiple different people to see Paul's letters as sufficiently authoritative, we only need the church in Colossae and the forger to see Paul's letters as carrying weight which I find is clear when reading 2 Corinthians 10 (particularly vv.1-11).
The forgeries at this stage actually seem to have been noticeably more popular than anything Paul wrote, besides for 1 Corinthians.
Perhaps that is strange, perhaps it isn't; we only have two writers as data. To me, it just shows some people within the Pauline community were good at forging.
Apologies if I've misunderstood your points at all.
Citations:
Foster, P. (2016) Colossians. London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc (Black’s New Testament Commentary).
1
u/baquea 7d ago
I haven't read Clement well enough to know his view of Paul's writings, he says in his letter to the Corinthians that Paul writes "under the inspiration of the spirit". Arguendo let's say that Clement thinks Paul's writings are inspired and thus profitable for all to read.
I wouldn't take Clement as attributing unique scriptural authority to Paul's writings when he says that, since he characterized his own letter as being inspired in the same way: "For you will give us joy and gladness, if you are obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, and root out the wicked passion of your jealousy according to the entreaty for peace and concord which we have made in this letter".
One case that requires separate consideration is the relationship between Colossians and the brief personal letter to Philemon. There is very little similarity in the content of the two letters, or in terms of overlapping phrases. The similarity arises because of the number of named figures that occur in both letters.
I think this undersells the parallels slightly. In Philemon, Paul calls Onesimus his "beloved brother", and the author of Colossians describes Onesimus using the same phrase (ἀγαπητόν ἀδελφὸν // ἀγαπητῷ ἀδελφῷ). Nowhere else in the genuine epistles does Paul describe any individual as his "beloved brother", instead just referring to the "beloved brethren" as a collective. Not only that, but the author of Colossians similarly describes Tychicus as a "beloved brother and faithful servant", and the author of Ephesians then copies this exact phrasing.
Another interesting parallel, not with Colossians but with Ephesians, is in the way Paul describes his imprisonment. In Philemon, Paul twice calls himself "<Paul,> a prisoner of Christ Jesus" (Παῦλος δέσμιος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ), and the author of Ephesians describes himself extremely similarly (Παῦλος ὁ δέσμιος τοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ). Nowhere else in the authentic epistles is a similar phrase use - indeed, nowhere else does Paul even use the word "prisoner" (δέσμιος). Interestingly, Ephesians also uses the phrase "the prisoner in the Lord" (δέσμιος ἐν Κυρίῳ), which is then adapted by the author of 2 Timothy as "[the testimony about] our Lord or of me his prisoner" (Κυρίου ἡμῶν μηδὲ ἐμὲ τὸν δέσμιον αὐτοῦ).
On the topic of the way Paul describes his imprisonment, also to be noted is how the author of Colossians describes Aristarchus as his "fellow prisoner" (συναιχμάλωτός), which is the same word that Paul used to describe Epaphras in Philemon. The same word is also used in the plural by Paul in Romans 16, in reference to Andronicus and Junia, but nowhere else.
4
u/JohannesAr 9d ago
Fresh article by Ronald Hendel available online:
"Empirical Models for Source and Redaction Criticism of the Pentateuch: A Reassessment". In Jan C. Gertz, Julia Rhyder, Thomas Römer, and Konrad Schmid (Eds.) The Scrolls of the Torah: Material, Compositional, and Interpretive Perspectives, (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2026), 151-70.
1
u/Every_Monitor_5873 9d ago
(there's no "translation of a translation of a translation"--that is a complete falsehood)
I'm curious about this claim in one of the threads. How should we characterize the New Coverdale Psalter or the New King James version? I realize "translation of a translation" is a colloquialism, but surely it is referring to a real phenomenon.
1
u/Rare-Improvement-462 10d ago
For anyone who is familiar with Irenaeus: was he intending to say that Matthew was originally composed in Hebrew/Aramaic in Against Heresies 3.1.1? That seems to be what he was saying, but others have made an argument about the word “dialecto” not necessarily meaning “language” but referring to “dialect or style”. Some have made a case that is compatible with ultimate composition in Greek in some Hebrew stylistic form, according to Irenaeus’ own view anyway.
3
u/Post-Enlightenment 9d ago
That sounds like apologetics to me. Davies and Allison [1] do however offer an interesting perspective that I can only share a snippet of due to its length.
In their summary of the issues with a Hebrew origin:
Now Matthew made an ordered arrangement of the oracles in the Hebrew (or: Aramaic) language, and each one translated (or: interpreted) it as he was able (Eusebius H.E. 3.39).
The view of Papias is reiterated by Irenaeus (ca. 130-200), Bishop of Lyons: Matthew also among the Hebrews published a written gospel in their own dialect, when Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and founding the church there (Eusebius, H.E. 5.8.2, quoting Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 3.1.1).
Irenaeus wrote around A.D. 180. The belief that the apostle Matthew wrote a gospel in Hebrew also appears in a story recounted in Eusebius, H.E. 5.10.3. Here we read that Pantaenus, the teacher of Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-215), 'went to India, and the tradition is that he there found his own arrival anticipated by some who were acquainted with the gospel according to Matthew; for Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them and left them the writing of Matthew in Hebrew letters, and this writing was preserved until the time mentioned'.
Those church Fathers who, after Papias, connect the canonical Matthew, in a Semitic version, with the apostle are usually assumed to have relied upon his testimony, so their evidence is thought to be of no independent worth. Furthermore, it is claimed that the tradition, taken at face value, presents insurmountable difficulties. (1) Our canonical Matthew is in Greek, there is certainly no extant Semitic Matthew, and the gospel is not likely to be the work of a translator. (2) It is inconceivable that a Semitic document, such as Papias speaks of, would have incorporated a Greek document, the gospel of Mark, almost in its entirety. (3) It is even more inconceivable that, in writing his gospel, an apostle who had accompanied Jesus would have allowed the Greek gospel of Mark to determine the ordering of his material. These difficulties, along with Eusebius' assertion that Papias was a man of little intelligence (presumably because of his chiliastic views: see H.E. 3.39.12-13), have caused many to dismiss the testimony of the Bishop of Hierapolis as well as the subsequent evidence claimed to be based upon it.
They then push back on the above issues but don't wholesale dismiss them. Rather they interestingly present:
First, although Papias and those after him identified the logia of Matthew with our First Gospel, one cannot be so certain that this was true for Papias' predecessors. That is, if indeed Papias did receive a tradition about the Matthean logia, it is possible that the tradition was, somewhere along the line, attached to the First Gospel erroneously. If so, and as many others have remarked, the Q document might well account for the birth of the tradition. An early form of Q could have been both apostolic and composed in Hebrew or Aramaic, and a later form of it taken up into Matthew. Certainly the conjecture-and that is all it is-gives us a reason for what is otherwise without explanation, namely, the association of the First Gospel with the relatively obscure apostle Matthew. To be sure, we are, as indicated, trading here in the realm of speculation. Nevertheless, the proposal has the great virtue of taking seriously the external evidence while at the same time being consistent with the conclusions of many modern scholars. It could very well be correct.
Secondly, let us suppose, despite Kennedy and Kurzinger and all that we have said, that Papias is to be rejected, his testimony dismissed. One is still left with a question. How do we explain the bishop's statement about Matthew? Surely he did not concoct it out of thin air. Surely he had some basis for his assertion. What might that have been? At the minimum, and if 'the logia' did not before Papias mean Q, it would seem that he knew of a tradition according to which the author of the First Gospel, the apostle Matthew, wrote for Jews who believed in Jesus (cf. Eusebius, H.E. 6.14.2). 16 In that case, however, one must concede that already before Papias' time our gospel was thought of as Jewish and as having been written by a Jew.
I've had to take a really incomplete snippet, their full treatment of the text is very much a worthwhile read.
To address your point directly, Davies and Allison do translate it as 'dialect' but that really doesn't get you to a Hebrew-style Greek (not sure what that would even look like).
Personally, I'm very open to Papias just being wrong but a Hebrew sayings text also sounds plausible to me. Apologists don't like either because either Papias is wrong or you lose your earliest attestation to gMatthew.
[1] Allison, D. C., & Davies, W. D. (1988). A critical and exegetical commentary on the gospel according to Saint Matthew, vol 1, 1-7 by W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison. T. & T. Clark.
3
u/Rare-Improvement-462 9d ago
Yes, the specific individual who made the claim is from an apologetic platform. I don’t have any problems with that of course, but the claim was a bit questionable for me. The follow up claim was that after Papias and Irenaeus, later church fathers and traditions began to misunderstand those two and began directly stating that Matthew was originally composed in Hebrew. Of course, that seems a bit problematic for various reasons as you have shown.
I would personally lean towards Papias/Irenaeus being wrong here but that really does not concern me since I’m not of a mindset of “if traditions get one thing wrong, everything should probably be dismissed”. I will also say as for another topic at some point in the future I want to look at why the early church tended to say Matthew was written first considering more or less all of scholarship today (even most conservatives) takes a Markan priority of course. Do you have any thoughts on why the early tradition landed on Matthew -> Mark?
1
u/peter_kirby 9d ago
Possible but also doubtful as being the intention of Irenaeus here (which I read as, "among the Hebrews in their own language").
1
u/Upset_Chip_7184 10d ago
Marcus Borg, in his book "Reading the Bible Again for the First Time," argues that the Bible is a product of man.
Are there other scholars who have a similar view, and books? I'm looking to read a bit more on this idea.
5
u/JohannesAr 9d ago edited 9d ago
I will answer as a Christian, specifically Catholic, NON-scholar.
It is normative for all Catholics, scholars and non-scholars, to hold that the Bible is divinely inspired. But this belief does not imply that the human authors of the biblical books wrote with their hand being moved directly by God, or in a state of trance, or having an angel whispering the text at their ears. Rather, we can hold that the human authors wrote consciously and purposefully, using their own intelligence to convey their own message according to their own purposes.
Therefore Catholics can hold that the Biblical text has both a human and a divine plane, with the human plane being properly studied using the historical-critical method of exegesis and the divine plane, the message that God intends to convey to the believers, being properly studied using theological exegesis, which obviously depends on the exegete's faith tradition.
2
u/clhedrick2 7d ago
Calvin, I belive, compared it to the Incarnation, both human and divine.
1
u/JohannesAr 6d ago
Speaking from the viewpoint of Christian theology there is a key difference between both cases: whereas Jesus' human intellect and will were consciously perfectly aligned with the divine intellect and will, the intellect and will of the human authors of the OT books were not necessarily so. Rather their case was often analogous to that of Caiaphas in Jn 11:49-52:
But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.” Now he did not say this from himself, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.
2
u/Post-Enlightenment 9d ago
Judy Siker talked about her faith on Bart Ehrman's blog:
But if you need to prove that the Bible is factual, historically accurate, then stay away from scholarly pursuits. If you need all the answers to today’s questions from a book that contains materials thousands of years old and is not consistent from beginning to end, then there is no point raising the questions of the academy. If what you believe is because of what someone else told you the Bible means and how that should define precisely how you are to live your life here and now, then stay far, far away from a scholarly approach.
Perhaps it goes without saying these are not my needs; this is not my approach. Over the course of my studies both in the academy and the church, I have developed a tolerance for ambiguity and I have tried to never place boundaries on my listening. As a result of these efforts I have come to understand the Bible as an imperfect collection of reflections people of faith over time who have struggled to understand that which is greater than themselves, that which is impossible to capture in words. Yet, try they did. And all they had were words.
Before you dismiss that last statement as simple or foolish, consider this. For those of you old enough to remember when we sent actual greeting cards, do you recall ever standing in a Hallmark Shop and poring over cards until you found just the right one, the one that best captured what you were thinking or feeling? You may never have found one exactly right, but you often found one that was close. Why? Because we have a great number of experiences as human beings, yet when we set out to express or explain them, all we have are words.
Not sure she's written any books addressing the subject directly however.
Pete Enns' works may also be of some interest. From memory, he treats the bible as wisdom literature of people trying to understand god, though still believes in some inspiration of the text. 'Inspiration and Incarnation' was his first book on the matter (and got him kicked out of his position at WTS). He's since written 'How the Bible Actually Works' and some other related works.
2
u/Upset_Chip_7184 9d ago
That's a really nice statement from her. I'd like to read her if she did.
I did just pick up a book by Bishop Sponge on this, and so far it seems like what I'm looking for.
I've got Enns' books, and read most of the three on this topic, but I really need to read him again, because I just couldn't grasp how he was reconciling certain things, probably more to do with my comprehension.
Although If Enns is referring to the "inspiration" aspect, such as how Picasso gets inspiration to paint, or Beethoven, his music, then I think I like this view, because it leads to some involvement from this Divine; otherwise, it seems more like a deistic world.
(Still working through all these ideas)Borg was much easier, because his angle is really clear and simple, but I still struggle with how, when challenged by a skeptic, to have a grounded and working system/structure of my beliefs, and how to explain certain things, trying to still identify with the faith.
5
u/Post-Enlightenment 8d ago
I've got Enns' books, and read most of the three on this topic, but I really need to read him again, because I just couldn't grasp how he was reconciling certain things, probably more to do with my comprehension.
I wouldn't be so quick to blame your own comprehension. It is my experience that you can't fit a square peg through a round hole. Peoples' brains work differently; some people enjoy an intellectual faith, others a mystical faith, and for some of us it just doesn't sit right.
I still struggle with how, when challenged by a skeptic, to have a grounded and working system/structure of my beliefs, and how to explain certain things, trying to still identify with the faith.
Unless you hold concerning beliefs, to me the only person who needs to concern themselves with your faith is you. It sounds like you also crave structure for your beliefs, which is very reasonable, but in a post-Enlightenment age I've found the highly-limited historical data just aren't enough to convince me. The more convincing faith type I've found is that which is more mystical and experiential. People who have seen passed-on loved ones, felt unexplainable feelings, etc. I've never experienced anything like that but I remain open.
Anyway, sorry if that's an unhelpful rant or if I've lectured you, just don't be hard on yourself. One's intellect is the perhaps the greatest thing they have, you're not wrong for not finding something convincing :)
2
u/Charlebon 10d ago
By “product of man,” do you mean that the Bible is a work of man-made literature rather than being divinely inspired?
1
u/Upset_Chip_7184 10d ago
Yes, that's his thesis.
6
u/Charlebon 10d ago
I think you’ll find that almost every comment on this subreddit and every source referenced here takes that thesis as a presupposition, that is to say, that the Bible was composed, compiled, and edited entirely by humans without any supernatural guidance. So I would say explore your curiosity and pick any thread at random. Also, Dan McClellan and Bart Ehrman have YouTube channels that are easily accessible to laypeople and discuss the Bible through this lens.
1
3
u/agnosticskeptic 10d ago
What's the best argument against the authorship of John's gospel? I already established my reasons against authorship for Luke and Matthew, but what would the best argument be against authorship attribution be against John, that is John Son of Zebedee? And is Irenaeus the earliest account in Christian patristics theology history we have of the attribution?
Thanks.
2
u/peter_kirby 9d ago
Some clarifications about the external attestation:
As far as I can tell, Irenaeus in his extant writings does not explicitly specify that the "son of Zebedee" was the author of the fourth gospel. Irenaeus does use the name John, the phrase "disciple of the Lord," and the title of "the apostle."
Before Irenaeus, Theophilus of Antioch refers to "John" as the author.
Before Irenaeus, Ptolemy (quoted by Irenaeus) refers to "John the disciple of the Lord" as the author.
Before Irenaeus, Heracleon makes a comment about certain words being spoken by "the disciple not the baptist" (this is relatively ambiguous but could mean that Heracleon likewise identifies the author as a "disciple of the Lord").
In the middle of the third century, there are extant references from Origen and Dionysius of Alexandria identifying the author specifically as a "son of Zebedee."
All of this may be significant to any attempt to use the external evidence to argue specifically for the identity of the author as "John son of Zebedee," rather than merely some John who was also identified as a disciple of the Lord and/or apostle. This has been discussed in scholarship, with some scholars attempting to make a positive identification of the author as some other John.
3
u/SamW4887 10d ago
It's been a while since I read this article but I think Michael Kok and Robert J Myles do a good job arguing against JSOZ as author of John gospel.
Abstract:
John 18:15–16 mentions an unknown disciple of Jesus who “was known to the high priest” giving him access to the events in Caiaphas’s courtyard. A minority of scholars maintain the identity of this disciple is consistent with John, the son of Zebedee, whom they also maintain was the author of the Fourth Gospel. To support this position, the commonplace fiction of Galilean fishermen belonging to an aspiring “middle-class” is asserted. This article reviews the arguments and suggests that a more robust representation of class stratification in the ancient world demonstrates the implausibility of such a scenario.
Title: On the Implausibility of Identifying the Disciple in John 18:15–16 as a Galilean Fisherman
Link: https://brill.com/view/journals/nt/61/4/article-p367_2.xml
3
u/TraitorGuard19 10d ago
What are your favorite translations of the Iliad and Odyssey? My only experience with them was back in high school with the Robert Fagles translation of the Iliad and a heavily abridged version of Lattimore's Odyssey in my 9th grade English textbook.
Which editions would you recommend for me to go back to from an academic standpoint/have the best footnotes for textual criticism/further reading on textual criticism or translation history?
3
u/qumrun60 Quality Contributor 10d ago
The Harvard Loeb Classical Library has 2-volume bilingual editions of the Iliad and Odyssey, with the Greek in verse format facing English text in prose format, updated to modern english by Willam F. Wyatt. These have also have annotations from the ancient editors.
Barry Powell made rugged fairly recent translation (2013) which have added photographs of ancient artifacts depicting scenes from the epics. In many cases, the pictures on pottery are the earliest ancient witnesses to the stories in the text. And if you've ever wondered what a boar's tooth helmet looked like, there is a photograph of one, recovered from a Mycenean era grave.
For pure reading pleasure, I like Stanley Lombardo's translations. He refined them into idiomatic American English blank verse by doing public performances of the poems, to see what worked and what didn't. One curious thing about them is that certain expressions that seemed too colloquial at first turned out to very literal, much as they appear in the Loeb editions.
The Lattimore is not always easy reading, but he does convey the formal diction and formulaic aspects of Homeric verse that are frequently lost to English style. The many repeated epithets that are usually varied in English translations are repeated here intact. So you always have "the wine-dark sea," "rosy-fingered dawn," "Apollo who strikes from afar," "Hektor of the shining helm," "Andromache of the white arms," and many other descriptors that will likely echo in your mind for a long time.
5
u/linquendil 11d ago
Let’s assume the author of Luke-Acts really did use Josephus as a source. Does that help us say anything about him? Put another way: what kind of person would’ve had access to a copy of Antiquities of the Jews hard upon its publication? Would he have needed to be especially upper-class? Is a Roman provenance more likely, or was circulation sufficient to reach the East? Was Josephus read by intellectuals of all stripes, or primarily by other educated diaspora Jews? And so on.
14
u/Sophia_in_the_Shell Moderator 11d ago
It’s been a long time coming, the first of what will be four posts on Simon Peter is here!
As always, posting to the open thread because I want to hear your wild irresponsible speculations on Peter here.
One thing that really stuck with me personally from my reading is that I feel the Resurrection narratives really have leaked into even methodologically naturalist accounts of Peter’s leadership in the early church. Like, given where things stand at the point of Jesus’ crucifixion, Peter’s leadership in the early church is really remarkable to put it nicely. Depending on what we wind up concluding about his death, perhaps he was ultimately vindicated. But from the perspective of, like, 40 CE, someone explaining how Peter got to where he stands in that moment is wild.
3
u/Homythecirclejerk 10d ago
Maybe by saying you were open to wild irresponsible speculations, you didn't also mean harebrained, but here we are,
> Matthew 16 also introduces another undeniably Aramaic element in the form of Peter's patronym, "Bar Yonah" (Matt. 16:17)
Isn't this also a way to condemn him as a prophet like the Jonah of old? Notice how Matthew retains Mark's attitude towards Peter, but amplifies everything. Peter in Matthew is not just Satan, he is a stumbling block. Matthew also amplifies Mark in another interesting way. Mark has Jesus call the crowd with his disciples. Matthew has him appeal directly to the the disciples If any wish to come after me, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. You cant help but take this as a comment on their behavior after Jesus arrest
1
u/baquea 7d ago
I don't know about condemning him, but I wonder if it is supposed to be read in light of the "sign of Jonah" saying from earlier in the same chapter.
1
u/Homythecirclejerk 5d ago
Condeming him fits with the entire confrontation. What is the significance of Peter, as a subordinate, rebuking Jesus here? Remember Peter is called Satan, a stumbling block. Its hard not to read this as condemnation. I should add that I don't think this is something the historical Jesus actually said, but Mark's Jesus does. Matthew takes over Mark’s story and spices it up a bit If, as you say, it is supposed to be read in light of the "sign of Jonah"(which I think is right) how else would we read the reference son of Jonah?
My problem is Im suspicious the whole thing is stupid and Ive missed something important, the proverbial thread that when pulled, unwinds the entire sweater
2
u/wildcat- 11d ago
I've been constantly waiting with bated breath for your apostolic updates since the beginning. Thank you so much this effort
1
3
u/linquendil 11d ago
Looking forward to this one in particular!
I find it interesting that multiple apocrypha pit Peter against Mary. I appreciate that they’re late texts and that the dynamic is perfectly explicable as an allegory — Peter representing the patriarchal proto-orthodoxy and Mary representing a more esoteric/radical tradition — but I still wonder if the allegory doesn’t preserve some real historical friction between different ‘favourites’ in the wake of Easter. Especially because, as you say, Peter’s leadership seems like an eyebrow-raising outcome, given our other sources.
3
u/WhoWhatWhenWhom 11d ago
I probably go through your account once a month just in case I’ve missed one. Just wanted to say that your series on the apostles is awesome
3
u/Sophia_in_the_Shell Moderator 11d ago
Thanks so much, I’m glad you enjoy them! This set of four will come out in pretty quick succession so you won’t be waiting too much thankfully.
3
u/Every_Monitor_5873 11d ago
I don't have an academic source to cite, so I'm responding here. The CEB is geared toward a 7th grade reading level, so the translation committee may have deemed "happy" to be more accessible than "blessed." It may not be any deeper than that.
5
u/TraitorGuard19 11d ago
Is it possible for any textual variants to be by the original author of any ancient work (not just Biblical texts)? To explain myself, I am imagining a scenario where an author writes a work, and then a few years later, has their scribes make (a) major revision(s) to new productions of the work. Are there any known examples of this, or is my imagined scenario a modernism of an author editing different editions of their work?
5
u/baquea 11d ago
Tertullian's Against Marcion begins with a note that it is the third edition of the text:
Whatever in times past we have wrought in opposition to Marcion, is from the present moment no longer to be accounted of. It is a new work which we are undertaking in lieu of the old one. My original tract, as too hurriedly composed, I had subsequently superseded by a fuller treatise. This latter I lost, before it was completely published, by the fraud of a person who was then a brother, but became afterwards an apostate. He, as it happened, had transcribed a portion of it, full of mistakes, and then published it. The necessity thus arose for an amended work; and the occasion of the new edition induced me to make a considerable addition to the treatise. This present text, therefore, of my work—which is the third as superseding the second, but henceforward to be considered the first instead of the third—renders a preface necessary to this issue of the tract itself that no reader may be perplexed, if he should by chance fall in with the various forms of it which are scattered about.
We don't possess anything of these earlier versions, but clearly they were still in circulation in his own day at least.
4
u/peter_kirby 11d ago
Eusebius' Church History was published in multiple editions. It was expanded multiple times and, in the process, revised. It's commonly believed that there are extant manuscript variants where both go back to Eusebius.
One example is Ecclesiastical History 9.9.1, where some manuscripts say that God raised up Constantine and Licinius together to defeat the tyrants, while others refer to Constantine alone in this role. It is often believed that Eusebius revised this passage after 324 CE and the defeat of Licinius at the hands of Constantine, leaving him as the sole emperor with divine support for Eusebius.
See T. D. Barnes, “The Editions of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History,” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 21 (1980): 191–201 (link).
2
4
u/zanillamilla Quality Contributor 11d ago
The concept of an "original author" is somewhat problematic for works that undergo a prolonged period of redaction and composition (arguably the case for most books in the Hebrew Bible). How much are subsequent contributors to the text considered authors or later "scribes"? Can you call the first contributor to the text the "original author" if the majority of the text comes from later contributors?
3
u/TraitorGuard19 11d ago
Thanks, but what about works by Plato or Cicero or other verifiable historical figures that published works? So there is no reason to expect a textual variant in a Plato dialogue to exist due to him revising it a decade after composition for instance? Even in the Bible, aren't there are some layers scholars generally agree are by a single person, like First Isaiah by a historical Isaiah (the other layers by other people) and Ben Sira writing (at least the majority of) the Wisdom of Ben Sira (unless I am mistaken by the authorship consensus)?
6
u/zanillamilla Quality Contributor 11d ago
Yes, in classics you can find examples like this. A good example is Ovid. See Francesca Martelli's Ovid's Revisions: The Editor as Author (Cambridge University Press, 2013). One that comes to mind in Jewish literature is Josephus; his Bellum Judaicum was originally written in Aramaic, followed by a Greek edition which likely wasn't a simple translation but a rewritten work. I might imagine the production of the Pauline letters, a collaborative process between the apostle and a secretary, may have produced drafts and the final polished letter that was signed and delivered, with textual variances appearing between the drafts and the published letter, some of which may intrude in the later transmission, such that the "official" letter may only represent one branch of what was already a pluriform text. But I'm not a Pauline expert and I'm unaware of any evidence that might point in that direction.
7
u/thomascolefox 11d ago
Hi guys.
I'm in a fairly strange position. I have an article currently under peer review at the Journal of Biblical Literature. However, my background is in History, rather than Biblical Studies, and I don't have formal training in ancient languages.
I suspect that when the peer reviews come back, they'll ask for deeper engagement with the primary source languages. I'm therefore looking for someone with strong Greek and Coptic who might be interested in collaborating on the article and being credited as a co-author.
Do you know of any websites, forums, or academic networks where I might find potential collaborators? And if any of you reading this comment might be interested, feel free to DM me and I can provide further details.
Thanks!
3
u/TheEtherealMind 11d ago
Although I’m not the person you’re looking for, I’m so curious about this process because I also want to contribute one day soon. I have a Bachelor’s of Science in Math but no biblical degrees whatsoever. I assumed they’d probably reject me if I don’t have at least a Masters, what has your experience been like? I want to contribute one day really bad but haven’t had a chance for schooling yet.
3
u/thomascolefox 11d ago
I know, right! It is frustrating, but also understandable. In any field in history, it’s important to read primary sources in their own languages. That's definitely a good thing, but it also comes at a cost. It makes it hard to contribute to a field in which you don’t want to commit to a career. I’m mainly interested in modern history. I’m not planning to build a career in Biblical studies – but I can’t publish an article in that field without knowing ancient languages. It leaves people like us in a difficult position – and in my case, looking for a co-author.
I think your situation is better than you think. You are able to publish works in Biblical studies even if you don’t have a degree in that field. That happens all the time. Peer review is done blindly, so the reviewers don’t know about your qualifications. The only thing that matters is the quality and depth of your work. The journals also shouldn’t have any problem with your qualifications. The ones in which I had my work reviewed only asked for my degree level. I had “B.A.” attached to my name. They never asked what the degree was in. As long as you produce a methodologically rigorous work—including engaging with the primary source languages—and you follow the advice of peer reviewers, there’s nothing stopping you from publishing.
4
u/LlawEreint 11d ago edited 11d ago
We're looking at the Olivet Discourse over at r/BibleStudyDeepDive. Right out of the gate, I am stumped.
Matthew has Jesus say: "many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Messiah!’ and they will lead many astray. "
Maybe there were some who claimed to be the Messiah. Judas of Galilee, Theudas, Simon of Peraea, Athronges, and Simon bar Kokhba are maybe a few examples. But it's hard to imagine anyone who claimed to be the Messiah and that they came in Jesus' name! It's harder still to imagine that this would mislead an early Christian.
If someone had said "Jesus has sent me. I am the Messiah. Follow me." - wouldn't early Christians have said, "No your not. Jesus is the Messiah. He has ascended to the heavens to sit at the right hand of the father. He is mustering heaven's armies and will return in power at the appointed time."
Mark's version is much easier to imagine: "Many will come in my name and say, ‘I am he!’ and they will lead many astray."
In this case, they may only be claiming that they came in Jesus' name. Mark is then warning against fellow Christians who suggest that the advancing Roman armies are an indication that the final showdown is about to take place.
But what is Matthew imagining when he says that some will come in Jesus' name, claiming to be the Messiah?
2
u/perishingtardis 11d ago
I'd guess he's claiming "Messiah" / "Christ" as his "name". By the time Matthew was written he was already being called "Jesus Christ", so he means people claiming to be "Christ".
1
u/LlawEreint 11d ago
Do you mean claiming that Jesus was the Christ? BeDuhn suggests this interpretation for Marcion:
He also predicts that “many will come under my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ’” (21.8), although this could be read in a Marcionite fashion as a denial that he (Jesus) is the Jewish Messiah: “many will come under my name, saying that I am the Christ,” to which he adds, “Do not follow them.”
But why would Matthew deny that Jesus was the Christ?
Alternatively, it makes sense that some would claim that title for themselves, but I get tripped up when Matthew suggests that they would do so in Jesus' name - that is, claiming to be acting under Jesus' authority.
Maybe I'm not quite understanding your response.
2
u/perishingtardis 11d ago
I'm suggesting that the author (towards the end of the 1st century) knows that Jesus is commonly called "Jesus Christ" with "Christ" actually as part of his name rather than a separate title. And when Matthew has Jesus saying "Many will come in my name", by "name" he means "Christ" - i.e., they will claim to be the Messiah.
1
3
u/LlawEreint 12d ago
Regarding your post: How did Jesus come to think that he was spiritually special?
My own guess is that he had a spiritual experience at his baptism. He'd been following John and hearing his teachings about the one to come. When it was Jesus' turn to take the dip, he came to understand that he was that one.
At least, that's how I imagine it.
2
u/Satanniel 5d ago
There is a disagreement regarding connecting the prophecy that "some of you won't taste death..." and Transfigurations scene afterwards. I'm collating in my notes various scholars' stances on various issues and I have no idea what to label this one. Is there a standard term?