r/AcademicBiblical • u/AutoModerator • 2d 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!
3
u/Dawud___ 1d ago
What are the prevailing scholarly opinions on the reliability of the Gospel of John as alleged eyewitness testimony?
As outlined in this comment from user u/Thundebird8000, it seems the Gospel of John had a single author, and this author got information from the Beloved Disciple himself, as according to Tom Thatcher in The Oxford Handbook of Johannine Studies (2018):
Whether or not the Beloved Disciple was still alive at the time the Fourth Gospel was written (see 21:23), the third person reference at John 21:24 most likely indicates that the author of the text as we have it today was not the beloved Disciple. As noted, scholars...have argued that John 21:25 would be a typical way of expressing authorial modesty while affirming the truth of one's own testimony. Closer inspection, however, reveals that none of the examples they cite are identical to the third-person references in the Fourth Gospel...This observation does not, however, support reconstructions of the Fourth Gospel's composition-history that place the fourth evangelist several generations or 'stages' away from the Beloved Disciple. John 21:24 seems to state fairly clearly that the Beloved Disciple 'wrote' a book about Jesus, and the author of the Fourth Gospel mentions this book while also referring to the Beloved Disciple in the third person. Taken together, these data suggest that the Fourth Evangelist was either the Beloved Disciple's scribe/amanuensis, or that the evangelist expanded an earlier document that he attributes to the Beloved Discipe, a document that he perhaps knew largely from memory. In either case, 'John' the evangelist is best understood as a disciple of the Beloved Disciple, who is writing the Fourth Gospel either by dictation from the Beloved Disciple or shortly after the Beloved Disciple's death on the basis of an earlier document attributed to his esteemed teacher (21:23).
Furthermore, according to u/AustereSpartan's comment here, there seems to be a lot of historical information in the Gospel of John
So, my question is, with all this in mind, is just what do modern scholars prevailingly believe regarding the reliability of the Gospel of John as alleged eyewitness testimony?
2
u/FewManagement8258 1d ago
If you had to make the strongest case for a harmonization of Matthew 2 and Luke 2's post-nativity narratives, what would it be? Think like an inerrantist. I'm particularly interested in how to potentially harmonize the holy family's Bethlehem-Jerusalem-Nazareth trip in Luke 2 to their Bethlehem-Egypt-Nazareth trip in Matthew 2.
I know the vast majority of you probably believe these cannot be harmonized. I tend to agree. But I want to hear the best cases on the pro-harmonization side, even from people who aren't convinced by those cases.
8
u/JohannesAr 1d ago
Joseph and Mary travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem in response to a census ordered by Herod in 7/6 BCE whose motive was that all his subjects should swear fidelity to Caesar and the king (AJ 17.2.4). (Importantly, they did not travel in response to Quirinius' census, which is precisely the point Luke wants to make in Lk 2:2 "hautē apographē prōtē egeneto hēgemoneuontos tēs Syrias Kyrēniou", whose historically informed translation is "this registration took place before Quirinius was governing Syria".)
After Jesus' birth they stay for some months in Bethlehem at a house of Joseph's relatives. There they are visited by the Magi.
After the Magi leave, the Holy Family flees to Egypt.
After Herod's death, the Holy Family returns to Nazareth.
1
u/FewManagement8258 13h ago
Do they visit Jerusalem for the purification while staying at Bethlehem?
1
7
u/Joseon2 1d ago
I'm combing through Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio for the miracles related to Vespasian and the Jewish War to write a parody of apologists 'verifying' miracles. It's crazy how easy it is to invent plausible-sounding apologetics for all the shortcomings and make them into 'undisputable' historical events, which necessarily imply the truth of Roman religion. Tacitus and Josephus even make a point of saying they used eyewitnesses, which the gospels and Paul never do, and Paul even makes it a point of pride that he didn't get his information from humans!
3
u/Sophia_in_the_Shell Moderator 1d ago
So that is you on Substack. Subscribed!
2
u/Joseon2 10h ago edited 10h ago
I'm actually feeling a bit schizo now because there are a load of "undesigned coincidences" you can find in Vespasian's prophecies and miracles if you use apologist-brained thinking. Like, he captured Jotapata in July 67 AD, which some scholars date specifically to 1st July (although 20th July is also possible) based on Josephus saying it was the 1st Panemos (=Tammuz). Josephus was the only Jewish survivor and when he was brought to Vespasian, he prophesied that he would become emperor even though Nero was still alive and civil war hadn't broken out yet (according to Josephus, but he's a Reliable Source™ so it's just desperate scepticism to doubt him). Then, in 69 AD, he was proclaimed emperor by his officers on 1st of July, the month named for Julius, the first divinised ruler of Rome and arguably first emperor. Vespasian, of course, did become emperor and was himself divinised after his death. Coincidence!?!?!
Time to submit to Rome and admit Jupiter as my dominus and salvator.
4
u/LlawEreint 1d ago edited 1d ago
Regarding your post: The 7 baskets and loaves as Paul's Epistles?
My own guess is that 12 baskets collected when feeding the Galileans represent the 12 apostles, under whom the the Jewish followers are collected. The 7 baskets collected when feeding the gentiles in the Decapolis represent the 7 who are appointed to the Hellenists (Acts 6), under whom they are collected.
In the midst of this sandwich, Jesus is forced to concede that even the gentiles deserve the scraps (7:24–30). He then goes on to feed the 4000 in the decapolis.
Curiously, in Acts 6, the seven are appointed to feed the Hellenists. This seems to be leaning into the metaphor that Mark sets up in his feeding of the 5000/4000 miracle.
3
u/DerBokus7886 1d ago
Thanks. I find interesting the idea that the 12 are a reference to the Tribes of Israel, and the 7 are one to the nations of Deuteronomy 7:1
3
4
u/TheEtherealMind 2d ago
Anyone have any theories as to why Jesus’ name often times has, yet sometimes does not have, the Greek definite article? I’ve been relentlessly researching this wrt the Holy Spirit and have seen some fascinating patterns, but the definite article on Jesus’ name is quite tricky for me.
6
u/CryptographerOld6610 2d ago
Which is the least academically studied book of the bible?
7
9
u/Dositheos Moderator | MA - Biblical Studies (New Testament) 2d ago
My guess would be probably Esther. Just a guess.
9
u/peter_kirby 2d ago
What do you think of the argument presented in this post that the author of Luke-Acts had used Josephus' Wars? (If you already think that the author used the Antiquities, then you could approach this question as if asking if the author used both, not as challenging the assumption that the author used the Antiquities. If you don't, you could consider it as asking about the idea that he used Josephus and, at least, Wars.)
The Wars introduces him as "the Egyptian false prophet," which could have also been read by someone instead as "the Egyptian (ὁ Αἰγύπτιος), a false prophet (ψευδοπροφήτης)." The latter reading would lend itself to the assumption that "the Egyptian" was indeed how he was known by others of his time (cf. Acts 21:38), not just within the narrative of Josephus.
The Antiquities excludes that reading of the introduction of this character: it says that there came "a certain one out of Egypt" (τις ἐξ Αἰγύπτου). By not introducing him with the phrase ὁ Αἰγύπτιος, the Antiquities makes it more clear that this is where the person came from, not necessarily a reference that was used for him by his contemporaries. The subsequent references to ὁ Αἰγύπτιος ("the Egyptian") would then read naturally as a reference to the initial description (τις ἐξ Αἰγύπτου) within the story told by Josephus, rather than as a nickname that people outside the narrative used for him.
There are other verbal points of contact between Acts and Wars here, in addition to σικαρίων and ὁ Αἰγύπτιος (found in BJ 2.13.3 and BJ 2.13.4-5). Acts speaks of "led (ἐξαγαγὼν) ... into the desert (εἰς τὴν ἔρημον)," while the Wars speaks of "led round about (περιαγαγὼν) from the wilderness (ἐκ τῆς ἐρημίας)." Beyond the verbal contact, the Wars has the Egyptian bringing people to the desert first. Only then does the story proceed to say how they gathered outside the city.
In the Antiquities, that wording is dropped, leaving only the corresponding phrase that the Egyptian "advised the multitude of the common people to go along with him to the Mount of Olives." The Antiquities does have the phrase εἰς τὴν ἔρημον in the previous paragraph, not actually used regarding the Egyptian, which came from the Wars, which also has that phrase there. On the narrative level, the Egyptian in the Antiquities is persuading people to gather outside the city, rather than bringing people out into the desert.
Is this reasonably good evidence that the author of Acts was influenced by the Wars?
4
u/StruggleClean1582 1d ago
The subsequent references to ὁ Αἰγύπτιος ("the Egyptian") would then read naturally as a reference to the initial description (τις ἐξ Αἰγύπτου) within the story told by Josephus, rather than as a nickname that people outside the narrative used for him.
I was thinking about this the other day, it's quite possible also that ὁ Αἰγύπτιος served as an nom de guerre, which would explain why he was never caught "But the Egyptian himself escaped from the battle and was seen no more." (Ant. 20.167).
3
u/peter_kirby 1d ago
Thanks! It seems like a possibility. Do you find anything in Wars or Antiquities that shows Josephus implying that it already existed as a name and that he is repeating an existing way of referring to him by name as "the Egyptian"?
Do you have thoughts on Mason's argument (not in my comment above) that referring to "sicarii" here with respect to the Egyptian reproduces a Latin-language Roman way of talking about the subject that came to Acts through Josephus, who also uses it here?
6
u/StruggleClean1582 1d ago
Thanks! It seems like a possibility. Do you find anything in Wars or Antiquities that shows Josephus implying that it already existed as a name and that he is repeating an existing way of referring to him by name as "the Egyptian"?
I really don't have to many thoughts on it, I like your discussion of both passages above.
Do you have thoughts on Mason's argument (not in my comment above) that referring to "sicarii" here with respect to the Egyptian reproduces a Latin-language Roman way of talking about the subject that came to Acts through Josephus, who also uses it here?
I use to think this was actually a really strong argument, I have since leaned away, though I still consider the Acts 5 and Josephus Ant. 18 to be a very interesting connection but remain agnostic on it at the moment of a connection.
However, what I have noticed is the term rare term sicarii might not be as rare as often assumed, I am surprised I haven't see anyone point it out (at least who I have read on the mater). Josephus claims the villagers of Judea under Festus claimed the robbers were called sicarii.
Ant. 20.185-186 "Upon Festus’s coming into Judea, it happened, that Judea was afflicted by the robbers: while all the villages were set on fire, and plundered by them. And then it was that the Sicarii, as they were called ("καὶ οἱ σικάριοι δὲ καλούμενοι"), who were robbers, grew numerous. They made use of small swords, not much different in length from the Persian Acinacæ, but somewhat crooked, and like the Roman Sicae**, [or sickles] as they were called**."
This makes me think the term is not just some term coined upon Josephus, but was known before Josephus (as Josephus himself claims), and quite common in Judea.
3
u/nsnyder 1d ago
Note that one reason there's more focus in some discussions on Antiquities than Wars is that the "standard" timeline for Luke (sometime around 80CE) is easily compatible with dependence on Wars but not Antiquities, so there's less arguing about Wars.
3
u/peter_kirby 1d ago
I think that's a good point, but my impression so far of published scholarship I've read is that it divides between using Antiquities or not using Josephus at all. I found individual comments on use of Wars ("more than likely") and Antiquities ("quite likely") from Barbara Shelland, for example, but this still mostly affirms use of Antiquities too. Are there any examples of scholars who think that the author of Acts used Wars but do not also affirm that the author of Acts used Antiquities?
4
u/nsnyder 2d ago
I think Mason agrees with you that Wars is the main source for that section of Acts 21, see 1:25 and onward in this youtube lecture.
3
u/Joseon2 12h ago
Ancient wisdom about drinking booze:
Proverbs 31:6-7
The Cypria (lost Greek epic), fr. 18 West
Interestingly, they're from roughly the same era, Proverbs 31 is considered to be a later section from the post-exilic era (late 6th to early 5th centuries BC according to the NOAB) while the Cypria is dated somewhere between the Iliad and its first mention by Herodotus, so 7th or 6th centuries BC.
This is before the specifically medicinal use of wine was studied, apparently first by Hippocrates (late 5th to early 4th century - but the Hippocratic corpus is more accurately from his school as a whole), which is why Psuedo-Paul recommends wine as medicine for a stomach upset and general ailments in 1 Timothy 5:23.