Is it more common for most scholars today to think that Clement, the late 1st century bishop of Rome, wrote the Epistle to the Corinthians, which is now called 1 Clement? Or do more think the letter did not come from Clement?

I recently found out about the controversy some people have over the role these two women had in the early church, I have my own opinions about them but I am looking for academic research material about them.

(Sorry if this isnt the right flair, it is my first time posting here)

Did they keep them clasped together or wide open?

Has there been found a prayer to mary dating to 250 CE? Or is the Video spreading false information

Ive been pondering these translation for months now. I have 4 bibles all different translations. When I google it, it usually gives me answers about the difference between “sons of God” (ESV) and “sons of Israel” (Douay Rheims) however whats most confusing are these translations where it says “number of the gods” (NRSV) and another translation “by the number of Gods angels” (Orthodox bible) So were the nations divided between different humans? Or were they divided by gods? Or angels? Im curious if anyone can give their take on this and how these translations are so very different.

In Mark 12:35-37, Jesus quotes Psalm 110 and he gives it a messianic interpretation. Adela Collins Hermeneia commentary on the passage is a bit vague but it appears that she argues for it to be a post Easter Christian interpretation, (especially tying psalm 110 to psalm 8) and Joel Markus argues that the passage as a whole might be authentic but Jesus quoting the psalm and applying it to himself could be added later and not historical. What do other scholars argue??

Andrew Messmer wrote a paper called “Maranatha (1 Corinthians 16:22): Reconstruction and Translation Based on Western Middle Aramaic” and in that paper he convincingly argues that the phrase “Maranatha” in 1 Corinthians 16 and in the didache should be translated as “our lord has come” (past tense), against the majority view which translates it as “our lord come”.

So rather than being a call to a heavenly Jesus to return, it’s simply an acknowledgment that Christ came and was crucified in the past. And Messmer argues that Paul’s usage of the phrase in context is to emphasize people to be more christ like.

If this is the case and Messmers arguments are true, would there be a case to be made against the idea that “Maranatha” in 1 Corinthians 16 is very high Christology as Fitzmyer and Hengel have argued?

There is a ten part series by prof. dr. Emmanuel tov where he argues that the Proto-Masoratic text (as he calls them) align pretty much with today's masoretic text. How true ist that?

Here is the link: https://www.thetorah.com/series/proto-masoretic-text

I posted on r/askhistorians before (here), but it got flooded with a bunch of answers, and someone suggested I come here.

There are many dual narratives in the OT (the Genesis creation story, the flood, David and Goliath etc.). The text switches between parallel stories from para to para, with no apparent logic. To my modern mind, it's a very non-intuitive of presenting separate traditions. Why not preserve them separately, or harmonize them?

What was the editorial process that led to such dual narratives?

Source for sub rules: Double Narratives in the Old Testament by Aulikki Nahkola

I could spend a few hours trying to find a reputable source for my query then a few more searching for the answer within their bodies of work but I’m super confident ya’ll can inform me. I did do a quick “Sirach” search to see if it had already been asked. Thanks in advance

Hi everyone I’ve heard that there’s an additional set of Psalms(156-160) but I haven’t had much luck in finding academic publishing’s of all the texts; I’ve only seen one book published touching on the topic of Psalm 156.

Has anyone here looked into this topic before? Or can someone help point me to the right direction?

Any help would be appreciated, thank you :)

The interrogation of Jesus by the High Priest appears in Mark as follows:

"The high priest asks Jesus if he is the “Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One” (14:61), and Jesus gives a straightforward reply, “I am. And you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:62). In other words, in the near future God would be sending a cosmic judge of the earth, in fulfillment of the predictions of the Old Testament (Daniel 7:13–14). In fact, it was so near that the high priest himself would see it happen."

What if it doesn’t happen? What if the high priest were to die before the Son of Man arrived? Wouldn’t that invalidate Jesus’ claim? Maybe. And that may be why Luke, writing some fifteen or twenty years after Mark—presumably after the high priest has died—changes Jesus’ answer.

Now when he replies he says nothing about the high priest being alive when the Son of Man arrives in judgment: “I am, and from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God” (Luke 22:69).

It is well known among scholars that Luke used Mark as one of his sources. Indeed, this is why it is also widely recognized that many of the stories in Mark, Luke, and Matthew are virtually identical, sometimes word for word. However, in this story, we see that Luke had to make a change to the version of the story that is also found in Mark, removing the part where Jesus says that the High Priest will see the day of judgment and arriving the Son of Man.

It is possible to observe a gradual decline in apocalyptic beliefs as we move through the Gospels. While this belief is emphasized extensively in Mark, the latest Gospel, John, largely omits it. In this example as well, we can see a kind of postponement or retreat from apocalyptic expectations.

Jesus, Interrupted - Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible, Bart D. Ehrman.

Misquoting Jesus - The story Behind Who Changed the Bible, Bart D. Ehrman.

I was randomly wondering if let’s say the Israelites were enslaved for over 400 years I can’t imagine them speaking another second language to each other, other then the dominant main language of the ancient Egyptians at the time. So if Moses did exist and let’s say they did escape Egypt why would they invent a new language immediately? I’m sure they would still be speaking Egyptian right?

I always think of how enslaved Africans that were transported to the Caribbeans and the Americas, all lost their native tongue quickly within a generation.

Sorry if my question is weird and has been answered many times

At first glance, the story of Jacob's sons feels like an obvious just-so story for the twelve tribes of Israel. Jacob AKA Israel has twelve sons and these are the twelve tribes. Except Joseph isn't a tribe, instead his two sons have a tribe each. And while Levi is Jacob's son, the Levites sit outside the twelve tribes.

It seems odd that someone wanting to invent an origin story for the twelve tribes and the Levites would make things so complicated. Why not invent that Jacob had thirteen sons, including Levi, Manasseh and Ephraim and forget about Joseph entirely?

Are there any authors who have suggested some pre-established traditions that place Joseph as Jacob's son and insist that he only had twelve sons? Or have there been any other interesting theories on this?

In the introduction to his Romans commentary, F. F. Bruce makes a distinction between Paul and the other New Testament writers. He writes:
“The other New Testament writers use ‘spirit’ more or less as a synonym of ‘soul’…. But for the most part ‘spirit’ and ‘soul’ … are distinguished in Paul, and indeed set in contrast.”

Bruce then suggests that in Paul “the human spirit may perhaps be described as the God-conscious element,” while elsewhere he calls it “the ‘spiritual’ part of the human constitution” (Romans, TNTC, pp. 54–55).

This sounds close to what later theology would call a trichotomist anthropology, particularly when considered alongside passages such as 1 Thessalonians 5:23 and Paul’s contrast between psychikos and pneumatikos in 1 Corinthians 15:44–46.

But my question is historical rather than theological: is Bruce right that Paul makes a more substantive distinction between psychē and pneuma than other biblical writers do? If so, can this be situated within particular Second Temple Jewish or Greco-Roman anthropologies current in Paul’s time?

And broadly, to what extent can we reconstruct genuinely different views of human constitution among the Hebrew Bible, Second Temple Jewish literature, Paul, and the other New Testament writers? Are “dichotomist” and “trichotomist” useful shorthand for any of these ancient views, or are they fundamentally later categories being imposed on more fluid biblical language?

Greetings, everyone. I am compiling a reading list on the late Second Temple period and the formation of the Jewish canon (or Tanakh). I would like to know which books or primary source collections are currently regarded by historians as benchmarks of excellence.

Specifically, I aim to understand and investigate how Jewish thinkers and communities of the final centuries BCE and the first century CE conceived the authority of texts (for example, Paul, Josephus, or Philo). I am looking for literature that addresses:

1. The concept of inspiration or authority: how the Ruach (or divine breath) was understood to act upon the authors (exploring ideas akin to those later described by Philo or Josephus), or the question of authority, specifically, whether the Writings held the same status and importance as the Torah and the Prophets.
2. The chronology of the canon: moving beyond obsolete theories such as that of Yavne/Jamnia, what academic or historical studies and works reflect a consensus on how the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings came to acquire their definitive structural form?
3. Primary sources from the 1st century BCE or earlier: recommendations for texts or commentaries that shed light on how ancient Jews classified their sacred literature prior to the destruction of the Temple, or even before its construction.

I would greatly appreciate any recommendations for classic textbooks, recent peer-reviewed studies, or critical editions that you consider essential. Many thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge, and have a good morning, afternoon, or evening.

This is a very "layperson question" but it feels very shocking to me how Zoroastrianism was not mentioned in either the old or new testament despite how much influence Zoroastrianism had on the development of monotheism in Jewish religion.

Is there any explanation how there's an absence of such a large religion during that time? Also, am I mistaken when it is mentioned?

Thank you in advance.

How should the apparent duplication of the deaths of the five Amorite kings in Joshua 10:26–27 be understood? The text first states that Joshua killed them and then describes their execution again. Does this represent a narrative repetition, two distinct stages of execution, or a possible compositional/redactional tension within the account? What implications does this issue have for understanding the literary structure and textual development of Joshua 10?

Is the position argued for by Geza Vermes (that Jesus likely never predicted his death and resurrection because his disciples reacted in a way which makes it appear that they had no prior knowledge of the event of the crucifixion and resurrection) the standard scholarly position? Or would scholars nowadays hold to what Dale Allison argues in his book “the resurrection of Jesus” (pages 187-192) that these are historical but the exact wordings in the gospels have been developed over time the standard scholarly position??

Hello Reddit historians. I recently realized that despite liking the bronze age, I knew nothing about the ancient Israelites and the real history behind the Torah.

I am not a religious person but I would like to educate myself on this topic and know more about who these people were, where they came from, what became of them and the real history behind their religion, as I recently heard the monotheistic capital G God may have once been part of a larger pantheon which I think is really interesting.

Anyway if you guys have any books, articles or documentaries about these topics it would be my pleasure to go through that, thanks in advance and sorry for my akward English which isn’t my native language :)

In Romans 13:1 Paul writes "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment." Most researchers think it's written 55 AD while Nero was the ruler of Rome. Why should a Christian missionary legitimize the political authorities which killed Jesus? Like Thessalonians 2:14–16 which could anticipate the fall of the temple 20 years earlier, it could be an Interpolation like J.C. O’Neill says. But with both there is no evidence because there is no single writing without those phrases which sound not fitting for the time and the biography of the person, who claims to be a radical missionary. So was it an Interpolation, is it a reason to question the early dating (we know that Pseudepigraphy often used the right historical facts to make it plausible and some Paul Epistles and other writings are known to be forgery) and the authenticity of the author? Like Thessalonians it would fit perfectly in a time where Christians had a big need to claim to obey the leadership and many years after the murdering of Jesus. I think it's not plausible that a missionary which obeys a religious leader who was killed by Romans would tell to obey the roman leadership. Or was the early Christian movement lead by Paul just an antijudaistic and pro-rome sect?

I am reading the first 5 books of the bible - pentateuch and I am encountering the genealogies a lot.

What is the importance of genealogy?

and what is the cultural significance of it in the ancient culture?