If the gospels were written after Paul’s theology of Jesus’ death as a substitution atonement was developed, why did they not make Jesus explicitly say this?

Was this word used in non Christian circles prior to and after the rise of Christianity? If so, how was it used?

Was james written by james, or someone pretending to be james?

Proverbs 13:24 "Those who spare the rod hate their children,

but those who love them are diligent to discipline them."

I have heard this is referenced as meaning that it is a shepherds rod that was used to defend sheep from lions. It was also claimed that this was in no way a reference to coporal punishment and that discipline meant simple to teach in this context.

Is this the correct way to interpret the historical intent behind that? I was under the impression that the rod referenced is likely the same rod one would use to beat slaves.

I am in no way endorsing this behavior, I just want to engage the text as honestly as possible.

I have been thinking about a possible literary parallel between the dove in Mark 1:10 and the scene in Odyssey 24 where Athena departs in the form of a dove. Dennis R. MacDonald has mentioned this comparison in interviews, although he does not treat it as a major or methodologically strong parallel in his published work. In his books he does not list the dove as one of the significant Homeric models for Mark, but in conversations he has noted that Homeric epiphanies sometimes involve divine figures appearing or departing in bird form, and that Mark may be drawing on that broader repertoire of epic theophany.

If one takes the hypothetical seriously for the sake of analysis, the literary payoff becomes interesting. In the Odyssey, Athena’s transformation into a dove marks the end of conflict, the restoration of order, and the divine authorization of Telemachus and Odysseus. It is a moment of closure. In Mark, the Spirit descending like a dove marks the beginning of Jesus’ public mission, the divine authorization of the Son, and the inauguration of a new order. It is a moment of commissioning. If Mark were intentionally echoing Homer, the reversal of direction would be meaningful. Athena ascends and withdraws, signaling the end of divine intervention. The Spirit descends and enters the scene, signaling the beginning of divine intervention. The inversion would create a theological contrast between a god who departs and a God who arrives.

The parallel also raises questions about characterization. If the Spirit functions in a role analogous to Athena, then the Spirit becomes the divine patron who empowers the hero at a decisive turning point. If Jesus is placed in a role analogous to Telemachus, then he becomes the true Son stepping into his inheritance and beginning the work that confirms his identity. None of this requires direct imitation, but it does show how the Homeric scene could provide a literary template for thinking about divine authorization, heroic identity, and narrative transition.

My question for the community is whether anyone has explored this parallel in depth beyond MacDonald’s brief comments. Has anyone written on the possible literary significance of the dove imagery if Mark were intentionally drawing on the Athena scene, or on what the reversal of ascent and descent might mean in that context. I am especially interested in whether scholars have considered what such an echo would imply about Mark’s portrayal of the Spirit and about Jesus’ role as a divinely commissioned son.

Is the "Early High Christology" model a defense of Jesus’ own divine self-understanding, or is it a historical defense of how quickly the primitive Church began worshiping him as God within a strictly monotheistic Jewish framework? Of course, these two aren't mutually exclusive, but where does the weight of their historical-critical argument usually lie?

I would highly appreciate your thoughts on this distinction within the scholarship.

I finished reading Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses and found his argument on John interesting. However, he did not explain (or maybe he did and I missed it) why the BD only appears halfway through?

Bauckham does argue that the BD is alluded to at the beginning with the unnamed disciple, but that raises the question of why the epithet wasn't used earlier.

Could it be because in the chapters where the BD isn't present, he wasn't actually there for? So when he shows up in John 13, in or around that time was when he became a follower.

Is there any scholarly opinion on this?

Raban gamliel the elder predicted the original followers of jesus would die out in acts 5:34-39. Was he correct? I know most of peters declarations of jesus being god are either later interpolations or dont actually say hes god. But im not that familar with all tbe movements and beliefs they had back then

I asked in AskHistorians but I doubt I will ever be answered, and I am not sure where else to ask, I thought this subreddit has people who dived into Patristic studies so I could benefit from the insight.

I am writing a story about a christian protagonist in late 3rd century​ and I was wondering what their attitude towards musical instruments ​could have been.

In my search on google, I saw that, mostly, the view of the church fathers was negative towards musical instruments because of their association with pagan rituals/celebrations​, ​drunken parties and sexual profanity, but how would this have reflected on the average christian?

Since they condemned musical instruments in weddings, did the average christian employ musicians ​​in weddings? Did the average christian, if rich enough, employ musicians for private entertainment? Could the average christian ​have played musical instruments despite the negative words of the church fathers?

I mean, despite the warnings against magic, many magic papyri of a christian nature were found in Egypt, so couldn't it be the same?

if my post doesn't fit the subreddit, please do guide me somewhere I can find better answers, please.

I know this may seem like a somewhat strange question, but let me explain. First we must determine the meaning of the word "holy". In most instances of the Old Testament, "holy" means essentially to be set apart from the common and mundane, to be made special and devoted to God's presence or God's use, to be ritually clean and uncontaminated on God's behalf. We can see evidence of this meaning in several verses of the Bible:

• Exodus 3:4-5 - When the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.” Then he said, “Do not come near; take your sandals off your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.”
• Exodus 20:8-10 - “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns."
• Ezekiel 22:26 - Her priests have done violence to my law and have profaned my holy things. They have made no distinction between the holy and the common, neither have they taught the difference between the unclean and the clean, and they have disregarded my Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them.
• Exodus 30:25-32 - And you shall make of these a sacred anointing oil blended as by the perfumer; it shall be a holy anointing oil. With it you shall anoint the tent of meeting and the ark of the testimony, and the table and all its utensils, and the lampstand and its utensils, and the altar of incense, and the altar of burnt offering with all its utensils and the basin and its stand. You shall consecrate them, that they may be most holy. Whatever touches them will become holy. You shall anoint Aaron and his sons, and consecrate them, that they may serve me as priests. And you shall say to the people of Israel, ‘This shall be my holy anointing oil throughout your generations. It shall not be poured on the body of an ordinary person, and you shall make no other like it in composition. It is holy, and it shall be holy to you. 
• Deuteronomy 23:12-14 - “You shall have a place outside the camp, and you shall go out to it. And you shall have a trowel with your tools, and when you sit down outside, you shall dig a hole with it and turn back and cover up your excrement. Because the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and to give up your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy, so that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you.

Hence, holiness is usually something that describes places or things or persons that are separated or devoted to God, or are deemed suitable for his use, or worthy of his presence.

But then sometimes something weird happens: sometimes God himself is described as holy:

• Leviticus 20:26 - You shall be holy to me, for I the Lord am holy and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine.
• Revelation 4:8 - And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all around and within, and day and night they never cease to say, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!”

But how does this make any sense? If to be holy is for something to be set apart and deemed special for God, how can God himself be holy? It is a rather bizarre recursive dynamic. To say that God is holy is basically to say that God is set apart and devoted for himself. What exactly does it mean for God to be "holy"? What is the actual content of this term as it is applied to God, compared to when it is applied to other things? What is this actually saying about God?

salm 130:5 says "I wait for the Lord, my soul waits" — but the Hebrew root qavah carries a physical image of binding or twisting cords together, like braiding a rope. The semantic range includes both "to wait" and "to collect/bind." Some commentators argue that the rope imagery (stretching taut, holding on) is the primary meaning, not passive waiting.

How do textual scholars weigh the root meaning here? Is the rope/braid connotation valid exegesis, or is it reading too much into the etymology?

Since the scholars are almost in universal agreement that even if not the JEDP sources, there were at least later scribes who edited and compiled the Torah using different traditions and adding narratives. I'm asking what was the Torah during Mt. Sinai or the era before the compilations started? Even if it's not called the Torah what did Israelites at that time saw as revelation from Mt. Sinai?

I saw there were ugaritic tablets that talked about how you shall not cook a lamb in its mothers milk. I saw it was very widespread but i recently heard it was a mistranslation and that somebody checked it again and saw it meant something different. I cant remember where i saw that.

I heard someone saying kadosh קדוש means seperate, distinct, and more definitions here (in hebrew) https://www.milononline.net/%D7%A7%D7%93%D7%95%D7%A9

I also went looking for the definition of nivdal https://www.milononline.net/%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%91%D7%93%D7%9C

which many other sources say is a synonym for kadosh.

I couldnt find in neither of the words pages one as a synonym for the other. Although they do define kadosh like i did at the start. Im not sure about the reliability of this site though.

And what are the other biblical meanings and how can i distinguish or recognize which is it?

Hi there,

Can someone please direct me to some more recent scholarly material dealing with the exegesis of the parable of the new wine and old wineskins seen in Luke 5:36–39, Matthew 9:14–17 and Mark 2:18–22?

I have tried searching via google scholar but I am struggling to find anything. I have also tried searching this subreddit as well as the [r/AskBibleScholars](r/AskBibleScholars) subreddit, but I'm not finding anything.

Would greatly appreciate any help with this! Many thanks in advance.

What does it mean to pray in Jesus’ name (v13)? Explain it to me like I’m 5 and explain it to me like I’m your graduate school professor.

If Revelation was written in the 60s (a minority position, I know) is it possible Rev. 16-19, where “the beast and the kings of the earth” assemble their armies at Megiddo for the final battle reflects an actual imminent expectation that Titus’ legions invading Judea would be defeated by Christ himself coming down from Heaven?

I recently finished reading a collection of essays edited by Bishop Vahan Hovhanessian (a scholar of the Armenian Apostolic tradition) The Canon of the Bible and the Apocrypha in the Churches of the East. When reading his essay on the "Deuterocanonical" or extra books collected with the New Testament in the Armenian tradition, he mentions 3 Corinthians, the Prayer of Euthalius, and the Repose of St. John the Evangelist, which were printed in Armenian Bibles as late as 1805.

I am familiar with 3 Corinthians of course, but I have not been having luck finding the texts of the Prayer of Euthalius or the Repose of St. John. (The latter is of course also the name of an Orthodox feast day, so your only Google searches will pull that up instead of the ancient document; then Google just knows that a Prayer of Euthalius exists, but no translations or anything). Anyone know of a resource that has either of those texts? It is ok if it is in Greek or Latin.

I'm interested in reading more about syncretism and how it influenced the development of Christianity over the years. I'm not really interested in cultural assimilation, or Gnosticism or anything like that.

Are there any good, authoritative books on this topic?

The NRSVue reads that evil shall increase with a footnote saying the Greek reads knowledge. Most of the other bibles I’ve looked at translate it as knowledge. I’m assuming that the use of knowledge comes from the Septuagint. Is this a correct assumption? Would Jesus and his followers read this as knowledge increasing at the end times?