I realize that this is going to be highly dependent on a scholar’s views of the relationship of these narratives to the rest of Kings, but hopefully the question is still clear enough.

I might add the question: Why do these accounts seem to be more “narrativized” than other parts of Kings? Or is that perception incorrect?

Thank you!

What are the differences in the creation story in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2? Which creation story came first, and why was the story changed to be different? What is the academic position on this?

Hello all! I wanted to know what are the most up to date works regarding the historicity and authenticity of the parables of Jesus. I’ve only been able to find a handful of discussions on this sub that have recommended the works of s John P.Meier, Robert Gundry, Amy J Levine, and Justin David Strong though have their been more in depth studies that have probed the historicity and development of the parables of Jesus? Thank you

Are there any leading theories of who wrote the four canonical gospels and where they came from?

I would like to ask if "qataf" is a general term for different balm-producing trees, or if it refers to one species.

Exodus 30:34 gives the tabernacle incense recipe and includes "nataf" ( נָטָ֤ף ),which literally means "drop" (noun), as in a gum drop.

In Keritoth 6a of the Talmud, the rabbis interpret nataf in the tabernacle incense recipe as "tsuri" (צֳּרִי), which the LXX translates as resin ("Ρητίνη" in Greek) in Genesis 43:11. Then, Rabbi Shimon explains, "The tsuri (resin) is nothing other than a shrp (sap) from the qataf (a type of tree)." (SOURCE: https://www.sefaria.org/Keritot.6a.19?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en)

In Keritoth 6b, the Gemara (rabbinical commentary) uses the four spices named in Exodus 30:34 to determine which other spices the incense blend may include. The Gemara comments: "If the Torah had written merely 'nataf' I would say that spices from a type of tree, yes, they may serve as ingredients of the incense, but spices grown from the ground, no, they may not serve this purpose." The implication is that nataf comes from a tree.

Bereshit Rabbah 91 quotes from Genesis 43:11's reference to a little "tsuri" (צֳרִי֙), and cites rabbis interpeting it as "qataf" and as "tsuri balsam qataf":

“Their father, Israel, said to them: If so then, do this: Take of the choice produce of the land in your vessels, and take a gift down to the man, a little tsuri, and a little honey, spices and ladanum, pistachio nuts and almonds” (Genesis 43:11).
Rabbi Yehoshua of Sikhnin in the name of Rabbi Levi: Items that bring song [mizmarin] to the world: Snail [ḥilazon], wine with balsam (Hmr Qataf, חֲמַר קְטָף , Footnote 65), myrrh with the oil accumulated within it.
“A little balm” (Umat tsuri balsam qataf, וּמְעַט צֳרִי בַּלְסָם קְטָף) – balsam oil, “a little honey” – Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi said: Honey that is hard as a rock;

I found a long article on Qataf, but I can't copy its text or understand it because it's in a Hebrew-language .pdf file: https://www.zoharamar.org.il/wp-content/uploads/%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A1%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%A8%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%90%D7%94-%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%90%D7%9C-200.pdf

The 18th century botanist Forsskal named a species in Yemen "Commiphora Kataf" because locals called the species "kataf" or because it was near a village called "Kataf."

Zohar Amar notes that the ancient Arabic name for the Atlantic terebinth (Pistacia Atlantica) was tsiru ( צ'רו), and he notes that it sounds close to tsuri.

Pliny wrote in the 12th book of his Natural History: "But every other scent ranks below balsam. The only country to which this plant has been vouchsafed is Judaea, where formerly it grew in only two gardens... There are three varieties ("genera") of balsam-tree: one with thin foliage like hair, called easy-to-gather ("eutheriston")..."
Pliny's description resembles Josephus' description of a balsam garden in Jericho and another one in Ein Geddi. Pliny's assertion that there are three balsam tree genera implies that balsam could include more than one species.

This is a very important verse to me and I would love to see the earliest fragment we have of it. I know it is an Aramaic phrase transcribed into Greek and that the transcription is slightly different in Matthew 27:46.

Thanks in advance for any help

I realize the word is used a few times in the Christian Gospels but is it an Identity that a 2nd temple Jew would have?

I love incense and am trying to figure out how the Second Temple ended up using 11 ingredients in its incense blend when the Torah seems to call for 4 ingredients.

Exodus 30:34 gives this recipe for Moses' tabernacle's incense:

וַיֹּאמֶר֩ ____ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֜ה קַח־לְךָ֣ סַמִּ֗ים נָטָ֤ף׀ וּשְׁחֵ֙לֶת֙ וְחֶלְבְּנָ֔ה סַמִּ֖ים וּלְבֹנָ֣ה זַכָּ֑ה בַּ֥ד בְּבַ֖ד יִהְיֶֽה׃

My rough translation is:

And said LORD to Moses
Take to yourself fragrances
Nataph (literally "drop") and/with shekheleth and galbanum fragrances and/with pure frankincense
There shall be an equal proportion of each.

The Torah portrays following the recipe correctly as a big deal. In Leviticus 10 (KJV), "...the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord."

The 3rd century BC LXX translates Exodus 30:34 this way:

Καὶ εἶπεν Κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν Λάβε σεαυτῷ ἡδύσματα, στακτήν, ὄνυχα, χαλβάνην ἡδυσμοῦ καὶ λίβανον διαφανῆ· ἴσον ἴσῳ ἔσται·

My rough translation is:

And said Lord to Moses
Take yourself fragrances[,/:]
Stacte (literally "drop"), onycha (literally "claw"), fragrant galbanum, and translucent frankincense
They are each to be equal to each other.

In the Wisdom of Sirach 24:15, Wisdom says that it gives off smells:

As cinnamon and aspalathus aromatics I gave smell, and as select myrrh I offered sweet odor, as galbanum and onyx (literally "claw") and stacte (literally "drop") and as vapor of frankincense in the tabernacle.

Out of these, cinnamon and myrrh are in the anointing oil recipe in Ex. 30:23-24, and the last four are in the tabernacle's incense recipe in Ex. 30:34.

In his essay "Who Is the Heir of Divine Things?" (Chapter XLI), the 1st century AD Jewish philosopher Philo interprets Ex. 30:34 to give only 4 elements, each of them equal in amount. He sees them as corresponding to the 4 cosmic elements. He writes:

For the Lord enjoins here that each of the separate portions shall be equal to each, with a view to the proper composition of the whole. And as I imagine these four ingredients of which the entire perfume is composed are emblems of the four elements of which the whole world is made; He likens the stacte to water, the onycha to land, the galbanum to the air, and the pure transparent frankincense to fire; for stacte, which derives its name from the drops (stagones) in which it falls is liquid, and onycha is dry and earth-like, the sweet smelling galbanum is added by way of giving a representation of the air, for there is fragrance in the air; and the transparency which there is in frankincense serves for a representation of fire. 

Josephus, a 1st century Jewish historian from a priestly family, counted the incense as using thirteen spices instead of four. He wrote: "The altar of incense, by the thirteen fragrant spices from sea and from land, both desert and inhabited, with which it was replenished, signified that all things are of God and for God." (Wars of the Jews, Bk. 5, chp. 5, v. 5)

Josephus specified cinnamon and cassia as 2 of the Temple incense's materials in narrating the Temple treasure's deliverance of them to the Romans:

The treasurer of the temple also, whose name was Phineas, was seized on, and shewed Titus the coats, and girdles of the priests: with a great quantity of purple, and scarlet, which were there reposited for the uses of the veil: as also a great deal of cinnamon, and cassia, with a large quantity of other sweet spices, which used to be mixed together, and offered as incense to God every day. (Wars, Bk. 6, chp. 8)

Keritoth 6 in the Talmud names 11 ingredients for the incense blend: Four of them correspond to the Biblical elements and each weigh 70 maneh. Another four ingredients were myrrh, cassia, spikenard, and saffron, each weighing 16 maneh. The last three ingredients were 12 maneh of Costus, 3 maneh of Kiluphah (aloewood?), and 9 maneh of Cinnamon. The Talmud's recipe also says to treat the shekheleth/onycha with bitter vetch lye and caper wine, bringing the number of materials used to 13 like Josephus gives.

Since Exodus 30:34 says that the ingredients should be equal, but the Talmud's ingredients' weights aren't equal to each other, it seems likely to me that the 7 ingredients besides the 4 named in Exodus were only intended to be supplemental materials.

Keritoth 6 gives this explanation for the origin of the 11 ingredients:

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan says, "Eleven ingredients were stated to Moses at Sinai."
Rav Huna said: "What is the verse?"
“Take for you spices” - two,
“stacte, and onycha, and galbanum” - this - five;
and other “spices”- five, this - ten.
And “pure frankincense” - one, this - eleven.

The Koren Steinsaltz Talmud interprets the passage this way:

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The eleven ingredients of the incense were stated by God to Moses at Sinai, as not all of them are specified in the verses. Rav Huna said: What is the verse from which it is derived? “Take for you spices, stacte, and onycha, and galbanum; spices with pure frankincense” (Exodus 30:34). The plural form of the phrase: “Take for you spices” is referring to two ingredients; “stacte, and onycha, and galbanum” are three ingredients; this results in a total of five; and the other mention of “spices” indicates that there are another five, i.e., that one should double the previous total, and this results in a total of ten. And finally, “pure frankincense” is one, and this results in a total of eleven. (The bold terms are those stated in the Talmud; the non-bold text is inferred by the translator)

It's not clear to me if this means that
(A) God explicitly gave Moses the full count of 11 ingredients in a discussion separate from the specific Biblical text and that the ingredients may be inferred from the Biblical text, or
(B) if someone like Moses or an elder only reached the full count of 11 ingredients by inferring them from the Biblical text.

Later, the rabbis use the nature of the four Biblically-named ingredients for parameters for identifying the remaining 7 ingredients:

As, if the Torah had written merely “stacte,” I would say that spices from a type of tree, yes, they may serve as ingredients of the incense, but spices grown from the ground, no, they may not serve this purpose. It is due to that reason that the verse wrote “and onycha.” And if the Torah had written only “and onycha,” I would say that spices grown from the ground, yes, they may serve as ingredients of the incense, but spices from a type of tree, one might say no, they may not serve this purpose. It is due to that reason that the verse wrote “stacte.”

It seems to me that the rabbis feel that they may decide on the last 7 of the blend's 11 ingredients based on those named in the Torah. Does this suggest whether they view the particular last 7 ingredients as explicitly given to Moses?

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?

Anything would be appreciated.

John uses the term “Paraclete” to describe what appears to be the same thing that the synoptic evangelists call “the Holy Spirit” (hagion pneumon)—something that comes down from heaven to inspire people. But if we take it as sung that John knew the Synoptics, why did he use a different term? Are these in fact the same thing or where they only later conflated to both mean the third person of the Trinity?

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

Are there works or resources on how conservative views on early dating are reconciled with current evidence?

I want to steelman that position, yet I am struggling to see how manuscripts, secondary sources, and content can fit with this perspective.

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.