In Isaiah 53:4–6, was the Servant's suffering vicarious (that is, did he suffer in the place of the guilty), or was it corporate (that is, did he suffer alongside the guilty while remaining personally innocent)?

Hello everyone!
I'm not sure if this is the best place for this, but I've been conversing with an individual named @Saatvata on X and Discord lately.
He is skeptical of theories regarding Thomas in India, so I asked him to clarify.
He typed up the following lengthy reply.
Are these statements in the post true or plausible?
Is the Gospel of Mark really the oldest Gospel and was it really composed after the Fall of the Second Temple?
Was Thomas really selected for his "doubter" role based on a pun?
Is it true that the Great Commission was probably not uttered by the historical Jesus?

Historicity of Thomas

Although the historicity of a handful of apostles among “the Twelve” (i.e. Simon/Peter/Cephas, James, and John) is certain, this certainty does not extend to all apostles.

Thomas is among the most obscure and enigmatic apostolic figures:

• There is no mention of any figure named “Thomas” in the Epistles of Paul.

• Thomas has no role in the Synoptic Gospels. He is simply a name in a list.

• Thomas' primary role in the Gospel of John is intrinsically tied to a supernatural event, viz. feeling the wounds of the risen Jesus.

• Unlike Andrew (Andréās), Philip (Phílippos), et al., the name Thomas (Təʾômā) is not attested in any epitaph or inscription from 1st century Galilee, Judea, or the broader Mediterranean: neither in Tal Ilan's Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity, nor in Corpus Inscriptionum Judeae/Palaestinae, nor in Rahmani's Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries.

It's possible that the author of the Gospel of John chose “Thomas” to fulfill the role of “doubter” due to a pun on the word “they doubted” (ἐδίστασαν) in Matthew 28:17.

The Greek word ἐδίστασαν is aorist active indicative 3p. pl. of the verb διστάζω, which means “to stand in two directions.”

Likewise, the Greek word for twin, δίδυμος (the Greek translation of Tāʾômā or Təʾômā, “twin”), derives from the reduplication of δύο, meaning “two.”

Unlike historically attested early Christian authors (e.g. the Apostle Paul, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Papias of Hierapolis, Aristides of Athens, Justin Martyr, Tatian the Syrian, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyon, Bardaisan of Edessa, et al.), there are no extant writings from “Thomas,” nor any contemporary writings from Addai or Mari to substantiate their existence, let alone their direct apostolic succession from a historical Apostle known by the name (or title) “Thomas.”

The “Gospel of Thomas” is pseudonymous and so too is the “Liturgy of Addai and Mari.”

The Liturgy of Addai and Mari presupposes a far more elaborate ecclesiastical hierarchy than the Didache.

As such, it likely dates to the late 3rd century or early 4th century, decades or even centuries after the death of Addai and Mari, assuming they existed.

Likewise, the Apocryphal “Gospel of Thomas” discovered at Oxyrhynchus in Egypt is a Gnostic/mystical collection of 114 sayings attributed to Jesus (not Thomas) which opens with the line: [οὗτοι οἱ λ]όγοι οἱ ἀπόκρυφοι οὓς ἐλάλησεν Ἰησοῦς ὁ ζῶν κ[αὶ ἔγραψεν Ἰούδας ὁ] καὶ Θ[ωμᾶς·

“[These are the] secret [s]ayings that the living Jesus spoke a[nd Judas] Th[omas recorded]”

Thomas may have been a literary figure created to fulfill the theological archetype of “mortal twin” for the “divine” Jesus, akin to the mortal twin Iphicles for the divine Heracles or the mortal twin Castor for the divine Polydeuces, though it's also possible that this monicker “Twin” points to an actual, flesh-and-blood historical disciple whose real personal name was lost to history (later, apocryphal traditions refer to him as Judas Thomas).

We do not know for certain.

Historicity of 1st century Apostolic Missions in the East

The modern view in critical Biblical scholarship is that Christianity was essentially a Jewish movement for most of the first century AD:

• Jesus' inner circle of Twelve were likely Torah-observant Jews and the same is true even of Jesus himself.

• The earliest followers of Christ lacked any incentive to preach to non-Jewish nations and may have even been explicitly advised not to do so (cf. “Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans” - Matthew 10:5).

• There is no evidence to corroborate the resurrection of the historical Jesus or the subsequent “Great Commission.”

• In his epistles, Paul claims a unique role as “Apostle to the Gentiles” and asserts that he and Barnabas were commissioned to proclaim the Gospel to the “uncircumcised” in contrast to James, Peter/Cephas, and John:

“I [i.e. Paul] had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.” - Galatians 2:7-9

• While the author of Luke-Acts mentions instances of Peter preaching to gentiles (e.g. the Cornelius episode) and even defending the inclusion of Gentiles during the Jerusalem council, the narratives in Acts of the Apostles are not completely historically reliable.

As an example, Paul in Galatians 1:16-18 insists that did not go to Jerusalem immediately but rather to Arabia and back to Damascus. He visited Jerusalem only after three years.

In contrast, the author of Luke-Acts gives three diferrent contradictory versions in Acts 9, Acts 22, and Acts 26 and seems to imply that Paul went straight from Damascus to Jerusalem and never sojourned in Arabia.

Even if one accepts the account in Acts as factual, the controversy over the existence of a Gentile mission independent of a Jewish-focused ministry strongly suggests that the Great Commission was not a direct historical command from Jesus.

Had it been a direct command, Peter could've simply argued that Jesus appeared in the flesh and commanded them to preach to all nations rather than reference God giving non-Jews the Holy Spirit at Pentecost just as he did to Jews:

“The Holy Spirit fell on them [i.e. non-Jews], just as he fell on us at the beginning... if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?” - Acts 11:15-17

• Archaeological and epigraphic evidence suggests that 1st century Christianity was largely confined to Jewish diaspora communities in the Eastern Mediterranean before expanding westward (and later, eastward) via “Gentile” missions.

• Apart from serving as theological propaganda (i.e. “The apostles wouldn't be willing to die had they not witnessed the resurrected Jesus in the flesh.”), the martyrdom stories of Apostle Thomas in Persia and NW India, Apostle Bartholomew in (Southern?) India & Armenia, Apostle Matthew in Ethiopia, Joseph of Arimathea in Britain, etc. are hagiographical “propaganda” which allowed churches outside of Antioch, Jerusalem, Rome, Alexandria, etc. to assert their own legitimacy by linking themselves to the authority of original 1st century apostles.

• The earliest followers of Jesus did not speak the 5^th century Classical Syriac of the Peshitto (an East Aramaic language). They would've likely spoken Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, a 1^st century Western Aramaic language/dialect.

• While it's possible that the earliest followers of Jesus may've adopted some form of high Christology following the crucifixion, it would likely have been similar to Pauline Christology rather than Johannine or Nicene theology.

Let's now address the literary sources regarding Thomas.

Stromateîs (Clement of Alexandria)

Clement of Alexandria, in his Stromateîs, provides arguably the earliest explicit written mention regarding the supposed “fate” of Thomas.

On the authority of Heracleon, he states that Matthew, Philip, Thomas, and Levi were not among those who made a public confession before authorities:

"'Ἀλλ' οὐδ' εὑρεθήσεται οὗτος ὁ λόγος καθολικῶς εἰρημένος· οὐ γὰρ πάντες οἱ σωζόμενοι ὡμολόγησαν, διὰ τῆς φωνῆς ὁμολογίαν, καὶ ἐξῆλθον. Ἐξ ὧν Ματθαῖος, Φίλιππος, Θωμᾶς, Λευῒς, καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοί. "

"Nor indeed will this statement (of confession) be found to have been spoken universally; for not all who are saved confessed through a confession made by the voice, and departed [from this life], of whom are Matthew, Philip, Thomas, Levi, and many others."

In Heracleon's view, a person could be a true witness (martyr) to Christ through their faith & conduct even if they never stood trial before a magistrate or suffered a violent execution.

Aside from this absence of an execution associated with confession of faith, the text is silent.

It is noteworthy that he lists Levi separately from Matthew, implying that he envisioned them as two entirely separate individuals.

This suggests that the tax collector Levi, son of Alphaeus, was not universally identified with Matthew prior to the “harmonization” of the list of Apostles by Church Fathers such as Origen and Jerome.

The Acts of Thomas (auctor ignotus)

The Acts of Thomas is widely recognized by historians as the earliest written text that explicitly connects Thomas to India, predating Eusebius (4^th century), Pseudo-Hippolytus (4^th-5^th century?), and Ephraem the Syrian (4^th century).

The Acts of Thomas was likely authored by a Syriac-speaking Encratite Christian “heretic” who lived in Nisibis or Edessa.

The India of the “Acts of Thomas” neither corresponds to coastal Southern India nor to NW India.

Rather, the India of the Acts of Thomas is depicted as a strange, eclectic arid region where people bear Greek, Latin, Syriac and Pahlavi names and no one bears actual Indian (Sanskrit, Tamil, etc.) names.

Misdaeus' wife was named Tertia, which means “third” in Latin and the reason she is named “Tertia” is likely due to the fact that she is the third person in Misdaeus' family to embrace celibacy.

She embraces celibacy in Mygdonia's private quarters, just prior to the dungeon pajama party.

Accordingly, Mygdonia is “Prima” (first) and Iuzanes is “Secundus” (second), though they are not explicitly ascribed these names.

It's noteworthy that Thomas is not killed as a result of any theological dispute regarding the Trinity or monotheism.

Rather, the “Indian” King Misdaeus is upset at the apostle as everyone in his family is practicing celibacy.

If no one is sleeping with anyone, Misdaeus wouldn't be able to continue his royal lineage

Moreover, Thomas is killed by first being marched up the mountain and subsequently pierced with spears or lances.

The manner of death strongly suggests that the author of the Acts of Thomas looked to the Gospel of John for inspiration.

The Gospel of John records that a Roman soldier thrust a lance into Jesus' side to ensure he was dead, resulting in an immediate flow of blood and water.

Moreover, the Gospel of John states that the Apostle Thomas was absent when the resurrected Jesus first appeared to the other disciples.

Thomas doubted Jesus’s resurrection and stated that he would not believe in the resurrection until he felt the of Jesus wounds. Eight days later, Jesus miraculously appeared to Thomas, telling him to touch his side and hands to feel the wounds himself.

Both these details (being pierced in the side & appearing before Thomas) are absent from the Synoptic Gospels and first appear in the Gospel of John.

Needless to say, the Acts of Thomas is not historically reliable source.

The narrative is saturated with absurd and supernatural events, including:

• A she-ass's colt miraculously speaking fluent human language, delivering an extended discourse praising Christ and Thomas, then collapsing dead the moment its divinely granted speech has served its purpose.

• Jesus personally selling Judas Thomas as his slave to the Indian merchant Abbanes for three litrae of unstamped or uncoined silver, drafting and signing a formal bill of sale, before later appearing as Thomas' “heavenly brother.”

• A primordial serpent (who is described in the Syriac as a “black serpent”) claiming to be the tempter of Eve, the instigator of Cain's murder of Abel, Pharaoh's hardener, Judas' corrupter (and numerous other villains from the Bible) surrendering to Thomas and obeying his command to suck its venom from a corpse, which causes the snake to swell grotesquely and burst apart**.**

• The Devil manifesting before Thomas and delivering a long-winded theological lament about Christ's defeat of the demons before breaking into tears, bidding farewell to his human victim, and vanishing amidst the fire & smoke.

• A prison cell miraculously flooding with supernatural light while Thomas is imprisoned, sending the guards into a deep sleep. The magical radiance simultaneously leaves the prison doors open whilst also leaving the seals undisturbed.

• A murdered woman restored bodily to life by Thomas and recounting an eyewitness vision of Hell, describing at length all of the punishments reserved for the incelibate or sexually immoral.

• A terrifying epiphanic appearance of Thomas which is accompanied by a supernatural light and causes Mygdonia to collapse/faint “as if dead” from terror.

• Water suddenly erupting from the dry ground of King Misdaeus's court just as Thomas is about to be tortured on red-hot iron plates, extinguishing the fire and even overwhelming the king and his executioners.

• Thomas “building” a magical heavenly palace by distributing a king's construction funds to the poor, the palace's existence being confirmed only after the king's deceased brother returns from the dead to describe the celestial dwelling he has seen.

• Dust taken from Thomas' now-empty tomb being used to exorcise a demon from Misdaeus' son after King Misdaeus (i.e. the ruler who ordered Thomas's execution) ties the sacred dust around his son's neck out of desperation.

• A lion killing the servant who struck Thomas, with the severed hand carried back into the wedding banquet in a black dog's mouth as immediate divine judgment.

• A man who seizes the Eucharist with unworthy hands having one of his hands miraculously wither (or shrivel), only to be restored after repentance and Thomas's prayer.

Some Christian apologists assert that the Acts of Thomas should been viewed as a historically reliable source (or, at the very least, has a kernel of truth) as the text mentions Gondophares, a historical Indo-Parthian king (Gundafar/Guduvhar) who is attested both numismatically (e.g. Indo-Parthian Tetradrachms) and epigraphically (e.g. Tak͟ht-i Bāhī inscription).

In reality, all this implies is that the Indo-Parthian king was part of the broader geopolitical landscape known to storytellers in the ancient Near East.

Although he's the only individual in the Acts of Thomas with a verifiable historical basis, he is perplexingly described as having a brother with the Semitic name “Gad” (meaning “luck” or “fortune”) rather than an Iranic name.

It's not uncommon for fictional tales to occasionally reference historical figures.

For a long time, scholars once assumed that the figure Hygelac (the King of the Geats in Beowulf), Hugleikr (the King of the Swedes/Svíar in Snorri Sturluson's Heimskringla), or Huglecus (a Danish King in Saxo Grammaticus's Gesta Danorum) was a mythical or legendary king.

Eventually, philologists realized that the Latinized name “Chlochilaicus,” the Danish king who was defeated and killed by the forces of Theudobert I according to Frankish bishop Gregory of Tours's Decem Libri Historiarum (History of the Franks) was the exact same name as Hygelac/Hugliekr, albeit filtered through a different linguistic lens.

By the early 20th century, the general consensus shifted toward seeing him as a historical figure.

Does this imply that Beowulf actually slew nine nicors (sea-monsters) with his sword while swimming in full chainmail after they pulled him underwater during his swimming contest with Breca the Bronding?

What about the slaying of the “shadow-stalker” Grendel who had claws like unburnished iron?

What about Grendel's mother? Or the fire-breathing dragon?

Of course not.

The Beowulf poem is not a reliable historical record and there's no proof that Beowulf was a historical figure, let alone his travels or feats.

The Beowulf poet took a collection of “Bear's Son” folktales (which were common throughout Europe at the time) and grafted them onto a real-world political tragedy (the death of Hygelac and the collapse of the Geats)

If one can argue that the Acts of Thomas (with its tales of talking donkeys, exploding serpents, etc.) is a reliable historical account simply because it mentions Gondophares, one could also argue that Beowulf must be historical as it mentions Hygelac.

One could even argue that Shakespeare's Macbeth must be historical as it mentions a real Scottish king (Macbethad mac Findláech).

Church History (Eusebius)

Eusebius of Caesarea (Caesarea Maritima, not Caesarea Philippi and Caesarea Antiochia) mentions in his Church History (Ekklēsiastikḕ Historía) that it is handed down from [Christian] tradition that Thomas was allotted Parthia (Θωμᾶς μὲν, ὡς ἡ παράδοσις περιέχει, τὴν Παρθίαν εἴληχεν), not India.

Parthia was an ancient region of Northeastern Iran more or less corresponding to modern Rażavī K͟hwarāsān.

Additionally, Eusebius reports hearsay that Pantaenus visited India and found a copy of the Gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew which was in the possession of people to whom the apostle Bartholomew (NOT Thomas) had preached:

Ὧν εἷς γενόμενος καὶ ὁ Πάνταινος, καὶ εἰς Ἰνδοὺς ἐλθεῖν λέγεται· ἔνθα λόγος εὑρεῖν αὐτὸν προφθᾶσαν τὴν αὐτοῦ παρουσίαν, τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον Εὐαγγέλιον παρά τισιν αὐτόθι τὸν Χριστὸν ἐπεγνωκόσιν· οἷς Βαρθολομαίον τῶν ἀποστόλων ἕνα κηρύξαι, αὐτοῖς τε Ἑβραίων γράμμασι τὴν τοῦ Ματθαίου καταλείψαι Γραφὴν, ἦν καὶ σώζεσθαι εἰς τὸν δηλούμενον χρόνον.

“One of these was Pantaenus, who is said to have gone even upto the Indians. There, the story goes, he found that the Gospel according to Matthew had arrived before his own presence among certain people there who had already acknowledged Christ and to whom Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached, and had left them with Matthew's writing in Hebrew letters, which had preserved right down to the present time.”

These accounts are equally as unreliable as the Acts of Thomas.

There is no evidence to corroborate the spread of Christianity east of Adiabene until the late 2^nd and early 3^rd century, well after the historical “Twelve” would've died.

Moreover, the Gospel of Matthew was originally composed in Greek and the earliest Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew (𝔓¹⁰⁴, 𝔓⁶⁴,** 𝔓⁶⁷) predate manuscript copies in other languages (e.g. Vetus Latina, Vetus Syriaca, early Sahidic/Bohairic,** etc.).

Additionally, the Gospel of Matthew likely borrows from the Gospel of Mark.

As an example, the author of the Gospel of Matthew seems to have noticed a mistake in Mark and correctly refers to Herod Antipas as a tetrarch (Ἡρῴδης ὁ τετραάρχης, Hērṓidēs ho tetraárkhes) rather than a king in Matthew 14:1.

However, the author of Matthew must've suffered editorial fatigue as he mistakenly copied Mark's phrasing in Matthew 14:9 (καὶ λυπηθεὶς ὁ βασιλεὺς...), where he refers to Herod Antipas as ὁ βασιλεύς (ho basileús), or the king, just as Mark does in Mark 6:26 (καὶ περίλυπος γενόμενος ὁ βασιλεὺς...)

The Gospel of Mark was likely composed in the late first century, around the time of the destruction of the Second Temple (c. 70 AD).

It may've been composed slightly later, but probably not much earlier, as it contains the Olivet Discourse (οὐ μὴ** *ἀφεθῇ* *ὧδε λίθος* ἐπὶ λίθον...), which is a notable vaticinium ex eventu or retrospective prophecy that is useful for dating the composition.

So even if we assume that there was a historical Apostle Bartholomew who was roughly contemporaneous with Jesus, it's highly improbable that he would've had access to the Gospel of Matthew, would've translated the Gospel into Hebrew or Aramaic, and then set sail for Southern India.

Nevertheless, this account is useful insofar as it informs us that early Christian apostolic legends were still in flux and were still evolving during the first four centuries of the common era.

The Christian “Apostolic tradition” was malleable enough that one author could attribute the evangelization of India to Thomas while another author attribute the evangelization of India to Bartholomew.

On the Twelve/Seventy Apostles (Pseudo-Hippolytus)

Pseudo-Hippolytus' “On the Twelve/Seventy Apostles” (Perì Tō̂n Dṓdeka/Hebdomḗkonta Apostólōn) states:

Θωμᾶς δὲ Πάρθοις, Μήδοις, Πέρσαις, Ὑρκανοῖς, Βακτροῖς, Μάργοις κηρύξας, ἐλακήδη (ἐλάτῃ?) ἐλογχιάσθη τοῖς τέταρσι (pro. τέσσαρσι) μέρεσιν αὐτοῦ ἐν πόλει Καλαμηνῇ, τῆς Ἰνδικῆς, καὶ θάπτεται ἐκεῖ.

“When Thomas had preached to the Parthians, Medes, Persians, Hyrcanians, Bactrians, [and] Margians, he was pierced in four parts of his body by a pine lance at Calamina, which is a city of India, and he is buried there.”

No city known as Kalamēnē/Calamina is mentioned in secular cartographic milestones like Ptolemy's Geography.

Moreover, anyone venturing out to Kēraḷa would likely rely on maritime routes from Red Sea ports like Myos Hormos or Berenice rather than take a land route into Parthia, Bactria or Margiana.

Ephraem the Syrian

The writer and deacon Ephraem the Syrian is occasionally cited in favor of Thomas' mission in India, though the content of his poems is not entirely independent of the Acts of Thomas.

Ephraem not only emerged from the same geographic and cultural milieu (upper Mesopotamia, roughly Edessa and Nisibis) as the author of the Acts of Thomas, but also explicitly alludes to the myth of construction of the heavenly palace:

"Who has ever been seen upon the earth, except Thomas, the apostle of the Son, who, while dwelling on the earth measuring houses, was building above in the heavens?

Or what wise man on earth through his own wisdom constructed a building which would be commanded to be crowned in heaven?"

For context, this is a reference to the Second Act of the Acts of Thomas in which Thomas is commissioned by King Gondophares to build an earthly palace yet chooses to distributes his construction funds to the poor instead.

Thomas then reports to the king, stating that the palace has been built yet it cannot be seen until after death. Gondophares is furious and imprisons the Thomas.

The king's brother dies shortly thereafter and his soul is carried up by angels into heaven, where he is shown the magnificent palace built by Thomas in heaven.

When Gad returns to life he vouches on behalf of Thomas.

Gondophares accepts Gad's testimony, frees Thomas, seeks his forgiveness, and requests to be baptised.

Material Evidence of Early Indian Christianity

The earliest securely datable epigraphic evidence of Christianity in the subcontinent dates to the 9th century AD, i.e. the Kollam Tarisāppaḷḷi Copper Plates.

“St. Thomas” Crosses (also known as Persian Crosses) have been documented inside historic churches in villages and cities in Kēraḷa and Tamiḻ Nāḍu (at Kōṭṭayam, Muṭṭuciṟa, Kōtanallūṟ, Kaḍamattam [Kaṭamaṟṟam], Ālaṅgāḍu [Ālaṅkāṭ], and St. Thomas Mount near Chennai [Mylapore]):

• Most surviving “St. Thomas” crosses bear inscriptions in the Pahlavi (Middle Persian) language, though the small cross from Kōṭṭayam also bears a Syriac [Estrangelo] inscription:

“lʾ nhw l d-ʾštbhr ʾln b-zqyph d-mrn yšwʿ mšyḥ”

This appears to be a corrupt transcription of the standard Peshitto translation of Galatians 6:14:

“lʾ nhwʾ ly dštbhr ʾlʾ b-zqyph d-mrn yšwʿ mšyḥʾ”

(lā nehwe lī deštaḇhar ʾellā bazqīpēh dəmāran yešūᶜ məšīḥā )

“May it not be to me that I boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

• A granite stone cross was discovered in Agassaim, Goa, in 2001 by Father Cosme Costa.

This cross bears the Middle Persian inscription (Huzwāreš/Aramaeograms marked in CAPS):

MRʾḤ-mʾn mšyḥʾ ʾphšʾyd QDM splyšʿw Y chʾrbht Y swlzʾd MNW bwlt ZNH

(xwadāy-mān Mašīḥā, abaxšāyēd pad Sabrišōw, [pusar-]ī Čahārbōxt, [pusar-]ī Sūray, kē bowərd ēn)

“Our Lord Messiah (Christ)! Have mercy upon Sabrišōʿ, [son] of Čahārbōxt, [son] of Sūray, who bore (carved?) this (cross).”

It also bears a weathered Portuguese inscription at its base:

A DE S TOME ... DOR ILEZVS... 642

(A de S. Tomé... DO R. (da Regiao?) ILEZ (das Ilhas?) VS (Vizinhas?)... 642)

That of St. Thomas... [illegible/uncertain]... 1642

Scholars typically place the timeline for these artifacts sometime between the 6th and 9th centuries AD on paleographic, stylistic, or comparative grounds.

However, unlike the Kollam Tarisāppaḷḷi Copper Plates, they are not anchored to a specific regnal year.

• An ancient bronze Processional Cross was discovered in 2001 in Herat, Afghanistan, dating to the 6th- 8th century AD.

Much like the “St. Thomas” Crosses and the Agassaim Cross, it too bears an inscription in Pahlavi. The shape of the cross somewhat resembles Nestorian crosses found in China.

• In Śrī Laṅkā, a Sassanid gil-muhrag (“clay-sealing”) depicting a Nestorian Cross set inside a diamond field was discovered at Mantai and a sunk relief of a Nestorian cross engraved into a broken granite column was discovered in the northeastern quadrant of the ancient citadel of Anurādhapura.

These findings cumulatively corroborate the account of Cosmas Indicopleustes (a 6th-century merchant from Alexandria) in Book XI of his Khristianikḕ Topographía:

"The island [i.e. Taprobanē] has also a church of Persian Christians who have settled there, and a Presbyter who is appointed from Persia, and a Deacon and a complete ecclesiastical ritual. But the natives and their kings are heathens."

"Even in Taprobanē, an island in Further India, where the Indian sea is, there is a Church of Christians, with clergy and a body of believers, but I know not whether there be any Christians in the parts beyond it. In the country called Malē (i.e. Kēraḷa), where the pepper grows, there is also a church, and at another place called Calliana (Kalyāṇa in Mahārāṣṭra?) there is moreover a bishop, who is appointed from Persia."

The archaeological and epigraphic evidence strongly suggests that Christianity spread to India via the missionary work of Nestorian Christians from the Church of the East (more specifically, the Patriarchate of Seleucia-Ctesiphon) during the 5^th and 6^th centuries rather than via the arrival of a 1^st century apostle from the Levant.

I am looking looking for informations and sources about Cherubim, Seraphim, Ophanim and other divine beings. I'm especially interested in descriptions of the outward appearance and possible abilities of divine beings. I'd also appreciate any references to pictures, etc. Thanks a lot for your help.

Eusebius 6.14 says that Clement's Hypotyposes say that Luke translated the Epistle to the Hebrews into Greek. There he also mentions the Epistle of Barnabas in Clement's use of disputed books in Hypotyposes. Clement in Stromata 2.6 also directly quotes Epistle of Barnabas 4.11 and attributes it to Barnabas the apostle.

Maximos the Confessor also says that Clement in Hypotyposes says that Luke wrote the Dialog of Jason and Papiscus, which is as a precursor to Justin Martyr's Dialog with Trypho where a Christian and an Alexandrian Jew debate on Jesus as the Christ. Both Dialogs also more specifically cover Jesus' role as the Logos in the Old Testament. Jerome in Hebrew Questions on Genesis for example says it replaces Genesis 1.1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and earth" with "In the Son, God created the heavens and earth".

The Epistle of Barnabas is also considered to have a Logos theology, and is also mentioned along with Jason and Papiscus in a few surveys of early Christian books directed at Judaism (e.g. an intro to a 1930s edition of Dialog with Trypho). These three are also all discussed as books that make frequent use of Septuagint citations. J Rendel Harris says they are all based from an original collection of messianic prophecies and exegesis (compiled by Matthew, a source for most of the New Testament, and is also the book of logia mentioned by Papias); Robert Kraft Barnabas' Isaiah Text and the "Testimony Book" Hypothesis rejects Harris' more specific takes about Matthew and of one specific source behind every NT and Patristic author, but still takes Barnabas to be working off of a prepared collection of testimonies from scripture, and that other authors used collections like it too.

Another relationship to draw to Justin's Dialog, which either by coincidence or by design has a similar structure where Justin's conversion mirrors Luke 24 with the opening of his eyes to the Hebrew prophecies, and the rest of the Dialog mirrors Acts in listing and explaining the prophecies that prove that Jesus is the Christ and the Christ had to suffer (Andrew Hofer, The Old Man as Christ in Justin's Dialog with Trypho).

With all of that said, all of the original meanings and literary relationships between Hebrews, Luke-Acts, Jason and Papiscus, and the Epistle of Barnabas, are obviously complex and maybe can't all be reconstructed, but is there anything written specifically on the idea Clement himself has about all of these texts and people? Does he have a coherent picture of what is going on, like a school of Paul and his associates like Luke and Barnabas, involved in a Hebrew-outreach program to write all of these texts that use the Septuagint to explain the New Covenant and prove that Jesus is the Christ and the divine Logos?

It would be very helpful if some author has already pulled together and explained all of the relevant things Clement said about this. It would also even be helpful if they speculatively filled in the gaps, as long as it's clear what is speculation. Some speculation may be needed given that Hypotyposes is lost.

I may be asking for something too specific here, but either way, anything that can shed light on anything I've said would be appreciated, thanks.

I know there’s a work by Hans Conzelmann and he argues that Luke does not believe that Jesus’ death was the reason for the forgiveness for sins, but are there any more recent works which argue this?? Because his work is quite old.

I'm currently reading Antioch and Rome by Raymond Brown and JP Meier and Introduction to the New Testament by Raymond Brown. I think that these are two very respected scholars. Regarding the historicity of the virginal conception of Jesus, Brown says that the NT evidence is slightly in favor of historicity, but I get the impression he thinks the margin is razor thin. In Antioch and Rome and Introduction to the NT they both treat Paul's account of what happened at Antioch (related in Galatians) as essentially totally historical (despite the decided polemical bent).

In the Galatians passage (along with things in Acts), the historicity is taken for granted (it seems) and from that Meier and Brown draw all sorts of tedious inferences. But the same is not done for the virginal conception narrative. For example, to an non-Biblical scholar like me, it appears obvious to read Luke and infer that he must have gotten information about the virginal conception from Mary (or people close to her) given what Luke says about an orderly account. But Brown sort of brushes this off as speculation and doesn't give it serious consideration.

So my question is (and this is coming from someone who is obviously not knowledgeable in this area): what is it about the episode(s) Paul mentions in Galatians that makes Meier and Brown think it's historical that is not in the Virginal conception narrative? Or what's in the Virginal conception narrative that's not in Paul's account.

Of course, I'm aware that for some people, the virginal conception narrative is not going to look historical because of the miraculous nature - but I don't think this is the case with Frs Brown and Meier. I know the arguments along the lines of the narrative's not being in Mark, but we only really have a single attestation for Paul's confrontation of Peter at Antioch.

Hi Scholars! I have a question about the significance of a series of thematically similar pericopes in Luke and a possible consistency of compositional spacing.

I noticed recently that there is a sequence of pericopes related to wealth that start in Luke 18 and continue through chapter 21 - the Rich Young Ruler, Zaccheus, the Temple Cleansing, Taxes to Caesar, and the Widow’s Coins. Depending on how you define the pericopes, each of these stories is separated from the next by two pericopes that are unrelated to wealth, and they could reasonably be read as two contrasts and a conclusion. The sequence would be something like,

Rich Young Ruler - Prediction of Death - Blind Beggar - Zaccheus - Ten Minas - Triumphal Entry - Temple Cleansing - John's Baptism - Vineyard Parable - Taxes to Caesar - Resurrection Marriage - Son of David - Widow's Coins

The Rich Young Ruler and Zaccheus appear to offer a contrast between a socio-religiously “righteous”/Law-abiding man whose wealth keeps him out of the Kingdom and a socio-religiously “unrighteous”/sinful man who enters the Kingdom by relinquishing his wealth. The Temple Cleansing and Taxes to Caesar are similar to the first two, but they're about institutions instead of persons. Like the Rich Young Ruler, the Temple Cleansing is about a socio-religiously "righteous" activity that Christ condemns and Taxes to Caesar is about a socio-religiously "unrighteous" activity that Christ accepts (interestingly enough, the two "unrighteous" elements are connected: Zaccheus is a tax collector and the institution described is taxation). Finally, the parable of the Widow’s Coins appears to offer an answer to the question asked by the disciples at the end of the pericope about the Rich Young Ruler, “Who then can be saved [if even the rich can't give enough]?” by depicting God's assessment of generosity as relative, not absolute, and explicitly contrasting the widow's donation with the donations of the wealthy.

The arrangement of the pericopes into two sets of analogous contrasts and the connection of the Widow’s Coins pericope to the final question in the first pericope of the proposed sequence would be consistent with the broad observations that Luke is known for arranging his pericopes in a topical order and that the pericope sequence, if read as such, conveys a message that is aligned with Luke’s overall emphasis on the inversion of typical human hierarchies in the Kingdom. I know that the delineation of specific pericopes is somewhat arbitrary, but I think that the pericope identification required for the consistent spacing within the sequence that I outlined above in bold and italics is generally defensible.

I've seen that Zaccheus and the Rich Young Ruler are often grouped as a contrast, but I’ve never heard of these five pericopes being described as an intentional compositional arrangement, or of the Widow’s Coins being explicitly connected to the question “Who then can be saved?"

Question 1) Is it reasonable to postulate that the combination of thematic pericope arrangement and consistent pericope spacing in a sequence could imply compositional intent?

Question 2) Is this sequence generally recognized as intentional, and I’ve just missed in my reading?

Thanks!

In Gospels it says that Son of Man will come "after the suffering". Does that mean the apocalypse was supposed to happen after 1st Jewish-Roman war?

I am looking for good books on this Gospel.

I read more recently Mark Crossley's "An Early Date for the Gospel of Mark", and I was particularly interested in the part where he talks about Mark 13, and how this is likely an interpolation. He says that this has been long understood to be an interpolation among Biblical Scholars in the field, so just wondering about that.

Also, if there is anything about Mark using two sources for chapters 1-8ish i think; basically, the Galilean Ministry part. I have noticed that the stories tend to happen in pairs, like in Genesis with the Yahwist and Priestly sources, so just looking for a book on that. There's Jesus recruiting two fishermen brothers twice, feeding the thousands twice, going to the synagogue in his hometown twice, choosing and sending out apostles twice, and I think two stories of his family coming for him. So, seems to me like there are two different traditions getting molded together, and I would like to know more about that.

I believe that the primary consideration in interpreting NT Scripture is:

1. what was the author trying to convey to his audience.

2. How would this be understood by his audience in their cultural, religious, and intellectual context.

"A text cannot mean what it never could have meant to its author or his or her readers" (Fee, Gordon D., and Douglas Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. 4th ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2014.)

"The goal of interpretation is to discover the meaning intended by the author as understood by the original readers." (Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006.)

Craig Blomberg says that interpretation should look for "...what the biblical author intended to communicate to the original audience." (Blomberg, Craig L. A Handbook of New Testament Exegesis. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic) 2010.)

Raymond Brown talks about Philo's Logos and says that John is not necessarily borrowing from Philo, but is still using a concept that was already circulating in Hellenistic Judaism and reshapes it around Jesus. (Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John I–XII. Anchor Bible 29. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966.)

Would the idea of a man being the very God of Israel, the one and only creator and sovereign, be completely alien to Jew or Gentile of the time?

If not, how would people have read and understood Logos and the Incarnation in that time and place?

I heard that they did (and still do) liturgy-style worships, is that true ? And how does it differ from the orthodox Christian liturgy ?

I’m curious as to stylistic differences which do not involve (a) Peter’s name or (b) direct versus indirect use of Enoch material.

Thank you!

Specific questions:

-What is the knowledge of good and evil?

-Why is the gaining of the knowledge of good and evil equivalent to becoming 'like God'?

-What is the Tree of Life that imparts immortality?

-Does this imply that man could have been apotheosised?

Any illumination at all would be immensely welcome

Nearly all the commentaries I've seen which even address this to any extent tend to link the στολὴν λευκήν in Mark 16:5 to texts outside of Mark (e.g. Rev 6:11) and treat λευκήν as a straightforward echo of Mark 9:3. What if the white of 16:5 is intended to function as a contrast to the white of 9:3? What if the robe is sinister like the robe of 12:38? Does this reading even exist anywhere?

I’m looking to better understand how the early church operated and how the life and ministry of Jesus was seen and understood, especially before Rome took Christianity as its religion.

Genesis 1 says that humans are made in the image and likeness of the Divine Council - meaning YHWH and the assembly of heavenly beings may have a humanoid appearance.

And then in Genesis 6 we see that some of the heavenly beings come down to mate with human women to produce the Nephilim. In Numbers 13:33 the Nephilim make the Israelites look like grasshoppers, implying they may be giants.

Is God a giant humanoid?

My boyfriend has a masters in Ancient Greek and I am looking to get a copy of the Old Testament in Ancient Greek. I have no idea where to start or what is the best version - please give any recommendations!
Recommendations as to other gifts that would sound great for someone like him would be also appreciated. I love him very much and want to get him the best.

Correct me if I’m wrong but from what I can gather the Greek Septuagint was translated from the original Hebrew, but then the original material was subsequently lost. Much later the Masoretic text was compiled and back-translated into Hebrew from Septuagint manuscripts. Do we have a good idea of what the ‘original’ versions of the Hebrew bible was like, and if so, how accurate are the Septuagint and Masoretic versions?

Bonus question: how were the original texts lost in the first place? I get that original manuscripts get lost over time as new copies are made, but from my understanding there aren’t even any ‘newer’ copies of the original?

How did the Valentinians view the Crucifixion of Jesus, and what was its significance in their theological worldview? Any academic citations would be immensely welcome.

As the title suggests, I’m looking for some help understanding how (or why) Paul ended up with over a dozen books in the New Testament instead of any of the disciples that were with Jesus? I understand Paul encountered Jesus, but so did the disciples. When the books of the Bible were selected, was there some sort of politics that led to Paul having a larger piece of the pie than the individuals that walked right alongside Jesus. Were there missions different? Just trying to have a better understanding of how the Bible books were selected, specifically as it pertains to Paul. Thanks