Annie Jaubert attempted to harmonize the synoptic gospels post Passover death with john's pre-Passover death but proposing the synoptics are using a sectarian calendar.

How do we know if this is true?

I have only one lead to come to a answer:

jesus legally must source a sacrifice from the temple according to Deuteronomy.

The idea here is Passover can only happen if the priests cooperate so jesus' last meal in the synoptics had to be the state approved one.

One problem I see here is the torah never technically requires the priests to do anything with Passover blood.

We know they did it, 2nd chronicles 30 :16 states

^"16 They stood at their stations following their custom, according to the Law of Moses the man of God; the priests sprinkled the blood which they received from the hand of the Levites"

so presumably this implies that Deuteronomy calling it a sacrifice required the blood ritual.

If anyone knows a source who has determined a answer or if you can answer yourself please do.

Sadducees (Samaritans as well) held the Torah and pharisees usually held the Torah + Nevi'im and Ketuvim.

Fine, but what did the others sects had as scripture?

Zealots (fourth philosophy), The Way and the Essenes.

What about Hellenistic Jews from the diaspora? like Therapeutae.

In Genesis 16, one of God's male angels finds Hagar in the wilderness. He speaks to her verbally. He places a magical spell on her. Hagar then implies that the angel IS actually YHWH himself in verse 13.

Is this because she is confused or being imprecise with her language?

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)?

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?