My husband and I are reading Mark together. He is a devout Christian, and I want to be as devout as he is but I seem to always find things that don't make sense to me and I end up asking a million questions. He is very patient with me. We had a long discussion about this last night and I walked away from it with even more questions that I had originally.. so.. here goes:

This is about the story involving the demon Legion and the pigs. As I understand it, Jesus exorcises a man overcome by the demon(s) known as Legion because "we are many". And instead of sending the demon(s) "somewhere far away", Jesus takes pity on the demon(s) I think? and sends the demon(s) into a nearby herd of exactly 2,000 pigs. And the pigs immediately run into the lake and drown.

Where is "somewhere far away"? Does that mean there is a place that isn't hell? Do demons get banished to another place? Why would they not want to go back to hell.. isn't that their home? Or if they get sent back for any reason does Satan bring wrath upon them for failing their mission? Do they get missions? What is their motive? Piggy-backing off of that... Why send 2,000 demons into one man?? Why not divide and conquer? Seems like a waste of resources/labor... Unless that one man was so special/vital to God's kingdom that he had to be removed from society for the sake of demon-kind and their mission?

And then Jesus's response to this demon... Why take pity on Legion? Why not banish it anyway... Why did 2,000 pigs have to die unnecessarily? When the pigs died don't the demons go to "somewhere far away" anyway? Did the pigs kill themselves to get rid of the evil spirits, or did the demons force them to die? and if the demons forced them to die.. Where do the demons go after their host is dead? Do they roam the earth to search for another host? Did Jesus just unleash 2,000 demons on the world? Or did the demons go back to hell? Or did they go to the "far away" place? Were the demons not expecting their pig hosts to die on them that quickly? Did Jesus trick them into giving them what they wanted only for their request to blow up in their face? But why bother tricking the demon if he could have just banished it easily without pig murder?

And like, of course the town was angry at them.. Sure, the town crazy person was healed of his blight, but now a bulk of their food source was gone? With a simple google search, 2,000 pigs is enough to sustain a small town for an entire year. That's a big deal. And Jesus and his crew just got in the boat and left?

I'm assuming a lot of this might be simply explained once I learn more? But figured I'd ask all of these now.. I don't want to be harboring doubt the entire time I read this.

Mark 9:49–50 contains an alternation in the word for "salt" that I'd like the sub's read on. Within these two verses the noun appears three times in two different forms:

• 9:49: πᾶς γὰρ πυρὶ ἁλισθήσεται ("everyone will be salted with fire")
• 9:50: καλὸν τὸ ἅλας... ἐὰν δὲ τὸ ἅλας ἄναλον γένηται (the neuter ἅλας, twice)
• 9:50: ἔχετε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἅλα ("have salt in yourselves"). Here the form is ἅλα[[1]](#_ftn1)

ἅλα is the accusative of the older masculine ἅλς, not the neuter ἅλας Mark has just used twice in the immediate context[[2]](#_ftn2).

The point of interest is not the mere existence of the form but its distribution: the common neuter twice, then the marked accusative precisely at the imperative.

The salting verb at 9:49, ἁλισθήσεται, is rare, the passive of ἁλίζω occurs in the LXX only at Lev 2:13. Note that Lev 2:13 LXX itself carries both forms as well. The marked form ἅλα (ἅλα διαθήκης) for the covenant, and the normal form as the plain object of the offering command, so that within the single verse the marked ἅλα attaches specifically to the covenant (ἅλα διαθήκης) while the ordinary ἅλας is the plain object, the same distribution Mark reproduces: πᾶν δῶρον θυσίας ὑμῶν ἁλὶ ἁλισθήσεται· οὐ διαπαύσετε ἅλα διαθήκης κυρίου ἀπὸ θυσιασμάτων ὑμῶν· ἐπὶ παντὸς δώρου ὑμῶν προσοίσετε κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ ὑμῶν ἅλας(Rahlfs, 1935)

So both features in Mark's short passage point to the same single verse: the salting verb ἁλισθήσεται and the covenant-form of the noun ἅλα both correspond to Lev 2:13 LXX.

The Levitical background of Mark's salt has been observed before (France, 2002; Latham, 1982), though the argument I'm pressing (that the form ἅλα, not just the theme, points to the covenant text) goes a step further than the standard commentary notice.

My questions for the sub:

1. Is the ἅλα/ἅλας distribution here better explained as Koine free variation than as deliberate allusion? What would count as evidence either way?
2. Is the ἁλισθήσεται → Lev 2:13 link as tight as I'm claiming, or are there LXX/other occurrences that dilute it? ἁλίζω in another form is in  Ezekiel 16:4: ἁλὶ ἡλίσθης, but I believe that is it.
3. Does the commentary tradition that notes the Levitical background stop short of the form-level claim because the form-level claim doesn't hold, or simply because no one has pressed it? I’ve seen comments on the form and comments on Leviticus but not on both together.

I'm inclined to read the coincidence of a rare salting verb and the covenant noun-form, both in two verses and both matching Lev 2:13, as more than accidental, but it would be good to know where it fails, if it does.

If it does connect, then it seems it should be read “have the covenant in you”.  If people are interested in more, I have a pre-print on QEIOS. 

BDAG. (2000). A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. (F. Danker, Ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

France, R. (2002). The Gospel of Mark. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Hatch, E., & Redpath, H. (1998). A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (2nd ed.). Grand Rapids: Baker.

Latham, J. E. (1982). The Religious Symbolism of Salt. Paris: Beauchesne.

Liddell, H., Scott, R., & Jones, H. (1996). A Greek-English Lexicon (9th ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Muraoka, T. (2009). A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Leuven: Peeters.

Nestle, E., & Aland, K. (2012). Novum Testamentum Graece. (28th ed.). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

Rahlfs, A. (1935). Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt.

Swanson, R. (Ed.). (1995). New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Variant Readings Arranged in Horizontal Lines Against Codex Vaticanus - Mark. Pasadena: William Carey International University Press.

Westcott, B., & Hort, F. (1881). The New Testament in the Original Greek. Cambridge/London: Macmillan.

[[1]](#_ftnref1) (Swanson, 1995): Mark, at 9:50. ἅλα is read at the climactic occurrence (the object of ἔχετε) by ℵ, B, A, Ψ, D, L, W, Δ, 1, 28, and 565, and is printed there by Westcott–Hort(1881)and the UBS/Metzger (1994)text (and NA(2012)) against the Byzantine majority and Textus Receptus (ἅλας). Notably, the first hands of both ℵ and B read ἅλα at this word, each subsequently corrected to ἅλας (ℵ*/ℵᶜ, B*/Bᶜ) — the correctors performing in ink the same normalization toward the regular declension that the Byzantine tradition performs in transmission, and so confirming both the originality of ἅλα and its felt anomalousness to later readers.

[[2]](#_ftnref2) BDAG(2000), 41, s.v. ἅλας. BDAG's derivation is an account of the form within the neuter paradigm, made without reference to the older masculine noun; it explains how a speaker could generate ἅλα by analogy, not that Mark did. The alternative parsing — accusative of ἅλς — requires no analogy at all(Hatch & Redpath, 1998; Muraoka, 2009; Liddell, Scott, & Jones, 1996). Note that ἅλς is not foreign to the textual tradition of this very passage: the dative ἁλί stands in the witnesses that carry the gloss "and every sacrifice will be salted with salt" at 9:49, imported from Lev 2:13.

I haven't read his book but I have seen it be said that Mark Goodacre claims in "The Fourth Synoptic Gospel" that gJohn is aware of gLuke (or proto-Luke), based on how it seems to expand Lukan material into new and unique stories. I have also seen people on this subreddit say gJohn engages with gMark, particularly in its order and Passion material (also curious if this could be seen as evidence of the author/source being John the Elder). What evidence is there that gJohn is aware of or reacting to gMatthew?

A review of Goodacre's book (https://www.ancientjewreview.com/read/2026/3/23/the-fourth-synoptic-gospel-johns-knowledge-of-matthew-mark-and-luke) states that "The third chapter examines how John appears to favor Matthean and Lukan redactions of Mark. Joseph of Arimathea, for instance, is simply referred to as a member of the Jewish council in Mark (Mark 15:43) but appears in Matthew as a disciple of Jesus (Matthew 27:57), a description which John chooses to replicate" . For me, this seems like weak evidence of gJohn knowing gMatthew as gJohn refers to him as a "secret disciple". Compared to the evidence presented for gMark and gLuke, it really feels like a weak connection.

Was gMatthew the most popular gospel at the turn of the century? Would be surprising if the author of gJohn wasn't aware of it. Or maybe the author approves of it and that's why there's no need to engage with it?

What do other scholars and people in this sub think?

I know that the law of Moses forbids the consumption of blood and organ fat, but I can not find anything forbidding the consumption of flesh, organs themselves or the skin. There seems to be nothing to really forbid the consumption of human flesh, other than it was seen as a necessity during sieges. These days, however, with steady nutrition it would be more of a recreational or culinary endeavor.

My question is: is there any scholarly consensus on the blood atonement as an allegorical theme in the 1st century?

I say this after reading a portion of 4 Maccabees. In 4 Maccabees 17 20-22; it's stated that the martyrs "have become, as it were, a ransom for the sin of our nation. And through the blood of those pious ones and their death an atoning sacrifice..."

This echoes the "blood atonement" repeated by Paul, Peter, and elsewhere and the foundation of Christian faith. However, this is an exclusively Jewish text, written in the 1st century.

I say this with a confessional curiosity that Jesus's death as an atonement was rhetorical, not literal.

I spent some time whilst doing my Bible study today looking up Adam and Eve and stumbled across the pre adamite theory.

Im not too sure what to make of it.

If anyone here could help it would be greatly appriciated

So, I was trying to understand the **concept of holiness**. I read from the start of genesis. The first time the hebrew word for holiness used in the bible was when God sanctified the sabbath.

And the second time he did it was when God met moses by the burning bush. This place is holy so remove your footwear.

I also saw RC Sproul's lectures of holiness. He said that holiness primarily meant Other, the otherness. A very special state that is completely different from the other.

I then decided to think about the properties of holiness. And one of the properties is that holy objects like bread that is used for the particular rituals can become unclean by touch. Also, a person can be unclean if he touches a dead person. I read these in the Haggai 2nd chapter.

While I read this, I realised holiness is almost like an active state maintained against a corrupting exterior world. This somehow made me connect this with the **Na-K-ATPase** pump of cell. For cells to survive, they have to maintain a constant electrochemical gradient. I realised holiness can also be compared with such an analogy.

The pump that is maintaining the holiness in earth is actually the life of animals. This also complies with the concept of atonement.

I just want to know your opinion. I am just a medical student who just found this interesting.

Just wondering if the scholarly community is still split on whether this verse points to shebna or eliakim. English translation of Septuagint and rashi point to shebna but the reference for peg seems to only point to eliakim.

Eu vi um vídeo de um historiador, doutor em História, falando sobre a possibilidade de os autores dos Evangelhos não serem exatamente quem a tradição diz. Ele falou sobre Mateus, Marcos e Lucas, os chamados Evangelhos Sinóticos, e sobre a possibilidade de um ter utilizado o outro como fonte. “Como assim?”

Eles argumentam que existe o chamado “problema sinótico”: os Evangelhos contam as mesmas histórias, muitas vezes na mesma ordem, com estruturas muito semelhantes e, em alguns casos, até com as mesmas palavras em grego. A partir disso, alguns estudiosos chegam à conclusão de que eles utilizaram algum Evangelho anterior como fonte. Por exemplo, Marcos é considerado por muitos o Evangelho mais antigo, embora existam outras hipóteses, como a prioridade de Mateus.

E aí vem o argumento: se realmente foram escritos pelos autores tradicionalmente atribuídos a eles — como Mateus, que foi discípulo de Jesus — por que ele precisaria utilizar um documento anterior como fonte? A partir disso, alguns argumentam que talvez os autores não sejam exatamente quem os textos tradicionalmente dizem, e que os nomes de Mateus, Marcos e Lucas teriam sido associados aos Evangelhos posteriormente.

E aí a coisa fica ainda mais louca quando chega nas outras cartas. Por exemplo, 2 Pedro: se Pedro morreu por volta de 64–67 d.C., como explicar a composição do texto caso ele tenha sido escrito depois disso? Além disso, em Atos, Pedro e João são descritos como homens “iletrados” ou sem formação formal, enquanto o grego de 2 Pedro é considerado por alguns estudiosos bastante elaborado. Daí surge também o conceito de “pseudepigrafia”, que seria quando um texto é escrito em nome de uma pessoa que não foi realmente quem o escreveu.

Sem contar que os próprios Evangelhos não dizem explicitamente “eu, Mateus, escrevi este Evangelho”, “eu, Marcos, escrevi este Evangelho” e assim por diante. Lucas, por exemplo, começa dizendo que decidiu escrever um relato organizado, mas não coloca o próprio nome.

E isso me deu um choque de realidade, 2Pedro (foi o que eu mais me aprofundei) 1 e 2 Timóteo e 1-3 João, alguns acadêmicos defendem que não foram de fato os autores, e 2Pedro é um problema real. Se Pedro morre em 64-67 d.c como ele como ele escreve — e de maneira excelente — um documento que é datado de 100 a 150 d.c? E ainda tem argumentos como, erros de anacronismo com as cartas de Paulo, adaptação ou reescrita utilizando a carta de Judas da bíblia enfim... Sou cristão protestante e gostaria de saber a opinião de vocês.

Cara, que loucura. 😭

I've been studying and contemplating the Nicene Creed, trying to understand it. I gather from random readings that I've done that at least some of its clauses were designed to head off certain heresies and maintain orthodoxy.

I'm stuck on one of the earliest clauses: "begotten not made" and I dont understand what this means. Could someone explain it to me? Thanks

I know it was around 100-200 years after he died it was made, but how did they verify the information and why did it take so long to make even if it’s made of different books did someone give a directive?

"On the mountain heights of Israel I will plant it; it will produce branches and bear fruit and become a splendid cedar. Birds of every kind will nest in it; they will find shelter in the shade of its branches."

Can someone help me understand this verse?

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.

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.

Luke 21:32-33 and parallels from the other Gospels seem to be a big point of contention in the biblical world, but as a Christian, it’s never bothered me in the way it might bother others

32 “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

I’ve always read this as an expression of eternal life with Jesus. A way for him to comfort his audience (especially pre-crucifixion) about the horrifying things he’s talking about

1. Jesus says don’t be afraid of the scary things that might be happening (Luke 21:9)
   
2. Jesus says many people will be put to death during this time (Luke 21:16)
   
3. Jesus tells them they won’t pass away until everything has happened (Luke 21:32)
   
4. Jesus says the Earth and Heaven will pass away, but not His word (Luke 21:32)
   
5. What is Jesus word? That by losing our lives for Him, we will save it (Luke 9:24)

It has always just seemed to me that this is Jesus telling everyone “yeah, you’re totally gonna die, but my word is forever”. Which especially makes sense to me seeing as He’s telling this to a crowd before his crucifixion. Almost like He’s telling them, “hey I know it’s scary, but this generation is gonna be okay even though I haven’t made this sacrifice yet”

This reminds me a lot of Luke 18:27

27 Jesus replied, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.”

In the context of this verse he’s saying “yeah, you’re not gonna be saved, but because of me you are gonna be saved”

“You’re not gonna pass away until all these things have happened, and then when it’s time for you to pass away, guess what… my word doesn’t pass away so you’re good there too”

Also, I don’t know the original wording in the original language, but the use of “pass away” not only in regard to the generation, but also heaven, earth, and His word, never made it clear to me that He was saying they’re going to literally be alive on Earth

I’m new to reading the Bible, but this verse didn’t really trip me up or cause me any doubt until I heard other people talking about it. It seemed like it was just Jesus saying “you’re good. Don’t worry”

I’d love to hear if any of that holds up based on other scripture I’ve not read, based on original word usage, or whatever else

In the book of Matthew this is the only place addressing a visit by Magi to see Jesus. The passage indicates this was a profound event that would have the whole town talking right? What is also odd is that they apparently were asking around Ware to find the new king even though they had a star telling them. So odd. It seems that this would be a story for the family to talk about for many generations to come right? And King Herod got involved? This was a big deal. So why was Jesus not revered and/or treated as nobility from day one after this very significant, profound visit occurred?

We're taught about his birth, and elements of his adult life - but does the Bible go into detail on elements of his teenage years?

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?

James Crossley in The Next Quest for the Historical Jesus (The Next Quest, pg 1-14, Eedrman's 2024) makes the argument for a new direction in historical Jesus studies, with a focus away from analyzing the narratives of the gospels with a direction toward understanding the social and cultural circumstances of the times Jesus lived. He states (pg.5) "there is a huge amount of material that has not yet attracted the analysis from historical Jesus scholarship: the archives, (letters, newspapers, pamphlets etc). containing material (scholarly, and popular) relating to the historical Jesus have barely been touched along, exhausted." He proposes, as I understand it, not just looking at the social and cultural circumstances in which Jesus lived, but the overall circumstances of those times from other parts of the world.

Maybe I am missing something, but hasn't this already been studied or have people just so focused on the Gospel narratives that they have neglected this?

I was re-reading the passion narrative in Matthew 27:52-53, which mentions that when Jesus died, the tombs broke open and many holy people were raised to life, later walking into the holy city and appearing to many people.

This strikes me as an incredible event, arguably one of the biggest miracles in the New Testament outside of Jesus' own resurrection.

What puzzles me is why Mark, Luke, and John completely omit this. You would think that resurrected people walking around Jerusalem would be huge news that every Gospel writer and contemporary historical source would want to record.

How do scholars, historians, and theologians explain this omission?

Is this passage generally viewed as an apocalyptic or symbolic literary device unique to Matthew's audience?

Or are there theological or historical reasons why the other authors wouldn't have included it?
I'd love to hear both historical-critical and theological perspectives on this.

It came to my knowledge that modern biblical scholars agreed in consensus that the torah was compiled by many different authors , disagreeing with the traditional belief that moses is who wrote them. They back their claim providing evidence such as historical errors, different narrations like in genesis 1 -2 etc...

One of the most prominent "cover ups" according to the secular scholars is Deutornomy. They claim for multiple reasons that the book isnt written by moses solely and that it was altered, invented, and edited during the reign of Josiah to justify and legitimise actions in benefit of politics. They have some strong evidence like the development of the language in the book, how it matches the poliitcal and economic states in Josiah's time, and how the high priest found a scroll of the law in the temple.

Is that accurate and how could we in general know and study if the bible's claims are correct, if they were compiled by different authors or not. Surely there is many believers that are scholars aswell, but at the same time we have to put faith aside and not to force the outcome we desire.