It's easy to find list of Biblical manuscripts from the 2nd to 5th centuries.
Are you aware of any lists of datasets of early manuscripts of non-canonical Christian texts?
e.g. works of Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, 1 Clem, Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, Muratorian Canon, Apocalypse of Peter, Unknown Gospel etc, all the bits and bobs of Christian writings that are not part of anyone's Bible in the modern era.
Reading the NT, (Romans 1:1, Galatians 1-2, 1 Corinthians 9:1–3), a lot of energy is spent on defending Paul's status as an apostle.
Why doth Paul protest? Was his status as a apostle something that needed to be defended against early Christian critics? What's the academic perspective on the continuity of teachings from Christ to Paul?
Hey guys,
I’m a layman trying to find a copy of the LXX and read it as its own manuscript tradition prior to any attempts at harmonization with the masoretic textual tradition.
Besides NETS, it appears all available English editions are based on manuscripts that are post Origins Hexapla, thus are a harmonization of the LXX and the proto-MT (and Theodotion, Aquila, etc).
The NETS translation uses the NSRV for its base structure, AGAIN inserting influence from the masoretic tradition (please correct me if my understanding is wrong)
I understand the OG version of the LXX only survives in fragments across Old Latin, DSS, Papyrus, etc- but is there a single edition available that-
Prioritizes the OG LXX for everything that survives and is still available.
Where the OG LXX root base is no longer extant, utilizes (and notes) the Hexapla, and where the Hexapla is not available utilizes (and notes) the other revisions that are available like Theodotion, Aquila, etc.
Is not structured/ based on a masoretic translation (like NETS appears to be).
This whole thing has been a big puzzle to me, but ultimately I’m looking for guidance from someone that understands these things better and understands my goal is to view the LXX tradition as purely and separate from the influence of the MT tradition as possible.
Does something like this exist? If not, what is the best option to achieve or best approximate my stated goal?
I find the Matthean Posteriority hypothesis (MPH, that Luke used Mark and then Matthew used both) attractive for a few reasons, the main one being that it just seems to defy belief that Luke would dismantle the Sermon on the Mount the way he would have if Luke followed Matthew as is often argued.
The Sermon on the Mount is arguably the greatest piece of ethical teaching in world literature. Would we really expect a Christian biographer of Jesus to read that and think, "Nah, too long and boring."
Plus, Dale Allison has argued,* convincingly in my view, that the core teachings found in Luke's Sermon on the Plains can be found in Paul as well, which could lend credence to the idea that Plains is more primitive than Mount.
So, all that aside, *if* Matthew used Luke, whywould he not have included in his gospel some of the *other* contenders for the greatest ethical teachings in world literature, the parables of the Good Samaritan and Prodigal Son?
It is just utterly baffling to me that these three pieces (Mount, Samaritan, Prodigal) did not end up in the same gospel if there was reliance one way or another between Matthew and Luke.
Assuming MPH for the moment, why would Matthew have omitted these (and other) Lukan parables? Did he believe them to be inauthentic, theologically problematic, or had the price of papyrus gone up?
--
Nowadays, it is common to see Christians who believe literally that Adam and Eve were historical figures, often viewing the theory of evolution as a threat.
On the other hand, there is another group of Christians who accept that it is not literal, seeing it instead as a mythological and poetic narrative rather than a historical one.
However, this group does not stop there; they sometimes make the curious claim that “Genesis was never understood as literal.” Does that hold up? Would the people I mentioned in the title have believed in Adam and Eve as historical figures?
Throughout history, I have frequently observed significant etymological issues within the translation of theological texts.
The distinctions between Elohim and Yahweh in the Torah, as well as the transition to titles like Adonai and Lord, often remain unnecessarily obscure. Similarly, in the New Testament, the specific nuances of "love" expressed by Jesus seem to have suffered a semantic shift when translated from the original Greek.
The same pattern persists in the Quran; terms like Jannah (Heaven) and Akhirah (The Hereafter) originally carried much broader or different connotations than their modern interpretations suggest.
Since these scriptures represent some of our most direct historical data, I believe they are invaluable resources that require rigorous philological study. However, I often get the impression that their linguistic richness has been sacrificed in favor of political agendas and simplified daily practices. I would love to hear your thoughts on how these etymological shifts have shaped our understanding of history.
I've done some surface-level research on this, but I'd like to consult the experts here to dive deeper into the roots.
If the surrounding cultures that worshipped Asherah has priestesses, it would also stand to reason that the ancient Israelites would during their period of Asherah worship. What do we know about how Asherah was worshipped in ancient Israel?
Hello! In Daniel 5 we are told that Belshazzar is the son of Nebuchadnezzar but historically Belshazzar's father is Nabonidus. Apologetics explains that in Semitic language the term son can mean successor or grandson. There is a theory that Nabonidus married one of Nebuchadnezzar's daughters, making Belshazzar his grandson. Could this reconcile the text?
I have a question concerning the Ascension of Isaiah. First of all, does the Slavonic/Latin manuscript really say that Jesus died in the outer space, like Carrier insists, and what is the dating of Ascension of Isaiah according to the scholarship?
Can anyone point me to articles or commentaries arguing that 1 Peter 4:6 teaches that people have a “second chance” for salvation after they die?
“For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does.”
-1 Peter 4:6
Someone correct me if this is wrong, but it is my subjective impression that the canonical Gospels contain remarkably little (but not zero!) talking about Jesus. Rather, it seems like the vast vast majority of the text in each case, perhaps most especially with the Gospel of Mark, is: scene, scene, scene, scene, scene. Narrative accounts of individual episodes in the life of Jesus. Again, someone tell me if my perception is failing me.
If this perception is correct however, my question is: are other entries in this genre as scene-dense, as narrative-dense, as the Gospels? If so, are they the minority or is this completely standard for the genre?
Thank you!
I have read that Job would be the oldest book in the Bible; I've also read that the character of the Satan in it would come from Babylonian influence, which would contradict the first point, since books like Isaiah (the first half of it I believe?) are, as far as I'm aware, accepted as having been written before the exile.
Is there a concensus on when the book of Job was written? And on what the oldest book of the Biblr would be if not this one?
Hi everyone,
I’m looking for books (in French) that approach the Bible from a more historical and contextual perspective rather than a purely “epic” or literal one.
For example, I recently heard an interpretation of the crossing of the Red Sea where it might actually refer to a “Sea of Reeds,” combined with natural phenomena like strong winds, rather than a fully supernatural event. I found that kind of explanation really interesting because it grounds the story in historical and environmental reality.
So I’m looking for books that:
Ideally, something like a “historical Bible companion” or commentary, but accessible and well-written.
If you have any recommendations in French, I’d really appreciate it!
Thanks a lot !
Hey y'all, I've been trying to read the Leningrad Codex more recently since I bought a photocopy, but one thing I can keep noticing is that it tends to have a lot of random characters everywhere (sometimes ל other times symbols that look like a ם), and Hebrew at the bottom of the page and Hebrew at the top of the page, and the Hebrew at the top seems to function like some sort of guidance system, and I was wondering if there was a book all about actually reading and guiding a reader through the Leningrad Codex and all of its unique qualities.
Extra information: I'm not asking for resources based off the BHS, I am going through the actual manuscript in photocopy form.
What attempts have been made to reconstruct the original words of Paul's Gospel? (Even if the reconstructions haven't gained acceptance, I'm interested in the ideas and methods.)
Along similar lines, was Marcion attempting to reconstruct Paul's Gospel, and if so, how close was he?
If they are, can you provide me a video or explanation of how they are similar? Also can you provide me some examples of Greco-Roman Biographies that are similar to the Gospels?
As we all know, Genesis 5 lists people living upwards of 900 years. Are these ages supposed to interpreted literally by the author, based on our understanding on ancient Jewish storytelling? If I told pre-modern Christian and Jewish scholars that I didn't believe that those ages are literal, would they downright accuse me of disbelieving scripture?
I find it interesting that Enoch, the man who supposedly "Walked with God", died at 365- the exact amount of days in a year. Makes me wonder if these numbers may be symbolic and not literal.
So I know that Yahweh probably first absorbed attributes of Baal, and eventually usurped his 'father' El as head of the pantheon, but I keep hearing that Yahweh took Asherah, who had previously been seen as his mother, to be his wife?
So is there any actual evidence that suggest Yahweh had become the head of the pantheon with Asherah as his wife? Or could it rather be that he ruled as head of the pantheon with Asherah as his mother?
“6 This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one that testifies, for the Spirit is the truth. 7 There are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree.” (NRSVUE)
What exactly the author is referring to by “water and blood” is unclear to me.