Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

7

In the English language the expression "son of X" usually means an offshoot from X and therefore something which is distinct from X. Therefore "Son of God" may seem to imply a being who is not God. But in Hebrew idiom "A is the son of B" may mean that A shares the same nature as B, or A is a member of the group B. For example: Genesis 5:32 says literally ...


6

Analysis of Sinaiticus (yes, א is the symbol) has led to the conclusion that there are three general periods of additional editing. So the symbols represent information about these periods. Per the NA28 Introductory material on the critical apparatus: א by itself means the only reading present. א* Is a notation for the original reading when a later ...


5

In my (limited) understanding, the key arguments put forward for the order Mark > Luke > Matthew (i.e., for "Matthean posteriority") are: the literary observation that Matthew appears to collect, collate, and develop traditions found in Luke (e.g., what appears in Matt 5-7 in the "Sermon on the Mount" is found at various points, and in a more "primitive" ...


4

The idea of a human or group of humans being God's son is not uncommon in the Hebrew Tanakh ("Old Testament"). For example, in Exo. 4:22 (cp. Hos. 11:1), Yahveh commands Moses to say to Pharoah, Thus said Yahveh, "Israel is My son, even My firstborn." The motif of the nation of Israel being God's child is reiterated in various other books of the ...


3

Even when words have meanings that span semantic ranges in other languages (such as how both Hebrew and Greek use the same words for wife and woman), context is key to understanding the meaning. In fact, words rarely map one-to-one across languages. This is why mechanical translations don't work for the final copy. Take Jesus' words for example: But I ...


3

You have asked about the order being Mark > Luke > Matthew. My answer below addresses the order of Luke being written before even Mark. This arrangement is called Lukan Priority. It is very much a minority opinion. As you know, the prevailing theory in New Testament studies is Markan Priority. It has the most support among scholars. A minority position ...


3

A quick methodological note. An answer to the question of what was regarded as "blasphemy" by the Sanhedrin requires an answer rooted in Jewish Law of the Second Temple period,1 rather than in the Hebrew Bible itself. Scholarship on Jesus' trial in the context of Roman and Jewish law of the period has been carried on for a very long time. One of the ...


3

The problem occurs in v. 10 as well, where variant readings between "Amos" and "Amon" occur. That is, like "Asaph" and "Asa," the words are near homonyms with the respective psalmist Asaph and prophet Amos. In this regard, the late Bruce Metzger (1994) comments as follows on these verses: 1:7–8 Ἀσάφ, Ἀσάφ {B} It is clear that the name ...


2

Lots of scholars look for alternatives to the traditional Mark-Q priority, but in my view without success. Dennis R. MacDonald wrote a well-researched thesis in Two Shipwrecked Gospels that Luke knew not only Mark, but also Matthew. That would have caused an even bigger stir among critical scholars than his book, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, but ...


1

It is worth noting that προσκυνέω is used in the Matthew 14 text and also in Rev 19:10: (ESV) "Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, 'You must not do that! '" Most translations also translate it as 'worship' as the context dictates. Since the same word is used in Matthew 14, you can see why some translations translate it similarly, ...


1

The Idea in Brief Jesus does not appear to downplay the necessities of life as normal daily concerns; that is, the Apostle Paul corrects such misconceptions in his second epistle to the Thessalonians. Instead Jesus is placing the priority of righteousness as the primary "need" for correct life and living. Discussion The Apostle Paul admonished those ...


1

The context of the verse is, indeed, literal food and drink. This is stated as "eat" and "drink" in v25, and then is compared by the instruction to look at the other things in God's creation, the birds, life-spans, clothing, etc. These are all natural things. v30-32 also emphasize these things, as v32 indicates that this is, indeed, what the Gentiles are ...


1

I think Jesus was talking to Peter himself and that he called him Satan metaphorically. Such an interpretation would correspond with Jeremiah 30:9 and Ezekiel 37:24 where the Messiah is called "David". Obviously the Messiah wasn't literally the David of the OT resurrected as Jesus of Nazareth. But Jeremiah and Ezekiel referred to David because David is a ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible