According to traditional Jewish interpretations of Old Testament prophecies, the Messiah is expected to fulfill specific criteria, including:

Rebuild the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26–28).

Gather the Jewish people back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5–6).

Establish world peace and put an end to war (Isaiah 2:4).

Spread knowledge of the God of Israel throughout humanity (Zechariah 14:9)

My question is: if Jesus died without having fulfilled any of this criteria, at what point did a belief in the Second Coming emerge as an explanation?

Do the Synoptic Gospels contain a high Christology comparable to John?

How does the Christology of the Synoptics differ from John and/or Paul?

Howdy y’all,

I’m in the market for my fifth Bible, but I wanted some guidance on what exactly to pick up. I figured who better to ask than the Bible scholars?

Right now I own an unannotated (outside of a couple minor translation notes) NRSV-CE, the Oxford Press NABRE Catholic Study Bible, a pocket KJV Bible, and the RSV2-CE Ignatius Catholic Study Bible.

What are my major blindspots? Should I be looking at the Jerusalem Bible and the Douay-Rheims? Are there any major Protestant translations I should also be looking at? Should I invest in an Orthodox Study Bible? What about secular notes?

I’m looking for something that will enrich my understanding of the text.

Apologies if this is not the correct place to ask this. I was not sure where else to ask.

Does anyone know of a book or ebook that contains everything mentioned above? I am want to add them to my collection but the only one books I can find are still missing quite a few books/texts from them. I'm aware that having them all in one book may not exist, but wanted to double check. I at least want an exhaustive collection of each individual one if possible. Preferably in ebook format if possible.

I don't know if this is the right place for this. But I was reading Ps 78:41 and the KJV version says "...... they vexed the Holy One of Israel" while NKJV says "..... And limited the Holy One of Israel". This feels like two completely different things one is talking about annoying God while the other is saying limiting God's power for them like in Matt 6:5-6. Don't know if someone more knowledgeable can help explain this

Hello! Ive been delving into the christology of Paul’s letter and wanted to know what other resources may be accessible in delving into the various points of view within scholarship. From what I’ve found the dominant view seems to be that Paul thought of Jesus as the messiah and the God of Israel’s chosen exalted agent that will bring to completion his plans and is exalted at his resurrection in which he surrenders himself to God and stands as subordinate to him and is incorporated into Paul’s vision of the many Gods and divine figures of the ancient Mediterranean that Christ will ultimately overcome with scholars such as Paula Fredriksen, M David Litwa, and Matthew Novenson taking this approach. I wanted to ask who are other scholars that expand upon this view? What are some other works besides the work of the scholars mentioned that delve into this view of Paul? Who are scholars that oppose or critique this conception of Paul? What are other prominent views of Paul’s christology? Thank you!

A recent visit by Christian missionaries at my front door is prompting this. My understanding is that there is a command to proselytize in the New Testament, and I have questions:

• What do scholars know of the context of the inclusion of the command to proselytize in the New Testament?
• How was proselytism viewed in the Ancient Near East and broader Roman Empire during the 1st and 2nd centuries CE?
• Who were the target communities in that period?
• How was proselytism done in early Christianity?
• During times of Roman state persecution of Christianity, how was proselytism managed?
• Conversely, when Christianity became the Roman state religion, did the religious command to proselytize result in state actions?

St. Ignatius, in his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, mentions an interesting episode that doesn't seem to be present in the canonical gospels. His takeaways from the episode are also equally interesting.

(ch.3; translated by NewAdvent) For I know that after His resurrection also He was still possessed of flesh, and I believe that He is so now. When, for instance, He came to those who were with Peter, He said to them, Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit. And immediately they touched Him, and believed, being convinced both by His flesh and spirit. For this cause also they despised death, and were found its conquerors. And after his resurrection He ate and drank with them, as being possessed of flesh, although spiritually He was united to the Father.

This episode contains, by my count, four distinctive features:

1. Jesus came to "those who were with Peter"
2. Jesus said to them, "Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit."
3. After doing what he says, they are immediately convinced and believe (in the good news?), that is, they do not doubt.
4. Afterward, Jesus ate and drank with them, as a person would.

Conflict with the Gospels

In Matthew (ch. 28), Jesus insisting that the disciples touch him to be convinced of his flesh isn't mentioned; while they worshiped Jesus, some\* explicitly doubted (v.17), but it doesn't seem to be much of a problem to Jesus, who notably doesn't speak Ignatius' quote here nor eat with the disciples.

-

Luke (ch. 24) does have some shared factors to Ignatius, but still there are points of conflict:

1. Jesus appears to the gathered disciples while they are talking about what had just happened (the Walk to Emmaeus; vv. 13-35).
2. What he says is similar to what Ignatius writes, although here the reasoning provided by Jesus for his insistence is perahsp more explicit (v. 39; "for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." Is the word for "ghost" the same as the word translated as "incorporeal spirit" in Ignatius?)
3. He does eat and drink with them, which aligns with Ignatius.
4. When the disciples do what he says, however, they explicitly are not convinced by this alone (v. 41), and they only worship when he ascends to heaven (vv. 50-53).

So Luke agrees with two of my noted distinctions, parallels another, and disagrees with perhaps the most significant one.

-

Skipping over Mary Magdalene in the Empty Tomb, John has a few post-resurrection appearances. In the first of such appearances, we have probably the closest narrative to Ignatius in the Gospels:

1. The disciples are hiding away from the Jews (v. 19), but Thomas is not present (v. 24). Jesus suddenly appears to them, shows them his hands and his side, and "they rejoiced when they saw the Lord." Implicitly, the disciples are believing, although that is not explicitly stated as being the result of what Jesus has just done.
2. Then Jesus appeared to Thomas, who did not believe the other disciples when they told him about the previous appearance, and he says to Thomas only: "Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe."
3. Thomas's response, "My Lord and my God!", is also his confession of belief, regardless of what it means precisely. Thus, Jesus showing his hands and his side, and contextually also Thomas touching Jesus in these places (cf. v. 25), causes him to believe immediately.
4. In the next post-resurrection appearance (ch. 21), Jesus tells the disciples to sit and have breakfast (vv. 12-13) from the miraculous catch they had just gotten (v. 8). Then it is stated that they had breakfast (v. 15; "When they finished breakfast..."), but I don't know if Jesus is included here.

So the Gospel of John only parallels three of my notes and might affirm another.

Conclusion

My personal conclusion from these is that Ignatius seems to be sorta quoting a text that shares themes that are only present in Luke and John (Jesus insisting that he is flesh and the disciples believing so), while this text is nevertheless still elusive and unknown, afaik.

As an aside, it's interesting to me that Ignatius states: "I believe that He is so [in possession of flesh?] now." Does he mean, he believes that Jesus still has a body? [Relatedly] That Jesus is still walking around in his time?

It'd be great if somebody had some scholarly resources on the topic; how wrong am I? Lol.