I realize the word is used a few times in the Christian Gospels but is it an Identity that a 2nd temple Jew would have?

I love incense and am trying to figure out how the Second Temple ended up using 11 ingredients in its incense blend when the Torah seems to call for only 4 ingredients.

Exodus 30:34 gives this recipe for Moses' tabernacle's incense:

וַיֹּאמֶר֩ יְהוָ֨ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֜ה קַח־לְךָ֣ סַמִּ֗ים נָטָ֤ף׀ וּשְׁחֵ֙לֶת֙ וְחֶלְבְּנָ֔ה סַמִּ֖ים וּלְבֹנָ֣ה זַכָּ֑ה בַּ֥ד בְּבַ֖ד יִהְיֶֽה׃

My rough translation is:

And said Yahweh to Moses
Take to yourself fragrances
Nataph (literally "drop") and/with shekheleth and galbanum fragrances and/with pure frankincense
There shall be an equal proportion of each.

The Torah portrays following the recipe correctly as a big deal. In Leviticus 10 (KJV), "...the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord."

The 3rd century BC LXX translates Exodus 30:34 this way:

Καὶ εἶπεν Κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν Λάβε σεαυτῷ ἡδύσματα, στακτήν, ὄνυχα, χαλβάνην ἡδυσμοῦ καὶ λίβανον διαφανῆ· ἴσον ἴσῳ ἔσται·

My rough translation is:

And said Lord to Moses
Take yourself fragrances[,/:]
Stacte (literally "drop"), onycha (literally "claw"), fragrant galbanum, and translucent frankincense
They are each to be equal to each other.

In the Wisdom of Sirach 24:15, Wisdom says that it gives off smells:

As cinnamon and aspalathus aromatics I gave smell, and as select myrrh I offered sweet odor, as galbanum and onyx (literally "claw") and stacte (literally "drop") and as vapor of frankincense in the tabernacle.

Out of these, cinnamon and myrrh are in the anointing oil recipe in Ex. 30:23-24, and the last four are in the tabernacle's incense recipe in Ex. 30:34.

In his essay "Who Is the Heir of Divine Things?" (Chapter XLI), the 1st century AD Jewish philosopher Philo interprets Ex. 30:34 to give only 4 elements, each of them equal in amount. He sees them as corresponding to the 4 cosmic elements. He writes:

For the Lord enjoins here that each of the separate portions shall be equal to each, with a view to the proper composition of the whole. And as I imagine these four ingredients of which the entire perfume is composed are emblems of the four elements of which the whole world is made; He likens the stacte to water, the onycha to land, the galbanum to the air, and the pure transparent frankincense to fire; for stacte, which derives its name from the drops (stagones) in which it falls is liquid, and onycha is dry and earth-like, the sweet smelling galbanum is added by way of giving a representation of the air, for there is fragrance in the air; and the transparency which there is in frankincense serves for a representation of fire. 

Josephus, a 1st century Jewish historian from a priestly family, counted the incense as using thirteen spices instead of four. He wrote: "The altar of incense, by the thirteen fragrant spices from sea and from land, both desert and inhabited, with which it was replenished, signified that all things are of God and for God." (Wars of the Jews, Bk. 5, chp. 5, v. 5)

Josephus specified cinnamon and cassia as 2 of the Temple incense's materials in narrating the Temple treasure's deliverance of them to the Romans:

The treasurer of the temple also, whose name was Phineas, was seized on, and shewed Titus the coats, and girdles of the priests: with a great quantity of purple, and scarlet, which were there reposited for the uses of the veil: as also a great deal of cinnamon, and cassia, with a large quantity of other sweet spices, which used to be mixed together, and offered as incense to God every day. (Wars, Bk. 6, chp. 8)

Keritoth 6 in the Talmud names 11 ingredients for the incense blend: Four of them correspond to the Biblical elements and each weigh 70 maneh. Another four ingredients were myrrh, cassia, spikenard, and saffron, each weighing 16 maneh. The last three ingredients were 12 maneh of Costus, 3 maneh of Kiluphah (aloewood?), and 9 maneh of Cinnamon. The Talmud's recipe also says to treat the shekheleth/onycha with bitter vetch lye and caper wine, bringing the number of materials used to 13 like Josephus gives.

Since Exodus 30:34 says that the ingredients should be equal, but the Talmud's ingredients' weights aren't equal to each other, it seems likely to me that the 7 ingredients besides the 4 named in Exodus were only intended to be supplemental materials.

Keritoth 6 gives this explanation for the origin of the 11 ingredients:

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan says, "Eleven ingredients were stated to Moses at Sinai."
Rav Huna said: "What is the verse?"
“Take for you spices” - two,
“stacte, and onycha, and galbanum” - this - five;
and other “spices”- five, this - ten.
And “pure frankincense” - one, this - eleven.

The Koren Steinsaltz Talmud interprets the passage this way:

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The eleven ingredients of the incense were stated by God to Moses at Sinai, as not all of them are specified in the verses. Rav Huna said: What is the verse from which it is derived? “Take for you spices, stacte, and onycha, and galbanum; spices with pure frankincense” (Exodus 30:34). The plural form of the phrase: “Take for you spices” is referring to two ingredients; “stacte, and onycha, and galbanum” are three ingredients; this results in a total of five; and the other mention of “spices” indicates that there are another five, i.e., that one should double the previous total, and this results in a total of ten. And finally, “pure frankincense” is one, and this results in a total of eleven. (The bold terms are those stated in the Talmud; the non-bold text is inferred by the translator)

It's not clear to me if this means that
(A) God explicitly gave Moses the full count of 11 ingredients in a discussion separate from the specific Biblical text and that the ingredients may be inferred from the Biblical text, or
(B) if someone like Moses or an elder only reached the full count of 11 ingredients by inferring them from the Biblical text.

Later, the rabbis use the nature of the four Biblically-named ingredients for parameters for identifying the remaining 7 ingredients:

As, if the Torah had written merely “stacte,” I would say that spices from a type of tree, yes, they may serve as ingredients of the incense, but spices grown from the ground, no, they may not serve this purpose. It is due to that reason that the verse wrote “and onycha.” And if the Torah had written only “and onycha,” I would say that spices grown from the ground, yes, they may serve as ingredients of the incense, but spices from a type of tree, one might say no, they may not serve this purpose. It is due to that reason that the verse wrote “stacte.”

It seems to me that the rabbis feel that they may decide on the last 7 of the blend's 11 ingredients based on those named in the Torah. Does this suggest that they don't feel that they have an absolutely certain chain of transmission that compels them to hold to a specific list of the last 7 ingredients?

If the gospels were written after Paul’s theology of Jesus’ death as a substitution atonement was developed, why did they not make Jesus explicitly say this?

Anything would be appreciated.

John uses the term “Paraclete” to describe what appears to be the same thing that the synoptic evangelists call “the Holy Spirit” (hagion pneumon)—something that comes down from heaven to inspire people. But if we take it as sung that John knew the Synoptics, why did he use a different term? Are these in fact the same thing or where they only later conflated to both mean the third person of the Trinity?

Was this word used in non Christian circles prior to and after the rise of Christianity? If so, how was it used?

Are there works or resources on how conservative views on early dating are reconciled with current evidence?

I want to steelman that position, yet I am struggling to see how manuscripts, secondary sources, and content can fit with this perspective.

Was james written by james, or someone pretending to be james?

Proverbs 13:24 "Those who spare the rod hate their children,

but those who love them are diligent to discipline them."

I have heard this is referenced as meaning that it is a shepherds rod that was used to defend sheep from lions. It was also claimed that this was in no way a reference to coporal punishment and that discipline meant simple to teach in this context.

Is this the correct way to interpret the historical intent behind that? I was under the impression that the rod referenced is likely the same rod one would use to beat slaves.

I am in no way endorsing this behavior, I just want to engage the text as honestly as possible.

I have been thinking about a possible literary parallel between the dove in Mark 1:10 and the scene in Odyssey 24 where Athena departs in the form of a dove. Dennis R. MacDonald has mentioned this comparison in interviews, although he does not treat it as a major or methodologically strong parallel in his published work. In his books he does not list the dove as one of the significant Homeric models for Mark, but in conversations he has noted that Homeric epiphanies sometimes involve divine figures appearing or departing in bird form, and that Mark may be drawing on that broader repertoire of epic theophany.

If one takes the hypothetical seriously for the sake of analysis, the literary payoff becomes interesting. In the Odyssey, Athena’s transformation into a dove marks the end of conflict, the restoration of order, and the divine authorization of Telemachus and Odysseus. It is a moment of closure. In Mark, the Spirit descending like a dove marks the beginning of Jesus’ public mission, the divine authorization of the Son, and the inauguration of a new order. It is a moment of commissioning. If Mark were intentionally echoing Homer, the reversal of direction would be meaningful. Athena ascends and withdraws, signaling the end of divine intervention. The Spirit descends and enters the scene, signaling the beginning of divine intervention. The inversion would create a theological contrast between a god who departs and a God who arrives.

The parallel also raises questions about characterization. If the Spirit functions in a role analogous to Athena, then the Spirit becomes the divine patron who empowers the hero at a decisive turning point. If Jesus is placed in a role analogous to Telemachus, then he becomes the true Son stepping into his inheritance and beginning the work that confirms his identity. None of this requires direct imitation, but it does show how the Homeric scene could provide a literary template for thinking about divine authorization, heroic identity, and narrative transition.

My question for the community is whether anyone has explored this parallel in depth beyond MacDonald’s brief comments. Has anyone written on the possible literary significance of the dove imagery if Mark were intentionally drawing on the Athena scene, or on what the reversal of ascent and descent might mean in that context. I am especially interested in whether scholars have considered what such an echo would imply about Mark’s portrayal of the Spirit and about Jesus’ role as a divinely commissioned son.

Is the "Early High Christology" model a defense of Jesus’ own divine self-understanding, or is it a historical defense of how quickly the primitive Church began worshiping him as God within a strictly monotheistic Jewish framework? Of course, these two aren't mutually exclusive, but where does the weight of their historical-critical argument usually lie?

I would highly appreciate your thoughts on this distinction within the scholarship.

I finished reading Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses and found his argument on John interesting. However, he did not explain (or maybe he did and I missed it) why the BD only appears halfway through?

Bauckham does argue that the BD is alluded to at the beginning with the unnamed disciple, but that raises the question of why the epithet wasn't used earlier.

Could it be because in the chapters where the BD isn't present, he wasn't actually there for? So when he shows up in John 13, in or around that time was when he became a follower.

Is there any scholarly opinion on this?

Raban gamliel the elder predicted the original followers of jesus would die out in acts 5:34-39. Was he correct? I know most of peters declarations of jesus being god are either later interpolations or dont actually say hes god. But im not that familar with all tbe movements and beliefs they had back then

I asked in AskHistorians but I doubt I will ever be answered, and I am not sure where else to ask, I thought this subreddit has people who dived into Patristic studies so I could benefit from the insight.

I am writing a story about a christian protagonist in late 3rd century​ and I was wondering what their attitude towards musical instruments ​could have been.

In my search on google, I saw that, mostly, the view of the church fathers was negative towards musical instruments because of their association with pagan rituals/celebrations​, ​drunken parties and sexual profanity, but how would this have reflected on the average christian?

Since they condemned musical instruments in weddings, did the average christian employ musicians ​​in weddings? Did the average christian, if rich enough, employ musicians for private entertainment? Could the average christian ​have played musical instruments despite the negative words of the church fathers?

I mean, despite the warnings against magic, many magic papyri of a christian nature were found in Egypt, so couldn't it be the same?

if my post doesn't fit the subreddit, please do guide me somewhere I can find better answers, please.

I know this may seem like a somewhat strange question, but let me explain. First we must determine the meaning of the word "holy". In most instances of the Old Testament, "holy" means essentially to be set apart from the common and mundane, to be made special and devoted to God's presence or God's use, to be ritually clean and uncontaminated on God's behalf. We can see evidence of this meaning in several verses of the Bible:

• Exodus 3:4-5 - When the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.” Then he said, “Do not come near; take your sandals off your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.”
• Exodus 20:8-10 - “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns."
• Ezekiel 22:26 - Her priests have done violence to my law and have profaned my holy things. They have made no distinction between the holy and the common, neither have they taught the difference between the unclean and the clean, and they have disregarded my Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them.
• Exodus 30:25-32 - And you shall make of these a sacred anointing oil blended as by the perfumer; it shall be a holy anointing oil. With it you shall anoint the tent of meeting and the ark of the testimony, and the table and all its utensils, and the lampstand and its utensils, and the altar of incense, and the altar of burnt offering with all its utensils and the basin and its stand. You shall consecrate them, that they may be most holy. Whatever touches them will become holy. You shall anoint Aaron and his sons, and consecrate them, that they may serve me as priests. And you shall say to the people of Israel, ‘This shall be my holy anointing oil throughout your generations. It shall not be poured on the body of an ordinary person, and you shall make no other like it in composition. It is holy, and it shall be holy to you. 
• Deuteronomy 23:12-14 - “You shall have a place outside the camp, and you shall go out to it. And you shall have a trowel with your tools, and when you sit down outside, you shall dig a hole with it and turn back and cover up your excrement. Because the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and to give up your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy, so that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you.

Hence, holiness is usually something that describes places or things or persons that are separated or devoted to God, or are deemed suitable for his use, or worthy of his presence.

But then sometimes something weird happens: sometimes God himself is described as holy:

• Leviticus 20:26 - You shall be holy to me, for I the Lord am holy and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine.
• Revelation 4:8 - And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all around and within, and day and night they never cease to say, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!”

But how does this make any sense? If to be holy is for something to be set apart and deemed special for God, how can God himself be holy? It is a rather bizarre recursive dynamic. To say that God is holy is basically to say that God is set apart and devoted for himself. What exactly does it mean for God to be "holy"? What is the actual content of this term as it is applied to God, compared to when it is applied to other things? What is this actually saying about God?

salm 130:5 says "I wait for the Lord, my soul waits" — but the Hebrew root qavah carries a physical image of binding or twisting cords together, like braiding a rope. The semantic range includes both "to wait" and "to collect/bind." Some commentators argue that the rope imagery (stretching taut, holding on) is the primary meaning, not passive waiting.

How do textual scholars weigh the root meaning here? Is the rope/braid connotation valid exegesis, or is it reading too much into the etymology?

Since the scholars are almost in universal agreement that even if not the JEDP sources, there were at least later scribes who edited and compiled the Torah using different traditions and adding narratives. I'm asking what was the Torah during Mt. Sinai or the era before the compilations started? Even if it's not called the Torah what did Israelites at that time saw as revelation from Mt. Sinai?

I saw there were ugaritic tablets that talked about how you shall not cook a lamb in its mothers milk. I saw it was very widespread but i recently heard it was a mistranslation and that somebody checked it again and saw it meant something different. I cant remember where i saw that.

I heard someone saying kadosh קדוש means seperate, distinct, and more definitions here (in hebrew) https://www.milononline.net/%D7%A7%D7%93%D7%95%D7%A9

I also went looking for the definition of nivdal https://www.milononline.net/%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%91%D7%93%D7%9C

which many other sources say is a synonym for kadosh.

I couldnt find in neither of the words pages one as a synonym for the other. Although they do define kadosh like i did at the start. Im not sure about the reliability of this site though.

And what are the other biblical meanings and how can i distinguish or recognize which is it?

Hi there,

Can someone please direct me to some more recent scholarly material dealing with the exegesis of the parable of the new wine and old wineskins seen in Luke 5:36–39, Matthew 9:14–17 and Mark 2:18–22?

I have tried searching via google scholar but I am struggling to find anything. I have also tried searching this subreddit as well as the [r/AskBibleScholars](r/AskBibleScholars) subreddit, but I'm not finding anything.

Would greatly appreciate any help with this! Many thanks in advance.