u/Sophia_in_the_Shell

gMatthew seems to use gMark but the author never tells us what he is using. 2 Peter seems to use Jude but the author never tells us what he is using. The apostolic fathers seem to often, if not always, let us know they’re using something.

How should we understand this difference? Does an ancient author using but not citing another author tell us anything about their view of the original text? Is it just a matter of genre?

Thank you!

Thank you!

I realize that this is going to be highly dependent on a scholar’s views of the relationship of these narratives to the rest of Kings, but hopefully the question is still clear enough.

I might add the question: Why do these accounts seem to be more “narrativized” than other parts of Kings? Or is that perception incorrect?

Thank you!

Herodotus (Histories 4.205), Josephus (Antiquities 17.6.5), Pausanias (Description of Greece 9.7.2) and many more have variations on this motif in which a bad historical figure we are not supposed to like dies in a sort of over-the-top, nasty, maybe divine-involved way. Bad smells and worms seem to be common elements.

Did the writers and their audience actually believe this had happened? Was it some sort of known in-joke? Why did these details of the motif emerge? Is Herodotus the earliest example or does it go even earlier?

And perhaps most importantly, are there any extended scholarly discussions on this motif I can go read somewhere?

Thank you!

So from answers in threads like the two linked below, I’ve come to appreciate (neutral) the broader context of what Paul is doing here. Here we have an etiology both for the emergence of polytheism and for the emergence of “gentile degeneracy,” essentially.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1u1h280/is\_paul\_alluding\_to\_platonism\_in\_romans\_1/

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1jgnf06/what\_sorts\_of\_religious\_traditions\_does\_paul/

However, I remain confused with Romans 1:20–

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those who by their injustice suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. Ever since the creation of the world God’s eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been seen and understood through the things God has made. So they are without excuse, for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.”

If polytheists are in view here, what is even Paul’s argument here? These aren’t (I assume, am I wrong?) people who would reject the idea of design present in nature. Is he arguing that the Jewish God specifically should be clear to pagans through creation? If so, why would he think that?

Again, more broadly, I think I understand the context of the argument, and I think I understand the broader argument, but this exact link in the chain confuses me, unless I’ve misunderstood something of what contemporary paganism would have looked like.

Self-explanatory, hopefully. Thank you!

Doesn’t necessarily have to be a commentary, it could also just be, say, a chapter in a book.

Thank you!

In Markus Bockmuehl’s Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory, he seems to simply take it for granted that Justin is referring to Peter here in the Dialogue.

In contrast, C. Clifton Black comments that, “Usually, though not always, the possessive noun or pronoun with the term … refers to the subject of the reminiscences, not to their author. On this reading Justin would be referring to ‘memories of (or about) Jesus.’”

What have other scholars said? I’m mainly interested in those who argue for one position or the other, as opposed to simply assuming it.

I’m thinking about Mark and the Elijah-Elisha Narrative by Adam Winn and it occurred to me that by the first century, there are a number of apocryphal texts that have in some sense rewritten or expanded upon various stories in the Hebrew Bible.

My question then is simply: did any such apocrypha exist for the Elijah-Elisha narrative? Or would any knowledge of this narrative have necessarily come directly from reading Kings (or hearing oral storytelling based upon the same)?

Thank you!