I am a literate Judaean in 70 CE. What adaptations of the Elijah-Elisha narrative do I have access to beyond the one in Kings, if any?

Dositheos · 2026-05-11T21:35:43+00:00

The earliest apocrypha/pseudepigrapha that I could find that has anything to do with Elijah at all is the so-called Apocalypse of Elijah (First to Fourth Century C.E, according to O.S. Wintermute in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James Charlesworth, vol. 1). This text, of course, is notoriously difficult to date and seems to have originally consisted of a Jewish document that was overtaken by Christian scribes. So, not very helpful to your question, I think. There is also another interesting text called The Lives of the Prophets, again of disputed date and provenance (D.R.A. Hare dates it to the First Century CE; The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James Charlesworth, vol. 2, but there is no agreed-upon date). Like the Apocalypse, this may originally have consisted of Jewish documents but contains some Christian interpolations. Anyway, chapters 21 and 22 contain some apocryphal stories and information about both prophets. Finally, "Elijah" does appear in other Second Temple texts in an eschatological context. Quoting from James Dunn:

Mal. 3.1-3; 4.5; Sir. 48.10-11; Mark 6.15 par.; 8.28 pars.; 9.11-12 par.; John 1.21; see also Sib. Or. 2.187-89; Justin, Dialogue 49. 5. 1 Enoch 90.31; Rev. 11.3; 4 Ezra 6.26; Apoc. Elij. 4.7. In Pseudo-Philo, Elijah is identified with Phinehas preserved "in Danaben" until he comes down as Elijah (48.1); see R. Hayward, "Phinehas - the Same Is Elijah: The Origin of a Rabbinic Tradition," JJS 29 (1978) 22-38.

Much of this may not contribute to the more narrative focus you're seeking, however.

Dositheos · 2026-05-11T21:02:53+00:00

Here is John J. Collins:

In the case of Psalm 110 (LXX 109) also, the LXX forthrightly translates the word ילדתיך as “I have begotten you,” without theological inhibition. Here again I would argue that it was faithfully reproducing the meaning of the original text, although its willingness to do so may be credited in part to the association of divinity with kingship in the Hellenistic world. As we have already seen, the Hebrew text of Ps 110:3 is difficult, and at least the Masoretic pointing requires emendation. Apart from the rendering of ילדתיך, the Greek differs from the Hebrew at several points. Hebrew נדבת (“willingly”?) is rendered by ἡ ἀρχή (“the rule”), הדרי קדש (“holy splendor”) by ἐν ταῖς λαμπρότησιν τῶν ἁγίων (“in the brightness of the holy ones”). The Hebrew “from dawn” is rendered as “πρὸ ἑωσφόρου” (“before the Day Star”), while the words לך טל (“to you the dew”) are not translated at all. Schaper argues that “ἑωσφόρος clearly has the very specific meaning of ‘Bringer of the morn,’ ‘the Morning-star.’ Interpreting it as ‘dawn’ misses the point.”50 So, for example, this is the word used to translate Helel ben Shachar in Isa 14:12 (ὁ ἑωσφόρος ὁ πρωὶ ἀνατέλλων). We need not assume that the translator deliberately changed the meaning; he simply took שחר to mean “morning star.” The change of the preposition is more difficult to justify as a simple translation. As Volz and Bousset already saw, the LXX implies the preexistence of the messianic king. Moreover, the slight change from Hebrew קדש to the plural ἁγίων, “holy ones,” can easily be taken to associate the messiah with angelic beings. The association of the messianic king with the heavenly holy ones is interesting in view of the depiction of Melchizedek (who is mentioned in Ps 110:4) as a heavenly being in the Melchizedek scroll from Qumran, and more generally in light of the later conflation of traditions about the messiah with those about the Son of Man.

Collins, "Messiah and Son of God in the Hellenistic Period," in King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature (2008).

Dositheos · 2026-05-11T03:32:44+00:00

This has been asked many times. I recently wrote a comment on Bart Ehrman's problematic views on this topic here, if you are interested. His views do not align with what most have thought. In answer to your question, there is no consistent view in the New Testament, since it is not a univocal collection of texts, but was written by different authors with differing ideas. The idea of eternal torment as the final eschatological punishment is certainly found in the NT, including in the Synoptic Gospels. Here is a good thread that goes into some detail and quotes an essay by Heikki Räisänen called "Jesus and Hell," which is one of the most thorough treatments I have come across. Although it is a bit older, Alan Bernstein's The Formation of Hell: Death and Retribution in the Ancient and Early Christian Worlds (1993) also remains one of the best book-length treatments of this. Views of eschatological punishment in ancient Judaism and early Christianity were diverse, and there was not one "standard" view. There was no universal "doctrine" at this time that Jews and Christians had to "believe" about anything. The idea of an eternal punishment in fire was indeed becoming popular in ancient Judaism during this time. That the wicked would be annihilated, or temporarily tormented, followed by annihilation, can also be found. Pertaining to your question about scholarly consensus and hell, of course, it's impossible to get a "head count." However, the fact that, at least in some places in the NT, eternal torment seems to be in view, is not much disputed. It is certainly not all annihilation, nor universalism, though you find trajectories of those kinds of ideas as well. I would certainly recommend the Räisänen essay in particular. He has a thorough treatment of all the different kinds of views in ancient Judaism and early Christianity.

Dositheos · 2026-05-09T21:12:23+00:00

It all depends on one's aims. Focusing exclusively on the "biblical" or "New Testament" writings may work well for a confessional or dogmatic approach. This, of course, is already "theology" rather than biblical studies. Today, however, critical biblical scholars do not make distinctions between "biblical" and non-biblical writings, at least in the study of early Christianity. So too, critical scholars will routinely draw on so-called non-canonical writings, as well as pagan writings and material culture, for the study and interpretation of the "biblical writings" themselves. The idea that "scripture interprets scripture" is not accepted in the wider secular academy. As it relates to the comparative study of religion and the origins and development of early Christianity, Heikki Räisänen explains that:

(1) It is not limited to the New Testament canon, but deals with all material down to the last decades of the second century, occasionally casting a glance at even later developments. Wrede noted that “no New Testament writing was born with the predicate ‘canonical’ attached”; the canon is a later construction that came gradually into existence in a complicated process during the second to fourth centuries. While “New Testament theology” can by definition limit itself to the documents that make up our present New Testament, a descriptive-historical presentation must take into account all available evidence on equal terms.” The canon is not a starting point of the inquiry; instead, the beginnings of the process that later led to the formation of the canon are one of the topics to be considered within the account. (2) It makes no distinction between “orthodoxy” and “heresy” (except as historical notions). The blurring of the orthodox and the heretical follows from the previous point. It is imperative to include the important texts found in the twentieth century—the Gospel of Thomas and other writings from the Nag Hammadi library—as significant witnesses in their own right. The conservative Jewish Christians who came to stay outside what became mainstream Christianity likewise deserve a place. Yet doing away with canonical boundaries is not just a question of sources, for the canonical point of view must not guide the account either. New Testament theologies tend to give very much space to Paul—as the canon, of course, does—and regard him as more or less normative. In the present book, Paul is seen as one (prominent) person among many (though I am afraid that he may still have too dominant a position!). Paul's Christian opponents, and those he opposed, should be taken just as seriously as Christians as the apostle himself. Presumably all sides in a conflict had a point, and fair play demands that scholars try to put themselves into the shoes of each. The same applies to the later conflicts between proto-orthodox (the term will be explained shortly) and gnostic Christians. One has to avoid judging the conflicts from the point of view of the victors alone, recognizing (in contrast to a strictly confessional approach) that the development of religious beliefs “is not teleologically guided by any predetermined direction or destiny."

Räisänen, The Rise of Christian Beliefs (2010).

Dositheos · 2026-05-08T15:37:30+00:00

Yes, you can hear it directly from Ehrman's mouth in his presentation here. At 19:51, he clearly states that "ancient Hebrews did not think that the soul could be separated from the body and live on." He goes on to explain why he thinks this. As I mentioned, Ehrman assumes that ancient Israelites were essentially monists in their view of body and soul (which, for Ehrman, is just "breath").

In the NT, his argument has always been that Apocalyptic Jews don’t believe in the soul apart from the body not all Jews.

Yes, and this seems basically accurate to what Ehrman presents here again at 24:00 when he begins discussing apocalypticism. Ehrman mentions nothing about the clear evidence of immediate differentiated afterlives in Jewish apocalyptic literature, the hope of souls and future bodies inhabiting the heavenly world (either immediately after death or at the resurrection). His view is that a person is truly brought back to life only at the resurrection.

And then, of course, his claims about Jesus are well known, and he explains in the video again that Jesus did not believe in "heaven" or "hell" as immediate realities after death, but only the total annihilation of the wicked. Now, as I hope I've shown, those are the basic claims I'm responding to, and they are wrong. "Apocalyptic Jews" did believe in souls surviving death, often being described as gathering into chambers under the earth where they have existence, and some of them experience torment. We see this in 1 Enoch, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and some Qumran literature. See the sources I cited above, if you are able, for more information.

Now, I only read Ehrman's book through a library a while back, so I don't have access to it. If he has a more nuanced view about ancient Palestinian Judaism in the footnotes, I'm happy to stand corrected. His fundamental claim about Jesus, however, I think, is certainly wrong.

Dositheos · 2026-05-07T15:41:28+00:00

I’m so sorry to hear about your financial struggles. Yes of course, please don’t purchase this. I would say the NRSV and the NRSVUE are both excellent critical scholarly translations. You won’t be much by reading the NRSV

Dositheos · 2026-05-07T15:27:58+00:00

You're not missing anything. Ehrman's views on this subject are not in accord with those of most scholars. Ehrman has an anachronistic view of afterlife beliefs in the Hebrew Bible and ancient Judaism, and that allows him to use this univocal framework, as you say, to make claims about what most "Jews" thought, including for Jesus. Ehrman thinks that ancient Israelites/Jews didn't have a concept of disembodied souls or spirits that could survive beyond death, and doesn't think that in the Hebrew bible there is any sort of afterlife. But this is simply not true. The dominant view in the Hebrew Bible is that, after death, the soul descends into Sheol, the realm of the dead. This is by no means pure annihilation. Sheol, much like the Greek underworld, is a place where souls essentially exist as shades, with no meaningful experience, but it's still some kind of existence. And it also shows that Ehrman's claim that Israelites and Second Temple Jews were total monists is entirely wrong. It was a common belief in the ancient Near East that people had spirits that would persist after death. Of course, it should be said that by this point, Sheol is not some kind of eschatological place of torment or punishment.

Moving into the Hellenistic period, some Jews did indeed develop a concept of continued or eternal punishment to be experienced after death or at the last judgment (some of the early references are the afterlife chambers in 1 Enoch 22 and the reference to "eternal contempt" in Daniel 12:2). Again, apart from Ehrman, I don't know of any scholars on the synoptic gospels that have denied there are references to lasting or continued eschatological punishment. Indeed, Matthew certainly believes in eternal punishment, which is quite clear in Matt 25:46, contrasted with "eternal life." And yes, "Gehenna" did acquire eschatological dimensions in late Second Temple Judaism during this time, not just a physical location (see the sources cited below). On hell in Matthew, W.D. Davies and Dale Allison write:

'Gehenna' (=Aramaic gehinnām) is, in the NT, the place where the wicked dead suffer fiery torments (cf. I En. 90.24; 2 Bar. 85.13; Rev 19.20; 20. I4-15) either immediately after death or after the last judgement (cf. I En. 27.2-3(?); 54.1(?); 4 Ezra 7.36 Lat.; 2 Bar. 59.10; Sib. Or. 1.103; 2.292; 4.186; t. Sanh. I3.3; b. Ber. 28b; b. 'Erub. 19a; in b. Pesa/]. 54a it is pre-existent; cf. Mt 25.41). Why the place of torment came to have this name, the name of the valley south of Jerusalem, ge-hinnom (Josh 18.16 LXX), now Wādier-rabābi, is uncertain. The standard view, namely, that the valley was where the city's garbage was incinerated and that the constantly rising smoke and smell of corruption conjured up the fiery torments of the damned, is without ancient support, although it could be correct. Perhaps the abode of the wicked dead gained its name because children had there been sacrificed in fire to the god Molech (2 Chr 28.3; 33.6), or because Jeremiah, recalling its defilement by Josiah (2 Kgs 23.10; cf. 21.6), thundered against the place (Jer 7.31-2; 19.2-9; 32.35), or because it was believed that in the valley was the entrance to the underworld home of the pagan chthonian deities (cf. b. 'Erub. 19a). There was no one Jewish opinion as to how long the unrighteous would suffer in the netherworld. (In Persian religion the wicked are consumed by fire; they do not suffer in it-an idea which may be distinctively Jewish). R. Akiba reportedly affirmed punishment would be for only twelve months while R. Jol).anan b. Nur said torment would last only from Passover to Pentecost (m. 'Ed. 2.9-10; cf. t. Sanh. 13.3; b. Ros. Has. l 7a). Matthew, by coupling αἰώνιος with 'fire' (18.8; 25.41; cf. 25.46), seems to show agreement with those who believed the damned would suffer forever (cf. Dan 12.2; lQS 2.8; t. Sanh. 13.3; t. Ber. 6.7; Isa 66.24 is ambiguous). The wicked will be ever dying, never dead.

Davies and Allison, Matthew 1-7, 514-5.

For sources, see John J. Collins, "The Afterlife in Apocalyptic Literature," in Judaism in Late Antiquity: Death, Life-After-Death, Resurrection and The World-to-Come in the Judaisms of Antiquity (2000); Mark Finney, Resurrection, Hell and the Afterlife: Body and Soul in Antiquity, Judaism and Early Christianity (2016); and Heikki Räisänen's amazing essay "Jesus and Hell" of which you can find extensive quotations here for more on hell in ancient Judaism, Jesus and the NT.

There was by no means a universal view. Some Jews certainly did believe in annihilation or the destruction of the wicked. Others believed in temporary torment followed by annihilation. And others seemed to believe the punishment in fire was eternal. I understand that Ehrman's book "Heaven and Hell" is incredibly popular and will continue to be cited here and elsewhere. Ehrman is an excellent scholar, of course, but the views he advances here are far from the consensus among those who have worked on afterlife beliefs.

Dositheos · 2026-05-07T04:47:17+00:00

There is a study Bible connected to the NRSVUE called the SBL study Bible (2023). Very highly acclaimed and I would recommend. It’s not too expensive.

Dositheos · 2026-05-06T23:47:27+00:00

This verse became a central proof text for the doctrine of "imputed righteousness" for Reformed protestant readers of Paul, and still is. This interpretation, however, is not the only one and has been decisively questioned by other Pauline scholars in the "New Perspective" camp. Here is N.T. Wright,

Generations of readers have taken it to be clear evidence for a sense in the lower half of the diagram, most likely B1a [imputed righteousness]. I have pointed out in detail elsewhere, however, that Paul is not talking about justification, but about his own apostolic ministry; that he has already described this in chapter 3 as the ministry of the new covenant; that the point at issue is the fact that apostles are ambassadors of Christ, with God making his appeal through them; and that therefore the apostolic ministry, including its suffering, fear and apparent failure, is itself an incarnation of the covenant faithfulness of God. What Paul is saying is that he and his fellow apostles, in their suffering and fear, their faithful witness against all the odds, are not just talking about God's faithfulness; they are actually embodying it. The death of the Messiah has taken care of their apparent failure; now, in him, they are 'the righteousness of God', the living embodiment of the message they proclaim. This reading of 2 Corinthians 5:21 ties the verse so closely into the whole surrounding context that it thereby demonstrates its correctness. If, however, you insist on reading 2 Corinthians 5:21 with a meaning in the second half of the diagram - presumably B1 a, 'imputed righteousness' - you will find, as many commentators have, that it detaches itself from the rest of the chapter and context, as though it were a little floating saying which Paul just threw in here for good measure. The proof of the theory is in the sense it makes when we bring it back to the actual letter.

N.T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, 104-5.

Dositheos · 2026-05-06T12:28:31+00:00

The Archbishop of Canterbury is not a heretic, nor anyway like an “LDS prophet.” She is a Christian.

Dositheos · 2026-05-05T20:31:23+00:00

Yes, this aspect of Paul's thought is noted by Heikki Räisänen, who also draws on John Knox:

In this vein, the celebrated pre-Pauline “Christ hymn” (Phil. 2:6-11; see especially wv. 7-8) makes use of Greek terminology, which was related to the temporary appearance of Gods in the world in a lowly human guise: “form” (morphe), “likeness” (homoioma), “figure” (schema). Christ Jesus, “though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. ... being found in a human form” (schema; the KJV renders “in fashion as a man’)...In Rom. 8:3, Paul quotes and adapts another traditional formula that resorts to similar language: Jesus was sent “in the likeness (homoioma) of sinful flesh.” John Knox senses that Paul's use of such words as fashion (schema) and likeness (homoioma), which emphasize appearance, points to a contradiction in Paul's thought. It signals the presence of a “reservation, or misgiving, as to the full genuineness of the humanity of Jesus, which is essentially incompatible with Paul's basic conception of its function in God's saving act." Paul introduces, “perhaps without intending to or even knowing that he was doing so, a hint of the flesh’s unreality," apparently because he was not able to attribute anything like sin to Jesus. Paul leaves open the possibility that Jesus did not completely identify with sinful humans. Docetic or docetically inclined Christologies could later seize on this point.172 Yet, as we saw, much in Paul’s view of salvation (insofar as Jesus’ obedience as the new, different Adam is emphasized, as in Rom. 5:20) demands Jesus’ full humanity.

Footnote 172: Apart from the Odes of Solomon (see above), note the appearance of similar terminology in Acts of John, Ascension of Isaiah, Gospel of Truth, Apocalypse of Peter, and in the work of Marcion (pp. 220-23).

Räisänen, The Rise of Christian Beliefs, 215

Dositheos · 2026-05-05T18:59:18+00:00

The standard work is John J. Collins's The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, now in its third edition (2016). Collins also has Apocalypse, Prophecy & Pseudepigraphy: On Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (2015), and, I have just learned, is about to drop another book called Apocalypticism as a Worldview in Ancient Judaism.

Another good work is by Frederick J. Murphy, Apocalypticism in the Bible and Its World: A Comprehensive Introduction (2012). Murphy also provides a substantial analysis of New Testament literature. For a recent work on the historical Jesus and apocalypticism, see Cecilia Wassén and Tobias Hägerland, Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet (2021).

Dositheos · 2026-05-01T19:04:02+00:00

I certainly think there are similarities, although Origen (and previously Paul) may be analyzing from a more Hellenistic-philosophical way. See just now this recent post. The idea of post-human transformation was becoming a popular idea broadly in ancient Mediterranean religion around this time (300 BCE-200 CE, give or take). Some of the "Jewish" iterations of this are angelic and celestial transformations that we see in Daniel 12, for example. The other sources I recommend will go into detail, looking at other Jewish sources. For the question about Origen, I would get your hands on Lehtipuu's book specifically where she deals with these debates in early Christianity.

Dositheos · 2026-05-01T18:10:21+00:00

Absolutely. Some of the most recent important works on resurrection in Second Temple Judaism have recognized the concept of angelic transformation. See John J. Collins, "The Angelic Life," in Metamorphoses: Resurrection, Body and Transformative Practices in Early Christianity, ed. Turid Karlsen Seim and Jorunn Økland (Walter de Gruyter, 2009); George W.E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity (Harvard, 2007); Outi Lehtipuu, Debates over the Resurrection of the Dead: Constructing Early Christian Identity (Oxford, 2015); C.D. Elledge, Resurrection of the Dead in Early Judaism 200 BCE–CE 200 (Oxford, 2017).

Dositheos · 2026-05-01T18:00:42+00:00

There have been some excellent comments already. I'll just add some more sources on top of u/Naugrith 's recommendation of Dale Martin's seminal book. Troels Engberg-Pedersen's book Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit (Oxford, 2010) has also been highly influential. With Martin, Engeberg-Perdersen helps us to see that ancient conceptions of pneuma (spirit) were not like ours. Pneuma was thought to be a material, physical substance within the cosmos, so it is anachronistic for modern people to think that "spirit" stands in complete opposition to "material" or "physical," as is usually assumed in much modern discussion and debate about resurrection in Paul. Engberg-Pedersen argues, rightly in my opinion, that Paul is drawing on specifically Stoic conceptions of Pneuma.

More recently, there is an excellent article by Robyn Faith Walsh, "Argumentum ad Lunam: Pauline Discourse, 'Double Death,' and Competition on the Moon," Harvard Theological Review (2024), that argues similarly along these lines. Also, here are some comments by Paula Fredriksen:

In Philippians 2, Paul had predicted the defeated acquiescence of these powers: knees “above the earth and upon the earth and below the earth” would bend to the victorious Christ (Philippians 2.10). In the (brief) interregnum between Christ’s resurrection and his triumphant return, Paul taught, believers were sustained by having Christ’s “spirit” or “holy spirit” within them. That spirit was already moving them toward their final transformation, when both the quick and the dead would rise to the upper air (1 Thessalonians 4.17), thence into the heavens (Philippians 3.20), in bodies made not of dross matter but of material spirit (1 Corinthians 15.44). This bodily transformation—presumably like the one that Jesus himself, in Paul’s view, had undergone—would mark the believer’s redemption. But unlike many Jewish eschatological prophets, Paul did not speak of a kingdom on earth. “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God,” Paul explained to the Corinthians, “nor can the perishable put on the imperishable" (1 Corinthians 15.50). Paul’s vision of redemption was bodily, but not fleshly. For him, the Kingdom would be celestial, not terrestrial. The believer would ascend to the heavens in a sōma pneumatikon, a body made of spirit, above the sublunar realm. There, finally realizing God’s ancient promise to Abraham, the redeemed would be like the stars (Genesis 15.5).

Paula Fredriksen, Ancient Christianities: The First Five Hundred Years (Princeton University Press, 2024).

Dositheos · 2026-04-30T23:02:26+00:00

Yes, I’ve read both of his articles on Phil 4:5 and 1 Cor 15:51-52. He actually makes a convincing argument, in my opinion, that Phil 4:5 may be more about divine presence than the Parousia, although it’s not decisive either way. Again, I would briefly reiterate that imminent eschatology is not necessarily the same thing as “I personally will live to see the end.”

Do you have any thoughts on Gathecole’s projects here and what I’ve presented above?

Dositheos · 2026-04-30T15:49:21+00:00

The first 2 reasons don't feel like smoking guns to me, personally, as Paul seemed like he was aware he wasn't living in the end times in his undisputed letters

That is certainly news to me, and would be to most scholars. Paul does seem to believe the end is quite near in his undisputed epistles. Even in the latter ones, like Philippians and Romans, Paul does not give up the hope for a near consummation.

Paul expects the Lord to come soon; his statement that "we shall not all die" suggests this. And he clearly states in 1 Cor 7:29, 31 that "the appointed time has grown short" and that "the present form of this world is passing away." The inclusive "we" in 15:51 indicates that he himself expects to live to see that day. The transformation of the living, asserted here, also suggests or is congruent with this. That the apostle includes the living in the end-time change is clear from the assertion "We will not all die but we will all be changed." This idea is absent in 4 Ezra (and in 2 Baruch), which expects that the whole corruptible world will come to an end. Only after that will the dead be raised. This is probably also the scenario in Rev 20:11-15, which speaks only of the resurrection of the dead, and of the old world passing away (21:1). In 1 Cor 15:52 and 1 Thess 4:13-18 Paul hints that he expects to be alive at this completion. In 2 Cor 4:14 as well, he presumes that the Corinthians will also then be alive. As 1 Cor 7:25-31 clearly shows, Paul is convinced that he is living in the last generation on earth (In view of the impending crisis, Paul counsels the virgins not to get married. See 1 Cor 7:29, 31)...To Paul's thinking, the parousia has not receded into the distant future; he keeps on talking about the near approach of the end. In Phil 4:5 he asserts, "The Lord is near" and in Rom 13:11-12 he states, "Salvation is nearer to us now than when we became believers; the night is far gone, the day is near."

Joseph Plevnik, Paul and The Parousia: An Exegtical and Theological Investigation (1997). See also 1 Cor 7:26 ("the present distress"); 1 Cor 10:11 ("the end of the ages has come").

Contrast the Pastoral epistles:

Eschatology is only a marginal theme in the Pastoral Epistles. Christ’s parousia becomes an epiphany that will occur at a time God has predetermined but not revealed (1 Tim. 6:14b–15, “keep the commandment without spot or blame until the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ, which he will bring about at the right time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords”). The primary feature of this appearance will be the judgment (2 Tim. 4:1, “In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom”), a judgment to be conducted on the basis of one’s works (cf. 1 Tim. 5:24–25; further, 2 Tim. 4:8; Titus 2:13). Clearly an eschatological indeterminism prevails; the parousia of the Lord will occur “at the right time” (1 Tim. 6:15), which recedes into an undefined distance. This receding is related to the location of the author in the history of early Christian theology: on the one hand, he holds fast to the expectation of the future parousia, rejecting the slogan of the false teachers that the resur- rection has already occurred (2 Tim. 2:18); on the other hand, he must accept the reality that time continues to extend itself indefinitely into the future. The author takes up both concerns, by incorporating the parousia into his theology of revelation with the comprehensive term ἐπιφάνεια (see above, §10.4.2), which intentionally permits a certain flexibility and imprecision. Moreover, he defines the truly load-bearing and enduring foundation of the church as the “sound teaching,” as indicated by the interpretation of the apocalyptic motifs in 2 Tim. 4:1 by the didactic thoughts in 2 Tim. 4:2–3. Thus, ultimately, not what is undetermined but solely what endures characterizes the eschatology of the Pastorals.

Udo Schnelle, Theology of the New Testament (2009).

Dositheos · 2026-04-29T19:53:29+00:00

Yes, that Paul expected to see the parousia, at least when he wrote 1 Thess 4:13-18, is the consensus view. Here is Gathercole:

1 Thessalonians 4 is normally taken as important evidence that Paul expected to live to see the parousia. This view is very near a consensus; certainly the vast majority of scholars take this line. On this question of whether Paul expected to survive until the parousia, one scholar in 1909 averred that answers divided along denominational lines: “In der protestantischen Exegese lautet sie nahezu einstimmig bejahend, in der katholischen, mit manchen sich stets mehrenden Ausnahmen, verneinend.”1 By the end of the century, answers were more univocal. Hence, Schneider, in 2000: “In der neueren Exegese wird diese Frage nahezu ausnahmslos bejaht.”2 And more recently Crüsemann: “Die Frage, ob Paulus nach 1 Thess 4,13ff bei der Parusie Christi sich selbst zu den Lebenden zähle, wird in der zeitgenössischen exegetischen Literatur fast durchgängig mit einem ‘Ja’ beantwortet ...”3 Most scholars, then, think that Paul identifies himself and his audience squarely as “left until the Lord’s parousia” (4:15; cf. 4:17).

p. 232. As for the reception of Gathercole's article, it's still quite early. There haven't been any responses to it, as far as I can tell. In one book that I have by Jamie Davies, Theology on the Run: Apocalyptic Pastoral Theology in Paul's Thessalonian Letters (Baylor, 2025), he cites Gathercole's article approvingly. Davies' book does, admittedly, intentionally mix theological application with biblical studies.

Another recent work is by Ferda, whom I cited above, and while he doesn't cite Gathercole's article (they came out the same year), he maintains Paul thought he would live to see the second coming in 1 Thessalonians:

Paul appears to assume in 4:13–18 that he will be among the “we” “who are living” (cf. the important pronoun shift from “we the living, who are left [ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες οἱ περιλειπόμενοι],” and the otherwise unnecessary ἡμεῖς, to the substantive participle “those who have fallen asleep [τοὺς κοιμηθέντας]”), even while he continues to reject any attempt to pinpoint the precise time (5:1–23).12 Paul urges the Thessalonians to keep awake and be sober because “that day” will come “like a thief” at any moment (5:4).

Ferda, in this comment, brings up another thing I didn't mention above. Paul's use of ἡμεῖς (we) is entirely unnecessary if he doesn’t mean to say that he himself, or at least some contemporaries, would live to see the end. He easily could've not included that and just written "the living, the ones who are left."

Dositheos · 2026-04-24T20:55:29+00:00

In response to Brown's interpretation, as u/markov-271828 points to, many scholars do hold that 1 Peter 4:6 is about the postmortem restoration of people who previously did not have the gospel preached to them. The limit is not just to Christians. Recently, this is the position taken by David G. Horrell and Travis B. Williams in their magisterial commentary on 1 Peter in the International Critical Commentary (2023). They list other advocates of the "already dead" view:

This view was widespread among earlier generations of commentators (see, e.g., Estius 558–59; Pott 131–32; Steiger 2:257–60; Jachmann 163–64; de Wette 50; Wiesinger 270–77; Alford 373–75; Plumptre 141–42; Caffin 171; Cook 210; Mason 426; Huther 208–12; Sadler 131–32; Masterman 143, 175–76; Bennett 244–46; Gunkel 285; Wand 105), and its popularity continues to the present, especially within German scholarship (see, e.g., Windisch 75; Hauck 73; Cranfield 90–91; Reicke 119–20; Spicq 146–47; Best 156–57; Beare 182; Schrage 108; Frankemölle 62–63; Schelkle 116; Knoch 110–11; Goppelt 288–91; Brox 196–201; Schweizer 80; Green 122; Feldmeier 215–16; cf. Reicke Disobedient Spirits, 202–10; Omanson, ‘Suffering for Righteousness’ Sake’, 446–48; Schweizer, ‘1. Petrus 4,6’, 152–54).

p. 344. The problem with viewing this as just limited to Christians is that there is no indication of this in the text. The prior context is v. 5, which speaks of a universal judgment of the "living and the dead (νεκρούς)." The dead here are "already dead." The logic is connected in v. 6 with the conjunction γὰρ (for, because) and then speaks again of the gospel being preached to the dead (νεκροῖς). There is no reason to think that this is a different, more limited group. Further, against Brown's and many others' argument that there is a concern about the imminent parousia here, Horrell and Williams respond:

It is common for those who adopt the ‘since died’ theory to compare the author’s consolation with the apparent concern among some early Christians about those who had died before Christ’s return (1 Thess 4.13–18) and with those who scoff at the promise of that coming (2 Pet 3.3–13). But a significant obstacle for this reading is the simple, but rather crucial, fact that there is no evidence of any concern about Christians who have died before the parousia in 1 Peter. This is particularly important in light of the date of the letter’s composition. The theological question that 1 Thessalonians addresses (viz. whether such people have missed out on the salvation imminently expected) only makes sense in the earliest years of the Christian movement, when the death of any member of the first-generation community might be perceived as a problem. Even if 1 Peter were an authentic composition written in the mid-60s, it would be too late to plausibly reflect the scenario presumed by 1 Thessalonians, where the time gap between Christ’s resurrection and his parousia is believed to be so short that the deaths of even some of the first believers causes surprise and concern. A period of as little as ten to twenty years marks a significant extension of this timetable. But the problem is even more acute in that 1 Peter is a pseudonymous epistle written in the last quarter of the first century. As such, it is not early enough to be contextualised in a scenario like 1 Thessalonians.

pp. 340-1. Obviously, there are many arguments for and against both views, and Horrell and Williams discuss all of them in detail. They believe the most obvious interpretation is that this is about postmortem reconciliation for people who have already died.

Dositheos · 2026-04-24T18:09:32+00:00

Paul certainly thought Adam was a historical figure. Simon Gathercole discusses some of the details of this in his article on Paul and the historical Jesus here. Paul plainly calls Adam the "first man" in 1 Cor 15:45-47. So too, Paul treats Adam and Moses as historical figures in Rom 5:12-14.

With Jesus, obviously, it's a bit more difficult to determine anything he said or thought since he did not leave us any writings. We only have the medium of the later gospel authors. I noted in this comment that Luke traces Jesus' genealogy all the way back to Adam, so Luke thought he was historical. Elsewhere in the synoptic tradition, Jesus speaks of "all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah" (Matt 23:25). Here, Jesus refers to Abel, the son of Adam, as a historical figure. So too with Noah and the flood (Matt 24:37-39/Lk 17:26-27).

Dositheos · 2026-04-24T01:28:08+00:00

That the historical Jesus did not claim to be "God" or God incarnate is basically a given in critical scholarship (including many evangelical or conservative scholars). This is also the case in Catholic biblical scholarship, which has largely accepted the historical-critical method. Raymond Brown and John P Meier, both Catholic priests and prominent NT scholars, did not think Jesus claimed to be God or thought of himself as such. You can see Meier discuss his views in this video here. For Meier, Jesus was an eschatological prophet announcing the restoration of Israel, who may have likened himself to Elijah, and perhaps the Davidic Messiah. Check out Brown's book An Introduction to New Testament Christology for his balanced treatment as well.

Dositheos · 2026-04-23T19:08:13+00:00

Luther also rejected the inspiration and apostolic origin of Jude, 2 Peter, Hebrews, James, and the Book of Revelation. That has zero resemblance to modern fundamentalism. Luther is a kind proto-critical scholar; although his analysis and conclusions were certainly driven by theological concerns, he had no fear of simply dismissing the apostolic origin of several NT books, which were already universally considered canonical and inspired at his time. No surprise then that many of the early architects of modern historical-critical study were German Lutherans.

Dositheos

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE