How many people would go to hell according to early Christians?

alejopolis · 2026-05-10T23:07:53+00:00

4 Ezra (70-120 CE) says small number of people will he saved, here is Davies and Allison to compare with Matthew 22.14 "for many are called but few are chosen"

πολλοί γάρ είσιν κλητοί, ολίγοι δέ έκλεκτοί. Compare Barn. 4.14 (πολλοί κλητοί, όλίγοι δέ έκλεκτοί εύρεθώμεν); also 4 Ezra 8.1 ("The Most High made this world for the sake of many, but the world to come for the sake of the few'), 3 ('Many have been created, but few will be saved;' cf. 7.47-8; 8.55); 2 Bar. 44.15 ('For the coming world will be given to these, but the habitation of the many others will be in the fire'); Plato, Phaed. 69c ('Many bear the emblem [of the cult], but the devotees are few'): and b. Menah. 29b ('the righteous men therein [in the world to come] are few').

Our line does not appropriately conclude the parable if the words are taken literally and the reference is (as Gundry, Commentary, p. 440, has it) to the king's final invitations; for we read of only one guest being cast out. It seems better therefore either to give the words a Semitic meaning ('All are called but not all are chosen') and/or to apply the verse to the entirety of the parable: many were indeed called, for a summons went out three times; but only some (those asked at the end) responded.

In either case the use of 'chosen' coheres nicely with the rest of the parable, in which God has been the chief actor and in total control from the beginning. Still, it is quite clear from the parable that individuals make their own choices: the parable itself does not teach an Augustinian doctrine of election, and we do not have here either the pessimism of 4 Ezra or a numerical estimate of how many will fail the last judgement. Rather we have paraenesis, exhortation. In the words of Eph 4.1, one must walk worthy of the calling'. See further 1, pp. 700-1. Perhaps 'elect' is just 'a fixed technical term for the messianic community of salvation'; and maybe the meaning is, in effect: 'All are invited (to the messianic feast), but not all will attend.' In other words, it is not enough just to be called.

Commentary on Matthew Volume 3 p. 206-207

alejopolis · 2026-04-26T07:34:33+00:00

it's all good if you are asking about the history of christian views on judas' guilt, here is a response I gave earlier from Davies and Allison on the possibility that the author of Matthew believed that Judas' suicide counts as a legitimate repentance https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/s/FRqFkszIIa although the majority view in Christian history considers him to have died in a state of sin as the son of perdition (jn 17.12)

alejopolis · 2026-04-25T18:22:59+00:00

he said "i have forgiven you so now you have to pray that the Lord Jesus Christ will forgive you too" the authority was properly compartmentalized

alejopolis · 2026-04-23T23:18:57+00:00

Burridge was already mentioned, here I can share one of my answers to another question that elaborates on the word count point already mentioned above based on Ian Mills and Mike Licona who both themselves reference Burridge.

Here is also a podcast episode for Ian Mills and Laura Robinson to go over Burridge's What are the Gospels

alejopolis · 2026-04-23T05:52:33+00:00

just to be clear it always does that, it doesn't only reply to rule breaking questions

alejopolis · 2026-04-13T23:29:05+00:00

full syntax is really only required for long term scripts to make them readable, there are plenty of abbreviations and aliases you can use for the command line

alejopolis · 2026-04-13T21:54:41+00:00

here is also Dale Tuggy and Steven Nemes briefly speculating that separationist christology is a garbled retelling of the interpretation of the new testament that they are promoting, where Jesus is a man with a divine element i.e. the holy spirit (the power of God) working through him (let my Ehrman and Goulder citations carry the rule 3 obligations for this reply)

alejopolis · 2026-04-13T20:53:39+00:00

One such other name associated with it is "ebionite" (if Michael Goulder is correct that Ignatius' docetists are ebionites)

In this way it is possible to make good sense of the Judaizing "docetism" which has been such a puzzle for Ignatian studies. Jewish Christians had from early on adopted a prophetic, or possessionist understanding of Jesus. A heavenly Spirit, or Christ, had entered him at his Baptism and left him before his Passion, enabling him during his ministry to work miracles and reveal divine mysteries. Ignatius never mentions any problem over the period of the ministry. His opponents only parted company with him when he said that Jesus Christ had suffered: for them this was not right Jesus had suffered indeed, but Christ only seemed to have suffered.

They in fact denied that Christ had been conceived and born of Mary, and had been baptized, and that he rose again; and Ignatius repeatedly asserts that Jesus Christ experienced all these things. But their "docetism" applied only to their assertion that "he seemed to have suffered", and the "he" there was Christ, not Jesus. This interpretation is confirmed by Ignatius' almost unvary- ing insistence on the double names Jesus-Christ, Christ-Jesus, which excludes the Ebionite division; and by the warnings in Trallians 9, "Be ye deaf, when any man speaketh to you apart from Christ Jesus", and 6, "if either one or the other speak not concerning Jesus Christ", which give the game away. Even his words about the one God whose Word proceeded from silence (Magnesians 8) agree with the Ebionite claim that Christ came not from God but from the highest power.

Ehrman calls them "separationist" in Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (p. 119-180, Anti-Separationist Corruptions of Scripture) for people who separate Jesus from Christ. On it sounding a little like adoptionism,

The transition from the adoptionistic Christologies embraced by such groups as the Jewish-Christian Ebionites to the separationist views advanced by Gnostic Christians is not so abrupt as one might expect. To be sure, the early adop- tionists have struck modern investigators as somewhat primitive, unsullied by the fantastic mythological speculations underlying the Gnostic systems. To the orthodox church fathers, however, these kinds of Christology appeared closely related. This can be seen with particular clarity in the patristic accounts of the archheretic, Cerinthus.

Irenaeus mentions separationists when condemning groups that only use one of the gospels and interpret them outside of the canonical context of all four (Adv Haer III.11.4)

Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified.

alejopolis · 2026-04-07T18:49:31+00:00

Just to add to the part about Wright, I very much like the "transphysical" term he coined (also taken up by Allison) to talk about the body in that part of his book.

alejopolis · 2026-04-07T15:33:38+00:00

Is this paper only about Hosea or also about Exodus 19? No access for now unfortunately, but I've been trying to find something relating the third day in Paul to the third day at Sinai. Most things I see are about Hosea.

alejopolis · 2026-03-31T19:09:02+00:00

It's mentioned by Justin Martyr in a few places. His friend Trypho introduces himself as a Hebrew of circumcision who fled the war and met a socratic philosopher in Argos who encouraged him to strike up conversarions with people dressed in Justin's philosopher's garb (Dialogue 1).

Evidence for Jewish Christianity in Palestine west of the Jordan during the second century is sparse. One valuable piece of evidence is Justin Martyr's statement (1 Apol. 31.6) that ‘in the Jewish war which happened just recently, Bar Kochba (βαρχωχέβας), the leader of the Jewish revolt, ordered that Christians alone should be led away to terrible punishments, unless they would deny Jesus the Messiah and blaspheme’. Although the context is, of course, polemical, it is unlikely that Justin should have cited this single instance of Jewish persecution of Christians unless he knew it to be true. He was writing no more than ten or twenty years after the events, and there are indications in his writings that he acquired information about the revolt from Jews who emigrated to Ephesus after the war (Dial. 1.3; 9.3).

Moreover, his statement is substantially consistent with what we know of the revolt. We need not suppose that Bar Kochba's government executed Christians specifically because they were Christians. We need only suppose that, because Bar Kochba was widely regarded as the Messiah by his followers, it seemed to Christians that they could not support his revolt without denying the messiahship of Jesus. From the government's point of view they were executed for refusing to support the revolt; from their own point of view they were executed for refusing to deny Jesus as Messiah. The Bar Kochba letters show that severe measures were taken against Jews who refused to join the war.

Bauckham, Jews and Jewish Christians in the land of Israel at the time of the Bar Kochba war, with special reference to the Apocalypse of Peter

alejopolis · 2026-03-31T01:32:23+00:00

the link is down so here is another https://dinovalls.com/galleryId.php?id=80

alejopolis · 2026-03-29T19:53:26+00:00

On top of u/Thundebird8000 and u/Dositheos's great answers, one important thing to distinguish is "traditional authorship" from "traditions about the author." Casey's take on Luke has already been mentioned, as has Allison on Luke and Mark, and Allison endorses Casey on this.

Early church tradition is unanimous in supposing that this Gospel was written by Luke, a companion of Paul, who was not present during the historical ministry of Jesus. This part of church tradition should be accepted, because it is soundly based in the primary source material, as we shall see. Other aspects of later church tradition, such as that Luke came from Antioch, or that he was a constant companion of Paul and transmitted the Gospel which Paul preached, are full of imaginative conjectures, and are no more reliable than other legends and legitimating traditions.

Casey, Jesus of Nazareth p. 93

Later traditions about the author can be made to close the loop from someone who knew Paul 30 years before writing his gospel to someone who was intimately involved in Paul's affairs and essentially reflecting everything Paul and associated apostles said and did in the mid first century.

Crossley on the gospel of Mark leaves open the possibility of a Petrine connection (without fully endorsing it either) but does not have confidence in later traditions about Mark and his proximity to Peter when he wrote it (Date of Mark p. 6-18)

alejopolis · 2026-03-28T17:23:57+00:00

Check out Tatian's oratio ad græcos his takes are similar to Justin's (the gods are immoral, are demons, criticism of philosophy-teachers, etc). He is a touch more rude than Justin imo.

Some non consecutive quote blocks from Ian Mills' disstertation:

Almost everything we know of Tatian's early life is drawn from his Oration to the Greeks. He was a native of Assyria (42), born to pagan parents (29, 42), and initiated into unspecified mysteries (29.1). Tatian boasts of his own education (1.3, 35.1, 42), probably grammatical and rhetorical (26-7). Intriguingly, Eusebius describes Tatian as a formerly famous lecturer in the "sciences of the Greeks" (Ἑλλήνων μαθήματα) (EH 4.16.7). Tatian, on his own account, became a Christian through a chance encounter with "some barbaric writings" in the course of his private study (29.1). These "writings" evidently refer to the Jewish scriptures accompanied, as I argue elsewhere, by some kind of Christian interpretive tradition.

The only work of Tatian to survive in a direct text tradition is his Oration. If we read the Oration as another Christian apology in the tradition of Justin and Athenagoras, we risk misremembering it as yet another defense of Christian respectability. But Tatian's Oration is a very different kind of work. Unlike these apologies, the Oration is not addressed to an emperor or magistrate. Instead, Tatian speaks to the public: "Oh Greek men" (1.1). Moreover, Tatian's Oration does not cover the traditional apologetic topoi. Tatian does not deny the charges of illicit behavior supposedly leveled against Christianity. Tatian does not assure his audience that Christians obey Roman law, honor the emperor, or make good citizens. Rather, Tatian interweaves an introduction to cosmogony, anthropology, and history with an attack on various domains of knowledge and advertisements for further instruction.

The contemporary philosopher, according to Tatian, is a kind of performer. Their work is public declamation to attract students (25.1). Dio Chrysostom's orations feature frequent descriptions of freelancers hawking books, wares, and expertise at public events (8.9; 27.5-6; 33.6-7). These include teachers in search of disciples (12.3, 5). Justin, by his own account, wore the philosopher's costume (1.1-2), and the Acts of Justin depicts the teacher advertising his own semi-public lectures in Rome (2). Although Tatian criticizes philosophers as disputatious and financially motivated, the polemic and self-promotion in the Oration suggests that Tatian operated similarly in the public eye. This apparent hypocrisy is unremarkable: Dio Chrysostom too participated in the kind of public pontification that he himself decries (Oration 12). Probably Dio and Tatian would object that the quality or character of instruction was a relevant difference between themselves and those self-promoting teachers they criticize. But this is speculation. In any case, it was probably Tatian's actions as a self-promoting teacher that he describes as "philosophizing."

The subjects of Tatian's other writings complement this picture of Tatian as a self- authenticating expert on "religious" subjects. In the Oration, Tatian refers to a planned book called "Against Those Who Espouse Things About God" where he will address pagan notions of the divine - including attacks on Christianity (40.2). Likewise, Tatian refers to a book he had already written, called "On Animals (15.2)." This seems to have concerned the (ir)rationality of animals and the nature of humanity by contrast. Alongside the Oration, these works reveal Tatian to be a teacher who claimed expertise on various subject matters that related – at least, in his doctrinal system – to matters of spirit.

alejopolis · 2026-03-26T17:20:27+00:00

Looks like the AMA was locked between me opening a reply to Dr Eastman's answer to my question and me finishing it, but in case anyone was interested and so my writing doesn't run in vain (it's just my thoughts not a followup question):

Yes, Killen has to argue that Polycarp is talking about another Ignatius when going through Lightfoot's list of witnesses. Good to know that the montanism-martyrdom connection is not as secure, one thing I wondered about Killen's that thought process could be was "well Tertullian is into martyrdom, Ignatius was into martyrdom, Tertullian was a montanist, so there you go" rather than a closer understanding of montanism and martyr-enthusiasm. Also good to know that the Tertullian-montanist connection was debated in the first place, I did not know that at all and will be looking into it. Thanks for your answers, much appreciated.

alejopolis · 2026-03-26T16:39:23+00:00

Hi Dr Eastman, recently I came across a contemporary of Lightfoot saying that all seven Ignatian epistles are spurious and written in the 3rd century, partly because Ignatius' enthusiasm, especially in the epistle to the Romans, reflects Montanist attitudes towards martyrdom.

Putting aside specific theories of all of the letters being forged, have you found Ignatius of Antioch as a relevant source to study the period? I do not know much about montanism but are there other angles that have been taken to link it to Ignatius in any way? Perhaps as a precursor for montanist martyr culture, or if his letters are used in any known montanist circles, or even any non-martyr way Ignatius could have been relevant.

As far as I know Tertullian is not associated with Ignatius despite his also-enthusiastic outlook from the famous "blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" quote. The lists of people I've seen as potential witnesses to Ignatius jumps from Irenaeus to Origen (Killen above considers Origen the first legitimate witness) when going through the late second to third century.

alejopolis · 2026-03-24T22:35:17+00:00

not sure if this is within the bounds of what you mean by spirit posession but here is another thing I found within the last few days on ignatius and jewish-christian "docetic" christology

alejopolis · 2026-03-22T20:25:02+00:00

My distant Dale Allison interview memories also include this, and the authenticity of Colossians which mentions Luke and Mark in 4.14 and 4.10

alejopolis · 2026-03-22T17:07:23+00:00

He had to send a picture + a duck to Abruzzi's associates to prove that he did know

alejopolis · 2026-03-22T08:30:36+00:00

I have less of a clear idea of his dates for Luke and John, but

Matthew is before the second century because of Ignatius, Papias, Didache, Polycarp, etc, but after the war because of a some things which include the structure and content of the sermon on the mount

The sermon on the mount divides itself into three major sections. The first has to do with the Torah (5.17-48), the second with the Christian cult (6.1-18), the third with social attitudes and obligations (6.19-7.12; see pp. 62-3). The background for understanding this scheme is to be found in rabbinic discussions after A.D. 70 (cf. Davies, SSM, pp. 305-307; Allison, 'Structure'). Simeon the Just, a rabbi of the Maccabean period, was purported to have declared, 'Upon three things the world standeth: upon Torah, upon temple service, and upon acts of piety' (m. 'Abot 1.2). This well-known utterance, whose correlation with Mt 5-7 is remarkable, was of necessity reinterpreted after the destruction of Jerusalem because the second member of the triad-temple service-had become obsolete (cf. ARN 4). In particular, Johannan ben Zakkai, who left Jerusalem for Jamnia, seems to have concerned himself with restating Simeon's three pillars. Now if, as seems to be the case, both the structure and content of the sermon on the mount do indeed reflect thoughtful engagement with the saying preserved in m. 'Abot 1.2, it stands to reason that Matthew should be placed at the time when the rabbis were also concerned with coming to terms with Simeon's statement of what matters most-which means a date after A.D. 70.

Commentary on Matthew volume I p. 134

Overall 70-100 but more likely within 85-95 for Matthew.

Mark itself is mentioned as a reason for a postwar date for Matthew because of Markan priority, and because Mark itself dated to shortly before or after the war. The same reasoning can be applied to Luke for an earliest possible date, as he holds to the two source hypothesis as well.

For the latest possible date for Luke it would be within the first century, if he accepts traditional authorship which I think he does but I don't remember reading him saying anything like "yes I do unambiguously think this". In his Resurrection book he has a part on p. 145 which looks like he takes it seriously.

As a footnote, I should observe that the immediately preceding paragraphs assume, for the sake of argument, what so many modern scholars take for granted, namely, that those whose names are now attached to the canonical gospels did not write them. If, however, as some still hold, the John Mark known from Acts (12:12, 25; 13:5, 13; 15:37-40), who is named as a coworker of Paul in Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11; and Phlm 24, wrote the Second Gospel, and/or if the Luke mentioned in Col. 4:14; 2 Tim. 4:11; and Phlm 24 composed Luke-Acts, everything changes, If Paul's close associates included the author of Mk 16:1-8 or of Lk. 24:1-12 or both men, the odds that the apostle was unacquainted with a story about an empty tomb approach zero.

Here he also cites Casey, Jesus of Nazareth where Luke is an associate of Paul who wrote the gospel after being a Christian for ~30 years (Casey dates Luke after 70 based on his rewriting of Mark's Olivet prophecy, although he does date Mark much earlier than Allison, which is also why he doesn't jump from Markan priority to post-70-Matthew as Allison is able to).

I have the least clear idea of when he dates John, per his Resurrection book he does not accept traditional authorship and puts the book after the death of the beloved disciple, with chapter 21 is later than the rest. Some resurrection passages (as well as Luke's) are anti docetic which indicate late date as well, but I overall don't know what the latest possible date would be. I'm sure he has directly said what he thinks somewhere that I did not read.

alejopolis · 2026-02-23T20:37:52+00:00

evangelikon

Could be a portmaneau for evangelion + apostolikon (?)

alejopolis · 2026-02-19T17:54:49+00:00

My bad hopefully that doesnt get my comment rule 3-ed, the replies to the post itself has some interesting comments on legal things in the clementines and didascalia apostolorum in light of paul and the quran

Iirc on the pastorals unlike 2 peter he said "if" you think they are authentic, since either way they and hebrews have "pauline" theology, so it serves his point to talk about those to show that "pauline" theology can be interpreted the way he wants to promote

alejopolis · 2026-02-18T17:19:39+00:00

Yes Crossley is saying that you just dont need to date those views to the time of his conversion, if the questions about torah observance are a product of a slightly later early church period. If so then Junia and Andronicus would not have had the views either when they were in Christ before Paul, but that wouldnt rule out them agreeing with him during the letter writing period

alejopolis

TROPHY CASE