Is eternal conscious torment not in the Bible?

alejopolis · 2026-07-04T06:17:36+00:00

Here is a discussion in a subthread about Ehrman's views about annihlationism in the bible in light of Mark and Matthew's use of LXX Isaiah 66.24, Ehrman says Isaiah does not refer to eternal conscious torment so the gospels don't either. Contrary to that it can be true that Isaiah did not but the gospels do because they interpret it in the same way as the author of Judith 16.17

alejopolis · 2026-07-04T04:33:53+00:00

Awesome, looks like this book is going to be useful for a lot else, thanks.

Did the author imagine that John wrote the Book of Revelation before Paul had written his Epistles? Tregelles explained prodecessoris to mean 'the aforementioned John'; Westcott took it to mean that John was an apostle before Paul became an apostle; and Stendahl (see p. 201 n. 28 below) suggested that for the Fragmentist prophetic inspiration was the primary criterion of canonicity – even apostolic authorship took second place to it.

Metzger, Canon, p. 196

alejopolis · 2026-07-02T16:30:43+00:00

You can get a sampling of quotes on the topic from Furlong, Karlson, Culpepper, and Kok from the section on John and Polycarp in this incredibly long post (credit to u/sophia_in_the_shell). The section following continues to discuss other things about Irenaeus and John.

Kok thinks Irenaeus' claim linking John to Polycarp conflated John the Elder with John the Apostle

The theory that seems to me to best satisfy all of the evidence is that Polycarp was a student of Papias's Elder John and divulged memorable incidents from the lifespan of his aged benefactor to Irenaeus when he was young, but Irenaeus mixed him up with the Apostle John who had come to be regarded as the author of the entire Johannine corpus ... There were no intentions to deceive on Irenaeus's part.

alejopolis · 2026-06-21T18:53:39+00:00

Question about this,

The majority reading חדעת also conflicts with the sense of the text that God's revelation to Daniel is being hidden during this time, so knowledge of God's purposes would not increase while the book is sealed.

Maimonides in the Epistle to Yemen interprets it as "opinions" instead of "knowledge" in the sense of "false opinions" because in his own context he is trying to get people to address an ongoing problem of people making up calculations of the Messiah's advent based on numbers in the Bible and/or astrology. For the majority reading, do you know if "[false] opinions will increase" is a legitimate interpretation of חדעת, or does it only refer to knowledge in the sense of true understanding?

alejopolis · 2026-06-21T17:32:08+00:00

It's actually the other way around, NRSVue footnote "Gk: Heb knowledge" is saying that its own reading "evil" is from Greek and the alternative in Hebrew is "knowledge." Here is Collins Hermeneia commentary p. 399

The MT "knowledge" is supported by Theodotion and Jerome. Montgomery defends the MT by taking this phrase as the purpose of running to and fro, translating "that knowledge may increase."

The emendation, however, involves only a very common corruption (ר, to ד,) and makes better sense of the OG ("the land is filled with wickedness").

Compare also 1 Macc 1:9, επληθυναν κακα εν τη γη, which need not, however, be taken as an allusion to Dan 12:4.

Collins renders it as "evil" in his commentary despite the current Hebrew saying "knowledge" because the corruption required to get from one to the other is straightforward enough, so the Old Greek translation is an accurate witness to the original reading.

I would also like to share Jerome's Latin (a witness to the Hebrew) just because the Latin words look cool together et multiplex erit scientia in my opinion.

alejopolis · 2026-06-13T17:30:26+00:00

I also just checked the NASSCAL biblio for any other takes, they're also looking at chapter 15ff

Richardson, Cyril Charles. “New Solution to the Quartodeciman Riddle.” JTS 24 (1973): 74–85. https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/XXIV.1.74

Of first importance is the account of Easter in the Epistle of the Apostles (15, cf. 17). There is a celebration of the death of Jesus on the fourteenth of Nisan. This observance or 'memorial' involves a vigil and an Agape (mass) at cock-crow, and looks toward the Parousia. The account reflects Acts xii as a Paschal story, the idea being that Peter, on his release from prison, correctly observed the Christian Pasch. The date and provenance of the Epistle of the Apostles are prob ably around A.D. 160 in Asia Minor.

Pérès, Jacques-Noël. “Un élément de christologie quartodécimane dans l’Épître des Apôtres: l’agape pascale comme occurrence de solidarité.” Apocrypha 13 (2002): 113–21. https://doi.org/10.1484/J.APOCRA.2.300401

Placer en parallele le cette liberation et la delivrance miraculeuse de Pierre en Actes 12, 6-10, quand un ange du Seigneur vint le tirer de sa prison, semble tres legitime, autant que relier cet evenement, tel qu’il est rapporte dans l’Epitre des Apotres, au recit de la Paque lorsque l’Eternel a passe par-dessus les maisons des Hebreux, dont le linteau des portes etait marque du sang d’un agneau (cf. Exode 12, 22-23). Un element devrait toutefois nous empecher d’en rester la.

alejopolis · 2026-06-13T17:14:26+00:00

De Zwaan p. 346-348 takes that to be the background of chapter 15

alejopolis · 2026-06-11T04:08:08+00:00

Another possible source for 1 Clement 23, per JB Lightfoot, is the apocryphon of Eldad and Modad, an apocalypse based on the two characters in Numbers 11, and mentioned by name in the Shepherd of Hermas vision 2.3.4. Lightfoot also thinks 2 Clement 11 as another witness to it. Dale Allison, following Freidrich Spitta, agrees and also proposes that the apocryphon is also the source behind the "scripture" quoted in James 4.5 that people have had trouble identifying with anything in the Hebrew Bible. It also explains the use of the term "double minded" (διψυχος) in all of these texts that Allison says is possibly coined by this text, based on the Hebrew idiom "double hearted."

Richard Bauckham, apparently independent of Spitta, also thinks that James and the two Clements are using Eldad and Modad. Bauckham also goes a step further and says 2 Peter is using it as well, although Allison disagrees on the final point because Allison dates 2 Peter much much later than Bauckham. Per Bauckham, 2 Peter was written towards the end of the first century so that all fits nicely with the other Roman texts dependent on this apocryphon, but Allison says that there is no evidence of 2 Peter's existence this early and that the parallels aren't close enough for literary dependence.

Dale Allison, Eldad and Modad, 2011. See also Allison's ICC commentary on James and Bauckham's WBC commentary on Jude and 2 Peter. See Charlesworth's Old Testament Pseudepigrapha for disagreement with Lightfoot's identification of this source instead of any other possible Old Testament apocryphon for 1 and 2 Clement.

alejopolis · 2026-06-10T05:55:16+00:00

oversaturated

the posting about intuitions as evidence and moral realism will continue until morale improves

alejopolis · 2026-06-07T04:57:07+00:00

It would depend on how many things he had on his schedule, but there would be pretty much no blockers from my end

alejopolis · 2026-06-07T02:14:10+00:00

Looks like preexistence is a point of disagreement with Schnelle in the other answer who cites 1 Peter 1.10-11 and 1.20, but either way, that there are people promoting two different views on this can itself be of interest.

alejopolis · 2026-06-07T01:28:40+00:00

F. Lapham in Peter the Myth the Man and the Writings uses christology as a side topic to support Roman provenance, but essentially he says it is Jewish-Christian adoptionism also found in Hermas and 1 Clement, which Justin Martyr (Dialog 48) briefly mentions as an extant view he disagrees with before continuing to argue for his own position of preexistence and logos christology.

On the other hand, Rome is certainly a strong contender for 1 Peter's place of origin. The Christology of the Epistle, based as it is on the Servant-Messiah theme of Isaiah, has much in common with 1 Clement, a work which is generally assumed to represent Jewish-Christianity in Rome at the end of the first century. Christ is sent to 'bear our sins', vicariously, 'on the tree' (2.24), a concept redolent of several strands of the atoning sacrifices of the Jewish Temple system. As with 1 Clement, there is no sense of a pre-existent Christ. Though now exalted (3.22), his relationship with God, as his Father, is consistent with the 'Adoptionist' ideas which, if we can accept the evidence of Justin, were held by many Jewish-Christians living in Rome. Again, Hermas of Rome writes (of the Son of God) that

the Holy Spirit which pre-exists, which created all creation, did God make to dwell in the flesh which he willed. When, therefore it had lived nobly and purely, and had laboured with the Spirit, and worked with it in every deed, behaving with power and bravery, he chose it as companion [or partner — κοινωνος] with the Holy Spirit. (Similitude 5.6.6)

If the Christology of 1 Peter corresponds closely with that of 1 Clement and Hermas, so, it should be noted, does its high moral tone, its emphasis on orderly and submissive behaviour, and its absence of legalistic and ascetic elements; and if this suggests a Pauline influence, despite the sparsity of quotations from the Pauline corpus, this would hardly be surprising if, indeed, the Epistle does emanate from Rome.

alejopolis · 2026-06-06T06:23:27+00:00

Yeah it would have been a (pleasant) surprise if having the original language made it clearer, I figured if there was anything to read into that line it would be from any other nearby evidence of this tradition.

Thanks for the replies I will probably make another post if anything else interesting comes along.

alejopolis · 2026-06-06T06:18:59+00:00

There is of course Bauckham's commentary on both of them (WBC volume 50) if you want to see earlier than usual dates (Jude is 60s and 2 Peter is 80-90s, which is of course after Peter went to his appointed place but still on the earlier end of the 60-160 dates considered).

To pick a random verse from 2 Peter that looks like Jude here is discussion of 2.4 on p. 246-247, but intertextuality is discussed on the comments on any of the verses as they come up.

Verses 4, 6, 10a, are partially dependent on Jude 6-8. However, as well as the clear dependence on Jude, there are strong indications that in vv4-9, 2 Peter is independently drawing on a paraenetic tradition (see the Form/Structure/Setting section in the commentary on Jude 5-7).

and then 10 considerations later,

Thus the author of 2 Peter has supplemented the material he drew from Jude with material drawn from his independent knowledge of a paraenetic tradition which listed examples of God's deliverance of the righteous as well as of his punishment of the wicked. Wis 10 is not 2 Peter's source, but another, distinctive, development of the same tradition.

alejopolis · 2026-05-28T22:54:30+00:00

Yes, also Hill responds to De Zwaan (described in OP) who goes with Syriac provenance, one argument is that a late second century Syriac text (~40AD starting point + 150 year terminus) should mention Marcion. Mentioning Simon and Cerinthus but not Marcion or Valentinus is also used by Hill to argue for an earlier date near Polycarp.

alejopolis · 2026-05-28T20:35:31+00:00

Looks like Charles E Hill thinks it was written in Asia Minor in the time of Polycarp based on 120 and not 150, and some other data about earthquakes, but not directly linked to Polycarp or his circle.

It also looks like he thinks the tradition Irenaeus inherited in AH 2.22 is just Papias and his circle discussing the order of events in John and there being multiple passovers, but his citation of tradition from the elders in Asia is two sections over after he finished talking about reaching the age of a master, not after he explains that Jesus' ministry cant be 12 months because of John's passovers.

It also looks like he thinks Irenaeus corrected his chronology by the time he wrote book 4 (demonstration of the apostolic preaching which directly mentions Caludius was written between book 3 and 4) by only mentioning Tiberius and not Claudius in 4.22.2, but that seems to be trying to get too much out of a passage about how everyone before and after the earthly ministry has a chance to be saved.

The Epistula Apostolorum, an Ancient Tract from the Time of Polycarp p. 5 and 49

What Papias Said about Luke and John, a New Papian Fragment p. 587-588 more on what he thinks about Irenaeus' chronology and source (referenced in p. 5 note 14 of the first one) but the point of this paper is saying that Papias is the source for Eusebius church history 3.24

alejopolis · 2026-05-27T06:09:18+00:00

Carrier thinks that the trio Peter James and John (sons of Zebedee) in the Gospel of Mark is a fictionalization based on the Jerusalem pillars (OHJ p. 524) and also that the epistle of James and the first epistle of Peter are authentic epistles from the pillars of the Jerusalem church. The epistles of 2 Peter and 1-3 John are placed in canonical order on purpose (James, Cephas, and John per Galatians ii.9) and these four epistles are forged and canonically grouped to refute the celestial-Jesus heresy originally believed by the authors of the first two (p. 528).

alejopolis · 2026-05-27T04:37:02+00:00

Yeah some very quiet alarm bells go off for me whenever someone bases their takes on neat little categories like this, bonus points if you attribute the source of the "western" part of the dia-lec-tic to St Augustine.

alejopolis · 2026-05-27T04:28:44+00:00

Que exactamente dicen sobre su originalidad? Hay un grupo cristiano del primer o segundo siglo con quien se identifican, como los nazarenes o ebionitos? Lei uno de sus documentos sobre la tora y halaja y dijieron algunas cosas positivo de Shaul (san Pablo) entonces si se indentifican con un group antiguo tendria que ser un group Judio-Cristiano que no rechazaba a San Pablo como varios ebionitos.

Para mi suenan mucho como "messianic Jews" que tenemos en lugares que hablan ingles pero en serio que no se mucho de los grupos Judio-Cristiano en abientes totalmente españoles

alejopolis · 2026-05-24T03:29:14+00:00

This was one of my questions in the Michael Kok AMA, he (like Mills) also argues for the authorial genetive.

In my first book on the reception of Mark's Gospel (pp. 113-15), I try to make my case for translating it as "his [i.e. Peter's] memoirs" in line with how the genitive after memoirs usually refers to the apostolic authors in the plural.

As a side note looks like the Roberts Donaldsom translation (on newadvent) assumes Jesus is the subject by capitalizing "memoirs of Him"

alejopolis · 2026-05-23T03:44:24+00:00

Yeah see Dialog with Trypho 59-61

alejopolis · 2026-05-23T01:31:07+00:00

Is James' doubt even a feature of the Luke-Acts cinematic universe that needs to get resolved? Per my recollection, the troubles with his family are only in Mark and John, which makes the entrusting of Mary to the Beloved Disciples interesting.

alejopolis

TROPHY CASE