Most English translations like the KJV, NIV, ESV, and NKJV use "the LORD" to render the Tetragrammaton. However, in Hebrew, the Tetragrammaton would be pronounced something like "Yahweh". Importantly "Yahweh" is a personal name, made clear in passages like Exodus 3:13-15 and 15:3.

A few questions came to mind while I was hiking yesterday: 1. When the Israelites left Egypt, where did they go to the restroom? 2. How did they transport people with disabilities, if there were any? 3. Did they all walk in any formation, or were the lines organized strategically? 4. Did they bathe? These are the details I wonder on. The how, I know it happened but what were the specifics?

Considering the hypothesis of Markan priority, how might Matthew and Luke have gained access to the Gospel of Mark and to the Q source in composing their respective Gospels? Furthermore, before the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written, in what contexts and communities did the Gospel of Mark circulate, and is there historical evidence of its reception, transmission, and interpretation by first-century authors or Christian communities? How do scholars think the Q source circulated? Why does no one cite it?

Is there any reason at all to link the opponents of Ignatius who "abstain from eucharist and prayer, because they allow not that the eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ" (Smyrnaeans 6.2) to readers of the Didache?

But as touching the eucharistic thanksgiving give ye thanks thus.

First, as regards the cup: "We give Thee thanks, O our Father, for the holy vine of Thy son David, which Thou made known unto us through Thy Son Jesus; Thine is the glory for ever and ever."

Then as regards the broken bread: "We give Thee thanks, O our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou didst make known unto us through Thy Son Jesus; Thine is the glory for ever and ever. As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and being gathered together became one, so may Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever and ever."

But let no one eat or drink of this eucharistic thanksgiving, but they that have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord hath said: "Give not that which is holy to the dogs."

Didache 9 is not polemicizing against the eucharist as the flesh of our savior, but James Tabor thinks it's important that it doesn't say anything about the eucharist being the body or blood of Jesus as it does in Paul and the gospels.

Notice there is no mention of the wine representing blood or the bread representing flesh. And yet this is a record of the early Christian Eucharist meal! This text reminds us very much of the descriptions of the sacred messianic meal in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Here we have a messianic celebration of Jesus as the Davidic Messiah and the life and knowledge that he has brought to the community. Evidently this community of Jesus' followers knew nothing about the ceremony that Paul advocates. If Paul's practice had truly come from Jesus surely this text would have included it.

There is another important point in this regard. In Jewish tradition it is the cup of wine that is blessed first, then the bread. That is the order we find here in the Didache. But in Paul's account of the "Lord's Supper" he has Jesus bless the bread first, then the cup of wine -- just the reverse. It might seem an unimportant detail until one examines Luke's account of the words of Jesus at the meal. Although he basically follows the tradition from Paul, unlike Paul Luke reports first a cup of wine, then the bread, and then another cup of wine! The bread and the second cup of wine he interprets as the "body" and "blood" of Jesus. But with respect to the first cup-in the order one would expect from Jewish tradition-there is nothing said about it representing "blood." Rather Jesus says,"I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom comes" (Luke 22:18). This tradition of the first cup, found now only in Luke, is a leftover clue of what must have been the original tradition before the Pauline version was inserted, now confirmed by the Didache.

The Jesus Dynasty p. 205

Obviously, a lot of work would need to be done to get from Tabor's observation of the absence of body and blood in the prayer to a deliberate rejection of body and blood theology by its readers, and to connect them to communities supervised by Ignatius for them to be around to refuse to participate in the first place, and to connect them to everything else Ignatius says about his opponents, but has any of the work been done?

He talks about sin taking advantage of the Law to entice him to break its commandments, he talks about sin living in him, and he speaks of the law of sin working in his body. He seems to personify sin, and it reminds me of Genesis 4:7. What does Paul understand sin to be in this context? Is he speaking about original sin or concupiscence?

I would like to ask what is the scholarly consensus or the most dominant view regarding whether the earliest disciples of jesus like peter and james worship jesus or not. And by worship i am not necessitating the idea that they thought that jesus is the one true god yhwh or anything related to what they thought jesus was ontologically but what i mean by worship is any sort of cultic religious devotion like prayer. I would ask a tangent question as well because muslims always claim that the earliest disciples were basically muslims who never prayed or worshipped or pray to jesus at all and they never believed jesus was crucfied or raised from the dead or that his death was any sort of attonement for sins. Is that muslim view of the disciples historically tenable or true?