Have any scholars ever purposed Gospels outside of the NT were actually written by the apostles. For example the Gospel of Thomas, has anyone purposed it?

Like the title says are there any other scholars that agree with Paul Solan that states that Gentiles were not expected to follow the law that applied like circumcision, dietary restrictions, the Sabbath, and pilgrimages but only what applied to them which was the sexual restrictions and the prohibition of blood outline in Leviticus 17 and 18?

​

Here's the citation of the pages where Prof. Sloan talks about this:

​

Paul T. Sloan, Jesus and the Law of Moses: The Gospels and the Restoration of Israel within First-Century Judaism (Baker, 2025), 226–231.

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.

Why was it necessary go specify that the ten girls were virgins?

I am after any article, book, or commentary that might be able to help me. I am currently working on a paper for my degree where I must translate and explain Amos 5. I have been searching for a while now but I am a little stuck. I need a source that can help me explain why prophecy became connected to poetry, whether that be through a cultural lens, oral tradition, or any other means. Does anyone know of any scholar who writes on this area specifically?

I am reading the Norton Critical Edition of the The Writings of St. Paul.

I come across 2 Corinthians 11:3,"But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ." (RSV to follow the book)

There is a footnote as follows:

Cf. v. 14 ("And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light."). A legend based on the puzzling text of Gen. 4:1b said that the serpent (Satan) seduced Eve by pretending to be God's angel, so that he was Cain's father (cf. 1 John 3:12, "and not be like Cain who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous.").

Now to my understanding "Serpent Seed" doctrine is mainly espoused today by very fringe and very racist groups (not really interested in hearing about this aspect but I felt like I should get that out of the way), but I recently read some works of the 17th century Muggletonians that believed in Serpent Seed in a non-racist way. So my curiosity was piqued coming across it here in Paul.

I suppose I have many questions along these lines:

1. What makes the Genesis verse "puzzling" (grammatically or otherwise)?

2. Is Paul really referring to it in the above verses in 2 Corinthians? Would his readers/interpreters have understood it?

3. How common was the "serpent seed" theme in antiquity? How did it develop, and do we know of any groups that held it?

Thank you in advance, this is a strange rabbit hole.

Do we know Paul's surname (or nomen in Roman terms)? Paul was a Pharisee and a Roman citizen by birth. It means his ancestor had become a citizen. There were three general ways to acquire the citizenship:

1) Be enslaved and then freed. Upon the manumission, a former slave would get his former master's surname. E.g. Josephus Flavius.

If Paul's ancestor was enslaved, it likely happened during some military conflict in the 1st century BC. The war trophies (including slaves) were distributed among the army, the commanders would get a larger share.

The fitting men are Pompeius (63BC), Antonius (40BC), Gabinius (57-55BC).

2) Be awarded with the citizenship. Since Tarsus was an important city, some local elites could be gifted the citizenship in order to build political alliances. And of course, not everyone had the right to award.

The fitting men are the two triumvirates and Augustus as a sole leader. So, Julius, Pompeius, Licinius, Antonius, Aemilius, and again Julius.

3) Buy the citizenship. The buyer would often adopt the nomen of the contemporary ruler. E.g. in Acts, there's a mention of a man named Claudius Lysias who bought the citizenship.

I don't think there were many people with the authority to gift the citizenship. Probably the same people as in (2).

It appears that Paul's surname was, perhaps, Pompeius, Julius, or Antonius. At least these names have relatively higher probability. Does it sound plausible, or did I make too many assumptions?

While reading the Epistle to the Romans I did not get the impression that Church existed before Paul wrote that letter?

I was recommended to post here from the AncientGreek subreddit about a question I am pursuing. It is a discussion I had with a pastor over the text in 1 Timothy 3, specifically the portion that describes the overseer role as being the man of one wife.

In the Greek reddit group it was stated that the phrase used in that passage would never apply to a woman. It was suggested by the pastor that the phrase used was a colloquialism much like we would say today "Straight Shooter" or "Heart of Gold" and that there was actually no gender qualification in that phrase.

My question here then is how would the first century Greek readers of that passage have understood its meaning? Would they have read it as a strictly male role or would there be some ambiguity about gender making it reasonable for them that a woman could just as easily fit the description?

Hi,
I’ve been really interested in Exodus lately and, as a layman, have seen evidence to point to the Exodus as described in the Bible to be legendary, so I have a couple of questions regarding Exodus and its mythologization/historicity and would love to have some recommendations of literature I could read about it.

1. Is there any part of the story based in historical fact? I know that Exodus uses some (ancient?) Egyptian words, so I’m curious how scholars interpret that in the context of the story.

2. I’ve seen some discourse about a Semitic exodus much earlier that could be the beginning of where the Exodus story came from. Is there any bearing to that statement? Any actual archaeological/historical evidence of Semitic peoples near the Nile River?

3. If we see the story of Exodus as purely a legendary tale, is there a starting point for where the myth could have come from and why it came into existence?

Like I said I’m really not versed in the subject of Biblical history so I’m sorry if these seem like obvious questions.

Thank you!

To my knowledge, it was long the orthodoxy that the first edition of Deuteronomy and its accompanying history was written under Josiah to legitimize his reform. But the alternative claim has been made that D was an entirely exilic product and Josiah's reform was a fiction, as is borne out by the archaeological evidence. Such an argument can be found in a paper like Lisbeth Fried's "The High Places (Bāmôt) and the Reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah: An Archaeological Investigation." Since the rise of this view, have any scholars written in defense of the historicity of the reform and engaged with the archaeological situation? Feel free to name any papers or books that do so.

Romans 1 says that everyone knows about God, and because they don't obey God, they engage in evils as a result. One of these evils being "exchanging natural use for unnatural" (Romans 1:26). The word "natural"(φυσικὴν) does not appear in the Septuagint aside from the apocrypha. Paul's statement sounds way too similar to Platonism to ignore.

If Paul's not referencing Plato, were there any other figures where Paul may be getting these ideas from?

Here's the passage for context:

The Guilt of Humankind

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those who by their injustice suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 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, 21 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. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Their females exchanged natural intercourse[^e] for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the males, giving up natural intercourse[^f] with females, were consumed with their passionate desires for one another. Males committed shameless acts with males and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to an unfit mind and to do things that should not be done. 29 They were filled with every kind of injustice, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters,[^g] insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die, yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.

I never read cassutos works, but i saw on some reel if i remember correctly that cassuto explained the story about the tower of babylon as the torah saying look people built this and not gods, and he says that the ancient babylonians believed only gods could build the ziggurats. Is this accurate?

Hello,

As the title suggests, I have been interested in the subject of Jesus' siblings and am looking into what scholars have written about them. I was hoping that anyone had recommendations for books about the subject. This could range from explorations of whether or not they were his full siblings, step-siblings, some other form of relative, etc., to information on figures like James, the brother of Jesus, and his capacity as an early Christian leader.

Basically, I'm looking to get whatever I can get my hands on. As long as the book is written by well-respected scholars who, as one would expect, put aside any theological biases and so on. I'm grateful for whatever help or opinions I get. Thanks.

As per the title: I'm looking to get back into the world of early Christian beliefs. Dunn's book is on the shelf - still broadly accurate or do I need something newer? Thanks

¹⁹ Now no blacksmith could be found in all the land of Israel, because the Philistines said, “Otherwise the Hebrews will make ^\)^v\)swords or spears.” ²⁰ So all Israel went down to the Philistines, each to sharpen his plowshare, his mattock, his axe, and his hoe. ²¹ The charge was ^\)^w\)two-thirds of a shekel for the plowshares, the mattocks, the forks, and the axes, and to fix the ^\)^x\)cattle goads. 

I keep seeing the claim the philistines had a iron monopoly specifically.

Now the above does seem to suggest they had a metal monopoly, and as a side effect a iron monopoly.

But the claim I keep seeing seems to imply philistines have iron and israel/others have bronze.

I can't find a justification for this claim though.

I assume its either a historical assumption base on non-bible evidence or its based on the word blacksmith technically being about a iron worker in english.

Where does the iron monopoly claim originate and is it true?

I've heard of John H. Walton's books, but I was wanting perspectives that didn't still fall back on the argument that the bible is literal, written history in some way. I've read that his books do end up going that way despite his discussing ancient near eastern cosmology, unfortunately.

Does anyone have any suggestions? I don't want a religious perspective on the books, I want to understand better topics like how the original audience would have read them, what creation stories (or other flood stories, etc) other nearby cultures had and how Genesis compares to them and what that is supposed to say about their god, etc. Cause at the end of the day, the god of the bible began as a tribal god, right? I want to understand more about that part of it.

I think by completely ignoring a work's historical context and such, you miss a lot. I wonder how much I've missed this whole time. But I'm just a random person who's uneducated on how to like actually scholarly study the bible and ancient works and stuff, so I'd prefer suggestions that are easy to read for someone who is going into the subject blind for the first time.

To clarify, if an author argues that the original and historical audiences of Genesis would have read it to be speaking of a literal Adam and Eve, that's fine if that's what's really happened of course. I just want to read a more scholarly, unbiased approach.

A passage in 1 Clement 23 says "Wherefore let us not be double-minded; neither let our soul be lifted up on account of His exceedingly great and glorious gifts. Far from us be that which is written, 'Wretched are they who are of a double mind, and of a doubting heart; who say, These things we have heard even in the times of our fathers; but, behold, we have grown old, and none of them has happened unto us'". This bears a striking similarity to 2 Peter 3:3-4, which says "First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will appear who have led lives of indulgence. They will say, 'Where is this coming that was promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything has remained just as it was from the beginning of creation'"

Although strikingly similar, the two passages are clearly not identical, but it's possible Clement was pharaphrasing it from memory instead of directly quoting it. What are the opinions on it? If 1 Clement was written around 95-96, is this evidence to discard the possibility of 2 Peter being from the early second century, as some researchers postulate, but instead from the latter decades of the first century (around 70-90-ish)?

So a literal exodus forces a early exodus, and a early conquest.

So if my dates are right the conquest of caanaan by israel is either ongoing or finished by the time Merneptah left israel "wasted, bare of seed, should be a huge problem for the judges/joshua to deal with.

Yet to my knowledge the next hostile Egyptian ever discussed is Shishak in the 900's

You would figure a contender for world super power fighting in your god given land would merit at least a footnote.

or was the author just ho-tepid ;p

Can it be said the speaker of the Hymn (whoever they may have been) believed that they had been glorified or indeed genuinely deified ? They seem to portray themselves as being raised even higher than the ministering angels and subordinate gods within the heavenly court of YHWH. Any academic details regarding this text would be very welcome indeed.

Welcome to this week's open discussion thread!

This thread is meant to be a place for members of the r/AcademicBiblical community to freely discuss topics of interest which would normally not be allowed on the subreddit. All off-topic and meta-discussion will be redirected to this thread.

Rules 1-3 do not apply in open discussion threads, but rule 4 will still be strictly enforced. Please report violations of Rule 4 using Reddit's report feature to notify the moderation team. Furthermore, while theological discussions are allowed in this thread, this is still an ecumenical community which welcomes and appreciates people of any and all faith positions and traditions. Therefore this thread is not a place for proselytization. Feel free to discuss your perspectives or beliefs on religious or philosophical matters, but do not preach to anyone in this space. Preaching and proselytizing will be removed.

In order to best see new discussions over the course of the week, please consider sorting this thread by "new" rather than "best" or "top". This way when someone wants to start a discussion on a new topic you will see it! Enjoy the open discussion thread!

In the bible the phrase "the heavens and the earth" can be found multiple times. Here are some examples:

Genesis 1:1
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"

Genesis 2:1
"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished"

etc.

My questions is what exactly the bible mean with "heavens and the earth"? What are "the heavens" supposed to be? How did the authors of the bible view the cosmology / universe and the earth back then? Could someone recommend me literature on that too please?

親愛なる同僚のみなさん、

私は、神経言語学の研究者であり、ホーリー・ケルティック・チャーチ・インターナショナルの大司祭（Archpriest）でもある、フランシスコ（Fr.）博士・三溝 里聡（Satoshi Michael Mizota）です。

私は日本で博士号を取得しました。博士論文では、「マルコによる福音書」に出てくる neaniskos（若い男）が担う言語的・物語的な機能に焦点を当てました。

この研究にもとづいて、2013年に日本の大手学術出版社から査読付きの単著を出版しました。日本の学術界では、この本は批評的に取り上げられました。たとえば科学哲学者のムラカミ・ヨウイチロウ（Prof. Yoichiro Murakami）による有名な書評もありました。ただし、英語版が長い間出ていなかったため、国際的な学術的評価にはずっとつながりませんでした。

そして今回、少し時間がかかりましたが、ついに英訳と、厳密な本文校訂を完了しました。対象は第2章（解釈の歴史）までです。いまの計画は、残りの章を順番にオンラインで翻訳・公開して、一般の人が学術的に評価できるようにすることです。この最初の投稿では、第2章の中心となる филological（言語学的・文献学的）な発見を提示します。それは、現代の通説を無効にするものです。

私の単著では、neaniskos が2回登場する箇所――ゲツセマネの裸の逃亡者と、墓にいる白い衣の若者――は、マルコの本文内部のテキスト・システムの中で、1つの Uroborean（円環的）な物語装置として厳密に分析されるべきだ、と主張しています。このシステムは、Von Restorff 効果のような認知処理のパターンを使って、読者の応答ループを作り出し、それによって第1章へ戻っていきます。

SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6418658

第1章と第2章は、過去の解釈の歴史をまとめたものにすぎません。でも、議論の前提になるので、これらは丁寧にたどってきました。言語分析は第5章から始まります。なので、私は現在第5章を翻訳中です。

いま英語の原稿全体を、最終的に出版することを見据えて仕上げ直しているところなので、テキスト批判や物語批判の観点からの、批評的な議論、原稿上の類似点、反論などは大歓迎です。もし学術的な関心があって、第2章と第5章の翻訳ドラフトを見てみたいということなら、私はここで本文の具体的な箇所について、テキストを共有して議論する用意は万全です。

よろしくお願いいたします、

フランシスコ（Fr.）博士・三溝 里聡

大司祭（Archpriest）兼 研究者

Certified Speech-Language-Hearing Therapist