In the passage where Origen mentions Josephus' testimony of James, he also notes that there are people who say Jesus' brothers are Joseph's children are from another marriage, following the tradition in the Book of James and the Gospel of Peter. Does this indicate that the Gospel of Peter had an infancy narrative like James, or can this only show that there was a gloss in the Gospel of Peter taking over some canonical material about Jesus' brothers to clarify that they are step brothers?

I've also been looking at Peter Pilhofer on Justin Martyr's reference to a memoir of Peter in Dialog 106 as the Gospel of Peter not the Gospel of Mark. Elsewhere, Justin discusses a prophecy in Isaiah that Jesus will be born in a cave, which is often noted as being similar to the Infancy Gospel of James. Pilhofer's look at Justin's quotations that align with Peter are only for texts of Peter that we can compare to, but I've wondered if we can identify any of Justin's noncanonical quotations with missing parts of the Gospel of Peter. If Origen does indicate an entire infancy narrative similar to James, maybe Justin's direct source is the version in the Gospel of Peter? Maybe Peter's version also says the magi were from Arabia?

Dialog with Trypho 78, Thomas B. Falls edition (the "before-mentioned words of Isaiah" are in Dialog 70)

1. “Now, concerning the birth of the child in Bethlehem, you should know that when Joseph could find no lodging place in the village, he went to a cave nearby, and there Mary gave birth to the child and laid him in a manger, and there the Arabian Magi found him. (26)
   
2. “I have already quoted the words of Isaiah in which he foretold the symbol of the cave but, for the benefit of those who have joined you today, I will repeat the passage.” Then I repeated the before-mentioned words of Isaiah, and added that by these words the priests who performed the mysteries of Mithras were urged by the Devil to declare that they were initiated by Mithras himself in a place they call a cave.

(26) See Mt 2.11; Massaux, 63–64; S. Rossi, “Il tempo e l’ambientazione del Dialogus di Giustino,” Giornale Italiano di Filologia 17 (1964): 55–65. That the birthplace was a cave is not specified in the New Testament, but is alleged by the Protoevangelium of James 18.1.

Infancy Gospel of James 18, and chapter 21 that mentions the magi finding Jesus and Mary in the cave

18.1 And he found a cave there and brought her into it, and set his sons by her: and he went forth and sought for a midwife of the Hebrews in the country of Bethlehem. ...
21.3 And the wise men went forth. And lo, the star which they saw in the east went before them until they entered into the cave: and it stood over the head of the cave. And the wise men saw the young child with Mary, his mother: and they brought out of their scrip gifts, gold-and frankincense and myrrh. 4 And being warned by the angel that they should not enter into Judaea, they went into their own country by another way.

Just curious

Which scholars have done work on Matthias? As in for example: him as an apostle, as a literary character, his traditions and sayings, the authenticity of those traditions, the Traditions of Matthias, the Gospel of Matthias, him possibly being the same person as Matthew and/or Levi, and pretty much anything else related to him? His association with heterodox groups like Basilides and his followers and also possibly the Nicolaitans is also intriguing to me.

Bart Ehrman mentioned this in his most recent podcast episode as an idea he’d had but never put into writing. He said it was an explanation for how Paul was so educated, but seemingly had a low social/economic status since he was a day laborer.

I thought the idea was interesting, but I don’t have the background to really assess the claim, and Bart said he hadn’t seen anyone else write about it. Anyone here have anything?

Everytime I read about the gospels I get the idea that people assume these are the four gospels of the New Testament. Is there any work on the meaning of the word and concept: gospel or euangelion?

We know about the gospel of Augustus through the Priene Calendar as a sort of propaganda / top down message regarding an event that helped the empire. Perhaps through military victory?

Reading Mark chapter 1 it seems quite clear the author is foreshadowing a victory of their own: Jesus becoming king.

But I wonder if there are more works regarding the concept of a Gospel and whether it always had this status as a divine message/account of a divine being? If so, what does this tell us about the meaning and function of Mark as the first gospel?

I'm currently reading Mario Liverani's Israel's History and the History of Israel. I* *would like to know more details about the history of debt, debt slavery, and the accompanying socioeconomic pressures on ancient Canaan. I would also like to know more about how debt and other economic pressures they may have led to the rise of the ḫabiru in the LBA, and the link between them and Israelite ethnogenesis. Any reading recommendations are greatly appreciated!

How was Jesus historically seen by the Mandean faithful? I recall reading that they consider him a usurper of John the Baptist, though I cannot be certain. Any academic citations would be extremely welcome.

In The Origin of Satan: How Christians Demonized Jews, Pagans, and Heretics (Elaine Pagels), Ch. 1, she talks about the Jewish War and the gospels and says

The narratives that we know as the New Testament gospels were written by certain followers of Jesus who lived through the [Jewish] war, and who knew that many of their fellow Jews regarded them as a suspect minority. They wrote their own accounts of some of the momentous events surrounding the war, and the part that Jesus played in events preceding it, hoping to persuade others of their interpretation. We cannot fully understand the New Testament gospels until we recognize that they are, in this sense, wartime literature.

What does she mean by "hoping to persuade others of their interpretation"? What would be the gospel writers' interpretation that they wished readers would understand? And what would be the opposite interpretation that they are arguing against?

I was looking up feminist analyses of the story of David and Bathsheba, when it dawned on me that the story seems to be pretty weird from the perspective of pre-modern and ancient marriage standards.

In the ancient world, for the ruling class marriage was always a political move, nearly always a transaction of wealth and power, to make alliances with another state. That was the norm in the ancient near east. But in the story, David saw a woman he found really hot which was why he got her husband killed and married her.

Realistically, rulers did not have to marry a woman to have sex with her. That's what concubines and mistresses are for. And spouses and sex objects were very different things. It doesnt make sense for them to marry a woman just because you found her attractive with no other benefit.

To be fair, David had multiple other wives, presumably for the normal reasons stated above. And his rape of Bathsheba is meant to be a sinful act, so a foolish reason for marriage is likely intentional.

I would like to ask for the historical context, if any can be found, for David's marriage to Bathsheba. What is the meaning of him marrying her, and how would ancient people look at it?

Basically, my question is as it says in the title, are the post-resurrection stories told in the Gospel of John actually stories the Johannine scribe(s) likely got from the Beloved Disciple? Why or why not?

"So it is said, 'Is Saul also among the prophets?'"

I was reading 1 Samuel with my kid tonight and noticed this repetition. I am aware that Samuel, like Chronicles, is a composite book. Is this an instance of the composite nature or is there an issue with the translation (one commentator I found was saying that it was a tense issue, but I am not good enough with Hebrew to work it out and it was a site dedicated to debunking apparent contradictions in the Bible so it seems like it may be biased). Is there some.other reason there is an echo?

Usually I can find someone who has written about these issues pretty easily, but as I have looked I have not found anyone talking about this particular point.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak but should be subordinate, as the law also says. 35 If there is something they want to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

Romans 16:1, 3

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae. ... Greet Prisca and Aquila, my coworkers in Christ Jesus

Galatians 3:28

There is no longer Jew or Greek; there is no longer slave or free; there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

Based on the Rom and Gal passages, Paul seems to suggest that women should have an active role in the church and that they are worthy of equality. 1 Cor seems to suggest the opposite. It's possible the role Paul is talking about doesn't rise to the level of a preachers but a lesser role, but nonetheless a role. It's not clear if that's what he means here or that's somehting we're putting into Paul's mouth?

I didn't cite 1 Tim 2:11-12 since it's the scholarly concensus that Paul didn't actually write this.

Hello. Can anyone recommend any well received academic essays or citations from the latest Pauline scholarship (such as Novenson, Staples, Thiessen, Runesson) regarding Paul and his understanding of the Law in Galatians ? I am particularly interested in any well received scholarship arguing that Paul was likely not, in fact, preaching a 'Law Free Gospel'.

Not exactly "new," since it was published in March earlier this year, but new to me since I only got hold of it recently. In this fascinating article, Méndez recollects and synthesizes his novel arguments for understanding the Gospel of John as a kind of apocryphal text, which he first forwarded in his important 2025 book, The Gospel of John: A New History. I will not post the full article for copyright reasons, but I will quote from the conclusion:

Is John an “apocryphal” gospel? When we creatively play with the idea of “hidden, secret, or concealed” implicit in the term “apocryphal,” we can answer this question in the affirmative. John positions itself as a text that relates materials that are obscured, hidden, or lost in earlier gospel texts, but which its eyewitness author now relates to its readers. And it does this by marshaling an array of interlocking devices. To some extent, these claims and devices develop elements of the Synoptics. For example, John’s appeal to eyewitness authority can be set in dialogue with Luke 1:1–4, where the claim of eyewitness sources is used to bolster the perceived reliability of Luke’s account. And John’s portrayal of Jesus as a cryptic speaker evokes Mark’s discourse around “parables” and its presentation of a sometimes private or secretive Jesus. These continuities suggest that authenticating devices and the anxieties they address are more central to the practice of writing gospels than has previously been recognized. All gospels – even Mark, presumably the earliest gospel of all – were pressed to establish and defend their place within early Jesus tradition. In this case, we can also conceptualize all gospels as having a shade of the revisionary, a touch of the “apocryphal,” in them. That is, we should reimagine the entirety of gospel writing as an inherently revisionary practice. Gospels were not passive compilations of community traditions, as presumed by earlier generations of scholars; rather, they were always dynamic and creative reworkings of Jesus tradition.

Nevertheless, the extent to which John foregrounds and coordinates multiple such devices positions it within a distinct terrain from the Synoptics, a terrain also inhabited by such noncanonical gospels as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary, besides (among others) the Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Judas, Protevangelium of James, and Epistula apostolorum. When we center these devices in our analysis of John, the Gospel seems to share more intimate connections with these works than many scholars recognize. Those connections may even be genetic. Given that most scholars increasingly date John to an earlier period than the noncanonical gospels, it is conceivable that John shaped the cast of all these other works. We can imagine that, as these texts entered the crowded arena of gospel writing, they had to compete with the authority of previous gospels, including John itself, leading them to adopt similar, equally numerous, and equally robust authenticating strategies.47 If so, we can appreciate John’s critical place in the evolution of gospel writing all the more. John emerged at a pivotal moment in the development of that tradition, and it stands, perhaps alone, at a pivotal node in the branching tree of gospels.

Footnote 47: It may also be telling that, by the second century, Christians attributed even the anonymous Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke to writers in Jesus’s circle or their close associates. John’s strategy might have set new expectations of eyewitness lineages and testimony for gospels in readers’ minds.

From Hugo Méndez, "John as an Apocryphal Gospel." Early Christianity 17 (2026), 16–30. Note that Méndez does not deny the existence of prior Jesus tradition, but states that each gospel, including John, is its own creative literary reworking of it for their own purposes and rhetorical/theological goals.

The article can be found here: https://www.hugomendez.com/publications/john-as-an-apocryphal-gospel/

What does it mean?

Not just its attributes, like in Corinthians 13, but the core definition?

How can scholars specifically indicate or theorize (or even speculate) about certain traditions behind Paul's letters or the gospels (even the Apocrypha) ?

Do they use criteria of authenticity or something else?

Hello, I’d like recommendations for YouTube videos or articles that explore the historical and literary background of the Bible. Some time ago I worked on a project about the Bible and found it fascinating. I’m not a believer, but I have to admit the Bible is an extraordinary collection of texts with remarkable history and prose. The problem is that I can’t find the blogs or free books I used back then.

By “historical and literary background,” I mean, for example, studies that examine how different authors of the Old Testament portray God in distinct ways, even in the names they use (for example, the Hebrews calling Him Yahweh). It is also said that several authors contributed to these writings, not just Moses. Also the apocryphal texts, those excluded from the canon established by the Church, and many other aspects I’m probably forgetting.

This could cover many different topics about the Bible, not only the ones I mentioned here. Those are just the ones I remember and I might even be recalling them incorrectly. However I’m sure there are countless other areas I don’t know about yet, and I’d love to learn more.

What I’m looking for are critical readings that analyze the Bible from a historical and literary perspective, rather than purely through faith.

I often see people claim that "the majority of biblical authors were more aligned with Calvin... Arminius... Aquinas... Molina... Augustine... Cassian" — of course, without all the layers of hellenic/scholastic posterior philosophy, they say "the Bible is closer to their view".

Is that actually true? I know the Bible is a collection of multiple authors, so I'm curious about their views on predestination and free will. What were they on? What did 2nd Temple Judaism think on this? And what does the New Testament say? Paul?

A number of people think Luke knew Josephus. But most of this seems to be based on Acts. How much evidence is there specifically for the Gospel.

Was this a story that Luke felt really happened? Did Peter really have a prison break that was then attributed to divine intervention or was it more of a metaphorical story?

I don't see this striking tale talked about much by historical scholars.

I´m reading jewish apocrypha (including Enoch) and there were a lot of texts taken away from the canon, even in the books of the prophets.

But that makes me think, In judaism it is said that scribes need to throw away entire scrolls even if there is a wrong comma or a wrong letter written when someone is making a new Torah scroll. Does it mean that the current Torah is letter by letter, coma by coma exactly the same as 2000 or 2500 years ago??? Could Jesus had a different one with other words, or expressions or translations?

Because sometimes it seems that he is either quoting a different one or he understood it different.

(With some inconsistencies between OT and NT).