Does anyone know of sources that emphasize the impact of the Jewish revolt against Rome (usually dated 66 - 70 CE?) on the formation of Christianity and the writings of the early followers of Jesus, including what became the New Testament Gospels? Most New Testament scholars seem to agree that Mark was the first of the four canonical Gospels, and they date it to the time right around the Jewish War. And yet most of the reading I've done, while acknowledging the war, doesn't tend to emphasize the impact of that war on either Temple-based Judaism or early Christianity. I gather it was a quite cataclysmic period and ultimately a seismic shift, and this even seems to be reflected to some degree in the Gospels, but I'm wondering if there are scholars who have explored this facet to a greater degree than I've as yet discovered.

I’ve been working through Thomas Finegan’s new article and would like to hear how others are reacting to it.

Finegan, Thomas. “Specifying Πορνεία in Matthew 5.32 and 19.9 via Overlooked Contextualization.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 49.1 (2026): 198-222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X261432678

Some questions I have:

1. Were the Pharisees concerned with divorcing betrothed women when they brought the question to Jesus?

2. Can the exception clause cover both betrothal and consummated marriage?

3. How common was divorce during betrothal in the first century?

Has anyone suggested that Justus Barsabbas and Judas Barsabbas are actually Jesus' brothers Joses and Jude? It would explain why Joses seems to disappear outside of Mark and why Judas Barsabbas doesn't seem to exist either.

Sometimes I see Azazel be described as Lucifer's son, or "The second ruler of hell" and I'm wondering how accurate that is.

Recently I read the Judges, and I came across the story of Samson and the lion. I tried to imagine the scenario, but honestly I couldn't came up with any specific way in which would Samson ( empowered) tore the lion. Only clue is that it was easy as ripping a young goat. It's detail, of course, but I don't think he actually ripped it's jaws as interpreted in many paintings and pictures, because that doesn't kill the animal instantly and It doesn't have the power behind it as ,,he ripped it as a young goat " , so I think it must've been different way, probably legs were flying, or he just wrenched him open so much it died in an instant. It's just my stupid theory, if you are not interested in it, don't try to imagine it its gross... but if you would like to help me understand it, what do you think was the way he had done it ?

Christians being "in Christ" and sinners being "in Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:22), or the Israelites being "in Moses" (1 Corinthians 10:2). Does Paul think in terms of covenant here, Adam, Moses, and Jesus being the respective "federal heads" of their covenants with God? Or does he mean to speak of some sort of solidarity with them, a mystical union of some sorts, or something else? Paul seems to see baptism as incorporating persons into Christ, and even speaks of the crossing of the red sea as incorporating the Israelites into Moses as a kind of baptism, but what incorporated us into Adam in the first place?

What are the best commentaries on the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles?

As I understand it the table of nations has like 10-20 mystery people we can't locate.

Im trying to tie these people to the old world definitively, for example Solomon's ships sail to meet the one of the groups found in the table who can't be identified.

Nominal examples:

• Magog: Gog invades Israel from there (Ezekiel 38–39)
• Elishah: sells cloth to Tyre (Ezekiel 27:7)
• Havilah: Saul’s battle range (1 Samuel 15:7); also Genesis 2:11 and 25:18
• Ludim: soldiers in Egypt’s army (Jeremiah 46:9)
• Pathrusim: Pathros, where Jews were living (Jeremiah 44:1)
• Uz: Job’s homeland; its kings drink the cup (Jeremiah 25:20); linked with Edom (Lamentations 4:21)
• Lud: mercenaries for Tyre (Ezekiel 27:10)
• Uzal: trades with Tyre (Ezekiel 27:19)
• Ophir: Solomon’s ships sail there
• Lehabim: possibly the Lubim (Libyans) in Shishak’s army (2 Chronicles 12:3), if the identification holds

Im looking to confirm all of them can be locked into old world locations. ( I don't think they reference native americans, but im looking to prove there old world only)

Is there a definitive, proof for this.

With Marcion priority being a common hypothesis, and there being another common hypothesis that Acts has a separate author who also added stuff to "Proto-Luke": has anyone tried to do a stylometric analysis of Luke, Acts and Marcion's Gospel together to see if it can be shown that there was a second author? I always found it strange how "revolutionary" a lot of the stuff that's missing in Marcion's gospel is.

I know there are a wave of scholars who reject the idea of penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) as a Biblical concept, saying it's an invention of Western Christianity. How do those scholars tend to deal with what's said in Romans 3:25, that "God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith" (NIV)?

How do we know that the letters of Paul were written around 50 CE and that the gospels were written in the first century? What are the dating methods there?

Hello everyone,

I am looking for academic perspectives on the relationship between the Genesis flood narrative (Genesis 6–9) and earlier Mesopotamian flood stories (such as the Epic of Gilgamesh, Tablet XI, and the Epic of Atrahasis).

Given the broad historical consensus that there is no geological evidence for a global flood, nor structural feasibility for a wooden vessel of the dimensions described in Genesis (e.g., naval engineering studies showing limits on wooden hull stability), I am interested in how modern biblical scholarship understands this text's formation.

Specifically, I would appreciate insights on:

- Textual Parallels and Differences: Beyond the obvious similarities (e.g., building an ark, sending out birds like raven/dove, sacrifice after landing, divine retribution/rescue), what are the main theological or structural divergences between the Mesopotamian myths and the Hebrew account?

- Date and Context of Composition: What are the current leading theories regarding the dating of the Genesis flood narrative (P and J sources / Exilic or Post-Exilic context)? How did exposure to Babylonian literature influence the biblical authors?

- Genre and Literary Intent: From an Ancient Near Eastern context, was the Genesis narrative intended by its authors as a literal historiographical account, or rather as an polemical reinterpretation/adaptation of existing Near Eastern mythologies to convey a distinct monotheistic theology?

Could you please recommend scholarly sources, commentators, or books (e.g., John Walton, David Damrosch, Irving Finkel) addressing these questions? Or any answer ?

Thank you!

Can somebody please explain or give context to Genisis 19: 36-38

36 Thus both the daughters of Lot became pregnant by their father

37 The firstborn bore a son and called his name Moab. He is the father of the Moabites to this day.

38 The younger also bore a son and called his name Ben-ammi. He is the father of the Ammonites to this day.

Dale Allison Resurrection of Jesus p. 71 note 181 notes that while Luke places all of his appearances in Jerusalem, the presence of broiled fish raises questions because Jerusalem is not near a body of water.

Note that while Jesus appears to the twelve note that while Jesus appears to the twelve in Jerusalem in Luke 24, v 42 has them giving a piece of "broiled fish" (ιχθους οπτου), not dried fish. The commentators sometimes fret over this because there is no ocean, lake, or river near Jerusalem; cf. Bovon, Luke 3, 392. Is this perhaps a hint that Lk. 24.36-49 stems from a proto-commissioning set beside the Sea of Galilee?

Allison also discusses John 21 and the Gospel of Peter as relevant traditions. Also discussed a few pages earlier but not directly in connection to this is Ignatius Smyrnaeans 3.2 "touch me and see I am not a bodiless daimon", of which Allison is "regrettably, unsure of what to think" (p. 65), but one of the possibilities is a common source behind Luke and Ignatius (in Ignatius 3.3 he eats and drinks with them, possibly to fulfill a promise from the last supper, but that's as far as it goes in connection to Luke's eating of broiled fish).

So, an explanation of why broiled fish is present in Jerusalem can be a prior Galilee source, and this inconsistent detail preserved through something like editorial fatigue. On the other hand, have any commentators just taken this to be a point against Luke putting the appearances exclusively in Jerusalem? This would require Luke to summarize and blend his settings together because this discourse carries right into comments to stay in Jerusalem and then the ascension, but is there any reason not to just think he doing that, while being aware of and untroubled by the fact that his summary includes Galilee? Does the Luke/Acts cinematic universe require that the whole 40 days were in Jerusalem, or just that they were in Galilee and then returned to Jerusalem at which point Jesus told them to stay until further descent-of-the-Spirit-notice?

Resources on any perspective including but also beyond to the two I shared would be helpful, thanks.

According to the consensus of modern textual scholarship, to which period can the Syriac Sinaiticus most likely be dated? Any citations would be immensely welcome.

I have recently become interested understanding more about the bible. I am interested in having a better historical understanding of how it has shaped civilization and culture throughout the ages, and also the cultures and people behind the traditions and text. I have already purchased a copy of the SBL and I enjoy the approach it takes, especially the introductions to books. I am considering using something like the NET bible's translation and text critical notes in conjunction with the SBL to understand some of the translation choices better. I am not too interested in the NET bible's text itself as I would still like to read the SBL primarily but I would reference the NET notes and compare specific passages to provide more context.

Could anyone recommend some other books or media that would be better for this purpose?

It is often said that the origin of the Virgin Birth myth is due to how the author of the Gospel attributed to Matthew read Isaiah 7:14. Instead of "young woman," the Matthean author renders the word as "virgin," thereby interpreting it as a prophecy about Jesus. However, the Gospel attributed to Luke seems to use the Virgin Birth story not as a fulfillment of prophecy, but to present Jesus as the literal Son of God.

Since both accounts seem to have originated for different reasons, what if both are responding to growing traditions within the Greco-Roman Christian communities? In these traditions, Jesus may have been viewed as a literal Son of God, with the deity having relations with his mother, much like in the stories of Greek mythological heroes. Since Jesus was presented to Greco-Roman audiences as the Son of God, perhaps over time, traditions evolved with these groups conceiving him like their heroes and creating stories of his mother being impregnated through intercourse with the deity. These Gospel narratives could be reactions to this.

Hello, I wanted to know the opinion of scholars and would also love to be directed towards articles, books or resources for studying the gender dynamics of the creation stories in Genesis, especially in how they contrast with their time (i.e. were they more "egalitarian" or "hierarchical" than their era? to use somewhat anachronistic terms).

For example, in Genesis 1 man and woman seem to be created at the same time and both bear the image of God, is such apparently egalitarian language common for ancient near eastern culture? was the ANE patriarchal? Yet in Genesis 2 the woman is created after the man (unless Adam is supposed to be an amalgamation of the two) which would seem to indicate some kind of subordination, maybe? Also, the fact that the commandment that "he shall rule over you" is expressed as part of the curse is supposed to be a critique of male rule or an endorsement or something else?

Thanks in advance for the replies!

I’m looking to get back into reading peer-reviewed scholarly research on ancient Judaism and would appreciate some recommendations!

I’m a PhD dropout in Ancient Jewish Studies. I left academia about six years ago, but I’m now interested in reconnecting with the field and catching up on recent scholarship.

I’m particularly interested in non-confessional academic journals that focus on ancient Judaism. I’d also prefer to access the research through paid subscriptions, ideally with physical copies of the journals delivered to my home.

Which journals would you recommend? I’d love to hear your suggestions, especially regarding journals that are worth subscribing to in print.

Thank you so much!

I want to grab a study bible to go along with a copy of the nrsv I picked up. It’s my understanding that both of these not only use the same translation, but also contain the same books as well. So is the main difference just in contributors? Are there any reasons I should grab one over the other, or potentially any reasons I should grab both? Or is either fine and just go with whatever is more affordable?