But because Moses gave you circumcision - not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers - you circumcise a boy on the Sabbath.

It's like the original text erroneously stated that Moses instituted circumcision and an editorial comment was inserted to correct it.

As everyone knows, Greek astronomers discovered the world's sphericity centuries before Jesus. Despite this, even centuries after Jesus, the flat earth cosmology is still advocated by supposedly-educated people in rabbinic literature (e.g. Bava Basra 25b). What are the chances that Jesus both knew of the round earth idea and accepted it?

Earlier this month, I presented a talk at the annual Save Ancient Studies Alliance (SASA) virtual conference. The subject was the curious incident in about 312 CE when co-Emperor Maximinus published a report supposedly written by Pontius Pilate which defamed both Jesus and John the Baptist. In the rebuttal in his Church History, Eusebius chose to avoid any attack on the provenance or accuracy of the imperial forgery. Instead, he promoted another now-notorious forgery: the absurd pair of letters exchanged between Edessan king Abgar V and none other than Jesus Christ himself.

The incident may help us understand a statement Eusebius made in the introduction to the Church History. Eusebius wrote NOT that he aspired to tell the events which actually occurred, but rather to tell the events which IT IS SAID had occurred. Read in light of this candid but easily overlooked hedge, the Edessan exploit still suborns forgery, but the reader has been warned in plain language to beware.

The slides and approximate script for the presentation are freely available from

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/2024/07/23/eusebius-church-history-vs-church-traditions/

Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, see I.9 through II.2 for the rebuttal in full; the Edessan letters are translated and transcribed at I.13.6-9, and the critical disclosure appears at I.1.1. A typical English translation is available from https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm

Is the healing of the blind man of Bethsaida a midrash from Judges 9:8-15?

Roberta Mazza writes

About ten years ago, when I started looking at the Green papyrus collection, Rick Bonnie, an archaeologist based in Helsinki, became the more and more interested in a smaller and far less public collection of papyri and other manuscripts, the Finnish Ilves collection. Like Steve Green and his family, the owner of the Ilves collection established connections with scholars willing to research his manuscripts but unlike the Greens he wanted to remain anonymous – Ilves is a fantasy name (obviously, the experts who accepted to work for him know the man’s name and address, but the rest of us is left speculating over the mysterious label). Bonnie and I soon realized that the Ilves and Green collections had much in common, as they were both sourcing papyri from Turkish dealers operating through eBay and other means.

Markus Vinzent has an interesting post

A crucial discovery information is given in: *Gal 5:21 ("as I said before"). This small sentence provides us with a back-reference. 

If I am not mistaken, it can only refer to *1 Cor 15:50. This clarifies one of my uncertainties whether or not the redactor had written or oral material in front of him, when putting together the collection of 10 Pauline letters, credited to Marcion. 

As a historian, this is a topic that has been one of the driving forces for my research in the area of the “historical Jesus.” While it is generally accepted by most historians that a historical Jesus did at least exist, other details about his life are not universally agreed upon. He is mentioned in both the Bible and various historical non-Christian sources. Mary and Joseph on the other hand are another issue. Joseph is hardly mentioned in the Bible, with almost all of the information coming from the nativity stories. The nativity stories were indeed most likely fictional or non-historical creations. He is mentioned one other time in John, and Jesus is called a carpenter in Mark, which perhaps alludes to his father’s occupation. Mary is mentioned more than her husband, being either named or called Jesus’ mother in all four gospels and the Acts. As far as I can tell, Joseph in name may be a literary invention, although the idea that Jesus and/or his father were craftsmen may be truthful. On the other hand, since Mary is mentioned more often, it appears that she at least had something to to do with Jesus’ life and burial. Perhaps her name really was Mary, although she is not named by Paul or in John. I would love to hear what other historians, professionals, etc think about this topic. There is likely no clear-cut answer though as I see it.

My wife is a genealogist. She does family research by looking at the census, cross referencing birth certificates, looking at maps and enumeration districts, newspapers and death certificates. They use all these sources as evidence for their conclusions.

I read Bart Ehrman's book, Jesus Interrupted. I shared it with my wife. She got through the first chapter or so and then stopped. She said Bart didn't provide any sources for his findings, therefore he isn't reliable.

This stunned me because I know Bart is a distinguished scholar, but I haven't been able to figure out his sources. In the back of his book he has Notes. His notes recommend other books by scholars.

Does he demonstrate the type of sources my wife is looking for or what?

Very interesting discussion of Paul's canonization

As principal investigator and project lead, Mark G. Bilby (PhD Virginia, MSLIS Drexel) announces he has discovered a scientific solution to the Synoptic Problem and the restoration of the lost gospel of Qn, the pre-70 CE Judean gospel about Joshua of Nazareth—a text being painstakingly, scientifically, and gradually reconstructed here in most of its breadth and depth for the first time, together with interconnected reconstructions of the earliest versions of the gospels of Mark, Luke, and Matthew. The New Q or Neue Quelle (Qn) is a major excision, expansion, emendation, and simplification of the Q text that New Testament scholars generally accept as the earliest known gospel created by Joshua followers. The discovery and reconstruction of Qn puts Marcion’s Gospel—which has not previously been taken as the primary and earliest textual basis for resolving Q together with the Synoptic Problem—at the center of the puzzle of our earliest Joshua texts and traditions. 

Paul Foster is interviewed by Biblical Time Machine.

One of the longest-running debates among biblical scholars is over the existence of a hypothetical "lost gospel" called Q. If you compare the synoptic gospels — Mark, Matthew and Luke — there are similarities and differences that can't easily be explained. Was there an even earlier source about Jesus that these gospels were based on? And if so, who wrote it and why was it lost?

Our guest today is Paul Foster, a colleague of Helen's at the University of Edinburgh. Paul is a passionate Q supporter and shares some strong evidence to quiet the Q critics.

Abstract from a paper by Brent Nongbri

Studies seeking to elucidate the Synoptic Problem, the issue of literary dependence among the Synoptic Gospels, often proceed by making close comparisons among the Synoptic Gospels that rely on the idea that the text of each of these Gospels is fixed. Yet, when one turns to the actual manuscripts preserving the Gospels, one finds instead fluid texts with significant variation. Textual critics of the New Testament have attempted to sort through these variations and determine the earliest recoverable text of each of the Gospels, and in doing so, they often adopt a particular approach to the Synoptic Problem. At the same time, one’s approach to the Synoptic Problem is determined by the analysis of the editions established by textual critics. This chapter explores the implications of this circularity by examining a series of parallel passages in different printed synopses and in individual manuscripts.

So yeah, the mods on /r/AcademicBiblical have permanently banned me. Ask me anything.

Contra Geoffrey Smith and Brent Landau of last year, I will reject "Option 3," that the material Smith found was a forgery, but not by him. (They claim it was written ca 600-700 CE by monks at Mar Saba to justify same-sex relationships known to have a certain frequency in the monastic world at this time, some platonic, some likely not.)

I have always rejected "Option 2," that Smith found "the real deal." (That said, I consider it barely more tenable than Option 3.)

And, that leaves Option 1.

My discussion of that, and the related matter of the "discovery" of the Book of the Law, based on a piece by Paul Davidson of "Is That in the Bible," and on Idan Dershowitz's work on Moses Wilhelm Shapira, whom he says DID discover an apparent "Proto-Deuteronomy."

if anyone is interested in biblical chronology there is information available at the link.

Biblical Chronology

Is anyone aware of an English translation of Wellhausen’s Die Composition des Hexateuchs?

Hi all. I’m trying my to compile an exhaustive list of books/commentaries/websites that delineate the JEDP sources throughout the Pentateuch/Hexateuch - through color-coding or otherwise. Can anyone kindly help complete the following list?

Historico-Critical Inquiry Into The Origin And Composition Of The Hexateuch (Abraham Keunen)

Die composition des Hexateuchs (Julius Wellhausen) (English translation?)

Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Julius Wellhausen)

Books of Genesis-Deuteronomy (Samuel Rolles Driver)

Anchor Bible Series (Yale)

The Life of Moses (John Van Seters)

The New Jerome Biblical Commentary

The Bible with Sources Revealed (Richard Elliott Friedman)

The First Book of God (Tzemah Yoreh)

https://opensiddur.org/shared/readings-and-sourcetexts/weekly-torah-readings/annual-cycle/sefer-bereshit/parashat-bereshit/ (Tzemah Yoreh)

r/SkepticsBibleStudy or https://www.reddit.com/r/SkepticsBibleStudy/ both should land you there. But i am attempting a believer/unbeliever bible study. It will require all kinds of people. If you are interested, we open with the Gospel of John

Greetings, everyone. I would like to ask if anyone has some books, articles or other materials regarding the use of the word "psyche" in the Old Testament and why was it used to translate "nefesh" and such.
Thank you!

Hello,

I thought some of you might be interested in checking out r/AcademicQuran (disclosure: I'm a mod there). Our sub is similar to this one except we focus on Qur'anic studies, Islamic origins and early Islam, as well as relating these to trends in the pre-Islamic period. Feel free to check it out!

-chonkshonk

Saw this post on Reddit that cracked me up so hard.

Is Being Circumcised So Painful And Incredible Physical Impediment That You'd Be Helpless In A Fight? Would It Actually Be Possible For A Single Man Take On A Room Of Over 50 Guys Just Circumcised Few Days Ago And Defeat Them?

The question sounds silly but after reading the story of Genesis 34 where two guys Simeon and Levi slaughter an entire city of guys who just got circumcised like a week earlier all by themselves with blades, I am very curious just how painful and physically handicapping it is after you are circumcised. Is it so debilitating even after a few days of rest?

Would it be easy for you to defeat someone of say Bruce Lee's physical prowess and fighting skills easily after they rested a day or to and get released from the hospital but with bandages all over their penis and they need to avoid exhausting physical exercise like jogging despite being released from the hospital?

Would it actually be possible for like 5 men to wipe out an entire small suburb of males just circumsized five days ago? Even a small entire circumcised town with just two people? Maybe even a city of circumcised dudes with one man?

Or is this utter complete BS from the Old Testament? Is there any truth tot he story at all regarding the consequences of circumcision?

Other than how much the premise made me laugh so much literally almost died because of lack of breath........

In all seriousness is the massacre of the town after the mass circumcisions by just two men in the aforementioned Genesis 34 story plausible? Would circumcision actually weaken you enough for in whats called in military terms a squad (8 men minimal, 14 at most) or even a fireteam (4 men and the smallest unit at least in the US Army) to go around and wipe out what amounts to a small military fort with nothing but bronze age blades and heavy wooden sticks?

Hey guys I believe in Jesus and I need a expert opinion because I know in the Bible it says to not make any carves images of God it is therefore an abomination but with the amount of times and metonia that I pray to God for I have had this gift and sealed as from a vision that God blessed me with this awesome gift but I want to use it the way God wants me to help!

[C.C McCown observed](https://www.jstor.org/stable/3259543?read-now=1&seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents)

The central section of the third gospel (9 51 -18 14), which has long been a scholars puzzle, has been variously described. Certain ealry students of the Gospels called it a "gnomology," a collection of proverbial sayings, in a travel narrative. Over a century ago the pious Catholic, Hug, remarked that it was not connected history but detached fragments, or if the word be preferred, "collectanea", it recorded the beginings of at least two journeys from Galilee to Jerusalem, but did not finish them....