Hey Guys one last question, was “Jesus is supposed to be perfect and never make mistakes” statement about Jesus always been a doctrine or is it just simply that he didn’t sinned? What are you guys thoughts?

Do you keep the Levitical/Mosaic health laws regarding clean and unclean food? If so (and perhaps even if not), you have probably heard of the controversy surrounding the swan (and by relation the duck and goose) being an unclean meat. The KJV Bible lists the swan as an unclean bird. However, later translations such as the NKJV have changed this to owl. There remains to this day a debate among Jewish and Christian communities as to which translation is correct and whether or not the swan family of birds is unclean. Willard D. Forest, desiring to know the truth for himself, investigated the matter for himself. The result was this 9,000-word essay that delves deeply into the topic, analyzing both the translation and biological sides of the issue while trying to be more-or-less objective. He has decided to share his findings with others who may be seeking answers just as he did. Mr. Forest does not claim to be a university professor or anything fancy like that, but rather an average man who has done his best job to research and investigate the topic at hand and produce a quality, scholarly work. [Are Duck and Goose Levitically Clean Meats?](https://mybook.to/DuckandGoose) Kindle Edition, $5.

Going to be guilty of double-posting in the discussion thread. I’ve been spoiled by my other main subreddit where there’s a new comment every minute. Anyway— I’ve been on-and-off reading two books by C. Clifton Black on Mark — one on the figure John Mark in tradition, the other on the Gospel of Mark. I like him a lot. He feels a lot like the adult in the room on Markan scholarship. I love reading bold speculative theories on the Second Evangelist’s motivations and process, but Black does a really nice job of bringing me back down to earth on what we can actually know, and drawing some boundary lines beyond which speculation is entering highly unlikely territory. He’s not as “fun” to read as the bold speculative stuff, but still I like his writing.

>Going to be guilty of double-posting in the discussion thread. Pretty sure I counted 4 main comments in the open thread this week...not like there are any rules against that.

Oh I just meant one right after the other one.

How should I understand the word “saints” when reading the texts of the New Testament?

Surprised this has received no take-up so far. For starters they don't seem to be dead.

Is this post correct? https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAtheism/s/l4RLgRADAx I mean how is it that there are Christian biblical scholars who hold that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic preacher who expected the end to come at his lifetime?

I think it would really have to depend on how you dated the Gospels. If you date them before 70 AD, sure, Jesus was a prophet because He predicted the destruction of the Temple. If you date them after 70 AD, it's the Gospel authors using the character of Jesus to reflect on the destruction of the Temple and their own theology.

Hi I have an admittedly theological question. Since I know most people in biblical academia are Christian, I’m curious as to how y’all view the miracles of Jesus that are told in the Bible. Do y’all take them literally, allegorically, or a little bit of both? Also how do you guys view Jesus doing miracles, different from other ancient historical figures (like Augustus) who also supposedly performed miracles?

They're stories with a purpose. Miracles fall outside historical naturalism, but can be theologically rich. This is not the same as a literal/allegorical dichotomy: I have no way of disproving miracles, and it would be fruitless even to try.

>view the miracles of Jesus that are told in the Bible. Do y’all take them literally, allegorically, or a little bit of both? Also, how do you guys view Jesus doing miracles I think the stories of Jesus's miracles are a mixture of a lot of things. >Also, how do you guys view Jesus doing miracles, different from other ancient historical figures (like Augustus) As for emperors... I tend to think they didn't do miracles at all, and it was just for propaganda to legitimize their rule.

Are biblical scholars just glorified interpreters who think themselves better than others because they have a PhD? Why will their opinions have more validity, than a Catholic or an Orthodox (that have apostolic succession and Holy Tradition) who have a direct line from the Apostles. I think biblical scholarship is a joke in the sense that it is just a bunch of opinions with not concrete basis or conclusions (just look how thousands of post on the same topic can lead to 1000 different answers, this does not happen in natural sciences). Because it is not a science it cannot give a consistent answers like natural sciences and they do not have apostolic succession like some Christians denominations that do not change the dogma or interpretation of Scripture. Basically what I am trying to say is that maybe academic biblical scholarship is just a bunch of opinions with no clear evidence and lots of assumptions.

I think that "many different opinions" should cause more concern for the different sects that claim to have apostolic succession guided by the Holy Spirit than it should for scholarship.

I think this is the kind of thing that’s really easy to say in the abstract but falls apart when we talk about a specific academic question and the relevant evidence. There is, in fact, real data to consider!

Apostolic succession hasn't guaranteed theological agreement, someone could make a similar post arguing that there are 1000 different theological positions in the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

I don't think that Jesus was the biggest advocate of apostolic successionism anyway (Mark 9.38ff springs to mind).

Why that passage?

It's part of that good old Marcan theme of the disciples being rotters (or as Samuel Sandmel puts it, "villains", "Prolegomena to a Commentary on Mark", p.298) who got everything wrong. Here John objects to someone who doesn't derive their ministry through the Twelve ministering in Jesus' name. Jesus gives him short shrift: "do not hinder him \[nice verbal connection to the little children in the next chapter\] ... he who is not against us is for us". Here, in historical terms, I actually think it functions as a sort of pro-Pauline polemic (cf Paul's claims in Gal 1.1,12) – frustratingly this is one of the few passages in Mark's portrayal of the disciples that as far as I can see David C. Sim doesn't mention in his chapter "The Family of Jesus and the Disciples of Jesus in Paul and Mark: Taking Sides in the Early Church’s Factional Dispute" (pp.73-99 in Dunn et al. (eds), *Paul and Mark*), but what I think Mark is doing here is very much in line with what Sim argues there. But if we're playing contemporary theology (because it's the open thread and it's fun), Jesus' answer is a fitting rebuke to Pope Leo XIII and all those who would reject other Christians' callings based upon supposed or actual imperfections in deriving their ministry from an apostle. Ironically, the theology of successionism is so unhistorical that unbroken records of episcopal succession in the Roman Catholic Church really only go back to Scipione Rebiba (have a [Useful Charts video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibLofnWkSiE)) in, not so coincidentally, the 16th century – they should really be seen as a sort of counter-Reformation polemic that is of its time and that does not serve a particularly charitable purpose. We don't even need to go wading into lists of early bishops doubting their historical veracity (although as I recall, Walter Bauer does just that in the Antioch and Alexandria chapters of *Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei*). On a bit of a digression, I wish Sandmel had written that commentary he wrote that Prolegomena article for. So many commentaries on Mark are just tame. They inhabit a sort of world where whatever the disciples' failings, they're characters that readers aspire to be. I'd love to find a commentary that actually took Mark's negative portrayal of the disciples as radical second generation Paulinism. It probably wouldn't sell...

>1000 different answers, Seems like hyperbole to me. Take for example the Synoptic Problem. There's probably at most (being generous) 7 main hypotheses with some minor differences. This is just part of doing history. You're going to have competing models and hypotheses that people find convincing. natural sciences There's a bunch of debates in natural sciences as well. When data is more ambiguous, this just happens. That's just part of the academic and learning process. That doesn't mean this project is a joke.

Then I guess the question is, and I don’t mean this to be rude, why are you posting here? Do you actually want to have your dogmas challenged? Maybe you’re curious about it and feeling like they might have some good points? If everyone who’s interested in this is just an ideologue spouting useless opinions, what’s the purpose in engaging?

Can someone explain to me the general ideas behind revelation and the idea of a rapture? Has it already happened, are we still expecting it? Will all of us Christians have to go through 7 years of hell on earth? Etc… it felt really disconnected in comparison with the rest of the NT and I’m questioning my faith because of how disconcerting it is

Historically speaking, notions of the Rapture as some Christians nowadays understand it (notably, albeit not only, in some U.S. Evangelical circles) largely developed during the XIXth century. The "Religion for Breakfast" channel has a really good and nuanced introductory episode on the topic [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvsjMuHkGBc). ___________ Concerning Revelation, Koester's [*Revelation and the End of all Things*](https://books.google.fr/books/about/Revelation_and_the_End_of_All_Things.html?id=oOx9EAAAQBAJ&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y) is a great entry point for non-specialists, and discusses modern "futuristic" interpretations along with the text's own ancient context. I have at hand [screenshots from the section where Koester discusses how scholars approach the book, the historical and cultural contexts of Revelation, the "literary genre" of apocalypses in the ancient world, etc](https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/11BfRUfkT0yf-7UqdD_tvy0YTSMXmAh3_?usp=sharing). *[EDIT for introduction/clarification]* Long story short, the book in its own context is [an apocalypse](https://bibleodyssey.com/video-gallery/apocalyptic-literature/) —an ancient literary genre characterised by the uncovering of metaphysical realities via enigmatic symbolic visions, often explained by an angel or similar entity. To schematise, the book's focus is largely to exhort the author's religious community to "culturally resist" the Roman Empire and promise to its audience that divine intervention will soon destroy Roman imperial powers and other entities that the author considers forces of evil, and establish God's kingdom on earth. If you prefer an audio/video format to written resources, Dr. McClellan [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvgnjq9hhNM) provides a nice and brief introduction, and for more details, [Yale Bible Study's channel playlist here](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPQBt1pZ2B7HfA0rUtj27Z-vHJ1A98fhc) is a nice introduction to the book and its contexts. *[/EDIT]* ___________ The same Koester's [Anchor Bible Commentary on Revelation](https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300216912/revelation/) is also really good, if you want something more detailed. The whole commentary is fairly long (a bit below 900 pages), but the introduction — about 120 pages— provides a great overview of the book's literary features, cultural/historical contexts, history of interpretation, etc. The remaining being chapter-by-chapter and line-by-line commentary, thematic and textual discussions on some sections, etc. So it can be a good reference to have at once a general presentation and a resource at hand for specific passages or topics. As mentioned above, the introduction includes an overview of the historical reception and diverse interpretations of the book (with interpreters often "reframing" the text to make it relevant to their own concerns, contexts and theology, as still happens today), including the emergence of "Rapture" interpretations (discussed p59 and following). I took captures of the full "History of Interpretation" section in question some time ago, [so you can read it here](https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1jFLKQBniu2gD3_nbKbefB0zt6HaQJ6Wc?usp=sharing) even if you are unable to access the book via a library or bookstore. As you'll see, a number of interpreters of Revelation throughout history were convinced that they were living in an "end times" of sorts, and that the book was referring to their own situations. (This mode of interpretation predates Christianity, as an aside; some texts of the so-called "Dead Sea Scrolls community" famously interpret texts from the 'Hebrew Scriptures' as being about their own situation and the conflicts between their community and other Jewish and non-Jewish groups, and the imminent eschatological battle between the "sons of light" (them) and the "sons of darkness". If interested in that topic, see the [presentation from Kipp Davis —one of the current experts on the Dead Sea Scrolls— here](https://youtu.be/_zi8P9_Ksa4?t=370). [The section on dating, authorship and historical contexts](https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17hwR7VwOVdKmONtmcPdD2owm-eq_pnTt?usp=sharing) is also an excellent entry point if you want a slightly more more detailed discussion than in *Rev. and the End of all Things*. _________ Finally, issues of faith related to the Rapture or Revelation are not something I have experience with (as I was never a Christian, and even among Christians, this type of "Rapture theology" is very marginal here in France). So the most relevant feedback I can think of on that front, without knowing your own background and "religious landscape", is that modern "Rapture theology" rests on specific interpretations and is peculiar to specific Christian circles, not Christianity as a whole. You don't have to accept it to be a Christian. Craig Koester, whom I recommended above, incidentally has been a pastor and still engages in pastoral activity besides his scholarly work, notably via his [podcast on the Working Preacher website (affiliated to Luther Seminary)](https://www.workingpreacher.org/authors/craig-r-koester). Obviously, what "works" or not for you depends of many personal factors; don't hesitate to detail your current experience and issues here if you want to exchange on that topic with other contributors (who include Christians of many stripes as well as non-Christians). Note that the open threads tend to be more active soon after being renewed (on Mondays in U.S. timezones), so you may want to repost in the next ones in a few days besides the present comment/discussion.

The character Barabbas who is mentioned in the gospels as being released by Pilate seems to me like it might be a vestige of something else. For example, there were beliefs about Jesus having a twin. Also there were beliefs about Jesus only appearing to be crucified. As I understand it, Jesus Barabbas could be understood to mean "Jesus son of the father". Barabbas has the feel of being the vestige of a lost fictional narrative which was meant to contain spiritual truths. Can anybody point me to some discussions of possible explanations for Barabbas which are understandable to a non-academic like myself?

Well, if you don’t mind that its expensive, Joel Marcus’s enormous book on the Gospel of Mark goes into it a fair bit— I found it understandable as a non-academic, but it is an academic work. My personal feeling, though, is that I’m not sure there’s a need to consider it a vestige of a lost work. The Gospel of Mark is full of things like this which feel allusive to something or other, and I don’t think it’s so out of keeping with the rest of it to have a false Jesus show up and get let off by the crowd.

Thanks, I see Marcus's books on Amazon. Since you have read those detailed books on Mark, I thought I might ask you about an idea that has been on my mind for a while. You are familiar with the chiasms in Mark, and there are some who claim there is a hierarchical chiastic structure of the smaller chiasms. I have sometimes wondered if these chiasm might serve a purpose like a checksum for modern historians to help them distinguish any edits that might have happened after the initial composition. In other words, the edits might be disruptions in any overarching chiastic structure. (I hope my question makes sense.) Back to the original question though, Barabbas seems very fishy to me. It doesn't seem like it could have been historical, because it would have been like the US releasing Osama Bin Laden before Ramadan to score some PR points with Muslims. Obviously the story of Barabbas is fiction contrived to make a point, but I think that point is deeper than merely absolving the Romans and blaming the Jews. The name "Jesus Barabbas" seems important. I don't know.

That does sound like an interesting idea! But I think you would have to be an academic in the field to know if it was viable, and I’m just some guy. I think there are similar techniques that do go on in linguistics, though; I guess it’s not unlike carbon dating in its way. And as some guy: I definitely agree that it seems unlikely that Barabbas is historical. But to me it seems similar to things like that woman who bleeds for twelve years being cured, then the twelve year old girl surviving. I don’t personally think it matters that one of these things *could* be explained in a naturalistic way and the other is a real stretch. There are lots of allusive texts where the allusions aren’t distinguished in that way.

Can anyone recommend a good synoptic gospel reader? Not sure if I'm using the right terminology but basically the three synoptics together with indications in the texts of which parts overlap with the other synoptics.

Here's a thread from a while ago that has some recommendations: https://reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/zeoxsn/need_recommendation_for_gospel_parallels/

Thank you!

Is it okay for me to prefer the original NRSV from 1989 rather than the NRSVue from 2021? I don't agree with some of the changes

Which changes don’t you agree with?

I don't like how they took out the word "Whore" from the Old Testament. NRSV has 41 occurrences of that word in the Old Testament and the NRSVue has 0. They did keep the 5 occurrences of the word in the book of Revelation though. Another one is in Matt Ch.2 they changed the unique notion " we observed his star at it's rising" to "we observed his star in the east" I prefer the star at its Rising because that makes it seem more astrological

My account is too new to make a thread so I wanted to ask here. Sorry for the length. As the different stories of Genesis were written/preserved do we have any indication on how ancient Israelites/believers viewed them? As in, were Adam and Eve always viewed as real people even if the story had other meanings? I did use Wikipedia (it's a good starting source!) to see the oldest dated parts of the bible. They are seemingly more historical texts like the Song of Deborah which is about a military victory. However, do we know how widespread the oral traditions of other stories (such as Genesis) were? So while the Song of Deborah was recited were they also talking about Noah, Moses, or even Job or Jonah? If they were, did they view the figures as real? I ask because I was reading about Philo and his work integrating allegory into the texts. He doesn't seem to dispute Adam and Eve as real or Noah as real but highlights the other details and lessons he thought the stories contained. This is coupled with Dan McClellan talking about how "eat" or "akal" is figurative or literal based on context. The example he gave is from Deuteronomy. "My sword eats (or devours) flesh" which is a figurative use of "eats". At the end of the day, this means there was some figurative language within the stories. Which brings me back to the main point. How did the ancient populations conceptualize figures like Adam and Eve or Noah? Did this change as other stories were added to what eventually became the bible?

Open question to the mods, is the [Theological Dictionary of the OT/NT](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Theological_Dictionary_of_the_Old_Testam/TyJBBDlqdfwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover) an approved resource? It does include theological applications which are irrelevant, but their word usage notes seem solid to me, as in [this comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1dizspx/is_the_phrase_birds_of_the_air_synonymous_with/l985bl1/). Thanks!

I just looked through it and it looks solid to me. Nothing that looks like it would go against our rules but we'll see if another mod has a different opinion.

Thanks! It does have theological entries, which I would avoid posting here, but I was not sure if that precluded using it as a resource.

Could the phrase "Bnei Yisrael" originally have been "Bnei Asser El" to explain why early versions of the LXX describe 70 sons or angels of God?

> Bnei Asser El What are you thinking this means here? Are you making 'asser' into the relative pronoun '*asher*'?

I'm not at all familiar with Hebrew so please bare that un mind. I heard somewhere it meant bull el and I thought this made some sense since there is bull imagery associated with Yahweh and El. 

> Asser El I am not familiar with that term at all, but if your question is whether the letters ישראל could possibly have been pronounced '*asser-el*' instead of 'isra-el', I'd have to say 'not really'. Written phonetically, 'Israel' is better rendered [*Yisrael*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:He-Medinat_Israel2.ogg), with the first letter being the consonant *yod*, lending a Y-sound. I suppose *yasser* is in the realm of possibility, from a phonetic perspective.

Just a search in this sub for "bene elohim" or "Deutoronomy 32:8" will give you dozens of discussions on this. For example, [https://new.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/15q8xd4/deuteronomy\_3289\_dss\_vs\_lxx\_vs\_ms/](https://new.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/15q8xd4/deuteronomy_3289_dss_vs_lxx_vs_ms/)

Alrighty

Which etymology for Joseph is most credible? It looks theophoric, but many sources seem to prefer one Biblical etymology or another.

Interesting thought. At least on one occasion, some Psalmist went full theophoric on that one: Ps 81.5 עֵדוּת, בִּיהוֹסֵף שָׂמוֹ ("A testimony in Jehoseph He established").

Right, and I'd like to know what the other morpheme is if that represents the same name.

If I can only pair my next reread of the Gospel of Matthew with one scholarly book *about* the Gospel of Matthew, what book would you recommend?

Michael Goulder's *Midrash and Lection in Matthew*.

I noticed that the [Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition](https://www.sbl-site.org/HBCE/HBCE_About.html) project (formerly *Oxford Hebrew Bible*) is looking for transcribers for Psalms 1-50. [Here](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfS2vA13tgKfy_hlMMGZJHye84ivuQxU9jUtassPpea27JbQw/viewform) is an inquiry form you can fill in if you are interested. (Edit: this may have already ended, looking at the dates on the form - but people might be interested to hear this news about the project nonetheless?)

This is definitely more of a theological question which is why I put it here but I don’t know where else to ask it: does anyone know how people who say that Genesis 6-9 are one account that describes a ***local*** flood combat that with the idea that God said he’ll never flood the earth again? If ארץ here is to be translated as land, it doesn’t really make sense since there’s been a lot of floods in the Middle East since whenever you’d place Noah I guess. Again I know that in academia Noah is considered fictional I was just wondering if anyone knew the answer to thie

I don't believe they're suggesting that the Genesis account is an accurate portrayal of a local flood. They're saying that the account may be based on a folk memory of a large flood that affected the ancestors of whomever originated the account. And that that flood, if it existed, would have been local to the area of the affected people.

I agree with the other person. Anecdotally I've talked with and heard from many Christians, the more progressive kind who try to view ancient biblical stories from a scientific or realistic point of view, who try to explain the flood tales (which they admit are found in ancient texts from across the ANE) as a commonality among communities that experienced seasonal flooding. The question is a good one to give to those people. Why would they say God promised to never cause a flood again if they lived in areas that regularly flooded still?

That’s a possibility for academic minded folks, but I was kinda thinking more apologetic people haha. They even have a Wikipedia on it though very limited. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_flood_theory#:~:text=The%20local%20flood%20theory%20(also,1911)%20by%20Léon%20Comerre.

Is there anything historical about the Gospels that present a real Jesus? I’m struggling with my faith right now and I’m trying to search on any consensus answer as to what Jesus taught, his personality, or if he was even a healer and I can’t find a consensus. It frustrates me cause, it’s not because there’s no consensus but it’s that people on the internet (particularly Reddit or YouTube comments) will just dismiss everything in the gospels about Jesus and consider it fiction, and I really want to share any information that there’s aspects of the Bible that does share a real fact about Jesus. Please can anyone help, my mind is screwed right now.

There's no good answer to the consenus question, because a) there's no clear consensus on that and b) even if there were, consensus isn't evidence itself. On the latter point, any (partial) consensus that you can find is based on methodologies (or faith alone) that don't work and contradict each other. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that we can't say much about the historical Jesus at all with any real certainty. The information is simply too unclear.

Why are comments on the internet impacting you in this way? It his linked to your faith struggles, or something else? And is reading and engaging with "random" internet comments helpful in some way, or on the contrary just intensifying your spiraling? As a last question, what is your "religious life" outside of the internet —is there a space where you can discuss with other Christians whose perspectives can reasonably "resonate" with yours? You mentioned being Catholic in your recent post history, and Catholic priests tend to have a relatively extensive formalised training, so taking an appointment in your parish's church to discuss your issues in some depth and within the context of your tradition may be an option here (many churches' websites have a mail contact form, and you can talk likely to the priest after service too). Depending of the ways it is impacting you and "screws your mind", consulting a therapist or mental health professional would be a good idea as well. (In case it needs to be say, whether on Christian, atheist or ex-Christian spaces, "random" comments are often not very reliable and not very academia-focused.) On the reading recommendations/academic side, with the major caveat that faith issues usually go far beyond the limited scope of academia, and historical Jesus studies are not a focus of mine at all, I liked the nuanced presentation of Amy-Jill Levine in [the introduction of *The Historical Jesus in Context* (2006)](https://books.google.fr/books?id=wMbEyeDSQQgC&pg=PA1&hl=fr&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=1#v=onepage&q&f=false), which provides an history and survey of historical Jesus research after summarising the majority position as: > There is a consensus of sorts on a basic outline of Jesus’ life. Most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John, debated with fellow Jews on how best to live according to God’s will, engaged in healings and exorcisms, taught in parables, gathered male and female followers in Galilee, went to Jerusalem, and was crucified by Roman soldiers during the governorship of Pontius Pilate (26–36 CE). But, to use the old cliché, the devil is in the details. [Justin David Strong](https://mf.academia.edu/JustinDavidStrong/CurriculumVitae)'s relatively recent [*The Fables of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke* (2021)](https://books.google.fr/books/about/The_Fables_of_Jesus_in_the_Gospel_of_Luk.html?id=g3tvzgEACAAJ&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y) also opens with an interesting survey of scholarship concerning Jesus' parables in the NT, and the problems with some arguments around them (notably concerning their specificity), plus notably a "vignette" focusing on the historical Jesus on pp533-4, where he argues that: > While other reasons to attribute the fables to the historical Jesus may stand, it is no longer valid to claim that the “parable” tradition is dominical based on the genre’s originality. That “parables” are a cornerstone of the “historical Jesus” tradition is presumably one contributing factor to why this most improbable consensus about them has gone unchallenged. Most have chosen to look the other direction from the problem or resorted to special pleading. It is as if to reject that they emerged from nowhere or some uniquely Jewish tradition of which we have no record, is to deny the creative genius of the historical Jesus. Whatever the reason, studies on the fables of the historical Jesus can no longer turn a blind eye to the ancient fable tradition, which offers a ubiquitous and perfectly mundane context for them. > With the fable context in view, there are a number of avenues in historical Jesus studies waiting to be explored. We have seen literary and historical reconstructions of Jesus the miracle worker,30 Jesus the Cynic-like sage,31 Jesus the philosopher,32 Jesus the Mediterranean Jewish peasant,33 Jesus the political revolutionary,34 Jesus the charismatic rabbi,35 Jesus the marginal Jew,36 Jesus the prophet,37 and so on—but with the supposed dearth of comparable figures, we have yet to see a portrait of the historical Jesus as a fable teller. This is remarkable because, in the words of Crossan, “There is an intrinsic and inalienable bond between Jesus’ experience and Jesus’ parables.”38 That is not to say that these scholarly works have left out the “parables” in their reconstructions of Jesus; quite the contrary,39 but all of these books have left the world of the fable untouched. The ancient world provides many new, compelling vignettes of historical figures using the fable genre with which to compare Jesus. (As an aside, Strong [gave an AMA a while ago](https://new.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/w5e2aw/live_ama_justin_david_strong_author_of_the_fables/) and is still active on this subreddit from time to time, and may be able to answer if you ask a question about an aspect of his scholarship or another.) Both could offer good discussion and contextualisation to "inform your journey" on the scholarly side. _________ Again, the faith- and religiosity-related side won't be limited to that, far from it. But since I was never a Christian, I don't really have personal or useful feedback to give on the religiosity front. Except maybe pointing out that many The resident NT scholars and nerds will likely be able to point to other resources. _________ > I just wish most athiests can at least give the New Testament a try, to at least have a better understanding of who Jesus could’ve been. I’m not talking about him being divine, I’m talking about him as a real preacher who told very compelling parables (at least in my opinion). While it is not my case, a lot of atheists who are vocal on the internet are ex-Christians and were "committed to" the NT and some form of Christianity at some point in their life (and sometimes a big part of it —the host of the Ichapod YT channel was a preacher for decades, as an example). So I'm not sure this is the best way to frame the issue. Some of the parables in the Gospels didn't age that well either in my opinion, most notably the "bad slave" one, which only works if the right of a master to execute his slave is assumed, and whose purely "punitive model" is not the most helpful IMO (compared to, let's say, a story showing the structure of the household depicted as a problem). Which is unsurprising for ancient literature and is not incompatible with one's Christian faith nor makes the parables valueless; as Austin Farrer wrote in *A Science of God/God is not Dead*, although focusing on Paul, "the Christian conscience has acquired some sensitivities to which the first century was a stranger" (and it doesn't stop him to engage with Scripture as a Christian, as [shown by the context of the quote](https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1yZ6DC3xxXUERtA-IKYhVrWFaRZRH4PXr?usp=drive_link), which is followed by theological reflections). But (besides the question of which parables can likely be traced to the historical Jesus or not), to me the "compelling parables" element requires qualification and this may be a feedback you need to be emotionally prepared to, depending of how and where you are discussing. _______ Whether you should engage in such exchanges is an open question and your call, depending of how you answer (for yourself) the questions opening this comment. If your current engagement feels like a compulsive behaviour and/or is only affecting you negatively rather than helping you have interesting discussions, progress in your questioning/religious journey, or sort your issues out in some way, you very likely need to talk about it to your doctor or therapist for advice and find ways to resist the impulse (for intrusive thoughts, general advice tend to be to acknowledge that they are but focus on something else rather than trying to focus on them to fight them; I imagine the guidelines for compulsive behaviour are similar, but it is obviously something to discuss with your doc or a mental health professional, who are qualified for such counseling and can help discussing the specifics of your own situation). ____ End of this long and rambley response, which I hope will be somewhat useful to you.

[The consensus on John The Baptist has been challenged recently, though](https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au/LA/article/view/17598) I’m not a Christian at all, but I’m not sure how threatening it is to Christianity to know basically nothing about anything. It would presumably be much worse for it if we *did* know a lot of things that went against it. And as someone who thinks Mark is probably fiction, I’m not even sure that belief is incompatible with Christianity. In a strange way it makes Christianity seem more attractive to me 

Hansen is quite minimalist. I'd still call it a consensus. Also, why was this paper published in the journal *Literature & Aesthetics*? Take a look at the front-page: [https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au/LA/index](https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au/LA/index) This journal has vanishingly little specialization in early Christian history/biblical studies/whatnot.

I mean, to be completely blunt, I wouldn’t publish in this field either when you get this kind of response to a paper saying, completely correctly, that there isn’t good evidence for this consensus and it comes down to pretty tenuous assumptions. I would hope you would be able to defend a consensus convincingly if it had actually compelling reasons to exist, instead of going “that journal is bad” :/

I haven't read Hansen's paper and it's been a while since I've read much related to the John the Baptist history. Last thing I've read on this subject was probably Joel Marcus's *John the Baptist in History and Theology* and I thought it made some good arguments for the historicity of a number of elements related to John. (Curious if youve read that book?) Anyways, this journal thing is just something you tend to notice once you've read a lot. *Hey, why did the author submit this paper to a journal completely irrelevant to the field?* It's not like Hansen isn't capable of publishing in relevant journals. "Re-examining the pre-Christian Jesus" was published in the *Journal of Early Christian History*. So Hansen can definitely publish in good journals. >I wouldn’t publish in this field either when you get this kind of response to a paper saying, completely correctly, that there isn’t good evidence for this consensus and it comes down to pretty tenuous assumptions. Is it completely correct though? Anyways, plenty of people have published consensus-challenging work in relevant journals and book publishers. The guys who support Marcionite priority for example, to my knowledge, seem to only put their work in relevant publishers. I could be totally wrong but I'm assuming that Hansen's paper was probably just rejected from a more mainstream journal.

I haven’t read that work. I’ve read Joel Marcus on Mark, though, and it shocked me how poor I thought the argumentation was in places. It is, literally, “I cannot think of a reason this could not be the case, and so it probably is.” And this seems to happen where the conclusion leans towards what’s commonly accepted, and not away from it. The idea that the *whole book is based on an assumption on the historical function of Mark, which is never noticed or justified, and which there is no concrete evidence for,* never comes up. And I understand Joel Marcus is a respected scholar in this field. I was heartened to read Chrissy’s review of Marcus on John the Baptist which reflected those concerns in this other work of his you’ve read— this failure to question or often even notice these underlying assumptions, the correct observation that they should be open to challenge, but often aren’t. Joel Marcus is a respected scholar; Hansen is not publishing in these journals. But it’s hard for me to care, because at a basic level I think Hansen has the better arguments, and they cut at the fundamental basis of what a lot of this stuff takes for granted.

>But it’s hard for me to care, because at a basic level I think Hansen has the better arguments, and they cut at the fundamental basis of what a lot of this stuff takes for granted. Totally fair perspective! I'll probably read Hansen's paper at some point ... can't say when. I understand from prior reading that Hansen thinks that Josephus' comment on John the Baptist may be an interpolation and I personally see very little basis in that view ... but I'll find out the details later.

u/No-Shame-5345 As a late second-comment clarification (this one's short, don't worry), I am not at all saying that your engagement with YT/internet comments is compulsive or unhealthy —this is obviously yours to evaluate. But given the "mind screwing" you are mentioning in your comment, I preferred to discuss context explicitly, since interrogating what is motivating your engagement in the first place, asking yourself what fruits it produces and what your motivations and goals are —if not already done— is IMO useful I also forgot to complete a sentence in my way-too-long answer above, so: > Except maybe pointing out that many good critical scholars are should read: > Except maybe pointing out that many good critical scholars are Christians, including Catholics (Carol Newsom, Mark Smith, etc). Seeing whether they have more personal writings where they discuss their religiosity or theological ones discussing from a Catholic/Christian perspective may nourish your own reflections, regardless of what you share or reject of their own approaches.

>particularly Reddit or YouTube comments) Maybe don't spend your time around those people. A lot of those people tend to be toxic or unhelpful. Dale Allison in his constructing Jesus and zthe Resurrection of Jesus provide a good overview for things that a historian might be able to say about Jesus or the movement.

I’m sure this may be asked a lot, but is it possible to reconcile the fact that the Bible isn’t univocal with Christian faith? And if it is, how so without being dishonest to yourself?

Yes. Not having an expectation that the Bible has to be univocal. It isn't dishonest if you don't see it this way.

Concerning a former comment by u/Pytine concerning the relationship between Luke and John. I know u/AntsinMyEyesJonson was also interested, so I will just put it here. Most scholars believe that John used Luke, so I won't include them here. There are also other scholars like D.M. Smith John among the gospels who believe that John and Luke shared a common source. This seems to be fairly common. The listed scholars below either believe Luke is dependent on perhaps not the final version of John but perhaps an earlier version or oral stage or believe that Luke was dependent on John itself. I might be missing some but these are the ones I can think of and have read. As far as I know, Pierson Parker Luke and the fourth Evangelist NTS, 9 1962 was the first scholar to posit contact between the two evangelists. Becoming John: The Making of the Passion Gospel Kari Syreeni F. Lamar Cribbs, “A Study of the Contacts That Exist Between St. Luke and St. John and A Reassessment of the date of origin and destination of the gospel of John Mark A. Matson, In Dialogue with Another Gospel?  Barbara Shellard, New Light on Luke; Its Purpose, Sources and Literary Context and the relationship of Luke on John: A fresh look at an old problem Robert Morgan, which was the fourth gospel? The order of the gospels and the unity of the scripture Paul Anderson  The Fourth Gospel and the Quest For Jesus; Modern Foundations Reconsidered and Acts 4:19-20—An Overlooked First-Century Clue to Johannine Authorship and Luke’s Dependence upon the Johannine Tradition https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/opeds/acts357920 Luuk van de Weghe the beloved disciple https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/964BF90DF6ECDC4EA7C6144A17F55754/S0028688521000473a.pdf/beloved_eyewitness.pdf Less confident but still there. Andrew Gregory The Third Gospel? The Relationship of John and Luke Reconsidered. There is, of course, the paper I am writing about the BD and the relationship with these two gospels. My opinion is that the author of Luke is using John in various ways like he does Paul's letters by merging two views (John and Mark) to create a unity vision of the church in 2nd century...that is without the BD because he's a somewhat threat because he stands behind the authority of the east compared to the west (Rome, Petrine, and Paul) and the author of Luke wants to show a more unified front to its critics who are probably more elite. I give a slight discussion of it here in part 4. https://www.reddit.com/r/mythoughtsforreal/s/uvlSzmYVqt As far as I know...my hypothesis adds more evidential weight to the idea of Luke using John and no other scholar goes as far as I do. Although, Luuk provides some summary of the BD in this. I keep meaning to email him and see what he thinks...although, I think he takes the view that Luke interviewed eyewitnesses himself whereas I think Luke is just using written sources and perhaps oral traditions of his day to piece things together. One of the things you will notice is that scholars who take this view either tend to (1) date John fairly early, (2) Luke in 2nd century, or (3) or both these. I figure that this isn't more accepted because many scholars still think Luke is first century.

This looks great, thanks a lot. >There is, of course, the paper I am writing about the BD and the relationship with these two gospels. Any idea on when it will be published? >My opinion is that the author of Luke is using John in various ways To clarify, do you mean that the final version of Luke depends on the final version of John, or is it about earlier versions as well? An interesting article here may be The First Dionysian Gospel: Imitational and Redactional Layers in Luke and John by Mark Bilby in the book [Classical Greek Models of the Gospels and Acts: Studies in Mimesis Criticism](https://zenodo.org/records/3745599). He thinks the dependence goes both ways. >One of the things you will notice is that scholars who take this view either tend to (1) date John fairly early, (2) Luke in 2nd century, or (3) or both these. Isn't this necessary? If we say that the traditional dates are \~80-90 CE for Luke and \~90-100 CE for John, you have to deviate from that to make the chronology work, right? Since dating Luke-Acts to the second century is getting more common, I wonder if we'll see more work on this topic.

>Any idea on when it will be published? No idea. I have 8 other projects I am working on to publish in my own area. I'm currently working on the first draft of the hardest part of my paper and argument. So I'm doing a little at a time. It will definitely be after Mark Goodacre publishes his book, Hugo Mendez finishes his book, and the Robyn Walsh finishes her stuff with the edition she is publishing in since I want to see their arguments and my model is obviously different. > To clarify, do you mean that the final version of Luke depends on the final version of John, or is it about earlier versions as well? I figure that he had the final published edition. So not just the earlier editions. >The First Dionysian Gospel: Imitational and Redactional Layers in Luke and John by Mark Bilby in the book Classical Greek Models of the Gospels and Acts: Studies in Mimesis Criticism. He thinks the dependence goes both ways. Yeah, this is all interesting and something I am still trying to figure out. I also think there are places in which John seems to be aware of what I would consider Proto-Luke or the Evangelion. >Isn't this necessary? If we say that the traditional dates are ~80-90 CE for Luke and ~90-100 CE for John, you have to deviate from that to make the chronology work, right? Yeah, I guess so. Lol. :)

wow, thanks for that! this is really interesting stuff.

No problem! Hopefully you can get access to some of these. You should be able to at least read Paul Anderson's article and Luuk's article for free. Paul ajderson has a nice section in his article where he goes over a lot of the similarities.

So... one of the things I like to do on Sunday afternoons is listen to Dr Justin Sledge's Esoterica while I cross-stitch. But I tend to binge things, leave them, come back and binge some more, and I'm getting that antsy feel again. I love the STYLE of Esoterica - long form, casual-lecture, single-person, educational. Can anyone recommend youtube or podcast channels like that? I'm specifically NOT looking for college lecture series - I want something with a bit more of a casual feel. Also, although I'm obviously expecting channels focusing on Biblical topics here, I'm posting this in the casual discussion thread, because I'm also open to channels discussing folklore, mythology, modern urban legends, and fiction books. Thanks in advance!

For a less academic view of ancient Jewish stories I like Podcast of Biblical Proportions. He's from Israel, knows the language, has some fantastical hypotheses, but they actually make a lot of sense. I'm not sure how many of them are found in academic circles yet, but they certainly sound compelling the way he connects the dots through textual criticism and historical events within and outside of the stories (such as Baruch ben Neriah and Jeremiah being the main authors of the priestly stories in Genesis). For a semi-academic historical contextual walk through the bible, I like "The History in the Bible Podcast" by Garry Stevens. For retelling of all kinds of legends and folklore, "Myths and Legends" is great. He has a soothing voice and is really skilled at modernizing ancient tales that keep them funny and interesting while sticking to the heart of the stories.

thank you! :-D

In my latest video, I reconstruct the original narrative of the Watchers and whether they were divine beings and if Enoch was part of that narrative. [https://youtu.be/-53esXS-fSE?si=GdvurXog8t63ViPf](https://youtu.be/-53esXS-fSE?si=GdvurXog8t63ViPf)

Berlin or Midianite/Kenite hypothesis?

Is it fair to say that Paul was “mischievous” and ruined Christianity? I’ve seen this argument tossed around that Paul corrupted Jesus’s teachings. From an academic perspective, does Paul come off as that?

If we're talking about intentional corruption, probably not. Paul sincerely believed he had a direct channel to Jesus in his resurrected state. Judging by how some scholars freakout when somebody just plainly exegetes Paul as saying Judeans had no obligation to observe Judean *nomoi,* the traditional picture of Paul is treated as a demonic figure.

“Mischievous” implies that he was deliberately trying to corrupt something. Personally I’ve never heard a good story for why Paul would dedicate his life to such malevolence.

I'm sympathetic to the notion frequently espoused, especially by liberal Christians, that Paul co-opted a radical egalitarian movement and transformed it into something hierarchical and more amenable to state authority. In my estimation that IS more or less what happened to early Christianity; but I don't think nearly as much of that is the fault of Paul as common wisdom would have it. Still, Paul was a non-witness of the living Jesus who nevertheless claimed special authority to formulate and disseminate Jesus' message independent of those who actually knew the man and heard his teaching directly. Regardless of that message's actual substance, he is an easy metonym for the historical development of early Christianity in that direction.

>I'm sympathetic to the notion frequently espoused, especially by liberal Christians, that Paul co-opted a radical egalitarian movement and transformed it into something hierarchical and more amenable to state authority. What makes you think this? If anything I feel that Paul helped make Christianity more egalitarian by reaching out to gentiles. Cf Galatians 3:28-29

Well, exactly, I don’t think this (at least no so broadly). But many liberal Christians and ex-Christians do, and I’m sympathetic to that notion because (as I see it) that is what happened, one way or another, within the version of Christianity that descended from Paul, even if he the individual bore no responsibility for it.

But the question is can Christians still trust Paul? Obviously not over Jesus but still trust him as person who wanted to spread “the good news” that Jesus taught?

You say "obviously not over Jesus" but I would argue that ship has long since sailed. How many times have we heard Paul's theology in the form of Romans 10:13: "Everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" In contrast to Jesus' in Matthew 7:21: "Not everyone who cries out to me 'Lord Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven but only he who does the will of my father in heaven" Paul's "faith alone" soteriology long ago superseded the Jewish Christianity of Jesus

This puts a lot of trust in the Gospel according to Matthew to authoritatively present the true message of Jesus!

It's a little beside the point. Despite our academic concerns, Christians themselves typically take for granted that Jesus' words are being transmitted faithfully, and so from that perspective they SHOULD be giving Jesus' quotation precedence over what appears to be a conflicting theology from Paul, but more often than not they choose Paul's version as preferable.

>Despite our academic concerns, Christians themselves typically take for granted that Jesus' words are being transmitted faithfully, and so from that perspective they SHOULD be giving Jesus' quotation precedence over what appears to be a conflicting theology from Paul, but more often than not they choose Paul's version as preferable. I don't see how this follows. Most Christians believe that the entire NT is God's word. Not to mention the author of Matthew has reason to invent sayings that contradict Paul (if you subscribe to the anti-Pauline Matthew theory)

As long as we understand that this is not an academically rigorous argument that I am attempting to make, I am simply making a point that I remember having originally suppressed when I was a kid in church. Feeling like "why are we listening to this Paul guy who never met Jesus when he directly contradicts certain teachings of Jesus?" This was a question that caused me great inner turmoil as a youngster, and one I never got a satisfactory answer to beyond "because it's in the Bible". I felt like Paul's letters being included in the NT was probably a mistake, his letters being on par with any of the other writings of history from cranks claiming to "speak with God". I felt like we were on much more solid ground focusing on Jesus' direct teachings in the gospels instead of "new" stuff from people who weren't anywhere near Jesus. It felt naturally incorrect for the pastor to get up in front of everyone and equate the words of Paul to Jesus' words, or even elevate them beyond. Now, that was 25 years ago and I've long since acquired a master's degree in the subject. I understand the complex reality of the gospels and the historical Jesus. This is not an argument that I'm actually trying to defend "in reality". But hearing the previous commenter say "can Christians trust Paul" and "obviously not above Jesus" just triggered that decades old feeling inside of me, that "that ship has sailed".

I said a few things recently in more casual conversation and I want to check myself: 1) Would it be fair to say that there is not a single *specific* line from Jesus in the New Testament where we can say there is *consensus* that he actually said it? 2) Would it be fair to say that the idea that the historical Jesus would not have (even indirectly) claimed to be God in the flesh, while popular, also does not reach the level of *consensus*? 3) Would it be fair to say that Bart Ehrman’s model of the historical Jesus as first and foremost an apocalyptic prophet, while again very popular, also does not reach the level of *consensus*? Maybe my mental bar for “consensus” is far too high. That’s possible. But especially when it comes to historical Jesus studies, I sort of operate on the understanding that you can count the consensus details about the historical Jesus on one hand.

Thanks for bringing this up 👍

Of course! Gotta keep myself honest!

For 1), *The Five Gospels*, admittedly thirty years old now (and having, in my estimation, a strange *a priori* suspicion of apocalyptic passages), has more than 90% of the Jesus Seminar Fellows accepting "turn the other cheek" as formulated in Matthew 5:39 and Luke 6:29 being the actual, non-paraphrased words of Jesus, accepting for differences in transmission of Q and translation from Aramaic to Greek. That was 3 decades ago. But I've yet to encounter any writing in any way suspicious of that quotation's authenticity.

The Jesus Seminar used the existence of Q as a key part of their methodology. They prioritized the sayings in Q specifically because they believed that Q was an early source. At that time, the existence of Q may have been a consensus position. The existence of Q is probably still the majority position, but no longer a consensus. This undermines an important argument for this saying. It could still be widely accepted, but perhaps not at the level of consensus.

I suppose my question there is, if the two-source hypothesis is discarded for the Farrer hypothesis (as I understand it the most common alternative), doesn't that just swap out one early quotation source (Q) for another, slightly later quotation source (Matthew)? The substantive change there is the quotation source being later and not originally in Aramaic. But I'm not sure that can be seen as a potential stonewall for consensus that *anything* Jesus said was recorded, especially when at least some of Matthew's sayings seem to be independently attested in Thomas.

Very interesting, so this could be an exception. When I think about the scholarship of the 30 years since, I do wonder how many scholars now would say something along the lines of, “I have no reason to think he did *not* say that, but neither do I have any reason to have meaningful confidence in it.” Especially scholars who lean heavily on the “literary Synoptics” side of things.

Wouldn't the counter-argument to that be "Without any reason to doubt he said that, and with early attestation that he *did* say it, what is the basis for neutrality?" Not to say skepticism shouldn't be the default attitude of the historian. It absolutely should. But in the (perhaps few) cases where there's no conceivable reason for later writers to have invented a certain quote attributed to Jesus, and where it is jointly recorded in the Synoptics, and where it is memorable and pithy enough to believably have been preserved through oral transmission - is absolute neutrality an academically defensible position?

How do we distinguish between a saying originating with Jesus and one originating with Peter or James or other early Christians? Is there any reason to think that oral transmission would have reliably distinguished between the two, or that in most cases there would be clues that would allow us to confidently separate them out post facto? Considering that, on the conventional timeline, Jesus only taught for a few years at most but some of his most distinguished disciples for multiple decades, and yet we have an extensive collection of the sayings of Jesus yet close to nothing for any others, it seems very probable to me that most quotations that 'sound like Jesus' are rather those of his close followers.

I often think that when scholars say there’s no conceivable reason for something to happen, they should perhaps try to conceive a little harder.  Over in evolutionary biology there was a long history of scholars rightly taking an enormous amount of flack for this— they were making arguments because they thought things *had* to have happened in a certain way, only for someone to later realise things probably happened in a much less intuitive way nobody had thought of. They’re treated with caution, these things evolutionary biology calls “just so stories” for why things are the way they are. I think they should be here as well— more so, really, with much less evidence and a field with massive preferences towards certain explanations being true. “I can’t think of a reason why this thing I want to be true *isn’t* true” is, I think, absolutely an academically defensible position to be avoiding. It’s maybe frightening that an academic could think anything else 

I’m not even saying this is my stance, in fact I don’t think it is based on my recent reading, but I do feel I have a sense of how a certain current segment of scholarship would answer this: * Why should we care about things being jointly recorded in the Synoptics if we have a chain of familiarity with each other? * If I’m a scholar who sees the Gospels first and foremost as literary objects, stories to flesh out a skeletal understanding of who Jesus was prior to the spread of the good news, why *shouldn’t* my default for any given passage just be that the author came up with it, unless it’s something we see in even earlier material (Paul)? * How “early” is any attestation in the Gospels, anyway? “Early” is relative, and certainly compared to the Gospels we have much earlier material in Paul’s letters and in possible pre-Pauline hymns/creeds contained in those letters. Basically, the argument would be that if the Gospels are the work of literary elites, and if a given passage isn’t attested in Paul’s letters — could it come from oral tradition? Maybe, but this is totally irrecoverable with the data we currently have and so neutrality is justified if we think the authors wouldn’t hesitate to invent things.

That's intriguing. My response is probably colored by how unconvinced I am by arguments that the Gospels are written by literary elites (even Luke seems to me more in imitation of elite style than elite itself) but of course that's the trouble with "consensus"! A possible objection to that second point, as I might formulate it, is "At least one of the Synoptics (Luke) claims accuracy and historicity, was viewed as accurate and historical by the early Church, and contains sayings (not found in Paul) such as 21:32 that are seemingly disproved by history as the author and his audience would have known it, yet were attributed to Jesus anyway." But I'm an amateur, not an expert - I just see absolute, blanket neutrality as a strange stance in light of the evidence as we have it.

An issue with the second question is that probably not all scholars are interpreting the question ("did Jesus claim to be God?") in the same way. Some (most, I guess) interpret it as "Did Jesus claim to be the character 'God'?", to which I think all or nearly all scholars say no. The character 'God' in the gospels is clearly the Father. Others might interpret the question as "Did Jesus claim to be divine?". And to this there are a plurality of different answers I have seen from scholars. At least I'm not aware of a consensus (in the sense you are thinking of it). It also doesn't help that the categories are a bit vague. Raymond Brown often wrote very negatively about this kind of question ("Did Jesus claim to be God?") and even said that they should not be asked. Precisely because of the ambiguity. >'From a biblical viewpoint this question is so badly phrased that it cannot be answered and should not be posed. (...) There are many passages in the New Testament writings that distinguish between God and Jesus. We do not mean that such passages prove that Jesus was not God; rather they reflect the terminological problem in the question that we are asking. For the Jew "God" meant God the Father in heaven; and to apply this term to Jesus who was not the Father and who had come down to earth made no sense. Later, precisely under the necessity of giving proper honor to Jesus, especially in the liturgy, it was understood that "God" was a broader term that could include both the Father and Jesus. (...) Therefore, when we ask whether during his ministry Jesus, a Palestinian Jew, knew that he was God, we are asking whether he identified himself and the Father — and, of course, he did not.' (pages 86-87 of *Jesus: God and man.)* (Brown reiterates, but more briefly, similar points in *An introduction to New Testament Christology*, p. 72n97.) So for Brown, the obvious negative answer to the question does not begin to answer whether Jesus claimed any sort of divine status, which is what many asking the question are actually interested in. Idk what others here think, but I regard Brown's discussion on these topics as very helpful and illuminating.

Thanks, this framing is helpful!

For 1) I personally buy that the constant focus on divorce and it being one of the few things attested in Paul as well from the alleged Jesus teachings gives it a good shot of being real. But that's pretty much the closest I think we can get. As for 2) and 3) I'm looking forward to Dr. McClellan's survey :)

I completely agree with you on the likely historicity of the divorce focus, *personally*, but I do wonder whether even that reaches the level of “consensus.” It’s probably the best candidate though, yeah. Definitely looking forward to the survey. It would be very weird to me though if there was a consensus on #2 (because there’s so little positive evidence to wield in arguing Jesus did *not* say something) and on #3 (because as far as I’m aware, people are still writing books about the historical Jesus with other models.)

> but I do wonder whether even that reaches the level of “consensus.” Yeah, I phrased it awkwardly - I see it mentioned most often so that's why I think it _could_ be consensus, or at least the closest thing to it. And completely agree on 2 and 3, it would almost be revolutionary if there _was_ a consensus.

Hello, I’m quite confident that I’ve made what could be a very significant biblical discovery, and I’m wondering if I can get some advice on the process of getting it validated. I can elaborate, but I was having trouble posting a longer comment before. But I've put together a report with references and all that (I'm not a scholar, but I'm a working professional). Edit: I made a post on my profile that elaborates on what I believe is a very significant biblical discovery (long post): [https://www.reddit.com/user/trebeck\_x/comments/1dhxr5h/post\_for\_academic\_biblical\_question/](https://www.reddit.com/user/trebeck_x/comments/1dhxr5h/post_for_academic_biblical_question/)

If it gets too long you may have to break it into two comments - so try that. Feel free to post it here in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.

Thanks for the response. I made a post on my profile and included a link as an edit above.