I’ve been reading about the “we” passages and the argument that Acts probably was not written by one of Paul’s companions because its author seems unfamiliar with Paul’s chronology, relationships and theology. I understand why Paul’s undisputed letters should take priority when reconstructing his life, but I’m wondering how many of these differences are genuine contradictions rather than differences in emphasis, compression or omission.

For example, Galatians 1:22 says Paul was “unknown by face” to the churches of Judea, while Acts 9:26–30 has him meeting the apostles and preaching publicly in Jerusalem. But Paul cannot mean literally no Judean Christian knew him: he had just spent fifteen days with Cephas and met James. Galatians 1:23 also says the churches had heard about him but had not personally met him.

Could “the churches of Judea” mean congregations outside Jerusalem, or Judean Christians generally rather than every individual? Acts 9 describes activity in Jerusalem, not a tour of the wider churches. Acts 26:20 does later summarize Paul as preaching throughout Judea, but it does not provide a clear chronology or say that he personally met the established Christian congregations there.

Acts 15 and Galatians 2 also present the Jerusalem meeting differently. Paul emphasizes his independence and a private meeting with the recognized leaders, while Acts emphasizes public debate, church unity and the apostolic decree. Yet both accounts concern Gentile circumcision, involve Peter and James, and end with recognition of Paul’s Gentile mission. Craig Keener argues that many of the differences are omissions of detail of the kind found in ancient histories and eyewitness testimony. He also suggests that the authors have different purposes: Paul stresses his independence, while Luke retrospectively stresses continuity between Paul and Jerusalem (Galatians, 2018, pp. 2, 6–7).

Could the theological differences partly reflect genre as well? Paul’s letters are occasional and polemical, whereas Acts presents speeches composed, paraphrased or summarized by its author. Acts does not reproduce Paul’s characteristic language concerning participation “in Christ,” justification or the theology of the cross in anything like the depth of Romans and Galatians. Nevertheless, Acts 13:38–39 sounds recognizably Pauline: everyone who believes is justified or freed through Jesus in a way the law of Moses could not accomplish. William Walker therefore argued that, whatever Acts’ relationship to Paul’s letters, its author was not ignorant of the main outlines of Paul’s teaching.

Michael Thompson argues more directly that developments in Pauline scholarship have made the differences between Acts and Paul appear less substantial than they once did. On the other hand, Ryan Schellenberg argues that Acts’ geographical framework could have been reconstructed from Paul’s letters. Its accurate knowledge of Paul’s major locations would therefore not necessarily prove firsthand participation.

Could an intermittent companion have written Acts decades later without knowing Paul’s entire earlier career firsthand? He might have reconstructed those periods from incomplete traditions, compressed the chronology, omitted events irrelevant to his narrative and presented Paul through his own theological framework. That could explain why the “we” sections feel immediate while other sections appear more removed from Paul.

I’m not asking whether every difference can be harmonized. I’m asking how scholars determine when differences in selection, genre or perspective become evidence that the author could not have known Paul. Are there particular discrepancies that are genuinely irreconcilable, or is the argument mainly cumulative? Is Vielhauer’s influential picture of a fundamentally “non-Pauline Paul” in Acts still widely accepted, or has scholarship become more cautious about it?

Sources
Craig S. Keener, Galatians, New Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge University Press, 2018), especially pp. 1–7.
Ryan S. Schellenberg, “The First Pauline Chronologist? Paul’s Itinerary in the Letters and in Acts,” Journal of Biblical Literature 134.1 (2015): 193–213.
Michael B. Thompson, “Paul in the Book of Acts: Differences and Distance,” The Expository Times 122.9 (2011): 425–436.
Philipp Vielhauer, “On the ‘Paulinism’ of Acts,” in Studies in Luke–Acts, edited by Leander E. Keck and J. Louis Martyn (Abingdon, 1966), 33–50.
William O. Walker Jr., “Acts and the Pauline Corpus Reconsidered,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 7.24 (1985): 3–23.

Acts 19 has Paul arrive in Ephesus and show disciples of "John" a better baptism. This John is implied to be John the Baptist, especially with verse 4. But, do we have any evidence of disciples of John the Baptist in Ephesus, or Asia Minor in general? I thought our sources seem to indicate that his disciples and the Mandaeans were located in the Levant, Jordan and Mesopotamia? Or am I wrong on this? Is Acts creating fiction here?

I just wonder how a Christian in Ephesus reading/hearing Acts 19 for the first time would interpret Paul usurping a "John" there. Asian traditions seem to imply there was a famous John in Ephesus specifically. Polycrates of Ephesus even has this to say:

and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate.

§ 5.24.3  He fell asleep at Ephesus.

Sorry if I'm grasping at straws here but it's just that the start of Acts 19 rubs me the wrong way. Regardless of when you date Acts, you'd think the author would be a bit clearer on this John not being the John highly associated with Ephesus.

I just have a bunch of questions about the empty tomb theory, explanations for the empty tomb, etc.

And credits to the authors of the following resources for what I so far have learned about the stuff related to this post…
“How Empty Was the Tomb?” by Mark Goodacre

“The Case Against the Empty Tomb” by Peter Kirby

“The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel, specifically chapter 12

Questions:

Is there any way to know what type of burial Paul’s writings imply? He never explicitly mentions a tomb, but he does mention the burial of Jesus in his writings such as in the 1 Corinthians 15 creed. Are there any other burial accounts pre-dating 1 Corinthians? Is there any counter-evidence to the possibility of Paul referring to a tomb burial here?

Pretty much all the burial accounts claim that Jesus was buried in a tomb. How then do some prominent scholars believe he was left on the cross to be devoured by birds? There are no accounts of this, and the only evidence for it is that it’s just a possibility because that was typical Roman execution practice. But we have corroborating archeological evidence that a crucifixion victim named Johanan was buried in an elite tomb like Jesus, so shouldn’t the tomb burial be more plausible than the birds theory?

Did Mark even believe that Jesus had risen from the dead? How long were the women silent for after seeing the missing body?

According to Mark Goodacre’s article, rock-hewn tombs kept multiple bodies, and there is no record of a single-person tomb from the time that Jesus would have been crucified. This makes it highly unlikely that Jesus would have been the only one in the tomb, and even if he left, the tomb probably wouldn’t have been empty. I think the empty tomb theory should be rephrased to the missing body theory because of this. The following are a list of explanations for the missing body, and I’m wondering which ones seem the most plausible? Also which of them seem least plausible?
Disciples stole the body: lol umm what? Is there even any logic behind this argument? If there is, I'd like to know but I don’t see this as plausible thus far.

Jewish authorities stole the body: maybe they did this to prevent his followers from starting a shrine or cult or protest or whatever? That would be hilariously ironic if they actually did this to prevent a cult and then oops looks like that’s what started today’s most prominent religion!

Swoon theory: Considering the torment Jesus would have went through during the crucifixion there’s almost no chance that he wouldn’t have died. Even if he did manage to survive, he would be in critical condition and wouldn’t be the type of person that a whole movement could start from. Unless of course I could be wrong. 

Left on the cross to be devoured by birds: as explained above, but then according to this theory he was probably taken down eventually and tossed in a common grave. 

Wrong tomb theory

Wrong body: maybe they went to the right tomb, but since it was a multi-person tomb then the witnesses saw an empty spot and thought that must have been where Jesus’ body was supposed to be when really it could have been laying two pews over. 

Buried shamefully in the sand by Jewish enemies: like the Secret Gospel of James mentions.

The resurrection theory: still a possibility, if none of the naturalistic explanations outweigh this one. 

Any insight is helpful! Thanks in advance for your answers!

If Jesus’ objective was to proclaim the Gospel to the Gentiles, how can we explain the fact that the Gospels explicitly record him performing miracles on behalf of individuals who were not part of Israel, such as the healing of the royal official’s son (John 4:46–54) and the healing of the Syrophoenician woman’s daughter (Mark 7:24–30; Matthew 15:21–28)? Do these accounts suggest that Jesus’ mission was not exclusively directed toward the Jews, but that the inclusion of the Gentiles was already part of his purpose from the very beginning?

If Paul did not write Pastoral Epistles, then who wrote them? I,ve heaed some people claim that Paul's students/followers wrote them on orders of Paul himself - that Paul was outsourcing some of the work. But I've say that only uncritical apologists say this, and that the real authors were deliberately being dishonest; they presumably never met Paul, and simply lied about being Paul in the hopes that the Christian community would more readily accept their theological views. So, what's going on? What do the critical scholars say?

When I listen to people like Dan McClellan, he often talks about how "the overwhelming majority of scholars believe x". There's always that small amount that goes against the consensus that I'm curious about. Though a topic like this is also bound to be permeated by apologists.

I've been wondering if there's any historical connection between the goddess Asherah in early Israelite religion and the later personification of Wisdom (chokmah in Hebrew, sophia in Greek) in Jewish literature.

From what I understand, Asherah was worshipped alongside YHWH by at least some ancient Israelites, and reforms under kings like Josiah were part of an effort to centralize Yahwist worship and eliminate other forms of worship.

Then later, we see in Jewish literature, Wisdom (Sophia/Chokmah) personified as a feminine aspect of God in passages such as Proverbs 8, Wisdom of Solomon 7, etc.

So I'm wondering if anyone has proposed that the concept of a feminine divine figure in ancient Israelite religion survived, in some form, through the later personification of Sophia?

I'm not necessarily suggesting that Asherah and Sophia are the same figure, but I'm curious whether there's any evidence of historical continuity between the two, or whether scholars generally consider them unrelated.

I want to investigate a bit more about historical figures in history, whose life was full of mythical and supernatural deeds like for example Jesus. We know that there was a historical Jesus but after decades his death, we have people creating different miracles and other events in his life.

Is there a book out there that takes similar cases to the life of Jesus, men who after their death they have multiple mythical or miraculous deeds?

People outside of Judaism

I am wondering about the prophetic material's (Isa 24-27 & 65-66, Ezek 38-39, Zech 1-6, 9-14) apocalyptic notes. Particularly, I am wondering if there is a work that treats these as proto-apocalyptic, and or delineates proto-apocalyptic material. Do people find these as proto-apocalyptic?

So when I read Farrer, or especially Goodacre on Q, their arguments seem like such a slam dunk, especially the part about the double tradition and the need to resort to 6 separate hypothesis to explain it. Farrer presents a simple and compelling case that nearly explains everything without resorting to hypotheticals.

So what am I missing? It's got so many proponents that there must be something I am not seeing. Can someone give me a good rundown of the pro Q side, or a recommendation for a better book on Q, or just point out what I am getting wrong about Farrer.

What does the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews mean when it describes Jesus as the απαυγασμα της of God's δοξα, as the χαρακτηρ της υποστασεως of God, and as the Κυριος who created the heavens and laid the foundation of the earth?

When it comes to the healing of the man with the withered hand Jesus when entering the synagogue says to the Pharisees "Is it lawful to do good or to do harm in the Sabbath, to save life or to kill?".

Whilst we see this Sabbath exception similar to the rabbinic tradition "Any danger to life overrides the prohibitions of the Sabbath" (m. Yoma 8.6), the rabbis did not allow a Sabbath exception for conditions that were not life threatening (m. Shab. 14.3-4).

The question is that even though Jesus characterises the healing in terms of good or harm/ save life or kill, the man's condition is not life threatening so why dods Jesus use this logic seen in rabbinic texts of Sabbath exception?

Last month, Paula Fredriksen gave the 2026 Gifford Lectures at the University of Edinburgh. The Gifford Lectures are a prestigious international series of lectures given at top universities in Scotland on religion and theology. Somehow, I just became aware that Fredriksen gave these recently. Her lecture series is titled "The Conversions of Christianity." Just making the sub aware, if you are interested in Christian origins. I am attaching them here:

Lecture One: A World Full of Gods

Lecture Two: Jews among the Gods

Lecture Three: From Jesus to Christ

Lecture Four: The End, and New Beginnings

Lecture Five: When does Christianity become Christianity?

Lecture Six: The Conversions of Christianity

I know the print edition isn’t scheduled for release until November 11, but it looks like the digital edition is already available.

Has anyone here had a chance to examine it, particularly in comparison with the fifth edition?
I’m curious about how extensively the annotations, introductions, and commentary have been revised.

Have any outdated interpretations, factual errors, or claims that have since been challenged in biblical scholarship been corrected or reconsidered? Does the new edition engage with more recent research and developments in areas where scholarly views have shifted?

I’m also interested in whether there have been significant changes in the treatment of disputed issues such as authorship, dating, and historicity.
I’m considering purchasing it and would appreciate any impressions of whether this is a substantial academic update or a relatively modest revision of the fifth edition.

Been reading a bit about Egypt and thought: is there any possibility that the narrations of Manetho and Chaeremon may be refering to some historical episode, pointing out to the plausibility of a "Historical Moses" and a "Historical Joshua"?

I mean: the Bible says that a certain pharaoh, "that didn't know Joseph", put the Israelis under slavery to build "the city if Ramses and Python"(which fit with Ramses II building Pi-Ramses over Avaris and Per-Atun). Also, Manetho says that, during the reign of a certain "Amenophis", there rose Osarseph, the "historical Moses". I read that Manetho called the pharaoh Merneptah as "Amenepthes" (or something similar), which sounds close to Amenophis. This same Merneptah is the one responsible for the Merneptah's Stele that says "Israel was wiped out, IT'S SEED IS NO MORE", which sounds like a reference to the death of the israeli children described in Exodus.

Besides that, there are the figures of Chancellor Bay and Irsu which, in a certain way, sound like good candidates to "Historical Moses/Joseph" and "Historical Joshua", at least if we consider them as the same leaders refered to by Chaeremon (Peteseph and Tisathen). Maybe part of Bay's life may have inspired the story of Joseph and another part inspired the court life of Moses, while the Irsu story and it's dinamics may have been the inspiration behind the "Midianite Moses"(that is, Moses after gleeijg from Egypt).

That's a lot of things and i didn't expand on my hypothesis, but is there any possibility of cohesion in this?

I'm looking at https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209&version=NIV#:~:text=16%C2%A0It,wants%20to%20harden, which combined with the previous two verses, suggests that God shows both mercy and compassion to those whom he chooses, and that it doesn't depend on human desire or effort as to whether we receive mercy or compassion.

What does this say about the extent of our agency or free will? Is the idea that, if we look at the next verses in this chapter, 19 - 21, we may exercise our free will or agency, but ultimately we have a particular purpose? In Pharaoh's case, this was to be raised up so that God could show that even a human being as seemingly powerful as him was not as powerful as his Creator?

I’ve noticed that some positions I understood to be minority views seem to come up pretty frequently in academic discussions, and I’m curious whether they’re actually gaining acceptance or just getting more attention.

Two examples that come to mind are Hugo Méndez’s arguments for a relatively late date for the Gospel of John and the Beloved Disciple being a fictional figure rather than a historical eyewitness (The Gospel of John: A New History, 2025). Another is the argument for dating Acts to the second century, particularly Richard Pervo’s Dating Acts (2006).

I realize these aren’t all equally controversial. A date around 100 CE for John, for example, isn’t particularly unusual, whereas the argument for a fictional Beloved Disciple seems more disputed.

From what I understand, some of these positions remain minority views, but they seem to receive a fair amount of attention in academic discussions.

Is there evidence that scholarly opinion is actually shifting on these questions? Or are these simply minority positions that are being taken seriously without necessarily gaining widespread acceptance?

I’m particularly interested in how we can distinguish between a position becoming more widely accepted and one simply being discussed more frequently. I’d appreciate any recent scholarly surveys or literature reviews that might help clarify where the field currently stands.

Sources:
Méndez, Hugo. The Gospel of John: A New History. Oxford University Press, 2025.
Pervo, Richard I. Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists. Polebridge Press, 2006.

Reish Lakish (a 3rd century CE Jewish scholar) is quoted in the Jerusalem Talmud as saying that:

Israel took the names of the angels from the Babylonians during the period of the Exile, because Isaiah [vi. 6] speaks only of 'one of the seraphim,' without calling him by name; whereas Daniel names the angels Michael and Gabriel

Is there any evidence of these specific names (or other early names) being used by the Babylonians (or Zoroastrians, since the timing would still work). My intuition is that this is unlikely. The name Michael is used in Numbers 13:13 for a person ("From the tribe of Asher, Sethur son of Michael."), which pretty strongly suggests this was an established Israelite name before the Babylonian Exile. Also the -el names pretty clearly predate the exile (Israel, Samuel, Ezekiel, Mehujael, etc.) Furthermore, the root of Gabriel, gbr, isn't attested in East Semitic languages, and my intuition is that Aramaic was likely too new at the time for the establish Babylonian mythological / religious figures to have Aramaic names, but I could be wrong on that, or it could even be a case of coming up with a Hebrew meaning later based on how it sounds or a literal translation of the names.

I would love to hear if there is any actual evidence that these angelic names actually originated from Babylonia.

The Masada Scroll (oldest scroll of Sirach we have, as far as I know) is translated as:

"May she not make (her) beauty discernible to any male"

This seems to point out that it's referring to the daughter (her).

The English translations that agree with this are:

GNT

Don't let her show off her beauty in front of men, or spend her time talking with the women.

NSRA:

Do not let her parade her beauty before any man, or spend her time among married women;

The other translations however say:

CEBA/RHE/KJV/LXX/TMBA

Don't consider the beauty of any person, and don't spend time among women

This seems to instead pick out the father himself, that he shouldn't consider the beauty of any person and not spend time with women (or is it talking about the daughter too)?

How do we read Sirach 42:12?

It has occasionally been said by scholars such as Elaine Pagels that the author of Revelation is at the very least hostile to the message of Paul, particularly on the question of meat sacrificed to idols. Are there any well respected contemporary scholars of Paul and the Book of Revelation who cogently argue the opposite, namely that Paul and Revelation largely agree? Any illumination would be immensely welcome.

Assuming Paul was the author, how strong is the case that Colossians was written while Paul was imprisoned in Ephesus? I just came across this in NT Wright's commentary for the first time. He claims that he's in the majority of modern scholars in going against the traditional Roman imprisonment writing, although I've read other places that this view is still a minority.