“[D]emographics can be deceptive; they tend to sacrifice gritty human realities in favor of assembled portraits, and when studying past peoples whose lives and habits are dramatically different from our own, minutiae matter.”
– Joanne B. Freeman, The Field of Blood: Violence in Congress and the Road to Civil War (Picador, 2018), 48.
- I was perusing Novum Testamentum 67 no. 3 and saw a couple of interesting articles that are open access: “Matthean Posteriority” by Christopher Tuckett is about some of the problems with the idea that Matthew used Luke rather than vice versa; “An Archimedean Point for Dating the Gospels” by George van Kooten argues that the Gospel of John was written sometime in the 60s CE while Luke’s Gospel belongs to the 90s and, consequently, Luke was dependent on John rather than the other way around.
- And if you need any more reading material, Christoph Heilig’s new book Empire Criticism of the New Testament is open access at the moment! Heilig is the book’s editor and includes contributions from a number of scholars, including Laura Robinson on so-called “hidden transcripts.”
- John Nelson talks Markan sandwiches. Yum!
- Why should we study the historical Jesus?
- Dan McClellan discusses the irrefutable fact that the New Testament has been altered.
- Abraham Tal queries what the language of the Bible was called by ancient Jews and Samaritans.
- Need more books to read? Here are some open access volumes you can download!
- Oh, and Yonatan Adler’s newest contribution to the Cambridge Elements series, Between Yahwism and Judaism, is available for download for a short while.
- The Gospel of Mark at Qumran? Well, no, despite the claims of certain scholars. Brent Nongbri discusses.
The Amateur Exegete 
Hi Ben, I’d like to know if you are opposed to or discourage any theological reading or interpretation of the Bible by Christians. Even when a Christian is aware of the Bible’s critical and academic issues — such as the diversity of themes and theologies, ethical concerns, and historical problems — can it still be legitimate to look for some harmony, coherence, or something inspiring in the texts?
LikeLike
I definitely think that a theological reading makes sense for some people. Personally, I don’t find those readings compelling, at least as I try to understand what the texts are saying. And while I may express my disagreement with them, unless they are just egregious in their hermeneutic, I’m a live and let live reader.
LikeLike
Yonatan Adler recently discussed his research and latest book during a fantastic interview on the Kedem channel (definitely a quality over quantity operation): https://youtu.be/rMgU-fOk0gM?si=Lj3fmu2R4lpUgsWk
–Lex Lata
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Ben,
I read your article on the criterion of embarrassment, in which you argue that the women in Mark 16:1–8 were added for literary purposes. Your argument is very well-structured and coherent from a narrative perspective. However, a few weaknesses deserve consideration:
Exclusivity of explanation: By treating the literary function as sufficient reason to dismiss historicity, one risks oversimplification. It is possible that the narrative combines both historical elements and literary devices, without one excluding the other.
Risk of circular reasoning: Identifying literary motives in the text to explain the presence of women, while simultaneously using that presence to confirm the author’s literary intention, risks circular inference.
Difficulty of falsification: The hypothesis of literary invention is hard to test empirically, as it lacks independent criteria to distinguish invention from preserved memory.
Considering these points could strengthen your argument, making it more robust in response to critiques that defend a historical core in the female tradition.
LikeLike
(Continuation) But I personally think these are quite serious limitations of your argument that should be acknowledged, as I find it difficult to deny these points.
LikeLike
I appreciate the feedback!
LikeLike
Thank you for your reply, Ben!
I’m curious to know if you have any thoughts on the points I mentioned
LikeLike
I don’t at the moment other than to say that these are posts I definitely need to revisit and revise.
LikeLike
Hello Ben, have you ever written anything about the three main passages that seem to indicate that Jesus thought the End of the World would occur in the first century?
LikeLike
I’m not sure that I have, at least not directly.
LikeLike
Ben, which books do you have on New Testament Christology or early Christianity?
LikeLike
I have a number of volumes, including a number by Larry Hurtado (e.g., “One God, One Lord,” “Lord Jesus Christ”), J.R. Daniel Kirk (“A Man Attested by God”), Paula Fredriksen’s “Ancient Christianities”), and a lot more. Looking at my Zotero app, I probably have a few dozen books covering ancient Christianity and Christology.
LikeLike
Probably, if you mention the books one by one, it will take a while — could you mention them by author instead?
LikeLike
On Christology, I have works by Michael Kok, J.R. Daniel Kirk, Richard Bauckman, Mark Strauss, James Dunn, Larry Hurtado, Eugene Boring, Thomas Rausch, Elizabeth Struthers Malbon, Martin Hengel, Simon Gathercole, Suzanne Henderson, and many more.
LikeLike
Have you ever read any books by David B. Capes and Crispin Fletcher-Louis?
LikeLike
I don’t think so, though Fletcher-Louis sounds familiar to me.
LikeLike