Jacob A. Lollar, “The Meaning of Ephesians: Competing Christianities in Second-Century Ephesus,” NovT 67 (2025), 342.
A well-known textual variant exists in the opening line of Ephesians: several early mss lack the inscription ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in the original scribal hand. This variant is particularly noteworthy because, without the address, there is nothing to link this letter specifically to Ephesus. [Edgar] Goodspeed recognized this in the 1930s, saying that the letter “reflects no definite, localized, historical situation which it is intended to meet,” but is rather an amassing of Pauline thought and theology: “it is altogether built up of Pauline materials […] it reads like a commentary on the Pauline epistles.” The missing title is key to the letter and its function: first, it shows there is nothing to explicitly link the letter to Ephesus; second, it reveals important information regarding the date and reception of the letter as “to the Ephesians.”
The Amateur Exegete 
Ben, I’m trying to understand how you think James relates to the theology of Job. If James denies that God tempts anyone (James 1:13), and if the prologue of Job seems to present God as initiating the testing of Job through the satan, how do you think James would interpret the book of Job? Do you think James is intentionally correcting the theological implication of Job, or would he be rereading Job in a way that separates God from the temptation (for example by emphasizing secondary agents like Satan)?
LikeLike
I think James reads Job in light of his own cultural context in which the Satan had become Satan, a more malevolent figure that functions as God’s adversary rather than his servant. So, when James reads Job he doesn’t see God testing Job but Satan doing so, particularly as a foe to Job and the god he worships.
LikeLike
Hi Ben! I have a question about a Bible passage. Do you think Deuteronomy 22:28 is referring to rape, or do you interpret it differently? I’d be interested in hearing your perspective.
LikeLike
I would like to know if there is a well-established consensus regarding this passage.
LikeLike
Not sure on the consensus since I don’t spend a lot of time doing Torah studies.
LikeLike
I think it is likely referring to rape, especially given the verb that is used there (typically rendered “seized”) is coupled with the sex act, suggesting forcible coercion, i.e., rape.
LikeLike
Ben, what do you disagree with in Larry Hurtado’s work, specifically in his book Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity?
LikeLike
I don’t think I could enumerate everything (since it’s been a while since I’ve engaged with the work), but just as an example, his discussion of Mark’s Gospel runs contrary to some of my own views about how the Evangelist viewed Jesus. For example, his reading of Mark 1:2-3, in light of his general thoughts on Mark’s Gospel, pushes the needle toward Jesus’s divinity in a way that I don’t find plausible. But he does make some great observations about Mark’s Gospel that I think make that section (and, indeed, the whole book) worthwhile.
LikeLike
Most of your disagreements are limited to the interpretation of Mark?
LikeLike
No, but that’s just an example that comes to mind. Again, I haven’t read Hurtado in some time.
LikeLike