I've been a convinced athiest since I was in 5th grade, 17 now, my grandmother and I are very close but she has been going on about how she's worried about me because the Bibles predictions are apparently coming true and that from a young age I just decided I was an atheist and have not been thinking clearly. She believes that I'm just refuting evidence but I just think that there are first hand accounts of many religion somewhere and I don't think people understood that magic isn't real and that what they we're seeing wasn't actually what it was, he had many followers who believed he was the son of god so I believe they just were blinded by there faith as well. I know that fossils, evolution and science prove that the Bible is fundamentally not true, I believe Jesus was real but not that he's the son of God you know. She thinks evolution is ridiculous and that dinosaur fossils were put on earth by god to pull people away from faith. I'm just looking for some help rebuttaling the argument or opinions? I'm not an expert, I could be wrong. I didn't know where else to ask so.

The Gospels employ the Greek word proskyneo in reference to Jesus’ being worshiped on multiple occasions and for various purposes, here are some examples:
“Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, Wise-men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we saw his star in the east, and are come to worship him… And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search out exactly concerning the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word, that I also may come and worship him… And they came into the house and saw the young child with Mary his mother; and they fell down and worshipped him; and opening their treasures they offered unto him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.” Matthew 2:1-2, 8, 11 American Standard Version (ASV)
“While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.” Matthew 9:18 ASV
“And in the fourth watch of the night he came unto them, walking upon the sea. And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a ghost; and they cried out for fear. But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid. And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto the upon the waters. And he said, Come. And Peter went down from the boat, and walked upon the waters to come to Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried out, saying, Lord, save me. And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and took hold of him, and saith unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt? And when they were gone up into the boat, the wind ceased. And they that were in the boat worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.” Matthew 14:25-33 ASV
“But she came and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.” Matthew 15:25
“Then came to him the mother of the sons of Zebedee with her sons, worshipping him, and asking a certain thing of him.” Matthew 20:20 ASV
“And behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and took hold of his feet, and worshipped him… But the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted. And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the NAME (singular) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” Matthew 28:9, 16-20 ASV
“And when he was come out of the boat, straightway there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit, who had his dwelling in the tombs: and no man could any more bind him, no, not with a chain; because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been rent asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: and no man had strength to tame him. And always, night and day, in the tombs and in the mountains, he was crying out, and cutting himself with stones. And when he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and worshipped him; and crying out with a loud voice, he saith, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the Most High God? I adjure thee by God, torment me not.” Mark 5:2-7 ASV
“And he led them out until they were over against Bethany: and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them. And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven. And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy: and were continually in the temple, blessing God.” Luke 24:50-52 ASV
“Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and finding him, he said, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, And who is he, Lord, that I may believe on him? Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and he it is that speaketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.” John 9:35-38 ASV
In explaining away the fact that proskyneo is offered to Jesus according to the Greek Christian Scriptures, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Watchtower Bible and Tract Society writes:
Be it noted, however, that there are other Greek words that the King James Version renders “worship,” but not a single one of these Greek verbs is directed to Jesus to show that such action was commanded to be performed or was performed toward him. Surely when Luke 14:10 (KJ) says, “Then shalt thou have worship [doʹxa] in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee,” Jesus did not mean that a human guest who was given a higher place at a Jewish meal would be worshiped, but it meant he would merely “have honor,” as the New World Translation renders the word (doʹxa). Thus we see that the Christian Greek Scriptures make a distinction between Jehovah God and his Son Jesus Christ, by reserving some words rendered “worship” for God, to the exclusion of Jesus.
When Satan the Devil tempted Jesus to try to have him worship the adversary, Jesus did not say to the Tempter, ‘Worship me,’ but said, “It is Jehovah your God you must worship [proskyneʹō], and it is to him alone you must render sacred service [latreuʹō].” (Matt. 4:10, NW; Luke 4:8) Jesus, speaking and including himself, said to the Samaritan woman: “You worship [proskyneʹō] what you do not know; we worship [proskyneʹō] what we know, because salvation originates with the Jews. . . . the genuine worshipers will worship the Father with spirit and truth. . . . God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth.” (John 4:22-24, NW) Jesus, even after his glorification in heaven, did not change from directing worship to God his Father rather than to himself. In the Revelation, which God gave Jesus, the pure worship is shown as due to be given to the Most High God, Jehovah. (See Revelation 4:10; 5:14; 7:11; 11:16; 14:7; 15:4; 19:4, 10.) And when John fell down at the feet of the angel whom Jesus sent to deliver the revelation, the angel said to John: “Worship God.” (Rev. 19:10; 22:9) Thus the worship was to be rendered to Jehovah God, although blessing, glory and praise were to be ascribed to the glorified Jesus, the Lamb, as well as to God his Father.
At Hebrews 1:6 we read: “But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: ‘And let all God’s angels worship him.’” (NW) As the Greek verb here is proskyneʹō, it could also have been rendered “do obeisance to,” as in all the preceding cases having to do with Jesus when on earth as a man. This same word in Greek is used in addressing those who will become members of Christ’s glorified congregation or “bride,” in these words at Revelation 3:9 (NW): “Look! I will give those from the synagogue of Satan who say they are Jews, and yet they are not but are lying—look! I will make them come and do obeisance [proskyneʹō] before your feet and make them know I have loved you.” They will not be worshiped.
Worship is not asked to be given to the anointed King whom Jehovah God sets upon his holy hill of Zion, namely, his Son Jesus Christ, but due submission and respect are asked of the kings and judges of the earth, in these words: “Serve Jehovah with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the son, lest he be angry, and ye perish in the way, for his wrath will soon be kindled.” (Ps. 2:11, 12, AS) This agrees with the recognition that the apostle Paul says must yet be given to the glorified Jesus BY ALL LIVING CREATION, at Philippians 2:9-11 (NW): “God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue should openly confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.” The knee is bent in the name of Jesus as Lord and in worship to the Father as God, and the tongue confesses openly that Jesus Christ is Lord, but this is done to the glory of God the Father, all this showing the superiority of the Father. Thus, “all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father.”—John 5:22, 23, NW. (Questions From Readers: The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah’s Kingdom—1954; capital emphasis mine)
It is ironic that the Society would admit that Paul in Philippians affirmed that Jesus shall be glorified by all living creation, since this affirms that Christ cannot be a mere creature. I will have more to say about this point later.
In this post I will show that Jesus receives the exact same worship which is given to Jehovah, and more specifically to God the Father.
CALLING ON HIS NAME
The Hebrew Bible portrays true believers as calling on the name of Jehovah in worship and for salvation from their sins, as well for the express purpose of entrusting their spirits to him. Jehovah is further shown to have priests that serve him:
“After that he planted a tamarisk tree at Beʹer-sheʹba, and there he called on the name of Jehovah, the everlasting God.” Genesis 21:33
“Moses and Aaron were among his priests, And Samuel was among those calling on his name. They would call to Jehovah, And he would answer them. He would speak to them from the pillar of cloud. They kept his reminders and the decree that he gave to them. O Jehovah our God, you answered them. You were a God who pardoned them, But you punished them for their sinful deeds.” Psalm 99:6-8
“I love Jehovah Because he hears my voice, my pleas for help. For he inclines his ear to me, And I will call on him as long as I live. The ropes of death encircled me; The Grave had me in its grip. I was overcome by distress and grief. But I called on the name of Jehovah: ‘O Jehovah, rescue me!’… I will take up the cup of salvation, And I will call on the name of Jehovah… I will offer to you the sacrifice of thanksgiving; I will call on the name of Jehovah.” Psalm 116:1-4, 13, 17
“Into your hand I entrust my spirit. You have redeemed me, O Jehovah, the God of truth.” Psalm 31:5
“As for you, you will be called the priests of Jehovah; They will call you the ministers of our God. You will eat the resources of the nations, And about their glory you will boast.” Isaiah 61:6
And yet astonishingly, in the New Testament Jesus is seen as having priests and followers that call upon his name and who entrust their spirits to him!
“As they were stoning Stephen, he made this appeal: ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.’” Acts 7:59
“However, I have written to you more outspokenly on some points, so as to give you another reminder, because of the undeserved kindness given to me from God for me to be a public servant of Christ Jesus to the nations. I am engaging in the holy work of the good news of God, so that these nations might be an acceptable offering, sanctified with holy spirit. So I have reason to exult in Christ Jesus over the things pertaining to God. For I will not presume to speak about anything except what Christ has done through me in order for the nations to be obedient, by my word and deed, with the power of signs and wonders, with the power of God’s spirit, so that from Jerusalem and in a circuit as far as Il·lyrʹi·cum I have thoroughly preached the good news about the Christ.” Romans 15:15-19
“Also greet the congregation that is in their house. Greet my beloved E·paeʹne·tus, who is a firstfruits of Asia for Christ.” Romans 16:5
“to the congregation of God that is in Corinth, to you who have been sanctified in union with Christ Jesus, called to be holy ones, together with all those everywhere who are calling on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours: May you have undeserved kindness and peace from God our Father AND the Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Corinthians 1:2-3
“Happy and holy is anyone having part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no authority, but they will be priests of God and of the Christ, and they will rule as kings with him for the 1,000 years.” Revelation 20:6
Christ also shown to be the One who forgives the sins of those who look to him for their salvation:
“On one of those days while he was teaching, Pharisees and teachers of the Law who had come out of every village of Galʹi·lee and Ju·deʹa and from Jerusalem were sitting there; and Jehovah’s power was with him to do healing. And look! men were carrying a paralyzed man on a stretcher, and they were trying to bring him in and place him before Jesus. So not finding a way to bring him in because of the crowd, they climbed up to the roof, and they lowered him on the stretcher through the tiling, right among those in front of Jesus. When he saw their faith, he said: ‘Man, your sins are forgiven.’ Then the scribes and the Pharisees started to reason, saying: “Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins except God alone?’ But Jesus, discerning their reasoning, said in answer to them: ‘What are you reasoning in your hearts? Which is easier, to say, “Your sins are forgiven,” or to say, “Get up and walk”? But in order for you to know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins—’ he said to the paralyzed man: ‘I say to you, Get up, pick up your stretcher, and go to your home.’ At that he stood up before them, picked up what he had been lying on, and went to his home, glorifying God. Then one and all were seized with amazement, and they began to glorify God, and they became filled with awe, saying: ‘We have seen wonderful things today!’” Luke 5:17-26
“Then he said to her: ‘Your sins are forgiven.’ Those reclining at the table with him started to say among themselves: ‘Who is this man who even forgives sins?’ But he said to the woman: ‘Your faith has saved you; go in peace.’” Luke 7:48-50
DOXA GIVEN TO THE SON
Contrary to the Society’s express denial, Jesus does in fact receive doxa since doxologies are offered to him:
“I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his manifestation and his Kingdom… From this time on, there is reserved for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will give me as a reward in that day, yet not to me only, but also to all those who have loved his manifestation… In my first defense no one came to my side, but they all forsook me—may they not be held accountable. But the Lord stood near me and infused power into me, so that through me the preaching might be fully accomplished and all the nations might hear it; and I was rescued from the lion’s mouth. The Lord will rescue me from every wicked work and will save me for his heavenly Kingdom. To him be the glory (doxa) forever and ever. Amen.” 2 Timothy 4:1, 8, 16-18
“No, but go on growing in the undeserved kindness and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory (doxa) both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.” 2 Peter 3:18
“and from Jesus Christ, ‘the Faithful Witness,’ ‘the firstborn from the dead,’ and ‘the Ruler of the kings of the earth.’ To him who loves us and who set us free from our sins by means of his own blood—and he made us to be a kingdom, priests to his God and Father—yes, to him be the glory (doxa) and the might forever. Amen.” Revelation 1:5-6
ALL THE ANGELS WORSHIP THE SON AS JEHOVAH
What’s more, the angelic host give Jesus the exact same way worship that they give to Jehovah:
“And when he again bringeth in the firstborn into the world he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.” Hebrews 1:6 ASV
Astonishingly, the Hebrews has taken an OT text wherein Jehovah is worshiped by all of his angels and ascribed it to the risen Christ!
The inspired author has quoted the Greek version of either Deuteronomy 32:43,
Deuteronomy 32:43 is an unusual verse in view of its contents. As the list of variant readings shows, 4QDeut-supported by the Septuagint-differs markedly from the Masoretic Text and the Samaritan Pentateuch. For example, in the Qumran scroll it is “the heavens” which rejoice, not the nations; and God will avenge the blood of “his sons,” not “his servants.” Moreover, the mention of gods “bowing down to God” and “recompensing those who hate him” is absent from the Masoretic Text and the Samaritan Pentateuch. This very provides a striking example of the very different readings that sometimes appear in the Dead Sea Scrolls…
Rejoice, O heavens, together with him, and bow down to him all you gods, for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and will render vengeance to his enemies, and will recompense those who hate him and will atone for the land of his people. (The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible – The Oldest Known Bible Translated For The First Time Into English, translated and with commentary by Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint & Eugene Ulrich [HarperOne; 1 edition, November 17, 1999], pp. 192, 193; bold emphasis mine)
“Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance, and recompense justice to his enemies, and will reward them that hate him; and the Lord shall purge the land of his people.” LXX
Or of the following Psalm:
“Let all those serving any carved image be put to shame, Those who boast about their worthless gods. Bow down to him, all you gods.” Psalm 97:7
“Let all that worship graven images be ashamed, who boast of their idols; worship him, all ye his angels.” Psalm 96:7 LXX
In either case, Hebrews has taken the worship that the angels render to Jehovah and attributed to the Son, a fact that the Society itself admits even though it tries to explain it away (quite unsuccessfully I might way):
“… Here the apostle Paul quotes from Psalm 97:7, which, in the words of An American Translation, reads: ‘All who serve wrought images are put to shame, they who prided themselves on their nonentities. Worship him, all you gods!’ In the Greek Septuagint Version (LXX) these italicized words read: ‘Worship [pros·ky·neʹo] him, all ye his angels.’ (Bagster’s edition; also Thomson) The apostle may also have been quoting from the Septuagint Version of Deuteronomy 32:43, the opening part of which reads: “Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; . . .” (Bagster; similarly Thomson) By examining the context of both Psalm 97:7 and Deuteronomy 32:43 we note that the reference IS TO JEHOVAH GOD AS THE ONE TO BE WORSHIPED. Does this mean that Jesus is the same as Jehovah because of how the writer of Hebrews 1:6 applies the quotation?” (Questions From Readers The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah’s Kingdom—1954 https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1954369; bold and capital emphasis mine)
ALL LIVING CREATION WORSHIPS THE LAMB
Earlier I noted that the Society acknowledges that the following citation,
“For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground—and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.” Philippians 2:9-11
Depicts all living creation glorifying Jesus. What the Society failed to mention is that Paul has attributed to the risen Christ the very worship which the prophet Isaiah proclaimed Jehovah would receive from all the ends of earth:
“Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth, For I am God, and there is no one else. By myself I have sworn; The word has gone out of my mouth in righteousness, And it will not return: To me every knee will bend, Every tongue will swear loyalty.” Isaiah 45:22-23
Paul wasn’t the only inspired writer to claim that all of creation shall glorify Christ:
“When he took the scroll, the four living creatures and the 24 elders fell down before the Lamb, and each one had a harp and golden bowls that were full of incense. (The incense means the prayers of the holy ones.) And they sing a new song, saying: ‘You are worthy to take the scroll and open its seals, for you were slaughtered and with your blood you bought people for God out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and you made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they are to rule as kings over the earth.’ And I saw, and I heard a voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders, and the number of them was myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, and they were saying with a loud voice: ‘The Lamb who was slaughtered is worthy to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.’ And I heard EVERY CREATURE in heaven and on earth and underneath the earth and on the sea, and ALL THINGS IN THEM, saying: ‘To the One sitting on the throne AND TO THE LAMB be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever.’ The four living creatures were saying: “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshipped.” Revelation 5:8-14
The Apostle John literally exhausts the language to show that every created thing in all of creation worships Christ in the exact same way and for the exact same duration that God is worshiped!
This affirms that Jesus is separate and distinct from the entire creation, and must therefore be uncreated by nature. It further shows that Jesus is essentially equal with God the Father, which is why he is worthy to receive the exact same honor that the Father receives:
“For the Father judges no one at all, but he has entrusted all the judging to the Son, so that all may honor the Son JUST AS they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.” John 5:22-23
Otherwise, it would be blatant idolatry to glorify Christ in the exact same that God is glorified.
Therefore, contrary to the Society’s denial the New Testament does depict Christ as receiving the exact same worship that God Almighty receives, obviously because Jesus is not a mere creature. Rather, the risen Lord is God Almighty that became flesh, being one with the Father and the Holy Spirit in essence, glory, power, honor and majesty!
Unless noted otherwise, all scriptural citations taken from New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (Study Edition).

I’ve been trying to find some resources on Old Testament textual criticism, and this naturally led me to the Dead Sea Scrolls and to the Essenes. As far as I know, these guys had a much better grasp of the Old Testament than the Pharisees or Saducees. I have heard one theory that John the Baptist was connected to the Essenes. Is this possible? The Essenes are never mentioned in the Bible, while the other groups, “Scribes, pharisees, and Saducees” were marked out and criticized. Could silence on the Essenes mean that Jesus and the apostles approved of them? I also know these guys lived on the margins of societies, literally living under rocks. If anybody has more information on the Essenes, or on Old Testament textual criticism, I’d love to hear it.

O community of Muslims, how is it that you seek wisdom from the people of the book? Your book, brought down upon his prophet—blessings and peace of God upon him—is the latest report about God. You read a book that has not been distorted, but the people of the book, as God related to you, exchanged that which God wrote, changing the book with their hands

As many Muslims claim, and as the Hadith says, the Bible meant something else differently but Jews and Christians changed it over time. But archaeologists have found the earliest copy of the Bible in what is known as the Dead Sea scrolls. What did they find?

While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100

That
1) The original Hebrew Old Testament/Tanakh was virtually identical to the modern one 2) The Old Testament/Tanakh wasn’t even compiled before Jesus 3) Nothing in the Dead Sea scrolls directly supports Islam, as Muhammed claimed the original bible would
So... why is it, that Islam’s reason for why the Bible and Quran contradict, that the original bible was different, seemingly contradicts historical evidence? Am I missing something or do the Dead Sea scrolls prove Muhammed wrong?

Matthew Chapter Four - YayShOo`ah ["Savior", Jesus] stands in trial (compare with Mark 1:12-13; Luke 4:1-13)

“The temptation story is ‘double tradition’ (i.e. [in other words], it is found also in Luke, but not in Mark), and therefore it is usually supposed to be from Q [Quelle, a hypothesized proto-document of Jesus' sayings]. But its theology is not identical with that of other Q material, and some form of the incident is known to Mark… This highly stylized anecdote, in which each temptation is answered by a quotation from the LXX [The Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible], could easily be derived from Christian preaching. … Certainly the three temptations – to work miracles for the satisfaction of immediate need, to give a convincing sign, and to exercise political power – continually recurred in the course of his ministry.” (Johnson, 1951, p. VII 269)
“The temptation of Jesus (4:1-11). Mark relates this event in a mere two verses (1:12-13). He tells the fact of the temptation but not the details. This is important because it probably accurately reflects the situation of the disciples regarding this event: they knew that Jesus had been tempted (the historicity of the event need not be doubted), but since temptation is essentially a personal, inner experience they did not know exactly what had gone on in Jesus’ consciousness. The Q version in Matt [Matthew] and Luke thus represents a narrative midrash or interpretation of the event in such a way as to make it pastorally useful for believers. This is done by connecting the 40-day fast with Moses and Elijah in the desert and with the great temptation or trial of God’s patience by the people in the exodus who rebelled against the divine nourishment (the manna) and worshiped the golden calf; and by identifying Jesus as the Son of God (v [verse] 2), meaning Israel, the people of God… not the Messiah. All of Jesus’ answers to the tempter are quotations from Deut [Deuteronomy] 6-8.” (Viviano, 1990, p. 638)

-1. Then [אז, ’ahZ] led [הובילה, HOBeeYLaH], the spirit, [את, ’ehTh (indicator of direct object; no English equivalent)] YayShOo`ah unto the desert to be tried upon [the] hands of the adversary [השטן, HahSahTahN].

“Mark 1:12 gives a more lively picture of the Spirit’s activity: and the Gospel According to the Hebrews reads, ‘Just now my mother the Holy Spirit took me by one of my hairs and brought me up to the great mount Tabor’ (in Hebrew and Aramaic the word for ‘spirit’ is feminine) … The devil (ο διαβολος [o diabolos], the slanderer) is the term usually found in the later N.T. [New Testament] books. Paul and the earlier gospel pericopes call him ‘Satan’ (the ‘adversary’ or ‘accuser’; Zech. [Zechariah] 3:1-2; Job 1:6-9, etc.; Rev. [Revelation] 12:9-10.) The rabbis taught that Satan stirs up the yēçer hārā‘ or evil impulse in man, seduces him into sin, denounces him before God, and then punishes him with death.” (Johnson, 1951, pp. VII 269-270)

-2. And after he had fasted forty day[s] and forty night[s] he was hungry.

“He was hungry might be translated as an inceptive aorist: ‘he got hungry.’” (Johnson, 1951, p. VII 270)

-3. Approached [נגש, NeeGahSh] unto him, the tryer [המנסה, HahMeNahÇeH], and said,
“If son [of] the Gods you are,
command that these stones be to bread.”

“The name given to Satan… is very emphatic, ο πειραζων [o peirazon], the tempter, or trier, from πειρο [peiro], to pierce through. To this import of the name, there seems to be an allusion, Eph. [Ephesians] vi.16. The fiery DARTS of the wicked one. This is the precise idea of the word in Deut. viii. 2. To humble thee, and to prove thee, TO KNOW WHAT WAS IN THY HEART: לנסתך linesteca, πειρασε σε [peirase se], LXX. that he might bore thee through.” (Clarke, 1832, p. I 46)
“If thou be the son of God] Or, a son of God, υιος του Θεου [uios tou Theou], Υιος [Uios] is here, and in Luke iv. 3. written without the article; and therefore should not be translated THE Son, as if it were ο υιος [o uios] …” (Clarke, 1832, p. I 44)
“The O.T [Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible] and Jewish literature apply the term Son of God to angels or divine beings (Gen. [Genesis] 6:2; Job 38:7), t the Israelite nation (Hos. 11:1), and occasionally to an anointed king (Ps. [Psalm] 2:7). In Semitic idiom it should mean ‘godlike’ or ‘especially related to God.’ … In Judaism it never became a standard messianic title, and it is applied to the Messiah in only a few apocalyptic books (Enoch 105:2; II Esdras 7:28-29; 13:32, 37, 52) and occasionally in a late rabbinical source. Christians used it very early to refer to Jesus. The term is found frequently in the letters of Paul (e.g. [for example], Rom. [Romans] 1:3-4) and the Gospel of Mark; and in John 1:1-18 it denotes the metaphysical relationship between God and his incarnate Logos. When Gentile converts first heard it used, they would naturally think of Jesus as a savior and healer like Asclepius, who had both human and divine traits, though they would understand that there was and could be only one Son of God … In this passage ‘Son of God’ calls attention to Jesus’ unique relation to God and his superhuman powers, and Matthew connects this sonship with the Virgin Birth.” (Johnson, 1951, pp. VII 270-271)

-4. Responded, YayShOo`ah, and said,
“[It is] written,
‘Not upon the bread alone will live the ’ahDahM [“man”, Adam],
for upon all [that] goes out [from the] mouth of YHVH.’”

“by bread alone: Jesus’ reply comes from Deut 8:3. To grasp its full significance one must read the entire context in Deut 6-8. The word of God is made the chief nourishment.” (Viviano, 1990, p. 638)

-5. Took him, the adversary, unto City the Holy,
and stood him upon a corner of [the] roof [of] House the Holy.

“The holy city is Jerusalem. Maccabean coins bear the inscription ‘Jerusalem the Holy,’ and the Arabic name is El-Quds, ‘the holy.’” (Johnson, 1951, p. VII 271)

-6. [He] said to him,
“If son [of] the Gods you are,
send forth yourself to below, that behold, [it is] written,
‘For his angels he will command to you,
upon palms he will carry you,
lest strike in stone your legs.’”

“He shall give his angels charge, &c.] This is a mutilated quotation of Psal. [Psalm] xci. 11. The clause, to keep thee in all thy ways, Satan chose to leave out, as quite unsuitable to his design…
“In their hands they shall bear thee up] This quotation from Psal. xci. 11. is a metaphor taken from a nurse’s management of her child: in teaching it to walk, she guides it along plain ground; but when stones or other obstacles occur, she lifts up the child, and carries it over them, and then sets it down to walk again. Thus she keeps it in all its ways, watching over, and guarding every step it takes. To this St. Paul seems also to allude, I Thess. [Thessalonians] ii. 7. We were gentle among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children.” (Clarke, 1832, p. I 45)

-7. Said to him, YayShOo`ah,
“More is written,
‘Do not try [את, ’ehTh] YHVH your Gods.’” [Deuteronomy 6:16]

“A rabbinical tradition reads, ‘When the King Messiah reveals himself, then he comes and stands on the roof of the Holy Place.’ … Matthew’s third temptation (vss. [verses] 8-10 is a more obvious climax, but this second one might well be the most subtle and dangerous to one who was spiritually sensitive. It is interesting that in Luke 4:9-11 it stands in third place.” (Johnson, 1951, p. VII 271)

-8. Took him, the adversary, to a mountain high very,
and showed to him [את, ’ehTh] all [the] kingdoms [of the] world [תבל, ThayBayL] and their honor.

“If the words, all the kingdoms of the world, be taken in a literal sense, then this must have been a visionary representation, as the highest mountain on the face of the globe could not suffice to make evident even one hemisphere of the earth, and the other must of necessity be in darkness.” (Clarke, 1832, p. I 45)

-9. [He] said unto him,
“[את, ’ehTh] all these I will give to you if you fall upon your face and worship to me.”
-10. Responded to him, YayShOo’ah,
“Go away, The Adversary;
behold [it is] written,
‘To YHVH your Gods you will worship,
and him alone you will slave.’”

“Jesus’ reply comes from Deut 6:13, which summarizes the great OT [Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible] message of ethical monotheism.” (Viviano, 1990, p. 638)
“Matthew adds to the source Begone, Satan! In 16:23 (=Mark 8:33), Peter is addressed as Satan because he tempts Jesus.” (Johnson, 1951, p. VII 272)

-11. To after from this, left him, the adversary,
and angels approached to serve him.

“The angels serve him, in accordance with the promise of Ps. 91:11-14. Matthew now begins again to copy Mark (cf. [compare with] Mark 1:13).” (Johnson, 1951, p. VII 273)

YayShOo`ah begins [את, ’ehTh] his sendings forth in GahLeeYL [Galilee]
(Mark 1:14-15; Luke 4:14-15)

-12. As that heard, YayShOo`ah that [כי, KeeY] they had imprisoned [הסגירו, HeeÇGeeYROo] YO-HahNahN, he went out unto the GahLeeYL.

“The story is told in 14:3-12. Luke, for artistic reasons, mentions this before the baptism of Jesus (Luke 3:19-20). The Fourth Gospel assigns Jesus an extensive ministry before John’s arrest (see, e.g., John 3:22-30).” (Johnson, 1951, p. VII 273)

-13. He left [את, ’ehTh] NahTsRahTh ["Overlook", Nazareth] and came to reside [לגר, LahGOoR] in KhePhahR NahHOoM [“Village of Comfort”, Capernaum], beside the sea, in [the] region of ZeBOoLOoN [“Fertile”, Zebulon] and NahPHThahLeeY [“Torturous”, Naphtali].

“Galilee was bounded by mount Lebanon on the north, by the river Jordan, and the sea of Galilee on the east, by Chison on the south, and by the Mediterranean on the west.
“Nazareth, a little city in the tribe of Zabulon, in lower Galilee, with Tabor on the West and Ptolemais on the east. It is supposed that this city was the usual residence of our Lord for the first thirty years of his life. …
“Capernaum, a city famous in the New Testament, but never mentioned in the Old. Probably it was one of those cities which the Jews built after their return from Babylon. It stood on the sea coast of Galilee, on the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim, as mentioned in the text. This was called his own city, ch. [chapter] ix. 1. &c. and here, as a citizen, he paid the half shekel, chap. [chapter] xvii. 24. Among the Jews, if a man became a resident in any city for twelve months, he thereby became a citizen, and paid his proportion of dues and taxes. …
“Zabulon, the country of this tribe, in which Nazareth and Capernaum were situated, bordered on the lake of Gennesareth, stretching to the frontiers of Sidon, Gen. clix. 13. Nephtalim was contiguous to it, and both were on the east side of Jordan [sic; Nazareth and Capernaum are both on the west side of the Jordan], Josh. xix. 35.” (Clarke, 1832, p. I 46)

-14. In order to [למען, LeMah'ahN] realize the saying in [the] mouth of YeShah`-YahHOo ["Saved YHVH", Isaiah], the prophet:
-15. “Land of ZeBOoLOoN and land of NahPhThahLeeY, way [of] the sea, over [`ayBehR] the YahRDayN [“Descender”, the Jordan], GeLeeYL [of] the nations,

“The citation is based on the M.T. [Masoretic Text, the authorized version of the Hebrew Bible], but the first half is condensed so that only the geographic references are retained. These five references point to northern Galilee and Transjordan, which had fallen to the Assyrians in 734 BC … Isaiah’s promise of their liberation Matthew sees fulfilled by Jesus’ arrival. …
“Galilee was by Matthew’s day at least half Gentile in population, half pagan in cult (cf. the Venus of Dan), and bilingual (using Greek and Aramaic). These facts may have had some influence on Jesus and earliest Christianity, opening it to the Gentile mission often expressing itself in Greek, shaping its message, set in a Jewish matrix, in such a way as to be readily intelligible to Gentiles of good will. The atmosphere was different from Judean Judaism.” (Viviano, 1990, p. 638-639)
“Galilee of the Gentiles] Or of the nations. So called, because it was inhabited by Egyptians, Arabians, and Phœnicians, according to the testimony of Strabo and others. The Hebrew גוים goyim, and the Greek εθνων [ethnon], signify nations; and, in the Old and New Testaments, mean those people who were not descendants of any of the twelve tribes. The word Gentiles, from gens, a nation, signifies the same.” (Clarke, 1832, p. I 46)
“The quotation differs from the LXX, and it may come from an independent Greek version or an oral Targum [ancient Jewish commentary on the Hebrew Bible] … Galilee’ means ‘circle’ or ‘region’; and Galilee of the Gentiles originally meant ‘region of non-Jews.’ Many of its residents were forcibly converted to Judaism in the Maccabean period.” (Johnson, 1951, p. VII 274)
To my ear there is a play on words; GeeL meaning “joy”, so “Joy of the Nations”.

-16. "The people, the walkers in darkness, see a light great, settlers in a land [of] Shadow-of-death, light shines upon them.” [Isaiah 8:23-9:1]

“Originally this referred to the oppressed Israelites… Light-darkness symbolism is not so frequent in Matt as in John, IQM [Milḥāmâ (War Scroll) from Qumran Cave 1], or the gnostic writings, but it is present here: Jesus’ preaching the kingdom is the light of consolation to the suffering people (cf. Luke 1:79).” (Viviano, 1990, p. 639)
“Shadow of death] Σκια Θανατου [Skia Thanatou], used only here and in Luke i. 79. but often in the Old Covenant, where the Hebrew is צל מות tsal maveth. It is not easy to enter fully into the ideal meaning of this term. As in the former clause, Death is personified, so here. A shadow is that darkness cast upon a place by a body raised between it and the light or sun. Death is here represented as standing between the land abovementioned, and the light of life, or Sun of Righteousness…” (Clarke, 1832, p. I 47)

-17. From the time the that began, YayShOo`ah, to proclaim [להכריז, LeHahKhReeYZ] and to say:
“Return in thought

“The Greek word translated repent basically denotes ‘change of mind,’ but in the LXX it often stands for a Hebrew word meaning ‘to grieve for one’s sins.’ Repentance is one of the most important of all Jewish doctrines. It involves profound sorrow for sin, restitution so far as possible, and a steadfast resolution not to commit that particular sin again. Such repentance unfailingly brings divine forgiveness without the need of any mediation or ritual act. … There is a famous saying of R. [Rabbi] Aḥa (ca. [approximately] A.D. 320): ‘If the Israelites would repent for one day, the Messiah Son of David would come immediately.’ Jesus’ teaching on repentance builds on the foundation of the O.T. and Judaism.” (Johnson, 1951, p. VII 274)

“for near is [the] kingdom of skies.”

“The terms kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God are used interchangeably in the Synoptic Gospels. The former translates literally the rabbinical phrase malkûth shāmáyîm; ‘heaven’ is used partly to avoid mentioning the divine name… The O.T. thinks of this sovereignty as eternal because God created the world; his reign is present already in so far as he is king of Israel, and it will be manifested perfectly in the future age. Rabbinical thought develops this concept. Man rejected God’s kingship in the days of Noah, and thenceforth God was king only in heaven until Abraham, Moses, and the children of Israel accepted his sovereignty. … the reign of God is realized whenever a man consciously submits himself to God’s will, and an individual takes the ‘yoke of the kingdom’ upon himself by reciting the Shema (Deut. 6:4-9; 11:13-21; Num. [Numbers] 15:37-41). …
“The kingdom is central in Jesus’ teaching. He generally emphasizes its future and miraculous aspect; furthermore, it is at hand (literally ‘has drawn near’), and the faithful have not long to wait. … it is already beginning to manifest itself in the events connected with Jesus’ ministry (12:28=Luke 11:20; 11:12-13=Luke 16:16; 13:16-17=Luke 10:23-24), and it is in the disciples’ midst (Luke 17:20-21). In the Lord’s Prayer (6:9-13=Luke 11:2-4) the sanctification of God’s name is closely connected with the coming of the kingdom, and 6:10 equates the kingdom with the doing of God’s will on earth as it is in heaven. This sense of the dawning of the kingdom, the appearance of its first fruits, the combination of thanksgiving for present bliss with the most poignant expectation of glory in the near future – these features run through the whole N.T. and account for the special quality of it eschatology… Indeed, men can enter the kingdom now (5:20; 18:3; 20:1-16), and the Beatitudes (5:3-11) are intended to describe the character of its members. … There is a close relation between the kingdom and the group of disciples, and it is not surprising that Matthew tends to equate it with the church (13:47; 53; 16:18-19). … Jesus is the herald of the kingdom and he is intimately involved in its present manifestations. … There is no necessary logical connection between the kingdom of God and the Messiah or Son of man, but the two types of expectation are combined in the Gospels, as in some Jewish writings.” (Johnson, 1951, pp. VII 274-275)
“The proclamation of the near arrival of God’s kingdom is the central message of Jesus and, along with the resurrection, the basis and object of Christian hope. Derived from the night vision of Daniel (7:13-14), it represents the future final salvation of all humanity socially, politically, and spiritually through an exercise of the sovereignty of God, establishing justice and peace on earth as well as in heaven (6:33; Rom [Romans] 14:17). In Dan [Daniel] 7:14-14 it is given to ‘one like a son of man,’ and Q and Matt identify this mysterious figure with Jesus coming again in glory. Thus, for Christians the kingdom hope includes faith in Christ as end-time savior. Since Christ has already come (in humility and suffering) we have a foretaste of the kingdom (12:28), esp. [especially] in his ministry of healing and feeding the multitude… Matthew avoids the direct mention of God out of reverence… as do the other Synoptics. The circumlocution is unfortunate because it misleads people into thinking that the kingdom is only in heaven and not to be on earth (6:10). The kingdom was also to be the content of the disciples’ preaching. (10:7).” (Viviano, 1990, p. 639)

The call to four fishers
(Mark 1:16-20; Luke 5:1-11)

-18. As that he walked beside [the] sea [of] the GahLeeYL he saw two brothers, [את,* ’ehTh] *SheeM`ON** [Simon] (the called KaYPhah’ [Peter]) and [את, ’ehTh] ’ahNDRaY [Andrew] his brother, sending forth a net into the sea, because they were fishers.

“Matt anticipates Jesus’ later renaming of Simon …” (Viviano, 1990, p. 639)
“Simon is a Greek name used in place of the Hebrew ‘Simeon.’ Peter (Πετρος [Petros “Rock”; Hebrew: כיפא KaYPha']) is his nickname …” (Johnson, 1951, p. VII 275)
“Seminaries of learning, in the order of God’s providence and grace have great and important uses; and, in reference to such uses, they should be treated with great respect: but to make preachers of the Gospel, is a matter to which they are utterly inadequate; it is a prerogative that God never did, and never will, delegate to man.” (Clarke, 1832, p. I 47)

-19. [He] said to them,
“Come after me and I will make you fishers of ’ahDahM.”
-20. Immediately they left [את, ’ehTh] the nets and went after him.
-21. In his going thence [הלאה, HahL’aH] he saw two brothers other,
Yah-`ahQoB ["YHVH Followed", Jacob], son of ZahBDah-eeY [“Endowed”, Zebedee], and YO-HahNahN, his brother, in a boat with ZahBDah-eeY their father, and they were repairing their nets.

“James and Jacob are variant English forms of the same Hebrew name.” (Johnson, 1951, p. VII 276)

He called to them 22. and immediately they left [את, ’ehTh] the boat and [את, ’ehTh] their father and went after him.

YayShOo`ah serves [את, ’ehTh] the throngs
(Luke 6:17-19)

“Matthew omits Mark 1:21, 23-28, 35-38, and postpones 1:22, 29-34. He now constructs an editorial summary out of Mark 1:39; 3:7-8, 10.” (Johnson, 1951, p. VII 277)

-23. He circulated in all the GahLeeYL as that he taught in houses of the assembly and proclaimed [את, ’ehTh] tidings of the kingdom and cured all sickness and all affliction [מדוה, MahDVeH] in people.

“Teaching in their synagogues] Synagogue, συναγωγη, from συν, together, and αγω, I bring, a public assembly of persons, or the place where such persons publicly assembled. Synagogues, among the Jews, were not probably older than the return from the Babylonish captivity.
…
“Synagogue, among the Jews, had often the same meaning as congregation among us, or place of judicature, see Jam. [James] ii. 2.” (Clarke, 1832, p. I 48)
“gospel of the kingdom; This phrase is unique to Matt (three times: here, 9:35; 24:14). … healing every illness and every weakness: That Jesus was a healer was an embarrassment to later Christians; therefore, it is certainly historical. He was among other things an itinerant Galilean wonder-working prophet in the pattern of Elijah.” (Viviano, 1990, p. 639)

-24. Hearing of him went out in all Syria,
and were brought unto him [את, ’ehTh] all the sick,
the burdened from sicknesses and hurts to their varieties,
and also persons seized by demons [שדים, ShayDeeYM], struck by [the] moon, and paralytics [ומשתקים, OoMeShooThahQeeYM];
and he healed them.

“All Syria probably denotes the region north of Galilee. … In the first century ‘Syria’ is sometimes used to include Palestine. Those which were lunatic (i.e., moon-struck) is a literal rendering of the Greek. In 17:15, and according to RSV [Revised Standard Version] here, this rare word is applied to epileptics… these are the demoniacs of the Gospel.” (Johnson, 1951, pp. VII 277-278)
“Our common version, which renders the word, those possessed by devil, is not strictly correct; as the word devil, διαβολος [diabolos], is not found in the plural in any part of the Sacred Writings, when speaking of evil spirits: for though there are multitudes of demons, Mark v. 9. yet it appears there is but one DEVIL, who seems to be supreme, or head, over all the rest.” (Clarke, 1832, p. I 49)
“The Roman province of Syria included four parts (Strabo …): Commagene (Samosata), Seleucia (Antioch), Coele-Syria (Damascus), Phoenicia-Palestine. In Josephus Syria seems to include Galilee and the coast down to Gaza, but not Judea. It embraces Tyre, Sidon and Idumea (cf. Mar). the ‘all’ is plerophoric¹ .” (Viviano, 1990, p. 639)

-25. Throngs, throngs, walked after him from the GahLeeYL and from DayQahPOLeeYÇ [Decapolis],
From Jerusalem and Judea,
and from over the YahRDayN.

“The Decapolis (‘ten cities) was a league of Greek-speaking (and largely pagan) city-states. All the towns which Pliny mentions as forming the group were east of the Jordan except Scythopolis (Bethshan). Some of the best known were Damascus, Gadara, Pella, Gerasa, and Philadelphia (modern Amman). Here the term may include the territory surrounding them.” (Johnson, 1951, pp. VII 277-278)

FOOTNOTES
¹ plerophoric - I can’t find a definition for this word, apparently it means something like “generalization”. An Amateur's Journey Through the Bible

I have seen people make this claim on the basis of his baptismal practice, monasticism, etc. Is this a legitimate claim?

The first century Jews who accepted Jesus as God seemed to have became ditheists because they no longer worship only Yahweh but also the Messiah who was also viewed as God.
"Earliest Christian worship specifies two figures, God and Jesus, as recipients." (Hurtado, Larry (1998). The Binitarian Shape of Early Christian Worship. International Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus, 13–17 June 1998.)
• How could the first century Jew became a ditheist (worshiper of two Gods) given the fact that their scripture in Isaiah explicitly spoke of Yahweh as the only God and there was no other beside him?
New Testament Scholars say that Jesus was God but it was not the reason he was being worshiped (at least, not the primary one). The ultimate reason is that Jesus was made a recipient of worship by Yahweh himself when Yahweh "highly exalted" Jesus as the "Lord" (Greek: κυριος, equivalent to 'Adonai' in Hebrew) to whom "every knee will bow" and to whom "every tongue will confess" (the first century Jews, who became Christians , applied the monotheistic passage Isaiah 45:23 to Jesus Christ in Philippians 2:9-11). In this case, the Old Testament Yahweh somehow changed his mind on who's to be worshipped at the advent of Christianity. It seemed that in primitive Christian understanding Yahweh made his words in Isaiah no longer in effect and that a new theological understanding was introduced by , well, none other than Yahweh himself.
•Is this kind of evolution possible within Judaism at that time period (1 st century CE)?
Some of the explanations i heard of was that Qumran Jews believed in a Second Yahweh (variously known as Enoch, Melchisedeck, Michael the archangel, the one who is like the son of man in Daniel 7, and the Metatron) as evident in the dead sea scrolls and other ancient Jewish texts (circa 300 BCE - 1 CE) and that even in the first century we have Philo of Alexandria telling us that the Logos was "a second God". Some scholars said that these Pre Christian Jews and first century Jews believed in another God who was the visible Yahweh in the earth distinct from the Yahweh who is transcended in the heavens and that this view officially called Two Powers in heaven became heretical only within Judaism in the second century CE. So it turned out that this was the theological template upon which the later devotion to Jesus as God by the first Christians (the first century Jews) was set up.
• Is there a consensus among scholars that the Two Powers concept existed in pre-Christian Judaism and first century Judaism that only became heretical in the second century CE?

In the time between Jesus’s death and the formation of what came to be modern day Christianity, there were several competing sects of Judaism: some of which were beginning to reflect the profound and newly radical teachings of Jesus, while others were holding fast to the ancient traditions of the Torah and the Jewish people. While early Christianity was primarily focused on the one major difference between traditional Judaism — that Jesus Christ was the Messiah — Gnosticism even took their beliefs a step further.
The name “Gnostic” comes from the Greek word gnosis, meaning “knowledge”, although the translation is closer to an intuitive understanding than to knowledge of the intellect. While the sect that would become Christianity was focused on scripture and faith, the Gnostics were bent on revelatory experiences: experiencing an intimately personal connection with the divine. In some Gnostic sects, this world was considered illusory, and this personal connection was the answer for how to break through the veil between this world and heaven.
Like Christ, they were reforming the way that the Jewish people came to understand God. For example, Marcion was an early Gnostic leader and teacher who taught that the God of the Old Testament was so oppositional to the God that Jesus refers to in the Gospels, that they were actually separate entities entirely. The Heavenly Father referred to by Christ has love falling like rain on the just and the unjust, as opposed to the “jealous”, wrathful Old Testament God instructing the Israelites to dash the heads of their enemies’ innocent babies against the rock. The Marcionites referred to the OT God as a false creator god named “Yaldaboath” who had misled the Jewish people by standing between them and our true Creator, a Transcendent Loving God.
Alongside their theological divergences, the Gnostics had their own gospels about the life and teachings of Christ as well. Ultimately the Gnostics were considered heretics by orthodox bishops, Irenaeus being an exceptionally notorious persecutor. By the fourth century, Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria outlined today’s canon, specifying which books became a part of the Bible and which books did not (also referred to as the “apocrypha”, from the Greek “apokryphos” meaning “obscure”). When Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, many prominent Gnostic leaders and writers were executed as heretics.
Fortunately for our contemporary civilization, two of the most significant archaeological discoveries of the 20th century were rural shepherds stumbling across ancient leather-bound scrolls near the Dead Sea (in 1945 at Nag Hammadi and in 1946 at Qumran). Local shepherds stumbled upon these texts, many of which belonged to the Gnostics as they were mentioned by name in correspondence between early church fathers. Several of these Gospels we did not have surviving copies of before the 20th century, including the Gospel of Thomas, which some scholars date as early as the Gospel of Mark. Accordingly, they have come to greatly influence how we understand the formation of Christianity as well as these alternative spiritual systems by early followers of Jesus.

Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there. — Saying 77, Gospel of Thomas

from:
https://medium.com/@bewherehow/demystifying-mystic-philosophy-3939c804be00

I am aware that most scholars agree that second temple Jews, by in large, were expecting a king, a warrior or perhaps a rabbi as the messiah. How do we know that this is what second temple Jews were expecting? What sources do we have regarding the messianic interpretations of second temple Jews? How do we know that, for example, 2 Samual 7:11-16 was crossed with 1 Chronicles 17:10-14? Or that the Maccabean revolt and Hasmonean dynasty of kings helped reinforce and add to the belief in a political messiah, as E. P. Sanders suggests (Sanders, 1995)? Were these messianic interpretations fairly homogeneous across sects? (ie the Pharisees had a ‘Pharisee Interpretation’ and the Sadducees had a ‘Sadducee Interpretation’ and so on) Or is there not really any way to generalize regarding messianic interpretations? What evidence do we have that Isiah 53 was interpreted to mean Israel and not the messiah himself? And what evidence do we have that the melchizedek scroll doesn’t have Daniel 9:26 which says the Messiah will be Cut Off (ie Die)?
Moreover, what can we say about the Qumran community in particular? What were the interpretation(s) offered by the Essenes, and how did they differ from the ‘mainstream’ (if you can call it that) interpretation(s) offered by the Pharisees and Sadducees?
I am aware of the Dead Sea ‘scroll’ (really a stone tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew) discovered and studied by Israel Knohl who claims it depicts a suffering servant before Jesus. What is the evidence for the existence of a suffering and dying messiah apart from this single Dead Sea scroll, and would this interpretation have been known outside of the Qumran community, if indeed it was known within it?
Thanks!

I've been reflecting on the idea of the biblical canon for some time. I used to assume that after God inspires the authors of Scriptures, the Bible becomes 'fixed' and should not be changed. I am starting to change my mind recently...
During Jesus’ time, Jews were split between those who lived in Palestine and those who lived in the wider Roman empire. Palestinian Jews have what is known as the Masoretic Text (MT), which is more or less similar to the Protestant Old Testament. The Jews in the rest of the Roman empire however, have the Septuagint (LXX) as their Scriptures.
There are notable differences between these two versions of the Old Testament

The LXX included more writings than the Masoretic Text, including Tobit and Judith, Sirach and 1-2 Maccabees.
Even for books that are similar, there are variations. E.g. both the LXX and the MT have Daniel and Esther. However, the LXX has additions to the book of Daniel and Esther. In the LXX, there is also an additional Psalm called Psalms 151 not present in the MT.

In other words, even by the time of Jesus, the Old Testament canon is not ‘fixed’. Even for books that were written centuries ago, the boundaries for what constitutes the ‘Bible’ is fluid to a certain extent. The clearest evidence of this fluidity comes from Jesus himself:
Jesus in the Gospels quote from both the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint.
He does not merely favour one version of the Bible as the ‘correct’ version. Instead, Jesus simply quotes from both versions despite their significant differences.
On a side note: Many early Christians used the LXX, which means that for many 1st century Christians, so-called apocryphal texts are indeed Scriptures.
More evidence can be found from the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the latter half of the 20th-century. These scrolls are part of a Jewish sect called the Qumran sect. Again, for them, the Bible is not a fixed entity, but can be evolved to some extent. For example the Qumran Temple Scrolls contain legal material from Exodus to Deuteronomy. Likewise, there is a psalm scroll that contains seven non-canonical poems intersperse among the canonical Psalms.
In both the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls, we see texts that are considered Scriptures by those communities, but nonetheless, they can be modified and supplemented. These actions are not the dishonest acts of ‘heretics’ trying to ‘destroy the Bible’, rather they are simply the community of God treating the Bible as a living Word, as a text that can be updated to speak to their contemporary situation. The canon is fluid to some extent during those times.

Matthews, Shelly (2016) Elijah, Ezekiel, and Romulus: Luke’s Flesh and Bones (Luke 24:39) in Light of Ancient Narratives of Ascent, Resurrection, and Apotheosis
Proclamation of a future resurrection, as well as claims of resurrection accomplished, serve a multitude of purposes among Jews and Christians in the ancient Mediterranean world. Instances of resurrection proclamation sometimes answer to the problem of “unfinished lives,” in their insistence that untimely and violent deaths cannot be the last word on these persons’ fate. Such proclamations challenge the existing social order, and the ruling powers responsible for unjust killing, by positing a larger divine, cosmic order in which the suffering righteous are restored and recompensed ...
As has been demonstrated in the scholarship of Elaine Pagels and John Gager, early Christian claims of fleshly resurrection in the second century and beyond came to take on a more conserving function, with assertions of continuity of flesh in this world and the next serving as justification for, rather than as challenge to, the existing social order.
Pagel’s contribution, made some 40 years ago, was framed as distinguishing between Orthodox and Gnostic Christians on resurrection teaching. She demonstrated how the Orthodox authors Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus, and Tertullian insisted that only the successors to the twelve apostles who had seen the resurrected Jesus in the flesh on the earth had legitimate authority, while Gnostics held to a less restrictive mode of legitimation, linking authority to claims of visionary contact with Jesus. For the Orthodox, this led to the privileging of Peter as the one possessing the keys to the kingdom and the power to bind and loose, along with the argument that ecclesial leadership rightly belongs to those in the apostolic succession. In Gnostic literature, Mary Magdalene’s prominence suggests a less hierarchical ecclesial structure.
Following Pagels, Gager situated fleshly resurrection claims within a Durkheimian structural-functionalist framework to argue that in early Christian communities belief in future but indefinite, bodily resurrection correlated with Christians rising in the hegemonic social order and becoming more at home in this world.
This article contributes to the question of resurrection meanings in early Jewish and Christian texts by mapping out how the vision of the dry bones come to life in Ezek 37:1–14 was employed in resurrection claims, both by those who challenge and by those who conformed to the existing social order in the early centuries of the Common Era. It considers the use of the dry-bones passage from Ezekiel in the 4Q Pseudo-Ezekiel scroll from Qumran, as well as allusions to Ezekiel in resurrection narratives of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. It focuses especially on one verse in the story of Jesus’s resurrection told in the final chapter of Luke, where Jesus invites the disciples to “touch and see; for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have” (Luke 24:39).
Matthews argues that the Lukan phrase “flesh and bones” is an illusion to Ezekiel’ s Dry Bones Vision: while 4Q Pseudo-Ezekiel and Gospel of Matthew 27:52 employ the Ezekiel vision to proclaim the imminent vindication of the suffering righteous, Luke 24:39 serves a different purpose. In line with early Christian apologists, the Third Gospel asserts that Jesus was resurrected in flesh and bones as a means to establish continuity between life before death and life after death, signalling the postponement of restoration into the distant future.

Matthews, Shelly (2017) Fleshly Resurrection, Authority Claims, and the Scriptural Practices of Lukan Christianity Journal of Biblical Literature, 136, no. 1: 163–183.
Classic arguments concerning the question of ﬂeshly resurrection and apostolic authority in early Christianity have been framed in terms of orthodoxy and heresy. Nearly forty years ago, Elaine Pagels identiﬁed “two lines of theological tradition” with respect to questions of resurrection and authority, one linked to emerging orthodoxy and one linked to gnostic sources. In this framing, Lukan resurrection accounts stand in line with the writings of Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus,and Tertullian—and thus with emerging orthodoxy—in their insistence that only the successors to the twelve apostles, who had seen the resurrected Jesus on the earth before his ascension, had legitimate authority. The other line of theological tradition traced by Pagels was drawn from gnostic sources and valued continual revelation in the form of visions of the resurrected Jesus as a means of authorization.
Matthews identifies ﬁve speciﬁc passages that invoke the ﬂeshly resurrection of Jesus (Luke 24:36–53, Acts 1:4, 2:31, 10:40–41,and 13:37) share thematic continuity and are all shaped by Luke’s distinctive concern to tie the appearance of the resurrected Jesus in the ﬂesh to the exclusive authority of the twelve male apostles. Matthews departs from "the classic model of orthodoxy and heresy employed by Pagels and [Walter] Schmithals, and situate[s] this text in a more variegated context of early Christian religious pluralism."

In making this departure, [Matthews] builds on the scholarship of Karen King [who] has been at the forefront of scholars critiquing the tendency to categorize early Christian texts according to the orthodox/heretical binary.

Matthews notes that David Brakke has also "move[d] away from the language of orthodoxy and heresy, along with the categories of canonical and non-canonical, to...describing what he refers to as the scriptural practices of textual communities."

The models proposed by King and Brakke might have their biggest payoﬀs for the study of late antiquity, when early Christian communities are represented by identiﬁable authors and larger corpora. These models also serve as a useful lens for studying a particular set of biblical texts and the communities that produced them.

Matthews finishes -

... References to eating with the resurrected Jesus pertain to apostolic privilege, with the ﬁnal such reference underscoring the exclusive nature of that privilege. Both the speeches of Peter and those of Paul concerning incorruptibility include reminders that the twelve, and the twelve alone, were witnesses to the resurrection. Luke makes no explicit argument that Jesus appeared in the ﬂesh on the Emmaus road or that he bore his ﬂesh into the heavens ...
Luke’s resurrection teaching stands at odds with the teaching of Paul and seems to include an intentional rewrite of Pauline teaching. Luke’s peculiar understanding of the resurrected Jesus’s incorruptible ﬂesh aligns more closely with the impassive Christology often associated with “docetism” than with “anti-docetic” polemic. Details of Luke’s resurrection narrative, including Luke’s assertions pertaining to Jesus’s resurrected body, do not diﬀer dramatically from those found in Marcion’s Evangelion. Luke is neither orthodox nor “proto-orthodox.”

In part 2, we observed that the Old Testament evolved over centuries. Individual books were often written by more than one author over many decades or even centuries. This shows that the Bible has evolved to some extent. Scriptures is not a text that is fixed and unchanging.
Now let us fast forward to the Roman empire during the 1st century: did all Jews have the same ‘Bible’?
The answer is no.
During Jesus’ time, Jews were split between those who lived in Palestine and those who lived in the wider Roman empire. Palestinian Jews have what is known as the Masoretic Text (MT), which is more or less similar to the Protestant Old Testament. The Jews in the rest of the Roman empire however, have the Septuagint (LXX) as their Scriptures.
There are notable differences between these two versions of the Old Testament

The LXX included more writings than the Masoretic Text, including Tobit and Judith, Sirach and 1-2 Maccabees.
Even for books that are similar, there are variations. E.g. both the LXX and the MT have Daniel and Esther. However, the LXX has additions to the book of Daniel and Esther. In the LXX, there is also an additional Psalm called Psalms 151 not present in the MT.

In other words, even by the time of Jesus, the Old Testament canon is not ‘fixed’. Even for books that were written centuries ago, the boundaries for what constitutes the ‘Bible’ is fluid to a certain extent. The clearest evidence of this fluidity comes from Jesus himself:
Jesus in the Gospels quote from both the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint.
He does not merely favour one version of the Bible as the ‘correct’ version. Instead, Jesus simply quotes from both versions despite their significant differences.
On a side note: Many early Christians used the LXX, which means that for many 1st century Christians, books like Tobit and Judith were considered authoritative Scriptures.
More evidence can be found from the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the latter half of the 20th-century. These scrolls are part of a Jewish sect called the Qumran sect. Again, for them, the Bible is not a fixed entity, but can be evolved to some extent. For example the Qumran Temple Scrolls contain legal material from Exodus to Deuteronomy. Likewise, there is a psalm scroll that contains seven non-canonical poems intersperse among the canonical Psalms.
In both the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls, we see texts that are considered Scriptures by those communities, but nonetheless, they can be modified and supplemented. These actions are not the dishonest acts of ‘heretics’ trying to ‘destroy the Bible’, rather they are simply the community of God treating the Bible as a living Word, as a text that can be updated to speak to their contemporary situation.

I recently finished reading the independent bible scholar Margaret Barker’s book Temple Theology, which as its namesake suggests, is a theological framework that sees the temple as central to the Gospel message.
Barker’s central argument is that Christianity’s core doctrines developed so quickly in the early centuries not because it borrowed Greek philosophical concepts, but because its beliefs were a return to the original faith of Abraham, to the religion of the 1st temple of the Israelites (before the Josiah reform in the 7th century B.C.E.).
She argues (quite controversially but brilliantly) that there are two distinct religions in Judaism, where one had superseded the other. Firstly, there is the religion of the Deuteronomist writers (e.g. Kings and Deuteronomy), the religion of the 2nd Temple, a strand of Judaism that arose after Josiah’s reform. This was the faith of Jewish folks in Jesus’ time, and is ethnocentric in nature, based on the Mosaic laws and the covenant between God and the ethnic people of Israel. She argues that this religion actually oppressed and took over an earlier, more primitive religion of the patriarchs, which she calls the 1st Temple.
Drawing upon an impressive wealth of evidence not just from Scriptures, but also from the apocrypha, writings of the early church fathers, and other Jewish texts during Jesus’ time, she attempts to demonstrate (quite convincingly to some extent) that the earlier religion of the 1st temple was never lost, and its religious concepts and rituals could still be hinted at in the ‘shape’ of early Christian beliefs, liturgy and thoughts, as well as in the writings of Jewish sects, such as the famous Qumran sect which produced the Dead Sea Scrolls. Here, she attempts to engage in a sort of ‘literary archaeology’, where she seeks literary evidence and allusions to this suppressed and half-forgotten religion to make her case.
Personally, I found the following insights very helpful to my faith journey:

She linked Jesus to the high priest Melchizedek and argued that Christ is the high priest similar to how Melchizedek’s priesthood is superior to the Mosaic priesthood under Aaron (Heb 7). Thus, Jesus is the high priest that mediates between God and humanity.
She pointed out, as other scholars have done, that the Temple and Holy of Holies are actually a ‘mirroring’ of the Creation accounts, almost like a microcosm of sorts for Creation.
With regards to the supposed Greek roots of early Christianity. I had always wondered if early Christianity’s orthodox doctrines are partially Greek philosophy, but Barker was saying that these said doctrines are actually part of the Jewish faith, albeit a far older one. Thus it is not an invention, but rather a reinvigoration of authentic faith in the Lord.

However, there are some highly controversial elements of her theology that is unlikely to find mainstream support in both mainstream biblical scholarship and in conservative Protestant theology anytime soon.
Firstly, Barker seems to believe that the virgin mother of Jesus is not a novel theological invention of the 1st century Christian faith, but rather one that is already prefigured in a hypothetical deity she calls ‘Lady Wisdom’ that is purported to be worshiped by the Israelites before the Josiah reform. In essence, she is saying that the virgin Mary is not a Christian invention over the Jewish religion, but has already been found in the pre-Josiah religion of the Israelites.
I find this concept a little unclear in her book. She seems to say that the Lady Wisdom is actually the Spirit of God mentioned in the OT (e.g. in Genesis 1 where the Spirit hovers over the waters, a feminine pronoun), but in another section seems to say that she is a deity that ultimately gives rise to the conception of the virgin Mary. Thus, I’m not sure what Barker is saying here.
Furthermore, if we acknowledge a 1st temple deity alongside God, are we essentially acknowledging that Christianity does acknowledge a ‘divine Mary’ as literally the mother of God? I think a more ‘orthodox’ construal of Barker’s words might be to understand her as saying that the concept of Mary is derived from this pre-Josiah religion, without necessarily endorsing the truth of an actual, literal female deity found in the 1st Temple religion.
Secondly, Barker seems to genuinely believe that the religion of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (1st Temple) was superseded by a different religion, the one of ethnic Israel and the Mosaic laws. While I do agree that the Israelite/Jewish faith did evolve over many centuries as mainstream biblical scholarship attests to, I’m not fully sure if there was this massive disruption between the 1st and 2nd Temple, as if they were two distinct religions. While mainstream (a loaded term I know) scholars do acknowledge that there were variations in the Israelite faith throughout the many centuries in which the Hebrew Scriptures were compiled, I’m not sure if it can be so easily demarcated into two distinct religions, where 2nd Temple Judaism has somehow supplanted the earlier 1st temple theology. Again, Barker is an independent scholar, and she clearly operates outside the mainstream.
I admit that I have personally observed that the theology of Deuteronomy and 1st and 2nd Kings do differ with other texts in Scriptures, but I’m not sure if this is to the extent that Barker thinks is the case: two separate religions. Could it not be variations in theological thought within the same religion, rather than being so disjunct as to be two separate faiths? It seems to me that if she is right, a large portion of the Old Testament canon has to be reconsidered. Such a massive rethinking of the Christian canon would not go down too well in most Christian circles to say the least!
All in all, she is a brilliant scholar, and I very much favour her approach to theology which engages with all available Christian literature instead of a contrived and dogmatic insistence on relying on Scriptures solely for theological truth, as if all theological truth can be found within the pages of the Bible. As I have personally experienced, not all theological truths can be found solely by reading the Bible. Sometimes, church tradition, archaeology and history all help illuminate what a plain reading of and sole reliance on Scriptures will fail to yield. E.g. the ANE context of Genesis and Job, the evolution of the Hebrew Scriptures (which invariably change its meaning over time), the diverse methods of reading the Bible etc.
However, the lack of clarity in some of the more controversial sections of her book, her occasionally unconvincing evidence (e.g. claiming that Wisdom in Proverbs is a hint of the long lost deity Lady, when it is more likely that it is wisdom personified), plus her refreshing disregard for the ‘biblical canon’ will make it difficult for many to fully endorse her claims.

What do you think of the theory that Jesus was part of the Essene community as a high member allowed into the Sanctum Sanctorum (Knowing the great secrets)
And that a lot of passages in the NT can be explained by knowing the ways that the essene sect operated and also explains why he tell his disciple that he speaks in mysteries and that the common person is not to understand the secrets Mark 4:11
For example a member of the sect was said to be "living" and every outside person was said to be "dead".
With this in mind we can interpret multiple passages like:
In Mat 8:21-22 "and another of his disciples said unto him Lord suffer me first to go and bury my father but Jesus said unto him follow me and let the dead bury the dead"
So if we follow the essene way of speaking this could be interpreted as "let the outside/common people bury your father."
In Acts 5:1-11 we're told that men named Ananias and his wife Saphira tried to cheat the sect.
In the passage it says that they both confessed and died.
Which seams very brutal but it makes more sense when you interpreted as getting kicked out of the movement there for being part of the "Dead".
Even The Story of Lazarus can be explained in the same way.
The sisters of Lazarus tells Jesus that he would have not have died if Jesus had been there. Was it because they wanted him to convince him to stay in the Sect?
Jesus goes to see Lazarus and brings him back from the "dead".
I was even reading that turning water into wine can be explained as a figure of speech the member of the sect that were first initiated were like water and the high members were refined like wine.
Bonus question:
If Jesus was a member of the essenes was John the Baptist a member as well, where they the two Pillars that were awaited, one leading the military movement to free Israel and one leading the spiritual one?
Which would explain why Jesus said that he would be sitting on the right of his father implying that somebody would be sitting on the left?
That would also explain why his disciples have swords and why he gives them names like "Son Of Thunder", "Zealot", "The Terrorist" (Barjona) and Judas "The Knife Man".
In Luke 22:35-38 we are told that they informed Jesus that they already have two swords after he had exhorted them to sell their clothes to buy weapons.
Were the disciples is personal guards which would explain why he traveled so much and never stayed at the same spot for too long and told people not to speak of him?
Let me know what you think?

Apart from the Gospels themselves, the most important book of the New Testament in the Acts of the Apostles.
Like all historical documents issuing from a partisan source, not counting that the Book of Acts has more than 6000 discrepancies in the manuscripts we have discovered, it must, of course, be handled sceptically and with caution. One must be aware of whom the text was written for, who it might have served, and what was the end to be achieved by its writing. But it is Acts, much more than the Gospels, which has given us the most informative account of the first years of the Jesus Messianic Movement or "Early Christianity". Since Acts contains so much basic information not readily found elsewhere, it has established itself as a basic text for understanding the Messianic Movement within the time after Jesus which would later be called "Christianity".
Upon thorough examination of the book of Acts one can see that it is heavily biased. Luke, the author of the text, was clearly drawing on a number of different sources, editing and reworking material to suit his own purposes. Even Church historians and scholars will tell us that Acts was extensively tampered with by later editors (Catholic Monks). In an effort to establish their own authority (Rome) against the authority of Jerusalem, much of the book of Acts was tampered and re-written to achieve certain purposes. Although there is bias, the bias is highly personal, and this, to some extent, enables the modern reader to read between the lines.
Although focusing primarily on Paul, who monopolizes the latter part of its narrative, Acts also tells the story of Paul's relationship with the Messianic Community in Jerusalem consisting of Jesus’ immediate disciples under the leadership of James, “the Lord's brother”. It would be this group who would later come to be called the first Christians and are now regarded as the early or original church. The "original church" was the church in Jerusalem. They set the pattern and standards for all others that followed in their wake.
We must realize if we are to correctly see the whole picture in Acts, that in recounting Paul's association with this community that the Book of Acts offers only Paul's point of view of the events of Acts! Acts is essentially a Pauline document without the balance needed which could only come from James and the other apostles. It is this "Pauline Picture" which has, unfortunately, become "NORMATIVE CHRISTIANITY". Paul, in other words, is always the "hero"; whoever opposes him, whether it be the authorities or even James, is automatically cast as a villain. We must never forget that God placed James and the Apostles as leaders in the "original church" and not Paul.

LET ME ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS

Answer for yourself: Where are the Jewish writings of the momentous events that transpired in Acts?
Answer for yourself: Why do we lack their perspectives, after all, they were in charge?
Answer for yourself: Could their writings possibly have been destroyed by Christians of later centuries (Constantine, etc.)?
There is data to substantiate the destruction of many of such documents by the "Early Gentile Church". Gone forever is the balance needed to understand the events of Acts and God's working among His Hebrew Church and His Gentile Church.
Acts open shortly after Jesus, referred to as "the Nazarene" (in Greek "Nazoraion") has disappeared from the scene. The term "Nazarene" has nothing to do with the city of Nazareth, which was built long after Jesus' birth. It refers to "keepers of the Covenant"; Jesus and his followers kept the laws and covenants!
Answer for yourself: As a typical Christian are you being taught by your Pastor to keep the laws in the covenant?
Acts then proceed to describe the organization and development of the community or "early church" in Jerusalem and its increasing friction with the authorities. The community is vividly portrayed in Acts 2:44-46: "The faithful all lived together and owned everything in common; they sold their goods and possessions and shared all the proceeds among themselves according to what each one needed. They went as a body to the Temple every day but met in their houses for the breaking of bread (Sabbath services)". Notice that the early followers of Jesus adhered to the Temple ritual. Jesus and his immediate followers are usually incorrectly portrayed as hostile to the Temple, where, according to the Gospels, Jesus upset the tables of money changers and incurred the passionate displeasure of the priesthood. Despite the picture given by the Roman slant in the New Testament Jesus is not rejecting his religion!
Acts 6:8 introduces the figure known as Stephen, the first official "Christian martyr", who is arrested and sentenced to death by stoning. In his own defence, Stephen alludes to the murder of those who prophesied the advent of the "Righteous One", or "Just One". This terminology is specifically and uniquely Qumranic in character (Dead Sea Scrolls people). The "Righteous One" occurs repeatedly in the Dead Sea Scrolls as "Zaddik". The "Teacher of Righteousness" in the scrolls, "Moreh ha-Zedek", derives from the same root. As portrayed in Acts, then, Stephen uses nomenclature unique and specific characteristic of Qumran. This shows us the hidden Qumran influence in New Testament theology.
Nor is this the only Qumranic concern to figure in Stephen's speech. In his defence, he names the persecutors (Acts 7:53): "You who had the Law brought to you by angels are the very one who has not kept it."
The New Testament reader never stops to notice that this statement is a contradiction of the Torah for the Laws was given by God and not Angels: this angelic belief is a sign of the hidden Gnosticism in the New Testament. As Acts portrays it, Stephen is obviously intent on adherence to the Law. Again, there is a conflict here with the orthodox adherence to the Law. According to later Christian tradition, it was the Jews of the time who made an austere and puritanical fetish of the Law. The "early Christians" are depicted, at least from the standpoint of that stringency to the Law, as "mavericks" or "renegades", advocating new freedom and flexibility, defying custom and convention, and being "free from the Law". Yet it is Stephen, the first "Christian martyr", who emerges as an advocate of the Law. This strikes me as strange since the majority of Christians today feel that they are no longer under the "Law".
Answer for yourself: Was Stephen wrong?

It makes no sense for Stephen, a self-proclaimed adherent of the Law, to be murdered by fellow Jews who also exalted the same Law.

Answer for yourself: But what if those fellow Jews were acting on behalf of a Sadducee priesthood which was collaborators in league with the Roman authorities?
It was such Jews who wanted to live a simple and quiet life that feared an agitator and resistance fighter in their midst that might lead to Roman reprisals. So understand, that the "Early Church" of which Stephen is a member constantly stressed its own orthodoxy and its zealousness and adherence to the Law.
Answer for yourself: Does your church profess a zealousness and adherence to the Law?
Answer for yourself: If not why not since this is the picture of the early church before Paul?
The "Early Church's" persecutors are those who contrived to remain in league with Rome and, in so doing, were willing to lapse in relation to adherence to the Laws of God. Thus they betrayed the Law. In this context, Stephen's denunciation of them makes sense, as does their murder of him. And we also see James "the Just", the "Zaddik" or "Righteous One" who also best exemplifies rigorous adherence to the Law. It is even more incredible that such a man could lead a group of believers who wished to be delivered from the Law. It would be for his adherence to the Law that he would suffer the same fate as Stephen. You can easily see that we have misunderstood the early church, thus we misunderstand what the church is to be today!
According to Acts, it is at the death of Stephen that Paul makes his debut.
He entirely approved of the killings and would later engineer precisely the same kind of attack on the "Early Church". Saul, at this stage of his life, is fervent, even fanatic, in his enmity towards the "Early Church." In travelling to persecute believers & totally destroy the church, Paul undergoes some sort of traumatic experience, which commentators have interpreted as anything from sunstroke, to an epileptic seizure, to a mystical revelation (Acts 9:1-19, 22:6-16). Paul interprets the experience as a true manifestation of Jesus, whom he never knew personally. After a three-year apprenticeship in Damascus, he returns to Jerusalem to join the leaders of the "community" there. Not surprisingly, most of them are suspicious of him, not being wholly convinced by his conversion. In Galatians 1:18-20, he speaks of seeing only James and Peter. Everyone else, including the Apostles, seems to have avoided him. He is obliged repeatedly to prove himself, and only then does he find some allies and begins to preach. Arguments ensue, however, and, according to Acts 9:29, certain members of the Jerusalem community threaten him. As a means of defusing a potentially ugly situation, his allies pack him off to Tarsus, the town (now in Turkey) where he was born. He is, in effect, being sent home, to spread the message there. This was tantamount to exile!
By the time Paul travels to Antioch, a community of the "Early Church" (a Gentile church) was already established there. It is important to remember that this church originally, as were all the other churches, were under the leadership of James and reported back to the Apostles in Jerusalem. Some five or more years later, Paul is teaching in Antioch when a dispute arises over the content of Paul's missionary work. As Acts 15 explains, certain representatives of the leadership in Jerusalem arrive in Antioch.
They, as well as Peter, arrive there with the specific purpose of checking on Paul's activities. They stress the importance of strict adherence to the Law and accuse Paul of laxity. They notice that Paul had been teaching both the Jews that in Christ it was no longer necessary to circumcise your children or follow the Law of Moses. To the non-Jews that in Christ Paul was teaching the complete cessation of the law of Noah as seen in his relaxation of the commandments concerning idolatry which were enforced for example in refusing to eat sacrificed to idols. Paul in I Cor. tells us that this is permissible and only to refrain when in the presence of a weaker brother. Paul and his companion, Barnabas, are ordered back to Jerusalem for a personal consultation with James and the leadership. From this point on, a schism will open and widen between Paul and James; and the author of Acts as he become Paul's apologist (defender). Acts is written to defend Paul by his close friend Luke.
Answer for yourself: But let me ask you...who did God give oversight to and put in charge...Paul or James and the Apostles?
Answer for yourself: "Who" called "who" back to answer charges?

James is the authority and leader of the Messianic Community and not Paul. We fail to balance the accounts and only see a "defence" of Paul in Acts.

It is incredible to believe that Jesus gave all authority to his followers and Apostles and is ready now for Paul to correct them all!

Surely we interpret Acts by what we have been taught today by pro-Pauline Churches. We should rather let the events of Acts lead us to what we should believe today!

In all the events that follow, Paul is a "Christian heretic" in the eyes of James and the Apostles. James and the Apostles considered many of his teachings (which sadly became the foundation of later Christianity) a flagrant deviation from the "ORIGINAL APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE" as taught by the leadership of the Jerusalem church. Let us never forget that James "the Lord's brother" and the other members of the Apostolic leadership of the "Early Church" not only remembered Jesus but knew him personally, having lived with him during his three-year ministry. When these leaders spoke, they did so with first-hand authority. Paul had never had such personal acquaintance with the figure he'd begun to regard as his "Savior". He had only the quasi-mystical experience in the desert and the sound of a voice. For Paul to claim authority to himself on this basis is, in my opinion, to say the least, presumptuous. It also leads him to distort some of Jesus' teachings beyond all recognition in some areas. This mystical religious experience would lead Paul to formulate his own individual and idiosyncratic theology which he would later legitimize by spuriously ascribing it to Jesus.

THERE IS ONLY ONE PROBLEM...

Jesus never believed or taught many of the things that Paul is credited within the New Testament! Upon study in this area, you will see for yourself that often Paul is guilty of preaching "another Gospel" in spite of his own warnings not to do so (or the text was changed and attributed to Paul as original with him).
This is little more than a clever literary ploy on Paul's part among the non-Jews who never knew Jesus’ true gospel but only's Paul's account of it. They never had the Jewish background necessary to spot the false "gospel." Any of Paul's teachings that contradicts the teachings of Jesus or the Jerusalem Apostles are wrong!
Remember, at the first of the article I told you that the book of Acts has been tampered with more than another book. Not that I wish to blame Paul, but I am confident upon examination through the years that many of Paul's followers altered words and phrases to suit their purposes. Paul could never have disagreed with Jesus nor every preached another Gospel and be led by the Spirit of God to do so.
In accordance with the instructions given to him, Paul returns to Jerusalem and meets with Apostolic leadership around AD 48-49. Not surprisingly, another dispute arises. If Acts is to be believed as it stands, James, for the sake of peace, agrees to compromise, thereby making it easier for "pagans" to join the congregation of Israel. Somewhat improbably, he consents to relax certain aspects of the Law for Gentiles, while remaining adamant on others. This is an example of "binding" and "loosing". No longer is circumcision to be required of the non-Jew for inclusion into the Israel of God by the Jesus Movement but that, of course, did not apply outside the Jesus Movement.
Paul pays lip service to the leadership. He still, at this point, needs their endorsement; not only to legitimize his teachings, but to legitimize & ensure the survival of the communities he has founded abroad. He is already, however, bent on going his own way. He embarks on another mission of travel and preaching, punctuated (Acts 18:21) by another visit to Jerusalem. Most of his letters date from this period, between AD 50 and 58. It is clear from the letters that he has, by that time, become almost completely estranged from the leadership in Jerusalem and from their adherence to the Law.
In his epistle to the Galatians (AD 57), he alludes scathingly to the Jerusalem Apostles: "these people who are acknowledged leaders-not that their importance matters to me" (Gal 2:6). His theological position has also deviated irreparably from those who adhere rigorously to the Law. In the same letter to the Galatians (2:16), he states that "faith in Messiah rather than fidelity to the Law is what justifies us, and ...no one can be justified by keeping the Law. Writing to the Philippians (3:9), he states: "I am no longer trying for perfection by my on own efforts, the perfection that comes from the Law..." These are the provocative and challenging statements of a self-proclaimed renegade. "Gentile Christianity", as it will subsequently evolve from Paul, has by now severed virtually all connection with its Hebrew roots by discarding obedience to the commandments of the Torah, and can no longer be said to have anything to do with Jesus, only with Paul's image of Jesus.
Following Paul's exposure of his total rejection of Judaism in Antioch we find that by AD 58, Paul is again back in Jerusalem to answer charges again made against him with James despite pleas from his supporters who, obviously fearing trouble again with the Apostle hierarchy, have begged him no to go. Again, he meets with James and the leadership of the Jerusalem community where they express their worry they share with other "zealots of the Law" that Paul, in his preaching to Jews living abroad, is encouraging them to forsake the Law of Moses. It is, of course, a justified accusation, as Paul has made clear in his letters. Acts do not record his response to it. The impression conveyed is that Paul lies, perjures himself and denies the charges against him. When asked to purify himself for seven days (thereby demonstrating the injustice of the allegations and his continued adherence to the Law) he readily consents to do so.
A few days later Paul again runs foul of those "zealous for the Law", who are rather less temperate than James. On being seen at the Temple, he is attacked by a crowd of the pious. "This", they claim in their anger, "is the man who preaches to everyone everywhere...against the Law" (Acts 21:28).
Answer for yourself: Don't you find it a little preposterous to believe that there was no merit to the charges against Paul in light of the abundant testimony otherwise?
A riot ensues, and Paul is dragged out of the Temple, his life in danger. In the nick of time, he is rescued by a Roman officer who, having been told of the disturbance, appears with an entourage of soldiers. Paul is arrested and put in chains on the initial assumption that he is a leader of the Sicarii, the Zealot terrorists. It would be shortly thereafter that a group of angry Jews, forty or more in number, vow not to eat or drink until they have brought about Paul's death. The sheer intensity & ferocity of this anger is worth noting. One does not expect such animosity, not only violence, from ordinary Pharisees and Sadducees. Those who display it are obviously "zealous for the Law."
What we end up with is two factions within the original community in Jerusalem, the "Early Church". One of these factions consists of "hardliners", who echo the teachings of Qumranic texts and insist on the rigorous observance of the Law. The other, exemplified by Paul and his immediate supporters, want to relax the Law and, by making it easier for people to join the congregation, to increase the number of new recruits. The "hardliners" are less concerned with numbers than with doctrinal purity and seem to have only a passing interest in events or developments outside Palestine. They do not display any desire for accommodation with Rome. Paul, on the other hand, is prepared to dispense with doctrinal purity. His primary objective is to spread his message as widely as possible and to assemble the largest body of adherents. In order to attain this objective, he goes out of his way to avoid antagonizing the authorities and is perfectly willing to come to an accommodation with Rome, even to seek favour; even discard or bend the Law if need be. The "end" justifies the "means." Remember, he said that he would become all things (compromise) to win men.
Answer for yourself: Truly admirable, but at what cost?

Today we have churches that carry the name "Jesus" who are so influenced by Paul (misunderstanding him of course) that they discard not only the Old Testament, the Bible Jesus used, but the Law and commandments and live in libertinism and unchecked grace. This is not the Gospel of Jesus.

The "Early Church", then, as it appears in Acts, is rent by internal schism, the instigator of which is Paul. Paul's chief adversary is James, "the Lord's bother". It is clear that James is the acknowledged leader of the community in Jerusalem that becomes known to later tradition as the "Early Church". For the most part, James comes across as a "hardliner", though he does display a willingness to compromise on certain points concerning the Gentile believers. James' role in the proceedings could not have been excised from the text because his role was too well known. Thus, Luke, in defence of his friend (Paul), plays down James and portrayed him as a conciliatory figure occupying a position somewhere between Paul and the extreme "hardliners" (Zealots).
So you can now see Acts in a new light. What we have is a clash between two powerful personalities, James and Paul. Paul gets all the press and no one shares with us such depth concerning the perspective of the head of the first church which was James!
Answer for yourself: What should be our first consideration before evaluating Acts?
• 1) James, not Paul, was given custody of the original body of teachings of the "Early Church".
• 2) It was James and not Paul who God made responsible for doctrinal purity and the teaching of adherence to His statutes (Law).
• 3) The last thing James would have had in mind was founding a "new religion" that would stand separate from the mother faith.
• 4) Paul did exactly that. In the conflict between James and Paul, the emergence and evolution of what we call Christianity stood at a crossroads.

Had the mainstream of its development conformed to James' teachings, there would have been no Christianity at all as we know it today, only a particular species of something akin to Judaism which would have emerged as dominant with Jesus as it's Messiah. This, in my opinion, is as God would have had it. As things transpired, however, the mainstream of the new movement gradually coalesced, during the next three centuries, around Paul and his teachings. Thus, to the horror of James and Jesus, an entirely new religion was indeed born; a religion which came to have less and less to do with its supposed founder.

I recently finished reading the independent bible scholar Margaret Barker’s book Temple Theology, which as its namesake suggests, is a theological framework that sees the temple as central to the Gospel message.
Barker’s central argument is that Christianity’s core doctrines developed so quickly in the early centuries not because it borrowed Greek philosophical concepts, but because its beliefs were a return to the original faith of Abraham, to the religion of the 1st temple of the Israelites (before the Josiah reform in the 7th century B.C.E.).
She argues (quite controversially but brilliantly) that there are two distinct religions in Judaism, where one had superseded the other. Firstly, there is the religion of the Deuteronomist writers (e.g. Kings and Deuteronomy), the religion of the 2nd Temple, a strand of Judaism that arose after Josiah’s reform. This was the faith of Jewish folks in Jesus’ time, and is ethnocentric in nature, based on the Mosaic laws and the covenant between God and the ethnic people of Israel. She argues that this religion actually oppressed and took over an earlier, more primitive religion of the patriarchs, which she calls the 1st Temple.
Drawing upon an impressive wealth of evidence not just from Scriptures, but also from the apocrypha, writings of the early church fathers, and other Jewish texts during Jesus’ time, she attempts to demonstrate (quite convincingly to some extent) that the earlier religion of the 1st temple was never lost, and its religious concepts and rituals could still be hinted at in the ‘shape’ of early Christian beliefs, liturgy and thoughts, as well as in the writings of Jewish sects, such as the famous Qumran sect which produced the Dead Sea Scrolls. Here, she attempts to engage in a sort of ‘literary archaeology’, where she seeks literary evidence and allusions to this suppressed and half-forgotten religion to make her case.
Personally, I found the following insights very helpful to my faith journey:

She linked Jesus to the high priest Melchizedek and argued that Christ is the high priest similar to how Melchizedek’s priesthood is superior to the Mosaic priesthood under Aaron (Heb 7). Thus, Jesus is the high priest that mediates between God and humanity.
She pointed out, as other scholars have done, that the Temple and Holy of Holies are actually a ‘mirroring’ of the Creation accounts, almost like a microcosm of sorts for Creation.
With regards to the supposed Greek roots of early Christianity. I had always wondered if early Christianity’s orthodox doctrines are partially Greek philosophy, but Barker was saying that these said doctrines are actually part of the Jewish faith, albeit a far older one. Thus it is not an invention, but rather a reinvigoration of authentic faith in the Lord.

However, there are some highly controversial elements of her theology that is unlikely to find mainstream support in both mainstream biblical scholarship and in conservative Protestant theology anytime soon.
Firstly, Barker seems to believe that the virgin mother of Jesus is not a novel theological invention of the 1st century Christian faith, but rather one that is already prefigured in a hypothetical deity she calls ‘Lady Wisdom’ that is purported to be worshiped by the Israelites before the Josiah reform. In essence, she is saying that the virgin Mary is not a Christian invention over the Jewish religion, but has already been found in the pre-Josiah religion of the Israelites.
I find this concept a little unclear in her book. She seems to say that the Lady Wisdom is actually the Spirit of God mentioned in the OT (e.g. in Genesis 1 where the Spirit hovers over the waters, a feminine pronoun), but in another section seems to say that she is a deity that ultimately gives rise to the conception of the virgin Mary. Thus, I’m not sure what Barker is saying here.
Furthermore, if we acknowledge a 1st temple deity alongside God, are we essentially acknowledging that Christianity does acknowledge a ‘divine Mary’ as literally the mother of God? I think a more ‘orthodox’ construal of Barker’s words might be to understand her as saying that the concept of Mary is derived from this pre-Josiah religion, without necessarily endorsing the truth of an actual, literal female deity found in the 1st Temple religion.
Secondly, Barker seems to genuinely believe that the religion of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (1st Temple) was superseded by a different religion, the one of ethnic Israel and the Mosaic laws. While I do agree that the Israelite/Jewish faith did evolve over many centuries as mainstream biblical scholarship attests to, I’m not fully sure if there was this massive disruption between the 1st and 2nd Temple, as if they were two distinct religions. While mainstream (a loaded term I know) scholars do acknowledge that there were variations in the Israelite faith throughout the many centuries in which the Hebrew Scriptures were compiled, I’m not sure if it can be so easily demarcated into two distinct religions, where 2nd Temple Judaism has somehow supplanted the earlier 1st temple theology. Again, Barker is an independent scholar, and she clearly operates outside the mainstream.
I admit that I have personally observed that the theology of Deuteronomy and 1st and 2nd Kings do differ with other texts in Scriptures, but I’m not sure if this is to the extent that Barker thinks is the case: two separate religions. Could it not be variations in theological thought within the same religion, rather than being so disjunct as to be two separate faiths? It seems to me that if she is right, a large portion of the Old Testament canon has to be reconsidered. Such a massive rethinking of the Christian canon would not go down too well in most Christian circles to say the least!
All in all, she is a brilliant scholar, and I very much favour her approach to theology which engages with all available Christian literature instead of a contrived and dogmatic insistence on relying on Scriptures solely for theological truth, as if all theological truth can be found within the pages of the Bible. As I have personally experienced, not all theological truths can be found solely by reading the Bible. Sometimes, church tradition, archaeology and history all help illuminate what a plain reading of and sole reliance on Scriptures will fail to yield. E.g. the ANE context of Genesis and Job, the evolution of the Hebrew Scriptures (which invariably change its meaning over time), the diverse methods of reading the Bible etc.
However, the lack of clarity in some of the more controversial sections of her book, her occasionally unconvincing evidence (e.g. claiming that Wisdom in Proverbs is a hint of the long lost deity Lady, when it is more likely that it is wisdom personified), plus her refreshing disregard for the ‘biblical canon’ will make it difficult for many to fully endorse her claims.

So for a while now, I've been compiling a bibliography of scholarly publications that I'm familiar with, and which present some sort of serious challenge to various aspects of traditional Jewish and Christian theology — especially the historicity of Biblical claims, their ethics, and so on.
I've just about filled up the character limit for this post, so I'll just say a couple of things before jumping right into the bibliography.
First, because of the character limit, I've listed works in the shortest form possible: just the author and title — no further publisher info. I'm sure you won't have trouble finding anything, though.
Second, I've placed works into different categories. There's some sort of logic to the ordering of the categories, in terms of starting with more general or "meta" issues, and then going chronologically from the Hebrew Bible to the New Testament. But really, at a certain point all logic goes out the window; and there are some works which just as easily could have fit into another category, too.
Perhaps most importantly, I've tried to limit myself to works by scholars and publishers that can be said to fall squarely within the mainstream of academic Biblical studies, history and theology, and which aren't particularly radical or implausible. So this not only means excluding things that aren't published in established scholarly presses and journals — e.g. Michael Alter's The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry (as useful as it may be) — but also avoiding the work of those like Nissim Amzallag, Robert M. Price, or Richard Carrier, or studies like Russell Gmirkin's Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus. Trust me, there's still an enormous amount of critical material without these.
About the closest I come to border-line material is something like Randel Helms, Gospel Fictions; and I've made some parenthetical notes about a few other publications which offer particularly controversial and perhaps untenable views, too.
Finally, this bibliography is a work in progress, and I'm often adding new stuff to it. Suggestions are appreciated, too.
Without further ado, the bibliography:

Classics, from the 18th century up to ~mid-20th century

The Wolfenbüttel Fragments (Hermann Reimarus)
David Strauss, The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined (especially in conjunction with something like Thomas Fabisiak, The "Nocturnal Side of Science" in David Friedrich Strauss's Life of Jesus Critically Examined)
John William Colenso, The Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua Critically Examined (1862)
Johannes Weiss, Jesus' Proclamation of the Kingdom of God (1892)
C. G. Montefiore, Judaism and St. Paul: Two Essays; Nancy Fuchs-Kreimer, "The Essential Heresy: Paul's View of the Law According to Jewish Writers, 1886-1986" (dissertation)

Late 20th and 21 century

(Moving on to later 20th and 21st century works, I've almost completely skipped over works that explore broader philosophical issues of theism in general and its viability — though an enormous amount of this literature actually does focus on Christian/classical theism in particular.)
On the epistemology of religious and Christian belief: various essays in the volume The Right to Believe: Perspectives in Religious Epistemology. (See also various responses to the work of Alvin Plantinga on warranted Christian belief: the volume Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief: Critical Essays with a Reply by Alvin Plantinga; Sarah Bachelard, "'Foolishness to Greeks': Plantinga and the Epistemology of Christian Belief"; Jaco Gericke, "Fundamentalism on Stilts: A Response to Alvin Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology"; Evan Fales, "Reformed Epistemology and Biblical Hermeneutics," etc.)
Add Andrew Wright, Christianity and Critical Realism Ambiguity, Truth and Theological Literacy?
On historical methodology, the supernatural, miracles: David Henige, Historical Evidence and Argument; C. Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions; Van Harvey, The Historian and the Believer: The Morality of Historical Knowledge and Christian Belief; several essays in vol. 47, no. 4 of the journal History and Theory (Tor Førland, etc.); Joseph Levine, The Autonomy of History: Truth and Method from Erasmus to Gibbon; Jens Kofoed, Text and History: Historiography and the Study of the Biblical Text; V. Philips Long, The Art of Biblical History; Robert Cavin, "Is There Sufficient Historical Evidence to Establish the Resurrection of Jesus?"; Frank Schubert, "Is Ancestral Testimony Foundational Evidence For God's Existence?”; Daniel Pioske, Memory in a Time of Prose: Studies in Epistemology, Hebrew Scribalism, and the Biblical Past; Glen Bowersock, Fiction as History: Nero to Julian; essays in the volume Truth and History in the Ancient World: Pluralising the Past; Aviezer Tucker, "Miracles, Historical Testimonies, and Probabilities";
Miracles and the supernatural: Joe Nickell, Looking for a Miracle: Weeping Icons, Relics, Stigmata, Visions & Healing Cures; Daniel Klimek, Medjugorje and the Supernatural: Science, Mysticism, and Extraordinary Religious Experience; Sandra Zimdars-Swartz, Encountering Mary: From La Salette to Medjugorje; Terence Hines, Pseudoscience and the Paranormal; Larry Shapiro, The Miracle Myth: Why Belief in the Resurrection and the Supernatural Is Unjustified; the volume Questions of Miracle edited by Robert Larmer; Jason Szabo, "Seeing Is Believing? The Form and Substance of French Medical Debates over Lourdes"; Sofie Lachapell, Investigating the Supernatural: From Spiritism and Occultism to Psychical Research and Metapsychics in France, 1853-1931
Philosophical issues around the Hebrew Bible and the existence of YHWH: Jaco Gericke, The Hebrew Bible and Philosophy of Religion, along with myriad other publications by Gericke: “YHWH and the God of philosophical theology”; "'Brave New World' — Towards a Philosophical Theology of the Old Testament"; "Does Yahweh Exist? A Philosophical-critical Reconstruction of the Case against Realism in Old Testament Theology," etc.
General works on historical criticism and its challenge to faith: Jon Levenson, The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism; C. L. Brinks, "On Nail Scissors and Toothbrushes: Responding to the Philosophers' Critiques of Historical Biblical Criticism"; Van Harvey, "New Testament Scholarship and Christian Belief"; George Wells, "How Destructive of Traditional Christian Beliefs is Historical Criticism of the Bible Today Conceded to Be?"; Gregory Dawes, "'A Certain Similarity to the Devil': Historical Criticism and Christian Faith"; Gerd Theissen, "Historical Scepticism and the Criteria of Jesus Research: My Attempt to Leap Over Lessing's Ugly Wide Ditch"; John Barton, "Biblical Criticism and Religious Belief" (chapter in his The Nature of Biblical Criticism); R. W. L. Moberly, "Biblical Criticism and Religious Belief"
Broad and general works on Biblical problems: Thom Stark's The Human Faces of God: What Scripture Reveals when it Gets God Wrong (and Why Inerrancy Tries to Hide It); Robert Carroll, Wolf in the Sheepfold: The Bible as a Problem for Christianity; Gregory Boyd, The Crucifixion of the Warrior God (touches on a wide range of Biblical problems: of theology, historicity, ethics); Dennis Nineham, The Use and Abuse of the Bible: A Study of the Bible in an Age of Rapid Cultural Change;
The historical emergence of early Israelite mythology and religion: the forthcoming volume Divine Doppelgängers: YHWH’s Ancient Look-Alikes; David Aiken, "Philosophy, Archaeology and the Bible: Is Emperor Julian's Contra Galilaeos a Plausible Critique of Christianity?" — in conjunction with the work of Mark S. Smith (The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts; The Early History of God: Yahweh and Other Deities in Ancient Israel, etc.) and others; Ellen White, Yahweh's Council: Its Structure and Membership; various essays in the volume The Origins of Yahwism edited by Jürgen van Oorschot and Markus Witte; Thomas Römer, The Invention of God; E. Theodore Mullen, The Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature (and the entry "Divine Assembly" in the Anchor Bible Dictionary); Jaap Doedens, The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1–4: Analysis and History of Exegesis; Patrick Miller, The Religion of Ancient Israel; Benjamin Sommer, "Monotheism and Polytheism in Ancient Israel" (the appendix in his The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel); Johannes C. de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism: The Roots of Israelite Monotheism; John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan;
David Penchansky, Twilight of the Gods: Polytheism in the Hebrew Bible; Samuel Shaviv, "The Polytheistic Origins of the Biblical Flood Narrative" (questionable proposal, but still worth including for the sake of comprehensiveness)
Ethical problems in the Hebrew Bible, and other theological problems: Eryl Davies, The Immoral Bible: Approaches to Biblical Ethics; Eric Seibert, Disturbing Divine Behavior: Troubling Old Testament Images of God and The Violence of Scripture: Overcoming the Old Testament's Troubling Legacy; the volume Divine Evil? The Moral Character of the God of Abraham; Whybray, "The Immorality of God: Reflections on Some Passages in Genesis, Job, Exodus and Numbers"; the volume Ethical and Unethical in the Old Testament: God and Humans in Dialogue; John Collins, "The Zeal of Phinehas: The Bible and the Legitimation of Violence"; Ronald Veenker, "Do Deities Deceive?"; J. J. M. Roberts, "Does God Lie? Divine Deceit as a Theological Problem in Israelite Prophetic Literature"; James Barr, "Is God a Liar? (Genesis 2–3)—and Related Matters"; Gili Kugler, "The Cruel Theology of Ezekiel 20"; Andreas Schüle, "The Challenged God: Reflections on the Motif of God's Repentance in Job, Jeremiah, and the Non-Priestly Flood Narrative"; Christian Hofreiter, Making Sense of Old Testament Genocide: Christian Interpretations of Herem Passages; Johannes Schnocks, "When God Commands Killing: Reflections on Execution and Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament"; Ed Noort, "A God Who Kills: Deadly Threat and Its Explanation in the Hebrew Bible"; Reinhard Kratz, "Chemosh's Wrath and Yahweh's No: Ideas of God's Wrath in Moab and Israel"; Lowell Handy, "The Authorization of Divine Power and the Guilt of God in the Book of Job: Useful Ugaritic Parallels"; Edward Greenstein, "The Problem of Evil in the Book of Job"; "Truth or Theodicy? Speaking Truth to Power in the Book of Job"; various publications by David Penchansky on Job and other things; Anthony Gelston, "The Repentance of God"; W. L. Moberly, "God is Not a Human That He Should Repent: Numbers 23:19 and 1 Samuel 15:29"; Kenneth Ngwa, "Did Job Suffer for Nothing? The Ethics of Piety, Presumption and the Reception of Disaster in the Prologue of Job"; Alan Cooper, "In Praise of Divine Caprice: The Significance of the Book of Jonah"; Troy Martin, "Concluding the Book of Job and YHWH: Reading Job from the End to the Beginning" (probably also a stretch, but creative nonetheless); Carey Walsh, "The Metaprophetic God of Jonah"; Catherine Muldoon, In Defense of Divine Justice: An Intertextual Approach to the Book of Jonah;
Ethical problems in the Hebrew Bible, continued (on Biblical child sacrifice in particular): various essays in the volume Human Sacrifice in Jewish and Christian Tradition edited by Finsterbusch and Lange; Heath Dewrell, Child Sacrifice in Ancient Israel; John Van Seters, "The Law on Child Sacrifice in Exod 22,28b-29"; "From Child Sacrifice to Pascal Lamb: A Remarkable Transformation in Israelite Religion"; Jon Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity; essays in the volume Not Sparing the Child: Human Sacrifice in the Ancient World and Beyond; the chapter "Fathers and Firstlings: The Gendered Rhetoric of Child Sacrifice" in Nicole Ruane, Sacrifice and Gender in Biblical Law;
Problems of prophetic prediction: Robert Carroll, When Prophecy Failed: Reactions and Responses to Failure in the Old Testament Prophetic Traditions; "Ancient Israelite Prophecy and Dissonance Theory"; "Prophecy and Dissonance: A Theoretical Approach to the Prophetic Tradition" (also his "Eschatological Delay in the Prophetic Tradition?"); Michael Satlow, "Bad Prophecies: Canon and the Case of the Book of Daniel"; Maurice Casey, "Porphyry and the Origin of the Book of Daniel"; Matthew Neujahr, Predicting the Past in the Ancient Near East: Mantic Historiography in Ancient Mesopotamia, Judah, and the Mediterranean World; Brian Doak, "Remembering the Future, Predicting the Past: Vaticinia ex eventu in the Historiographic Traditions of the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East";
The earliest Christian origins and the historicity of the resurrection: Stephen Smith, "‘Seeing Things’: ‘Best Explanations’ and the Resurrection of Jesus"; several essays in the volume Explaining Christian Origins and Early Judaism: e.g. István Czachesz, "The Emergence Of Early Christian Religion: A Naturalistic Approach" and Ilkka Pyysiäinen, "The Mystery Of The Stolen Body: Exploring Christian Origins"; David Aune, "Christian Beginnings and Cognitive Dissonance Theory"; and various works which also focus on the historicity of the resurrection: Dale Allison, Resurrecting Jesus (in particular the title essay); Alexander Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection; Robert Cavin, "Is There Sufficient Historical Evidence to Establish the Resurrection of Jesus?"; H.J. DeLonge, "Visionary Experience and the Historical Origins of Christianity." See also Daniel Smith, Revisiting the Empty Tomb: The Early History of Easter; James Crossley, "Against the Historical Plausibility of the Empty Tomb Story and the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus"; Matti Myllykoski, "What Happened to the Body of Jesus?"; H.J. de Jonge, "Visionary Experience and the Historical Origins of Christianity"; Bruce Chilton, "The Chimeric 'Empty Tomb'"; Richard Miller, "Mark's Empty Tomb and Other Translation Fables in Classical Antiquity"; Adela Yarbro Collins, "Ancient Notions of Transferal and Apotheosis in Relation to the Empty Tomb Story in Mark"; Barnabas Lindars, "The Resurrection and the Empty Tomb"; Roy Kotansky, "The Resurrection of Jesus in Biblical Theology: From Early Appearances (1 Corinthians 15) to the 'Sindonology' of the Empty Tomb"; Kathleen Corley, "Women and the Crucifixion and Burial of Jesus"; Carolyn Osiek, "The Women at the Tomb: What Are They Doing There?"; Claudia Setzer, "Excellent Women: Female Witness to the Resurrection," etc.
Santiago Guijarro Oporto, "The Visions of Jesus and His Disciples"; Jan Bremmer, "Ghosts, Resurrections, and Empty Tombs in the Gospels, the Greek Novel, and the Second Sophistic"; Pieter Craffert, "Re-Visioning Jesus' Resurrection: The Resurrection Stories in a Neuroanthropological Perspective"
Stephen Patterson, "Why Did Christians Say: 'God Raised Jesus from the Dead'? (1 Cor 15 and the Origins of the Resurrection Tradition)"; Robert Fortna, "Mark Intimates/Matthew Defends the Resurrection"; Alan Segal, "The Resurrection: Faith or History?"; Roger David Aus, The Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Jesus, and the Death, Burial, and Translation of Moses in Judaic Tradition; Dag Endsjø, "Immortal Bodies, before Christ: Bodily Continuity in Ancient Greece and 1 Corinthians"; Paul Fullmer, Resurrection in Mark’s Literary-Historical Perspective; John Cook, "Resurrection in Paganism and the Question of an Empty Tomb in 1 Corinthians 15";
The Lukan resurrection narrative in particular: Shelly Matthews, "Fleshly Resurrection, Authority Claims, and the Scriptural Practices of Lukan Christianity" and "Elijah, Ezekiel, and Romulus: Luke’s Flesh and Bones (Luke 24:39) in Light of Ancient Narratives of Ascent, Resurrection, and Apotheosis"; Daniel Smith, "Seeing a Pneuma[tic Body]: The Apologetic Interests of Luke 24:36–43" (and perhaps also something broader like Richard Dillon, From Eye-Witnesses to Ministers of the Word: Tradition and Composition in Luke 24); Matti Myllykoski, "On the Way to Emmaus (Luke 24:13–35): Narrative and Ideological Aspects of Fiction"; Turid Karlsen Seim, "Conflicting Voices, Irony and Reiteration: An Exploration of the Narrational Structure of Luke 24.1–35 and Its Theological Implications"; Craig McMahan, "More than Meets the 'I': Recognition Scenes in the Odyssey and Luke 24" (and also Bruce Louden's "Luke 24: Theoxeny and Recognition Scenes in the Odyssey"?); Max Whitaker, "Is Jesus Athene or Odysseus? Investigating the Unrecognisability and Metamorphosis of Jesus in his Post-Resurrection Appearances" (dissertation), etc.
Problems with messianic prophecies of Jesus (see also the later bibliography on Isaiah 53)? Robert Miller, Helping Jesus Fulfill Prophecy; Richard Mead, "A Dissenting Opinion about Respect for Context in Old Testament Quotations"; M. J. J. Menken, "Fulfilment of Scripture as a Propaganda Tool in Early Christianity"; S. Vernon McCasland, "Matthew Twists the Scriptures"; Barnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations (or in shorter form, "The Place of the Old Testament in the Formation of New Testament Theology"); several of the studies discussed in the section "Key Authors and Arguments that Alter or Eliminate the Traditional Approach to Predictive Prophecy" in Douglas Scott's Is Jesus of Nazareth the Predicted Messiah?: A Historical-Evidential Approach to Specific Old Testament Messianic Prophecies and Their New Testament Fulfillments; Maurice Casey, "Christology and the Legitimating Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament." Along with these, there are many other works which may or may not be quite so similarly critical, but still raise vexing issues: M. D. Hooker, "Beyond the Things That are Written? St. Paul’s Use of Scripture"; David Jeremiah, "The Principle of Double Fulfillment in Interpreting Prophecy"; Edward Lipinski, "Études sur des Textes 'Messianiques' de l'Ancien Testament"; Walter Moberly, "What Will Happen to the Serpent?" (esp. the section "Testing the Protoevangelium"); Jack Lewis, "The Woman's Seed (Gen 3:15)"; Peter Enns, "Apostolic Hermeneutics and an Evangelical Doctrine of Scripture: Moving Beyond the Modern Impasse"; Stephen Snobelen, "The Argument over Prophecy: An Eighteenth-Century Debate Between William Whiston and Anthony Collins"; Ulrich Lehner, "Against the Consensus of the Fathers? Isaiah 7:14 and the Travail of Eighteenth-Century Catholic Exegesis"; A. Kamesar, "The Virgin of Isaiah 7:14: The Philological Argument From the Second to the Fifth Century"; J. B. Payne, "So-Called Dual Fulfillment in Messianic Psalms"; Gregory Beale, "Did Jesus and the Apostles Preach the Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?"; some briefer relevant comments and references in David Jeremiah, "The Principle of Double Fulfillment in Interpreting Prophecy."
Problems in the eschatology of the historical Jesus and early Christians: Dale Allison, Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet — in conjunction with things like The Oxford Handbook of Millennialism and the volume Expecting Armageddon: Essential Readings in Failed Prophecy. Also the volume When the Son of Man Didn't Come: A Constructive Proposal on the Delay of the Parousia; Jürgen Becker, Jesus of Nazareth; Werner Kümmel, Promise and Fulfilment: The Eschatological Message of Jesus; "Eschatological Expectation in the Proclamation of Jesus"
Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, "The Process of Jesus’ Deification and Cognitive Dissonance Theory"?
Prominent publications that offer theological criticisms of orthodox Christology and other facets of the NT and orthodoxy: the well-known volume The Myth of God Incarnate, as well as the follow-up volume Incarnation and Myth: the Debate Continued. Other issues of (unorthodox?) Christology in the NT: Javier-José Marín's The Christology of Mark: Does Mark's Christology Support the Chalcedonian Formula “Truly Man and Truly God”?; T. W. Bartel, "Why the Philosophical Problems of Chalcedonian Christology Have Not Gone Away"; Morna Hooker, "Chalcedon and the New Testament"; C. K. Barrett, "'The Father is Greater Than I' (Jo. 14:28): Subordinationist Christology in the New Testament"; Thomas Gaston, "Does the Gospel of John Have a High Christology?"; Michael Kok, "Marking a Difference: The Gospel of Mark and the 'Early High Christology' Paradigm"; J. R. Daniel Kirk, A Man Attested by God: The Human Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels; Thomas Weinandy, "The Human 'I' of Jesus"; several publications by Kevin Madigan, e.g. "Christus Nesciens? Was Christ Ignorant of the Day of Judgment?" (among other essays in The Passions of Christ in High-Medieval Thought: An Essay on Christological Development); Oliver Crisp, "Compositional Christology without Nestorianism"; Stephen T. Davis, "Is Kenotic Christology Orthodox?"; Joseph Weber, "Dogmatic Christology and the Historical-critical Method: Some Reflections on their Interrelationship"
Problems in the continuity between Judaism and Christianity, and problems with the apostle Paul’s theology in particular: Jacob Neusner, Jews and Christians: The Myth of a Common Tradition; Amy-Jill Levine, "Jesus, Divorce, and Sexuality: A Jewish Critique"; Thomas Kazen, Jesus and Purity Halakhah: Was Jesus Indifferent to Impurity?; William Loader, Jesus' Attitude Towards the Law: A Study of the Gospels; Heikki Räisänen, Paul and the Law (and also refer back to the publications by C. G. Montefiore that I cited near the beginning); "A Controversial Jew and His Conflicting Convictions: Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People Twenty Years After"; Craig Hill, "On the Source of Paul’s Problem with Judaism"; Peter Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles; Michael Bird and Preston Sprinkle, "Jewish Interpretation of Paul in the Last Thirty Years"
Works on broader issues of historicity (and fiction) in the New Testament gospels and Acts: Joel Marcus, "Did Matthew Believe His Myths?"; Lawrence Wills, The Quest of the Historical Gospel: Mark, John and the Origins of the Gospel Genre; Raymond Brown, The Birth of the Messiah and The Death of the Messiah (and Gregory Dawes' "Why Historicity Still Matters: Raymond Brown and the Infancy Narratives"); Edwin Freed, Stories of Jesus' Birth: A Critical Introduction; Andrew Lincoln, Born of a Virgin? Reconceiving Jesus in the Bible, Tradition, and Theology; Adam Winn, Mark and the Elijah-Elisha Narrative: Considering the Practice of Greco-Roman Imitation in the Search for Markan Source Material; M. David Litwa, How the Gospels Became History: Jesus and Mediterranean Myths (forthcoming in August 2019); Matti Kankaanniemi, "The Guards of the Tomb (Matt 27:62–66 and 28:11–15): Matthew’s Apologetic Legend Revisited" (dissertation); E. Randolph Richards, "Was Matthew a Plagiarist? Plagiarism in Greco-Roman Antiquity"; Mogens Müller, "The New Testament Gospels as Biblical Rewritings: On the Question of Referentiality"; Brad McAdon, Rhetorical Mimesis and the Mitigation of Early Christian Conflicts; the volume Early Christian Voices: In Texts, Traditions, and Symbols (especially Brock, "Luke the Politician: Promoting the Gospel by Polishing Christianity's Rough Edges," etc.); Eve-Marie Becker, "The Gospel of Mark in the Context of Ancient Historiography"; Dale Miller and Patricia Miller, The Gospel of Mark as Midrash on Earlier Jewish and New Testament Literature; John Morgan, "Make-believe and Make Believe: The Fictionality of the Greek Novels"; Randel Helms, Gospel Fictions (?)
Gospel authorship and sources: A bibliography of responses to Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
Problems of historicity in the book of Acts in particular: Marianne Bonz, The Past as Legacy: Luke-Acts and Ancient Epic; Loveday Alexander, Acts in its Ancient Literary Context (e.g. "Fact, Fiction and the Genre of Acts"; "The Acts of the Apostles as an Apologetic Text," etc.); Charles Talbert, "What is Meant by the Historicity of Acts?"; Clare Rothschild, Luke-Acts and the Rhetoric of History; the volume Contextualizing Acts: Lukan Narrative and Greco-Roman Discourse; Samson Uytanlet, Luke-Acts and Jewish Historiography; Richard Pervo, "Acts in the Suburbs of the Apologists"; "Israel's Heritage and Claims upon the Genre(s) of Luke and Acts: The Problems of a History"; Arie Zwiep, Christ, the Spirit and the Community of God: Essays on the Acts of the Apostles; Daniel Marguerat, Paul in Acts and Paul in His Letters; Sean Adams, "The Relationships of Paul and Luke: Luke, Paul’s Letters, and the 'We' Passages of Acts"; Rieuwerd Buitenwerf, "Acts 9:1-25: Narrative History Based on the Letters of Paul"; R. Barry Matlock, "Does the Road to Damascus Run through the Letters of Paul?"; Heikki Leppä, "Reading Galatians with and without the Book of Acts"; Alexander Wedderburn, "The 'We'-Passages in Acts: On the Horns of a Dilemma"; Paul Holloway, "Inconvenient Truths: Early Jewish and Christian History Writing and the Ending of Luke-Acts"; Thomas Brodie, "Greco-Roman Imitation of Texts as a Partial Guide to Luke's Use of Sources"; Craig Evans, "Luke and the Rewritten Bible: Aspects of Lukan Hagiography"
Problems in Jesus’ and the New Testament’s ethics (and beyond)? Hector Avalos, The Bad Jesus: The Ethics of New Testament Ethics (and articles like "Jesus as Whippersnapper: John 2:15 and Prophetic Violence"); A. E. Harvey, Strenuous Commands: The Ethic of Jesus; J. Harold Ellens, "The Violent Jesus"; Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, "Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance: A Reassessment of the Arguments" and "(Why) Was Jesus the Galilean Cruciﬁed Alone? Solving a False Conundrum"; Jeremy Punt, "'Unethical' Language in the Pauline Letters? Stereotyping, Vilification and Identity Matters"; Margaret Davies, "Stereotyping the Other: The 'Pharisees' in the Gospel According to Matthew"; Raimo Hakola, "Social Identity and a Stereotype in the Making: Pharisees as Hypocrites in Matthew 23?"; John D. Crossan, Jesus and the Violence of Scripture; several essays in the volume Christianity and the Roots of Morality: Philosophical, Early Christian and Empirical Perspectives;
David Aune, "Luke 20:34-36: A 'Gnosticized' Logion of Jesus?"; [the essay of Seim;]
Ethical and theological/philosophical/metaphysical issues of sex and gender: the volume Image of God and Gender Models in Judaeo-Christian Tradition; the volumes Women and Christian Origins (eds. Kraemer and D'Angelo) and Religion and Sexism: Images of Women in the Jewish and Christian Traditions; Frances Gench, Encountering God in Tyrannical Texts: Reflections on Paul, Women, and the Authority of Scripture and Back to the Well: Women's Encounters with Jesus in the Gospels; Pablo Alonso, The Woman who Changed Jesus: Crossing Boundaries in Mk 7,24-30; David Rhoads, "Jesus and the Syrophoenician Woman in Mark: A Narrative-Critical Study"; Ruth Edwards, The Case for Women's Ministry
On pseudepigraphy: the volume Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen; Terry Wilder, Pseudonymity, the New Testament, and Deception: An Inquiry into Intention and Reception; Jonathan Klawans, "Deceptive Intentions: Forgeries, Falsehoods and the Study of Ancient Judaism"

Other categories and supplementary material

On sacrifice, atonement, substitution and blood ritual in ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean religion: Daniel Ullucci, "Sacrifice in the Ancient Mediterranean: Recent and Current Research"; Gunnel Ekroth, "Animal Sacrifice in Antiquity"; JoAnn Scurlock, "Animal Sacrifice in Ancient Mesopotamian Religion"; Isabel Cranz, Atonement and Purification: Priestly and Assyro-Babylonian Perspectives on Sin and its Consequences; Yitzhaq Feder, Blood Expiation in Hittite and Biblical Ritual: Origins, Context, and Meaning; William Gilders, Blood Ritual in the Hebrew Bible: Meaning and Power; Jan Bremmer, "The Scapegoat between Northern Syria, Hittites, Israelites, Greeks and Early Christians"; various essays in the volume Sacrifice in Religious Experience; various essays in the volume Sacrifice, Cult, and Atonement in Early Judaism and Christianity: Constituents and Critique
On sin in general — its source and how it was dealt with: Jay Sklar, Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement: The Priestly Conceptions; Jonathan Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism; Miryam Brand, Evil Within and Without: The Source of Sin and Its Nature as Portrayed in Second Temple Literature
On the "suffering servant" in Isaiah 53 (which has often served as the primary prophetic prooftext for Jesus' sacrificial death, etc.): Fredrik Hägglund's Isaiah 53 in the Light of Homecoming after Exile; Frederik Poulsen's The Black Hole in Isaiah: A Study of Exile as a Literary Theme; Ulrich Berges' "The Literary Construction of the Servant in Isaiah 40-55: A Discussion About Individual and Collective Identities"; Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer's For the Comfort of Zion: The Geographical and Theological Location of Isaiah 40-55; Kristin Joachimsen's Identities in Transition: The Pursuit of Isa. 52:13-53:12; Hans-Jürgen Hermisson, "The Fourth Servant Song in the Context of Second Isaiah"; R. E. Clements, "Isaiah 53 and the Restoration of Israel"; Joseph Blenkinsopp, "The Servant and the Servants in Isaiah and the Formation of the Book" (see also Jaap Decker's "The Servant and the Servants in the Book of Isaiah"); Ulrich Berges' The Book of Isaiah: Its Composition and Final Form; various essays in the volume Continuity and Discontinuity: Chronological and Thematic Development in Isaiah 40-66 (especially for broader context about Isaiah 40-55, etc.); Antti Laato's The Servant of YHWH and Cyrus: A Reinterpretation of the Exilic Messianic Programme in Isaiah 40-55 and Who is the Servant of the Lord?: Jewish and Christian Interpretations on Isaiah 53 from Antiquity to the Middle Ages; Hans Barstad, The Babylonian Captivity of the Book of Isaiah: ‘Exilic’ Judah and the Provenance of Isaiah 40–55; relevant sections in Jacob Stromberg's Isaiah After Exile: The Author of Third Isaiah as Reader and Redactor of the Book (especially in the third section, "The Author of Third Isaiah as Redactor of the Book"; see also his essay "Deutero-Isaiah's Restoration Reconfigured"). Any number of other studies could be mentioned here, too: Harry Orlinsky, The So-called "Servant of the Lord" and "Suffering Servant" in Second Isaiah; various essays in the volume The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources (e.g. Spieckermann's "The Conception and Prehistory of the Idea of Vicarious Suffering in the Old Testament"); John Walton, "The Imagery of the Substitute King Ritual in Isaiah's Fourth Servant Song," etc.
Applying Mediterranean and other models of sacrifice and atonement to Jesus and the gospels: Henk Versnel, "Making Sense of Jesus' Death: The Pagan Contribution"; various publications by Stephen Finlan, e.g. Sacrifice and Atonement: Psychological Motives and Biblical Patterns; Maclean; "Barabbas, the Scapegoat Ritual, and the Development of the Passion Narrative"; Nicole Duran, The Power of Disorder: Ritual Elements in Mark's Passion Narrative; David Seeley, The Noble Death: Graeco-Roman Martyrology and Paul's Concept of Salvation; Marinus de Jonge, "Jesus' Death for Others and the Death of the Maccabean Martyrs"; the work of Jarvis J. Williams
On the context of Jesus as a miracle worker and exorcist: various essays in the volume Demons and Illness from Antiquity to the Early-Modern Period; Eric Eve, The Jewish Context of Jesus' Miracles; Wendy Cotter, Miracles in Greco-Roman Antiquity: A Sourcebook for the Study of New Testament Miracle Stories; Ida Fröhlich, "Demons, Scribes, and Exorcists in Qumran"; Loren Stuckenbruck, "The Demonic World of the Dead Sea Scrolls"; Eric Sorensen, Possession and Exorcism in the New Testament and Early Christianity; Todd Klutz, "The Grammar of Exorcism in the Ancient Mediterranean World"; Dennis Duling, "The Eleazar Miracle and Solomon’s Magical Wisdom in Flavius Josephus’s Antiquitatae Judaicae 8.42-49; "Solomon, Exorcism, and the Son of David"; Mary Mills, Human Agents of Cosmic Power in Hellenistic Judaism and the Synoptic Tradition; Archie Wright, "Evil Spirits in the Second Temple Judaism: The Watcher Tradition as a Background to the Demonic Pericopes in the Gospels"; Emma Abate, "Controlling Demons: Magic and Rituals in the Jewish Tradition from the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Cairo Genizah"; John Thomas, The Devil, Disease and Deliverance: Origins of Illness in New Testament Thought
Prayer in philosophy of religion, and in early Judaism and beyond: Michael Murray and Kurt Meyers, "Ask and It Will Be Given to You"; Scott Davison, Petitionary Prayer: A Philosophical Investigation; Zeba Crook, "Religion's Coercive Prayers" (?); Nicholas Smith, "Philosophical Reflection on Petitionary Prayer"; Shane Sharp, "When Prayers Go Unanswered"; Wendy Cadge, "Possibilities and Limits of Medical Science: Debates Over Double-Blind Clinical Trials of Intercessory Prayer."
Various essays in the volume Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World; the multi-volume SBL Seeking the Favor of God collection (volume 1: The Origins of Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism; volume 2: The Development of Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism; volume 3: The Impact of Penitential Prayer beyond Second Temple Judaism); Jeremy Penner, Patterns of Daily Prayer in Second Temple Period Judaism; Simon Pulleyn, Prayer in Greek Religion; Mark Kiley (ed.), Prayer From Alexander To Constantine: A Critical Anthology; Esther Eshel, "Apotropaic Prayers in the Second Temple Period";
Various other general works on the historical Jesus, Paul, the New Testament and the emergence of Christianity: Jans Schröter, From Jesus to the New Testament: Early Christian Theology and the Origin of the New Testament Canon (e.g. "New Testament Science beyond Historicism: Recent Developments in the Theory of History and Their Significant for the Exegesis of Early Christian Writings"); Per Bilde, The Originality of Jesus: A Critical Discussion and a Comparative Attempt; Alexander Wedderburn, Jesus and the Historians; the volumes Whose Historical Jesus? (eds. Arnal and Desjardins), Christian Origins and the Establishment of the Early Jesus Movement, and From Jesus to his First Followers: Continuity and Discontinuity; Heikki Räisänen, The Rise of Christian Beliefs: The Thought World of Early Christians; Sean Freyne, The Jesus Movement and Its Expansion: Meaning and Mission; E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism; Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People; various publications by Burton Mark (The Christian Myth: Origins, Logic, and Legacy, etc.); Gerd Theissen, The New Testament: A Literary History; The Gospels in Context; Lauri Thurén, Derhetoricizing Paul: A Dynamic Perspective on Pauline Theology and the Law; Mark Given, Paul's True Rhetoric: Ambiguity, Cunning, and Deception in Greece and Rome
Various studies on the early apostolic interactions and missions; the general/pastoral epistles; "early orthodoxy," etc.: a few essays in the volume Redescribing Christian Origins (Dennis Smith, "What Do We Really Know about the Jerusalem Church? Christian Origins in Jerusalem According to Acts and Paul"; Luther Martin, "History, Historiography, and Christian Origins: the Jerusalem Community"; Christopher Matthews, "Acts and the History of the Earliest Jerusalem Church"); the volume The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul: Tensions in Early Christianity; Nicholas Taylor, Paul, Antioch and Jerusalem: A Study in Relationships and Authority; Jack Gibson, Peter Between Jerusalem and Antioch: Peter, James, and the Gentiles; Arie Zwiep, "Putting Paul in Place with a Trojan Horse"; Michael Goulder, Paul and the Competing Mission in Corinth; Kari Syreeni, "James and the Pauline Legacy: Power Play in Corinth?" (and a few other essays in the volume Fair Play: Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity — Essays in Honour of Heikki Räisänen); Edward Ellis, History and Interpretation in New Testament Perspective; Carey Newman, "Jude 22, Apostolic Authority, and the Canonical Role of the Catholic Epistles"; Denis Farkasfalvy, "The Ecclesial Setting of Pseudepigraphy in Second Peter and its Role in the Formation of the Canon"; F. Lapham, Peter: The Myth, the Man and the Writings; David Nienhuis, "'From the Beginning': The Formation of an Apostolic Christian Identity in 2 Peter and 1-3 John" (and his monograph Not by Paul Alone: The Formation of the Catholic Epistle Collection and the Christian Canon, though I think this has some too-radical conclusions); Finn Damgaard, Rewriting Peter as an Intertextual Character in the Canonical Gospels; Brevard Childs, The Church's Guide for Reading Paul: The Canonical Shaping of the Pauline Corpus; Richard Pervo, The Making of Paul: Constructions of the Apostle in Early Christianity; Christopher Mount, Pauline Christianity: Luke-Acts and the Legacy of Paul; "Luke-Acts and the Investigation of Apostolic Tradition: From a Life of Jesus to a History of Christianity"; Paul Holloway, "Inconvenient Truths: Early Jewish and Christian History Writing and the Ending of Luke-Acts"; Margaret Mitchell, "The Letter of James as a Document of Paulinism?" (?)
Anti-Judaism in the New Testament and early Christianity? The volumes Anti-Judaism and the Gospels (ed. Farmer) and Jesus, Judaism, and Christian Anti-Judaism: Reading the New Testament after the Holocaust; Luke Johnson, "The New Testament's Anti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic"; the two-volume Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity (volume 1: Paul and the Gospels; volume 2: Separation and Polemic); Abel Bibliowicz, Jews and Gentiles in the Early Jesus Movement: An Unintended Journey; Michael Bachmann, Anti-Judaism in Galatians? Exegetical Studies on a Polemical Letter and on Paul's Theology
Various publications on Biblical theology and other things: John J. Collins, "Is a Critical Biblical Theology Possible?"; Niels Lemche, The Old Testament Between Theology and History: A Critical Survey; Heikki Räisänen, Beyond New Testament Theology: A Story and a Programme; Challenges to Biblical Interpretation: Collected Essays, 1991-2000 (and The Bible Among Scriptures and Other Essays); Timo Eskola, Beyond Biblical Theology: Sacralized Culturalism in Heikki Räisänen’s Hermeneutics; Gerd Theissen, Biblical Faith: An Evolutionary Approach

Misc.

Continued here: https://www.reddit.com/UnusedSubforMe/comments/dklfsj/notes8/fksqod8/

Christianity and Qumran; The Dead Sea Scrolls & Jesus Christ

qumran scrolls jesus

qumran scrolls jesus - win

My grandmother has been trying to convert me to Christianity, and insists that the dead Sea scrolls prove Christianity is real. Can y'all tell me yalls rebuttals for the Dead Sea scrolls argument?

JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES’ REFUTED: WORSHIP JESUS AS GOD

JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES’ REFUTED: WORSHIP JESUS AS GOD

Questions about the Essenes

Islam claims the Bible was corrupted away from its original meaning. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove this is impossible.

Matthew 4 - the throngs

Is there legitimacy to the claim that John the Baptist was an Essene?

Were the ancient Jews who worshiped Jesus as God became ditheists?

Brief intro on Gnosticism

What sources do we have regarding the messianic expectations of second temple Jews?

Is the canon of the Hebrew Bible fixed during the time of Jesus?

Two Articles by Shelly Matthews on Resurrection

James Dunn: The Bible as ‘living tradition’ (part 3)

Review of Margaret Barker's Temple Theology

Was Jesus a high memeber of the Essene Community in Qumran?

I've copied the below from an article on a website. I'd like to hear your opinions on it. And if this is correct: Paul and James in Open Conflict in The Book of Acts