I'm curious how, in the context of spiritual teaching and leveraging scripture, religious leaders are balancing the value of the text with questions that scholarship has raised as to the authenticity and originality of various texts such as the Johannine comma, the woman caught in adultery, the end of Mark, etc. Thank you in advance for your thoughts!

Some scholars say that "Paul" did not write Ephesians , whereas they are confident that he did write Romans. Who are they talking about when they say that? Some quick possibilities could be - The author of Romans - The Paul who Luke speaks of - The early Christian missionary to the gentiles - The Paul who Peter speaks of Now, obviously, if one is defining Paul as the author of Romans, then the deduction that Romans is a genuine letter of Paul becomes trivial. So, my question is "what are the trivial facts about Paul?" or "if scholars had to replace the word 'Paul' with a description then what would that description be?"

After the Fall of Adam and Eve, we can see in Genesis3:14, that God immediately cursed the serpent, showing that the serpent had done an action contrary to the Will of God, and since angel have superb intellect, they have no excuse for ignorance that it is not against the Will of God. Satan indwelling a Serpent had "touched" Eve. We can infer that Satan untame when he enters the garden, "touches" Eve, harming a part of her, that was sacred in the eyes of God, like her pure womb. Why her pure womb? Because the punishment of Eve in Genesis3:16 is about child-bearing. After God cursed the serpent, removing some of its powers, as some theologians and biblical scholars saw the Serpent, have arms,legs and wings. All of this capabilities were removed by God, and cursed the Serpent to crawl on its bellies. From Serpent to snake, is the cursed. https://answersingenesis.org/genesis/garden-of-eden/did-the-serpent-originally-have-legs/ And because of this, we can see a tamed Satan in the Book of Job, asking God first the limits, because another action that contradict the Will of God, will be the end of Satan. And so, God set the clear limits for Satan to follow. >"The LORD said to the satan, “Very well, all that he has is in your power; only do not lay a hand on him.” So the satan went forth from the presence of the LORD."-Job1:12 Job1:12 is a great relief for all mankind, knowing that Satan cannot do anything, that God won't allow, in every man. Going back to Genesis3:15. After cursing the Serpent, God the Father immediately declared a WAR, a perennial enmity between Woman vs. Satan. If God was the one who declared a war, what is the role and power, God had in mind, when He uttered the word "Woman"? Is there a Church Father's teachings, theologians and biblical scholars who explain the role and power that God will give to a Woman. In reference to John2:4, it would seem, that the Woman role, is a powerful Intercessor. In reference to Canticle6:10, the Woman is a powerful Warrior. John2:4 and Canticle6:10 showed that the Woman's role and power is, a powerful Warrior and Intercessor. Is there a Church Father's Teachings, Theologians or Biblical Scholars who had described the role and power of the Woman? Although, Catholicsm is the preferred answer, if there are credible sources, outside Catholicism, like Jewish biblical scholars interpretation and Christian commentaries, answers will be appreciated.no

The author's name given in the book is as follows: Roslyn D'Onston. I saw a footnote in reference to this book while doing some reading so I looked it up. I was happy to find that the work was public domain where I live so I got a digital copy free of charge. I was also happy to read the following on Google: "This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it." All seemed fine and well up to this point and I enjoyed reading through the translation of the Gospels and accompanying notes. As I often do, I decided to Google the author to learn more. That's where things got extremely weird. Apparently, this fella was involved in the occult and was suspected in the murders related to Jack the Ripper. As in...he was suspected to BE Jack the Ripper! You just can't make this stuff up, I guess. Anyway, due to the Jack the Ripper connection, I can't find much of anything about the author and his education/theology. He seems to understand Greek reasonably well and even mentions prominent scholars of the time by name (like Bishop Westcott). I'm just wondering if anyone here knows more about his background and credibility. Wikipedia's article on [Robert Donston Stephenson](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Donston_Stephenson) and *The Guardian*'s article ["New Ripper suspect's ritual killings obeyed occult decree"](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/jul/28/humanities.books) links him to D'Onston. I'm not very well informed on news sources and their credibility so maybe these are way off base. The Guardian article claims that D'Onston published the Patristic Gospels and then was never seen or heard from again.

I've looked at the discoveries of things like the Tel Dan Inscription or the Pilate Stone which testify to the existence of David and Pilate. I read that before such archeological discoveries, the existence of people like King David and Pontius Pilate was disputed. Now, it seems that most scholars accept the existence of David, and all accept Pilate existing from what I've seen. Apparently, starting from somewhere around the 17th century, scholars were arguing against Biblical figures existing. They also argued against the Philistines' existence. Every apologist I encounter who brings up these discoveries starts off by saying "Skeptics used to say 'x', but because of these discoveries, we have evidence that 'y' is true, so they agree with us now." But I cannot find many examples of skeptic scholars in the past who have denied the Philistines, David, Pilate, or many other people whose existence is disputed. Maybe I haven't done enough research. But these attacks on skeptics are found on basically all apologist websites defending the validity of the Bible. Here's one example of such a website from a good defender of the Word: https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/a-brief-sample-of-old-testament-archaeological-corroboration/ Could someone point me toward some evidence that the scholars doubted the existence of David, Pilate, and the Philistines back in the day? Thanks.

I was doing some research on people's views on King Belshazzar mentioned in Daniel 5. All the Christian apologists who defend the book of Daniel mention that his existence was disbelieved among the skeptical scholars up until 1854, when an archeological discovery of the Nabonidus cylinders confirmed his existence. That figures, because prior to 1854, all the historians listed Nabonidus as the last King of Babylon. But I was wondering which scholars/historians are actually recorded explicitly stating that Belshazzar didn't exist? Apparently German theologian Ferdinand Hitzig was one of them, websites mention that he said that Belshazzar was 'obviously a figment of the Jewish writer's imagination'. But I went to the source (his book is named Das Buch Daniel, which you can find here https://archive-org.translate.goog/stream/bub_gb_i5JAAAAAcAAJ/bub_gb_i5JAAAAAcAAJ_djvu.txt?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc) , and when I did a search on the file I couldn't find where he said that, which is why other people say that the claim that Ferdinand made this quote is false. Anyway I just wanted to find out about the group of people who were making this claim.

Modern scholarship tends to reject the attributed authorship of the gospels. But are there non-Christian scholars who believe in the attributed authorship?

- Were the Gospels written by eyewitnesses? Which ones? What do scholars & historians have to say on this? - What are the best arguments for the eyewitness authorship of (some of) the Gospels? - Even if (some of) the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, can the content still be traced back to actual eyewitnesses? In other words, can we confidently conclude that most of the content of the Gospels is ultimately rooted in the testimony of actual eyewitnesses? If so, why? ___ **Note**: this question is related to several others (see below), although the focus here is on the *eyewitness* condition of the potential authors or of their ultimate sources: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15442/are-the-gospel-authors-who-we-believe-them-to-be - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/83374/who-actually-were-writers-of-the-gospels - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/43190/among-modern-critics-who-believe-in-the-attributed-authorship-of-the-gospels-wh Another closely related question is this one: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/83320/is-it-correct-to-say-bible-has-2-eyewitness-accounts-matthew-mark-and-luke-as . Unfortunately, the only [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/83339/50422) so far simply affirms that *"the claim is true: we have two Gospels written by eyewitnesses, those of Matthew & John"* but doesn't provide a justification as to why. My question has an explicit focus on **why**: **how do we know** that they were eyewitnesses? (Claims need to be substantiated, hence the *apologetics* tag. If it serves as context, I'm asking this as a follow-up to [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89886/50422).)

Questions such as https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/7209/50422 and https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/3339/50422 have already been asked in the past, but they have been closed due to their wording that promotes opinion-based answers. Since I don't want my question to fall into the same trap, I would like to know instead **if there is any consensus among Christian scholars and apologists** with regards to which Biblical prophecies are most likely examples of actual fulfilled prophecies, thereby providing the best evidence for the divine inspiration of the Bible. Which Biblical prophecies are believed to have been fulfilled by most Christian scholars / apologists? Among those, which ones are considered to be the most remarkable?

I am quoting a bible commentator for a paper I am writing, and was wondering if I should say, "One scholar says..." or if I should just stick with "One commentator says..."