Jesus does not have a brother in the catholic tradition, his mother Mary is a perpetual virgin, which can hardly be compatible with having several children. Yet in his epistle to the Galatians (1, 19) , Paul calls James "the brother of the Lord". In the first letter to the Corinthians (9: 4-5) , he mentions other brothers of the Lord who have the right to take their wives during their apostolic mission. It is clear in Paul's formulation that compares his rights with "other apostles and the Lord’s brothers, and the apostle Peter" that he does not attribute the qualifier of brother of the Lord only to a few specific individuals. It does not stand as synonym of disciple. From this, several historians hold the position that either Joseph or Mary had children together or from previous relationships for Joseph like P-A. Bernheim(https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2584331-james-brother-of-jesus) , or F. Blanchetière[2] (https://brill.com/view/title/15554) , who point out that, Paul never qualifies Peter or John as brother of the Lord, or Fr John P. Meier who denies[3] (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/838138.A_Marginal_Jew) the theory of cousins that never appears in the Greek version of the Old Testament in which the term *adelphos* marks exclusively the fraternal bond of blood or right. However the Catholic church and many Catholic exegetes believe that Mary didn't had other children, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church , following the traditional reading based on the later belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary, following Jerome [4] (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm), the first Father of the Church to argue against the siblings theory for the benefit of the cousins one at the end of the fourth century. They also recuse the half-brothers and sisters theory presented in an apocryphal gospel from James, around 180, born of a first marriage of Joseph from previous relationships. Why these "Brothers of the Lord" have been embarrassing for the Catholic Church which make them gradually forgotten and lose their quality of brothers? Why at the same time as the cult of chastity develops, whose mother of Jesus becomes the symbol and which will find its apogee in the doctrine of its perpetual virginity? Note : Other like Assyrian and part of protestants hold this doctrine as well but I narrow my question to the Catholic Church as far as the different schisms had not yet been pronounced when the doctrine was created.

### Isaiah 7 Background Isaiah 7:14 is famously quoted by the Gospel of Matthew (Matt 1:23) as a prophecy about Jesus’s birth: > She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “**Look, the virgin shall become pregnant and give birth to a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel**,” which means, “God is with us.” - Matthew 1:22-23 (NRSV) Many Christian apologists recognize that the events of Isaiah 7 and the prophecy of the birth of the child had an application in the time of Isaiah during the Syro-Ephraimite war , with the maturation of the child marking the victory of Judah over Syria: > Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son and shall name him Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. **For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted**. The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.” - Isaiah 7:14-17 (NRSV) Those who believe that there was an immediate context and fulfillment of this prophecy believe that it was later re-fulfilled in the birth of Jesus as a “dual-fulfillment ”, such as Dr. Michael Brown . ### Two Virgin Births? Do Christians who believe in a dual-fulfillment of Isaiah 7 believe that there were two virgin births? If so, do they believe that the first virgin born child was some kind of divine figure like Jesus? If there were not two virgin births, how was this prophecy fulfilled twice?

This question discusses the differences between Marcan priority and Matthean priority and asks about the arguments in favor of Matthean priority. My question is who holds and promotes this view. I heard the claim made that there are only a few scholars who hold to this view and that Marcan priority is almost undisputed. Is it true that the overwhelming majority of Christian and secular scholars hold to Marcan priority? Who are the major voices on the side of Matthean priority? Is there a reliable indication of what proportion of the scholarly community holds to Matthean priority or disputes Marcan priority? I'll also accept a well-sourced answer confirming the claim that Marcan priority is all but undisputed.

Since some biblical characters, like Kings David and Solomon did exist, but others didn't ( I am assuming that Noah didn't,for instance, although some people think he really lived a lot of years ago) I was wondering ... Did Cain really exist ?? Is he really buried in Kabul ?? The story goes like this : Cain travelled to the actual Iran, and somehow he found redemption for his great sin. Nowadays he is buried in a cemetery in Kabul beneath a mosque of Muslim religion. https://www.mitele.es/programas-tv/cuarto-milenio/temporada-19/top-videos/tumba-cain-kabul-40_012353011/player/

This development in German universities in the 1800s is not to be confused with today’s “Critical Theory” (just in case anyone reading the 1990 quote below thinks they are akin.) This question deals with a new approach to Scripture – examining the text critically, scientifically even, as all other ancient texts should be treated. It was at total odds with the venerable Dean Burgon who declared, > “The Bible is none other than the Word of God: not some part of it, > more, some part less; but all alike, the utterance of Him who sits > upon the Throne; - absolute, faultless, unerring, supreme.” J.W. > Burgon, *Inspiration and Interpretation, Seven Sermons before the > University of Oxford in 1860-61*, p.89 Although today’s “Critical Theory” does impact on the Church, it is political, not theological, being a German idea started in Germany in 1923 that is a mixture of Marxism and postmodernism being fronted as ‘social justice’. Having cleared that up, ***here now is the quote that my question is based upon:*** > “In its own eyes, historical-critical theology wants to lend > assistance to the proclamation of the gospel through an interpretation > of the Bible that is scientifically reliable and objective. There is, > however, a monstrous contradiction between what it says it wants to > do, on the one hand, and what it actually does, on the other. It does > not further the proclamation of the gospel – in fact, it actually > prevents it.” Eta Linnemann, 1990 Dr. Linnemann was a ‘follower’ of Rudolph Bultmann and a teacher of higher criticism in the university system of West Germany but I cannot find the book she wrote which this quote apparently comes from (which is in a translation of: *Historical Criticism of the Bible*) **Can anyone** pad this quote out to **give reasons for such a drastic reversal? In what ways would Higher Criticism prevent the proclamation of the biblical gospel, as claimed? What is “this monstrous contradiction”** Dr. Linnemann hints at?

I have seen many times the claim that Genesis 1-2 is *intended by the author(s)* to be taken as a myth, that ancient people took it as a myth, etc. Now, maybe I'm just weird, but I don't see this from simply reading the text. I have seen numerous articles and such explaining why the text, statistically and grammatically, is consistent with other "plain history" accounts in Scripture. As best I can determine, the majority of Christians throughout history¹ have taken it as plainly historic. I have seen *atheists* stating that it is "clearly" *intended* to be plainly historic. What is the basis (*Biblical* basis, if possible, but I'll take extra-Biblical arguments as well) for a non-historic reading? **PLEASE NOTE:** Arguments from "science" (that is, Materialist assertions which are founded in a desire to deny God) are clearly tainted and therefore not acceptable. (¹ I'm aware there are exceptions. Unless it can be shown that a *majority*, i.e. more than 50%, of Christians rejected a plain historic reading, please limit comments on this point.)

"The Jesus Seminar was a group of about 50 critical biblical scholars and 100 laymen founded in 1985 by Robert Funk that originated under the auspices of the Westar Institute. The seminar was very active through the 1980s and 1990s, and into the early 21st century." -from ***[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar).*** Following is the Jesus Seminar's version of "Lord's Prayer. Members voted in secret by using 4 different colored beads on each phrase of the Lukan version. E.g.: - Red - Jesus said; - Pink - Sure sounds like Jesus; - Gray - Well, may be; - Black - There's been some mistake. (from [Unmasking the Jesus Seminar](https://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/series/unmasking-the-jesus-seminar/) by Dr. M.D. Roberts)

I've come across some criticism of the gospels as historical accounts based on the author’s ability to know certain events that seem unknowable, or at least hard to know, like the quote below: > Mark’s narrator can describe the inner feelings of the characters – their compassion, anger, fear, sadness, amazement and love. The narrator tells when characters are dazed, stunned, puzzled, pleased, terrified or dejected. The narrator also tells the audience what the characters are thinking, for example, that the opponents think Jesus is a blasphemer or that Pilate knows the high priests are envious. The narrator explains why characters do things and when characters do not understand and when they do not know what to say. *Source*: [Quora post by Dick Harfield](https://qr.ae/pvkK73) referencing [Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel, 3rd Ed](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0800699092) (2012) by Rhoads, Dewey and Michie > When a narrator is omniscient, audiences tend to be unaware of the narrator's biases, values and conception of the world, and therefore tend to trust the narrator as a neutral, objective teller of the events. *Source*: [Google preview](https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Mark_as_Story/H1oqpGN5WeMC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22narrator%27s+biases,+values+and+conception+of+the+world%22&pg=PT80&printsec=frontcover) of [Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel, 3rd Ed](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0800699092) (2012) by Rhoads, Dewey and Michie, Chapter 2: The Narrator, Section "The Narrator's Point of View", Subsection "The narrator is not neutral" Whilst this quote pertains to Mark, there are multiple instances in the gospels, or even Acts, where things appear to be written from an omniscient narrator perspective, or at least written regarding things the disciples weren’t present at. Consider: > “Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.”” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭2:7-8‬ ‭ > “About that time there arose a great disturbance about the Way. A silversmith named Demetrius, who made silver shrines of Artemis, brought in a lot of business for the craftsmen there. He called them together, along with the workers in related trades, and said: “You know, my friends, that we receive a good income from this business.” ‭‭Acts‬ ‭19:23-25‬ ‭ There are multiple other examples, such as when the gospels record the discussion of the Pharisees amongst themselves, etc. I have heard that the gospels aren’t verbatim transcripts, but there are just some events where it seems hard to believe that the writers could have even known what happened, or even what was said. So then, how are the gospels able to record some events like omniscient narrators when they would not have even been present, let alone be able to record the private discussions of individuals? How would one refute the quote posted above? Does the (potential) use of omniscient narration impact the reliability of the gospels / their ability to be historical biographies? Please note: I’m not saying there is or isn’t omniscient narration, but for the purpose of asking about it, I've included it in the title of my question. Irrespective of whether you think it is omniscient narration or not, there are some private events in the Bible that are described by the authors which seem difficult for them to be present at. I'm not asking this question to be critical and I understand it may be broad. But, I guess I just want a clarity on **how certain events in the gospels can be recorded if the disciples weren’t there?**

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.

Evangelicals believe that the canonized Scripture is **the authoritative and inerrant word of God** communicated to the ancient authors under divine inspiration. The 1978-1982 [Chicago statement of inerrancy and hermeneutics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy) is held to be the standard by evangelicals today to define what they mean by inerrancy. ### Inerrancy and the "final edited version" What I don't understand is why do I frequently hear that the use of [historical criticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism) is discouraged or even prohibited in evangelical circles, if what matters for inerrancy is the **final edited version** of each Biblical book (what Chicago terms as the lost **"original manuscript"**)? Of course, historical criticism can be used by non Christians to show that some Biblical books were not authored by the traditional author (such as like Moses for the Pentateuch, or Isaiah for the whole book of Isaiah). But inerrancy doesn't require us to believe that they are the sole authors. Therefore, if we use historical criticism *judiciously* while holding that behind all the editing and authoring process to arrive at the eventual form of each Biblical book **there was God's providence and God's revelation inspiring every author/editor contributing to the final edited version**, why are evangelicals against it? ### Providence over preservation of each Biblical book across ages Secondly, don't evangelicals believe that God not only guarantees the inerrancy of the "final edited version" / "original manuscript" of each book, but also **providentially preserving the various copies of each book**, as each book was copied through the ages (producing the many versions in the codices and fragments that survived), so that throughout the 2000 year Christian history every believer has access to an accurate-enough copy? In my understanding, the Chicago statement "applies only to the original manuscript which no longer exist" (*cf*. [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy)) . Although lost, today we still have a rough copy of the "final edited version" of each book, which "can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy" (Article 10). Therefore, isn't today's constructability of a roughly accurate copy of the "final edited version" the most important consequence of the doctrine of inerrancy? **If that's the most important consequence, what is the problem with historical criticism?** ### Comparison with the Catholics' use of historical criticism In contrast, since the mid 20th century, the Catholic church has been more open in using historical criticism judiciously in the interpretation of Scripture, also covered in [*Dei Verbum*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dei_verbum) , a functionally equivalent document to the Chicago statement. From a 2015 talk by Timothy A. Lenchak, SVD [The Fiftieth Anniversary of Vatican II’s *Dei Verbum*](http://www.divineword.org/assets/1/6/50th_anniv._dei_verbum-dwc_talk1.pdf) (emphasis mine): > This insistence on going back to the spirit of the times was confirmed in 1964 by a document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on [*The Historicity of the Gospels (Sancta Mater Ecclesia)*](https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/historicity-of-the-gospels-2318) . Note that this document was published during Vatican II but before the final text of *Dei Verbum* was approved. It had great influence on *Dei Verbum*, especially on [paragraph 19](https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html) . Both documents note that the text of the Gospels as we have them was affected by three distinct historical traditions: (1) the historical Jesus; (2) the oral preaching of the apostles; and (3) the work of the evangelists themselves. “**Implicit in this scenario is that the Gospels are not necessarily ‘literally’ true in every detail, as the process allowed for accretions and alterations over time**. This teaching now appears in the [*Catechism of the Catholic Church* (#126)](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/126.htm).” This is enabled through the influence of the [Nouvelle théologie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouvelle_th%C3%A9ologie) thinkers which includes Joseph Ratzinger (a [*peritus*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peritus) to the [Second Vatican Council](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council) , who later became [Pope Benedict XVI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI)) who was [instrumental in having *Dei Verbum* approved in the council](https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2014/09/09/sacramentality-scripture-dei-verbum-and-biblical-insights-joseph-ratzinger) . The fundamental principle is through a concept of revelation and inspiration that is more **personal** and **sacramental** rather than **propositional** as explained in these articles: - Scott W. Hahn's 2014 article [The Sacramentality of Scripture: “Dei Verbum” and the Biblical insights of Joseph Ratzinger](https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2014/09/09/sacramentality-scripture-dei-verbum-and-biblical-insights-joseph-ratzinger) - Thomas Gourlay's 2014 article [The Understanding of Revelation in “Dei Verbum” and the Response of Faith](https://www.hprweb.com/2014/06/the-understanding-of-revelation-in-dei-verbum-and-the-response-of-faith/) - Adam Rasmussen's 2020 article [Ratzinger on biblical inerrancy: Dei Verbum, chapter 3](https://wherepeteris.com/ratzinger-on-biblical-inerrancy-dei-verbum-chapter-3/) While the use of historical criticism for *Scripture* seems settled, more work still needs to be done for historical criticism for *Tradition*. From the abstract of a 2020 book [*Dei Verbum*: Scripture, Tradition, and Historical Criticism](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/horizons/article/abs/dei-verbum-scripture-tradition-and-historical-criticism/E86FE690894668C351B8A05397A1B01B) (emphasis mine): > The Council Fathers at Vatican II struggled to negotiate the Council's teaching on divine revelation with regard to the teaching of Trent, but more immediately with regard to the modern theology of the Magisterium and **the modern value of historical criticism that had recently been recognized by Pius XII as having a legitimate role in the interpretation of Scripture**. *Dei Verbum*'s teaching stressed the unity of Scripture and tradition in the revelation of God's word, but never considered the role of historical criticism in the interpretation of God's word in tradition that it affirmed in God's revelation in the biblical word. This article argues that **the recognition of the legitimate role of historical criticism in the interpretation of tradition remains an issue of needed development** in the teaching of *Dei Verbum*. ### "final edited version" / "original manuscript" vs. text edition I understand that the "final edited version" is not clear cut because there can be multiple *editions* depending on various priorities given to various surviving codices / fragments. For NT books we have a [*Textus Receptus* edition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus) still used by the KJV family of translations, or the [*Nestle-Aland* edition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece) used by the majority of modern translations. But creating and choosing the "right" edition is a task of [*textual criticism*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism) rather than *historical criticism*, a separate issue and beyond the scope of this question.

In the past I've read about skeptics thinking that certain figures that the Bible lists as having historically existed didn't actually exist, but then later archaeology confirmed that they did. Does anyone know some good examples of these?

According to the many online lectures by biblical scholars, not to mention entries in Wikipedia and other online sites, whether the experts are on either the liberal side or the conservative side of the table, they all state the four Gospels were actually anonymous works and that someone appended the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to them long after the anonymous writers wrote them. The average person you talk with has no idea of this, and he or she wholly believe the actual eyewitnesses (viz., the apostles) wrote the Gospels. I am interested in the views of critical scholars who believe the Gospels were written by the men whose names are appended to them. I am not interested in purely religious answers such as, "The Holy Spirit guided the church to ascribe authorship to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John." Would someone please 1) point me to scholars in the field of historical criticism who believe the attributions are accurate; and more importantly 2) summarize their arguments for me?

Peter is sometimes depicted as a poor uneducated fisherman before he met Jesus (I am referring to quite a few homilies I have heard in different churches). Do we know what languages he spoke? Did he know the scriptures well? What his social status was likely to be?

One of the things that have tested my faith is the question: Did the bible really happen? Was there really a "garden of Eden"? Was there a universal flood" And perhaps more importantly, how important is it for the bible books to be accurate? If Genesis didn't really happen, what impact does it have on our faith? Modern scientific research clearly shows that the creation story from the bible did not really happen. According to Catholicism which parts of the Bible really happened historically? What parts should we ready historically and what parts figuratively?

It seems as though every time I turn around, I find that "the majority of scholars" doubt this person wrote this gospel or letter. It seems as though no book of the NT is immune to this doubting and disputation. Doubting every single one of the books seems a bit beyond the pail to me, and suggests a real bias against giving validity to the new testament. Is there a new testament book or letter whose authorship and date are undisputed and accepted? If not, which one has the strongest argument for its authenticity?

Is there any historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus like some papers or something or from some sources that are not from the bible . I am asking this because an atheist said to me something like the following: > Give me a Roman newspaper with “MAN CRUCIFIED ARISES FROM CAVE!” dated > around 30 AD and I’ll take your assertion seriously. I have searched the web and only find some translated messages a the following: The Messages of Pontius Pilate and Herod The text of Nazareth is a historical guide to the resurrection of Christ from the tomb However it needs translation into English. I don't know why the first article author didn't mention the reference with links. He just said: > These messages are located in a Syriac manuscript in the British Museum, dated to the sixth or seventh century there is a Greek copy in a Museum in Paris

Some Messianic prophecies occur near the beginning of the Bible, such as Deuteronomy 18:15 (or even Genesis 3:15). What I want to understand is which Messianic prophecy do scholars believe was actually *recorded* first? Does, for example, the Immanuel prophecy of Isaiah 8:23-9:1 predate Deuteronomy 18? If that question is too difficult, due to questions of authorship and redaction, can we ask **What is the earliest date for which historians are confident Messianic prophecy existed in Israel?**

[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham) says that the story of Abraham is fictional, an ex-post construction: > The Abraham story cannot be definitively related to any specific time, > and it is widely agreed that the patriarchal age, along with the > exodus and the period of the judges, is a late literary construct that > does not relate to any period in actual history. A common > hypothesis among scholars is that it was composed in the early Persian > period (late 6th century BCE) as a result of tensions between Jewish > landowners who had stayed in Judah during the Babylonian captivity and > traced their right to the land through their "father Abraham" but I recently read that Abraham time is about 1980 B.C. Does anyone happen to know how this speculation was derived and what currency it has?

I have this sneaking suspicion that the Asia listed in Acts is not the continent of Asia. > **Acts 19:9-10 ESV** But when some became stubborn and continued in unbelief, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them and took the disciples with him, reasoning daily in the hall of Tyrannus. This continued for two years, so that all the residents of **Asia** heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks. > > **Acts 20:16 ESV** For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus, so that he might not have to spend time in **Asia**, for he was hastening to be at Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost. If that's the case, then what is the Asia of the Bible?

I am curious if any critical scholarly work has attempted to study the frequency with which blasphemy accusations occurred within the Jewish community at the time of Jesus, and if possible, how many of those trials led to executions as Jesus' did?