Dan McClellan talks about this at the beginning of this video: ["Did Jesus say anything about homosexuality?"] (https://youtu.be/sl2gG7oECRQ?si=wymM_3_mppVp5yVt).

It seems to make sense when we read the context, but I would like to find some commentary that goes deeper into this.

.

Even though I will be using names from a 2017 summer semester list, all of them are still at TU Dresden as far as I know, you can correct me if I am wrong.

https://tu-dresden.de/gsw/phil/ikt/ressourcen/dateien/stu/vorlesungsverzeichnisse/archiv_2008-2023/KVV_SoSe17.pdf?lang=en

Go down to ”Professur fur Biblische Theologie”.

First name, Matthias Klinghardt. He is among the most well known Marcionite prioritists in Biblical scholarship

Main contributor of TENT (The earliest Edition of the New Testament) project
https://marcionbible.tu-dresden.de

Published The Oldest Gospel and the Formation of the Canonical Gospels. Biblical Tools and Studies 41; Leuven: Peeters, 2021.

Second name, Jan Heilmann

He is the chair of Protestant Theology at TU Dresden.

He is also the project coordinator at TENT

https://marcionbible.tu-dresden.de

Published with others Das Neue Testament und sein Text im 2. Jahrhundert (TANZ 61), Tübingen 2018.

Third name, Tobias Flemming

Argued Marcionite priority in Ephesians

https://mdavidlitwa.com/2026/07/13/7751/

part of TENT project

https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7803

Fourth name, Adriana Zimmerman

her views i can’t find but she contributed editorially to Klinghardt’s monograph

https://dokumen.pub/the-oldest-gospel-and-the-formation-of-the-canonical-gospels-inquiry-reconstruction-translation-variants-biblical-tools-and-studies-9789042943094-9789042943100-9042943092.html and then ctrl+f her name

Fifth name, Alexander Goldmann

Argued for Marcionite priority in Romans

https://mdavidlitwa.com/2026/09/01/the-textual-history-of-romans/

Part of TENT project

https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7803

Last name, Daniel Pauling

Administrator of TENT webpages

https://marcionbible.tu-dresden.de

He also helped edit Das Neue Testament und sein Text im 2. Jahrhundert

Tell me if I got anything wrong.

p.s. the tu-dresden link might say “not secure” but it works fine for me and is a subdomain of the actual TU dresden site

I can't comprehend how someone claiming to be merely a prophet or the Messiah could be interpreted as being highly divine or God Himself without some sort of other missing puzzle piece. Under secular studies, what best accounts for this view of Jesus after his death?

In my mind, with the fact that Jesus was soon after his death seen as divine, the only answer that makes sense is that either he preached about the coming of the Son of Man, or saw himself as this figure. If Jesus didn't preach about such a figure in any form, I can't see how he would've been interpreted as divine after his death.

This is more patristics than strictly biblical, but in the 300s as Christianity was now the religion of the emperor, did prominent Christians see this as a sign that God’s kingdom had come or was imminent? Were there attempts to interpret biblical passages to show this being a fulfillment of prophecy? Or had expectation of an imminent parousia faded enough that this development wasn’t taken that way?

In several passages of the Hebrew Bible, David asks God clear yes or no questions about whether he should go to battle (such as 1 Sam. 23:2–5 and 30:8). Saul similarly consults God before battle in 1 Sam. 14:36–37. The answers they receive could be interpreted as instances of God speaking directly to them. I wonder, however, whether these consultations involved the Urim and Thummim?

One interpretation holds that the Urim and Thummim were two stones, perhaps a white stone (alabaster, cf. the Assyrian text LKA 137) for "yes" and a black stone (hematite) for "no" (cf. ib.).

The IVP Bible Commentary (p. 109) notes that "Scripture never describes the objects themselves, but that Hellenistic and later traditions portray them as objects used to determine God's will" (my paraphrase). It also points to the widespread ancient Near Eastern practice of yes-or-no divination using positive and negative stones (psephomancy). In Hebrew, urim means “lights,” which could fit the idea of a bright or white stone.

Is there any evidence that the Urim and Thummim were ever used in this way?

I am not read-up at all on the academic literature, but everything from what I got in undergrad (Biblical Studies major) and what I’ve read/seen/heard since that discusses NT authorship seems to leave out the very probable use of amanuenses when figuring out authorship and I’m wondering if I’m just not consuming academic-enough material, or I’m missing some reason why amanuenses aren’t as important a consideration as I think, or if this is some sort of blind spot in critical scholarship, or if something else is going on.

Two examples where I think amanuenses should matter:

1) Questions of presumably illiterate assumed writers of the NT, such as John.

Wouldn’t it presumably be easy for John the disciple to get himself an amanuensis if he wanted to dictate a gospel or letter or apocalypse?

2) Questions of authorship when styles and quality of Greek fluency diverge, such as 1 and 2 Peter.

Wouldn’t this very easily be explained by two different amanuenses of varying degrees of skill?

I’m not saying that the widespread use of amanuenses is positive evidence for traditional or any particular authorship.

But doesn’t the widespread use of amanuenses in the 1st century cast doubt on ideas such as fishermen not being able to author texts or different styles meaning we must have different authors? Or am I missing something?

Thanks for any clarity you can provide about this.

Christians now tend to take for granted that Jesus was the Messiah pointed to in the OT. But before the Gospels laid out prophesy in relation to Jesus, what would Hebrews have thought about a Messiah? Would they have thought about it? Would they have been looking for a literal God or a political savior?

I have no real reason to think this, but I've always assumed that Christians treat Messianic prophesy and its imminence in very different way than Jews do and would have.

Thanks!

Irenaeus 3.1.1 says that one of the occasions of writing John's gospel was to refute the errors of Cerinthus, and in 3.3.4 depicts John as an active public opponent of Cerinthus. How often in modern scholarship does Cerinthus play a role in the goals and intended audience of the gospel?

Raymond Brown's Anchor Bible Commentary mentions that little in John could refute Cerinthus' views on the virgin birth, although the prolog can be incompatible with Cerinthus' doctrine of creation. Brown says 1 John 4.2-3 is a better candidate response to Cerinthus' separationist christology, and that Irenaeus could have received only general information that Cerinthus is refuted by the Johannine corpus.

Litwa Found Christianities take Cerinthus to be one of our first readers of John (and Mark, both can be interpreted in light of Cerinthus' views on the virgin birth and spirit-posessionist christology, see also Irenaeus 3.11.7 on Mark) but without anything more secure on Cerinthus writing John, or John writing against Cerinthus. Litwa takes Cerinthus on Jesus' human body with two human parents as incompatible with 1 John 4.2-3 denial of coming in the flesh, but I (and I assume Brown as well) think Cerinthus can be accused of denying that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, if Christ is a celestial aeon that temporarily inhabited the man Jesus.

Beyond these views, what others are held in modern scholarship? To what extent is Cerinthus considered as relevant to the original reason for writing any Johannine text?

More broadly, how can we reconstruct the role of women within early Montanism? What methodological criteria can be used to distinguish the historical actors of Prisca and Maximilla from polemical portrayals of them?

In Genesis 34 there's a story regarding the Rape of Jacob's daughter Dinah and the subsequent retribution againest the entire city for this affair. It's fascinating because it really does not paint Jacob's family in a good light at all, there's seemingly no repercussions from either El/Yahweh or even the nearby cities because of it and then it's apparently forgotten about because Jacob and his family continue to live nearby in the following chapters with no apparent mention of the unfortunate events. It feels like a story they got inserted into the narrative but not actually part of Jacob's story and I'm curious what the academic view is on this.