Article: AGAINST BART EHRMAN

Below is a seminar paper I wrote recently. I did not know how to format the footnotes for this blog. When I cut and pasted from Word, the superscript numbers disappeared. If you would like for me to send you a copy via e-mail, just let me know. That copy will include the proper formatting so that one can follow the sources more easily. Hope you enjoy.

AGAINST EHRMAN: MISQUOTING PAUL AND THE HETERODOX CORRUPTION OF SCRIPTURE


INTRODUCTION


Dr. Greg Spears once said, “One of the greatest dangers facing local churches today is passive men and aggressive women.” Thomas Schreiner said, “Women in ministry is the most divisive issue in evangelicalism today.” A recent book, Misquoting Jesus, published by Dr. Bart Ehrman, Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill sought to point out errors, which Ehrman saw in various texts. One issue Ehrman dealt with was the role of women in the early scriptural texts. The three passages that Ehrman examined came from the Pauline corpus. The author of this paper thought it better to deem his work “misquoting Paul.” He entitled another popular book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. In the case of this paper, the author felt it better to deem Ehrman’s construal of the orthodox view of the Pauline corpus, “the heterodox corruption of Scripture.”

A need exists to write in opposition to men like Bart Ehrman. Ehrman, a self-described former-evangelical, recently took his aberrant views of Scripture on several cable television programs. During the Christmas of 2010, Ehrman appeared as a scholar on the historical Jesus on CNN. He appeared on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and the Colbert Report with Stephen Colbert, both on the cable television channel Comedy
Central.

“Stewart said that seeing the Bible as something that was deliberately corrupted by orthodox scribes made the Bible ‘more interesting . . . almost more godly in some respects. . . . I really congratulate you. It's a helluva book!’ Within 48 hours, Misquoting Jesus was perched on top of Amazon, if only for a moment.”

While evangelical Christians read Ehrman’s work and shake their heads in dismay that anyone would buy, and yet more, believe his conclusions, mainstream United States of America continues to believe his arguments, if the popularity of his books is any indicator. Evangelical scholars must combat Bart Ehrman’s lies about Scripture with the truth of Scripture and apologetically sound research. This paper will demonstrate that Bart Ehrman’s interpretation of Galatians 3:27-28, 1 Timothy 2:11-15, and 1 Corinthians 14:33-36 in Misquoting Jesus corrupts the truth of the passages significantly. In this endeavor, the author will include an evaluation of each passage with Ehrman’s interpretation, the text-critical features, and an exegetical evaluation.

GALATIANS 3:27-28

Ehrman’s Analysis
Ehrman offered his own analysis of Galatians 3:27-28 in Misquoting Jesus. The following is the overview of his analysis, argument, and many of his opinions. The author of this paper must note that often Ehrman’s thoughts swerve off any logical path and into his sensational opinions. For instance, when speaking of Galatians, he made very broad statements about Paul’s teaching, often out of context, which occur in other New Testament writings in order to exegete the text, while citing his idea of context. Exegesis is a term one must use lightly when determining Ehrman’s methodology. The author of this paper seeks to provide pertinent commentary on Ehrman’s analysis also.

Women, Ehrman contended, played an important, if not primary, role in the early churches in general. It is interesting that Ehrman did not mention in which churches this was true. He attributed this supposed truth to the general collection of local churches. While His statement was very broad in its application, his argument was only threefold.

First, Ehrman argued that the mention of women in the Romans’ salutation weighs in favor or their believed primary role in a local church.

Second, Ehrman agreed with Karen Torjessen that the message of the coming Kingdom of God that Jesus preached (e.g. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and the New Testament writers discussed (e.g. First and Second Thessalonians, 1 Peter, etc.) amounts to evidence of the prominent role of women in local churches. Ehrman made the case that one of the central themes of the Kingdom of God was equality for men and women. While a certain kind of gender equality undeniably exists in the Kingdom of God, though not in role, one makes a difficult case to present it as a major theme. The writers themselves did not even deal with the theme of equality in the Kingdom of God in great detail, and they recorded their statements normally in brief texts, such as Galatians 3:27-28.

Third, Ehrman specifically cited Galatians 3:27-28 as evidence of the outstanding role of women in the early local churches. Ehrman focused on Galatians 3:28, which states, “. . . there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” He believed that this passage signaled a possible change to the early church worship service. No longer, according to Ehrman, did women have to participate as silent listeners of the word in the worship service. This Pauline command taught women that they ought to participate actively in worship.

Ehrman argued this point as if modern-day evangelical inerrantists believed that women should not worship actively. He defined active worship differently, for sure, than would an evangelical; he slanted his argument so that the reader feels negatively toward those in the modern day, in which churches apparently teach women that they are not to worship actively. The truth is that women cannot actively worship in man’s role any more than a man worships through the outplay of a woman’s role in the church. Praying and prophesying, Ehrman indicated, sufficed as participatory worship. One who seeks to define a theology of worship in the New Testament hopefully would constitute worship as much more than praying and prophesying. Ehrman implied that a woman worships, who prophesies, teaches, and preaches. For Ehrman, in order for there not to be male and female in Christ, women must function as men.

In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman asserted that Paul taught a reasoned-change, from chauvinism to feminism, deeming it equality. First, the evidence of Paul’s method, according to Ehrman is that he instructed women to pray and prophesy with their heads covered. The head covering evidently was a sign of authority of men over the women, which was a social barrier too controversial and socially unacceptable to traverse. Paul’s motive was not to create a revolution toward socio-familial relationships. In support of his own contention, Ehrman pointed out that Paul preached that equality existed between slaves and free, yet he did not call for the abolishment of slavery. His statement, accusing Paul of favoring slavery is quite inappropriate and offensive. In verity, Paul called for Philemon to receive Onesimus, the runaway slave no longer as a slave, but a fellow brother and worker in Christ’s Kingdom. Ehrman vied that Paul believed in the imminent return of Christ, and thus, the time was short; he taught that the culture in many ways should merely remain as it was.

Two major outcomes arose from Paul’s theology and practice: 1) some churches emphasized equality in Christ, while 2) others emphasized submission to the authority of men. In the former, women held very important leadership roles, and in the latter, they remained downcast. Ehrman discussed apparent later documents, which supported rising conflicts concerning the issue of women’s role in the local church. Interestingly, Ehrman failed to provide a single document in favor of his view, which he claimed as his main evidence. Based on the evidence that remained a mystery to his reader, he concluded that eventually an unnamed party, probably men in the local churches, made an effort to “ . . . suppress the role of women in the churches altogether.” Ehrman made this conclusion even though Irenaeus of the middle to late AD second century interpreted Scripture in a way that limited the role of women in local churches.

Irenaeus’ conclusion came well before Christendom’s official recognition of the canon.

Text-Critical Analysis

The purpose of the text-critical task in this paper is to determine what the text of the original author is. Additionally, this study seeks to examine any evidence that compromises the authenticity of traditional authorship. Concerning Galatians 3:27-28, Ehrman concluded that it indeed belongs in the text of the Bible. Consequently, if one adduces that Paul indeed was the author of Galatians, and the text at hand indeed belongs in Galatians as the original words he penned, then one must examine the significance of the passage in the Bible.

Exegetical Interpretation

Ehrman gave absolutely no weight to his argument from a purely exegetical standpoint because he himself does not hold that God inspired the text of Scripture. Thus, he did not waste his time with the idiosyncrasies of the text. The author will deal with a number of other credible sources in order to add to the weight of the argument and refute Ehrman’s corruption of Galatians 3:27-28.

Galatians 3:27, ὅσοι γὰρ εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε, Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε, “For as many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ,” The explanatory conjunction γὰρ “for” sets the new phrase, beginning the end of Paul’s previous thought about the faith, which the believers showed in Christ in the last sentential element of verse 26. The new explanation continues through verse 29. The correlative pronoun ὅσοι “as many as” functions as the subject of the relative clause. The prepositional phrase εἰς Χριστὸν “into Christ” modifies the verb ἐβαπτίσθητε “have been baptized,” signifying that, in which the believers entered in baptism. The relative clause proves that the audience consisted of baptized, that is immersed, believers.

At the very least, the community, which Paul addressed, held their experience of water baptism in common. While Paul used ὅσοι “as many as,” the obvious thrust of the text causes the reader to believe that those to whom he writes are a part of this particular plural noun. To be sure, he did not create two categories. Because the recipients fell into the category of those who previously experienced baptism, a certain unity existed among them. James Montgomery Boice wrote that “[b]aptism signifies this transforming identification with Christ. . . . No one is saved by baptism. Indeed, Paul mentions baptism only once in the paragraph, but faith five times. Rather baptism is an outward sign of the union that already exists through faith.”

Paul tells the new believers what their common baptism means in the juxtaposed segment clause, Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε “have put on Christ.” The same plural noun, ὅσοι “as many as,” acts as the subject for both clauses. The ones who ἐβαπτίσθητε “have been baptized,” also Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε “have put on Christ.” The crux of the verses under discussion is not the baptism they shared as much as it is what the baptism stood for in this context, their unity in Christ. Because of this close unity, which existed among the believers, they all were heirs to the promise in Abraham, which was the conclusion of the argument in verse 29. Martin Luther viewed Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε “have put on Christ” as a two-fold act: 1) by the law, and 2) by the gospel. He wrote in his commentary on Galatians,

“By the law we clothe ourselves with Christ by following his example, doing what he did and suffering what he suffered. . . . We see in Christ a singular patience, an inestimable mildness and love, and a wonderful modesty in all things. We must put on this goodly clothing—that is, follow these virtues. But clothing ourselves with Christ by the Gospel does not consist in imitation but in a new birth and a new creation—that is, putting on Christ’s innocence, his righteousness, wisdom, power, saving health, life, and spirit. We are naturally clothed with Adam’s leather coat, which is a mortal garment, a garment of sin; we are all subject to sin, all sold to sin. There is in us horrible blindness, ignorance, contempt for and hatred of God, and moreover evil concupiscence, uncleanness, covetousness, and so on. . . . We must take this off, together with all its deeds (Ephesians 4:22; Colossians 3:9), so that out of the children of Adam we may be made the children of God.”

While Luther affirmed the unity of the children of God, he held quite a different view than Boice concerning the importance of baptism. Luther wrote, “[Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε] is not done by changing our clothes or by any laws or actions, but by a new birth and by the renewing of the inner person, which happens in baptism.” While Luther clearly did not hold to baptismal regeneration, he affirmed that Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε, the putting on of Christ, happens at baptism, even though it is not directly the cause of it. More importantly, Luther and Boice both agreed on the context of Galatians 3:27: Unity of salvation in Christ, symbolized through the commonality of baptism, wrought by common faith in Christ.

One must first determine the context, which Paul wrote the verses at hand. Do the verses fit into this context, or is there an instance of interpolation? Timothy George argued that many people in the modern day use verse 28 purely in a socio-political manner. One who uses it in the manner George suggests misses the immediate context. Boice, Luther, and George’s views of the context of the passage at hand radically contrast with that of Bart Ehrman. Ehrman only viewed verse 28 positively, so long as it fit his tainted worldview, in which women have equal offices of authority in local churches. Ehrman practically used verse 28 as a proof-text for his errant view of Scripture. Furthermore, he corrupted Paul’s original thought of the beauty of the unity and equality, though not synonymic functionality, which came to those who Christ saved, symbolized in baptism.

Galatians 3:28, οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲ Ἕλλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ• πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, “There is not Jew or Greek. There is not slave or free. There is not male and female. For, you all are one in Christ Jesus,” On the basis of Ehrman’s argument one assumes he viewed verse 28 as socio-political in nature. When Paul stated οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲ Ἕλλην “there is not Jew or Greek,” did he make a political statement or a spiritual statement? This is the heart of interpreting verse 28. Existing on its own, one reading the statement may assume it is political. Whereas one possibly views οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ “there is not slave or free, there is not male and female” as a radical social statement. Without the context of verses 26-27, Paul’s statement takes on a much different meaning than it seems he intended. To be sure the statement concerning the destruction of various seemingly opposing groups is not an interpolation in the text, the following context affirms just the opposite: πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ for, you are all one in Christ Jesus.” In both verses 27-28 Paul taught unity, again not synonymic functionality, in Christ. The Tyndale Concise Bible Commentary stated that “. . . the focus here is on spiritual equality in Christ. Equality of spiritual position and privilege does not necessitate that there be identical secular or spiritual activity (cf. Eph. 5:22, 27; 6:1, 5). Even Gentiles could be Abraham’s spiritual offspring and heirs of God’s promise by faith in the person of Christ (3:29).”

Ehrman’s entire view of the passage was errant from the beginning. He deliberately seemed to ignore the context of the verses in order to support his socially acceptable, politically correct, view of Scripture. Finally, Bart Ehrman’s heterodox interpretation of Galatians 3:27-28 corrupted the clear meaning of authorial intent, effectively misquoting Paul.

1 TIMOTHY 2:11-15

Ehrman’s Analysis
Concerning 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Misquoting Jesus, Bart Ehrman holds that while the author of 1 Timothy affixed Paul’s name to the epistle, the words do not necessarily reflect Paul’s view. In odd irony, Ehrman came across as seeking to “protect” Paul by not attributing particular views to him, while utterly seeking to destroy many sections of his epistolary corpus in his other works. In his comments on 1 Timothy, Ehrman wrote, “Scholars today are by and large convinced that 1 Timothy was not written by Paul, but by one of his later second-generation followers.”

The first major problem with this statement is Ehrman’s citation practice. In citing “scholars,” he referenced his own work, under his own name. While he possibly included pertinent discussion in another of his works, his argument remained inadequate as long as he did not mention those “scholars” in his footnote. In his discussion on pseudonymity in chapter one of Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman also cited his own work deeming that “scholars” held that Paul did not author 1 Timothy. While there are surely scholars who hold the same opinion of the authorship of 1 Timothy as Ehrman, all he needed to do was provide their names/works. The argument, in terms of formal support, lacks credibility. Ehrman interpreted 1 Timothy 2:11-15, which Paul apparently did not write, to mean that women were not allowed to teach men since God created them substandard, indicating it in the Law by creating Adam before Eve. Since God created women inferior, a woman should not rule a man. Ehrman interpreted the author of the passage as proclaiming, “. . . everyone knows what happens when a woman does assume the role of teacher: she is easily duped (by the devil) and leads the man astray.”

Ehrman further asserted that according to the author of 1 Timothy, women must 1) remain at home, 2) uphold moral characteristics of a woman, 3) produce offspring for their spouses, and 4) maintain their reticence. In Ehrman’s observation, this passage opposes Galatians 3:27-28 directly. Two sides of argument come to play in this apparent argument: 1) Churches that emphasize the value of women, allowing them to engage in noteworthy roles, and 2) churches that suppose women must be silent and in submission to males in the society.

Text-Critical Analysis

The purpose of the text-critical task in this document is to establish what the text of the original writer is. Additionally, this study seeks to look at any evidence that compromises the validity of established authorship. First, neither the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament 4, or Novum Testamentum: Graece et Latine, more importantly, make any reference to the following verses as omitted in any of the ancient manuscripts. One reasonably assumes that the author wrote the current passage as part of the original document as far as one knows from the manuscripts that survive today. No reason exists to call into question the validity of 1 Timothy 2:11-15.

Four arguments arose in the past centuries, which attempt to undermine the genuineness of Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles. The argument is fourfold: 1) historical, 2) ecclesiastical, 3) doctrinal, and 4) linguistic. However, even those in agreement with Ehrman historically, namely Werner Kümmel, realized the view is far from certain. He stated, “The Pauline origin of the Pastorals was not challenged from the time of their recognition as canonical writings toward the end of the second century till the beginning of the nineteenth century.” Concerning the author’s apparent advanced understanding of ecclesiological structures, Earle wrote, “. . . a careful reading of Titus 1:5–9 shows that ‘elders’ and ‘bishops’ are terms used interchangeably. And in Philippians 1:1 Paul addresses the ‘bishops and deacons’ in the church at Philippi.” The Pulpit Commentary argued doctrinally that the pastorals have a similar emphasis, which is practical concern for the church, specifically the expression of the love of God. Finally, linguistically, one infers that, “. . . these pastoral Epistles were written later than the other Epistles; (2) that in the interval the writer had enlarged his acquaintance with Greek classics; (3) that, as his two correspondents were Greeks, he wrote to them in the purest Greek he could command.” Inexplicable problems do not exist concerning Pauline authorship. One must assume that Paul was the author of 1 Timothy and not another writer using a pseudonym. If one embraces that Paul undeniably was the writer of 1 Timothy, and the content at hand certainly fits in 1 Timothy as the original words he wrote, then one must study the impact, importance, and sense of the verses in the Bible.

Exegetical Interpretation

The current exegesis focuses on 1 Timothy 2:11-12 as key to the pericope’s teaching of women’s role with the discussion including verses 13-15.

1 Timothy 2:11, Γυνὴ ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ μανθανέτω ἐν πάσῃ ὑποταγῇ, “A woman ought to learn in silence in all submission,” One may also choose to translate the first word γυνή “woman” as “wife.” Specifically, γυνή denotes an adult female of marrying age. Paul intended women as the subject in general in this passage. The author emphasized ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ “in silence” by placing it before the main verb in the sentence. Placing the prepositional phrase in the first part of the sentence, Paul highlighted the manner (here ἐν a preposition denoting manner) in which a woman should learn (μανθανέτω). While nonetheless important, the prepositional phrase ἐν πάσῃ ὑποταγῇ “in all submissiveness” adds another component to the manner in which women should learn. Paul instructed the women that they should submit their learning wholly (πάσῃ).

Gillian Beattie understood that the thrust of the current pericope concerns the prohibition of teaching. While teaching is an important component to Paul’s argument, it does not seem to be the underlying theme. Beattie came to this conclusion by way of a supposed chiasm that Joette Bassler recognized.

“A. Γυνὴ ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ μανθανέτω
B. ἐν πάσῃ ὑποταγῇ
C. διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω
B. οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός [the opposite of ὑποταγῇ above]
A. ἀλλʼ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ.”

The chiasm in this instance is very ambiguous. Any scholar who diagrams a sentence with any length is able to create such a chiasm. The author lacks the evidence needed in order to prove a chiasm. One must conclude that no chiasm actually exists in 1 Timothy 2:11-12.

The underlying theme of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is not silence or submissiveness either, although the author teaches both practices clearly. When examining the subject and verb of the opening sentence, the command becomes clear: Γυνὴ . . . μανθανέτω “A woman . . . ought to learn.” Therefore, Ehrman’s implication that the passage was an offensive, second-century, patriarchal, proto-orthodox epistle is essentially fallacious. Paul did not contradict his previous statement in Galatians 3:28 or lessen its emphasis. When one views Scripture even at its most basic sentential elements of the subject and verb, God’s command is for a woman to learn. God, through Paul, qualified His commands by applying it to the hearers’ lives so that they might understand the manner in which they ought to learn. In this case, Paul instructed a woman to learn 1) in silence and 2) in complete submissiveness. Another qualifier as to how a woman ought to learn is located in verses 12 through 15.

1 Timothy 2:12, διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλʼ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ, “And I do not permit a woman to teach or to control a man, but to be in silence,” Emphasizing women’s role in learning, Paul contrasted μανθανέτω “ought to learn” in verse 11 with διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω “I do not permit a woman to teach” in verse 12. The opposite of learning is teaching; if a woman is teaching, no one is instructing her. Inherent in the text is the idea that if one teaches, he/she also holds authority over the student. In no way does this contradict with Galatians 3:28, which emphasizes the unity males and females have in salvation through Christ. Even evangelical scholars who hold to the inspiration of Scripture often miss the context of 1 Timothy 2:12 and write in a politically correct manner. In his commentary on 1 Timothy, Thomas Lea and Hayne Griffin wrote,

“Teaching involved official doctrinal instruction in the Scriptures (1 Tim 5:17) and was a task delegated to the pastor-teacher (Eph 4:11). The heavy emphasis in the Pastorals on proper doctrine (1 Tim 1:10; 4:6, 13, 16; 6:1, 3; didaskalia) implies the need for a trusted source of doctrine. The fact that Paul next discussed the elder/overseer (3:1–7) who needed to be “able to teach” may have indicated that he viewed the occupant of the position as the official declarer of doctrine. Doubtless, the immediate occasion for Paul’s prohibition against teaching by the Ephesian women was due to their gullibility and instability (1 Tim 5:11–13; 2 Tim 3:6–7). However, Paul consistently refrained from appointing a woman to a place of authoritative teaching responsibility in a congregation.”

Did Paul merely see the elder/overseer as the official preacher, so he did not appoint a woman to teach? Verses 13-15 clearly teach that there is an order dating back to the fall of man at the time of creation in which God placed man in sacrificial authority over the woman. Lea and Griffin allowed for too much latitude contextually. Ralph Earle also, missed the points of verse 12 writing,

“Paul speaks appreciatively of the fact that Timothy himself had been taught the right way by his godly mother and grandmother (2 Tim 1:5; 3:15). The apostle also writes to Titus that the older women are to train the younger (Titus 2:3, 4). Women have always carried the major responsibility for teaching small children, in both home and church school. And what could we have done without them!”

Amazingly, Earle chose to look over the word ἀνδρός “a man.” Paul did not disallow a woman to teach and instruct in every manner. He qualified his statement about teaching with the word ἀνδρός “man.” It is a man who a woman is not to teach. No record exists of Timothy’s godly mother and grandmother teaching him once he became an elder, let alone an adult!

One question that still looms is of the phrase εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ “to be in silence.” When one is speaking, he/she is not learning in the assembly. In Misquoting Truth, which is an apology in opposition to Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus, Timothy Paul Jones advocated that Paul emphasized “that he expected women to follow the same guidelines as everyone else in being silent while others were teaching and by learning from wiser believers.” Jones did not deal specifically with authority or the fact that the passage particularly deals with women, not “everyone else.” Kenneth Wuest argued for the traditional understanding, which seems to conflict with Lea, Griffin, and Earle, and unquestionably with Ehrman. Wuest also argued that Paul’s intent was to maintain “quiet in the assembly, and did not forbid a woman to take an active part in the work of the church in her own sphere and under the limitations imposed upon her in the contextual passage (I Tim. 2:12).” He further commented that Paul’s view is “in the sphere of doctrinal disputes or questions of interpretation, where authoritative pronouncements are to be made, the woman is to keep silence.“ Wuest correctly noticed that the passage deals with women, not everyone else, as Jones retorted. The silence Paul advocated is not absolute silence at all times, but rather one that does not 1) hinder learning, a) teach man, b) control man, or c) cause congregational disruption. This command Paul gave stems directly from God’s design. Just as God created Adam first (1 Tim. 2:13) and Eve was the culprit of gullibility, so “the context here has to do with church order, and the position of the man and woman in the church worship and work” not equality. Men and women remain equal in that God saves both by His grace as heirs to the promise. Yet God designed men and women to fulfill different roles.

Yet again, Ehrman’s whole examination of the section is wayward from the foundation. He purposely seems to disregard the framework of the verses in order to maintain his socially tolerable, politically acceptable, analysis of Scripture. Finally, Bart Ehrman’s heterodox construal of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 corrupts the obvious meaning of authorial intent, successfully misquoting Paul.

1 CORINTHIANS 14:33-36

Ehrman’s Analysis
Concerning 1 Corinthians 14:33-36, one must examine Ehrman’s presuppositions. First, he contended in Misquoting Jesus that, at some point, scribes who copied the current texts involved themselves in the debate over women’s roles in the local church and Christianity at large. Second, Ehrman presupposed that sometimes the particular debates concerning women’s roles affected the text of Christian Scripture. Ehrman wrote that scribes changed the texts in order to “. . . reflect the views of the scribes who were reproducing them.” Last, when this particular change occurred, scribes diminished the importance of women’s roles. This proved to be a weakness in his argument since he did not offer adequate support for his line of reasoning as to why scribes tended to change texts to diminish women’s roles rather than embolden them. He did offer what he believed to be examples of “. . . textual alterations involving women.”
Ehrman vied that 1 Corinthians 14:33-36 is possibly the most important passage dealing with women. He believed that two statements in it undoubtedly are examples of an interruption in the text: 1) for women to keep silence, or 2) even teach, just as the 1 Timothy passage also affirms. “Scholars” agree that Paul did not write 1 Timothy. Again, Ehrman cites his own work! Consistent with Ehrman, the passage “appears . . . to have been written . . . by a second-generation follower of Paul in his name.” Again, while failing to city anyone, he argued that 1 Corinthians is doubtless original to Paul. Even though he held to the validity of 1 Corinthians as Pauline, apparently the interruption of 1 Corinthians 14:33-36 represents the hand of a theological editor.

Apparently, there are some scholars who doubt the validity of Pauline authorship with particular respect to verses 34-35. Is Bart Ehrman’s evaluation so important to the scholarly community that he no longer needs any other agreement but his own? He failed to cite one person who doubted it, and provided no citation whatsoever. Ehrman wrote, “For as it turns out, the verses in question (vv. 34-35) are shuffled around in some of our important textual witnesses.” Once more, he failed to cite any individual texts, which deemed the particular textual witnesses important. While the textual witnesses themselves may hold a level of apparent importance to one familiar with the field of textual criticism, it remains unattainable as long as the one purporting the argument remained silent as to his evidence. He mentioned, “. . . three Greek manuscripts and a couple Latin witnesses,” but he failed to give any indication of which specific witnesses he had in mind. He concluded, based upon untraceable evidence, that since some scribes listed verses 34-35 after verse 40 instead of verse 33, Paul did not write them! They existed originally as a marginal note. Predisposed to 1 Timothy 2:11-15, a scribe added them later. Ehrman’s argument is preposterously illogical. Verses 34-35 appear in two places, after verse 33 and after verse 40. In order to follow his argument, one must assume that two separate scribes at separate times and locations, both apparently under the influence of 1 Timothy 2:11-15, attempted to alter the genuinely Pauline text of 1 Corinthians 14 for doctrinal reasons. Ehrman, without citing another scholar who agreed with his opinion, also argued that Paul did not write verses 34-35 because they “do not fit well in their immediate context.” He concluded that verses 26-33 and 36-40 address how true prophets behave in worship and not the role of women in worship.
Bart Ehrman recommended removing verses 34-35, which he deemed out of context. He held that the other verses “seem to flow seamlessly as a discussion of the role of Christian Prophets.” He further concluded, “The discussion of women appears, then, as intrusive to its immediate context, breaking into instructions that Paul is giving about a different manner.” The problem is that Ehrman continually failed to see the context in which Paul wrote. Paul made the same point about prophesying, when he instructed women to first be under the authority of their husbands’ teaching at home so that they would not devise foolish thoughts on their own about which they did not previously discuss. The contention of Ehrman was that at a previous point in 1 Corinthians, Paul taught women to speak in church (1 Corinthians 11:2-16), but in the “disputed passage of chapter 14 Paul forbids women from speaking at all. . . . [I]t seems unreasonable to think that Paul would flat out contradict himself within the short space of three chapters. . . so the verses in question do not derive from Paul.” Ehrman concluded,

“One would have to assume that theses verses are a scribal alteration of the text, originally made, perhaps, as a marginal note and then eventually, at an early stage of the copying of 1 Corinthians, placed in the text itself. The alteration was no doubt made by a scribe who was concerned to emphasize that women should have no public role in the church, that they should be silent and subservient to their husbands.”

The major problem of Ehrman’s argument is the combination of evidence upon which he based his conclusion. His evidence consisted of “several manuscripts that shuffle the verses around, the immediate literary context, and the context within 1 Corinthians as a whole. . .” Ehrman only cited Gordon Fee as supporting his view. The main problem with the evidence is that Ehrman offered none! He failed to mention any specific manuscripts either in the body of his text or in the notation, which supported his conclusions. Ironically, and in hypocritical fashion, Ehrman wrote against what he considered sloppiness of early Christian scribes in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. As for the immediate literary context and the context within 1 Corinthians, his logic was highly subjective, and one cannot credibly consider it as definitive evidence that would cause the removal of text from the body of Scripture.

Text-Critical Analysis

Almost no one doubts the authenticity of the authorship of 1 Corinthians. Ehrman, as previously stated, held to Pauline authorship of 1 Corinthians, just not to the verses concerning role of women in the local church in 14:34-35. The United Bible Societies Fourth Edition did not list any variants that change translation as far as what one should include in the text. One must ask why the UBS remains silent. It seems clear that the vast scholarship of the UBS committee found no reason to call in question the validity of Pauline authorship of the verses. Since the verses themselves are somewhat controversial in today’s culture, the committee certainly would make note of a possible omission of verses 34-45 if they questioned the authenticity of them as being part of the autographs. By holding a different view other than that of evangelicals and Roman Catholics, and some of the best text-critical minds, who publish the UBS, Ehrman pitted himself directly against all three. For one to place himself/herself in such a controversial spot, he/she would seemingly hold rather strong evidence to retain credibility. This is not
to say that no one agrees with him. Ehrman lost all credibility for his claim that 1 Corinthians is Pauline, while the two verses, which he felt are sexist, are not since he failed to give any credible evidence in favor of his conclusion. The UBS lists the manuscripts that include the verses after verse 40. The committee did not list one manuscript that omitted the verses. The {B} rating the committed gave verses 34-35 concern its location in the text not its addition or deletion. In support of including the verses in the text after verse 33, the committee listed papyri support (46), uncial support (א, B, K . . . ), minuscule support (33, 81, 88, 104, 181, 326 . . . ), lectionary support, Byzantine support, and the support of Ambrosiaster and Sedulius-Scotus among others. In Metzger’s Commentary on the UBS Fourth Revised Edition, he wrote that the change of position of verses 34-35 signals the debate about where the verses should stand rather than if they should stand. Metzger wrote, “Such scribal alterations represent attempts to find a more appropriate location in the context for Paul’s directive concerning women.” He saw the moving of the verses as alterations rather than additions to the text. The critical apparatus of Nestle-Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece 27 lists the variants, which place verses 34-35 in a different location in the text, but the editors fail to mention a single omission, which leads one to suspect that the verses originally were a part of the text. D. A. Carson wrote, “Some commentators get round the problem by stating that this section is a later addition and not by Paul. But every manuscript includes this passage.” Ehrman’s notion that verses 34-35 are not original to the text is outlandish and fallacious. If one concludes that Paul certainly was the author of 1 Corinthians, and the current passage in fact belongs in Galatians as the original words he recorded, then one must inspect the meaning of the text in the Bible.

Exegetical Interpretation

1 Corinthians 14:34, αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις σιγάτωσαν• οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτρέπεται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν, ἀλλὰ ὑποτασσέσθωσαν, καθὼς καὶ ὁ νόμος λέγει, “Let your women in the assemblies be silent; for, it is not allowed for them to speak; but to be in subjection just as also the law says,” Scholars hold different opinions as to which part of ὁ νόμος “the law” Paul referred. William John Conybeare held that Paul referred to the command in Genesis 3:16, “. . . he shall rule over thee.” Hughes and Laney wrote that it “reflects Numbers 30 (on vows), which sets forth the principle of subjection of wives and daughters.” Either way, the command for the husband to be the head of the wife came from the creation/fall. The prepositional phrase ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις “in the assemblies” refers to the public meetings of worship. Men were to lead in worship. Paul reserved the primary teaching/preaching role for men, not women who were to remain in subjection (ὑποτασσέσθωσαν). John Chrysostom wrote in his sermon on the passage,

“. . . [concerning] the disorder which arose from the women, [Paul cut] off their unseasonable boldness of speech: and that very opportunely. For if to them that have the gifts it is not permitted to speak inconsiderately, nor when they will, and this, though they be moved by the Spirit; much less to those women who prate idly and to no purpose. Therefore he represses their babbling with much authority, and taking the law along with him, thus he sews up their mouths; not simply exhorting here or giving counsel, but even laying his commands on them vehemently, by the recitation of an ancient law on that subject.”

The context, which Chrysostom revealed, was prophecy, or the proclamation of truth. Prophecy speaks of the special urge of the proclamation of truth, which happened more spontaneously than teaching and exhorting, which a pastor-teacher planned. The role of women is not to teach/preach primarily in the assemblies (ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις); women may teach women, but not exercise authority over men in the group meetings, which God ordained for worship, in which He expects men to lead. According to Paul, God established this truth at the fall of man into sin. This did not mean that a woman in a certain context could not speak at all (cf. 1 Cor. 11:5). Women/wives were not to weigh in on doctrine and the exposition of prophecy/truth, and that was the context concerning the time when a woman should remain silent (οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτρέπεται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν, ἀλλὰ ὑποτασσέσθωσαν). Carson wrote, “While there is no absolute certainty, the present writer takes the view that wives, in this public gathering, are not to engage in the public weighing of prophecy which involved the interrogation of its content.”

1 Corinthians 14:35, εἰ δέ τι μαθεῖν θέλουσιν, ἐν οἴκῳ τοὺς ἰδίους ἄνδρας ἐπερωτάτωσαν• αἰσχρὸν γάρ ἐστιν γυναικὶ λαλεῖν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ, “But if they wish to learn anything, let them learn to ask their own husbands at home; for it is dishonorable for women to speak in the assembly,” Paul recognized the God-given leadership role of the husband. The primary segment of the independent clause reserved the verb for the last place (ἐπερωτάτωσαν). Paul emphasized the place where women should learn, presumably if she does not understand and needs further instruction at home (ἐν οἴκῳ). Women are not to ask another woman’s husband, but her own (τοὺς ἰδίους ἄνδρας), of which the proper place to do so Paul already mentioned. Underlying is the assumption that women caused disorder in the worship by asking questions. The issue in this passage is order in worship, not women, primarily. The manner in which one ought to worship is in an orderly manner. Paul’s statements in verses 34-35 merely state the practical nature of that order. The Apostle speaks of a woman being dishonorable (αἰσχρὸν) if she speaks in the assembly of worship. Taking on “. . . a man’s role in the church” disgraces a woman’s femininity.” Paul, again affirmed equality in Christ, while differentiating the role in which men and women play in the church, as God Himself established.
Ehrman completely misconstrued the pericope from the beginning of his assessment. He knowingly ignored the background of the text in order to preserve his publicly supportable, politically suitable, misinterpretation of Scripture. Finally, Bart Ehrman’s heterodox explanation of 1 Corinthians 14:33-36 corrupted the plain meaning of authorial intent, successfully misquoting Paul.

CONCLUSION


The author of this paper sought to examine the three passages that Ehrman used in Misquoting Jesus in order to judge his analysis, examine whether his text-critical work was valid, and interpret the passages based upon their clear contextual meanings in the Bible. The study showed that Ehrman hardly cited any evidence in favor of his views concerning the validity or lack thereof concerning the three texts. Ehrman began his interpretation with a presupposition that women did hold major leadership positions in the earliest churches. From this presupposition onwards, Ehrman consistently used any avenues of thought, logical or illogical, in order to feed the views which he already held. Consistently, Ehrman corrupted the sense of the traditional interpretation of Paul, using weak text-critical arguements. Often, he provided no evidence, and one must assume he did not have any. Ehrman’s interpretation of the author’s intent lacked a pattern of logical thought. Ehrman misconstrued the basic meaning of clear passages concerning the role of women in the early church.
While the Bible affirms the equality of men and women in Christ, it disaffirms male and female roles as synonymic in function. The issue of women’s roles in local churches continues as a major issue among Roman Catholics and Protestant denominations. Churches that recognize the Bible as the inspired Word of God must not waver on the clear meaning of Scripture, no matter how culturally insensitive, politically incorrect, or socially unacceptable the truth is. Ehrman wrote his books in a popular and convincing style. Yet, pastors and academics alike must not give in to that which tickles the ears, namely Ehrmanian theology, tossed by every wave of the sea. True teachers of the Word of God continue to have the great responsibility of rightly dividing the Word of Truth, which is profitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that men of God may be fully equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16).














SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books
Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, and Bruce Metzger. Novum Testamentum: Graece et Latine. Twenty-Seventh ed. Münster, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2005.
Aland, Kurt, Matthew Black, and Bruce Metzger. The Greek New Testament. Third ed. Münster, West Germany: United Bible Societies, 1975.
Beattie, Gillian. Women and Marriage in Paul and His Early Interpreters. New York, NY: T & T Clark, 2005.
Clark, Elizabeth. Women in the Early Church: Message of the Fathers of the Church. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1987.
Conybeare, William John, and J. S. Howson. The Life and Epistles of St. Paul. New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1893.
Ehrman, Bart. Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Authors of the Bible Are Not Who We Think They Are. New York, NY: Harper One, 2011.
_____. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. New York, NY: Harper San Francisco, 2005.
_____. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. New York, NY: Oxford, 1993.
Jones, Timothy Paul. Misquoting Truth. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2007.
Kümmel, Werner. Introduction to the New Testament. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1966.
Schreiner, Thomas R. “Women in Ministry” In Two Views on Women in Ministry. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001.
Torjessen, Karen. When Women Were Priests: Women’s Leadership in the Early Church and the Scandal of Their Subordination in the Rise of Christianity. New York, NY: Harper San Francisco, 1993.

Commentaries

Boice, James Montgomery. Galatians. In The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976.
Carson, D. A. New Bible Commentary. Fourth Ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994.
Earle, Ralph. 1 Timothy. In The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981.
George, Timothy. Galatians. In The New American Commentary. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2001.

Hughes, Robert B., and J. Carl Laney. Tyndale Concise Bible Commentary. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 2001.
Lea, Thomas D. and Hayne P. Griffin. 1, 2 Timothy, Titus. In The New American Commentary. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2001.
Luther, Martin. Galatians. In The Crossway Classic Commentaries. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1998.
Metzger, Bruce Manning. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament. New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 1994.
Wuest, Kenneth S. Wuest's Word Studies from the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997.

Journals

Allison, Robert. “Let Women Be Silent in the Churches (1 Cor. 14:33b-36): What Did Paul Really Say, and What Did It Mean?” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32 (1988): 27-60.

Borchert, Gerald. “A Key to Pauline Thinking—Galatians 3:23-29: Faith and the New Humanity.” Review and Expositor 91 (1994): 148.

Greenbury, James. “1 Corinthians 14:34-35: Evaluation of Prophecy Revisited.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 51, no. 4 (2008): 721-731.

Heidebrecht, Doug. “Reading 1 Timothy 2:9-15 in Its Literary Context.” Direction 33, no. 2 (2004): 171-184.

Hurley, James. “Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence of Women: A Consideration of 1 Cor. 11:2-16 and 14:33b-36.” Westminster Theological Journal 35, no. 2 (1973): 190-220.

Ingolfsland, Dennis. “An Evaluation of Bart Ehrman’s ‘Historical Jesus.’” Bibliotheca Sacra 158 (2001): 187-197.

Lienemann-Perrin, Christine. “The Biblical Foundations for a Feminist and Participatory Theology of Mission.” International Review of Mission 93, no. 368 (2004): 17-34.
Mappes, David. “The Heresy Paul Opposed in 1 Timothy.” Bibliotheca Sacra 156, no. 624 (1999): 452-458.

Mare, W. Harold. Romans Through Galatians. In The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976.

Merkle, Benjamin. “Paul's Arguments From Creation in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 and 1 Timothy 2:13-14: An Apparent Inconsistency Answered.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49, no. 3 (2006): 527-548.

Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. “Interpolations in 1 Corinthians.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48, no. 1 (2004): 81-94.

Patterson, Dorothy Kelley. “Why I Believe Southern Baptist Churches Should Not Ordain Women.” Baptist History and Heritage 23, no. 3 (1988): 56-62.

Roberts, J. W. “The Preposition eis After the Verbs pisteuo and baptizo.” Restoration Quarterly 5, no. 3 (1961): 157-159.

Smith, Susan. “Biblical Interpretation: A Power for Good or Evil.” International Review of Mission 94, no. 375 (2005): 524-534.

Wallace, Daniel. “The Gospel According to Bart: A Review Article of ‘Misquoting Jesus’ By Bart Ehrman.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49, no. 2 (2006): 327-349.


Electronic Documents

Liddell, H.G. A Lexicon: Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos 4 Scholars Library Silver, 1996.

Lukaszewski, Albert L., Mark Dubis and J. Ted Blakley. The Lexham Syntactic Greek New Testament: Expansions and Annotations. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos 4 Scholars Library Silver, 2010.
Schaff, Philip. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 12. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos 4 Scholars Library Silver, 1997.
Spence-Jones, H. D. M. The Pulpit Commentary: 1 Timothy. Bellingham, WA: Logos 4 Scholars Library Silver, 2004.
Vincent, Marvin Richardson. Word Studies in the New Testament. Vol. 4. Bellingham, WA: Logos 4 Scholars Library Silver, 2002.