How accurate is the text in the Bible?

[Georg Ebner]

There is disagreement that women were deacons but not Priests.

First, according to Bart Ehrman and others, all of the earliest Christian leaders were women, as Church meetings, being banned, were held in private homes, which were led by women.

Later on, there is disagreement as well:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1991/10/19/women-served-as-priests-in-early-days-scholar-says/c4df0fc1-bb4b-4161-a460-48f05167ce84/

Some scholars have contended that Gelasius was referring to women serving as deacons rather than priests, but Otranto said he feels certain that the women were functioning as priests who administered sacraments and led liturgies.

Giorgio Otranto, professor of ancient Christian history at the University of Bari, is giving talks in six U.S. cities this month, arguing that women served not only as priests, but as bishops from the 2nd through the 6th centuries.

He said a bishop named Theodora is recorded in a 9th-century inscription in the basilica of St. Prassede in Rome. Other inscriptions attest to other women functioning as priests within ancient communities in the Mediterranean basin, he said.

Ehrman has pointed out that names were clearly female names in the New Testament were altered either by scribes or by Church officials who could not accept the notion of women priests, bishops, or that Christ regarded women as either his equal or ahead of men as his leading disciples.

To claim, that "all of the earliest Cristian leaders were women" is totally absurd and has nothing to do any longer with serious science - it's "American Science". Doubtlessly that primitive propagandist proclaims also, that the early Christians were alltogether not only pro-abortion and feminists, but also vegetarians, pacifists and communists (or at least democrats, naturally voting for the Democrats)...
Already the imagination of private masses (or masses in the catacombs) is superb - fits to the ancient world as much as the idea, that the Romans would have been misogynic...
Impressive scientific standard...

While the Jews burnt any copy of the Old Testament, when they found a singly mistake, the early Christians were far away from any sola scriptura and thus very relaxed. As a result the NT is indeed fairly full of not corrected copyMistakes (at least ~5%), but firstly the papyri show no deliberate developments and changes (apart from few already in the middleAges well-known additions [our version of the ApostlesActs, the end of Marcus, Comma Johanneum aso.]); what has been backed secondly since 1969 by several statistical studies (problematic as they are per se).
Nowhere the ridiculous idea of some theologians/philologists, that "the community", "the people" would have invented or altered the texts of the Bible (or of HOMER).

[Georg Ebner]

There is disagreement that women were deacons but not Priests.

First, according to Bart Ehrman and others, all of the earliest Christian leaders were women, as Church meetings, being banned, were held in private homes, which were led by women.

Later on, there is disagreement as well:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1991/10/19/women-served-as-priests-in-early-days-scholar-says/c4df0fc1-bb4b-4161-a460-48f05167ce84/

Some scholars have contended that Gelasius was referring to women serving as deacons rather than priests, but Otranto said he feels certain that the women were functioning as priests who administered sacraments and led liturgies.

Giorgio Otranto, professor of ancient Christian history at the University of Bari, is giving talks in six U.S. cities this month, arguing that women served not only as priests, but as bishops from the 2nd through the 6th centuries.

He said a bishop named Theodora is recorded in a 9th-century inscription in the basilica of St. Prassede in Rome. Other inscriptions attest to other women functioning as priests within ancient communities in the Mediterranean basin, he said.

Ehrman has pointed out that names were clearly female names in the New Testament were altered either by scribes or by Church officials who could not accept the notion of women priests, bishops, or that Christ regarded women as either his equal or ahead of men as his leading disciples.

To claim, that "all of the earliest Cristian leaders were women" is totally absurd and has nothing to do any longer with serious science - it's "American Science". Doubtlessly that primitive propagandist proclaims also, that the early Christians were alltogether not only pro-abortion and feminists, but also vegetarians, pacifists and communists (or at least democrats, naturally voting for the Democrats)...
Already the imagination of private masses (or masses in the catacombs) is superb - fits to the ancient world as much as the idea, that the Romans would have been misogynic...
Impressive scientific standard...

While the Jews burnt any copy of the Old Testament, when they found a singly mistake, the early Christians were far away from any sola scriptura and thus very relaxed. As a result the NT is indeed fairly full of not corrected copyMistakes (at least ~5%), but firstly the papyri show no deliberate developments and changes (apart from few already in the middleAges well-known additions [our version of the ApostlesActs, the end of Marcus, Comma Johanneum aso.]); what has been backed secondly since 1969 by several statistical studies (problematic as they are per se).
Nowhere the ridiculous idea of some theologians/philologists, that "the community", "the people" would have invented or altered the texts of the Bible (or of HOMER).

You can keep your beliefs while others do scholarly work to get closer to the truth.

the Gospel of Mary and its portrayal as Mary Magdalene as the one to whom Jesus had revealed the secrets of salvation (as part of a gnostic myth) - -much to the consternation of the male disciples, especially Peter and his brother Andrew.  Hey, how could he consider a *woman* more important than us men???  It’s an attitude that appears to have run through the family. It is striking that there was a much wider tradition in early Christianity that said that Mary Magdalene was the *first* apostle, the one who made the other apostles.

https://ehrmanblog.org/women-in-early-christianity/

I even have scruples now to destroy Your cute worldView of TheTheology = Mr.Ehrman vs. unscientific obscurantists; but to be honest: With some inSights into the public univ.s here in Central Europe - which are not exactly fortresses of orthodox Protestantism/Catholicism - i can assure You, that someone, who took initially the Bible literal and relies presently on the MaryGospel, is not taken serious at all. Our bookShops are full of such money-making "revealers", who e.g. "prove" with the infamous kiss in that gospel Mary Magdalene to having been HIS wife/mistress. (So they do not even get, that that gnostical gospel proclaimed the exact opPosite: Both, master&student, would have been so highly above any desire of the flesh, that the kiss was absolutely non-erotical...)

[Georg Ebner]

There is disagreement that women were deacons but not Priests.

First, according to Bart Ehrman and others, all of the earliest Christian leaders were women, as Church meetings, being banned, were held in private homes, which were led by women.

Later on, there is disagreement as well:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1991/10/19/women-served-as-priests-in-early-days-scholar-says/c4df0fc1-bb4b-4161-a460-48f05167ce84/

Some scholars have contended that Gelasius was referring to women serving as deacons rather than priests, but Otranto said he feels certain that the women were functioning as priests who administered sacraments and led liturgies.

Giorgio Otranto, professor of ancient Christian history at the University of Bari, is giving talks in six U.S. cities this month, arguing that women served not only as priests, but as bishops from the 2nd through the 6th centuries.

He said a bishop named Theodora is recorded in a 9th-century inscription in the basilica of St. Prassede in Rome. Other inscriptions attest to other women functioning as priests within ancient communities in the Mediterranean basin, he said.

Ehrman has pointed out that names were clearly female names in the New Testament were altered either by scribes or by Church officials who could not accept the notion of women priests, bishops, or that Christ regarded women as either his equal or ahead of men as his leading disciples.

To claim, that "all of the earliest Cristian leaders were women" is totally absurd and has nothing to do any longer with serious science - it's "American Science". Doubtlessly that primitive propagandist proclaims also, that the early Christians were alltogether not only pro-abortion and feminists, but also vegetarians, pacifists and communists (or at least democrats, naturally voting for the Democrats)...
Already the imagination of private masses (or masses in the catacombs) is superb - fits to the ancient world as much as the idea, that the Romans would have been misogynic...
Impressive scientific standard...

While the Jews burnt any copy of the Old Testament, when they found a singly mistake, the early Christians were far away from any sola scriptura and thus very relaxed. As a result the NT is indeed fairly full of not corrected copyMistakes (at least ~5%), but firstly the papyri show no deliberate developments and changes (apart from few already in the middleAges well-known additions [our version of the ApostlesActs, the end of Marcus, Comma Johanneum aso.]); what has been backed secondly since 1969 by several statistical studies (problematic as they are per se).
Nowhere the ridiculous idea of some theologians/philologists, that "the community", "the people" would have invented or altered the texts of the Bible (or of HOMER).

You can keep your beliefs while others do scholarly work to get closer to the truth.

the Gospel of Mary and its portrayal as Mary Magdalene as the one to whom Jesus had revealed the secrets of salvation (as part of a gnostic myth) - -much to the consternation of the male disciples, especially Peter and his brother Andrew.  Hey, how could he consider a *woman* more important than us men???  It’s an attitude that appears to have run through the family. It is striking that there was a much wider tradition in early Christianity that said that Mary Magdalene was the *first* apostle, the one who made the other apostles.

https://ehrmanblog.org/women-in-early-christianity/

I even have scruples now to destroy Your cute worldView of TheTheology = Mr.Ehrman vs. unscientific obscurantists; but to be honest: With some inSights into the public univ.s here in Central Europe - which are not exactly fortresses of orthodox Protestantism/Catholicism - i can assure You, that someone, who took initially the Bible literal and relies presently on the MaryGospel, is not taken serious at all. Our bookShops are full of such money-making "revealers", who e.g. "prove" with the infamous kiss in that gospel Mary Magdalene to having been HIS wife/mistress. (So they do not even get, that that gnostical gospel proclaimed the exact opPosite: Both, master&student, would have been so highly above any desire of the flesh, that the kiss was absolutely non-erotical...)

That was from a guest blogger on Ehrman's site, as I showed. I have no doubt that Professor Ehrman knows far more about the history of the Bible than you do.

Firstly He has apparently less than serious scientists, who have for such charlatans just contempt. Secondly certainly - hopefully - more than i; but i am not so sure anymore: Female clergy, MaryGospel as authentically earlyChristian aso. is not really my level.