How accurate is the text in the Bible?

[Benjamin Frank]

Since there has been a general question on opinion of the Bible, I thought this was a good time to finally bring this up. I thought everybody who posted in this area was familiar with the work of Bart Ehrman et al, but it seems clearly not.

Of course, when I say 'the Bible' that itself is something of a misnomer since there isn't one standard version. There are multiple translations with at least slightly different texts and then there are Orthodox Bibles with additional books. So, what did and didn't make the cut as official Biblical cannon itself is also open to question.

Then, there is that the English Bibles are translations from Hebrew for the Old Testament and Greek for the New Testament. However, some Biblical scholars claim that at least sections of the New Testament were first written in Hebrew or Aramaic before translated to Greek. So, how much is 'lost in translation.'?

Then there are contradictory accounts in the Bible, with significant different meanings. For instance, on the cross, did Jesus say (paraphrasing) "Oh father, why have you forsaken me?" (which here Jesus would be referencing psalm 22) or did Jesus say "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do." (Just before being placed on the cross.) Does it make sense that he could have said both given that the latter suggests acceptance of those crucifying him while the former suggests otherwise (Psalm 22 praises the Lord but also castigates non believers.)

Finally, and this is the major work of Ehrman, there is much evidence that the original texts of the Bible have been altered by scribes through time either through transcribing error or through intentional changes either for political purposes or to comport with the scribes' understanding of the Bible.

Ehrman's work is focused on the New Testament and one of his books, 'Misquoting Jesus', points out that many of these alterations, intentional or otherwise, significantly changed the interpretation of important passages in the Bible. For instance, all references to women priests in the early days of Christianity have been removed.

This isn't Ehrman's work, but it uses the same arguments:
When Women Were Priests: Women's Leadership in the Early Church and the Scandal of Their Subordination in the Rise of Christianity
https://www.amazon.ca/When-Women-Were-Priests-Subordination/dp/0060686618

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It's very accurate in terms of History, Pharoahs and Jews intermarry and Moses was a Hebrew and Jesus was a Hebrew and his disciples were Mary's sister kids and he had a brother of Joseph named James, but the resurrection and miracles are the question marks

Peter dreamed that Jesus walked on Water and there were Ossuary boxes that contridicts the resurrection which says Crucified was done thru the bones in Israel of the ankles and they were hung on the side of the rode not on hill side and Romans crucified Sparticus different in Europe than in Israel which is thru the feet and Catholics changed the crucifixion when they became Catholic instead of Gods and Goddesses in 300AD

But God is cause and effect and Heaven is enlightenment any religion can teach that

[°Leprechaun]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

This man strikes me as a true scholar and a gentleman.

This may be a topic for further study and exploration if I ever have the time.

[nicholas.slaydon]

I'm no expert on Bart Ehrman, but I do know that his arguments that we can't know what the original text of the New Testaments said because of a large number of textual variations is highly erroneous. If we were to take his position that the New Testament text is corrupted due to textual variation, and applied it to any other work of the ancient world, we would have to throw out every work of the ancient world. If textual variations equal corruption, then he would have to admit that if his theory that we can't know what the original text of the New Testament read, then he would have to admit that we don't know what Aristotle said, or Cicero, or Plato, or indeed any other writer in the ancient said because all of the manuscripts of their works contain textual variations.

No scholar of any of the works of the ancient world would embrace the sorts of positions on the works that they study that Erhman takes on the New Testament. However, textual criticism of the Bible is deeply rooted in bad faith arguments, and people who enter into textual critical studies with massive preconceptions (such as believing textual critics who enter into such studies with the preconception of divine inspiration, or the jaded former Christians, like Erhman who lost their faith due to textual variations and thus take a 180 degree turn from where they started and rather than believing that the Bible was divinely inspired believe that nobody can even know what the text actually said, and atheists who seek to propagate their ideology by undermining other peoples faith through a slap dash, rough shod handling of textual critical debates and studies).

[LabourJersey]

The "contradictory accounts" in the Gospels are reflective of the different audiences for each Gospel, and the emphases of each discipline who composed them and their acoloytes who presumably wrote them down.

[nicholas.slaydon]

The "contradictory accounts" in the Gospels are reflective of the different audiences for each Gospel, and the emphases of each discipline who composed them and their acoloytes who presumably wrote them down.

Including the fact that the writers of the Gospels, whomever they were, were not likely eyewitnesses to the events they are writing about. Never, in any Gospel account does the author say anything like "i saw" or "and he said to me" or "we did this", or "we did that", their descriptions instead were always as if they were recording what happened to other people, not what had happened to them. The writer of the Gospel of Luke is a perfect example, wherein he thanks his patron for funding his attempts to compile the eyewitness accounts of the ministry of Jesus.

So it makes sense that the accounts might not add up 100%, as peoples memories are not always accurate, and the compilers of the Gospels likely didn't share the same eyewitness sources for their compilations to begin with.

[jojoju1998]

I'm no expert on Bart Ehrman, but I do know that his arguments that we can't know what the original text of the New Testaments said because of a large number of textual variations is highly erroneous. If we were to take his position that the New Testament text is corrupted due to textual variation, and applied it to any other work of the ancient world, we would have to throw out every work of the ancient world. If textual variations equal corruption, then he would have to admit that if his theory that we can't know what the original text of the New Testament read, then he would have to admit that we don't know what Aristotle said, or Cicero, or Plato, or indeed any other writer in the ancient said because all of the manuscripts of their works contain textual variations.

No scholar of any of the works of the ancient world would embrace the sorts of positions on the works that they study that Erhman takes on the New Testament. However, textual criticism of the Bible is deeply rooted in bad faith arguments, and people who enter into textual critical studies with massive preconceptions (such as believing textual critics who enter into such studies with the preconception of divine inspiration, or the jaded former Christians, like Erhman who lost their faith due to textual variations and thus take a 180 degree turn from where they started and rather than believing that the Bible was divinely inspired believe that nobody can even know what the text actually said, and atheists who seek to propagate their ideology by undermining other peoples faith through a slap dash, rough shod handling of textual critical debates and studies).

There are some Good Catholic Biblical Scholars though.



Once again, I will remind folks; that Biblical Literalism was never an accepted Christian doctrine until the Protestant Reformation.

[°Leprechaun]

There are some Good Catholic Biblical Scholars though.



Once again, I will remind folks; that Biblical Literalism was never an accepted Christian doctrine until the Protestant Reformation.

That doesn't surprise me. Orthodox-Literalist-Conservative Protestant theology is much worse than that of Roman Catholics. (nothing personal, just my opinion)
While there were good reasons to rebel against the Catholic Church of the time,
there were toxic ideas (such as Calvinism and literalism etc.) that came with the new brand of Christianity.

[Kleine Scheiße]

I'm no expert on Bart Ehrman, but I do know that his arguments that we can't know what the original text of the New Testaments said because of a large number of textual variations is highly erroneous. If we were to take his position that the New Testament text is corrupted due to textual variation, and applied it to any other work of the ancient world, we would have to throw out every work of the ancient world. If textual variations equal corruption, then he would have to admit that if his theory that we can't know what the original text of the New Testament read, then he would have to admit that we don't know what Aristotle said, or Cicero, or Plato, or indeed any other writer in the ancient said because all of the manuscripts of their works contain textual variations.

No scholar of any of the works of the ancient world would embrace the sorts of positions on the works that they study that Erhman takes on the New Testament. However, textual criticism of the Bible is deeply rooted in bad faith arguments, and people who enter into textual critical studies with massive preconceptions (such as believing textual critics who enter into such studies with the preconception of divine inspiration, or the jaded former Christians, like Erhman who lost their faith due to textual variations and thus take a 180 degree turn from where they started and rather than believing that the Bible was divinely inspired believe that nobody can even know what the text actually said, and atheists who seek to propagate their ideology by undermining other peoples faith through a slap dash, rough shod handling of textual critical debates and studies).

Genuinely, why would this be a problem? What would be the actual negative consequence to philosophy of having dozens of different editions of Politics or the Republic that is not already harmful to Christianity from having dozens of different editions of the Bible? Many critical editions or these works already exist, and people debate about the contexts of various ancient terminology with reference to them all the time. This argument to me seems very hyperbolic and appears to be more of a -- perfectly valid -- criticism of textual analysis overall than anything particularly radical about Ehrman.

For disclosure, I have used Ehrman's work in various papers over the years and find in it about as much insightful as I do remedial. I wouldn't call myself a fan but he is definitely not a lazy postmodernist who thinks we should just accept that everything is unknowable.

[Benjamin Frank]

I'm no expert on Bart Ehrman, but I do know that his arguments that we can't know what the original text of the New Testaments said because of a large number of textual variations is highly erroneous. If we were to take his position that the New Testament text is corrupted due to textual variation, and applied it to any other work of the ancient world, we would have to throw out every work of the ancient world. If textual variations equal corruption, then he would have to admit that if his theory that we can't know what the original text of the New Testament read, then he would have to admit that we don't know what Aristotle said, or Cicero, or Plato, or indeed any other writer in the ancient said because all of the manuscripts of their works contain textual variations.

No scholar of any of the works of the ancient world would embrace the sorts of positions on the works that they study that Erhman takes on the New Testament. However, textual criticism of the Bible is deeply rooted in bad faith arguments, and people who enter into textual critical studies with massive preconceptions (such as believing textual critics who enter into such studies with the preconception of divine inspiration, or the jaded former Christians, like Erhman who lost their faith due to textual variations and thus take a 180 degree turn from where they started and rather than believing that the Bible was divinely inspired believe that nobody can even know what the text actually said, and atheists who seek to propagate their ideology by undermining other peoples faith through a slap dash, rough shod handling of textual critical debates and studies).

1.Less important point: you start off saying you're no expert on Ehrman, and end up saying he should be dismissed because he's just a jaded former Christian. Don't judge his heart, especially if you don't really know much about him.

2.More important point: The works of Aristotle, Cisero and Plato don't have people who believe they are literal Gospel truth (except for silly people who believe Atlantis is really a sunken dynasty and not a myth, although ironically Plato never said it was a dynasty.) So, when you have organized religions based around the Bible being the literally divinely inspired word of God and who use this to proselytize and pass laws, I think it's clearly a lot more important to make sure the text is correct than in the cases Aristotle, Cisero and Plato.

If 'the word' isn't so important, than maybe Catholics should have women priests and people who claim to be religious should stay out of trying to legislate on abortion and other issues.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

If 'the word' isn't so important, than maybe Catholics should have women priests and people who claim to be religious should stay out of trying to legislate on abortion and other issues.

These aren't good examples of Controversial Stances that are actually based on the text of the Bible, though, or are even generally claimed to be. They're based mostly on other early Christian sources, interpretations of those other sources, and/or post facto justifications for choosing those interpretations.

[Benjamin Frank]

If 'the word' isn't so important, than maybe Catholics should have women priests and people who claim to be religious should stay out of trying to legislate on abortion and other issues.

These aren't good examples of Controversial Stances that are actually based on the text of the Bible, though, or are even generally claimed to be. They're based mostly on other early Christian sources, interpretations of those other sources, and/or post facto justifications for choosing those interpretations.

Nor ordaining women priests certainly is. According to a number of sources, women were the earliest priests, but as Christianity became the powerful religion in Rome, women were relegated and subjugated.
https://www.ncronline.org/spirituality/researcher-artifacts-show-early-church-women-served-clergy
"But for most Catholics, the research will confirm what they suspected all along — that the ban on female clergy has always been about the silencing and suppression of women and never about true tradition."

I don't know as much about abortion, but there are certainly reasons to believe that abortion was practiced in Rome after Rome bacame Christian.
In the early Roman Catholic church, abortion was permitted for male fetuses in the first 40 days of pregnancy and for female fetuses in the first 80-90
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12340403/

I recommend seeing the PBS Frontline series From Jesus to Christ, and not simply following the Catholic line of teaching.
https://www.pbs.org/video/jesus-christ-first-christians-part-one-uosmze/

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

If 'the word' isn't so important, than maybe Catholics should have women priests and people who claim to be religious should stay out of trying to legislate on abortion and other issues.

These aren't good examples of Controversial Stances that are actually based on the text of the Bible, though, or are even generally claimed to be. They're based mostly on other early Christian sources, interpretations of those other sources, and/or post facto justifications for choosing those interpretations.

Nor ordaining women priests certainly is. According to a number of sources, women were the earliest priests, but as Christianity became the powerful religion in Rome, women were relegated and subjugated.
https://www.ncronline.org/spirituality/researcher-artifacts-show-early-church-women-served-clergy
"But for most Catholics, the research will confirm what they suspected all along — that the ban on female clergy has always been about the silencing and suppression of women and never about true tradition."

I don't know as much about abortion, but there are certainly reasons to believe that abortion was practiced in Rome after Rome bacame Christian.
In the early Roman Catholic church, abortion was permitted for male fetuses in the first 40 days of pregnancy and for female fetuses in the first 80-90
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12340403/

I recommend seeing the PBS Frontline series From Jesus to Christ, and not simply following the Catholic line of teaching.
https://www.pbs.org/video/jesus-christ-first-christians-part-one-uosmze/

Sure, but what I said isn't really meant to dispute any of this. Ask a conservative Catholic what the rationale is for these particular teachings and they're not very likely to resort immediately to biblical proof-texting; instead they'll make points that derive from other sources than the text of the Bible itself. That's all I was saying.

[Benjamin Frank]

If 'the word' isn't so important, than maybe Catholics should have women priests and people who claim to be religious should stay out of trying to legislate on abortion and other issues.

These aren't good examples of Controversial Stances that are actually based on the text of the Bible, though, or are even generally claimed to be. They're based mostly on other early Christian sources, interpretations of those other sources, and/or post facto justifications for choosing those interpretations.

Nor ordaining women priests certainly is. According to a number of sources, women were the earliest priests, but as Christianity became the powerful religion in Rome, women were relegated and subjugated.
https://www.ncronline.org/spirituality/researcher-artifacts-show-early-church-women-served-clergy
"But for most Catholics, the research will confirm what they suspected all along — that the ban on female clergy has always been about the silencing and suppression of women and never about true tradition."

I don't know as much about abortion, but there are certainly reasons to believe that abortion was practiced in Rome after Rome bacame Christian.
In the early Roman Catholic church, abortion was permitted for male fetuses in the first 40 days of pregnancy and for female fetuses in the first 80-90
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12340403/

I recommend seeing the PBS Frontline series From Jesus to Christ, and not simply following the Catholic line of teaching.
https://www.pbs.org/video/jesus-christ-first-christians-part-one-uosmze/

Sure, but what I said isn't really meant to dispute any of this. Ask a conservative Catholic what the rationale is for these particular teachings and they're not very likely to resort immediately to biblical proof-texting; instead they'll make points that derive from other sources than the text of the Bible itself. That's all I was saying.

Given that the Bible has been altered on these things, most likely these other sources have been altered through time as well. Or these sources have been promoted while other contrary sources have been censored or suppressed.

So, having a discussion on how the Bible has been altered might force conservative Catholics to rethink the other sources that they would cite.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

If 'the word' isn't so important, than maybe Catholics should have women priests and people who claim to be religious should stay out of trying to legislate on abortion and other issues.

These aren't good examples of Controversial Stances that are actually based on the text of the Bible, though, or are even generally claimed to be. They're based mostly on other early Christian sources, interpretations of those other sources, and/or post facto justifications for choosing those interpretations.

Nor ordaining women priests certainly is. According to a number of sources, women were the earliest priests, but as Christianity became the powerful religion in Rome, women were relegated and subjugated.
https://www.ncronline.org/spirituality/researcher-artifacts-show-early-church-women-served-clergy
"But for most Catholics, the research will confirm what they suspected all along — that the ban on female clergy has always been about the silencing and suppression of women and never about true tradition."

I don't know as much about abortion, but there are certainly reasons to believe that abortion was practiced in Rome after Rome bacame Christian.
In the early Roman Catholic church, abortion was permitted for male fetuses in the first 40 days of pregnancy and for female fetuses in the first 80-90
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12340403/

I recommend seeing the PBS Frontline series From Jesus to Christ, and not simply following the Catholic line of teaching.
https://www.pbs.org/video/jesus-christ-first-christians-part-one-uosmze/

Sure, but what I said isn't really meant to dispute any of this. Ask a conservative Catholic what the rationale is for these particular teachings and they're not very likely to resort immediately to biblical proof-texting; instead they'll make points that derive from other sources than the text of the Bible itself. That's all I was saying.

Given that the Bible has been altered on these things, most likely these other sources have been altered through time as well. Or these sources have been promoted while other contrary sources have been censored or suppressed.

So, having a discussion on how the Bible has been altered might force conservative Catholics to rethink the other sources that they would cite.

Except that's not how Catholic theology sees the Bible; it's seen (correctly, if one looks at what's known of the history) as having been produced, in its current form, by the Church hierarchy, not as preceding and legitimizing that hierarchy.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's genuinely fascinating to me how many people here seem to have trouble with the idea of a religious epistemology that doesn't treat Scripture as foundational. It really goes to show how unique American Christianity (and perhaps American culture more generally, given that you guys seem to take a similar attitude to the Constitution in political matters) is in an international context. Not a bad thing necessarily, just a jao.

[jojoju1998]

If 'the word' isn't so important, than maybe Catholics should have women priests and people who claim to be religious should stay out of trying to legislate on abortion and other issues.

These aren't good examples of Controversial Stances that are actually based on the text of the Bible, though, or are even generally claimed to be. They're based mostly on other early Christian sources, interpretations of those other sources, and/or post facto justifications for choosing those interpretations.

Nor ordaining women priests certainly is. According to a number of sources, women were the earliest priests, but as Christianity became the powerful religion in Rome, women were relegated and subjugated.
https://www.ncronline.org/spirituality/researcher-artifacts-show-early-church-women-served-clergy
"But for most Catholics, the research will confirm what they suspected all along — that the ban on female clergy has always been about the silencing and suppression of women and never about true tradition."

I don't know as much about abortion, but there are certainly reasons to believe that abortion was practiced in Rome after Rome bacame Christian.
In the early Roman Catholic church, abortion was permitted for male fetuses in the first 40 days of pregnancy and for female fetuses in the first 80-90
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12340403/

I recommend seeing the PBS Frontline series From Jesus to Christ, and not simply following the Catholic line of teaching.
https://www.pbs.org/video/jesus-christ-first-christians-part-one-uosmze/

Sure, but what I said isn't really meant to dispute any of this. Ask a conservative Catholic what the rationale is for these particular teachings and they're not very likely to resort immediately to biblical proof-texting; instead they'll make points that derive from other sources than the text of the Bible itself. That's all I was saying.

Given that the Bible has been altered on these things, most likely these other sources have been altered through time as well. Or these sources have been promoted while other contrary sources have been censored or suppressed.

So, having a discussion on how the Bible has been altered might force conservative Catholics to rethink the other sources that they would cite.

Except that's not how Catholic theology sees the Bible; it's seen (correctly, if one looks at what's known of the history) as having been produced, in its current form, by the Church hierarchy, not as preceding and legitimizing that hierarchy.

Right the Church makes the Bible. The Bible doesn't make the Church. The Bible as Bishop Robert Barron says, is not a Book per se, but a collection of books, poetry, history, and should be interpreted with the authority of the Church

[jojoju1998]

If 'the word' isn't so important, than maybe Catholics should have women priests and people who claim to be religious should stay out of trying to legislate on abortion and other issues.

These aren't good examples of Controversial Stances that are actually based on the text of the Bible, though, or are even generally claimed to be. They're based mostly on other early Christian sources, interpretations of those other sources, and/or post facto justifications for choosing those interpretations.

Nor ordaining women priests certainly is. According to a number of sources, women were the earliest priests, but as Christianity became the powerful religion in Rome, women were relegated and subjugated.
https://www.ncronline.org/spirituality/researcher-artifacts-show-early-church-women-served-clergy
"But for most Catholics, the research will confirm what they suspected all along — that the ban on female clergy has always been about the silencing and suppression of women and never about true tradition."

I don't know as much about abortion, but there are certainly reasons to believe that abortion was practiced in Rome after Rome bacame Christian.
In the early Roman Catholic church, abortion was permitted for male fetuses in the first 40 days of pregnancy and for female fetuses in the first 80-90
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12340403/

I recommend seeing the PBS Frontline series From Jesus to Christ, and not simply following the Catholic line of teaching.
https://www.pbs.org/video/jesus-christ-first-christians-part-one-uosmze/

1. There is a distinct difference between Deacons and Priests. Most biblical scholars ( Catholic As Well )/historians of Early Christianity would agree that there were women deacons at the time of Early Christianity. But, but, there is no clear evidence that there were women priests.

"But not everyone is convinced that these female figures were priests.

"The woman raising a chalice would be consistent with the deacon's role at the time of the showing in the Mass, and there is documentation that women deacons participated in the Mass in this manner," Phyllis Zagano, adjunct professor of religion at Hofstra University in New York and a member of Pope Francis' commission on women and the diaconate, told NCR. Zagano also highlighted that there are no extant ordination ceremonies for women as priests, but there are many for women as deacons." https://www.ncronline.org/spirituality/researcher-artifacts-show-early-church-women-served-clergy

New research done in Israel found a ancient church; and the women ministers  portrayed and displayed were deacons. https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/2021-11-15/ty-article-magazine/byzantine-basilica-with-female-ministers-and-baffling-burials-found-in-israel/0000017f-e722-dc7e-adff-f7af11070000


2. Early Christianity operated in the environment of the Roman Empire, and the Greco Roman Culture. This Culture was fine with abortion. It was never condoned by the religion itself. Indeed, most reputable scholars ( including non catholics and christians ) would point to documents such as the Didache, or the Epistle of Barnabas as showing that there was opposition to this practice. https://books.google.com/books?id=XvqRAAAAIAAJ&q=catholic+history+of+abortion&dq=catholic+history+of+abortion&ei=aYuUSoI8g8qRBJqFpZ4H

Most of the Early Church Fathers in the East and the West opposed abortion as a moral principle.

However, it was never illegalized by law. Why ? The Church Fathers did disagree on the legalistic parts. There was no consensus on what " quickening " meant, how and if a fetus gets a soul, and how that would be applied to the immorality of abortion. Theologians such as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas held that although Early Abortion is immoral, it was not murder ( therefore it should not be punished under the legal code ). Late Abortions however was another story, since Augustine and Thomas Aquinas believed that after 40 days, the fetus does have a soul.

Also, a lot of this was influenced by Aristotle's understanding of the the Embryo which stated that the Embryo does not have a soul itself, but the soul came out of the Embryo.

The Catholic Church starting in the 1700s began to formally promote restrictions of abortions after new developments of Embryology basically destroyed the old Aristollean views of ensoulment and quickening.

https://www.academia.edu/71500290/Karl_Ernst_von_Baer_and_Embryology_Implications_for_Catholic_Theology

[Benjamin Frank]

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.

[jojoju1998]

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.

1. " He said a bishop named Theodora is recorded in a 9th-century inscription in the basilica of St. Prassede in Rome." 

Theodora was the mother of Paschal I, bishop of Rome from 817–824.

It was common at the time, as it still is in some places, to refer to the wives, mothers, or sisters of clergy by a feminized form of their significant other’s order - Diakonissa, Prebsytera, Episcopa, respectively, for the wives of Deacons, Presbyters, and Bishops.

We know she was the mother of a bishop, Paschal, and perhaps the wife of one as well.

2. Bart Ehrman's point about the erasing of women's names however I think misses the mark. For example, he brings up Junia or Junias. https://ehrmanblog.org/women-apostles-in-early-christianity/

For one thing, the greek and latin translations are quite faulty. As one person points out, "The issue arises from the earliest texts being written with majuscules, so the accent mark is omitted. If the name is a woman's, it is a sharp accent on the second iota. If the name is a man's, it is a circumflex on the final alpha. This, combined with the case of the noun, obscure the gender, since feminine nouns ending in -α and masculine nouns ending in -ας both take an accusative in -αν. So, from a purely textual interpretation, we cannot infer the gender of Iunia. However, I would be prejudiced towards saying it is feminine since Iunias seems to have been very uncommon. A couple texts replace the name with Iulia, but this appears to have been a scribal error since that name appears in chapter 16, and a scribe thinking these two should be the same person is not a wild guess.
The Early scholars seem tied up a bit too. Origen, who was a very proficient scholar, seems to have considered Iunia a man. John Chrysostom and Jerome, a woman. Coptic Hagiographies seem to regard Iunia as male. Eastern Orthodox, probably following Chrysostom, female."
https://i.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/2qpx6m/what_about_junia_the_apostle/.compact

Junias, or Junia however was never erased from the Church History. The Church Fathers, especially the Eastern Church Fathers mentioned Junia.

Saint John Chrysostom on Rom. 16:7 –
"Greet Andronicus and Junia... who are outstanding among the apostles." To be an apostle is something great. But to be outstanding among the apostles - just think what a wonderful song of praise that is! They were outstanding on the basis of their works and virtuous actions. Indeed how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that that she was even deemed worthy of the title apostle. (In ep. Ad Romanos 31.2).

But hold on. There's more to the story. Even if Junias, was an apostle, she wasn't part of the original 12 ( which the Catholic Church holds is where the office of priesthood and bishop came from ).

Eastern Orthodox Theology holds that Junia was a part of the wider 70 apostles which were commissioned after the Ascension of Jesus Christ.

[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).

[Benjamin Frank]

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/

[jojoju1998]

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/

1. Most Biblical Scholars would say that The Gospel of Mary was written in the late 200s AD. This is decades or perhaps a hundred years after the Canonical Gospel of Mark was written around AD 70 ( This is according to the Consensus of almost every Biblical Scholar ). This  therefore has no connection to the accepted ( by almost all scholars ) canon of the synoptic Gospels.

"The Greek papyrus has been assigned to the early 3d century C.E. This date would suggest that Gos. Mary was composed sometime in the late 2d century.", Pheme Perkins, “Mary, Gospel of,” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 583.

So why on earth would Bart Ehrman use a source that is not close to the original dates of Early Christianity ? It's historically unverifiable. Most scholars have rejected this Gospel of Mary because It's a Gnostic Gospel.

We got Marcion Sinope who himself no Roman Catholic or " Orthodox " bishop/priest, and he had his own " canon " of books of the New Testament. There's no Gospel of Mary. And this is around 120 AD ? Before the Roman Empire made Christianity the State religion.

And besides, this gospel even if it was " dangerous ", it was considered to be a non threat by the " Roman " Church if you want to call it that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelasian_Decree#Content

There is no mention of a gospel of Mary in the Forbidden books. Most scholarly experts, I have read consider the Gospel of Mary to be a fringe part of Gnostic Christianity with no connection to the canonical family tree.

Also, there is no consensus that the Mary in this Gospel is Mary Magdalene. Stephen J. Shoemaker, a Historian of Early Christianity has proposed that it could have been the Virgin Mary herself.

[jojoju1998]

Also With all due respect, relying on Bart Ehrman alone is bad scholarship ( and bad faith ). And it assumes that the Catholic Church does not engage in Serious Biblical Scholarship. Literally, we have Raymond Brown, who was a Sulpician Priest, he was considered to be one of the greatest new testament scholars ever.

John P. Meier whose research on the Historical Jesus is I think top notch. Excellent. The Catholic Church literally has also the Pontifical Biblical Insitute , a post graduate school dedicated to rigorous academic scholarship on the Bible. Some of the best known scholars in Europe (perhaps that's the reason why it's less well known in the anglo speaking world), have lectured and researched here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5hR7AUsM9s

The institute is run by the jesuits, and I don't think they're known for being conservative. In fact, Cardinal Robert McElroy of San Diego ( trained by the Jesuits ) has argued for women deacons using Biblical Scholarship from the Church.

Don't forget KU Leuven, the University of Munich, Insitute Catholic De Paris, These are not Fundamentalist schools.

And oh yeah, Notre Dame.



By the way, here's a good actual scholary work on the Gospel of Mary.

https://maryourhelp.org/e-books/marian-ebooks/The-Gospel-of-Mary.pdf

[Benjamin Frank]

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/

1. Most Biblical Scholars would say that The Gospel of Mary was written in the late 200s AD. This is decades or perhaps a hundred years after the Canonical Gospel of Mark was written around AD 70 ( This is according to the Consensus of almost every Biblical Scholar ). This  therefore has no connection to the accepted ( by almost all scholars ) canon of the synoptic Gospels.

"The Greek papyrus has been assigned to the early 3d century C.E. This date would suggest that Gos. Mary was composed sometime in the late 2d century.", Pheme Perkins, “Mary, Gospel of,” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 583.

So why on earth would Bart Ehrman use a source that is not close to the original dates of Early Christianity ? It's historically unverifiable. Most scholars have rejected this Gospel of Mary because It's a Gnostic Gospel.

We got Marcion Sinope who himself no Roman Catholic or " Orthodox " bishop/priest, and he had his own " canon " of books of the New Testament. There's no Gospel of Mary. And this is around 120 AD ? Before the Roman Empire made Christianity the State religion.

And besides, this gospel even if it was " dangerous ", it was considered to be a non threat by the " Roman " Church if you want to call it that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelasian_Decree#Content

There is no mention of a gospel of Mary in the Forbidden books. Most scholarly experts, I have read consider the Gospel of Mary to be a fringe part of Gnostic Christianity with no connection to the canonical family tree.

Also, there is no consensus that the Mary in this Gospel is Mary Magdalene. Stephen J. Shoemaker, a Historian of Early Christianity has proposed that it could have been the Virgin Mary herself.

That was not written by Bart Ehrman, though obviously since it's on his website he ultimately takes responsibility for it:

"This now is the final guest post by blogger and New Testament scholar, James McGrath, based on his book What Jesus Learned from Women."

Dr. James F. McGrath is the Clarence L. Goodwin Chair in New Testament Language and Literature at Butler University. His PhD is from the University of Durham in England. His interests include not only early Christianity but also the Mandaeans, science fiction, and the intersection of religion and science. He blogs at ReligionProf on the Patheos web site.