How accurate is the text in the Bible?

[Benjamin Frank]

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

All well and good, but there are limits to what the Catholic Church will accept.

[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

All well and good, but there are limits to what the Catholic Church will accept.

Cardinal Robert W. McElroy appointed by Francis himself.

Cardinal Jean Claude Hollerich SJ of Luxembourg.  Hell, even Cardinal Marc Oullet seems... sympathetic. And of course the German Bishops ( who go even beyond Ordaining deacons... to well.... priests ).


https://www.fatheranne.com/reasons-for-hope.html

These are broadly educated clerics, from top Catholic Universities. They have positions of leadership in the Church.

3 of the top ten departments of theology/divinity are Catholic. https://www.bc.edu/bc-web/bcnews/faith-religion/theology/bc-7th-worldwide-in-theology-and-religious-studies.html

KU Leuven, Boston College, and Notre Dame.

[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.

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.

But my point still stands.... I hope.

Most scholars don't agree on who Mary is, in the Gospel of Mary. F. Stanley Jones, and Stephen J. Shoemaker, who were/are professors at CSU Long Beach, and the University of Oregon respectively have said it was perhaps the Mother of Jesus herself.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Pillars-Family-Politics-Earliest/dp/1608996034 This Book by Barbara Silverstein argues that it could have been a sister or step sister of Jesus, another Mary.

Even if It is Mary Magdalene however, the fact that this Gospel was written so far out and has Gnostic themes, makes it suspect in my view.

[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.

But my point still stands.... I hope.

Most scholars don't agree on who Mary is, in the Gospel of Mary. F. Stanley Jones, and Stephen J. Shoemaker, who were/are professors at CSU Long Beach, and the University of Oregon respectively have said it was perhaps the Mother of Jesus herself.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Pillars-Family-Politics-Earliest/dp/1608996034 This Book by Barbara Silverstein argues that it could have been a sister or step sister of Jesus, another Mary.

Even if It is Mary Magdalene however, the fact that this Gospel was written so far out and has Gnostic themes, makes it suspect in my view.

My point still stands too: there is considerable evidence that there were women priests in the early days of Christianity, and yet the Catholic Church still refuses to allow women to be priests. Beyond that, there is also significant evidence that the Church, as it became powerful in Rome, intentionally relegated the role of women and the poor to serve the patriarchy and the powerful.

In regards to modern Biblical scholarship and the Catholic Church, I acknowledge you have shown that they have legitimate scholars doing honest work, but it's hard to know how seriously to take that given that the Church is still trying to cover up the evils of Nazi sympathizer Pius.

[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.

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.

But my point still stands.... I hope.

Most scholars don't agree on who Mary is, in the Gospel of Mary. F. Stanley Jones, and Stephen J. Shoemaker, who were/are professors at CSU Long Beach, and the University of Oregon respectively have said it was perhaps the Mother of Jesus herself.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Pillars-Family-Politics-Earliest/dp/1608996034 This Book by Barbara Silverstein argues that it could have been a sister or step sister of Jesus, another Mary.

Even if It is Mary Magdalene however, the fact that this Gospel was written so far out and has Gnostic themes, makes it suspect in my view.

My point still stands too: there is considerable evidence that there were women priests in the early days of Christianity, and yet the Catholic Church still refuses to allow women to be priests. Beyond that, there is also significant evidence that the Church, as it became powerful in Rome, intentionally relegated the role of women and the poor.

Evidence for Women deacons. Not Women Priests. The argument for Women deacons is far more supported in both early church history documents, and the Bible itself.


Indeed, as Dr. Phyllis Zagano points out, "We have a great history of women ordained as deacons in Christianity up until the 12th century. You’ll remember that Phoebe, in Romans 16:1-2, is introduced by St. Paul; she is the only person in scripture with the job title “deacon.” What the church has done, the church can do again."

https://www.bu.edu/articles/2022/should-women-be-ordained-catholic-deacons/

Cardinal McElroy has followed this line of reasoning in his support for Women deacons ( which I do too, the arguments for it makes sense ).



However There is a distinct difference between Deacons and Priests. And I don't see any clear cut evidence for Woman Priests in the Bible and 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.

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.

But my point still stands.... I hope.

Most scholars don't agree on who Mary is, in the Gospel of Mary. F. Stanley Jones, and Stephen J. Shoemaker, who were/are professors at CSU Long Beach, and the University of Oregon respectively have said it was perhaps the Mother of Jesus herself.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Pillars-Family-Politics-Earliest/dp/1608996034 This Book by Barbara Silverstein argues that it could have been a sister or step sister of Jesus, another Mary.

Even if It is Mary Magdalene however, the fact that this Gospel was written so far out and has Gnostic themes, makes it suspect in my view.

My point still stands too: there is considerable evidence that there were women priests in the early days of Christianity, and yet the Catholic Church still refuses to allow women to be priests. Beyond that, there is also significant evidence that the Church, as it became powerful in Rome, intentionally relegated the role of women and the poor to serve the patriarchy and the powerful.

In regards to modern Biblical scholarship and the Catholic Church, I acknowledge you have shown that they have legitimate scholars doing honest work, but it's hard to know how seriously to take that given that the Church is still trying to cover up the evils of Nazi sympathizer Pius.

Pope Francis ordered the release of records regarding Pius's actions during the Second World War I think 5 years ago ? Wrong. it was 2 years ago ( during the Covid Days). https://www.npr.org/2020/08/29/907076135/records-from-once-secret-archive-offer-new-clues-into-vatican-response-to-holoca

Facts show that Pius was mediocre at best at handling the Nazi regime.

But there is no coverup. It's right there for all to see.

[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.

But my point still stands.... I hope.

Most scholars don't agree on who Mary is, in the Gospel of Mary. F. Stanley Jones, and Stephen J. Shoemaker, who were/are professors at CSU Long Beach, and the University of Oregon respectively have said it was perhaps the Mother of Jesus herself.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Pillars-Family-Politics-Earliest/dp/1608996034 This Book by Barbara Silverstein argues that it could have been a sister or step sister of Jesus, another Mary.

Even if It is Mary Magdalene however, the fact that this Gospel was written so far out and has Gnostic themes, makes it suspect in my view.

My point still stands too: there is considerable evidence that there were women priests in the early days of Christianity, and yet the Catholic Church still refuses to allow women to be priests. Beyond that, there is also significant evidence that the Church, as it became powerful in Rome, intentionally relegated the role of women and the poor to serve the patriarchy and the powerful.

In regards to modern Biblical scholarship and the Catholic Church, I acknowledge you have shown that they have legitimate scholars doing honest work, but it's hard to know how seriously to take that given that the Church is still trying to cover up the evils of Nazi sympathizer Pius.

Pope Francis ordered the release of records regarding Pius's actions during the Second World War I think 5 years ago ? Wrong. it was 2 years ago ( during the Covid Days). https://www.npr.org/2020/08/29/907076135/records-from-once-secret-archive-offer-new-clues-into-vatican-response-to-holoca

Facts show that Pius was mediocre at best at handling the Nazi regime.

But there is no coverup. It's right there for all to see.

If that's everything that was released, there's no mention of the Ratline.

Also, as the article said, there was not only a coverup from the end of World War II until 2021 (and released during Covid) but the Catholic Church had previously lied to make Pius seemed Pius.

Is it possible to reverse a Canonization, because in no way is this evi, Nazi enabling antiSemite a saint.

[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.

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.

But my point still stands.... I hope.

Most scholars don't agree on who Mary is, in the Gospel of Mary. F. Stanley Jones, and Stephen J. Shoemaker, who were/are professors at CSU Long Beach, and the University of Oregon respectively have said it was perhaps the Mother of Jesus herself.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Pillars-Family-Politics-Earliest/dp/1608996034 This Book by Barbara Silverstein argues that it could have been a sister or step sister of Jesus, another Mary.

Even if It is Mary Magdalene however, the fact that this Gospel was written so far out and has Gnostic themes, makes it suspect in my view.

My point still stands too: there is considerable evidence that there were women priests in the early days of Christianity, and yet the Catholic Church still refuses to allow women to be priests. Beyond that, there is also significant evidence that the Church, as it became powerful in Rome, intentionally relegated the role of women and the poor to serve the patriarchy and the powerful.

In regards to modern Biblical scholarship and the Catholic Church, I acknowledge you have shown that they have legitimate scholars doing honest work, but it's hard to know how seriously to take that given that the Church is still trying to cover up the evils of Nazi sympathizer Pius.

Pope Francis ordered the release of records regarding Pius's actions during the Second World War I think 5 years ago ? Wrong. it was 2 years ago ( during the Covid Days). https://www.npr.org/2020/08/29/907076135/records-from-once-secret-archive-offer-new-clues-into-vatican-response-to-holoca

Facts show that Pius was mediocre at best at handling the Nazi regime.

But there is no coverup. It's right there for all to see.

If that's everything that was released, there's no mention of the Ratline.

Also, as the article said, there was not only a coverup from the end of World War II until 2021 (and released during Covid) but the Catholic Church had previously lied to make Pius seemed Pius.

Is it possible to reverse a Canonization, because in no way is this evi, Nazi enabling antiSemite a saint.

Not defending Pius. Or the Church. But you make it seem with these Ratlines were sanctioned by the Church Hireachy. As if the the Catholic Church is a top down organization. It’s not.
There is not real scholarship that showed that Pius XII personally approved of and sanctioned these ratlines. If there were at all. https://books.google.com/books/about/Vatican_Ratline.html?id=fBD8PAAACAAJ&source=kp_book_description

This is literally the only book I can find on it.  Do you really think this is peer reviewed ? Rigorous ? Academic ? Scholarly ?

No !

Now there were historical evidence of Certain church officials such as Draganovoc, and Alois Hudal who personally paid for and assisted Nazis. But this was done often without the direct sanction and approval of the Vatican who was at best… or worst, medicore in dealing with the Nazi Regime ( a Regime that the  previous Pope have said was highly unchristian, and destructive by the way, words can only do so however ).

Once Hudal’s role was exposed in 1950, by a major German catholic newspaper, Pope Pius made Hudal resign from his post.

This was open secret for years. This was known even before the popular opinion shifted against Pius in the 1960s.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Let's try to stay on-topic, please.

[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...)

[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/

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.

[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.

[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/

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.

Irving Kanarek: May I be sworn your honor?
Judge Older: I wouldn't believe you if you were.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Ancient biblical manuscripts, like other ancient literature, provide a lot of variant readings, though most are pretty minor and don't change the meaning much. There is a lot of scholarship devoted to studying this and biblical translators rely on these findings, though what decisions they make about which version is most original or authentic can vary. You will see in many bibles that Mark has alternate endings that are demarcated from the rest of the book as being later additions. 

As to the reasons for these variations: some can be typos, others could be attempts to 'fix' things which the editor believed were typos which may or may not have actually been. Some edited or added to the text because they thought it needed clarification. Sometimes texts are combined or rearranged. The story of the Woman Caught in Adultery was probably not originally a part of the Gospel of John, but was a passage that came from another source and was added to John because it was considered important for inclusion and that seemed like a good place to attach it. This textual history doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't belong there.

The idea that the Bible we have is the result of any kind of concerted effort to change the text for ideological or political reasons doesn't seem plausible to me. Maybe some people tried that in one place or another but there was no real centralized control over textual transmission from any early church hierarchy.