Someone turned my attention to an article by Bart Ehrman, published in the Huffington Post, titled “Who Wrote the Bible and Why it Matters.” The article is essentialy an argument that the Bible contains lies. Specifically, Ehrman addresses individual books of the Bible which claim to have been written by one person and, in fact, were not.
This is called pseudepigrapha, which means “false writing.” It happens when one author pens a work, yet claims it was written by someone else. Examples are pseudepigrapha are many. The Gospel of Thomas, The Letter of Peter to Paul, The Gospel of Judas, and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene all qualify. There are dozens of these works, both for the Old Testament and the New. Ehrman’s basic argument is nothing new or extraordinary. He claims that many of the New Testament books are pseudepigrapha. The leading contenders for this designation are 2 Peter and six of the letters attributed to Paul, including the pastoral epistles.
Reasons for suspecting these works are various and complex. However, according to Ehrman, the presence of these works in the Bible demonstrates conclusively that the Bible is full of lies. After all, is it not a lie to write something, and then claim that it was written by someone else? What if I wrote this blog post, but under the author designation, said it was written by Bart Ehrman? It would be deceptive and discrediting. It would be more than an error; it would be a lie. According to Ehrman, here is “the truth”:
“Many of the books of the New Testament were written by people who lied about their identity, claiming to be a famous apostle — Peter, Paul or James — knowing full well they were someone else. In modern parlance, that is a lie, and a book written by someone who lies about his identity is a forgery.”
Anyone reading this article would get the impression that Ehrman is telling his readers something that most others are either too ignorant or too scared to reveal. But he is “coming clean” with a truth that virtually all scholars have already admitted.
The article is by no means a scholarly or balanced argument. In fact, I don’t see any arguments at all, just assertions and appeals to the scholarly masses. And anyone who does not come to the same conclusion is pushed aside as biased and uninformed.
Unfortunately, this is all too common when Ehrman’s “scholarship” steamrolls the unsuspecting public. Time and time again he presents himself as the knight in shining armor, finally making the truth known to the otherwise helpless sheep following those radical (or radically ignorant) pastors and teachers within conservative Christianity. After all, this issue is such a slam dunk that anyone who disagrees with Ehrman’s conclusions is, de facto, a “rabid fundamentalist.”
Here are a few of the problems I find in Ehrman’s article:
1. Ehrman does much to disqualify his voice when he starts the article with these words: “Apart from the most rabid fundamentalists among us, nearly everyone admits that the Bible might contain errors.” At this point, what chance does any alternative to Ehrman’s conclusions really have? Although I hate to invoke argumentative fallacies (they are just not classy and are way overused), this is a classic case of “poisoning the well.” It is an attempt to discredit any alternatives by lumping them together with the most unholy of associations. But from the standpoint of any honest observer, this simply reveals the author’s emotionalism and/or timidity. If and when arguments are not present (or not very strong), just poison the well to achieve the same result. However, this only works with those who are not really seeking the truth.
2. Ehrman sees no need to present any sort of argument for his case. It is true – there are many scholars who agree with Ehrman that many New Testament works are pseudepigrapha, and they have good reasons. But these reasons are hardly as compelling as Ehrman assumes. A good case can also be made that each letter is authentic. I suggest picking up a copy of Donald Guthrie’s New Testament Introduction to see the evidence for and against each book in question. One can not easily dismiss Guthrie as a “rabid fundamentalist.” At the very least, you will get a much clearer picture of the issues than Ehrman seeks to give.
3. The implications are overstated. Even if one were to grant that 2 Peter were a pseudepigraph (and while I disagree, I admit it is the best candidate), what does this do? According to Ehrman, it means that the Bible contains lies. But this is not true. It would simply prove that 2 Peter was a lie. It is not scholarly in the least, in this type of argument, to treat the entire canon of Scripture (or just the New Testament) as one book written by one author (as the title of Ehrman’s article, “Who Wrote the Bible and Why It Matters,” does). Ironically, in such cases, skeptics like to attribute a unity to the Bible which they would never grant in any other situation! The truth is that even if 2 Peter and certain Pauline epistles were written by someone else, they alone would be deceptive. The rest of the books would be untouched.
4. The implications are not stated. Let us assume that the letters in question are not authentic. Let us grant Ehrman’s unsupported theses (just because we like the guy). What does this mean? The implications are rather unremarkable. No cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith is affected in the least. All the major doctrines of orthodox Christianity remain intact, finding their support in the authentic books. I am not saying that these letters are of no value, I am simply saying that Ehrman continually fails to mention, in all of his “pastoral revelations” to us poor unsuspecting people, that the message of the Christian faith is largely unaffected.
Unfortunately, I believe Ehrman’s style is much more “rabid” and far more “fundamentalist” than just about anyone else out there these days, believer or non. But, more than that, I would say his imbalanced treatment of this topic is the only “lie” I can see clearly in this article. Ehrman seems to have sold out the respect and contribution that his level of scholarship could demand, Christian or not. He is increasingly trading in his respectability as a scholar for some sort of crusade against Christianity, in which he may be seeking to solve his bitterness toward his own fundamentalist upbringing. He is a far cry from his mentor Bruce Metzger, and more and more resembles the lack of balance, meekness, and poise of so many in the New Atheist camp. I think a comment in the article from an atheist sums this up well:
“I would love to believe this article on its face. I am an Atheist, after all. But I would also love some references and citations for what are obviously some controversial claims. Otherwise it sounds a bit like Christian apologists.”
I suppose these days Bart Ehrman thinks his own musings are enough of a reference to support his claims.
195 replies to "Thoughts on Bart Ehrman’s Article in the Huffington Post"
Hey, Fr. Robert, you forgot to slam C.S. Lewis and John Stott both universalists. Barclay was perhaps the most articulate.
@Jim: I try never to “slam” anyone, especially historical Anglicans! 😉 I have read both Stott and Lewis lots, they were certainly Christian men of God’s grace & glory! I have more “Jack” Lewis books than I can perhaps count? Btw, see Alister McGrath’s new book and bio: C.S. Lewis: A Life, Eccentric Genius, Reluctant Prophet (Hardcover from Tyndale).
You really have no clue to me, and my desire in reading Christian theology, and bio! I have more books literally between here (in the USA now), and my other home in greater London! Thousands! From Catholic, to the EO, to JND (Darby) and ‘the Brethren’, the Wesley brothers, English Anglicanism and of course foremost Reformed Theology & Divinity! But I am always a theological “Biblicist:!
Btw Jim, You never did tell me your ecclesiastical place? And it appears you have never seen a personal “Calvinist- like” Anglican?
Jim @#101… was that satire? I love Lewis and have dictated all his theological works to tape, but he certainly wasn’t a universalist. He admired a number of universalists, including especially his ‘Teacher’ George MacDonald, and seemed to suspect St. Paul of it, but Lewis himself wasn’t — he went so far as to re-imagine MacDonald as an annihilationist, when MacD wrote very strongly against that. An annoying lapse for Lewis and one of his few serious cracks. (But perhaps he was imagining that MacD had learned better in heaven.)
Lewis did lean toward post-mortem salvation of a couple of sorts, and held a curious and ingenious mix of annihilation and eternal conscious torment, but he most certainly did not believe (although he occasionally taught otherwise, sometimes in the same book) that God would keep persisting toward saving all sinners from sin, much less that God would succeed at it.
(The major difference between Bell and Lewis on that topic is that Bell doesn’t turn around later and deny the persistence, or not in LW anyway.)
As for Dr. Stott, unless he has changed his mind again he’s still a major annihilationist. I expect I would have heard if he had gone Katholicistic (so to speak); that would be huge news in my circles.
(Surely Fr. Robert hasn’t been going off on them as universalists…?)
Fr. Robert, the auto-moderation probably kicked in when the forum engine itself automatically added external reference links to your scripture refs in that #80 comment — and then passed a threshold of too many links! Just an inadvertent glitch of the code to protect the board from link spamming on one hand while providing direct scriptural references on the other, or so I expect. 🙂
I appreciate the Augustine refs — I have a collection of Schaff’s patristic translations, which were once the world standard (among Protestants anyway), although I don’t know how respected they still are today, and I think all Augustine’s corpus is in there. Just a lot to work through.
I’m not entirely sure you actually answered my question, though: was Augustine working from a strand of Catholic thought to the effect that whomever God ‘redeems’, or decides to redeem, God shall certainly save from their sins? (I realize there may be an inadvertent terminology jump there; I don’t know what Latin word Augustine used for the Greek term we typically translate as “redeem” and its cognates.)
That seems to be the case, but if Augustine was following authoritative Catholic thought on that, the current Pope might not be, according to the quote I mentioned (although again that might be an inadvertent mistranslation to English).
The question doesn’t only refer to Augustine but to preceding Catholic/Orthodox dogmatic teaching (if any) on the topic (as at Augustine’s time the West and East hadn’t schismed yet.)
Well Stott is with the Lord now! And yes he was an annihilationist, and always a Low Church Anglican Evangelical, but fully universal? Not to my mind! And I would really suggest reading McGrath’s new Lewis Bio, has some surprises in it! Indeed Lewis was always a mixed bag biblically & theologically. But surely something of a Low Church kind of “Catholic” to some degree, and certainly not a standard universalist at all! Indeed see his edited little book of quotes from/of George MacDonald.
Btw, another Lewis friend and guy I like was simply one of the greatest theological minds in the CoE in the 20th century: Rev. Austin Farrer!
No not going “off” on anybody, even though I of course don’t believe a bit in universalism!
Unless McGrath is citing private correspondence from the expanded volumes of collected letters edited by Hooper (who has a demonstrable history of ‘creatively editing’ Lewis’ work, completely aside from charges of forgery — although I knew Kathryn Lindskoog via Victor Reppert in her final years and her cases for Hooper’s habit of forging Lewisiana were to me very strong)…
…then I would say if we are going to truly try and understand Lewis on any topic, we simply must read Lewis. 😉
And from his first theological writing (The Pilgrim’s Regress) to his last (Letters To Malcolm), he may have respected universalists but he wasn’t one — I do know the public material extremely well. He talked against it explicitly and repeatedly in various ways.
I haven’t read Till We Have Faces admittedly (which is a fantasy with some theological themes), but I’ve never heard anyone argue for a final shift to universalism from that. Much less did I ever remotely find such a thing in his non-theological work on English literature. Is TWHF the route McGraw takes? — or is a newly discovered correspondence route?
Jason: If you read Augustine’s ‘Enchiridion” I think you will see that Augustine was actually seen closer by both Luther and Calvin! God’s is going to redeem only the “election of grace”, and not all mankind!
Btw, Philip Schaff is still the man for patristic quotes, and of course creedal stuff! Btw, Augustine is not read near as much today, as he was say, even 20 years ago! The dumbing-down in historical theology is amazing today! And biblical literacy is also way down with many theological students! Especially the OT history!
No, I am not much of a computer guy! I am an old Bookman! 😉
The only real Lewis is in his fiction! Till We Have Faces, is a must read!
Btw perhaps still the best Lewis Bio is by George Sayer’s!
‘The Narnian, The Life And Imagination of C.S. Lewis’, by Alan Jacobs, was a fun read!
Good to hear about Schaff! I know how widely respected he was, and I still see occasional respected refs to him in various footnotes, but considering he came to be a Christian universalist while studying and compiling the patristics I was naturally worried about some bias creeping into his translations. (I worry about bias in favor of my positions as well as against. 🙂 )
I could comment at extended length on the scriptures you quoted to Jim back in the Hound of Heaven comment — obviously I believe the ‘hounds’ pursue to overthrow everyone with goodness and mercy until that’s accomplished — but a 2000 character limit thread is hardly where to do so, and Michael has been very patient (or not very attentive 😉 ) with our digressions already.
It makes a difference in the evangelical assurances though. Can we trust that NES is certainly someone God intends and acts to save from sin? Yes (per Arminian variants): the gospel certainly applies to him. Can we trust that God will competently persist in saving NES if God intends to do so? Yes (per Calvinist variants): God certainly can and will accomplish His saving work.
Does NES still have to cooperate with that responsibly? Yes. Can he do so without empowerment from God? No. Does he have to convince God to regard him for salvation or to persist in doing so? No. Does an insistence on impenitence lead to trouble and to punishment? Yes. Is the punishment ever hopeless? No. Does God excuse and heal as much as possible? Yes. Does that preclude repentance and forgiveness? No. Is NES among the “all things” created by God, things visible and invisible, whether in the heavens on in the earth? Yes. Is NES among the “all things” whom God is pleased to reconcile by the blood of the cross, whether visible or invisible, in the heavens or in the earth? Yes. If NES is reconciled by the blood of Christ, how much moreso shall he be saved into the life of Christ? Yes, much moreso.
(Are his sins any worse than mine? No.)
[…] Examines the Evidence (by Dr. Thomas A. Miller, MD.—Book Review from Apologetics 315) Battling Bart Erhman’s Poor Scholarship and Emotional Arguments (Credo House Ministries—short but helpful article on the popular quote machine for liberal […]
You might benefit from a class in elementary logic. You say, let’s assume 2 Peter is pseudoepigraphic, and admit that this would imply that 2 Peter is a lie. So we can take as our first premise:
1) 2 Peter is a lie.
Then we have a second premise, which is hardly controversial:
2) The Bible contains 2 Peter.
The conclusion follows immediately:
3) The Bible contains at least one lie.
If we admit as a premise also that at least one of the epistles of Paul is pseudoepigraphic, then the conclusion that the Bible contains lies in the strictest sense (i.e., more than one lie) also follows immediately.
That would only work iif you grant a trasendant unity to scripture, which would be self defeating unless Bart wants to say that 1) God does exist, 2) he did write the Scriptures, 3) but he is a liar.
Otherwise, for scholarly discussions without any assumption, let’s keep this first century corpus separate.
#63 Fr. Robert
“@loo: I never used the word “dominance” on this issue, though I think a better word would be “order”. The reality is that we have here an aspect of biblical hierarchy in the Biblical Creation, btw hieros is really the place of the “sacred”. So the sacred order and authority, in the roles of man and woman is somewhat like that of the places of angels, again hierarchy, at least in this Creation”
Well, we will be judging angels one day, so that gets all turned on its head. There are no male and female in heaven, so forget gender distinctions in the Kingdom.
But, the main issue for me is Junia – and neube???? link lies, Origin did refer to Junia as a women apostle, as did other church fathers, an apostle was the *highest* order in the early church and Junia is considered an *outstanding* apostle.
Pheobe, of course is a letter bearer – one who would read and teach the letter they carried (in her case, Romans) to the whole church – deconess or not, she was a teacher and Bible interpreter (who spoke face – to -face to the congregation, which would get Piper really upset).
Lets also note, every “ordering” of women is followed hot on the heals by commands for slaves to obey their masters, yet once the early church gained enough clout, they got slavery banned in the Roman Empire. So, they hardly viewed Paul’s so-called ordering as permanent.
I am just using the Bible here, and this whole supposed clear delineation of the genders fails. It was more common for men to lead, sure, but Rome was a very sexist society (and Neubegan?? the pagans were, in fact, about equal with Paul in misogyny/sexism – Paul wasn’t nicer or more liberal, some good arguments are beginning to crop up that Paul wasn’t breaking any ground in his day).
“women wore both veils and hats in worship. memories!” So, do you see any reason why they should? Oh, you just have to google Richard Beck and that topic, it is mind boggling why anyone would bother with that…
Here is the Beck link:
http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.ca/search?q=head+coverings&submit=Search
Jason Pratt,
You said:
“Also, textual criticism per se is about the transmission of the text, not about interpretation of the meaning of the text. For example, there are a few early copies of 1 Cor which don’t even have verses 34-35 or which port them to the end, in a typical “possibly spurious material” identification. There aren’t nearly enough such copies to even plausibly suggest the verses were added to the original, but it does indicate some corners of the early church suspected they had been added.”
This is what most scholars agree upon, yes. The whole point of Bart Ehrman’s objection is to point out that, more than likely, Paul’s opponents turned him into a sexist. Who knows? Maybe even the original manuscript, he is addressing a singular “you”. That, and the Greek grammar has no punctuations in the original manuscripts meaning that lots of interpretation can be made there. It is an unsupported hypothesis though because there aren’t a lot of facts and most Christians will attempt to say “The Bible has no errors!” any way.
Loo says: “But, the main issue for me is Junia – and neube???? link lies, Origin did refer to Junia as a women apostle,”
No surprise. Hence, why he’s the douche at CARM. Although Daniel B. Wallace has also attempted to defend the position that Junia was not an apostle.
Michael Patton said:
“That would only work iif you grant a trasendant unity to scripture, which would be self defeating unless Bart wants to say that 1) God does exist, 2) he did write the Scriptures, 3) but he is a liar.”
No. That would work if you were following the claims of religious folk who say that God wrote the Bible and that he is not a liar. In other words – 1) God tells the truth (allegedly) 2) the people who wrote the Bible were lying 3) Therefore, humans and not an alleged God wrote the Bible 4) do we really need God to explain the Bible?
Fr. Robert says: “But I am always a theological “Biblicist:!”
Here’s a good book for you:
http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Made-Impossible-Evangelical-ebook/dp/B008L014R4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1370614877&sr=8-1&keywords=bible+made+impossible
Jason,
Rob Bell defends the divinity of Christ and uses explicitly Trinitarian language but never mentions the Trinity as a necessity. But yes, from what I know of Bell, he is a Trinitarian.
Here’s from Adam Clarke’s commentary on Phoebe:
“Phoebe is here termed a servant, διακονον, a deaconess of the Church at Cenchrea. There were deaconesses in the primitive Church, whose business it was to attend the female converts at baptism; to instruct the catechumens, or persons who were candidates for baptism; to visit the sick, and those who were in prison, and, in short, perform those religious offices for the female part of the Church which could not with propriety be performed by men. They were chosen in general out of the most experienced of the Church, and were ordinarily widows, who had borne children. Some ancient constitutions required them to be forty, others fifty, and others sixty years of age. It is evident that they were ordained to their office by the imposition of the hands of the bishop; and the form of prayer used on the occasion is extant in the apostolical constitutions. In the tenth or eleventh century the order became extinct in the Latin Church, but continued in the Greek Church till the end of the twelfth century. See Broughton’s Dictionary, article deaconess.”
So apparently, the gender roles are pretty much divided in terms of ministry according to him. Women do “womenly” things if they are ministers and men do “manly” things if they are ministers. Still sexism.
That’s my point. One has to assume inspiration to say the Bible lies in such a case. If we don’t assume inspiration, only the author of 2 Pet lied.
The Bible made impossible is written by a sociologist who simply argues against a fundamentalist outlook. His same critiques have been made over and over again by Evangelicals, even finding themselves in the Chicago Statement of Biblical inerrancy. It is the basic Roman Catholic apologetic, but is very unbalanced and ill informed.
Here’s N.T. Wright’s position on gender roles, loo. You should read what he has to say on Gal. 3:28.
http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm
2 Peter is included in the Tridentine Canon! Btw, for the believing heart & mind the internal evidence favours authenticity to St. Peter, but then I am a “Churchman”! As were the Reformers btw! Calvin may have had doubts here, but never as to Canon!
And, let me quote an old Jesuit: 1951? “There is undoubtedly a deep underlying parallelism and connexion of thought between the two epistles, which does not seem to be the result of slavish imitation by some pseudepigrapher, but which is rather the result of references to, or drawing upon the same stock ideas, as might be expected from two products of the same brain; e.g. in both epistles we find the same approach to such topics as Noah and the Flood, the Last Days, the New Creation, the Transfiguration of Christ, the Galilean appearance to Peter, the influence of the Pauline Epistles, the Parousia and the virtues of patience, vigilance and sobriety. Moreover, the writer claims to be ‘Simon (Simeon) Peter, servant and Apostle of Jesus Christ’, and mentions he was present at Christ’s transfiguration, 1: 16-18.” (Rev. H. Willmering, S.J.)
Btw, just from myself, the similarities between chapter 2 here and the Book of Jude, is obvious, but the parallels are close but never exact, there is a relationship. Who used who is a question? Here we can surely see again the Apostolic spirit and even order!
But Michael Patton, you’re missing the point of the argument. If the human author of the Bible says that God cannot lie and then goes off and lies in his writing, then God did not write the Bible but humans did meaning God was made up. We’re assuming that they made claims to inspiration.
So what if The Bible Made Impossible rejects Biblical inerrancy. This doesn’t make it any less factual or well-balanced. I’ve never read the book but it sure looks good.
Yes old Tom Wright, an Anglican, and now retired bishop (a year older than me), is a confused mess on the role and position of women in the Church!
No wonder many conservative minded High Church Anglicans, have and are going to the Ordinariate’s! (R. Catholic Church)
Newenglandkidofgy
In response to your statement:
“I am dealing with the overall context of it. I don’t treat it as inspired because this isn’t good textual criticism. My argument is that it is written by sexist patriarchs and should be thrown in the garbage as fast as possible. Along with the Qur’an which is also riddled with sexist, patriarchal bigotry.”
On what basis do you base the moral imperative “should”?
Jason Pratt #104
In face of all the ravings to the opposite, I have yet to find anyone on this blog or elsewhere that can give a reasonable or moral answer to why a loving God with a Son who died for everyone send anyone to an endless lake of fire to suffer along with their companions. This lake of fire is the second death. Since when did death become anything but death. What part of the word “death” do they not get? Stott has this to say,
“Quoting Revelation 14:11, he writes:
“And the smoke of their torment rises forever and ever,” Stott went on to argue, “The fire itself is termed ‘eternal’ and ‘unquenchable’, but it would be very odd if what is thrown into it proves indestructible. Our expectation would be the opposite: it would be consumed forever, not tormented forever. Hence it is the smoke (evidence that the fire has done its work) which ‘rises for ever and ever.’”
The ultimate annihilation of the wicked, Stott added,
“[Should] at least be accepted as a legitimate, biblically founded alternative to their eternal conscious torment.” ,
Further, Dr. Stott insisted that his opinion of hell was not based on his emotions alone. Stott reiterated this opinion some five years later, according to Timothy Dudley-Smith, his authorized biographer.
“Emotionally, I find the concept [of eternal conscious torment] intolerable and do not understand how people can live with it without either cauterizing their feelings or cracking under the strain. But our emotions are a fluctuating, unreliable guide to truth and must not be exalted to the place of supreme authority in determining it… my question must be—and is—not what does my heart tell me, but what does God’s word say?”
How answer ye that?
Jim Roane,
The moral basis of human rights.
Fr. Robert,
Yeah, I noticed that my parents are similar. For instance, they believe in women’s equality yet still somehow remain sexists.
102 Fr. Robert (Anglican), in response to 6.6..13 8:29 pm comment:
Jim, I try never to “slam” anyone, especially historical Anglicans!
Perhaps the word “try” allows you off the hook; however, you do come across as an opinioned bigot-but, the kind of bigot that I like. This is just my personal impression.
Concerning your obviously well stocked library and voracious appetite of things theological, with all due respect-and I do mean that-the real question are, “Did you judge their case without taking the easy way out using a Calvinistic bias? And, if so, are you willing to present a reasonable agrument against someone who disagrees without touting how smart you are? Or hiding behind Calvin? These Reformers are fine, but the bottom line is still sola scriptura. If not, then you and I had better make a beeline to the RC Church and hide behind the magisterium.”
Also, dear brother, you never did answer where your Phil. D., and Th.D. came from. I am sure they are from legitmate institutions; so I am just curious. Also, are you ordained by the Anglican church Lambert Conference group or the American variety via an African connection?
Hey, take a good look at my hands, mate. I ain’t wearing gloves; so please understand this is not a fight, just a robust exchange . . . 🙂
newenglandsun says:
June 7, 2013 at 11:11 am
“Jim Roane, The moral basis of human rights.”
Really? Who says we have any rights? And, what do these rights demand? And, if there is a demand. Who made it? And, when it is broken, what about punishment? Who does that? And, what about those murderers like Stalin and Hitler (not to mention abortionists) who get off scot-free without paying a penalty for their infringement on these basic rights? Who decides that? Just curious? 🙂
“Really? Who says we have any rights?”
Jim, I am assuming you want me to answer “God”. But I cannot. Logic gives us these human rights. Logic teaches us respect for others. Hence, why there is a level of respect in every world religion out there.
“(not to mention abortionists)”
I really don’t like getting into debates about the subject of abortion. For the meantime, I will state that I am pro-choice but I have never actually seen a decent argument for either side to be perfectly honest.
#122 newenglandsun (sorry, didn’t notice this was an easy name LOL)
You have described the roles of deacons well, however, two points: 1) In view of the practice of Greco-Roman letter-writing, the first two verses of Rom.16 clearly serve as a letter of introduction from Paul recommending Phoebe and establishingher authority to his audience. (from The Sophia Institute. Third Annual Conference Friday December 3rd 2010)
More evidence of how letter carriers (and specifically women letter carriers were introduced in ancient Rome) follows.
Fitzmyer, Romans, pg. 728. A helpful parallel to Phoebe‘s situation, both as a woman who was an
ambitious traveler and a letter carrier, is offered by the example of two ancient papyri which have beenpublished among the invaluable resources of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri Online web-site; even though theyare both from the fourth century, they provide a useful lens through which to regard Phoebe as she isintroduced by Paul in Romans. Both are letters of introduction written on behalf of Christian women to distant clergy to be used as they travel. One of them, ―P. Oxy. 2785,‖ recommends a woman named Taionleading a small band of travelers in Egypt, and another, ―P. Oxy. 3857,‖ is for a woman named Germania, written by her father in order to secure nightly accommodation as she traveled. So, even if examples of women traveling independently and as letter carriers are rare, they do actually exist in the literature. Pace, Marjanen, 504-505. For Taion: Stanley K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986), pg. 157-158; for Germania: New Documents Illustrating EarlyChristianity
V. 4, No. 8, pg. 69-70. Additionally, both ―P. Oxy. 2785‖ and ―P. Oxy. 3857
Paul only sent his most trusted out with the epistles he wrote, he is asking for accomodations for Phoebe . The way Phoebe is introduced is the way letter carriers were introduced in the ancient world.
Letter carriers were teachers and Bible interpreters. Phoebe is both a deaconess and a letter carrier – it is regarding the fact she was a letter carrier (well documented in scholarly articles) that I am referring. Both Scot McKnight and NT Write have pointed this out.
The second, niggling, point. Phoebe was around long before apostles were called “bishops”. Oh, if you favour the Easter Orthodox position, then she was around long before elders were called “bishops”.
#130 Jim Roan,
A bigger claim for me than mere emotions regarding Hell is that the early church was more in line with annihilation and, and this is tipping point for me, if Jesus was standing in for us for a sentence that included an eternal Hell, then he should still be there. If not, no matter how powerful and capable He is, he isn’t truly being a stand in for us, now is he? If he only served a partial sentence for us (dying as a human, taking on our sins, getting sent to Sheol (mind you, no concept of hell in the early church) then breaking out, that would only be standing in for part of it. Unless you think at Judgement Day he then goes off to Hell and we, the church, are the widowed bride in Heaven. Not likely. However, if Jesus took our punishment, then he would have to go to Hell for eternity on Judgement Day, otherwise, he only served less than half the prescribed torment we deserve. That alone is clear to me that Hell, whatever it is, is not eternal conscience torment.
loo,
Hate to break it to you, but regardless of what Wright says on women in ministry, he is a closet sexist. He still believes adamantly that women should be “women” and men should be “men”.
Anyway, here is an examination of your statement.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2013/05/phoebe-the-letter-carrier/
I personally think that all Christians should just be honest and admit that the Bible is sexist and hates women just as much as fags and throw it down a toilet. hope we can all come to our senses eventually.
loo,
And here is Daniel B. Wallace:
http://bible.org/article/may-women-be-deacons-prelude-dialogue
Again, N.T. Wright is very confused on the issue of gender roles. He is a sexist and yet an alleged egalitarian at the exact same time. Ask me how this is possible, I have no clue but Wright should throw all his books in the trash can where they belong.
@Jim: Well we are all have theological opinions, but calling me an outright “bigot”, is rather over the top! Btw. check out your dictionary for the meaning of bigot: a person who holds “blindly” and “intolerantly” to a particular creed. And yes I know some narrow-minds think that includes all Calvinists and Calvinism! I can see that Calvin and Calvinism gets under your skin! But what if it is true, i.e. a most Sovereign and Particular God Almighty? Ouch! Btw, this is the Jewish God also! The great history of Christianity includes both Augustinianism and Calvinism! Have you even ever read either Luther or Calvin to any degree, not to mention the great Augustine? I just bet not much, or at least in depth!
YOU still have not given-up your ecclesiastical place? Btw, just a point, but my first degree (in my late 20’s) was a BA in Philosophy from a Roman Catholic College. A valued first step for me, since I still love Western Greek and Roman Philosophy!
I have got to hear some great theolog’s in my day, I won’t give a list, but of course most were Brits! Though I also like many Americans, obviously mostly Reformed! So yes, that is my “persuasion”! Btw, St. Paul was “persuaded”! (Romans 4: 21 ; 8: 38 ; 14: 5 ; 14: 14).
Walk softly mate, especially since you have ten years on me! I am a young 63 they tell me! Still about 155lbs at 5’11. Oh that Irish pride doesn’t die easy (if ever?) 😉 You should have seen my father, now there was a tough act to follow! (An Alpha type for sure!)…and I am his first-born son! lol
“NES”…Well I will admit I used to be something of a women chaser, I did not get married until I was 38, as I remember. But my now wife of many years got the best of me, and I fell deeply in love with her! There has been no other since! So that, ‘women should be “women” and men should be “men”’, still works for me too! Rock on! 😉
Fr. Robert,
Define what you mean by “men” and “women”.
And fyi, “Bigamy is having one wife too many. Monogamy is the same.” – Oscar Wilde
Btw, I am still kind of amazed that the theological blog brings out the wing-nuts, and just the great independence of peoples so-called biblical and theological choice! And people wonder why I am a Calvinist? Sin, both personal and existential in a very broken and fallen world or age! Paul calls this world or age, “evil”! (Gal. 1: 4)…note too, 2 Cor. 2: 9-17..noting too, chapter 4 and verses 3-4, etc.
“NES”, I think that is quite obvious in my generation!
“the theological blog brings out the wing-nuts, and just the great independence of peoples so-called biblical and theological choice”
You appear to prove this quite well, Fr. Robert 😉
Sorry mate, but anyone who calls himself a “Luciferian” gets the “wing-nut” award in my book! 😉
Fr. Robert,
My book is the one that matters though. in my book, it’s Calvinistic, sexist Anglicans.
Whatever you say “Lucifer”! 😉
Hey Fr. Robert, have you seen Michael Patton’s posts on how “Lucifer” isn’t Satan’s name?
Oh, and the Latin Vulgate calls God “Lucifer” so I take that as a complement of highest regards, thank you.
2 Peter 1:19 – et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris
Well “NES”.. remember I am an old man, and former Catholic and old “Lucifer” was THE devil back in the day! 😉