(6 votes, average: 4.50 out of 5)
Loading...Is the reason women are treated better in today’s society than virtually any time in human history (as often bad as it is now, oh boy was it worse in, say, 1950, or 950, or 50), because of the beneficent influence of true Christianity? That is the thesis of the recent work of an evangelical Christian named Glenn Schriver, and I had a remote debate with him about it. You can watch it here.
It appeared on one of my favorite interview programs in the world (literally, since it’s in London), Unbelievable hosted by Justin Brierley. Oh boy, that program regularly interesting. Every week Justin regularly sets up discussions/debates, often between a well-educated evangelical Christian spokesperson and a decidedly non-evangelical / non-Christian — e.g., well, people like me.
Justin is a terrific interviewer / moderator (he himself is a Christian interested in apologetics). I’ve done his show a bunch of times, and it’s always interesting. Check out the webpage: https: www.premierunbelievable.com/shows/unbelievable
This particular back and forth happened a couple of months ago. I must admit, I often get riled up by claims about the Bible that I think are just wrong; I get even more riled up when these claims involve social issues that seriously affect peoples actual *lives*. This show was all about that. It was called: Bart Ehrman v Glen Scrivener: Did Christianity give us our belief in equality, compassion & consent?
I hope you find it interesting. (I found it a bit painful….).
Thankyou for drawing attention here to that episode of Unbelievable which, I agree, is an excellent program under the guidance of Justin Brierley.
I too found Glenn Scrivener most annoying – very unconvincingly trying to reverse engineer contemporary advanced (& Western, I might add) social standards back to Biblical texts from 2000 years ago. His is a theological position – & nothing wrong about that per se except he won’t admit it AND he claims to have the backing of history & logic when he’s clearly on shakey ground there, as pointed out by a frustrated Bart! I’m sure there probably is apologetic argument out there of merit but mostly what I see is like Mr Scrivener’s – shallow in thought & research, and lacking the objectivity they so desperately want to claim.
The first part of the video is dreary, after which it became cringe worthy. Hard to decide which is worse, Scrivener’s twisted interpretations of the Bible, or constantly schilling his book.
Thanks for sharing this interview! Very enlightening, and I love hearing your points again from “Triumph”. While I have not read Glen’s book, it got me thinking about another book that seems to be big amongst apologetics I know, “Dominion” by Tom Holland- interested if you had an opinion to share on that?
I think it’s much better; his chapter on Charity is pretty good — though necessarily brief. He covers a wide waterfront!
Perhaps the bible contains a few scrivener’s errors.
Dr. Ehrman: As always, your command of the “facts” won the day. It was a pleasure listening to you remain scholarly in the face of absurdity.
First the Church opposes it.
Then when forced, they tolerate it.
Eventually, after it is universally accepted, they take credit for it.
O,my…. I often felt like screaming at the iphone or pinching it with a sharp object.
You were admirable keeping your cool. I wonder if you ever lose your temper.
I commented about your upcoming podcast that I think debating an evangelical might not be fruitful.I still do.
When Glenn made the case for Jesus saying “ love your enemy” I wondered if you had written something about it.Did Jesus say it?
As for Womens Lib,to ascribe it to Christianity crossed a line. One cannot teach History this way. I can’t understand the zeal to claim that everything good and worthy was invented by Christianity- or anyone religion or culture- as if they were insecure about the value of Christian action, which indeed made this a better world.
As for equality and its alleged firm basis in Christianity, Marx was an atheist. Lenin and Stalin weren’t bleeding hearts either. There were ancient egalitarian societies ( early Israel or Anglo-Saxon tribes,for example), and the Church did not encourage the division of ( their) property.
As for science, they always come with Newton being “ religious”. I know that he dabbled in the occult, like weird versions of Kabbalah.
All in all, great stuff.
Oh, love your enemy. Yeah, that’s what my next book will be about (more or less). I do think Jesus taught it, and I also think very few of his followers were (or are) listening…. As it turns out, Newton was highly religious. BUT, what people miss out, is that his major breakthrough, which in many respects *STARTED* modern science, was that he realized his religous beliefs had NO relation to his scientific work. Science did not have to accept theological views and it did not need to “make sense.” Data are data. In the history of science this had never been pushed before. FANTASTIC book on this by Michael Streven, The Knowledge Machine.
I would like to add that I think the debates you do are invaluable and I hope so much you will continue doing them. My view is that their purpose is not in persuading the debater to your point of view, (spitting in the wind) rather it is to provide a counterpoint not otherwise available to the listener. You have a unique way of providing counter factual and rational information that speaks to “normal” people who would otherwise be drawn in to the “stuff” that Scrivener and others like him peddle. I am so thankful for you!
So, you think that Paul wrote 1 Cor 14:34-35. As you know, these verses appear after verse 40 in D F G 88 etc.. How do you answer Fee’s challenge to explain this transposition? Please give an example of a large section of original text that is transposed to a new location, without having been absent. Alternatively, please explain how 1 Cor 14:34-35 could have been absent from a manuscript if it was original.
I think it’s a thin argument but clever. I’ve always been interested that a hard core committed evangelical Christian NT scholar, Fee (who, by the way was an inspiration to me in my academic work, later a friend and close colleague, with whom I wrote a book!), thought the verses were not original and a hard core feminist NT scholar Antoinette Wire, thought they were. I would have expe ted the opposite! The verses are not absent from any manuscript. Those who doubt they were original consider them an interpolation, not a textual variant (i.e., it they represent an addition made before any of the manuscripts that served as exemplars for any of our surviving manuscripts were produced). I am strongly of that opinion. I think they interrupt the flow of the narrative (take them out and the flow actually works; they are intrusive) and contradict what Paul says in chapter 11 about women speaking in church.
Thanks. Isn’t another possibility that 1 Cor 14:34-35 was not in the archetype, but was added to a manuscript and spread from there until it had infected all surviving manuscripts? In a similar way Rom 15-16 (while genuine) was absent in the west until the fourth century, but is now in every manuscript.
In your talk (at 31mins) you blame Paul for 1 Cor 14:34-35. You also say that Paul tells the women in Corinth that they are to be subject to their husbands, but he does not do so, even in 1 Cor 11. It is important to be clear about which texts are by Paul, otherwise we let the forgers win. You also say that 1 Tim 5 says that women are not to talk in church, but even 1 Tim 2:11-15 does not quite say that.
I lean towards the line of thinking in Michael Burke’s comment. We should also expect that there was sexist selection bias when second century church leaders decided which first century documents to copy. The first century documents that we have are therefore likely more patriarchal, on average, than what was written.
Yes, an interpolation refers to an insertion made after the original, but not found in any surviving ms. I do not think there’s any evidence Romans 15-16 was absent in the west for 300 years. What are you thinking of?
If I quoted 1 Cor. 14:34-35 in reference to Paul’s own views, then I completely misspoke, since I haven’t thought he wrote those lines for 40 years.
The absence of Romans 15-16 in the west until about the fourth century is demonstrated by Harry Gamble, Studies and Documents: The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 22.
Well, I haven’t read the book for 30 years, but I don’t think that’s right. If I recall, he is trying to argue that Romans 16 is genuinely part of the letter to the Romans, as opposed to coming from a separate letter to the Ephesians, as argued by some scholars, based especially on the facts that the letter greets over 20 people Paul knows by name in a church he’s never visited, let alone established (as opposed to Ephesus), that the internal evidence suggests ch. 16, and possibly ch. 15, were not original because of the doxologies preceding them, and from the evidence afforded by the quotations of Marcion. Gamble wants to counter all that evidence, and does so, I believe successfuly. But I don’t recall him mentioning manuscripts that atxually lack the chapters. Am I getting that wrong? (I’m on the road and nowhere near my books)
Your summary of Gamble is good, I think. He does not state that Rom 16:15-16 was completely absent in the west in the early centuries, so my statement was misleading. However, he does show that forms of the letter laking the last one or two chapters were very common, even though these chapters are in every surviving manuscript. So the point remains that the process of “mixture” tends to repair omissions, and therefore tends to allow interpolations to spread. Knust and Wasserman make the same point in their book on the Pericope Adulterae. If omissions were not repaired, the length of NT documents would have reduced over the centuries because of the accumulation of omissions from eye skips.
So I don’t think we need suppose that the two locations of 1 Cor 14:34-35 resulted from the same marginal note in the same manuscript (though that is possible).
Glen mentions a book by Vishal Mangalwadi. That takes me back. I once attended a public lecture by Mangalwadi, hosted by the bible college I was living in at the time.
On Genesis, Glen has some flights of fancy that, whatever their theological merits, have no bearing on history. OTOH, Bart, when you insist on sticking to the text of Genesis 2, I wonder if your point is really pertinent to the topic, given that Genesis 2 has been interpreted in the light of Genesis 1 for thousands of years.
There are certainly questions raised by the observation that Jesus told people to leave their parents and children (but conspicuously no mention of spouses in any of the verses I can think of), and I don’t know the answer to those questions as they pertain to the historical Jesus. I also wonder what he would have said to a woman being abused.
Am idly wondering what a conversation between Glen Scrivener and James McGrath would be like, in light of the latter’s writings on Jesus and women.
I like a lot of Glen’s perspectives, and would happily lend him the keys to my time machine so that he can persuade people from the past.
Christianity also won over the Roman Empire because it was the only religion that actively sought converts.
Bart, please tell us how you feel about this. Wow! Good on you.
This is noteworthy: @56:50, “It’s a Christianisation of what actually happened.”
I also feel, like other commentators above, that too many people will find people like Glenn convincing. He’s very smooth, collected, sounds ” logical” . Scary.
I found these. Though I fear it’s not balanced. I will read, though.
How to Love Your Enemy – Yale University Press
https://yalebooks.yale.edu/2016/06/09/how-to-love-your-enemy
Questions on Love and Charity
https://yalebooks.yale.edu/9780300195415/questions-on-love-and-charity
https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300195415/questions-love-and-charity/
Christian apologists have very good communication skills that can easily fool people!
The Jesus movement was inclusive of women both during and following his direct ministry. The period following the crucifixion seems to have relied on the support of women and a network of women. This creates a very strong connection to a certain degree of equality between the sexes — despite the exclusion of women in the 12.
However, men took over quickly. In doing so, they reduced the importance of women in the church and in many ways erased them from the historical record.
Didn’t they even change the genders of many of the important women, in the writings, over the years?
The church was the domain of men at all levels of authority within the church very quickly.
Hi Dr Ehrman,
Which of your books, other writings, or videos, or interviews do you consider contains the best evidence that the bible is not a history book?
I found the Introduction to the Bible reviews and synopses helpful, but wanted to seek your opinion before purchasing a textbook.
I am willing to attempt a book aimed at a more scholarly audience.
Thanks for all you do!
The book I wrote that deals with this issue headon is Jesus Interrupted. Closely related, but from a different angle, is Jesus before the Gospels.
Didnt Paul and Jesus teach that both men and women will be equal in Heaven (since there will no longer be any sex), and that should be replicated on Earth? I also thought Paul allowed women to preach and lead within his church?
I) Did the early church start off equal until men started to take over the leadership roles over time? An example would be Paul letting women preach, but then the author of 1 Tim saying the opposite later on.
Interesting discussion. I agree with the comment about your command of the facts. I come from an “evangelical Christian” background, though I am far from there now. I was fascinated at how Scrivener twisted some facts and ignored others to make his case. Particularly interesting was his characterization of your comments on the enlightenment as a “creationist” view! There was certainly a Christian component, but there was also the influence of Greco-Roman writings. And as you pointed out, although Newton was very Christian (and weirdly so in some ways), he nevertheless set aside those beliefs and depended solely on experiment and data in his great works on mechanics and optics. [I am a physicist!]
I’m not an expert in the history of science (as you may have noticed…), but Michael Streven’s book The Knowledge Machine, was FANTASTIC on this point, imo.
The advances women have made is due to their efforts, to women speaking up. For instance, the Ken Burns documentary about the temperance movement indicated that it was motivated as a means of combating marital rape. I don’t know that the churches addressed marital violence to a degree that contributed to the progress our society has made. One might make a better argument to the contrary.
I don’t see how christianity demanding exclusivity in worship would be beneficial to its long-term expansion.
If all the gods can get new followers at the same rate surely one god demanding you give up all other gods to follow him would be detrimental?
If all gods’ followers are converting by miracles surely its better to reject the miracles of one and retain belief in the pantheon than to reject the miracles of all the other gods and accept just one?
That’s right, it’s unlikely (well, impossible) that it happened at the same rate. I discuss this issue at length in my book The Triumph of Christianity. The growth of Christainity did not require massive conversions. To get from, say, 20 believers in Jesus around the year 30 to about 2-3 million by the year 300, what you need is about 35% growth every decade. That means if there are a hundred of you, you need to convert among you about 3-4 people a year total. And if you convert one paterfamilias then you’ve got your total. It may be hard to believe, but sociologists have crunched the numbers and I explain how it all works in my book.
These figures are wrong. With 35% exponential growth per decade, the numbers will just increase from 20 to 66 000 in 27 decades (AD 30 – 300). To grow from 20 to 2 millions by 27 decades, the exponential growth per decade must be 53.2%. (20 * 1.35^27 = 66076, 20 * 1.532^27 = 2 009 170.)
Your point is still valid, though.
I’d be happy for you to look at the actual numbers I use in my book to correct them. I did have statisticians review them for me. I did not argue for a straight 35% increase, but a varied increase over time, and was more or less just summarizing them here for the sake of simplicity. (I pointed out that the increase at the outset had to be much higher, and at the end much lower)
disabledupes{5bb459ceadca86ebe19ee02cc8301781}disabledupes
Thanks for your reply. I might very well look at the numbers, but I must buy the book first.
I watched the program. Interesting. My take on this:
Although it is true that Christianity requires that women should be subordinate to men, it could still be so that Christianity meant an improvement for women compared to how it was before. Wasn’t women subordinate to men in all the Greco-Roman world? You said that a (pagan) woman could get a divorce if she was abused by her husband, but was that common? And if a Christian woman was abused by her husband, didn’t the Church at least try to intervene?
You mentioned the ascetic movement, and it is clear that early Christianity offered a way out for women who didn’t want to marry or wanted to avoid forced marriages. This is a common theme of several hagiographies about early female saints.
Also, for upper class married women, Christianity was advatageous because it required that only her children by the husband were legitimate, childrens of the husband by concubines were regarded illigetimate and couldn’t inherit their father, only the legitimate wife’s children could, by Christian law, contrary to pagan costumes. This is believed to have contributed to the spread and final victory of Christianity in Scandinavia…. (continued in my next post)
It really depends on what part of the Empire they were in and when. In some times/places they had much more freedom than in others. I would argue that Jesus himself and Paul promoted and elevated the role of women in their movements. But not Christianity much after that. When you read the texts — just hte Pastoral epistles — it’s pretty dire (think 1 Tim 2:11-15).
(continued frpm my previous post)… the upper class women seem to have been instrumental in the spread and victory of Christianity in Scandinavia. On the other hand, Christianity hadn’t much to offer poor women, they often continued to be pagans.
And of course, women were really oppressed in the Christian world. It wasn’t until the Enlightenment this began change significantly, slowly. And of course, Glenn is completely wrong that this was “creationist”. It was a natural consequence of the development of ideas during that period. After all, the Church said that the Sun rotates around the Earth, but this was shown to be wrong. The Church believed in Aristotle’s physics, which is competetly wrong. The Church said that the Bible said X, while people now could read and see that indeed it says Y, and besides, people could see that the Bible is full of contradictions. Then why should people believe that the Bible legends were literally true? Why should they accept that the poor should be subordinate to the rulers, and that women should subordinate to men, just because the Church and/or the Bible said so?
People (at least the educated) learned to question old “truths”.
Thanks.
For a religious leader to tell you to leave your own family behind to follow him sounds very cultish to me!
Hi Bart. I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on this – the passage in 1st Timothy (2:12) around the translation of the word “authority.”
https://twitter.com/CatherineMcNiel/status/1577484802512474112?cxt=HHwWgMCqxb2EreQrAAAA
Thank you.
I haven’t reaad it, but I’d be happy to respond if you want to summarize the issue.
Dr. Ehrman,
You say that in Gen. 2 “God makes the animals in order to help Adam”. That is not what a get when reading my Bible (either catholic or protestant). Could you please elaborate on the matter? Thanks.
Here’s the verse in the NRSV
Genesis 2:18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.” 19So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air…
God created the animals SO THAT they could help him as his partners. When that didn’t work, he went for the rib option.
Hmmm, I wonder what detailed implications can be drawn from this closer look in Gen 2 – by your most reasonable thinking and also what Mr Scrivener might want to make of it for his purposes? It certainly challenges his thesis about order of creation AND also is not a great look if one insists on trying explain (away?) essential aspects of life like reproduction & continuity of the species? Of course there simply always HAD to be a women, so why did God waste his time trying & failing with the animals (birds & beasts only I note – no mention of fish?) before progressing onto the woman, at least for helping purposes? Or is this a biblical injunction to the faithful (men only of course) to TREAT their women as Helpers, not just as breeding vessels? Mr Scrivener, if you’re still out there please comment?
I so tire of evangelicals (typically) insisting on the “magic” (it really is) of ancient texts having to explain & prescribe every aspect of meaning & behaviour for modern life. It really is biblio-idolatry!
What do you think Prof Ehrman?
I”m afraid Glenn will not be reading or responding to these comments. And I’m not sure which closer look to Genesis 2 you’re referring to, other than the ones that I tried to provide. BUt I completely agree, conservative evangelicals want to claim that the progressive views that used to be completely opposed in their tradition actually originate in the Bible. Thus the Museum of the Bible in Washington DC, that claims it was the Bible that was responsible for opposing slavery and promoting the cause of women. Really??
Dr. Ehrman, I’ve watched several of your interviews/debates and this one has me just scratching my head. It appears to me Glen Scrivener is attempting to arc moral superiority of Christianity from its founding to today seemingly dismissing almost two thousand years of moral deficiencies. I know the discussion focused on women and gender equality but what about the slave trade, crusades, inquisitions, colonialization, world wars etc.
I think his book would have been better had he focused on equality under Christianity IN SPITE OF the scriptures and last two thousand years of history as opposed to BECAUSE OF the scriptures and their interpretations by early Christians.
Thank you for posting this Bart! Great to hear your extra thoughts & those of commenters here. I’ve rewatched this several times while deconverting; Glenn’s equal measures of conviction & confusion really showcase the evangelical circular mindset that I’ve been trapped in (for 30 years)! Your straightforward & honest presentation of facts and uncomfortable truths completely flummox him & reveal that, at a core level, much theology has its origin in wishful thinking/free literary interpretation. It just gets bundled with the nebulous authority of ‘The Spirit’. A hard watch in many ways, as I used to enjoy Glenn’s poetic thoughts & ponderings while still in the fold. Now I seem only to spot the sad footprints of brainwashing everywhere, which can be distressing at times.
Also wanted to add: I’m talking my deconversion through with my wife, which is very difficult. Having your clear & credible thoughts so readily available has been a massive, massive help! You manage to steer clear of all kinds of bias – skewering mythicists along the way – leaving just facts & reality up for grabs, somehow doing it all in crystal clear lay-language. Can imagine many others would like to say the same. Thank you!
Thanks. Good luck on teh home front. It’s one of the hardest things to tackle, but doing so with honest, empathy, sympathy, love, and appreciation for the other’s position is the best way to go. (Lots of people prefer to keep it a secret; that rarely works well over the long haul….)