(12 votes, average: 4.92 out of 5)
Loading...
Here are some particularly sticky questions I’ve gotten recently, with expanded answers to share with all of you:
QUESTION:
Bart, what should we understand by “exousia” in I Cor 11.10?
RESPONSE:
Ah, right. A woman is to have an “authority” (exousia) on her head. It’s a confusing verse in a confusing passage. The verse:
For this reason a woman ought to have authority over her head, because of the angels.
It’s sometimes translated “veil” though it clearly does not mean veil, per se. But in the context Paul is talking about why women should wear head coverings in church and so in some sense apparently the veil is seen as an “exousia” or “authority.” His opening explanation is that since God is the “head” of Christ and Christ is the head of a man then the man is the head of a woman. Does “head” here not refer to the thing sitting on your shoulders but something like “chief authority” (as in “the head of the department”)?
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Hi Dr. Ehrman! I recently watched the documentary 1946: The Mistranslation that Shifted a Culture. It deals with the NSV translation that, in 1946, became the first English Bible to use the word “homosexual” by mixing the Greek words malakoi & arsenokoitai. The documentary contends that this mistranslation, which was corrected in later RNSV, set the stage for the anti-LGBTQ movement in America and elsewhere. The documentary goes on to say that other translations, such as the Living Bible and ESV did not make the same corrections which helped fuel this discrimination. Do you have any knowledge about this that might be helpful?
It’s true that the word “homosexual” was used and that it was a bad translation — that itself is a complicated issue — but I can’ imagine that it’s true that somehow that set the stage for opposition to gays and lesbians (way before LGBTQ became a designation). That had been around for a very, very long time. It sounds a bit sensationalistic to me.
Thanks for the response! I believe the film was referencing the most current iteration of opposition to the LGBTQ movement, especially as seen in the US. I agree that opposition has existed in society for as long as history has existed! Regardless- thanks again! I love the blog and your podcast!
The Cambridge Greek Lexicon, published 2021, has decided to shine light on the controversy by not including αρσενοκοιτης, ου, ο in the Lexicon despite it being listed in the LSJ. It should be there on page 222 but it is not.
I don’t have my books with me, but … really? That’s interesting. It’s probably because it was invented by Paul and occurs, so far as I know, almost entirely in Xn writings.
“…in the context Paul is talking about why women should wear head coverings in church…:
1. Was Paul only saying this to the women in Corinth (none of his other churches)?
2. Maybe it was a thing only at this particular church?
3. Is it fair to say this is statement of Paul’s has a specific cultural context? So not applicable to modern times?
Comment on question one:
Paul was an authoritarian and authoritarians think they can control what a symbol stands for by controlling the symbol.
When I was in high school in the 60s, long hair on boys was strictly verboten because long hair was a symbol of rebellion.
Professor, the historical Jesus that scholarship manages to exhume is so different from the one described by later followers, such as Paul and the gospel writers, that it seems to me irrelevant, although interesting nonetheless, that he actually existed or not. Would you not agree that the figure of the Savior is indeed a later myth, even if woven around a figure of a charismatic preacher that actually lived?
Dr. Ehrman,
I just saw your latest podcast involving 2 Corinthians 12. It seems most scholars do not link this visionary experience with Paul’s “conversion” experience. But what do you think the strongest argument is that these were indeed distinct occurrences?
in 1 Cor. 15 Paul indicates that Christ “appeared to” him in the same way as to the others, and he gives no indication that all of them (500 at once, e.g.) were taken up to the Third Heaven to see it.
Dr. Ehrman,
In the recent podcast on 2 Cor. 12 you seem to hint that this is the case, but just to verify:
Paul does nothing to induce the vision (i.e. meditation, drugs…) but was “caught up” and passive. Is this correct?
He doesn’t say how he was caught up.
We don’t have a plethora of Socrates to contend with, as we do with Jesus. Who was the real Jesus, according to you? And how much of what he was carried through in the writings we have about him?
I hope you address both these questions in the July lectures.
Actually, Socrates is portrayed in famously different ways in Plato, Xenephon, and (briefly) in Aristophanes, though there are obviously overlaps, as with the Gospes about Jesus. I’m not planning on discussing Socrates in my lectures, but who knows? I’ll go as the spirit leads….
Right! I looked this up afterwards and found this interesting fact that we have several accounts of Socrates life, with contradictions between them!
So we are confident that he existed, have a general idea of who he was and what he taught, that he had admirers and detractors, and that we cannot rely on Plato alone.
I find the parallel et can make with the Gospels very interesting. How does Plato’s account compare with the evangelist’s later accounts? In style, approach, reliability?
I’ll keep an eye and ear out to delve deeper on these aspects.
The July lectures on Jesus, myth or reality are here soon. 19th of July. Hope you touch on the question of “how much of a reality” it is. Looking forward to the event.
Professor, last comment on this thread, to which it seems I can no longer reply to.
I think you answered this pretty much on a recent interview on the Mythvision YouTube channel in a podcast named “Did Paul betray Jesus”, or something close to that.
You summarize what you believe is the core of what Jesus taught and and how Paul shifted it somewhat.
Thank you for your patience.
And let me tell you I have actually read your book on memory. Some people did read it, then. A very important work indeed.
I’ve been told by a preacher that the word ‘head’ as used in the first question above, comes from a word that was used in the Roman military to mean ‘front man’ or ‘point man’ or ‘protector’.
Do you have any information that might lend credence to this?
I’ve also run into a lot of Christians who didn’t even know that the following verses even exist.
Ephesians 5-25: Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.
Ephesians 5-28: In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
Ephesians 5-33: Each one of you must love his wife as he loves himself.
Colossians 3-19: Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.
1st Peter 3-7: Husbands, in the same way be considerate to your wives, treat them with honor, and with the proper understanding if they are not of the same size and stature, recognizing that they are equals and heirs with you in God’s gift of eternal life
1st Timothy 5-2: Treat older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity.
Do you have any idea why people don’t know these verses?
The word simply means “power” or “authority” and can be used in a number of contexts; it is used of city magistrates, e.g., pretty much like in English (“I reported it to the ‘authorities’). I don’t know off hand if it’s (often) used in military contexts, but I wouldn’t be surprised.
People don’t know these verses both because they are not commonly mentioned in churches outside of fundamentalist and conservative evangelical, and because they’ve either never read them or simply passed over them with their eyes without realizing what they were saying.
The thing about anyone having authority over anyone else, whether it’s a partner, a parent, a preacher, a pope, a politician, or anyone else, is that the bible itself says that no one, with the possible exception of JC, is right all the time. — Even Peter messes up from time to time.
Isn’t this a contradiction of ideology or theology to preach authority on one hand and universal fallibility on the other?
Well, I guess *someone* has to be in charge….
Doesn’t that predispose people can’t manage and control their own lives?
The whole power and authority thing is interesting. If “authorities” mandate things like “don’t murder,” “don’t commit assault,” “don’t steal,” and other such things, most people are okay with that and even appreciate it. We all have to live in our communities. There’s always one or two who need some mandates and laws to keep them from harming other people.
It’s when the “authorities” start doing the opposite, like committing pedophilia or assault, etc., that things get unhinged and difficult.
There are also other things, like the person who is the “authority” in a family always getting to do what they want to do or always getting what they want for dinner, and not even asking or considering what other people want or need.
There are a whole bunch of things where the person “in charge” is not always doing things right and isn’t always a good role model.
Then there are just the mistakes that everyone makes.
Still, aren’t people, by and large, able to control and manage their own lives if they apply themselves and have a mind to?
Do we need all this authority stuff for people to have good and truth-centered-lives?