(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?
1. We don’t know what he said to other churches, but it’s hard to imagine it would be anything different if this problem ever came up elsewhere.
3. It’s as applicable today as any ancienbt passage dealing with an ancient situation: Is it OK for us to wear shirts of two fabrics?
“It’s as applicable today as any ancient passage dealing with an ancient situation: Is it OK for us to wear shirts of two fabrics?”
Right. And eating pork, shellfish, etc. Growing up in the church, we were told those were OT and not included in the NT so not applicable.
Whether that is a correct statement or not, it seems there are also statements in the NT that were required in the 1st century (and some time beyond?) but eventually faded away for the most part due to cultural changes. It seems this is what may have happened with woman head coverings in church.
Modesty rules, fasting, divorce & remarriage and others are not observed by many. So it seems that as cultures changed, the interpretation of some of these passages changed as well. Does that make sense?
Yup.
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?
I don’t think we can categorize Jesus as entirely myth or entirely historical; there are legendary aspects to our stories and historical, and the question of whether either or both is relevant is a matter of religious persuasion and conviction.
Religious persuasion aside, strictly from a historic perspective I draw the conclusion that there is very little correspondence between the description of Jesus agreed upon at Nicea and the figure revealing itself from the core sayings scholars attribute to the historical figure.
As much so as there would be between the figure of King Arthur and the historic figure that might have been the seed for the stories.
So I would find it reasonable to say that the figure of Arthur is mythical even if scholars determine one day that there was an actual person in history that gave rise to the myth.
In the same manner, I find it reasonable to say, although politically dangerous, that the figure of Jesus is mythical.
As a corollary, the “mythicists” are not debunked simply by demonstrating that there was an actual person that gave rise to the myths… In other words, the Jesus described later on could be said to be a myth even if there was a real Jesus. It is indeed a matter of faith to claim that the myth corresponds really close to the historical figure.
Which is why I look forward to your lectures in July of this year, 2025.
Yes, it’s a good point. I’d say, though, that the *SOURCES* for Arthur are no where near as good as those for Jesus, not even close I’d say. I doubt if even the heart of the Arthur legends are true. (I had a semester long course on Arthurian legend in college! Fantastic) Now if we had extensive references to him from a source who personally knew Lancelot and had four biographies of him all written within say 60 years of his life by authors with numerous independent sources all of which have many similar features and claims about his life … that would be different!
How much is it? 18% of the sayings by Jesus reported in these texts are considered authentic by scholars today? The rest… 82%, is myth.
One apostle, Peter, only one out of 11 left, a brother, James, and Paul… That’s it? How much of this was made up also? Three biographies (?) contradicting one another? Not even agreeing on the ultimate moment of crucifixion?
Are we being too conciliatory?
Amongst the vast disparity of interpretations of Jesus going around in the following decades of his death, why should we give some kind of special credence to these writings?
How about saying “mostly a myth”, instead of simply stating he did not even exist? After all, Paul, the earliest source, doesn’t even talk about the man, but about the supernatural being communicating with him. Did Luke make up some of Paul as he invented a lot of the other stuff?
Did the Marcion school have anything to do with this?
Still looking forward to those lectures on July!
I’d say it’s a huge leap from having legendary materials about someone to claiming he/she didn’t exist. How many of the words of Socrates reported in Plato actually go back to him?
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.