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”)? Exousia itself means [...]

Here are three interesting questions I've recently received, and my attempts to answer....   QUESTION: I’ve been wondering about the passage in Romans where Paul expresses his fear about returning to Jerusalem on account of opposition because he wanted to take the money that he raised there before leaving for Spain. I used to couple this account with Paul’s final leg of his third mission out of Corinth back to Jerusalem, and there he indeed faces opposition Acts chapter 20 and then finds himself in Rome, in prison Acts 28? The passages seem to fit well together, but how? History, hearsay, looking at the letter itself expanding the details? What do you think? RESPONSE: I think the big problem is the whether we can accept the book of Acts as providing a reliable account of Paul's arrest and trials.  I don’t think we can.  So reconciling it or conflating it with Paul’s own account(s) just doesn’t work. In Acts, the arrest itself is meant to show that Paul has never done anything contrary [...]

I've started posting questions and responses from readers.  Here's another set of particularly good ones.   QUESTION: I recently read your book Jesus Interrupted and have become interested in your work. In it you discussed the potential forgeries contained in the Pauline letters and New Testament but it didn’t seem to mention much about the Old Testament. I noticed you did say that the New Testament was your specialty but was wondering if there was any evidence you were aware of that the Old Testament contains similar situations and which books. RESPONSE: Yes, my book was just about the NT, not the entire Bible.  Most of the books of the OT are either anonymous (Genesis through 2 Kings, e.g.) or written in the authors’ actual names (most of the prophets starting with Isaiah).  Others are attributed to a person who didn't write them.  Proverbs, for example, does not claim to be by Solomon.  In cases like this, since the author himself doesn't claim to be the person to whom the book is later [...]

The intriguing questions keep coming.  Here are some more that I've received.  And BTW, if you're not a Gold Member on the blog you might consider moving up to that level: one of the perks is that I do a live Q&A every month with Gold Members, which is recorded and then distributed to them.  It's a terrifically fun event and I get very good questions to address. But for now, here's some that I've addressed in writing: QUESTION This question is about the understanding of atonement across the gospels. Specifically why do Matthew and John think Jesus specifically HAD to die, in your view? Especially Matthew since he is the one I struggle with most. Luke famously doesn’t have atonement and thinks he had to die to bring people to repentance. I think Mark is a Pauline Gospel so it has his theology of Jesus death being a ransom for gentiles in mind. Matthew and John are the ones that I struggle with most, though. I think John says that it is meant to [...]

Here are some more particularly interesting and significant questions I've received from readers, with answers for all here to check out.   QUESTION: Dr. Ehrman: I find it interesting how the understanding of the Greek translation might affect such a crucial NT story. Also, it is in Luke’s narrative that we get the “no room in the inn” comment. I have read one commentary that the Greek original literal translation is more like “the travelers shelter was not for them”. Do you have any thoughts on the Greek original of Luke 2:7? RESPONSE: It's a tricky Greek word (KATALUMA) that could mean either "inn" or "guestroom."  It is found in only two other places in the NT, Mark 14:14/Luke 22:11 (Luke has copied Mark's verse verbatim) where Jesus is clearly referring to a room, not an inn.  In Luke 2:7, though, the context appears to suggest "a place where travelers stayed" rather than "a particular room in a house" since, having not found a “place” to stay in it (the KATALUMA) they [...]

I’ve recently answered some queries from readers and thought that the questions were too good not to post for all to see.   They are all on different topics, but interesting ones, and they required different lengths of answer.  Here they are, four of them, a blog Q&A.   Question One: I am writing a blog about how Christians defend biblical inerrancy and I came across an on-line article with this quote. “You have searched the Scriptures, which are true and given by the Holy Spirit. You know that nothing unrighteous or counterfeit is written in them.” —Clement of Rome, letter to the Corinthians, first century Two questions: Was there really a Pope in the first century? What kind of “scripture” could he possibly be referring to in the last decade of the first century?   My Response: This article is giving a passage found in 1 Clement 45.2.  1 Clement is a letter from around 95 CE or so, written by the Christians in Rome to the Christians in Corinth; presumably *someone* [...]