Loading...In my previous post I tried to show that women – contrary to what one might think – were quite prominent in the ministry and churches established by Paul. One naturally wonders why that might be, given the fact that women came to be silenced in later Christian traditions (continuing on in some rather notable circles today). One answer for why women played important roles in the life of the early church is that they may have played an important role in the life of the historical Jesus.
As readers of this blog know, it is not an easy matter establishing what actually happened in Jesus’ life. Historians need to apply historical criteria to all of the traditions that survive about Jesus: independent attestation (if a tradition is independently attested in multiple sources, it is more likely to be authentic); dissimilarity (if a tradition cuts against the grain of what Christians would have wanted to say about Jesus, it is more likely authentic); and contextual coherence (any tradition that cannot make sense in a first century Palestinian Jewish context is unlikely to be authentic).
Unfortunately, most of the studies of women in early Christianity have been less than rigorous when it comes to applying these (or any!) historical criteria to the traditions about Jesus that describe his involvement with women. We ourselves should not fall into the trap of accepting traditions as historical simply because they prove convenient to an agenda that we happen to share, feminist or otherwise. So, in light of our criteria, what can we know about Jesus and women?
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN NOW!!!
“all of his male disciples had fled”. Dr Ehrman I have understood according to john 18:15-16: and John 19:25: That Simon Peter followed Jesus, and also another disciple followed Jesus also. And that the other disciple was known to the high priest, and that he entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest, but Peter was standing at the door outside. Also that John the disciple, or the disciple whom Jesus loved, was at the foot of the cross along with Jesus mother, her sister and Mary Magdalene. So why do you affirm that “all of his male disciples had fled”? It’s evident that this disciple whom Jesus loved did not flee and was not in hiding.
NOTE: I personally don’t accept Mark as reliable. So I don’t quote from it.
Yes, most scholars of the NT do not find the Gospel of John’s account to be historically plausible.
There’s nothing plausible about The resurrection of Jesus Christ. However I believe it. And when I read the gospel of john I feel peace whereas when I read Mark or Matthew I don’t.
Dr Ehrman I meant to say that there’s nothing plausible or reasonable, according to human reasoning, that a person like the lord Jesus Christ could be real or that He truly died and rose from the dead. You say that, “most scholars of the NT do not find the Gospel of John’s account to be historically plausible”. Obviously some one wrote this book of John, just as someone wrote the other synoptic Gospels. I accept the Gospel of John because I believe that the person who wrote it was an eyewitness. And I accept his testimony as truth. It may be that the author of John was speaking in the third person in John 19:35 just as Paul did in 2 Corinthians 12:3.
As for Mark and Matthew I have many reasons why I don’t accept these books as reliable.
Life itself is a mystery! Man can’t figure out how he came to be. Yet any reasonable person can’t deny that he or she exists. Just because humans can’t explain life’s origin doesn’t mean that there’s no explanation.
Also Space and time are infinite. And if we are able to physically see: infinity it’s before our eyes in the skies. Space and time have no end and we can not comprehend how this could be: yet it is!
I believe the same is also true for God who was never born and will never die. How could such a being exist? It’s not plausible. Yet just as man can’t figure out infinity and infinity exists; I believe the same is true for God. God is like infinity: no beginning and no end! And He exists.
Dear God, how do you deal with this kind of comment, Dr. Ehrman?! The reason, the logic, the intellectual caliber – how does one stand it?!
Well, it helps to know that we’re all human and are restricted in what we think by our time and place….
If early Christians were committed to elevating women, what does that say about present Christians who want to subjugate them? I think that is a question worth exploring.
Yup, that’s the point!!
There’s the theory that one of the reasons for the success of Christianity in the Roman Empire is that ‘religious education’ at the time was primarily the domain of the mother (religious beliefs were transmitted by the mother). And it seems that Christianity appealed especially to women, for various reasons. What do you make of this, Bart?
I’ll get to it at some point I hope!
But about the women and the tomb…I know you don’t believe Jesus’s body was ever in a tomb. Given that, do you still think the fact that all versions of the “legend” feature women has some significance?
Yes, I’ll be dealing with this in my book on How Jesus Became God; possibly I’ll post on it here in the meantime.
Dr. Ehrman,
What do you make of this claim made by scholars (for resurrection-apologetic reasons) that women’s testimony wouldn’t have been accepted by people because apparently it was devalued in Jewish Legal settings (and perhaps the culture in general)? I mean, obviously, we can imagine Mark easily having reason to invent low-status women discovering the empty tomb, but what of the premise of the argument itself?
Best,
Ben
It’s a long answer, but I’ll try to post on it. (BTW: if Mark could plausibly have made it up, so too could have earlier conveyors of the tradition!)
Hi Bart,
It’s not directly related to this topic, but I hope you’ll find time to answer. Given the fact that in our earliest Christian documents (Paul’s epistles) we see the term “apostle” being used in a broader sense, not just the Twelve (Paul even calls Junia apostle!), is it possible to deduce criteria by which one was an apostle in Paul’s eyes? In one of his interesting podcasts, M. Goodacre claims that for Paul the main criteria without which a person couldn’t be an apostle was the appearance of the risen Jesus. In other words, without seeing a risen Jesus person couldn’t be called apostle. What are your thoughts on that?
Thank’s!
Yes indeed. He appears to think that anyone who had a vision of the resurrected Jesus and was commissioned to spread his message was an apostle.
I don’t know if I asked you this before, but did you ever consider when did the term Apostle came to be seen as a term for Jesus’ twelve disciples? Maybe it was there from the start in Peter’s or John’s eyes but we can’t know about it since we don’t have their writtings. On the other hand we see that some Christians did question Paul’s apostolic status. It’s a interesting question. Hope you will give your thoughts on that – if not in the comment, maybe in some of the future posts!
Thank’s!
I think the term apostle was probably used of the twelve ealry on, as soon as he sent them out on a mission — so during his ministry?
Dear Dr. Ehrman,
I was wondering what your thoughts on Beth Allison Barr’s book “The Making of Biblical Womanhood”? I assume you might agree with her in the tone (that woman must be allowed to be leaders in the church), but a few church historians have questioned her historical methodology in making such assertions. Examples:
* “The office of presbyter testifies loudly to how patriarchal prejudices of the ancient world had already crept into Christianity” (p. 68)
* “Women were kept out of leadership roles in my own congregation because Roman patriarchy had seeped back into the early church” (p. 69)
* “Instead of following a clear and plain reading of the biblical text, the medieval world grafted their imported Roman patriarchy onto the gospel of Jesus” (p. 87)
* “Rather than Protestant reformers reviving a biblical model, they were simply mapping Scripture onto a preceding secular structure” (p. 123).
What are your thoughts, if any? Thank you for your work, and happy Monday!
I haven’t read the book, but I think all those statements are right. It’s pretty much what I teach my classes as well.
Dear Dr. Ehrman,
Interesting! Thanks. 🙂