So I went and read the paper. 😵💫 Though college educated I will admit I am no scholar. It makes me appreciate Dan even more for reading these papers and making them accessible for non-scholars. Ultimately, what I get out of this is not trust any of these biblical texts. Man made and revised through the ages to support the social constructs of the day. You can keep 'em.
It's too bad you feel that way. The Bible does exist within the social constructs of its day, that's why it wasn't composed in English or talk about paradise being a land flowing with free wifi and luxury cars for all. It is a document from its time, but with a divinely inspired message for all, composed, edited and sustained through 2,000 years by the community of believers. When you seek to understand the scriptures apart from the community of believers, who together are the ground and pillar of truth (1st Timothy 3:15) you end up lost and confused.
You also have the article “ Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1 Cor 14.34-5” by Phillip B Payne. Yet another massive blow to any delusional pretension some crazy evangelicals have to biblical inerrancy. Also Frank W Hughes has some amazing work on Corinthians being multiple writings smashed together to form the single, edited composition we read today
@@addisonwier7438 I should have been more specific. My comment was directed with the common understanding of inerrancy, in the pews-not more nuanced ones by scholars like Payne or Craig Evans, for example.
I saw an interview with Frank Hughes and just ordered his book on Corinthians. After reading 1st and 2nd Corinthians, I get the impression that they are a collection of Paul's letters. Who knows what the editor may have inserted or left out?
@@Brad4083 seems like it could be so. He’s a very thoughtful, friendly and generous human, too. I love people like him and I’m glad to see people supporting his scholarship.
I am not surprised since they did not think these letters were inspired by God, so they felt free to alter them. I don't think Paul himself thought his letters woiuld become " The Bible" and a talking points of fundamantal Christians in the US in the 21 st century.
It is a bit weird that Paul would supposedly mention Prisca (uh…reverse edit? i had it right the first time.) and Aquila in both orders. It makes more sense to think someone with access to 1 Corinthians and the pastorals would change it.
Thanks! I've been waiting for someone to point that out for quite a while. It seemed to me fairly obvious that someone took a passage from Timothy and interpolated it into 1 Chorinthians. If you take those verses out, you see immediately that the text flows way better and makes more sense. Besides, in the same letter Paul gives instructions for women praying and speaking prophecies in public, and a few verses later he suddenly forbids it? That just doesn't work.
@@DoloresLehmann nope - it's from what I read from some else who has an actual PhD in New Testament literature unlike MacArthur or Dr McLellan whose PhD core specialisation is really in Old Testament & the Ancient Near East (not Early Christianity)
@@DoloresLehmann any link I post would be deleted (I suffer so much censorship on this channel). Google "DA Carson authenticity 1 Corinthians 14:34". You'll find the extremely long article that comprehensively surveys all arguments on the interpolation issue and makes a case for the majority scholarly view that the passage is both authentic and in the right location
@@TonyJack74 If you're still a traditional biblical literalist after this, then you probably don't want to know the truth. Christianity is a very diverse religion with many different ways of interpreting scripture and history, and many Christians have absolutely no problem learning what history has to say about the early church. If someone has had meaningful personal experience with the divine, their faith can accommodate quite a bit of change on the non-essentials like biblical authorship while still holding fast to essentials about things like the Resurrection.
@@TonyJack74i disagree. Dan has explicitly traced ideas on inerrancy on this channel and it doesn’t square with your analysis: Christianity was not built on the doctrine of inerrancy. There are many ways Christians who hold a more liberal view of things can stay. Anglicans (like this poster) have many people in this camp. Check out Digital Hammurabi: Dr Megan Lewis is an Anglican. Frank W Hughes (an insane Pauline scholar) is also. The list goes on and on. People approach religion how they approach it.
About 150 years. However, if it were an interpolation it wouldn’t have to just be at the point of the first extant manuscript because then it would only be in that manuscript. It would have to be so early as to end up in all the extant manuscripts and other copies without this interpolation would have to all die out. It’s still possible but something we need to keep in mind.
@@Dalekzilla Hmm... Scripture is writing that is collectively accepted to be sacred. Paul wrote that he saw the risen Christ in person, while the gospel writers (who were also fallible, flawed human beings) were compiling stories from three or more decades earlier, some of which are contradictory. Seems to me that there is ample reason for Christians to call Paul's writings scripture.
I think Paul saw himself as being quite important and that this led to his letters becoming important amongst his converts. I wonder if Christianity would have survived without him or his letters?🤔
@@tchristianphoto yeah, but they don't claim to have got revelations of Jesus. Only the author of the book of revelation. But still, Paul is the most quoted Person, almost all of today's theology comes from Paul, this is laughable
Must be nice when you are the first charlatan-in an untapped market- to preach to an unsuspecting, primed “pagan” crowd, who knew nothing about the actual events in question. It’s almost like you can just claim anything and be like, “trust me bro, I saw some freaky sh*t when I had heat stroke, in the middle of some desert, once.” Join my new religion, and I won’t make you cut off anything from your ‘member’.
@@JopJioSure they do. They claim to quote the actual words of Jesus. Most of the theology does not come from Paul. It is first rooted in the Old Testament and the sayings of Jesus, extrapolated to include Gentiles.
@@Chomper750 most theology comes from Paul, contradicts Jesus and the OT and is based on misquotations of the Ot or just made up. The other authors don't claim to quote Jesus, they just do it. Of course its just made up, but at least they don't claim have got revelations of Jesus.
This argument was made popular when Gordon Fee claimed on internal grounds Paul likely is not the author of 14:34-35 in his NICNT (eerdmans) commentary on 1 Corinthians. Philip Payne has championed this argument claiming external manuscript evidence, which I think Curt Niccum has thoroughly refuted. However, despite Dr. Niccum’s position, he is not a complementarian. He is an egalitarian who thinks the evidence is scant that 34-35 it is an interpolation. Most scholars accept the claim of interpolation uncritically. The internal logic of 1 Corinthians 14 suggests that 34-35 are dealing with a contextual issue that was later used incorrectly as a ban on women speaking in formal worship spaces/times. Last, claiming 14:34-35 is an interpolation does not help those in confessional spaces read the text better. For many, it’s a polemical tool, either to condemn those who hold such a position while uncritically clinging to bad exegesis, anthropology, and theology. Or, to uncritically dismiss those who claim a complementarian stance based on 14:34-35. The historical and text critical questions about Pauline authorship and Pauline theology are fascinating, but they don’t have much to offer those who critically exegete the text for confessional settings. These texts do not offer a complementarian or patriarchal vision of church life when read well and properly. The claims against Pauline authorship of any letter attributed to him and interpolation of 1cor. 14:34-35 are suspect at best because they are based on very little evidence and easy outs (for both conservatives and progressives) at worst.
Thank you. DA Carson wrote an article that re-interpreted this authentic passage within the immediate context of the preceding verses, to mean that Paul was only commanding women to be silent during authoritative church judgement/discussion on the verbally delivered ecstatic prophesies that were uttered by both male & female prophets
Why then don't we have multiple version of the letter, like we do for say 1 John where the "trinity" reference was allegedly edited in, or Mark where the ending is missing?
It’s not even Paul’s _First_ Epistle to the Corinthians! He straight-up said that he’d written an _earlier_ epistle to _them _*_before_* the so-called _First_ Epistle!
I remember a book known as "the acts of paul and thekla" Which has a more gender balanced narrative, I also remember someone saying that the text predates the more sexist books of paul
Actually, you may be on to something as Acts chapter 1 (either that or chapter 2) has the remaining apostles determine who gets to be an apostle to fill in for Judas, since he died. There, they had some requirements, such as having been around for the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Of which Paul wouldn’t have met. At the end, they cast lots and the role goes to another guy anyway. Edit: Yes. The requirements were laid out in Acts chapter 1 by Peter. In addition to what I said, they had to be there for the ascension as well. They nominated Barsabbas/Justus and Matthias, with the lots falling in the latter. So yeah. You’re on to something.
Anyone with Bible Code Software out there? Search for "Apostle Paul" from the pages of the Hebrew OT - Ezek 16:14 to 2 Chron 36:23 with a skip of 23200 This is what comes up : Hoax - Bluffing - Revelation - Vision - Fraud - Deception - Counterfeit - Fake - Deceit - Phony - Fraudulent. Go and check it out yourself.
Fun exercise: read through the undisputed Pauline epistles, and pay attention to how much text he spends trying to convince the reader that he's a legitimate apostle or complaining that people don't see him as one
There is a 3rd Corinthians. But it's almost universally agreed that it is a fake, written by some fanboi of Paul many years after his death who tried to insert his own beliefs into the doctrinal texts. This is why almost no Christian denomination has canonized it.
Look one of reoccurring themes though out St. Paul writing is that Celibacy is the higher calling and that marriage is allowed if you can not remain Celibate. As a Cradle Catholic here that is still pretty much where it is .
Not sure what your point is as relating to Dan's video but Paul also believed Jesus would return imminently. He was trying to keep people from having more kids before the return and war.
He thought Jesus would return in his lifetime and said to not marry but instead to prepare about Jesus return, because the time is too short to marry and that people will be in heaven anyways soon
All due respect to the effort and thought behind the scholarship, nothing here would pass for a "compelling case" by the standards of fields that actually advance with results. Learned and sophisticated as the analysis may be, the speculation to data ratio in biblical scholarship is staggering. It just looks academically respectable when compared -- as oft occurs -- with theology. That said, I've not yet read the paper. Thanks for the ref
As an old testament scholar, Dan should have more humility to realise that he can't possibly read all the books and articles based on which the majority of New Testament Textual Critics & scholars have disagreed with the arguments of this article. He is too quick to give publicity to this because, predictably, this is about modern gender politics
As someone who is not a Bible scholar, you should have more humility to realize that since he's got his own education and expertise, he isn't required to read all of the text of every opposing argument to have some clue they might be wrong. You should also realize he is not restricted to OT scholarship. He is a scholar who studies all of the Bible and the apocrypha. This means he knows his NT as well. You are too quick and willfully ignorant to ascribe this to a political choice, especially since there is clear evidence that part of the appeal of early Christianity was it had a more balanced approach to gender equity than the polytheist religio romana and many of its client nations' faiths, Judaism included.
@@lysanamcmillan7972 well, if you were knowledgeable about biblical academia, you would understand the accuracy of what I say. Nothing you say changes the fact that he will never be a full expert in things outside his field: Early Christianity and New Testament Textual Criticism. It's just how academia works. It is pure self-deception (even in academia) to claim that any form of early christianity was more or less "misogynistic" or "egalitarian" than any other faction/tradition. The historical reality is that gender equality is purely a 20th century invention. Any historical reconstruction that makes some early Christians look more misogynistic than others (such as an imaginary scribe being CONVENIENTLY more misogynistic than Paul the author) is suspect until proven otherwise with hard evidence and not mere speculative theories that thrive despite the fact that there is exactly zero manuscript evidence of copies of that chapter in antiquity that didn't contain the "problematic" verses. The apparent contradiction with the other chapter that has women prophesy can be solved by realising that the immediate context of 1 Corinthians 14: 30ff is talking about the church LEADERSHIP authoritatively JUDGING the uttered prophesies, hence Paul would only be silencing women from wielding that supreme authority to judge uttered prophesies, and not silencing them from prophesying/speaking . Regarding Priscilla & Aquila, it is not so much that later scribes were more misogynistic as that later scribes were simply not in a position to KNOW that Priscilla had a more famous reputation than her husband in the specific context in which she was Paul's contemporary
@@lysanamcmillan7972the idea that early Christianity was less patriachal than the Roman world is simply made up. The fact that a tiny handful of Roman cults insisted on male-only membership was not indicative of their being more patriachal than the rest of society. Christianity was based on a Jewish Eschatological tradition of General Resurrection for ALL of the Covenant Community. The Greco-Roman cults were more manifold & diverse in their theological motivations for initiating and admitting members. That some cults excluded a gender is NOT evidence that their views if gender hierarchy was any different from the rest of Hellenistic society-that's just a temptingly misleading conclusion for modern gender-war/emancipation-obsessed people to make.
So saith @@tsemayekekema2918 , arbiter of who is qualified to hold opinions on matters in which they have not demonstrated any particular expertise, either. (And even if they _had_ expertise in this field, has not offered counter scholarly work demonstrating the contrary opinion anyway.)
@Greyz174 Seminary, plus 25 years of Biblical studies, research, and parsing every verb in the New Testament, gives me a decent shot at it. But the more I think I know, the more I realize I don't. So it's a lifelong subject that nobody will ever master.
Wait wait wait, hold everything up. "Maimonides Nuts"? Oh my deity 🤣🤣🤣
Absolutely. When those words flash on screen, I looked for an apostrophe, because that would have been even more "on my...".
Same. So good.
The contrast of his academically rigorous tone against the mention of that creator’s name is WILD.
For me it's the fact that he said and kept a straight face. I wonder if he had to do a few takes, lol
@@robypoteau- Dan's mentioned them in several videos. It was probably tough the first time, but I think he's gotten used to it by now.
So I went and read the paper. 😵💫 Though college educated I will admit I am no scholar. It makes me appreciate Dan even more for reading these papers and making them accessible for non-scholars. Ultimately, what I get out of this is not trust any of these biblical texts. Man made and revised through the ages to support the social constructs of the day. You can keep 'em.
It's too bad you feel that way. The Bible does exist within the social constructs of its day, that's why it wasn't composed in English or talk about paradise being a land flowing with free wifi and luxury cars for all. It is a document from its time, but with a divinely inspired message for all, composed, edited and sustained through 2,000 years by the community of believers. When you seek to understand the scriptures apart from the community of believers, who together are the ground and pillar of truth (1st Timothy 3:15) you end up lost and confused.
Thank you for the link to the article! It's good to be able to access the scholarship directly instead of relying on an interpreter.
Dan does this a lot. If an article is open access he will tell you. The issue is a lot of scholarly articles are behind paywalls.
See my post for another-it’s an entertaining textual detective story by Payne.
This interpolation seems really obvious, after somebody points it out.
-Captain Hindsight 🏴☠
And that somebody is some bearded man by the name of Dan MacKelelelan.
You also have the article “ Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1 Cor 14.34-5” by Phillip B Payne.
Yet another massive blow to any delusional pretension some crazy evangelicals have to biblical inerrancy.
Also Frank W Hughes has some amazing work on Corinthians being multiple writings smashed together to form the single, edited composition we read today
@hardwork8395 you do realize that Payne is one of those “crazy evangelicals” with a “delusional pretension” to inerrancy, right?
@@addisonwier7438 I should have been more specific. My comment was directed with the common understanding of inerrancy, in the pews-not more nuanced ones by scholars like Payne or Craig Evans, for example.
I saw an interview with Frank Hughes and just ordered his book on Corinthians. After reading 1st and 2nd Corinthians, I get the impression that they are a collection of Paul's letters. Who knows what the editor may have inserted or left out?
@@Brad4083 seems like it could be so.
He’s a very thoughtful, friendly and generous human, too.
I love people like him and I’m glad to see people supporting his scholarship.
I am not surprised since they did not think these letters were inspired by God, so they felt free to alter them. I don't think Paul himself thought his letters woiuld become " The Bible" and a talking points of fundamantal Christians in the US in the 21 st century.
It is a bit weird that Paul would supposedly mention Prisca (uh…reverse edit? i had it right the first time.) and Aquila in both orders. It makes more sense to think someone with access to 1 Corinthians and the pastorals would change it.
Thanks! I've been waiting for someone to point that out for quite a while. It seemed to me fairly obvious that someone took a passage from Timothy and interpolated it into 1 Chorinthians. If you take those verses out, you see immediately that the text flows way better and makes more sense. Besides, in the same letter Paul gives instructions for women praying and speaking prophecies in public, and a few verses later he suddenly forbids it? That just doesn't work.
See my reply to another comment for a proper interpretation that accepts the more likely theory of its authenticity
@@tsemayekekema2918 Is it from McArthur again?
@@DoloresLehmann nope - it's from what I read from some else who has an actual PhD in New Testament literature unlike MacArthur or Dr McLellan whose PhD core specialisation is really in Old Testament & the Ancient Near East (not Early Christianity)
@@tsemayekekema2918 Where can I find it?
@@DoloresLehmann any link I post would be deleted (I suffer so much censorship on this channel). Google "DA Carson authenticity 1 Corinthians 14:34". You'll find the extremely long article that comprehensively surveys all arguments on the interpolation issue and makes a case for the majority scholarly view that the passage is both authentic and in the right location
It is interesting getting to read about the early church.
@@TonyJack74 If you're still a traditional biblical literalist after this, then you probably don't want to know the truth. Christianity is a very diverse religion with many different ways of interpreting scripture and history, and many Christians have absolutely no problem learning what history has to say about the early church. If someone has had meaningful personal experience with the divine, their faith can accommodate quite a bit of change on the non-essentials like biblical authorship while still holding fast to essentials about things like the Resurrection.
@@TonyJack74i disagree. Dan has explicitly traced ideas on inerrancy on this channel and it doesn’t square with your analysis: Christianity was not built on the doctrine of inerrancy.
There are many ways Christians who hold a more liberal view of things can stay. Anglicans (like this poster) have many people in this camp. Check out Digital Hammurabi: Dr Megan Lewis is an Anglican.
Frank W Hughes (an insane Pauline scholar) is also.
The list goes on and on.
People approach religion how they approach it.
@@TonyJack74 stop putting people in boxes
@@TonyJack74 Presumably, @maklelan is familiar with the material he is covering and the words he is saying.
@@TonyJack74 He is himself religious.
Thanks Dan, I'll check out the paper.
Something the article admits is that the verse that is alleged to be an interpolation is in every single surviving manuscript we have of the passage.
how much time is there between the estimated date of Pauls writings and the first surviving manuscript?
About 150 years. However, if it were an interpolation it wouldn’t have to just be at the point of the first extant manuscript because then it would only be in that manuscript. It would have to be so early as to end up in all the extant manuscripts and other copies without this interpolation would have to all die out. It’s still possible but something we need to keep in mind.
I find it odd that Paul’s letters are considered Scripture. Paul most likely didn’t think of his letters as having that much religious importance.
He was giving official advice, which would logically have some general application, beyond just the recipients of the letters.
@@Dalekzilla Hmm... Scripture is writing that is collectively accepted to be sacred. Paul wrote that he saw the risen Christ in person, while the gospel writers (who were also fallible, flawed human beings) were compiling stories from three or more decades earlier, some of which are contradictory. Seems to me that there is ample reason for Christians to call Paul's writings scripture.
I think Paul saw himself as being quite important and that this led to his letters becoming important amongst his converts. I wonder if Christianity would have survived without him or his letters?🤔
@@PastPresented official advice from whom? 😂 the true apostles and Paul split according to His own letters. He is totally unreliable
@@shanegooding4839 Jewish Christianity didn't survive. we only have many different versions of Pauline Chrisitianity
Paul to me is totally unreliable. He didnt even met Jesus in Jesus life😂
Neither did most, if not all, of the NT authors.
@@tchristianphoto yeah, but they don't claim to have got revelations of Jesus. Only the author of the book of revelation. But still, Paul is the most quoted Person, almost all of today's theology comes from Paul, this is laughable
Must be nice when you are the first charlatan-in an untapped market- to preach to an unsuspecting, primed “pagan” crowd, who knew nothing about the actual events in question.
It’s almost like you can just claim anything and be like, “trust me bro, I saw some freaky sh*t when I had heat stroke, in the middle of some desert, once.”
Join my new religion, and I won’t make you cut off anything from your ‘member’.
@@JopJioSure they do. They claim to quote the actual words of Jesus.
Most of the theology does not come from Paul. It is first rooted in the Old Testament and the sayings of Jesus, extrapolated to include Gentiles.
@@Chomper750 most theology comes from Paul, contradicts Jesus and the OT and is based on misquotations of the Ot or just made up. The other authors don't claim to quote Jesus, they just do it. Of course its just made up, but at least they don't claim have got revelations of Jesus.
This argument was made popular when Gordon Fee claimed on internal grounds Paul likely is not the author of 14:34-35 in his NICNT (eerdmans) commentary on 1 Corinthians. Philip Payne has championed this argument claiming external manuscript evidence, which I think Curt Niccum has thoroughly refuted. However, despite Dr. Niccum’s position, he is not a complementarian. He is an egalitarian who thinks the evidence is scant that 34-35 it is an interpolation. Most scholars accept the claim of interpolation uncritically. The internal logic of 1 Corinthians 14 suggests that 34-35 are dealing with a contextual issue that was later used incorrectly as a ban on women speaking in formal worship spaces/times.
Last, claiming 14:34-35 is an interpolation does not help those in confessional spaces read the text better. For many, it’s a polemical tool, either to condemn those who hold such a position while uncritically clinging to bad exegesis, anthropology, and theology. Or, to uncritically dismiss those who claim a complementarian stance based on 14:34-35. The historical and text critical questions about Pauline authorship and Pauline theology are fascinating, but they don’t have much to offer those who critically exegete the text for confessional settings. These texts do not offer a complementarian or patriarchal vision of church life when read well and properly. The claims against Pauline authorship of any letter attributed to him and interpolation of 1cor. 14:34-35 are suspect at best because they are based on very little evidence and easy outs (for both conservatives and progressives) at worst.
Thank you. DA Carson wrote an article that re-interpreted this authentic passage within the immediate context of the preceding verses, to mean that Paul was only commanding women to be silent during authoritative church judgement/discussion on the verbally delivered ecstatic prophesies that were uttered by both male & female prophets
It's good to know how much opinion enters into the texts, given how much it enters people's interpretation of them.
Why then don't we have multiple version of the letter, like we do for say 1 John where the "trinity" reference was allegedly edited in, or Mark where the ending is missing?
Thank you.
It’s not even Paul’s _First_ Epistle to the Corinthians! He straight-up said that he’d written an _earlier_ epistle to _them _*_before_* the so-called _First_ Epistle!
What about the theory that 34 and 35 are a quote? (posting before reading the article so I don't know if Fellows considers it)
I remember a book known as "the acts of paul and thekla" Which has a more gender balanced narrative, I also remember someone saying that the text predates the more sexist books of paul
The acts of Paul and Thecla was written well after the New Testament (Late 2nd century at the earliest).
did I just hear a renowned scholar of faith and religion say Maimonides Nutz.???? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😇
But the letters were lost
Was Paul a false apostle?
Actually, you may be on to something as Acts chapter 1 (either that or chapter 2) has the remaining apostles determine who gets to be an apostle to fill in for Judas, since he died. There, they had some requirements, such as having been around for the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Of which Paul wouldn’t have met. At the end, they cast lots and the role goes to another guy anyway.
Edit: Yes. The requirements were laid out in Acts chapter 1 by Peter. In addition to what I said, they had to be there for the ascension as well. They nominated Barsabbas/Justus and Matthias, with the lots falling in the latter.
So yeah. You’re on to something.
The most obvious😂
No
Anyone with Bible Code Software out there?
Search for "Apostle Paul" from the pages of the Hebrew OT - Ezek 16:14 to 2 Chron 36:23 with a skip of 23200
This is what comes up :
Hoax - Bluffing - Revelation - Vision - Fraud - Deception - Counterfeit - Fake - Deceit - Phony - Fraudulent.
Go and check it out yourself.
Fun exercise: read through the undisputed Pauline epistles, and pay attention to how much text he spends trying to convince the reader that he's a legitimate apostle or complaining that people don't see him as one
Any credence that there was a third epistle of Corinthians?
There is a 3rd Corinthians. But it's almost universally agreed that it is a fake, written by some fanboi of Paul many years after his death who tried to insert his own beliefs into the doctrinal texts. This is why almost no Christian denomination has canonized it.
By now should we even call bible The Bible!?
Look one of reoccurring themes though out St. Paul writing is that Celibacy is the higher calling and that marriage is allowed if you can not remain Celibate. As a Cradle Catholic here that is still pretty much where it is .
Not sure what your point is as relating to Dan's video but Paul also believed Jesus would return imminently. He was trying to keep people from having more kids before the return and war.
@@TonyJack74A cradle Catholic is someone who was raised Catholic, referring to being Catholic from the baby cradle
He thought Jesus would return in his lifetime and said to not marry but instead to prepare about Jesus return, because the time is too short to marry and that people will be in heaven anyways soon
if god wanted really his words to be read by us., he would have the egyptians carved it in stones
If God wanted us to know something it can write it in fire on a wall **looks at walls** Nope. 😂
You mean Ch 6 v1 was changed . There is nothing more anti sex😂 verse there is .
All due respect to the effort and thought behind the scholarship, nothing here would pass for a "compelling case" by the standards of fields that actually advance with results. Learned and sophisticated as the analysis may be, the speculation to data ratio in biblical scholarship is staggering. It just looks academically respectable when compared -- as oft occurs -- with theology.
That said, I've not yet read the paper. Thanks for the ref
As an old testament scholar, Dan should have more humility to realise that he can't possibly read all the books and articles based on which the majority of New Testament Textual Critics & scholars have disagreed with the arguments of this article.
He is too quick to give publicity to this because, predictably, this is about modern gender politics
As someone who is not a Bible scholar, you should have more humility to realize that since he's got his own education and expertise, he isn't required to read all of the text of every opposing argument to have some clue they might be wrong. You should also realize he is not restricted to OT scholarship. He is a scholar who studies all of the Bible and the apocrypha. This means he knows his NT as well.
You are too quick and willfully ignorant to ascribe this to a political choice, especially since there is clear evidence that part of the appeal of early Christianity was it had a more balanced approach to gender equity than the polytheist religio romana and many of its client nations' faiths, Judaism included.
@@lysanamcmillan7972 well, if you were knowledgeable about biblical academia, you would understand the accuracy of what I say. Nothing you say changes the fact that he will never be a full expert in things outside his field: Early Christianity and New Testament Textual Criticism. It's just how academia works.
It is pure self-deception (even in academia) to claim that any form of early christianity was more or less "misogynistic" or "egalitarian" than any other faction/tradition. The historical reality is that gender equality is purely a 20th century invention. Any historical reconstruction that makes some early Christians look more misogynistic than others (such as an imaginary scribe being CONVENIENTLY more misogynistic than Paul the author) is suspect until proven otherwise with hard evidence and not mere speculative theories that thrive despite the fact that there is exactly zero manuscript evidence of copies of that chapter in antiquity that didn't contain the "problematic" verses. The apparent contradiction with the other chapter that has women prophesy can be solved by realising that the immediate context of 1 Corinthians 14: 30ff is talking about the church LEADERSHIP authoritatively JUDGING the uttered prophesies, hence Paul would only be silencing women from wielding that supreme authority to judge uttered prophesies, and not silencing them from prophesying/speaking .
Regarding Priscilla & Aquila, it is not so much that later scribes were more misogynistic as that later scribes were simply not in a position to KNOW that Priscilla had a more famous reputation than her husband in the specific context in which she was Paul's contemporary
@@lysanamcmillan7972the idea that early Christianity was less patriachal than the Roman world is simply made up. The fact that a tiny handful of Roman cults insisted on male-only membership was not indicative of their being more patriachal than the rest of society. Christianity was based on a Jewish Eschatological tradition of General Resurrection for ALL of the Covenant Community. The Greco-Roman cults were more manifold & diverse in their theological motivations for initiating and admitting members.
That some cults excluded a gender is NOT evidence that their views if gender hierarchy was any different from the rest of Hellenistic society-that's just a temptingly misleading conclusion for modern gender-war/emancipation-obsessed people to make.
So saith @@tsemayekekema2918 , arbiter of who is qualified to hold opinions on matters in which they have not demonstrated any particular expertise, either. (And even if they _had_ expertise in this field, has not offered counter scholarly work demonstrating the contrary opinion anyway.)
Spouting more conspiracy theories I see.
Still believing in myths I see.
Refusing to entertain the chance your pastor is wrong, I see.
@@lysanamcmillan7972 Why would I rely on a Pastors opinion on what Scripture says? I can do that myself.
@@sbaker8971 how do you know you have the right interpretation of scripture?
@Greyz174 Seminary, plus 25 years of Biblical studies, research, and parsing every verb in the New Testament, gives me a decent shot at it. But the more I think I know, the more I realize I don't. So it's a lifelong subject that nobody will ever master.