Misquoting Jesus

The following is an email I wrote recently. It requires some background knowledge to understand better, so I'll give that to you before you read this monster. I went on a cruise to Alaska to kick off my summer, and while I was there I did a lot of reading. I stopped by a bookstore in one of our ports and replenished my reading supply with a couple books, both unfavorable to the Christian worldview. One was by Freud, or Nietzsche, one of those philosopher guys whose books had to be translated. Forgive my ignorance. I have yet to read that one. The second was a book called Misquoting Jesus, by a Bart D. Ehrman. He made a case, or tried to, for dismantling the reliability of the Bible, specifically the New Testament. At the very least he believes we cannot put quite as much trust in it as we would like to even if we don’t outright reject its veracity. One reason he gave for this was the fact that we could not be certain of the authorship of some of the books. No, he didn't just stick with Hebrews, the author of which we in fact are not certain. He went so far as to attack the authorship of "closed case files" (i.e. Paul's letters, of whom the authorship seems quite obvious). Maybe Paul didn’t actually write all those epistles, perhaps someone claiming to be Paul did. Or perhaps scribes later added some things to support their own worldview.

One passage specifically came into question that seems to look unfavorably upon women. Paul, however, looks quite favorably on women throughout his writings. Could this be an addition or a fraud? We shall see. With that, here is the email.


------------------

I'm glad to see that you read the book you borrowed. Had it been me I would have been far less determined to finish reading it - especially with the way this particular author writes. I do not remember too many specifics based on what the author wrote, so I can only respond to what you have told me. This especially applies to the subject that you brought up about women teaching. I was not aware that he addressed it. Perhaps I have simply forgotten or skipped over that part like I did with a lot of that book. Anyways, here begins my rant.

When you admitted you had no answer to this apparent contradiction in Paul's theology as perhaps an evidence of his non-authorship of one or the other passage, my apologetic mind kicked in and I immediately had an answer for you. I am convinced that Paul wrote 1 Timothy 2:9-15 (I assume that’s what you meant, though you forgot the "2"), and frankly, I am surprised you were so easily convinced (or perhaps it was not easily?).

Now, I'm not sure what "bulk of his writing" you are referring to that contradicts his view in 1 Tim 2:9-15, because I know of none. However, if we simply compare his view of women using both 2 Tim 1:5 and 1 Tim 2:11-15, leaving out verses 9 and 10 - modesty doesn’t seem to be the issue - we see a healthy view of the role and value of women and of the plan of God for mankind, rather than a contradiction in the former.

Lets look first at 2 Timothy 1:5

"I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you as well."

Paul commends two women for being sincere and devoted faithful followers of Christ. The way it is worded would imply that they passed it on to Timothy. They taught him what he knows. A later reference to his godly upbringing is made in 2 Tim 3:14-15. Timothy is told to remember, "from whom you learned it" (14). The Greek “whom” is plural, so it becomes quite obvious that Paul is referencing his earlier acknowledgement of his mother and grandmother. Clearly Paul is pleased with the fact that Timothy's mother and grandmother raised him in godly fashion, teaching him spiritual things.

Now, 1 Timothy 2

"11 Let a woman learn in quietness with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing - if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control."

First, I would like to note that this clearly is referring to women's authority over men in the church. That is of particular importance when it comes to discussing God's plan for the role of women. In the case that a woman was never allowed to exercise any authority over any male of any age in any situation, a woman would not be able to bring up her own male children! Such an interpretation of this passage would be utter foolishness.

Paul has never been one to look down on women, or consider them of less worth than men. In his epistle to the Galatians, he says, "there is neither male nor female" in the context of salvation (3:28). He encouraged an equal view of men and women, and frequently esteemed women for their service to him and the gospel, mentioning them by name in his letters. However, it had clearly been revealed to him that men and women do not serve the same purpose [that is, they do not have the same roles. They both serve the purpose of glorifying God, to be sure]. In the church, women should submit to male authority and not teach grown men.

They are, however, encouraged to bring up children in godly fashion, drawing support from both references we are using! The support from 2 Tim 1:5 is self evident, and I have already discussed it. However the evidence from 1 Tim 2:15 probably gets lost in the rest of the passage and the discussion over this often controversial matter.

"Yet she will be saved through childbearing - if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control."

It seems to me that Paul is encouraging women here to raise babies (childbearing) in godly fashion (faith, love, holiness, self-control), so that what was meant to be [God’s plan for the role of women] will be restored (saved). This is exactly what he commended Lois and Eunice for. So there is complete harmony, rather than contradiction and question of authorship.

I think there's good reason he [Ehrman] didn't use the "easy" argument.

With respect to the rest of the book, I too noticed that the author does not suggest reasoning with which to view the subject (or any other subject he makes mention of). He stated facts, but didn’t draw conclusions, and that was something else that frustrated me.

I thought it was interesting how many times he stressed that there were mistakes or changes made to the text. However, if we actually look at it, what we have as scripture is incredibly reliably preserved despite our human shortcomings, and I am convinced that we have a Book that can be trusted as the Word of Christ, leading to salvation (Rom 10:17).

-----------------------------

I hope this helped in convincing you of the reliability of Scripture and its ability to “give an answer” (1 Peter 3:15). Anything in brackets was added to the email to help clarify meaning that I thought might not be obvious, and the grammar/spelling was edited, though I'm sure there are more mistakes to be found. If anything is unclear, let me know.