Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

$5.00

Explore a detailed scholarly rebuttal to Bart D. Ehrman’s interpretation of Greek pederasty. This article offers a conservative perspective on ancient Greek sexual practices, contrasting Ehrman’s views with insights grounded in biblical morality and historical understanding. Join the engaging discussion and discover a new perspective on a complex historical subject.

I’ll be providing a conservative Bible scholar rebuttal to the article by Agnostic Dr. Bart D. Ehrman concerning the topic of Greek pederasty, with a focus on historical accuracy, insights from New Testament and early Christian literature, and principles from the Scriptures.

EHRMAN’S ARTICLE: More on Love: Why Were Greek Men Especially Attracted to Prepubescent Boys?

1. Misrepresentation of Ancient Greek Culture:

Dr. Ehrman’s discussion of Greek pederasty (sexual activity involving a man and a boy or youth) is not nuanced enough. His focus is primarily on the Athenian social elite, but this overlooks the broader complexity of Greek culture. Greek city-states (poleis) had their own traditions and regulations. Pederasty was certainly present in some regions but was not universally accepted or practiced across all Greek city-states.

2. Lack of Moral Foundation in Ehrman’s Analysis:

The article raises questions about Greek morality without grounding these questions in a solid moral framework. By contrast, the Bible offers clear guidance on sexual morality, recognizing sexual relations within a marriage between a man and a woman as honorable (Hebrews 13:4). Ehrman’s inquiry lacks this moral anchor, leading to an incomplete understanding of sexual ethics.

3. Misunderstanding of Eros:

Ehrman’s explanation of eros in ancient Greece is somewhat misleading. While eros was indeed associated with passionate love, Greek philosophical texts also emphasize an intellectual and spiritual dimension of eros. Plato, for example, distinguishes between common and celestial eros, with the latter aiming at the eternal and the divine (Plato’s “Symposium”). This is far removed from the mere animalistic passion portrayed by Ehrman.

4. Failure to Acknowledge Christian Perspectives:

Ehrman’s article fails to include any Christian perspectives on love, sexuality, or morality, an omission that results in an imbalanced view. The New Testament emphasizes self-sacrificial love (agape) as the highest form of love, teaching that believers are to love others as Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:25-27). It also outlines clear sexual ethics that reject sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 6:18-20). These perspectives provide a contrasting view to the Greek ideals Ehrman presents.

5. Incomplete Scholarship:

Ehrman’s assertion about pederasty as widespread seems to lack thorough historical research. While acknowledging that there’s scholarship on the subject, he doesn’t engage deeply with it. The conservative Bible scholar would consult primary sources and a wide range of classical literature to provide a more comprehensive view. Ancient works like Xenophon’s “Symposium” or Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics” would offer further insight into the complexity of Greek views on love and relationships.

6. Ignoring the Human Imperfection and Sin:

The article by Ehrman fails to acknowledge the gravity of inherited human imperfection and sin, as outlined in Genesis 6:5; 8:21, Jeremiah 17:9, and the Book of Romans. Imperfect humans are mentally bent toward evil, possessing an unknowable treacherous heart and the natural desire to do bad. These Scriptural principles provide a framework for understanding human behavior, including misguided desires or practices. Ehrman’s analysis is incomplete without this foundational understanding of human nature from a biblical perspective.

In conclusion, Dr. Bart D. Ehrman’s exploration of Greek pederasty and eros is marked by historical oversimplification, moral ambiguity, misunderstanding of eros, lack of engagement with Christian perspectives, incomplete scholarship, and ignorance of human imperfection and sin. A conservative Bible scholar’s approach would offer a more nuanced and morally anchored analysis firmly rooted in historical evidence, Scriptural principles, and early Christian literature.

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).

SOURCES

Foucault, Michel. “The History of Sexuality, Vol. 2: The Use of Pleasure.” This influential work delves into Greek sexual ethics and practices, including pederasty.
Halperin, David M. “One Hundred Years of Homosexuality: And Other Essays on Greek Love.” This book explores various aspects of homosexuality in ancient Greece, including relationships between adult men and adolescent boys.
Laqueur, Thomas. “Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud.” Laqueur’s research sheds light on gender and sexual dynamics in ancient Greece.
Dover, Kenneth J. “Greek Homosexuality.” A classic work that examines male homoerotic relationships in ancient Greece, including relationships between men and boys.
Cohen, David. “Law, Society, and Homosexuality in Classical Athens.” This article provides a legal and societal perspective on homosexuality in ancient Athens, helping to contextualize pederasty.
Plato. “Symposium.” While not a modern scholarly work, Plato’s “Symposium” provides historical context for sexual attitudes in ancient Greece, including discussions of pederasty.
Nussbaum, Martha C. “The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy.” Nussbaum’s work may add depth to the ethical considerations of Greek sexual practices, including relationships with adolescent boys.