Explore a conservative Bible scholar’s thorough examination of agnostic Bart Ehrman’s perspective on male superiority in antiquity. This insightful article delves into ancient Greek and Roman understandings of gender roles, contrasting them with Biblical principles and shedding new light on a complex historical topic.

EHRMAN’S ARTICLE: Male Superiority in Antiquity

Dr. Ehrman’s article provides much to unpack. He delves into the ancient Greek and Roman views on gender and sexuality, including pederasty, male superiority, and the consequent social implications. As a conservative Bible scholar, I will provide a rebuttal that draws from historical evidence, New Testament writings, and early Jewish and Christian literature. In this response, I will point out historically inaccurate statements and offer a more precise view.

1. Historical Inaccuracy Regarding Male Superiority: Ehrman’s presentation of male superiority and women as “partially formed in the womb” is an oversimplification of ancient understandings of gender. While some ancient writers did articulate such views, it wasn’t universally accepted or applied. Historically, the role of women varied greatly across different cultures and times.

2. The Role of Women in Ancient Israel: Ehrman contrasts ancient Greek views with Israel and early Christianity but fails to elaborate on the significant distinctions. Women in ancient Israel were indeed valued differently from their counterparts in Greek society. The Proverbs 31 woman, for example, portrays a woman of strength, dignity, wisdom, and business acumen. Furthermore, women had significant roles in religious practices (Exodus 38:8; Judges 4:4).

3. Sexuality and Pederasty in Ancient Greece: The depiction of pederasty and sexual relations between adult males and adolescent boys is accurate to some extent but lacks a nuanced understanding. It was not a universally accepted practice across all Greek city-states, and even within Athens, opinions differed. It is essential to recognize the complexity of ancient sexual ethics rather than generalize them.

4. The New Testament on Male and Female Relations: Ehrman’s portrayal of women as “imperfect and underdeveloped beings” is not reflective of New Testament teachings. In Galatians 3:28, Paul emphasizes that “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” The early Christian community upheld a more egalitarian view compared to the surrounding Greco-Roman culture. See more on this below.

5. Misrepresentation of Roman Views on Honor and Virtue: The emphasis on male honor and female virtue is somewhat accurate but again lacks nuance. Roman society did value honor and power, but it was more complex and multifaceted than mere physical dominance or sexual penetration. Virtue (virtus) in Roman society included wisdom, justice, courage, and self-control, and was not exclusively male-oriented.

6. Influence of Christian Teachings on Gender Roles: Early Christianity, contrary to ancient Greek or Roman norms, brought forth radical ideas concerning men and women’s equality, dignity, and value (Ephesians 5:21-33; 1 Peter 3:1-7). These teachings had a transformative impact on how gender roles were perceived in the subsequent centuries.

7. Ehrman’s Conclusion on Ancient Social Roles: The article’s conclusion about the social roles of men and women in antiquity seems to imply that this view was uniformly applied across all ancient cultures. This overlooks the diversity and complexity of ancient societies, including Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, and others.

In conclusion, while Dr. Ehrman’s article offers an intriguing exploration of ancient gender roles and relations, it lacks historical nuance and depth, resulting in some inaccuracies. By examining the contexts and diversities of the ancient world and aligning them with Scriptural insights, a more balanced and accurate understanding emerges. The historical evidence, New Testament teachings, and early Jewish and Christian literature reveal a rich tapestry of beliefs and practices that go beyond mere “common sense” or oversimplified views on gender and sexuality.

EXTRA INSIGHTS

What About Romans 16:7?

Romans 16:7 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
⁷ Greet Andronicus and Junias,[111] my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are well known among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

(Juʹni·as)

Junias received a special greeting from Paul at the end of his letter to the Romans. (16:7) Andronicus and Junias were his “kinsmen.” While the Greek word used here (συγγενής) can mean “a man from one’s own country,” “fellow countryman,” the primary meaning is blood relative, including the extended family,” of the same generation. The two were Paul’s “fellow prisoners,” meaning that they had been in prison with him somewhere. Paul calls them both “well known among the apostles,” perhaps remembering their fine reputation with the apostles. Note that it does not call Andronicus and Junias apostles but only says that they were well known among the apostles. The Greek term (episēmos) rendered well known is a plural masculine adjective. Therefore, it could rightly be rendered, “men who are well known among the apostles.” — James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament) (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).

What About the Argument That Paul Wrote Those Things Because He Lived In a Patriarchal Society or Culture that Influenced Him?

No, it does not follow. First, what if the Bible was written today, we could make the same counter-argument, saying Paul wrote this or that because of the liberal-progressive culture. Second, Paul himself clearly states or does he that “All Scripture is inspired by God” (2 Tim. 3:16), and that “men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Pet. 1:21) Yes, God allowed the authors to use their writing style but what they wrote were God’s thoughts and clearly, God is not influenced by any human society or culture.

What about Deborah of Ancient Israel?

In the Old Testament Deborah was a prophetess* in Israel. Deborah the wife of Lappidoth encouraged Judge Barak in the work he was assigned by God. So, Deborah encourages judge Barak like a wife would encourage her pastor husband of the church, offering moral support. Deborah had yet one other responsibility as well. She was also apparently settling conflicts by giving God’s answer to problems that had come up. – Judges 4:4-5.

Again, Deborah was a prophetess in Israel. There was never a female ruler or judge in ancient Israel. Deborah was a proclaimer of God’s Word. Her being an Old Testament prophetess is not the same being a New Testament pastor (elder). She never taught the Word of God. The prophets were not the teachers who taught the Israelite people. They were given the responsibility of sharing God’s Word. They were a spokesperson for God. It was the responsibility of the priests and Levites to teach God’s law to the nation of Israel. (Lev. 10:11; 14:57; 2Ch 15:3; 35:3) Yes, Judges 4:4 tells us that “Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time.” In the Old Testament, there was no hesitation in Israel to involve women as prophets. Women identified as prophets in ancient Israel were Miriam (Ex. 15:20), Deborah (Judg. 4:4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14), Noadiah (Neh. 6:14), and the unnamed wife of Isaiah (Isa. 8:3). We could rightly add Hannah as well (1 Sam. 2:1–10) See also Anna in Luke 2:36. Lastly, Deborah was used to offer moral support for Barak, who was shirking his responsibilities.

* Other prophetesses included Miriam, Huldah, and the wife of Isaiah.​—Exodus 15:20; 2 Kings 22:14; Isaiah 8:3.

What About the Women Who Claim That They Are Called to Pastor a Church? The Women Say, ‘It Is Our Calling? Who Are You to Reject a Person Called by God?’

1 Corinthians 7:12 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
¹² But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her.

Notice that Paul is saying, I am inspired by God, so I can say this and the Lord (Jesus), did not touch on this, but I am. Let us take a look at the context and historical setting.

1 Timothy 2:12 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
¹² But I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence.

Here again, we notice in 1 Timothy 2:12 that Paul is exercising the authority that he has been given and his word is, in essence, God’s Word. So, the Bible says so that you cannot pastor a church at any level, including deacons. The other thing to consider is what if a homosexual man says he has the gift to pastor a church, or a man with many wives says he has the gift to pastor a church. The Bible says homosexuality is a gross (very serious), unseemly, shameful sin and that the homosexual “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Rom. 1:26-28; 1 Cor. 6:9) Not every emotion that moves one to think they are gifted to do something gets to carry that out. Just because you feel like you have the gift to do something, that goes not give you the right to overrule, set aside the Word of God. God said ‘the office of the elder must be the husband of one wife ‘ (1 Tim. 3;2), which means the office is held out to men alone. The Bible is very clear that women are not to teach or exercise authority over men. There is absolutely no justification or any feeling of a calling for a woman to hold the office of pastor/teacher or to exercise that authority. No one’s feelings of being called can conflict with the plain language of the Bible. If one is wrong, it will be the one who has the feeling of being called and all who participate in that sin.

As has been stated already, women can be ministers or teachers in other capacities. They can evangelize and teach unbelievers, unbaptized boys and girls regardless of baptism, and women in church Bible studies. They can serve as missionaries.

1 Corinthians 14:34 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
³⁴ let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak, but let them be in subjection, as the Law also says.

What Did the Apostle Paul Mean  Women to Keep Silent in the Congregations? Are The Women Not to Speak at All?

“Let the women keep silent in the congregations,” wrote the apostle Paul. (1 Corinthians 14:34) What did Paul mean? He was not saying that they could not even speak at all, or that they could not teach in any capacity, which would require speaking? No. In fact, he that “they are to teach what is good” in certain capacities. (2 Timothy 1:5; Titus 2:3-5) Here in the letter to the Corinthians, Paul told not only women but also persons who had the gift of tongues and prophecy to “keep silent” when there was another believer who was speaking. (1 Corinthians 14:26-30, 33) It is possible that some of the Christian women may have been so thrilled because of the newfound faith that they spoke up with questions interrupting the brother who was speaking, which actually was the custom in the first century throughout the Roman Empire. But Paul was moved by the Holy Spirit to avoid disorder; Paul urged them, “If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”—1 Corinthians 14:35.

Head Covering Excursion

Many Christians understand this section as a cultural issue that had application in first-century society but which does not apply today. They see it in much the same way as 1 Corinthians 11 which also uses the Genesis account as a basis for women covering their heads in public worship.[13]

This would be a mistaken notion. It is not culturally bound to the first-century C.E. that women are not to teach or exercise authority over a man and that women are to wear a head covering under certain circumstances. They are both permanent and are applicable today.

The wearing of a head covering has a spiritual import within the Christian congregation. Paul, whose written word is inspired of God, lays out the God- designated principle of how headship was/is to take place in the Christian congregation, saying, “I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” Paul informs the Corinthians, and by extension, us that the head covering is “a symbol of authority” that women are required to wear that man is their head when she “prays or prophesies.” In other words, if a woman is called on to substitute for her husband or a man that relates to some form of worship, she should wear a head covering.—1 Cor. 11:4-6, 10.

For example, all families should have their own family Bible studies within their home. If the husband is not present for any reason (deceased, separated, divorced, or called away), and the wife has to conduct the family study, she is not obligated to wear a head covering because the husband is not present. The same would hold true for saying the family prayer at meals as well. If for some reason the husband is present but is unable to speak (maybe throat issues), she would wear the head covering. The wife would not have to wear a head covering with the children, as the woman is divinely authorized to teach the children.—Proverbs 1:8; 6:20.

However, if the husband is not present, and one of the children is a son, an adult born-again Christian, he would conduct the study. If the son were a younger born again Christian, she would then wear a head covering. (1 Timothy 2:12) Since the son is a Christian, he is to receive his instruction from other male Christians.

Again, if a woman is called on to substitute for her husband or a man that relates to some form of worship, she should wear a head covering. Within the congregation, women may be called on to teach a Bible study group for women or children, because there are not enough men, which means she would have to wear a head covering. If the woman is in a Bible study group that is conducted by a male, she does not have to wear a head covering to participate. Outside of the Christian congregation, both men and women are obligated to preach and teach the unbeliever, meaning she does not have to wear a head covering.―Matthew 24:14; 28:19, 20.

1 Timothy 2:14 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

¹⁴ and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and came to be in transgression.

Genesis 3:6 Excursion

Almost all translations translate Genesis 3:6 as follows.

 Genesis 3:6 English Standard Version (ESV)

⁶ So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.

Genesis 3:6 Lexham English Bible (LEB)

6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was a delight to the eyes, and the tree was desirable to make one wise, then she took from its fruit and she ate. And she gave it also to her husband with her, and he ate.

Genesis 3:6 American Standard Version (ASV)

⁶ And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and she gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat.

Genesis 3:6 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

⁶ When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

As you can see from these English translations, the plain sense of the text is Adam was with her. This creates a real Bible difficulty. Before I delve into why, I will say that if almost all of the translations are in agreement, generally, this should be respected and accepted. It is very unlikely that the very best Hebrew and Greek scholars of the past 100 years are all mistaken. Now, the difficulty arises because if Eve and Adam are standing there before the tree of Knowledge, as the serpent spoke to Eve, it means that Adam, the head, was very much involved in this process. Think as you read this commentary below, trying to rationalize how the situation played out, with both being there.

Eve “was indeed deceived,” but Adam “was not deceived.” Of course, this cannot be taken absolutely. It must mean something in this order: Adam was not deceived in the manner in which Eve was deceived. See Gen. 3:4–6. She listened directly to Satan; he did not. She sinned before he did. She was the leader. He was the follower. She led when she should have followed; that is, she led in the way of sin, when she should have followed in the path of righteousness.[14]

The reason for the difficulty is this, they are taking it as though Adam and Eve are standing before the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and the serpent, Satan, starts to speak to Eve. They carry on a conversation, with Adam simply passively listening. Satan deceives Eve, but Adam is not deceived, yet he does not argue with the serpent, snatch the fruit from Eve, but rather just stands there letting Eve eat fruit, knowing she will die. Really? I just cannot see how that can rationally be the case. I would argue that Eve was alone before Adam joined her.

Was Adam standing beside Eve when she had the conversation with the serpent, was deceived and chose to rebel against God? The Bible shows no indication that this is the case. The translations above make it appear that way, though, “she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.”

The Hebrew verb translated as “gave” is in the imperfect waw consecutive, as a result, it points to a temporal or logical sequence (usually called an “imperfect sequential”). Hence, a Bible translator or committee can translate the several occurrences of the waw, which tie together the chain of events in verse 6, with “and” as well as other transitional words, such as “subsequently,” “then,” “after that,” afterward,” and “so.”

Genesis 3:6 English Standard Version (ESV)

⁶ So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.

Genesis 3:6 Updated American Standard Version (ESV)

⁶ So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desirable to make one wise, and she took of its fruit and ate, then she also gave some to her husband when with her, and he ate.

One has to ask themselves, would Adam have passively stood beside his wife, Eve, listening to the conversation between her and the serpent, as the serpent spewed forth lies and malicious talk of Satan through this serpent, especially when Paul tells us explicitly that the serpent did not deceive him? Adam just stood there and remained silent? Adam just chose not to interrupt the peddling of lies. Listen to the Bible scholar below, he sure thinks this is reasonable.

Genesis 3:6 makes it clear that he was “with her” during the interchange with the serpent, but he remained silent. He should have interrupted. He should have chased the serpent off. And when it comes down to it, when he is offered the fruit himself, he eats it—no questions asked, no protests given. Adam and Eve together rebelled against their Creator, so they both suffer the horrible consequences.[15]

The conversation with the serpent reveals that Adam had previously carried out his responsibilities as the head, informing her of the command not to eat from the tree. (Gen. 3:3) It seems far more likely that Satan, through the serpent ignored this headship, going after the newer person in the Garden of Eden, Eve, when she was alone. Eve later replied, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

Let us assume that I am simply mistaken, and it should be translated, “and she also gave some to her husband who was with her.”

Adam need not be clear on the other side of the Garden; he could have just been out of hearing range and still have been with her. Suppose he was across the field, visually in sight but still out of hearing range. It could still be said he was with her. Husbands, have you ever been in a huge store with your wife, like Walmart, and at the same time, you are on one side of the store (lawn-garden or automotive), and she is on the other side of the store. If you were to say you were with your wife at Walmart, would that mean that you were necessarily standing right beside her? Say an issue came up in the store, so you walked over. The Garden of Eden was no small place, like a city park, but more like the size of a state park, possibly 18,000 acres of land and 3,000 acres of water. If Adam were in eyesight but out of hearing range, it could still be said that he was with her. She could have called him over after her transgression, at which point he demonstrated that his love for her was greater than that of his Creator, and so he ate.

[13] Knute Larson, vol. 9, I & II Thessalonians, I & II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Holman New Testament Commentary, 170-71 (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000).

[14] William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, vol. 4, Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles, New Testament Commentary, 110 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953-2001).

[15] Longman III, Tremper (2005-05-12). How to Read Genesis (How to Read Series How to Read) (p. 111). Intervarsity Press – A. Kindle Edition.

About the Author

SOURCES

1. The Bible: Specifically, passages like Genesis 1-2, Ephesians 5:22-33, 1 Timothy 2:8-15, which outline the creation and roles of men and women.

2. “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism” by John Piper and Wayne Grudem: This work specifically addresses gender roles from a conservative evangelical perspective.

3. “The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW): Various articles and resources available on their website that uphold complementarian views of gender roles.

4. “Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters” by Philip Barton Payne: Payne’s conservative approach to Paul’s writings specifically concerning the roles of men and women.

5. “God’s Design for Man and Woman: A Biblical-Theological Survey” by Andreas J. Köstenberger and Margaret Elizabeth Köstenberger: This husband-and-wife scholar team presents a conservative biblical-theological understanding of male and female roles.

6. “Men and Women in the Church: Building Consensus on Christian Leadership” by Sarah Sumner: A conservative evangelical perspective on leadership roles in the church.

7. “Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of New Women and the Pauline Communities” by Bruce W. Winter: Although this source was previously mentioned, Winter’s work provides insights into the Roman world that align with conservative Christian viewpoints.

SCROLL THROUGH THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLICAL STUDIES / BIBLE BACKGROUND / HISTORY OF THE BIBLE/ INTERPRETATION

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

TECHNOLOGY AND THE CHRISTIAN

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

CHRISTIAN DEVOTIONALS

CHRISTIAN FICTION