The biblical inerrantists here want to make Bart Ehrman the issue. The fact is that there is a broad scholarly consensus that women had a more significant and public role in the early church that was later suppressed. The problem is, the suppression begins in the New Testament not merely in translations that came after it. Most NT scholars, not just Ehrman think that 1 Timothy was not written by Paul but by one of his later, second-generation followers.
For example, the NT scholar E.P. Sanders states:
Quote:
Some scholars think that Paul was eventually released and went to Spain, where he wrote 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. These letters, however, were written by a follower after his death, and probably he was martyred in Rome.
Sanders, E. P.. Paul: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) (p. 20). OUP Oxford.
|
Jesus scholars Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan also share this opinion on this and elaborate on the subject in their book
The First Paul: Reclaiming the Radical Visionary Behind the Church's Conservative Icon (pp. 55-56).
Quote:
According to an almost equally strong consensus, three letters were not written by Paul: 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, commonly known as the “pastoral letters” or simply the “pastorals.” Scholars estimate that they were written around the year 100, possibly a decade or two later. These are seen as “non-Pauline” because they have what looks like a later historical setting and a style of writing quite unlike Paul’s in the seven genuine letters. Thus the letters to Timothy and Titus were written in the name of Paul several decades after his death. In case some readers may think that writing in somebody else’s name was dishonest or fraudulent, we note that it was a common practice in the ancient world. It was a literary convention of the time, including within Judaism.
Borg, Marcus J.; Crossan, John Dominic. The First Paul: Reclaiming the Radical Visionary Behind the Church's Conservative Icon (p. 14). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.
|
They go on to analyze 1 Tim. 2:11–15 an excerpt of which is as follows:
Quote:
In what scholars call the pastoral letters, Timothy and Titus are imagined as left by Paul in charge of Ephesus and Crete, respectively. The subject of female leadership within the Christian assembly arises in a letter of pseudo-Paul to Timothy, and in this (in)famous text it is absolutely forbidden:
Quote:
|
Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.
|
We call this passage “reactionary” and not just “conservative,” because it is clearly reacting to what has been happening. There would be no reason to forbid what nobody had ever imagined. There is, for example, no Roman decree forbidding female senators, because nobody ever imagined that possibility, let alone practiced it.
|
Arguing against the scholarly consensus on this subject because of a presupposition of inerrantism is a bit like arguing with physicists about the Big Bang Theory because you have presupposition of a literal six day creation 6000 years ago. You have no foundation except Judeo-Christian tradition which can be explained much more simply without recourse to supernatural metaphysics.
Therefore, Anderson is mistaken if she supposes that the suppression of women is strictly a matter of extra-biblical translation. But those who suppose that it was Paul who forbade women to teach men are mistaken as well.