Episode Transcript
[00:00:01] Interesting Questions from Readers by Bart Ehrman Here are three interesting questions I've recently received and my attempt to answer Question I've been wondering about the passage in Romans where Paul expresses his fear about returning to Jerusalem on account of opposition because he wanted to take the money that he raised there before leaving for Spain.
[00:00:25] I used to couple this account with Paul's final leg of his third mission out of Corinth back to Jerusalem, and there he indeed faces opposition in Acts chapter 20 and then finds himself in Rome in prison in Acts chapter 28.
[00:00:39] The passages seem to fit well together, but how? History? Hearsay. Looking at the letter itself expanding the details, what do you think?
[00:00:48] Barthes response I think the big problem is whether we can accept the book of Acts as providing a reliable account of Paul's arrest and trials. I don't think we can.
[00:00:59] So reconciling it or conflating it with Paul's own account or accounts just doesn't work in Acts. The arrest itself is meant to show that Paul has never done anything contrary to Jewish law, but he himself says explicitly otherwise. He says to the Jews I'm a Jew, and to the Greeks I'm a Greek. So that's 1 Corinthians chapter 9, verses 20 and 22.
[00:01:24] And the trip to Rome hinges on his being a Roman citizen, which I don't think can be true.
[00:01:30] So Isea Acts is coming up with a tale to allow him to defend himself and his message to show that he's completely innocent.
[00:01:38] That ties in closely with Luke's Gospel, which more than even the other gospels, works to show that Jesus was completely innocent. And it functions to show that the message really has now gone to the very heart of the empire, to the capital city.
[00:01:53] In sum, I'm not sure that we can create a comprehensive itinerary of Paul's travels by weaving together Acts in his own comments in his letters.
[00:02:03] Question Would you explain how and when the use of the word brother or brothers could also mean brother and sister?
[00:02:12] Someone pointed out that the gender inclusive language in the NRSV is misleading, or when it's clear that they are speaking of a male in a male club sort of way, specifically in first Thessalonians?
[00:02:23] Is it more obvious in the Greek?
[00:02:26] Barthes Response the Greek word means brothers and there is a separate word for sisters. The translation issue is a problem not with ancient Greek, but modern English. If I say men today to mean men and women, then it's confusing because many people will think I mean male adults.
[00:02:45] That's because English has shifted from using only masculine words for groups of people to using words that include men and women over the past 40 years or so. And so if we in English want to refer to a group of people, both male and female, we have to say men and women, or humans or people or other things that usually don't work well in the context.
[00:03:07] So too with brothers.
[00:03:09] If I say I met with my brothers today, most people would think I was talking about a group of males.
[00:03:15] If I met males and females, I'd have to say my brothers and sisters or siblings. But if they are spiritual brothers and sisters, calling them siblings would be confusing, even though we used to say not long ago, brothers, both male and female.
[00:03:33] This shift to inclusivity has become a dominant element of our language, but the language itself has not developed new words to accommodate it adequately.
[00:03:43] Greek never had this inclusive element, let alone words to express it. So when a translator comes across a text that refers to men or brothers, but it's clear that the author is talking about both males and females, the only way to communicate that accurately to the reader is by saying brothers and sisters.
[00:04:01] It should not be objected that it's not right to translate one Greek word with three English ones, since that happens all the time in translations where it often takes more than one word to translate the meaning of a single word in the source language.
[00:04:14] The NRSV went to great lengths to use male only language when the author was addressing only males, and inclusive language when it was addressing both male and female.
[00:04:24] Maybe they botched it sometimes, but I'd be surprised if that was the case.
[00:04:29] And for what it's worth, I have a personal stake in the matter.
[00:04:33] After I finished my PhD, I was hired by the committee toward the end of the Multi Year project in part to make sure they followed their policy on inclusive language Question Although only slightly related, I've often wondered how dying on a Friday and rising on a Sunday could ever be counted as three days.
[00:04:56] I realized the Jewish day ends at sundown. Matthew, Mark, and Luke place the death of Jesus at the sixth hour. John states that the sentencing by Pilate at the sixth hour, with the crucifixion to follow, are not necessarily on the Friday.
[00:05:11] The women visited the tomb early on Sunday, the day after the Sabbath, with one day in between.
[00:05:17] So what's the significance of the sixth hour? How is that three days? It looks like two days.
[00:05:22] And I realized the prophecy was to destroy the temple and raise it up in three days.
[00:05:27] Is this the reason that Jesus is said to arise after three days?
[00:05:32] Barth's response we were always told in my student days that the problem was easily resolved because Jews counted any part of a day as a full day so that part of Friday and all of Saturday and part of Sunday equals three days. But I don't know that that's true. My guess is that New Testament scholars invented the idea that to make sense of the claim that Jesus was dead for three days though if someone knows better please let us know.
[00:05:59] My thought now is that originally the followers of Jesus said he was raised on the third day, which would work if he died on a Friday afternoon but arose on a Sunday morning, but that for some reason maybe because of the connection with Jonah in the belly of the fish for three days and three nights the saying shifted so that it was three days even though the story continued to suggest something more like 36 hours. The prophecy of the temple came into being only after Christians were saying three days.
