{"id":88181,"date":"2021-03-24T05:34:59","date_gmt":"2021-03-24T09:34:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/?p=88181"},"modified":"2021-03-23T20:48:11","modified_gmt":"2021-03-24T00:48:11","slug":"women-bible","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/2021\/03\/women-bible.html","title":{"rendered":"Why What Jesus Learned from Women Needed to Be Written"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

Andy Cassler is continuing his blogging through my book, having added a second post about the introduction<\/a>. Knowing Andy\u2019s views, I was expecting him to approach the book with significant reservations and to not be persuaded by many things I wrote. Nonetheless I am somewhat disappointed that he leads this blog post by focusing on what I don\u2019t mention rather than what I do. He points out that those to whom Jesus asked questions when learning in the Temple were also amazed by his answers. Since no Christians, to my knowledge, think Jesus\u2019 teaching is anything other than impressive, I did not think this point needed to be emphasized. What some and perhaps most Christians miss is the part where it emphasizes that Jesus learned. Even when the New Testament says that people were amazed at Jesus\u2019 teaching or his healings, they ask questions like whether he could be the son of David (Matthew 12:23<\/a>), and comment on the incredible authority that God has given to human beings (Matthew 9:8<\/a>). Neither of those is from Luke, which emphasizes Jesus learning and that the works he performed were due to his being empowered by God\u2019s Spirit. In short, Christians have historically allowed the impressiveness of what Jesus is depicted as doing as a human being full of divine wisdom and power to overshadow the fact that the earliest sources view him as a human being in whom God is at work in these impressive ways. If one wishes to formulate a doctrine about Jesus that goes beyond what the earliest sources say about him, that is understandable. If one wishes to turn around and appeal to that doctrine to negate what it says about Jesus learning, then I must object, and that is one reason why I wrote the book.<\/p>\n

Andy also appeals to the doctrine of the \u201csufficiency of scripture\u201d to say that if it leaves out the names of and stories about women more frequently than in the case of men, we must be satisfied, even though this is a characteristic of other literature of that time and place.<\/p>\n

And, because, he says, the \u201cancient authors [of the Gospels] themselves often silenced women\u201d (9), McGrath seems to similarly reject the sufficiency of Scripture since in \u201c[denying] ancient women the chance to be heard\u201d the unfortunate result is that the \u201cancient male authors did not provide us with the information we need to fully hear them\u201d (10). McGrath explains that the way the authors silenced women was by \u201cnot naming them or including speech by them as often as they do for men\u201d (9). While not trying to demean women or downplay the helpfulness of such information, one wonders what \u201cfully hearing\u201d them does to aid the purposes of the authors or of Scripture? When discussing the sufficiency of Scripture, the ESV Study Bible contributors write, \u201cbelievers should be satisfied with what Scripture teaches\u00a0and what it leaves unsaid<\/em>\u201d (2508).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I disagree strongly. One could easily say that developing a view of the cosmos that goes beyond and differs from that assumed by the Bible\u2019s authors, once again representing something they simply assumed and shared with their contemporaries, we should be satisfied. Unless one wishes to reject Copernicus and Pasteur and countless others who have found some information provided by scripture to be\u00a0insufficient<\/em>, then once again we should resist this attempt to use a doctrine about the Bible\u00a0in an effort to force the Bible to be something it is not, and to compel us to accept it as something other than what it is. (Compare Andy\u2019s treatment of the sufficiency of scripture with Brent Niedergall\u2019s more nuanced discussion of its clarity<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

I hope you\u2019ll read the rest of this entry to his review<\/a> and, especially if you have read the book (even if only the introduction thus far), will add your thoughts to the discussion, whether there or here (or both).<\/p>\n

This exchange on Twitter illustrates another reason why my book needed to be written:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Ian Paul mentioned some widespread but problematic assumptions about the Samaritan woman<\/a><\/p>\n

Libby Schrader recorded a podcast about Mary and Martha<\/a>:<\/p>\n