The Historical Reliability of the Four Gospels, Part 1 

Critics and skeptics often attack the historical reliability of the New Testament’s record and interpretation of Jesus’ life and ministry by pointing out what they consider evident contradictions or errors they say exist between the Four Gospels. They bring up these alleged errors or contradictions because it is believed they 1) invalidate the Gospels as trustworthy historical records and interpretations of Jesus' life, ministry, teaching, death, and resurrection, and 2) it is believed they disprove the historical Christian teaching on the divine inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of the original New Testament documents. This author is a firm believer in the divine inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of the original New Testament documents. But this belief, with all the pros and cons connected with it, calls for a separate article for its defense and exposition. But here we are concerned with showing the Gospels to be reliable historical records and interpretations of the Story of Jesus the Messiah, and then will address some of the key alleged "contradictions and errors" existing between them. But first, let me say something about the authorship of the Gospels, which is the first item critics and skeptics assault in their efforts to undermine their reliability and authority as historical documents  

Authorship of the Gospels: The External and Internal Evidence 

In the first century, Matthew, Mark, Luke/Acts, the Pauline epistles, the General Epistles (i.e., James, 1&2 Peter, Jude, 1 John, 2 John, and 3 John), Hebrews, and the Apocalypse were circulated and exchanged among the churches as individual books and kept in their church archives as such. Then fairly early in the second century, perhaps through the influence of the Antiochian and Roman churches, the Gospels were put together in one book, entitled "The Gospel" and with the Four Gospels being given the subtitle, "According to Matthew, According to Mark, According to Luke, and According to John." Then Acts, the Pauline Epistles, and Hebrews were combined into one book, with Acts serving as the "historical introduction" to these letters, while the General Epistles and the Apocalypse remained as separate books. Nevertheless, from the time they were first published and circulated, the Gospels were recognized either as the work of the Apostles Matthew and John, or as the work of apostolic associates, Mark and Luke, which were approved by the Apostles Peter and Paul, even though unlike the NT letters, the Gospels do not clearly name their authors. How is this to be explained? Primarily, it is because of the internal literary evidence of the Gospels themselves, as well as the historical evidence provided by the testimony of early Christian teachers, apologists, and historians who regarded themselves as both the recipients and guardians of those books embodying Apostolic traditions.

The Connection Between Mark and Peter

For example, comparing the stories and teachings of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark with the sermons of Peter recorded by Luke in Acts, and then with the statements Peter makes about Christ and his life in the two letters attributed to him (i.e., 1 and 2 Peter), the Petrine connection is clear. And then Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, confirms this by stating that having been impacted by Peter's preaching and teaching, the Roman Christians urgently requested that "Mark, as the companion of Peter, leave them a monument of the doctrine orally communicated in writing. Nor did they cease their solicitations until they prevailed with the man, and thus became the means of that history which is called the Gospel according to Mark...The Apostle Peter, having ascertained what was done by the revelation of the Spirit, was delighted with the zealous ardor expressed by these men, and that the history obtained his authority for the purpose of being read in the churches. This account is given by Clement, in the sixth book of his Institutions, whose testimony is corroborated by that of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis." (Eccles. History, Ch XV, pp. 64-65)

The Connection Between Luke and Paul 

Luke/Acts, which forms a two-volume history of Jesus the Messiah and the earliest Christians, was written by the same author, who was a close companion of the Apostle Paul, as is clear from the "we" passages of Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16. Certain stylistic and structural characteristics, such as the use of chiasm and the device of focusing on particular individuals, are common to both books, demonstrating they were written by the same author. And not only was this author a capable of high-quality Greek but was also apparently well versed in historical and scientific methods of investigation and description. Then there is the fact that during his final imprisonment in Rome, Luke alone was Paul's constant companion, during the same time when the so-called Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus) were written (c. 64 A.D.). A comparison of the Greek style and vocabulary of Luke/Acts with that of the Pastoral Epistles gives compelling evidence that the author of the Third Gospel also acted as Paul's stenographer and composed these letters under Paul's direction. Moreover, in 1 Tim. 5:17-18, where Paul gives instruction on supporting elders who govern well and faithfully preach and teach the message of Christ, he appeals to Deut. 25:4 and Luke 10:4 as the Scripture that supports his teaching   So in addition to its own high merits as a historical account of Jesus' life and career, Luke/Act's Pauline connection secured its esteemed place in the NT canon.

Matthew as Disciple and Eyewitness to Jesus

  

Now we come to the Gospel of Matthew, which from the first was highly esteemed, widely used, and quoted frequently because it contained stories, parables and full discourses of Jesus not found in Mark, which was considered by many early Christians as an abridgement of Matthew. Not only did the Gospel of Matthew provide a fuller authoritative record of Christ's teaching necessary for the instruction and training of new converts, but it also provided material that was well suited for doing evangelism and apologetic ministry among Jews prior to the Jewish/Roman War (c. 66-73 A.D.). Levi-Matthew, the tax collector, who would have had training and skill in shorthand stenography and drafting detailed reports for his Roman employers, was long considered the author of this Gospel. However liberal scholars deny this. At most, they argue that Matthew may have written Q (considered a proto-gospel in Aramaic), which was later incorporated and expanded by a Jewish Christian writer, fluent in Greek, resulting in the Gospel of Matthew as we now have it in the Greek New Testament.

  

However, there is more than one way to interpret the external and internal evidence. For example, even if Matthew did write Q, as tax collector and reporter, he would have to be trilingual (i.e., would have had to have a working knowledge of Aramaic, Greek, and Latin) to do his work effectively. So, there is no reason why he could not have written a second edition of his Gospel in Greek, that incorporated Q, Mark's Gospel, plus things he recalled from his own memories of being with Jesus. As George Eldon Ladd states, "If Matthew wrote a first edition of his Gospel in Aramaic for the Jewish-Christian community of Antioch and Mark wrote a Gospel in Rome embodying the Petrine tradition, it is entirely credible that when Matthew later produced a second edition in Greek, he made free use of the Petrine Gospel, thereby adding his own testimony to its authority and proving that the apostolic witness to Christ was not divided" (cf. More Light on the Synoptics, Church Times, March 2, 1959, p.16)  Several NT scholars have pointed out that in the period in which this Gospel was written, the book would have had its authorship credited to the person who published and distributed it in Greek, not to the authority of the sources behind it. That is why, for example, the Gospel of Mark is not called the Gospel of Peter. And then other NT scholars, such as C. D. Moule and Carsten Peter Thiede have argued from Matt. 13:51-52 that, in a self-deprecating way, Matthew identifies himself as the one Jesus specifically called to write a historical record of his life words and deeds. "Is it not conceivable that the Lord really did say to that tax-collector Matthew: You have been a 'writer' (as the Navy would put it); you have had plenty to do with the commercial side of just the topics alluded to in the parables--farmer's stock, fields, treasure-trove, fishing revenues, [but] now that you have become a disciple, you can bring all this out again--but with a difference" (cf. "Dates and Debates," Eyewitness to Jesus, Carsten P. Theide and Matthew D'Ancona, pp. 17-18). Therefore, liberal critics and skeptics do not have the last word on the origins of the Gospels nor on their historical reliability.

The Testimony of John, the Beloved Disciple  

Now, though all Four Gospels cover Jesus’ ministry in both Galilee and Judea, Matthew and Mark focus primarily on his ministry in Galilee, while Luke and John focus primarily on his ministry in Judea. Of the Four, John delves most deeply into Jesus’ being the Incarnate Word or Wisdom of God, as well as into the person and work of the Holy Spirit. He also records stories and teachings of Jesus not found in the Synoptic Gospels. And up until the last hundred years or so, this Gospel was universally acknowledged as the work of the Apostle John. So, what is the external and internal evidence that supports the belief that the Apostle John was indeed the author of this Gospel? Well, first, the author was an eyewitness and close associate of Jesus, who wrote a widely known and accepted account of Jesus’s life and ministry (cf. Jn. 1:14; 19:35; 21:24). Second, he was Christ’s “beloved disciple,” and sat next to him at the Last Supper in one of two prestigious positions filled by himself and Peter, and it was he who Peter asked to find out who would betray Jesus (cf. Jn. 13:21-27). Third, this man was also a member of the innermost circle of friends whom Jesus most relied on--i.e., Peter, James, and John (cf. Mk. 5:37; 9:2; 13:3; 14:33)—and was the one whom he entrusted the care of his mother while dying on the cross (cf. Jn. 19:25-27), while Peter and James were in hiding. And when he wrote this Gospel, Peter and James had been dead for some time (cf. Acts 12:2; Jn. 21:18-19). So, as B. F. Westcott argued over a hundred years ago in his commentary, The Gospel According to John: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes, when you add everything up, there is only one conclusion to draw: the Apostle John was the author of this book. 

So, given the circumstances, though the writers of the Four Gospels do not clearly state their identity as authors—as do James, Peter, and Paul at the beginning of their letters in the NT—there is no denying that both the internal and external indicates that Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John wrote the Gospels that have been ascribed to them by Christians down the centuries. 

 UAPs: Not of This World, But Are They Paranormal?

In a previous post, I mentioned that I have been a longtime amateur astronomer, observing the skies with both binoculars and telescopes, gazing on a grand universe which, as I have now come to understand, displays the Creator's wisdom, power, and artistic genius to those able to see it.  And I also mentioned that in all my years as a stargazer there had been several occasions on which, like many others, I had seen "unidentified aerial phenomenon" (UAPs) that I could not explain in reference to any natural objects or manmade aircraft that was known to me. And lastly, I mentioned that I was glad that a recent US government report had declared UAPs to be something real and so worthy of serious scientific investigation, and expressed my hope that the government would actually investigate these UPAs and do something about them.

Now, I would have left it at that. But then a friend shared a YouTube video with me, in which a former Naval pilot asserted that these UPAs were one of three things: 1. A secret US advanced weapon/aircraft; 2. A secret foreign weapon/spy aircraft; 3. Alien spacecraft. Then he went on to explain why he believed they were neither foreign fighter/spy aircraft nor alien spaceships, but a secret advanced US weapon/fighter aircraft. What he said seemed reasonable and plausible enough. Yet he also mentioned observed and recorded characteristics of these "craft" that are hard to explain in terms of what we currently understand about the general laws of physics.  

These "craft" fly silently without any conventional propulsion systems; make incredible 300-500 G turns that would kill human pilots; and seem to operate as easily in water and outer space as they do in our atmosphere without any design change or compromise.  Moreover, these "craft" possess stealth capability, and yet have been tracked at speeds of Mach 5 and above.  According to Luis Elizondo, a government investigator and former head of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Investigation Program (AATIP), it is these "5 observable" characteristics of instantaneous acceleration, transmedium travel, hypersonic speed, low visibility and positive lift that lead him to favor the alien hypothesis, though he wants to keep an open mind on the true nature of UAPs, their origin, and their purpose.

Interestingly, in a recent interview with New York Post journalist Steven Greenstreet on his program "Basement Office," Mr. Elizondo referred to a conversation he had had with a Pentagon official (whom he knew and respected) in which he was told that the identity of the UAPs was already known. When Mr. Elizondo asked for clarification, to his surprise he was told that if he was familiar with the Bible, he would know these things were demonic in nature and so needed no further investigation. In this Pentagon official's view, these objects were indeed real and not of this world. But being demonic or paranormal in nature, they would not, in his view, be subject to strict scientific investigation and explanation.  

However, this viewpoint is not a total surprise.  When you study the history of the investigation of UAPs over the last 40 years, there have been a few investigators who, due to the evidence available, have opted for the paranormal explanation. For example, Jacques Vallee, a French astronomer who studied this phenomena for several decades, has written several books on "interdimensional beings" and their questionable activities in such books as Messengers of Deception and Project Trojan Horse. So the question is, if UAPs are paranormal phenomena, and not visitors from outer space, what are they a manifestation of, and how do we deal with them? 

On Returning to Blogging: A Thought and Comment or Two 

It's been some time since I posted on this website. With various daily activities, work, taking some online seminary courses, political and social turmoil in the US, my coming down with COVID-19 and recovering from it, trying to build a business--well, my mind and energies have been invested elsewhere, and so my not blogging for a time is understandable. Still, despite all these things, plus the imposed restraint of pandemic and government mandate--the writer in me has been restless, yearning to break out in literary and poetic expression on various topics buzzing around in my mind like a honey bee hunting nectar.

In the past, most of what I posted was of a theological or apologetic nature.  As a committed Christian writer, these continue to be topics of interest to me and on which I will continue to write. Yet in addition to a love art, literature, music and history, since I have been eight years old, I have been a stargazer--watching the constellations make their circuit around Polaris, the planets wandering hither and thither, and a bright bolide flashing through a starry speckled summer sky.  So in future posts, I will examine aspects of these topics as well.

Now, being a longtime amateur astronomer, observing the skies with my eyes--and with binoculars and telescope, too--I must admit that I have seen things in the sky which, for the life of me, I cannot describe by any natural or manmade object I know. Objects, which are aptly described as "unidentified aerial phenomenon." However, many people throughout the world have seen these UPAs and have been at loss to understand, let alone explain, what they have seen. But according to a recent US government report released earlier this month, UPAs are real and worthy of serious scientific investigation. Well, it's good they finally admitted this, and let's hope they'll do something about it.    

Jesus, God's Kingdom, and the Church, Pt 2

Now as George E. Ladd, Robert T. Henderson, Ralph P. Martin, Ronald J. Sider, N. T. Wright, and other NT scholars have shown[1], these OT and NT texts that prophesy both the coming of Messiah and the coming of God’s kingdom point to the fact of a three-stage unfolding or development of this kingdom—based on Jesus’s own teaching in the Gospels—which is best understood and expressed in terms of a kingdom that is “already present” in the life and ministry of Jesus and his Church, and “yet not fully manifested” in all its power and glory until Jesus returns at the end of history.   Robert T. Henderson explains as follows:

Jesus and the New Testament writers speak of the kingdom of God in three different tenses: As having already come, as now present;  and as yet to come. Other Christians today speak of the “already-but-not-yet kingdom.” When Jesus the Lord came he did in fact come to inaugurate his kingdom. That is his first advent. At the present time we are between the ages in the sense that while this present age is still with us, the age to come has come upon us so that the kingdom of God is dynamically present. But the kingdom is not consummated until Jesus returns. This understanding [of God’s kingdom] is critical...It gives us a sense of history, of calling and identity, of purpose and ultimate triumph.^[2]

 

As we look further at what Isa. 61:1-4 and Joel 2:28-32 have to say about the Messiah and his work of liberation and healing, we see that after he suffers terrible things under the hands of his own people who reject him, the Messiah pours out the Holy Spirit upon his new community. And it is this community which not only continues to proclaim the coming of God’s kingdom, but which also continues to carry on a ministry of liberation, healing, and restoration, resulting in a new model of human society—human society as God always meant it to be.  On this, Stephen C. Mott comments:

Because the church is a manifestation of the Reign of God, the norms that guide it must exemplify the highest vision of human community. It cannot leave to another group the effort to live wholly according to the teachings of Jesus. In the Pauline letters a direct consequence for the ethical life of the church is drawn from the fact that, as “the fullness of him who fills everything in everything” (Eph. 1:22-23), it is the instrument of Christ’s work. When “Christ is everything and in everything,” then all external distinctions of status cease to exist:

“Put on the new nature [literally, the new human being]…where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, Barbarian, Scythian [the savage par excellence], slave, free person, 

but Christ is everything and in everything.” (Col. 3:9-11)

The unique character of this new nature derives from the fact that, when the body of

Christ (v. 15) truly acts as Christ’s body, it is totally ruled by him...In three passages Paul states that the putting on of Christ, the putting on of the new human being, or the creation of the new human being, abolishes status distinctions in the church: Colossians 3:9-11; Ephesians 2:14-16; and Galatians 3:27-28 (cf. Gal. 6:15 [“new creation”]).[3]

Now, since the ethical norms of the Church are the ethics of God’s kingdom, or new covenant ethics, which are designed to promote the flourishing of the “new humanity” in Christ—this means that elitism, racism, sexism, and nationalism are not to be tolerated or promoted in Messiah’s community

---

[1] Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom; Henderson, Joy To The World: Spreading the Good News of the Kingdom; Martin, Reconciliation: A Study of Paul’s Theology; Sider, One-Sided Christianity?  Uniting the Church to Heal a Lost and Broken World; Wright, Justification:  God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision.  

[2] Robert T. Henderson.  “The Gospel of the Kingdom of God,” Joy To The World: Spreading the Good News of the Kingdom (Zondervan, 1991), p. 41.

[3] Stephen C. Mott.  “The Church as Counter-Community,” Biblical Ethics and Social Change, pp. 131-132.

Jesus, God's Kingdom, and the Church, Pt 1

Jesus, God’s Kingdom, and the Church

The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is

                                                                                               on me,
                                                                                         because the LORD has anointed me
                                                                                         to proclaim good news to the poor.
                                                                                  He has sent me to bind up the
                                                                                                    brokenhearted,
                                                                                         to proclaim freedom for the captives
                                                                                         and release from darkness for the
                                                                                                     prisoners,
                                                                                          to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favor….

                                                                                                        Isaiah 61:1-2, NIV

        In a number of NT passages, it is Jesus who—by his proclamation of the Good News of God’s Kingdom; his performance of signs and wonders; his miraculous healings and exorcism of demons—is shown to be the fulfilment of OT prophecies regarding “the Servant of the LORD,” who is also Reconciler, Liberator, and Healer (cf.  Isa. 61:1-4 and Joel 2:28-32 with Lk. 4:1-44; 7:1-30; Matt. 11:1-14; John 3:31-36; Acts 10:24-48).  Yet many in Jesus’ own day refused to recognize this.  For instance, Jesus tells the Pharisees, when they accuse him of being an emissary of Satan and doing miraculous works in his power: 

                             “Any kingdom divided by civil war is doomed…And if Satan is casting out Satan,

                      he is divided and fighting against himself.  His own kingdom will not survive.  And if
                      I am empowered by Satan, what about your own exorcists?  They cast out demons, too,
                      so they will condemn you for what you have said.   But if I am casting out demons by
                      the Spirit of God, then the Kingdom of God has arrived among you” (Matt. 12:25-28,
                      NLT).
                   
So it is clear that God’s kingdom has begun with Jesus life and ministry, breaking into and challenging the predominant powers of this Present Evil Age.
        Yet at the same time, Jesus also teaches that God’s kingdom, or reign, is not fully manifested and consummated until the end of history.  This future manifestation and consummation is spoken of in a number of Jesus’ teachings on God’s kingdom, such as the following:

                            “The time is coming when you will long to see the day when the Son of Man returns,

                     but you won’t see it.  People will tell you, ‘Look, there is the Son of Man,’ or ‘Here he is,’
                     but don’t go out and follow them.  For as the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from
                     one end to the other, so it will be on the day when the Son of Man comes.  But first, the Son
                     of Man must suffer terribly and be rejected by this generation…And the world will be as it
                     was in the days of Lot.  People went about their daily business—eating and drinking,
                     buying and selling, farming and building—until the morning Lot left Sodom.  Then fire and
                     burning sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.  Yes, it will be ‘business
                     as usual’ right up to the day when the Son of Man is revealed” (Luke 17:22-30, NLT).

The ESV and Genesis 3:16b: Revision or Perversion? Pt 3

The ESV Revision: A Stratagem to Biblically Legitimize 1 Corinthians 14:34-35?

        So what was really behind this new ESV rendering, since it lacks strong historical and textual support, and since there are no current linguistic changes in English that require it?  I could be wrong, but I can’t help but suspect that this was a veiled attempt to give what appears to be a more legitimate, biblical ground for the prohibition against women in leadership and ministry found in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.   Thus, by this “fixing” of OT and NT Scripture to agree with each other, the anti-egalitarian, male dominance socio-political agenda of Complementarianism would thereby be better legitimized and enabled. As rendered in the ESV, the text of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 reads as follows:

          …the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak

 but should be in submission, as the Law also says.  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 Cor. 14:34-35, ESV

              Now, in English Bibles, it has been customary to translate tos nomos in the Greek New Testament either as “the law” or “the Law”—with the former translation (depending on the context) being used to designate references to the OT as a whole; Jewish oral tradition; or Greco-Roman law, while the second form is used to refer to the Mosaic Law in particular.  

      So by translating tos nomos as “the Law,” the ESV intends for us to understand that this prohibition is based on “the Law,” i.e. the Law of Moses.  The only problem with this translation of 1 Cor. 14:34-35, as Egalitarians have often pointed out, is that nothing either in the Law of Moses in particular, or in the OT as a whole, constitutes an absolute and universal prohibition from women proclaiming God’s Word or leading God’s people in worship. 

              Moreover, it makes an ambiguous appeal to “the law” for women to be silent—which is strange, in light of the fact that the OT highlights and affirms the leadership and prophetic ministry of Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah.  Though Jeremiah and Nehemiah condemn certain false male and female prophets (cf. Jer. 28:1-17; Neh. 6:11-14), there is no OT text that clearly forbids women from leading the people in worship, nor from proclaiming the “word of the LORD” to the people of Israel. And other than barring them from the temple priesthood, the Law of Moses certainly confirms and approves the fact that Miriam and the other women led Israel in worshiping and praising God for their deliverance out of Egypt (cf. Exodus 15:19-21 with Ps. 68:11-14, NIV 2011).

         So, again we ask, what “law” is being appealed to here?  And why is the reference to this “scriptural” source so vague?   Normally, Paul will quote a specific text when he wants to affirm that a particular teaching or command has OT support, such as he does in 1 Cor. 10:6-8  and 1 Tim. 5:17-18.  Yet he does not follow his common practice here.   If he had actually meant Genesis 3:16b, then we would have expected him to quote it.  Why does he not do so here?  

        Then, as noted by several NT scholars, there is the additional problem of the disjunctive conjunction eta in 1 Cor. 14:36, which the ESV does not translate or footnote at all.^[1] When eta is used as a disjunctive conjunction, it is used “to distinguish things or thoughts which either mutually exclude each other, or one of which can take the place of the other,” and that when used “before a sentence contrary to the one just preceding, to indicate that if one be denied or refuted, the other must stand: Mt. xx.15; Rom. iii.29; 1 Cor. ix. 6; x.29; xi.14; xiv. 36; 2 Cor. xi.7.”^[2]  Consider the following translations of 1 Corinthians 14:34-36:

 …the women should keep silence the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, 

but should be subordinate, as even the law says.  If there is anything they desire to know, 

let them ask their husbands at home.  For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. 

What!  Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?

                                                                                           1 Corinthians 14:34-36, RSV

…the women must keep silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak out, but 
also must place themselves in submission, as the oral law also says. If they want to learn
anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is inappropriate for a woman 
to speak out in church. Did God's word originate with you? Are you the only people it 
has reached?

                                                                                           1 Corinthians 14:34-36, ISV

                    

                 The RSV translates the disjunctive conjunction eta as “What!,” which indicates that in verse 36, Paul is clearly and firmly repudiating the prohibition given in vv. 34-35; while the ISV translate tos nomos as “the oral law,” making it very clear that the prohibition of vv. 34-35 is based on Jewish oral traditions, and not on the Law of Moses itself. 

                 Indeed, it is the ISV translation which perhaps gives us the best clue as to who might have been the true source of this prohibition—a Judaizing element in Corinth that evidently wanted the Jewish regulations and customs of the synagogue to be enforced, contrary to Paul’s own teaching and practices in all the churches he had previously established.

                 But neither of these translations supports the widespread Complementarian idea that Paul himself was the originator of this prohibition in 1 Cor. 14:34-35, nor do they support the idea that he clearly made an appeal to Genesis 3:16b as its basis.  Moreover, as Kirk R. MacGregor so brilliantly argues in his article, both on the basis of the disjunctive conjunction and grammar of this text, 1 Cor. 14:33b-38 is a quotation-refutation device Paul uses to rebuke this Judaizing element:  "Far from attempting to silence women, therefore, Paul is rebuking the Corinthian men for prohibiting women from speaking in the assemblies, for he regards such a restriction as tantamount to alleging that the word of God belongs properly to the men and derivatively to any woman married to one of them. Paul summarily exposes the absurdity of this allegation with each part of this rhetorical question, whose form, (not to mention the context) requires a negative answer to each part." [3]  

Conclusion

                 So, considering all these things we have discussed, I suspect that this new ESV revision of Genesis 3:16b is nothing more than a very clever and subtle stratagem, designed to give Complementarianism a more clear and firm biblical foundation in both Moses and in Paul than it really has a claim to.  If this is indeed the reason behind this rendering of Genesis 3:16b, I am amazed that Crossway Publishers and the ESV Translation Oversight Committee have not considered the warning of Jeremiah 8:8-9:

                                 How can you say, ‘We are wise because we have the 

                                                               word of the LORD,’

                                                when your teachers have twisted it by writing lies?

                                  “These wise teachers will fall into the trap of their

                                                               own foolishness,

                                            for they have rejected the word of the LORD.

                                                    Are they so wise after all?”                            
                                                                                                       Jeremiah 8:8-9, NLT

                Therefore, a more clear and convincing case as to the necessity of this change to the ESV text needs to be made to persuade me, and many others as well, that this was a genuine attempt to faithfully preserve God’s Word as originally handed on to us—and not a veiled attempt to enforce a strict patriarchal ideology upon the people of God that, in fact, has no true biblical warrant at all.

---

[1]  Dennis J. Preato, “Did Paul Really Say, ‘Let Your Women Keep Silent in the Churches?” www.godswordtowomen.org. An excellent article on this Pauline text, brought to my attention during an online group discussion at the BCE site on Facebook, 09/16/16.

[2] Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, 3^rd Edition (Zondervan, 1970), p. 275.
[3] Kirk R. MacGregor, "1 Corinthians 14:33b-38 as a Pauline Quotation-Refutation Device," Priscilla Papers, Vol. 32, No. 1, Winter 2018.