|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: Paul and Women
|
PaxChristi
Shipmate
# 11493
|
Posted
In the thread on John, Noelper said:
quote:
Could we agree to note that Jesus was far less anti-women than His Apostle Paul and subsequent Church leaders ? Which implies that His completeness in terms of representing the world, was absolute.
In response to something I said about the identification in John between Jesus and Wisdom, masculine and feminine.
It seemed a good idea to address the question of Paul's thoughts on women, as I disagree heartily with the common (mis)perception that Paul was anti-women. I was encouraged to start a thread where I could deal with that question, and I hope this'll be it.
Before I start, I think it'd be helpful to know what folks think Paul thought/believed about women, and on what they base those thoughts. That way I'll be able to address folks' concerns more specifically.
So, if you're of the opinion that Paul was, in some sense, (or any sense) anti-women, would you share your thoughts and reasoning here before I jump in and make a fool of myself? I'll do my best to deal with everything that pops up. (This is a favorite teaching technique of mine, to make sure I deal with my class' concerns rather than mine...)
PaxC
[ 19. November 2013, 01:17: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. (I Corinthians 2:2)
Posts: 125 | From: NY | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
universalist
Shipmate
# 10318
|
Posted
Paul on women:
By OT standards, Paul was quite progressive.
But we view Paul and other NT writers "in process", kinda like viewing a movie. Paul wrote during its middle. We are now living more toward the end of the story. Via "progressive revelation" our views of women today are often more healthy than were Paul's, who never made it to full egalitarianism. ("Let your women keep silence in the churches!"....what a loser!)
Posts: 66 | From: portland oregon | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by universalist:
Paul on women:
By OT standards, Paul was quite progressive.
But we view Paul and other NT writers "in process", kinda like viewing a movie. Paul wrote during its middle. We are now living more toward the end of the story. Via "progressive revelation" our views of women today are often more healthy than were Paul's, who never made it to full egalitarianism. ("Let your women keep silence in the churches!"....what a loser!)
Isn't Pauls' authorship of the Pastoral Epistles disputed?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaxChristi
Shipmate
# 11493
|
Posted
Thanks, Universalist. That's one of the mis-readings of Paul that is most often quoted. Tuba, he's quoting I Corinthians 14, which is indisputably Pauline, but quite disputably anti-women, if read in context.
PaxC
--------------------
For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. (I Corinthians 2:2)
Posts: 125 | From: NY | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
I think Paul's words about women are much more negative than his actions.
I am especially impressed by his actions in Philippi. Here is Acts 16:11-15
quote:
We set sail from Troas and took a straight course to Samothrace, the following day to Neapolis, and from there to Philippi, which is a leading city of the district of Macedonia and a Roman colony. We remained in this city for some days. On the sabbath day we went outside the gate by the river, where we supposed there was a place of prayer; and we sat down and spoke to the women who had gathered there. A certain woman named Lydia, a worshipper of God, was listening to us; she was from the city of Thyatira and a dealer in purple cloth. The Lord opened her heart to listen eagerly to what was said by Paul. When she and her household were baptized, she urged us, saying, ‘If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come and stay at my home.’ And she prevailed upon us.
When Paul found only women at the place of prayer, he thought it was worthwhile to preach to them. When Lydia, who was a capable and wealthy woman, invited Paul and his companion to stay with her, he accepted the invitation gratefully.
If Paul had been the misogynist he is sometimes painted as, he would not have behaved this way.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaxChristi:
Tuba, he's quoting I Corinthians 14, which is indisputably Pauline, but quite disputably anti-women, if read in context.
PaxC
Oh, I was thinking of Timothy, where there are some similar statements.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Isn't Pauls' authorship of the Pastoral Epistles disputed?
Yes indeed, and for excellent reasons, ranging from vocabulary to content.
quote:
Originally posted by Pax Christi:
... he's quoting I Corinthians 14, which is indisputably Pauline, but quite disputably anti-women, if read in context.
If you're talking about 14:34-35, there's nothing "indisputable" about it; not only does the phrase appear in different places in different early manuscripts, but Paul has, just before that, been busily praising women who clearly DO speak out in church. This phrase doesn't belong.
That's because it's an interpolation. Knowing that made a huge difference to my views of Paul, and to my faith.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Isn't Pauls' authorship of the Pastoral Epistles disputed?
Let's keep to one issue at a time. Debating the Pauline authorship of the letters ascribed to him would just be shuffling the problem to a different place in the deck.
I would sugggest that for the purposes of this thread we assume the Pauline authorship of those letters traditionally associated with him. Debate on authorship could be pursued in another thread.
Perhaps a good way to approach this issue would be to address in turn each of the relevant texts that give people cause for concern. The most obivious ones would be 1 Cor 11, 1 Cor 14, Eph 5, 1 Tim 2, Titus 2.
One the positve side - whatever interpretation of these passages we come up with we will have to reconcile them to the rest of "Paul's" writings.
Such as the equality of husband and wife in the arena of se.xual politics in 1 Cor 7, and the equality of access to salvation we see in Gal 3.
Can anyone think of any other passages to discuss? What shall we look at first?
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Isn't Pauls' authorship of the Pastoral Epistles disputed?
Let's keep to one issue at a time. Debating the Pauline authorship of the letters ascribed to him would just be shuffling the problem to a different place in the deck.
I would sugggest that for the purposes of this thread we assume the Pauline authorship of those letters traditionally associated with him. Debate on authorship could be pursued in another thread.
I see your point, but I disagree (although I'm not the one to be doing the arguing, since I'm no Bible scholar).
But it does make a difference, since this thread is called "Paul and Women." If Paul didn't write the offending passages, then the whole argument is different. It becomes a discussion about the Church and control, as Rossweisse points out.
But again, I'm not knowledgeable to get involved in such an argument.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But it does make a difference, since this thread is called "Paul and Women." If Paul didn't write the offending passages, then the whole argument is different. It becomes a discussion about the Church and control, as Rossweisse points out.
Of course the authorship issue is important and the conclusions will affect you answer to this topic. But we will never get to the topic since there is such a diversity of opinion on the Pauline corpus. Why not take the Pauline texts at face value - see what conclusions come up from examining the texts and then individuals who wish to trim down the canon can trim down the conclusions appropriately?
ISTM, the first question that needs to be addressed is whether the texts in view are actually "anti-women". What is the author actually saying in these texts?
The next question that needs to be addressed is whether "Paul's" teaching is consistant with the teaching of Jesus, the other apostolic writings, and the rest of the Scriptures.
Of course alongside all this we should be pursuing the Purgatorial question of where, and with what authority, we in the 21st century get our views on gender.
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
Yes, Anselm, I'd say those texts are anti-women. Since there is significant evidence that Paul didn't write the "women should sit down and shut up" bit in 1 Corinthians, nor the objectionable bits in the Pastorals, I think it's important that we discuss that sort of thing. It's wrong to paint Paul as a 20th century feminist -- he clearly was nothing of the sort -- but by the standards of his own time, he was extraordinarily accepting.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Banner Lady
Ship's Ensign
# 10505
|
Posted
Every week I take a dear old soul to church who will often embark on a diatribe of how much Paul did not like women. Not knowing enough church history to really combat this view, I have always tried to change the subject whenever she starts on it. But recently I have been reading an excellent book called "Outrageous Women, Outrageous God - Women in the First Two Generations of Christianity" by historian Ross Saunders. I would be interested to know if anyone else here has read it, and can pass comment on it.
I particularly appreciated the way Mr.Saunders was able to get into the mindset of the time - and the way he explained that in the different cities Paul visited, different problems presented themselves. So the teaching on a woman having her head covered in church, for example, was for their protection - because he was speaking to the Corinthians, where street prostitution was rife (and considered a way to worship Aphrodite). If there were former prostitutes in the congregation, they would have been easily recognizable by their shaved heads or hairdos, and if curious strangers came in, they may have thought the Christians worshiped in the same way. But Paul advocated an ancient Jewish custom for covering the head which meant all women would look the same, and could therefore be treated equally.
The women in other towns had a different problems to contend with - and Paul's comments are to be taken in situ - not as a generalization for all women for all time. This made a lot of sense to me, and Saunders argues quite effectively (at least IMHO) for us to take a harder look at the pastoral skills of Paul, and give him some credit where credit has long been lacking.
--------------------
Women in the church are not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be enjoyed.
Posts: 7080 | From: Canberra Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" - Gal. 3:28.
Everything else seems to be specific to times and places, particular needs and issues. And, as others have pointed out, his behavior toward women was full of respect (he sent the letter to the Romans by the hand of Phoebe; in fact, consider how many of the saints he mentions by name in Romans 16 are women) and he honored their teaching (Priscilla is every bit as eminent as Aquila). At the end of the day, considering his background and the time in which he lived, he was a radical feminist. IMHO, of course ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wolfgang
Shipmate
# 10809
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by Pax Christi:
... he's quoting I Corinthians 14, which is indisputably Pauline, but quite disputably anti-women, if read in context.
If you're talking about 14:34-35, there's nothing "indisputable" about it; not only does the phrase appear in different places in different early manuscripts, but Paul has, just before that, been busily praising women who clearly DO speak out in church. This phrase doesn't belong.
Ross
There are some arguments to suggest these verses are not from Paul's own pen, as it were, but I don't think you can write them off that easily. In the churches of Paul's day in many areas men and women would sit separately (this was taken for granted); the language of the service might also be in a language women didn't understand but men did and there was a tendency for the women (understandably, perhaps) to get bored and start talking among themselves in a local dialect; hence to save the minister (or whoever) at the front always telling them to be quiet, Paul issues a warning for them not to disrupt the flow of things and to find out what's been said when they get home.
LMC quoted "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" - Gal. 3:28. In this article (from which my above point was drawn) Tom Wright argues for a slightly but significantly different translation of this verse. I found it very persuasive.
--------------------
"The socialist who is a Christian is more to be dreaded than a socialist who is an atheist" - Dostoevksy
Posts: 121 | From: The North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zealot en vacance
Shipmate
# 9795
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wolfgang:
In the churches of Paul's day in many areas men and women would sit separately (this was taken for granted); the language of the service might also be in a language women didn't understand but men did and there was a tendency for the women (understandably, perhaps) to get bored and start talking among themselves in a local dialect; hence to save the minister (or whoever) at the front always telling them to be quiet, Paul issues a warning for them not to disrupt the flow of things and to find out what's been said when they get home.
The context is so important. Did Paul intend any of the preserved letters for long term reference, detatched from the situation to which they had been so specifically addressed? I recall a very fine sermon in which a theologian observed that it came close to irresponsibility to continue to publish the Bible, without a set of explanatory rubrics 'setting the scene' of religious and societal practise appropriate to the time of composition of the various books.
Paul is so hot for the message that everyone matters to God, and clearly cites women favourably for their part in the propagation of the gospel, that the 'anti-women' thesis starts out weak. When it is then seen that the 'anti-women' passages are responses and adaptions to immediate conditions, the thesis pretty much collapses. What then if we were to look at the number of times Paul rebukes men for their behaviour, as compared to women?
--------------------
He said, "Love one another".
Posts: 2014 | From: Surface of planet Earth | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
I'm sooo glad this issue has been removed from the 'Dead Horses' arena. Thanks to PaxChristi. As many of the comments have shown, it lies at the very foundations of organised church and wider society.
Having noted the inconsistencies with Jesus' example and teaching, also Paul's espousal of Lydia's cause along with that of many other women, I have been forced to adopt Rossweiss' conclusion about an editorial 'fit-up'.
Whilst church leaders happily promote biblical inerrancy, it is ironic that the most significant counter to the anti-women bias of the NT, is that presented in the Gospel stories -written later than much of Paul's writings, as I understand it.
The contrast between the male authoritian response to Jesus and His female devotees, is nowhere greater than in the accounts of women in various states warranting social derision - unsupported widow's, prostitutes, sexual offfenders etc. Such were the people Jesus chose to elevate into positions of honour.
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
I liked the part in the NT Wright article where he talks about Romans 16 being one of the most interesting chapters in the book. It's in passages like these that we get a glimpse of how Paul actually interacted with women in the church, the honour he gave them as co-workers in the gospel. Several women are listed and referred to in this way in Romans 16, the first of course being Phoebe, "deaconess" or "servant" of the church in Cenchrea. I've never been clear why the same word (diakonos, I think? sorry, I never did get on board with the Greek group as I'd hoped to) used here to describe Phoebe is translated "servant," but in other places is translated "minister" when it refers to a man.
The respect Paul accords to Priscilla/Prisca is another example, as is his previously mentioned treatment of Lydia in Acts 16. Later, in the epistle to Philippians, chapter 4, he refers to two other Philippian women, Euodia and Syntyche, who he calls his "fellow labourers" in the gospel (and who are apparently having some kind of quarrel with each other). He speaks of women as being active, useful, and respected in the church, which certainly clashes with the traditional interpretation of the "women be silent" passages.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaxChristi
Shipmate
# 11493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
If you're talking about 14:34-35, there's nothing "indisputable" about it; not only does the phrase appear in different places in different early manuscripts, but Paul has, just before that, been busily praising women who clearly DO speak out in church. This phrase doesn't belong.
Awww, Ross, you're killing my fun! I was only talking about I Corinthians, not the passage, as being Pauline. I had intended, once I'd rounded up a few comments to deal with the possibility that it's an interpolation, but actually, I think it is not. In fact, I think that, read properly, it says almost the opposite of what most folks think it says. But I'll get to that this evening, when I have more time and my citations handy.
Anyhow, that cat's outta the bag!
;-)
PaxC
--------------------
For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. (I Corinthians 2:2)
Posts: 125 | From: NY | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaxChristi
Shipmate
# 11493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by noelper:
I'm sooo glad this issue has been removed from the 'Dead Horses' arena. Thanks to PaxChristi. As many of the comments have shown, it lies at the very foundations of organised church and wider society.
It surely does. I didn't know that that this thread resided with the rotting equines. I'm glad we're permitted to resurrect it here. In order to keep it from getting kicked again, I suggest a couple of things. May we confine ourselves to discussions of Paul's texts and their implications? As much as I love Acts, I think it confuses things a bit.
By keeping ourselves to discussions of specific texts, I think we can keep this in a realm suitable to Kerygmania...
See you all this evening!
PaxC
--------------------
For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. (I Corinthians 2:2)
Posts: 125 | From: NY | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaxChristi:
I didn't know that that this thread resided with the rotting equines. I'm glad we're permitted to resurrect it here. In order to keep it from getting kicked again, I suggest a couple of things. May we confine ourselves to discussions of Paul's texts and their implications? As much as I love Acts, I think it confuses things a bit.
By keeping ourselves to discussions of specific texts, I think we can keep this in a realm suitable to Kerygmania...
Since Acts is also part of the Bible, the discussion will remain suitable for Kerygmania if it is included.
Moo, Kerygmania Host
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveTom
Contributing Editor
# 23
|
Posted
The idea of Paul being less progressive than Jesus in his attitude to women simply doesn't hold any water at all - even if you accept every word written in his name as genuine.
Not one of the twelve, or even the 72 so far as we know, were women. Jesus never appointed or sent a woman as a preacher.
Whereas in Paul's churches women held prominent and vocal positions:
Priscilla is his ‘fellow-worker’;
Euodia and Syntyche ‘struggled alongside me in the work of the gospel’ in Philippi;
Mary 'has worked very hard’ in the church in Rome;
Trypaena and Tryphosa are 'workers in the Lord;
Junia is a fellow apostle;
Phoebe is ‘a minister of the church at Cenchrae’.
In 1 Corinthians, Paul explicitly countenances female preaching, which Jesus never did. Paul was going seriously against mainstream Jewish expectations in this, while there is no evidence that Jesus ever challenged such attitudes.
The worst that can be said about Paul is that if you accept the controversial passages then in some contexts he radically promoted women's ministry, and in other contexts enforced the left-of-centre idea that women could learn, but not teach.
As for Jesus, there is no suggestion in the NT that he ever went beyond the latter. He seems to have had a considerable number of female disciples, which was unusual in the ancient world, but there is only one explcit mention in the gospels of him teaching them anything, which is when Mary sits in humble (and so far as we know silent) submission at his feet.
--------------------
I saw a naked picture of me on the internet
Wearing Jesus's new snowshoes.
Well, golly gee.
- Eels
Posts: 1363 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wolfgang
Shipmate
# 10809
|
Posted
quote:
In 1 Corinthians, Paul explicitly countenances female preaching, which Jesus never did.
What about John 20:17?
--------------------
"The socialist who is a Christian is more to be dreaded than a socialist who is an atheist" - Dostoevksy
Posts: 121 | From: The North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
Steve Tom:
quote:
Not one of the twelve, or even the 72 so far as we know, were women. Jesus never appointed or sent a woman as a preacher.
Just to address the Dead Horse issue briefly.....
Another major inconsistency in church practise is that women have traditionally been side-lined with the teaching of children about God - irrespective of the level of knowledge / ignorance of the subject matter. This is also mirrored in primary schools - traditionally staffed by a majority of women - where RE is compulsory.
And various people profess surprise that church attendance is falling ! ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I understand that in 'mixed' marriages in the Jewish and RC traditions, the offspring are deemed to acquire the mother's faith, for the purposes of tribal inheritance and schooling. This strikes me as a back-door method of reckoning 'the faithful' in traditions which foster and endorse the secondary status of women.
Pax:
quote:
As much as I love Acts, I think it confuses things a bit.
Ummm....sorry to be thick... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) Is this because Acts only discusses male preaching. ?
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveTom
Contributing Editor
# 23
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by noelper:
Just to address the Dead Horse issue briefly.....
You were addressing an issue? Any one in particular? Which thread was it related to?
--------------------
I saw a naked picture of me on the internet
Wearing Jesus's new snowshoes.
Well, golly gee.
- Eels
Posts: 1363 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
Preaching by women.
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you):
...Several women are listed and referred to in this way in Romans 16, the first of course being Phoebe, "deaconess" or "servant" of the church in Cenchrea. I've never been clear why the same word (diakonos, I think? sorry, I never did get on board with the Greek group as I'd hoped to) used here to describe Phoebe is translated "servant," but in other places is translated "minister" when it refers to a man. ...
"Deaconess" is modern-day revisionism; the word is indeed "diakonos" -- "servant" -- for both women and men. The word "deaconess" was, as far as I can tell, invented in the 19th century to describe a serving order of women in the Lutheran church.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Exegesis Fairy
Shipmate
# 9588
|
Posted
quote:
"Deaconess" is modern-day revisionism; the word is indeed "diakonos" -- "servant" -- for both women and men. The word "deaconess" was, as far as I can tell, invented in the 19th century to describe a serving order of women in the Lutheran church.
Ross
Yup. 'Diakonos' is translated as 'servant' or 'deacon', while 'deaconess' was made up, if I remember right, by the KJV to describe Phoebe, the female deacon, or female deacons in general.
--------------------
I can only please one person a day.
Today is not your day.
Tomorrow doesn't look good either.
Posts: 500 | From: the clear blue sky | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaxChristi
Shipmate
# 11493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by noelper:
Pax:
quote:
As much as I love Acts, I think it confuses things a bit.
Ummm....sorry to be thick... Is this because Acts only discusses male preaching. ?
Hi, Noelper. No, actually, that wasn't my reasoning. It's just that Luke isn't all that interested in presenting Paul as Paul in Acts. Paul's speeches tend to resemble Hellenistic oration more than that of a Pharisee. His teachings are often articulated by Peter in Acts, as a way of making them less offensive. If the moderator wants to keep Acts in, I'm fine with that, but I won't attempt to deal with Luke's Paul.
PaxC
--------------------
For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. (I Corinthians 2:2)
Posts: 125 | From: NY | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaxChristi
Shipmate
# 11493
|
Posted
Okay. I managed to get home without the two articles I wanted to reference (drat) but I'd like to address the stuff surrounding I Corinthians 14, because, as Noelper has suggested, this passage has shaped hundreds of years of Church behavior.
In it, it appears at first blush that Paul is attempting to silence women who speak in the Corinthian churches. It is for this reason, and the fact that it contradicted the practices known to the collectors of Paul's letters, that I think this passage turns up in different places in the manuscripts. It made copyists who knew Paul and his churches uncomfortable, and so they tried to make sense of it by moving it around, in one case copying it into the margin.
In no case, though, do we have a manuscript where this text does not exist, and so I think it wise to deal with it rather than take the easier "interpolation" approach. Were it not thought to be authentic by the collectors and copyists of Paul, it would have been easier to leave it out than to move it.
But what does it say? In reality, it says quite the opposite of the first impression it gives.
In two separate articles (whose authors I cannot remember) it has been demonstrated that this passage is in fact a quote from the Corinthians' letter to Paul. In one article, the argument is built on Paul's pattern of argumentation, quoting the Corinthians to themselves, and then contradicting them. In the other, the argument is built on the tiny one letter "particle" translated as "Or" in the NRSV. This tiny word is almost untranslatable, but means, "What follows me contradicts that which went before me." For this reason, a better translation would be, "What?! Did the word of God originate with you? Are you the only ones to whom it has been revealed?"
What is also terribly important here is the gender of the pronoun "you" in the last two questions. It occurs in the masculine plural. Were Paul speaking to women he sought to silence, it would have been feminine plural.
What we have here, to quote the title of one of the articles I forgot to bring home, is Paul saying, "Let the women speak in church!"
This is why I resist any attempt to throw out this passage. It says just what we'd expect the author of Romans 16 to say. It is entirely consistent with the egalitarianism of Paul's ecclesiology, and demonstrates Paul's commitment to the participation of women in his churches.
I'll look at some other stuff about Paul and women as we go along...
PaxC
[ 14. June 2006, 21:28: Message edited by: PaxChristi ]
--------------------
For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. (I Corinthians 2:2)
Posts: 125 | From: NY | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Well, I'd like to believe it. The last two sentences really don't seem to make much sense when jammed up against what came before like that, so I presume something weird is going on.
In so many of his writings, Paul appears to me to be an supreme mystical adept, and I'd really like to like him....
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveTom
Contributing Editor
# 23
|
Posted
I think the fundamental point is simple and unavoidable. In 1 Corinthians Paul discusses at some length what they should wear when they bring God's word in church, accepting absolutely and without question that they will be doing so.
There is no way at all that in the same letter Paul could be saying that women should not speak in church. So either the passage where he seems to do so must be interpreted otherwise, or it is not by Paul but a later insertion. Those are the only two sane options, and either way Paul did not tell women to keep silence in 1 Corinthians.
--------------------
I saw a naked picture of me on the internet
Wearing Jesus's new snowshoes.
Well, golly gee.
- Eels
Posts: 1363 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
I wonder if any Catholic or Orthodox shipmates might be induced to comment on whether the anti-women stance is, in fact, a Pauline teaching ?
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
Ooops... Too late to edit....
Threads about the status of women....
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
I wonder if shipmates should be very careful about where the line is between biblical study and politcal rhetoric. The place for the later is here.
Hosting
noelper this comment:
quote:
Apparently not. Tsk. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Is not helpful in the Kerygmania context, please be a little more careful. Not least because 12 hours is not a very long time to wait before you decide you are not being answered and also because shipmates (bearing in mind the line I have drawn above) may have decided that they were unable to answer your question here in Kerygmania.
Pyx_e, Kerygmania Host.
Hosting
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
Apologies.
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
On the 1 Corinthians 14 passage.
I don't think that Paul is saying "Let the women speak!"
The context is about orderly service.
Paul has just advised that people speaking in tongues and prophets should keep silent in the church so as to maintain order and returns to that issue in the verse immeadiately after the ones in question.
The most likely explanation to me is the one that the women were chatting amongst themselves (asking questions etc) during the service and bringing disorder into the meeting.
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
...The most likely explanation to me is the one that the women were chatting amongst themselves (asking questions etc) during the service and bringing disorder into the meeting.
I'm not sure where you get that as "most likely," particularly given the fact that the passage appears elsewhere in some manuscripts.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
I thijnk its pretty clear that Paul is telling women not to do *something* - exactly what is the problem.
As he seems quite happy to work with women prophets in other times and places, I don't think it can be with the idea of women speaking the word of God in church.
NB I think that that the ministry of prophecy mentioned in Acts and the Epistles is more like preaching than it is like speaking in tongues - its a conscious, more or less reflective attempt to speak the word of God in words the hearers can understand, not an ecstatic babble that impresses or inspires rather than instructs or informs. (Of course good preaching does all those things.)
But what it is he's telling them not to do is unclear!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
ken
quote:
I think its pretty clear that Paul is telling women not to do *something* - exactly what is the problem.
How about...not to be priests! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Ahem.
Sorry Pyx_e.
Again.
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by noelper:
ken
quote:
I think its pretty clear that Paul is telling women not to do *something* - exactly what is the problem.
How about...not to be priests! ...
Try again.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
I think its pretty clear that Paul is telling women not to do *something* - exactly what is the problem.
I think the closer question would not be "what is he telling women?" but "Which women is he telling what to?" All of his letters must have been addressed to somebody, and must have had a specific purpose in mind. What could that have been, and why did he say it in the manner in which he did, and who was his intended audience?
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
The most likely explanation to me is the one that the women were chatting amongst themselves (asking questions etc) during the service and bringing disorder into the meeting.
I really can't encourage enough that people read the NT Wright article linked to above -- he sets forth a very compelling argument about the proper reading of this passage.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Banner Lady
Ship's Ensign
# 10505
|
Posted
One theory I have heard is that the men were teaching in a different language to that commonly used by the women; so they were bored and did what all women do when the lecturing becomes incomprehensible: chat to each other about the everyday real concerns of family, etc.
This theory only holds up if the men of Corinth had either an education in a classic Greek not spoken by the women or were maybe speaking as they would in a synagogue using Hebrew scriptures which the Greek speaking women could not understand.
Is this a plausible theory? If not, why not?
--------------------
Women in the church are not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be enjoyed.
Posts: 7080 | From: Canberra Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Banner Lady:
...Is this a plausible theory? If not, why not?
No, because the Jews of the Diaspora spoke and read Greek. That's why the Septuagint (the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek) was made: nobody in most of the Empire used Hebrew. And the NT itself was, of course, written entirely in Greek.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Banner Lady
Ship's Ensign
# 10505
|
Posted
Okay, well what about the idea that for these women, the custom was to pay lip-service by attending without really engaging in the worship? If these were new Christians who had attended many temple or synagogue services in the past where form was what mattered far more than content then perhaps this scolding was necessary. In the Roman world, lip-service was paid to many deities, and the wealthy and influential would continue to discuss business throughout regardless of the ceremonies. Is this a possibility?
--------------------
Women in the church are not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be enjoyed.
Posts: 7080 | From: Canberra Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
Laura - I must be going blind. I've scrolled up and can't see the Wright link. Where is it?
Luigi
[ 28. June 2006, 05:38: Message edited by: Luigi ]
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveTom
Contributing Editor
# 23
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Laura - I must be going blind. I've scrolled up and can't see the Wright link. Where is it?
Luigi
Here.
--------------------
I saw a naked picture of me on the internet
Wearing Jesus's new snowshoes.
Well, golly gee.
- Eels
Posts: 1363 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by Banner Lady:
...Is this a plausible theory? If not, why not?
No, because the Jews of the Diaspora spoke and read Greek. That's why the Septuagint (the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek) was made: nobody in most of the Empire used Hebrew. And the NT itself was, of course, written entirely in Greek.
Ross, could you clarify something for me? I've often thought that that Hebrew had become something of a "dead" language (well, comatose, anyway) since the return from the Babylonian exile, speaking Aramaic, and then Alexander's imposition of Greek upon his empire but, since the Torah scrolls were always written in Hebrew, that Jewish men had bar mitzvahs and learned enough Hebrew to read some passages, etc., back then as they do now. Kind of like when the RCC still used Latin worldwide. The Septuagint was translated so that Jews without *sufficient* mastery of Hebrew could understand, read, learn, discuss the scriptures - rather like the move to translate the Vulgate into German and English, etc.
Am I mistaken in this? I haven't researched this thoroughly, and my information comes from a number of commentaries, etc., and it seems logical to me - but that don't make it so!
However, if that were the case, then Banner Lady's scenario is plausible. I mean, even today, in Jewish synagogues the torah is read in Hebrew and the service books are in Hebrew (and phonetic Hebrew) so that even people without sufficient education in Hebrew can follow and read along (and yeah, a fair chunk of talking can happen in the service).
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Banner Lady:
... what about the idea that for these women, the custom was to pay lip-service by attending without really engaging in the worship? If these were new Christians who had attended many temple or synagogue services in the past where form was what mattered far more than content then perhaps this scolding was necessary. In the Roman world, lip-service was paid to many deities, and the wealthy and influential would continue to discuss business throughout regardless of the ceremonies. Is this a possibility?
But why was it only the women who did not engage in the worship? The men would have had the same experiences of pagan worship as the women.
I think it's a bad mistake to try to come up with plausible explanations. It's clear that something was going on, but we have no way of being sure what it was.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
