Thread: Kerygmania: Paul and Women Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000961
Posted by PaxChristi (# 11493) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by universalist (# 10318) on :
 
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!)
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by PaxChristi (# 11493) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
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
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Anselm (# 4499) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Anselm (# 4499) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
"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]
 
Posted by Wolfgang (# 10809) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Zealot en vacance (# 9795) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by noelper (# 9961) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you) (# 5647) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by PaxChristi (# 11493) on :
 
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
 
Posted by PaxChristi (# 11493) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
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
 
Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Wolfgang (# 10809) on :
 
quote:
In 1 Corinthians, Paul explicitly countenances female preaching, which Jesus never did.
What about John 20:17?
 
Posted by noelper (# 9961) on :
 
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]

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] Is this because Acts only discusses male preaching. ?
 
Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by noelper (# 9961) on :
 
Preaching by women.
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
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
 
Posted by JillieRose (# 9588) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by PaxChristi (# 11493) on :
 
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... [Hot and Hormonal] 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
 
Posted by PaxChristi (# 11493) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
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....
 
Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by noelper (# 9961) on :
 
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 ?
 
Posted by noelper (# 9961) on :
 
Apparently not. Tsk. [Disappointed]

There are references to a bible-based anti-women stance about preaching in church, on other current threads however.....

http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=008450

and

http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=008457;p=1
 
Posted by noelper (# 9961) on :
 
Ooops... [Hot and Hormonal] Too late to edit....

Threads about the status of women....
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
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]
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
 
Posted by noelper (# 9961) on :
 
Apologies. [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Anselm (# 4499) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by noelper (# 9961) on :
 
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]

Ahem. [Hot and Hormonal]

Sorry Pyx_e.

Again.
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
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).
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
...I think it's a bad mistake to try to come up with plausible explanations. ...
Agreed.
 
Posted by noelper (# 9961) on :
 
So what is the verdict ?

Does Paul express a bona fide indictment of women's spirituality; or is the 'church' position, a result of editorial license ?
 
Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on :
 
If it is a verdict that is given ONLY through looking at the texts available and not taking into consideration cultural habits of the time or social behaviour then it will not be a very satisfactory explanation. I realize you want to minimize the surmising and look hard at the text, Moo, but surely the text needs to be in context?

I majored in Ancient History, so those questions were important to me to help me frame Paul's broadside. So far nothing has been said to convince me they are not valid questions. The behaviour of these women in church reminds me of many times I've been in the same situation - where the place gets a bit rowdy after communion and the rector has to sternly remind everyone that this is a time for reflection and not for catching up with the person sitting next to you.

The human behaviour is a key to understanding it, surely?
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bannner Lady
If it is a verdict that is given ONLY through looking at the texts available and not taking into consideration cultural habits of the time or social behaviour then it will not be a very satisfactory explanation. I realize you want to minimize the surmising and look hard at the text, Moo, but surely the text needs to be in context?
I agree that the cultural context is very important.

My problem with your earlier post was that you seemed to be making suggestions (i.e. that the men were accustomed to different worship services or knew a different language) for which we have no evidence, either in the NT or in contemporary sources.

Moo
 
Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on :
 
Moo, did you read the link to Bishop Tom Wright's talk? This theory has got some legs, I think. So far it is you and Rossweisse against it, and +Tom, Ken Bailey, Ross Saunders, LynMagdaleneCollege and I in favour of considering it plausible. I think I like the company I'm keeping.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
Tom Wright's article contains the following sentence
quote:
That’s a lot of ‘perhaps’es. We can only guess at the dynamics of the situation – which is of course what historians always do. It’s just that here we are feeling our way in the dark more than usual.
I don't think that the example of the Lebanese church is relevant to Corinth. The Lebanese Christians lived in a culture which contained at least an equal number of Muslims. A good Muslim hears and reads the Koran only in the original classical Arabic. I suspect that the local Christians picked up the idea that classical Arabic was the only language suitable for worship.

There is no evidence that the people at the church in Corinth felt that only one language was suitable for worship even if many of those present did not understand it.

Obviously, I could be wrong.

Moo
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
<bump>
 
Posted by Anselm (# 4499) on :
 
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 had to preach through this section of 1 Corinthians this year and I think I have changed my understanding of this passage.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Bump!
 
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :
 
Was there agreement on confining the discussion to Paul's views and excluding references to Acts?
Only I have just been reading the latter, for an entirely different reason, and was struck by the number of times ("not a few", Luke would have said) that women crop up not only to support Paul but to get him out of trouble.

Another thing that caught my attention was that some of them were already successful in their own field, acknowledged leaders, who would not have needed Paul's support. Such women would be - in any age - a serious problem for a misogynist. The fact that he accepted them, and they him, clinches the argument for me.

Misogyny is just undr the skin of every man who's not too sure of himself. The modern church needn't look for historical justification of its silly attitude to women (in some quarters). There is none. Ah -sorry - I expect that's the rotti ng quadrupeds bit.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
The fact that he accepted them, and they him, clinches the argument for me.
Clinches the argument that Paul was not misogynistic?
 
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :
 
Yes.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
quote:
Originally Posted by SteveTom:
...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.
Actually, a preacher once gave a sermon on this story and explained that "sitting at the feet of a rabbi" was an expression for taking up the role of a student. The point of the story was that Mary was assuming a better role by taking the time to learn from Jesus rather than being a mere household servant.

Also, Jesus interacted with women, even disreputable women, in public places, which, if I recall, would have been downright scandalous by local standards.

I think there's a case for Jesus being a radical feminist for his time, though I'll admit I don't know the whole story.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
Also, if Paul didn't have notions of male superiority, then what the hell am I supposed to make of this infamous bit of 1 Timothy (2:11-15):
quote:
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[a] will be saved[b] through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
I mean, not only does he seem to say that women are inferior, but he says they have a different means of salvation?!? [Paranoid]

I'm getting ready for seminary this fall, and as a result have been becoming increasingly biblically-minded lately...
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Also, if Paul didn't have notions of male superiority, then what the hell am I supposed to make of this infamous bit of 1 Timothy (2:11-15):
quote:
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[a] will be saved[b] through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
I mean, not only does he seem to say that women are inferior, but he says they have a different means of salvation?!? [Paranoid]

I'm getting ready for seminary this fall, and as a result have been becoming increasingly biblically-minded lately...
There is some question among scholars as to whether Paul wrote the letters to Timothy and Titus, if I remember correctly.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
(I think Colossians and Ephesians - and maybe II Thess? - are also questionable in the eyes of some scholars.)
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
I find the idea of questionable authorship in the bible, and its implications, so interesting that i thought I'd start a thread on it. Basically, if we're discounting the works as forgeries, what are they doing in the bible in the first place? Why do we still read them, and what meaning if any do they have to what we presume to be God's inspired work?

I figure these issues are somewhat distinct from the issue itself of Paul's opinions on women's roles, so I figured I'd start a new thread and see how it played out. Hosts, please forgive me if this gets too close to inerrancy turf. I'm specifically curious about the utility of questionable texts in the bible.

You can reach the new thread here.
 
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Also, if Paul didn't have notions of male superiority, then what the hell am I supposed to make of this infamous bit of 1 Timothy (2:11-15):
quote:
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
I mean, not only does he seem to say that women are inferior, but he says they have a different means of salvation?!?
This is a useful opportunity to look at 1 Tim. 2:11-15 in a bit of depth here. I'll kick off...

The immediate context seems to be about lifestyle based on worship of God. See e.g. (lifestyle in bold, worship in italics): “...live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness” (2:2); “I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing” (2:8); and “I want women to dress modestly...with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God” (2:9).

Wider than this, the author is dealing with a situation in Ephesus where the Christian community is facing a controversy that is splitting them apart. It is essential that approved teachers get in there and direct the community back on the proper way; watching their life and doctrine closely (4:16). The section in 2:11-15 fits to this: a context of learning / teaching, where it is essential to listen (not gossiping in the background) and understand carefully in order to avoid error. The author of the PE does not requires submission of all women to all men anywhere. References elsewhere relate to the husband/wife relationship; here it seems to relate to teacher/student. Verse 11 falls into line with calls elsewhere for men and women to be in submission to those in authority (e.g., Titus 3:1; Rom 13:1; Heb 13:17; James 4:7; 1 Pet 5:5).

All this implies that certain women in Ephesus were listening to false teaching. They were submitting themselves to the wrong sort of teachers (overseers?). The author compares this to the situation in Genesis 3: the woman (Eve) submitted to a deception. In the same way, the author appears to compare the false teachers to Satan: they “worm their way into the homes of weak-willed women...” (2 Tim. 3:6). This would explain the Satan language in 1:20 and 5:15 (see also 4:1).

This link back to the first three chapters of Genesis (a Pauline technique, by the way!) also helps explain the childbirth reference in verse 15. “Woman saved through childbirth” reflects Gen. 3:15 – “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel” [NIV]. The author could see a link between the promise concerning Eve’s offspring and the effect of Jesus’ ministry. As such it doesn’t read as a different method of salvation for women; understanding the verb ‘be saved’ to mean “saved from deception” by the teachings of Jesus, rather than in the “saved by grace” category.

If the author is Paul, then he is doing what he does elsewhere: seeking to apply a biblical principle from creation to a specific issue, here in Ephesus. There is a link here, it seems to me, between certain women being taken to task for not paying attention to true teaching and the concept that Eve was the one deceived. Those women should be in submission to true teachers (e.g., Timothy), not false. The danger is that if they do not, the church in Ephesus will be split and they will be re-running the Fall all over again, instead of demonstrating the renewal of God’s Kingdom. It is noticeable that in Genesis 2 the commandment not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil was given to Adam before Eve was formed. Did Adam not pass this teaching on to Eve correctly? Was he a ‘false teacher’??
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
I find the idea of questionable authorship in the bible, and its implications, so interesting that i thought I'd start a thread on it. Basically, if we're discounting the works as forgeries, what are they doing in the bible in the first place? Why do we still read them, and what meaning if any do they have to what we presume to be God's inspired work?

I figure these issues are somewhat distinct from the issue itself of Paul's opinions on women's roles, so I figured I'd start a new thread and see how it played out. Hosts, please forgive me if this gets too close to inerrancy turf. I'm specifically curious about the utility of questionable texts in the bible.

You can reach the new thread here.
[official] looks good to me, Mirrizin. And thanks for redirecting.[/official]


[Host hat off]

Also I agree with every word you said about the Mary/ Martha reading. Religious instruction wasn't as silent and passive then as it is now, as I understand it. [Biased]

That's one of the reasons I became a Martha devotee-- I finally figured out she was getting a bad rap. She wasn't a jealous shrew resenting her sister getting praise and attention, she was a frightened woman worried that her sister was getting herself into trouble. The "many things" that Jesus warned her to not worry about were not things like biscuits burning, but more like hostility from the neighbors if they learned a woman was being taught along with men.

Even the passive scenario-- which I don't buy, given what I understand to be the traditional method of rabbinical study, which is loud and aggressive and students pouring all over their masters with questions-- was a gauntelet. I read somewhere- Jim Bishop, I think-- that certain religious leaders at the time taught that conversing with a woman (let alone teaching her) was a literal "waste of words", that it was as much a sin as throwing away food. Maybe some of y'all Biblical historians out there might have some more info on that.

As for Paul-- I see him as a politician.In a functional sense, understand, no perjorative intended. He was trying to achieve harmony in a very eclectic group of people, while at the same time asserting this group's very right to exist before both the Temple authorities and the Roman government. While some of his parenthetical statements seem to indicate that his actual dealings with women were a bit more eglatarian than his rhetoric, IMO he simply didn't see the issue of women's rights as a "hill to die on." Survival in a hostile environment, without abandoning the Gospel, was much more important.

The cool thing about Paul is that he built in a specific loophole for us to figure some of this stuff out for ourselves-- he said, essentially, "Some of you guys have questioned whether my teachings are in line with Christ's. Just to clear that up, if anything I say does not match what Christ said, to Hell with me."

Some read this as a bold statement of confidence in the infallibility of the doctrine, but I tend to think (if you'll forgive me) that it's a classic CYA statement (Cover Your Ass). I also think , given the flurry of arguments between the apostles evident in the epistles themselves, it was very smart to include that statement. As Peter said (in reference to Paul), the rhetoric got very heated at times, and the epistles should be read with that in mind.

[ 28. May 2007, 17:11: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
I think the epistles make much more sense if you see Paul as a politician rather than as a prophet. And agreed, I actually get bugged by how often "politician" becomes an insult. It's really just a ridiculously impossible job, at least in the states.

And then it gives you liberty to take all of his writings, political or otherwise, with a grain of salt. But then...how big of a grain? I mean, he's supposed to be "inspired" (however the hell you define that word) by God, right?
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
I think the epistles make much more sense if you see Paul as a politician rather than as a prophet. And agreed, I actually get bugged by how often "politician" becomes an insult. It's really just a ridiculously impossible job, at least in the states.

And then it gives you liberty to take all of his writings, political or otherwise, with a grain of salt. But then...how big of a grain? I mean, he's supposed to be "inspired" (however the hell you define that word) by God, right?
Paul himself admits that he doesn't have all the answers: knowledge is imperfect, he says, and prophecy is imperfect. He knows only in part, and in a mirror, dimly.

He takes himself with a grain of salt, IOW.... [Biased]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
I think the epistles make much more sense if you see Paul as a politician rather than as a prophet. And agreed, I actually get bugged by how often "politician" becomes an insult. It's really just a ridiculously impossible job, at least in the states.

And then it gives you liberty to take all of his writings, political or otherwise, with a grain of salt. But then...how big of a grain? I mean, he's supposed to be "inspired" (however the hell you define that word) by God, right?
Well, for me the "inspiration" is how doggedly and joyfully he pursued his course despite the volatility of the in which time he was pursuing it.

To me, also, the epistles are a fascinating record of the beginnings of Christian theological discourse. I see them (the epistles)as talking as much to each other as to us.It shows a marriage of the traditional Jewish exploration of scripture and the kind of wonder and excitement about discussing thought itself that was being demonstrated by the great philosophy schools of the time.

Perhaps this is a thread unto itself, but as a person who takes the story of the Incarnation at face value, it intrigues me that the Incarnation came smack in the middle of the Greco-Roman philosophy craze. I personally don't think it's a coincidental placement-- although I haven't really thought enough about the connections.

[ 28. May 2007, 19:32: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin
Also, Jesus interacted with women, even disreputable women, in public places, which, if I recall, would have been downright scandalous by local standards.
I have read an analysis of Jesus's dialog with the woman at the well which said that Jesus conduct on that occasion was very shocking on a number of counts.

First, the Jews considered all Samaritan women ritually unclean all the time. Yet Jesus got close enough to her to engage in a conversation.

Second, pious Jewish men did not engage in conversation with women they had never met. I believe they did not engage in conversation with women they had met when they were out in public.

Third, Jesus knew that this woman had a socially unacceptable sex life. This is one more reason why he should have run away from her.

Fourth, he asked this woman, who was unclean by her ethnicity and very objectionable by her own behavior, to give him a drink of water. By drinking it, he became ritually unclean.

Fifth, he chose her to be the very first person to whom he announced that he was the Messiah.

I read this in The Upside-Down Kingdom by Donald Kraybill. I highly recommend it.

Moo

[ 06. June 2007, 12:17: Message edited by: Moo ]
 
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
Inspiration - if Paul is anything to go by - seems to be more a result of a person’s deep reflection on God (especially as he is reflected in the Jewish Scriptures). As such, Paul seems to me to be more of a theologian than a politician or prophet: though theologians are meant to be prophets, aren’t they? And prophets become politicians as soon as they opened their mouths in public. Paul’s use of the Scriptures is in itself inspiring, but he demonstrates that point that inspiration is 90% perspiration: he had to train and immerse himself in the Scriptures first. It provided the source of all his thinking and was the launch pad for the way he developed theology in the light of Jesus’ resurrection.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
As such, Paul seems to me to be more of a theologian than a politician or prophet: though theologians are meant to be prophets, aren’t they?
[Hot and Hormonal] Ok. forgive me from quoting Wikipedia for this general definition:

quote:
Theology finds its scholars pursuing the understanding of and providing reasoned discourse of religion, spirituality and God or the gods. The origin of the word theology comes from late middle English (originally applying only to Christianity) from French théologie, from Latin theologia, from Greek: θεολογία, theologia, from θεός, theos or God + λόγος or logos, "words", "cause", "sayings," or "discourse" + suffix ια, ia, "state of", "property of", "place of". It is widely understood to mean literally "the study of God."
By that definiton, a theologian does not need to be a prophet -- unless your church tradition defines 'theologian' that way-- but simply somebody who facilitates the discussion of God.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Oh forgot to address the "politician' part:

Again, some definitions:(from Wiki)

quote:
1.A person who is active in party politics.

2.In a state, a member of the executive branch of government, or the office of Head of State, as well as the legislative branch, and regional and local levels of government. [obviously an American perspective]

3.Any person influencing group opinions in his or her favor can be termed a politician. For example, a worker participating in office politics is a politician, but only so far as the operations of his or her workplace are concerned.
Some members of law enforcement, such as sheriffs, and many judges who are elected or appointed because of their political views or popularity.
I would vote that Paul was a politican according to Definition 3: along with preaching the Gospel, one of the things he was doing quite frequently was defending his right to preach the Gospel in the first place, and part of this was reassuring the Powers That Be that his doing so should pose no threat to them.

And I was discussing this in relation to women with my mom this afternoon-- I was talking about the law of pater familius which pretty much gave men rights over thier children and female relatives that pretty much decided their fates, for better or worse. This was seen as both a duty and a priviledge, but in practice it meant that a fatherless/ husbandless/ patronless female was a scarily vulnerable thing. Paul's leaning toward female "suppression" may have simply been his way of ensuring that individual women or groups of women would not do anything that would get them arrested, tortured or killed under Roman law.

[ 28. May 2007, 23:45: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
By that definiton, a theologian does not need to be a prophet -- unless your church tradition defines 'theologian' that way-- but simply somebody who facilitates the discussion of God.
Ah, Kelly! I was trying to break theology back out of the ivory tower into which it had been placed especially since the Enlightenment (when dictionaries became fashionable). Those who study God - whatever tradition - should put their feet where their mouth is, methinks; as they did before 'theology' became respectable in the academy. Which does rather make them politicians, or perhaps ‘rhetoricians’ would have been an acceptable term for it in the Greek academy?!.

Actually, I see that I have not been much of a politician on this thread, because I successfully avoided coming down on any side re: Paul’s view of women in 1 Timothy. I fail to be “Any person influencing group opinions in his or her favor”!

Darn. Back to the ivory tower...
 
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
We’ve taken a look on this thread at questions of authorship (as Anselm feared would happen!), but I see from the OP that the issue noelper was concerned about was whether Jesus’ stance on the role and standing of women was taken up properly by Paul and the Church or not. In effect this means that authorship becomes somewhat irrelevant, because the issue falls between Jesus and everyone else – whether Paul or A. N. Other. The issue for noelper, I suspect, is more about how ‘church’ interprets biblical teaching and puts it into practice – or perhaps how ‘church’ practices and then seeks to back up the practice with Scripture.

As it’s been nearly a year since this thread started I’m not sure if PaxChristi is still on board to reflect on the posts thus far, but the point has been made more than once that Paul (or whoever!) was quite progressive for his time. Moo also pointed out a disconnect between some of the words attributed to Paul and his actions.

Rossweisse referred to the passage in 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35 –
quote:
“As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” [NIV]
Just to pick up a little more on PaxChristi’s explanation of this passage last year: the earliest and best manuscripts place these verses as they appear in most English translations – between 33a and 36. Sometime in the 6th century AD a few scribes started putting them at the end of the chapter. On the basis of this discrepancy Gordon Fee, in his commentary on this book in the NICNT series (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; 2Rev Ed edition, Jul 1987), argued that we should remove these verses from the bible. I’m not convinced this is the right thing to do. No manuscript actually omits these verses and there are no scribal indications to suggest that there was doubt concerning their authenticity. This is probably a case where we have to avoid the danger of reading Paul in the way we wish he should be read – in a way that accords with our worldview – and instead bite the bullet to see where that leaves us.

So; Paul wrote (or dictated) this passage as it reads. PaxChristi referred to one possible alternative to the view that this is an opinion of Paul’s. I’ll throw it out here to see what people think - I’m not 100% sure it fits, but....

Paul spends some time in his letter responding to issues that have arisen in Corinth and he appears to quote verbatim words the Corinthians were using. For example, the ‘who follows who’ list in 1:11-12; “everything is permissible” in 6:12-13; and social divisions in 11:18. He follows these references up with rhetorical questions: “Is Christ divided...?” (1:13); “Don’t you know your bodies are members of Christ himself?” (6:15); and “Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in?” (11:22). In chapters 7 & 8 he deals specifically with issues the Corinthians have written to him about (“Now for the matters you wrote about...” 7:1). After spending chapters 7 and 8 on this, he reverts to more rhetorical questions in 9:1 (“Am I not free...?”). So – how about this: in 14:34-35 Paul is once more quoting something he has heard the Corinthians say. His response is the series of rhetorical questions in verse 36: “Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?” In this interpretation, Paul is combating the Corinthian church’s view that the Jewish Law is clear on the role of women: they should be silent. Paul queries their interpretation of the Law.

This reading has the merit of agreeing with Paul’s statement in 11:5 – clearly he envisaged that women would indeed be speaking in church. On the flip side it is not so clear that 14:34-35 is a quote (direct or indirect) and it opens new questions in respect of other passages in 1 Corinthians. However, there it is.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
By that definiton, a theologian does not need to be a prophet -- unless your church tradition defines 'theologian' that way-- but simply somebody who facilitates the discussion of God.
Ah, Kelly! I was trying to break theology back out of the ivory tower into which it had been placed especially since the Enlightenment (when dictionaries became fashionable). Those who study God - whatever tradition - should put their feet where their mouth is, methinks; as they did before 'theology' became respectable in the academy. Which does rather make them politicians, or perhaps ‘rhetoricians’ would have been an acceptable term for it in the Greek academy?!.

Actually, I see that I have not been much of a politician on this thread, because I successfully avoided coming down on any side re: Paul’s view of women in 1 Timothy. I fail to be “Any person influencing group opinions in his or her favor”!

Darn. Back to the ivory tower...
Theoretically, you can facilitate discussion of God anywhere, even over lunch. [Big Grin] I dunno, maybe I was reading you wrong, but I thought requiring theologians to be prophets did kind of put them in an ivory tower; by simply being folk who made it easier for the subject of God to come onto the table they become (in my mind ) more mobile and functional.

quote:
I fail to be “Any person influencing group opinions in his or her favor”!
The troublemaker in me wants to point out that steering away from promoting an opinion about a subject might reflect an opinion in and of itself. (That is; "Is this issue really important right now?" ) I don't say that becasue i think that's what you were doing, but I do wonder sometimes if that wasn't what Paul was doing.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
Honestly, I'm much more comfortable with Paul as politician than as law-giver. It makes him less the authoritarian bastard that the evangelicals make him out to be (Do this! Don't do that! I say so, therefore God said so!) and more as an organizer who was trying, with a passion that sometimes borders on awkwardness, to keep a movement alive amidst hellish conditions.
quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel M:
So – how about this: in 14:34-35 Paul is once more quoting something he has heard the Corinthians say. His response is the series of rhetorical questions in verse 36: “Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?” In this interpretation, Paul is combating the Corinthian church’s view that the Jewish Law is clear on the role of women: they should be silent. Paul queries their interpretation of the Law.
I also am tempted by the idea that when he talked about the "role of women" stuff he was citing things that the various folks had said to him rather than speaking for himself. I'm tno sure how neatly it fits into the syntax if the surrounding verses, but I think I've heard some of his other infamous lines as being spoken ironically, or as quotations of previous scriptures to be later torn down or built upon.

Though there's also those bits in Peter that say very similar things about submission. And I'm not sure how easy it is to work every single instance of this style of verbiage in the bible, though we also know that Peter and Paul seemed to have disagreed before on other topics...
quote:
Originally Posted by Moo:
I read this in The Upside-Down Kingdom by Donald Kraybill. I highly recommend it.
My church did a bible study on that book a few months ago! I did find it most useful, and that's where I get a lot of my Jesus-as-feminist stuff from. Definitely an informative interpretation of scripture, at least to my admittedly liberal eyes.
 
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Honestly, I'm much more comfortable with Paul as politician than as law-giver. It makes him less the authoritarian bastard that the evangelicals make him out to be.
But do you see Paul in that way because you want him to be that way, or because he actually was that way? I think that's the catch - taking care we don't look down that deep well only to see a reflection of ourselves!
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
This is true. I'm also reminded that politicians, in a way, are lawgivers...but not in the same way some see God as a lawgiver. He was speaking from his own soapbox on God's behalf, not speaking as God incarnate.

And it is curious how one reads those letters, and how one fits them in the bible, given that they were mostly intended for particular times and places.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Honestly, I'm much more comfortable with Paul as politician than as law-giver. It makes him less the authoritarian bastard that the evangelicals make him out to be.
But do you see Paul in that way because you want him to be that way, or because he actually was that way? I think that's the catch - taking care we don't look down that deep well only to see a reflection of ourselves!
Tue, but Mirrizin's description of Paul as a" an organizer who was trying, with a passion that sometimes borders on awkwardness, to keep a movement alive amidst hellish conditions" does seem to fit not only Paul's description of himself, but Luke and Peter's descrpition of him.
 
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
...Mirrizin's description of Paul as a" an organizer who was trying, with a passion that sometimes borders on awkwardness, to keep a movement alive amidst hellish conditions" does seem to fit not only Paul's description of himself, but Luke and Peter's descrpition of him.
Yes, that’s a neat summary of Paul’s activity. It was his motivation, though, that was catching my eye in all this – did his passion arise from a desire to promulgate a set of opinions and convince people to follow them (a political act), or was he being authoritarian in his approach? By ‘authoritarian’ I don’t mean in the sense that mirrizin referred to – I agree that being tyrannical is something different – but rather an imparting of a message with authority because it contained authority. This places that message higher, to my mind, to an opinion; Paul genuinely believes he has warrant for much of his message. The sort of thing I’m thinking of are those passages prefaced by the likes of: “...in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ”; “...what I received from the Lord I passed on to you...”; “I declare to you...”; etc., etc. Here he sounds much more like the someone “examining the status quo, pronouncing judgement and calling for repentance” (Phyllis Trible’s definition of a prophet – rather apt in the context of this Paul and Women thread!). It’s that forthtelling of God’s Word that I was trying to get at in Paul’s motivation, based on the background of his intense study of the Jewish Scriptures as a theologian (hence the theologian => prophet => politician model).

Having mentioned Phyllis Trible, I should go on to say that my eye was caught by her description of one version of feminist hermeneutics that re-interprets the role of Eve. I’ll quote directly, because this is interesting: -
quote:
...when the serpent talks with the woman (Genesis 3:1-5), he uses plural verb forms, making her the spokesperson for the human couple – hardly the pattern of a patriarchal culture. She discusses theology intelligently, stating the case for obedience even more strongly than did God: “From the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, God said: ‘You shall not eat from it, and you shall not touch it, lest you die.’” If the tree is not touched, then its fruit cannot be eaten. Here the woman builds “a fence around the Torah,” a procedure that her rabbinical successors developed fully to protect divine law and ensure obedience.

Speaking with clarity and authority, the first woman is theologian, ethicist, hermeneut and rabbi. Defying the stereotypes of patriarchy, she reverses what the Church, synagogue and academy have preached about women.
The section comes from her article, “Feminist Hermeneutics and Biblical Studies,” Christian Century 3-10, February 1982. The pages from 116-118 include both this section and her definition of a prophet given above.

Of course, we are still left with Paul’s reference to the deceiving of Eve in 1 Tim. 2 (assuming Paul as author for the moment) and this gets right to the nub of a hermeneutical issue here.
* Did Paul somehow fail to recognise the aspect drawn out by the feminist interpretation when he based chunks of his teachings on the creation passages (Genesis 1-3)?
* If he did, was it because he was held captive by a patriarchal picture, or was such an interpretation never there in the mind of the author (and interpreter – Paul)?
* Has the feminist interpretation glossed over the deception and sin that Paul draws attention to because it reflects an unwarranted cultural understanding?
* Which is the authoritative interpretation? Is it an either/or situation, or can it be both?

Mirrizin’s question on the related thread pops up here: “Is it time to start putting together a new bible?” And at that point, I will leave off because this is the wrong thread.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
I think it's important to remember that Paul was writing letters. He wasn't writing systematic theology, and he wasn't writing laws of Christian polity. He wasn't even writing a rule for Christian community. What he's writing in his letters is mostly responses to problems that have come up in particular communities - who may well have written to him to ask his opinion. He might well never have volunteered an opinion on e.g. eating meat offered to idols if he hadn't been asked to sort out problems arising.

Personally, I'm convinced that the only ostensibly anti-feminist passage that is uncontroversially by Paul himself is the 1 Cor 11 passage about head-coverings. Paul seems very concerned there to give both sides of an argument, and the upshot is certainly that woman should have authority to pray and prophesy in the church.

Dafyd
 
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think it's important to remember that Paul was writing letters. He wasn't writing systematic theology, and he wasn't writing laws of Christian polity. He wasn't even writing a rule for Christian community. What he's writing in his letters is mostly responses to problems that have come up in particular communities - who may well have written to him to ask his opinion.
I agree with this - that Paul was responding to specific issues - but I can see a further development here. What intrigues me is that he seeks to ground his responses in the Jewish Scriptures and most particularly in Genesis (this applies to most of his letters, not just Corinthians). It’s as though he goes back to first principles and in that way justifies his response. As such, much of what he says does feel like a ‘rule’ for the Christian community. The basis is that if a first principle applies in one place, it should apply everywhere.

In fact, I have been quite astonished at the fact that he references Genesis far more often than he pulls on the teachings of Jesus for support. Clearly this needs qualifying: there are instances of his drawing on Jesus’ teachings – the tradition surrounding the Last Supper comes to mind most readily. Otherwise, however, he focuses on Jesus’ resurrection and vindication.

So his approach seems to be to go back to basics in the Jewish Scriptures and then, in the light of Jesus’ vindication, apply his findings to specific issues. That seems to me to be his hermeneutic and suggests that there may be a ground for drawing out community-wide teachings. What do you think?
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
Well, if the Gospels weren't written until after many of Paul's letters (as historians seem to agree), then would it less surprising that Paul didn't cite them?

It's interesting that Paul never met Jesus in the flesh, to his own admission. Why, then, would he cite Jesus' teachings?

Then again, this might be another tangent... [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Well, if the Gospels weren't written until after many of Paul's letters (as historians seem to agree), then would it less surprising that Paul didn't cite them?

It's interesting that Paul never met Jesus in the flesh, to his own admission. Why, then, would he cite Jesus' teachings?
The oral background to the gospels would have been circulating since, well, Jesus, I guess. Paul's conversion seems to have involved a direct confrontation with Jesus; he spent some time reflecting on that life-changing event before launching off into his ministry and part of the reflection was, according to Luke, spent with the Jerusalem Christian leaders. He seemed to know enough of Jesus' teachings to refer to the Last Supper and he accepts the gospel as something he received (1 Cor. 15). So he seems to be imbued with the Jesus traditions and messages that later came to form the written accounts. It’s with that background that I find it interesting Paul doesn’t jettison the OT just because his earlier interpretation of it was found to be askew. Rather, he adjusts his interpretation and interpretive technique. Quite brave of him!

Another tangent? Keep 'em coming!
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
Well, that's an interesting way of looking at it. Rather than being an absolutist religion, Christianity is more like a system that can sort of infiltrate itself into its surroundings, sort of like what the Jesuits tried to do in China with Confucianism (and would have done had the Pope not had a cow).

And this explains a lot of Paul's inconsistencies. He was simply working from the cultures he was shown, speaking in their tongues and working from their particular philosophies/creeds into a new faith.

And it wasn't until later that they had to sort out which aspects of the new faith worked and which ones needed to be discarded as heresies.

I wonder how this would connect with his writings on women...whether he was speaking to them from Christ or speaking their words to Christ, so to speak. Fascinating.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Well, that's an interesting way of looking at it. Rather than being an absolutist religion, Christianity is more like a system that can sort of infiltrate itself into its surroundings, sort of like what the Jesuits tried to do in China with Confucianism (and would have done had the Pope not had a cow).

And this explains a lot of Paul's inconsistencies. He was simply working from the cultures he was shown, speaking in their tongues and working from their particular philosophies/creeds into a new faith.

And it wasn't until later that they had to sort out which aspects of the new faith worked and which ones needed to be discarded as heresies.

I wonder how this would connect with his writings on women...whether he was speaking to them from Christ or speaking their words to Christ, so to speak. Fascinating.
Nothing to add, really... just thought this post was excellent, and really solidifies a lot of stray thoughts I've had im my head for quite a while.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
Glad to be useful. It always creeps me out a little when people take me seriously. [Smile]
 
Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Actually, a preacher once gave a sermon on this story and explained that "sitting at the feet of a rabbi" was an expression for taking up the role of a student. The point of the story was that Mary was assuming a better role by taking the time to learn from Jesus rather than being a mere household servant.
I think you're missing the point. Of course Mary was taking up the role of a student, which proves that Jesus had female disciples.

Paul also had female disciples, so the two are alike at this point.

But then Paul appointed his female disciples as teachers, which Jesus never did.

quote:
I think there's a case for Jesus being a radical feminist for his time, though I'll admit I don't know the whole story.
Fine, but you have to apply the same standard equally, in which case Paul is the Andrea Dworkin of first-century Palestine.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
Why Andrea Dworkin in particular?

ETA:

Actually, based on wikipedia, I can see the analogy, though I'm not sure I understand what you're saying there...

[ 04. June 2007, 20:56: Message edited by: mirrizin ]
 
Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Why Andrea Dworkin in particular?

ETA:

Actually, based on wikipedia, I can see the analogy, though I'm not sure I understand what you're saying there...
Simply that Paul practised a more pro-woman theology than Jesus, so if Jesus is a radical feminist, more is more so.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
quote:
Originally Posted by SteveTom:
Simply that Paul practised a more pro-woman theology than Jesus, so if Jesus is a radical feminist, more is more so.
I can see that in some verses (as cited above), but then...how do you square that with all of the "headship" stuff?
 
Posted by Doulos (# 12388) on :
 
Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that most of what Paul said about male headship was in the context of marriage rather than general male-female relationships. Therefore headship has nothing to do with women's contributions to ministry.

Of course the whole concept of wives submitting to their husbands has been much maligned down the ages and has led to some appalling behaviour by men. However this quote from Ephesians puts it in context:

Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord...husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her...so husbands ought also to love their wives as their own bodies.... (Eph. 5, vv. 22 - 28)

So male headship is about sacrificial love in the context of marriage and it is a real challenge!

By the way I just found this definition for the word used for 'be subject' (upotasso - sorry, I haven't figured out how to type in Greek yet!) -"a voluntary attitude of giving in, co-operating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden". (From the Crosswalk website.)Hmmm....not exactly passive, is it? Just recently I heard the viewpoint that to equate submission with self-esteem is a very modern assumption to make - after all Jesus submitted himself to Mary and Joseph...
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
quote:
Originally Posted by SteveTom:
Simply that Paul practised a more pro-woman theology than Jesus, so if Jesus is a radical feminist, more is more so.
I can see that in some verses (as cited above), but then...how do you square that with all of the "headship" stuff?
You go back to the beginning, attempt to shrug off the effect of years of patriarchal interpretation which our culture is heir to, and take another close look at the texts as N.T.Wright attempts to do in Women's Service in the Church. He takes a fresh look at 'headship' about two thirds of the way down the page.

[ 05. June 2007, 15:47: Message edited by: BroJames ]
 
Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
quote:
Originally Posted by SteveTom:
Simply that Paul practised a more pro-woman theology than Jesus, so if Jesus is a radical feminist, more is more so.
I can see that in some verses (as cited above), but then...how do you square that with all of the "headship" stuff?
Male "headship" is mentioned in two places in the Pauline letters:
1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Ephesians 5:23.

The first is in the context of regulating what women wear when they are preaching. It's a hideously complicated area, the question for the church involving not just gender roles but sexual morality, class oppression, culture clashes and the matter of rights versus obligations. And what exactly Paul means by man being woman’s ‘head’ is not clear - but certainly not quite what it sounds in English.

The main point though must be that in regulating what women wore to preach to mixed congregations, he was supporting, not opposing their preaching.

Here and in the Ephesians passage Paul is simply saying what everyone knew about the relationship between the sexes. But in practice he went far further than others.

If you can cite a contemporary of Paul (any person from the ancient world in fact) who had more liberal attitudes to women than that I'll be impressed. And in the face of such widespread agreement, we cannot take a person's silence on the subject as disagreement.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SteveTom:

If you can cite a contemporary of Paul (any person from the ancient world in fact) who had more liberal attitudes to women than that I'll be impressed.
Luke [Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
I [...] was struck by the number of times ("not a few", Luke would have said) that women crop up not only to support Paul but to get him out of trouble.

Another thing that caught my attention was that some of them were already successful in their own field, acknowledged leaders, who would not have needed Paul's support.
If you believe that the "we" passages of Acts mark the start of Luke's personal involvement, it is even more striking. After a dozen chapters of Acts in which women rarely appear other than as passive recipients of healing or condemnation, or as comic relief (Rhoda at the door). the narrative switches to "we" at 16.11. In verse 13 we come across a prayer meeting run by women for women. Lydia pops up in the next verse - a businesswoman and international trader who runs her own household and invites Paul to come and stay with her. Then we get the slave girl later in the chapter, various "prominent women" listeners in different Greek cities.

Much later, towards the end of the book, the Roman governors and local rulers suddenly have intelligent proactive wives with names. Yes, of course all the other NT writers knew that rich men had wives with names. But Luke remembers them. He actually seems to notice women more than the other NT authors (maybe with the exception of John who includes women in a rather different way.

Acts has a two-part link story between the Gospels and the Church. First in chapter 1 Jesus recaps his direction to the apostles - wait till the Spirit comes in power and then take the Good News to Jerusalem and to all the ends of the Earth, Then in Chapter 2 the Spirit does come and Peter explains the plot of the story to the gathered people of Jerusalem - God says I will pour out my spirit in the last days on both men and women and your sons and daughters will both prophesy. Reminiscent of "male and female created he them". The New Creation is for both men and women who both prophesy, both are filled with the spirit and both participate in Christ's heavenly priesthood.

That's Lukes explanation for the whole existence of the church. There is no hidden agenda in favour of women's ministry. Its on the published agenda, right there on the first or second page.
 
Posted by flickeringflame (# 12703) on :
 
"If you can cite a contemporary of Paul (any person from the ancient world in fact) who had more liberal attitudes to women than that I'll be impressed."

I think Epictetus qualifies. His dates are ca 50 AD to 120 AD. He said he was sad that women (girls) could have been good scholars and students of philosophy but unfortunately at the age of 14 or so saw that all that mattered was their marriageability. I think that's quite liberal, if we have to talk two thousand years ago!
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Acts has a two-part link story between the Gospels and the Church. First in chapter 1 Jesus recaps his direction to the apostles - wait till the Spirit comes in power and then take the Good News to Jerusalem and to all the ends of the Earth, Then in Chapter 2 the Spirit does come and Peter explains the plot of the story to the gathered people of Jerusalem - God says I will pour out my spirit in the last days on both men and women and your sons and daughters will both prophesy. Reminiscent of "male and female created he them". The New Creation is for both men and women who both prophesy, both are filled with the spirit and both participate in Christ's heavenly priesthood.

That's Lukes explanation for the whole existence of the church. There is no hidden agenda in favour of women's ministry. Its on the published agenda, right there on the first or second page.
Ho-lee shit, Ken! I can't believe I missed that!
[Eek!]
 
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by flickeringflame:
I think Epictetus qualifies. His dates are ca 50 AD to 120 AD. He said he was sad that women (girls) could have been good scholars and students of philosophy but unfortunately at the age of 14 or so saw that all that mattered was their marriageability. I think that's quite liberal, if we have to talk two thousand years ago!
Welcome to the Ship posts, flickeringflame!

What would Epictetus' response have been, do you think? Would he have counselled that women put up with society's expectations, or would he have suggested striving to change? I gather a saying attributed to him is "All philosophy lies in two words: sustain or abstain."
 
Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by flickeringflame:
I think Epictetus qualifies. His dates are ca 50 AD to 120 AD. He said he was sad that women (girls) could have been good scholars and students of philosophy but unfortunately at the age of 14 or so saw that all that mattered was their marriageability. I think that's quite liberal, if we have to talk two thousand years ago!
Hello flickeringflame. I agree that that is liberal for the ancient world, but compared to someone who not only wanted to teach women but did so, and not only taught them but made them teachers and worked alongside them as teachers - that hardly makes Epictetus the more liberal, does it?
 
Posted by Doulos (# 12388) on :
 
Let's not forget that some of Paul's biggest financial supporters were businesswomen. (Bit of a tangent!)
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
quote:
Originally Posted by Doulos:
Let's not forget that some of Paul's biggest financial supporters were businesswomen.
If this is the case, then was Paul's support of women a matter of financial convenience or necessity rather than ideals? Was Paul just being pragmatic?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
quote:
Originally Posted by Doulos:
Let's not forget that some of Paul's biggest financial supporters were businesswomen.
If this is the case, then was Paul's support of women a matter of financial convenience or necessity rather than ideals? Was Paul just being pragmatic?
I suppose the test case is Phoebe. A quite common interpretation of this passage is that the reason for Paul's (unique in scripture) commendation of Phoebe is that she is the bearer of the Epistle. Paul introduces her, urges support of her, and commends her service and her value to him and the church. I don't think this is pragmatism. He entrusted her with the carrying of an important letter (over which which he had clearly laboured long and hard). This strongly suggests a very high level of respect for her trustworthiness as a person.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
This strongly suggests a very high level of respect for her trustworthiness as a person.
And the level of respect she probably already commanded within the receiving community.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doulos:
Let's not forget that some of Paul's biggest financial supporters were businesswomen.
As were some of Jesus's.

Both following the decription of the perfect woman in Proverbs - she goes out to work to support her menfolk.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
BroJames

<tangent>

I'm not sure if you know this but there has been a good deal of analysis about the destination of the version of the Epistle to the Romans that contains the commendation of Phoebe. I tend to favour the hypothesis that Romans 1-15 represented the original letter to Rome and Romans 16 was an addendum to a copy sent to the church in Ephesus. (It is easy to see why the letter might be made an Encyclical, in view of its contents) Phoebe's church at Cenchrea was about 20 miles away from Corinth and appears to have been settled during Paul's second missionary journey. It is also thought by many that Romans was written during Paul's stay in Greece (probably in or around Corinth).

The Ephesus hypothesis does make it more likely that Phoebe was known (by reputation and/or by some members) in the receiving church. Also the trip from Cenchrea to Ephesus, albeit a shortish sea crossing, would have been significantly less fraught than the trip from Cenchrea to Rome.

</tangent>
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
BroJames

<tangent>

I'm not sure if you know this but there has been a good deal of analysis about the destination of the version of the Epistle to the Romans that contains the commendation of Phoebe...

</tangent>
No I didn't know this, Barnabas 62, thanks for the heads up. I was going on the general issues in the ancient world surrounding the relative trustworthiness of written and spoken communications, and the need to validate written communications - examples in the Pauline corpus being writing in his own hand and using couriers who were/would be trusted by the recipients.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
BroJames

I don't know if you've got access to a Peake's Commentary, (1962 Revision edited by Matthew Black). It contains a commentary on Romans by Rev T W Manson and the issue is covered neatly in the introduction, under the subheading The problem of the last two chapters . The following comment, in support of the Ephesus hypothesis, has some force.

quote:
The commendation of Phoebe would carry more weight ... if it came from the Apostle to a church in which he was already well known and respected.

 
Posted by flickeringflame (# 12703) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
quote:
Originally posted by flickeringflame:
I think Epictetus qualifies. His dates are ca 50 AD to 120 AD. He said he was sad that women (girls) could have been good scholars and students of philosophy but unfortunately at the age of 14 or so saw that all that mattered was their marriageability. I think that's quite liberal, if we have to talk two thousand years ago!
Welcome to the Ship posts, flickeringflame!

tWhat would Epictetus' response have been, do you think? Would he have counselled that women put up with society's expectations, or would he have suggested striving to change? I gather a saying attributed to him is "All philosophy lies in two words: sustain or abstain."
Hi Nigel M, thanks for the welcome! And for the interesting question. Of course we assume Epictetus taught only young men - but he taught them to analyse the prevailing society and to be highly critical of it; they were to apply the Stoic approach to the prevailing social mores of the day and be different from the "crowd". Maybe he never addressed females directly (but then again, how would we know? - half of his lecture notes are 'lost'- read: "destroyed" by the early church?) - but anyone who reads his discourses sees his approach to life and can imagine that he would counsel females to do the same. He had been a slave and knew the degradation of that life - read his words and you see his empathy with the lowest levels of society. He knows what abuse is - he has taken it himself - so would he not have empathised with what it meant to be female? He argues with upstart young Roman men as regards their slaves:" Do you not know they are sons of Zeus as you are?" This to me is a man who is very modern - in ways that relate to me actually more so than St Paul.

There ARE legends that he married in very old age so that his wife could look after a female child he saved from being 'exposed' - a practice of the Romans to do away with unwanted girl babies. This speaks for itself, in my opinion, as regards his response to the question of male and female importance in the first century.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
(makes mental note to learn more about this Epictetus guy...)
 
Posted by flickeringflame (# 12703) on :
 
Hi Kelly Alves. Hope you do look Epictetus up - you'll like him!

He's got a sense of humour (something apparently lacking in the Hebraic tradition).
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by flickeringflame:
He's got a sense of humour (something apparently lacking in the Hebraic tradition).
Actually there is lot of humor in the Old Testament. See this thread.

Moo
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by flickeringflame:
Hi Kelly Alves. Hope you do look Epictetus up - you'll like him!

He's got a sense of humour (something apparently lacking in the Hebraic tradition).
(after Googling) [Tear] Many, many thanks for that one. Talk about somebody I would have loved to meet!
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
bump
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
bump
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0