Ship of Fools: If a woman wrote some of the NT...

Thread: If a woman wrote some of the NT... Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028645

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

Over in Kerygmania the likelihood of Priscilla being the author of the letter to the Hebrews is being discussed. This made me think of the implications if (and it's a big if, I don't think there's very solid arguments to support the theory-but that's an argument for Kerygmania) a woman did write a book of the bible.

Assuming for the purposes of this thread that unequivocal proof was found that a woman had written any book of the NT, then to my mind this would destroy the Evangelical arguments against women preaching.

Evangelicals argue that women should not have authority over men but if God chose a woman's words to be the ultimate authority in matters of faith (this seems to be the basis of evangelicalism), then how could it be said that a woman couldn't preach the word of the Lord to men and women?

Thoughts, for or agains?

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

If you would have paged down Kerygmania you would have also found references to Mary Magdalene writing the book of John. Without a doubt there are segments of the Old Testament that strongly suggest feminine authorship. Ruth comes to mind.

If you ever visit the catacombs in Rome you will find depictions of feminine priests.

Hope this is not a dead horse.

[ 15. July 2012, 04:20: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Women ought to be able to preach all they want.

The Bible was written, mostly, by men. What would you expect?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Hope this is not a dead horse.

Not sure why this is a matter for hope, rather than a simple matter of boundary analysis.

Dead Horses is in effect an extension of Purgatory for discussion of certain oft-recurring themes. One of which is the role of women in the church. From the OP

quote:
..how could it be said that a woman couldn't preach the word of the Lord to men and women?

Thoughts, for or agains?

QED. The purpose of the OP is to seek discussion about that particular role of women in the church. Therefore it's a Dead Horse. Enjoy the discussion there.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Evangelicals argue that women should not have authority over men

I have never understood the claim that a woman preaching constitutes "having authority".

In what sense does speaking in public mean that you have any authority at all, other than the authority to speak in public on that occasion?

Whether or not a male or a female is speaking, the people in the audience are at perfect liberty to say in their hearts, "You are talking a load of rubbish!" I have thought that about various speakers, male and female, just as I have found various speakers, both male and female, to be very helpful. But "helpful" doesn't mean "authoritative".

Even having the position of priest or bishop doesn't make them an "authority", except in relation to very narrow "churchy" issues. They can make comments about moral issues, but the laity will make up its own mind, thank you very much. They can order certain things in relation to church activities and services, and they can certainly decide what they are preaching on, but they cannot boss me around. Maybe they have a little discretionary power in relation to the proper celebration of marriages and funerals, and can to some extent override the wishes of the family concerned. But other than some control over the running of church services, whose priest or minister has power over anything important? They are (in the non-menial sense) servants, not bosses.

So what is this precious "authority" they are trying to protect? I don't get it.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

I had wanted to discuss the effect of a women having written a book of the bible on the role of women in the church, not people's thoughts on the role of women in the church per se. *sigh* I shouldn't have tried to avoid the tangent in kerygmania.

Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Evangelicals argue that women should not have authority over men

No we don't, Not most of us anyway. I don't want to derail this thread, so I have started one.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:

In what sense does speaking in public mean that you have any authority at all, other than the authority to speak in public on that occasion?

Whether or not a male or a female is speaking, the people in the audience are at perfect liberty to say in their hearts, "You are talking a load of rubbish!" I have thought that about various speakers, male and female, just as I have found various speakers, both male and female, to be very helpful. But "helpful" doesn't mean "authoritative".

Even having the position of priest or bishop doesn't make them an "authority", except in relation to very narrow "churchy" issues. They can make comments about moral issues, but the laity will make up its own mind, thank you very much.

I think in many mainstream denominations this is true - you turn up and listen to a sermon, which will probably be a clergyman or woman 'sharing' his/her 'reflections'. There's not necessarily sense that what's being said is a message from God, that the preacher is a conduit for divine revelations. Also, most sermons are quickly forgotten. And 'the church' is not meant to delve too deeply into how a person chooses to live or act during the week. In other words, the church is a fairly tolerant, lax environment.

In evangelical environments, however, this isn't how it works, as far as I can tell. The preacher is meant to be a guide, teacher, the one who sets out what God's will is for his people. And usually expectations for personal commitment to the standards set by the group are quite high - and they apply all week, not just on Sundays. As for the sermon, in some churches, the people actually take notes.

(It would be highly irregular for anyone to attend any church, evangelical or otherwise, and to shout out, 'That's rubbish!' I can imagining it possibly happening in a rather rough and ready schismatic independent church with a lot of call and response going on, but certainly not in a respectable, 'reflective' high church context!)

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Assuming for the purposes of this thread that unequivocal proof was found that a woman had written any book of the NT, then to my mind this would destroy the Evangelical arguments against women preaching.

Evangelicals argue that women should not have authority over men but if God chose a woman's words to be the ultimate authority in matters of faith (this seems to be the basis of evangelicalism), then how could it be said that a woman couldn't preach the word of the Lord to men and women?

I remember asking Gordon Cheng, who had strong objections to women preaching, whether he minded reading devotional or theological books written by women. He said no.

I think this is an inconsistent position, but it would suggest that female authorship of Hebrews wouldn't affect the anti-woman-preaching camp.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Come to think of it, there are bits of the Bible that explicitly claim to have been composed by women.

The Magnificat.
The Song of Myriam.
The Song of Deborah and Barak.
The Song of Hannah.

[ 16. July 2012, 07:22: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
(It would be highly irregular for anyone to attend any church, evangelical or otherwise, and to shout out, 'That's rubbish!' I can imagining it possibly happening in a rather rough and ready schismatic independent church with a lot of call and response going on, but certainly not in a respectable, 'reflective' high church context!)

I am not sure what you are referring to here. I was supposing that people can always say in their own minds - not out loud - that the sermon was "rubbish".

In other words, no one is forcing you to agree with the speaker. You retain your own conscience and brain power.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Evangelicals argue that women should not have authority over men
No we don't, Not most of us anyway. I don't want to derail this thread, so I have started one.

In the Church of England most evangelicals supported the ordination of women. The opposition mainly came from the other side of the nave.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Evangelicals argue that women should not have authority over men
No we don't, Not most of us anyway. I don't want to derail this thread, so I have started one.
In the Church of England most evangelicals supported the ordination of women. The opposition mainly came from the other side of the nave.

There are two responses to this.

The first is: yes, we did, and quite right too.

The second is: anyone evangelical who supported the OoW isn't a real evangelical at all, but a liberal pretending to be evangelical.

So to say that it was mainly the FiFers who caused a ruckus first time around is right - but to ignore the Reform network who are just as vehemently opposed to "women in authority" (but less affected by 'taint' than their more Catholic brethren) is an enormous mistake.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Assuming for the purposes of this thread that unequivocal proof was found that a woman had written any book of the NT, then to my mind this would destroy the Evangelical arguments against women preaching.

I don't disagree with you but, if new evidence were to be found now, I suspect that, however unequivocal it seemed to some of us, there would be others who woud just refuse to accept it.

Possibly a more interesting question is, how different would the church(es) be now if it had been known since it was written that part of the NT was written by a woman? Or would it just have not made it into the canon?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I remember asking Gordon Cheng, who had strong objections to women preaching, whether he minded reading devotional or theological books written by women. He said no.

Sounds like the Marshall McLuhan principle at work: the medium is the message!

So for women the spoken word is bad but the written word is okay. Where does sign language fall in this interpretation?

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

Thus far, the whole concept of canonicity has been ignored. This posits that the books of the Bible derive their authority from their presence within the canon, not from their authorship. Thus, the people responsible for endowing them with their authority are those who assembled the biblical canon, not those who wrote them.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I remember asking Gordon Cheng, who had strong objections to women preaching, whether he minded reading devotional or theological books written by women. He said no.
Sounds like the Marshall McLuhan principle at work: the medium is the message!

So for women the spoken word is bad but the written word is okay. Where does sign language fall in this interpretation?

One wonders if he'd have objected to a woman reading aloud the book of theology she'd written?

(Or in other words, how bloody stupid can you get?)

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

I'd love it if a woman had written a book of the Bible, personally.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:

Possibly a more interesting question is, how different would the church(es) be now if it had been known since it was written that part of the NT was written by a woman? Or would it just have not made it into the canon?

A part of the NT? Such as the Magnificat?

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

I think opposition to the idea that a woman might have written part of the NT, or been the major contributor to said part, really tells me more about the person putting forward the opinion than anything else.

OOW, in this context, seems to be somewhat of a red herring as we are talking of the formative documents of Christianity. Women played an important part in the Christian Church from the time of Christ and to deny this would seem sheer lunacy. I'm intrigued by what Gramps49 said but would like to see more evidence.

Strangely, I don't see the priesthood, or preaching, as necessarily representing the acme of Christianity, but as providing an essential service. Many Christian women, such as St Theresa of Avila, or St Catherine of Siena, were not clergy but deeply formative influences on the Roman Catholic Church and are regarded as Doctors of the Church: something few male clerics have ever achieved.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
I think opposition to the idea that a woman might have written part of the NT, or been the major contributor to said part, really tells me more about the person putting forward the opinion than anything else.

What opposition? Who here has said that it could not have happened? Just that there is no evidence that it did happen, which is of course true.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Originally posted by ken:
In the Church of England most evangelicals supported the ordination of women. The opposition mainly came from the other side of the nave. [/QUOTE]Whereas here, the most vocal opposition has come from the Moor College group in Sydney - to the extent that ++ Peter found that despite his being the Metropolitan, he was unable to attend the consecration of an assistant bishop in the neighbouring diocese of Canberra-Goulburn. The one or two other dioceses strongly influenced by Sydney are also opposed. The only other opposition has come from the very high diocese of Ballarat but I suspect that that will diminish with the new bishop.

[ 18. July 2012, 08:06: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
Thus far, the whole concept of canonicity has been ignored. This posits that the books of the Bible derive their authority from their presence within the canon, not from their authorship. Thus, the people responsible for endowing them with their authority are those who assembled the biblical canon, not those who wrote them.

THe version of Evangelicalism that I'm familiar with is a little uncertain about how we deal with canonicity. If we focus on the people responsible for endowing status in the canon then we might have to admit that the are endowing authority in the church or "tradition" rather than scripture alone.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I remember asking Gordon Cheng, who had strong objections to women preaching, whether he minded reading devotional or theological books written by women. He said no.
Sounds like the Marshall McLuhan principle at work: the medium is the message!

So for women the spoken word is bad but the written word is okay. Where does sign language fall in this interpretation?
One wonders if he'd have objected to a woman reading aloud the book of theology she'd written?

(Or in other words, how bloody stupid can you get?)

Yes, so a woman could write the sermon, but she'd need a man to read it from the pulpit.
[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
I think opposition to the idea that a woman might have written part of the NT, or been the major contributor to said part, really tells me more about the person putting forward the opinion than anything else.
What opposition? Who here has said that it could not have happened? Just that there is no evidence that it did happen, which is of course true.

Actually, I think Evangeline did earlier in a similar context. [Big Grin]

I was merely agreeing with her.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

On canonicity--the people I come from (Lutherans etc.) would say that the book is IN the canon precisely because of its authority, and not the other way around. But then, we wouldn't consider the gender of the author to have anything to do with its authority--that's wholly up to the Holy Spirit. (oh dear)

As for the difference between reading theology written by a woman, or even sermons (yes, I've published) and the OOW question, it seems to me that what that debate turns on is the question of what "having authority" means--and that IMHO has to do with how you take the term "to teach". In the modern sense this usually means "to impart information," which very often goes with no disciplinary authority whatsoever (as in book authorship and--hopefully--adult classrooms). In the NT sense it appears to always include a fair-sized component of discipling/discipline/hands-on formation, of the sort that few Western teachers do today, unless they are pastors or elders. At least that's what I got after poring over Kittel and working through all the Greek examples there.

So whether you agree with it or not, there is at least some logic to those who will accept women authors (and theological professors, and congregational presidents, and...) but not pastors or elders.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:

Possibly a more interesting question is, how different would the church(es) be now if it had been known since it was written that part of the NT was written by a woman? Or would it just have not made it into the canon?
A part of the NT? Such as the Magnificat?

Reminds me of St. Clive's reaction when a review accused him of writing "like a woman" --

"By the way, did the reviewers mean 'writes like a woman' to be dispraise? Are the poems of Sappho or, if it comes to that, the Magnificat, to be belittled on the same ground?"

Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramp49:
Without a doubt there are segments of the Old Testament that strongly suggest feminine authorship. Ruth comes to mind.

Richard Friedman, in his popular book "Who wrote the Bible?" speculates that one of the principal Old Testament authors (J) might have been a woman. One of his reasons is that the J source tells a lot of stories about women which don't occur in the other sources and is more sensitive to their concerns. Friedman acknowledges that there is no direct evidence for this, but also there is no direct evidence ruling it out.

It seems to me that pre-exilic Israel was quite prepared to acknowledge a woman's authority (Deborah judged Israel and the prophetess Huldah wasn't exactly slow to give orders to the king), and to give women public roles (the queen mother seems to have been important - she is always named in Kings) and to expect women to have economic independence (e.g the "virtuous wife" in Proverbs, who has her own real estate portfolio). The idea of women being under men's authority is post-exilic, and still incomplete in the time of Jesus. So personally I would be interested but not astonished if a woman did write one of the NT books.

I think it would be stimulating. We'd have to look at the book in a different way and re-evaluate our preconceptions.

Would the hard-line evangelicals like it? No, of course not. I don't think Orthodox Jews would like to find out that a substantial part of the OT was written by a woman, either.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0