Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
...I think it's a bad mistake to try to come up with plausible explanations. ...

---

Posted                       

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?

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselm:
The most likely explanation to me is the one that the women were chatting amongst themselves (asking questions etc) during the service and bringing disorder into the meeting.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by pimple:
The fact that he accepted them, and they him, clinches the argument for me.

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                       

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?!?

I'm getting ready for seminary this fall, and as a result have been becoming increasingly biblically-minded lately...

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posted                      

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?!?

I'm getting ready for seminary this fall, and as a result have been becoming increasingly biblically-minded lately...

---

Posted                       

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?!?

---

Posted                       

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.

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 ]

--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.

Posted                      

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....

Posted                       

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?

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                       

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?

---

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."

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                       

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]

---

Posted                       

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. 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”!

---

Posted                       

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.

---

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                       

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!

---

Posted                       

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.

---

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.

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                       

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?

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                          

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.

---

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.

---

Posted                          

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...

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                       

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?

---

Posted                          

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?

---

Posted                      

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

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.

---