Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8946 total)
26 online now:
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,923 Year: 20,959/19,786 Month: 1,356/2,023 Week: 307/557 Day: 47/71 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   THE STATUS OF WOMEN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT EPISTLES
Raha
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 26 (59246)
10-03-2003 1:10 PM


I've found interesting article:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/nfe_bibl.htm

And I would like to know everybody's here opinion.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "...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." ...
...It is obvious that verses 14:33b to 36 are a later addition, added by an unknown counterfeiter with little talent at forgery.

The paragraph in question is rather important one with many consequences. What about that claim that it is a forgery? Is it proved?

------------------
Life has no meaning but itself.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Dilyias, posted 10-04-2003 4:01 AM Raha has not yet responded

  
Dilyias
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 26 (59332)
10-04-2003 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Raha
10-03-2003 1:10 PM


I believe it is mostly speculation. There isn't a hard proof out there. However, it makes sense that this was the attitude of the Church back then as it piggybacks on the patriarchal Old Testament.

In "the olden days" women were sold to their husbands, husbands could buy and own multiple wives - not the other way around. Men could have their wives killed if they found they were not virgins after wedding/purchasing them. The reason it was so bad to sleep with an unmarried woman was because it was a disgrace to the father who would now not receive money/riches from selling his daughter to a husband.

When the Israelites went to attack other nations they were instructed to kill the men, mothers, and boys but check any attractive women and keep them for themselves if they were virgins. Imagine you being a woman in this time and a soldier comes in, kills your husband and throws you on the table and opens your dress to check if you are a "virgin", killing you if you are not.... And God was ok with, nay - he commanded this? *shudders* Women were booty, like cattle and food and riches..

For years Christianity has seen man as the head of the household - to this day some conservative churches still do not permit women to teach over a man at church or in the home. Fortunately Paul's ideas (if they were his) are much tamer than what they could have been considering the source.

So in closing I feel it is very likely that it is not a forgery, it seems to fit in with the general thought of the NT.

Eric


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Raha, posted 10-03-2003 1:10 PM Raha has not yet responded

  
Raha
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 26 (59339)
10-04-2003 9:39 AM


Personally I am more inclined towards "forgery" theory.

quote:

Romans 16:1: Paul refers to Phoebe as a minister (diakonos) of the church at Cenchrea. Some translations say deaconess; others try to downgrade her position by mistranslating it as "servant" or "helper".
...

1 Corinthians 14:34-35
It is obvious that verses 14:33b to 36 are a later addition, added by an unknown counterfeiter with little talent at forgery. Bible scholar, Hans Conzelmann, comments on these three and a half verses: "Moreover, there are peculiarities of linguistic usage, and of thought. [within them]." 6 If they are removed, then Verse 33a merges well with Verse 37 in a seamless transition. Since they were a later forgery, they do not fulfill the basic requirement to be considered inerrant: they were not in the original manuscript written by Paul.


------------------
Life has no meaning but itself.


Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by a servant of Christ, posted 10-04-2003 10:52 AM Raha has responded
 Message 6 by a servant of Christ, posted 10-04-2003 11:07 AM Raha has not yet responded
 Message 8 by a servant of Christ, posted 10-04-2003 11:12 AM Raha has not yet responded
 Message 25 by Dilyias, posted 10-06-2003 3:13 PM Raha has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 26 (59341)
10-04-2003 10:18 AM


1. Throughout the history of mankind it has been so. Not only in Christian cultures. Men have been leaders/heads of home, government and religion. The world has not become a more content/happy place where this is changing. Nor are women happier/more content.
2. I believe Biblical women have faired as well or better than most women historically. Islam is an example of greater opression of women. Athiestic Communism as in China scores badly also.
3. Women are designed both emotionally to follow and to be protected by the stronger man.
4. The lower voice, physical strength, and mental nature of the man is more naturally suited for leadership role. The Biblical account of orgins accounts for and explains this, imo far more adequately than does chancy evolution. Why would the sexes evolve to incorporate this phenomonen of mankind's history?

(Here come the eggs n tomatoes. Buz leavin town. Talk to ya when I dare return.)


Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Rei, posted 10-04-2003 5:36 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 17 by nator, posted 10-05-2003 8:56 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
a servant of Christ
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 26 (59343)
10-04-2003 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Raha
10-04-2003 9:39 AM


I'm not arguing that it is a forgery or not but if it is a forgery done at such a "poor" job then why did the translators not notice this when putting the Bible into english?

------------------
"I AM THE MESSENJAH"

contact me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Raha, posted 10-04-2003 9:39 AM Raha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Raha, posted 10-04-2003 8:37 PM a servant of Christ has responded

  
a servant of Christ
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 26 (59345)
10-04-2003 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Raha
10-04-2003 9:39 AM


It looks like religioustolerance.org got its information from this page:
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Flats/1716/errors.html

------------------
"I AM THE MESSENJAH"

contact me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Raha, posted 10-04-2003 9:39 AM Raha has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Brian, posted 10-04-2003 11:09 AM a servant of Christ has responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3280 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 7 of 26 (59347)
10-04-2003 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by a servant of Christ
10-04-2003 11:07 AM


Or that site got their info from religioustolerance.org?

Brian


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by a servant of Christ, posted 10-04-2003 11:07 AM a servant of Christ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by a servant of Christ, posted 10-04-2003 11:13 AM Brian has not yet responded

  
a servant of Christ
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 26 (59350)
10-04-2003 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Raha
10-04-2003 9:39 AM


I found this Q&A at another page which I feel explains it well:

quote:
I have a question in regards to 1 Corinthians 14:34. It really regards two things—the role of the law in the New Testament and women. I read here that “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.” My question is this: Paul is so clear in Galatians and Ephesians and other texts about the role of the Old Testament regulations in New Testament life (that it has replaced with the new covenant). Then why in this text is there a reference to the Old Testament laws? This is confusing to me. I read on another site that these two verses are regarded as forgery put in by someone other than Paul.

Thanks,

Sherry

Answer: Dear Sherry,

Paul’s comments in this passage and the specific implications they may have for women have been and are interpreted, discussed and argued from many perspectives.

First, no evidence to my knowledge, supports the idea that some manuscripts do not have this passage or that it is spuriously added by a later editor and ascribed to Paul’s authority.

Second, it is absolutely imperative, as with many other passages we strive to understand, that we appreciate the literary and cultural context in which Paul wrote what he did.

The literary context: this book is a corrective epistle “setting straight” many matters in the church at Corinth. This chapter deals with two issues—that of tongues and prophecy—with other chapters addressing other issues. Paul places the powerful and inspiring chapters 12 and 13 in the midst of some of these corrective matters to help his immediate readers (and us) maintain their Christ-like focus and not break into polarized camps.

The cultural context: Corinth. Not a sedate backwater, but a cosmopolitan place with tolerance for many competing lifestyles and worldviews. In the midst of this a church is called to the truth of Jesus Christ—the fact that there are absolutes.

Apparently the worship services at the church in Corinth were somewhat of a free-for-all. The immediate context of the statement you query notes this—see verses 26-33. We come along, in the 21st century, and try to make sense of this. We fail to understand what Paul is saying to us if we leapfrog over the first recipients of this letter. A cardinal rule of understanding the Bible is that the passage must have had meaning to its original hearers/readers, and that our view of how the passage applies to us must be based upon that understanding.

Paul is not saying that women cannot serve, that women cannot minister or that women are stupid. Paul is not saying that women are exactly the same as men in Christ, but he is saying that humankind is one in Christ. We have different functions, abilities, gifts and talents, but in terms of salvation, we are all one in Christ. You noted Paul’s powerful statements in Galatians and Ephesians to this effect.

Neither is Paul saying anywhere, nor does any New Testament writer say that the law is chopped liver. The New Testament writers, under God’s inspiration, help us to understand the implications of the law in the light of the cross and the empty tomb. There are principles in the law that are upheld in the new covenant, while almost everything in the law is modified or seen in a new light—the Light of Jesus Christ. But Paul does not tell us to take the moral foundation of the law and trash it—for the new covenant is built upon the old.

Thus Paul appeals to the law in verse 34 in terms of the general order and roles of men and women. This does not mean that women are lesser, inferior, etc., but that there is an order (most scholars believe that Paul was speaking of Genesis 3:16, though he may also have reference to passages in Genesis 1:26 and 2:21).

The culture of that day, especially the Jewish culture, did not value women as Jesus did—or consequently the church. Some Jews believed that it was a sin to teach a woman, and in some gentile areas the value given to women was not much better. Therefore, most women at that time did not have the advantage of education, and Paul’s comments for them to keep silent need to be understood in that light.

Further, the church at Corinth needed peace and order (noted in the immediate context). The topic at hand was not whether a woman could say something, but the topic concerned vigorous discussion of tongues and prophecy, and what they meant. Paul instructed that women in that culture (and possibly other cultures, depending on our interpretation of all that Paul had to say) should not participate in such discussions.

We should note that Paul is not speaking to the issue of women learning. He does not say that women should not learn. Wives apparently spoke and prayed in gatherings (see 11:5). Paul does not take issue with women helping, serving or ministering, but he does seem to argue for distinctive roles for men and women—and that, of course, is subject to interpretation by our own culture.

We (as have men and women of all cultures in the past) often see ourselves as the most progressive and enlightened. We therefore evaluate prior cultures as primitive. In some respects that may be true, but in others we should pause and consider who and what is driving our interpretation of Scripture.

In Christ,

Greg Albrecht.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Raha, posted 10-04-2003 9:39 AM Raha has not yet responded

  
a servant of Christ
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 26 (59351)
10-04-2003 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Brian
10-04-2003 11:09 AM


Yeah, either way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Brian, posted 10-04-2003 11:09 AM Brian has not yet responded

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 5334 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 10 of 26 (59383)
10-04-2003 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Buzsaw
10-04-2003 10:18 AM


quote:
(Here come the eggs n tomatoes. Buz leavin town. Talk to ya when I dare return.)

I got my trusty slingshot ready, too

quote:
1. Throughout the history of mankind it has been so. Not only in Christian cultures. Men have been leaders/heads of home, government and religion. The world has not become a more content/happy place where this is changing. Nor are women happier/more content.

Excuse me? Have you looked at suicide rates among women in cultures where they are oppressed like this? Or rates of transgender feelings among girls in such cultures? Let's see if I can find one really quick here...

Hmm, here's a mirror of one that I ran into a while ago.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TNUKdigest/message/158

And don't try and pretend that this is due to the veil This is what happens almost universally when you treat women like property. You see, you may not realize it, but we have these things called "feelings", and we can do this amazing trick called "free thought", something once thought only available to males like you.

quote:
2. I believe Biblical women have faired as well or better than most women historically. Islam is an example of greater opression of women. Athiestic Communism as in China scores badly also.

So, you're talking greater oppression than selling women as property, God-endorsed enslavement of virgins-only, etc? Give me a break If your answer is due to the covering of women's hair, are you aware that that was initially as Jewish tradition as well? Only some orthodox still use it:

http://lubbockonline.com/news/092997/world.htm

Shamash.org (an orthodox jewish site) has a fair bit of discussion on this issue.

It used to be far worse. Would you like some of the early writings on women's dress in general?

BTW, if you want to talk about women's rights in ancient cultures, are you aware that throughout much of ancient Egyptian history, women could not only own property, divorce their husbands, and hold high office - but actually were guaranteed the same wages as men for doing the same work? Oh wait, but we should be thankful for having no right to own property, to divorce our husbands, and to get paid less, right!?

quote:
3. Women are designed both emotionally to follow and to be protected by the stronger man.

Are you actually trying to claim that *men* are emotionally stable? Men, who do the vast majority of murders, of assaults, etc? Men, who much more often than women think wars are a good thing? I suppose if you think violence is good guidance, then be my guest in holding that opinion. If you're talking about physical strength, of course men average being stronger. But physical strength has absolutely *zero* to do with intelligence and, consequently, coming up with a good plan for leadership. Scholastically, women average better than men in most subjects.

quote:
4. The lower voice, physical strength, and mental nature of the man is more naturally suited for leadership role.

Oh give me a break. If I could lift a bulldozer that wouldn't make me any better to lead than a yucca plant. "Mental Nature"? Go tell that to the next girl that you ask out. "Lower Voice"? Yeah, that's another thing that makes a good leader!

Give me a break.

quote:
The Biblical account of orgins accounts for and explains this, imo far more adequately than does chancy evolution. Why would the sexes evolve to incorporate this phenomonen of mankind's history?

Sexual dimorphism is an obvious expectation of evolution. You'll notice that the more polygynous a species, the more male-dominated it is, and the higher the ratio of size differences between males and females. Polyandrous species have just the opposite. True monogamous species tend to be roughly the same size. Humans have been slightly polygamous throughout history, and thus have slightly larger males than females. Polygamy induces more intense competition between males; polyandry incudces more intense competition between females.

Neither, by the way, affect intelligence. Ego, perhaps.

------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

[This message has been edited by Rei, 10-04-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Buzsaw, posted 10-04-2003 10:18 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Raha, posted 10-04-2003 8:31 PM Rei has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Buzsaw, posted 10-05-2003 12:34 AM Rei has not yet responded

  
Raha
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 26 (59415)
10-04-2003 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Rei
10-04-2003 5:36 PM


You know Rei, Buz's post was entirely off topic and so it can be regarded as spam and should be ignored therefore (and since we have some good admins here, I hope they will do their "duty").
This thread is not about women's rights etc. We are in The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy forum. Let's discuss whether the paragraph in question is genuine or not. And if it is interpolation - from what time?
(BTW - Messenjah made the best contribution so far)

------------------
Life has no meaning but itself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Rei, posted 10-04-2003 5:36 PM Rei has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Buzsaw, posted 10-05-2003 12:03 AM Raha has not yet responded

  
Raha
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 26 (59417)
10-04-2003 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by a servant of Christ
10-04-2003 10:52 AM


messenjaH writes:

why did the translators not notice this when putting the Bible into english?

As suggested in that article, many translators not only did not care, but they continued in "masculinisation" of Bible by changing female names to male's (Priscilla to Priscillus for instance) or lowering status of some women (from "diakoness" to "servant" for instance).

------------------
Life has no meaning but itself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by a servant of Christ, posted 10-04-2003 10:52 AM a servant of Christ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by a servant of Christ, posted 10-04-2003 8:45 PM Raha has responded

  
a servant of Christ
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 26 (59422)
10-04-2003 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Raha
10-04-2003 8:37 PM


quote:
The culture of that day, especially the Jewish culture, did not value women as Jesus did—or consequently the church. Some Jews believed that it was a sin to teach a woman, and in some gentile areas the value given to women was not much better. Therefore, most women at that time did not have the advantage of education, and Paul’s comments for them to keep silent need to be understood in that light.

Further, the church at Corinth needed peace and order (noted in the immediate context). The topic at hand was not whether a woman could say something, but the topic concerned vigorous discussion of tongues and prophecy, and what they meant. Paul instructed that women in that culture (and possibly other cultures, depending on our interpretation of all that Paul had to say) should not participate in such discussions.


This makes sense to me. Comments Raha?

------------------
"I AM THE MESSENJAH"

contact me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Raha, posted 10-04-2003 8:37 PM Raha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Raha, posted 10-05-2003 6:23 AM a servant of Christ has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 26 (59450)
10-05-2003 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Raha
10-04-2003 8:31 PM


quote:
You know Rei, Buz's post was entirely off topic and so it can be regarded as spam and should be ignored therefore (and since we have some good admins here, I hope they will do their "duty").

My post was intended to lend credibility to the NT quote in the opening statement so as to show it to be consistent with similar context of the role of women in the Bible. It was also intended to show that the quote in question was not inconsistent with the role of women throughout the history of mankind. Check out I Timothy 2:11 and 12 which is not dissimilar and in fact in which context is given the reason for this restriction, i.e. that 1. The man was created first and 2. that the woman, not the man was deceived in the garden.

You're being disingenuous in labeling it as off topic spam. Could it be that the admins understand this and are in fact not derelict in duty as you are implying?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Raha, posted 10-04-2003 8:31 PM Raha has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 26 (59457)
10-05-2003 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Rei
10-04-2003 5:36 PM


Rei, I don't want to arouse any further disgruntlement from Raha so I'll forego response to your statements, except to say that I don't think your statements adequately refute my contention that women who live by Biblical roles are oppressed. Hardly any of even Christian fundamentalists adhere to a strict interpretation of the text for women to be totally silent in churches. Maybe Quakers adhere totally to it. This is not to say the church is better off today than in Biblical times when it was likely imposed more literally. Women in those days were allowed to prophesy, but it is not clear as to whether this was in or out of the church assembly.

You may want to read up on my new Koran thread link which quotes Mohammed as saying/teaching that women are like fields for men to go into at will and women of bounty can be acquired lawfully by men as slaves for men to do with as they wish. Imo, that's real oppression, far unlike anything suggested in the Bible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Rei, posted 10-04-2003 5:36 PM Rei has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019