Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


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:
THE STATUS OF WOMEN IN THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES' (NEW TESTAMENT) EPISTLES
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 replied

  
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 Trump won, posted 10-04-2003 10:52 AM Raha has replied
 Message 6 by Trump won, posted 10-04-2003 11:07 AM Raha has not replied
 Message 8 by Trump won, posted 10-04-2003 11:12 AM Raha has not replied
 Message 25 by Dilyias, posted 10-06-2003 3:13 PM Raha has replied

  
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 replied

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

  
Raha
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 26 (59417)
10-04-2003 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Trump won
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 Trump won, posted 10-04-2003 10:52 AM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Trump won, posted 10-04-2003 8:45 PM Raha has replied

  
Raha
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 26 (59478)
10-05-2003 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Trump won
10-04-2003 8:45 PM


There was no need to repost those two paragraphs, MessenjaH. They do make sense. I know something about women's conditions of that time, but if we go through the rest of Pauline letters, his attitude towards women seems to be quite different.
The strongest "evidence" for interpolation is that it really looks like that it was inserted between the verse 33a and 36. Consider the whole part without suspected interpolation:
If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn; and let one interpret.
28: But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silence in church and speak to himself and to God.
29: Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said.
30: If a revelation is made to another sitting by, let the first be silent.
31: For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged;
32: and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets.
33: For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.
36: What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?
37: If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord.
38: If any one does not recognize this, he is not recognized.
39: So, my brethren, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues;
40: but all things should be done decently and in order.
The suspected paragraph also directly contradict 1 Cor 11/5:
but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head -- it is the same as if her head were shaven.
Why would Paul bother to tell women that they shall have their heads covered when speaking prophecies, if he intended to tell them just few paragraph farther that they are not supposed to speak at all? That does not make sense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Buzsaw: If I close both eyes, I can regard #1 and #2 of you first post here as SLIGHTLY relevant. But the rest of it is nothing but MCP crap of the heaviest calliber.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
Life has no meaning but itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Trump won, posted 10-04-2003 8:45 PM Trump won has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 10-05-2003 10:41 AM Raha has not replied

  
Raha
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 26 (59799)
10-06-2003 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Dilyias
10-06-2003 3:13 PM


But I fail to see how this really changes anything.
Well, that changes a lot.
1. As it seems, women created quite an important part of early christian church. Why? Because Christianity gave them more freedom and higher status.
2. It puts Paul and his teaching in complete new light. It is not uncommon to hear that Paul is responsible for everything evil in Christianity. But now we have rather different story here. Timothy is not Paul's work either.
3. It is very important for our understanding of the development of early church. It seems now that early Christianity was indeed very egalitarian religion, which made almost no difference between sexes, personal wealth, political status, race, nationality etc. But as its power grew, it become more and more corrupted by it.
------------------
Life has no meaning but itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Dilyias, posted 10-06-2003 3:13 PM Dilyias has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024