Women In 1 Corinthians

I just want to point out that the likelihood that Paul actually put that in there himself is fairly low. First, I want to direct your attention to the surrounding passages:

quote:

---

1Cor. 14:29 ” Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weight what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting by, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. ... (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. If any one does not recognise this, he is not recognised. So, my brethren, earnestly desire to prophesy, and to not forbid speaking in tongues; but all thinks should be done decently and in order.

---

Does not this seem a little out of place to have a "shut up, woman!" message just dropped into Paul's discussion on prophesying?Second, let me show you another passage that helps us understand Pauline theology as being much more male/female-equality oriented.

quote:

---

Gal 3:27 ” For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there cannot be slave nor free man, there cannot be male and female. for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

---

Now, you might notice that that final conjunction for "male and female" is often translated as "nor" (which sets the two in opposition), but we need to go back to the original Greek to see what it really was. For the conjunctions in the pairs "Jew nor Greek", "slave nor free man":

quote:

---

Strong's Concordance ”

oude
oo-deh'
From G3756 and G1161; not however, that is, neither, nor, not even: - neither (indeed), never, no (more, nor, not), nor (yet), (also, even, then) not (even, so much as), + nothing, so much as.

---

For the conjunction in "male and female":

quote:

---

Strong's Concordance ”

kai
kahee
Apparently a primary particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force; and, also, even, so, then, too, etc.

---

It is clear from this, then, that Paul had set male and female up as being equals, instead of opposites as in the case of Jew/Greek, and slave/free.The Gospel of John is very female-friendly (likely compiled by a group containing many women). The letters of John are all written to the head of a church community who was obviously female.In the early Christian church, women and men were on relatively equal footing with women even holding serious leadership roles. I, and many scholars, would reason that it was not until after Christianity was adopted by the mainstream that the old Roman-world anti-female sentiment began to take hold, during which time the extra verse would have been inserted into Corinthians”because it obviously wasn't put there by Paul”, and the conjunction was intentionally mistranslated to show an opposition in men and women. In other words, anti-femalism is not really a feature of the original Christian church at all.Now, whether this has any bearing on the discussion at hand or not, I am not sure (there was too much for me to read through it all), but I still thought I would point these things out.Jon

---

Beware the Jabberwock, my son!

DOH! I must have misplaced that fact in my brain whilst typing the previous post.All apologies; continue on, now. Jon

---

Beware the Jabberwock, my son!