Loading...In this thread I have been talking about the role of women in the early church, starting with the ministry of Jesus, then in the churches of Paul (the first churches we have any real record of). In this post I continue by reflecting on Paul’s actual *views* of women; this strikes me as a particularly important topic since Paul is frequently condemned as the first Christian misogynist (or at least one of the first bad ones). Is that justified? The following represents some of my reflections as found in my discussion in my textbook on the NT for university students.
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Did Paul Favor Gender Equality?
May 5, 2024
Share Bart’s Post on These Platforms
29 Comments
Leave A Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Bart, I have two off topic questions and one related to the current topic. 1. What bibilical/theological reason does the Catholic church use when asked about the inability or women to be ordained. 2. Why do protestants add ” for thine be the glory…” after the Lord’s Prayer. 3. When did the celibacy of Catholic priests become standard? Thank you.
1. 1 Tim. 2:11-15 and 1 Cor. 14:33-35 are often used against the orginatoin of women; 2. That is the form of the Lord’s prayer already found in second century versions of it as standard in the Church (the Didache). 3. I believe the first time a pope legislated celibacy was in 386 CE (Pope Siricius), followed by others in the early fifth century.
Wasn’t there a pagan celebration where the custom was to have women let their hair flow freely and dance? Could Paul simply want his female followers not follow this fashion statement in his gatherings?
I’m not sure which one you’re referring to, but certainly the Maenads (followers of Dionysus) would qualify. Paul does not say anything that ties the Corinthian women to any kind of frenzied worship, so probably that’s not what he’s going on about.
Not sure if you’ve read Raphael Patai’s book The Hebrew Goddess, but one point he makes is that human actions, at least actions by the community of Israel, were seen to affect the divine realm and God’s relationship with his ‘Shekinah’, or (female-personified) presence, or hypostasis, on Earth. Not sure if Paul’s cosmogonical ideas were influenced by this concept or not, but if so, it may throw some light on his statement that women having “authority” on their heads – whatever that is – affects the angels.
What is your opinion of Cynthia Long Westfall’s interpretation of 1 Cor 11:10? She argues that Paul is saying that women should have the right to veil. Paul, in her view, was countering men who were trying to prevent lower class women from wearing veils.
Haven’t read it. But he sure doesn’t sound like he’s asserting a right. He says it would be a shame if they were *not* veiled, not that they should be allowed to veil.
Hi Bart
Do you think john 1:1-18 tell that the author of this part connect the beloved deciple to john the apostle or does it connect it to john the apostle.
Can we know when was this part added?
Does John 1:8 say that the author and someone else were the companions of Jesus or could every christian say this?
I don’t think it connects to either (neither is mentioned). When he says “we have beheld his glory” I don’t think he means “personally” since not all of “us” did.
Did I miss the April Q&A?
Rats: we recorded it and it appears to have hit a glitch in being published Sorry, sorry. Thanks for letting me know — no one else had mentioned it before now.
Once again, I’m waiting eagerly for the Gold Q & A to appear…
Rats: we recorded it and it appears to have hit a glitch in being published Sorry, sorry. Thanks for letting me know — no one else had mentioned it before now. (Someone else just pointed it out this morning.)
What can we infer from Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2?
16:1 Now concerning the collection for the saints: you should follow the directions I gave to the churches of Galatia. 2 On the first day of every week, each of you is to put aside and save whatever extra you earn, so that collections need not be taken when I come.
It’s commonly asserted that this proves that the Galatians and Corinthians were already assembling for worship each Sunday, so Paul chose that day to have a collection taken. But can that leap actually be made? Why didn’t he mention that the Thessalonians did this too, or that this was the instruction for all churches that he founded? Or explicitly say, “When you gather for worship each first day of the week, take up a collection for the saints?”
I guess we can’t know why an author words things the way he does; are you suggesting that Paul is just saying, “Every sunday morning put aside whatever was left over and [eventually] give it to the church leaders so it’ll be ready for me when I come”? Possibly. He does give indications that there were regular church meetings to commemorate the death and the resurrection of Jesus, and since the resurrection happened on a Sunday, it’s not implausible that this is when the meetings were. I wouldn’t say it’s a slam-dunk though.
Hi Dr. Ehrman! Looking forward to tonight. This came to me today:
“To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews.” Ok, Paul doesn’t say he’s Jewish? No Tribe of Judah?
“stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews”
Sounds like he’s Israeli-Yemenite. (Hebrews is pan-Semetic.)
Arab is just the common people’s word for nomad and means “by foot” or “hoofing it”. Ishmaelites are just a subset of these nomads. So Paul is not an Ishmaelite, and he is a tentmaker Arab.
That’s why he’d believe the ending commenced:
The end of Antipas’ war with Aretas happens before 36 CE.
They get back *Moab* and this unblocks the Spice Route that they shift North to avoid unstable Jerusalem and port of Gaza. (Things have changed right?)
The Western Nabataean trade route ends in Puteoli — this is where Paul is taken in by a pre-existing community.
Puteoli’s Nabataean Temple was underwater until like 3 years ago, and I juuuuust realized Du Shara is Akkadian for “Of The King”
https://m.jpost.com/archaeology/article-741637
The cult of God-Emperor Sargon (Sarru) of Akkad.
Nabataean Edessa is north base camp. It’s sited pretty much at Abraham’s Harran but more importantly, it’s sited at Sargon of Akkad’s Harran. Along with Ur it’s the two Temples he raised to the lunar god that he and his Larsa line embody.
First C Edessa names sound like Abraham’s family, southernized *Akkadian*. And the 7 churches map to their Western merchant route.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
“Women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is something they want to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”
I was raised in a strict fundamentalist sect where this was actually practiced. The women were allowed to sing but that was it.
According to the Harper-Collins Study Bible some think that this was a later, non-Pauline addition to the letter, more in keeping with the Pastoral letters. Is this the common view among scholars?
It’s a view widely held. I may need to post on it again!
You closed this evening’s event with something to the effect of “unless the end comes”. I didn’t think to write it down, but I wanted to add “Or until the sun goes red giant”!
🙂 Chuck
Hi Bart, Prof Adrian Thatcher has an interesting passage on this in his new book ‘Vile Bodies’. He puts this in context of the views of sex that would have been ubiquitous in Paul’s time: that there was one sex (man) with two forms – the more perfect male and the weaker female. (Luckily, a view most of us have left behind!)
‘The liberal interpretation of ‘one in Chris Jesus’ unfortunately overlooks that unity and equality are very difference concepts. Unity is more consistent with hierarchy … Paul was soon understood to say that the cessation of sexual difference happens by the elimination, not the transformation, of the female (and he may have thought this all along).’ ‘The transformation of women is the removal of the imperfections that disqualify them from membership among the more perfect representatives of humanity.’ He also terms this as ‘female obsolescence’ and cites page 86 of Martin Dale’s book on gender and sexuality in biblical interpretation, link here: https://archive.org/details/sexsinglesaviorg0000mart/page/86/mode/2up
Yes, Dale’s book, Sex and the Single Savior, is a good place to start for this sort of thing. I don’t know Thatcher or his work, so thanks.
“ Paul does not seem to have urged a social revolution in light of his theological conviction — just as he did not urge the abolition of slavery even though he claimed that “in Christ” slave and free were “equal” ”
Indeed!
But I wonder about the origins of his ‘theological conviction’.
Paul’s churches were primarily composed of slaves, freedmen, and lower-class individuals (1 Cor 1:26-29). Additionally, there were many women among his followers (Rom 16; 1 Cor 1:11; Philippians 4:2). Paul preached to both Jews and Gentiles (1 Cor 9:20-21), although the latter comprised the majority of his churches.
Therefore, a statement like ‘There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus’ is well-suited for his audience.
Does it also reflect his ‘theological conviction’?
Or did Paul ‘adapt’ his theology?
Were his convictions about circumcision or dietary laws theological, or simply another adaptation to the predominantly Gentile audience?”
Hi,
1) Is it right to say that Paul read and knew the whole Luke’s gospel since Luke was his companion? Are there arguments against this supposition?
2) Does the scene in Acts 1:11 point to the disciples thinking that Jesus will come back immediately almost after the ascention? If it was so do you think it can indicate that the historical Jesus told them that? Or were they just astonished?
Acts 1:11 NRSV
[11] They said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking up toward heaven? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”
1. No, Luke’s Gospel was written about 20 years after Paul’s death. The real questoin is whether Luke actually was Paul’s companion and why his discussions of Paul are so often at odds with Paul’s stated views in his letters.
2. No, the point of Acts (see 1:8) is that the Gospel has to be spread throughout the world first; the book of Acts itself narrates events for the next 30 years.
You have a great deal of interest in major issues in NT studies. Have you thought about reading my book The New Testament: A Historical Introductoin to the Early Christian Writings? I deal with almost all the topics you’re asking about in one way or another, and it might be a good resource for you.
Hi, Bart,
First, thanks for all the answers to my questions.
Secondly, yes, I would like to read your book and start to study the NT on my own, using such resources and then come with additional questions if any will be left for clarification.
Thank you very much!
RD, concerning 1 Cor 14:34-35, you may like to read my new JSNT article: “The Interpolation of 1 Cor. 14.34–35 and the Reversal of the Name Order of Prisca and Aquila at 1 Cor. 16.19”. It is now open access online here:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0142064X231226165
Congratulations! And thanks.
I guess this article is what you scholars would call “getting down in the weeds.” Most of us laypeople probably have no clue as to the extent, depth and detail of scholarly study and evaluation of these Biblical passages. Unfortunate really, especially given the enormous effect of the Bible on our culture. I’ve begun to gain an appreciation of these scholarly endeavors only since joining this blog.
Wow! Heavy stuff, but interesting. Thanks.