Did Paul really say that women should be silent in the church and not have leadership roles in the church? Were these verses added later to Paul’s letters? Were the letters (that these verses appear) not really written by Paul?
1 Corinthians 14:34 (KJV)
34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
1 Timothy 2:12 (KJV)
12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Women spoke to, disagreed with, pleaded with, Christ.
The first to hear of Jesus’ coming birth was a woman.
The first to witness his resurrection was a woman.
The first to speak to the resurrected Christ was a woman.
Jesus was tender toward women, he allowed them to enter his inner circle as when Mary sat at his feet. He allowed them to express their love by anointing his feet. Women sought him out because he loved even women.
Jesus and Paul walked different roads.
Stephen said
Well Paul’s reputation has been besmirched by the forgeries distributed in his name. The historical Paul wasn’t a feminist of course but he had a much more egalitarian view than those that wrote later.
It is irrefutable that there was a great disconnect between how Jesus treated women and how the letters generally do.
Jesus was certainly ahead of his time on that score.
But it must be admitted that the letters were written for their day and not ours. So, in a way, it is understandable. That makes Jesus’ treatment of women the gold standard. A fitting designation.
I’m not sure what does it mean to affirm that Jesus “said” something. You are using it over and over. Do you think historian are just wasting their time trying to figure out the historical Jesus from different narratives?
Is Bart Ehrman just trying to kill time on his research? Or I am missing something here. Please enlighten us.
janmaru said
I’m not sure what does it mean to affirm that Jesus “said” something. You are using it over and over. Do you think historian are just wasting their time trying to figure out the historical Jesus from different narratives?Is Bart Ehrman just trying to kill time on his research? Or I am missing something here. Please enlighten us.
I believe the Gospel record is a fair representation of what Jesus taught.
janmaru said
And what are your reasons to believe that the Gospels are an accurate account of the life of Jesus? Aside from the fact, of course, that you believe in it.
I did not say “accurate”, I said a fair representation.
Why do you ask? Are you truly interested? Or do you want to find fault?
If you are truly interested then you should pray about it.
If you want to find fault then I am not interested.
I’ve seen diverse reasons why scholars consider 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 to be a later interpolation that cannot be attributed to Paul.
First, in one of our earliest bibles, Codex Vaticanus, a distigme (umlaut) appears between verses 33 and 34, signposting a textual variant or pericope of uncertain origin. Similarly, in Codex Fuldensis, one of our oldest Latin bibles, verses 33-40 are written in the margin as opposed to the main text, suggesting the author may have regarded them as spurious. Likewise, in Manuscript 88, verse 36 proceeds directly from verse 33.
Secondly, we have an unusually broad range of textual variants for verses 34 and 35, which is typical of subsequent interpolations.
Thirdly, these verses contradict Pauline pronouncements that encourage equal recognition of men and women in the Christian community, such as Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Fourthly, the instruction in verse 34 that women must be silent and in submission ‘as the law says’ seems discordant with Paul’s views on the Torah. For example, in Romans 7:6 Paul states: “But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.” Moreover, the Torah doesn’t mandate women to be silent and in submission. As a former Pharisee, Paul would surely have known this!
Fifthly, the presence of verses 34-35 interferes with the chiastic fluidity of this section. If we remove them, the chiasmus works:
(A) 26 What should be done then, my friends? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. (HOW THINGS SHOULD BE DONE)
(B) 27 If anyone speaks 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 them be silent in church and speak to themselves and to God. (SPEAKING IN TONGUES)
(C) 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to someone else sitting nearby, let the first person be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged. (UNIVERSAL PARTICIPATION IN PROPHECY)
(D) 32 And the spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets, 33 for God is a God not of disorder but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints (DIVINE ORDER AND PEACE)
(C) 36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached? 37 Anyone who claims to be a prophet, or to have spiritual powers, must acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord. 38 Anyone who does not recognize this is not to be recognized. (UNIVERSAL PARTICIPATION IN PROPHECY)
(B) 39 So, my friends, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. (SPEAKING IN TONGUES)
(A) 40 But all things should be done decently and in order. (HOW THINGS SHOULD BE DONE)
Sixthly, none of the apostolic fathers show any awareness of v.34-35 in their writings, despite the tremendous theological and social implications these verses would have had for their Christian communities.
There are other reasons, but I think even the above combination robustly challenges Pauline authorship of verses 34 and 35.
The question was if Paul had said something about women and if his thoughts were somehow aligned with the writings in Corinthians.
We can’t access Paul’s thoughts more than he had. Since the mind is a bundle of thoughts and there is no center, how would we be sure he said or not something? From a social point, on the other hand, we should convene that a Mind (1) of those times would be not opened to any liberty for women, from education to work.
If Paul spoke about freedom and parity there would be no way he could be understood by others, or that later copiest preserved his thought. In fact, they did not. And on the first occasion, they interpolated and forged his writings.
Any religion founded on words would be a dead religion. I bet Paul has felt the same. You don’t need holy scriptures or any text. Paul: “I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.” (2)
On the occasion you just improvise.
(1) Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle. (From Vol. 8. of the Collected Works of C. G. Jung)
(2) Galatians 1:12
I feel for Paul. It appears at times he was attempting to herd cats. Today, as well, there are people in Christian churches who need herding. A fault not limited to the religious.
Women were allowed to pray and prophesy, 1 Corinthians 11:5.
They were also under the authority of their husbands, their “head”, 1 Corinthians 11:3
Putting those two together then it would appear that at 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Paul is saying that if women want to understand something, if they want to ask questions, they should ask their husbands at home and not publicly in the congregation.
Linda said
I feel for Paul. It appears at times he was attempting to herd cats. Today, as well, there are people in Christian churches who need herding. A fault not limited to the religious.Women were allowed to pray and prophesy, 1 Corinthians 11:5.
They were also under the authority of their husbands, their “head”, 1 Corinthians 11:3
Putting those two together then it would appear that at 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Paul is saying that if women want to understand something, if they want to ask questions, they should ask their husbands at home and not publicly in the congregation.
I will add this to my comment above.
The stated treatment and view of women in the Christian church was not only on a different road than Christ but the Old Testament as well.
Whether or not we believe the accounts the point is that the OT represents real world interactions between husbands and wives. Whereas the NT letters for the most part portray an artificial one. Additionally, whether Paul wrote the Pastoral letters or not is beside the point they were nonetheless written by Christian men whose influence on the church was felt and followed.
A few OT examples:
Sarah- she told Abraham to put out his first born son, Ishmael. Genesis 21:9-13
Leah- said to Jacob she had hired his sexual favors for the night. Genesis 30:14-16
Abigail- disobeyed and disrespected her husband, Nabal. 1 Samuel 25:25
My point is not that these accounts should be understood as historical but that they represent real world relationships between husbands and wives. The women speak out, their actions are true to form for women and their husbands reactions are true to form for husbands.
Women in the OT are “real” in the sense that they act and speak as women, as people.
Are there any positive accounts in the Church Fathers of women who acted like Sarah, Leah or Abigail? Women who knew their own mind and spoke accordingly. Women who did not always agree with their believing husbands and were not castigated for it.
Here is a portrayal of a woman, a woman free to speak even to speak in a confronting manner: John 11:39.
She felt free to do so because her Lord allowed women to speak, to ask questions, to sit at his feet listening and learning along with the male disciples.
And so the tomb…their love for him overcame their fear of men.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)