Women be silent!! (page 3)

ezra

the head covering is to show respect for the headship arrangement,and when no brothers are available it is scriptural for a sister to take the lead in teaching,but when brothers are available it is jehovahs arrangement that the brothers do the teaching not the sisters

IronClaw

As far as the woman vs. man thing, I just get frustrated with people trying to re-write the Bible when there are just so many glaring facets of it that clearly do not allow for freedom of thought. Religion is all about control. Every religion of every society and people is designed to control people from birth to death and beyond even.

Well said Daniel. Thats why I am done with organized religion. Anyone can almost read anything into any scripture for personal preference. Just look at the WTS, their good at doing it.

Skyman on a lighter note, I like your new Avatar.

Leolaia

Narkissos....From what I recall from Odell-Scott's earlier articles, he does point out other examples that come closer to what he claims for the passage in question. What do you make of this rhetorical formation?

Romans 9:19-21: "You will ask me, 'In that case, how can God ever blame anyone, since no one can oppose his will?' O man, what right do you have to cross-examine God? Shall the pot say to the potter, 'Why did you make me this way?' What? Does not the potter have authority over the clay to make what he wishes from it?"

Still, there are no examples that parallel what is claimed in the present text...an adversative following an implicit intertextual citation of an opposing view. The main difficulty with the other approach imho is that removing v. 34-35 makes the connection between v. 32-33 and v. 36-37 seem even less coherent. The thought disputed in v. 36-37 is the attitude that some people in the Corinthian church ("you") act in a way that makes it seem as if they think that "the word of God" and/or the "command of the Lord" comes only to them apart of Paul, and he reminds them of his authority. But this is not an issue in the preceding verses (14:26-33), which give Paul's instructions that hint at the actual situation of disorder in church services. While mentioning his authority would naturally fit with the issuing of church order that he wants to see followed, it is not clear how their failure to control prophetic spirits can lead Paul to sarcastically ask if they think that the word of God only comes to them; these seem to be two quite different thoughts. But if v. 34-35 are original, but represent the opposing viewpoint of the Corinthians, then v. 36-37 would be asserting Paul's authority about setting church order over their attempt to establish rules of propriety. Thus, Paul establishes in v. 31 that "all" (pantes) may prophesy as long as it is done in an orderly way, and v. 32 notes that this is due to the fact that God is himself orderly. Then Paul cites in v. 34-35 a thought that contradicts v. 31.... instead of "everyone" being able to prophesy, these verses in effect disenfranchise women from prophesying, and then Paul reminds them of his authority in v. 36-37 and asserts that "what I am writing to you is a command from the Lord". The main problem with this interpretation is that Paul's comment would be oriented not to the content of v. 34-35 (which does seem to conflict with Paul's position on women, and also cites the Law as authority....again contrary to Paul) but to the fact that a contrary command is issued by them in the first place, and that Paul does not otherwise explicitly give a substitute command.... he just says that they have the wrong attitude and should listen to him.

skyman

Other writing about the early Christians comment on why the early Christians were wrong. Many writing say they even let the Women teach. Over and Over you hear this against the early Church also Merry was the Elder of an church according to early writers also look at Romans 16:1 It say that Phobie was a minister of the congregation. Today we would say Elder or Paster or Priest. They used the words minister.

Leolaia

There were also Nympha and Chloe who hosted their own house churches....

Narkissos

Narkissos....From what I recall from Odell-Scott's earlier articles, he does point out other examples that come closer to what he claims for the passage in question. What do you make of this rhetorical formation?
Romans 9:19-21: "You will ask me, 'In that case, how can God ever blame anyone, since no one can oppose his will?' O man, what right do you have to cross-examine God? Shall the pot say to the potter, 'Why did you make me this way?' What? Does not the potter have authority over the clay to make what he wishes from it?"

I think translating è by "what?" here is excessive and unnecessary. This is an even more common pattern where è connects several rhetorical questions which are actually going in the same direction or making the same point, in a parallel or cumulative way (2:3f; 3:1; 6:2f; 11:34f; 14:10 etc.). So this proves strictly nothing imo.

Still, there are no examples that parallel what is claimed in the present text...an adversative following an implicit intertextual citation of an opposing view.

Indeed, and the biggest problem lies in the "implicit". As I tried to point out in my previous discussion with a Christian, a language which has no "quotation marks" uses verbal markers to isolate a quotation, especially one which the author disagrees with.

The main difficulty with the other approach imho is that removing v. 34-35 makes the connection between v. 32-33 and v. 36-37 seem even less coherent. The thought disputed in v. 36-37 is the attitude that some people in the Corinthian church ("you") act in a way that makes it seem as if they think that "the word of God" and/or the "command of the Lord" comes only to them apart of Paul, and he reminds them of his authority. But this is not an issue in the preceding verses (14:26-33), which give Paul's instructions that hint at the actual situation of disorder in church services. While mentioning his authority would naturally fit with the issuing of church order that he wants to see followed, it is not clear how their failure to control prophetic spirits can lead Paul to sarcastically ask if they think that the word of God only comes to them; these seem to be two quite different thoughts.

I don't see this as insuperable. First, there is the possibility that the interpolation is larger than what the external evidence suggests, and extends from 33b to 36 (cf. the parentheses in the NRSV), which would completely suppress the problem. Or, if 33b ends the previous sentence ("for God is a God not of disorder but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints"), then v. 36 follows nicely imo (Paul would argue that his outsider's instructions overpower the local arrangement because they are not his own whim, but a general practice).

The "quotation" thesis I definitely don't buy into, because it would mean that the author wrote in such a way as to be misunderstood. Moreover, if you don't go to the extremes of a Christian and admit that 1 Corinthians 11:1ff, which insists on women subordination (but not silence), reflects Paul's stance against a more equalitarian view of the Corinthians, how can you lend the same Corinthians the opposite view of 1 Corinthians 14:34f? If it is only one party's stance and not the whole church's, what is the point of the sarcasm against local practice and tradition in v. 36?

mouthy

In my innermost I do believe that there is something vastly greater than me

Sigh!!!! So glad to hear that my love... I too am finished with organized religion... I do read scripture but am delighted we can have these open discussions & pass our thoughts around.... I do believe in a Creator....

Midget-Sasquatch

I don't think that going from v33 to vv36 is all that incongruous, but it does seem to be enough to leave one with a slight inkling that maybe something is missing.

I'm wondering if anyone ever posited this idea (or something along the same lines):

That perhaps Paul did initially write something between v33 and v36, brief counsel to refrain from immediate and unruly challenges or rebuttals to what someone else would subsequently prophesy (especially if that material brought on questions regarding previous "revelations"). Mull it over after the meeting and discuss it at a later time. Then he'd ask the pointed questions: What do you think, that you're the Governing Body or somethin' (God's earthly mouthpiece)? I realize it would then mean that the questions were primarily focussing on questions of authority among themselves. Paul puts in his two drachmas though and ironically, his counts more than theirs.

I'd appreciate any criticisms on this piece of speculation. I know there's no real evidence for that kind of change. And it might be a bit unfair to Paul.

peacefulpete

A few additional comments were made back in this thread:Was Paul really a woman hater?2

collegegirl21

I know this is completely off topic, but I was just reading all of this and whether we agree or disagree, its awesome how we try on here. I tried talking about this stuff with my parents and they just brushed me off saying that I am looking for fault in the "truth." It is truly awesome to me and eye opening to watch all of us reason with each other and help each other without judgement (most of the time, lol). And I appreciate and am so grateful for finding all of you! Ok.. bttt

Women be silent!!

Share this