In "Forged: Writing in the Name of God. Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are" (http://www.amazon.com/Forged-Writing-God--Why-Bibles-Authors/dp/0062012614/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1302541788&sr=8-1), Bart Ehrman points out that the section of 1 Corinthians were women are told to remain silent in church is most likely an addition by someone other than saint Paul.
Ehrman writes:
"One of the most hurtful passages for the cause of women who want to be active in the Christian church occurs in 1 Corinthians 14:35-35 Here Paul is recorded as saying:
Let the women in the churches keep silent. For it is not permitted for them to speak; instead, let them be submissive, just as the law itself says. If they wish to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
Women are to be silent and submissive to their husbands. They are not to speak at all in church. This obviously makes it impossible for a woman to utter a prophecy in church, pray publicly and openly in church, or teach in church. Women are not allowed even to ask a question in church.
These verses are very much like what one reads in one of the Pauline letters that is not authentic, 1 Timothy, which, as we saw in Chapter 3, also indicates that women are to be subject to men and not to exercise any authority over them (2:11-15). But Just as 1 Timothy is forged, so too has this passage in 1 Corinthians been falsified. These verses in chapter 14 were not written by Paul. Someone added them to the pasage later, after the letter had been placed in circulation.
Scholars have adduced many reasons for this view. For one thing, the verses seem to intrude in the passage in which they are found. Immediately before these verses Paul is talking about prophecy in the church; immediately afterwards he is talking about prophecy. But this passage on women interrupts the flow of the argument. Take them out, and it flows much better.
Even more, it is hard to believe that Paul would tell women that they could not speak in church here in 1 Corinthians 14, when just three chapters earlier he indicated that they could indeed do so. In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul urges women who pray and prophesy in church to do so only with veils on their heads. If they were allowed to speak in chapter 11, how could they be told not to speak in chapter 14? It makes better sense that those scholars are right who think that the verses were not originally part of the text of 1 Corinthians. Someone has falsified the book by adding the verses to it, making the passage say what these copyists wanted it to say rather than allowing Paul to say what he meant to say".
Opinions, anyone?
Bart Ehrman says the text about women being submissive on 1 Cor 14 was forged
by dgp 23 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
dgp
-
Terry
The writings of the First Century were more of a backdrop than an engraved in stone pronouncement.
For one thing, everybody had an opinion.
As time went by certain views became accepted while others less so.
The letters or espistles sent from church to church were not viewed as a SACRED record of DIVINE intrusion into mundane affairs.
Not at all at first.
This was a gradual view like owning a baseball card of your favorite player which later acquires collector status and is valued differently in time.
In our own day and time there are hundreds and hundreds of FAN FICTION sites all over the web. They are doing what the people back in Paul's day were doing. Shaping stories with a personal touch and injecting a particualr viewpoint into a larger framework.
In Paul's day the framework was the transition taking place between Judaism and a detached non Kosher Messianic Judaism and consequently
a breaking away into a polarized singularity.
Paul's writings and the FAN FICTION in his name and style merely gave voice to other opinions.
We have come to view the whole lot (remaining) as rather more of a HOLY RELIC that it ever was in its day.
-
PSacramento
Lookat what Paul says here in Romans:
Personal Greetings
16 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon a of the church at Cenchreae, 2 so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well.
3 Greet Prisca and Aquila, who work with me in Christ Jesus, 4 and who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. 5 Greet also the church in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who was the first convert b in Asia for Christ. 6 Greet Mary, who has worked very hard among you. 7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, c my relatives d who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was. 8 Greet Ampliatus, my beloved in the Lord. 9 Greet Urbanus, our co-worker in Christ, and my beloved Stachys. 10 Greet Apelles, who is approved in Christ. Greet those who belong to the family of Aristobulus. 11 Greet my relative e Herodion. Greet those in the Lord who belong to the family of Narcissus. 12 Greet those workers in the Lord, Tryphaena and Tryphosa. Greet the beloved Persis, who has worked hard in the Lord. 13 Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord; and greet his mother—a mother to me also. 14 Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, and the brothers and sisters f who are with them. 15 Greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints who are with them. 16 Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you.
Notice whta Paul says of a few females:
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon a of the church at Cenchreae, 2 so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints
Greet Andronicus and Junia, c my relatives d who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.
Greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints who are with them.
In just these 3 parts alone, Paul makes reference to different women as Deacons, apostles and Saints.
Does that sound like Paul wants them to "be quiet" in Church or views them as "second class citiziens"?
-
sabastious
Psac, I haven't seen you in weeks! Hows it going?
-Sab
-
dgp
I agree that Saint Paul didn't want women submitted and quiet. I would go even further, and, in agreement with Terry, I would say that Saint Paul's opinions are nothing but opinions, and so, in my humble "opinion" (sorry for being so repetitive), they are not to be taken as indicative of what churches need to do. His saying that wives must ask their husbands whatever it is wives want to know, for example, is not exactly a good thing.
But people who believe in the Bible may find it interesting that apparently the words calling for the submission of women are not Saint Paul's. It seems scholars are in agreement about this. Why don't we know that?
I would also say, if one section of Saint Paul's letters wants women to be deacons and the like, and the other wants them in submission, why is it that all churches have chosen submission?
-
PSacramento
Hi Sab :)
Better, things are going better my friend :)
Dgb, it is quite possible that Paul's words were changed, he didn't alwats write them himself and at times dictated them.
It is possible that were simply altered at the copy stage or perhaps simply misunderstood ( according to Peter, Paul wasn't always clear on things) or it coud be that Paul was addressing a specififc situation in which women were being more vocal than ANYONE should.
We need to remember that Pauls letters, while at times having a general motif, where addressed to specific churchs, specific people and at time dealing with specific situations ADN also that Paul was simply stating his opinion on the matter, opinions that at times were not followed.
-
Deputy Dog
My question to Ehrman would be; why does he (an Agnostic) care so much about what women do in the church? He left the church years ago. Does he want them to stay in or leave?
-
PSacramento
Bart's issue has always been with those that take the bible as inerrant.
Just like he did before he discovered that it wasn't inerrant, according to him.
He is simply trying to lead people to the truth, wherever that truth may lead.
Bart's problem is not his message, the "test all you are taught" is biblical as we know it, his problem is his delivery method.
-
Deputy Dog
PS
I think his problem is he's not happy with how God's treating him. You know all that evil and suffering. That is why he claims he's agnostic now.
-
dgp
Deputy Dog,
I have learned to do better than defending someone else when that someone else can stand up for himself. So I won't say why Ehrman does this or does that. I can't speak for him.
I can say, however, why I would be concerned over the role of women in a church, any church, even though I am an atheist myself and find myself in a situation much like Ehrman's, at least regarding his sense of truth.
You may not believe this, but some Catholics, however little they read the Bible, are indeed zealous and are certainly deeply interested in "the truth, wherever it may lead". Saint Dominic Savio is reputed to have said "I would rather die than sin", and is also reputed to have sort of stood up to that challenge (he died at 14, by the way). I was one of those Catholics and I find myself that the things I was told were not so. I think any behavior that results from belief in a lie is wrong. So, if a sister believes her husband is her "head", in the sense the witnesses give to this word, I feel sad for her, as much as I feel sad that Muslim women are infibulated or the like. I recognize infibulation is perhaps extreme, but I want to convey a sense of why I care. I speculate this is also the reason why Ehrman cares.
I don't think God is treating me badly because I don't think there's a God. There's evil and suffering, but I don't think that is God (or Satan), but the concrete people who inflict the harm. Or what I would call "bad luck".
I'm saying this because I want to make a point. Say Ehrman is resentful with the way God treated him, or say he is messing with how the sisters behave in churches and he is not a member of any church, if you will, but I still think he is raising a good point here. If Saint Paul wanted women not to speak in church, why does he actually say how they should speak in church a few chapters before? Either he had a very short attention span, didn't know what he was writing, or someone else put those words (by mistake, for the purpose of deceit, whatever) and - this is what matters- we have been falling for that inaccuracy for two thousand years or so. I think that's a good thing to do, even if the motivation is resentment, or anger at God, or whatever.