The status of women in early Christianity

by Leolaia 62 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  LittleToe

  The Gnostics lost???
  

  Oh dear!
• 

  jgnat

  Young non-widows were likely an early form of feminism, Little Toe. I often wondered how strong, independent women managed before women's lib? They coped with the situation of course. It's not like women all of a sudden grew brains in the nineteenth century. We have been around a long time speaking our minds and agitating men.

  Here's how a young bride could leverage her influence even though first her father and then her husband owns all she has. She marries an old dude. He has lots of money, plus she came with her own inheritance. He dies in his mid-forties (average). She takes a vow of celibacy and moves in to a convent. In this case, there is no man in charge. She has free reign!
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  Hows about - the less knowledgable sect - of Gnostics lost out?

  P.S. Leolaia -> I couldn't stop reading this writeup despite it being very late last night. Super job.
• 

  Leolaia

  jgnat...Gnosticism certainly had viability issues, eschewing as it did procreation. Like most faiths of the time tho, I don't think it conceived that the present world with its evils would long continue, much less exist thousands of years later, so the point wasn't in longevity. And considering that they believed that their wisdom came from the serpent in the Garden of Eden and that the Creator was really the Devil (so to speak), it isn't hard to understand why orthodox Christians viewed it as a satanic blasphemy against God. So the Church was quite determined at wiping them out.

  It did anticipate modern feminism in one respect: by rejecting gender essentialism that posits an internal female or male essence. There are female and male spiritual principles in gnosticism, as well as an internal spiritual essence, but the principles are complementary within the Pleroma and entirely distinct from the fleshly gender distinctions fashioned by the Demiurge; thus the divine spark is itself undivided and the believer must make oneself so that "the male is neither male nor the female female" in order to fully grasp one's own divinity.

  The situation with young non-widows is interesting. Another thing to remember is that unlike the stereotype of widows as poor, some widows were indeed wealthy because of inheriting wealth, and this put them in the position of being influential benefactors of the church (like perhaps the deacon Phoebe of Romans 16:1-2, who was described as an important patron). And being wealthy, and widowed, means that they had their own homes and were the head of household. Since early Christianity depended on house churches, as well as on the wealth of its benefactors, this gave such women a measure of power that most other women would not have. Can you imagine a struggling church in the boonies of Phyrgia that was dependent on the money of an important benefactor (whether male or female) who insisted that he or she be allowed to expound on their own interpretations of gospel?
• 

  Leolaia

  The Essenes come quite close to the gnostics in some respects, especially in the radical dualism. The gnostics however were more influenced by Greek Platonism and Stoicism, such as that exemplified by Philo of Alexandria and shared by some of the second-century proto-orthodox theologians, so that Athenagorus of Athens, Theophilus of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, and others worked with the same philosophical concepts (e.g. Dunamis "Power", Logos "Reason", Nous "Mind", Sophia "Wisdom", Arkhé "First Principle", ousia "essence"; both Justin Martyr and the gnostic philosopher Plotinus borrowed the Stoic term logos spermatikos "seminal reason" from earlier Stoic philosophy, etc.) which served to develop both gnostic and orthodox (e.g. pre-trinitarian and trinitarian) theology. The gnostics were also syncretistic with existing mystery cults (e.g. the concepts of the "ogdoad" and "Barbero" being drawn from Egyptian mythology) and popular Judaic angelelogy and demonology.
• 

  Euphemism

  RichieRich wrote:
  Sorry Christians, I think its the Bible that is sexist and insults women, not just the Dubs.

  I'm not a Christian; neither is Leolaia or Narkissos (to my knowledge). But the Bible is actually composed of different books by writers with different viewpoints.

  Some of those writers, such as the writer of 1 Timothy (which was not actually written by Paul), were definitely sexist. Others were fairly enlightened, at least for the time they lived in; Paul himself had no objection to women prophesying or praying in the church (see 1 Corinthians 11).

  Also, the Bible (or properly speaking, the orthodox canon) does not represent the entire range of Christian experience in the first century. As Leolaia showed, groups such as the proto-gnostics were very strongly feminist; and they did leave behind writings, although the Church later chose to exclude those writing from the Bible.
• 

  LittleToe

  Thanks for posting that, Euph. It comes better from someone who can't have the the erroneous title of "emotionally invested" thrown at them.
• 

  Leolaia

  The other interesting thing about the material, especially what I presented from Ignatius of Antioch, is how much the ecclesiastical development of the proto-orthodox church was directed at taking control and infuence away from people being designated as "false teachers". It is striking how much of it parallels the ecclesiastical changes in the Watchtower movement, particularly in the Rutherford era of the 1920s and 30s. Originally, the congregations had bodies of elected elders, but since they tended to stick to Russelite ideas (which were expressed more fully in the breakaway sects that had popped up by the 1920s, often in direct conflict with the Watchtower Society) and resisted the changes that the new Rutherfordian orthodoxy was setting into motion, they were squeezed out and replaced by a central bishop-like overseer of the congregation, who had greater control over what was being taught in the congregation.

  It is interesting that the Society regards the rise of hierarchical ecclesiastical structure in the church as one of the main features of the "great apostasy," when it was part of proto-orthodoxy's resistance against to the gnostic movement which itself is condemned in the NT. It is also interesting how some Watchtower articles praise Polycarp, Irenaeus, and other second-century proto-orthodox leaders for fighting gnosticism, but omit the role they played in proto-orthodoxy (which they also see as "apostate").
• 

  Narkissos

  Interestingly we probably have the opposite viewpoint on an Ignatius-type monarchic bishop in 3 John, from the "elder" of the (mildly Gnostic?) Johannine community whose envoys are shunned by (proto-Catholic bishop?) Diotrephes:

  I have written something to the church; but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. So if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing in spreading false charges against us. And not content with those charges, he refuses to welcome the friends, and even prevents those who want to do so and expels them from the church.
• 

  Leolaia

  Narkissos....This complaint by the author of 3 John (John the Presbyter?) is all the more striking considering Diotrephes was acting very much in harmony with the counsel in 2 John 10 (to shun itinerant preachers if they teach beyond what is accepted as the "teaching of Christ"), except that the Johannine author of these epistles would not believe that he himself was teaching false doctrine. The two situations both involve itinerants, e.g. "anyone comes to you", "receive him into your house" in 2 John 10, "some brothers came" in 3 John 3, "looking after these brothers though they are complete strangers" in 3 John 5, "help them on their journey" in 3 John 6, "they set out" in 3 John 7, "welcome men of this sort" in 3 John 8 (compare 2 John 10, on not even saying a greeting to such men), "refuses to accept us" in 3 John 9. I wonder kind of "wicked accusations" Diotrephes had against the author of 3 John and his community. It is striking that John mentions only theological reasons for shunning itinerants in 2 John, whereas the Didache bases its advice on refusing itinerants on their behavior and actions.

  On Diotrephes as a sort of early monarchical bishop, this was suggested by Harnack....here is Moffatt's summary of Harnack's position: "The presbyter, who had already (2 John 10) put the church on its guard against itinerant preachers, is here opposed as an intruder by Diotrephes, the head of some local church, who feelds that the interests of the organization are no longer compatible with the outside supervision exercised over the Asiatic communities by the presbyter himself. The territorial authority of the latter is repudiated. On this view, the presbyter would be making a conservative protest against the first of the monarchical bishops. It was unsuccessful. By the time Ignatius came to write, the monarchical episcopate was fairly settled in Asia Minor; the action of Diotrephes was ratified by history, and John the presbyter's reputation rested on his writings, not on his ecclesiastical policy" (p. 478).

  I would guess the main weakness of this view is the uncertainty over whether Diotrephes was a bishop. He obviously had quite a bit of authority if he was able to refuse even John's letters and emissaries. A word study of the critical term philopróteuón "liking being foremost" might be of interest.

  BTW, I just got the new book on Matthew and the Didache yesterday and it looks like Milavic may have teased out some possible leads on women in the church from the Didache, so I'll check out his commentary on the Didache later today to see if there is anything promising in there.