Bart Ehrman says the text about women being submissive on 1 Cor 14 was forged
by dgp 23 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Justitia Themis
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.
This might seem like a relatively minor issue--so he got a little off track in a letter--but it is HUGE. Paul was educated in Greek philosophy, which has very stingent rules for letter-writing. The type of letter dictates the format.
This form of logic/writing exists today in legal writing, which is incredibly formulaic. Greeks, Paul, and good legal writers do NOT get off track; they are experts at logic and flow. If you would like to see shining examples of it, visit the U.S. Solicitor General website and read some opinions.
Paul would NEVER have interrupted the logic to add such an unrelated point.
-
Mad Sweeney
So we're pretty certain that Paul actually wrote some of that stuff but not others? Based on what? Can't be the original copies because they are LONG gone. What's the oldest Pauline manuscript we have? Third century? How do we know ANY of it is his writing?
-
Justitia Themis
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?
If you take a class in religion (or oganization theory in general) you will find that groups at tension with society often start out with stark equality between women and men. As the religion/group starts to garner followers, more power and authority are given to positions, and at that point, women usually get pushed out.
Additionally, during periods of time when physical/economic harm is associated with belonging to the group, women and men share equally. As the group enlarges and becomes more mainstream and the threats subside (and perhaps a measure of social collateral is gained) then men start pushing out the women.
In short: if it is costly to be a leader, men are more than welcome to share the limelight. If it is profitable to be a leader, men push women out.
Women were welcomed as Christian leaders when it meant they might be fed to the lions, but when it meant associating with the political elite (Constantine) women were no longer welcome.
-
designs
It was Paul reflecting on his six wives
-
dgp
Justitia, my experience in real life tells me you are so, so right. It also happens that "smart" males give such positions to "dumb" males.
A bad thing about "Forged..." is that Ehrman refers you to his other books for the background of some of his statements. It is somewhat like Lenin asking you to read his complete works before he can give you an answer. So, he doesn't say why he thinks some epistles were indeed written by Saint Paul. He does say that 1 and 2 Peter were not written by Peter, and, in my humble opinion, the fact that Peter spoke no Greek and was probably illiterate supports Ehrman's views.
In passing, I would like to say that for some reason the gift of speaking in tongues does not have the equivalent of writing in other languages. No one has ever claimed to be able to write in a different language without learning it first. At least I don't know of anyone. I used to have some Pentecostal neighbors who claimed they spoke in tongues when the Holy Spirit came to them; but they never claimed to be able to write.
Justitia, I have never taken any course on Organization Theory, but you did make me remember "The Peter Principle" and "Parkinson's Law" .
Ehrman also informs about other documents that didn't make it into the Canon but are also forgeries.
-
Pistoff
Ehrman is a figure that makes fundamentalists uncomfortable: he was one of them, and was determined to be the one who got a university level education in bible studies and not lose his "faith". Problem is, that is exactly what it did.
It is helpful to read a variety of scholars regarding Paul; when one does that, it is obvious that Paul wrote 6, maybe 7 of the 13 letters ascribed to him. The rest were written by a 'school' of Paul, not an uncommon thing in the day and the letters would not have been viewed as fraudulent. They were not viewed as coming from god then, as they are viewed by most christians today.
But of course, they came to be viewed as Law, and Gospel, and are still used to set in stone the practices in congregations.
Some who seem to be Christian state here that this is just Paul's opinion, but I am betting that they would not stand up in the middle of the congregation and say it. That is heresy to mainline and fundamental religions alike; Paul is THE architect of christianity.
I agree with Bart, but I agree because I have read many scholars and agree with the methodology of the studies that lead them to say that much of what is attributed to Paul is not from Paul.
After all, Paul is the man who said 'there is no jew or greek, no slave or master, no male or female' only followers of Christ.
The early church leaders were women, as cited above.
-
PSacramento
So we're pretty certain that Paul actually wrote some of that stuff but not others? Based on what? Can't be the original copies because they are LONG gone. What's the oldest Pauline manuscript we have? Third century? How do we know ANY of it is his writing?
That is a valid pint and question.
Textual criticism helps us to see that certain modes of writing and use of languages and words characterize an author, so "writing style" is one way to see if Paul wrote A and B as well as C.
Here is a good place to start:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb3.htm
Beyond that there are a few books on the subject, I would suggest contacting Leolaia, she may have a few suggestions.
-
Terry
None of this would be a problem to any of us if the Protestant Reformation had never happened.
Pre-Martin Luther, the institution of THE CHURCH had all the authority necessary to dictate roles for men and women.
There was no questioning the Magisterium, the Tradition or the Authority of Church pronouncements.
However, the Protestant Reformation did arrive.
Why? The male-dominated heirarchy failed utterly to preserve or practice uncorrupt christian ethics!
This was a "teaching moment" for anybody who cared to make an honest evaluation.
IF the male-dominant Catholic Church was blessed by Almighty God who signed off on whatever was "bound on earth", the Church simply
could not have fallen into such corruption.
Martin Luther scrapped the authority's premise: Magisterium and inerrant pronouncement on faith and morals.
HERE IS WHERE CHRISTIANITY CRASHED and BURNED.
Not only had history completely refuted the idea of "Church as Divine Institution" it opened the door for more catastrophe.
That catastrophe took the form of SOLA SCRIPTURA. Sola Scriptura REPLACED Magisterium.
A NEW THEORY.
Luther invented this.
No longer were devout, faithful, bible-believing christians subject to official institutions of faith for guidance. No. All any christian needed was
a bible and faith in Jesus.
Period.
A quick glance at the second 1,500 years of christianity has ALSO REFUTED the efficacy of Sola Scriptura!
Hundreds upon thousands of denominations split off and created cherry-picking hypothesis of what True Christianity is.
No two agree.
Women remained at the bottom of the heap and men at the top (corrupt as ususual.)
The problem, then, isn't the EQUALITY of men and women in Christianity.
Can you guess what the REAL PROBLEM is?
Hint: history has told the story.
-
Band on the Run
Ehrmann is just repeating what scholars have long believed. Forged is a loaded word. I don't think anyone held a meeting with co-conspirators to forge Paul's words. Maybe it was subtle. Christianity seemed to lose its most significant parts when it became the official state religion and orthodoxy ,was defined. Constantine prob. converted for political reasons, not spiritual.
Someone posted about Ehrmann just a short while ago. His claims are over the top. No scholarly article would use the word forged. Forged involves intent along with whatever elements. Clearly, St. Paul had no intention of barring women. A few years ago I read Dominic Paul Crossan's book on Paul and the Roman Empire. I doubt Paul was an ardent feminist. Later Christian thought was reactionary.
Jesus' treats women very well. Paul had them as teachers and supports. I believe women were bishops and deacons in the early church. It should be warning for women today that women had vast power and lost it completely. No right should be treated as inconsequential.