Was Paul really a woman hater?

peacefulpete

For the discussin I will set aside questions about whether Paul was was infact a literary creation of the Gnostic Xtians.

"Paul's" famous words at ! Tim 2:12-15 and I Cor 14:34,35 that insist women be silent in the congretgations have spawned hundreds of years of female repression.

The question is, was this the message of "Paul" or later interpolators?

Most everyone is aware that 1 Tim is regarded as a 2nd century fraud by most researchers. So the question then is whether the author of 1Tim was framing his anti-woman opinion upon 1 Cor.

Interestingly while the book as a whole is regarded as authentic "Pauline", passages within have been identified as later insertions. Does chapter 14 belong to the text?

The evidence suggests , NO. First the statement contradicts chapter 11 where in "Paul" condone women teachers provided they have their head covered.

Secondly this seems to counter the statement in Gal 3:28 (regarded as authentic) that says there is no disticntion between men and women in Christ.

Thirdly there are possible allusions to women in positions of oversite in Romans(parts of which are felt to be authentic Pauline). Forthly, the Marcionites and Xtian Gnostics who highly regarded Paul (in fact the possible source of them) had no such predjudices.

5th the passage is intrusive (evidence of insertion) to the flow of the dicussion. When removed, the thought is seemlessly speaking about prophets in the congo.

And lastly, the verses in 1 Cor. 14 appear in various locations in the text in different manuscripts. This strongly suggests that the comment was a marginal note that copyists inserted in the text where they saw appropriate. For all these reasons many scholars today regard the verses as unauthentic and likely inserted at the time 1 Tim was becoming accepted. It served the proto-orthodox church whose male hierchy depised the Gnostic liberalism.

What does this mean to JWs? Someday (a long time from now) it may be new light - Female public speakers!

Aztec

What about 1 Peter 3:1-7, Ephesians 5:22-24, and Colossians 3:18,19 where women are repeatedly told that their husband is their head and they are to submit to them?

What will it mean for the JW's? All of us uppity women leave and only the meek ones are left behind? *Shrugs*

~Aztec

Doubtfully Yours

No, not a woman hater, I don't believe, but surely the head of the 'Old Boys Network' no doubt (HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!).

DY

Lonestar13

An old friend used to interpret the scriputue which says that women are not permitted to speak as "let the women shut-up"

(and old friend as in FORMER friend )

ThiChi

Considering the current practice of the Synagogue in Paul's day to segregate the males from the females, Paul?s radical instructions allowing women to worship alongside men and approving "prophesying" and other functions of worship with a head covering, makes Paul very progressive for the times and customs of the day.

Notwithstanding, customs that restrict does not mean "Hate."

peacefulpete

Not nearly as progressive as the Gnostics.

ThiChi

Are we taking about Paul or Mother worship?

peacefulpete

I think most of the responses so far have been from people who disliked my title. The point of the thread was that "Paul" was not apparently as sexist as he had been made by later interpolators.

Chappi

Sorry liberalists. Men are superiour to women in rank.

God Bless

Narkissos

I agree that 1 Corinthians 14:34f is dubious (and that the Pastorals are certainly postpauline).

However, 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 is certainly Pauline: it tries to restrict the charismatic freedom of the Hellenistic communities (which may have protognostic overtones) and does so on a conservative "creation" basis. Sounds like Paul doesn't feel that sex equality is worth the clash with Judaism (such as will happen on circumcision in Galatians). Could it be that "neither Jew nor Greek" is more important to him (I mean, personally) than "neither male nor female"?

As for the Gnostic (or protognostic) approach, the concluding logion of GThomas (114) is interesting to put it in the historical context (which is not nearly our modern view of natural equality): "Simon Peter said to them: 'Let Mary go away from us, for women are not worthy of life.' Jesus said: 'Look, I will drag her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living male spirit being similar to you. But I say to you: 'Every woman who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.'"

Was Paul really a woman hater?

Share this