tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post4162570378420087044..comments2024-01-29T06:02:39.583-08:00Comments on Suzanne's Bookshelf: Does the Bible put women down? Response to Ken PulliamSuzanne McCarthyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-51331076094793100312010-07-27T14:18:45.010-07:002010-07-27T14:18:45.010-07:00I'm not sure that the editors of the NET Bible...I'm not sure that the editors of the NET Bible think it most likely that 1 Co 14:34-35 is a marginal note. Their footnote ends with "There are apparently no mss that have an asterisk or obelisk in the margin. Yet in other places in the NT where scribes doubted the authenticity of the clauses before them, they often noted their protest with an asterisk or obelisk. We are thus compelled to regard the words as original, and as belonging where they are in the text above."<br /><br />I happen to think they are wrong in this. I find Payne's textual arguments for interpolation quite convincing.BradKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010789914473231268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-58285322866027426502010-07-24T13:41:19.482-07:002010-07-24T13:41:19.482-07:00With regards to 1 Cor 14:34-35 (whether they were ...With regards to 1 Cor 14:34-35 (whether they were a marginal note by Paul or added by someone else), Suzanne says:<br /><br />"That is somewhat problematic because if these two verses were not in the original text in that position, but in the margin, then the following verse cannot be a response. I am firmly agnositic on these things. As I have said, I am not a biblicist, but I do support breaking down certainties that the text is against women."<br /><br />There is another possibility: that these two verses <i>were</i> in the text in the position they now appear, with Paul's words immediately following "What! Did the word of God begin with you?" as a refutation. And a scribe saw that Paul's words were a refutation of the "women be silent" position, and thought, "This must be a mistake. Surely Paul meant his words on women's silence to be taken seriously!" And so, not willing to actually add to or take away from Paul's words, he simply moved them a few verses down, where they could stand as Paul's actual instructions to silence women.<br /><br />This kind of scribal interference is not unknown. I was reading about it in <i>Daughters of the Church</i> by Tucker & Liefield (Zondervan, page 68, quoting from Bruce M. Metzger, <i>Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament</i>, United Bible Societies, pp. 453-54).Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-70043010427247849992010-07-21T21:11:35.121-07:002010-07-21T21:11:35.121-07:00I agree with Anonymous that Paul was quoting somet...I agree with Anonymous that Paul was quoting something the Corinthians wrote to him about, and his response being in vs. 36. I can see this, as he's answering questions throughout the letter.<br /><br />Paul also states in chap. 1 that he came to preach the gospel, and chp. 2 that he "decided to be concerned about nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified."<br /><br />By chap. 5 he's confronting their sexual immorality and general selfish ways. The Corinthians weren't the most "devout", if you will, believers and had a lot of baggage. Why would Paul add to their load and confusion? I see him throughout his letters redirecting them back to devotion to God and preferring one another instead of their self-centered ways.<br /><br />Again: why would we base male-female relationships inside and outside of the congregation of "church" on one of the most immature (in the faith and fruit of the Holy Spirit) churches in the New Testament? Philippians starts out with a great commendation from Paul, as he may have had an early start with the Philippians when he met with Lydia (Acts 16).<br /><br />These have been my thoughts for a while on those passages, and I have God, Suzanne, and many other believers at women in ministry blog to thank as well.<br /><br />Thank you for your work here, Suzanne.Kathleenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01181438211658110880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-68143008410331995582010-07-21T17:00:34.071-07:002010-07-21T17:00:34.071-07:00I do not know what a biblicist it, but I try to be...I do not know what a biblicist it, but I try to be a Scripturalist, which sounds similar and may mean the same thing.<br /><br />I do not see contradictions in the Bible when it is understood in immediate context, Scriptural subject context and cultural context.Donald Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07904992652259586383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-46051395437986952202010-07-20T22:45:07.036-07:002010-07-20T22:45:07.036-07:00That is somewhat problematic because if these two ...That is somewhat problematic because if these two verses were not in the original text in that position, but in the margin, then the following verse cannot be a response. I am firmly agnositic on these things. As I have said, I am not a biblicist, but I do support breaking down certainties that the text is against women.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-84241801308682127752010-07-20T21:56:10.529-07:002010-07-20T21:56:10.529-07:00"It is a fifity-fifity choice, in my view, wh..."It is a fifity-fifity choice, in my view, whether 1 Cor. 14:34-35, was added by a scribe who did not like women, or was added by Paul as an afterthought. But we still have to deal with the whether this would qualify as "inspired by the Holy Spirit" or simply Paul's private opinions."<br /><br />Some think it was a quote Paul was responding to because it sounds like it was taken right out of the Oral Law. And because he answers questions they had throughout the letter.<br /><br /> And verse 36 confirms this as Paul basically says, What! Are you serious? <br /><br /><br />This is actually an affirming passage for egals. Cheryl Schatz does an excellent job on this passage.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-24975588094053769642010-07-20T00:03:40.649-07:002010-07-20T00:03:40.649-07:00I'm also not sure I necessarily see Paul as in...I'm also not sure I necessarily see Paul as inconsistent. It's not inconsistent or self-contradictory in my mind to say, "It's good to be single, but it's also just fine to be married." Or to say, "In the privacy of their intimacy, a couple must relate with complete reciprocity, but when they are interacting with the community, there are social attitudes and conventions which must be taken into account."<br /><br />Paul did say, "I become all things to all people, that I might by any means save some." With this as his professed mission, it's not surprising to me that he modified his message to fit individual audiences and diverse circumstances.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-85658508309012239572010-07-19T23:35:10.597-07:002010-07-19T23:35:10.597-07:00With regards to this comment of Ken Pulliam's:...With regards to this comment of Ken Pulliam's:<br /><br />"The reality is, as Mohler says, Paul is not contradicting the overall teaching of the Bible on women. It does actually reflect the 'the kinds of social hierarchy that existed in the first and second millennium B.C.E. and continued until recently.'"<br /><br />I made this comment on his blog:<br /><br />Couldn't we just as easily say that Mark Twain's "Huckleberry Finn" actually reflects the kind of racism that existed in the pre-Civil War American South, and from there insist that Twain was actually promoting racism? He does, after all, use the n-word, and he refers to slaves with demeaning appellations such that their identity lies in who owns them, and not in themselves.<br /><br />However, the plot of Huckleberry Finn largely centers around how Huck helps a slave to run away, and how he learns to see Jim as a full human being. Can we make a point that Twain is trying to say something important that, as the original audience would have understood it, reflected a move away from slavery? Or is it all that matters, that Twain reflects the attitudes of his times in the use of the n-word?<br /><br />A reading of the New Testament that insists on seeing only the social heirarchy that existed at the time, might very well be missing what the original audience might have understood Paul to actually be saying; that his words reflect new ideas about male-female relations, which the audience, hearing his message within the historical context of those times, would have understood entirely differently than it looks to us on a surface reading only. <br /><br />It is somewhat interesting to find hyper-literal fundamentalist Christians and non-religious people in so much agreement about what the Bible is actually all about. Only perhaps those hyper-literal fundamentalists are working from an overly simplistic understanding of the text-- and the non-religious find no reason to look any deeper.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-11205893810095050842010-07-19T23:23:48.596-07:002010-07-19T23:23:48.596-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-9747622604922328312010-07-19T16:22:13.167-07:002010-07-19T16:22:13.167-07:00I agree. That is what I meant when I wrote,
&quo...I agree. That is what I meant when I wrote, <br /><br />"Is it really biblical feminists who are deconstructing the Bible, or is it the reasoned scholarship of text critics in general, both conservative and liberal? Even the most conservative text critics realize that there was something irregular about these verses."<br /><br />But perhaps I added that in an edit. Sorry bout that.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-59288592687228711102010-07-19T16:13:19.046-07:002010-07-19T16:13:19.046-07:00It is hardly necessary to argue that "anti-fe...It is hardly necessary to argue that "anti-feminist" passages otherwise attributed to Paul weren't really written by him to make the case that they don't actually mean the kind of subordination of women they are often taken as meaning. The argument that they are particular about qualification for church office, itself, is spurious. <br /><br />That's not to say that the passages being discussed <i>aren't</i> questionable (in terms of whether or not Paul wrote them). It's just that the reasons for questioning them have nothing to do with what they say about women in ministry. If we don't question the authenticity of those passages at all, arguments that women may still be allowed the rights to church office remain more or less unimpacted. <br /><br />Mohler's (and others) arguments that these disputes occur because of some kind of theological agenda are off-base, and I would argue do more to establish the agenda of Mohler and his ilk to oppose equality for women at practically any cost.Mark Baker-Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14593390925694976101noreply@blogger.com