Indeed ... I think that MANY of the Speculations and Suggestions and Claims made by various Historical-Critical Scholars are advanced ENTIRELY reasonably and in good faith after DEEP Study ...

But we're STILL "stuck" with The Sacred Texts AS  WE  HAVE  Them ...

The Texts are "Canonical" ... The Claims, Suggestions, and Speculation are NOT "Canonical" ...

Dec 10, 2010 -- 11:05AM, Plabebob wrote:

Dec 10, 2010 -- 10:50AM, teilhard wrote:

NO  ONE  has The Original Manuscripts of ANY of The Sacred Texts ...

We have copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies ... SOME of the Copies contain OBVIOUS errors or editorial changes ... OTHERS contain VARIATIONS that may or may NOT reflect The Original Text ...

Dec 4, 2010 -- 9:44AM, Plabebob wrote:

Apologies - I haven't had time to read all the replies to this thread, but as I understand it is is believed by many people that the verses you mention were written by someone else & inserted up to 150 years after the death of Paul, after the revolutionary ideas about women were starting to recede & woman's place in the church was slipping again. 

 

No that 's true, but there are resons why people studying those texts think these things, they aren't just making it up! There is some info on why they think it on the link I provided, but reasons include the same kind of reasons you'd expect any forgery - change in prose style etc. There are also historical motives for people adding/changing bits - again, based on research not just made up. That doesn't mean they're necessarily right, but you don't have to have the original copy of a manuscript in order to study it.

I don't claim to have studied them personally, just adding to the debate!

Nov 16, 2010 -- 4:57PM, Thunderson82 wrote:

"As in all the congregations of the holy ones, let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak, but let them be in subjection, even as the Law says. If, then, they want to learn something, let them question their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in a congregation."-1 Corinthians 14:33b-35 NWT

Strong words from the writer of this text. He is trying to be as clear as possible, "women should be seen, not heard". Hearing a voice of a woman offering praise or prayer or prophesy would be disgraceful in his eyes.

Now let me be clear, I believe that an apostle Paul existed in antiquity. I believe that same man wrote many of the letters attributed to him in the christians greek canon like 1 Corinthians. Chapter 14 he wrote himself. The problem comes when we examine the text in question.

There is good reasons for a careful bible student's ear to tingle when hearing the words of 33b-35. A student of textual criticism would of found a few things odd.

1. Our oldest and best witnesses(i.e. manuscripts) don't agree with the placement of this text. Some copies has the text added at the end of chapter 14. Some has the verse preserved where we see it in the NWT. And still some of our witnesses don't have the text at all. This should give a student pause.

2. The text's ideology differs from what we know of the apostle and the congregations he governed.

I. Women held the position of deacons/ministerial servants-(Romans 16:1)

II. A woman was charged with delivering Paul's letters to the circuit of congregations. NO SMALL CHARGE. With Phoebe carried the weight of Paul's apostolic authority. She acted as his representative.(Romans 16:2)

III. Paul named the wife before her husband in giving a shout out to the pair. Would of been a big "no no" in the ancient world. But Paul did it any way.(Romans 16:3,4)

IV: Paul calls Junia, a woman, "[an] apostle". (Romans 16:7(NWTTC fails to stay true to the text))

V: In the congregation, there is neither "male or female". They are all "one".-(Galatians 3:27,28)

3. The text appears to be foreign to the immediate context. In the verses prior to vs33b-35, the apostle is discusses the role prophets have in congregation meetings. If we look to the verses after vs33b-35, again we find Paul discussing that role prophecy has in christian faith.

If one removes vs33b-35, we see that Paul's original words are healed. Go ahead and read the chapter without the text in question. You would find more continuity of thought in the apostles words. Yes friends, vs33b-35 is foreign to the context of chapter 14.

-TS

I see your point but it is important to notice that Paul Changes over his time following Jesus. The exact dates of the letters we are not sure of yet corinthians is one of his eariler letters, Galathian and Romans are written arround a year later maybe more. 

So it could simply be a case that his ideas about this changed.

All of The Sacred Texts were written in Human Languages by Human Beings at particular Times in Human History reflecting Human Cultures and addressing Human Communities of Faith ...

That FACT does NOT detract from Their SACRED Character ...

ummmm ...

The Problem of "Male Chauvinism" in Paul's Letters was raised by someone (else) AS a PROBLEM ...

My Post indicates/reminds that Paul was a Human Being  OF  HIS  Time and Culture, so, yes, indeed, "Male Chauvinism" may very well have been ONE Aspect of Paul's Ideas about "Community" ...

Dec 31, 2010 -- 7:44PM, Dennis wrote:

Dec 31, 2010 -- 7:38PM, teilhard wrote:

All of The Sacred Texts were written in Human Languages by Human Beings at particular Times in Human History reflecting Human Cultures and addressing Human Communities of Faith ...

That FACT does NOT detract from Their SACRED Character ...

...And the above has absolutely nothing to do with the thread now, does it!

Nope ...

It's part of The HUMAN - Cultural - History Character of The Bible ... along with Monarchy, The Institution of Slavery, Plural Marriage, etc. ...

Rigid all-or-nothing "Fundamentalist" Thinking about The Sacred Texts isn't Realistic ... or helpful ...

Jan 1, 2011 -- 6:26AM, Dennis wrote:

I understand... Male chauvinism is a part of the "sacred" character of the Bible. 

Dec 31, 2010 -- 7:47PM, teilhard wrote:

ummmm ...

The Problem of "Male Chauvinism" in Paul's Letters was raised by someone (else) AS a PROBLEM ...

My Post indicates/reminds that Paul was a Human Being  OF  HIS  Time and Culture, so, yes, indeed, "Male Chauvinism" may very well have been ONE Aspect of Paul's Ideas about "Community" ...

Dec 31, 2010 -- 7:44PM, Dennis wrote:

Dec 31, 2010 -- 7:38PM, teilhard wrote:

All of The Sacred Texts were written in Human Languages by Human Beings at particular Times in Human History reflecting Human Cultures and addressing Human Communities of Faith ...

That FACT does NOT detract from Their SACRED Character ...

...And the above has absolutely nothing to do with the thread now, does it!