Romans 16

[Dicky Underpants]

I thought Paul told women to be silent in church?

The worst text in this regard is at 1Tim2: 11,12. It's been mentioned often enough on this forum that no modern scholar of any repute thinks that this was written by Paul. The authenticity of the reference which Brownie cites (a milder reference than the latter) is also highly suspect, since it stands out as a glaring interpolation in a text which has nothing at all to do with women's status.
Has it never occurred to you that the text which Hope cites is in stark contrast with the above?

[Dicky Underpants]

That was in 1 Corinthians 14 I think.

I wonder what had been going on in church that prompted him to say that, it was quite vehement.  Who knows, maybe there had been complaints about women's behaviour, we mustn't forget that the early Christians were nearly all from a Jewish background and, whilst women are and have always been very strong people, there were and are strict differences between how men and women worship.  Paul was very careful that his church not cause scandal.

Different times, more relaxation.

Paul had great respect for many women and names Phoebe, Priscilla, Junia and others.  Romans 16 is extremely interesting for that alone which is why Hope has posted about it.

As I've said to Floo, the Corinthians reference is not so strong as that in the spurious epistle 1Timothy. Strong enough, but not enough to condemn Paul as an outright misogynist, which the verses at the end of Romans (and other references) completely give the lie to. Another thing about the Corinthians reference is that, though it apparently appeared in some of the early manuscripts, it doesn't always appear in the same place in those. This strongly suggests to me that it might have been placed there by a later misogynistic redactor, or maybe Paul felt he had to kowtow to some of the patriarchal conditions of the time- as an afterthought- just as you suggest. I don't think Paul would have been that nice a chap to have as a travel companion, but he doesn't seem to have been a misogynist. Wonder if Floo will ever revise her views of decades?

[Dicky Underpants]

So, you're unable to point out the references you alluded to?  The rules of evidence apply to all, here.
OK, starting somewhat before the mid 1st millennium, this wikipedia article highlights the important roles women took in the early church as a whole - note especially the work that Geoffrey Blainey has brought to the debate (his biographical article on wikipedia makes no mention of his being a believer, though he may be).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Church_history#Apostolic_age

Note that it does also point out that the church did become a largely patriarchal body relatively early in its life.

Well, Jeremy did cite the spurious 2nd century letter 1Timothy, which definitely seems to indicate that misogynistic developments had already set in deeply, along with the developing hierarchy of the Church - which in the decades following Jesus and Paul seemed to have no particular layered structure.

And you agree that the article which you cite also confirms that patriarchy was the order of the day pretty soon after the early days of pretty well-balanced sexual equality ("In Christ there is neither male nor female, neither bond nor free" etc.

[Dicky Underpants]

Regarding the 'British Church', this article from the Holy Celtic Church makes an interesting comment:
http://www.celticsynod.org/celtic.htm

Remember that, until the English 'conquered' what is now Wales (in the time of Edward I), 'Welsh' women had the same rights as men in a large number of social contexts.

From what we know of the historical position of women in Wales, your last comment seems to be justified. As for your article on the ancient Celtic Church, it seems to be peppered with such phrases as "scholarly debate is in disagreement", "nobody knows for certain, since there are no written records" etc. - before going on to state as "historical evidence" ancient legends about Joseph of Arimathea! Give me strength!

[Spud]

Dicky,

What's your view on Titus 2:3-5? This seems to support the other texts attributed to Paul that teach Christian women to submit to their husbands.
Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

[Gordon]

Dicky,

What's your view on Titus 2:3-5? This seems to support the other texts attributed to Paul that teach Christian women to submit to their husbands.
Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

Spud, my first thought on reading the above is that if Titus dropped in for a visit here this evening and explained his views to Mrs G he'd be lucky to get out in one piece: so I let her read your post (as I quickly retreated behind the settee) but she just laughed and asked if this was an extract from the 'Big Boy's Book on How to be Patronising to Women', then mumbled something about the merits of castration in some cases - so Titus should stay away!

Why on earth do you think ancient texts like this are relevant in the 21st century - I have two daughters, who are adults now, and would be extremely angry if either of my sons-in-law regarded my girls a la Titus.

[Spud]

Thanks for that Gordon, it has cheered me up. Titus was the recipient; I wonder what Mrs Titus thought of the letter?

[Gordon]

Thanks for that Gordon, it has cheered me up. Titus was the recipient; I wonder what Mrs Titus thought of the letter?

If Mrs T's pinion is anything like Mrs G's opinion then Titus would be well advised to change the subject: for instance, he might offer to do the ironing.

[floo]

As I have said before if my husband expected me to be subservient to him he would be hanging by his dangly bits from the church steeple. Those guys Paul and Titus would be joining him if they were around today!

[jeremyp]

Hey,

I don't know who this Titus guy was, but he was the one to whom the letter was written. The fact that the letter was written implies that Titus needed to be schooled in the proper subjugation of women. He may not have been that bad.

Also, the writer of the letter is generally thought not to have been Paul but a later forger. So Paul isn't necessarily one of the bad guys either.

[Spud]

If Mrs T's pinion is anything like Mrs G's opinion then Titus would be well advised to change the subject: for instance, he might offer to do the ironing.

Superb. We can call it, Gordon's first letter to Titus.

[Hope]

As I have said before if my husband expected me to be subservient to him he would be hanging by his dangly bits from the church steeple. Those guys Paul and Titus would be joining him if they were around today!

I wonder what your husband would feel about the multitude of requirements that Paul and his pseudoepigrahical mates place on the met that they were writing to.  Overall, the instructions to men as to how to behave toward their women take up about twice as much space in the various epistles - and are no less draconian.

[jeremyp]

I wonder what your husband would feelabout the multitude of requirments that Paul and his pseudoepigrahical mates place on the ment that they were writing to.  Overall, the instructions to men as to how to behave toward their women take up about twice as much space in the various epistles - and are no less draconian.

Can you give an example of something more draconian in the Pauline epistles than "do not speak in church"?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I wonder what your husband would feelabout the multitude of requirments that Paul and his pseudoepigrahical mates place on the ment that they were writing to.  Overall, the instructions to men as to how to behave toward their women take up about twice as much space in the various epistles - and are no less draconian.

Sorry to barge in but have you managed to find one minute to answer your own questions?

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12381.0

[Hope]

Can you give an example of something more draconian in the Pauline epistles than "do not speak in church"?

Yes; for a culture which understood women to be less value than men, that required 2 or even 3 women's evidence to count for that of a single man, to be told that they had to accept women speaking in 'congregation' - after all, they were suddenly to be allowed to pray, to prophesy and to take roles of leadership - and that women were equal with men across the whole remit of society, the rather tedious claim that women were not to speak in church (clearly something that wasn't the full reality) was possibly more draconian then that dubious claim.

Remember that - according to Jewish custom - women were relegated to the balcony, and expected to sit through synagogue in silence.  They weren't allowed to ask questions during synagogue (which the men probably would have been - according to what I have been told by rabbis) but required to ask their husbands for clarification of points theological once they got home.  Whispering to each other - as does occur, apparently - would have been an absolute no-no.   

[Hope]

Sorry to barge in but have you managed to find one minute to answer your own questions?

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12381.0

I think you will find that you are asking me to answer a question of yours, rather than answering my own, Stephen.  If you really believe that you can provide such an answer to that question, perhaps you ought to produce it.  Its a question that I've asked, on and off over 30 or 40 years, and whilst a few people have offered to provide an answer, what they have provided only produced more questions.

[Spud]

Yes; for a culture which understood women to be less value than men, that required 2 or even 3 women's evidence to count for that of a single man, to be told that they had to accept women speaking in 'congregation' - after all, they were suddenly to be allowed to pray, to prophesy and to take roles of leadership - and that women were equal with men across the whole remit of society, the rather tedious claim that women were not to speak in church (clearly something that wasn't the full reality) was possibly more draconian then that dubious claim.

Remember that - according to Jewish custom - women were relegated to the balcony, and expected to sit through synagogue in silence.  They weren't allowed to ask questions during synagogue (which the men probably would have been - according to what I have been told by rabbis) but required to ask their husbands for clarification of points theological once they got home.  Whispering to each other - as does occur, apparently - would have been an absolute no-no.

Hi Hope,
The principle of male headship in the church and n the family could still be upheld while allowing some women to teach (other women, for instance) and have a more active role in ministry. I think this is the only way we can reconcile Paul's statements about women in 1 Cor 14:34 etc with the apparent leadership roles had by some of the women in Romans 16.

[floo]

Hi Hope,
The principle of male headship in the church and n the family could still be upheld while allowing some women to teach (other women, for instance) and have a more active role in ministry. I think this is the only way we can reconcile Paul's statements about women in 1 Cor 14:34 etc with the apparent leadership roles had by some of the women in Romans 16.

YE GODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Brownie]

Spud:   "...allowing some women to teach (other women, for instance)..."

That's how it is in Saudia Arabia, Spud.

[Ricky Spanish]

Good on ya, Thrud?  For someone who claims a knowledge of the Bible, one would expect them to understand the reference to milk and meat.  The first refers to what young children are given as food; the latter refers to what more mature people are given as food.

Ok just pointing out that this discussion is about Romans, specifically Romans 16...

If you want to chat about something unrelated start another thread... unless you want to show me in some tortuous, tedious way that Romans 16 can be linked to 1 Corry 3..

[Ricky Spanish]

Oh, it looks like you have the keyboard all to yourself hope..  make good use of it now!!

[jeremyp]

Yes; for a culture which understood women to be less value than men, that required 2 or even 3 women's evidence to count for that of a single man, to be told that they had to accept women speaking in 'congregation' - after all, they were suddenly to be allowed to pray, to prophesy and to take roles of leadership

But 1 Timothy says they can't do all that. We are looking for stuff that's more draconian than not being allowed to speak in church, not less draconian.

[Ricky Spanish]

Timmy was written by someone who had never met Paul, let alone Jesus.. not worth even arguing about, let alone discussing...

[Hope]

Timmy was written by someone who had never met Paul, let alone Jesus.. not worth even arguing about, let alone discussing...

Evidence required, Thrud.

[Hope]

I think this is the only way we can reconcile Paul's statements about women in 1 Cor 14:34 etc with the apparent leadership roles had by some of the women in Romans 16.

I would disagree, Spud, especially when one uses the Greek originals, rather than the English translations.