By Shawn Wilson (NCU Religion Student)
Copyright © 2013
In popular hermeneutics of the corpus
paulinum,[1] that is, the
Pauline Epistles, there has been much accusation against the apostle Paul for
being an androcentric chauvinist, rather than being Christocentric. These
accusations arose because of certain texts that seem to suggest that Paul had a
Patriarchal misogynistic outlook on women, especially as it relates to them
performing certain functions in the church. Quotes such as, “the man is the
head of the women” (1 Cor. 11:3, AP),[2] “women
should be silent in the churches” (1 Cor. 14:34, AP; cf., Eph. 5:22; Col 3:18;
Tit. 2:5; 1 Tim. 2:12),[3] and so forth, are
often used by those who advocate a chauvinistic structure of church leadership;
while these same texts are used by feminist to point out that Paul was a
sexist. However, recent scholarship has recognized that there are numerous
problems with the chauvinistic use of the Pauline epistles, as well as the ad
hominem attacks on Paul. Here,
I will highlight some of those problems.
Firstly, it has been widely recognized among
contemporary scholars that the traditional negative misogynic picture of Paul
is exegetically untenable. One of the reasons for this conclusion is that, of
the fourteen letters said to be Pauline only seven of them were actually
written by Paul. These are: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians,
Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. The
other letters are said to be Deuto and Trito-Pauline i.e., pseudepigraphical works of second-generation followers of Paul.[4]
Given the truth of these findings, it therefore follows that certain radical
patriarchal scriptural injunctions like, “I permit no woman to teach or to have
authority over a man; she should keep silent” (1 Tim. 2:12, AP), and so forth,
should not be ascribed to Paul. Now if this is true, then it begs the question,
“Why did the followers of Paul do such a thing?” The answer lies in the simple
fact that the first century socio-cultural worldview was utterly patriarchal, and
misogynistic. Hence, the followers of Paul simply inherited the prejudice of
their time.
As for 1 Corinthians 14:33-35, which also mentions
the silence of women in church, scholars have recognized that this portion was
not in any of the earliest of manuscripts, but seems to have been added to the
texts by a later redactor.[5] As
Reimund Bieringer points out,
At
some point early in the process of copying the text, someone added these lines
as a gloss in the margins. Later in the process of the text’s transmission, a
copyist included these words in the actual text of the letter. There are a
number of important arguments that lend support to this hypothesis, but one is
of particular importance: the obvious contradiction between 14:33b-35 and
11:2-6. If women pray and prophesy in the assembly, as is taken for granted by
Paul in 11:5, then they must be allowed to speak.[6]
Secondly, contrary to the views of
many today, the apostle Paul held women in high regards. This is evident in
Romans 16, where Paul recognizes Phoebe as a diakonos
of the church of Cenchreae (Romans 16:1-16).
Plus, in his greetings to Aquila and Prisca, Paul addresses Prisca first, then
Aquilla (Rom. 16:3). This particular detail is important because in first
century Palestine, it was not customary for women to be greeted first.
In conclusion then, even though the
first century cultural milieu was patriarchal and androcentric,
that does not necessarily entails that Paul himself shared those sentiments,
and also, we should not use his epistles to support a present chauvinistic
church structure, because any such application would be thoroughly
anachronistic. Finally, the quintessential passage that shows that Paul was
Christocentric, rather than androcentric is Galatians 3:27-28. He outlines, “As
many of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. Thus,
there is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:27-28, AP). Here it is especially evident that the
authentic Pauline epistles show that the gospel Paul preaches supports an egalitarian Christianity that is rooted and grounded in
Jesus Christ.
NOTES:
[1]
Pedro M. Rosario Barbosa, “Women According to Saint Paul” (2007). Taken from: http://pmrb.net/essays/st_paul_women.html
(accessed March 7, 2013).
[2] All scripture passages labeled AP, means Authors
Paraphrase.
[3] Barbosa,
“Women According to Saint Paul” (2007).
[4]
Reimund Bieringer, “Women and Leadership in Romans 16,” East Asian Pastoral
Review, Volume 44 (2007), Number 3: 221-237. Taken from: http://eapi.admu.edu.ph/content/women-and-leadership-romans-16
(accessed March 7, 2013).
[5] Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. New
York, NY: HarperCollins, 2005. 183-184.
[6]
Bieringer, “Women and Leadership in Romans 16,” (2007), Number 3.
“As many of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. Thus, there is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:27-28) THIS IS THE MEAT OF THE MATTER. MANY DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS TO BE BORN AGAIN AND TO BE BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST...
ReplyDeleteThis is a very fine piece. It knocks down two birds with one stone. Every single christian should read this, especially the church leaders. Well done Shawn Wilson!
ReplyDeleteExcellent article,well researched,clear and to the point. One of the most profound I have read to date on this topic. This article should be sent to the editors of spectrum magazine for publication on their online blog. Many articles on this topic have been published and discussed on that site. This perspective to my knowledge has never been put forth. It would be wonderful to offer this to a wider audience and especially from an up and coming scholar from NCU. well done!
ReplyDeleteThis article is one of the most profound I've ever read, especially on such a sensitive topic. The author, in my view, puts to bed all doubts concerning this issue. I think this should be published elsewhere, even in one of those prominent SDA magazines/ journal.
ReplyDeleteSo how do you integrate some of the points being made here with the idea that ALL scripture is inspired of GOD? Are there certain parts of the Scripture that are inspired while some parts are inherited from the cultural milieu? Which parts of the scripture are not affected by the cultural milieu of its day?
ReplyDeleteMisogyny can be imbued into any context. Nothing said by Paul or the neo-paulists is automatically misogynistic. The misogyny comes with the interpretation not of the cultural milieu of the past but with the cultural milieu of the interpreter. Post modern or futuristic, Caribbean afrocentric-euro-colonized paradigms would have difficulty accommodating most of the social cultural essence of the Jewish common era.
Hence principles that transcend time are what is important. The more important transcendental principles of male /female relationships are located in the paradigm of the first 3 chapters of Genesis, put in place long before there were any Pauls, Paulists, Paulines, Neo-paulites etc.
There were no inferior beings created in Genesis. Each role was ordained with dignity, worth and power designed to work together in a cohesive unit. Everything else is the opinion of the 'scholars of the day' and there be many of them
From one NCU student to another
"All scripture is inspired by God"
ReplyDeleteWhat scripture did the author had in mind when he penned this?
Was it the NT letters/gospels, etc, or the OT?
In context, it seems to me that the scriptures the author was talking about is the OT(etc).(Not the NT. The NT did not exist!)
Before making an application to yourself/time/church etc, always study the immediate context of scripture.
Also, always try to establish if the scripture you are using is there. That is, is it an addition/interpolation/redaction/ etc, or is it in the original manuscript?
"Inspiration" What is inspiration?
I hope you have found your answer to the above questions by now and even if you haven't, the Book of Genesis which outlines God's paradigm for male/female relations is in the OT. So based on your comment above the OT is covered.
DeleteInspired? I guess there are as many definitions of 'inspired' as there are scholars. Inspired is whatever it is that GOD did to ensure that people living today would have a hard copy of His thoughts about who we are, why our first parents were created, how they were created, how they should relate to each other, to HIM and to the environment given to them as their home. Any definition that brings us to this understanding is a good definition of inspired. What do you think?
ReplyDelete