Was Paul a Misogynist or a Feminist?

This week we take up the debate in Christian circles about whether Paul was supportive of women in the church, or whether he thought women should be subservient to men. 

  • Equality for Women. In Corinthians and Acts we see certain passages where Paul says women should be able to teach in the church. Paul also talks about everyone being equal in the eyes of God. Further, Paul was big on sexual abstinence. Although that was not a big selling point for men, it likely appealed to more women at that time because of the male-dominant cultural expectations within the home.There is even a second-century novelistic work called The Acts of Paul and Thecla. As the plot develops, Thecla’s fiancé (in cahoots with her mother, who is set to lose a prosperous retirement from the deal) turns on her and prosecutes her, eventually seeking her execution. Ultimately, Thecla wins out and gets to follow Paul. Yes, it is a fictional account, but written by an author who must have believed that Paul had certain pro-feminism leanings.
  • Segregation for Women. The epistle Timothy is filled with references about keeping women in a subservient position. It’s pretty hard to argue the intentions of these passages from I Timothy 2:8-15:

Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

  • Which is it?  There’s a problem here: Timothy was not written by Paul, but by someone else (apparently not liking what was happening the the early church) who wanted to claim the authority of Paul. Unfortunately, over the centuries, not many of the antagonists who argue against the power of women in the church likely know that Paul’s letter to Timothy was … a … forgery.

Deuteronomy was not written by Moses

Deuteronomy was written by someone that scholars call “D.” It was not written by Moses.

  • Why couldn’t it have been written by Moses? Because it was written around 600-700 BCE and Moses lived somewhere around 1300 BCE. Scholars were able to estimate the date because in 2 Kings there is a story about finding a “book of the law” during the reign of king Josiah – a real king who reigned in that 600-700 BCE time period.
  • What is significant about Deuteronomy? It contains page after page of laws to live by. In theory these laws were dictated by Moses. But there’s a problem in that some of the laws in Deuteronomy differ from the laws as dictated by Moses in other parts of the Bible. The priests who ultimately put together the first five books of the Old Testament solved this by giving “D” his own book, saying it was the second giving of the law by Moses.
  • What are some of the laws that are different in Deuteronomy? The most significant one is that the main worship needs to be in central place (i.e. Jerusalem). That solidified the Jewish religious hierarchy with Jerusalem as the center. Here are some other interesting ones:
    • First born males are to be offered to God.
    • Debt relief in seventh year.
    • Newly-married women are not to be slandered (22:13-21)
    • No religious prostitution. (23:17-18)
    • Women are to be modest. (25:11-12)
  • Bonus bullet. What are some of the laws that are similar to other parts of the Bible?
    • No human sacrifice.
    • No disfiguring yourself during mourning.
    • Lists of clean and unclean animals.
    • No eating of roadkill (Deut 14:21)
    • No marrying your step-mother (22:30)

The Chief Editor offered the above lists without commentary. The readers may supply their own.

Was the DaVinci Code correct?

This one was too fun to resist. We ran across a discussion in the Ehrman blog about whether Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married or lovers. This was the major premise in the best-selling novel The DaVinci Code.

  • What’s the reference that started this debate? The passage in question comes from one of those texts found in 1945 in a place in Egypt called Nag Hammadi (it’s different from the Dead Sea scrolls). The text is called the Gospel of Philip. It’s a difficult text to read because a lot of it is mystical and poetic. Plus there are gaps in the scroll which cannot be deciphered. But here’s the verse that was cited in the Dan Brown book:  And the companion of the {{gap in the manuscript}} Mary Magdalene. {{gap in the manuscript}} her more than {{gap}} the disciples {{gap}} kiss her {{gap}} on her {{gap in the manuscript!}}.
  • A little language challenge. Also in Philip, there is another verse that says, “There were three who always walked with the lord: Mary his mother and her sister and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion.  His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary.” The DaVinci Code mistakenly says that the Aramaic word used in that text means ‘spouse.’ The problem with that logic is that Philip was written in an Egyptian language called Coptic. Oops. In Coptic it literally just means ‘companion.’ 
  • What did the author really mean? The evidence from the text is inconclusive. But at a minimum it indicates that Jesus favored Mary Magdalene more than the other disciples … married or not. Ya think that caused some consternation among those other 12 men who were already arguing about which of them would get to sit next to Jesus in heaven?

There’s more. We’ll continue next week.

How do we know when the Gospels were written?

Question of the week:  We had one of our readers ask this week if there were any books written during the life of Jesus. And correspondingly, how do we know when the books of the New Testament were written.

We will try to condense the rationale on the dating. It’s really difficult to pinpoint dates unless the writer talks about specific people (e.g. Pontius. Pilate) or an event (e.g. the destruction of the Jewish Temple in the 70s CE). But here goes. 
First, Jesus died around 30 CE. The stories around his life and death were likely all oral traditions in Aramaic.

Paul’s letters were written in the 50s CE. He makes no mention of any written works about Jesus. So that seems to indicate the first works had to be written after Paul’s death around 60 CE. With that prelude:

  • Mark.  Most scholars believe Mark was the first book written. And they date it prior to 70 CE because the author does not talk about the destruction of the Temple (in the 70s CE). So it seems likely this book was written after Paul’s letters and before the Temple was destroyed.
  • Matthew and Luke both refer to the destruction of Jerusalem. So they must have been written after 70 CE. They also appear to have lifted (copied/plagiarized?) some of the stories written in Mark.
  • John is probably the most difficult to pinpoint. It contains different stories from the other three Gospels. And it contains a theological development that is more evolved than the other three (and is also more evolved than the 3BT Chief Editor’s ability to summarize). Some scholars argue that it could have been written sometime in the early second century. But most have settled on around 90 CE.

And to put a book-end on the latest probable date, A guy named Justin Martyr made the first allusion to Memoirs from the Apostles in 150 CE. But even then he does not call them Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Unfortunately, we do not have any actual scrolls or books dated in the first century. But scholars think that Justin Marty’s reference must mean that by 150 CE, the four gospels were likely compiled.

Who was this guy Justin Martyr? He was a 2nd century prolific writer and philosopher who ultimately was martyred in Rome for speaking his mind about Christianity. So there’s that. Plus he has some really prolific facial hair as noted in this picture.

Was there really a Star?

Question of the week:  Was there really a Star of Bethlehem?

This week we were reading another article by Bishop Spong. This time Spong talked about a reputable astronomer who was arguing that the Star of Bethlehem could have been a real astronomical phenomenon. Spong, in his usual manner, said the astronomer was missing the point of the stories on the gospels — there was no real star of Bethlehem, but that does not make the story any less meaningful. Here’s three bullet points on this:

  • Matthew is the only gospel that mentions the star. The other gospel with a birth story, Luke, has angels but no star. And Mark, the first gospel, has no birth story at all. Remember that all the stories of Jesus were written down well after the events took place, with Matthew’s version written 80 years after the birth of Jesus.
  • Why was this written into Matthew? Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience. This audience would have appreciated both a lineage back to David (talked about in a previous 3BT) and the symbolism of the star in signifying important Jewish events. Stars were used to introduce the births of significant figures. Abraham, Isaac, and Moses were all connected with stars.
  • What else does Matthew change? He moves the birth city from Nazareth (which is where Mark says Jesus was from) to Bethlehem. Why? Again, it is because of the connection of Bethlehem back to King David and his Jewish audience.

This does not make the story any less insightful or symbolic. But in order to appreciate the richness of the stories, it helps to understand the viewpoint from which they were written.

Next week:  Did you know there is a recently-discovered Gospel of Judas?

How do you tell the different versions in the Old Testament?

The Question of the week:  What is the key difference in the way the Yahwist writers describe God and the way the other authors describe God?

Last week we said the first written versions of the Bible (and we are talking about the first five books, or the Torah) were produced during the time of Solomon, somewhere around 1,000 BCE. This version was called the Yahwist version. It described a personal relationship between the Jewish nation and the God they spelled as YHWH. But that was not the end of the versions of the Torah.

Why was a second version produced? The multiple tribes of Israel ruled by David and Solomon were a pretty volatile group. And after King Solomon died, the tribes in the north rebelled and separated from Jerusalem and the south. They also decided to write a new version of the evolution of the Jewish nation. This version is called the Elohist document, which came from an earlier Canaanite name for God. In general, it describes God (Elohim) as more of a universal amorphous spirit compared to the anthropomorphic YHWH.

How did they get mixed together? By about 850 BCE we have two versions of the Torah. Ultimately, the northern tribes were defeated by Assyria. But at least one writer from the north escaped with their Elohim document to the south. Ultimately the Chief Editor of 3BT — 5th Century BCE edition merged the two versions together into one. Many of the stories from the two versions were similar. But some of the glaring differences make for interesting dinner discussion.

What are some of the differences?Two different creation stories — Genesis 1 versus Genesis 2.Different versions of the Ten (or so) Commandments.Angels versus no angels.Different mountains on which Moses received the Commandments.One of the most interesting scholarly theories involves the Abraham/Isaac sacrifice story.The Yahwist version does not have it at all. The Elohist version has the sacrifice story, but mentions nothing about Isaac afterward (implying the sacrifice actually happened). Oops. Evidently, according these Biblical scholars, when the two versions were brought together, that same 5th Century BCE Chief Editor wrote in the section about the last minute intervention.

Fun Fact: Jerusalem in the time of King David had a population of approximately 1,000.  

That’s it for this week. We’ll likely cover some New Testament stuff next week.