Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Women Should be Silent

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • whag
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post





    Paul wrote this as a letter to the Corinthians, who would understand the history of their own church and the context of his letter. Unfortunately, we do not. The letter can still be edifying to modern readers without knowing precisely what Paul meant about women in this specific difficult passage.

    Looking this up online, there seem to be a lot of speculation as to what Paul meant. But all seem to agree that it didn't mean that women are unable to speak in church, because of Chapter 11 has them praying and prophesying.
    Then why would you say that you think he is saying women can't speak in tongues? Where do you even get that?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by whag View Post

    I do not permit you to speak. You are to remain silent.
    Nobody is actually speaking. We are typing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by whag View Post

    Can't or shouldn't?




    I wonder how edifying it is if it's not meaningful or applicable. It seems to have introduced more confusion and misogyny than it was worth.
    Paul wrote this as a letter to the Corinthians, who would understand the history of their own church and the context of his letter. Unfortunately, we do not. The letter can still be edifying to modern readers without knowing precisely what Paul meant about women in this specific difficult passage.

    Looking this up online, there seem to be a lot of speculation as to what Paul meant. But all seem to agree that it didn't mean that women are unable to speak in church, because of Chapter 11 has them praying and prophesying.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    I've known women that have compelled me to consider that Paul was right to tell them to keep their mouths shut.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by whag View Post

    I do not permit you to speak. You are to remain silent.
    Yeah, just try and stop me.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
    I waffle between the "quotation/refutation" explanation and the "scribal margin gloss interpolation" explanation.

    IMO, none of the many other explanations offered sufficiently address "the Law" or the emphatic and absolute way in which "silence" is demanded.

    Keener emphasizes the "ask their own husbands at home" portion, and says that the problem was that women were uneducated and unfamiliar with how to behave in a corporate "teaching" setting that involved orderly (and reasonably informed) Q&A.

    Witherington also emphasizes the "ask their own husbands at home" portion, takes a bit more notice of the immediate "prophesying" setting, and confidently and blithely says the women were treating Christian prophecy like visiting pagan oracles and "inquiring" of them.

    Westfall's view currently escapes me, other than that she believes "law" is referring to "custom," rather than Torah. That strikes me as atypical usage for Paul.

    Lucy Peppiat seems to be the best-known leading proponent of the "quotation/refutation" view. The only detailed presentations I've found online are by others, not her.

    For a while, Gordon Fee was the leading proponent of the "scribal interpolation" view, but I believe Phil Payne is now preeminent in that arena. Andrew Bartlett is another, having made considerable use of Payne.
    Check the information available.
    • Is there a scriptural law requiring women to be silent?
      No.
    • Does the section requiring silence contradict what has been presented immediately before?
      Indications that it does are strong, but perhaps not conclusively.
    • Is there evidence that point and counterpoint are offered with neither attribution nor any explicit signal that one or the other is being refuted in Koine Greek sources?
      There are many authors who do so, but this is the first time I have encountered mention of a commentator who addresses the issue.
    • Does Paul end the section with a comment indicating censure?
      He does. Try to think of a neutral or positive circumstance which would lead the "question" (1Cor14:36) being asked.


    Checking Peppiat's Unveiling Paul's Women yields There are now numerous scholars who argue that 1 Corinthians 14:33b–35 represents Corinthian thought that Paul is responding to and refuting.

    Peppiatt, Lucy. Unveiling Paul’s Women: Making Sense of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 (p. 42). Cascade Books, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.


    No citation to back the claim - H_A would be having conniptions.

    So, on to Women and Worship at Corinth
    Citing Flanagan and Snyder: "The Revised Standard Version translates it: “What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?” We have emphasised only ones because therein lies the difficulty. In the original Greek it is masculine. Paul is now talking to the men, where we would expect just the opposite."

    Peppiatt, Lucy. Women and Worship at Corinth: Paul’s Rhetorical Arguments in 1 Corinthians (p. 110). Cascade Books, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.


    Cautionary Note: While I agree that the translation provided by the RSV is valid, the rendering is a dynamic equivalent. IMO, the masculine μονους is entirely expected.

    Whatever else may be said about the content of the citation, it at least acknowledges Paul's expostulation. That Paul saw fit to make the comment should give the reader pause to consider whether the instructions with regard to women originate with Paul or with some members of the Church at Corinth. The comment addresses either the (originators of the) immediately foregoing claims, or it is apropos of nothing.

    And because of your post, two more books have been added to my Kindle library.
    There are also more authors, mentioned by Peppiatt, whose comments need to be investigated.



    Last edited by tabibito; 09-22-2023, 04:27 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • NorrinRadd
    replied
    I waffle between the "quotation/refutation" explanation and the "scribal margin gloss interpolation" explanation.

    IMO, none of the many other explanations offered sufficiently address "the Law" or the emphatic and absolute way in which "silence" is demanded.

    Keener emphasizes the "ask their own husbands at home" portion, and says that the problem was that women were uneducated and unfamiliar with how to behave in a corporate "teaching" setting that involved orderly (and reasonably informed) Q&A.

    Witherington also emphasizes the "ask their own husbands at home" portion, takes a bit more notice of the immediate "prophesying" setting, and confidently and blithely says the women were treating Christian prophecy like visiting pagan oracles and "inquiring" of them.

    Westfall's view currently escapes me, other than that she believes "law" is referring to "custom," rather than Torah. That strikes me as atypical usage for Paul.

    Lucy Peppiat seems to be the best-known leading proponent of the "quotation/refutation" view. The only detailed presentations I've found online are by others, not her.

    For a while, Gordon Fee was the leading proponent of the "scribal interpolation" view, but I believe Phil Payne is now preeminent in that arena. Andrew Bartlett is another, having made considerable use of Payne.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by whag View Post

    Imagine all the creepy dudes who’ve responded to female confrontation in just that way: “Silence, female! For the Lord commands it.”
    "Silence, woman! Paul commanded it." Said to a woman who was berating me for claiming that the command for women to remain silent was invalid. Yes, it was during a church meeting.

    I’m surprised no one here has yet investigated what part of the commandments Paul is referring to.
    I have addressed the matter a few times in these many forums. There may have been a temple or Rabbinical law to that effect, or it may have been part of the laws about public speaking in Corinth, but no such commandment exists in the Bible. From time to time, I do a bit of digging to find out where it came from, but again, Paul is arguing against the precept, so it is not overly exciting.

    The first time I noticed the "objection, rebuttal" pattern was in a post on TWeb some years ago - I wouldn't be surprised if it was before the crash. It was said that one of the ECFs had made a claim. It seemed odd, so I checked it. The author had been accurately cited. Then I checked the broader context, and lo, the author had cited an argument only to rebut it. Nothing in the text showed that to be what the author was doing, save a single "but." It seems that even so little as a "but" is not necessary. Reading a passage, the only clue that might be present is that the author appears to be contradicting himself.

    In an essay covering Paul's comments about women having their heads covered, I mentioned the post, and provided a couple of examples from Paul's writing. There was (and as far as I know) is no academic source to support my contention, so it was essentially a bare assertion (very much frowned upon in essays.) In the lecture following the essay's submission, two other students commented that they had each found a similar occurrence in ECF writings (different authors). I made a point of following up on their comments, just so the lecturer would remember the discussion when he read the essay (he did).

    (In the passage about women having their heads covered, a but/however marks the beginning of the rebuttal, which, paraphrased says, "the woman has been given long hair, it is covering enough.)

    One of the most significant passages where the "objection, rebuttal pattern" can be found is Romans 7 (objection) and Romans 8 (rebuttal).

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by alaskazimm View Post

    Tab is on to something here with the flow of thought in the passage. There are three groups who are told to be quiet - it's not just women*. The three groups are

    1)tongues speakers when there is not an interpreter present
    b) prophets when another receives revelation
    iii) women who disrupt the meeting with questions best asked later

    The thing Paul is teaching against is not all women of all time, but disorderly church meetings. This even goes back several chapters to his instructions on taking communion which was apparently fairly chaotic.

    * anyone who uses this passage to silence women in the church is pulling an HA level of quote mining
    The verse just before whag's snippet appears to allude to that

    Scripture Verse: I Corinthians 14:33

    For God is not a God of confusion[1] but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints

    © Copyright Original Source





    1. a number of translations have "disorder" (although the "literal translations" seem to prefer "tumult.")
    Last edited by rogue06; 09-21-2023, 05:42 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Diogenes
    replied
    Originally posted by whag View Post

    I do not permit you to speak. You are to remain silent.
    I am allowed to respond to acknowledge your request.

    Last edited by Diogenes; 09-21-2023, 04:42 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • whag
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    There are many practical demonstrations of circumstances where the "woman must keep silence" instruction does not work. Heresy spoken from the pulpit, the woman who notices must keep silent?
    Not on your Nelly.
    Imagine all the creepy dudes who’ve responded to female confrontation in just that way: “Silence, female! For the Lord commands it.”

    It’d have been wiser for copyists to simply omit this portion or the female component altogether, since femaleness is entirely irrelevant.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    However, the flow of the passage is interesting.

    1 Corinthians 14:30-36
    30 But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent.
    31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted;
    32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets;
    33 for God is not [a God] of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
    34 The women are to * keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as * the Law also says.
    35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.
    36 Was it from you that the word of God [first] went forth? Or has it come to you only?


    Immediately after the claim that "all" can do things in turn, Paul apparently reverses course and declares that "all" does not include women. Paul is however addressing certain issues in the Corinthian Church that were causing problems. IMO verses 30 - 33 state Paul's position. Verses 34 - 35 outline a problem teaching. Verse 36 states Paul's response to that teaching. It is a nice demonstration of the difficulties that arise when trying to parse a high context language.

    IMO a mental insertion of "What the hell are you talking about?!" between vv35 and 36 would not be inappropriate. Verse 36 is definitely expostulatory.
    You might well have a point, theologian.

    I’m surprised no one here has yet investigated what part of the commandments Paul is referring to. If he’s not referring to a female-specific law, that’d greatly resolve the issue of whether or not God specifically commanded women to be in silence and submission regarding the clarification of prayer, prophecy, and/or tongues in church.

    Can you get on that?

    Leave a comment:


  • whag
    replied
    Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

    Not really, just you drumming up agitation for the sake of agitation. Hardly anything new for you or "internet atheists".
    I do not permit you to speak. You are to remain silent.

    Leave a comment:


  • Diogenes
    replied
    Originally posted by whag View Post

    There’s plenty to see here.
    Not really, just you drumming up agitation for the sake of agitation. Hardly anything new for you or "internet atheists".

    Leave a comment:


  • whag
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post

    My time for arguing scripture is sadly rare these days. I was providing a counter-point to what was being said with some information I was taught back in the day when I had the time to dig into commentaries and lexicons.
    Fair enough. I do not permit you to speak. You are to remain silent.

    Leave a comment:


  • whag
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    I think he is saying that women can't speak in tongues.
    Can't or shouldn't?

    It is a hard passage to parse, given that it was written to a specific church and we don't know all of the relevant details of the situation there.
    I wonder how edifying it is if it's not meaningful or applicable. It seems to have introduced more confusion and misogyny than it was worth.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Neptune7, Yesterday, 06:54 AM
23 responses
121 views
0 likes
Last Post Cow Poke  
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
96 responses
510 views
0 likes
Last Post whag
by whag
 
Started by whag, 04-07-2024, 10:17 AM
39 responses
251 views
0 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
154 responses
1,016 views
0 likes
Last Post whag
by whag
 
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
51 responses
353 views
0 likes
Last Post whag
by whag
 
Working...
X