It's an interesting hypothesis and exegesis. But I'm not sure I buy it. Here is my view of an important sequence of events.
1. Galatians was written before the council reported in Acts 15. That seems to be the case because that reported council resolved the circumcision issue by means of a dietary compromise which was worth something to Jewish Christians. So the uncompromising statement of principle pre-dated the Acts 15 resolution.
2. The Acts 15 compromise showed that there was indeed a pastoral need to consider the differing understandings of Jewish and Gentile Christians and manage them with wisdom.
3. Paul would undoubtedly have known of the decision since it vindicated his view of circumcision expressed so graphically in Galatians.
4. The Corinthian church was established after the Acts 15 council. That is clear from the 'man from Macedonia' vision reported in Acts 16.
5. Therefore Paul would have known two things from the outset of the mission in Corinth. The first was the support for a free proclamation to the Gentiles. The second was a need to respect and understand the struggles of Jewish converts to accommodate these freedoms. And these two constrasting understandings would come to bite him in the ministry to Corinth, because of the particular congregational mix.
So the textual variations seem to me just as likely to come from Paul's internal wrestlings with these two factors. You don't need to posit an editor under these circumstances. I should think he was editing himself quite a lot!
[Barnabas62] It's an interesting hypothesis and exegesis. But I'm not sure I buy it. Here is my view of an important sequence of events.
OK.
1. Galatians was written before the council reported in Acts 15. That seems to be the case because that reported council resolved the circumcision issue by means of a dietary compromise which was worth something to Jewish Christians. So the uncompromising statement of principle pre-dated the Acts 15 resolution.
OK.
2. The Acts 15 compromise showed that there was indeed a pastoral need to consider the differing understandings of Jewish and Gentile Christians and manage them with wisdom.
OK but, the Apostles and elders wished to impose no other restriction upon believers other than what was considered essential to 'the faith': (obviously neither the Jerusalem Council nor Paul sought to impose complete silence on women, in all churches, either Jewish or Gentile as a general rule of Christian conduct).
e.g. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. Acts.15:28:29.
There seems to have been other issues that some Jews claiming to have come from 'the brethren at Jerusalem' were troubling the gentiles about, but whatever these issues were, they were considered insufficiently important, and lacking in the authorisation of The Council of elders, so they were dropped. It may well have been the status of women, head coverings, and all the other extraneous nonsense which is rendered irrelevant by Gal.3:27-29. 'neither slave nor free, male nor female, all one in Christ', that was probably well argued by Paul as being self explanatory as a rule of faith, and therefore trumped all other praxis issues except to 'refrain from strangled meat', 'sacrifices to idols', 'from drinking or eating blood', and from 'unchastity'.
"who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions", Acts.15:23-24.
Some of these Jews may have been the ones referred to in 2 Cor.11:4-5. since we know that these two chapters are probably 'out of place' chronologically and may have been in a previous letter of complaint from Paul to Corinth.
"For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. Indeed, I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles". 2 Cor.11:4-5.
3. Paul would undoubtedly have known of the decision since it vindicated his view of circumcision expressed so graphically in Galatians.
OK.
4. The Corinthian church was established after the Acts 15 council. That is clear from the 'man from Macedonia' vision reported in Acts 16.
OK. And that might preclude the 'super apostles' having been the ones who had come from Jerusalem, because they obviously 'went out' before the Jerusalem Council, because they are mentioned in reference to it. But we know from 2 Cor. that 'super apostles', who would have to be Jews, were causing trouble to believers at Corinth, probably suggesting that the gentiles were not 'Jewish enough' in their behaviour.
5. Therefore Paul would have known two things from the outset of the mission in Corinth. The first was the support for a free proclamation to the Gentiles. The second was a need to respect and understand the struggles of Jewish converts to accommodate these freedoms. And these two constrasting understandings would come to bite him in the ministry to Corinth, because of the particular congregational mix.
OK, but we already know there were considerable troubles at Corinth, and that they in good measure were caused by overzealous application of Jewish law and custom, (super apostles throwing their weight about), plus Hellenistic pagan attitudes and unusually, (for the Roman Empire), emancipated and vocal women converts.
So the textual variations seem to me just as likely to come from Paul's internal wrestlings with these two factors. You don't need to posit an editor under these circumstances. I should think he was editing himself quite a lot!
The vast majority of commentators agree with your view, I don't dispute that. I simply say that, given the wealth of circumstantial evidence, and the nature of the possibly interpolated subject matter, (all about women), plus the fact that some of 2 Cor. may even predate 1 Cor. or at least may be parts of a missing letter between 1 and 2 Cor. and 2 Cor. is widely thought to be a letter + 'fragments' of other letters, (alerting us to at least the possibility of some limited interpolation in 1 Cor. as well), and all the other puzzling little facts that surround 1 Cor.11:3-16 and 14:34-35, there is absolutely nocertainty that these two texts were NOT inserted by a Corinthian prelate reluctant to see his church 'taken over by Gentile women' or 'soundly rebuked for disgracefully abusing the Lord's Supper'. Because, if nothing else, the 11:3-16 passage 'softens the blow', diverts attention away from the Communion issues, and delays the stinging rebukes, "I do not commend", and "shall I commend you? No I will not".
____________________________________
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.
I agree with your double negative! And have considerable respect for the way you have debated here. And am very glad I moved this to Kerygmania.
Thanks for the complement.
Your reference to the edict from the Council of Jerusalem has raised another 'little difficulty' I have, (as Columbo the famous TV detective would say). "It's my fault! It niggles me. It just doesn't seem to fit", and puffs on his cigar.
If the issue of women having to wear head coverings before being allowed to speak in assembly, or even being forbidden to speak at all, were as important and universal an issue as the author of 11:3-16 and 14:34-35 would have us believe, then surely Paul and the Council would have included it along with the other essential issues, 'idolatry', 'strangling', 'blood consumption', 'unchastity', 'silence women in assembly and regulate headgear', would he not? After all the injunction insisting on head covering for women and bare headedness for men is enforced at 1 Cor.11:16 by implying that it is a universal command from 'us' (by which we are invited to assume Apostles and the Council of Elders), and all'the churches of God'.
It is odd indeed that such a universal order, apparently obeyed throughout 'all the churches of God, and supposedly with the Apostolic authority of Paul himself', should not be found anywhere else, even alluded to, in New Testament scripture, apart from 1 Cor.11:3-16 and 14:34-35. (not counting Tim.2:11-12 for now).
"If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God." 1 Cor.11:16.
The sentence itself appears to be authentically Pauline, but wouldn't a Corinthian interpolator want to give just exactly that impression. He would have noticed that Paul had previously used a similar phrase in 1 Cor. 7:17. and seized upon it as a good way to add a genuine ring of authority to his interpolation. Especially when the interpolator uses a very similar phrase to acieve exactly the same effect at 14:34.
"Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him". This is my rule in all the churches. 1 Cor.7:17. (No reason whatever to doubt this is indeed Paul).
"If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God." 1 Cor.11:16. (Suspicious)
"As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches". 1 Cor.14:33b-34a, (Which is where I believe the interpolation starts, which ends at the end of 35.) (Suspicious)
In both instances we have the same appeal to a universal rule, apparently confirmed by Paul, and in fact only being specifically relevant to the Corinthian church of the interpolator. Nowhere else is this supposedly universal rule ever spoken of in New Testament scripture except 1 Tim.2:11 and 2:12.
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." 1 Tim.2:11-12.
As we know the pastoral letters, of which this is one, are notoriously difficult to date and suffer from all sorts of difficulties in establishing a definite Pauline authorship. So unfortunately the claim that the prohibition of women, speaking, teaching or praying in assembly with head uncovered is impossible to attribute to Paul with any degree of certainty.
____________________________________
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.
I doubt whether the council reps in Acts 15 envisaged the dynamic congregation mix in Corinth! So I think your argument from their silence about head covering (which is an argument from silence!) is not all that strong.
You are of course right about the comments in the pastoral letters to Timothy, so far as authorship is concerned. I'm not sure myself. So far as the learning in silence is concerned, I remember asking the question of a critic of Elaine Storkey at a seminar, "So what happens after they have learned?". Didn't really get an answer. Other than a little chuckle from Elaine.
I'm still inclined to see Paul as ambivalent about women in the church. There is this extraordinary and unique commendation of Phoebe, the diakonos of Romans 16, which shows a very high level of trust of her. And yet there is this other 'stuff' too.
In a way, I prefer to see him as wrestling with this, rather than being outmanoeuvred by traditionalists.
I'm not sure if he's crossed the great divide yet, but Shipmate Nigel M was always worth reading in the old Kerygmania and I would be interested in what he makes of your ideas.
I doubt whether the council reps in Acts 15 envisaged the dynamic congregation mix in Corinth! So I think your argument from their silence about head covering (which is an argument from silence!) is not all that strong.
I know, but the Council had no specific church in mind anyhow. They were concerned only with issues which affected every church, Jewish, Gentile or Hybrid. The Corinthian issues in 1 Cor.11:3-16 and 14:33b-35a appear to be 'universal issues' because the author of them takes pains to insist that, "We have no such practice, nor do the churches of God. and "in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches."
If it is Paul saying this then he is claiming the authority of The Council, (we), or at least all The Apostles, (we) or otherwise everyone in every church including at Corinth, (we), otherwise he would have said "I recognise no such practice in any churches". But if so why add the superfluous, "nor do the churches of God", the previous phrase already logically included "the churches of God" in the 'we'.
Paul has previously said at 1 Cor.7:17. "This is my rule in all the churches.", when describing the freedom to live the life the Lord has assigned and which God has called believers to.
This would be broadly inline with the Council instruction to refrain from 'unchastity', without being too prescriptive and 'rule imposing'. Very Pauline!
Is this Corinthian scribe revealing a Freudian slip in referring to himself and his anti-women followers as (we). We shall never know for sure.
Interesting as well that, if this was Paul, he does not mention any of the Council edicts while he is laying down the law on hairstyles, social hierarchy and dumb compliance and non participation for women.
____________________________________
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.
The West would have been sorely tempted to mess with the epistle to the Romans say with 'Pete says Hi!', but they daren't.
Not sure but this sounds like suggesting that Peter was already 'Bishop of Rome' when Paul wrote Romans. If I'm wrong about your intent, please clarify....
AIUI, Peter did not found the Roman Church and did not go there till some time after Paul wrote Romans; and anyway, why would Peter or later Romans want to mess around with Paul's letter...? I don't find Paul and Peter contradictory (though later 'Popes' seem more than occasionally contradicted both....
There is another thing that is not a complete contradiction, not quite an ‘anomaly’ but an unusual use of assumed hierarchy within the Godhead , which ‘jars slightly’ with the treatment Paul gives it in Colossians.
At 1 Cor.11:3 We have: “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.”
At Eph.5:23 We have: “For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.”
Both passages are enforcing or advocating the ’submission’ of women. In the first case Cor.11:3 It is submission to ‘the angels’, (and in 14:34-35 to husbands), presumably. In the second, Eph.5:23 submission of wives to husbands.
And the analogies resorted to are:
In 1 Cor.11:3 The relationship between God and Christ, Christ and the church, Man and woman, (in descending order of hierarchy).
In Eph.5:23 The relationship between Christ and the church, Husband and wife, (in descending order of hierarchy).
Yet in Col.1:15-20 We have “He, (Christ), is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.”
And Col.2:8-10 “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.”
These Colossian passages originated from Paul possibly between AD 54-57 or even earlier, AD 52-55. Which would have been contemporary with the writing of 1 Cor. AD 52-55. They seem to have a different view of the position of Christ within the Godhead, definitely not an outright hierarchy, which could be used to argue for the submission of women.
The theology Paul uses here is inclusive of both male and female believers, and there is no hint of a hierarchical theory of Godhead, rather more a coeternal, coequal conceptualisation, in which believers participate in the ‘Preeminence of Christ’ through baptism, and therefore should not be duped into ‘self abasement and worship of angels’, perhaps in reference to the goings on at Corinth, under the rule of the sophists.
So we have at Col.2:16 advice to ALL believers both male and female: “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. [ and I might add What you must put on your head when praying or when you are allowed to speak in church]. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.
Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God. [A vivid description of what was actually going on in the Corinthian church, which Paul so much disagreed with that he wrote Cor. 1 and 2.]
“If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.”
Now it may be that I am in a minority of one, but I consider these passages from Colossians to be genuine, authentic, inspired and honest, straight from Paul’s lips and much more likely to be representative of his Christology than 1 Cor.11:3 or Eph.5:23.
And Col.ch.1 and ch.2 are stated as a refutation of the kind of esoteric super spirituality and elitist, exegetical, extemporisation and oratory that was going on at Corinth, along with subjugation of the women, incest, ‘retailing’ God’s word for financial gain, 2 Cor.2:17 (a common term used to derogate sophists who liked to get paid for their services) and abuse of the poor at The Lord’s Supper.
So all in all, I don’t think 1 Cor.11-3-16 or 1 Cor.14:33b-35a are Paul’s words at all.
____________________________________
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.
Philippians 2:5-8 “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”
As a human Jesus didn’t desire equality with the Father because he took on flesh (bond-servant) subjecting himself to death as a human, something the Father cannot do. Philippians says he was in the “form of a bond-servant.” We believe Jesus was fully human. The Greek word for form is “Morphe” which means nature or essence. Jesus had a human nature, but likewise we see at Phil.2:6, Jesus also was in the form (morphe) of God. That surely means he also had the nature of God. Jesus was God taking on human flesh. As a human he didn’t use all his divine abilities. That’s what it means “…but emptied himself.” Jesus at times became tired, ate food, and died on a cross; all things only a human can do. On the cross the human Jesus died but the second person of the Trinity, his divine nature, could never die.
I have no problem with Paul saying that Christ is the head of the church, nor with the notion that wives should have the same attitude toward their husbands as the church has to Christ and that husbands should have the same attitude to their wives as Christ has for the church. That works fine as a general principle of mutual caring and respecting each other. "Submitting to one another out of reverence to Christ." Eph.5:21.
Where it becomes warped is when the 'submission' is supposedly imposed by Apostolic edict as at 1 Cor.11:3-16 and 14:33b-35. When the hierarchy is supposedly established with God 'above' Christ, and Christ 'above' the husband, and the husband 'above' the wife.
I know that 'headship' does not necessarily mean 'above' but it is difficult to see how treating the Trinity as if they are linked in a 'Chain of Command' is what Paul intended us to understand about the way The Godhead operates.
This strikes me as becoming 'un-Paul like' and too legalistic to be genuine Paul speaking. Though Paul, I admit, was a man of his time and he was also keen to see 'good order' in the churches, rather than 'trouble and strife'.
So my opinion is that Paul indeed calls for order in the church:
"Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints." 1 Cor.14:29-33.
But it is a general call for order, not a specific rule for women. So I think 1 Cor.14:34-35 are not Paul's words:
"The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."
____________________________________
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.
Comments
1. Galatians was written before the council reported in Acts 15. That seems to be the case because that reported council resolved the circumcision issue by means of a dietary compromise which was worth something to Jewish Christians. So the uncompromising statement of principle pre-dated the Acts 15 resolution.
2. The Acts 15 compromise showed that there was indeed a pastoral need to consider the differing understandings of Jewish and Gentile Christians and manage them with wisdom.
3. Paul would undoubtedly have known of the decision since it vindicated his view of circumcision expressed so graphically in Galatians.
4. The Corinthian church was established after the Acts 15 council. That is clear from the 'man from Macedonia' vision reported in Acts 16.
5. Therefore Paul would have known two things from the outset of the mission in Corinth. The first was the support for a free proclamation to the Gentiles. The second was a need to respect and understand the struggles of Jewish converts to accommodate these freedoms. And these two constrasting understandings would come to bite him in the ministry to Corinth, because of the particular congregational mix.
So the textual variations seem to me just as likely to come from Paul's internal wrestlings with these two factors. You don't need to posit an editor under these circumstances. I should think he was editing himself quite a lot!
OK.
OK.
OK but, the Apostles and elders wished to impose no other restriction upon believers other than what was considered essential to 'the faith': (obviously neither the Jerusalem Council nor Paul sought to impose complete silence on women, in all churches, either Jewish or Gentile as a general rule of Christian conduct).
e.g. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. Acts.15:28:29.
There seems to have been other issues that some Jews claiming to have come from 'the brethren at Jerusalem' were troubling the gentiles about, but whatever these issues were, they were considered insufficiently important, and lacking in the authorisation of The Council of elders, so they were dropped. It may well have been the status of women, head coverings, and all the other extraneous nonsense which is rendered irrelevant by Gal.3:27-29. 'neither slave nor free, male nor female, all one in Christ', that was probably well argued by Paul as being self explanatory as a rule of faith, and therefore trumped all other praxis issues except to 'refrain from strangled meat', 'sacrifices to idols', 'from drinking or eating blood', and from 'unchastity'.
"who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions", Acts.15:23-24.
Some of these Jews may have been the ones referred to in 2 Cor.11:4-5. since we know that these two chapters are probably 'out of place' chronologically and may have been in a previous letter of complaint from Paul to Corinth.
"For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. Indeed, I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles". 2 Cor.11:4-5.
OK.
OK. And that might preclude the 'super apostles' having been the ones who had come from Jerusalem, because they obviously 'went out' before the Jerusalem Council, because they are mentioned in reference to it. But we know from 2 Cor. that 'super apostles', who would have to be Jews, were causing trouble to believers at Corinth, probably suggesting that the gentiles were not 'Jewish enough' in their behaviour.
OK, but we already know there were considerable troubles at Corinth, and that they in good measure were caused by overzealous application of Jewish law and custom, (super apostles throwing their weight about), plus Hellenistic pagan attitudes and unusually, (for the Roman Empire), emancipated and vocal women converts.
The vast majority of commentators agree with your view, I don't dispute that. I simply say that, given the wealth of circumstantial evidence, and the nature of the possibly interpolated subject matter, (all about women), plus the fact that some of 2 Cor. may even predate 1 Cor. or at least may be parts of a missing letter between 1 and 2 Cor. and 2 Cor. is widely thought to be a letter + 'fragments' of other letters, (alerting us to at least the possibility of some limited interpolation in 1 Cor. as well), and all the other puzzling little facts that surround 1 Cor.11:3-16 and 14:34-35, there is absolutely no certainty that these two texts were NOT inserted by a Corinthian prelate reluctant to see his church 'taken over by Gentile women' or 'soundly rebuked for disgracefully abusing the Lord's Supper'. Because, if nothing else, the 11:3-16 passage 'softens the blow', diverts attention away from the Communion issues, and delays the stinging rebukes, "I do not commend", and "shall I commend you? No I will not".
____________________________________
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.
Thanks for the complement.
Your reference to the edict from the Council of Jerusalem has raised another 'little difficulty' I have, (as Columbo the famous TV detective would say). "It's my fault! It niggles me. It just doesn't seem to fit", and puffs on his cigar.
If the issue of women having to wear head coverings before being allowed to speak in assembly, or even being forbidden to speak at all, were as important and universal an issue as the author of 11:3-16 and 14:34-35 would have us believe, then surely Paul and the Council would have included it along with the other essential issues, 'idolatry', 'strangling', 'blood consumption', 'unchastity', 'silence women in assembly and regulate headgear', would he not? After all the injunction insisting on head covering for women and bare headedness for men is enforced at 1 Cor.11:16 by implying that it is a universal command from 'us' (by which we are invited to assume Apostles and the Council of Elders), and all 'the churches of God'.
It is odd indeed that such a universal order, apparently obeyed throughout 'all the churches of God, and supposedly with the Apostolic authority of Paul himself', should not be found anywhere else, even alluded to, in New Testament scripture, apart from 1 Cor.11:3-16 and 14:34-35. (not counting Tim.2:11-12 for now).
"If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God." 1 Cor.11:16.
The sentence itself appears to be authentically Pauline, but wouldn't a Corinthian interpolator want to give just exactly that impression. He would have noticed that Paul had previously used a similar phrase in 1 Cor. 7:17. and seized upon it as a good way to add a genuine ring of authority to his interpolation. Especially when the interpolator uses a very similar phrase to acieve exactly the same effect at 14:34.
"Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him". This is my rule in all the churches. 1 Cor.7:17. (No reason whatever to doubt this is indeed Paul).
"If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God." 1 Cor.11:16. (Suspicious)
"As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches". 1 Cor.14:33b-34a, (Which is where I believe the interpolation starts, which ends at the end of 35.) (Suspicious)
In both instances we have the same appeal to a universal rule, apparently confirmed by Paul, and in fact only being specifically relevant to the Corinthian church of the interpolator. Nowhere else is this supposedly universal rule ever spoken of in New Testament scripture except 1 Tim.2:11 and 2:12.
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." 1 Tim.2:11-12.
As we know the pastoral letters, of which this is one, are notoriously difficult to date and suffer from all sorts of difficulties in establishing a definite Pauline authorship. So unfortunately the claim that the prohibition of women, speaking, teaching or praying in assembly with head uncovered is impossible to attribute to Paul with any degree of certainty.
____________________________________
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.
You are of course right about the comments in the pastoral letters to Timothy, so far as authorship is concerned. I'm not sure myself. So far as the learning in silence is concerned, I remember asking the question of a critic of Elaine Storkey at a seminar, "So what happens after they have learned?". Didn't really get an answer. Other than a little chuckle from Elaine.
I'm still inclined to see Paul as ambivalent about women in the church. There is this extraordinary and unique commendation of Phoebe, the diakonos of Romans 16, which shows a very high level of trust of her. And yet there is this other 'stuff' too.
In a way, I prefer to see him as wrestling with this, rather than being outmanoeuvred by traditionalists.
I'm not sure if he's crossed the great divide yet, but Shipmate Nigel M was always worth reading in the old Kerygmania and I would be interested in what he makes of your ideas.
I know, but the Council had no specific church in mind anyhow. They were concerned only with issues which affected every church, Jewish, Gentile or Hybrid. The Corinthian issues in 1 Cor.11:3-16 and 14:33b-35a appear to be 'universal issues' because the author of them takes pains to insist that, "We have no such practice, nor do the churches of God. and "in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches."
If it is Paul saying this then he is claiming the authority of The Council, (we), or at least all The Apostles, (we) or otherwise everyone in every church including at Corinth, (we), otherwise he would have said "I recognise no such practice in any churches". But if so why add the superfluous, "nor do the churches of God", the previous phrase already logically included "the churches of God" in the 'we'.
Paul has previously said at 1 Cor.7:17. "This is my rule in all the churches.", when describing the freedom to live the life the Lord has assigned and which God has called believers to.
This would be broadly inline with the Council instruction to refrain from 'unchastity', without being too prescriptive and 'rule imposing'. Very Pauline!
Is this Corinthian scribe revealing a Freudian slip in referring to himself and his anti-women followers as (we). We shall never know for sure.
Interesting as well that, if this was Paul, he does not mention any of the Council edicts while he is laying down the law on hairstyles, social hierarchy and dumb compliance and non participation for women.
____________________________________
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.
Not sure but this sounds like suggesting that Peter was already 'Bishop of Rome' when Paul wrote Romans. If I'm wrong about your intent, please clarify....
AIUI, Peter did not found the Roman Church and did not go there till some time after Paul wrote Romans; and anyway, why would Peter or later Romans want to mess around with Paul's letter...? I don't find Paul and Peter contradictory (though later 'Popes' seem more than occasionally contradicted both....
Probably not, but the differences of understanding have been reduced and are, mutually, respected.
Now all we need is Nigel M to bring his customary rigour to bear - and kick the whole pail over!
At 1 Cor.11:3 We have: “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.”
At Eph.5:23 We have: “For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.”
Both passages are enforcing or advocating the ’submission’ of women. In the first case Cor.11:3 It is submission to ‘the angels’, (and in 14:34-35 to husbands), presumably. In the second, Eph.5:23 submission of wives to husbands.
And the analogies resorted to are:
In 1 Cor.11:3 The relationship between God and Christ, Christ and the church, Man and woman, (in descending order of hierarchy).
In Eph.5:23 The relationship between Christ and the church, Husband and wife, (in descending order of hierarchy).
Yet in Col.1:15-20 We have “He, (Christ), is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.”
And Col.2:8-10 “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.”
These Colossian passages originated from Paul possibly between AD 54-57 or even earlier, AD 52-55. Which would have been contemporary with the writing of 1 Cor. AD 52-55. They seem to have a different view of the position of Christ within the Godhead, definitely not an outright hierarchy, which could be used to argue for the submission of women.
The theology Paul uses here is inclusive of both male and female believers, and there is no hint of a hierarchical theory of Godhead, rather more a coeternal, coequal conceptualisation, in which believers participate in the ‘Preeminence of Christ’ through baptism, and therefore should not be duped into ‘self abasement and worship of angels’, perhaps in reference to the goings on at Corinth, under the rule of the sophists.
So we have at Col.2:16 advice to ALL believers both male and female: “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. [ and I might add What you must put on your head when praying or when you are allowed to speak in church]. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.
Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God. [A vivid description of what was actually going on in the Corinthian church, which Paul so much disagreed with that he wrote Cor. 1 and 2.]
“If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.”
Now it may be that I am in a minority of one, but I consider these passages from Colossians to be genuine, authentic, inspired and honest, straight from Paul’s lips and much more likely to be representative of his Christology than 1 Cor.11:3 or Eph.5:23.
And Col.ch.1 and ch.2 are stated as a refutation of the kind of esoteric super spirituality and elitist, exegetical, extemporisation and oratory that was going on at Corinth, along with subjugation of the women, incest, ‘retailing’ God’s word for financial gain, 2 Cor.2:17 (a common term used to derogate sophists who liked to get paid for their services) and abuse of the poor at The Lord’s Supper.
So all in all, I don’t think 1 Cor.11-3-16 or 1 Cor.14:33b-35a are Paul’s words at all.
____________________________________
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.
As a human Jesus didn’t desire equality with the Father because he took on flesh (bond-servant) subjecting himself to death as a human, something the Father cannot do. Philippians says he was in the “form of a bond-servant.” We believe Jesus was fully human. The Greek word for form is “Morphe” which means nature or essence. Jesus had a human nature, but likewise we see at Phil.2:6, Jesus also was in the form (morphe) of God. That surely means he also had the nature of God. Jesus was God taking on human flesh. As a human he didn’t use all his divine abilities. That’s what it means “…but emptied himself.” Jesus at times became tired, ate food, and died on a cross; all things only a human can do. On the cross the human Jesus died but the second person of the Trinity, his divine nature, could never die.
I have no problem with Paul saying that Christ is the head of the church, nor with the notion that wives should have the same attitude toward their husbands as the church has to Christ and that husbands should have the same attitude to their wives as Christ has for the church. That works fine as a general principle of mutual caring and respecting each other. "Submitting to one another out of reverence to Christ." Eph.5:21.
Where it becomes warped is when the 'submission' is supposedly imposed by Apostolic edict as at 1 Cor.11:3-16 and 14:33b-35. When the hierarchy is supposedly established with God 'above' Christ, and Christ 'above' the husband, and the husband 'above' the wife.
I know that 'headship' does not necessarily mean 'above' but it is difficult to see how treating the Trinity as if they are linked in a 'Chain of Command' is what Paul intended us to understand about the way The Godhead operates.
This strikes me as becoming 'un-Paul like' and too legalistic to be genuine Paul speaking. Though Paul, I admit, was a man of his time and he was also keen to see 'good order' in the churches, rather than 'trouble and strife'.
So my opinion is that Paul indeed calls for order in the church:
"Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints." 1 Cor.14:29-33.
But it is a general call for order, not a specific rule for women. So I think 1 Cor.14:34-35 are not Paul's words:
"The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."
____________________________________
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.