Official Bible Interpretation Thread

Some of my history is a bit fuzzy, but we must recognize what was written was written in a specific time regarding specific issues. Basically, it was fairly common in those days for the men and women to sit on opposite sides of the Church. As the women of those days tended to be lesser educated, they sometimes would yell across the Church to their husbands for advice on what was being sad, the men, being more educated of the law, didn't have to yell across the Church to speak to their wives. Paul put a stop to that practice of the women yelling out so as to maintain order and reverence in Church.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=413042

That is to say, it is not about women teaching in general, but the situation going on in Corinth (there were lots of problems!) that seems to be disorder and confusion.

 

So you are speculating a different author to account for your perception of Paul's understanding? Paul is very complicated. I don't think he anticipated that his words would become scripture.

 

Is everyone crystal clear on that now?

 

The rest of what are in most of the "authentic" Pauline letters seems to be of an equilization of women and other groups. Epistles like Timothy seem to be written later (again, it doesn't affect inspiration) have other things going on, such as "proper places" of women which just this section of 1 Corinthians has. The rest of the letter is concerned with things that the other "authentic" Pauline letters are concerned with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles

http://www.infobarrel.com/Biblical_Scholarship_and_the_Pauline_Epistles_Part_I


Read basically any bok by Bart Ehrman.

 

From the wikipedia article,
"near consensus that they are the work of Paul: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon."
I don't really care but this is the first I've heard of other authors making insertions into Paul's letters. Certainly there is dispute of authorship for many books but for those that are commonly regarded, as in near consensus, to be pauline, I don't think there is evidence of tampering.

 

http://helpmewithbiblestudy.org/11Church/PublicExaminingAuthenticity1CorLowerCriticism.aspx

Keep in mind I could be wrong. I just wrote "probably" I should have wrote "Paul possibly didn't write...."

 

I beg to differ. There are good reasons for thinking that the passage in 1 Cornthians on women being silent in church is an interpolation by a scribe. Only three chapters earlier Paul indicates that women should cover their heads when they pray and prophesy in church. Does that strike anybody as a contradiction? And the passage flows much better if you assume the verses in question weren't there. And there are some versions of 1 Corinthians in which the verses appear in different places, suggesting they were originally a marginal note later plugged into the text by different scribes. See Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians; Ehrman, Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene.

 

After having it (re)brought to my attention, I recalled one brief discussion on how the women actually did, during services, Yell at their particular spouse if there was a "point" they didn't understand, as Ukr brought up. I admit to "forgetting" this - and it totally sets the scene and I can easily imagine woman after woman yelling at her husband on points they probably just didn't agree with, not that they didn't understand. (lol)

And even though I had never thought of insertions being put into Paul's letters, it seems very plausible. Not that there is any lack of Paul's beliefs on just about any and everything.

God used and uses us (very) flawed humans not only to write His word, but to also spread it...is my thought...even us flawed females. lol

 

Indeed. Within our flesh we are beings of spirit and mind - just as our Father. When we seek to become aware of our true bodies we begin to spread His word as a matter of course. Male and female is of no consequence in these matters for they exist only for earth experience. They are not retained.

 

Depends how it's written and spread. A God that created the universe and humans would also know the mechanics on how language operates and would also know where certain behaviors would lead. In other words, God made it so that only certain characteristics would ever find its way in the Bible because it would be altered by certain people for certain reasons.

 

Can it be possible that Paul wrote it to describe a certain dilemma that was occurring in the early church? Later on he goes on to say that the Church is one of order rather than disorder. Perhaps it was controversial back then for women to talk in church because it go in the way of male ego, so Paul said this to try to keep the peace.

I don't see the letters to be sweeping throughout all of Christianity. Only a way to address the Christians of that time, because after all, they were letters to them at that time and not to us at our time.

Christianity is more about principals than about certain traditions that must be followed in every circumstance. Paul was just doing what he could do for that time. Romans is a great chapter for this.

 

"Perhaps", but you ignore the points I made to the contrary. Why does he tell women to cover their heads when they preach and prophesy, but shortly afterward tell them not to speak at all? Paul allowed women to have significant roles in the churches. He named a number of prominent women: e.g., Phoebe, a deacon; Prisca, who supported a congregation in her home; and Junia, whom he calls "foremost among the apostles."(Rom. 16:1,3-4,7). And women obvioulsy were, with his knowledge and consent, preaching and prophesying in church. If the rule was aimed at uneducated women in Corinth yelling to their husbands, couldn't he have addressed that problem without such a blanket rule? (e.g., "Ladies, don't yell across the room during the service; it's disruptive?and the same applies to men.") On what evidence is the link to the Catholic website based? (I know, I could look it up, but they require registration which I'm not about to provide.) It has the aroma of after the fact apologetics to explain away evidence that an interpolation by a scribe made it into the Canon.

 

Wouldn't a God that created the universe and humans also know how to get them to write in a clear and non-contradictory way--that is, if He wanted to?

 

Maybe he was talking about specific moments that were occurring in the church. e.q., one church did well and another didn't do so well. Just like how certain congregations today have no issue with female pastors and others that do. At least that was the impression I got when reading it. The whole covering the head thing was done by both women and men whenever they prophesied, so there really is no reason to think that the church, in general, had issues with seeing women as equals. That lead me to think that he was addressing a specific issue to a specific church. I didn't even consider an interpolation.

I thought the whole "don't talk in church" thing was said in the way that it was said as a polite way of saying what you said (Ladies, don't yell across the room during the service; it's disruptive?) or another possibility was to warn them that it can cause problems so it's best to not do so. With your added part, "and the same applies to men", I filled in the blanks as the women not causing a problem of that sort. That the issue was mostly a male issue, kind of a male oriented sin of sorts. In other words, women have no problem with men speaking, but men have problems with women speaking.

Website?

 

I think so. If not, then either God doesn't exist or he does but our understanding of him would change.

 

But He hasn't, so maybe we should consider the other possibilities you propose. I thing the latter one seems to be the more promising of those alternatives.

 

So what you're saying is that this letter was addressing a very specific problem in a particular local congregation at a particular point of time. But that's one of the problems of Biblical literalism. How do we know what to confine to its particular narrow contexts and what to treat as universal for all folks at all times? As you know, the passage in question has been taken as universal by many fundamentalist Christians and used as a basis for supporting the notion that women have a proper subordinate "place" in human society that they must keep. OWB has treated us to that interpretation. If it was not intended to be interpreted that way, the literal, out of context interpretation has had a profound, and I would argue negative, impact on human relations.

Would you take a similar contextual approach to other parts of the Bible. For example, was Leviticus meant to apply only to the Jews at the time and social context when it was written, or does it, or some of it apply to us. The Jews and many Christian theologians say it applies only or mostly to them, although some Christian theologians make an exception for the sexual taboos--for reasons that strike me as unclear. Even for the Jews, some writers believe the much quoted passage about men lying with men must be understood in the context in which sexuality was mainly about dominance, and to lie with a man was to make him into an inferior creature--a woman, a child, or a slave. There are also strong indications that temple prostitution was a major concern. And what about Romans. Was that meant just for the Romans? Were Paul's concerns directed at the homosexuality he knew--temple prostitution, pederasty, promiscuity, etc. Did the fact that the main topic of the epistle was idolatry mean that he was thinking of ritual sex, like the cult of Cybelle and Atis, emphasizing unisex trading of gender roles? Was it directed at "homosexuality", as OWB claims, or just lustful same gender pursuits? How do we know? Here again the consequences of misinterpretation can be (have been?) profound.



Website?[/QUOTE]Fine, but it requires registration or "free" subscription, and if I do that I'll be getting Catholic spam and be on a mailing list.

 

So what you're saying is that this letter was addressing a very specific problem in a particular local congregation at a particular point of time. But that's one of the problems of Biblical literalism. How do we know what to confine to its particular narrow contexts and what to treat as universal for all folks at all times? As you know, the passage in question has been taken as universal by many fundamentalist Christians and used as a basis for supporting the notion that women have a proper subordinate "place" in human society that they must keep. OWB has treated us to that interpretation. If it was not intended to be interpreted that way, the literal, out of context interpretation has had a profound, and I would argue negative, impact on human relations.

Would you take a similar contextual approach to other parts of the Bible. For example, was Leviticus meant to apply only to the Jews at the time and social context when it was written, or does it, or some of it apply to us. The Jews and many Christian theologians say it applies only or mostly to them, although some Christian theologians make an exception for the sexual taboos--for reasons that strike me as unclear. Even for the Jews, some writers believe the much quoted passage about men lying with men must be understood in the context in which sexuality was mainly about dominance, and to lie with a man was to make him into an inferior creature--a woman, a child, or a slave. There are also strong indications that temple prostitution was a major concern. And what about Romans. Was that meant just for the Romans? Were Paul's concerns directed at the homosexuality he knew--temple prostitution, pederasty, promiscuity, etc. Did the fact that the main topic of the epistle was idolatry mean that he was thinking of ritual sex, like the cult of Cybelle and Atis, emphasizing unisex trading of gender roles? Was it directed at "homosexuality", as OWB claims, or just lustful same gender pursuits? How do we know? Here again the consequences of misinterpretation can be (have been?) profound.

 

That one was mine. Okie, if you mean the forum one, it shouldn't require registration. I apologise for the almos Spamming you may have received if for some reason the site reacts differently to your browser or whatever.

On the site, there is not any hard evidence, mainly allegorical evidence that def already hinted at--about the yelling across.

One interesting (ultimately rejected by the author) idea I read in this source: http://bible.org/seriespage/silent-churches-role-women-1-corinthians-1433b-36
is that Paul is quoting the Corinthians letter. In this scenerio, the Corinthians were preventing women from speaking, and Paul uses their quote as a rhetorical device. The verses following then are a rebuke saying that the people of Corinth are trying to add to God's commandments, and should not forbid any prophesy and tongues.

 

Then He failed.