 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Brent Member Joined Apr 9, 2005 243 posts Location: Simcoe Ontario |
 Hi Marshall |
Posted Aug 31, 2005; 6:35 am |
|
| Quote: | | Remember what Carson said in what you quoted earlier? "During the last decade and a half, one notable trend in Corinthian studies has been to postulate that Paul is quoting the Corinthians in more and more places -- usually in places where the commentator does not like what Paul is saying!" Now, you seem to be suggesting that this shift is positive. I do too! While translations older than the NRSV (1989) do not render this verse as a quotation, the newer ones (regardless of whether they are literal) are likely to do so. |
Marshall, I am concerned that you are not reading people accurately. Carson mentions the 1Co. 7 passage as one that is already accepted as a quote. That is, 1Co. 7 is not part of the development he refers to, and neither do I consider it such. As exegetes go, the accepteance already existed at the timeof Carson's writing (1991). I mentioned the translations, all done in the last few years, and post-datign Carson's article, simply as evidecne that the consensus had made its way into translations, which it did not have time to do with the othe ones you mentioneed.
| Quote: | | The translation of this verse remains controversial. |
Not really. As I said, the presence of a few differing views does not a controversy make.
I am afraid I don't agree with you for the most part.
| Quote: | | Brent, I'd much rather we discussed this based on 1 Corinthians, not on someone else's commentary, especially one I don't have access to. |
Considering you opened this up with an appeal to an article, this seems an odd complaint. As for access, that's my bad. The article si actually a chapter froma book, and it is available on-line http://www.cbmw.org/rbmw/rbmw.pdf. The chapter is #6.
If I am doing a poor job of helping you understnd the refutation that Carson provides, perhaps his own summary will help:
| Quote: | The brute fact is this: in every instance in the New Testament where the
disjunctive particle in question is used in a construction analogous to the passage at hand,
its effect is to reinforce the truth of the clause or verse that precedes it. Paul’s point in
14:36 is that some Corinthians want to “deny or refute” what Paul has been saying in
verses 34-35. So he continues, “Or [if you find it so hard to grant this, then consider:] did
the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?” This is
part and parcel of Paul’s frequent insistence in this letter that the Corinthian church return
to the common practice and perspective of the other churches (1:2; 4:17; 7:17; 11:16;
14:33) and to wholehearted submission to apostolic authority (14:37-38). |
I would encourage you to take the time to re-read the article from the think-tank, as well as Carson's. |
|
|
|
| Brent Member Joined Apr 9, 2005 243 posts Location: Simcoe Ontario |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| did a bit more checking this morning |
Posted Aug 31, 2005; 10:18 am |
|
I just wanted to add something to my quick reference to I Cor. 7:1. Checking with Bruce Winter's work this morning ... he provided a good explanation for the quote used in I Cor. 7:1. - one that involves knowing a bit more about the historical conditions in Corinthian at the time Paul is writing ... Apparently this was a time of famine and there was a great deal of concern about feeding one's family.
Translated from the Greek, the quote should read "It is well for a man not to touch his wife" ... and so it has less to do with virginity and chastity and more to do with abstaining from sexual intercourse within marriage. The reason why this practice might have been considered by the Corinthian Christians was to avoid pregnancy so that in the "view of the impending crisis" (I Cor. 7:26) it would be better to be either unmarried, or without a pregnancy or a nursing child.
What was the impending crisis? The possiblity that the end of time was arriving and that the predictions of Mark 13:17 would not be as terrifying for those who were not fleeing while wife pregnant or having a young child to care for during that distressful time (I'm thinking about Hurricane Katrina and being in labor, or having a little baby to care for while escaping flood waters  ).
Textual critical analysis is important - in determining what the best translation of the Greek would be for any word currently used in our English translations ... For example, Winters' analysis helped him distinguish the Greek word to be translated as 'wife' rather than 'woman' in the I Cor. 7:1 passage.
I am curious, Marshall - did you check between English translations, or with the Greek text as well for your analysis of I Cor. 14 ... What peaked my curiousity was the fact that one of the rhetorical pairs you quoted - I Cor. 7:16 - is not set up with the "what" in the translation I often use.
The NRSV sets up I Cor. 7:16 in this way:
Wife, for all you know, you might save your husband. Husband, for all you know, you might save your wife.
In this instance, both are affirmative statements.
I asked the question regarding how you decided what should be negated or affirmed on either side of the rhetorical pairs you set up ... The reason I did so is because in the case of I Cor. 14:34-36 ... The obvious answer to the second part of the pair is a 'negative' - No ... you are not the only ones to whom God has spoken ... So, either the first statement preceding the "OR" "WHAT" is to be considered 'positive' or be equally negated, as you suggest ... How do you decide on the double negation?
I noted in an earlier post that any analysis should not discount the social reality behind Paul's rhetoric and I wait to hear from you on that matter ...
Rhetorical argument is organized in a particular way ... and you have ignored some of that with your grammatical exercise/analysis of English translations ...
Rhetorical arguments in I Cor. are set up by Paul as follows: (A.C.Wire)
1. Arguments by Dissociation of Concepts: use of the word "but" to dissociate principle from practice
6:12a All things are authorized me, but not all things are useful
More examples in 6:12b, 6:13b, 7:1b-2 10:23a 10:23b
2. Arguments Dissociating Thought from Reality
3:18 If any among you in this age think they are wise, let them become fools that they may become wise ...
More in 8:2-3, 10:12 11:16, 14:37-38
3. Argument dissociating private from public - These are the most important for the I Cor. 14 arguments
7:2, 8-9, 36 10:25 11:5a 11:21-22a, 34 a 14:18-19a, 28 14:34-35 , 16:2
At several points Paul proposes that the Corinthians do activities at home that he considers disrupting or difficult when they gather. His argument dissociates the private from the public sphere of life and locates the church in the public sphere. That is why he would have one set of rules for women in the home, and one for their public acts of worship ... Again - it is so important to understand the social ethical norms of that day ... to fully understand what Paul is arguing against, and for.
4. Argument dissociating self-benefit from community benefit
5. Argument dissociating shame from honor
6. Argument dissociating human from divine, flesh from spirit
These arguments are just some of the rhetorical devices used by Paul in I Cor. There are also Quasi-Logical arguments from definition, justice, divine reciprocity or retribution.
There are arguments based on the structure of reality - from what is written ... from God's calling, from universal church practice, from the Lord's command
There are arguments establishing the structure of reality - from the model of Paul and Christ, etc.
It seems essential to me, Marshall, that when you do a grammatical analysis you contextualize it within the specific argument that Paul is making at that particular point in the text. Chapter markers have been added to delineate some of these issues, and of course markers can be removed ... 
i.e. I Cor. 7: deals with "matters about which you wrote" regarding sexual arrangements in light of the crisis to come ...
I Cor. 8-10 deal with issues of "food sacrificed to idols" - and the matter of "food and drink" for the apostles (9:4)
I Cor. 14 falls under the general argument started in I Cor. 12 - "Now, concerning spiritual gifts ..." so the arguments made thereafter have to do with that topic, not the submission of women, silencing of women, in particular - Paul is concerned with proper use of the gifts of Spirit - privately and publically ... and these other arguments fit into that general concern ...
I am simply raising this because it seems important to focus on the textual critical analysis in light of the overall, and specific, rhetorical arguments being by Paul ... for a fuller understanding. Understanding the social cultural mileau becomes imperative so we can think through the relationship between the argument, the audience and the cultural reality ... and its possible application for today.
You noted to Todd that you believe each text has only one meaning - how can we come close to knowing what that meaning is if we don't acknowledge the very real differences between what was going on in the 50's AD and today in 2005 AD ... and not just the differences in biblical translations:?:
Last edited by gay lynn voth on Sep 1, 2005; 4:26 pm; edited 3 times in total. |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| Reply to Brent and Carson |
Posted Aug 31, 2005; 5:55 pm |
|
| Brent wrote: | | Marshall, I am concerned that you are not reading people accurately. Carson mentions the 1Co. 7 passage as one that is already accepted as a quote. That is, 1Co. 7 is not part of the development he refers to, and neither do I consider it such. |
Brent, why don't you consider it such? Why does Carson mention 1 Corinthians 7:1 as a passage that is already established as a quote? You mentioned that he wrote his contribution to that book in 1991, and he was disparaging the trend in the 15 years prior to see more and more quotes in Corinthians. Do you know of any translations prior to 1976 that use the new reading for 1 Corinthians 7:1? I couldn't find any, but I just searched all the translations available at BibleGateway and Crosswalk. That reading seems to only have become popular starting with the NRSV (1989). If so, doesn't it seem a bit strange for him to object to other possible readings brought to light around the same time? If he were to claim that the chapter 7 reading is now commonly accepted while the chapter 14 reading is not, that would be true, but 15 years ago both readings were obscure, if they existed at all.
I don't think the problem is that I'm misreading him. I think I've pointed out an inconsistency that you're not willing to acknowledge.
| Quote: | | Considering you opened this up with an appeal to an article, this seems an odd complaint. |
No, Brent, I didn't. I linked the article to acknowledge the source that inspired me to look into this, but I presented my argument in my own words (probably too many of them) in a way that was not at all dependent on the article for further information. (In fact, in some areas I went into more detail than the article.)
Ah. Now I see why you didn't want to give the source earlier.  It did sound a bit more credible when I thought it was coming from a general commentary rather than a book arguing for male and female roles. Isn't it surprising that after demolishing all other views, the author finds a prohibition of women teachers in this passage! I'm curious: did you also read the positions of the individuals Carson is critiquing, such as Kaiser or Fee, or did you trust Carson to dispassionately and accurately present their positions as well as his own?
In case you haven't read it, here's Fee's response to the view that Carson supports:
"Others consider the passage to be a prohibition of some form of inspired speech other than prophecy. This has taken one of two forms: (a) Some have suggested that the ban is on the 'discerning' of prophecies mentioned in v. 29. It is assumed in this model that women did prophesy, but they are now being excluded from the weighing of prophecies because that could possibly put them in the 'unbiblical' position of sitting in authority over their own husbands. This has against it (i) the extreme difficulty of being so far removed from v. 29 that one wonders how the Corinthians themselves could have so understood it; (ii) the fact that nothing in the passage itself even remotely hints of such a thing; and (iii) the form of v. 35, 'if they wish to learn anything,' which implies not 'judging' their husbands' prophecies but failing to understand what is going on at all. Furthermore, despite arguments to the contrary, it is less than convincing that 'discerning' the prophetic utterance of a husband is to sit in authority over him in a greater way than by a prophetic utterance. That seems to make the dependent, and therefore lesser, item (discerning prophecies) more significant than prophecy itself." (p. 703-704)
"What kind of speaking is intended depends on one's view, both of authorship and, if authentic, of its place in the present argument. The only internal suggestion is that of v. 35, that they should ask questions at home if they wish to learn. If authentic, this unqualified use of the verb seems to tell against the probability that only a single form of speech is being prohibited. Elsewhere Paul has said 'speak in tongues' when that is in view, and when he means 'discern' he says 'discern,' not 'speak.' Again ... the plain sense of the sentence is an absolute prohibition of all speaking in the assembly." (p. 706-707)
| Quote: | | If I am doing a poor job of helping you understnd the refutation that Carson provides, perhaps his own summary will help: |
Please also consider the possibility that I understand it but don't think Carson has made a strong case.
| D.A. Carson wrote: | | The brute fact is this: in every instance in the New Testament where the disjunctive particle in question is used in a construction analogous to the passage at hand, its effect is to reinforce the truth of the clause or verse that precedes it. |
Here's the trouble. This "brute fact" disagrees with what I found when I went through each occurrence of this conjunction at the beginning of an independent clause in 1 Corinthians. I outlined my results at the end of this post. Ignoring the passage under discussion, there are only two cases (1 Corinthians 9:5-6; 10:21-22) where the practice or rhetorical statement of the preceding clause is positive and prescriptive and not contradicted by what is after the conjunction.
What Carson may be meaning is that even when the statement is negative, it still remains true. For instance, in 1 Corinthians 6:8-9, Paul first describes how the Corinthians wrong and defraud others, then he has the conjunction, and then he says (through a rhetorical question) that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. It is still true that the Corinthians committed that behaviour, but the conjunction still seems to express disgust and disagreement with it. Note that expressing disagreement with a practice is different from denying the practice exists, which is a distinction Carson seems to miss.
And, I'd also still be interested in your answers to the first four of my five questions from earlier. I still don't know your own position on this issue, or what you think 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 means for our churches today.
Last edited by Marshall on Nov 16, 2005; 3:19 am; edited 1 time in total. |
|
|
|
| Brent Member Joined Apr 9, 2005 243 posts Location: Simcoe Ontario |
| |
Posted Aug 31, 2005; 10:06 pm |
|
Marshall,
Again, The consensus that Carson refers to is not measurable merely by appeal to translations, though the impact of the consensus is apparent in recent years.
The idea that you are pointing out an incinsistency is simply without foundation. Carson clearly lays out the basis for accepting those quotes which are nearly universally accepted. The reason he disparages other suggestions is because of the lack of basis for them. The suggestions, to the extent that they evince an increasing willingness to put forth other possibilities without quality grounds simply illustrates that Carson is right.
| Quote: | | No, Brent, I didn't. I linked the article to acknowledge the source that inspired me to look into this, but I presented my argument in my own words (probably too many of them) in a way that was not at all dependent on the article for further information. (In fact, in some areas I went into more detail than the article.) |
Marshall, you did appeal to the article. You may have placed the arguments in your own words, but your dependance is unquestionable. Fact is, your thinking is representative of a school of thought that has been addressed no less than 10 years ago. Now, it is entirely fair to provide you with that refutation. I provided you with the link. I can see no good reason for you to avoid it. But you try to find one:
| Quote: | | Ah. Now I see why you didn't want to give the source earlier. |
In fact Marshall the article is also available on the Bible.org site, which you appeal to. Had you bothered to look it up, you would have seen the folloowing facts:
1) The article is a refutation exegetical and text critical grounds, which means it covers the same issues as a commentary.
2) The article is in fact "an expansion and modest revision" of a portion of a book called "Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14". That means it actually goes into more detail than a commentary covering the whole book typically would.
3) Carson interacts extensively with Fee and others.
That for starters.
But let's look at the heart of your comment: You accuse the man of bias without reason other than you disagree with him. His work must of course be tainted and biased. He must be missing something misrepresenting something etc. It seems Carson then is correct when he writes:
| Quote: | | All scholars make mistakes, I no less than others. But the sheer vehemence that has surrounded the treatment of this particle in recent years attests that we are facing more than an occasional lapse of exegetical judgment. We are facing an ideology that is so certain of itself that in the hands of some, at least, the text is not allowed to speak for itself |
| Quote: | | Please also consider the possibility that I understand it but don't think Carson has made a strong case. |
I would do that if you actually demonstrated an understanding of the argument he makes. To present, you have not.
To wit:
| Quote: | | What Carson may be meaning is that even when the statement is negative, it still remains true. For instance, in 1 Corinthians 6:8-9, Paul first describes how the Corinthians wrong and defraud others, then he has the conjunction, and then he says (through a rhetorical question) that the righteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. It is still true that the Corinthians committed that behaviour, but the conjunction still seems to express disgust and disagreement with it. Note that expressing disagreement with a practice is different from denying the practice exists, which is a distinction Carson seems to miss. |
Actually Carson deals with this:
| Quote: | | Paul does not now want to turn around and say that they have not been acting this way: clearly, they have been, and the burden of his remark is that they should not be. Equally clearly, however, some Corinthians are slow to accept his denunciation. They would prefer to “deny or refute” (Thayer’s terms) Paul’s contention. So Paul goes on: “Or [do] you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?” In other words, if you want to buck at what I am writing in verses 7-8, at least you had better swallow what I say now in verse 9—and of course the effect is to reinforce, emphatically so, the burden of verses 7-8. |
So again, I urge you to read Carson, and to do so with an open mind. I urge you to reconsider your unwillingness to read the work of others for no other reason than you don't like their conclusion. |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| |
Posted Aug 31, 2005; 11:41 pm |
|
Brent, I read Carson's entire chapter shortly after you provided a reference to it. Before that point you hadn't given the title of his work, so I didn't try to track it down myself. I did not reject it because of the work it was contained in or because he disagrees with me, but rather because I disagreed with the points he made. And, as I stated, I did not totally disagree with the chapter. He makes some good points. I didn't see any of those good points in his responses to the quotation view. By the way, I also read about ten pages of the work by Fee that Carson interacts with. It was interesting to read his own words. Fee also disagrees with my viewpoint, as do the NET Bible translators on bible.org I quoted earlier, so I am not appealing to them or anyone else. I just want to bring more viewpoints to the table and present things that I've found thought-provoking.
As for the "To wit" section at the end of your post, you should have instead quoted my following paragraph which directly interacted with what was in your quote from Carson. Let me say it again in different terms. Carson is responding to those who say the conjunction means to "deny or refute". In this thread, it is only the quotes from Carson that use that terminology (I used "refute" once, but not in the context of that conjunction). He's not responding to an argument I've made. I pointed out that the conjunction is usually a sharp disagreement, or to be even more clear, a rebuke of the practice or statement that comes before, not a denial that the practice occurred.
Anyway, I have no interest in further critiquing Carson. My aim isn't to slam him or the book he's contributed to, but rather to learn more about this passage in 1 Corinthians 14. I apologize for making a snide remark about the source you used -- that only increased the tension between us. I do think there's problems in Carson's critique, but we don't seem to be able to discuss them calmly, and neither of us seems to be convincing the other of what we find to be obvious. I still would appreciate it if you could reveal some of your own thoughts on this matter. How do you think verse 33 should be punctuated? What do you think is the best explanation for the textual issue with verses 34-35? How do you think those verses fit with the context, and how do they apply to our churches today? |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| throwing something else out there ... |
Posted Sep 1, 2005; 3:02 pm |
|
How many Mennonite Brethren churches include speaking in tongues and prophesying in the Sunday morning service?
Is talking about the public silencing of women - when it is clearly presented as part of the context of a worship service in which tongues, interpretation of tongues, and prophecies were being offered (I Cor. 14) - a contemporary problem for us today?
History has shown that generally denominations that favor a more charismatic demonstration of the Holy Spirit's gifts also allow for more freedom and equality for women - in fact, sometimes these groups are readily led by a woman ... I find that interesting ...
I was working on some lecture notes for my Ethical Reasoning class this morning and thought I would throw this other thought into the mix:
"Morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide one's conduct by reason - that is, to do what there are the best reasons for doing - while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual who will be affected by what one does."
Based on this 21st century "minimum conception of morality" - I wonder if we read the moral concerns of the 1st century with different eyes than a first century citizen would have?
In other words - maybe this minimum conception of morality was introduced as such by Jesus, revealed to, and followed by Paul and others. They were then given the responsiblity of teaching other Christians to consider the interests of all who were effected by their actions.
This 'new way' of seeing others would be radically different than that of society that wanted to treat some with less interest than others.
Many we need to continue to learn - and be taught  - how to be moral Christian thinkers ... It does not come naturally to a human being - as we probably all know ...
Hopefully, we, as Christian believers, have even more than the minimum conception of morality - given to us through the filling of the Spirit - But let us not neglect the reasonable part of our human obligation while we live in the Spirit.
By the way ... I think that is the point of I Corinthians 14 - do what is morally ethical within your social context - do not be offensive and self-interested ... and be filled with the Spirit - honoring and glorifying God with praise and thanksgiving ...
Therein the 'law of God' will be fulfilled - Loving God with all our being - and loving our neighbor as ourself ... 
Last edited by gay lynn voth on Sep 3, 2005; 2:06 pm; edited 1 time in total. |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| Re: did a bit more checking this morning |
Posted Sep 2, 2005; 5:31 pm |
|
Hi Gay Lynn,
I just happened to notice that you added some things to your earlier post. In general, the only way someone else knows when you add something to a thread is when you add a new post. When you edit your earlier posts, what you write is probably going to get missed, especially by those who are following the thread and so think they've already read the earlier posts. As a rule of thumb, if someone has posted after you, it's best to add any additional material to a new post instead of editing the earlier post.
| gay lynn voth wrote: | | I am curious, Marshall - did you check between English translations, or with the Greek text as well for your analysis of I Cor. 14 ... What peaked my curiousity was the fact that one of the rhetorical pairs you quoted - I Cor. 7:16 - is not set up with the "what" in the translation I often use. |
I checked a number of translations (but not the NRSV) and also the Greek text. However, my interaction with the Greek is limited to seeing which word is used and where else it appears. 1 Corinthians 7:16 does contain the conjunction between the two sentences, and I couldn't see any evidence of a textual issue there. But, as I noted, this is the one case where a simple "or" instead of a stronger translation seems to fit better.
| Quote: | The NRSV sets up I Cor. 7:16 in this way:
Wife, for all you know, you might save your husband. Husband, for all you know, you might save your wife.
In this instance, both are affirmative statements. |
That's interesting. The NLT also renders the verse this way, even going so far as the render the conjunction as "and", which seems quite unusual. It certainly is surprising how many verses in this letter are thought by some to mean nearly the opposite of what they've traditionally been interpreted as.
| Quote: | | in the case of I Cor. 14:34-36 ... The obvious answer to the second part of the pair is a 'negative' - No ... you are not the only ones to whom God has spoken ... So, either the first statement preceding the "OR" "WHAT" is to be considered 'positive' or be equally negated, as you suggest ... How do you decide on the double negation? |
It certainly wouldn't have to be. The conjunction alone doesn't necessarily signal that what comes before is being rebuked, but that is usually the case. The reason that is likely here is due to how verses 34-35 are set apart in some fashion, as shown by the textual issue, and how the plain meaning of Paul's words before and after those verses contradict their message. Another issue I've come across from reading more on this is that the appeal to "the law" in verse 34 is unprecedented in Paul's letters in that he does not state what the law says (e.g. Romans 13:8-9; 1 Corinthians 9:8-9; 14:21). Indeed, commentators have had a hard time figuring out what Paul is referring to here, and there appears to be no clear answer. The idea that the Corinthians are appealing to a Jewish law or other traditional law seems like a good possibility. So, there's textual, contextual and stylistic reasons to suggest that Paul was refuting what is stated in those verses rather than giving his own commands in them.
To summarize, the conjunction does not prove the interpretation I've suggested, but the conjunction is compatible with the preceding statements being something that is rebuked by Paul. It opens the door, but it's the other evidence that I think makes the case compelling.
| Quote: | | I noted in an earlier post that any analysis should not discount the social reality behind Paul's rhetoric and I wait to hear from you on that matter ... |
I don't think I'm discounting that reality. However, I don't think the social reality means that Paul must be silencing women from speaking in church. I think it's hard to justify such a reading due to both 1 Corinthians 11 and Paul's inclusive language in much of the rest of 1 Corinthians 14 where he speaks about orderly worship. In places he seems to go out of his way to not use language that could be interpreted as male-only (e.g. verses 29-32). This makes sense if he's refuting a false belief that women should be silenced, but is strange if Paul is himself about to present such a command.
| Quote: | | At several points Paul proposes that the Corinthians do activities at home that he considers disrupting or difficult when they gather. His argument dissociates the private from the public sphere of life and locates the church in the public sphere. That is why he would have one set of rules for women in the home, and one for their public acts of worship ... Again - it is so important to understand the social ethical norms of that day ... to fully understand what Paul is arguing against, and for. |
The trouble is that 1 Corinthians 11 contains no hint that it is not about the public sphere. In fact, the way Paul links his discussion of head coverings and the Lord's Supper (compare 1 Corinthians 11:2, 17) suggests that both are church issues. Even if the head coverings are not specifically a church issue, there's no reason I can see to claim that they are an issue that only applies outside of the church. And, the rest of 1 Corinthians 14 is clearly about public worship, yet Paul says "you can all prophecy one by one" (verse 30) and "do not forbid speaking in tongues" as long as it is done properly (verse 39). Isn't it rather strange to suggest that in the middle of this Paul doesn't follow his own advice?
By the way, here's another article I just read that argues for the same view I've presented here but without even mentioning the textual issue. I should also note that I found the article Brent posted about historical interpretations of this passage quite interesting. It is fascinating that until the last few decades there was little dispute that Paul was prohibiting women from all speaking in church (aside from joining in the "Amen" of the outsider mentioned in verse 16). I think that says more about those cultures than about Paul's writing, but the result is that any view less restrictive than that cannot claim much support from tradition. |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| thanks for the response |
Posted Sep 3, 2005; 1:14 pm |
|
Hi Marshall ... thanks for your response ... I appreciated the quality and substance of both your first argument and your subsequent reasoning ... I know that I definitely believe that women should not be silenced in the church today ... and therefore I would love to have this sentiment be undisputed throughout the history of the church ...
My dilemma comes from teaching church history/theology for some many years that I remain unconvinced that the early church fathers ... and 2nd century interpreters of the Pauline tradition were radically misrepresenting Paul's words ... If your views of Paul's argument are correct (and I would like to think they are) - I am forced by implication to consider that the prejudices toward women - that are part of the early historical church texts - remained "untouched" or "unmoved" by Paul's desire to have women speak, and church tradition, at some point, failed to follow through on Paul's more supportive views of women ... We are then forced to think about when the 'initial' mistake was made ... 
So, here is the dilemma (a dilemma is being forced to choose between two unsatisfactory options):
1. Either Paul was arguing for the somewhat equal involvement of women in the early church, and the church tradition coming out of the 2nd century on was acting as contrary to scripture ... OR
2. Paul, as well as the early church fathers, were working within a particular cultural view of women that was 'historical and localized' but not universally 'eternal' - views we have since been led by the Holy Spirit - within historical time - to reject ... while still supporting the view that the Bible is an authorative guide for faith and practice ... This view leads to the 20th century reconsiderations of the role of hermeneutics and social practice ...
Like I said - these are both problematic views ... The first makes an appeal to scripture as authorative in a more 'literal', textual sense - and therefore justifies making the text 'say' what we would like it to say today ... to fit our social, cultural mileau ... while arguing that most of the 2000 year Christian tradition got it wrong ...
The other means that we have to make adjustments to how we re/interpret the biblical injunctions (many of them have already been reinterpreted as you point out so well - i.e headcoverings, food laws, etc.) because of social, cultural changes that lead away from previous application of the biblical principle at the 'heart of the matter'. This means that historical interpreters aren't necessarily "wrong", or we are necessarily "wrong" today ... but that the principles can be upheld by different applications.
The latter view requires what I tried to do in my last post ... that is try to define what the principle was in Paul's concern about proper worship ... I know that we are applying those principles in our congregation ... we only allow one person to speak at a time ... unless it is an organized communal reading, hymn, etc. We don't have the problem of people - male or female - speaking out of turn or interrupting the service ... We have organized child care to tend for the children who might speak to their neighbor too loudly, or cry at an inappropriate time ...
I am trying to get to the matter of communal discipline and order that Paul is addressing in this passage - obviously we don't have the issues that emerge when people are actively prophesying or praying outloud in tongues (these are not practiced in most MB congregations) so our need for order is different than it was in the Corinthian church ... Perhaps the more "Jewish" congregations nearer to the city of Jerusalem were less disruptive and Paul is encouraging the Corinthians to be "like the other churches" ... We don't know because we don't have access to enough historical datum ...
The two options above are the reason I question the primary emphasis on textual analysis without access to the original Greek manuscripts that some translators/scholars are using ... even with access to the Greek, they still have to make decisions about where to place a comma, or a verse break, or the inclusion of a soft or strong use of the word "or" ...
Appeals to biblical inerrancy are appeals to the correctness of the 'original manuscripts'. The fifteenth and sixteenth century were a time of revisiting as many of the Greek manuscripts as possible to see if the Latin version was in conformity with the 'original' texts ... The KJV, for example, was then the attempt to get that 'original' meaning into the vernacular ... which created the same problem of translation that was present in the Latin versions ... Again, a study of history is important on this matter of inerrancy and faithfulness to the biblical texts ...
I hope this clarifies some of what my concerns are ... I appreciate the work you are doing in textual criticism of the English translations ... While it may not be resolved - this helps to move the conversation about freedom for women in the church ahead ... especially as part of the overall argument for not silencing women in the church ... thank you for your hard work and thoughtful considerations of this matter ... it mean alot to me and many other women in the MB church
In response to the 'reediting' I did - I am so used to editing my written work long after I have written it ... 'again and again' that I used the same format here ... sorry if I lost the flow in doing so ... I probably will continue to 'edit' - especially as I rethink what I want posted publically ... but I will also try to respect the process of the dialogue ... |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| Quick comment ... more later |
Posted Sep 3, 2005; 4:47 pm |
|
| gay lynn voth wrote: | | I probably will continue to 'edit' - especially as I rethink what I want posted publically ... but I will also try to respect the process of the dialogue ... |
No problem. If you make an edit that's asking new questions, though, maybe also add a post that mentions the edit so that it doesn't get missed.
I'll probably respond to the rest of your post sometime over the weekend. Have a great long weekend, Gay!  |
|
|
|
| jdl81702 Member Joined Oct 7, 2005 32 posts |
| WOW !!! |
Posted Nov 16, 2005; 2:03 am |
|
Alot of info here you guys really take alot of time to explain something simple........
1. The Bible is truth
2. The Bible must be taken in "context" and "literal"
3. If your confused pray
4. God is not the author of confusion
Marshall you seem to be a very smart person whom God is using to do a great work continue to follow Gods will and the understanding of the Bible will continue to come to you....
I firmly believe the Bible never contradicts itself. If it where to it would go against Gods very nature. Not only that but how could we as believers take solice in the truth of a contradicting truth it would be contradicting. I hope you see the point here !
In other words a lie can never be truth no matter how many times a lie is told its still a lie.
The translators of the Bible may have very well, and Paul himself, meant for women to be silent I cant say I wasnt there I cant ask him. I do however believe that those scriptures are meant to be taken into context which means if they apply, apply them.
"In this day and age I believe they dont apply because women have more rights now and we understand that they are equal in all aspects of life." <----- if you take 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 literal thats what I would say to you.
1 Corinthians 14 was written in order to maintain order in a church maybe thats what was needed back then but its not needed now.....alot of Pentecostal followers would have you believe that the whole church should speak in tounges at all times and every service everyone is in powered with the gift, are they wrong ? According to 1 Corinthians 14 they are, unless they have an interpreter because it would serve no purpose for them to speak if they cant be understood.
So can women be in leadership positions in the church yes and no ?
Yes. If it would not cause disorder in the church.
No. If it would cause disorder.
Thats why I dont believe in doctrine and tradition because they cause conflict the word of God is clear. I have my moments of doubt on certain subjects but through prayer and reflections I seem to always come to the correct conclusion of whats literal and whats contextual. |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| Belated response to Gay |
Posted Nov 16, 2005; 3:48 am |
|
| Marshall wrote: | | I'll probably respond to the rest of your post sometime over the weekend. |
I guess the weekend's over.  I had a response written and saved on my computer, but I never posted it and then totally forgot about this. Sorry for the delay responding.
| gay lynn voth wrote: | So, here is the dilemma (a dilemma is being forced to choose between two unsatisfactory options):
1. Either Paul was arguing for the somewhat equal involvement of women in the early church, and the church tradition coming out of the 2nd century on was acting as contrary to scripture ... OR
2. Paul, as well as the early church fathers, were working within a particular cultural view of women that was 'historical and localized' but not universally 'eternal' - views we have since been led by the Holy Spirit - within historical time - to reject ... while still supporting the view that the Bible is an authorative guide for faith and practice ... This view leads to the 20th century reconsiderations of the role of hermeneutics and social practice ... |
I think part of the reason I have fewer reservations about the first alternative is that I can see how this text could be easily misinterpreted. In the passage under discussion, if my reading is correct, it would become less clear as soon as the letter was copied in a way that no longer distinguished the two verses. While words survive the copying process quite well, formatting does not (for instance, in my Bible Galatians 6:11 is written in the same size of type as the rest of the letter ). And, since textual criticism is a relatively recent science, it is not something that would likely be picked up by the early church, especially if the "plain" reading was what people (or at least church leadership) wanted to hear.
If we were discussing slavery or war in the Old Testament, I would probably agree with the second approach you mention. I don't know how I would deal with those issues without acknowledging that what was permitted in a certain context may not be good for all time. On this issue, I also agree with a lot of that approach, but I think there's a more basic issue that needs to be dealt with when it comes to the passage under discussion. Before we figure out whether what Paul said applies directly to our churches, we need to know what Paul said. If verses 34-35 are a quote, or if like Gordon Fee advocates they are a non-Pauline addition, then attempts to reconcile them with the rest of what Paul said are only going to make a jumble out of what may be a fairly straight-forward and consistent message.
| Quote: | | The latter view requires what I tried to do in my last post ... that is try to define what the principle was in Paul's concern about proper worship |
I don't see how this would favour the second option over the first. I agree with what you've said about Paul's concern with proper worship. The difference is that I see Paul as defining order as being about taking turns, allowing all to participate, and ensuring all can benefit from what is said. I think he is advocating this kind of order instead of the order the Corinthians had suggested: that women should be silent and learn at home, as if that would solve all the problems.
So, I think my position can embrace all of the historical context that you bring to the table without that leading to Paul giving the commands in verses 34-35.
| Quote: | | The two options above are the reason I question the primary emphasis on textual analysis without access to the original Greek manuscripts that some translators/scholars are using ... even with access to the Greek, they still have to make decisions about where to place a comma, or a verse break, or the inclusion of a soft or strong use of the word "or" ... |
In cases like this where there is a textual issue, I do think it needs to be addressed first. We aren't just talking about where to place a comma, but rather how to deal with these two verses that, in many sources, appear at what is now the end of the chapter. Quoting Gordon Fee's commentary on Corinthians, "Since this is the universal reading of the Western church until the influence of the Vulgate, which in this case reflects the text of the Eastern church, the position of these verses in this tradition must go back to a very early source." Fee uses these facts to support the idea that the verses are a later addition; however, the same facts equally support the position I've been suggesting: that the verses were originally marginal or in some way distinguished from the body of the letter, and only in copying became a uniform part of the text (though in different locations).
As a different example, consider examining the issue of when Jehoiachin began to reign. 2 Kings 24:8 says he was eighteen years old, while 2 Chronicles 36:9 says he was eight years old. Now, in this case, there isn't much textual evidence to go on -- the Hebrew texts really are in contradiction. However, it is quite possible that a simple scribal error introduced this problem (probably in 2 Chronicles), although at a time early enough that all extant Hebrew copies (or all but one) are corrupted. It's no good to say from the outset that we should emphasize other solutions instead of textual analysis. If one is open to the possibility of a scribal (or author) error, then no further explanation is necessary. But, if one isn't, then complicated ways must be found to reconcile the two texts. If the problem really was a scribal error, all this well-intentioned work is for naught -- and it certainly isn't going to convince those who think there is an error. Rather than upholding the inerrancy of the text, it is really showing how even the most blatantly contradictory texts can be amazingly fluid and ambiguous in certain hands.
We see the same variety of rationalizations when it comes to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. If one assumes they must be Paul's command, then all sorts of reasons are given for taking them as less than a total prohibition of women speaking in church. This is because not only do we think it is wrong to forbid women from all speaking in church, but because Paul himself does not seem to do so elsewhere. Almost all agree that Paul cannot be saying what the plain meaning of those verses indicate, and so I don't think we should ignore from the outset the textual evidence that points to a quite simple solution.
(And jdl81702, thanks for bumping this topic so I noticed my error in not responding as promised. I know I just added a bunch more words to what you've called a simple issue, but hey, it's my way. ) |
|
|
|
| Mr. FussyFont Member Joined Jun 10, 2006 6 posts Location: Kitchener, ON |
| grammer (not kelsey) an' spellin' |
Posted Jun 11, 2006; 9:23 pm |
|
Marshall, you have some amazing insights -- the stuff you guys have been discussing here blows my mind, and I don't know how you find the time!
Just thought I'd mention a little pet peeve I have, the spelling of 'prophecy'. 'Prophecy' with a C, pronounced 'proffeSEE', is the noun, and 'prophesy' pronounced 'proffeSIGH' is the verb. You almost always use the noun when you mean the verb.
Secondly, a couple of times you said something like "There's also places where..." -- that should be "There ARE also places...".
At least you don't leave in typos like some other people!
Keep up the good work. |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| |
Posted Jun 12, 2006; 1:44 pm |
|
Hi Mr. FussyFont, and welcome to the forum!
Thanks for noting those corrections. It may be nitpicky, but unless someone points it out, I won't learn. The prophecy/prophesy distinction in particular is a rather major thing that I somehow never noticed. Looking back at the thread, I see that I even got it wrong when quoting Bible passages that got it right. So, thanks for the pointers. |
|
|
|
|
|
