1 Timothy 2:11-15: Are women to be silent in church? If so, what about female lectors?

[Lisa44]

I have read that the scholarly consensus is that these lines were not written by Paul but were a response to an issue that arose at least one hundred years later.

Hi Leela,
Could you please provide a source for us? And lets say they weren’t written by St. Paul. How does that diminish the effect of them?

 

[Leela]

Hi Leela,
Could you please provide a source for us? And lets say they weren’t written by St. Paul. How does that diminish the effect of them?

I read this most recently in Bart Erhman’s Jesus Interrupted.

As for the effect of such witings in light of their questionable validity, I think it makes sense to question the authority of much of what was chosen hudreds of years ago to be included in the Biblical canon based on modern scholarship. I think it is reasonable to argue that a woman need not be silent in complete subjugation in church because, in addition to the reasons others gave, Paul probably never wrote such a thing.

Best,
Leela

 

[SHW]

I read this most recently in Bart Erhman’s Jesus Interrupted.

As for the effect of such witings in light of their questionable validity, I think it makes sense to question the authority of much of what was chosen hudreds of years ago to be included in the Biblical canon based on modern scholarship. I think it is reasonable to argue that a woman need not be silent in complete subjugation in church because, in addition to the reasons others gave, Paul probably never wrote such a thing.

Best,
Leela

Since the Church’s hierarchy alone had the authority given to it by Jesus to decide to make a book and include inspired writings/manuscripts into this book and call it the Bible (Book), then Bart Erhman’s opinion is not worthy of my belief. (Luke 10:16, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 3:14-16, 2 Peter 1:20)

 

[Lisa44]

I read this most recently in Bart Erhman’s Jesus Interrupted.

…Paul probably never wrote such a thing.

Best,
Leela

Hi Leela

It looks like you are taking the word of one scholar over 2,000 years of scholars who say the opposite.

What religion are you?

 

[Leela]

Since the Church’s hierarchy alone had the authority given to it by Jesus to decide to make a book and include inspired writings/manuscripts into this book and call it the Bible (Book), then Bart Erhman’s opinion is not worthy of my belief. (Luke 10:16, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 3:14-16, 2 Peter 1:20)

Ok, but the fact is that we know a lot more today about who wrote the Bible than we did in the 1600’s. Plus, this isn’t Bart Erhman’s uninformed opinion. This is the consensus among Biblical scholars with the exception of the evangelical scholars who cling to a literal interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Shin]

Ok, but the fact is that we know a lot more today about who wrote the Bible than we did in the 1600’s. Plus, this isn’t Bart Erhman’s uninformed opinion. This is the consensus among Biblical scholars with the exception of the evangelical scholars who cling to a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Ah, Bart Erhman, who hates Christianity, Mister Consensus Bible scholar…

Who do you think you’re kidding?

 

[NoelFitz]

This is a great discussion with some very thoughtful post.

However I am saddened to see some posts that seem to me to lack respect and courtesy.

I think it is vital in all discussion groups, especially Catholic ones, that charity is shown to those who express their sincere beliefs.

In the Church we are given huge freedom of opinion. There are very few infallibly defined doctrines.

Thus I was perturbed to read from Shin to Leela

Who do you think you’re kidding?

I also disagree with Leela, but a valid viewpoint is expressed.

Thus I read:

Ok, but the fact is that we know a lot more today about who wrote the Bible than we did in the 1600’s. Plus, this isn’t Bart Erhman’s uninformed opinion. This is the consensus among Biblical scholars with the exception of the evangelical scholars who cling to a literal interpretation of the Bible.

We do not know who wrote 1 Tim. From the beginning of the nineteenth century some scholars believe Paul did not write it. This is the majority view among scholars (eg Fr Benjamin Fiore SJ). However recently very reputable scholars such as the Protestant Philip Towner and the Catholic Luke Timothy Johnson disagree. Currently there is strong scholarly evidence that Paul was the human author.

Lisa44 wrote:

It looks like you are taking the word of one scholar over 2,000 years of scholars who say the opposite.

What religion are you?

Leela is not taking the word of one scholar over 2,000 years. The majority view is being expressed. Leela has given his/her religion as none.

SHW wrote:

Since the Church’s hierarchy alone had the authority given to it by Jesus to decide to make a book and include inspired writings/manuscripts into this book and call it the Bible (Book), then Bart Erhman’s opinion is not worthy of my belief. (Luke 10:16, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 3:14-16, 2 Peter 1:20)

This is a view more suitable for apologetics that scripture study.

The hierarch alone did not make the Bible. Over many years the Church accepted the canon of the Bible. These are inspired books, thus God is the author. But for most books of the Bible we do not know who the human author was. Thus it is unknown who wrote the five books of Moses (Torah, Pentateuch).

Finally Leela wrote;

I have read that the scholarly consensus is that these lines were not written by Paul but were a response to an issue that arose at least one hundred years later.

Very few scholars would agree with this. This was the idea proposed by FC Baur, in the early years of the nineteenth century, that the Pastoral Epistles were written in about 140 to counteract the heresy of Marcion. Most who now hold that Paul did not write the PE believe they were written about 80-90 CE.

Sorry to disagree with so many. But these different views do not take from the letters being divinely, inspired, with God as the author. Catholics are free to have opinions about who was the human author of 1 Tim and other books in the Bible.

 

[SHW]

Ok, but the fact is that we know a lot more today about who wrote the Bible than we did in the 1600’s. Plus, this isn’t Bart Erhman’s uninformed opinion. This is the consensus among Biblical scholars with the exception of the evangelical scholars who cling to a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Actually, I can read the writings of the Early Church Fathers and the documents of the Church Councils, etc. and the History of the Early Church by Eusebius and see how this one Church passed down the Christian faith founded by Jesus Christ throughout its 2000 year history. It would be absurd and imprudent for me to take the word of a man who has no authority in this/my Church.

 

[Shin]

Catholic Luke Timothy Johnson

Rephrase: Heretic Luke Timothy Johnson. Who supports women’s ordination and homosexual partnerships.

I’ll quote him: “I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good. We appeal explicitly to the weight of our own experience and the experience thousands of others have witnessed to, which tells us that to claim our own sexual orientation is in fact to accept the way in which God has created us.”

Nice authorities you have here. Doesn’t even believe in the stuff he’s a ‘scholar’ of.

 

[SHW]

The hierarch alone did not make the Bible. Over many years the Church accepted the canon of the Bible. These are inspired books, thus God is the author. But for most books of the Bible we do not know who the human author was. Thus it is unknown who wrote the five books of Moses (Torah, Pentateuch).

No hierarchy, no Bible.

 

[Leela]

Rephrase: Heretic Luke Timothy Johnson. Who supports women’s ordination and homosexual partnerships.

I’ll quote him: “I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good. We appeal explicitly to the weight of our own experience and the experience thousands of others have witnessed to, which tells us that to claim our own sexual orientation is in fact to accept the way in which God has created us.”

Nice authorities you have here. Doesn’t even believe in the stuff he’s a ‘scholar’ of.

I wonder if people who make such comments have actually read the Bible. Everyone picks and chooses what commands of scripture should be taken seriously. Though you probably haven’t boiled a goat in its mother’s milk, you probably have worn clothing of two different materials and you probably haven’t stoned anyone for picking up sticks on the sabbath. I think it is entirely reasonable to argue that we don’t need to murder homosexuals based on Bible dictates any more than we should continue to condone selling our daughters into slavery.

 

[Leela]

Actually, I can read the writings of the Early Church Fathers and the documents of the Church Councils, etc. and the History of the Early Church by Eusebius and see how this one Church passed down the Christian faith founded by Jesus Christ throughout its 2000 year history. It would be absurd and imprudent for me to take the word of a man who has no authority in this/my Church.

I wouldn’t expect you to take my word for anything or the word of any one scholar.

You seem to be confusing a devotional approach to the Bible with a critical scholarly study of the Bible. NoelFitz can probably say better than I, but as far as I know, this same critical approach is taught in Catholic seminaries.

It is certainly reasonable to ask who wrote the Bible? What sources did these authors rely on for their accounts? What was the historical context that the authors wrote within? What can we know about Jesus as a historical figure? Which of our variant manuscripts are the most reliable? What changes were made by scribes and why? What can other contemporary sources tell us about the Bible?

Such intellectual study seems important to me for anyone who takes the Bible seriously at least for anyone who finds intellectual study important in any other area.

NoelFitz, how do you think your critical study of the Bible relates to yor devotional apporach to the Bible? Does one help inform the other? Are they completely separate activities for you?

 

[Lisa44]

I have read that the scholarly consensus is that these lines were not written by Paul but were a response to an issue that arose at least one hundred years later.

Hi Leela

Jesus didn’t write the gospels and that doesn’t make them less true.

The Catholic Church selected the writings to be included in the bible. Meaning, the early Christians, the early church, decided what was to go into the bible. To not believe in the bible is to not believe in the early Christians. If you don’t believe in the early Christians how can you believe in later Christians?

Lets say you whisper a secret around a circle, everyone knows by the time it gets to the end it gets all distorted. The only ones that knew the original message were the first few people in the circle.

You cannot be Catholic if you don’t believe in the early church.

At least, thats how I understand it.

The anology only applies to the early church. Whereas, the Catholic church has preserved the teachings of Christ, many people throughout history have tried to change that message.

Islam and protestants are the two biggest changers of the message.

However the Catholic and Orthodox churches remain. They never gave way to the heresy of Islam (Jesus was not the Son of God) or protestants (the Church didn’t preserve the teachings). The early church continues today! Yeah!!! (does a happy dance)

 

[NoelFitz]

Lisa44

You wrote:

You cannot be Catholic if you don’t believe in the early church.

I think this is a bit harsh. In the early Church there were huge disagreements. Christians were trying to find their feet and make sense of the Good News. There were huge disagreements and confusion. I am interested in the early Church, but this is not a condition of being a Catholic.

Leela
You wrote:

NoelFitz can probably say better than I,

I cannot. I am interested in the NT and the early Church, but I am trying to learn. I am retired now and there is something about the impossibility of teaching old dogs new tricks. What I like about CA is that it is a safe place to discuss our beliefs. All, especially Catholics, should feel free to express views, without being criticized for lack of education or faith. I express my views I hope with sincerity and charity and do not personally attack anyone.

But there is a problem when you ask:

NoelFitz, how do you think your critical study of the Bible relates to your devotional approach to the Bible? Does one help inform the other? Are they completely separate activities for you?

I know the answer should be they help each other, thus claiming I critically study the Bible and I also have a devotional approach and I am not too confused.

Can I take the fifth amendment on this?

SHW

One would be unwise to believe everything Eusebius wrote.

Shin

You imply Luke Timothy Johnson is a heretic and not a Catholic. What makes one a heretic? Was he condemned by Rome? Is this just your particular private interpretation?

 

[SHW]

One would be unwise to believe everything Eusebius wrote.

And, this is why I listen to and believe God’s authority on earth: His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church!

One would be unwise to believe everything that Augustine et al wrote also, unless it agrees with the official teaching of the Church. Persons can express their opinions about an issue until and unless an official statement is made by the pope and teaching magisterium of the Church. So, there can be errors in doctrine in the Early Church Father’s writings also, because there was no official teaching yet when these sermons, etc. were written. They had Church Councils to settle these doctrinal disputes.

 

[Lisa44]

You cannot be Catholic if you don’t believe in the early church.
At least, thats how I understand it.

Lisa44
I think this is a bit harsh. In the early Church there were huge disagreements. Christians were trying to find their feet and make sense of the Good News. There were huge disagreements and confusion. I am interested in the early Church, but this is not a condition of being a Catholic.

Hello Noel Could you please site a Catholic who does not believe in the apostles and the early Popes and saints and the early Church in Rome? thanks so much.

 

[Shin]

Lisa44

Shin

You imply Luke Timothy Johnson is a heretic and not a Catholic. What makes one a heretic? Was he condemned by Rome? Is this just your particular private interpretation?

Sodomy is clearly condemned by the Church. Luke Timothy Johnson teaches and preaches sodomy. Luke Timothy Johnson is a heretic.

One does not require official paperwork from Rome on a particular individual to say that person is a heretic. Every person is required by moral law to instruct others on what is truth and what is heresy, to prevent harm to their souls.

It is sinful to promote and advocate heresy. It is scandalous (a sin) to call heretics good Catholic scholars. The sin of scandal is misleading people into sin through bad example.

Hope you will now make clear to everyone your sorrow at your mistake, which was hopefully just imprudent lack of forethought. May the Lord be with you I pray.

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

 

[NoelFitz]

Shin,
Thank you for replying to me.
I looked at “Shinwa | LibraryThing” and noticed your many interests. I see you admire the spirituality of Carmelites, Dominicans and Redemptorists, as well as admiring devotion to the divine mercy.

You will not be surprised that I disagree with you, but I hope respectfully and in a courteous way.

You state:

Luke Timothy Johnson teaches and preaches sodomy.

This is a serious accusation and should be backed up more. To say that just because a person is in favor of civil partnership, he/she advocated sodomy is going too far. It is wrong to assume that if two peoples share a house, be they priests are not, that they are engaging in immoral sexual deviations.

You write:

Every person is required by moral law to instruct others on what is truth.

Again I disagree. I am not commanded to tell everyone I come in contact with about what truth is – conformity with reality.

You wrote:

Hope you will now make clear to everyone your sorrow at your mistake, which was hopefully just imprudent lack of forethought.

I try to make my views clear in CA. Sometimes I am confused and the advice I get here clarifies my thinking. I have never, I think and hope, written anything contrary to Catholic belief or what is untrue here. I think it is vital that this site is seem as a safe and friendly place where we can discuss and be strengthened in the faith.

However in discussing Luke Timothy Johnson we are wandering from the central point in this discussion.

I am very grateful to you for your prayers. Would it be a good idea if we all agreed to pray for those who contribute to CA?

I note, uscatholic.claretians.org/site/PageServer?pagename=usc_contents_0608:

Hurling the word heresy at your opponents may seem like a good rhetorical tactic, says theologican Luke Timothy Johnson in The Examined Life, but it’s best to save it for the real thing.

 

[NoelFitz]

SHW
You wrote:

One would be unwise to believe everything that Augustine et al wrote also, unless it agrees with the official teaching of the Church. Persons can express their opinions about an issue until and unless an official statement is made by the pope and teaching magisterium of the Church. So, there can be errors in doctrine in the Early Church Father’s writings also, because there was no official teaching yet when these sermons, etc. were written. They had Church Councils to settle these doctrinal disputes.

I agree fully with this. Problems may arise when individuals try to interpret official teachings of the Church.