Canonical implications of Deutero-Paul

[fnr]

QUOTE]I hardly think the author of 1 Timothy intends anything close to the idea that women are saved apart from baptism. … women will be saved in addition to baptism by “persevering in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.”

We also need to address what happened as a result of original sin in Genesis. The subjugation of woman to man was a punishment meted out by God as a result of sin. We’ll leave off the fact that Genesis 1-3 is a figurative story, not real history…

Genesis 3:16
“To the woman he said: I will intensify your toil in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

This issue is critical for Christian eschatology, as well as soteriology. Even after the incarnation and atonement, are women still held accountable for the sin of Eve? Throughout the rest of the Pauline letters (other than the Pastorals), Paul emphasizes that Christ inaugurated a new creation. Romans 8, in particular speaks to this issue:
“10But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, the one who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also, through his Spirit that dwells in you. 12 Consequently, brothers, we are not debtors to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh, you will die, ** but if by the spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.*
…
19 For creation awaits with eager expectation the revelation of the children of God; 20 for creation was made subject to futility, not of its own accord but because of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22 We know that all creation is groaning in labor pains even until now; 23 and not only that, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, we also groan within ourselves as we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.”*

According to Paul, our baptism in Christ, we are groaning with the spirit within us, that “creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption,” that is, original sin. Our baptism frees us from original sin, and our mission as a church is to be the bearers of new creation and to fight the influence of sin in the world around us (an accomplishment we cannot achieve ourself, but which is described in Revelation 21). Looking at the famous Galatians 3:28, we see that Paul there argues that in Christ, there is no more “woman and man,” a sign of the new creation and a liberation from the punishment of male dominion of women (which many scholars including N.T. Wright think is a reference by Paul to Genesis 1’s “male and female, he created them”):
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Paul certainly thought men were superior to women, as he thought the Father was superior to the Son (note that this differs from our current doctrine of the equality of the persons of the Trinity):

1 Corinthians 11:3
“But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of Christ.”
But he claims that fundamentally, being in Christ counteracts the natural state of sin:
1 Corinthians 11:
“11 Woman is not independent of man or man of woman in the Lord. 12 For just as woman came from man, so man is born of woman; but all things are from God.”
At this verse, the New American Bible includes the following footnote:
“These parenthetical remarks relativize the argument from Gn 2–3. In the Lord: in the Christian economy the relation between the sexes is characterized by a mutual dependence, which is not further specified. And even in the natural order conditions have changed: the mode of origin described in Gn 2 has been reversed (1 Cor 11:12a). But the ultimately significant fact is the origin that all things have in common (1 Cor 11:12b).”

Ontologically, Paul recognizes the continuing distinction of men and women from their creation (a reason he recommends head-covering during prophecy). In the epistles that all scholars agree that Paul wrote (Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, Philippians, Philemon) and in Acts, women ministers or heads of house churches are shown nearly throughout: Phoebe, Priscilla, Junia (noted as “prominent among the apostles”), Chloe, Lydia, Tabitha/Dorcas, plus others who are named as “co-workers.” And in the “disputed” work of authorship, Ephesians, Paul talks about husbands and wives being “subordinate to one another, women to your husbands as to Christ.” The subordination is not one-way.

1 Timothy is probably written with reference to Gnostic heresies. These are widely believed not to have existed until the late first century, after Paul’s martyrdom in Rome. Other New Testament works include reference to Gnostic-type ideas (e.g., docetism), such as 1 John, dated to the late first century. These are the reasons that almost every critical scholar have concluded that Paul did not write 1 Timothy. These conclusions cannot be simply attributed to a secular worldview – many Christian scholars have concluded likewise… even Pope BXVI raised the issue in a sermon!

The combination of the discrepant description of women in Paul’s “genuine” works and 1 Timothy in addition to the dating of Gnostic tendencies after Paul’s death in the latter work strongly argue for authorship other than Paul.

 

[po18guy]

The introduction to the NAB is dead on, if somewhat limited. It is true that many scholars (mostly linguists) doubt the authenticity. It is also true that many of these scholars are not Catholic. I believe they come from a false assumption, namely, that writing style and vocabulary are consistent enough to serve as evidence of authorship. The goes against reason. I think we all have different styles of writing. I write one way at work, another here and a third in a personal letter. Both vocabulary and grammar change, depending on the mode of communication.

The NAB is also dead on that these objections that are floating around are not relevant to the substance of the Scripture.

Since Paul became all things to all men (1 Corinthians 9:22), does this not also include the style in which he wrote? The language and vocabulary aimed at a particular individual or audience? Linguistic analysis, in isolation, may show that the writer could have been different man. But, when the totality of the circumstances is accounted for, we see that Paul could indeed have written in differing styles or vocabularies according to the intended recipient of the letter.

The NAB carries the unfortunate tradition of heavy criticism for its squishy translation and blurry notes. Did God really intend that confusion would reign, or is this more aligned with the enemy, who always and everywhere sows the seeds of doubt?

 

[po18guy]

What is important is the message, not the messenger. The books of the canon were accepted upon their content, not as some sort of literary anthology. The authorship is an interesting side path following it, but takes us away from the message, if we confuse it for the direction we are led by the word.

The problem, Oldtimer, is that the Pauline letters explicitly identify Paul as the author so Paul’s authorship is part of the message.

There is not a single original of any of the scriptures. Not one copy anywhere that has a signature on it. Each and every genuine, original, written-and-signed-by-the-author book or letter is long gone. All examples that exist today are copies of copies of copies of copies, made over hundreds of years by various and sundry scribes in different nations, who spoke differing languages. The only reason that any of the books of the bible has an author’s name on it is due to the Church Tradition that ascribes that author’s name to the book. When you or I refer to the Gospel of Matthew, or to the letters of Paul, we place absolute trust in the Tradition that has preserved Matthew’s and Paul’s names as the authors, and has also safeguarded and tested the content of that letter.

After the rebellion and rejection of the Catholic Church in the 16th century, all of this has slowly begun to come into question. However, without the Church, the bible has no provenance at all, and is simply a collection of interesting stories. Someone must bear witness to its authenticity, its provenance, and that someone is the Church. Question the Church, you question the bible. Many live in contented ignorance of this rather obvious fact.