What is this supposed to mean?
Dear Schnitz,
Please don’t panic; there’s no ultra-evil in the statement. I’m simply referring to mysogeny and the misuse of such material as the Pauline letters by the confusion of those genuine Pauline thoughts with deutero-Pauline letters in order to insert a precedent in scripture.
Scholars are convinced that 1 Corinthians is a genuine epistle of Paul; however, 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 is known to be an insertion into the text. This can be noted by recognizing that those verses interrupt the text and spoil the train of thought, which by their removal, vs 37 links back beautifully with 33a. In addition, the vocabulary of 34-36 is noteably non-Pauline. The inserted verses are also in contradiction with 11:2. So, speaking of the topic of this thread, some demonic influence has crept into otherwise sacred text.
The other citation that is often used against women is 1 Timothy 2:8-15. This epistle, written about 100 CE, is called a deutero-Pauline epistle because it was penned by a later generation or a disciple of Paul, but attributed to Paul.
Paul, writes, “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives and my fellow prisoners; they are prominent among the apostles and they were in Christ before me” (Romans 16:7). This “Junia” is obviously a woman apostle, though the church tried without success to change the text to make it appear to be a man by changing the name to read “Junias” in many of its translations. But, a thorough search of Greco-Roman names turns up no name “Junias”, but shows Junia to be a common name.
At any rate, epistles are not Gospels. They were written to specific people under specific circumstances in the early church. Certainly, we cannot take instructions from that time period and use them whole-cloth under varying conditions at a much later time. And even if one were to think that their entire message should apply, let us consider the declination of the various types of scripture; we do not stand for a reading from the Hebrew Testament nor for the Epistle reading, but only for the Gospel. Certainly, this shows the weight of importance we place upon the Gospels over other biblical literary genres.
If there is to be a demand for silence, let it be upon those who misuse power and rhetoric in an attempt to subjugate half of the human race. Jesus was not a “maculinist”. He broke with tradition to talk with women openly in public, his mission was funded by women, he had them come along on missionary journeys, and he chose a woman to be first witness to the resurrection. Thus the first apostles were Photini, the Samaritan Woman at the Well who converted her whole town, and Mary Magdalene, who accompanied him throughout the mission, stood at the foot of the cross, and witnessed to the others.
So, to say that Jesus only chose men is ridiculous.
OK, getting down off my soapbox… all’s well with the world (except where mysogeny blunders into foot-in-mouth), and of course, as far as I can tell, that not about you).
