Women in the early church

[averheyen]

Hey, I found this interview while surfing the interwebs today:

mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/16432#more-16432

particularly this part on “God Daughters”

DI: I found the chapter on God’s Daughters particularly interesting. Can you talk a little bit about the new research that’s revealing a more appreciative look at the role women played in the early days of Christianity?
JMM: That was actually one of my favorite chapters to write, and I’m only sorry that I couldn’t have gone on longer about the role of women in the earliest Christian communities, because it was extensive and critical to the success of Christianity in the ancient world.
When we think about going to church, most of us tend to picture some kind of public building somewhere. For its first three hundred years, however, Christians met primarily in private homes, and in the ancient world (as it is for much of human society still)the home was the province of women. As scholars have paid more attention to the impact of home gatherings on shape of the early Christian communities, the role and authority of women has increasingly been recognized as central to the growth of Christianity in its earliest years.
Some of the really interesting new evidence comes in the form of what scholars call ‘epigraphical data’. That’s a catch-all term for things like epitaphs, graffiti, common documents like letters and receipts, all the bits and pieces of daily existence that can briefly illuminate the life of an otherwise unknown person. And it’s in these often-overlooked pieces of the historical puzzle that we find numerous references to women operating in leadership roles throughout the early Christian community. There are some 30,000 inscriptions of various kinds that date from the earliest centuries of Christian history, and only a few have been analyzed, so we expect to see more of these results emerging in the coming years.
Along with all the neat new archaeology that’s been done, a great deal of the credit for recognizing the importance of women in the early history of Christianity has to go to the feminist theological movement, and especially to Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza and her landmark book In Memory of Her. It was Schüssler Fiorenza who reminded a whole generation of scholars that just because the ‘official’ story says that women weren’t involved in leadership doesn’t make it so. I know that sounds pretty obvious, but you would be amazed at how much we were missing just because we had convinced ourselves that what we were seeing – for example, a woman in Paul’s letter to the Romans who is called an ‘apostle’ - was impossible. Once we decided to actually believe our eyes, a much more accurate picture of women in the early Christian community began appearing. It’s like looking at one of those hidden 3D pictures; the image is there the whole time, you just have to learn how to look at it differently before you can see it.

Can anyone refute this?

as well, does any one know what he means about this “female apostle” in Paul’s letter?

Much thanks

• Adam

 

[nate12387]

Hey, I found this interview while surfing the interwebs today:

mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/16432#more-16432

particularly this part on “God Daughters”

Can anyone refute this?

as well, does any one know what he means about this “female apostle” in Paul’s letter?

Much thanks

• Adam

Just because the word apostle is used does not always mean that the person has authority. I believe that apostle means follower.

When he says the woman apostle in romans, I would guess that he is refurring to Romans 16:7 and there are two names here that end with an “a” normally the ending of a female name. But, and I believe Jimmy Akin said this, that one of those names is the name of a male even though it ends with an “a”. That it is traditionally said that those two people are married and that one of those names is male and may just have been a slip of the pen by a scribe. So, this passage does not show that woman has authority.

The early church didn’t believe that woman could have authority. They would be the people that I would look to. I would also be interested in seeing the evidence that this person said that he had.

Hope this helps. catholic.com might also have some resources on this issue.

 

[FCEGM]

. . .

as well, does any one know what he means about this “female apostle” in Paul’s letter?

Much thanks

• Adam

Adam, what he’s referring to is the “Junia” who is mentioned in Romans 16:7. Some ancient codices, however, read “Junias” rather than “Junia.” So, it is a matter of debate whether this person is a man or a woman. It could easily be either one. But, even if it is a woman, so what? She is not called a “fellow apostle”. What we know from the text is that this “Junia” is paired with “Andronicus,” who is listed before “her”. We are also told that Andronicus and “Junia” are St. Paul’s “relatives” and that they were Christians “before” St. Paul was.

The natural conclusion here is that “Junia” (if it is “Junia”) was Andronics’ wife, and they were “prominent among (or before) the apostles” in one of two senses: 1) Either they were regarded as a “husband and wife team” (with Andronicus being the primary figure as an evangelist, i.e., women were not permitted to preach publicly or have authority over a man); in this they would have been no different than Aquila and his aristocratic Roman wife Priscilla, who are likewise always paired together, and mentioned in this same Epistle to the Romans only a few verses earlier (Romans 16:3), where they together are called Paul’s “co-workers” - and this by a Paul who does not permit women to preach.

Or possibility 2), “prominent among (or before) the Apostles” can mean that Andronicus and “Junia” were held in high esteem among the Twelve, just as Priscilla and Aquila were “prominent” among the disciples of Paul. This would make sense if they were “in Christ before [Paul],” since that would mean that they were early members of the Jerusalem church, and probably the Apostles’ first emissaries to the Jews of Rome, if not among the very Roman Jews who were converted on the day of Pentecost (see Acts 2:9-10, where Roman Jewish pilgrims are mentioned). Paul, of course, was a Roman citizen, and so it would make sense for his relative Andronicus and his wife Junia (if it is a woman) to be Roman citizens as well, and so residents of Rome. So, there is no “feminist super-hero” to be found in this verse.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Why would you want to refute it? Is there something wrong with realizing that women had a much bigger role in church leadership than was previously acknowledged? There are literally dozens of scholars who have uncovered this information. Why is truth something that must be refuted? Why do you assume that it is a lie in the first place?

 

[rwoehmke]

Whats to refute? The author blathered on, but I did not read anything of substance that would prove anything. More like there’s a lot of scribbling yet to be looked at and “for sure” it’s gonna support his premise, but I sure didn’t see any evidence produced, just lots of speculation that there may be some.

 

[averheyen]

Why would you want to refute it? Is there something wrong with realizing that women had a much bigger role in church leadership than was previously acknowledged? There are literally dozens of scholars who have uncovered this information. Why is truth something that must be refuted? Why do you assume that it is a lie in the first place?

Because the Catholic Church has said that men were given authority, and I respect the authority of the catholic church to help sift through every idea and herecy that comes with every age.

 

[davidv]

Because the Catholic Church has said that men were given authority, and I respect the authority of the catholic church to help sift through every idea and herecy that comes with every age.

What Church teaching denies authority to women? Does not a mother have authority over her children?

 

[Ruthie]

I’m with David and Averhayen. As far as I can tell, the only “authority” unavailable to women in the Church is the authority to be priests. There’s plenty of other authority available. There are plenty of women in my parish council, for example; there are plenty of women teachers and theologians.

I’m an old feminist from way back (in the culture of death), and (during my cnversion) I have studied the reasons only men can be priests. I agree with them.

These “feminist theologians” are just finding out what I already knew - women were in charge of households, and thus had much to do with hosting and setting up for Mass. All that has changed in the past 2000 years is the venue; we now have church buildings in which to hold Mass. Women still play a role.

Ruthie

 

[dang71]

1 Timothy 2:9-15

usccb.org/nab/bible/1timothy/1timothy2.htm

9
Similarly, (too,) women should adorn themselves with proper conduct, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hairstyles and gold ornaments, or pearls, or expensive clothes,
10
but rather, as befits women who profess reverence for God, with good deeds.
11
A woman must receive instruction silently and under complete control.
12
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. 4 She must be quiet.
13
For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14
Further, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.
15
But she will be saved through motherhood, provided women persevere in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

 

[estesbob]

One wonders what conclusions scholars will reach 2000 years from now when they examine the graffiti on restroom walls at rest stops.

 

[averheyen]

I’m with David and Averhayen. As far as I can tell, the only “authority” unavailable to women in the Church is the authority to be priests. There’s plenty of other authority available. There are plenty of women in my parish council, for example; there are plenty of women teachers and theologians.

I’m an old feminist from way back (in the culture of death), and (during my cnversion) I have studied the reasons only men can be priests. I agree with them.

These “feminist theologians” are just finding out what I already knew - women were in charge of households, and thus had much to do with hosting and setting up for Mass. All that has changed in the past 2000 years is the venue; we now have church buildings in which to hold Mass. Women still play a role.

Ruthie

Thank you Ruthie, I think that’s what I ment. Sorry Dave.

 

[roanoker]

In my opinion, women had a much greater influence, including leadership roles, than they are generally credited with. We all know about Mary Magdelene and Priscilla, but there were others, too. Some day the full story of the influence of women in the early chuch will come out.

 

[averheyen]

In my opinion, women had a much greater influence, including leadership roles, than they are generally credited with. We all know about Mary Magdelene and Priscilla, but there were others, too. Some day the full story of the influence of women in the early chuch will come out.

I think that’s the issue, I’m trying to get beyond opinions here.

 

[davidv]

I think that’s the issue, I’m trying to get beyond opinions here.

Then we must identify the underlying assumption that somehow the Church has unjustly denied women their rightful authority. I believe that this is a false assumption that is simply an opinion that cannot be backed up with evidence from the Church’s teachings.

 

[PerryJ]

This discussion is puzzling to me. Woman can not be priest based upon Jesus teachings. Women however are held in extremely high regard according to the Catholic Church. Do we not hold Mother Mary in the highest of regards? The list continues on and on. Woman and men have different roles within the Church, community, and family. One is not greater or lesser. That is one of the fantastic aspects of the Catholic Faith! Mother Mary as a human is only exceeded by her son! Do we need to debate the role of woman and men in the early Church? Both were integral to the early formation of the Church. Both had roles and they fulfilled these roles!

Other faiths have this debate because they do not hold woman to the same level of esteem as we do. Sure Protestants can claim they have woman priests; however, do they venerate woman such Mother Mary or Mary Magdalene such as we do? Would anyone doubt that when Mother Theresa was told by Christ in his own “voice” to start her apostolate that Christ holds woman at the highest of service within the Church. In my readings only Catholics hold Mother Mary and womanhood at the epitome of creation. There is much more to a Church than the Priesthood and the Catholic Faith understands that woman have no less a role than men.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Because the Catholic Church has said that men were given authority, and I respect the authority of the catholic church to help sift through every idea and herecy that comes with every age.

The primacy of a male clergy is dictated by Church tradition, not biblical prohibition. Are you saying that the church and everyone else for that matter should refuse to look at evidence that is newly found that might change the Church’s opinion? So we ignore evidence if it doesn’t agree with our preconceived notions? I suggest that that is a huge disservice to the Church, and I doubt that the Church would adher to such a claim. Truth comes from serious and honest examination of the evidence, not from blind adherence and pre-conceived beliefs.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

1 Timothy 2:9-15

usccb.org/nab/bible/1timothy/1timothy2.htm

9
Similarly, (too,) women should adorn themselves with proper conduct, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hairstyles and gold ornaments, or pearls, or expensive clothes,
10
but rather, as befits women who profess reverence for God, with good deeds.
11
A woman must receive instruction silently and under complete control.
12
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. 4 She must be quiet.
13
For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14
Further, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.
15
But she will be saved through motherhood, provided women persevere in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

Perhaps you might benefit from reading Jesus in the Gospels rather than his interpreters. And never never forget the context of letters. They must be taken with some care, since they were not meant to be teaching documents or documents of purporting to be persuasive.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

This discussion is puzzling to me. Woman can not be priest based upon Jesus teachings. Women however are held in extremely high regard according to the Catholic Church. Do we not hold Mother Mary in the highest of regards? The list continues on and on. Woman and men have different roles within the Church, community, and family. One is not greater or lesser. That is one of the fantastic aspects of the Catholic Faith! Mother Mary as a human is only exceeded by her son! Do we need to debate the role of woman and men in the early Church? Both were integral to the early formation of the Church. Both had roles and they fulfilled these roles!

Other faiths have this debate because they do not hold woman to the same level of esteem as we do. Sure Protestants can claim they have woman priests; however, do they venerate woman such Mother Mary or Mary Magdalene such as we do? Would anyone doubt that when Mother Theresa was told by Christ in his own “voice” to start her apostolate that Christ holds woman at the highest of service within the Church. In my readings only Catholics hold Mother Mary and womanhood at the epitome of creation. There is much more to a Church than the Priesthood and the Catholic Faith understands that woman have no less a role than men.

Jesus left no teachings on the priesthood and on what role women may or may not play. The Vatican admits as much. The refusal to allow women in preaching roles is based on tradition and on the assumption that Jesus did not overtly designate any women as “apostles” .

Your attempt to portray women as being unfit for the priesthood as some how holding them in “more esteem” suggests that the priesthood is for some lesser sex. ??? You mistake a theologicial argument regarding our Blessed Mother for veneration by other Protestants with somehow not placing her in an equally high place.

 

[PerryJ]

The primacy of a male clergy is dictated by Church tradition, not biblical prohibition. Are you saying that the church and everyone else for that matter should refuse to look at evidence that is newly found that might change the Church’s opinion? So we ignore evidence if it doesn’t agree with our preconceived notions? I suggest that that is a huge disservice to the Church, and I doubt that the Church would adher to such a claim. Truth comes from serious and honest examination of the evidence, not from blind adherence and pre-conceived beliefs.

Spiritmeadow, I believe their are many misinterpretations in your statement. The Bible does clearly state that men are in position of authority with regard to being a Priest. It is in the Last Supper.

I also struggle with the notion of Church “opinion”. The Church holds the Truth via Holy Spirit and the magesterium. It is not a opinion from a man or a man made institution. It is not an opinion.

With that being said it appears a debate is occuring that doesn’t exist. Woman are not inferior to men in any way in the Catholic Faith. The roles are different and clearly defined. I believe Pope John Paul clearly stated that woman can not and will not ever be Priest.

Am I misunderstanding your point? Woman are cleary very important in the early Church just as they are now. They can not be preist as defined by Christ in the Bible.

 

[davidv]

Jesus left no teachings on the priesthood and on what role women may or may not play. The Vatican admits as much.

This is pure and simply false. Even a cursory examination of the writings of Pope John Paul II will demonstrate this.

The refusal to allow women in preaching roles is based on tradition and on the assumption that Jesus did not overtly designate any women as “apostles” .

The only preaching role denied women is that of homilist.

Your attempt to portray women as being unfit for the priesthood as some how holding them in “more esteem” suggests that the priesthood is for some lesser sex. ??? You mistake a theologicial argument regarding our Blessed Mother for veneration by other Protestants with somehow not placing her in an equally high place./

Women’s fitness to the priesthood has nothing to with esteem and everything to do with their nature. Not being a priest does not diminish ones esteem. Am I less esteemed as a married male because I am not a priest?