Women are to be silent when the Church assembles!

[Stormcrow]

I see no problem at all with embracing what Paul said in the plain meaning of what he said and verses that talk of wherever two or three are gathered the Lord is there or any other such, smaller than a whole church context.

Of course you don't. Islamic apologists and those of other cults don't see problems with their peculiar views of the Bible, either.

 

[reba]

1Co 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
1Co 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
1Co 12:29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
Seems to my, simple female mind, God set the hierarchy of the church, assembly, in place.
Scripture for this thought... God set a plan of governing in place with Moses. Exo 18:21 Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:
Many of the ways on the Children of the Exodus carried down through time...
Setting a simple plan of non confusion up in assembly should be a no brainier. Adding that thought to 1 cor 12

Carlos in your post you are whining because you want to be free to speak as you wish although guide lines have been set.. You you wish to hold tight to the silence of women yet are crying because you want to speak out? You wish to speak with out going through the hierarchy that has been laid out.... are we not admonished to to things in an orderly fashion?
When one group uses scripture to silence another ( men V.women here) the controlling group tends to get out of balance..placing them selves above another... very dangerous. cults are born.

Putting the weight of one passage over another is again dangerous. Keep your place in the body as you would have others keep theirs.

 

[AirDancer]

AirDancer, You mentioned Junia who Paul calls an apostle: Romans 16:7: Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Some deny that Junia was a woman because that places her in the position of authority. Here are a couple of links in support:

Hi, Justice:

Thank you for the links. It is always of interest to see what data is used in support of an issue.

Junia (of Romans 16:7) was considered female until the 12th century (at the earliest). Prior to this, her gender was not questioned.

The use of the name 'Junia' as female is supported by many Greek texts of the time period. It was not used as male in a single writing of that time, as of current. (One never knows when evidence of male use of the name might be found.)

In Latin texts, the use of 'Junia' was a common name, used for both male and female, much as names such as Leslie, Terry, Kelly, Bryce, Regan, etc, have become gender neutral in recent times.

However, in both Latin and Greek writings of the time, the use of 'Junianas' was used for the male form.

A quick online search for "Junia in the Bible" will bring up several pages of modern time's discussion, with support either way. However, the historical usage of the name could be the topic of another thread.

:nod

 

[woodlandapple]

Hi everyone, Ive been silent in this topic for a few days because Ive been debating whether or not to post a few points on this I have been researching, I hesitate because too much can be read into them, and need to be treated with a high level of skepticism.

This one point I a going to be raised now is highly argued and I beleive shouldnt be used as definative proof, but I think its important to highlight when we are discussing Plain reading etc.

Im looking at a textual criticism of 1 corinthians 14:34 - 35 (GNT)

This text has been given a confidence rating of B,
This means that there is limited certainty (but confidence) that these are original. The evidence points out that these verses could have been a later addition to the text and was not included by Paul.

This is evident by some reliable documents not including these passages while others place these passages in brackets signifying that the scribes did not beleive it was Pauls words.

Also further giving weight to this is that in the reliable document it is in, it is placed in different parts of 1 Corinthians. This indicates that the scribes where uncertain as to where these passages fit and could indicate that these verses where an addition to the text, maybe found 'in the borders' of what they were copying. The second most common/reliable place it is found is after 1cor.14:40

There is debate going on where highy credited Bible translators and scholors are debating whether these pasages should be relegated to a footnote. (much like the debate on 1Cor.13:3 whether, ....I surrender my body to the flames, OR ....I surrender my body that I may boast
are the most reliable reading)


I am adding these points NOT to suggest that these passages should be thrown away, or disregard but to add emphasis on the fact that these passages need to be treated delicatly and again a plain reading of this text is not as reliable as we might imagine.

It would be interesting to see where this debate leads to in the future.

 

[carlos123]

Carlos in your post you are whining because you want to be free to speak as you wish although guide lines have been set.....Keep your place in the body as you would have others keep theirs.

Reba,

I honestly and before God have almost no clue what you are referring to. I do not know what it is that causes you to think I am whining or even what you seem to think I am whining about.

And I have absolutely not the slightest clue as to why you seem to think that I am unwilling to keep my place within the limits God has set for me as I would have others do.

Have I ever said that I was not willing to do such a thing?

Again...no clue.

Carlos

 

[reba]

There is no freedom of expression for those who feel prompted by the Spirit's gift within to say something. In most all cases one must go to a Pastor or other church leader, explain what it is that one would like to say and wait for permission to say it (assuming they are even given opportunity to say anything at all!). Such permission is absolutely not necessary according to Paul's instructions for how things ought to be.

i read the quote to be a whine you dont thats ok. You should know you wrote it.. Good thing salvation doesn't depend of God's kids always agreeing . :yes

 

[woodlandapple]

.

For purposes of this thread the more essential question is what was the assembly that Paul was referring to when he said that women ought not to speak in church?

Was it just two or three Christians gathered together or was it more than that?

Let's look at what Paul said...(all quotations are from the NASB unless otherwise noted)...

Paul used the word "church" quite a bit in 1 Cor 14 but for purposes of determining which assembly women ought to be quiet in he narrows it down a bit further or rather clarifies what he meant in the following verses I believe...

1 Cor 14:23 - "Therefore if the whole church assembles together..."
1 Cor 14:26 - "When you assemble..."

The context in which women are to keep silence is when the whole church assembles!

Is a meeting of two or three the whole church? 99 percent of the time it won't be.
It can be in which case Paul's command for whoever is a woman among those three would apply I think.

But I know of no church that is only 2 or 3 people big anywhere. Do you?

Under normal circumstances Paul's command applies when a local church meets as a whole.

When the "whole church assembles".

Some of you may differ with me on this but I do not believe that Paul's command would apply as such to small home groups that meet as a subset of the whole church necessarily.

At least not according to the what Paul actually said.

In early church tradition most "churches" where small gathering in peoples homes, it was very rare to find ALL the church gathered together. And anyway 14:34 does not say, when all the congregation gets together, rather it gives us a specific place...... In the churches. It does not suggest a full congegation or a partial one either way.

Especially when men who have gifts as mentioned by Paul in 1 Cor 14 are present such that the Lord might want to say something through them to those assembled.

Ive mentioned it a few times and it seems I need to mention it again, when paul mentions men, a man, brothers or brethren IT IS NON GENDER SPECIFIC, we are dealing with gender based words here, and any women in the early church would have included themselves in these categories when reading Pauls letter. This is something that the NASB represents poorly. I think this is why I see conflicts with your interpretation where you dont.

Eg. OIkos is the masculine word for House, this hypothetical house can be owned by the hypothetical female Sarah.

In greek you would refer to sarahs house as "His house." not because Sarah is a boy but becasue the noun is mascular.

In a mixed gender congregation, they would all be refered to as men and brothers, when we talk about 'a person' he or she would always be refered to as man regardless of gender.

 

[carlos123]

i read the quote to be a whine you dont thats ok. You should know you wrote it.. Good thing salvation doesn't depend of God's kids always agreeing . :yes

Well...I guess we differ then on what a whine is.

This is not about God's kids always agreeing. This has absolutely not one thing to do with godliness Reba.

It has to do with your personal opinion about what I said. A personal opinion shared with me not for the purpose of helping me communicate better but rather to just simply cut down what I said.

As such I will let it be and will leave you to think that I whined all you want. God knows the truth that I was sharing an observation about modern day church practice and saying that we need to get back to the way things were intended to be done.

Sorry that you took what I said as nothing more than whining Reba. You completely missed the gist of what I was saying and why.

Carlos

 

[woodlandapple]

The point that establishes the "Carlos Position" is the word that is used when Paul says, "for it is not permitted unto them to speak." Now, the word translated 'speak' means the same in both English and Greek. When he says, "it is not permitted for them to speak," it means they should not utter a word. There is no "fudge factor" to be found there, as far as I can see.

There is a bit of 'fudge factor' here. There are (of the top of my head) at least 5 greek words that mean 'speak' and they all seem to be used to denote specific types of 'speaking', the verb used here usually means 'informal speaking' as apposed to 'formal speaking'

I havnt discussed this yet on this topic because it is unclear whether Paul is continuing this theme or not and is mostly speculation and the arguments can go either way.

 

[reba]

Well...I guess we differ then on what a whine is.

This is not about God's kids always agreeing. This has absolutely not one thing to do with godliness Reba.

It has to do with your personal opinion about what I said. A personal opinion shared with me not for the purpose of helping me communicate better but rather to just simply cut down what I said.

As such I will let it be and will leave you to think that I whined all you want. God knows the truth that I was sharing an observation about modern day church practice and saying that we need to get back to the way things were intended to be done.

Sorry that you took what I said as nothing more than whining Reba. You completely missed the gist of what I was saying and why.

Carlos

i read the quote to be a whine you dont thats ok. You should know you wrote it..

Thats ok meaning we disagree i will not argue .. Then i tell you you would know because you wrote it.. Meaning you know what is in your heart i dont so you would know what you were thinking feeling etc...
Good thing salvation doesn't depend of God's kids always agreeing . Meaning i can see you as a brother in the Lord even though we don't agree...
Posting can be difficult because we dont have the facial expression, eye contact, to help us read the person...that was why the :yes smiliey

 

[carlos123]

Im looking at a textual criticism of 1 corinthians 14:34 - 35 (GNT)

I too would like to say something about textual criticism regarding these verses.

You state what you said WoodlandApple in a way that would cast doubt on whether these verses should even be included in our bible's! That they may have even been inserted by someone other than Paul.

I do not hold much respect for textual bible critics since their criticism of various verses is based almost entirely if not wholy on assumptions.

Assumptions of the kind that this or that verse or word was not in the original text, not because it is not found in ancient manuscripts, but rather because it is an untypical construct for the author in question.

So...hmm...let me rephrase that...well...never mind...I think I will continue...

Do you see what I just did? I used a sentence that I have never used before in any post on this thread and in a way I never used those words before.

The textual critic, who does not know me and never participated in this thread, would say that there is serious doubt as to whether I actually penned that sentence because of that.

That's akin to what many biblical textual critics do when questioning various words or phrases.

Gordon Fee is one of the most renowed biblical textual critics.

He is quoted as saying (I do not have access to an original document of his but see no reason to doubt the quote of him by other well respected biblical scholars)...

I've highlighted some of Fee's words to bring attention to how he himself attests to the fact that the verses in question are in ALL known manuscripts!

As Gordon Fee says: "Although these two verses are found in all known manuscripts, either here or at the end of the chapter, the two text-critical criteria of transcriptional and intrinsic probability combine to cast considerable doubt on their authenticity."

That quote is from "Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 699."

As quoted in a paper at http://bible.org/article/argument-1-corinthians-12-14#P26_2755

He is speaking about 1 Cor 14:34 and 35.

Note that Fee bases his belief that there is considerable doubt as to the authenticity of these verses on transcriptional and intrinsic probability.

In other words there is no certain proof that these verses are not authentic. It is assumed that they are not because of things like...

1) the verses supposedly obscure the sense of Paul's argument concerning tongues and prophecy;
2) the verses supposedly contradict Paul's teaching in 11:5 where women are permitted not only to pray and prophecy
3) the usage of certain terms appear foreign to Paul.

Do you see the pattern and supposed "wisdom" of such textual criticism?

There is no proof. It is just assumptions based on probabilities about what one should expect to see in the text!

I would not much stock in what textual critics say about the supposed authenticity or not of certain verses. Especially when they are found in ALL known manuscripts and when any misplacing of said verses can be easily explained by various possibilities that do not involve those verses not being authentic!

Carlos

 

[carlos123]

Ive mentioned it a few times and it seems I need to mention it again, when paul mentions men, a man, brothers or brethren IT IS NON GENDER SPECIFIC, we are dealing with gender based words here, and any women in the early church would have included themselves in these categories when reading Pauls letter. This is something that the NASB represents poorly. I think this is why I see conflicts with your interpretation where you dont.

So let me get this straight before I respond...in the following verse...

1 Cor 14:34 (KJV)

Let your women keep silence in the churches...

Are you saying that the word "women" in Paul's command for women to be silent in church really means both men and women?

Carlos

 

[Justice]

Hi, Justice:

Thank you for the links. It is always of interest to see what data is used in support of an issue.

Junia (of Romans 16:7) was considered female until the 12th century (at the earliest). Prior to this, her gender was not questioned.

The use of the name 'Junia' as female is supported by many Greek texts of the time period. It was not used as male in a single writing of that time, as of current. (One never knows when evidence of male use of the name might be found.)

In Latin texts, the use of 'Junia' was a common name, used for both male and female, much as names such as Leslie, Terry, Kelly, Bryce, Regan, etc, have become gender neutral in recent times.

However, in both Latin and Greek writings of the time, the use of 'Junianas' was used for the male form.

A quick online search for "Junia in the Bible" will bring up several pages of modern time's discussion, with support either way. However, the historical usage of the name could be the topic of another thread.

:nod

Junia has been linked into this topic already on page 6, by you, and perhaps other places (I did not want to read through all 20 pages again ;)). The topic --- women to be silent in Church but if Junia was a woman which I feel she was, she would have had a lead role in the Church with a voice.

I know about the debate rather Junia was a woman or not and the many pages for and against. The links I offered were carefully chosen by unbias men (otherwise evidence by a woman or non-educational sources would only prove to be red meat for some here).

The Denver - Seminary Eldon Epp's Junia: The First Woman Apostle http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/junia-the-first-woman-apostle/

The crux of the problem is that Iounian could be a feminine (accusative of �Junia�) or masculine (accusative of �Junias�) name depending on the accents assigned to the letters. Epp boils it down to this reality: an accent over the second iota would indicate a feminine name, while a circumflex over the alpha would indicate a masculine one. The solution is not as simple as examining the diacritical markings of the earliest manuscripts, because those manuscripts are accent-less. At this point, Epp compiles the research of several scholars to make a case for the preference of the feminine name (pp. 23-24), with the most persuasive point being that the name Junia was a common Roman name while masculine forms of the name Junias have been found nowhere in Roman writings. Chapter 4 begins the walk through history, showing the virtual unanimity of the first millennium of the church with regards to Iounian being feminine and revealing what appears to be an arbitrary shift in the second millennium to viewing it as masculine. Epp argues that it was well into this latter period (around 1850) when the abbreviated-name theory arose as a defense for this defenseless position. The abbreviated-name theory, still reverberating in modern exegesis, recognizes that the name Junias is unattested and argues that Junias is a contraction of the well-attested Latin name Junianus. But Chapter 5 persuasively argues that the theory is hollow, ultimately because no evidence exists that Junianus has ever been contracted in such a way (contrary to A. T. Robertson�s classic Greek grammar, which on p. 172 actually has Junias listed among other contracted Greek names!). At this point, the reader begins to see that Epp is attempting to expose a bias among modern scholars which has tainted the objectivity of everything from grammars and lexicons to commentaries and critical editions of the Greek New Testament. (Excerpt)

Christian Think Tank - Women's Roles in the Early Church
http://christianthinktank.com/fem08.html

Bible Dictionary: Define Apostle, Definition of Apostle
http://www.seekfind.net/Bible_Dictionary__Define_Apostle__Definition_of_Apostle.html

 

[woodlandapple]

I too would like to say something about textual criticism regarding these verses.

You state what you said WoodlandApple in a way that would cast doubt on whether these verses should even be included in our bible's! That they may have even been inserted by someone other than Paul.

I do not hold much respect for textual bible critics since their criticism of various verses is based almost entirely if not wholy on assumptions.

Assumptions of the kind that this or that verse or word was not in the original text, not because it is not found in ancient manuscripts, but rather because it is an untypical construct for the author in question.

So...hmm...let me rephrase that...well...never mind...I think I will continue...

Do you see what I just did? I used a sentence that I have never used before in any post on this thread and in a way I never used those words before.

The textual critic, who does not know me and never participated in this thread, would say that there is serious doubt as to whether I actually penned that sentence because of that.

That's akin to what many biblical textual critics do when questioning various words or phrases.

Gordon Fee is one of the most renowed biblical textual critics.

He is quoted as saying (I do not have access to an original document of his but see no reason to doubt the quote of him by other well respected biblical scholars)...

I've highlighted some of Fee's words to bring attention to how he himself attests to the fact that the verses in question are in ALL known manuscripts!



That quote is from "Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 699."

As quoted in a paper at http://bible.org/article/argument-1-corinthians-12-14#P26_2755

He is speaking about 1 Cor 14:34 and 35.

Note that Fee bases his belief that there is considerable doubt as to the authenticity of these verses on transcriptional and intrinsic probability.

In other words there is no certain proof that these verses are not authentic. It is assumed that they are not because of things like...

1) the verses supposedly obscure the sense of Paul's argument concerning tongues and prophecy;
2) the verses supposedly contradict Paul's teaching in 11:5 where women are permitted not only to pray and prophecy
3) the usage of certain terms appear foreign to Paul.

Do you see the pattern and supposed "wisdom" of such textual criticism?

There is no proof. It is just assumptions based on probabilities about what one should expect to see in the text!

I would not much stock in what textual critics say about the supposed authenticity or not of certain verses. Especially when they are found in ALL known manuscripts and when any misplacing of said verses can be easily explained by various possibilities that do not involve those verses not being authentic!

Carlos

Carlos, I agree with a lot of your objections, I thought I stressed it enough in my post;

though without textual critics how would we know what to do with the many different variations in texts? They are the ones who give us the bibles in English we have today and the evidence you readily dismiss are the ways that we decide what gets put in and what gets discarded. Would you have the same skepticism of these techniques if their conclusions agreed with you? youwould need to dismiss at least half the NT!!!!! You keep throwing the word assumption around like it only refers to what people who disagree with you think.


The issue is far from just being assumptions, nor is it limited to internal evidence. In fact you can should be able to see a footnote in your copy of the bible showing that some manuscripts have this moved to after 40. Or you can look at the originals in manuscripts D, F, G, ITar.b.f.g. vgms. Just to name 8. In these and others you can see for yourself where brackets have been used to indicate the scribes didn't believe it was Paul's writing, where this passage is left out of the text and only included in the border or simply where the text is placed somewhere else, mostly after verse 40.

Or you can read in the GNT where they state that the majority of the sources that have these texts in verse 34-35, also demonstrate a high level of minor variations.

Again, I DONT BELEIVE THIS GIVES US ANY REASON TO DOUBT THAT THESE PASSAGES HAVE A PLACE IN THE BIBLE, and the evidence that this may not be Pauls work is far from conclusive. Nethertheless this is a debate that is currently being held by those who know far more about this than we do and we would do well to take that into consideration.

at the very least, we should treat this verse with caution, as there is many complications with this passage. Even the original scribes didnt really know what to do with it!!!

 

[woodlandapple]

So let me get this straight before I respond...in the following verse...



Are you saying that the word "women" in Paul's command for women to be silent in church really means both men and women?

Carlos

no. women means women....... um......... its like masculine words for people are used as default and the feminine words for people are used only when the people are specifically female.

Im not sure how you want to respond?????? This isnt my opinion, its not even controversial, its not assumptions....... its how Greek works.

 

[Sparkey]

There is a bit of 'fudge factor' here. There are (of the top of my head) at least 5 greek words that mean 'speak' and they all seem to be used to denote specific types of 'speaking', the verb used here usually means 'informal speaking' as apposed to 'formal speaking'

I havnt discussed this yet on this topic because it is unclear whether Paul is continuing this theme or not and is mostly speculation and the arguments can go either way.

You would be able to understand Trench's Synonyms of the New Testament better than I do. Your comments are welcome. Trench's discussion on the topic may be found here:

Synonyms of the New Testament, by Richard C. Trench

Contrary to what you've stated, I don't see a distinction being drawn there between articulated sound and "formal" oration (i.e. to give a formal speech) for the word used in 1Cor 14:34. Examples of the sounds of grasshoppers (that do not convey meaning) were contrasted with λέγειν (==‘dicere’): a different word used to put emphasis on the words and meaning (not the sounds) where the later considers the subject of discussion and thoughts within the breast of the utterer.

But and again, this is only my layman's impression and it is subject to correction. I would be interested to hear your thoughts about what Trench says regarding synonyms. Is it your impression that λαλέω laleō (the word translated speak) refers to a prohibition of "Formal Speech" only? Or is it more rightly understood as prohibiting the use of the tongue itself to even utter a word or sound?

I do agree with your conclusion:

... at the very least, we should treat this verse with caution,

 

[carlos123]

Junia has been linked into this topic already on page 6, by you, and perhaps other places (I did not want to read through all 20 pages again ;)). The topic --- women to be silent in Church but if Junia was a woman which I feel she was, she would have had a lead role in the Church with a voice.

I have no conviction either way as to whether Junia was a woman or not but it doesn't matter.

What I mean is...let's say she was a woman.

Let's say further that she had a leading role in the church somehow (if I am not mistaken women can be deconesses as an example).

To go from that to saying that she spoke up in an assembly of the church in direct contradiction to what Paul said in 1 Cor 14 is...well...an assumption which is not supported by what is written.

That kind of objection is the kind that I call the deduction from logic objection.

Meaning that a and b are true so therefore c must be.

As in (assuming that Junia was indeed a woman) a (she was a woman), b (she had a leading role in the church) such that c (she spoke up in an assembly of the church in contradiction to what Paul wrote) must therefore be true.

It is an assumption by any other name.

As an assumption it does not help us understand what Paul said and is irrelevant.

A and B do not lead to C. A and B just are (if indeed Junia was even a woman which as you readily admit is contested which leaves us with an unreliable A and B to begin with!) and must fit with the rest of Scriptures and be accepted alongside other Scriptures as it is written.

Correct biblical interpretation is not a matter of concluding that C must be true because A and B are. Correct biblical interpretation is a matter of accepting A, accepting B, accepting that Paul said women needed to be silent in the assembly and seeking the Lord as to how it all might blend together into a cohesive whole.

Carlos

 

[carlos123]

Carlos, I agree with a lot of your objections, I thought I stressed it enough in my post;

Yes you did and I grant you that but you also, by your post, left a lingering accusation against what Paul said in the air.

That the verses about women being silent may have been inserted after that fact, that they might not be authentic, that they were misplaced and what have you.

It's like walking into a conference and stating that the speaker may not be qualified to speak, may not even be who he says he is, may be lying, and so forth but qualifying your accusations against the speaker by saying that such may not be true.

The speaker in question is Paul. More appropriately God speaking through Paul.

I felt a need to highlight the ridiculous baloney that often passes for biblical textual criticism as being far less than your post left us with.

In defense of the words Paul used as being authentic enough to warrant that every single English version, every one, included it and included it in the same place in our text!!

Sure there may be variations. There are variations of all kinds of verses. You make it sound like any variation in the text of 1 Cor 14 is unusual. It isn't. At least not in the sense that there are any valid grounds for outright discounting what Paul said in the place that ALL our English bible's (with all their accumulated Greek scholarship behind them) said he said it!

Your objection to what Paul said is thus a mute point. It does not help us in the least to understand what Paul said and only serves to help people who are opposed to what Paul said, discount what he said as meaningless and irrelevant because of this or that possibility.

though without textual critics how would we know what to do with the many different variations in texts?

Textual criticism of a kind that is not based on assumptions about how an author of something in the Bible could not have possibly said what he said because it was said using a different construct or wording that such an author normally used IS relevant.

I was referring to the hocus pocus, include or not include verses based on assumptions which themselves are based on probabilities that this or that verse was ever said by this or that author when I said what I did.

They are the ones who give us the bibles in English we have today and the evidence you readily dismiss are the ways that we decide what gets put in and what gets discarded.

Bible scholars do not make decisions based on assumptions about what a given author must have meant to say or not say!!

That's a ridiculous way to compile an English translation and unfit as a definitive way to determine what to put in and what to leave out.

Would you have the same skepticism of these techniques if their conclusions agreed with you?

Not at all. As I said I have great respect for the Greek scholars behind our English translations who determined unitedly in every English bible we have at our disposal that Paul said what he said where he said it.

I only want to know what Paul meant to say with a heart to do it...whatever it is that God inspired him to say.

No biblical textual criticism discounts what Paul said. At least with any valid and definitive argument. It's just a bunch of theorizing and conjecture and assumption. Not what I want to base an attempt to correctly interpret what Paul said on.

You keep throwing the word assumption around like it only refers to what people who disagree with you think.

Not at all. An assumption is an assumption. It means what it means. Whether people agree with me or not.

An assumption is to take something for granted without proof. To suppose. To postulate.

It is what it is and I will call attempts to discount what Paul said based on nothing more than assumptions...just that.

Assumptions.

Nothing wrong with that at all.

Christians need less assumptegeses and more sticking to what is written and letting what is written fall where it might.

The issue is far from just being assumptions, nor is it limited to internal evidence. In fact you can should be able to see a footnote in your copy of the bible showing that some manuscripts have this moved to after 40. Or you can look at the originals in manuscripts D, F, G, ITar.b.f.g. vgms. Just to name 8. In these and others you can see for yourself where brackets have been used...

That is not an assumption. It is fact. I mean that certain manuscripts have the verses in different places or that brackets were used.

...to indicate the scribes didn't believe it was Paul's writing..

On the other hand to suggest that the scribes did not believe it was Paul's writing IS most definitely an assumption. Perhaps they did or perhaps they didn't. We don't know.

All we know is that these verses appeared in different places in certain manuscripts and that brackets were sometimes used.

Regardless...ALL English bible's and the scholars behind them have discounted this misplacement of verses as worthy of consideration to such a degree that the misplacement was ignored when our English bible's were compiled.

That's good enough for me such that my focus is rather on understanding what Paul meant to say and being obedient to it rather than questioning it based on supposed scribal opinions about what was written or not written by Paul.

Again, I DONT BELEIVE THIS GIVES US ANY REASON TO DOUBT THAT THESE PASSAGES HAVE A PLACE IN THE BIBLE, and the evidence that this may not be Pauls work is far from conclusive.

So why bring it up?

Nethertheless this is a debate that is currently being held by those who know far more about this than we do and we would do well to take that into consideration.

Take such a thing into consideration how exactly? If not by doubting that the words in our English bible's may not even be authenticly there!

at the very least, we should treat this verse with caution, as there is many complications with this passage. Even the original scribes didnt really know what to do with it!!!

That's baloney. In one fell swoop you discount all the myriads of bibical scholars behind our English bible's who have placed these verses right where they are.

If you mean in knowing what to do with it interpretation wise...that was not the job of a scribe!! Their job was to accurately transcribe what was written. No more and no less.

Carlos

 

[carlos123]

no. women means women....... um......... its like masculine words for people are used as default and the feminine words for people are used only when the people are specifically female.

Im not sure how you want to respond?????? This isnt my opinion, its not even controversial, its not assumptions....... its how Greek works.

Well...if women means women as in that women (the female gender) ought to be silent in church assemblies then...well..you are right. There is nothing to respond to.

Carlos

 

[AirDancer]

Junia has been linked into this topic already on page 6, by you, and perhaps other places (I did not want to read through all 20 pages again ;)). The topic --- women to be silent in Church but if Junia was a woman which I feel she was, she would have had a lead role in the Church with a voice.

I know about the debate rather Junia was a woman or not and the many pages for and against. The links I offered were carefully chosen by unbias men (otherwise evidence by a woman or non-educational sources would only prove to be red meat for some here).

The Denver - Seminary Eldon Epp's Junia: The First Woman Apostle http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/junia-the-first-woman-apostle/

The crux of the problem is that Iounian could be a feminine (accusative of �Junia�) or masculine (accusative of �Junias�) name depending on the accents assigned to the letters. Epp boils it down to this reality: an accent over the second iota would indicate a feminine name, while a circumflex over the alpha would indicate a masculine one. The solution is not as simple as examining the diacritical markings of the earliest manuscripts, because those manuscripts are accent-less. At this point, Epp compiles the research of several scholars to make a case for the preference of the feminine name (pp. 23-24), with the most persuasive point being that the name Junia was a common Roman name while masculine forms of the name Junias have been found nowhere in Roman writings. Chapter 4 begins the walk through history, showing the virtual unanimity of the first millennium of the church with regards to Iounian being feminine and revealing what appears to be an arbitrary shift in the second millennium to viewing it as masculine. Epp argues that it was well into this latter period (around 1850) when the abbreviated-name theory arose as a defense for this defenseless position. The abbreviated-name theory, still reverberating in modern exegesis, recognizes that the name Junias is unattested and argues that Junias is a contraction of the well-attested Latin name Junianus. But Chapter 5 persuasively argues that the theory is hollow, ultimately because no evidence exists that Junianus has ever been contracted in such a way (contrary to A. T. Robertson�s classic Greek grammar, which on p. 172 actually has Junias listed among other contracted Greek names!). At this point, the reader begins to see that Epp is attempting to expose a bias among modern scholars which has tainted the objectivity of everything from grammars and lexicons to commentaries and critical editions of the Greek New Testament. (Excerpt)

Christian Think Tank - Women's Roles in the Early Church
http://christianthinktank.com/fem08.html

Bible Dictionary: Define Apostle, Definition of Apostle
http://www.seekfind.net/Bible_Dictionary__Define_Apostle__Definition_of_Apostle.html

Thank you, Justice, for these links. It's always fascinating to learn further.

If the internet had been available when first I researched this thread's topic, the quest would have been easier...there were times when it took a couple of months before a requested book arrived. It was sometimes slow going, but well worth it.

As the quest has continued in this 'modern' age, I came across this site. The articles were written in the mid/late 1800s. Very interesting.

http://www.stepstolife.org/library/miscellaneous/women_speaking_church.html
Thank you again, Justice :yes