A reasonable blog on atheism, religion, science and skepticism
Follow Patheos Atheist:
Oddly enough the bit in proverbs about the woman whose price is above rubies has her running a successful business or two that allows her husband to lounge around at the city gates.
Strictly speaking the one time Jesus is asked to order a woman back to the kitchen (by Martha when her sister Mary decided to listen to Jesus instead of getting dinner ready for their guests) refuses.
However in neither case is the woman encourage to speak (the only time that happens is when the woman is a prophet such as Deborah, Miriam, or Huldah).
Strangely, this is NOT interpreted to mean that as long as a woman is listening to Christian stuff she can do the fuck she wants.
Of course not. Women who wanted to be like Mary of Bethany were/are stuffed into contemplative orders where all they can do is listen and when men (other than priests) rarely or never see them.
There is some evidence that women had some power in the early Christian church (the Acts of Thecla were quite popular though not canonical and the New Testament has Junia mentioned as an apostle and Phoebe mentioned as a deacon). Some have argued that Junia is a man’s name or that it was a copyist error or that apostle didn’t mean apostle (or deacon didn’t mean deacon).
Which brings up my favorite bitter pill, which I love to push down the throats of the Buy-Bull thumpers:
Scripture explicitly does not name any female disciples in Jesus’ little band of followers, naming only men. Then, at the Last Supper, he commanded them to “Love ye, one another, even as I have loved you.” He did not specify HOW he loved them. Therefore, it is absolutely possible that Jesus was (gasp!) GAY! Ohhh, let the thunder ROLL!!!
It’s an interesting rhetorical approach, but it’s based on a false premise.
On the surface, that is true- in English translation. My Hebrew is not good enough for me to comment on Hebrew texts, and my Aramaic is nonexistent, but I know enough Greek to say that the English word “love” is split into at least five distinctly different words covering different aspects of the basic concept, and that if a sexually explicit meaning is intended in a text composed in Koine Greek of the 1st century (e.g., the gospels of Luke and John), there is no ambiguity. The ambiguity that we see is an artifact of translation, and a product of the limitations of English terminology.
And no, before you ask, I have not read the gospels in Greek, so I don’t know which verb was actually used. The point is, one should not assume, and the information is out there for those who want to be rigorous.
You’re exactly right. IIRC, the word translated as love in the passage in question is the much-preached-upon “agape”- usually described as an altruistic, I’m-doing-this-totally-for-you-not-me love, whereas the love involved with “making sweet love” would be “eros”.
It was always rather annoying that in any women’s bible study, we would always find the rare good verses about women or find the one or two female characters and we would ignore all the other shit. It was always like “See! God does love us! We just have a different role than men!”
I’m sure back when slavery was around, the masters would read their slaves all the verses about submitting to their masters and what a good slave’s role should be.
Gotta love how the man’s the one actively reading and teaching his wife. I’m sure she could never understand it on her own.
I have a sneeking suspicion a few very insecure priests rewrote all but a few passages regarding the women of scripture into subservient role models.
scripture was created to keep people in line..
women, slaves, peasants, the middle class; depends on the time-frame..
it hasn’t changed.. won’t change while (scripture) it’s around..
we’re just in a new era
Follow Patheos on
Copyright 2008-2014, Patheos. All rights reserved.