BIBLE DISCUSSION: Galatians Chap. 3 - Oct 28-Nov 3

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by Dumbledore

I'll go with "at the very least compromises by Paul with his culture". All this redaction hocus pocus is often a way modern scholars inappropriately read their contemporary ideologies (like feminism) into the text.

REDACTION HOCUS POCUS ??? Now you're just being dumb, Ledore! Redaction is a well document biblical process, a well documented literary process generally, and a well document cultural process. Hocus pocus indeed!

I'm not buying the reasoning here. Paul puts gender into very strong role buckets but still affirms that women and men are equal before God. Just because the text reads smoothly when you pull out the long hair passage does not mean that it was not meant to be there.

I actually wasn't referring to the long hair passage here, though I can see why you might think I was. I was actually referring to the passage in 1 corinthians 14 where the text forbids women to speak in church. THIS IS NOT PAUL SPEAKING! look below.

Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30If a revelation is made to someone else sitting nearby, let the first person be silent. 31For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged. 32And the spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets, 33for God is a God not of disorder but of peace.
(As in all the churches of the saints, 34women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. 35If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.* 36Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?)
37 Anyone who claims to be a prophet, or to have spiritual powers, must acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord. 38Anyone who does not recognize this is not to be recognized. 39So, my friends,* be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues;

Paul is talking away about the appropriate use of the prophetic gift, then suddenly stops talking about that and starts talking about women in church and then, just as suddenly, stops talking about women and resumes talking about Prophecy. if you skip the rant about women the text reads MORE (not "as") smoothly and makes more sense. Add to this the fact that verses 34-36 uses language and catagories that are not typically Pauline AND that Paul has many friendships and working relationships with women who OBVIOUSLY had to have talked in church in order to do the things that he has credited them with doing... it is simply not credible that verses 34-36 are genuine Paul. Somebody stuck that shit in later because they wanted the ladies to sit down and shut up.

I think he was a Jewish man with all the accompanying cultural baggage.

Horse Pucky! He was the second feminist in history. Jesus being the first.

[Dumbledore]

Originally Posted by u-dog

REDACTION HOCUS POCUS ??? Now you're just being dumb, Ledore! Redaction is a well document biblical process, a well documented literary process generally, and a well document cultural process. Hocus pocus indeed!

So much of modern biblical scholarship is like looking at your own reflection in a well. It is the imposition of modern ideologies on the text (snip snip) so that you get a Bible that looks like you. I prefer to just take it in it's literary and historical context and deal with the reality of the Bible as it actually is. It is good old fashioned classical Biblical scholarship.

I actually wasn't referring to the long hair passage here.

Gotcha...I'm still obsessing about the long hair Dumbledore has long hair and Dumbledore is not a disgrace!

Horse Pucky! He was the second feminist in history. Jesus being the first.

OK, calling Paul a feminist is a genuine insult to feminists everywhere

[u-dog]

Gotcha...I'm still obsessing about the long hair Dumbledore has long hair and Dumbledore is not a girl!

But he does throw like a girl right? I mean... he is gay after all.

[Dumbledore]

Originally Posted by u-dog

But he does throw like a girl right? I mean... he is gay after all.

I'm not very good at throwing but I play a mean Quidditch match. I can work my broomstick like no man alive ... at least in my younger days.

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by Dumbledore

I'm not very good at throwing but I play a mean Quidditch match. I can work my broomstick like no man alive ... at least in my younger days.

OK.... so.... yeah... I'm like... not going ANYWHERE NEAR that comment. noop... not me.

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by Dumbledore

So much of modern biblical scholarship is like looking at your own reflection in a well. It is the imposition of modern ideologies on the text (snip snip) so that you get a Bible that looks like you. I prefer to just take it in it's literary and historical context and deal with the reality of the Bible as it actually is. It is good old fashioned classical Biblical scholarship.

So there was an era prior to the modern era when people had no ideologies and they really understood the real Bible like it really is! When was that?

Sorry to lay the irony on so thick, but my point is that no interpreter, ancient or modern, is free of ideology of one sort or another. Gender ideologies may be some of the most difficult to overcome.

In a previous post you seemed to suggest that only modern people could imagine the blending of genders, or imagine overcoming gender divisions. I don't believe that is so. I believe Paul did understand that "in Christ" gender divisions would cease to matter anymore (and at the same time Paul demonstrates that he has not entirely overcome the gender ideologies of his time.) The idea of androgyny is an ancient one going back several centuries before Paul. (Plato, for instance, expresses the idea that humanity was originally androgynous.)

At the same time, neither we nor Paul can become entirely free of the gender ideologies that are part of "the air we breathe." We constantly need to be challenged on the issues, like gender, that we take for granted.

Steven Webster

[BenL]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

At the same time, neither we nor Paul can become entirely free of the gender ideologies that are part of "the air we breathe." We constantly need to be challenged on the issues, like gender, that we take for granted.

That is why trangender Christians today take so much comfort in Paul's assertion that the male/female divide doesn't matter. It's not that they think Paul knew about 21st century trans rights. The consolation comes that in God's scheme gender and all the roles we ascribe to it culturally don't matter in the end. Trans people like everyone else are freed by Christ from the Law, including the laws of gender imperatives. Sorry if this is too political sounding, but to me Paul leaves politics behind in this passage. perhaps unwittingly, but he does.

[Dumbledore]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

So there was an era prior to the modern era when people had no ideologies and they really understood the real Bible like it really is! When was that?

Sorry to lay the irony on so thick, but my point is that no interpreter, ancient or modern, is free of ideology of one sort or another. Gender ideologies may be some of the most difficult to overcome.

I agree with you entirely. That is why seeking to understand the original intention of the author is so critical (not always easy but worth the pursuit). It is also critical to understand how your own bias may affect your interpretation of the text (and this is often very difficult).

I think a lot of modern Biblical scholars are unable to see their own ideological screen that blunts the meaning of scripture.