Should this guy be excomunicated from speaking of the Bible?? or not??
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2006/03/Did-Scribes-Edit-Women-Out-Of-The-Bible.aspx
Perhaps their is a way for women to serve in leadership and that back in the old days the good ol boy system excluded them. Scribes who copied text may have played fast and loose with it out of controlling motives to exclude women.
________________________________________________________________
One of the most important passages in the contemporary discussion of the role of women in the church is found in 1 Corinthians 14. As represented in most of our modern English translations, the passage reads as follows.
33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, 34 let the women keep silent. For it is not permitted for them to speak, but to be in subjection, just as the law says. 35 But if they wish to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. 36 What! Did the word go forth only from you, or has it reached you alone?
The passage appears to be a clear and straightforward injunction for women not to speak (let alone teach!) in the church, very much like the passage from 1 Timothy 2. As we have seen, however, most scholars are convinced that Paul did not write the 1 Timothy passage, because it occurs in a letter that appears to have been written instead by a second-generation follower of Paul in his name. No one doubts, however, that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians.
But there are doubts about this passage. For as it turns out, the verses in question (vv. 34-35) are shuffled around in some of our important textual witnesses. In three Greek manuscripts and a couple of Latin witnesses, they are found not here, after verse 33, but later, after verse 40. That has led some scholars to surmise that the verses were not written by Paul but originated as a kind of marginal note added by a scribe, possibly under the influence of 1 Timothy 2. The note was then inserted in different places of the text by various scribes—some placing the note after verse 33 and others inserting it after verse 40.
There are good reasons for thinking that Paul did not originally write these verses. For one thing, they do not fit well into their immediate context. In this part of 1 Corinthians 14, Paul is addressing the issue of prophecy in the church, and is giving instructions to Christian prophets concerning how they are to behave during the Christian services of worship. This is the theme of verses 26-33, and it is the theme again of verses 36-40. If one removes verses 34-35 from their context, the passage seems to flow seamlessly as a discussion of the role of Christian prophets. The discussion of women appears, then, as intrusive in its immediate context, breaking into instructions that Paul is giving about a different matter.
Not only do the verses seem intrusive in the context of chapter 14, they also appear anomalous with what Paul explicitly says elsewhere in 1 Corinthians. For earlier in the book, as we have already noticed, Paul gives instructions to women speaking in the church: according to chapter 11, when they pray and prophesy—activities that were always done aloud in the Christian services of worship—they are to be sure to wear veils on their heads (11:2-16). In this passage, which no one doubts Paul wrote, it is clear that Paul understands that women both can and do speak in church. In the disputed passage of chapter 14, however, it is equally clear that "Paul" forbids women from speaking at all. It is difficult to reconcile these two views—either Paul allowed women to speak (with covered heads, chapter 11) or not (chapter 14). As it seems unreasonable to think that Paul would flat out contradict himself within the short space of three chapters, it appears that the verses in question do not derive from Paul.
And so on the basis of a combination of evidence—several manuscripts that shuffle the verses around, the immediate literary context, and the context within 1Corinthians as a whole—it appears that Paul did not write 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. One would have to assume, then, that these verses are a scribal alteration of the text, originally made, perhaps, as a marginal note and then eventually, at an early stage of the copying of 1 Corinthians, placed in the text itself. The alteration was no doubt made by a scribe who was concerned to emphasize that women should have no public role in the church, that they should be silent and subservient to their husbands. This view then came to be incorporated into the text itself, by means of a textual alteration.
While some have indicated that Bart Ehrman is trying to attack Christianity, I do not find this at all. His tone is clear, concise, and to the point without being aggressive. At the end of the book he explains in length that he is not trying to force anyone to lose their faith. He is simply explaining his position and hoping that getting this knowledge to the masses will do a world of good. His biggest concern – echoed on many occasions – is that pastors are not teaching their congregations the whole truth. Pastors go to seminary, learn all the historical problems, but then never inform their congregations of these issues. Just think of how many fights over women’s roles in church could be resolved if church members knew the passage in 1 Corinthians was added by later scribes! This is Ehrman’s point: knowing the historical background of the faith millions adhere to is essential in understanding our own culture, our churches, and the doctrines that so many accept almost without question from the clean-as-the-driven-snow lips of their pastors.
All in all, this is an excellent book – regardless of where you are coming from in the “debate”. I highly recommend it!
If a person is talented and gifted to care for large groups of church goers why exclude them from heading a church of people who trust him or her.
Could a scribe played fast and loose with the text?? and why was it not found in other manuscripts??? and why was it placed in different places in manuscript?? and why was it a marginal note??
I know christians hate this guy but I think he knows his field of expertise better than most here on this board so can we ignore him??
now you can go back to bashing women pastors hahahahaha:tonofbricks:
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2006/03/Did-Scribes-Edit-Women-Out-Of-The-Bible.aspx
Perhaps their is a way for women to serve in leadership and that back in the old days the good ol boy system excluded them. Scribes who copied text may have played fast and loose with it out of controlling motives to exclude women.
________________________________________________________________
One of the most important passages in the contemporary discussion of the role of women in the church is found in 1 Corinthians 14. As represented in most of our modern English translations, the passage reads as follows.
33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, 34 let the women keep silent. For it is not permitted for them to speak, but to be in subjection, just as the law says. 35 But if they wish to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. 36 What! Did the word go forth only from you, or has it reached you alone?
The passage appears to be a clear and straightforward injunction for women not to speak (let alone teach!) in the church, very much like the passage from 1 Timothy 2. As we have seen, however, most scholars are convinced that Paul did not write the 1 Timothy passage, because it occurs in a letter that appears to have been written instead by a second-generation follower of Paul in his name. No one doubts, however, that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians.
But there are doubts about this passage. For as it turns out, the verses in question (vv. 34-35) are shuffled around in some of our important textual witnesses. In three Greek manuscripts and a couple of Latin witnesses, they are found not here, after verse 33, but later, after verse 40. That has led some scholars to surmise that the verses were not written by Paul but originated as a kind of marginal note added by a scribe, possibly under the influence of 1 Timothy 2. The note was then inserted in different places of the text by various scribes—some placing the note after verse 33 and others inserting it after verse 40.
There are good reasons for thinking that Paul did not originally write these verses. For one thing, they do not fit well into their immediate context. In this part of 1 Corinthians 14, Paul is addressing the issue of prophecy in the church, and is giving instructions to Christian prophets concerning how they are to behave during the Christian services of worship. This is the theme of verses 26-33, and it is the theme again of verses 36-40. If one removes verses 34-35 from their context, the passage seems to flow seamlessly as a discussion of the role of Christian prophets. The discussion of women appears, then, as intrusive in its immediate context, breaking into instructions that Paul is giving about a different matter.
Not only do the verses seem intrusive in the context of chapter 14, they also appear anomalous with what Paul explicitly says elsewhere in 1 Corinthians. For earlier in the book, as we have already noticed, Paul gives instructions to women speaking in the church: according to chapter 11, when they pray and prophesy—activities that were always done aloud in the Christian services of worship—they are to be sure to wear veils on their heads (11:2-16). In this passage, which no one doubts Paul wrote, it is clear that Paul understands that women both can and do speak in church. In the disputed passage of chapter 14, however, it is equally clear that "Paul" forbids women from speaking at all. It is difficult to reconcile these two views—either Paul allowed women to speak (with covered heads, chapter 11) or not (chapter 14). As it seems unreasonable to think that Paul would flat out contradict himself within the short space of three chapters, it appears that the verses in question do not derive from Paul.
And so on the basis of a combination of evidence—several manuscripts that shuffle the verses around, the immediate literary context, and the context within 1Corinthians as a whole—it appears that Paul did not write 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. One would have to assume, then, that these verses are a scribal alteration of the text, originally made, perhaps, as a marginal note and then eventually, at an early stage of the copying of 1 Corinthians, placed in the text itself. The alteration was no doubt made by a scribe who was concerned to emphasize that women should have no public role in the church, that they should be silent and subservient to their husbands. This view then came to be incorporated into the text itself, by means of a textual alteration.
While some have indicated that Bart Ehrman is trying to attack Christianity, I do not find this at all. His tone is clear, concise, and to the point without being aggressive. At the end of the book he explains in length that he is not trying to force anyone to lose their faith. He is simply explaining his position and hoping that getting this knowledge to the masses will do a world of good. His biggest concern – echoed on many occasions – is that pastors are not teaching their congregations the whole truth. Pastors go to seminary, learn all the historical problems, but then never inform their congregations of these issues. Just think of how many fights over women’s roles in church could be resolved if church members knew the passage in 1 Corinthians was added by later scribes! This is Ehrman’s point: knowing the historical background of the faith millions adhere to is essential in understanding our own culture, our churches, and the doctrines that so many accept almost without question from the clean-as-the-driven-snow lips of their pastors.
All in all, this is an excellent book – regardless of where you are coming from in the “debate”. I highly recommend it!
If a person is talented and gifted to care for large groups of church goers why exclude them from heading a church of people who trust him or her.
Could a scribe played fast and loose with the text?? and why was it not found in other manuscripts??? and why was it placed in different places in manuscript?? and why was it a marginal note??
I know christians hate this guy but I think he knows his field of expertise better than most here on this board so can we ignore him??
now you can go back to bashing women pastors hahahahaha:tonofbricks:
