Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Crimson Glory · 02-12-2008, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sorompio

Jesus is rude in many passages of the NT, but the argument about him favouring women has been popping up a lot lately, and my impression is that he wasn't particularly keen on this subject. If he really wanted to make an statement about the equality of men and women, he would have done it. He would appoint women apostles or wouldn't make any differences between washing feet of women and men.

This captured my eye. In fact there is a difference in treatment for women and men, and this actually abolish the idea of the revolutionary Jesus, the pro-women Jesus and all this crap that many religious people have been raising about how Jesus championed the cause of women. In fact, he never opposed the patriarchal model, he came to reaffirm it.

Elijah · 02-13-2008, 06:57 AM

Reasons that Jesus is considered pro-woman for me is that the Messiah (the Anointed King)was anointed by a woman. One of the few prophesies he made was that the Queen of the South would rise up and judge this adulterous generation so I think he had some female authority in mind.

If Jesus is establishing a new covenant then it is really his mother Mary playing the part of Abraham sacrificing her child, not by leading him by the hand but by raising him to sacrifice himself. He wasn’t reconfirming a patriarchal model he was establishing a dead patriarchal model to give the people including the women their freedom.

Lastly the women were the ones at the crucifixion; were the ones who told the apostles about the resurrection, but considering the times no surprise that the males were designated as witnesses to the event.

Crimson Glory · 02-13-2008, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Reasons that Jesus is considered pro-woman for me is that the Messiah (the Anointed King)was anointed by a woman. One of the few prophesies he made was that the Queen of the South would rise up and judge this adulterous generation so I think he had some female authority in mind.

Where in the NT is such thing stated??? Anointed by a woman? Where? You are not taking Apocalypse seriously, are you?

Quote:

If Jesus is establishing a new covenant then it is really his mother Mary playing the part of Abraham sacrificing her child, not by leading him by the hand but by raising him to sacrifice himself. He wasn’t reconfirming a patriarchal model he was establishing a dead patriarchal model to give the people including the women their freedom.

Sorry, I don't even understand this. What covenant? What has Abraham to do with Mary? When did he give any freedom to women???? Isn't it plain overinterpretation?

Quote:

Lastly the women were the ones at the crucifixion; were the ones who told the apostles about the resurrection, but considering the times no surprise that the males were designated as witnesses to the event.

So? they happened to be present, where is the privilege or the statement?:huh:

Elijah · 02-13-2008, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crimson Glory

Where in the NT is such thing stated??? Anointed by a woman? Where? You are not taking Apocalypse seriously, are you?

The Queen of the south is Matt 12:42 Luke 11:31. The anointment is Matt 26:6 Mark 14:3 John 12:3. What Apocalypse are you talking about?

Quote:

Sorry, I don't even understand this. What covenant? What has Abraham to do with Mary? When did he give any freedom to women???? Isn't it plain overinterpretation?

Look up some stuff on covenants old and new. Mary is playing the part of Abraham, Jesus Issac. Yes it may be over interpretation or basic.

Quote:

So? they happened to be present, where is the privilege or the statement?:huh:

I don’t know what you’re looking for. What would you like for him to have said?

Julian · 02-13-2008, 10:21 AM

Hmmm, badly phrased by me. I was agreeing that it would do better in GRD, but we'll see...

Toto · 02-13-2008, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crimson Glory

...
This captured my eye. In fact there is a difference in treatment for women and men, and this actually abolish the idea of the revolutionary Jesus, the pro-women Jesus and all this crap that many religious people have been raising about how Jesus championed the cause of women. In fact, he never opposed the patriarchal model, he came to reaffirm it.

I think it is a mistake to read 20th century sexual politics back into the first century, especially if you ignore the changing relationships between the sexes over the centuries.

Many commentators have noted that Jesus associates with a lot of women, not necessarily as equals, but not as servants or insignificant nobodies. There were women deaconesses in the early church, and Paul associates with women prophets. Randal Helms has hypothesized that the gospel of Luke was written by a woman. Jay Raskin has some even more radical views, that the gospel of Mark was originally written by a woman as a play.

It was the late second century church that started to impose more masculinist rules on church hierarchy, and most likely added the prohibitions against women teaching or even speaking in churches to Paul's letters. And it was a later Catholic Church that imposed more restrictions on women by its rules on marriage and childbearing.

No Robots · 02-13-2008, 12:30 PM

It's weird. Lately, I've been coming here and been tempted to post. I go and do something else, come back, and Toto has said something absolutely spot on. Hey, maybe you guys should look at starting up rep points.:devil3:

neilgodfrey · 02-13-2008, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

It's weird. Lately, I've been coming here and been tempted to post. I go and do something else, come back, and Toto has said something absolutely spot on. Hey, maybe you guys should look at starting up rep points.:devil3:

Yeh, Toto does that to me a lot too. I've even gone back and deleted something I've just posted coz in the meantime Toto said it and it looked like I was just repeating him.

But back to the women -- the women in the gospels are not a sign of some liberationist theology. Those singled out at the cross, the tomb, and the anointing, are all placed in the traditional ancient roles of being the chief mourners and servants. These are the ancient classic roles for women in stories. The women are there to weep for Jesus and to bury him, not to preach him. Ditto Mary in John even. She's the chief funeral mourner. And no-one believes them anyway -- their testimony is never worth more than it is in any other Greek novels either.

Toto · 02-13-2008, 01:28 PM

Ha - after that encomium you contradict me on the role of women

The women are servants and mourners, but also students (Mary vs Martha, the favorite pericope of feminist theologians), and players in the drama - the Samaritan woman at the well.

Jay Raskin has some interesting ideas about the status of women at this particular point in history. Perhaps he will stop by.

neilgodfrey · 02-13-2008, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Ha - after that encomium you contradict me on the role of women

The women are servants and mourners, but also students (Mary vs Martha, the favorite pericope of feminist theologians), and players in the drama - the Samaritan woman at the well.

Jay Raskin has some interesting ideas about the status of women at this particular point in history. Perhaps he will stop by.

The Samaritan woman at the well is acting out the classic role of no doubt hundreds of other women at the well in stereotypical courting stories -- going back at least as far as Isaac and Rebekah.

I've copied the following from a longer discussion about novelistic tropes in the Gospel of John:

Quote:

Can’t have a good novel without good love scenes. The gospel of John plays with some of the standard ones.

“There is near consensus among literary critics that the scene at Jacob’s well follows conventions of the betrothal type-scene found in Hebrew narrative.” (Husband hunting, 211). The theological symbolism of this story is clear so I amfocusing here instead on the literary allusions from which it is constructed.

The scene is a blend of the comic and serious:

* The comic: Jesus comes at midday to the well — the wrong hour for both going to the well and courting. (cf Gen. 24:11 and 29:7)
* The serious: The woman never fulfils the apparent reason for her coming to the well in the first place, to fetch water. The readers is thus invited to be suspicious of her motive.

Jesus initiates the courtship scene and the woman resists:

* Jesus asks for a drink (cf Gen 24:14)
* The woman realizes and points out to him that they are a mismatch (4:9)

But if the woman’s initial resistance is to turn to acceptance she must conceal another reason she believes they are an ineligible couple: the fact that she has had five husbands and currently is living with a partner.

Jesus re-initiates the courtship and the woman teases and mocks him in reply:

* Jesus provocatively (playfully?) turns the routine around and says she should be the one asking him for a drink (4:10)
* “Really? From where then do you have that living water?” and “Come on now! Surely you are not greater than our father Jacob?” expresses the tone of the Greek.

This exchange contains sexual double entendres in the references to fountain, well and living water — appropriate for a comic courtship scene:

* In Cant. 4:15 the bridegroom calls is bride “a garden fountain, a well of living water, and flowing streams of Lebanon”
* In Prov. 5:16-18 men are admonished to “drink water from your own cistern, flowing water from your own well“
* In Deut. 33:28 the well of Jacob refers to Jacob’s descendants
* In Hos. 13:15 the fountain and spring of Ephraim refer to Ephraim’s descendants
* The Greek expression used for “everlasting life” “refers to physical life, to human substance, and reflects Jewish affiliation” (Brant citing David Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meaning)
* The symbol of water underpinning the exchange represents the “unambiguously represents the satisfaction of desire” (Brant citing J. Painter in a discussion of John 9)
* The water and thirst motif indicate both Jesus and the woman are driven by desire (Brant citing Stephen D. Moore)

Thus the subtext contains the woman playfully challenging Jesus to prove his fertility. She has moved from initial resistance to expressing a willingness for her thirst or desire to be satisfied with his seed.

Novels typically created suspense before the final act of betrothal by the characters having to pass tests of celibacy and worthiness to go ahead with the marriage. That is the significance of Jesus’ abrupt change of direction:

* Jesus said to her, Go and call your husband and come here

Jesus has put a stop to the playful banter by putting her to the test of worthiness to go any further. The woman knows she cannot pass this test so she lies or misleads

* The woman answered and said, I have no husband

She began resisting Jesus, unwilling to give him a drink at first. But now she is willing and she lies to try to pass the test. Jesus changes the tone of the scene by declaring that he knows more than she realizes. Now he directs the conversation from its comical sexual allusions into a serious spiritual discourse. When he finally persuades the woman to seek the spiritual fulfilment his desire is at last fulfilled. He is no longer hungry when his disciples return with food.

The Samaritan woman is the classic submissive resister flirt stereotype adapted for a bit of serious theology.

And there was Mary sitting at Jesus' feet, the perfect model of the Pastoralist's ideal woman learning silently and in full submission, no doubt with wide-adoring eyes making Jesus feel like the absolute bees knees -- 1 Timothy 2:11.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-13-2008, 06:57 AM	#2
Elijah Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: MidWest Posts: 1,894	Reasons that Jesus is considered pro-woman for me is that the Messiah (the Anointed King)was anointed by a woman. One of the few prophesies he made was that the Queen of the South would rise up and judge this adulterous generation so I think he had some female authority in mind. If Jesus is establishing a new covenant then it is really his mother Mary playing the part of Abraham sacrificing her child, not by leading him by the hand but by raising him to sacrifice himself. He wasn’t reconfirming a patriarchal model he was establishing a dead patriarchal model to give the people including the women their freedom. Lastly the women were the ones at the crucifixion; were the ones who told the apostles about the resurrection, but considering the times no surprise that the males were designated as witnesses to the event.

02-13-2008, 10:21 AM	#5
Julian Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark) Posts: 3,789	Hmmm, badly phrased by me. I was agreeing that it would do better in GRD, but we'll see...

02-13-2008, 12:30 PM	#7
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	It's weird. Lately, I've been coming here and been tempted to post. I go and do something else, come back, and Toto has said something absolutely spot on. Hey, maybe you guys should look at starting up rep points.:devil3:

02-13-2008, 01:28 PM	#9
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Ha - after that encomium you contradict me on the role of women The women are servants and mourners, but also students (Mary vs Martha, the favorite pericope of feminist theologians), and players in the drama - the Samaritan woman at the well. Jay Raskin has some interesting ideas about the status of women at this particular point in history. Perhaps he will stop by.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.