Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 10-02-2007, 10:17 AM

Hi Mountain Man,

You do put forward good points to keep in mind.

Sexist writings fit in at almost any time in the ancient world, but there are also some periods where opposing tendencies are seen. For example, at the beginning of the end of the B.C.E. and beginning of the C.E period, Augustus Caesar passed laws giving women wealth and property rights equal to men. Given the differences in average longevity, it was not long before women, mainly widows, acquired a great deal of wealth and power throughout the Roman Empire. Starting with the Second century, there seems to have been a strong backlash to this. I am thinking of the satires of Juvenal which deal with this issue and portray wealthy and powerful women in unflattering terms.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

There is no outside reference to time or historical events in these arguments. However, we may suspect that Marcion, who had a reputation for hating women, was the one who made the changes. If this is true, it is ironic that women have been oppressed in the Catholic Church for some 1800 years, not because of the ideas of the original Pauline epistle writer, but because of the ideas of the heretic Marcion whose version of this epistle was largely accepted by the Church establishment because it reflected there own sexist feelings. Even here we have to be careful, it could have been Tertullian or someone else who made the changes.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

We have no evidence aside from the assertions contained in
the literary and historical (?) wrapping of the new testament
writings, specifically including Paul, that this supression did
not in fact commence when the New Testament was first
officially published, on a lavish and imperial scale.

That there was any "church establishment" before the
makeover of the Graeco-Roman empire when the basilicas
went up all over it, remains a conjecture without any
archaeological support, setting aside for the moment the
purported (1920's) "house-church" of Dura-Europa.

If in fact studies are to be done on these "sexist feelings",
and I have seen a number of these, for example, there is
an article concerning the presence of women's voices in
the papyri record at Oxyrynchus, and other sites, then
it is important to get the chronology correct.

Typically Roman is this issue, in that, aside from a few
rare examples, the "barbarian tribes" surrounding the
empire, such as the Celts of Briton, Gaul and Germany,
left records that women warrior-chieftans were well
regarded, if the archaeological studies of their burial
sites are to be allowed to speak.

The pre-Roman Greek culture admitted women philosophers
and the names of "pythagoraeans" and lists of the same
show a good percentage of women represented.

Ancient history of course admits the textual criticism
and analysis of all documents and texts tendered under
the strand of the literature tradition, but it also must
search all other evidentiary-bearing fields for data so
as to show a consistency over many fields of modern
archaeological field research.

Should I have to note that "sexist feelings" are simply
another form of intolerance and persecution. We must
ask ourselves when in the chronology of the Roman
empire of antiquity, did persecution at the level of
the Pontifex Maximus first commence?

Clearly, only in the fourth century, with effect from
the "Council" of Antioch, 325 CE.

Sometimes the true solution to puzzles of history is
not the one we would personally choose. We all like
to think that our history is constructed from "the good"
but this may not necessarily be the case.

We should be prepared to follow the evidence
wherever that may ultimately lead us.

Best wishes,

Pete

Toto · 10-02-2007, 10:33 AM

What became of God the Mother? by Elaine Pagels. I can't access this, but this is from a Google cache of what might be that article:

Quote:

Irenaeus, an orthodox bishop, for example, notes with dismay that women in particular are attracted to heretical groups—especially to Marcus's circle, in which prayers are offered to the Mother in her aspects as Silence, Grace, and Wisdom; women priests serve the eucharist together with men; and women also speak as prophets, uttering to the whole community what "the Spirit" reveals to them.(33) Professing himself to be at a loss to understand the attraction that Marcus's group holds, he offers only one explanation: that Marcus himself is a diabolically successful seducer, a magician who compounds special aphrodisiacs to "deceive, victimize, and defile" these "many foolish women!" Whether his accusation has any factual basis is difficult, probably impossible, to ascertain. Nevertheless, the historian notes that accusations of sexual license are a stock-in-trade of polemical arguments.(34) The bishop refuses to admit the possibility that the group might attract Christians—especially women—for sound and comprehensible reasons. While expressing his own moral outrage, Tertullian, another "father of the church," reveals his fundamental desire to keep women out of religion: "These heretical women—how audacious they are! They have no modesty: they are bold enough to teach, to engage in argument, to enact exorcisms, to undertake cures, and, it may be, even to baptize!"(35) Tertullian directs yet another attack against "that viper"—a woman teacher who led a congregation in North Africa.(36) Marcion had, in fact, scandalized his "orthodox" contemporaries by appointing women on an equal basis with men as priests and bishops among his congregations.(37)

...

33. AH, 1.13.7.
34. Ibid., 1.13.2-5.
35. Tertullian, De Praescriptione Haereticorum (hereafter cited as DP), ed. E. Oethler (Lipsius, 1853-54), p. 41.
36. De Baptismo 1. I am grateful to Cyril Richardson for calling my attention to this passage and to the three subsequent ones.
37. Epiphanes, De Baptismo, 42.5.

andrewcriddle · 10-02-2007, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Casper, Dog-on,

I was thinking of the things Clement of Alexandria says about Marcion in book three of his Miscellanies. He says that Marcion thought that not only marriage but the work of women -- birth -- was evil. That strikes me as extremely harsh.

In a weird sort of way the idea that marriage intercourse pregnancy birth etc are evil can be liberating to (some) women.

It means that they are not supposed to stay home and have kids and can be regarded as honorary males and get to do some of the things traditionally reserved to males.

It is not on the whole IMO a positive view of women and certainly not a positive view of the feminine but it does have some compensations.

Andrew Criddle

Toto · 10-02-2007, 10:43 AM

Marcion is sometimes accused of anti-Semitism or anti-Judaism, but R. Joseph Hoffman has defended him of this charge: he says that Marcion believed in respecting Judaism as a separate religion, rather than just the forerunner of Christianity whose scriptures could be (mis)appropriated to prove that Jesus was Christ.

Could there be something similar here? Marcion despised the female role in his society, of getting married and bearing children. This might well attract women who did not want to get married and become baby machines.

eta: cross posted with Andrew Criddle.

DCHindley · 10-02-2007, 06:55 PM

Well, there is a very simple argument at the heart of this, IMHO:

CHAPTER 11

ORIGINAL: 1a Be imitators of me, 1b [...]. 2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. 3a But I want you to understand that the head of every man 3b [...], 3c <displaced> 3d [...] 3e is God.3c but the head of a woman is her husband, 4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5a but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head-- 5b - 10 [...]. 11 Nevertheless, in (the) LORD a woman is not independent of a man nor a man independent of a woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. 13 Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

The stuff that seems to confuse the issue is this:

1b as I am of Christ 3b is Christ 3d and the head of Christ 5b it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels 14 Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride? For her hair is given to her for a covering

The latter line(s) of argument ignores Jewish traditions that look kindly upon Nazirite vows, which include not cutting the hair for the duration, and such legendary figures as Sampson. This also seems, IMO, to be some sort of reaction to Queen Helena of Adiabene's attempt to fulfill a Nazirite vow. There are a couple other reasons for grouping this line of reasoning together, principally the use of QEOS without a definie article in vs 7, contrasted to the word in vss 3, 12 & 16, where it takes the definite article.

Unfortunately, in my hypothesis, any redactor wrote after the war, which is incongruent with the Queen Helena suggestion. Such a reaction would be more likely to come from the origional Paul.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi DCHindley,

I do not believe that 1Cor 11.6 is a reference to anything outside itself. It is a part of a logical argument. Unfortunately, an editor mixed together two arguments at this point in the text to create one gobbly-gook/nonsensical argument. However, we may simply reconstruct the original arguments with some confidence by separating the one argument into its original two separate component arguments. We may call one argument the "Hair/Covering Argument" and the other argument "the Man/Woman-Authority Argument"

Here is the full text of the two arguments as they appear now. The first argument is in blue and the second in red.

3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.
5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.
6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.
7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;
9 for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake.
10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.
12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.
13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,
15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

Here are the two arguments separated into their original component parts
First the Man/Woman-Authority Argument
3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;
9 for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake.
11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.
12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.

Here is the Hair-Covering Argument

4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.
5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.
6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.
7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,
15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

First, note that when restored in this fashion, the first argument makes perfect sense. It is strictly an argument for the equality of Women and Men within the Church. Because it is a clear demand for equality of women and men, we may assume that someone who did not care for this idea of women and man having equality in the Church rearranged the text to obscure the meaning.

We still do not have a second argument that makes sense. This requires simply rearranging a few lines. It is obvious that the argument begins with line 13 which states the argument clearly:

13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,
15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.
5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.
6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.
7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

This is closer, but the message is still gobbley-gook. A few words still need to be changed in order for it to make sense. I have put the original words in yellow.

13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,
15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.
5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces not her head, for she is one and the same as the womanman whose head is shaved.
6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a [woman to have her] man to have his hair cut off or [her] his head shaved, let her cover her head.
7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. her head uncovered. Because it is a symbol of authority on her head like the wings on an angel.

The original writer argued for women to be allowed to pray with their heads uncovered by a veil and for for the equality of woman. The editor was offended apparently by both these ideas. He mixed and changed the arguments to get the gobbly-gook nonsense we now have.

There is no outside reference to time or historical events in these arguments. However, we may suspect that Marcion, who had a reputation for hating women, was the one who made the changes. If this is true, it is ironic that women have been oppressed in the Catholic Church for some 1800 years, not because of the ideas of the original Pauline epistle writer, but because of the ideas of the heretic Marcion whose version of this epistle was largely accepted by the Church establishment because it reflected there own sexist feelings. Even here we have to be careful, it could have been Tertullian or someone else who made the changes.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

spamandham · 10-02-2007, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

While looking at web sites the other day, here is a web page with a summary of the discussion on this matter at the March, 1967 meeting of the ...

I suppose I did imply that there was NOTHING that could be isolated as likely pre-Marcion, but that wasn't my intent. I guess I'm trying to understand what portions of those letters were most likely written when. Thanks for your input.

Julian · 10-03-2007, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

I was thinking of the things Clement of Alexandria says about Marcion in book three of his Miscellanies. He says that Marcion thought that not only marriage but the work of women -- birth -- was evil. That strikes me as extremely harsh.

On the other hand there is, as I recall, some text from Tertullian that says that his group allowed women to baptize. I would be surprised by this. I wonder if it could have been something the texts says simply to charge Marcion with hypocrisy, as opposed it being a fact.

I am not sure that I understand the issue here. Marcion would oppose childbirth because it deals explicitly with this world, with matter, with evil existence here on Earth. It is no surprise that he would be opposed to birth. Clement describes exactly why Marcion doesn't like it and I don't think that Clement's description is anything other accurate. This doesn't mean that Marcion would be hostile towards women, just the idea of making more of them (and men, for that matter). Why would it? Am I missing something here?

Julian

dog-on · 10-04-2007, 01:08 AM

From what I have read on the subject of the Marcionites, they were supposedly celibate.

(Of course, such a policy wouldn't bode well for the expansion of your church via generational means...

). They seem to have believed in the immanent arrival of the Christ (not his second coming, but rather his first). Most of these ideas can be found in Paul, (strangely enough ...

)...

PhilosopherJay · 10-04-2007, 08:56 AM

Hi Julian,

In ancient Rome, women were generally considered inferior to men both physically and intellectually. Women were honored mainly for one thing: their ability to give birth. Infant and mother mortality rates were quite high. A woman might give birth to eight children only to find that six of them would die before reaching adulthood. Underpopulation was a constant problem; without strong women giving birth to healthy children, family lines would die out, and the entire structure of the society would be undermined.
Thus, surviving birth and having healthy children was considered the most excellent virtue of a woman. Women giving birth was the one thing absolutely necessary for the continued health and survival of Rome that men could not do and women did do.

Marcion picks the one thing that women are most honored for in his society and attacks it as a fundamental evil. It is an attack on Greco-Roman society for sure, but it also can be seen as an attack against women.

To find an analogy in modern times, one may look at Georg Orwell's satirical novel, "Animal Farm." It is the pigs who start out calling for animals' equality with humans who are portrayed as the fundamental evil in the world. The attack in the book is not against those who call for inequally, but only against those who call for equality. Orwell's book was clearly intended as an attack specifically aimed against socialists and communists who consistently promote equality among peoples.

In the same way, one may take Marcion's attack against childbirth as a direct attack against women, since they are the only sex that gives birth. Marcion does not attack what were considered male virtues -- fighting wars, for example. So we can't take it as simply an attack on Greco-Roman culture.

In theory, women afraid of childbirth might embrace it, but in reality I tend to think that practically all women would have been deeply offended and outraged by it, and that only the most misogynist men would have supported it.

One can well imagine that it was the wealthy widows, who apparently funded the expansion of Christianity in the mid-late Second century, who forced the Marcionites out of positions of power in the Christian churches, and forced it to adopt conservative matronly Greco-Roman values as the norm and desired ones.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

I was thinking of the things Clement of Alexandria says about Marcion in book three of his Miscellanies. He says that Marcion thought that not only marriage but the work of women -- birth -- was evil. That strikes me as extremely harsh.

On the other hand there is, as I recall, some text from Tertullian that says that his group allowed women to baptize. I would be surprised by this. I wonder if it could have been something the texts says simply to charge Marcion with hypocrisy, as opposed it being a fact.

I am not sure that I understand the issue here. Marcion would oppose childbirth because it deals explicitly with this world, with matter, with evil existence here on Earth. It is no surprise that he would be opposed to birth. Clement describes exactly why Marcion doesn't like it and I don't think that Clement's description is anything other accurate. This doesn't mean that Marcion would be hostile towards women, just the idea of making more of them (and men, for that matter). Why would it? Am I missing something here?

Julian

Toto · 10-04-2007, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Julian,

In ancient Rome, women were generally considered inferior to men both physically and intellectually. Women were honored mainly for one thing: their ability to give birth. ....

Marcion picks the one thing that women are most honored for in his society and attacks it as a fundamental evil. It is an attack on Greco-Roman society for sure, but it also can be seen as an attack against women.

In the same way, one may take Marcion's attack against childbirth as a direct attack against women, since they are the only sex that gives birth. Marcion does not attack what were considered male virtues -- fighting wars, for example. So we can't take it as simply an attack on Greco-Roman culture.

In theory, women afraid of childbirth might embrace it, but in reality I tend to think that practically all women would have been deeply offended and outraged by it, and that only the most misogynist men would have supported it.

This doesn't seem to jive with what I have read about social customs in the urban Roman Empire, and I don't think you are thinking like a woman in the Roman Empire. Women were sometimes forced to have abortions (which were dangerous in those days), and unwanted offspring were abandoned. Roman women were valued for their beauty as well as their fecundity. A woman might be attracted to Marcion's philosophy for a variety of reasons - avoiding the role of a wife, avoiding sex, pregnancy and the dangers of giving birth.

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

10-02-2007, 10:43 AM	#24
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Marcion is sometimes accused of anti-Semitism or anti-Judaism, but R. Joseph Hoffman has defended him of this charge: he says that Marcion believed in respecting Judaism as a separate religion, rather than just the forerunner of Christianity whose scriptures could be (mis)appropriated to prove that Jesus was Christ. Could there be something similar here? Marcion despised the female role in his society, of getting married and bearing children. This might well attract women who did not want to get married and become baby machines. eta: cross posted with Andrew Criddle.

10-04-2007, 01:08 AM	#28
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	From what I have read on the subject of the Marcionites, they were supposedly celibate. (Of course, such a policy wouldn't bode well for the expansion of your church via generational means... ). They seem to have believed in the immanent arrival of the Christ (not his second coming, but rather his first). Most of these ideas can be found in Paul, (strangely enough ... )...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.