Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 07-29-2005, 12:22 PM

Previous thread on the question of whether Paul actually wrote that. . .

Xixax · 07-29-2005, 12:34 PM

Another take from the old cultic Xtianity I was involved in:

Quote:

Her hair style is again predicated upon the Word of God, which teaches her to let her hair grow uncut: "Is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering" (I Corinthians 11:13-15).

http://www.upci.org/doctrine/scriptures_modesty.asp

For more fun and amusing tidbits:

http://www.upci.org/doctrine/

Jenn6162 · 07-30-2005, 08:33 AM

Another thing I should repent for, I guess. I would say the we are under an age of grace, so it would be like any number of things I do that are outside of the will of God. That being said it is not a requirement for salvation, all are sinners.

sharon45 · 07-30-2005, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenn6162

Another thing I should repent for, I guess. I would say the we are under an age of grace, so it would be like any number of things I do that are outside of the will of God. That being said it is not a requirement for salvation, all are sinners.

Neither is the belief in jesus a requirement for salvation. Instead, it is yet another thing to repent for.

Weltall · 07-30-2005, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenn6162

Another thing I should repent for, I guess.

Not to mention wearing clothes of more than one material, you evil heretic you. :Cheeky:

Quote:

That being said it is not a requirement for salvation, all are sinners.

And suddenly, the big, glaring problem I have with Christianity comes into focus...

Fortuna · 08-01-2005, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Neither is the belief in jesus a requirement for salvation. Instead, it is yet another thing to repent for.

What ? I thought that was required in at least many Christian sects. I think the Roman Caths might be an exception.

To stay on topic here, I'm wondering, what were the requirements for Jewish women in the local Synagogues ? Were they required at that time to wear head covering ?(It could be that Paul was just transferring over a Jewish requirement). Also, what about women in the temple at Jerusalem at that time ?

andrewcriddle · 08-01-2005, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fortuna

What ? I thought that was required in at least many Christian sects. I think the Roman Caths might be an exception.

To stay on topic here, I'm wondering, what were the requirements for Jewish women in the local Synagogues ? Were they required at that time to wear head covering ?(It could be that Paul was just transferring over a Jewish requirement). Also, what about women in the temple at Jerusalem at that time ?

Modest Jewish or Greek women at the time usually wore veils in public. Not only in temple or synagogue.

Andrew Criddle

Toto · 08-01-2005, 02:14 PM

There is a long commentary on 1 Corinthian's requirement of a head covering on a site in favor of women priests in the Catholic Church:

Quote:

If we analyse this passage, we find that Paul is really pleading for order and peace in the community. For that reason he does not want women to pray with their long hair hanging loose. But it is wrong to conclude from the text that Paul promulgated a law by which women of all times and in all cultures were required to wear a veil in Church.

This site also reprints Celibatarian Repression of Women by Uta Ranke-Heinemann, Chapter 9 from Eunuchs for Heaven

Quote:

. . .

Paul did not enjoin women to wear veils. He was alluding to a specific hairstyle affected by devout Jewish women and Pharisees in particular. ‘With her head uncovered’ was tantamount to saying ‘with her hair loose’ - the mark of a dissolute life. ‘Covering the head’ meant simply ‘doing one’s hair’, but Chrysostorn was not alone in misconstruing Paul here. In some countries, women may even today be compelled to borrow a hat or a veil before entering a church.

The heading ‘On the Veiling of Women’, a later addition found in many translations of I Corinthians 11, is equally erroneous. The passage refers to women’s coiffure. The respectable Jewish woman of Jesus’s day began by plaiting her hair and arranging the plaits atop a woolen cloth worn low over the eyes. Then came a headband and another small cloth over the plaits to hold them in place. Finally, the whole edifice was reinforced with a hair-net. The wife of the celebrated rabbi Akiba (d. 135) is reported to have sold her, plaits to finance her husband’s studies. This indicates that many women purchased a coiffure appropriate to their social status if not endowed by nature with sufficient hair of their own (v. H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, ‘Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch’, III, p. 427f.). The great sinner who dried Jesus’s feet with her hair was a woman whose loose hair betokened a loose way of life. By contrast, the Talmud mentions that a woman whose seven sons were high priests never went around, even at home, with her hair loose (ibid p. 430). If a woman could not dress her hair respectably, Paul argued, she might as well complete her disgrace by having her head shorn completely (I Cor 11: 6). At all events, he was referring to hair, not to veils or hats, and he was not the last to confuse fashions in dress with questions of respectability and morality.

Fortuna · 08-01-2005, 02:36 PM

Thanks Andrew. I'd like to have some sort of support for that if you dont mind. Not that I doubt you, but only for my own curiosity.

[edit - Note to Andrew - Found some passages from the Jer Talmud supporting the covering of the hair for Jewish women of approx that time period (would have applied to Pharissee families). Still interested in more sources though, the more the merrier !]

What I find very strange about this whole women and the early church stuff women being submissive in the church, etc, is that, just about 100 years later we have the Pliny-Trajan letter (independent and from a non-Christian source) with Pliny telling us that he learned about Christianity by extracting (I assume by some sort of duress) the information from 2 female deacons.

In gnostic circles we have Mary Magdeline considered as an apostle equivalent to or perhaps higher in stature than Peter.

A little later We have the popular Christian authored story of Paul and Thecla (with Thecla being disobedient to both her fiancee and father).

About this same time we have Perpetua being martyred and she is also disobeying the menfolk of her family to accept this martyrdom.

It seems clear that there must have been (at the least in some areas) women in teaching positions in the early Christian churches and women instories disobeying their menfolk to follow Christianity, not to mention groups writing of female apostles as authoritative teaching.(Gospel of Mary).

Something is amiss here.

Toto · 08-01-2005, 03:15 PM

If you put a few key terms into google, you find a lot of muslim sites that try to justify the veil or claim that women are in fact treated better in Islam.

e.g.

http://www.countercurrents.org/gender-gupta281003.htm

Quote:

In ancient times, Jewish women would go out in public in a full veil as well, as a bare head was considered "nudity" and the woman could be fined a serious amount (Numbers 5:18, Isaiah 3:17, II Maccabees 4:6, Sus. 32). A man could even divorce his wife if she was found bareheaded in public.

http://www.themodernreligion.com/wom...ison_full2.htm

Quote:

According to Rabbi Dr. Menachem M. Brayer (Professor of Biblical Literature at Yeshiva University) in his book 'The Jewish woman in Rabbinic literature', it was the custom of Jewish women to go out in public with a head covering which, sometimes, even covered the whole face leaving one eye free [22]. He quotes some famous ancient Rabbis saying,"It is not like the daughters of Israel to walk out with heads uncovered" and "Cursed be the man who lets the hair of his wife be seen....a woman who exposes her hair for self-adornment brings poverty."

Rabbinic law forbids the recitation of blessings or prayers in the presence of a bareheaded married woman since uncovering the woman's hair is considered "nudity".77

Dr. Brayer also mentions that "During the Tannaitic period the Jewish woman's failure to cover her head was considered an affront to her modesty. When her head was uncovered she might be fined four hundred zuzim for this offense." Dr. Brayer also explains that veil of the Jewish woman was not always considered a sign of modesty. Sometimes, the veil symbolized a state of distinction and luxury rather than modesty. The veil personified the dignity and superiority of noble women. It also represented a woman's inaccessibility as a sanctified possession of her husband. 78 It is clear in the Old Testament that uncovering a woman's head was a great disgrace and that's why the priest had to uncover the suspected adulteress in her trial by ordeal (Numbers 5:16-18).

The veil signified a woman's self-respect and social status. Women of lower classes would often wear the veil to give the impression of a higher standing. The fact that the veil was the sign of nobility was the reason why prostitutes were not permitted to cover their hair in the old Jewish society. However, prostitutes often wore a special headscarf in order to look respectable. 79 Jewish women in Europe continued to wear veils until the nineteenth century when their lives became more intermingled with the surrounding secular culture. The external pressures of the European life in the nineteenth century forced many of them to go out bare-headed. Some Jewish women found it more convenient to replace their traditional veil with a wig as another form of hair covering. Today, most pious Jewish women do not cover their hair except in the synagogue. 80 Some of them, such as the Hasidic sects, still use the wig. 81

08-01-2005, 02:36 PM	#19
Fortuna Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Ohio Posts: 293	Thanks Andrew Thanks Andrew. I'd like to have some sort of support for that if you dont mind. Not that I doubt you, but only for my own curiosity. [edit - Note to Andrew - Found some passages from the Jer Talmud supporting the covering of the hair for Jewish women of approx that time period (would have applied to Pharissee families). Still interested in more sources though, the more the merrier !] What I find very strange about this whole women and the early church stuff women being submissive in the church, etc, is that, just about 100 years later we have the Pliny-Trajan letter (independent and from a non-Christian source) with Pliny telling us that he learned about Christianity by extracting (I assume by some sort of duress) the information from 2 female deacons. In gnostic circles we have Mary Magdeline considered as an apostle equivalent to or perhaps higher in stature than Peter. A little later We have the popular Christian authored story of Paul and Thecla (with Thecla being disobedient to both her fiancee and father). About this same time we have Perpetua being martyred and she is also disobeying the menfolk of her family to accept this martyrdom. It seems clear that there must have been (at the least in some areas) women in teaching positions in the early Christian churches and women instories disobeying their menfolk to follow Christianity, not to mention groups writing of female apostles as authoritative teaching.(Gospel of Mary). Something is amiss here.

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

07-29-2005, 12:22 PM	#11
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Previous thread on the question of whether Paul actually wrote that. . .

07-30-2005, 08:33 AM	#13
Jenn6162 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Georgia Posts: 517	Another thing I should repent for, I guess. I would say the we are under an age of grace, so it would be like any number of things I do that are outside of the will of God. That being said it is not a requirement for salvation, all are sinners.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.