avi

I am one of those guilty of writing predictably critical views of palaeography. Sometimes I err, and sometimes I simply ignore evidence which disputes my pet theories and favorite superstitions.

This is an interesting article, which not only challenges my narrow minded view that palaeography ALWAYS yields a date earlier than 14Carbon dating does, but also supports another one of my favorite theses: that Christianity began as an essentially Jewish breakaway sect, i.e. unrelated to "Paul's" epistles, which are absent in the Garima Gospels. So, this interesting report, from June, 2010, is a two edged sword, repudiating one of my favorite hypotheses, while supporting another.

In summary, the oldest extant copy of the gospels in Ethiopia, has been "rediscovered" and restored. The date for these gospels, by 14Carbon, is 330-650 CE. The gospels were viewed by Julius Leroy in the 1960's, he gave a date of 1100, and other observers subsequently have assigned a date in the 7th or 8th century, point being, that 14Carbon dating yields a date earlier than other estimates, thus discrediting my pet theory about the true age of the oldest papyrus manuscripts, (P52, for example,) because I invariably claim, in posts to the forum, that the palaeographic analysis exaggerates the ostensible age of the document, by providing a date earlier than the genuine date of composition, in conformance with the investigators' religious bias.

The point which I found even more interesting, in reading this article, published last summer, concerns the question of gender in the nascent Christian church. It seems that the first western scholar to happen upon these ancient manuscripts, was forbidden to look at them, because she was not a he.

Last year, in 2010, the Ethiopians began construction of a more modern facility, to house these precious manuscripts, but, up until this past year NO FEMALE was allowed into the chapel to examine them. Think about the significance of that mentality for a moment...

This trait, segregating by gender, (and also denying access to the most sacred components of the temple,) represents a vestige of Judaism, having nothing to do with Christianity. Yet, this trait was perfectly preserved for two millenia, even into the 1990's, in this remote backwoods of Ethiopia. They denied entrance to Marilyn Heldman, for heaven's sake.

For those of us with an interest in the origins of Christianity, I think this compound in Ethiopia is a gold mine. By preserving customs preceding the era of Constantine, they have given us a museum storing character traits and sociological peculiarities, which are not available elsewhere.

How do we explain, for example, the fact that Constantine's mother rustled and hustled about, in absolute control, of the excavation, seeking the wooden cross, which is claimed to represent the one carried by JC, on his way up the hill? She ordered the destruction of a temple, and wandered about its catacombs as if she were the commanding general, irrespective of her gender, so clearly, from this example, women were NOT excluded by the Christians, under Constantine.

No, this is an EARLIER trait, one which preceded Constantine, one which represents the nascent Christian faith, emerging from the chrysalis of Judaism a century or more, before Constantine.

avi

Juststeve

Could being the mother of an Emperor make her a special case? Why not consider discrimination against women to be a vestige of Paul's teaching on related subjects?

Steve

avi

YES.

However, that is why I mentioned Marilyn Heldman, a world renowned expert on Ethiopian religion, i.e. another "special case".

I don't know what part of the Helena story is real, and what part fabricated, but, the point is, whether the story is real or fiction, either way, a female intruded into the inner sanctum of Hadrian's temple, and rummaged about, without anyone protesting, that we know of, or, if they did protest, I suppose she winked and nodded at one of the centurions guarding her, and that particular chaplain would have been en route to meet JC in person.

If you were in charge of propaganda, and you wished to PREVENT females from enjoying equal status with males, would you construct such an edifice in her honor as we find today at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome?

I don't think we would have done so, Steve, either of us. I also doubt that Constantine would have authorized the minting of coins in her honor, if women were to occupy an inferior place in Constantine's church. In my opinion, gender equality dates from Constantine, not before.

Then, what about Father Garima, of Palestine, who arrived in Ethiopia in late fifth century, bringing with him a copy of the four gospels, one hundred fifty years after Constantine? Isn't it curious, Steve, that he did not apparently have or duplicate, a copy of Paul's epistles?

Why?
a. Paul, Joe, Harry, Sam, Fred, lots of folks write letters, what's so special about Paul.....
b. He did possess a copy of Paul's letters, but didn't find them to be quite of the same weight as the four gospels;
c. He did not have them, therefore could not copy them.
d. He had them, and rejected them as either not in harmony with the gospels, else, not in harmony with contemporary thinking about the direction of Christianity, in Syria, at that time.

I don't know what Paul wrote about any subject, but I doubt that one needs Paul's writings to explain the prohibition against women entering a male only inner sanctum of a temple, mosque, or church. It is coming from Judaism. Paul is ostensibly a Jew, so, it would not surprise me to learn that his writing reflects his upbringing....

avi

Toto

I think things are a little more complicated. The status of women in the first few centuries CE in the Roman Empire was somewhat better than it had been, and better than it was in later times. Paul's letters, and to a lesser extent, the gospels, reflect a society where women had some economic independence, which they used to run businesses and explore new religions. The early church had female prophetesses, seers, and supporters.

[The restrictions on women speaking in church in Paul's letters are from the Pastorals, which most scholars ascribe to a later era in church history.]

The Empress Helena was only one of many influential women in the Roman Court. It is not at all surprizing that she would be as authoritative as a commanding general.

But then as the church solidified its grip, women's status seems to diminish. Marriage for the clergy was forbidden, women's sexuality was demonized, women's religious orders were segregated. The economic basis of the church shifted from wealthy widows to the state treasury.

This is based on my impressions from reading - but I'm reasonably sure that more research would confirm this.

The point is that keeping women out of the inner sanctum need not be a relic of ancient Judaism. It could be part of the reintroduction of male dominance that happened in later Christianity.

After all, the monasteries of Greece, such as the famous ones at Mount Athos, have been strictly off limits to women. I don't think you can blame that on the Jews.

Mount Athos Treasures On View To Women After 1,000 Years

avi

Thanks for sharing this opinion, much appreciated. Yes, I agree with your assessment of my conclusion, it is probably a bit exaggerated, I believe, but have no evidence, so, my opinions are all faith based!!!

I ask this, then, not to confront you, but out of profound ignorance: is there a passage, or group of passages from the four Gospels, to support the notion that women ought not enter the holiest regions of the shrine or temple or monastery or church or whatever one wishes to call it....?

Conversely, I cannot offer a passage from the Torah to support my perspective that this prohibition is based on Judaism. Again, I believe, but without evidence, on faith then, that Judaism, (at least historically) prohibited women (maybe still today, I don't know) from entering certain regions of the temple.

Would the ancient Greek monasteries have looked to the Jews for guidance on these matters? Would they have defied a Roman dictum to assure gender equality? Did the nunneries have a similar prohibition against males penetrating the cloistered areas?

Are you suggesting that the Muslims and Christians autonomously developed their own traditions of gender exclusion from entrance into religious buildings, i.e. without recognition that this was a tradition inherited from Judaism?

Did you know that, at least in USA, but, I suppose generally applicable too, or maybe not?, ordinary females were denied entry into taverns, even in the twentieth century, and compelled to use a separate entrance.

I think it all goes back to Judaism.

avi

rlogan

In Pliny's letter to Trajan in 112 CE he speaks of "Deaconesses", so this stands in contradiction to the hypothesis that early Christianity was dominated by Jewish wisdom on keeping the women down.

Toto

There are no passages from the gospels that support this sort of exclusion of women - but there are no passages in the gospels that say much about how a church would be organized, nothing that indicates that there would ever be a "holiest region" in a shrine, nothing that supports shrines. There is nothing in the gospels to support most church practices.

Judaism had many restrictions on women, due to cleanliness requirements.

No.

There were no such Roman dicta.

Male priests came into the nunneries to celebrate mass. But there were areas that were off limit to men.

I see no evidence that this tradition was inherited from Judaism. Most traditional societies have some sort of sexual segregation. The Greco-Roman culture of the time did not believe in gender equality.

Discrimination in public accomodations was outlawed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I am old enough to remember times when it was normal for women to be excluded from male clubs, along with Blacks, Jews, Italians, and others who were not male and WASP. There was some extensive litigation by civil rights groups to open up these clubs, on the grounds that they were more than just social clubs.

Why? Have you researched it? What would have made Jews so powerful?

Considering that early Christians were anti-Semitic and rejected Jewish law on dietary restrictions and other requirements, I don't see any reason for a Christian monastery in the 11th century to look to Jews on this question.

avi

1. My Latin is a trifle rusty, ok, it is non-existent!!!

How does one generate "which were called deaconesses", out of quae ministrae dicebantur?

2. Is there any challenge to the authenticity of this correspondence? What is the age of the oldest extant copy of this supposed correspondence?

The main point of this thread was intended to draw attention to the remarkable find in Ethiopia--> my own particular (aka peculiar) idea that gender discrimination of this magnitude is based on Judaism, not Christianity may well be incorrect, even if Pliny's correspondence is considered fake.

Assuming that it is NOT forgery, but genuine correspondence, I still don't quite agree with your conclusion, since I don't know how you obtained the notion of deaconess, diakonos, from the purported Latin text. Ministrae, so far as I understand, simply means servant, not church official. They could have been cleaning ladies, for all I understand, from the Latin.

Thanks for your question.

avi

avi

ok, fair enough. But, then, isn't it possible that we should look beyond the new testament for an explanation of the practices of the early church?

I think you do agree with me, that the earliest church practices were derived from Judaism, right?

So, the question is, at what point in time did the transition occur, such that one should assume, (since we apparently have no evidence one way or the other,) that from that point in time going forward, Jewish customs no longer represented a significant input into church affairs?

a. the little cap worn on the head by both the Catholics, and the Jews....
b. the ceremony in the synogogues and churches....
c. the principle of gender segregation...
d. the notion of dietary restrictions....
e. the ideas about sexual taboos...

I just don't believe that all these strange, little, idiosyncratic, customs arose independently in the Christian tradition. I believe that the Christians evolved their own customs and habits, but the origin of many of those traditions rests squarely with Judaism.

Allow me to offer a simple analogy: Americans often refer to a special Eastern board game, by its Japanese name: "Go".

The game of course, is played, relentlessly, in Japan. Indeed, one can find countless magazines and books on the subject at every railroad stop throughout the larger metropolises.

Few Americans understand, however, that this is not a Japanese game, at all. It is Chinese, imported by the Japanese, along with 90% of everything else we associate with Japan, from sword fighting to kimonos. Even the Japanese themselves, fail to acknowledge that the delicious Satsuma oranges come not from the famous region of Kyushu bearing that name, but from China.

I will be, frankly, astonished, if someone comes along, in this wonderful forum, and disproves my hypothesis, by producing any kind of evidence demonstrating that this gender discrimination fetish does not in fact, originate with the Jews.

avi

rlogan

My Latin is nonexistent too Avi -

This translation has it as "ministers", and what little logic I have says that is reasonable given the latin behind it.

http://www.kchanson.com/ancdocs/latin/pliny.html

I've seen it as "deaconesses" elsewhere but regardless, either way it is impossible to reconcile "Minister" or whatever with the alleged Paul saying that women should remain silent at church meetings. It's pretty hard to speak as a minister when you have to remain silent.

It could be that they allowed the women to speak and learned their lesson, eh? Heh. So Paul told them to STFU from now on. Next time we gave them a say they outlawed alcohol! Two thousand years and we never learn.

Seriously though of course given the Christian habit of forging/altering documents we should ask the same of the Pliny/Trajan correspondence.

It does not reflect the rabid apologetics by the hands of the likes of Eusebius of course as in the Testimonium Flavianum. If there is forgery, it is extremely odd because the forger's motivation in this case would seem to be contradicting the entire Catholic thesis of a historical Jesus set in the context of Pilate's reign.

In short, why forge a document contradicting yourself?

If it came from Marcionite circles then we have the problem of means and opportunity, since they did not have the authority of the State as Eusebius did. Here you have someone forging official State correspondence without the blessing of the Emperor. This has to be a crime of enormous gravity.

It does support the Marcionite/Gnostic viewpoint more so than the proto-catholic of course, so that is where you would find motive. There is no historical Jesus in this brand of Christianity discussed by Pliny.

But what are they doing? In Eusebius' forgeries, he waltzes in to the State Library with the Emperor Constantine's protection. A forgery from Marcionite circles is just too difficult for me to logically construct. Moreover, they never used this correspondence as they used the alleged letters of Paul.

When nobody is fronting the alleged forgery to back their theories, you have a hard time convincing me anybody took such effort with zero cause.

Eusebius very loudly quotes the Testimonium Flavianum, claiming that he's not saying any of it at all - why he's just innocently quoting the Jews themselves on Jesus.

Marcion used the fabricated Paul's letters in the same way. The whole point of forging is to USE the forgery. And who uses it? The forger!

Since nowhere in Marcionite/Gnostic circles is this correspondence used, nor in proto-catholic, those are not candidates for forgery.


Who would do such a thing and why then?