Vinnie

Helms puts icing on the cake on page 95:

Again we see Helms pulling interpretations of passages from thin air. Does he realize how ineptly Mark portrays Jesus' male disciples throughout? Does he understand the possible literary purpose of the ending of Mark's Gospel or is he just uncritically siezing any example where he can trump in his misogynist card?

The one good thing about reading this work is that I am done now (skimmed 30 of the last 50 pages).

Final review (short!): Some chunks of accurate mainline views inside but in many instances, Helms work provides a clear example of the difference between asssertion and argumention.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Helm's "absusing the MS" may have been a little strong as well on my part. The strong vocab on my part probably reflects the fact that I was taken back by what I saw as an uncritical treatment of the issue.

Vinnie

Toto

Helms is more provocative than thorough. But he seems to have touched a nerve with you, Vinnie.

I think it shows how hard you have to work to find a non-misogynist basis for your religion, and how threatening you find the idea that Christians might not be politically correct in their human relationships of all sorts. I don't want to undermine your idea that Christians should be egalitarian, but women did not have full equality in any ancient society, and the Bible reflects this.

I think that the relationship between misogyny and chastity is there, but it is not simple. It is laid out in Uta Ranke-Heinemann's Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven.

I don't have the time to go on right now. Maybe later.

Vinnie

Provocative is definately the word. I expected more from the book and I was dissapointed. I expected the latter but I got the former. Maybe its because I have been immersing myself in so much scholarly literature as of late? I'll be starting Koester's Ancient Christian Gospels tomorrow so that should get me back on track

I don't have to work hard for anything of the sort. I am egaltarian all the way. I could care less whether or not Peter, Paul, John, Frank or Santa Clause were egaltarian. Their stance is not going to change mine on this. Whether Mark shows this or not in the end of his Gospel has no direct bearing on my beliefs about this. Equality is beyond dispute for me. There is no disputing that racism is wrong or that making women inferior to men is wrong in my book. I assume such beliefs from the outset. They are beyond contestation.

I never said the Bible does not reflect this in various spots. I said that Helms' examples were very tenuous.

In some instances there may be a relationship but I hardly doubt it is a necessary component of "chastity". The link to each case needs to be established rather than assumed.


Vinnie