An Insult to the Ladies

[NiceCupOfTea]

They are the "Pastoral Letters". Their structure, vocabulary and grammar indicate a separate author (again, academically and scientifically).

thats what some scholars tell us, its probable but i dont believe writing is a science so its no 100% IMO.

 

[seattlegal]

In this (thread's) case, depending upon one's gullibility, one might almost get the impression that the misogynistic Paul had fallen under the influence of Jews and had been repeating, with them, the prayer: "Blessed are you, Hashem, King of the Universe, for not having made me a woman."

When Saul (aka Paul) read that in his Siddur (given to him by his great uncle at Bar-Mitzvah, as recorded in Christianity's oral tradition), he must have said a hearty "amen" and paid no mind to the explanatory footnotes in his Artscroll Edition.


Serv

Greeks were just as bad:

But Hermippus, in his Lives, refers to Thales what has been by some people reported of Socrates; for he recites that he used to say that he thanked fortune for three things: first of all, that he had been born a man and not a beast; secondly, that he was a man and not a woman; and thirdly, that he was a Greek and not a barbarian.
​

-source-

 

[Servetus]

As you mention below, this prayer can be interpreted as either misogynistic or its exact opposite, depending upon its purpose and the depth of thought you put into it. Do you find Jewish people to be misogynistic on the whole or not? That should put the prayer into perspective. If Paul's later writers misunderstood the prayer, then I could follow your line of reasoning. It still remains then to determine why Paul was or wasn't misogynistic, whether later writers were or what.

Have we already determined that Paul was definitely a misogynist, and do we know for a fact that Artscroll is?

Sorry, Dream, I should have put my entire post within [tongue-in-cheek brackets]. Paul could not have had an Artscroll Edition. My point is that, before Ben Masada tries to remove the sliver from the eye of Christianity, he should first remove the beam from that of Judaism. On this latter point, there are plenty of Jewish feminists and others who would argue that Judaism, traditionally, is misogynistic to the core and that this above-referenced prayer, though apparently no longer much in use, is a case in point.


Serv

 

[radarmark]

thats what some scholars tell us, its probable but i dont believe writing is a science so its no 100% IMO.

Fine, that is your opinion (that is not certain Paul wrote the Pastoal Letters). What I said (that Dream was referring to was:

"No one seriously believes Paul wrote Hebrews. It is (academically and scientifically) doubtful Paul wrote 1 or 2 Timothy or Titus. It is more likely that he wrote Colossians, Epheisans, 2 Thessalonians. The other seven are very likely authored by his hand."

So, I never said "100%" (which you imply). Hebrews has been questioned since before the Vulgate was written (even most Catholics realize that this is not the person who wrote those other 7). Say Colossians, Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians are all over 50% likely. Then the Pastoral Letters (in my opinion based on the linguistic analysis, not foolproof but pretty scientific) are somewher between 0 and 50% likel;y to have been authored by Paul. Is that better?

 

[seattlegal]

Early Christianity started within cultures that were heavily misogynistic--Greeks, Romans, and Jews all have their fair share to go around. Paul started out persecuting the Jewish Christians, then converted, then went out to the Greeks and Romans. There were plenty of cultural clashes between the Jewish and Gentile Christians regarding circumcision, diet, etc, to manage. However, misogyny was something ingrained in all these cultures at the time. The Jews might see Paul's admonishment to not rush into marriage as being misogynist. However, in his later letter to Titus, he told widowed women to remarry, so as not to be a burden on the congregation.

I'm sure Paul had his hands full with all the culture clashes not related to misogyny. It's quite possible that the Christian congregations might have been even more vulnerable to persecution from the surrounding non-Christian cultures if equality to women was granted to Christian women. I'm sure the surrounding cultures would have a negative reaction to a movement that made women "uppitty." {As can be demonstrated by the gouging out of female teachers in the artwork depicted in Ahanu's above post.}

 

[radarmark]

Misogyny would have never been considered a cultural clash. Of that you are (jmho) likely 100% spot-on.

 

[Servetus]

Greeks were just as bad:

But Hermippus, in his Lives, refers to Thales what has been by some people reported of Socrates; for he recites that he used to say that he thanked fortune for three things: first of all, that he had been born a man and not a beast; secondly, that he was a man and not a woman; and thirdly, that he was a Greek and not a barbarian.
​

-source-

OMG! Thales must have attended synagogue and adapted the prayer for the Greeks. With tongue-in-cheek mode still on, I can think of no other conclusion to be drawn.

Serv

 

[bananabrain]

one might almost get the impression that the misogynistic Paul had fallen under the influence of Jews and had been repeating, with them, the prayer: "Blessed are you, Hashem, King of the Universe, for not having made me a woman."

what dream said, serv. i say this blessing every morning as i put my wedding ring on. does that make me a misogynist? honestly, we ought to have come along some way since we insisted on viewing every nuance of religion from the perspective of an andrea dworkin. i've had the redoubtable mrs bananabrain's view on this, which was more or less "i can sympathise - i could certainly do without the biological inconveniences!"

the traditional point, however, would be that as women are not bound to obligatory observances in "positive, time-bound" commandments, they consequently have less mitzvot they are commanded to fulfil and those of us who have those obligations therefore feel happy that these are incumbent upon us. it's not "we're fab and girls are rubbish".

on the other hand, i am no fan of artscroll and i think the haredi context from which they emanate *is* somewhat misogynistic, but obviously plenty of haredi women would refute this view.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Servetus]

what dream said, serv. i say this blessing every morning as i put my wedding ring on. does that make me a misogynist? honestly, we ought to have come along some way since we insisted on viewing every nuance of religion from the perspective of an andrea dworkin. i've had the redoubtable mrs bananabrain's view on this, which was more or less "i can sympathise - i could certainly do without the biological inconveniences!"

the traditional point, however, would be that as women are not bound to obligatory observances in "positive, time-bound" commandments, they consequently have less mitzvot they are commanded to fulfil and those of us who have those obligations therefore feel happy that these are incumbent upon us. it's not "we're fab and girls are rubbish".

on the other hand, i am no fan of artscroll and i think the haredi context from which they emanate *is* somewhat misogynistic, but obviously plenty of haredi women would refute this view.

Cheers, bananabrain, and you are two steps before me out the gate. I was going to add another apology to Dream for not having answered his question more directly by saying that not only do I, personally, not consider Judaism in the main (and traditionally) misogynistic, at least when Genesis is both read and explained esoterically, but neither do I consider St. Paul, by extension, a misogynist. Of the many credos of modernism which I have learned to summarily reject, the one which necessarily equates patriarchy to oppression of women ranks high among them, despite my appreciation of Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale.

Again, thanks for checking in and for clarifying. By the way, this morning I awoke with a profound sense of gratitude and thanked my lucky stars for my not having been born a Jebusite, a Hittite, an Amorite, a Socialite or a Bud Light. Tomorrow, as more things come to mind, I plan to add to that list.

Best regards,


Serv

 

[Dream]

Sorry, Dream, I should have put my entire post within [tongue-in-cheek brackets]....

I should have caught the humor in that, and I would not survive 10 seconds far from my native environment.

 

[Ben Masada]

I'd say Paul was probably gay. We know he didn't have anything good to say about women, them not being able to speak in church and all. Patriarchal society quite common. But his constant torment about his sinful condition, his flesh being weak....he longed for men and understood wrongly the scripture to be against it.

The problem is aggravated by the fact that Paul was raised as a Hellenistic Jew whose morality had been too loose, as it was common among the Hellenists. When he found out in the Law that homosexuality was sinful, to use his own words, "the commandment that should have led to life brough me death." (Rom. 7:10)

But why it should have brough him death, couldn't he quit that Hellenistic lifestyle? No, he himself confessed to be a slave of the law of sin in his members. (Rom. 7:23) Then, he saw no other solution but to accommodate the servitude to the Law of God in his mind with the law of sin in his flesh. (Rom. 7:25)

By living thus, Paul proved that he could serve two masters for his lack of power. No wonder he would consider himself a wretched man for having to live under that power of death. (Rom. 7:24)

Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

What do you think that sin that tormented him so was? Two Bachelors preaching at a church?? Ran out of town??

At a church!!! They were preaching at a Jewish synagogue in Antioch. They were the Jews along with the women who expelled Paul and Barnabas out of the town. Perhaps they would not have been chased out if it was a church, considering how Hellenistic the Church is. (Acts 13:50)
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

I hear this accusation from time to time, but it is just a pop cultural accusation. 7:26 explains that he was answering questions about distressed times. You'll find many groups that do mistakenly think he hated marriage, however. Should you blame the misunderstanding upon Paul though as if he were purposely teaching those things? I don't think that is the best course of action and would suggest clarification instead.

7:26 of what book?

Paul (Saul) said 7:1 that he was responding to questions, and those questions (I think) stemmed from confusion about how to implement Deuteronomy 24:5. The confusion was that Moses law taught Jewish men not to get married if their own lives were in danger or they were going to war; but otherwise they were required to marry.

7:1 of what book? And for Deuteronomy 24:5, there is nowhere where Moses taught Jewish men should not get married if their own lives were in danger. On the contrary, as a bonus, so to speak, to implement marriage, the newlywed youngman did not have even to go out on a military expedition, nor should any public duty be imposed on him for a whole year so that he could attend to his family and bring joy to his wife.

The problem was that these Christians found themselves to be borderline cases. You have to read all of Paul's answers to properly interpolate what their questions were, but these were men living outside of Israel and under Roman rule, possibly under political scrutiny or even haranguing.

As being Jewish was concerned, there was no difference between living in Israel or abroad. Today it might be different but not at that time.

Perhaps they were not Jewish either.

The text says that they were Jewish. So, you don't have to assume they were not.

His instructions were an answer concerning their distressed times and whether to get married under those conditions!

No, they were not. He spoke in general. You are speculating.

If not in danger the law teaches they should get married, but if there is danger to the man he is not to marry.

Please, quote where the Law teaches not to get married in dangerous time.

We don't know what the degree of danger was for them. These Christians were not in Israel proper, however, and they were learning a concept called spiritual freedom -- one of the main topics of I Corinthians if not the main topic.

They were not Christians. The text says they were Jews. (Acts 13:50)

He is talking to them about that, not really focusing on marriage itself; and I note he also made no attempt to change the law or upstage it.

Read Hebrews 7:7,12. Paul teaches that with the change of Priesthood from the Levite to Jesus there was by necessity a change in the Law.

Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

In this (thread's) case, depending upon one's gullibility, one might almost get the impression that the misogynistic Paul had fallen under the influence of Jews and had been repeating, with them, the prayer: "Blessed are you, Hashem, King of the Universe, for not having made me a woman."

When Saul (aka Paul) read that in his Siddur (given to him by his great uncle at Bar-Mitzvah, as recorded in Christianity's oral tradition), he must have said a hearty "amen" and paid no mind to the explanatory footnotes in his Artscroll Edition.


Serv

That Jewish prayer of "Praising to God for not having made me a woman," has nothing to do with the reason why Paul intended to have women subjected. The Jewish reason was based on the fact that women were not liable to all the commandments in the Law, especially the positive ones, of "Thou shall..." IOW, women enjoyed a much wider margin of rights to use the concept of Pichuach Nephesh than men.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

Paul started out persecuting the Jewish Christians, then converted, then went out to the Greeks and Romans.

Paul, during his whole life never persecuted a single Christian. He used to persecute the members of the "New Way" aka the Sect of the Nazarenes, who were Jews and Jewish converted from the Gentiles. Read Acts 9:1,2.
Logically, one does not found a religion to persecute its adepts. Christians started with Paul in Antioch after a whole year that he spent there preaching about Jesus as Christ. Read Acts 11:26. That's where and when Christians were first called Christians.

Ben

 

[Dream]

7:26 of what book?

You quote from I Corinthians 7, so I refer to that chapter:: 7:1 and 7:26 shows Paul is answering questions about distressed times. You'll find many groups that do mistakenly think he hated marriage, but should you blame historical Paul that they misinterpreted him concerning letters written to specific, and now buried people?

And for Deuteronomy 24:5, there is nowhere where Moses taught Jewish men should not get married if their own lives were in danger. On the contrary, as a bonus, so to speak, to implement marriage, the newlywed youngman did not have even to go out on a military expedition, nor should any public duty be imposed on him for a whole year so that he could attend to his family and bring joy to his wife.

I'm not telling you how you ought to interpret it.

I think I am in agreement with both historical Paul and Jesus on this interpretation: Deuteronomy 24 appears to be about protecting women, slaves, poor people -- protecting the weak from strong unprincipled persons. This has immediate and important implications for Christians beyond figuring out whether Paul liked marriage. Verses 1-5 appear to have a theme of protecting women, and I don't see how Deut 24:5 could switch from that to *bonuses for men.* It lays out a legal responsibility of men toward their betrothed; also pointing to a responsibility upon society to encourage the keeping of that responsibility. The verse in question, Deut 24:5 mentions rejoicing with the wife, but most translations quote it as 'To cheer his wife'. This translates into not a legal but at least a moral responsibility for Christians.

I would interpret this law (so I think historical Paul interpreted) that if a man could not get married with expectation of taking care of his wife at least for 1 year of uninterrupted bliss, then by marrying her he was doing her a serious wrong deserving of a divorce. If he left during their first year or endangered himself purposely, he should automatically be required to pay divorce penalties and to grant her divorced status. That is the context in which Paul probably saw this law when he wrote I Corinthians 7, no insult to the ladies. I don't see why he would think it a passage about bonuses for men.

As being Jewish was concerned, there was no difference between living in Israel or abroad. Today it might be different but not at that time.

Ok, didn't know. They still were asking for clarification about marriage, implying it probably had to do with interpretation of the law.

The text says that they were Jewish. So, you don't have to assume they were not.

Thanks for saying that. They had asked him whether it was appropriate to get married under some circumstances. Well, there must have been some reason for them to ask. They weren't being ordered to war, but they also weren't under the best of circumstances.

Read Hebrews 7:7,12. Paul teaches that with the change of Priesthood from the Levite to Jesus there was by necessity a change in the Law.

I know that scholars are convinced in general Paul didn't write Hebrews. Since you are talking about a historical version of Paul, you can't blame him for Hebrews. Its useless in finding how he interpreted law. If you were discussing Paul as represented by all of the letters commonly attributed to him, then you'd have an interesting talking point about someone who wasn't historical but was an aggregate of writings and viewpoints.

 

[bananabrain]

not only do I, personally, not consider Judaism in the main (and traditionally) misogynistic, at least when Genesis is both read and explained esoterically, but neither do I consider St. Paul, by extension, a misogynist.

well, perhaps. he has always seemed like a bit of an idiot to me; not a chap with whom i feel i can do business, so to speak.

By the way, this morning I awoke with a profound sense of gratitude and thanked my lucky stars for my not having been born a Jebusite, a Hittite, an Amorite, a Socialite or a Bud Light. Tomorrow, as more things come to mind, I plan to add to that list.

hehe. you might include a "gobsh*te" and a coprolite.

As being Jewish was concerned, there was no difference between living in Israel or abroad. Today it might be different but not at that time.

what? of course it was different. all the agricultural laws and the Temple sacrifices were in operation.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Servetus]

(Bananabrain, please plug your ears. I am having to respond to Ben Masada who sometimes prefers kick boxing as much as tennis.)

That Jewish prayer of "Praising to God for not having made me a woman," has nothing to do with the reason why Paul intended to have women subjected.

Whatev'r. I did notice, the one and only time I was ever in a synagogue in Safed (or for that matter anywhere), that, almost as if an invisible St. Paul had been present and barked a few commands about, not only were the women "silent," they were in purdah, segregated, in a cage, at the back of the bus, correction, synagogue, not making a peep ...

The Jewish reason ...

You have consistently argued that St. Paul was a Hellenist. In that case, why would he have been providing a Jewish rationale for anything? Why does it matter what the Jewish reason is? Furthermore, I ask again, if St. Paul were as much the Hellenist as you seem to suggest, and if he were gay, it seems to me that, instead of being aghast by, he would have been preaching the virtues of Zeus's infatuation (to the point of rape) with the boy, Ganymede. That was the Grecian norm. In case you haven't noticed, St.Paul apparently sided with Moses against Zeus, in spite of his telling women to remain widows, or whatever his advice under the circumstances was. It seems to me that, far from "Hellenizing" the Jews or others, St. Paul "Judaized" the Hellenes, including the Romans, and the poor, hapless Europeans, who were the victims of his successful evangelizing efforts, are only now, after 2,000 pitiful years, crawling out from beneath the man's influence and are returning to some of the norms of their glorious, pagan past.

P.S. Parts of this post are written with my tongue still in cheek because, most of the time, it is stuck there anyway and these provocative posts of yours are especially inspiring in that regard. Plus, my mouth is dry -I have cotton mouth (not a reference to a snake).

The Jewish reason was based on the fact that women were not liable to all the commandments in the Law, especially the positive ones, of "Thou shall..." IOW, women enjoyed a much wider margin of rights to use the concept of Pichuach Nephesh than men.

If women are not liable to all of the positive commands of the law, they sure seem to have inherited a lot of the negative crap: especially as it relates to their magical, mysterious and apparently, at times, practically unforgiveable tendency to bleed during menses. Shall I copy a few select quotations from the Talmud and bring them forward as proof that St. Paul might, I emphasize might, have been better advised to take Barnabas as his catamite than to invite a menstruating woman to dinner at Spago's (to say nothing of getting too close to her under an apple tree with a talking snake entwined in its branches)? That, and although it would be a bit of a stretch, I could do.


Serv

 

[Servetus]

Addendum:

Furthermore, I ask again, if St. Paul were as much the Hellenist as you seem to suggest, and if he were gay, it seems to me that, instead of being aghast by, he would have been preaching the virtues of Zeus's infatuation (to the point of rape) with the boy, Ganymede. That was the Grecian norm ...

By the way, it's too late to edit now, but I wasn't meaning to suggest that gay people are in favor of pederasty (with my Zeus and Ganymede reference), minority organizations such as NAMBLA notwithstanding. I know far better than that. I would have been clearer, in my meaning, if I had omitted the reference to gay and simply said: "... if St. Paul were as much the Hellenist as you seem to suggest, it seems to me that, instead of being aghast ..."

Please, let that be understood.

Serv

 

[bananabrain]

I did notice, the one and only time I was ever in a synagogue in Safed (or for that matter anywhere), that, almost as if an invisible St. Paul had been present and barked a few commands about, not only were the women "silent," they were in purdah, segregated, in a cage, at the back of the bus, correction, synagogue, not making a peep ...

quite right too. in sephardic synagogues they are put properly out of the way behind a curtain where they can't tempt us poor men.

but seriously, folks, this is how i think it works. women, not being obliged to observe positive, time-bound commandments, need not engage in communal prayer, which is done at fixed times. men, on the other hand, do have this obligation and, while a woman is able to pray effectively as a solo act in whatever way most suits her, a man is obliged to pray in a minyan (prayer quorum) of ten. in short, there are virtually no reasons for a woman to come to synagogue at all. similarly, there are not that many reasons that a man would have to immerse in a miqweh or ritual bath. of course, there are those of both sexes that do things over and above their obligation. personally, i find it hard enough to concentrate on prayer at the best of times. i put my tallit (prayer shawl) over my head which reduces my peripheral vision; i do not want to be distracted by anything, this includes chatting about the footy just as much as it includes comparing one's handbags and, unfortunately, most people seem to have real difficulty keeping the yak down and i am a bit of a stickler for such things. if you want to talk, go somewhere else. if you want to hang out, make new friends and flirt - and many, many people meet their partners in synagogue! - then do it afterwards at the kiddush over a glass of whisky.

more to the point, i presume you wouldn't object to a "women's group" - such things are de rigueur in self-described "progressive" circles. well, a minyan is a "men's group" - it is a single-sex gathering for the purposes of shared male activity, not unlike a sports team; there is a different energy about a group of men than there is in a mixed group - and i've prayed in every type of group. what is so wrong with having one all-male environment? i have no objection, incidentally, to all-female prayer groups, although some - those which i would really consider to be somewhat hidebound and unreasonable - do. and for those who want to pray in mixed minyanim, they will do it regardless of my opinion and good luck to 'em.

what really screws up this debate is the idea (which in this case i believe is imported from christianity) that communal prayer is somehow the centre of judaism - it isn't. a community can survive without a shul, but not without a miqweh or without the other space that the woman controls, namely the jewish home. not for nothing is one's wife described in some sources as one's "home" (incidentally, the sages consider the marketplace and employment to be neutral) women are the guardians and guarantors of a jewish environment; what goes on in the prayer hall has far less importance than what goes on in one's house.

some of the norms of their glorious, pagan past.

harrumph. you see, this is where i would advise you to watch a few of the tv dramas set in ancient rome; dramatic impact apart, what an awful, corrupt, violent, sadistic and immoral society it emerges as by comparison with contemporary jewish society.

If women are not liable to all of the positive commands of the law, they sure seem to have inherited a lot of the negative crap

really, because women were *sooo* emancipated in both ancient greece and rome. there was nothing sexist about pagan society, was there? sheesh.

in fact, i would go so far as to say (and christianity is entitled to plenty of credit for this) that it was the jewish vision of society that is reflected in our modern liberal democracy; certainly universal family values do not reflect the life-and-death power of the graeco-roman paterfamilias.

Shall I copy a few select quotations from the Talmud and bring them forward as proof that St. Paul might, I emphasize might, have been better advised to take Barnabas as his catamite than to invite a menstruating woman to dinner at Spago's (to say nothing of getting too close to her under an apple tree with a talking snake entwined in its branches)? That, and although it would be a bit of a stretch, I could do.

if there are some questions you have about the laws of niddah, i've written a number of posts on the subject:

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/purity-core-of-religious-piety-12703.html#post225951

b'shalom

bananabrain