On the mid-Aegean coast of Turkey, half-way up the northern slope of the Bülbüldag and high above the excavations of ancient Ephesus, is a long, narrow shrine-cave. On your immediate right as you enter its 50-foot length is a fresco depicting a scene from the Acts of Thecla, a set of stories now preserved as Chapters 1-43 of the second-century Acts of Paul. (Google: "Early Christian Writings.")
Three characters are identified by name on that fresco. Paul is seated in the middle addressing Thecla to viewer left. She is a virgin -- hence unveiled -- but house-bound -- hence nubile. An elegantly veiled matron, her mother Theoclia, is to viewer right.
Both the right hands of Paul and of Theoclia are raised in identical authoritative teaching gestures. Since Paul lacks any halo, my inexpert opinion would date that fresco to the 400s.
We saw, with slavery in my previous post, that the de-radicalization and re-romanization of Paul was already well underway in those post-Pauline letters attributed to him. So also here with regard to gender. Those two women -- poised on either side of Paul -- represent two linked controversies which would change the radical Paul of Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon, first into the conservative Pseudo-Paul of Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians, then, finally, into the reactionary Anti-Paul of 1-2 Timothy and Titus.
Patriarchy. One controversy is represented by Theoclia to Paul's left. As noted above, her right hand was originally raised in a teaching gesture every bit as authoritative as that of Paul. But it was later both gouged out and burned off. Furthermore, since only her eyes are obliterated, that erasure was not just general iconoclasm but individual assault. She is represented, in other words, as a woman teaching with authority whose image is then effaced with prejudice. This is simply a visual image of that reactionary post-Pauline and anti-Pauline command that "no woman [is] to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent" (1 Timothy 2:12).
That is not, of course, the view of the historical Paul whose letter to the Christian communities of Rome was delivered -- that is, read and explained -- by a woman named Phoebe, an administrator of a house-church near Corinth (Romans 16:1-2). Neither is it the position of the historical Paul who described the woman Junia as "prominent among the apostles" (Romans 16:7) -- an "apostle" is somebody "sent" by God with authority to found new Christian communities.
Celibacy. The other controversy is represented by Thecla, to Paul's right. In the story of that scene from the Acts of Thecla, Paul is advocating celibate asceticism. Recall, for comparison, that his contemporary, the Jewish philosopher Philo, described women and men who lived similar lives in the desert outside Alexandria. Not, of course, because sex was evil in any way, but because they could not live lives of justice and equality in the midst of urban family pressures (On the Contemplative Life 1.2; 2.17; 9.70).
Thecla hears Paul's challenge and, at about thirteen years of age, she rejects her family-appointed suitor and any possibility of marriage. She refuses to be passed from the authority of one male -- her father -- to that of another male -- her husband. Thecla's option for virginal celibacy is a far more profound rejection of patriarchal power than that of Theoclia's claim to teaching authority.
Thecla, therefore, is condemned to beasts in the arena. But then something extraordinary happens. The crowd splits, not just between Christians -- for Thecla -- and Pagans -- against her. It splits between Women -- for her -- and Men -- against her. In fact, that story is not just early Christian feminism but early Christian femalism because a lioness protects her against a lion. And the Women confuse the animals' sense of smell by casting their perfumes into the arena.
In that cave-shrine scene, those two women, Thecla and Theoclia represent together the full legacy of Pauline radicalism which reactionary letters such as 1-2 Timothy and Titus seek rather desperately to cauterize and contain. Those anti-Pauline letters want Christian teachers to be male and not female (1 Timothy 2:8-15) but they also want those males to be normal not ascetic, married not celibate, and, to be absolutely sure, they want to see their children (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9).
The historical Paul is being pulled -- kicking and screaming -- away from Christianity's radical past and into Christianity's Roman future. As with owner and slave so also with male and female, hierarchies rejected by Christian radicality -- in, for example, Galatians 3:26-28 -- are being retrofitted into Roman normalcy. Once again, then, Constantine here we come.
John Dominic Crossan: The Search for the Historical Paul: How to Read The Letters of Paul
Matt J. Rossano: Did Secular Morality Shame Religion Into Condemning Slavery?
Greg Carey: Imagining the First Christians
HE is in all of us, or more accurately we are emerging manifestations of him, and I no longer need you or the Bible to see that. Actually I am still a little angry at you John, but I will get over it. :-) Just had to get this off my chest. Have I misunderstood you all this time?
Crossan, Erhman and company have no idea the bible contains a spiritual message, too wrapped-up in the physical
I also can't imagine why anyone would think you'd recognize literary-historical reflection when you see it. Like I said about theology in the link: yawn.
Thanx, but I will believe John Dominic Crossan's view over yours.
Paul had a vision problem, we usually need glasses as we get older, though his may well be the affects of "seeing the Lord on the road to Damascus"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJh47LybCkU&feature=related
he mostly went around orally preaching, and since he had the wisdom given by the holy Spirit, others like a secretary, wrote down what he dictated, and he approved it or signed off on it as in Galatians 6:11, so I would say the inspired Word(s) and thoughts come from Paul.
People do specialize their talents, remember Jethro's advice in Exodus 18:13-26, the higher people advanced, the more others gathered around, no cell phone or internet for information back then, if you missed 'em, you missed out, Paul keeps getting requests to visit again, he reminds me of a traveling salesman, where his office is his car or camel back then, and everyone is calling for him, pulling one arm one way and the other arm the other way, you can hear it in his words 2Timothy 4:9-18
Paul was doing a lot of physical things, on the run, starting things from scratch when there was no organization there, and the more he worked, the more groups or towns are depending on him, putting stress and pressure on his already over burdened time and life, and it is a shame on scholars, indeed Paul's early books are different from the latter
I would say, walk a mile in his shoes.
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/canon.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJvRdwqctn0
As Crossan correctly notes, the Church had to become Romanized in order to flourish, and part of that Romanization process involved becoming more strictly patriarchal. This led to the diminished role of women as active members of the Church. The rest, as they say, is history.
1. Fact: Paul had restriction or rules on woman in Corinthians, an early book,
2. Fact: The Church Paul started was 100% more progressive towards women than the Jewish religion and temple that they came from
Why stretch into millennia whims of long gone maids?
Why amass ever more apologetic epistles at the opponent’s land,
where on by their own weight, crumble into quick sand?
Why proof of the divine is sought on empty belied beliefs,
and not at the divine potential of life’s laughs and grieves?
Why the one and only ever living God is sought at this life’s asserted death
and not in the reality of the life source’s divine breath?
Nothing you gain by proving the life source’s divine existence,
if your own divine potential is kept at worldly subsistence.
" In the place where you are to go, go to James the Just for whose sake Heaven and Earth came into existence. " --- Gospel of Thomas
in the Gospel of Thomas verse:
1. the writer is not Thomas
2. the writer does not have the holy Spirit
3. the writer is not quoting Jesus
4. it was written after Jesus died, and probably James too
The first part of the verse that was left off is:
#12 "The disciples said to Jesus, 'We know you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?"
First, the disciples did not understand Jesus was going to die (leave) remember Peter, "no Lord that will not happen to you" and he "pulls his sword" and attacks, not one of the disciples can tell "who will betray Jesus" and the disciple "Thomas says, 'Lord we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way"
Jesus had an inner circle of 3; Peter, James and his brother John. Peter is "the Rock" and "Jesus prays so his faith does not fail and that Peter strengthens the others", since James is killed, Peter should have been the leader with John, but since the other James is Jesus' brother, he gets the job (hiring a relative).
Jesus never praised James, though "of those born of a woman, there is none greater than John the Baptist", the bible does not use the term "James the Just" because it is an outcome of his actions in his leadership job
"Jesus does not leave them as orphans, will send the Holy Spirit to guide and teach them"
Continuing in Matthew 23 "But you are not to be called Rabbi, for you have only one master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone Father, for you have one Father who is in Heaven. Nor are you to be called Teacher, for you have one Teacher the Christ. The greatest among you will be your servant. For whoever exalts themselves will be humbled, and whoever humbles themselves will be exalted."
It is better to be cautious with writings not in the bible, and not demean the writings in the bible for uninspired writings.
P3
"a scene from the Acts of Thecla, a set of stories now preserved as Chapters 1-43 of the second-century Acts of Paul."
Does that help?