On the subject of women in worship in the first century, as
with most historical subjects, much of what comes to us is by way of biased interpretation,
not as one might wish –substantive facts. I read the article, “Women in Ancient
Christianity: The New Discoveries”. This is not what I would consider a good
article by which to gauge women’s involvement in “services”, because the author’s
choice of supportive evidence largely comes from suspect material. There is other
evidence more convincing coming from the disciplines of epigraphical and literary
studies.
Regarding women involved in group activities; one of the
more controversial characters is Junia, was she an apostle?
Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me;
they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.[1]
In the NT ἐπίσημος occurs once each
in bonam and in malam pattern. In R. 16:7 Paul calls Junius and Andronicus ̓πίσημοι
ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις. Apart from the problems posed by the two names and the
use of the word ἀποστόλος the expression might mean either that the two are
"significant in the circle of apostles" or "highly
regarded" among them.
In Mt. 27:16 Barabbas is called a
δέσμιον ἐπίσημον. Here the adjective is fairly certainly to be understood in
in malam partem and translated "notorious." This is suggested
especially by the par. Mk. 15:7, according to which Barabbas was μετὰ τῶν
συστασιαστῶν δεδεμένος, οἵτινες ἐν τῇ στάσει φόνον πεποιήκεισαν. This
understanding of the term, which points to kinship of usage between Matthew and
Josephus, is at any rate to be preferred to the attempt to understand ἐπίσημος here as a tt. for the leader
of a band of Zealots, - IV, 261, 35 ff.[2]
A striking witness within the Greek
tradition of interpretation to the fact that Junia was identified in the early
Church as a woman is the work of John Chrysostom. He comments on Rom 16:7 with
the words: "It is certainly a great thing to be an apostle: but to be
outstanding among the apostles—think what praise that is! She was outstanding
in her works, in her good deeds: oh, and how great is the philosophy of this
woman, that she was regarded as worthy to be counted among the apostles!"
• In the Liturgikon, the missal of the Byzantine Church. Junia is honored to
this day in the Menologion as an
apostle, together with fifty-six male apostles and the two “like to the
apostles,” Mary Magdalene and Thecla. For the Latin-speaking regions we should
mention especially the commentaries on Romans by Ambrosiaster (4th C.) and
Rufinus of Aquileia (ca. 345-410). who as a matter of course read the feminine
names Junia or Julia and accounted this woman among the apostles.
With the rediscovery of the New
Testament apostle Junia the centuries old opinion (still emphatically
maintained by the Roman Catholic Church) that in the apostolic period there
were only male apostles has been finally disproved)
Until 1865, when J. B. Lightfoot began
the historical-critical examination of the concept of "apostles:" it
was taken for granted that the New Testament presents a unified concept of the apostolate:
Jesus, during his earthly work, commissioned his twelve disciples as apostles
(Luke 6:13). After the defection of Judas, then, the remaining eleven chose
Matthias as the twelfth (Acts 1:1526). Paul was the only other person called,
outside Damascus, by the Risen Lord to be an apostle for the Gentiles- But
historical-critical research has shown that this conception essentially
reflects Luke's idea of apostles, which is not representative for all of early
Christian literature. Research in the history of traditions has shown that
early Christianity had different understandings of the notion of apostolate. We
may distinguish, in essence, between a broader and a narrower conception of the
apostle.
Jürgen Roloff has pointed to two
"indispensable methodological insights" that have emerged from the
previous discussion of the apostolate: first, we can no longer posit without
further consideration a unified early Christian idea of the apostolate: second,
the Pauline understanding of what it means to be an apostle must constitute the
"decisive fixed point" of every investigation of this theme. The
genuine Pauline letters offer not only the oldest witness to the early
Christian understanding of the apostles but also Paul's own personal
understanding, proposed in dependence on and in contradiction to other
interpretations of apostleship, and thus representing a "key to
understanding the apostolate before and contemporary with Paul.[3]
Reading the English text I felt I could make the argument
that Rom 16:7 did not necessarily suggest that Junia was an apostle. However, that
was before I read the description of the Greek in the Theological Dictionary of
the New Testament. The arguments made for Junia’s “apostleship” becomes more emphatic
when taking into account a general meaning of the word apostle. Many newer
versions of the New Testament use Junia instead of Junias. The rigid requirements
for the replacement of Judas found in Acts 1, does not apply to every use of
the word apostle.
So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the
Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until
the day when he was taken up from us--one of these must become a witness with
us to his resurrection.[4]
The twelve were unique, their ministry as firsthand
witnesses of Jesus’ life death and resurrection demanded that Judas’
replacement in the twelve had to have been with Jesus for the time specified. The
twelve as a group were distinctive, all met the criteria laid out by Peter.
Luke in his writing of Acts had a different understanding of what constituted
an apostle; seen in his writing by, “When the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it …”[5] Barnabas
was not one of the twelve, neither was Paul who in his own words stated, “And last of all he (Jesus) was seen of me also, as of one
born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles…”[6] “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for
the gospel of God…”[7] Paul did not meet the criteria of Acts
1 and used the term apostle in the more general sense to what Peter set as
requirements for the replacement of Judas. Concerning James, Paul wrote, “…I did not see any other apostle
except James the Lord's brother.”[8] Although Paul call s James an apostle
it is very unlikely that James met the conditions listed by Peter “(For not even his brothers
believed in him.)[9]
The twelve had a specific role in disseminating the gospel. “…the twelve summoned the
congregation of the disciples and said, "It is not desirable for us to
neglect the word of God in order to serve tables ….But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to
the ministry of the word."[10] The
term apostle cannot be interpreted at all times by the credentials listed in
Acts 1. The word ἀπόστολος was a common term and was not subject to the
limited interpretation based on Acts 1. The distinctiveness of the twelve
governed the selection of a replacement for Judas, not the meaning of the term
apostle.
For it is written in the book of Psalms, 'Let his homestead become
desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; and 'Let another take his
position of overseer.'[11]
You are those who have stood by me in my trials; and I confer on you,
just as my Father has conferred on me, a kingdom, so that you may eat and drink
at my table in my kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve
tribes of Israel.[12]
The twelve were significant for more than their temporal
commission. Peter suggested that there was purpose in “the twelve” by referring
to the Psalms. It likely has to do with the function given them beyond this
world. The group designated “The twelve” was significant, and while they were
called apostles that term meant “one sent forth”. Junia or Julia was not one of the twelve, but
she would have fit into the general term apostle. “When we come to the Didache, which
probably lies beyond the boundary-line of New Testament history, we find the
name “apostles” applied to a whole class of nameless missionaries…”[13] A
cursory reading of Romans chapter sixteen will show that women played a vital
role in early Christian activities, both in supporting teachers and teaching. “I urge you, brothers and sisters,
to keep an eye on those who cause dissensions and offenses, in opposition to
the teaching that you have learned; avoid them. … The God of peace will shortly crush Satan
under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.”[14]
Karen King in “Women in Ancient Christianity: The New
Discoveries” draws heavily on the Nag Hammadi Library which includes a large
number of Gnostic writings - texts
such as the Gospel of Thomas,
the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Truth and many more. I do
not believe that Gnostic writings accurately represent the common people of the
first century. And, most definitely do not reflect a Christian view point. Christianity
was born surrounded by Judaism, steeped in Judaism, and out of Judaism.
Gnosticism was a perversion not to be connected with the truth of scripture. I
do not believe that Gnosticism has anything to contribute to Christianity, and using
the Nag Hammadi Library to support women’s role in Christianity contributes
little to King’s position.
The extra-biblical sources of Epigraphical and Literary
Studies provide corroboration of women in roles normally considered those performed
by men.
In the early Christian churches, women
were relegated to duties in lower positions than men. There is evidence which
suggests that women in certain communities were permitted to serve as
presbyters and some even served at the rank of bishop. While women were not
able to offer service as teachers of the faith, they were valued as assistants
to their husbands and their fathers. Many served as virgins, instructors,
apostles, prophets, deaconesses or as widows. However during the second
century, the roles of women came increasingly under the spotlight and their
roles began to diminish. This was primarily due to the machinations of dominant
theologians who disseminated the idea that since the female species was sinful
and inferior to that of men, it should be subordinated to them. Tertullian was
one such theologian who uttered vitriolic attacks against females. It was his
misogynistic orotundity that „upset the applecart‟ concerning the role of
women. He stigmatized women as the quintessence of evil and blamed them for the
fall of the angels (Bitel, 2002). Tertullian was not without his detractors
which included Clement of Alexandria who endorsed marriage for the clergy while
also promoting the vigorous involvement of women in the early church (Wemple,
1981).[15]
Besides Romans 16:1, women are credited
as being diakonoi in epigraphical evidence. A few examples will suffice for my
purposes. The first evidence for this occurrence originates during the reign of
Trajan (98-117 C.E.), as recounted by Pliny. Pliny documents that “in Bithynia
under Trajan there were female deacons.”[4] In Epistuale 10.96.8, Pliny has two
“maidservants” or “slaves” (ancillae) tortured “who were being called ministers”
(quae ministrae dicebantur). The word minister (ministra) is synonymous with
the Latin word diāconus, for a diāconus can be defined as a “minister of the
church, a deacon.” Another piece of epigraphical evidence comes from Jerusalem
(Mount of Olives); it dates from the latter half of the fourth century. What is
fascinating about this writing, found on a stele, are the following words:
Sophia, hē diakonos, hē deutera Phoibē In this inscription, clearly a woman
(evident by the feminine definite article) is being coined with the masculine
term diakonos. If the Didascalia of the Apostles is utilized as the earliest
known date for women deaconesses, one could logically conclude that deaconesses
came into existence in written accounts from the “first half of the third
century.” What is more noteworthy is that women are still being designated as
deacons (using masculine terms) even over approximately 150 years later.[16]
Central to this book are the
epigraphical witnesses, because to this point they have been only marginally
incorporated in research on women officeholders in the Church and they are
urgently in need of investigation.' In order to ensure an epigraphically
correct interpretation the majority of the inscriptions discussed will be given
an extensive epigraphical documentation, with the result that this study has,
in part, the character of an edition of inscriptions. They will be organized
geographically and chronologically, and besides the epigraphical documentation
they will be commented on in the context of the existing literary sources. This
placement in the literary context is subordinate to the presentation and
interpretation of the inscriptions because there have already been a number of
studies of the literary sources for women as officeholders in the Church.[17]
It seems evident that that Paul’s instruction regarding
women being silent in the assembly was based on cultural norms.
…the idea that ten males are
required for this quorum is not found in ancient sources until at least 500
c.e. Before then, women could be counted as part of the “ten.” Even as late as
the twelfth century c.e., authorities such as the Jewish scholar Rabbenu Tam
acknowledged that women could be counted as part of the congregational quorum.
…In the Jerusalem Talmud the
question is raised: “In a town in which all the residents are priests, when
they spread their hands [in the synagogue] and give the priestly blessing, who
responds ‘Amen’?” (The priests themselves are not permitted to give the
response to their own blessing.) The answer is: “The women and children.”7
Although not the point of the discussion, this rabbinic ruling indicates that
women were in attendance at the synagogue.
…The “Eighteen Benedictions” was
the central prayer of the synagogue liturgy. Every Jew was obligated to pray
this prayer daily. Rabban Gamaliel said: “One must say the ‘Eighteen’ every
day.”10 There was no difference between men and women regarding this
commandment. The Mishnah specifically states: “Women . . . are not exempt from
saying the Prayer [i.e., the Eighteen Benedictions].”
…In Jesus’ time, women participated
fully in the religious life of the community. This included participation in
synagogue services and in the regular study sessions that were conducted in the
synagogue’s bet midrash (house of study). There was no separation of the
sexes in synagogues, and women could be counted as part of the required
congregational quorum of ten adults. There was, however, one inequality. For
social reasons, women were not allowed to read the Scriptures publicly.[18]
A number of sources from the first
to seventh centuries c.e., and from Palestine as well as the Diaspora, indicate
that women were regularly present in the synagogue during worship. Jesus
encountered a woman while teaching in a Galilean synagogue, and Paul often met
women when visiting Diaspora synagogues: ‘‘from there to Philippi, the first of
the cities of the Macedonian province, and it is an independent city, and we
dwelt in the city for a number of days. And on the Sabbath we went out of the city
to the banks of the river, where there was a place of prayer [proseuche], as
was their custom, and we sat there and we spoke to the women who were gathered
there.’’ In Thessalonica and nearby Berea, the presence of women in synagogues
is noted as well. Philo speaks of Therapeutae women and men who attended a
‘‘sacred place’’ (ἱερόν) on the Sabbath—in all probability a reference to their
synagogue.11 The fact that pagan women in Damascus were especially attracted to
Judaism, as noted by their husbands, seems to be an almost certain indication
that they attended the synagogue regularly; otherwise, it would be hard to
imagine how this attraction would have been effected, expressed, and maintained.
Given the fact that women attended the synagogue regularly, the question
arises as to where they sat. A generation or two ago, this would not have been
an issue, as it was universally assumed that the tradition reaching the modern
era via the Middle Ages, i.e., that there was a separate section for women in
all synagogues, reflected accepted Jewish practice from time immemorial. That
this, too, had been the case for antiquity is presumably borne out in Josephus’
War, which speaks of a strict division between the sexes in the Jerusalem
Temple, noting that a special place for women to worship was walled off and had
its own entrances.
This consensus was shaken in 1964, when S. Safrai argued that men and
women did not sit apart in the ancient synagogue, basing his claim on two
factors. The first was the steady accumulation of archaeological evidence from
both Palestine and the Diaspora dating from the first seven centuries of the
Common Era. From the farthest reaches of the Roman Empire and throughout
Roman-Byzantine Palestine, no traces were found of a separate area that might
be labeled a women’s section; nor have any inscriptions noting such
accommodations for women come to light. This absence is significant in light of
the fact that many synagogue inscriptions do, in fact, name various parts of
the synagogue. True enough, some excavation reports continue to identify one room
or another as a place reserved for women, but these identifications are products
of the excavators’ preconceptions and rest on no solid evidence whatsoever.[19]
If I had been asked about the first century synagogue a week
ago I would have given information which in light of this evidence would have
been wrong. There is no doubt in my mind that there were different practices
between common house assemblies and general assemblies of the early Christian
period. House gatherings would not have fallen under the same scrutiny as public
assemblies. The larger public assemblies would have required more organization
than house assemblies. The use of the word “church” has prejudiced our
understanding of gatherings in early Christianity. Paul addressed his letter to
the Romans to, “To all God's
beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints…”[20] The
ἐκκλησία is addressed as the body of believers within Rome and other cities,
suggesting that all believers in a city were considered members of the body of
Christ. Believers may have met in homes scattered around the city, or may have
come together as a collective body. Following is a list of uses of the word ἐκκλησία…
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the ἐκκλησία at Cenchreae[21]
Greet Prisca and Aquila …. Greet also the ἐκκλησία in their house[22]
To the ἐκκλησία of God that is in Corinth[23]
For this reason I sent you Timothy, … to remind you of my ways in Christ Jesus, as I
teach them everywhere in every ἐκκλησία.[24]
Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the ἐκκλησία of God,[25]
If, therefore, the whole ἐκκλησία comes together…[26]
For I am the least of the apostles, … because I persecuted the ἐκκλησία of God.[27]
Give my greetings to the brothers and sisters in Laodicea, and to
Nympha and the ἐκκλησία in her house.[28]
to Apphia our sister, to Archippus … and to the ἐκκλησία in your house[29]
James, … To
the twelve tribes in the Dispersion… Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the ἐκκλησία[30]
Your sister ἐκκλησία in Babylon,[31]
To the angel of the ἐκκλησία in Ephesus[32]
And to the angel of the ἐκκλησία in Smyrna[33]
And to the angel of the ἐκκλησία in Pergamum[34]
And to the angel of the ἐκκλησία in Thyatira[35]
And to the angel of the ἐκκλησία in Sardis[36]
And to the angel of the ἐκκλησία in Philadelphia[37]
And to the angel of the ἐκκλησία in Laodicea[38]
I left you behind in Crete … appoint elders in every town[39]
And after they had appointed elders … in each ἐκκλησία[40]
Eκκλησία has to be translated according to its meaning in
the LXX. No one in ancient times would have attributed the term ἐκκλησία to an
institution, everyone knew what the word stood for. In the Old Testament
setting it was the kingdom of God.
I do not believe Christianity was ever intended to be
institutionalized. The body of Christ was the inclusion of all believers,
world-wide. From ancient times believers lived doing the best they could to reflect
God’s love through Christ. Along with the acceptance of a single bishop
presiding over groups, form overtook function and gatherings became
ritualistic. No longer does Jesus walk dusty streets communicating with
ordinary people, he is boxed in exclusive churches each with its own standards
and doctrines. Isaiah’s prophecy concerning first century Judaism also fits the
condition of “Christianity” today.
Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This
people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do
they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines.' You abandon the
commandment of God and hold to human tradition.[41]
The rules and regulations of organized churches are
distinctively unique. If the attitude toward different churches was acceptance
instead of rejection, there could be harmony. The problem was, and is, that
each sect wants to be right and dominate the field of Christianity. Every
church claims to be the right one, if not the only one. Unfortunately, since
it’s impossible for all to be right, the chances are pretty high, that all are
wrong.
In former generations this mystery was not made known to humankind, as
it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit: that
is, the Gentiles have become fellow heirs, members of the same body, and
sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.[42]
So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens
with the saints and also members of the household of God, built upon the
foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the
cornerstone. In him the whole structure is joined together and grows into a
holy temple in the Lord;[43]
The mystery of the gospel was uniting Jews and Gentiles in
Christ. The institutionalization of Christianity shattered the unity for which
Christ died. Different forms and sundry doctrines are evidence of human tampering.
Paul admonished believers to accept one another in Christ, even when there were
differences of belief and practice.
Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or
in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day--things which are a mere
shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. …. If you have died with
Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in
the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, "Do not handle, do
not taste, do not touch!" (which all refer to things destined to perish
with use)--in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?[44]
Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he
stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One
person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each
person must be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day,
observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives
thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives
thanks to God.[45]
Churches are the reason there is division within the body of
Christ. Churches have fought for dominance starting with the Roman Church under
Constantine. Even today churches are big business and very competitive. The scripture
teaches acceptance and harmony, but churches seek power. Most members do not
care about the doctrinal intricacies which divide churches, their need is finding
assurance and acceptance. Whether a man or woman gives the lesson is of less
concern than the message. Paul’s admonition regarding judging what other people
do should be taken into consideration today. Division is justified if it’s
based on matters of faith, not just opinion, but that is nonsense. What could
have been more a matter of faith for Jewish Christians than, Sabbath
observation, and festivals? Division cannot be justified on any grounds.
The scripture represents the story of God; from creation to
redemption. It seems like everyone thinks she or he can improve on what God has
done.
And the Father who sent me has himself testified on my behalf. You have
never heard his voice or seen his form, and you do not have his word abiding in
you, because you do not believe him whom he has sent. You search the scriptures
because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that
testify on my behalf. Yet you refuse to come to me to have life.[46]
Evidently the scriptures have to be interpreted correctly,
not conveniently. Paul spoke of unity in Jesus:
…for in Christ Jesus you are all children of
God through faith. As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed
yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave
nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ
Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs
according to promise.[47]
In Paul’s world the couplets he mentioned were diametrically
opposed; Jew and Greek were separated by an enormous religious chasm. Slaves
and free were stark political opposites. Male and female were culturally alienated.
The phrase “you are all
children of God,” emphasized that, all were the same, not, some were
different. Culture and custom dictated physical boundaries not to be crossed. In
recent decades much has been written critical of historians who had imposed
contemporary interpretation on ancient events. In many cases modern conditions
have been used in biblical interpretation. To avoid misinterpretation the cultural
and sociological climate in which the scripture was written must be taken into
account. The mystery of reconciliation in Christ brought opposites into
harmony. The reconciliation of Jew and Greek, and, slave and free, is
acceptable, but when it comes to women in Christianity, ancient cultural
standards continue to enforce hierarchical distinction. Paul addressed the customs
of Jewish Christians since they dominated much of what took place in the majority
of assemblies. Christian Jews in the diaspora were not permitted to neglect the
law. It was largely Jewish customs which were inadvertently being violated by
new Christians, especially Gentile Christians. Within the same general
discussion on decorum’ Paul wrote, “For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair;
but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved,
she should wear a veil.”[48] Paul reflected a Jewish point of view
that was later contained in the Talmud.
In talmudic times, too, married women were enjoined to cover their hair in communal
spaces (e.g., Ned. 30b; Num. R. 9:16). In a society so highly conscious of
sexuality and its dangers, veiling was considered an absolute necessity to
maintain modesty and chastity. If a woman walked bareheaded in the street, her
husband could divorce her without repaying her dowry (Ket. 7:6).[49]
Currently we have no customs that are similar to this, nor
do we live in a time when Jewish Christians are subject to the Law.
In the Corinthian letter Paul based his instruction to women
on the Law. In Timothy Paul looked back to Eden for support of his instructions.
“A woman must quietly
receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to
teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam
who was first created, and then Eve”[50] Paul may also have had in mind the
sentiments expressed by Josephus,
The woman, says the Law, is in all things inferior to the man. Let her
accordingly be submissive, not for her humiliation, but that she may be
directed; for the authority has been given by God to the man.[51]
Paul’s reference
to child bearing “…she
will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love
and holiness, with modesty,”[52] may well have been encouragement rather than
pejorative. Although due to custom, women were required to be submissive and silent,
in reality they held a special relationship with God in perpetuating the human
race. What other features of modern worship are based on the Old Law? Early
Christianity was steeped in Jewish culture, at the time Paul wrote his letters
the “scriptures” were the Hebrew Scriptures; apart from a smattering of
contemporary writings Christianity used the Hebrew Scriptures for teaching and
learning. Maybe it’s time to rethink the role of women and men in God’s kingdom,
from a purely Christian aspect, uncluttered by rules and customs of Judaism.
[2]
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
[3]
Women Officeholders in Early Christianity, Ute E. Eisen
[13]
ISBE
[15]
Assessing Tertullian on the Status of Women in the Third Century Church, Prof.
Angelo Nicolaides
[16]
https://www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?ArticleId=830
[17]
Women Officeholders in Early Christianity: Epigraphical and Literary Studies,
by Ute E. Eisen p. 21
[18]
The Place of Women in First-century Synagogues, http://www.cbeinternational.org
[19]
WOMEN IN THE SYNAGOGUE, http://isites.harvard.edu
[24]
1Co 4:17
[49]
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org
No comments:
Post a Comment