That Good Apostle Paul

To this layman, one of the salient strengths of Judaism and Christianity is their common agreement that scriptures are granted authority to guide our personal behavior as well as the corporate life of the religious community. This willingness to defer to a sacred document no doubt laid the foundation for what we now call the rule of law, in which documents that are accepted as binding on a community or a nation can be used to arbitrate conflicts and set standards of behavior.

Sacred texts are thus powerful documents, and whoever controls their content wields virtually limitless power. In the Judeo/Christian community, we have historically asserted that the pen of our sacred documents was wielded ultimately by God, and if we are careful in our scholarship, we will find the mind and heart of God communicated to us through the original words of our scriptures.

But what are we to do when those original words are in dispute? The fact is, we do not possess those original words—but we have numerous copies written over vast periods of time, translated into several languages, and claiming different versions of the text. The student of Biblical texts is thus presented with the problem of arbitrating their many differences.

Bart Erman in his recent book, Misquoting Jesus, explores numerous disputed textual passages in the New Testament, with an eye toward identifying accidental and intentional changes that have been introduced over time, so as to identify as closely as we are able the original content of the Christian scriptures. Ehrman chairs the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and specializes in New Testament studies. He has deep Evangelical roots that include degrees from Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College, as well as a degree from Princeton Theological Seminary.

In one section of Misquoting Jesus Ehrman deals specifically with passages that speak about the role of women in the church, which are of particular interest to me. Here are some examples selected by Ehrman:

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea. (Romans 16:1 NASB)

Phillip… who had four virgin daughters who were prophetesses. (Acts 21:8-9 NASB)

For all of you who 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. (Gal 3:27-28 NASB)

Ehrman asserts that these verses all seem to show Paul’s conviction that God grants gifts and roles to men and women without distinction. Phoebe for example, was probably a deacon in the church. Luke (in Acts 21) acknowledges that Phillip had daughters who spoke prophetically, and Paul (in Galatians 3) asserts that before God, all persons enjoy a spiritual equality in Christ.

Ehrman further asserts that Paul's conviction is confirmed by an accurate understanding of this passage from Romans 16:

Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. (Rom 16:7 NASB)

Ehrman distills the thinking of many scholars regarding this passage by explaining that the allegedly masculine name Junias in this text is actually the feminine Junia--referring to a woman, which means that in this passage Paul is granting the title "apostle" to a woman! This is the only verse of its kind in the New Testament. The verse is usually translated by using a fabricated masculine form of the name (Junias) to avoid allowing Paul to endorse a woman apostle. The name Junias appears nowhere else in the ancient texts.

He further asserts that other versions of this text changed the sentence structure without changing the name to a masculine form, but with the same end, changing the meaning of the phrase such that the title of apostle is not granted to Junia.

So, Paul in these passages (and others) seems to support a public role for women. In contrast however, some of Paul's other writings seem to deliver a contradictory message. Take for example this passage from I Corinthians:

The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. (I Corinthians 14:34-35 NASB)

This example is interesting to Ehrman for several reasons. First, this passage appears in different places in the chapter in different versions of the text, suggesting that they are not original, but added later by scribes. Second, they do not fit well within the text of this part of the chapter, which is a discourse on prophecy both before and after this section.

And last, earlier in I Corinthians, Paul had specifically given instructions as to how women should behave in church:

But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. (I Cor 11:5 NASB)

Prayer and prophecy were public, verbal activities, and were clearly endorsed by Paul here in chapter 11. Why would he then disallow them in chapter 14?

Another example--the famous passage from I Timothy:

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. (I Timothy 2:11-12)

Many scholars now believe I Timothy was written in Paul’s name after he died, so the passage may not have been written by Paul. What then was its motivation?

Erman explains that one technique (of many) for assessing motivations for changes is to ask, does the change relate in some way to the theological discussions of the day? And, could those discussions have inspired changes to the text? Ehrman suggests that some of the New Testament texts that refer to the role of women were changed early in the history of the church, and in nearly all cases they were changed in the direction of restricting the role of women. Why might this be? Coincidence?

A debate was raging in the second century around the role of women, and textual alterations may have assisted the side of the debate that eventually won, in defiance of Paul's original intentions. Is it possible that the debates of the second century affected the content of the early copies of scripture? Ehrman and other scholars believe so.

These passages provided my first opportunity years ago to become disillusioned with the Apostle Paul’s writings when upon examination I was unable to explain why men should be granted a superior position vis-à-vis women. Are we superior morally? Do we exhibit superior character or more Godly decisions? Do we possess gifts women are denied?

In fact a simple contrary argument can be made by remembering that within the ideal of Christian femininity resides a strong connotation of spirituality and even holiness which men treasure in their wives and family members. How many times over the years have we heard that the woman sets the spiritual tone of the home? This is simultaneously a compliment to women as a group and an admission of spiritual failure by men as a group.

Biblical research is not the science we would hope for, and this particular topic is the subject of an ongoing scholarly debate. However, Erhman's arguments in Misquoting Jesus have convinced this layman that the good apostle Paul’s reputation as a disparager of feminine leadership and teaching is not deserved. Worse, the infinitely important role of scriptures in the life of the church has been impugned by textual changes denigrating the role of women, and generations of men have been handed fraudulent permission to assert power over women personally and legally. This is tragic enough for women, but men have suffered as well because the church and western countries in which it has flourished have been denied by the dictates of scripture the services of women who were granted by God the talents to teach and to lead.