tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239062544101975016.post6315965161251403523..comments2024-03-27T21:39:23.192-07:00Comments on Sacnoth's Scriptorium: Poke-Em-With-A-Stick-Wednesday (Joseph Wright Takes On Saul of Tarsus)John D. Rateliffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12324926298336489295noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239062544101975016.post-51279996915412389882011-07-12T09:14:44.077-07:002011-07-12T09:14:44.077-07:00I actually posted the original comment; I wasn'...I actually posted the original comment; I wasn't trying to make it "Unknown," but somehow my technical limitations with blog posts caused it to be such.<br /><br />You make a good point that the authorship of particular scriptures probably has little effect on how said scriptures have been used (and abused) over the years. But I think that part of Crossan's point is that the pseudo-Pauline letters were not just not written by Paul, but they were intended (in his view) to be "anti-Paul;" that is, they were an attempt by later church leaders to counter the radicality of some of Paul's message (e.g, Paul's statement that in Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female). The fact that the later pseudo-Pauline letters forbid women from teaching in churches (for example)seems to indicate that prior to that there WERE women teaching in churches, which (Crossan argues) was probably something endorsed by Paul. The later letters were an attempt to move things back into conformity with standard practices in the Roman world.<br /><br />Ed PierceEd Piercehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16660513977428598030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239062544101975016.post-22061709783914207372011-07-11T22:04:03.458-07:002011-07-11T22:04:03.458-07:00Hi Unknown
That's a good point, and I'...Hi Unknown<br /><br /> That's a good point, and I'll need to think about it some more to see which parts come from which epistles, and their suspected provenances. I don't think it changes the basic point that the Epistles in the New Testament did a lot of damage over the last two thousand years, but the degree to which Paul vs. pseudo-Paul himself is responsible is something I haven't looked into yet. Thanks for the nudge.<br /><br />--John R.John D. Rateliffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12324926298336489295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239062544101975016.post-38014603737092674612011-07-11T13:59:10.764-07:002011-07-11T13:59:10.764-07:00In defense of Paul, many (most?) of the texts used...In defense of Paul, many (most?) of the texts used to support Paul's misogynistic views are from letters that most scholars now believe were not written by him. Here's a recent article by biblical scholar John Dominic Crossan on the issue: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-dominic-crossan/apostle-paul-letters_b_890387.html<br />In this post he mainly uses the example of slavery, but in his other works Crossan indicates that the same applies to views on women in the Pauline (or pseudo-Pauline) letters.Ed Piercehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16660513977428598030noreply@blogger.com