[RD] Ask a Theologian V

[Kyriakos]

^I mean in the conspiracy theory timeline when the new testament originally was in Greek. Don't get in too deep or you risk confusing the folks here

 

[timtofly]

I don't believe that Acts 6 mentions the term "deacon". The seven people appointed in that passage aren't given a title.

Deacons today - and from antiquity - are indeed lower down the hierarchy than a priest. But my point was that originally they seem to have been a separate kind of organisation. When the diaconate and the priesthood came together, the priests ended up higher than the deacons.

Why would the central need (of the passage) use the word διακονίᾳ or form of it three times? They separated 7 men for this very διακονίᾳ. Two of these men had accounts about their ministry and were considered the first two deacons. Why would this passage not be considered the formation of the concept of what a deacon was?

Speaking of 'Thessalonians'...

Anyone know why the original acts of the Apostles accurate name of the two letters to the people of this glorious city ( ) was maimed in English?

Epistles to the Thessalonicians doesn't particularly sound that more alien, and would have been far closer to the original.

(Original titles would be Προς Θεσσαλονικείς Α',Β').

The word in the Greek translation is Θεσσαλονικέων transliterated thessalonikeōn defined as a Thessalonian from Thessaloniké. Even Young's literal translation uses Thessalonians. I realize that may not answer your question, but perhaps some where in the English it was lost in translation. It does not seem to be because of the Bible translations though. Even online wiki uses the term Thessalonians as being from Thessaloniki. There is no historical ancient reason why the discrepancy?

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Since the first English translations were made based on the Vulgate, I assumed that "Thessalonians" may have been shortened via the Latin translation. It doesn't seem to be the case though, as the Latin is the even longer "Thessalonicenses" or (in the genitive) "Thessalonicensium."

 

[Kyriakos]

Thanks

At least 'Thessalonicenses' sounds somewhat cool..

 

[Plotinus]

I'm not sure what else you would call women leading a Christian community. Bishops? Or did I misread your affirmation that women did play leading roles, whereas within a few centuries they did not?

The whole point I was trying to make was that in primitive Christianity there was a number of different models of church leadership, not all of which involved bishops. A woman, or that matter a man, leading a Christian community at such a time might be a prophet, not a bishop; or a presbyter; or a deacon of some kind. Today, the Catholic Church excludes women from the priesthood. My point was that we know of no female priests in the primitive church either. We know of women in positions of leadership - so from that point of view, the primitive church differed from the modern church - but we don't know of female priests.

Really? You are unaware of a growing mysogyny in early Christianity? I don't think one can relegate the removal of women from all position of prominence simply to a matter of church organisation. That, for one, does not explain why all leading position should be exclusively male. One might, possibly, argue that it is a matter of growing conformism on the part of the church towards society in general. That is, if it weren't accompanied by Christian writers being, shall we say, unkind towards the female sex. which was coincidentally also the case. Of course one might still claim that these are entirely different and unrelated developments. But that would then be the least probable conclusion. Not impossible, but unlikely. Especially considering that patriarchalism has never really left the church thereafter.

The problem with this argument is that you can find misogyny right there in the New Testament, notably 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and 1 Timothy 2:12. So to talk of "growing" misogyny seems to me to be just mistaken. It was there right from the start.

I don't quite see what changing attitudes in modern Catholicism have to with changing church attitude towards women in antiquity.

The relevance is that this argument all started with your claim that the modern Catholic Church differs from the primitive church on this matter.

I take your point that there seem to have been more women in positions of leadership (of some kind) in the primitive church than at later times; but it was a very complex situation about which we know little. Different models of church leadership co-existed and we don't know how "formal" the various positions were. Certainly there were women acting as "prophets" and "deacons", but it would be a mistake to assume that these (or any other offices mentioned in the early texts, including that of "bishop") were necessarily formal positions as we would imagine them rather than just someone taking it upon themselves to organise things informally, or give people spiritual advice. My guess is that whatever "authority" most of these people had would be more akin to the "authority" of a dungeon master in a group of tabletop gamers than to a modern professional minister of religion.

H. Preisker, Christentum und Ehe in den ersten 3 Jahrhunderten, 1927, p. 184. (I don't know if there exists an English translation.)

There isn't, but really what I meant was a primary source, which Preisker doesn't seem to provide.

I'm not sure if (and how) that relates to apostolic succession. I can see your point, but I would think that "early Christianity" starts with the death of Jesus. Irenaeus was a 2nd century bishop, Tertullian a Christian writer (theologian?) from Carthage of slightly later date (who, as I understand, also first mentioned the Trinity). So at this point there would already have been Christian communities in Roman Africa and Gaul. Perhaps I should have said earliest Christianity?

That would have helped. Theophilus of Antioch was actually the first to talk of the "Trinity", but Tertullian was the first to do so in Latin.

That would be a paradox, not a contradiction, because although Paul's letters predate the gospels, it is generally assumed that the gospels rely on an older source, whereas Paul's letters obviously do not - nor do Acts, as far as I'm aware.

Certainly Paul uses older sources in his letters. They are full of doxological, liturgical, and doctrinal formulations which almost certainly predate him. They also contain a lot of parallels with the Gospels, suggesting that Paul knew - though did not explicitly cite - material about Jesus. As for Acts, there is less certainty, although Luke does at least claim to have consulted various sources.

None of this contradicts the assertion that Jesus did not practice baptism, as reference to this only occurs later. Which was my general assertion, because it seems the logical conclusion, seeing as 2 gospels don't mention it at all, Luke once, and John several times.

By that logic Jesus was never born, since only two Gospels mention his birth. To make a positive assertion that Jesus didn't baptise (as opposed to the more cautious claim that we don't know whether he did) you'd need some good reason for thinking that he didn't. The mere absence of references to this in two of the Gospels isn't a good enough reason.

So, even if assuming that Jesus did baptize (which seems unlikely at best), it can either not have been of great importance to him or the importance of it escaped Marc and Matthew (again, not entirely impossible, but unlikely). So, in conclusion, one might say that Jesus probably didn't, but possibly did baptize - but in either case he did not lay great importance on it and it wasn't a customary ritual.

Yes, I think it's fair to say that if Jesus baptised, it was a relatively unprominent aspect of his ministry, or at least one that wasn't very important to his followers. That doesn't make it unlikely that he did it, though.

Speaking of 'Thessalonians'...

Anyone know why the original acts of the Apostles accurate name of the two letters to the people of this glorious city ( ) was maimed in English?

Epistles to the Thessalonicians doesn't particularly sound that more alien, and would have been far closer to the original.

(Original titles would be Προς Θεσσαλονικείς Α',Β').

I can't work this out either. It's "Tessalonyans" in Tyndale's translation, which is where I assume the King James translators got it from. But I don't know why Tyndale would have dropped the κ.

Why would the central need (of the passage) use the word διακονίᾳ or form of it three times? They separated 7 men for this very διακονίᾳ. Two of these men had accounts about their ministry and were considered the first two deacons. Why would this passage not be considered the formation of the concept of what a deacon was?

Because you can't assume that a person who is described as performing διακονία is thereby a διάκονος, just as you can't assume that someone who performs a service is thereby a servant.

Now certainly later Catholic tradition has regarded Acts 6 as describing the institution of the diaconate, but I think that that's reading into the text rather more than is there.

 

[Agent327]

The problem with this argument is that you can find misogyny right there in the New Testament, notably 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and 1 Timothy 2:12. So to talk of "growing" misogyny seems to me to be just mistaken. It was there right from the start.

If we forget Jesus, that is. And the exclusion of women from prominent positions. But that's not the point: you are quoting Paul to suggest there was misogyny in the early church. All that proves is that there was misogyny with Paul, which I presume is rather well known. But the position of women in the early church tells us something else. So speaking of growing misogyny seems appropriate.

The relevance is that this argument all started with your claim that the modern Catholic Church differs from the primitive church on this matter.

I take your point that there seem to have been more women in positions of leadership (of some kind) in the primitive church than at later times; but it was a very complex situation about which we know little. Different models of church leadership co-existed and we don't know how "formal" the various positions were. Certainly there were women acting as "prophets" and "deacons", but it would be a mistake to assume that these (or any other offices mentioned in the early texts, including that of "bishop") were necessarily formal positions as we would imagine them rather than just someone taking it upon themselves to organise things informally, or give people spiritual advice. My guess is that whatever "authority" most of these people had would be more akin to the "authority" of a dungeon master in a group of tabletop gamers than to a modern professional minister of religion.

Hm. But you are now arguing back from the situation of the organized church (after women were excluded from positions of prominence) to the chaotic situation at start. Why would a church need central authority? It might have gone another way. Just that it didn't. It happened the way it did, but that is not how the Christian tradition started out.

There isn't, but really what I meant was a primary source, which Preisker doesn't seem to provide.

Fair point. As well as a bit odd of Preisker. Which leaves us with a sourceless assertion, I guess.

Certainly Paul uses older sources in his letters. They are full of doxological, liturgical, and doctrinal formulations which almost certainly predate him. They also contain a lot of parallels with the Gospels, suggesting that Paul knew - though did not explicitly cite - material about Jesus. As for Acts, there is less certainty, although Luke does at least claim to have consulted various sources.

That's interesting. So Paul might have actually known the presumed Q source which is now missing. I did not know this. But it doesn't make for a contradiction, as Paul did not rely on an older source to write his letters; he merely made use of such - presumably because that would sound familiar to whoever he was addressing?

By that logic Jesus was never born, since only two Gospels mention his birth. To make a positive assertion that Jesus didn't baptise (as opposed to the more cautious claim that we don't know whether he did) you'd need some good reason for thinking that he didn't. The mere absence of references to this in two of the Gospels isn't a good enough reason.

That doesn't follow. The example of Jesus' birth was used because it fitted the narrative, and one of these is apocryphal to the core. Since Jesus is the protagonist in all gospels, the assumption that he was not born is quite illogical. Unless one assumes it is a fictional character, of course. So yes, by that logic (yours, not mine) Jesus was never born. That may be convincing to you, to me it is not. You are comparing apples and pears - as well as ignoring the reasoning and conclusion drawn. If Jesus baptized, then it didn't occur to at least two evangelists as essential - or they were unaware of it (which again substantiates the presumption that baptism wasn't essential). This is the key point. Baptizing only became essential to the Church.

Yes, I think it's fair to say that if Jesus baptised, it was a relatively unprominent aspect of his ministry, or at least one that wasn't very important to his followers. That doesn't make it unlikely that he did it, though.

I appreciate the sentiment, but you are again reading back into. Jesus's ministry? How does that fit into Judaism exactly? Or are you merely giving the Christian reading of Jesus's activity on Earth? We know from the gospels that Jesus was baptized by John (whose eponym the Baptist already suggests this was not a usual practice). There is another explanation for the partial presence of baptism in the various gospels: Jesus tried it, but then dropped the ritual. That would explain why it is not consistently mentioned.

But leaving this issue apart, even contemplating the baptisms mentioned, it is certain, from the gospel texts, Jesus did not baptize newly-borns, as has become the Church practice. Or do you feel this is another too bold assertion?

 

[Mouthwash]

What's the consensus on whether St. Augustine was anti-Semitic?

 

[Takhisis]

I can't work this out either. It's "Tessalonyans" in Tyndale's translation, which is where I assume the King James translators got it from. But I don't know why Tyndale would have dropped the κ.

In Spanish it still remains as 'Tesalonicenses'.

What's the consensus on whether St. Augustine was anti-Semitic?

Did he express hatred of Phoenicians and Arabs?

 

[ParkCungHee]

The whole point I was trying to make was that in primitive Christianity there was a number of different models of church leadership, not all of which involved bishops. A woman, or that matter a man, leading a Christian community at such a time might be a prophet, not a bishop; or a presbyter; or a deacon of some kind. Today, the Catholic Church excludes women from the priesthood. My point was that we know of no female priests in the primitive church either. We know of women in positions of leadership - so from that point of view, the primitive church differed from the modern church - but we don't know of female priests.

...

I take your point that there seem to have been more women in positions of leadership (of some kind) in the primitive church than at later times; but it was a very complex situation about which we know little. Different models of church leadership co-existed and we don't know how "formal" the various positions were. Certainly there were women acting as "prophets" and "deacons", but it would be a mistake to assume that these (or any other offices mentioned in the early texts, including that of "bishop") were necessarily formal positions as we would imagine them rather than just someone taking it upon themselves to organise things informally, or give people spiritual advice. My guess is that whatever "authority" most of these people had would be more akin to the "authority" of a dungeon master in a group of tabletop gamers than to a modern professional minister of religion.

And if you look at the Church outside the priesthood, I don't think you get a sharp delineation about the end of female authority in the Church. Certainly Abbesses would count as leaders in the church, and quite formal ones.

 

[timtofly]

Can we even use the word priest as being a monopoly of the RCC? I am pretty sure that it would be correct to say that any part of the body of Christ can act as their own priest.

Not too mention a lot of deity worship involved a priest and/or priestess who acted as an intermediary for God. Why did the church feel the need to take that away form the laity?

 

[Agent327]

And if you look at the Church outside the priesthood, I don't think you get a sharp delineation about the end of female authority in the Church. Certainly Abbesses would count as leaders in the church, and quite formal ones.

Abbesses only appear with the rise of monasticism, as I'm sure you are aware. In general, that would be an abbott though, not an abess. It is also connected with the fact that top religious positions tended to fall into the hands of nobility, as it was a means to ensure their offspring a comfortable livelihood outside the secular career mode. So it also opened up that career for the ambitious female offspring. Meanwhile the official church clergy stayed all-male. But I'm sure Plotinus knows more about this in detail.

 

[_random_]

Can we even use the word priest as being a monopoly of the RCC? I am pretty sure that it would be correct to say that any part of the body of Christ can act as their own priest.

Not too mention a lot of deity worship involved a priest and/or priestess who acted as an intermediary for God. Why did the church feel the need to take that away form the laity?

"Priest" is a valid translation of the Greek "presbyteros," which is used in reference to Christian clergy in the New Testament, although it's typically translated as "elder." It's the same word used for the Levitical Priests in the Septuagint, so for a typical Hellenized Jew (including St. Paul and most of his initial readers) the association was there.

 

[The Strategos]

My point was that we know of no female priests in the primitive church either. We know of women in positions of leadership - so from that point of view, the primitive church differed from the modern church - but we don't know of female priests.

Ute Eisen, Women Officeholders in Early Christianity: Epigraphical and Literary Studies gives several possible examples of female priests (and also gives the critical editions for the examples if you want to hunt down the primary sources). I will reproduce one just as an example a third century inscription:

Διογας εβισκοπος
Αμμιῳ πρεσβθτερᾳ
μνημης χαριν.

Bishop Diogas
to Ammion the Presbyter
In memorial

I also found the quotation from Atto of Vercelli's commentary on Canon 11 of the Synod of Laodocia interesting "For just as these women who were called priests (presbyterae) had assumed the duty of preaching, ordering, and instructing...(hae quae presbyterae dicebantur, praedicandi, iubendi, vel locendi...officium sumpserant), a practice which today is not at all in use." (I am pulling this quotation from the aforementioned Ute, 123). I read that to suggest that Atto knew of examples in the past when women functioned as priests but that by his day that practice had ceased.

But even if we go through all of Ute's examples and dismiss each one, I am puzzled why it matters for this conversation. You agreed that the earliest church showed a diversity of leadership models, and that women held positions which sometimes lead these churches (apostles, prophets, deacons). And we further know that some women taught/preached, and officiated over rituals such as the Eucharist and baptism. So even if they never were called "priest" if they have the exact same function as "priest" why split hairs over a term, especially when you yourself say that leadership titles are fluid in the earliest church?

 

[Plotinus]

If we forget Jesus, that is. And the exclusion of women from prominent positions. But that's not the point: you are quoting Paul to suggest there was misogyny in the early church. All that proves is that there was misogyny with Paul, which I presume is rather well known.

Yes, but I didn't merely cite Paul, I also cited the Pastorals, which are not by Paul.

That's interesting. So Paul might have actually known the presumed Q source which is now missing. I did not know this.

No, that is not what I said. I said there are sources behind Paul's letters, since he seems to be familiar with some of the traditions also found in the Gospels, most notably the eschatological and the ethical material. That does not mean he knew Q (since this material is also found outside Q) and it doesn't even mean that his sources were written.

That doesn't follow. The example of Jesus' birth was used because it fitted the narrative, and one of these is apocryphal to the core. Since Jesus is the protagonist in all gospels, the assumption that he was not born is quite illogical. Unless one assumes it is a fictional character, of course. So yes, by that logic (yours, not mine) Jesus was never born. That may be convincing to you, to me it is not.

Let me put it more clearly. Obviously Jesus was born. But two of the Gospels do not mention his birth. Therefore, the fact that two of the Gospels do not mention an event does not show that it did not happen. Similarly, two of the Gospels do not mention Jesus baptising. This does not show that it did not happen.

You are comparing apples and pears - as well as ignoring the reasoning and conclusion drawn. If Jesus baptized, then it didn't occur to at least two evangelists as essential - or they were unaware of it (which again substantiates the presumption that baptism wasn't essential). This is the key point. Baptizing only became essential to the Church.

It could just as well be the other way around: baptising was very important to Jesus, but the two Gospel writers who do not mention it rejected it. We just don't know enough to make such strong assertions as you do here.

But leaving this issue apart, even contemplating the baptisms mentioned, it is certain, from the gospel texts, Jesus did not baptize newly-borns, as has become the Church practice. Or do you feel this is another too bold assertion?

No, that seems reasonable, as there's no evidence of Christians doing that before the end of the second century.

What's the consensus on whether St. Augustine was anti-Semitic?

I don't know, but there's an interesting article about it here. I don't think that "antisemitism" is a very helpful category when talking about premodern writers because it has racial overtones that they simply didn't use: when ancient and medieval Christians criticise Judaism it's as a religion, not a race. Augustine criticised it like most other Christian writers, but he also believed that the Jews continued to play a role in the history of salvation and were under divine protection.

And if you look at the Church outside the priesthood, I don't think you get a sharp delineation about the end of female authority in the Church. Certainly Abbesses would count as leaders in the church, and quite formal ones.

This is true, but as JEELEN said, it's not really a good counter-example because they were leaders only over other women, so their case isn't really comparable to that of priests having authority over both men and women.

Can we even use the word priest as being a monopoly of the RCC? I am pretty sure that it would be correct to say that any part of the body of Christ can act as their own priest.

That's a Protestant view, but it's not one that's found in the Bible and obviously it's one that other Christians would reject. The Catholic Church holds that, in extreme circumstances, lay persons can perform that sacraments that are usually performable only by priests - e.g. baptising someone at the point of death when no priests are around - but a lay person cannot normally perform the office of a priest.

Obviously Catholics don't have a monopoly on the word "priest"; Orthodox and Anglican Christians have priesthoods as well, though not all Anglicans call them that.

Ute Eisen, Women Officeholders in Early Christianity: Epigraphical and Literary Studies gives several possible examples of female priests (and also gives the critical editions for the examples if you want to hunt down the primary sources). I will reproduce one just as an example a third century inscription:

Διογας εβισκοπος
Αμμιῳ πρεσβθτερᾳ
μνημης χαριν.

Bishop Diogas
to Ammion the Presbyter
In memorial

I also found the quotation from Atto of Vercelli's commentary on Canon 11 of the Synod of Laodocia interesting "For just as these women who were called priests (presbyterae) had assumed the duty of preaching, ordering, and instructing...(hae quae presbyterae dicebantur, praedicandi, iubendi, vel locendi...officium sumpserant), a practice which today is not at all in use." (I am pulling this quotation from the aforementioned Ute, 123). I read that to suggest that Atto knew of examples in the past when women functioned as priests but that by his day that practice had ceased.

But even if we go through all of Ute's examples and dismiss each one, I am puzzled why it matters for this conversation. You agreed that the earliest church showed a diversity of leadership models, and that women held positions which sometimes lead these churches (apostles, prophets, deacons). And we further know that some women taught/preached, and officiated over rituals such as the Eucharist and baptism. So even if they never were called "priest" if they have the exact same function as "priest" why split hairs over a term, especially when you yourself say that leadership titles are fluid in the earliest church?

You're quite right of course - I just like to split hairs, and got a bit over-focused on the priesthood question since that seems to me to be how the issue is framed today.

 

[Agent327]

You're quite right of course - I just like to split hairs

So I've noticed.

Yes, but I didn't merely cite Paul, I also cited the Pastorals, which are not by Paul.

All to prove there was misogyny in the early church. But the point was, they had females in leading roles, who were gradually ousted from these roles. It seems to me we can then speak of growing misogyny - even if misogyny was already present.

No, that is not what I said. I said there are sources behind Paul's letters, since he seems to be familiar with some of the traditions also found in the Gospels, most notably the eschatological and the ethical material. That does not mean he knew Q (since this material is also found outside Q) and it doesn't even mean that his sources were written.

Hm. If only these Christians had been more careful with their sources...

Let me put it more clearly. Obviously Jesus was born. But two of the Gospels do not mention his birth. Therefore, the fact that two of the Gospels do not mention an event does not show that it did not happen. Similarly, two of the Gospels do not mention Jesus baptising. This does not show that it did not happen.

I'm still seeing apples and pears. But it works the other way around as well: the fact that 2 out of 4 gospels mention a baptism, doesn't mean Jesus actually practised baptism. Just as we know Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem, even though 2 gospels clumsily claim so.

It could just as well be the other way around: baptising was very important to Jesus, but the two Gospel writers who do not mention it rejected it. We just don't know enough to make such strong assertions as you do here.

It seems to me you are making precisely such a bold assertion by claiming 2 gospel writers rejected baptism. On what grounds?

No, that seems reasonable, as there's no evidence of Christians doing that before the end of the second century.

Good. I suggest we end it there then. Because I don't like splitting hairs.

 

[Plotinus]

It seems to me you are making precisely such a bold assertion by claiming 2 gospel writers rejected baptism. On what grounds?

I didn't make any such assertion. I said merely that that's an alternative possibility, and the existence of such alternative possibilities means we can't make bold assertions one way or the other.

 

[classical_hero]

Yes, but I didn't merely cite Paul, I also cited the Pastorals, which are not by Paul.

Show how much you know about the Bible, very little. Paul wrote those based on the salutation he wrote at the end of his writings. The general theme goes is along the lines of "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you always." It is not always that exact phrase but the wording and meaning is similar. This is how we can know Paul wrote Hebrews and also by the style of the book. Plus the fact that each of them specifically states that Paul is the author and the author of all the pastorals knew both Timothy and Titus, whom Paul knew.

 

[Takhisis]

Your tone is not very heroic, my good sir.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

"I, Paul, an Apostle by by men by by Christ, regret to inform you that there are some depraved persons who think it acceptable to forge letters and pass them off as the work of someone else. Some even believe that this is a pious fraud rather than a sin. Others even consider practicing writing in the style of a revered author as a standard and necessary part of anyone's literary education, and think that mimicking salutations which tend to be written fairly standardized forms to be one of the easiest ways of doing this. Among them are some who would not think it shameful to specifically claim my own identity, even while warning their readers to beware of false letters being circulated under the same name. I charge you to beware all such unstable and double minded persons, my brethren, and keep apart from them. I know that our beloved brothers Timothy and Tithus, who are with me, would urge you likewise. Pray for us, while we likewise pray for you, that you be granted the discernment to tell true from false, for if the Lord does not cut short their days it may be possible for even the elect to be deceived and accept as scripture the schoolwork of those who never thought they would be taken so seriously. May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you always."

 

[Arakhor]

Show how much you know about the Bible, very little.

Your fervent desire for the Bible to be utterly inerrant (except when it's being merely metaphorical) does not suddenly make anyone who disagrees with you inept or uneducated.