Book Review: ?What Paul REALLY Said About Women?

John Temple Bristow?s book?What Paul REALLY Said About Women, was recommended to me by the most unlikely of sources, my friend Lorena. I am quite appreciative of that fact and she knows exactly why. (Enter conniving laugh sound effect). All inside jokes aside, the?book itself challenges the traditional and literal interpretations of St. Paul?s letters. Notorious for their controversial and seemingly anti-feminine principles, St. Paul?s letters in the New Testament have been perceived as incompatible with the contemporary values of modernity and equality of the sexes. Bristow counters this perception by grafting his arguments in the themes of linguistic and historic-cultural contexts (although he emphasizes linguistics to a greater degree). Linguistically, he postulates and demonstrates quite successfully that the English language could not possibly reflect the true message Paul was trying to convey about women. He illustrates that the English translation of the New Testament is so non-reflective of the original manuscripts, that if it were to be translated back into Greek, the message would not accurately reflect the message of the original Greek. Secondly, Bristow maintains that ancient scholars who originally interpreted and translated the scriptures were heavily steeped in the principles espoused by ?Greek philosophy which was dominant at the time. Greek philosophy, although celebrated as a foundational heritage of western civilization, was ironically and profoundly misogynistic. Centuries later, church leaders who were knowledgeable and influenced by Greek traditions by virtue of their education, allowed Greek customs and perceptions to influence their interpretations of St. Paul?s teachings. By drawing on linguistic and historical-cultural readings of scripture, Bristow posits that in fact, St. Paul was an active proponent of equality who actively shunned the profound inequality of Judaic, Roman and Greek cultures.

Although contextual readings have gathered a negative reputation in some Christian circles due to its association with ?progressive? or ?liberal? christianity, the practice of ?reading the bible in its context? is one which must be achieved, otherwise scripture cannot be applied to modern life. One of the issues Bristow contends with, are verses in 1 Timothy which forbid women to teach or hold authority over men. Although many evangelical churches have come to disregard such verses, other fundamentalist churches adhere to them adamantly. The book makes the argument that St. Paul revolutionized worship services when he first allowed women to participate, and secondly when he encouraged them to learn the faith. This was without parallel at that particular time, and could have drawn some criticism from Christian Jews, Greeks and Romans. Considering opposition that could have ensued as a result, Paul chose a strategic route where he maintained that women should be educated in matters of faith but conceded that women were not to teach or hold authority over men. There could have been other reasons to this, including the fact that women were previously not as educated in matters of faith and doctrine to be able to lead ?(remember women had only begun to be part of worship services). Alternatively, a literal interpretation of St. Paul?s words runs into problems when compared to modern social customs. Today (at least in western society), women can become teachers or professors, and they can pursue careers where they hold authority over men such as doctors, judges and CEOs of large private firms. Some fundamentalists would bristle at this and claim that first, St. Paul?s words were referring exclusively to leadership in church environments due to the propensity of women to be spiritually weaker (I HAVE heard this before), and secondly, scriptures are timeless and should not be tampered with using ?contextual readings?.

Beginning with the most absurd of the two, if women were spiritually inferior, would they have been present at Pentecost? Why would they be able to inherit the same spiritual gifts as men? And how were they able to endure horrific tortures at the hands of Romans and sometimes, martyrdom? In regards to the second argument, it must be realized that cultural practices and conventions often change. Whereas acts of war, and acts which resembled genocide were socially acceptable in the Old Testament, they are not today. Another example of this (not mentioned by Bristow) is the practice of ancient slavery. Today the same practice is abhorred and seen as socially unacceptable by all Christians regardless of denomination?even though scripture never denounced it formally. This illustrates that even fundamentalists cannot be consistent in applying literalist interpretations today due to their incompatibility with modern ways of living. Scripture must always be read in the context in which it was written, otherwise inconsistencies will frequently arise.

While Bristow?s treatise dealt primarily with outmoded perceptions Christian doctrine may hold towards women, it also underscored the point that scripture should not be approached as a comprehensive book of codified religious law. In other words, it should not be approached in a literal way. One must be cognizant of the reality that there are linguistic differences between ther contemporary versions of scripture and the original Greek. In addition, there must be a realization that cultures shift significantly.

Source: http://www.insighter.ca/2011/06/book-review-what-paul-really-said-about-women/

google doodle environment alvin ailey air pollution jonathan rhys meyers jonathan groff bob marley