Implied Authority

This a response, too long for Facebook, to a reply to a picture I recently posted showing the shaming of women by those of the far right, specifically in response to assertions of sexual abuse by men. There can be little doubt that those of the Conservative ilk who race to pile on such complainants would sing an entirely different tune if it were their daughter. (Pardon me, I slipped into logic there for an instant.) Anyway, the person in question, at least by implication, seems to justify these opinions and dispersions as Biblical in nature, as many of the Far Rightists do. More disturbing (or it certainly ought to be) is her allegation that non believers are ..... never mind here she is in her own words, responding, not to me but to another response to the post which agreed with the sentiment displayed by the picture.  

       "Yes, the Bible is the catalyst for the views of most of us, others rely just on their common sense. Yes, women are subservient to men. Men are told to love their wife, but women are never told outright to love their husband. Amazingly, though, women love their kind husbands.
No, slavery is not okay in the Bible. The point is that if the Bible figure is a slave, then he is to conduct himself with love toward others, etc., in spite of the captivity.
We behave in order to please God. None of us would ask for your approval.
Your next comments are unclear as to context as well as meaning.
If you read the Bible, you are reading other people's mail. You are not expected to understand it, as it was not written for outsiders."  Yep, that's what she said! What follows is my response, once I stopped laughing.        

   

XXXX, this may well be the most well phrased and yet nonsensical defense of the deprecation of women I've ever read. I must assume from your post that you are a Christian, which means that nothing related to how we treat others (some of which you include in your apologia) which drives from the Old Testament is valid anyway, since your boss described a “New Covenant”, consistent with his teachings and personal behavior as described in such of the synoptic gospels as we have traditionally been “allowed “ to read.

The secondary status of women which evolved in early Christianity, and continues to a great extent in Evangelical settings, doesn’t stem from Jesus in any sense, but rather generally reflects the personal opinion of Paul; and even more so, the early Bishops who were, by the third century, creating a hierarchy (translates as "positions of authority and power") for themselves.

 As non-royalty, the only other option for a power-driven person in the Roman Empire was religion. This continued even into medieval Europe and later, where, typically, the eldest son inherited land and title and the second son entered the Priesthood. As recently as 2011, Bishops are still automatically granted seats in the House of Lords in the UK. There is only just very recently a proviso that one of the minor Bishops seats may be filled by a woman. Even a Methodist and a Chief Rabbi, (men only!) have been so seated. All this was cemented by the early systematic reduction of women to relatively inconsequential positions in the Church. Even those women who were sainted and were reverenced, had essentially no temporal authority over males.

Your claim that someone is "reading someone else's mail" would seem to indicate that you believe that the Bible was written, not for the world, but for select individuals (like you), and definitely not for anyone who can think critically. That’s just sad. It also implies than no one who is not already a believer could read the Bible and become one.  And finally, understand that the Bible you read isn't all the writings from the period which relate to Jesus.

The Old Testament, of course, was not written contemporaneously, but as much as a thousand years after many of the described "events," so it is much less "history " than fable. Heck, even Homer was writing of events (The Trojan War) at a time much closer (within about 400 years) to the alleged events.

Likewise, the synoptic gospels were not written by the apostles who accompanied Jesus, since almost all of them (like Peter) were semi- literate. It is a sure bet that Peter never wrote in Greek, if at all. Additionally, some of the most powerful scenes in them (the synoptics) cannot possibly be even first-hand accounts (Jesus conversation in the wilderness with Satan, for which there is no witness, yet there is verbatim dialogue), or he scene in the garden where even with all the Apostles asleep, we again have verbatim dialogue between Jesus and God? Really? and who wrote that down?

 Paul, however, raised in a well to do family in a formerly Greek, later Roman city (Tarsus), schooled there and later, Jerusalem, was well educated, and literate in Greek and used that skill to create the image of Jesus as he wanted the world to see it, yet he never met the man either (don’t give me that “Road to Damascus” bunk). 

So, in summary, claiming to "know" what Jesus said, or even meant, was wishful thinking. Even if we assume that what is attributed to Jesus is what he actually taught, it was soon distorted into a different focus, from a personal religion to a “corporate” one. Every nation state (all of Europe) which made Christianity the state religion also derogated and relegated women to secondary status, while (exclusively male) Church primates quickly became advisors to kings.

The first step was to make the scriptures unavailable to the common person, who, generally illiterate, was reliant upon the newly empowered, literate, clergy to read it and interpret it for them. This would result in the Catholic Church continuing the Mass in Latin, understood by essentially no one not of the elite from, at the latest, the 6^th century into the late 20^th century (1965), when the first vernacular Mass was celebrated in Ireland.

By the late 200’s AD, most of the “traditional” Gospels which supported the new theme of a male dominated clergy and a secondary status for women, were accepted as such. Reasons for this are several and easily understood. First, converting Jews and Greeks, both of whose cultures subordinated women by religious credo, custom and tradition, was much easier if Christianity followed suit. Secondly and just as important was the opportunity for men, in societies already male dominated, to gain power without being born to it. This became even more obvious after Constantine's commission in 331 of fifty copies of the Bible for the Church at Constantinople. Now, endorsed by the Emperor, Christianity’s early power brokers had the highest authority to form the Bible as they desired, regardless of those “other" books, which tell a slightly different story.  

The "gospels” (Mary Magdalene, Timothy, Peter, Levi and around 30 other scriptural writings which didn't "make it" were rejected by an early Church council. What do they have in common? All differ from the “accepted” version as early church power brokers wanted it. More significant for the purposes of this discussion, several show the importance and equal status of Mary Magdalene as an apostle. (Here is a snippet of the “Gospel of Mary:” “Levi answered and said to Peter, Peter you have always been hot tempered.  Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries. But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well.”  Why might Peter have acted as he did? Perhaps the “non-included’ Gospel of Philip is instructional. Here’s a verse or two: “And the companion of the [savior] was Mary Magdalene. He loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples… [damaged text]. They said to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Savior answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness." Apparently, in Jesus case, he liked what he saw!

So, feel free to rationalize why you accept or condone the Far Right’s relegation of women and their right to control of their own bodies to the trash heap of religious dogma, but don’t claim it’s because the Jesus you claim to worship wanted it that way.