Sit Down and Shut Up.

        We, of the Facebook community, have recently and in fact, often, from time to time been bombarded with a meme featuring a Biblical quote which states conclusively, that women are of secondary status, especially in “church.”  This snippet and others like it come from one and only one source – the “apostle” Paul, who never married, but whose misogynistic scribbling  has been used ever since by far too many, far too often, to justify the male abuse of the rights of women.

       What follows is based on the assumption, which I doubt, in truth, that much if any of what is written about Jesus is factual. I say that because we have “quotations” in the four Gospels from alleged incidents (Gethsemane, temptation in the desert, etc.) when no one was there to hear, and many more when no one literate was available to take notes. We also have parables, (Prodigal Son and others) attributed to Jesus, which derive from Buddhist dharma (teachings) of more than 500 years earlier. These are uncomfortable and unanswered facts which remain that way 2000 years later.   

        That established, it strikes me as odd, that in view of the  absence of gender driven discrimination anywhere else in the Bible (other than the occasional “selling your daughter into slavery” discussion) that the modern Church, or at least affair number of them, have essentially shit canned many precepts elsewhere in the NT in favor of the closeted epileptic, Saul/Paul.

         By the working definition that “If you talk to God, that’s prayer, but if God talks to you that’s insanity” Paul was a bit different. As famous Psychiatrist Thomas Szasz also said, “If the dead talk to you, you are a spiritualist; if God talks to you, you are a schizophrenic”.  Add to that, the caution that “If you believe God knocked you off our horse and blinded you and then his dead kid spoke to you,” then you probably should refrain from the mushrooms.”

       In any case, largely due to his redirected fanaticism but even more due to his good education, ergo literacy, Saul reinvented both himself, and, by any rational analysis, much of what would become the Christian church. By the year 200 AD a single bishop in charge of a metropolitan area became a universal norm without much controversy. This of course, leveraging male dominance from Paul’s (and Paul’s alone in “scripture”) misogynistic scribbling. By 300 years AD, Rome claimed primacy because the Apostle Peter was allegedly crucified in Rome.  Not only was Peter now deemed the first “Bishop of Rome”, but by his death there, the claim strengthened that Rome was the seat of ultimate authority in the Church. Yeah, I know, “why?” 

       That is not to say that the transition went smoothly. What is now considered as the New Testament had yet to be formally assembled as a defined set of Gospels.  More to the point, some of the extant scriptural writings in circulation (in Greek, primarily) simply didn’t fit the “Paulician,” male centric, narrative.

        Additionally, when (Roman emperor) Constantine converted to Christianity in 312, he wanted to use it as a way of unifying his fragmented Empire. A sort of standard propaganda if you will! As a Roman, he also was steeped in the “Paterfamilias” concept and tradition, as the Greeks had been centuries before. The paterfamilias was the oldest living male in a household and exercised autocratic authority over his entire extended family. This concept was a natural for the Roman Church to adopt, since a: It was consistent with existing societal tradition, and b: The letters of Paul just “fit right in,” providing what Christians now regarded as divinely inspired guidance regarding institutionalized subordinate status of women.

       There was then a concerted effort to standardize Christian doctrine and to promote an agreed canon, or official version of New Testament scriptures. Pope Damasus I's Council of Rome in 382 issued a biblical canon essentially identical to the currently accepted compilation. It should be noted that the classically accepted 27 “books” are dominated by 14 separate writings of Paul! On a “per book” basis, Paul’s writings make up just over half of the New Testament.

          Unfortunately for those favoring a standardized canon, there were other “gospels” circulating in both Greek and Coptic which didn’t precisely follow the party line.  Some of these “apocryphal” writings were side-lined, or even suppressed. The reasons are varied, from “local interest only", to "minor prophet", to “heretical.”   It is noteworthy that, historically, almost any religious philosophy which differs from mainline Christian teaching has evoked the “H” word.

        One of the earliest of these offshoots of thought, Gnosticism,  accepted the “teachings of Jesus” related to human interaction and moral imperatives , but…Gnostics also believed that the story of creation found in the Bible was a lie and that God wasn't actually the one responsible for the creation of our world, at least not directly. They claim the evidence of this comes from the imperfection, tragedy, and evil in our world. A good God could never have created it. Wow. No Adam? No serpent or apple?

         Three specific important (and banned) Christian Gnostic texts are the Gospel of Mary, the Apocryphon of John, and the Sophia of Jesus Christ. The texts themselves date to the second century and were originally authored in Greek.

        Here from the Apochryphon of John is just a sample of why the male dominated Church disdained it: “The father’s thought became a reality, and she who appeared in the presence of the father in shining light came forth. She is the first power who preceded everything and came forth from the father’s mind as the forethought of all. Her light shines like the father’s light; she, the perfect power, is the image of the perfect and invisible virgin spirit.

She, the first power, the glory of Barbelo, the perfect glory among the realms, the glory of revelation, she glorified and praised the virgin spirit, for because of the spirit she had come forth.  (bolding is mine)

She is the first thought, the image of the spirit. She became the universal womb, for she precedes everything, the mother-father, the first human, the holy spirit, the triple male, the triple power, the androgynous one with three names, the eternal realm among the invisible beings, the first to come forth.  Need I elaborate?

        Another Gnostic gospel, The Gospel of Mary, was well distributed in early Christian times and existed in both an original Greek and a Coptic language translation. The Savior concludes this teaching with a warning against those who would delude the disciples into following some heroic leader or a set of rules and laws. Instead they are to “Seek the child of true Humanity within yourselves and gain inward peace”. After commissioning them to go forth and preach the gospel, the Savior departs.  In this gnostic gospel, Mary Magdalene appears as a disciple, singled out by Jesus for special teachings. In this excerpt, the other disciples are discouraged and grieving Jesus' death. Mary stands up and attempts to comfort them, reminding them that Jesus' presence remains with them.

       Excerpts from the remaining pages include: 1 And Peter grew bold and asked, “Lord, tell us concerning the Father. Who is he? And why did he send you?” 2 And Jesus answered, “Simon, you are blessed, for you do not suppose you know that which must be a mystery to all flesh. 3 For my Father is not the maker of the world of matter which you see around you, a world that is filled with death and despair, (Wow, there goes Genesis) This is consistent with the Gnostic concept of a spiritual growth which seems much more Buddhist than Christian)…and…

“Peter said to Mary, “Sister, we are aware of how the Savior loved you more than any other woman. 2 Tell us the things the Savior said that you remember, the things you know but that we do not, that we have never heard.” 3 Mary answered them, saying, “What is hidden from you, I will surely disclose to you.” Rather inconsistent with Paul’s “shut up and sit down” abjurations, huh? 

Later, After Peter questions why Jesus told Mary all these things instead of him…

“Levi answered, saying to Peter, “Peter, you have always been a hot head. Now I am watching you fight against the women as if they were our enemies. 8 But if the Savior himself made her worthy, [Thomas 114] who are you, really, to dismiss her? 9 Surely the Savior knows her quite well. After all, he loved her more than us!   Obviously not fit material for Rome, (or traditional Judaism) huh?
 
        These claims of male power and control would soon align with Europe’s temporal rulers, also at the time solely male. Salic law, formalized by Clovis ca 500 AD, essentially stripped any ruling power from females in the realm of the Franks. This continued in continental Europe through the 16^th century but was not accepted as valid in Scandinavia and Britain. This explains why Pope Pius V issued a bull, which said in part,  "We charge and command all and singular the nobles, subjects peoples and others afore said that they do not dare obey [Queen Elizabeth I's] orders, mandates and laws." It also, by implication, decreed it a holy act to assassinate her.

        By this time Continental Kings were hand in glove with Roman Popes in cementing male control of society at the highest echelons, with the Holy Roman Emperor title, conferred on Charlemagne in 800 AD, now passed along through European kings. Of course, claiming divine supernatural authority for doing so just made it easier to shove down the female throat. During the 14th and 15th centuries, attempts were frequently made to provide juridical grounds for the exclusion of women from the royal succession. The main reason adduced in each case was custom, though Roman law and the priestly character of kingship were also used as justifications. (While “juridical: today would be used in the same sense as “legal,” the law in question at the time was Church, or Canon, law)    

        The Holy Roman Empire, along with the title, was finally dissolved by Francis II, after a devastating defeat to Napoleon at the Battle of Austerlitz. Until that time the Emperor was still widely perceived to rule by divine right, and the concept was also prevalent among most non-HRE monarchs. Of course, the Reformation had weakened the absolutist patriarchal hold by Bishops and the Pope since the late 16^th century.

        Again. I am not using scripture to justify a personal opinion. I use logic and moral reasoning for that. I wrote all this simply to point out the flaws in current fundamentalist justification of their subrogation of women as somehow divinely ordained. It’s a lot simpler than that. Some persons just disdain a level playing field, be it gender, race, sexual identity, taste in socks or whatever.  It does seem, however that those who most loudly proclaim their muscular faith and actions based on those personal choices comprise the great bulk of bigots as well