[Magdalen] Epiphany

[James Oppenheimer-Crawford]

I too find the passage from Galatians you mention quite compelling.  I did
a bit of a study on it, as a matter of fact, and it turns out that the text
has a very interesting choice of words.

Paul says there is no more Jew or Greek, there is no more slave or free,
there is no more male and female (3.28).  Now it happens Paul uses *oude*
(or) between "slave" and "free" and between "Jew" and "Greek", but between
male and female, he uses the word *kai *(and).  Why the different word
choice?  Well, it turns out that most folks who have written about this
(commentaries on Galatians) have just said nothing about it at all, and one
who noticed it said it means nothing, for uode and kai can be somewhat
interchangeable, in his opinion.

Paul's Bible was the Septuagint (LXX).  Probably everyone in the Christian
community knew the OT through the LXX.  It happens that the phrase Paul
used "arsen kai theylu" comes right out of the LXX; and the phrase pops up
frequently in the LXX. In fact, it happens more than the Hebrew equivalent
in the Masoretic text.
I wondered, was it possible that Paul is basically saying that in Christ,
the very essence of Creation (male and female created he them) is
overthrown by Christ? Was Paul unconsciously quoting this phrase right out
of the Bible, not merely using the terms casually? If this is true, then
the implications for Paul's view of gender differences are enormous.
I looked a little further in Galatians, and found ("Bingo!") that Paul
writes in Chapter 6:

14May I never boast of anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ,
by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.15For neither
circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything; but a *new creation* is
everything!

​​
Paul had been dancing around this as you can read in the text leading up to
the end of his letter, and here he finally says it. This *new creation* has
swept aside the distinctions of "arsen kai theylu" -- male and female.
Less courageous and less ethical folk coming after him would add words to
his letters and would even alter a name to make a female appear to be male,
but that's not Paul.  Paul sounds like he is a true prophet, following the
truth wherever it may lead.

James W. Oppenheimer-Crawford
*“If you have a chance to accomplish something that will make things better
for people coming behind you, and you don’t do it, you're wasting your time
on this Earth.”  -- *Roberto Clemente

On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Sally Davies <sally.davies at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I read Ann's comment as a spectrum thing, meaning that it's not an 'either
> you understand or you don't'. There are different ways to understand Paul -
> and I've been through a few shades on the spectrum. There are always things
> I feel I understand more now, and things I still don't understand and
> probably never will. And yes, things I don't like and probably never will.
>
> One book that really changed my perspective was "The Gospel According to
> Paul" by Robin Griffith-Jones. I don't read a lot of scholarship and
> generall feel rather ignorant of the various controversies, but this book
> was an eye opener.
>
> Even if it could be shown that Paul definitely wrote the passages which
> have been so painfully used and abused against women's dignity and
> equality, I would still revere him for the one or two stunningly beautiful
> and profound passages to which I return again and again. When he wrote
> "there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free", he could
> have been describing himself - a beautiful, wild, confusing, frustrating
> mix of all those characteristics.
>
> For instance, his words on love, and his word-picture of the Cosmic Christ
> "the image of the invisible God", as well as the lovely doxologies which I
> daresay were in common usage in the early church but have been saved and
> preserved for us by Paul.
>
> I also love the way he never gave up in his own life, struggling to
> understand more and to love more - despite coming from what seems like a
> very legalistic, judgemental and unloving background. When his authentic
> personal voice is speaking from the page, it's always fresh, raw and so
> real it could be happening right now, somewhere in the world. In fact, it
> probably is.
>
> I guess that in life he wasn't easy to get along with; a number of great
> teachers seem to have outright fallen out with him or at least concluded to
> go their separate ways. And he's still not easy to get along with now. But
> so, so worth it.
>
> Sally D
>
>
>
> On Friday, 9 January 2015, Grace Cangialosi <gracecan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ann, I apologize for misreading your earlier post. I didn't realize you
> > were just responding to Jay, and I took your comment to indicate that
> folks
> > who aren't fond of Paul only feel that way because they don't understand
> > him...as more enlightened people do. And I heard that as rather
> > condescending.
> > Grace
> >
> > > On Jan 8, 2015, at 2:06 PM, Ann Markle <ann.markle at aya.yale.edu
> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Grace, it's obvious that mileage does vary on this list - about Paul
> and
> > > everything else!  But anyone who doesn't understand might grow in
> wisdom
> > by
> > > trying to understand. - and Jay said clearly she DIDN'T understand (why
> > > Paul got into the canon of scripture).  I always learned (from very
> wise
> > > teachers) that it's better to wrestle with scripture and try to better
> > > understand, than categorically dismiss.  And of course, it's ok to
> > disagree
> > > with parts of scripture -- I certainly do, even parts of Paul, and so
> > does
> > > every single person I know, lay or ordained.  I think Jay and I are
> > simply
> > > having a disagreement about Paul, into which you felt it necessary to
> > > insert your opinion and take me to task.  Of course, that's allowed,
> too,
> > > as differing opinions are what make pub conversation interesting.  It's
> > > when it gets personal by attributing personal characteristics, moods
> and
> > > motivations (Ann Markle is snarky, condescending) that it gets to be
> time
> > > to bow out of the conversation and let others have the last word.
> Sorry
> > I
> > > spoke up with a differing opinion - I guess I should have known better.
> > >
> > > Ann
> > >
> > > The Rev. Ann Markle
> > > Buffalo, NY
> > > ann.markle at aya.yale.edu <javascript:;>
> > > blog:  www.onewildandpreciouslife.typepad.com
> > >
> > >> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Grace Cangialosi <gracecan at gmail.com
> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Yes, that's what I thought, too, Ann. Your remark felt very
> > condescending
> > >> to me. There are many things about Paul's writings that are wonderful,
> > and
> > >> there are other things that I find offensive. I believe it's possible
> to
> > >> understand something and still not like it.  Obviously YMMV.
> > >> Grace
> > >>
> > >>> On Jan 8, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Jay Weigel <jay.weigel at gmail.com
> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Bit o' snark there, don'tcha think?
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Ann Markle <ann.markle at aya.yale.edu
> > <javascript:;>>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Feel bad for folks who don't understand Paul.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Staunch feminist,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Ann
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The Rev. Ann Markle
> > >>>> Buffalo, NY
> > >>>> ann.markle at aya.yale.edu <javascript:;>
> > >>>> blog:  www.onewildandpreciouslife.typepad.com
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:06 PM, M J [Mike] Logsdon <
> mjl at ix.netcom.com
> > <javascript:;>>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I sometimes wonder how some, if not almost all, of Paul got into
> > the
> > >>>>> canon.
> > >>>>> But that's me.<<<
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Lee Hays of the Weavers once said that whenever Paul came into a
> town
> > >> he
> > >>>>> instantly set sex back 20 years.
> > >>
> >
>