[Bananafish] Scratching an itch on phantom limbs

[Yocum, Daniel R Civ 21 CES/CEOE]

Kenny, Paul may have been born in Asia Minor consequently receiving
Roman citizenship but he was educated at the feet of Rabbi Gamaliel "yet
brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the
perfect manner of the law of the fathers" this city being Jerusalem.  So
on the contrary, Paul was a "I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee",
his early life summarized thus; "My manner of life from my youth, which
was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews
Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the
most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee."  The Pharisees
being the p'rushim, the sect of Judaism that recorded the Talmud
(Mishnah and gemara).  Also, if one has familiarity with the texts
(mishnah et al.), it is clear that his writings contain many references
and allusions to this core of teachings.

Paul did write to the Greek but it was always to the Jew first, and the
Jews of the dispora and later galut (exile) were Hellenized, they were,
like all Jewish communities centered around synagogues, taught according
to the traditions that Paul knew.  Paul did write expressing differences
from some specifics of that tradition but it was based upon a common
foundation which has by and large been ignored by Christianity.

Kenny you state "However, it was explained to me that the church 
at Corinth held a balcony where the women were relegated."  First the
building in Corinth was a synagogue and the women's galleries are an
anachronism.  They have not been discovered in any of the ancient
synagogues.  It was not until the medieval period that
galleries/balconies were created in synagogue architecture.  You were
misinformed.

You then state " Or is the tragedy of having 
misinterpreted that single admonision just too painful to acknowledge?"
which I do not have any idea what this means in relation to the subject
at hand.  All the Mediterranean societies in this period were
Patriarchic and Paul's comments do not seem hostile to the history of
the period.  Jewish Liturgy had a very organized form as early as
Nehemiah and deviations from it were considered contrary to the purposes
of a Beit Tefillah/midrash.  There were times where a more free form of
discussion was used and it was during these times that everyone
expressed themselves within the community.

If you are interested in learning more about the historical aspects of
this period I would be more than happy to recommend some books to you.

Daniel 


Daniel, I do agree that Paul is interpreted in something of a vacuum -
but 
the blind spot may be more Western European than Hellenistic. Paul was
not 
from Israel, Judea, or what have you, but modern-day Turkey, which was
at 
that time highly Hellenistic. He was also a Roman citizen, well
educated, 
and rooted in Greek culture. His epistles (aside from Romans) are all to

Greek cities and geared to Greek audiences. Viewing his teachings
through 
Greek eyes should clarify his statements rather than muddy their
meanings. 
The misinterpretations most likely originate elsewhere.
For example, there's one portion - I think it's to the church in Corinth
- 
where Paul says that women should remain silent in church. The
repercussions 
of this single statement have been enormous throughout history and
remain a 
divisive debate to this day. However, it was explained to me that the
church 
at Corinth held a balcony where the women were relegated. They would
often 
shout down from the top tiers for the preacher to speak louder when they

found it difficult to hear from such a distance. Paul felt that it was
wrong 
to disrupt services in this way.
Too simple and logical an explanation? Or is the tragedy of having 
misinterpreted that single admonision just too painful to acknowledge?
Kenny