"Daughters of Christ": Finding Language to talk about Women and Priesthood

[Rivers]

11 hours ago, Eek! said:

I have no problem with putting motherhood and fatherhood on equal levels, even if the paths are quite different. 

Nor do I have a problem with putting priesthood and priestesshood on equal levels, even if the paths are quite different.

 

Why are there priesthood offices but no priestesshood offices. Or are there?

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, Rivers said:

Why are there priesthood offices but no priestesshood offices. Or are there?

There absolutely are.
But good luck getting people to agree or accept them because we have no D&C 20 that contains them nor are they part of the Church hierarchy.

Edited August 14, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Eek!]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

There absolutely are.
But good luck getting people to agree or accept them because we have no D&C 20 that contains them nor are they part of the Church hierarchy.

Very interesting!  I hadn't really thought about that before reading Rivers' question and your response.  Thank you for responding because I was at a loss.

I can think of two possible "levels" of priestesshood:  The one that makes it appropriate and legitimate for women to function as priestesses in the endowment ceremony, and then the level that they were anointed to become (a future event), which I take as referring to the second anointing/fullness of the priesthood. 

That being said, this is an area that you have obviously studied and pondered more deeply than I have.  I welcome any corrections and insights you would feel comfortable sharing.

 

Edited August 14, 2016 by Eek!

[Abulafia]

Not asking to be agreed with on this, but have been studying this issue for a while now as part of my academic studies.  What I am finding is that if one takes the NT documents in the order that they were written, then it becomes apparent that priesthood wasn't actually a part of the early Christian communities. So, let me explain why I have concluded that.  Neither Mark, Q, M attribute priesthood office to John the Baptist - only L does that (Luke's unique material), and he does so because he is trying as he does in Acts, to portray a nice easy view of authority and it's development.  (Like the development of priesthood narrative in Mormonism, this is interesting because it indicates tension and competition)

Q doesn't even have John clearly baptising Jesus and the Q question about Jesus from John (is he the one to come or do we look for another) is probably accurate but contradictory with a view that John baptised Jesus and there and then recognised his authority.  He probably didn't.  So...it's messy.

Add to that, Jesus is from the tribe of Judah, so of the Davidic line and not the priesthood line.  Hebrews is quite a late offering, and again an attempt to embed authority amidst competition. Messy.

Add to that, Paul was from the tribe of Benjamin.  The closest he comes to the idea of priesthood, is priestly service (Romans) in his seven genuine letters.  Priesthood just isn't there, either from Jesus, John or Paul.  The early Christian communities began then, on the borderlines of a faith and outside of recognised (I know there were some who didn't recognise authority of Jerusalem priests - Essenes, Therapeutae etc) priesthood.  

The whole purpose of the priests was to offer sacrifice daily and yearly, but Jesus as the high priest, using a better priesthood (according to Hebrews - author unknown) offered himself as ultimate sacrifice.  

Now, I know this is messy because James and the Jerusalem group are still connecting themselves to the temple and Paul is nearly killed after going in to take a vow - so ideas of the role of Jesus as sacrifice were also developing.

So, coming to the point..... given that priesthood wasn't a part of the early communities who began on the borderline of a Jewish faith tradition, priesthood is in effect irrelevant.  You can't give to someone something that is irrelevant. - whether that be male or female.

Now it is a nice idea in terms of the embedding of authority, but the early communities can't be used for precedent.  Schussler-Fiorenza recognised this. 

What could women not do in the early communities?  That's the question.  A look at Q suggests that all in the kingdom will be eating at Jesus' table.  All are invited, all are equal.

 

Edited August 16, 2016 by Abulafia
Spelling

[Abulafia]

To continue.

It appears to me that the Eucharist is a Pauline development - he mentions that he got it directly from a visionary experience with the resurrected Jesus, and Mark writing later simply copies the tradition.  The Q form is as I wrote above.  All will be eating and drinking at Jesus' table.

But, given the development of the Eucharist from the last supper - who prepared it  men or women?  What can Passover tradition tell us?  Well, it can tell us that women were there.  This isn't an all male event.  Martha is serving at table as a deaconess in at least one meal event. The Roman catacombs show women as equal participants in the sacred meal.  (a meal - love feast) Paul doesn't mention how men and women were to function at the love feast, so we can only assume it didn't matter.

How did baptism take place?  We actually don't know, but if women were naked as some later commentators suggest, then men aren't going to be baptising them.  Did someone stand at the side of the water and announce the blessing?  Mikveh practice suggests this to be the case, with women in the water.  If women were clothed, did women perform baptisms or did they self baptise?  We aren't told but given both Essene and general Jewish purity practice, it is very possible. Again, Paul, while attaching his own view of the purpose of baptism, doesn't rate it highly in his own ministry.  He didn't baptise much, and we simply are not told whether this was a practice barred from women, no matter what Tertullian later thought.

The case of the unnamed woman who anoints Jesus is interesting because in both Mark and Matthew, this woman anoints his head.  This is a kingly tradition and a priestly function, yet a woman performs it - see how the later gospel authors twist and squirm to change this.

Women were evangelisers, prophetesses, itinerants, apostles (using Paul's wider definition) missionaries, providers, deacons, benefactors, leaders of house churches, .  - What couldn't they do?  What were they barred from in this fledgling faith begun from the margins of a faith tradition with no priesthood initially?

 

Edited August 16, 2016 by Abulafia
Clarifications

[Abulafia]

So, I think we can talk about the priestly authority of Jesus, and according to Mark, even those who are not of his group of immediate followers can teach, cast out bad spirits, in his name.  Jesus appeared, in Mark, to have a liberal view of authority.  The silence in all the gospels, I think can tell us that unless really necessary it wasn't deemed 'proper' to talk about women - DcConick puts this point over forcefully in her book on Holy Misogyny. But, her thesis doesn't always hold and what we are told about women is all the more significant for it.