Priesthood did not function in the Earliest Christian Communities

[Jude2]

4 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Okay, let me try and explain my methodology a little better.  I am not arguing that a male priesthood didn't *become* orthodoxy.  It certainly did.  Ignatius, Tertullian were all about male leadership.  Male leadership is also seen in later writings that made it into canon...so Acts ( very likely also written, in part,  by Luke), 1 Peter,  Revelation, Hebrews and the Pastorals reflect that.  My interest is in the earliest writings from the earliest communities, which is why I concentrate on Mark, Q, L, M and the 7 undisputed letters of Paul.  

 

I prefer to use the whole word of God, we believe the Bible to be the word of God, and not try to second guess what is there.or cross out some of the Apostles over preference to others..  

[Jude2]

4 hours ago, juliann said:

You have given theological reasons that do not stand up to academic scrutiny. You cannot just pop out verses from different authors, times, and places and create a sermon as a substitute. You do have to deal with what is there....and where it is. 

mmmm whose academic scrutiny?  I have know idea who you are or what you believe and I don't want to be rude but no one has the right to tell another what is or isn't in the Bible.

Each person has a right to the have the Holy Spirit guide them as they read the scriptures and yes we will come to different conclusions.  I have for twenty years read and reread the Bible, I've attended classes at the Institute of Religion, actually graduated and at BYU. But mostly I've simply studied on my own using different commentaries both in and out of the Church. I use William Barclay's Daily Study Guide  a lot plus I've used a Strongs Bible concordance (with a raised eyebrow) to compare the Hebrew to what the English says. But more than anything I've prayed over the different passages to understand them.

I took Peter apart and read line by line wondering if he was speaking about 'a priesthood of believers' as my Evangelical friends describe or is he speaking of a priesthood order as our Church practices it. When I noticed that Peter addressed different groups, servants and wives then I got that little light which flicks on and understood he was giving instruction to these different groups; the brotherhood, servants, wives, husbands and then the over all church. I don't need any special certificate to figure that out. 

The word 'order' as found in Heb 6:20 is Taxis and means to make an arrangement, in science it's the making of an order by stimulus, they classify groups of organism by how they react to stimulus. 

It's all about groups. In the military sense it describes a troop with an arrangement of ranks. So when the writer of Hebrews wrote;    "Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec."  he wasn't speaking of an order of two. He was speaking of  large grouping of individuals arranged by rank. It is interesting that most Mormon men can give the linage of their priesthood. 

[waveslider]

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Okay, let me try and explain my methodology a little better.  I am not arguing that a male priesthood didn't *become* orthodoxy.  It certainly did.  Ignatius, Tertullian were all about male leadership.  Male leadership is also seen in later writings that made it into canon...so Acts ( very likely also written, in part,  by Luke), 1 Peter,  Revelation, Hebrews and the Pastorals reflect that.  My interest is in the earliest writings from the earliest communities, which is why I concentrate on Mark, Q, L, M and the 7 undisputed letters of Paul.  

So is Ephesians considered an undisputed letter of Paul? If so how do you reconcile this:

"5  One Lord, one faith, one baptism,"
"11  And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;"
Ephesians 4:5,11

If you don't think it is a text you can rely on, it is kind of convenient how you leave out whatever you deem to go against your narrative, because this pretty much shows a structured priesthood authority as to Christ's one church, that he set up.

 

Edited November 30, 2016 by waveslider
Had an extra word in it.

[Abulafia]

3 hours ago, waveslider said:

So is Ephesians considered an undisputed letter of Paul? If so how do you reconcile this:

"5  One Lord, one faith, one baptism,"
"11  And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;"
Ephesians 4:5,11

If you don't think it is a text you can rely on, it is kind of convenient how you leave out whatever you deem to go against your narrative, because this pretty much shows a structured priesthood authority as to Christ's one church, that he set up.

 

No.  I consider Ephesians to be disputed so I do not include it in the 7.  The list of positions  do come in the early genuine letters of Paul though (twice),  and they are interesting.  When thinking about structure it is important to consider formal/informal and charismatic function.  For all those roles not one should be assumed as exclusive to men.  The nuance is there.  

So, Apostles, for Paul, are those who have seen the resurrected Jesus.  That's why, technically, he can self identify as an apostle.  And remember, the gospels all preserve a tradition that women saw the resurrected Jesus first (Paul doesn't interestingly, though he does recognise women who were in Jesus before him and has no problem with female apostles).  

Prophets were given special recognition because of their charismatic gifts.  Women clearly functioned as prophetesses.  These  are mentioned in Acts  (the daughters of Philip, and the oft missed Anna from the special and unique Lukan material).  Look at her role carefully.  Simeon blesses, whilst Anna has the prophetic function, and it is Anna who evangelises openly and proclaims Jesus.  

Women are most certainly pastors and teachers.  None of these require priesthood or even formal calling. Remember Paul, comes from the margins of the emerging Jesus communities.  Called by God (for him), not any man and  based on direct angelic intervention and vision. He was a controversial figure fighting against the earliest Jewish communities with whom he considers himself in competition,  for every one of his genuine letters (almost!).

 

 

Edited November 30, 2016 by Abulafia
P

[Abulafia]

The Therapeutae are interesting to look at, for precedence (see Philo and Josephus).  Therapeutae actually means healers.  Both healed and able to heal.  Women were undoubtedly described as voluntary and active participants in the life of the  group.  (though Philo is concerned about modesty and careful that his audience wouldn't assume anything untoward, a big deal for him).  Women healed, women followed in the liturgy, Miriam as their prophetess,  whilst men followed Moses.  Women gave up their lifestyles a d possessions to be part of the sect.  Women were coequal except for Torah reading which Philo presents as a male role...though whether he is overplaying his hand for modesty is likely.  There were women who could read Torah (Lee Levine' s book on the Ancient Synagogue, shows this clearly).  

[Abulafia]

4 hours ago, Jude2 said:

 

I prefer to use the whole word of God, we believe the Bible to be the word of God, and not try to second guess what is there.or cross out some of the Apostles over preference to others..  

And I respect that as an approach, but believe it or not, canon has a history and many texts were disputed and argued over.   Why four gospels for instance.  That's actually a really important issues.  Why four?   Why didn't other gospels and accounts make it?  We can either say...divine intervention. ..or we can recognise that what was picked, what was disputed and what was eventually left out, was done so according to a fought over and developing orthodoxy.  (see Lee  MacDonald on  this, or even Ehrman).  So, my approach is historical critical.  You may not agree with that approach, but it has a long history and is a valid and useful one for analysing texts without too many theological presuppositions.   

[Abulafia]

12 hours ago, Gray said:

I've heard that some people think that Luke was written by a woman, given the prevalence of strong female characters in the Lukan text. 

Yeah.  I spent some time on this, and it would be nice, but I find no evidence for it.  What is interesting is that the special and unique Lukan material does present women very differently to M (special Matthean material).

Since  it's coming up to christmas, it's worth noting the difference in how  Mary is treated.  M uses men as mediators, L doesn't!   In L, Mary receives direct angelic intervention.  In L, Mary is given an independent, teaching role in the text.  

What this reveals, is that the author of L (which is why Acts can be so controversial, and was most certainly subject to editing  - the textual variants tell us that) approaches women differently. Except where it comes to the anointing of Jesus, where L  or L's editor, changes the subject  completely! (The anointing passage becomes a teaching unit unrelated)

Edited November 30, 2016 by Abulafia
Sp

[Abulafia]

Okay, so I hope I have explained well enough, why I limit my analysis to Mark, Q, M, L a d the 7 undisputed letters of Paul. (But as Juliann noted I do use later (and earlier sources) to show development, precedence and bias.

Q is important because sections may predate Mark, so we are talking an early witness, perhaps as early as Paul's genuine letters. 

So, Q's author appears to be male and like Mark, men inhabit dominant roles in the text.  Women appear in the home and most often subservient to men...but again there is nuance.

Like Mark, Q is completely silent on John's priestly heritage.  it just isn't there.  Neither is there any indication of 12 men called.  It is also from Q that John asks if Jesus is the *one to come* (Luke 7:18-20).  Now, this just doesn't fit with Jesus and John knowing  each other very well, and makes the baptism of Jesus stories seem more invented than based in history.   The distance between the two indicated here is intriguing. Both Miller and Kloppenborg's reconstructions leave us unclear as to whether John actually baptised Jesus.

Q also has no account of what we come to know as the eucharist (sacrament).  in Q, Jesus invites all to come and eat at his table in the kingdom.  His meal table. (See Miller's reconstruction of Q - Luke 22:28-30).  This teaching appears to be gender inclusive, and is similar to the Galatians teachings on there being no more race, gender and class in the Kingdom.  

Q also contains the famous Sermon on the Mount and Plain teachings which outline a society where compassion, love of enemies, the golden rule, and the reordering of sociey is noted. Judgements of others are warned against (including, but not written, judgements based on gender).  These teachings, if applied,  really had power to impact the lives of women against other diverse social mores and traditions.  The fictive kinship shown in Q, has Jesus as head, but all equal below him. (See Burton Mack, Lost Gospel.., 1993,  also Lk 12:49-53

In  Q, those who are to judge Israel are generalised to those *who have followed me*.  And we know that women as well as men were following Jesus. it wasn't a boys only club. Women as judges should not be considered without precedent, in fact Deborah offers ample precedent (Judges 4:5).

Q also gives an explicit role to the divine feminine. Wisdom/Sophia speaks.  If, along with wisdom, the spirit, is also feminine...then it is  female spirit that leads Jesus into the wilderness, it is the female spirit who teaches missionaries what to say, and it is the spirit's denial which offers the severest punishment.  In layman's terms. ..you can  speak against me...but not your mother.  (Lk 12:10).

 

(For Paul using a baptism creed which is gender inclusive see Aune, Jesus and the Gospel Tradition 533, 546, also A J Levine Women in Q, also Schussler Fiorenze, Jesus: Miriam's Child..140)

 

 

 

Edited November 30, 2016 by Abulafia
Sp

[Jude2]

7 hours ago, Abulafia said:

And I respect that as an approach, but believe it or not, canon has a history and many texts were disputed and argued over.   Why four gospels for instance.  That's actually a really important issues.  Why four?   Why didn't other gospels and accounts make it?  We can either say...divine intervention. ..or we can recognise that what was picked, what was disputed and what was eventually left out, was done so according to a fought over and developing orthodoxy.  (see Lee  MacDonald on  this, or even Ehrman).  So, my approach is historical critical.  You may not agree with that approach, but it has a long history and is a valid and useful one for analysing texts without too many theological presuppositions.   

 

As a Christian and a devout Mormon who believes deeply in Jesus Christ I choose "divine intervention".  I have a theory that Jesus had John "tarry" precisely to make sure the right gospels and letters were placed into the cannon of the Bible.  

[Gray]

17 minutes ago, Jude2 said:

 

As a Christian and a devout Mormon who believes deeply in Jesus Christ I choose "divine intervention".  I have a theory that Jesus had John "tarry" precisely to make sure the right gospels and letters were placed into the cannon of the Bible.  

Your religious beliefs about the text are altogether a different subject from the discussion of the text from a historical and textual critical perspective. 

[CV75]

On 11/29/2016 at 5:13 AM, Abulafia said:

Okay, so I don't expect to be agreed with, either by Catholics or Mormons, but my study of the earliest Christian communities has led me to believe that Jesus, John the Baptist, many of the early disciples,  and Paul (and all the Greek/Roman) converts, operated and acted outside of priesthood.  It's just not there.  these were groups that began on the borderline of a diverse faith tradition, and were different to, say, the Essenes at Qumran who claimed  authentic Jewish priesthood authority on and against the usurpers operating in Jerusalem.

 

Because there was no male priesthood, women were involed and led in ways not recognised today.  They taught, baptised, proselytised, and called on the power of God in their work. They were invited to partake at Jesus table and to judge the tribes...... as gentiles, men and women were called to judge the world (by Paul).

 

The Pope seems to have doubled down, of late, on women...sadly...but at some point...both Catholic priests and Mormon priesthood will need to recognise the sandy foundation upon which their authority is built..

 

Comments...

Are you including the early Christian communities described in the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price?

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Okay, so I hope I have explained well enough, why I limit my analysis to Mark, Q, M, L a d the 7 undisputed letters of Paul. (But as Juliann noted I do use later (and earlier sources) to show development, precedence and bias.

Q is important because sections may predate Mark, so we are talking an early witness, perhaps as early as Paul's genuine letters. 

So, Q's author appears to be male and like Mark, men inhabit dominant roles in the text.  Women appear in the home and most often subservient to men...but again there is nuance.

Like Mark, Q is completely silent on John's priestly heritage.  it just isn't there.  Neither is there any indication of 12 men called.  It is also from Q that John asks if Jesus is the *one to come* (Luke 7:18-20).  Now, this just doesn't fit with Jesus and John knowing  each other very well, and makes the baptism of Jesus stories seem more invented than based in history.   The distance between the two indicated here is intriguing. Both Miller and Kloppenborg's reconstructions leave us unclear as to whether John actually baptised Jesus.

Q also has no account of what we come to know as the eucharist (sacrament).  in Q, Jesus invites all to come and eat at his table in the kingdom.  His meal table. (See Miller's reconstruction of Q - Luke 22:28-30).  This teaching appears to be gender inclusive, and is similar to the Galatians teachings on there being no more race, gender and class in the Kingdom.  

Q also contains the famous Sermon on the Mount and Plain teachings which outline a society where compassion, love of enemies, the golden rule, and the reordering of sociey is noted. Judgements of others are warned against (including, but not written, judgements based on gender).  These teachings, if applied,  really had power to impact the lives of women against other diverse social mores and traditions.  The fictive kinship shown in Q, has Jesus as head, but all equal below him. (See Burton Mack, Lost Gospel.., 1993,  also Lk 12:49-53

In  Q, those who are to judge Israel are generalised to those *who have followed me*.  And we know that women as well as men were following Jesus. it wasn't a boys only club. Women as judges should not be considered without precedent, in fact Deborah offers ample precedent (Judges 4:5).

Q also gives an explicit role to the divine feminine. Wisdom/Sophia speaks.  If, along with wisdom, the spirit, is also feminine...then it is  female spirit that leads Jesus into the wilderness, it is the female spirit who teaches missionaries what to say, and it is the spirit's denial which offers the severest punishment.  In layman's terms. ..you can  speak against me...but not your mother.  (Lk 12:10).

(For Paul using a baptism creed which is gender inclusive see Aune, Jesus and the Gospel Tradition 533, 546, also A J Levine Women in Q, also Schussler Fiorenze, Jesus: Miriam's Child..140)

These same elements (women preaching, teaching; women providing healing or “relief”; women acting as “comforters”; they make covenants and covenant to consecrate; receive priesthood endowment; seek and obtain spiritual knowledge, strength and power; etc.) are observable within a priesthood order: I see many of them operative today in the LDS Church today, most notably within marriages, councils and temples (if callings don’t count).

[Abulafia]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Are you including the early Christian communities described in the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great 

No. Just Mark, Q, M, L, and the 7 undisputed letters of Paul. 

 

 

 

[Abulafia]

Just now, CV75 said:

These same elements (women preaching, teaching; women providing healing or “relief”; women acting as “comforters”; they make covenants and covenant to consecrate; receive priesthood endowment; seek and obtain spiritual knowledge, strength and power; etc.) are observable within a priesthood order: I see many of them operative today in the LDS Church today, most notably within marriages, councils and temples (if callings don’t count).

 

Yes.  But in these early texts priesthood doesn't function.  it just isn't there.  One could also argue that the early Jesus movement was a rejection of Priesthood, (though Matthew probably wouldn't take that approach).

[Tacenda]

Couldn't Joseph Smith have taken the PH concept from Freemasonry? Looks like there is plenty to go on. 

http://www.royalarchmasonsalberta.com/index.php/library/aspeslet-library/general/220-high-priesthood-of-melchizedek

http://www.evangelicaltruth.com/the-holy-order-of-high-priesthood-degree

http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/love.html

http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/masonic_manual/order_of_the_high_priesthood.htm

Edited November 30, 2016 by Tacenda

[mfbukowski]

Oddly this is just another variation of an argument from Biblical history

"History shows that the church is not true."

It's hard to make the case that we should do everything the way it  was done 2000 years ago

The church as we have it was restored for the latter days. It is not an exact reproduction of what happened 2000 years ago.

[Abulafia]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

Oddly this is just another variation of an argument from Biblical history

"History shows that the church is not true."

It's hard to make the case that we should do everything the way it  was done 2000 years ago

The church as we have it was restored for the latter days. It is not an exact reproduction of what happened 2000 years ago.

But my purpose isn't to show that the church *isn't true*...only to show that both Catholic and Mormon (where leaders from both use precedent and tradition) practice must be set against the lived experience of the earliest Jesus followers.  It's precedence for change, not for destruction.  Mormonism and Catholicism aren't going anywhere soon.

[CV75]

47 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Yes.  But in these early texts priesthood doesn't function.  it just isn't there.  One could also argue that the early Jesus movement was a rejection of Priesthood, (though Matthew probably wouldn't take that approach).

Is the word "power" ever used in these texts? Much of the time in the Old Testament its use seems to refer to the power of God, whether God or His people are the possessors of it. I think in the broad sense, priesthood can refer to divine power, a divine order or an ecclesiastical (sometimes governmental) office.

[Abulafia]

Yes. Both δύναμις and ἐξουσία (both feminine nouns) are used.  Remember though, that what Jesus gives to the disciples in Mark, (authority/power to cast out demons) isn't limited to them.  Mark 9:38 and 39 has Jesus telling his disciples not to forbid those using his name from performing deeds of power.  So, here we have others who use Jesus' name but aren't part of the group yet are permitted to function.  Do we want to say that men not part of the group are permitted to perform deeds of power but not women in the group? (That would be strange).

[waveslider]

11 hours ago, Abulafia said:

No.  I consider Ephesians to be disputed so I do not include it in the 7.  The list of positions  do come in the early genuine letters of Paul though (twice),  and they are interesting.  When thinking about structure it is important to consider formal/informal and charismatic function.  For all those roles not one should be assumed as exclusive to men.  The nuance is there.  

So, Apostles, for Paul, are those who have seen the resurrected Jesus.  That's why, technically, he can self identify as an apostle.  And remember, the gospels all preserve a tradition that women saw the resurrected Jesus first (Paul doesn't interestingly, though he does recognise women who were in Jesus before him and has no problem with female apostles).  

Prophets were given special recognition because of their charismatic gifts.  Women clearly functioned as prophetesses.  These  are mentioned in Acts  (the daughters of Philip, and the oft missed Anna from the special and unique Lukan material).  Look at her role carefully.  Simeon blesses, whilst Anna has the prophetic function, and it is Anna who evangelises openly and proclaims Jesus.  

Women are most certainly pastors and teachers.  None of these require priesthood or even formal calling. Remember Paul, comes from the margins of the emerging Jesus communities.  Called by God (for him), not any man and  based on direct angelic intervention and vision. He was a controversial figure fighting against the earliest Jewish communities with whom he considers himself in competition,  for every one of his genuine letters (almost!).

 

 

Well I can now exit this thread since it is obvious that you limit scripture to fit your own narrative rather than read scripture and find out what the real narrative might be. I choose to pray about the things I read for understanding, not eliminate entire books of scripture in order to believe something about it. Good luck with whatever it is you are trying to tell everyone, as for me I am really bored of this thread.

[carbon dioxide]

On 11/29/2016 at 3:13 AM, Abulafia said:

Okay, so I don't expect to be agreed with, either by Catholics or Mormons, but my study of the earliest Christian communities has led me to believe that Jesus, ... operated and acted outside of priesthood. 

 

My comment is that one can make a claim that Paul or John operated outside the priesthood but Jesus?   Who would know more about the priesthood than Jesus?

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

My comment is that one can make a claim that Paul or John operated outside the priesthood but Jesus?   Who would know more about the priesthood than Jesus?

What historical or textual reason is there to believe that Jesus was an expert on priesthood?

[Abulafia]

39 minutes ago, waveslider said:

Well I can now exit this thread since it is obvious that you limit scripture to fit your own narrative rather than read scripture and find out what the real narrative might be. I choose to pray about the things I read for understanding, not eliminate entire books of scripture in order to believe something about it. Good luck with whatever it is you are trying to tell everyone, as for me I am really bored of this thread.

No worries.  I made my choice of texts based on dating.  So I am trying to get to the earliest layers of the Jesus tradition. I can assure you, that you're not the only one to find this boring.  I think both my husband and son would agree with you but for different reasons!

Edited November 30, 2016 by Abulafia

[Abulafia]

29 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

My comment is that one can make a claim that Paul or John operated outside the priesthood but Jesus?   Who would know more about the priesthood than Jesus?

This is where Matthew is interesting, because in Matthew Jesus has various people go to the Jewish institutional priests.  The implications of that are quite profound.  Did Jesus originally see himself as part of the Jewish movement.   For Matthew, the answer is mixed and suggests editorial activity.  (It's also Matthew that has the famous Peter and binding/loosing passages, here Matthew copies from Mark and changes Mark, who has none of it

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

Yes. Both δύναμις and ἐξουσία (both feminine nouns) are used.  Remember though, that what Jesus gives to the disciples in Mark, (authority/power to cast out demons) isn't limited to them.  Mark 9:38 and 39 has Jesus telling his disciples not to forbid those using his name from performing deeds of power.  So, here we have others who use Jesus' name but aren't part of the group yet are permitted to function.  Do we want to say that men not part of the group are permitted to perform deeds of power but not women in the group? (That would be strange).

That is why I was distinguishing between divine power, a divine order and an ecclesiastical office. Some texts may use the word “power” to mean any or all of the three, simultaneously or separately.

Mark 9:38-39 doesn’t seem to refer to ordained priesthood or ecclesiastical office. But Matthew 16:18-19 does seem to (“keys” in connection with authority in a “church”), and while we cannot tell how far ahead Jesus was envisioning building His church, it seems to have occurred by 18:17 (complete with a grievance procedure!). These three passages seem to indicate that the church was built after the transfiguration (as recorded in Matthew 17 and Mark 9) and after Jesus refers to or acknowledges a priesthood order relationship in Matthew 17:10-12 and Mark 9: 11-13. That the church followed the establishment of the principle of priesthood order and keys indicates a progression into ecclesiastical authority. Knowing that sequence of events isn’t a priority for these kinds of texts, how does the sequence described in Matthew and Mark compare to the other texts you’re using?

The conversation from Mark seems to refer to the disciples observing a man doing miracles in Jesus’ name, but I wouldn’t say that Jesus was excluding women from doing miracles in His name. I don’t think He was acknowledging a priesthood order either, but merely admonishing the disciples to receive them because any good deed performed in His name was good for the cause at the time.

Just a thought: the grammatical gender of  a noun is often arbitrary and may even contrast with their meaning. Do you know how this applies to the Greek words for power and authority? Then again, behavior-wise, the principles of power and authority as taught by Jesus reflect "feminine" attributes such as gentleness, empathy, and sensitivity, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings (which depending on context are a symbol of power, strength, love)..