Priesthood did not function in the Earliest Christian Communities

[Abulafia]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

 

This seems to be a case of “a rose by any other name…”

It seems to me that, because the early texts testify that Jesus is God, and His power and authority can be called priesthood, how He shared that power and authority would constitute delegated priesthood. And of course how that was done evolved even in His lifetime (for example from Mark 1:16-20 to 3:14 to 6:7-12 to 16:14-18).

 

What aspects of the early texts, which were lost to Christendom by 1820, do you view as having been restored through Joseph Smith, and how do they show up in the Church today?

 

Yes, the power and authority of God was eventually repackaged as priesthood, and in doing so women became more and more excluded from central roles in the early communities.  But I challenge you to find any of the major characters identified in Mark, Q, M, L and the 7 genuine letters of Paul, identified or described as priests.  It isn't there.  It's surprising, but there it is.   Authority was egalitiarian, charismatic and liberal for many, even for Paul.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Yes, the power and authority of God was eventually repackaged as priesthood, and in doing so women became more and more excluded from central roles in the early communities.  But I challenge you to find any of the major characters identified in Mark, Q, M, L and the 7 genuine letters of Paul, identified or described as priests.  It isn't there.  It's surprising, but there it is.   Authority was egalitiarian, charismatic and liberal for many, even for Paul.

I would only suggest that divine power and authority, however described (and organized with or without appendages and offices and so forth), is priesthood. The egalitarian, charismatic and liberal aspect of this authority, often referred to as moral authority or moral legitimacy, I think has as much to do with community as governance and operational organization. I think God does what He can to make His community work on earth.  I think this kind of authority is dependent on the "common consent" of those adhering to the principles and attributes taught by the Lord, which brings them together to form a community / assembly / congregation / church.

My question is, what aspects of the early texts, which were lost to Christendom by 1820, do you view as having been restored through Joseph Smith, and how do they show up in the Church today?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Abulafia said:

When you take a course in history,  you do a great disservice to the texts to apply later theological assumptions to them.  That's not what historians do. 

It may be the ideal, but assumptions are always applied in some way or other.  It is impossible to avoid bias.

[saemo]

4 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Oh. As a well published author,  theologian and historian, troll, is a disservice to him.   When you take a course in history,  you do a great disservice to the texts to apply later theological assumptions to them.  That's not what historians do. 

Well Bart Ehrman is well published and well liked but I think he is trolling too. Maybe not intentional yet but he definitely has a bias that flashes in red neon to me. 

I used to think that history was like a fossil, a moment in time frozen for examination. But living in the world for 50+ years undid that view for me. What was written in stone when I was younger is now dust and new narratives have replaced them. 

So while history interests me, really, the narrative makers and ever changing narratives remove a lot of the trust, in historians. Particularly those whose reputations increase when the narrative is shocking enough to send priests fleeing.  Priests are not uneducated or fragile flowers, and leaving indicates more to me that the BS meter might have pegged.

I remain skeptical. 

Edited December 2, 2016 by saemo

[Abulafia]

10 minutes ago, saemo said:

Well Bart Ehrman is well published and well liked but I think he is trolling too. Maybe not intentional yet but he definitely has a bias that flashes in red neon to me. 

I used to think that history was like a fossil, a moment in time frozen for examination. But living in the world for 50+ years undid that view for me. What was written in stone when I was younger is now dust and new narratives have replaced them. 

So while history interests me, really, the narrative makers and ever changing narratives remove a lot of the trust, in historians. Particularly those whose reputations increase when the narrative is shocking enough to send priests fleeing.  Priests are not uneducated or fragile flowers, and leaving indicates more to me that the BS meter might have pegged.

I remain skeptical. 

Fair enough.  I have far too much respect for Bart Ehrman to describe the work he does as a historian as trolling.  I don't need to agree with his conclusions, but as a scholar he gets it from both sides really, both orthodox believers, and mythicists.  Not all Catholics are orthodox believers, many aren't.   I have watched myself, as various religious leaders on my course grapple with the nuanced history of christian origins, many Catholic, but also other faith traditions.  Doing Christian history isn't easy.   One may reject the historical critical method, reject the German Schools where it all started, but it has brought us some incredible scholarship,  and I am not going to poo, poo it as trolling.  Neither would I poo poo Islamic scholars who seek to understand the history behind the theology.  

 

Edited December 2, 2016 by Abulafia

[Abulafia]

When a scholar suggests that history tells us, or can tell us, that Jesus rejected priesthood,  that can upset those whose lives are dedicated to that office by that name. It's understanable, despite a group of priests not being delicate flowers!

[Abulafia]

Okay, so Paul indicates that he is an apostle (by virtue of his experience with the resurrected Lord) and not sent by any human authority.

"Paul an apostle—sent neither by human commission nor from human authorities, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— and all the members of God’s family who are with me," (Gal 1:1). 

 

So he is claiming here that human authorities didn't send him.  Yes, he visits the *acknowledged* pillars, but he doesn't get his authority from them. His authority comes from his vision. 

 

He continues

 

"For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it. I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors. But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus."

 

It's important to remember that Paul defines apostles differently than just the 12.  An apostle is one who has seen the resurrected Lord.  So for him, in his acknowledgement of the existence of apostles and prophets who are itinerants, does not limit them to 12.

 

In his earlier letter in 1 Thess 5:20, he refers to prophecies not being despised.   So it appears that charismatic itinerants,  who are both prophets and apostles are working in the communities, and this does not preclude the operation of women in those roles. This also is supported by the Didache, where itinerant prophets and apostles are also referred to. These (in the Didache) are entitled to first fruits (which does imply they are replacing priests..) but again, it should not be assumed that women weren't among this number, and indeed Paul tells us that men can be accompanied by wives, that female missionaries were in operation, doing the same work of the Lord, and there were almost certainly occasions where a woman's presence would be needed, for instance, when teaching groups of women.  

Edited December 2, 2016 by Abulafia

[Abulafia]

Again, Paul nowhere describes himself as a priest.  Within the Jewish framework he is from the tribe of Dan.  His authority comes from a charismatic experience and his understanding of his premortal divine calling.  He hasn't been ordained,  and competition against him, indicates considerable controversy over how he defined the gospel. (Despite Acts attempts to portray a smooth, orderely working, the reality was far more messy as revealed in the genuine letters).

[juliann]

The Didache says the prophets are to be the "chief priests." Christians were still using the temple (as spoken of by Paul) and that is what "priest" would probably refer to even later. So I question the significance of using the terminology of priest. The Didache makes it clear they saw a need to fill that role, however. 

Again, if you are going to expand to the Didache, that opens the door to much more than you are allowing for. 

Edited December 3, 2016 by juliann

[Abulafia]

9 hours ago, juliann said:

The Didache says the prophets are to be the "chief priests." Christians were still using the temple (as spoken of by Paul) and that is what "priest" would probably refer to even later. So I question the significance of using the terminology of priest. The Didache makes it clear they saw a need to fill that role, however. 

Again, if you are going to expand to the Didache, that opens the door to much more than you are allowing for. 

I agree.  The Didache appears to portray an all male local leadership of Bishops and Deacons.  Paul's witness is far more intriguing.  Again, that the prophets function as "high priests" doesn't mean they were high priests.  We are left in the dark as to whether prophets and apostles could be women, ( in the Didache)..but it is not impossible.

 

I have a theory about Paul and Peter... I'll write more later if that's okay.  With offspring at his uni at the moment. 

Edited December 3, 2016 by Abulafia

[Abulafia]

 

So, Mark 16, the earliest account from the earliest manuscripts has Mary Magdalen, Mary (the mother of James and most likely Jesus' mother also), and Salome approach the tomb. A messenger tells them he his risen and to go tell the disciples and Peter, and that Jesus will go ahead of them to Galilee.  

Matthew 28 adds a few more details, but Mary Magdalen and the *other* Mary are there with no Salome mentioned.  A Messenger is there, but this time Jesus actually confronts the women and they worship at his feet. (Here we also are told the story that many Jews tell each other about the body being stolen).

Luke 23 and 24, doesn't mention the women by name initially, only that they followed him, but they are there ready to perform the traditional female function on the first day of the week (Sunday Morning).  This time 2 men appear, not one.  Luke then tells us the names of the women, "Now it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told this to the apostles".  We don't know how many *other women*. - but it's more than 3.  It is Cleopas and an unamed other who talk to Jesus on the road to Emmaus, and on meeting the disciples they are told that Peter has seen the risen Lord, despite the reader being told Peter had only seen the empty tomb.

John 20 tells us only Mary Magadalen goes to the tomb to find it empty and tells Peter and John, but she does use the word *we* implying more than one woman. In this account the disciples outrun Peter to see the tomb is empty and return to their homes.  Mary stays behind, peers into the tomb to see two messengers, then she sees Jesus and attempts to embrace him.  Later the other disciples see him and then again later Jesus is seen by 7 disciples, who are given the Holy Spirit, and power to forgive and retain sins (similar to the binding and loosing in Matthew, but here portrayed as a post resurrection event).

Paul's witness is interesting because we know he had met with both Peter and James, and he recalls the resurrection events as follows

1 Cor 15  "For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles."

So Paul says Jesus appeared to Cephas first, then the 12, then 500 brothers, then James, then all the Apostles. Not one single, solitary woman is mentioned, though if the use of adelphoi also includes women then it is possible but not made explicit.

So Matthew and John preserve a tradition of women seeing the risen Jesus first, but Mark, Luke and Paul, do not.  It's quite a pickle.

Given that Paul mentions at least 4 factions. .. Apollos, himself, Peter and the Messiah... I wonder if already, attitudes to women differed depending on each group.   Given the way Peter is described in later accounts, I wonder if he objected to the involvement of women, whereas Paul is more liberal? 

Just edited to add that Paul differentiates between the 12, who all see Jesus (not 11) and apostles.  Again intriguing. 

Edited December 3, 2016 by Abulafia

[Abulafia]

Okay, so, I'll try and make this my last post, and thank the mods here for letting me run with this.  It's been an important topic for me.

So, one of the questions I asked was whether a belief in a divine diadic/hermaphrodite God, would lead to a difference in the way women were allowed to function.  Pagel's notes the presence of the divine feminine in communities supressed as heretical.  See Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.11.1, also Pagels Gnostic Gospels ch 3. There were other structural models which didn't include a Bishop, Deacon and Presbyter.  See Irenaeus AH 1.13.1-6, also Tertullian De Praesc 41., and The Apocalypse of Peter, also Gregory of Nazianzen, NPNF, in 5th Th, Or., On the Holy Spirit, 7.97.

I also asked how patriarchal contemporary Jewish structure was.  In Diaspora Judaism, no one has done more to question a mysogynistic Jewish structure than Amy Jill Levine.  (See AJ Levine '2nd Temple Judaism, Jesus and Women,' Biblical Int 2, 1, 1994). As Brooten and Lee Levine pointed out, using epigraphic, archaeological and textual evidence, women in Judaism could be heads of the synagogue.  Rufina was one such a person in Syria, Sophia appears as an elder, presbytera, and archisynagogissa,  (see Levine and Weiss, 'From Dura to Sepphoris..', Journal of Roman Archaeology,  2000, also Ross Kraemer, Her Share of the Blessings, Oxford OUP, 1994).  These were not solitary findings and reference to other female leaders were found in Thebes, Thrace, Venusia, Rome and Malta. Titles include leader (archigeisa), elder and Mother of the synagogue., also Pateressa (fatheress). with the title supported in written evidence. (See De Altercatione ecclesiae et synagogue,  PL 42.1134, in Levine 2nd Temple.., 220).  

 

 

I'll finish tomorrow with Paul.  (If that's okay).

Edited December 4, 2016 by Abulafia

[Abulafia]

Just to add, that without the term *priest* being used, it makes sense for women in Judaism to have these roles.  You didn't need to be a priest to teach, support financially, or lead the synagogue community.  Jesus teaches in the synagogue as a non priest, at least he is presented that way, so this wasn't unusual.

[CV75]

40 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Okay, so, I'll try and make this my last post, and thank the mods here for letting me run with this.  It's been an important topic for me.

So, one of the questions I asked was whether a belief in a divine diadic/hermaphrodite God, would lead to a difference in the way women were allowed to function.  Pagel's notes the presence of the divine feminine in communities supressed as heretical.  See Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.11.1, also Pagels Gnostic Gospels ch 3. There were other structural models which didn't include a Bishop, Deacon and Presbyter.  See Irenaeus AH 1.13.1-6, also Tertullian De Praesc 41., and The Apocalypse of Peter, also Gregory of Nazianzen, NPNF, in 5th Th, Or., On the Holy Spirit, 7.97.

I also asked how patriarchal contemporary Jewish structure was.  In Diaspora Judaism, no one has done more to question a mysogynistic Jewish structure than Amy Jill Levine.  (See AJ Levine '2nd Temple Judaism, Jesus and Women,' Biblical Int 2, 1, 1994). As Brooten and Lee Levine pointed out, using epigraphic, archaeological and textual evidence, women in Judaism could be heads of the synagogue.  Rufina was one such a person in Syria, Sophia appears as an elder, presbytera, and archisynagogissa,  (see Levine and Weiss, 'From Dura to Sepphoris..', Journal of Roman Archaeology,  2000, also Ross Kraemer, Her Share of the Blessings, Oxford OUP, 1994).  These were not solitary findings and reference to other female leaders were found in Thebes, Thrace, Venusia, Rome and Malta. Titles include leader (archigeisa), elder and Mother of the synagogue., also Pateressa (fatheress). with the title supported in written evidence. (See De Altercatione ecclesiae et synagogue,  PL 42.1134, in Levine 2nd Temple.., 220). 

I'll finish tomorrow with Paul.  (If that's okay).

A partnership of two gods is so different from a hermaphroditic god that I think a belief in one or the other would lead to very different religious functions for women. A dyad consisting of a man and a woman would inspire believers to share power and authority as a couple and express it through distinct and complimenting as well as overlapping functions resembling a family. A hermaphroditic god might also inspire separate religious functions by gender in worship and service in fulfilling the god’s purposes. So I think it depends on what the god tells its followers to do, no matter its structure or design. Each god instructs its followers accordingly.

Whereas Mark (for example) speaks of Jesus both as the Son of God and as the bridegroom, I think we have an implied feminine participant at the highest levels. The religion would recognize this and structure functions among the members accordingly. Only those functions that are directly revealed by the Dyad through their representative on earth (in the case of LDS, Jesus) and His delegates (the children of the bridechamber) in my mind would be the legitimate structure. Going back to Adam and Eve as the model, I think that leaves a lot of room for variability according to family, whether on an intimate level or a larger, dispensational level.

[Abulafia]

10 hours ago, CV75 said:

A partnership of two gods is so different from a hermaphroditic god that I think a belief in one or the other would lead to very different religious functions for women. A dyad consisting of a man and a woman would inspire believers to share power and authority as a couple and express it through distinct and complimenting as well as overlapping functions resembling a family. A hermaphroditic god might also inspire separate religious functions by gender in worship and service in fulfilling the god’s purposes. So I think it depends on what the god tells its followers to do, no matter its structure or design. Each god instructs its followers accordingly.

 

Whereas Mark (for example) speaks of Jesus both as the Son of God and as the bridegroom, I think we have an implied feminine participant at the highest levels. The religion would recognize this and structure functions among the members accordingly. Only those functions that are directly revealed by the Dyad through their representative on earth (in the case of LDS, Jesus) and His delegates (the children of the bridechamber) in my mind would be the legitimate structure. Going back to Adam and Eve as the model, I think that leaves a lot of room for variability according to family, whether on an intimate level or a larger, dispensational level.

 

It's a tricky one.  Margaret Barker produces really compelling  evidence for the extinguishing of the divine feminine from Hebrew text.  But even so, if Judaism wanted to distinguish itself by strict monotheism it may be that the masculine and feminine were meant as metaphors for humanity which consists of masculine and feminine.

 It's interesting,  and reflective of various author bias (as male) that in Genesis 2 woman is created after man, when biologically all fetuses begin as both male and female, and then develop difference according to genetic and hormonal instruction (biologists can correct me if I have that wrong).  Genesis 1 is actually very different to Genesis 2, as we have them today.  And it is Genesis 1 (from the later P tradition), that portrays God as equal in terms of gender, rather than  the older J tradition found in Genesis 2 which sees woman as subordinate as a result of female disobedience.

What's interesting is that editors of Paul use Genesis 2 to note a woman's subordinate position, but the gospels do not.  Matthew and Mark reference Genesis 1:26, 27 directly, and both reference Genesis 2 for marriage as *one flesh* without implying or expressing the subordination of the woman.  (see Mt 19:4, Mk 10:6, Mt 19:5-6, and Mk 10:7-9).  Also, Jesus  view of divorce was egalitarian much to the amazement of the more mysogynistic followers. (See Mk 10:11-12).  

Edited December 5, 2016 by Abulafia

[Abulafia]

So  basically, I am convinced that both Jesus and surprisingly, Paul, held to the view that in the kingdom men and women functioned equally in both the use of charismatic gifts of the spirit that enabled prophecy, apostleship (under both Pauline and gospel definitions), healing -  mentally and physically, evangelising,  itinerant work, pastoral care,  and visiting the poor).  I believe that Mark preserves a  memory of 5 core followers, 3 of which, were mentioned as pillars by Paul (note the connotation of the terms pillars). Somewhere along the line (and probably using contemporary Jewish structure), the idea of 12 judges developed who were to judge Israel.  But Q preserves an earlier tradition where all are invited to eat at Jesus table and all are judges.  Paul copies this more general use of judging, because for him, all followers, all Saints, male and female will judge the gentiles. (See Rm 16:15)

 

[Abulafia]

Okay, so Philippians is the only place in the genuine letters, where Paul uses the terms Bishop and Deacon together. (Phil 1:1).  What was the function of these people and were they both male and female for Paul?  They appear to be non itinerant.  Who has called them? Paul..these are communities he has evangelised.   

So, what does bishop translate to.  Episkopos, ἐπίσκοπος, a male noun, denoting a caring role,  keeping an eye on the flock, an overseer.  Deacon from διάκονος, both a male and female noun, which is used by Paul and the gospels to denote a servant, a waiter, an administrator.  

Are we to assume that the non itinerant carers and servants were all male? 

 

[Bernard Gui]

On December 2, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Abulafia said:

In his earlier letter in 1 Thess 5:20, he refers to prophecies not being despised.   So it appears that charismatic itinerants,  who are both prophets and apostles are working in the communities, and this does not preclude the operation of women in those roles. This also is supported by the Didache, where itinerant prophets and apostles are also referred to. These (in the Didache) are entitled to first fruits (which does imply they are replacing priests..) but again, it should not be assumed that women weren't among this number, and indeed Paul tells us that men can be accompanied by wives, that female missionaries were in operation, doing the same work of the Lord, and there were almost certainly occasions where a woman's presence would be needed, for instance, when teaching groups of women.  

Then there is this from the Didache XV...

Quote

Appoint therefore for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, meek men, and not lovers of money, and truthful and approved, for they also minister to you the ministry of the prophets and teachers. 
 Therefore do not despise them, for they are your honourable men together with the prophets and teachers.

 

[Abulafia]

Okay, last post!  

 

Burton Mack uses Q to argue for the idea of a new family in the Kingdom, where all are equal under Jesus.  Yes.  Jesus is the male head but all are equal below him. (See Burton Mack, The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins, San Fran, 1993).  The evidence is found in both the Sermon on  the Mount and Plain, and in Mk 3:31-35, Luke 12:49-53).   Galatians 3:28, (a Pre Pauline creed) picks up on this.  In the Kingdom, we shouldn't see gender, race, colour, or social class...(pretty wonderful stuff).

A careful analysis of genuine Pauline material indicates women were important as itinerants and on a local basis. Paul's note that Julia and the Sister of  Nereus are praised as *Saints* can imply more official roles where women are mentioned by name elsewhere.  Again, because *priesthood* does not explicitly function at this early stage, there is room for women on an egalitarian basis.

Phoebe is described in Romans 16 as someone who lives in a small harbour village, Cenchrae, 7 miles east of Corinth. She is described as a sister, minister/diakonon (masc) (compare Rom 15:8 and 16:1), and leader, protectress,  benefactor. (See Elizabeth McCabe, 'A Reevaluation of Phoebe...exposing the inaccuracies of English translations' in Women in the Biblical World, 2009, ch 8.)

Phoebe is the first to be described as a deacon with particle usage, of a church, in a particular location. The use of 'ousan' implying formal ministry.  As a diakonon, she may also be a letter carrier implying a female itinerant role. (see also the famous Pliny account in 112ce referring to female deaconesses).  A later 400 ce stele in Jerusalem refers to Sophia as a deacon like Phoebe, and also  Maria, also described as a deacon using the male format. 

Prostatis is a hapax legomenon (unique term).  It's tricky but contemporary usage implies a *woman set over others*, a carer, guardian, protector, patroness, helper, succorer... Similar to episkopos, which also implies an overseership and caring role. (See McCabe, 104, also Joseph Modrzejewski, Jews of Egypt..1995, and Erich Gruen, Diaspora:Jews amidst Greeks and Romans (CUP, 2002, 115).

 

Prisca and Aquilla run a house church jointly, with Prisca noted first (against convention). Mary has an active function as someone who worked hard in the community, as have Junia and Andronicus, who are noted as apostles, (using Paul's definition, this would be a couple who have seen the risen  Lord)

There are also, of course two female missionary couples mentioned, familiar to LDS, Tryphena and Tryhposa, and in Philippians, Euodia and Synchte, described as co-workers.

Lastly Paul speaks of Apphia *the Sister*, in Philemon, where she is noted in the  median position next to two men.  Phoebe is also noted in this way, suggesting (following Cotter 351) a functional title, similar to Timothy who is referred to as *the brother*.

 

Okay.  That's it. I think. I hope there is enough there to indicate that the emerging movements were diverse, had different approaches to women, but underneath the male bias (which most likely began soon after and even before the crucifixion among Jesus disciples), and orthodox editing, women and men were once equal and jointly important participants in the kingdom that looked  beyond judgements  based on gender, class and race.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 5, 2016 by Abulafia

[Abulafia]

25 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Then there is this from the Didache XV...

 

Indeed!  Eerily similar to the pastorals and disputed Pauline material!  I think it important to remember that like most texts, the Didache preserves both very, very early (the eucharist is amazingly Jewish) and later traditions, and it takes an expert to pick out the different layers.  I am not that expert.  Hopefully,  one day. 

 

 

[Avatar4321]

Odd conclusion to me. I read the new testament, particularly the gospels and it seems like priesthood authority is an incredibly inportant theme.

Take Matthew for example, he is very clear that one of the reasons the people were amazed with Jesus is that He taught as one having authority. He was clear about giving them power and keys.

Paul discussed offices in eph 4.

Just seems clear thasthast Christ's church was organized and empowered with priesthood authority

[Abulafia]

6 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Odd conclusion to me. I read the new testament, particularly the gospels and it seems like priesthood authority is an incredibly inportant theme.

Take Matthew for example, he is very clear that one of the reasons the people were amazed with Jesus is that He taught as one having authority. He was clear about giving them power and keys.

Paul discussed offices in eph 4.

Just seems clear thasthast Christ's church was organized and empowered with priesthood authority

Again, I can completely understand why you would take that approach.  By taking a historical critical approach other views and developments emerge.  For me, that is the  beauty of the historical critical method.

So, one would need to understand the assumptions I have made, which are not ad hoc, but based on scholarship.  That is, there are 7 genuine letters of Paul, written in  date order. 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1, 2 Corinthians, Philemon, Philippians, and finally Romans, with a date range between 50 and 57 CE.  The gospel of Mark as the earliest surviving narrative of Jesus' life (written in about 70CE, from which both Matthew and Luke copy (sometimes word for word). The existence of Q is taken from the material Luke and Matthew share, but which don't appear in Mark, and then they have their own unique material, which scholars define as M and L.

Matthew and Luke are writing about a decade later than Mark.  That's the framework from which I researched.  

So, to address your points.  Matthew is the favourite gospel of many a church seeking to establish authority, because that is what the author of Matthew is trying to do in about 80 CE.  So, the text can tell us about some of the issues this author was encountering,  (just the same as Joseph Smith encountered in challenges to his authority) and how he developed the narrative in order to deal with those challenges.  Mark, the earlier text, just doesn't have it.  The divine commission is a later addition (most of chapter 16), and Jesus is liberal with authority.  In Mark, the disciples (a title he prefers in the earliest texts), are given authority to cast out demons (in modern terms I would call this the healing of mental illness), and to teach, as well as to call to repentance and to heal infirmity.  That's their role.  If we look at Q which is even earlier than Mark, then there is no eucharist.  All are welcome to eat at his table, all will judge the tribes.

There is absolutely still a male bias in all the texts I researched.  All assume a male God, a male Jewish priesthood, and men as the major movers and shakers in society. .women are there, but you have to go digging.

My major thesis is that Jesus emerged with the authority of God, outside of institutional office and priesthood, so did John the baptist.  These were charismatics.  Paul too, emerges from the movement as a convert based on charismatic office.  Based on the work of the spirit. 

The authority of God gradually is defined in priestly terms, using Jewish precedent, and to the eventual exclusion of women.  It was interesting to me, to watch how Dallin Oaks defines priesthood as the power and authority of a male God solely.   I am just trying to push the idea that perhaps there are other ways of defining the authority of God that are gender inclusive.

As to the offices you mention, they come up twice in the earlier Pauline material.

Firstly in 1 Corinthians 12 - in order - apostles (who for Paul were those who had seen the risen Jesus and could be male or female), prophets, (again a charismatic office which was gender inclusive), teachers, deeds of power, gifts of healing, forms of assistance, forms of leadership, various kinds of tongues.

Now, we know that 1 Cor 14:34 is an interpolation, and that later editors even thought to include it, tells us an awful lot...but none of those roles aforementioned exclude women.  None.  One reason for that is that at this stage they aren't defined in  priesthood terms.  I challenge you to find it in these early texts.

Paul mentions roles in the community again later, in Romans 12. Here he describes prophecy, ministry, teaching, exhortation,  giving, leading, and compassion.  None of these are defined in  terms of priesthood and none should be automatically assumed as exclusive to men, indeed the evidence elsewhere is that they were and should be gender inclusive.  It is in Romans that we get Paul's mention of priestly service, but like prostatis, this term is a hapax legomenon and unique.  Once you use the term priestly you may be offering precedent for the exclusion of women but in context, given Paul is from the tribe of Dan, I do not believe he means it literally. 

All this should be seen alongside Paul having an uneasy relationship with many Jerusalem and other Jesus factions, who don't agree with him on various issues.  Again, LDS especially should understand this because the death of Joseph Smith brought in so many splintered groups,  some of which didn't survive, and some which are still around. 

Edited December 6, 2016 by Abulafia

[Abulafia]

One thing I only mentioned In  passing was the idea of fictive kinship.  Jesus taught that his followers were his family (this is seen in LDS practice today where people address each other as brother and sister), marriage for some was not neccessary or desirable (seen in the gospels a little but mainly in Paul).  Paul is single, and with the coming of Jesus he doesn't feel the need or desire to be encumbered with family.  This elevation of singleness gives room for women in  roles outisde of marriage and family, thus you have the female missionary pairs, and the widows.  I didn't have the space to research these women, but would love to in the future.