Was Paul a misogynist?
(Revised)
By James M. West.
Copyright © December 28, 2007; revised
E-mail:
ogdood@yahoo.com
In
orthodox tradition Paul is portrayed as taking a hard line against women. This
‘traditional’ perception of Paul has even influenced many outside of
Christianity who identify Paul with the stereotype of the cold, hard,
conservative Christian prude. Without a doubt there are certain passages in
Paul’s writings which tend to reinforce this popular view.
1
Corinthians 14:34f.,
“Let your women keep silence in the
churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to
be under obedience, as also saith the Law. And if they will learn anything, let
them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the
church.”
1
Timothy 2:11-15,
“Let the woman learn in silence with all
subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over a
man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was
not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Notwithstanding she shall be saved with childbearing, if they continue in faith
and charity, and holiness with sobriety.”
These
passages seem to make it clear that Paul had a problem with women. And most
conservative Christian leaders prefer to believe that this is how Paul really
was, historically. But is this really what Paul believed? Is it really that
simple? And do the Pauline letters contain a consistent position regarding
Paul’s attitude toward women? Does Paul say consistently in his letters that
women are to keep silent? – or that women are to blame for the fall of mankind?
At the very least, I hope to demonstrate for my readers that Paul’s writings
contain no clear consensus on what his position actually was – and that the
“orthodox” tradition of Paul was really based on the needs of the later
Catholic Church, and had nothing to do with Paul or his immediate
circumstances.
To
begin to understand the nature of this issue, we must first understand that
most of Paul’s letters are composite. The letters we know today as Romans, and
1 Corinthians, and 2 Corinthians, are in fact artificial creations; they are
fictions. These letters are actually comprised of fragments from smaller
letters. And then there are some fragments in these letters which are not from
Paul at all. This can be demonstrated by simply comparing the various passages,
and noticing the conflicting ideas which become apparent.
Let
us look at some simple examples which show that Paul’s letters are composite in
nature. A very simple example may be seen in a comparison of the opening and
closing chapters from the supposed second letter to the
Let
us note this paradox! At the beginning of 2 Corinthians everything is bliss
between Paul and his fellow Christians at
The
most plausible explanation for this odd combination of themes is that 2 Cor. 1-3
and 10-13 are actually from different letters which address different
occasions. Chapters 10-13 were evidently from a letter where Paul quarreled
with the Corinthian church. The fact that no specific names are mentioned, nor
specific events or confrontations, indicates that only part of this polemical
letter has been preserved. (I suspect that the reason this information was
omitted is because it directly involved the Apostles at
Another
example of composite elements in Paul’s letters may be seen in a comparison of
1 Corinthians chapters 8 and 10. In chapter 8 Paul tells his readers that pagan
idols are nothing, and that eating meat from the temples is of no consequence
(8:4). Paul only warns that such partaking should not be done in front of the
weaker brethren who lack gnosis (8:7-11). But in chapter 10 Paul says
that the idols in the temples are devils, and that one cannot eat from the
Lord’s table and also from the table of devils (
Scholar
Walter Schmithals believed that 1 Corinthians was comprised of as many as 15
different letters, and that 2 Corinthians was comprised of six letters (Gnosticism
at Corinth, pp. 87f., 90, 96). Albert Schweitzer took a more conservative
position with his opinion that the two Corinthian letters were comprised of no
less than four letters (Mysticism of Paul, pg. 48f.).
The
letter to Romans also shows evidence of being composite. Most obvious is the
final chapter, Romans 16, which is filled with greetings from Paul to various
people. This chapter has been shown by scholars to have originated from another
letter addressed to a church in
In
my own opinion I think that these latter chapters were added to Romans in order
to make things appear more cozy than they really were. The addition of chapter
16 to Romans makes it seem as if Paul is this popular character and that he has
all these friends in
Albert
Schweitzer made this astute observation regarding the overall composite nature
of the Pauline Letters:
“We have therefore to reckon with the
possibility that the copy of a collection of the Pauline Epistles, on which our
knowledge of the Apostle’s letters rests, did not contain the Epistles to the
Corinthians, Philippians and Romans in the original form, but in the versions
which they had assumed in the copies prepared for the purpose of reading at
public worship.” (A. Schweitzer, Mysticism of Paul., MacMillan Co., NY:
1960, pg. 50)
The
point here is that the Pauline letters we know today are an artificial creation.
These letters represent the corpus of Paul that we have received from the
Catholic Fathers. They organized these letters into a format suitable for
Catholic worship. Many important elements from these letters were obviously
discarded; and this reality is reflected in the way these letters are so often
garbled, fragmented, and lacking in context.
Next
we must briefly take note of the fact that Paul’s letters are not comprised of
purely Pauline elements. Some elements of the letters were evidently not from
Paul, and this issue will inevitably reveal the fact that Paul’s views on women
have been completely misunderstood and misrepresented in “orthodox” tradition.
A related problem is that some of Paul’s letters are not really from the
Apostle at all. We will address the latter issue first.
The
general consensus among scholars is that there are seven genuine Pauline
letters (i.e. as the texts now exist): these letters are Romans, 1 and 2
Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon. The next
category is those letters on which scholars generally disagree: 2
Thessalonians, Ephesians and Colossians. Some scholars insist that these
letters are also from Paul; and others believe that these letters were written
by Paul’s followers shortly after his death. The third category represents those
letters which most scholars agree could not have been from Paul, and were
written long after Paul’s death: 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus (the so-called
“Pastoral Letters”).
I
could write an entire article (or even a book) on the differences between these
categories. For lack of space I will set forth one example here, which will be
a comparison of Philippians and 1 & 2 Timothy. These letters purport to
have been written while Paul was imprisoned in
The
letters of Timothy contain terminology and concepts which are unique to these
letters in contrast with Philippians and the other letters. An example is where
the writer to Timothy repeatedly uses the expression “sound doctrine” (1 Tim.
I
think that a most striking example of the differences between these letters may
be seen in a comparison 2 Timothy 3:16 and Philippians 4:8.
2
Timothy 3:16,
“All scripture is given by inspiration of
God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness.”
Philippians
4:8,
“Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are
true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever
things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good
report; if there be any virtue, and if their be any praise, think on these
things.”
Note
that in the Philippians passage Paul does not propose the “scriptures” as a
standard for all that is true, honest, just, pure, or lovely, or
of good report. Paul does not recommend the scriptures at all! And
certainly we must notice that where the scriptures are mentioned, i.e. the Law,
that Paul in fact refers to the both the Law (which is scripture) and the
Jewish tradition as “rubbish” (Phil. 3:5-8; KJV: “dung” or in Greek: skubala).
It
is an amazing paradox that in an open letter to the Philippian church Paul
refers to the Law as “rubbish” whereas in a private letter to Timothy Paul says
instead that “scripture” is the true standard for church doctrine. These
passages cannot be from the same writer who was held prisoner in
The
Philippians 3:5-8 passage is a relevant standard when it comes to testing other
elements in the Pauline letters in general. An example can be seen in 2
Corinthians
Briefly
I should remind my readers that Paul’s pejorative statements about the Law
reflect a consistent pattern that is found throughout his writings. In
Galatians Paul wrote of the Law that it was a “curse”, and was “ordained
by angels”, and is “bondage” is of the “elements of the world”
(Gal.
The
“dung” passage in Philippians 3:5-8 also casts a shadow on Paul’s supposed
proscription against women in 1 Cor. 14:34, “Let your women keep silence in the
churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to
be under obedience, as also saith the Law.” But then again Paul referred to the
Law as “rubbish.” Is Paul the real author of this passage, or fragment? Or are
Paul’s writings in fact a mixture of Pauline and non-Pauline fragments?
Further
evidence against the passage in 1 Cor. 14:34 can be seen in 1 Cor. 11. Here
Paul states that women can speak, or “prophesy”, in the church (11:5). Paul’s
only condition is that women have their heads covered – not because of the Law,
but because of the “angels” (
1
Corinthians chapter 11 shows that 1 Cor. 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15 cannot be
from Paul. Paul was not a misogynist. Furthermore, Paul ultimately believed
that Christ signified an approaching spiritual order where both male and
female, and marriage, and slavery, were soon to be abolished. Paul wrote
accordingly in Galatians
Many
people have assumed that Paul was against women, and that he failed to oppose
slavery. Paul was in fact against traditional gender structures and slavery.
But he wrote as someone who expected that the end of the “aion” was coming
soon. Paul did not instruct Christians to oppose both the Jewish and Roman
conventions because he thought that Jesus was returning soon (e.g. 1 Cor.
These
non-Pauline fragments that we have noticed were actually products of a later
time where the early Catholics struggled to establish a stable church
structure. When this historic background is taken into account, such passages
as 1 Cor. 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15, and their non-Pauline nature, become
comprehensible in the context of history.
Early
Catholic records make clear that early Christianity was a deeply divided
movement: and that women played active roles among the various sects. There is
even evidence in Catholic records that women played a greater role in the
Church than the later status quo would allow. The Catholic Father, Clement of Alexandria,
cites a version of 1 Timothy, no longer extant, which affirms that Paul
ordained women deacons! (Stromateis, 3.6.53) Of course there is much in
Clement’s writings which could not pass the test of orthodoxy in the
long run: and his writings show that the early Catholic Church at
Of
course Tertullian would himself defect over to the heretical camp. He joined
the heresy named after “Montanus” and which was known as the “New Prophecy.”
The Montanists were a major schismatic movement which rejected the increasingly
secular and bureaucratic nature of the Catholic Church. The Catholic clergy was
resigned to the fact that Jesus wasn’t coming back soon. In order to prevent
disorders the Catholic clergy adopted a different doctrine of the end times (2
Peter 3:1-9) and they also maintained that the spirit of prophesy ceased with
the Apostles. The Montanists wanted to preserve the active spirit of the early
church and the end time enthusiasm as found in Paul’s letters. (See Adolph von
Harnack, History of Dogma, vol. 2, pp. 94-106, Bart Ehrman, Lost
Christianities, pp. 150, 238).
The
Montanist movement was known for its prominent women leaders and prophets. They
were a threat to the emerging “orthodox” Catholic system. The Montanists shared
the same basic theology, and were actually ahead of the Catholics in that
respect (e.g. Tertullian, Against Praxeas). But the Montanists also
insisted that the spirit of prophecy was alive and present among Christians,
both men and women – just as Paul said in 1 Corinthians 11, 12 & 14. Thus
these men and women were constantly coming forth with new revelations from the
spirit. The Catholics rejected this approach out of concern that the constant
introduction of new doctrines would result in the destabilization of the
church. There is also the natural problem in that the second coming of Jesus is
always expected – but it never does arrive.
The
Catholic Church inevitably won this controversy with the Montanists; and the
Montanist movement faded away by the end of the third century. To me it is
obvious that the early Catholics reacted against the Montanists by curtailing
the concept of the prophetic spirit, and by silencing the women. The Catholic
clergy succeeded in preserving the stability of church culture and doctrine,
while the Montanist enthusiasm eventually burned itself out. But even this
isn’t the whole story. I believe that the Catholic Church over-reacted in its
struggle against the Montanists and other sects. And this is the source of
those fragments in Paul’s letters which demand the silence of women, even while
in other passages Paul reports that women prophesy in the churches, and that
men and women are “one” in Christ.
I
also believe that the suppression of women, and the feminine, was an important
cause of the homicidal nature of the later Catholic culture that emerged after
Of
course since the 1870s the Catholic Church has moderated in its disposition;
and women clearly have a much greater influence. Mother Teresa’s life of
sacrifice has helped to put a positive face on the Church. But the all-male, celibate
Catholic clergy still remains in a state of crisis, as everyone knows. If the
Catholic Church ever hopes to turn the corner then it must open the priest-hood
to married men and women! (But then again, I’m a Gnostic… What do I know?)
In
any culture or sect women are a part of our Humanity. We cannot simply exclude
one gender or another and expect to remain balanced. Whether we are men or
women we must always remember that the other gender is an image of that which
is hidden in ourselves, and which will make us perfect if we have gnosis of it.
As men and women we cannot suppress each other and at the same time have a true
understanding of ourselves. If we don’t understand ourselves then there is no
hope of attaining a true gnosis of God. Let me make my point here with
this important nugget of truth which is found in a place none other than the
Old Testament:
“And God created man in his own image…male
and female he created them.” (Gen. 1:27)
The
writer of this passage in Genesis 1 understood what the nature of God was. The
Gnostic understands that this is not the same God as the “Lord” who created the
first man from the dust, and later created the first woman from one of his ribs
(Gen. 2:7, 21-22). In truth there are two Gods, two principles, mentioned in
Genesis. One of them is the unnamed “good” God (LXX: Theos) and the
other is the creator of evil (i.e. the “Lord”, Isaiah 45:7, Gen. 2:4ff.).
The Gnostic understands that Genesis 1:1-2:3 is an allegory of the Pleroma: and
that the “beginning” and the seven days symbolize the Ogdoad. Genesis 2:4 and
everything thereafter is a demonic shadow of the primal order. However this is
a subject for a future article… My point here is that the Bible itself admits
that the male and the female has its equal origin in God, and that everything
that “God” created was “good” (Gen. 1:31). Indeed it is only with the “Lord”
and his creation that we learn that some things are not good. The Lord
Jehovah admitted this when he said “It is not good that the man should be
alone” (Gen. 2:18). Hence the Lord admitted that what he did was “not good.”
Paul
himself alluded to this truth when he wrote that “neither is the man without
the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord” (1 Cor.
In
the Gospel of Philip we learn that the separation between men and women
is the origin of death (NHC: II, 3.68). In Gnostic doctrine that breach is
restored when the elect shall enter in with Sophia and the Savior into the
Bridal Chamber (ibid., 3.70). The meaning is that men and women are two halves
of what was once joined, and which is joined in the spiritual realm. In this
world of poverty and ignorance we struggle through our lives as “men” and
“women” but in our deepest spiritual essence we still contain the image, or
seed, of the order above. To know of this order is to discover our own
connection with the divine: It also means the discovery of our own immortal
nature. It also means the discovery of God as a reality. This is no accident:
when we know God, it is because God knows us. We look upon Light and we become
Light from Light; and the soul becomes a womb. This is true in every man and in
every woman (i.e. as a potentiality).
To
experience this reality is to know an unspeakable Joy. It cannot be shared; it
can only be known. –jw
Readers can e-mail their comments, etc., to me at ogdood@yahoo.com