I found this video in a post by Bill Kinnon on Tim Keller. Wright doesn’t actually come out on one side or another, but he does articulate a good case for the full participation of women in church leadership:
Edit: This video is part of a talk that Wright gave to a bunch of Presbyterian ministers in the US, the rest of them are worth checking out.
“In the resurrection there is a radical re-evaluation of the role of women.” My quibble is with the word “radical”. This is an overstatement. We fret far more about the role of women today because of modern feminism than did the people in the early church. It was not their major preoccupation, but it is one of ours.
“In the official public tradition in 1 Cor 15, the women have been airbrushed out of the account … Where were the women? … Official tradition of the church already by the mid-50s people were worried about them.” This is not a strong point at all. The role of women in the church is not on Paul’s mind at all, but the doctrine of the resurrection. To say women are “air brushed” out of the account is an exaggeration.
I wonder what study that N. T. Wright is referring to because the interpretation (that they were renown “to” the apostles) which he says is refuted appears to me to be possible. I do however agree that they could belong to a class of people called “apostles”; but how that affects the role of women, I am not certain, because this is likely a married couple like Prisca and Aquila–thus, Junia doesn’t necessarily have status as an apostle except as married to her husband.
I suppose it would be too much to hope that N.T. Wright would stop by here and tell us about this study… It’s noteworthy even if Junia has the status solely because of her husband since one does not today call a pastor’s wife, a pastor nor a priest’s wife a priest.
PWD:
My guess as to which study he is referring to, or at least one that deals with the issue is Belleville, “??????? . . . ???????? ?? ???? ??????????: A Re-examination of Romans 16.7 in Light of Primary Source Materials,” NTS 51 (2005): 231–49. It is a response to Burer and Wallace’s “Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Re-examination of Rom 16:7,” NTS 47 (2001).
Both studies compare the wider greek literature and come to surprisingly different conclusions. Belleville finds no parallels in grammar that would support the “to the apostles.” This flies directly in the face of the Burer and Wallace view which does suggest there are various parallels.
A couple others deal with the same issue but I have not read them: Bauckham, Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels (Eerdmans, 2002) and Epp Junia: The First Woman Apostle (Fortress Press, 2005).
As to the second issue in regards to marriage. I think it is noteworthy that Priscilla is introduced first more often then Aquilia (4 vs 2) as well as the fact that she is even named at all. This is the same with Junia, regardless of if she is married to Andronicus (which is mere conjecture), she is still named; in a culture where the norm would be to leave her anonymous.
Thanks for the references.
Which culture is that? The Roman or the Jewish? I think we often have a view that the place of women in the ancient world was monolithic. This is far from clear. Bruce Winter’s research in The New Roman Woman, e.g., shows that women could wield considerable power that depended largely on their family wealth; if the woman was wealthier than her husband, she could easily dominate the relationship.
I agree that Priscilla was probably a remarkable woman and may have even written the book of Hebrews. Women undoubtedly had a high standing in early Christianity, maybe even higher than in the culture as a whole. Nevertheless, it remains difficult to generalize. In the clip Wright is not sufficiently careful in his choice of language regarding the NT. He is much more delicate when speaking of traditionalists toward end of the clip; but then I’ve come to expect that of an Anglican bishop.
Just as a sort of aside, I think we need to give N.T. Wright some charity given that the context was not the presentation of a paper at a theology conference but rather an off-the-top response to a question.
That’s why I said, “in the clip”, because I recognize that he may have chosen his words more carefully if he was writing a book or a position paper. I don’t think that I’ve been uncharitable. I only have specific criticisms and questions regarding what he’s said in the clip. And I also said that one of my comments was a “quibble”. But I have a real problem with the term “air-brushed”. It is really a weak position, because the context of 1 Cor 15 does not concern women’s issues at all but the resurrection of the dead. So to extrapolate an “official” position of the church to eliminate women from the resurrection accounts seems extremely far-fetched. This is something that Wright has developed his thinking about and not an off the cuff remark; it had not occurred to me that 1 Cor 15 eliminates women from the Resurrection tradition, and I have examined and discussed it in my own research. However, this is a type of tendentious conclusion that I have come to expect from feminist NT interpreters–thus, my reaction. (Indeed, I checked this point with the first feminist book off my shelf, Elisabeth Schuessler Fiorenza, In memory of her, p. 50, says, “Whereas all the Gospels know that Mary Magdalene was the first resurrection witness, the pre-Pauline tradition of 1 Cor 15.3-6 does not mention a single woman among the resurrection witnesses.” Thus, Wright falls exactly in line with a standard feminist reading of the text).
Perhaps the comment about the “Anglican bishop” was a little uncharitable; I shall tread more lightly upon the men in purple from henceforth.
I wasn’t responding so much to what you said as to where this had the potential to go with everyone’s comments.
Ok. Does this mean I can tread less lightly on bishops?
It would be interesting to hear his explanation of Paul’s apprehensions/restrictions/prohibitions from 1Cor. They are there, and they are plain.
I’m not suggesting he’d be unable to reconcile them with what he’s saying here… just curious to see how he would actually do it. He just kind of glossed over a fairly important counter point (though I understand why given the informal and spontaneous nature of the video).
N.T. Wright is a big boy, he can take it, I’m sure
Here’s a paper that N.T. Wright gave on the topic: http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm
Of interest, he rejects interpreting Gal. 3 as being explicitly NOT about leadership, but bases his conclusions on readings of other texts. In other words this is not what the vast majority of egalitarian arguments (that I have seen) look like.
In terms of airbrushing women out of the account in 1 Cor 15, this claim can only be made in the light of the later Gospel tradition. For the liberal or feminist there is an irony here – an argument could be made that Matthew, Luke and John rely upon Mark. If you also accept that Mark ends at 16:8 – then the Women may not have been the first to have seen the Risen Lord. The text in 16:7 suggests that they will see him, but nothing more is written. It is only in the later passage Mark 16:9 does the Risen Lord appear to Mary Magdalen, in the portion of the Gospel rejected by many Scholars. Matthew and his co-evangelists make good the hint in Mark 16:7, and provide the Women as the first witnesses – leaving Paul to provide an unembellised record. So airbrushing by Paul is not the only way to reconcile 1 Cor 15 with the Gospels. Yes it is conjecture – but no less than the airbrushing theory!