ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (12/06/90)
In a posting of mine sent yesterday [Tuesday; the message was held up
for a day and a half due to lack of I-nodes], I made the claim that the
Greek word <pneuma> is feminine. This is of course utter nonsense.
The word is 3rd declension neuter, not 1st declension feminine.
I can't claim that this is a forgivable mistake for a beginner,
because as it happens I knew better. It was a *blunder*, a *slip*,
an *error*.
What made me do it, besides carelessness? ("Carelessness and inattention
alone can afford us any remedy. For this reason I rely entirely on them..."
-- Hume.) The fact that I was thinking about Ode 19 of the Odes of Solomon.
Given that we've had discussions about the status of women and the nature
of God in this newsgroup, I thought it might be appropriate to quote the
Ode that facilitated my mistake.
Ode 19
1. A cup of milk was offered to me,
and I drank it in the sweetness of the Lord's kindness.
2. The Son is the cup,
and the Father is he who was milked,
and the Holy Spirit is she who milked him;
3. Because his breasts were full,
and it was undesirable that his milk should be released without purpose.
4. The Holy Spirit opened her bosom,
and mixed the milk of the two breasts of the Father.
5. Then she gave the mixture to the world without their knowing,
and those who have received it are in the perfection of the right hand.
6. The womb of the Virgin took [it?him?],
and she received conception and gave birth.
7. So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies.
8. And she laboured and bore the Son but without pain,
because it did not occur without purpose.
9. And she did not seek a midwife,
because he caused her to give life.
10. She bore as a strong man with will,
and she bore according to the demonstration,
and she acquired according to the Great Power.
11. And she loved with salvation,
and guarded with kindness,
and declared with greatness.
Hallelujah. {Charlesworth translation.]
The Odes of Solomon are a collection of very early Christian hymns,
thought to have been composed some time around AD 100.
In the "moral reasoning" thread, we've heard the suggestion that
the Holy Spirit works through the Christian community leading them
to new ethical rules, and that the late rejection of slavery is an
instance of this. One of the Odes seems to me to cast serious
doubt, not to say cold water, on this theory.
Ode 20
1. I am a priest of the Lord,
and to him I serve as a priest;
2. And to him I offer the offering of his thought.
3. For his thought is not like the world,
nor like the flesh,
nor like them who serve according to the flesh.
4. The offering of the Lord is righteousness,
and purity of heart and lips.
5. Offer your inward being faultlessly;
and do not let your compassion oppress compassion;
and do not let you yourself oppress anyone.
6. YOU SHOULD NOT PURCHASE A FOREIGNER BECAUSE HE IS LIKE YOURSELF,
nor seek to deceive your neighbour,
nor deprive him of the covering for his nakedness.
7. But put on the grace of the Lord generously,
and come into his Paradise,
and make for yourself a crown from his tree.
8. Then put it on your head and be refreshed,
and recline upon his serenity.
9. For his glory will go before you;
and you will receive of his kindness and his grace;
and you will be annointed in truth with the praise of his holiness.
10. Praise and honour to his name.
Hallelujah. {Charlesworth translation.]
Now combine verse 6 with Leviticus 25, which insists that Israelites
should not be enslaved because they're _God's_ slaves already, and there
is clearly no-one left to enslave.
What follows from this? That far from the wrongness of slavery being an
obscure thing which the Holy Spirit was unable to make clear to the Church
for 1800 years, it was such an immediate deduction from the teaching of the
apostolic age that by about 50 years after Paul's letters, the wrongness of
slavery was already in a *hymnbook*.
Given that this step was so direct and taken so soon, how is it that for
so long the Church conformed its mind in this respect to the world? The
Holy Spirit cannot lead us into all truth all at once, but can we really
suppose that the Paraclete, having led us into a truth, would then lead
us _out_ again? Can we attribute that conformity to the world to the
guidance of the Holy Spirit? Or should we attribute it to human sin?
--
The Marxists have merely _interpreted_ Marxism in various ways;
the point, however, is to _change_ it. -- R. Hochhuth.mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) (12/11/90)
In article <Dec.6.04.25.15.1990.24072@athos.rutgers.edu>, ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: > In a posting of mine sent yesterday [Tuesday; the message was held up > for a day and a half due to lack of I-nodes], I made the claim that the > Greek word <pneuma> is feminine. and goes on to cite a particular reason for the slip in some explicit feminines of one of the Odes of Solomon. Let me point out that the identification of God's Wisdom as feminine goes back to at least ben Sirach and is prominent in Ecclesiasticus -- I once constructed a canticle (after the model of those used in Episcopalian practice for Morning and Evening Prayer) for use in my church in Berekely when we were dealing with the issue of inclusive language. Anyway, _Hagia Sophia_ is indeed feminine in Greek, and the Ode Richard cites and other passages show this to have originally been assimilated to the Spirit, although later Greek Orthodox thought identifies _Hagia Sophia_ with Christ (maybe not to the exclusion of the earlier connection to the Spirit; I don't know.) On slavery: > What follows from this? That far from the wrongness of slavery being an > obscure thing which the Holy Spirit was unable to make clear to the Church > for 1800 years, it was such an immediate deduction from the teaching of the > apostolic age that by about 50 years after Paul's letters, the wrongness of > slavery was already in a *hymnbook*. Which makes it all the more of a problem (taking Richard's view of this as stipulated) why this early truth did not penetrate theology or church practice or the Pastoral Epistles (with their "house rules" about slaves.) Nor when the church had power did this truth ever seem to penetrate to any kind of social effect. > Given that this step was so direct and taken so soon, how is it that for > so long the Church conformed its mind in this respect to the world? The An excellent question, assuming you are correct that such a step WAS taken so soon. *I* think it is direct and obvious and should have been taken by the Church from the beginning -- but you will be hard pressed to find any patristic support of this. And I think it equally, or more, obvious and direct that "in Christ there is neither male nor female, slave nor free, Greek nor Jew" has consequences that the Church has evaded for nearly 2000 years in OTHER respects than slavery. > Holy Spirit cannot lead us into all truth all at once, but can we really > suppose that the Paraclete, having led us into a truth, would then lead > us _out_ again? Are you not begging the question here? Just exactly *which* truths into which the Spirit led us are we discarding, and WHY do you expect there to be ANY humanly employable criterion by which we can distinguish Spiritual Truths from the (honest and sincere and prayerful, but humanly conditioned) PARTIAL knowledge that Paul says obscures our vision? -- Michael L. Siemon In so far as people think they can see the m.siemon@ATT.COM "limits of human understanding", they think ...!att!sfsup!mls of course that they can see beyond these. standard disclaimer -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (12/13/90)
In article <Dec.11.01.07.13.1990.7745@athos.rutgers.edu>, mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) writes: > In article <Dec.6.04.25.15.1990.24072@athos.rutgers.edu>, ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au > (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: > > Holy Spirit cannot lead us into all truth all at once, but can we really > > suppose that the Paraclete, having led us into a truth, would then lead > > us _out_ again? > Are you not begging the question here? Just exactly *which* truths into > which the Spirit led us are we discarding, and WHY do you expect there to > be ANY humanly employable criterion by which we can distinguish Spiritual > Truths from the (honest and sincere and prayerful, but humanly conditioned) > PARTIAL knowledge that Paul says obscures our vision? This was an ever-so-delicate dissent from the Moderator's suggestion that the Holy Spirit can lead the Christian community to changed ethical rules. The truth here that the church appears to have been led into quite early is that slavery is wrong. I'm suggesting that the Church's later acceptance of slavery was _not_ a case of being led by the Holy Spirit. It was precisely my point that some changes in what the Church accepts are *not* guided by the Holy Spirit. -- The Marxists have merely _interpreted_ Marxism in various ways; the point, however, is to _change_ it. -- R. Hochhuth.