(Published by the Authors, A & I McHaffie, Edinburgh, EH5 1AH, ISBN 978-0-9546681-9-8, 364 pages.)
Sister Averil and Brother Ian McHaffie’s work ‘All One in Christ Jesus’[1] challenges the historical role of sisters in the Christadelphian community.[2] Taking its title and the premise of its argument from the words of Gal 3:28, the book asserts that since brothers and sisters are ‘all one’ in Christ, distinctions in ecclesial roles should not be made on the basis of gender.
This brief review is written in response to Averil and Ian’s invitation for constructive criticism, and their offer to correct any errors.[3] Due to limited space only a few points are examined here; readers interested in more details may refer to my longer work as well as that of Averil and Ian’s.[4]
Greek word meanings
Averil and Ian make some claims about Greek word meanings which are misleading at best, and demonstrably wrong at worst.[5]
| Wrong or misleading claims about Greek word meanings | |
|---|---|
| Claim | Standard commentary |
| androphonoi in 1 Tim 1:9 means ‘mankilling’ or ‘manslaying’ (p. 94 fn. 78). | androphonos refers to murder without reference to gender.[6] |
| There is debate over the meaning of kephalē, in 1 Cor 11:3, typically translated ‘head’ (p. 228 fn. 148). | Standard lexicons identify kephalē as ‘first, superior rank, pre-eminent status, leader, master, head’ in 1 Cor 11:3.[7] |
| There is debate over the meaning of the word authenteō, in 1 Tim 2:12 (p. 105; 117-122). | authenteō here has the neutral meaning ‘have authority’; the egalitarian view has been rejected by most scholars.[8] |
Professional lexicographical tools are generally ignored. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words[9] is used several times (pp. 65, 119, 126), but only one standard lexicon is ever cited (Liddell & Scott, ‘A Greek-English Lexicon’), and only once (p. 40).
Socio-Historical Context
Contrary to Averil and Ian’s claims, first century Christian women were not restricted by Jewish, Greek, or Roman social attitudes.[10]
| Wrong claims about socio-historical context | |
|---|---|
| Claim | Standard commentary |
| ‘In his attitudes and relationships with women, Jesus was distinctly different from his contemporaries’ (p. 32). | Jesus’ treatment of women can be found among his contemporaries.[11] [12] |
| Ecclesial involvement of women was ‘a new and important development’ (p. 33). | Women already enjoyed active religious participation in Judaism.[13] [14] |
Textual interpretation
Averil and Ian propose a number of interpretive conclusions which have little no support among standard scholarship.
| Interpretive conclusions rejected by a majority of commentators | |
|---|---|
| Claim | Standard commentary |
| Gnosticism is a useful relevant framework for understanding Paul’s arguments on women (pp. 92-93, 111-112, 244). | Gnosticism did not exist until long after Paul was dead.[15] |
| Appeals to the work of Catherine Kroeger (pp. 95, 118-119). | Kroeger has long been discredited.[16] |
| The ‘Law’ in 1 Cor 14:34 is ‘a Jewish understanding of the Old Testament, or to the Jewish oral law’ (p. 75). | Identified on linguistic grounds as a reference to Biblical texts.[17] |
| ‘1 Corinthians 14:34-35 should only be taken as a ban on disorderly speaking’ (p. 85). | Not limited to disorderly speaking.[18] |
| 1 Corinthians 14:334-35 is a quotation which Paul rejects (pp. 73-79) | Not a quotation.[19] |
Commentaries cited are almost exclusively those with the same view as Averil and Ian
Conclusion
Although passionately argued, ‘All One’ lacks attention to historical facts, standard scholarship, and professional lexicography. It appeals to arguments from the first wave of ‘evangelical egalitarians’, arguments largely discredited over 20 years ago; typically by egalitarians themselves. Symptomatic of legitimate concerns for the fair treatment of sisters in our community, the work is nevertheless not well founded, either on Scripture or on scholarship.[20]
[1] The print edition of the book is quoted in this review which may or may not be the same as that available on the ‘sistersspeak’ website at the time of writing [cited 18/8/11]: (http://www.sistersspeak.info/images/stories/pdf/AOICJ.pdf).
[2] ‘The male-only practice is the result of the continuation of church traditions of the 19th century and earlier. Ironically, we rejected many church traditions, but kept this one.’, (p. 289). (All emphasis in any of my citations is mine.)
[3] ‘We continue to welcome constructive criticism of anything we write, and will be happy to publish corrections on the internet if anything can be demonstrated to be in error.’, (p. iv); however, though a number of errors identified by reviews of previous editions of their work have been corrected in their current edition, no acknowledgement of this has been published on the internet by Averil and Ian.
[4] Available online at www.christadelphian-ejbi.org/downloads.htm [Cited 18/8/11].
[5] [Ed. AP]: There is a difference in quality to be marked on this point. Evangelical feminist scholarship (represented here in the book ‘All One’) and conservative complementarian scholarship have been debating the texts since the 1980s in the house-journals and in seminary dissertations, using publishers that have aligned with the two parties, but this writing does not carry the same weight as the lexicographical work that underpins the standard lexicons.
[6] W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, F. W. Danker, & W. Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 76. Other lexicons concur— L&N, 1:237; LSJ, 129.
[7] T. Friberg, B. Friberg, & N. F. Miller, Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), 229. Other lexicons and dictionaries concur—BAGD, 542; TDNT, 3:679.
[8] A. J. Köstenberger (complementarian), “Teaching and Usurping Authority: I Timothy 2:11-15” (Ch 12) by L. L. Belleville, Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 10/1, (2005): 43-54.
[9] Vine’s ‘Expository Dictionary’ has never been treated as a scholarly lexical work.
[10] ‘Nor does an appeal to the practices of Jesus himself highlight the uniqueness of early Christian beginnings, since the role of women in Jesus’ movement is also well within the boundaries of both Greco-Roman practice and Palestinian Jewish practice, which was far more open to women’s participation than has previously been assumed.’, K. E. Corley, “Women and Greco-Roman Meals”, paper for the Society of Biblical Literature seminar series ‘Meals In the Greco-Roman World’, 1-6 (5). Available online at www.philipharland.com/meals [Cited 24/8/11].
[11] ‘Jesus’ behaviour toward women as portrayed in the gospels is actually generally consistent with precisely the rabbinic norms from which he is said to have deviated so radically.’, R. S. Kraemer & M. R. D’Angelo, ‘Women & Christian Origins’, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 72.
[12] ‘It would probably be difficult to find any element in the gospels which transcends the essentially Palestinian Jewish frame of ideas. Jesus’ sayings touching on the relationship between men and women all fall within this fundamental view.’, K. Stendahl (egalitarian), The Bible and the Role of Women: A Case Study in Hermeneutics, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), 26.
[13] ‘Jewish women in Rome were active participants in the religious life of their communities, both at home and in the public religious life of the synagogue.’, R. S. Kraemer, “Non-Literary Evidence for Jewish Women in Rome and Egypt” in Feminism in the Study of Religion: A Reader (ed. D. M. Juschka; London: Continuum, 2001), 221-238 (227).
[14] ‘Other women more clearly singled out for their roles as leaders in the synagogues, include Sara Oura, called presbutis, or elder…’, Kraemer, “Non-Literary Evidence for Jewish Women in Rome and Egypt”, 227.
[15] J. D. G. Dunn, ‘…it is now widely agreed that the quest for a pre-Christian Gnosticism, properly so-called, has proved to be a wild goose chase’ in his “Introduction” to The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 9.
[16] ‘As a classicist, however, her [Catherine Kroeger] own contributions are reconstruction of a background and choices from linguistic options viewed as appropriate to that background. Both have been discredited.’, J. A. Holmes (egalitarian), Text In A Whirlwind: A Critique of Four Exegetical Devices at 1 Tim 2:9-15 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 26.
[17] A. C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 1151; D. E. Garland (egalitarian), 1 Corinthians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 672, et al.
[18] G. D. Fee (egalitarian), The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 706-707; R. B. Hays, First Corinthians (Interpretation; Louisville: WJK Press, 1997), 247; M. L. Soards, 1 Corinthians (NIB; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999), 305-306, et al.
[19] A. F. Johnson, (London: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 272; D. G. Horrell, The Social Ethos of the Corinthians Correspondence (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 187, et al.
[20] In our reading we noted various citation errors and bibliographic omissions, but this review is not the place to list them.
Review of “The Early Earth” by John Whitcomb (1972)