Archive for September, 2006
http://quranbible.wordpress.com/2006/09/24/bill-clinton-under-attack/
This is quite interesting.
1 comment September 25, 2006
The Holocaust – Gypsies, Disabled and Homosexuals?
“Is it proper to commemorate the extermination of Gypsies, Romani, homosexuals and the disabled as part of the Holocaust”
This essay shall approach the commemoration of the disabled, the Gypsies and the homosexuals as part of the Holocaust. The Holocaust shall be defined as the Nazi extermination of a group on the basis of Nazi eugenics in an attempt to create a homogenous gene pool.[1] According to this definition, the disabled and the Gypsies are also victims of the Holocaust, along side the Jews. However, this definition excludes the homosexuals from such recognition. This essay shall detail a necessarily brief history of all three groups, justifying the inclusion in the above definition. However, despite the ease of such an argument, this essay shall explore in its conclusion, the validity of the term ‘the Holocaust”, positing that it is in itself, a deeply problematic term.
The Nazi persecution of the physically and mentally disabled was their first step in their quest for racial purity.[2] The Nazi attempt to eliminate the disabled population began with the introduction of two laws on 14th July 1933: the Law for Prevention of Progeny With Hereditary Disorders, and the Law for Prevention of Genetically Disabled Offspring. These two laws enforced sterilisation for those deemed to be disabled: resulting in up to 300, 000 sterilisations being performed in the 1930s.[3] The second major step, for both the disabled community and the Nazi eugenic program, came with the ‘euthanasia’ of the Knauer child in 1939.[4] This case became the pretext for the development of the child euthanasia program in 1939. This program involved the recording of all births which displayed deformity or disease. These reports were sent to a centralised board, which decided whether or not the child, under the age of three, shall live, or be, “cleaned.”[5] Initially, the termination of chosen children was carried out by the local hospital.[6]
However, in 1939, with the expansion of the euthanasia program to include adults and children above the age of three, the Nazi’s first gas chambers were built, “T4”, to perform the exterminations on a larger, and more centralised scale.[7] T4 was closed in 1941 in relation to public outcry to the killings. The official death count is 70, 273, however, this is estimated to be low, and does not include the deaths of the disabled that were killed after the official closure of T4.[8] Significantly, the individuals trained for the operations of T4, and the construction of the centre’s mechanics of death, were transferred to the Nazi concentration camps in 1941.
The Gypsies are another group that was singled out for at first persecution, and then extermination, under the Nazi eugenic program.[9] The Gypsies, as with the Jews and the disabled, were considered to be a threat to Nazi racial purity. They were deemed to be:
“primitive…racially inferior, with particularly inferior intellect and morals…[they pose] a special racial and economic threat. They are an even greater danger to racial purity.”[10]
Thus, the Gypsies were sterilised under the Law for Genetically Diseased Offspring of July 14th 1933. Subsequently, the Gypsies were variously detained in ‘Zigeunlager’, and had their citizenship revoked upon the basis of being defined as, “aliens”.[11] From 1936-1939, the Nazi’s ‘registered’ the Gypsy population, variously resulting in deportation, incarceration, or to be left alone. Importantly, as Sybil Milton notes, the Gypsies were among the first to be exterminated after the commencement of the Second World War, whilst in many cases Gypsy deportation preceded Jewish deportation.[12]
The tension that exists in including the Gypsies in the Holocaust is based on a number of factors. First, the lower percentage of population killed is considered problematic. However, establishing the number of Gypsy deaths under the Nazi regime is highly problematic. Gypsy deaths in the concentration camp system were not always recorded as such, and further to this, Gypsy deaths that occurred outside this system were not recorded.[13] Furthermore, Brenda and James Lutz point out that the lower percentage can be related to locality and the related degree of Nazi authority: in areas of Nazi dominance, the Gypsies were as likely to be persecuted as the Jews.[14] However, Lutz states that the majority of Gypsies in occupied
Europe resided in areas that exhibited a, “degree of antipathy towards Nazi policies.”[15] Another prime point of contention in this debate is that the Nazis did not pursue a policy of extermination against all Gypsies, and that their policies did not exhibit the same aggression as they did with the Jews.[16] It is clear that a number of Gypsies were left alone by the Nazis. However, this brief amnesty was not applied coherently. Whilst at first, ‘pure’ and ‘sedentary’ Gypsies were exempt from deportation and sterilisation, in the later years of the Nazi regime, ‘pure’ and ‘sedentary’ Gypsies were deported, sterilised and exterminated.[17] Furthermore, the Nazis only classified 10% of the Gypsy population as, “pure.”[18] Additionally, as Henry Friedlander notes, while Himmler may have attempted to ‘save’ pure Gypsies, it is clear that by the time Himmler announced as such, that many ‘pure’ Gypsies had been deported to Auschwitz.[19]
Historians such as Yehuda Bauer have argued for the exemption of the Gypsies from the Holocaust on the basis that the Nazi campaign against them was not as aggressive as the Jewish Final Solution.[20] However, there are obvious reasons for a lack of fervour against the Gypsies. They represented a far smaller percentage of the population than the Jews: 0.05, rather than 0.5.[21] Furthermore, the Gypsies occupied a rather lower socio-economic status than that of the Jews: a campaign against them did not need to deal with politics and influence. It is clear, that despite discrepancies, the Gypsies were a victim of the Holocaust: they were selected for sterilisation, deportation and extermination on the basis of their racial threat to Aryan blood.
The homosexuals are another group that were persecuted under the Nazi regime. However, the Nazi persecution of homosexuals may not be included in the Holocaust under its current definition. The Nazi attack on homosexuality began in July 14th 1933 with the introduction of the Law for Prevention of Hereditary Diseases and in November 1933 with the introduction of the Law Against Dangerous Habitual Criminals and Sexual Offenders.[22] This situation was augmented in 1935 with the introduced subclause A to Paragraph 175, making homosexuality illegal.[23] Nazi homophobia can be seen to have been drawn from a number of quarters: firstly, homosexuals did not fulfil the procreative responsibilities of the German male; indeed, the stereotyped homosexual man was the antithesis of the Nazi masculine ideal.[24] Perhaps most motivating was the fear of a homosexual plague: the notion that homosexuality spread. This was deemed to be a threat of huge proportions to the gender segregation that occurred in the Nazi Youth and SS organisations.
It is clear that a level of persecution was performed against the homosexual community by the Nazi regime. 175A and other introduced laws saw the incarceration (in prison, psychiatric wards and concentration camps), castration, and extermination of 1000s of men. Estimates consider between 5000 and 15000 men were killed under the guise of homosexuality by the Nazis. However, this persecution was neither wholesale, nor systematic.[25] Further, homosexuality was never fully understood by Nazi Germany, and was not categorised as a genetic problem; thus, it was not deemed a threat to the Aryan gene pool. This can be exemplified by a consideration of the recorded reasons for castration. Geoffrey Giles notes two laws that allowed for the castration of homosexuals: the Law for Prevention for Hereditary Diseases and the Law Against Dangerous Habitual Criminals and Sex Offenders. Castrations were mainly carried out under the second law: according to official records, only 14 castrations were performed under the first, whilst 1 123 were performed under the second. Whilst these operations are ultimately abhorrent, it is clear that the Nazis did not largely define homosexuality as a eugenic problem. The Nazi persecution of homosexuals was based on a desire to eradicate homosexuality. This ultimately, resulted in the incarceration, sterilisation and death of many men. However, the homosexuals were not singled out on the basis of their race: they could in fact avoid persecution.
The exclusion of homosexuals from the Holocaust points to the extremely problematic, ethical position that this term inhabits. Ultimately, a definition of the Holocaust must exclude certain groups that experienced Nazi persecution. However, in doing so, one robs those groups of recognition, and any commemorative affects.[26]
Yet, the inclusion of a group whose persecution was less stringent and based on different criteria than those already included, necessarily devalues the initial groups experience. However, one must stop and question the validity of placing such a distinction that is surely, “a qualitative concept carrying moral judgement.”[27] The persecution of Jews, Gypsies and the disabled resulted in similar classification and designation for death under Nazi eugenic policies. Yet, for many homosexuals, or even other prisoners, the Nazi regime provided the same treatment: incarceration under extremely inhumane conditions, and death. Gavriel Rosenfeld notes that increasingly, the Holocaust is coming to designate those who were incarcerated and killed in the mechanics of the Nazi concentration camp system.[28] Furthermore, Rosenfeld comes to question the validity of the term the Holocaust in its totality, primarily on its matter of devaluation through inclusion and exclusion, and in relation to the wider use of the term in popular culture.[29] Perhaps terms, such as the shoah, shall come to recognise each groups Holocaust experience, whilst the Holocaust shall come to recognise all groups of Nazi persecution. As I have demonstrated, the term the Holocaust is deeply problematic, and ultimately devalues a group’s experience. However, the definition as provided initially, does aid one to engage with the genocide of the Jews, Gypsies and the disabled under the Nazi eugenic program.
Bauer, Y. &
Milton, S. 1992. “Correspondence: Gypsies and The Holocaust” The History Teacher. vol. 25 no. 4. pp. 513-525
Dunk, H. 2002. “The Holocaust: Remembrance and Education” European Review. vol. 10 no. 1. pp. 53-61.
Friedlander, H. 1994. “Step by Step: The Expansion of Murder, 1939-1941” German Studies Review. vol. 17 no. 3. pp. 495-507.
Giles, G. 1992. “The Most Unkindest Cut of All: Castration, Homosexuality and Nazi Justice” Journal of Contemporary History. vol. 27 no. 1. pp. 41-56.
Jenson, E. 2002. “The Pink Triangle and Political Consciousness: Gays, Lesbians and the Memory of Persecution” Journal of the History of Sexuality. vol. 11. no. 1. pp. 319-349.
Lewy, G. 1999. “Gypsies and the Jews Under the Nazis” Holocaust and Genocide Studies. vol. 13 no. 3. pp. 383-404.
Lutz, B. & Lutz, J. 2002. “Gypsies as Victims of the Holocaust” Holocaust and Genocide Studies. vol. 9 no. 3. pp. 346-359.
Micheler, S. 2002. “Homophobic Propaganda and the Denunciation of Same-Sex Desiring Men Under National Socialism” Journal of the History of Sexuality. vol. 11 no. ½. pp. 95-130.
Milton, S. 1991. “Gypsies and the Holocaust” The History Teacher. vol. 24 no. 4. pp. 375-387.
Mostert, M. 2002. “Useless Eaters: Disability as a Genocidal Marker in Nazi Germany” The Journal of Special Education. vol. 36 no. 2. pp. 155-168.
Muller-Hill, B. 1988. Murderous Science: Elimination By Scientific Selection of Jews, Gypsies, and Others in Germany. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Oosterhuis, H. 1997. “Medicine, Male Bonding and Homosexuality in Nazi Germany” Journal of Contemporary History. vol. 32 no. 2. pp. 187-205.
Rosenfeld, G. 1999. “The Politics of Uniqueness: Reflections of the Recent Polemical Turn in Holocaust and Genocide Scholarship” Holocaust and Genocide Studies. vol. 13 no 1. pp. 28-61.
[1]
Milton, S. 1991. “Gypsies and the Holocaust” The History Teacher. vol. 24 no. 4. pp. 375-387. p. 378; Milton, S. 1992. “Correspondence: Gypsies and The Holocaust” The History Teacher. vol. 25 no. 4. pp. 513-525. p. 516; Friedlander, H. 1994. “Step by Step: The Expansion of Murder, 1939-1941” German Studies Review. vol. 17 no. 3. pp. 495-507. p. 497.
[2] From this point on, I shall refer to those whom the Nazi regime persecuted and killed on the basis of physical or mental disability as simply, ‘disabled’. However, it must be noted that the Nazi’s definition of ‘disabled’ was incredibly wide; it included: “congenital mental defect, schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, chorea, blindness, deafness, severe physical deformity, alcoholism.” Muller-Hill, B. 1988. Murderous Science: Elimination By Scientific Selection of Jews, Gypsies, and Others in
Germany.
Oxford
University Press,
Oxford. p. 28
[3] Friedlander, p. 496
[4] The euthanasia of the Knauer child would seem to be one of those cataclysmic accidents of history. The case which is widely argued to be the basis for the following ‘euthanasia’ program was petitioned for, on a number of occasions, by the child’s father. See: Mostert, M. 2002. “Useless Eaters: Disability as a Genocidal Marker in Nazi
Germany” The Journal of Special Education. vol. 36 no. 2. pp. 155-168. pp.159-160. Others also consider the Knauer child to be the pretext for the child euthanasia program. Fiedlander. “Step by Step” p. 497
[5] Mostert. “Useless Eaters” p. 498.
[6] Mostert. “Useless Eaters” Mostert lists various methods of termination by local hospitals. See
[7] T4 housed the first extermination performed by carbon monoxide poisoning in Nazi Germany. However, the first mass killing of disabled adults was performed by the SS in Pomeria and
West Prussia in 1939. Mostert. “Useless Eaters” p. 163; Muller-Hill. Murderous Science. p. 41.
[8] Friedlander. Step by Step. p. 498;
[9] I refer to the ‘Gypsies’ here with all due recognition of the Roma and the Sinti. The term, ‘Gypsies’ is used for literary ease.
[10]
Milton, S. 1991. “Gypsies and the Holocaust” p. 380. Quoting:
Nuremberg Document NG 684. File 4942. 5/2/1940. Letter: Senior State Attorney, Dr. Meissner of the Gratz Circuit Court to the Reich Minister of Justice,
Berlin.
[11] The designation of “Gypsies” as “alien” parallels the Jews classification. Lutz, B. & Lutz, J. 2002. “Gypsies as Victims of the Holocaust” Holocaust and Genocide Studies. vol. 9 no. 3. pp. 346-359. p. 347. Another significant parallel between the Gypsies and the Jews in terms of Nazi classification is the dual designation as group ‘4’, under the division of territories: those under group 4 were to be exterminated. Muller-Hill. Murderous Science. p. 55.
[12]
Milton. “Gypsies” p. 375.
[13]
Milton. “Gypsies” p. 378; Lutz. “Gypsies as victims” p. 351.
[14] Lutz. “Gypsies as victims” p. 354.
[15] Lutz. “Gypsies as victims” p. 368.
[16] See Bauer, Y. 1992. “Correspondence: Gypsies and the Holocaust” The History Teacher. vol. 25 no. 4. pp. 513-525; Lewy, G. 1999. “Gypsies and the Jews Under the Nazis” Holocaust and Genocide Studies. vol. 13 no. 3. pp. 383-404. Guenter Lewy is vitally concerned that the Gypsies are not included in the Holocaust. However, his analysis proves to be based on a number of historical omissions. For example. Lewy states that Gypsies were only persecuted in the last three years of the war.
[17]
Milton,. S. 1992. “Correspondence: Gypsies and the Holocaust” pp. 513-525. p. 519.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Friedlander. “Step by Step” p. 500.
[20] Bauer. “Corresspondence” p. 512
[21] Friedlander. “Step by Step” p. 498.
[22] Giles, G. 1992. “The Most Unkindest Cut of All: Castration, Homosexuality and Nazi Justice” Journal of Contemporary History. vol. 27 no. 1. pp. 41-56. p. 47. As with all groups that faced Nazi persecution, the introduction of laws merely represents the first official decree of persecution against such a group. All groups underwent varying forms of persecution and marginalisation prior to the implementation of Nazi ideology in Nazi Germany.
[23] Micheler, S. 2002. “Homophobic Propaganda and the Denunciation of Same-Sex Desiring Men Under National Socialism” Journal of the History of Sexuality. vol. 11 no. ½. pp. 95-130. p. 95
[24] Micheler. “Homophobic” p. 96.
[25] Oosterhuis, H. 1997. “Medicine, Male Bonding and Homosexuality in Nazi
Germany” Journal of Contemporary History. vol. 32 no. 2. pp. 187-205. p. 189.
[26] Herman Von Ver Dunk notes that commemoration results in both a strengthening of bonds amongst survivors and helps prevent the reoccurrence of the initial events. Dunk, H. 2002. “The Holocaust: Remembrance and Education” European Review. vol. 10 no. 1. pp. 53-61. pp. 61-62. Erik Jensen notes the importance of the “Gay Holocaust” to the current GLBT political community. However, Jensen also notes that the Gay community, “has remembered the Gay Holocaust often independently of historical research.” Jenson, E. 2002. “The Pink Triangle and Political Consciousness: Gays, Lesbians and the Memory of Persecution” Journal of the History of Sexuality. vol. 11. no. 1. pp. 319-349. p. 320. The politics of ‘collective memory’ are deeply embedded in the study of the Holocaust. Rosenfeld notes that the notion of ‘uniqueness’ developed out of attempts to include others in the Holocaust, and in the rise of arguments concerning the place of the Holocaust in contemporary American life. Rosenfeld, G. 1999. “The Politics of Uniqueness: Reflections of the Recent Polemical Turn in Holocaust and Genocide Scholarship” Holocaust and Genocide Studies. vol. 13 no 1. pp. 28-61. p. 35.
[27] Rosenfeld. “The Politics of Uniqueness”. p. 47.
[28] Rosenfeld. “The Politics of Uniqueness” p. 48.
[29] See Rosenfeld. “The Politics of Uniqueness” for a detailed discussion.
2 comments September 25, 2006
Galatians 3: 28
The process of reading, of interpreting, is incredibly complex: interpretation is reliant on the interpreter’s background and expectations. Biblical interpretation is no different. This essay shall consider two dominant interpretations of Gal 3: 28, which has become to be in increasing scrutiny in the contemporary Christian gender debate. I have selected two interpretations on the basis that they arrive at different conclusions: the first, Ben Witherington considers Gal 3: 28 to be advocating equality for women Coram Deo, whilst Elisabeth Schullser Fiorenza considers the passage to be communicating the social and religious equality for women. Interestingly, both interpretations arrive at these opposing outcomes, despite their similarities in approach. Both interpretations highlight the incredibly problematic nature of Biblical interpretation. Yet, that I evaluate both readings as problematic, also highlights my own interpretative lens as a feminist adherent of ‘chaos magick.’
Among those who argue that Gal 3: 28 is not a recommendation for social equality, Witherington holds a significant place. Witherington’s article self-confesses to utilising a number of approaches: socio-historical, literary/textual and theological. Witherington’s prime thesis is that Gal 3: 28 refers to equality from the Coram Deo perspective. Witherington’s first step in demonstrating this is to place Paul’s surprising statement within its historico-literal context: to point out, that such a saying is not, uniquely, “Pauline.”[1] Witherington here draws on the work of Madeleine Boucher.[2] Boucher has detailed a number of Jewish writings, which “parallel” Gal 3: 28. Two prominent examples include Ser Eliahur Rabba 7: “I call heaven and earth to witness that whether Gentile or Israelite, man or woman, slave or handmaid read this verse…the Holy One, blessed be He, remembers the binding of
Israel.”[3] Or perhaps more tellingly: “if a poor man says anything, one plays little regard; but if a rich man speaks, immediately he is heard and listened to. Before G-d, however, all are equal: women, slaves, poor and rich.”[4] For Witherington, the presence of parallel thoughts in a Jewish perspective implicates that Gal 3: 28 is referring to equality, Coram Deo, but similarly to Jewish customs at the time, not socially.
Alternately, Witherington also draws upon apparent benedictions that existed in the ancient Jewish and Greek worlds that can be seen to be echoed in Gal 3: 28. The Jewish benediction involved the man thanking G-d that he has not made him, “a heathen, a woman, or a Gentile, slave, or a woman.”[5] Similarly, Diogenes Laertius provides a thanksgiving that is attributed variously to, Plato, Socrates and Thales in which thanks is given, “that I was born a human being and not animal…a man and not a woman…a Greek and not a barbarian.”[6] Here, Witherington agrees with the dominant body that in Gal 3: 28, Paul is actively negating such a tradition.
Having established that Paul’s baptismal formula is not unique, Witherington places Gal 3: 28 within its literary context. In Galatians as a whole, it is clear that the ‘law’ and how it relates to the Christian community and to Paul’s self-confessed motivation for preaching as an Apostle to Gentiles is central.[7] In Galatians, Paul is admonishing his audience for returning to the practice of ‘the law’, and in particular to ‘circumcision’, of which it would seem to have been being utilised as an entrance requirement to the community.[8] Paul, in Galatians exhorts the abandonment of the law, largely because its use regulates an exclusive structure within the Christian community. Rather, Paul states, the only signifier if religious status within the Christian community is to be faith in Jesus Christ. Thus, Paul utilises the three antithetical pairs of Gal 3: 28 to remind his audience of the divisions that the law creates. Accordingly, circumcision differentiates between each pair that Paul provides, in which the first is placed over the second.[9] Witherington notes that in addition to circumcision, other aspects of ‘the law’, placed women in a far lower religious status; for example, the observance of, “special days, months, seasons and years,”[10] excluded women from such an observance during menstruation. Rather, if religious status is based on faith, there is no differentiation in religious status.
Another aspect of Gal 3: 28 that becomes apparent and must be addressed, is the change is structure of the ‘antithetical pairs’, from neither a nor b, to neither a and b, when Paul mentions the equality of male and female. This is taken by Witherington to be a reference to Gen 1:27.[11] For Witherington, the denial of male and female in Gal 3: 28 is not a denial or rejection of gender distinctions. Rather it is a denial of the requirement for marriage and procreation that is implied in Gen 1:28, and therefore connected to the creation of male and female in Gen 1:27. This rejection of such a requirement, again places the woman in an equal standing, Coram Deo.[12]
Witherington’s interpretation of Gal 3: 28 as offering women equality Coram Deo, is thus primarily reliant on the following: a preceding tradition of similar sayings, in both Jewish and Greco-Roman settings and the placement of the passage within the textual context of a discussion on the law. Clearly, Witherington’s interpretation is based in strong analysis.[13] Indeed, such an outcome prevents placing Gal 3: 28 with other Pauline narrations on women, such as 1 Cor 11:2-16 and 14: 33-36. However, every interpretation has its weaknesses. Witherington’s interpretation avoids creating a tension in this instance, such a stance can be seen to be at odds with Paul’s rhetoric on freedom that is present throughout his writings.[14] Witherington’s insistence that Jewish statements of equality before G-d, derides Gal 3:28 of uniqueness, and provides a background to and reinforcement of the passage as a statement, Coram Deo, is problematic. Boucher, who Witherington has utilised, states that the above sayings cannot be clearly dated to New Testament times.[15] Thus, Witherington’s use of such sayings as a background and evidence for the interpretation of Gal 3: 28 as referring to equality, Coram Deo, is weakened.
Additionally, it would be inappropriate to state that in the early Christian community, the change in religious status did not affect the converted on a wider social level. The separation-holiness within Judaism clearly resulted in incredible social disenfranchisement for those who were not given high religious status. Indeed, in the case of the Jewish would neither marry nor eat with Gentiles. Gentiles were considered, “unclean”: if a Jew purchased cooking utensils from a Gentile, they must purify or scald the item.[16] As with Gentiles, Witherington glosses over the clear, dramatic change in status for women, and how this would have affected individual women’s lives. Furthermore, Witherington’s assertion that his interpretation is valid on the basis of its support from 1 Cor 11 and 7, fails to assess the given passages with the same rigour that he has applied to Gal 3: 28.
Alternately, Fiorenza in her penultimate feminist analysis, In Memory of Her, considers Gal 3: 28 to be a clear statement of equality, however, she concedes that Paul’s thinking is certainly double-edged when concerning women. Fiorenza utilises a number of methods when approaching Gal 3: 28, although her analysis is primarily socio-historical and literary. Fiorenza follows Witherington in stating that Galatians is concerned with the removal of the practice of the law in the Christian community, and that this resulted in an equal religious status, Coram Deo. Contra to Witherington, Fiorenza asserts that this religious equality would undoubtedly influence the social status of the adherents, which she supports through an analysis of the affects on the pairs that precede “male and female,” in Gal 3: 28: Gentiles and slaves. That, states Fiorenza, such a stance has resulted in a dramatic change in social status of Gentiles in the Christian community is attested in the
Antioch incident.[17] Pointing to dissolution of differences between slaves and freemen by Paul, Fiorenza argues that such Pauline comments were, “surely not heard by converted slaves, as a rhetorical reference to Jewish law…to argue this…is to minimise the impact of this language in a world where slavery was a commonly accepted institution.”[18] Additionally, Fiorenza points to the Jewish practice of freeing slaves performed with the consent of the synagogue. Fiorenza asserts that slaves would connect baptism with the Jewish ritualised process of freeing slaves.[19]
As with Witherington, Fiorenza considers Paul’s reference in Gal 3: 28 to, “male and female”, to be an illusion to the procreative command of Gen 1:27-28. Again concurring with Witherington, Fiorenza concludes that Paul is stating that marriage and sexual relationships are not required of the Christian community. Indeed, this is stated throughout Pauline writings.[20] Fiorenza attests to the dramatic departure such a statement would have upon women who are forced in both the Jewish and Greco-Roman world to marry. Indeed, in the Jewish world, women were connected to the religious community, through their connection to a circumcised husband or son.[21] Similarly, women were forced to marry according to Roman law, during the New Testament period.[22]
The prime passages that is considered in tension with an egalitarian interpretation of Gal 3: 28, are, as outlined above: 1 Cor 11:12 and 14: 33-36.[23] Fiorenza points out that in contrast to traditional interpretation, it would appear that Paul is not insisting on women covering their heads.[24] According to Fiorenza, Paul’s concern about head covering and hair is derived from a desire to distinguish Christians from oriental cults, in which women commonly worshipped with, “unbound hair.”[25] Furthermore, Fiorenza considers the statement of 1 Cor 11:11-13: to neutralise 1 Cor: 8-10.
Fiorenza considers the statement by Paul in 1 Cor 14: 33-36, “woman should be kept quiet in church meetings,” to be motivated by the surrounding cultural climate. Rather than an overriding concern for women’s submission, for Fiorenza, Paul’s concern is for Corinthian community.[26] Fiorenza connects Paul’s exhortation to the Roman law on women speaking in public. Additionally, Fiorenza also considers 14: 33-36 to be connected with his concern to differentiate Christianity from, “orgiastic, oriental cults,”: and a warning against the open practice of glossolalia. This is supported, states Fiorenza, by Paul’s reference to women in significant positions in Rom 16: rendering a statement on women’s general speaking, “ridiculous.”[27]
Fiorenza’s interpretation of Gal 3: 28, as with Witherington’s, is clearly situated within New Testament scholarship. As I have outlined, such an interpretation, has strengths: one can place such egalitarianism clearly within Pauline thought. Furthermore, it is clear that whether or not Paul intended female social emancipation that a major level of change was brought with his teachings.[28] Fiorenza’s assertion that Gal 3: 28 is exhorting social emancipation is in part reliant on all the dissolution of all three pairs. However, it would seem that Fiorenza has gone slightly amiss in her discussion of the freedom promised to slavery in relation to Gal 3:28. As Witherington has pointed out, the text implies the first half of the pairs presented in Gal 3: 28 is the privileged position, prior to their conversion to Christianity. ‘Slave’, precedes ‘freeman’ within the text: and precedes the ‘freeman’ in Judaic households, as male slaves were circumcised.[29]
However, Fiorenza concedes that Paul was not exhorting a total emancipation, as can be seen through 1 Cor: 2-16; 14: 33-36. Fiorenza’s assertion that Paul was concerned with differentiating Christians from oriental cults does not fully explain such a statement as 1 Cor 11:8, “man was not made for woman, but woman was made for man.” Furthermore, Fiorenza’s negation of 1 Cor 11:8 by 1 Cor 11:11 is highly problematic: one could negate 1 Cor 11:11 by 1 Cor 11:8. Thus, Fiorenza’s interpretation is in conclusion, flawed. It is difficult to argue that in one place, Paul meant the dissolution of gender differences, and that there is “no male and female,” and that this refers to social equality, when in instances, the same writer asserts otherwise.[30]
However, the flaw’s of Fiorenza’s interpretation are reliant on her emphasis on a textual and socio-historical approach: Fiorenza is concerned with what Paul “meant” in his own cultural context and to the community he writes to; as Paul was writing in a patriarchal culture, searching for a feminist theology on this basis would be to many largely futile. Indeed, an approach to Paul that recognises his egalitarian strengths in contrast to his contemporaneous environment, and in turn applies such a theology to today’s society, Fiorenza’s goal would be achieved.[31]
Evidently, Bible interpretation is complex process, whose outcome is reliant on the approach, background, and indeed expectations from the text. The interpretations shown above demonstrate the problematic nature of such a process: the use of the same approach can produce two different interpretative outcomes. An interesting aspect about the two interpretations used, is that it would seem that their strengths and weaknesses ‘play off’ one another. Witherington’s analysis strengths lie in its ability to resolve any such tension between Gal 3: 28 and Paul’s commentary on women in 1 Cor, whilst its weaknesses lie in the tension it creates between Paul egalitarianism; Fiorenza’s approach has its strengths and weakness oppositional to Witherington’s. However, any interpretation will be necessarily problematic; any reading of a text, and especially a religious text will be affected by the approach, motivation, background and prior beliefs of a reader. Indeed, this ‘reading’ and ‘interpretative’ exercise has its own motivations and expectations. Reading Gal 3: 28, for the author was a liberating experience, and thus motivated my research into others, searching for a recognition of my own interpretation of this passage. That I was unable to discover this in the two interpretations given, is perhaps reflected in the critical treatment of them.
[1] Withertington, B. 1981. “Rite and Rights for Women – Galatians 3 : 28” New Testament Studies. vol. 27 Oct. pp. 593-604. p. 593
[2] Boucher, M. 1969. “Some Unexplored Parallels to 1 Cor 11, 11-12 and Galatians 3: 28: The New Testament on the Role of Women” Catholic Biblical Quarterly. vol. 31 no. 1. pp. 50-58.
[3] Boucher. “Some unexplored” p. 53; Witherington. “Rite and rights” p. 595
[4] Boucher. “Some unexplored” p. 52; Witherington. “Rite and rights” p. 593
[5] Witherington. “Rite and rights” p. 594
[6] Witherington. “Rite and rights” p. 594; Snodgrass, K. 1986. “Galatians 3: 28 – Conundrum or Solution?” in ed. Alvera Mickelson. Women, Authority and the Bible. p. 161-181. Intervarsity Press,
Downers Grove. p. 186.
[7] See for examples, Rom. 15: 14; Eph. 2: 22.
[8] Witherington. “Rites and rights” p. 594; Martin, T. 2003. “The Covenant of Circumcision (Gen 17:9-14) and the Situational Antitheses in Galatians 3: 28” Journal of Biblical Literature. vol. 22 no 1. pp. 111-126.
[9] Interestingly, the slave in a Jewish household was circumcised, whilst the freeman in a Jewish community was not, thus the place of slave/freeman, rather than freeman/slave. See Witherington. “Rites and rights” p. 595; Martin. “The Covenant” p. 117-118.
[10] Gal 4: 10-11.
[11] Witherington. “Rites and rights” p. 598; Fiorenza. In Memory. p. 211; Snodgrass. “Galatians” p. 176; Butting, K. 2000. “Pauline Variations on Genesis 2:24: Speaking of the Body of Christ in the Context of Discussion of Lifestyles” Journal for the Study of the New Testament. vol. 70 Sep. pp. 79-90. p. 87-88; Gundry-Volf, J. 1994. “Male and Female in Creation and New Creation: Interpretations of Galatians 3: 28 in 1 Corinthians 7” in ed. Thomas E. Schmidt and Moises Silva. To Tell The Mystery. pp. 95-121. Sheffield Academic
Press, England. p. 105. In contrast, Martin. “The covenant” denies the reference to Gen 1:27.
[12] Witherington. p. 595.
[13] Boyarin, D. 2004. “Paul and the Genealogy of Gender” in ed. Amy-Jill Levine. A Feminist Companion to Paul. p. 14-38. T & T Clarke,
New York; Boucher “Unexplored parallels”
[14] See 1 Cor 7:21-22; Rom 8:23-24; Rom 7: 4.
[15] Boucher. “Unexplored parallels” p. 52
[16] Gerd, T. 1978. Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity. Fortress Press,
Philadelphia. p. 92.
[17] Fiorenza. In memory. p. 210
[18] Fiorenza. In memory. p. 209
[19] Fiorenza. In memory. p. 214-215
[20] Rom 7:1-3; 1 Cor: 7: 27-29
[21] Witherington. “Rite and rights” p. 594; Fiorenza. In memory. p. 210; Gundry-Volf. “Male and female.” p. 114; 120
[22] Witherington. “Rite and rights” p. 594; Fiorenza. In memory. p. 210; Gundry-Volf. “Male and female.” p. 114; 120
[23] Witherington. “Rite and rights” p. 597; Fiorenza. In memory. p. 227; Snodgrass. “Conundrum” p. 131. I have omitted 1 Tim on the basis that it is pseudo-Pauline.
[24] See 1 Cor 11: 15. Fiorenza. In memory. p. 227
[25] Fiorenza. In memory. p. 227-228.
[26] Fiorenza. In memory. p. 231-232; Butting. “Pauline variations” p. 88; Gasque, W. Ward.1986. “Galatians 3: 28 – Conundrum or Solution? – A Response” in ed. Alvera Mickelson. Women, Authority and the Bible. p. 188-192. Intervarsity Press,
Downers Grove. p. 191.
[27] Fiorenza. In memory. p. 233.
[28] Gundry-Volf. “Male and female” p. 114;
[29] Martin. “The covenant” p. 125; Snodgrass. “Conundrum” p. 176;
[30] Eisenbaum, P. 2001. “Is Paul the Father of Misogynism and Anti-Semitism” Cross Currents. vol. 50 no. 1. http://www.crosscurrents.org/eisenbaum.htm accessed on 4/9/06 at 10:51 am; Also see Boyarin, D. 2004. “Paul and the Genealogy of Gender”
[31] See Snodgrass “Conundrum” for an application of this. Boucher “Unexplored parallels” also concludes that while Paul was not interested in disturbing society, contemporaneously, it is necessary to maintain the equality found in Christ into the rest of society. The implication is that conforming to the ideals that Paul recommends in 1 Cor would in fact be rebelling against current, socially acceptable roles.
20 comments September 7, 2006
