THE PAULINE CONCEPT OF WOMEN ANDROCENTRIC OR CHRISTOCENTRIC

NORTHERN CARIBBEAN UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF RELIGION AND THEOLOGY
THE PASTOR’S VIEW OF WOMAN : ANDROCENTRIC OR CHRISTOCENTRIC
Presented in Partial fulfillment of the Course:
RELP330, Pastoral Administration II
by:
Maurice Griffiths
April, 2014
ID#18100295

INTRODUCTION
The objective of this essay is to examine the subject, the Pauline Concept of Women:
Androcentric or Christocentric. To commence with, it is important at this point to define my
terms before I engage in any discussion. The term androcentric and its related noun
androcentrism is derived from the Greek, andro which means literally “man or male” which is
“the practice, conscious or otherwise, of placing male human beings or the masculine point of
view at the center of one’s view of the world and its culture and history. While the practice of
placing the feminine point of view at the center is gynocentrism.” The term christocentric,
however and its related noun christocentrism denotes having as the theological focal point the
teachings, and practices of Jesus Christ. So to rephrase the subject, is the Pauline concept of
women dominated by a masculine point of view or does it have its focal point in the teachings
and practices of Jesus Christ.
The paper will follow this route; to begin with, I will be examining the sitz en laben of
Paul. Then I will investigate the Greco-Roman culture and ancient ideologies of gender. After
which I will be examining the different sources of understanding Paul, and to conclude I will be
examining Jesus’ view of women, and that also of the apostle Paul, to ascertain whether or not
Paul’s view of women is androcentric or christocentric.

THE SITZ EN LABEN OF PAUL
The term sitz en laben is a German term which simply means “setting in life.” The sitz en
laben of Paul therefore, refers to the cultural milieu in which Paul was raised and cultured to
function, and lead his life. It is important then to us and for our study to arrive at a correct
understanding of this cultural background, in order to better understand those cultural factors or
elements that shaped Paul’s life, but even more specifically the ancient gender ideologies of his
day. Thus a number of contexts will be analyzed. This analysis will aid us in our quests, to gain a
correct understanding of the social reality of the Greco-Roman, Jewish-Palestinian context
within the first century.
The Greco-Roman Culture and Ancient Ideologies of Gender
The Greco-Roman culture implies the thoughts, influences, and cultural practices of the
Greeks and Romans in the ancient Mediterranean world, commencing with the conquest of
Alexander the Great to the Roman Emperor Constantine (circa 300 B.C.E.-300 C.E.) a period
lasting for approximately 600 years.
It can be said with great certainty that the ancient world as much as ours in many
respects, reflects the androcentrism of the male gender. The overarching accepted understanding
of the role of women in all cultures of the Mediterranean was strictly that of second class, with
minor exceptions based socioeconomic standing. Women were first considered to subordinate to
their fathers and then to their husbands. The male figure in Roman society who was naturally
endowed, was seen as the trade mark of honor and power and these were the virtues admired in
the culture at the time, so therefore anything or anyone that lack power and strength lacked
honor, and was therefore subservient be it male or female, but in most cases (if not all) women
were considered to be “weak” and as a result of being the “weaker sex” shows naturally by their
gender that they are subservient and should be dominated. That is, dominated by men.1
Likewise in Palestine the status of women during the time of Jesus correlates well with
that of Greco-Roman cultures which saw women as being inferior. The woman is “in all things
1 Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction To The Early Christian Writings, 4th
ed.
(Oxford University Press, 2008), 13: 371-72.

inferior to the man,” asserts the first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus.2 In Gentile
cultures however with strong female deities such as: (Aphrodite in Corinth, and Isis in Egypt),
women experience greater socioeconomic status. In addition to socioeconomic benefits, both
women and men exercised leadership in religious worship, although the male was still
considered to be the head of all things. In spite of this though, women did attain and exercise
some levels of authority and publicity3 and even involvement in the philosophical schools, for
example the stoic philosopher Musonius Rufus, who was widely recognized as a public figure,
and active in civic life during the time of Nero, argued for the inclusion of women in the
philosophical schools, on the grounds that it will help them to keep house better.4 So therefore, it
can be seen from this, that the social reality of the first century and that of Jesus, and Paul was
exclusivistic and gender biased, particularly androcentric.
SOURCES OF UNDERSTANDING PAUL
At this juncture we will be discussing various sources of understanding Paul. This is very
important because of the thirteen correspondence in the New Testament attributed to Paul, most
critical scholars argues that six of them may have been either misattributed or even falsely
attributed.5 The word “epistle” means “letter.” The New Testament contains 21 epistles. The
epistles or letters of the New Testament can be divided into 2 groups: the Epistles of Paul, and
the General or Catholic Epistles. Thirteen (13) of the twenty-one (21) epistles is attributed to the
apostle Paul, they are: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians,
Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon.
In addition, some believe that Paul may have written Hebrews; however it is now
generally believed to have been written by someone other than the Apostle, but certainly
someone who was acquainted with Paul’s teaching. Paul’s epistles were written to individual
persons for example, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. And some to certain churches for
example, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1 and
2 Thessalonians.
2 Flavius Josephus, Against Apion (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1974), 622.
ed.
(Oxford University Press, 2008), 13: 372-73.
4 Cora E. Lutz, Musonius Rufus:"The Roman Socrates'", YCS 10: 3-147, 1947
5 Jerome D. Quinn, “Timothy and Titus, Epistles to,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Friedman
(New York: Doubleday, 1992), 6:560–71.

Additionally the thirteen epistles attributed to Paul can further be sub-divided into three (3)
categories Pauline, Deutero-Pauline, and the Pastoral or the Pseudepigraphical works of Paul.
There are other scholars however who believe that Paul did write all these epistles only that they
were more or less dictated which may account for the differences in style and vocabulary.6
1. Pauline- epistles by Paul himself (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1
Thessalonians, and Philemon).
2. Deutero-Pauline- epistles by followers or close associates of Paul (Colossians,
Ephesians, and 2 Thessalonians) which he may well not have written. Scholars based
their debate about whether Paul actually wrote these letters on consistencies of
vocabulary, writing style, and/or theological beliefs.
3. Pseudo-Pauline- later compositions claiming Paul for their author, but probably was
written by a second-or third-generation follower of Paul. (The Pastoral Epistles: 1 and 2
Timothy and Titus). Scholars argue that 1. The vocabulary of these letters appears to be
non-Pauline.7 2. More importantly, the church situation that these letters presupposes
does not correspond well with that in Paul’s day, when there were not church hierarchies
but charismatic communities run by the “spirit.”8 Michael Prior argues that 2 Timothy is
so different from the other pastorals and therefore should be considered independently, in
fact he also believe that Paul may actually be the author.9
It becomes visible then, that someone in one of Paul’s churches, maybe 20 or 30 years after
Paul’s death, may have written some letters in his name in order to address internal concerns that
had arisen in their own time. These letters, along with those really by Paul, came to circulate
together in the apostle’s name and eventually, were included in the New Testament. The
conclusion therefore is that the pastorals are pseudonymous. This is important for historical
reasons: because the teachings of these letters may not represent what the apostle himself taught
(for example, about the role of women in the churches; see 1 Timothy 2:11−15 in contrast to
Galatians 3:28). In summation, the New Testament appears to contain both authentic and
pseudonymous Pauline letters; knowing which is authentic as oppose to those that is not, is
6Luke Timothy Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy (New York: Doubleday, 2001).
7J. K. Elliot, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993), pp. 350–89; see also A. N.
Harrison, The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1921), and Armin Baum,
“Semantic Variation Within the CorpusPaulinum: Linguistic Considerations Concerning the Richer Vocabulary of
the Pastoral Epistles,” Tyndale Bulletin 59 (2008):271–92.
ed.
(Oxford University Press, 2008), 23:359-60.
9 Michael Prior, Paul the Letter Writer in the Second Letter to Timothy (Sheffield: Sheffield University
Press, 1989).

helpful for investigators who want to know what Paul himself taught and what was taught in his
name after his death.10
Therefore in reading Paul, his own undisputed writings should be seen and treated as primary
firsthand accounts of his life and ministry. They were written probably between the years (50-
68CE) also they are our earliest and best witnesses concerning Paul’s life and should be treated
as such. They were written independently of one another not as theological treatises, but as
solution to specific community issues, and considerations. And even though useful information
about Paul’s life may, and can be found in the six disputed letters, as well as the book of Acts,
which contains contradictory accounts of Paul’s life which are at odds with what we know in
Paul’s own writings.11 These should be seen and treated as secondary secondhand accounts of
Paul’s life. Likewise the same is true for the noncanonical sources of Paul’s life while they may
be of use, in the sense that they provide us with a wide understanding as to how Paul was
interpreted by later Christians for a variety of reasons.12
JESUS’ VIEW OF WOMEN
Jesus’ relationship with women despite the culturally misogynist social structures of his
day can be seen as a radical social engineering. That is, in the context or through the lens of his
apocalyptic message of the kingdom. Jesus’ message was very accommodative and opened to all
but more so to the downtrodden, the poor and the suffering. In fact his message advocated that
very soon God would intervene in history and there would be a reversal of fortunes wherein
those who are high would be made low, and the subservient and the downtrodden would be
exalted. In light of this it is not difficult see why this message would be very attractive to the
poor, the outcast, and the lowly at the bottom of which you could find the lowest of the low, the
women. Also it is important to note that Jesus was not advancing an egalitarian social order
between men, and women his message however had socially revolutionary implications which
can be seen as early as the first century in various church communities.13
ed.
(Oxford University Press, 2008), chapters 18-23.
11 Ibid., pg.262-265.
12 Bart D. Ehrman, Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene:The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend
(Oxford University Press, 2006), chapter10.
ed.
(Oxford University Press, 2008), 24:364 -67.

There are no historical evidence which shows that other Jewish rabbis in first century
Palestine had female followers as Jesus, and while Jesus’ twelve apostles were all Jewish men.
The female followers in the Jesus movement were more than mere followers but played
significant roles in Jesus’ nomadic ministry, for example: Jesus and his disciple were
accompanied by women who also act as patrons and supported them financially (see Mark
15:40-51;Luke 8:13). The gospel indicates that Jesus both dialogued and ministered to women in
public (Mark 7:24-30; John 4:1-42). Also we know from the gospels that at Jesus’ arrest, trial
and subsequent crucifixion when all his male followers fled in terror, it was the women and only
the women that were present (Matt. 27:55; Mark 15:40-41). And most of all it was Mary
Magdalene and other unnamed women who discovered the empty tomb and first bear witness to
Jesus’ resurrection (Matt. 28:1-10;Mark 16:18; Luke 23:55-24: 10; John 20:1-2).
The gender inclusive apocalyptic message of Jesus proved not only to be attractive in his
own time, but continued to be very attractive and accommodating to women after his death. For
example the late second century critic of Christianity Celsus, in his literary work the True Word
which no longer survives, claimed that the Christian movement was absurd, by saying it
consisted mainly of underprivileged people with no social standing. He then list exactly what he
meant by underprivileged and inferior: children, slaves, and by all means least women.14
Interestingly however, this inclusive view of women held by Jesus, was strikingly reflected in the
letters of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles, which indicates that the apostle Paul and the author
of Lukan-Acts espouses the Christocentic view of women in a very androcentric social context.
PAUL’S CONCEPT OF WOMEN
As intimated earlier the Christocentric view of women held by Jesus was also shared by
Paul.15 Who was also an apocalyticist who shared the message of imminence and judgment? He
also attracted a lot of female companion and followers who were very instrumental in his
ministry and with whom he became very close. Women played a very outstanding role in the
first century Christian churches, Paul’s correspondence to the Romans indicates in (chapter 16)
in the greetings where Paul acknowledges the principal members of the congregation, and even
14 Henry Chadwick, Origen's “Contra Celsum” (Cambridge: The Univ. Press, 1953), Against Celsus 3.44.
15 Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (New York:
Harpersan Francisco, 2005), 7:180.

though he makes mention of more male acquaintances than female it is evident that females are
in no way here, seen to be subservient to men. There is Phoebe who is a deacon (or minister) in
the church of Cenchreae, and Paul’s own patron, whom he delegates with the assignment of
carrying his letter to Rome (16:12). And there is Prisca, who along with her husband, Aquila, is
responsible for missionary work among the Gentiles and who supports a Christian congregation
in her home (16: 3-4: it is important to note that she is mentioned first, ahead of her husband).
Then there is Mary, a colleague of Paul’s who works among the Romans (16:6) ; There are also
Tryphaena, Tryphosa, and Persis, women whom Paul calls his “coworkers” in the gospel (16: 6,
12). And there are Julia and the mother of Rufus and the sister of Nereus, all of whom appear to
have a high profile in the community (16:13, 15). Most remarkable of all, there is Junia, a
woman whom Paul calls “foremost among the apostles” (16: 7).16
Paul’s message to the Galatians is very clear that in Christ all believers were on the same
equal footing (Gal. 3.27-28) also in Paul’s churches women were far from being silent and
oppressed but were very active in the life of the church, for they were both “praying and
prophesying” just as men were doing (1 Corinthians 11). Notwithstanding however, it is
important to note that he did require them doing so with their heads covered to demonstrate that
they were “under authority” (1 Cor. 11:3-16, esp. v. 10). So therefore it is also clear from this
account that just like Jesus Paul did not advocate a social re-engineering, in fact he insisted that
the believers were to remain content as they are, after all the coming kingdom was soon to
appear and that’s what should occupy the believers attention not status enhancement or even
“marriage” (1 Cor. 7:17-24). So from this we can learn that the gender inclusive and uplifting
messages of Jesus as well as Paul created an accommodating environment in the community of
faith but in reality things continued as they were. Thus uncertainty about the role of women
developed overtime and ignited serious tensions in the churches after Paul’s death. This reality
with the growth and spread of Christianity in an androcentric Greco-Roman world gave rise to
the distaste of female leadership in the church, which subsequently resulted in the subjugation of
women, the exact opposite of the gender inclusive and uplifting message of women originally
advocated by Jesus and Paul.
16 For interesting detailed discussion see Eldon Jay Epp, “Textcritical, Exegetical, and Sociocultural Factors
Affecting the Junia/Junias Variation in Rom 16:7,” in A. Denaux, New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis
(Leuven: Univ. Press, 2002), 227-92.6.

As time progress there were books being circulated in the Christian communities
supposedly written by Paul, which seems to turn the original teachings of Paul and by extension
Jesus on its head. This passage explicitly states that women should learn in silence, be inferior to
men and tend to their part and lot in life, which is to perform home duties and produce children
(1 Tim. 2:11-15). As the struggles continued the copying of the Christian text reflect the
differences of position taken by various church communities. As was mention earlier scholars are
not convinced that Paul wrote the pastorals epistles so that makes it a bit easier to argue against
the misogynist text of (1 Timothy 2) as none Pauline; however one of Paul’s undisputed writings
(1 Corinthians 14: 34-35) appears to advocate the same message. This may appear to be so at a
glance; however the manuscript tradition reveals some startling evidence which has led scholars
to conclude that (vv 34-35) is a scribal interpolation.17 In addition scholars like Gordon Fee have
reasoned forthrightly at length that (1 Corinthians 14:34-35), are not Paul’s words.18
CONCLUSION
As we have seen from the research the Greco-Roman world, as well as ours today in the
twenty first century is more than less androcentric even though today we are more than 2000
years removed. Many women still would do far better if they were born and raised in cultures
and countries that sees women and treat them as they ought to be treated, with dignity and
respect just as a fellow human being and not as second class. The ancient world was dominated
by men, and not by all men, for not all were considered to be real men. Only, the strong, and the
powerful as was embedded in their cultural ideology that shaped everything they did. This was a
reality in Jesus’ day as well as Paul. Women were considered to be inferior to men and their
place was in the home. They had no right to inheritance unless they were very wealthy, and were
expected to be subservient first to their father and eventually their husband.
17 Bruce M. Metzger A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2nd
ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelgeschaft, 1994).p.499-500.Metzger argues that 14.34-35 include verses here {B} Several witnesses,chiefly
Western,transpose verses 34-35 to follow ver. 40 (D F G 88* itd, g Ambrosiaster Sedulius Scotus). Such scribal
alterations represent attempts to find a more appropriate location in the context for Paul’s directive concerning
women. The evidence of the sixth-century Codex Fuldensis is ambiguous. The Latin text of 1 Cor 14 runs onward
throughout the chapterto ver. 40. Following ver. 33 is a scribal siglum that directs the reader to a note standing in
the lower margin of the page.This note provides the text of verses 36 through 40. Does the scribe, without actually
deleting verses 34-35 from the text, intend the liturgist to omit them when reading the lesson?
18 For a fuller discussion that shows that Paul did not write verses 34-35, see especially the commentary by
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987).

Jesus however proclaimed a very interesting message that was very inclusive of women,
and also women played a prominent role in his life and ministry. It was also observed that the
motivations for the gender inclusiveness of his message, is rooted in his apocalyptic world view
which espouses the vision that in the coming kingdom there will be a reversal of fortunes
wherein the inferior and the downtrodden will experience the exact opposite. And even though
he did not advocate a social revolution, the implications of his message were, for the reason that
he was so interpreted both by his allies and enemies. His message continued to be very attractive
after his death, and was subsequently shared by Paul, who also was an apocalypticist, who was
less interested in social enhancement in reality, for he urged his members to “remain content in
whatever position they were in”, but ideologically in his apocalyptic frame work he saw all
believers as equal in Christ.
As time progressed however, the church grew and the apocalyptic hope started to fade,
which foreshadowed alterations to the original messages of Jesus and Paul. The later followers of
Paul became more and more unwelcoming of female leadership in the churches, so they
suppressed and excluded them from public religious involvement. A view which most
contemporary readers believe stemmed from the apostle Paul himself, but as this investigation
has shown. That is a view not shared by Jesus and Paul, but rather this view which reflect the
androcentrism of the male gender, and the perspectives and social structures of the Greco-Roman
context is of the later members of the early Christian communities particularly those of the
second generation, and the second century.

Bibliography
Baum, Armin. “Semantic Variation Within the Corpus Paulinum: Linguistic Considerations
Concerning the Richer Vocabulary of the Pastoral Epistles,” Tyndale Bulletin 59 2008.
Chadwick, Henry. Origen's “Contra Celsum” Cambridge: The Univ. Press, 1953.
Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus. New York: Harpersan Francisco, 2005.
____________. Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and
Legend. Oxford University Press, USA. 2006.
____________. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction To The Early Christian
Writings, 4th ed. Oxford University Press, 2008. ISBN 978-0-19-532259-0
Elliot, J. K. The Apocryphal New Testament Oxford: Clarendon, 1993.
Epp, Eldon Jay. “Textcritical, Exegetical, and Sociocultural Factors Affecting the Junia/Junias
Variation in Rom 16:7,” in A. Denaux, New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis
Leuven: Univ. Press, 2002.
Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians NICNT; Grand Rapids: Michigan:
Eerdmans, 1987.
Harrison, A. N. The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1921.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. The First and Second Letters to Timothy New York: Doubleday, 2001.
Josephus, Flavius. Against Apion Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1974.
Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2nd ed. Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgeschaft, 1994.
Michael Prior, Paul the Letter Writer in the Second Letter to Timothy Sheffield: Sheffield
University Press, 1989.
Quinn, Jerome D. “Timothy and Titus, Epistles to,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel
Friedman New York: Doubleday, 1992.

THE PAULINE CONCEPT OF WOMEN ANDROCENTRIC OR CHRISTOCENTRIC

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Featured

Featured (20)

THE PAULINE CONCEPT OF WOMEN ANDROCENTRIC OR CHRISTOCENTRIC