Men In Kilts

The story is told of a pentecostal group that almost split over a teen ice skating party. The problem was Deuternomy 22:5 and its interpretation: 

⁵ The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

One part of the church insisted that the girls wear skirts. Another part was horrified as the teen boys might get a glimpse of forbidden territory if a girl fell. But pants, the other group said, pertaineth to a man and should not be worn! Eventually a compromise was reached—the girls would wear pants under their skirts! 

The Easton Dictionary has this to say on clothes in its article on Dress:

The robes of men and women were not very much different in form from each other.

This leads me to think that something other than transvestitism is the issue. 

The Hebrew word here for man is not the standard word—adam. Instead The Enhanced Strong's Dictionary tells us it is this word:

h1397. גֶבֶר geber; from 1396; properly, a valiant man or warrior; generally, a person simply: — every one, man, x mighty.

AV (68)- man 64, mighty 2, man child 1, every one 1;

 man, strong man, warrior ( emphasising strength or ability to fight)

While the word can and does mean man, it also can and does mean warrior. Here is what the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament tells us about geber:

גֶבֶר. Man. As distinct from such more general words for man as אָדָם, אִשׁ, אֱנוֹשׁ, etc., this word specifically, relates to a male at the height of his powers. As such it depicts humanity at its most competent and capable level. Sixty- six occurrences.

The word is related to warrior, and is often used of men who, based on the context of the word in the sentence and passage were warriors. 

So how then could Deuteronomy be translated? 

⁵ The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a warrior, neither shall a warrior put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

Historically there are examples of this. Pisistratus in ancient Athens is a good example. He wanted to gain control of Athens and start a war. So he found a tall distinctive peasant woman from the provinces and dressed her up as the Goddess of War and Wisdom, Athena, and announced to the people that the Goddess was in favor of the war. He got his war.

Another example is the Urgaritic legend of what is called the Daniel Cycle. This is a series of stories about an ancient stereotypical wiseman. He was mentioned in Ezekiel 14:14. One of these stories was that Daniel was insulted and his son refused to avenge his father. This was a scandal. It was so shocking that Daniel's daughter dressed up in armor and avenged her father. A shocking reversal of roles. 

The idea is that one magically imbues the woman with warrior power. "Our women are better warriors than your men." The same thing occurs when a warrior is feminized. "Your men are like women to us."

This latter idea may be what was going on with the angels and Sodom. The idea was to show the superiority of Sodom by using the visitors as if they were women. "We make your men our women." Remember that the men of Sodom after the gang rape would have gone home to their wives. Homosexual rape in military situations is a lot more common than people think. I have seen estimates that 1/3 of all rapes are homosexual in nature, many of them are never reported. 

Historically, the rape of males was more widely recognized in ancient times. Several of the legends in Greek mythology involved abductions and sexual assaults of males by other males or gods. The rape of a defeated male enemy was considered the special right of the victorious soldier in some societies and was a signal of the totality of the defeat. There was a widespread belief that a male who was sexually penetrated, even if it was by forced sexual assault, thus "lost his manhood," and could no longer be a warrior or ruler. Gang rape of a male was considered an ultimate form of punishment and, as such, was known to the Romans as punishment for adultery and the Persians and Iranians as punishment for violation of the sanctity of the harem. Donaldson, Donald. (1990). "Rape of Males," in Dynes, Wayne, ed. Encyclopedia of Homosexuality. New York: Garland Publications. 

The point to remember is that the differences in clothing among men and women were minor, so it seems likely that something else besides gender distinctions is in mind in Deuteronomy. The use and respect for magic and the power it was supposed to have is a theme of the Old Testament that we moderns do not fully appreciate. 

I would paraphrase the passage this way:

⁵ Do not dress a woman as a warrior, or a warrior as a woman for pagan magical practices: for all that do so are an abomination unto the Lord thy God.

The issue of gender-suitable clothing is a cultural issue. A Scots man dressed in a kilt is not the least bit effeminate. Deuteronomy 22 does not seem to be addressing this issue. 

Life Ain’t Easy for an Apostle Named Junia

If our interpretation of a scripture contradicts the history of the Bible, then I would conclude that that interpretation is wrong. This becomes useful in a number of areas. Today I will talk about 1 Corinthians 14.

³⁴ Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.

I have written on this before.

What historical documents am I referring to that disprove the idea that women could not speak in church? Romans 16 tells us of two people related to Paul:

7 Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was. 

This is the King James translation. Note that the King James decided to use the extremely rare Junias. Most modern translations say this:

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

The reason that the KJV used Junias is that it is a masculine name. The idea of a female apostle seemed almost blasphemy. The KJV used Erasmus’ Textus Receptus as the basis for their translation, which has this as a feminine name. The translators overruled Erasmus. 

(Note that the original manuscripts were written in all capital letters. It would not be possible to know if the common name Junia was used, or the rare name Junias because of the fact that the word is in the accusative case. When accent marks were added later to clarify the written word, accent marks that show this name was feminine were added.) 

Wikipedia talks about this issue: 

Only one record of the male name “Junias” has been discovered in extra-biblical Greek literature, which names him as the bishop of Apameia of Syria. Three clear occurrences of “Junia” have been found. While earlier searches for “Junias” in Latin also yielded no evidence, it is reported that “Junias” has been found as a Latin nickname or diminutive for the name “Junianas”, which was not uncommon both in Greek and Latin. While this is a possibility, historical studies on the name “Junia” as a contracted form of “Junianas” has shown there are over 250 citations of the name Junia in antiquity all of which have been found to refer to women, with not one single case proven to be the abbreviated form of Junianus to Junia. Meanwhile the name Junia is attested multiple times on inscriptions, tombstones and records; most notably, General Brutus’ half sister, Junia.

It is not impossible that the name here is masculine, but very unlikely. See the NIV:

⁷ Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

One blogger put it this way:

Icon of Junia and AndronicusThe Feminine Theory --- Most biblical scholars are of the conviction, as am I, that the second named individual in verse 7 is a female. Junia, after all, was a very common feminine name at that time. “All early sources attest Junia as female, especially Jerome (340-420 A.D.) and John Chrysostom (345-407 A.D.). Although the name often appears in masculine forms in English translations, they are unattested in ancient times. Junia is the only woman called an ‘apostle’ in the NT” (Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, p. 756). Andronicus and Junia are believed by the vast majority of these biblical scholars to be yet another husband and wife team (like Priscilla and Aquila), or possibly a brother and sister team. “It is surely not at all impossible that St. Paul should include a woman among the apostles in the wider sense of accredited missionaries or messengers, a position to which their seniority in the faith may well have called this pair” (Dr. James Hastings, Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, vol. 1, p. 665). 

This is my view as well. She was a woman (note that the KJV knew what the Greek said and made her a man even though the man’s name Junias is rare). The implications of this passage for the KJV translators was such that they felt that Junia must have been a man, even though throughout history she was known to be a woman.

The same source continues:

The Greek word episemos means “eminent, prominent, distinguished, outstanding, renowned.” The word is used only twice in all the NT writings. The other occurrence is with reference to Barabbas (Matt. 27:16). Thus, Andronicus and Junia were a very prominent, distinguished couple -- but in what sense?! That is the central question. There are two major theories as to how best to interpret this statement:

 Modern Women?1. They were regarded as outstanding apostles. In other words, they were numbered “among” the apostles, and in that group had distinguished themselves in some way. The primary meaning of the Greek preposition en, which is employed in this phrase, is “within, among” (Dana & Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek NT). If indeed this preposition is given its most common meaning, then these two were quite likely of renown within the group of apostles in the early church. In other words, they were “outstanding apostles,” which is exactly how some versions of the Bible render this passage, and which was the view held by such renowned scholars and early church fathers as Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Martin Luther, John Calvin, to name just a few.

2. They were regarded favorably by the apostles. According to this view, Andronicus and Junia were not actually apostles, but were simply highly esteemed by those persons who were apostles. Although a few scholars do indeed advocate this position, it is most definitely the minority view, and is regarded as highly unlikely by most reputable Greek and biblical scholars. “To interpret the statement as meaning that these were outstanding in the estimation of the apostles scarcely does justice to the construction in the Greek” (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 10, p. 164). 

The view expounded by those insisting “the apostles” esteemed Junia is very unlikely in Greek grammar and one has to ask an interesting question.

What biases are causing them to advance it? We all have these biases. 

Apparently This Is Apple PandowdyBut let’s say that this second view above is right and Junia was highly regarded by the apostles. Was she so regarded for her apple pandowdy at church potlucks? I do not think so. Clearly she was a worker in the church. Also clearly she did things that many conservative churches would not allow. Until we allow women to do what the New Testament allows them to do we are not fitting within the Biblical patterns. It seems unlikely to me that an apostle had to sit meekly or walk three steps behind her husband. 

As one prominent evangelist in my religious tradition, and self-styled Apostle, might have put it, “Do not believe me, believe your Bible.”  

David Berninski, Mathematician and Skeptic About Materialism

Obama is Naked

We all remember the story of the con artists that pretended to be haute couture clothing designers. The con was that only the most enlightened could see the clothes. One by one the Emperor’s courtiers pretended to see the magnificent clothes. They could not admit they were unenlightened. "Yes," the Emperor finally said, "The clothes are beautiful."

As the emperor took a stroll through his city, no one would admit that the emperor was naked. It was only when a little child declared, "That man has no clothes," that the people laughed.

In my daughter's iPad version the con artists were rewarded for teaching the Emperor a lesson—telling truth to the powerful I suppose. We know what their punishment would be in the real world.

Obama has no clothes. The only reason we think he does is that we can’t admit the possibility our own leader could be naked. No not for a moment. Do not misunderstand. Bush was naked too. They all are. Pick your favorite president. For me it would be Calvin Coolidge. He was naked too.

This was why God did not want Israel to have a king. We will idolize the leader, it is inevitable. But how will that king treat us? I Sam 8 tells us: 

^7-9 God answered Samuel, "Go ahead and do what they're asking. They are not rejecting you. They've rejected me as their King. From the day I brought them out of Egypt until this very day they've been behaving like this, leaving me for other gods. And now they're doing it to you. So let them have their own way. But warn them of what they're in for. Tell them the way kings operate, just what they're likely to get from a king."

 ^10-18 So Samuel told them, delivered God's warning to the people who were asking him to give them a king. He said, "This is the way the kind of king you're talking about operates. He'll take your sons and make soldiers of them—chariotry, cavalry, infantry, regimented in battalions and squadrons. He'll put some to forced labor on his farms, plowing and harvesting, and others to making either weapons of war or chariots in which he can ride in luxury. He'll put your daughters to work as beauticians and waitresses and cooks. He'll conscript your best fields, vineyards, and orchards and hand them over to his special friends. He'll tax your harvests and vintage to support his extensive bureaucracy. Your prize workers and best animals he'll take for his own use. He'll lay a tax on your flocks and you'll end up no better than slaves. The day will come when you will cry in desperation because of this king you so much want for yourselves. But don't expect God to answer."

 ^19-20 But the people wouldn't listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We will have a king to rule us! Then we'll be just like all the other nations. Our king will rule us and lead us and fight our battles."

Oh, for those good old days when the "king" only took 10%!

I thought about these things after watching the following video. I thought at first that it was too hard on us drones. But on reconsideration, it may be too kind. 

Why do bad things ultimately happen to a nation?  Why is America headed for a crisis? Why do we allow our leaders to do the evil that they do?

All we have to do to stop them is laugh.

The Desert Blooms

I remember the propaganda I believed years ago. In particular it was the idea that the modern state of Israel was causing the desert to bloom. This was supposedly a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. 

Isaiah 41:18-20

I will make rivers flow on barren heights, and springs within the valleys. I will turn the desert into pools of water, and the parched ground into springs. I will put in the desert the cedar and the acacia, the myrtle and the olive. I will set pines in the wasteland, the fir and the cypress together, so that people may see and know, may consider and understand, that the hand of the Lord has done this, that the Holy One of Israel has created it.

And this:

Isaiah 51:3

The Lord will surely comfort Zion and will look with compassion on all her ruins; he will make her deserts like Eden, her wastelands like the garden of the Lord. Joy and gladness will be found in her, thanksgiving and the sound of springs.

Has Israel has caused the desert to bloom?  The statistics do not bear this out. 

But even if Israel has made the desert bloom, and I would say Israel, to some extent, has; there is an unasked question that bears on the story of the Pima Indian. 

Again I quote from Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About it. 

With the California gold rush, the relative paradise of the Pima came to an end and, with it, their affluence. Anglo-Americans and Mexicans began settling in large numbers in the region. These newcomers—“some of the vilest specimens of humanity that the white race has produced,” wrote Russell—hunted the local game near to extinction, and diverted the Gila River water to irrigate their own fields at the expense of the Pimas’.

The Jordan ValleyA portion of the success of Arizona agriculture was based on stolen water. The unasked question when we see a blooming desert in Israel is—Where did the Israeli farmer get the water? Where did the Israeli farmer get the land? 

When we see the abysmal conditions of a Palestinian settlement camp, remember the Pima Indians and ask the important question. Who "owns" the water? If you wonder why the Moslems and Jews cannot sit down and settle their differences “like good Christians”—one answer is the issue of who controls the water.