See this index.
For years I’ve avoided diving into Sharkly’s metaphorical decent into madness: the claim that women are not made in the image of God. After reading his post from September, 2023, I thought I should wade the water, just a bit. Here are some of his claims:
First, there is no specific verse that states that ‘women are made in God’s image’.
Second, in Genesis 1:26, the Hebrew Bible is speaking of men only and in Genesis 1:27 of a single man, as evidenced by the term ‘adam used in the masculine singular with the definite article.
Third, a man must rule as head as God delegates his natural dominion, with woman being their helpers who fall under his dominion. “The woman was never intended to rule over the earth but was instead made to be a helper, staying subject to her husband, as the Bible clearly teaches us.” (see also: Psalm 8:6)
Let’s dive in.
The Hebrew Language
The Hebrew language is very different than English. In my opinion it is most like modern Mandarin Chinese. Both languages are inherently lyrical, structured, and rhythmic. Double or even triple meanings are easy with only subtle changes in words, especial to tonal vowels. This leads to a easy puns.
One part of this is because the Old Testament Hebrew was written without vowels. This naturally allowed the written word to carry multiple senses, as each word could mean more than one thing. This leads to any particular word or phrase carrying a wide range of possible meanings. To get a feel for this, see this comment by Jack at Sigma Frame:
I am coming to see that part of the difficulty in translating this passage lies in the fact that the western mindset simply cannot embrace the ambiguity of the meaning. We just can’t be satisfied unless we reach a conclusion by doing some “slicing and dicing”.
While he was talking about the broad lexical and semantic scope of a particular word (with vowels), the over all point stands: you can’t slice-and-dice Hebrew. It is not easily pinned down. But by the same token, it also doesn’t mean whatever you want it to mean. We also just can’t treat it the same way we treat English, which is a less ambiguous language.
For example, in Hebrew the word בָּשַׂר (basar) is a verb that means “To bear tidings or good news.” When the word is used in its masculine (Hebrew) or feminine (Aramaic) noun forms, it means “flesh”, “body”, or “meat”. While the words are spoken with different vowel sounds, since the written form has no vowels, the words are written exactly the same way. The Hebrew word reflects how the ancient Hebrew might literally celebrate good news (such as the birth of a child!) by killing and eating a fat animal. Notice that both meanings of the word can be active and valid at the same time in this usage. It is a natural play-on-words. So too is this play on words from the book of Mark, which while written in Greek, was likely written by someone for which Aramaic was the first language:
“The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God.”
…which if the Hebrew/Aramaic pun were spelled out explicitly would be:
“We begin with Jesus the Messiah, in whom the good news [בָּשַׂר] was embodied [בָּשַׂר]”.
This sounds almost exactly like the prologue to the Gospel of John: “the word became flesh”. In my opinion, that is no coincidence at all, merely another example of the Hebrew/Aramaic pun in action.
Another pun is found in Genesis 2:7, where God formed a “man of dust from the ground”. In Hebrew the word ‘adam (“man”) and ‘adamah (“ground”) form a natural pun in the same way as human and humus do in English. It’s a shame that translators do not say “God formed a human of dust from the humus” to capture this sense.
This understanding of the Hebrew language brings us to the next area of concern: one’s chosen hermeneutical method.
Hermeneutical Methods
The hermeneutical method one chooses, one’s method of interpretation, really matters in understanding what the Bible says. The first problem I have with Sharkly’s method is found in this quote:
“At first glance that seems like a well backed up assertion, especially as it comes footnoted with some very scholarly sounding footnotes. But upon closer examination you’ll see that his assertion really winds up being very inconclusive at best, and the Hebrew Bible text is more likely…”
The reason I brought up the background on the Hebrew language is because being very inconclusive is exactly what you get, very often, with the language. One has to go beyond a mere grammatical analysis to understand what the Hebrew text is saying. This involves context and, yes, history and expertise. Those “scholarly sounding footnotes” reflect a way to winnow down the possibilities and guide us towards the most probable explanations.
If Sharkly’s hermeneutical method eliminates the testimony of other scholars as merely inconclusive speculation, which in a way it all is simply by being the Hebrew language, then he can justify any belief he wants. He will neither convince others, nor will others be convinced by him. A concrete, objective answer cannot be found this way.
From what I can tell, Sharkly’s dual view—that women are not made in the image of God and that men are designed by God to have complete dominion over women—is fairly unique to him. Perhaps he’s found others who have agreed with him, but by and large his view is a novel one. This, by itself, is a huge red flag.
You see, I’m not at all surprised that Sharkly can find his preferred interpretation in the scripture. The Hebrew text has the wide lexical and semantic scope required to let just about any interpretation in. This makes his view rationally justifiable, which puts it above so many other “Christian” beliefs, but it doesn’t make it correct.
If Sharkly wants to convince others, like myself, of his claims, he’s going to have to do so actively and affirmatively. The hermeneutical method of “anything goes” isn’t enough. Winning on tie-breaks isn’t going to cut it.
Expert Testimony
After reading Sharkly’s article, I pulled out a couple books to see what the commentaries say. Given that I’m just dabbling into this topic, what I found will not be nearly as exhaustive or complete as my other studies elsewhere on this blog. Just keep that in mind.
“26. a human. The term ‘adam, afterward consistently with a definite article, which is used both here and in the second account of the origins of humankind, is a generic term for human beings, not a proper noun. It also does not automatically suggest maleness, especially not without the prefix ben, “son of,” and so the traditional rendering “man” is misleading, and an exclusively male ‘adam would make nonsense of the last clause of verse 27.”
— Robert Alter, “The Hebrew Bible: The Five Books of Moses”, p. 12.
First, Sharkly’s uncle, a professor of Biblical languages, pointed out that `adam is a collective singular noun that is never once found in plural form. His uncle notes that…
“I would therefore argue that ‘adam’ of Genesis 1:26 is not limited to the male partner only as can be seen by God’s use of the plural ‘let them rule’ but this must include the female half of His creation”
…but this does not go far enough. As Robert Alter notes, the term itself—with or without the definite article—is a generic term for humans and never a proper noun. It need never be rendered as “man” even when the object is a single human male. It doesn’t mean “man”, it means “human”, that is, it doesn’t carry the explicit denotation nor implicit connotation of sex. The meaning of the English word “man” is certainly broad enough to capture the sense of “human”, but it is much better to just avoid the ambiguity.
Second, as alluded to above, the term itself is not inherently anatomically masculine. This requires a more detailed explanation. In Hebrew and Greek words have a gender: masculine, feminine, and neuter [Greek only]. But this “gender” is distinct from sex. While many times the anatomical sex—of what is signified by the noun—and the grammatical gender—of the word—coincide, this is not a rule. There is no one-to-one correspondence between grammatical gender and physical, anatomical gender. In fact, you can see in the example I previously used that the word “flesh” is masculine in Hebrew and feminine in Aramaic. This has no impact on the meaning of the words.
Sharkly makes the same mistake over and over again. He assumes that because a masculine gendered word is used that a man must be indicated. But this is simply not the case. There exists no such rule. One cannot assume a male is being addressed simply because the masculine form of a word is used. This is why, for example, the Hebrew prefix ben (“son of”) is used to designate the sex of the human referenced. A word could explicitly denote a male, such as ben, but that is not the case with `adam.
Third, verse 27 is gibberish if `adam means “only a man or group of men.” Once again, the use of `adam is grammatically, but not anatomically masculine:
“27. In the middle clause of this verse, “him,” as in the Hebrew, is grammatically but not anatomically masculine.”
— Robert Alter, “The Hebrew Bible: The Five Books of Moses”, p. 12.
But more to the point, when it says “In the image of God he created him”, the “him” cannot be assumed to be male, but rather human. Alter is not the only one who thinks this:
“27. The three clauses are in apposition. The first two are arranged chiastically and emphasize the divine image in man, while the third specifices that women also bear the divine image.”
— Gordon J. Wenham. Word Biblical Commentary, “#1: Genesis 1-15”, p.32-33
Remember when I said that Hebrew is a language that lends itself to structure and rhythm? It is no surprise then that we find in verse 27 a chiastic structure, nor that commentators recognize that the three clauses work with each other, rather than standalone as individual statements. It is thoroughly and unambiguously plain to both of these Hebrew scholars that the very purpose of the third clause is to make explicit that both men and women bear the divine image of God.
I do not agree with Sharkly’s uncle that…
“there is no specific verse that states that ‘women are made in God’s image’”
…because that verse is Genesis 1:27. And to be perfectly frank, it isn’t particularly ambiguous. If this were in English, we would not be able to jump to such a conclusion, because we would be inclined to treat each clause in that verse as separate, but somewhat related, thoughts. But this is Hebrew in a Hebrew context, where we expect the ambiguity to be resolved by the surrounding structure and context, rather than expecting discrete, explicit, standalone statements. We can see the structure and how the phrases share elements and are tied together.
The structure of a passage has as much, if not more, impact on the interpretation as the words themselves. Try to envision a dictionary where beside the definition for “flesh is…” is an entry for “a passage where three separate clauses are related to each other meaning….” The structure of a passage conveys meaning, just as individual words do. I want to make this clear: if the meaning of “him” can refer to a male because that’s what the word means, then by the exact same token, the arrangement of clauses in that verse are explicit statements that males and females are both created in the image of God. It is just a dictionary-style application of what the elements of the verse mean.
“26. hold sway. The verb radah is not the normal Hebrew word for “rule” (the latter is reflected in “dominion” of verse 16), and in most of the contexts in which it occurs it seems to suggest an absolute or even fierce exercise of mastery.”
— Robert Alter, “The Hebrew Bible: The Five Books of Moses”, p. 12.
But here is what Sharkly said:
“God intended and foresaw all men as being delegated God’s natural dominion over God’s own earth, and all women were created for men to be their helpers and like the rest of the creatures, which Adam also named, women fall under men’s dominion. “
Sharkly is interpreting “hold sway” as if it meant rule, but it doesn’t. It means mastery. God gave mankind complete and utter mastery over the animals of the earth, but man does not rule them and never has. It’s very clear from Sharkly’s words that he thinks Genesis 1:26, because it supposedly only refers to males (let’s go with it, for sake of argument), means that females fall under man’s rule in the sense not intended by the word. The rule of husband over wife is not the same kind of ruling as the dominion that mankind has over the animals, and equating them as Sharkly has done is logically fallacious.
As far as women being created for men to be their helpers, the commentaries have this to say:
“18. sustainer beside him. The Hebrew ‘ezer kenegdo (King James Version “help meet”) is notoriously difficult to translate. The second term means “alongside him,”, “opposite him,” “a counterpart to him.” “Help” is too weak because it suggests a merely auxiliary function, whereas ‘ezer elsewhere connotes active intervention on behalf of someone, especially in military contexts, as often in Psalms.“
— Robert Alter, “The Hebrew Bible: The Five Books of Moses”, p. 14.
…and…
“Elsewhere “helper/help” usually refers to divine assistance, but it is used in three prophetic passages of military aid (Isa 30:5; Ezek 12:14; Hos 13:9). To help someone does not imply that the helper is stronger than the helped; simply that the latter’s strength is inadequate by itself (e.g. Josh 1:14; 10:4, 6; 1 Chron 12:17, 19, 21, 22). The compound prepositional phrase “matching him,” literally, “like opposite him” is found only here. It seems to express the notion of complementarity rather than identity. As Delitzsch (1:140) observers, if identity were meant, the more natural phrase would be “like him.” The help looked for is not just assistance in his daily work or in the procreation of children, though these aspects may be included, but the mutual support companionship provides.”
— Gordon J. Wenham. Word Biblical Commentary, “#1: Genesis 1-15”, p.68
A wife was created to help her husband as an ally in war comes to one’s aid, standing beside him and fighting with him. It does not imply that the wife is stronger than the husband or the husband is stronger than the wife (see: Hosea 13:9), for the word carries no implication of relative position between the one aiding and the one being aided. Sharkly’s sense of women as “helpers” carries the specific and strong sense of a servant or slave, but the word used here implies neither equality nor inequality, but rather the companionship of two entities.
Derek,
I thank you for taking up this topic of the very foundational doctrine of the identity of God, (our Father) and who we then are respectively as males and females. And I’m glad that your post has so far been honest in respect to the source material.
For me to answer all the doubts that you have expressed, fully, would produce a comment far longer than your original post, with much of it copied and pasted from my previous writings. So, I will try to just touch on some key points:
Overall your post seems mainly to raise doubts about my interpretations and my understanding of the nuances of the text in its original languages. And if that stuff was my only reason for believing my assertions, I of all people who fear God greatly, would fear to publish sketchy religious assertions. But I have much more foundational bearing that you made no mention of.
“From what I can tell, Sharkly’s dual view—that women are not made in the image of God and that men are designed by God to have complete dominion over women—is fairly unique to him. Perhaps he’s found others who have agreed with him, but by and large his view is a novel one. This, by itself, is a huge red flag.”
The men who wrote in unanimous agreement that only men are the image of our Father & Son Godhead, were all the apostolic and patristic fathers of the church. Those who made their life about studying and teaching the scriptures and did so in their native tongues and were far more contemporary with the writing. Oh the vast majority of their writings were dedicated to exposing and refuting every heresy they encountered, and they often accused each other of heresy, however nobody back then wrote that the unanimous teaching of the church, that only men are the image and glory of God, (1 Corinthians 11:7) was heresy or novel. Presently I’ll spare you my citing many of the clear quotes from the early church fathers that convey this unquestioned belief. And that is even still left clear even after they have been translated by modern Christians who don’t believe that. Feminist scholars actually collect and cite those quotes to prove that Christianity is a patriarchal religion and did not consider women to be equal to men right from its very beginning.
You seemingly draw no distinction between unavoidable ‘grammatical gendering’ and the ‘natural gender’, which is often made specific in the text. Hebrew is mainly a two gendered language, whereas Greek is more specific, using the neuter gender also. So perhaps you might want to interpret Genesis 1:26-27 through the more gender definitive 1 Corinthians 11:7, as “Doctor of the Church” Saint Augustine did. Then maybe your conclusion, about the sex which images God, would come closer to his. Although I think that even he was trying to make a small compromise on behalf of the ladies.
1 Corinthians 11:7(GNT) A man has no need to cover his head, because he reflects the image and glory of God. But woman reflects the glory of man;
Ambrosiaster writes: Paul says that the honor and dignity of a man makes it wrong for him to cover his head, because the image of God should not be hidden. Indeed, it ought not to be hidden, for the glory of God is seen in the man. … A woman therefore ought to cover her head, because she is not the likeness of God but is under subjection.
There too, I’m not novel in saying that women are to be subject to their husbands. The early church fathers also warned about new doctrines.
Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) Concerning Teachers, Apostles, and Prophets.
11:1 Whosoever therefore shall come and teach you all these things that have been said before, receive him; 2 But if the teacher himself be perverted and teach another doctrine to destroy these things, do not listen to him. But if he teaches so as to increase righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord.
Belief that females image our Father, God, is a new Roman doctrine showing their apostasy.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/82/6e/a3/826ea37e9272e30e907b930452a64b4d.jpg
As for the chiastic poem, about Adam being made in the image of God, that appears joined to another line, about God creating both male and female, in Genesis 1:27 and then split apart from it in Genesis 5:1-2, I have covered that question before in better detail at the following link:
https://laf443259520.wordpress.com/2020/11/17/genesis-51-5/
I sent that link to my uncle, the Biblical languages professor, and if I recall correctly, his response was to call it “innovative” which I believe, like your post hints at, is a way to dismiss ideas as heterodox which don’t fit with “the experts” current narrative. And I believe it was after he had read it and had a chance to respond to it that he had admitted that, “there is no specific verse that states that ‘women are made in God’s image’”.
Whereas multiple verses like James 3:9 teach the opposite. Speaking of the evils of the tongue:
James 3:9(KJV) Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.
In addition to the link above, here is another good place to start at if you want to search out the truth about this matter:
https://laf443259520.wordpress.com/2019/10/15/sharkly-heresiarch-or-church-reformer/
Derek, you seem to have neglected addressing my citation of Psalm 8:3-8 wherein a (singular) “son of man” is recorded as having been given that exact same dominion spoken of in Genesis 1:26. My uncle didn’t answer that either. LOL
I don’t disagree with you that a wife should come to the aid of her embattled husband, even as a son might also naturally fight to aid his father. I’ve never implied families shouldn’t be united by God’s holy institution of patriarchy and family. Just because a person is of lower rank does not mean they should instead choose to take up bitterness and disloyalty. That is the flaw of the Feminists.
I’d encourage you to explore this topic further, because, unknowingly to most, it is foundational to people’s views on all the stuff the “Christian manosphere” discusses regarding sexual dynamics.
Your response was fine, but if you feel the need to post even more, go for it. I may or may not post more on this topic, but either way you are free to say whatever you want.
Pingback: Sharkly on Women, Part 2
Pingback: Sharkly on Women, Part 3
I’d just like to point out Derek’s recent admission:
“The vagueness of the Hebrew language means that we should all be less dogmatic about its meanings. It isn’t like English where strictly literal connotations are easily inferred. In Hebrew it is common for a phrase to have a double or even triple meaning.
…
Nailing down Hebrew is well nigh impossible, and it is probably wrong to try to nail it down like we would in English. Hebrew is more…. living?”
So suddenly Hebrew seemingly becomes really vague and well-nigh indecipherable when it seems to plainly contradict Derek’s Feminism.
I bet he probably doesn’t like the Greek language much better:
1 Corinthians 11:7(ERV) But a man should not cover his head, because he is made like God and is God’s glory. But woman is man’s glory.
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/11-7.htm
Sharkly, in rejecting the Principle of Charity, you only make a fool of yourself. Neither the year 2020 nor the year 2018 qualifies as suddenly nor recent.
Why don’t you stick to some legitimate criticisms?
Why don’t you stick to some legitimate criticisms?
I already did that over at my site.
My Uncle realizing that he couldn’t prove that “the man” and a grammatically singular “him” weren’t referring to a single man named Adam as they seem to be. He chose to try to reason based upon a plural word used in Genesis 1:26. (in a forward looking statement) That dominion was to be given to Adam and the woman. Whereas I maintain that the (masculine) plural was indicative of Adam, and his sons after him. And I showed that the Psalmist recounted that exact same dominion as having been passed to a single man …
https://laf443259520.wordpress.com/2023/09/13/who-was-first-given-dominion-over-the-earth/
… even a “son of” man, which term you once claimed showed that the person was male.
And my Uncle never tried to argue that Psalm 8 wasn’t referring to a singular male in response to my saying that it was. He didn’t even try to say that it was in any way uncertain how many people were recorded as having been given dominion over all the creatures of the earth in Psalm 8. Whereas previously he had strongly argued that grammatically singular “Adam” could sometimes be considered as plural.
He had admitted, “there is no specific verse that states that ‘women are made in God’s image’”. He, a professor of Biblical languages, was reduced to trying to reason his way to his preferred conclusion, after acknowledging that the Bible text doesn’t actually tell us that directly, anywhere.
And you who seemingly claim to be better than me at reasoning, (by reciting the names of various logical fallacies you try to pin on me) are reduced to trying to claim that there must be some specific verse that states women are made in God’s image, and that it is in the poem given in Genesis 1:27 and again in Genesis 5:1-2. While then straining sound reasoning to deny the simple and plain teaching of 1 Corinthians 11:7, that men (males) are the image and glory of God while women are just the glory of man.
You say you don’t believe in arguments based on people’s authority, yet you keep presenting supposedly expert opinions to me. Which I suspect is more intended to sway others who might be more prone to delegating their thinking. And you say you only consider the ideas, yet when I present ideas, you then question my credentials. When I present the early church fathers’ statements you nitpick my statements and ignore the actual idea I present through their historical record of belief. You seem to be more focused on me not being able to name the first church father to claim that women are the image of God, than to be honest and acknowledge that “women being the image of our goddess” is the more recent doctrine of the church.
Anyhow, if you really like original thinkers with original ideas, Gary Naler has a lot of them:
https://www.remnantbride.com/lowbs.html
And he also does not believe that women are the image of God.
I can’t say that I agree with everything he says, or some of his names and numerology trivia, but his writings, audio, and video messages, are certainly thought provoking.
Trying? It is quite clear that your reasoning is in error.
It’s not sound reasoning, as I don’t agree that your premises are true. Your inference is unfounded.
Your assumption that Paul is speaking to all women, and not just wives, is clearly a speculative inference. The fact that Tertullian had to argue his case using the similar inference is merely one proof that (1) simple deductive reasoning is insufficient and (2) the early church did not apply Paul’s alleged instruction to virgins, widows, and prepubescent children. If it were not an inference, he would not have had to do so. You simply don’t have sufficient reason to assert the strong claim that you make, a weaker one is more rationally justified.
Let’s look at this deductively:
(1) Tertullian had to use a lengthy inferential argument, he could not prove his point deductively.
(2) A minority of the church interpreted Paul as I do, as demonstrated by their only requiring married women to cover.
(3) Your inferential belief that only men are made in the image of God requires Paul to be talking about all women. The argument fails if Paul was only talking about married women.
(4) Since a minority of the church interpreted Paul as only talking about married women, your claim that the church was unanimous regarding only men being in the image of God is thus falsified.
Notice that my view cannot be falsified this easily because I never claimed unanimity, but your view is obviously wrong—from a Bayesian standpoint—because unanimity is not even statistically plausible, even ignoring this proof.
The purpose of citing experts is to get people to agree to use your expert. I make this quite clear.
I don’t think you are fishing for a compliment, but it is clear that you are vastly more qualified at making arguments than the average person. I don’t know your credentials (if any), but you have demonstrated by your stated ideas that you don’t know what you are talking about with regards to certain topics. Also, you’ve explicitly stated that you lack certain knowledge and are not an expert in some areas. Are you suggesting that I’ve misrepresented your skills or abilities?
There are times—as below—that I must merely present things as they are and to not expect you to understand. The only alternative is to say nothing at all.
This comment reflects the vast gulf of understanding between us.
It’s not about naming a church father who believes that women are made in the image of God, it is your entire approach to evidence that I have a problem with. It is why I cited survivorship bias. Your method is flawed leading to a conclusion that is, at times, hardly worth discussing and at times opposite of what it should be (as in the proof above). Yet, you want me to just ignore that and continue as if it isn’t a real problem. But I often cannot do that. I can’t proceed down certain avenues of debate and discovery because I find your core axioms to be flawed. I’m waiting for you to admit that your circular viewpoints are your axioms, or else reject your flawed arguments, so that we can move forward. I’m doing my very best to engage despite that and will continue to do so.
I’ve tried to explain the examples of your fallacious reasoning to you, but you either can’t or won’t see it. I can, and have, explained it to a child who can understand the problem, but I cannot reach you. This is why I referenced your uncle, Bnonn, and Kentucky Headhunter: others have noticed this problem as well, in various contexts. All of them have tried to gently point it out. It’s not a personal attack, it’s just an observation for you to take it or leave it.
See, I already read your article, and I read what your uncle said:
Which tells me that he does believe, as I do, that the Bible clearly teaches that women are made in the image of God. As his argument is not invalid and I accept his premises and so agree with the conclusion.
“Which tells me that he does believe, as I do, that the Bible clearly teaches that women are made in the image of God.”
Yes, of course he believes the mainstream belief. If he believed as I do, he’d be thrown out on his ear and blacklisted. I won’t go into too much detail, but there is stringent requirements for conformity of belief in his realm. Conservative Bible colleges and universities all but guarantee parents that their kids won’t be exposed to “heretical” beliefs in any way except to be taught that they are all wrong and baseless. You can have your career ruined even for playing “devil’s advocate” too well. Much like Galileo, those with different views are called before boards to either recant or be fired and blacklisted from working for any likeminded institutions ever again.
I could tell that my uncle is unwilling to write about certain interpretations of his. Sometimes he will point out certain alternative possibilities in certain texts and when I ask him to explain what he believes regarding that or why he is pointing that out, he repeatedly refuses to explain any further. There is not independence of belief and freedom to openly debate a wide array of viewpoints within Christian academia, the seminaries each maintain pretty strict doctrinal control. However, I don’t believe he was in any way held back from trying to give me whatever rationale he has behind why he believes women are made in the image of God. The places he has worked for would all want him to refute my position by any means necessary.
Your assumption that Paul is speaking to all women, and not just wives, is clearly a speculative inference.
It literally says “woman”. You’re the one speculating that it can only mean a wife.
This is why we don’t come into agreement, because our beliefs are diametrically opposed. You start off with the assumption that the verse couldn’t possibly mean what it plainly says, and you try to figure out “what it really means”. And you’re so convinced of your being right about women being the image of God the Father, that you will do anything to label my interpretation of the text as some logical fallacy, or speculation, or anything but a definite possibility and the accepted belief of the early church.
The purpose of citing experts is to get people to agree to use your expert.
Yeah, I don’t envision that happening in this case, our viewpoints are polar opposites. For example: You would no longer consider anybody an expert if they held my view. Sort of like how you cite Bnonn as an independent expert regarding his disagreement with me, but yet when he disagrees with you about head coverings, you claim he doesn’t even make sense. (suddenly he is charged with committing so many logical fallacies to the extent that he’s not even making sense LOL) While I don’t find many of Tertullian’s arguments on head covering to be sketchy, you have to, in order to defend your own belief and practice. Yet then you’re happy to cherry-pick, from his work which condemns your viewpoint, when you feel his words help your argument. The man magically becomes an expert whenever he helps you, and a deceiver or a fool whenever he opposes you. That’s why we’re not likely to agree on an expert.
“I can, and have, explained it to a child who can understand the problem, but I cannot reach you.”
You seem to believe I lack the understanding of a child, because I refuse to return back to the Feminist plantation. I once believed all that. That’s where I started from. I understand your point of view just fine. I just completely disagree. I’ve taken the proverbial “Red-Pill” and cannot unsee the truth.
“… I accept his premises and so agree with the conclusion.”
That reeks of denial and a lack of honest introspection. I say that you agree with his conclusion, so consequently you’re then willing to accept his premises that he used to get there. But when he conceded a point to me then you didn’t fully agree with his expert analysis of the Bible text, then he was viewed to be in error or to somehow to lack your level of biblical languages knowledge or scriptural knowledge.
I think that you’re starting off with women as your goddesses as your conclusion, and then religiously everything works backwards from there. So, then women must be the image of your deity, and therefore need not cover their head, nor be silent in the congregation, nor be lower in rank than men, nor be forced to submit to their husbands, Etc. Then you just have to manhandle any offending scriptures which teach otherwise.
We don’t agree because we hold different axioms. But if that were the only difference, we would just agree to disagree and part ways. But, whereas my view is internally consistent, yours suffers from internal logical flaws.
Even a child, when you point out his error, can be brought to the truth. But you are almost beyond correction.* Even when I prove things to you, you remain unfazed and unchanged.
(1) Your argument on only men being made in the image of God is unfounded due to selection bias. I deductively proved that the early church did not unanimously believe this about 1 Corinthians 11:7—and thus the Bible. Your claim has been disproved:
(2) Your insistence on a narrow meaning of the word ‘adam is incompatible with the context of Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 5:1-2. Your reasoning regarding the structure of Genesis 1:27 is self-defeating:
(3) Your explanation of “helper” with the connotation of inferiority or subservience in Genesis misrepresents the meaning of the word. In using that explanation to support your other claims—and you definitely have—all those other claims that use that premise are logically unsound:
(4) Regarding the image of God and dominion, you have asserted, on separate occasions, the claims A→B and B→A, stated that the truth comes full circle, and then denied it was circular reasoning. If, as I suspect, your view on the male image of God and the male dominion are axioms of your belief, then you would be declaring it to be self-evident (i.e. not a matter of rational argument or based on what scripture actually says).
(5) You begged the question—circular reasoning—regarding men being the superior vessel:
(6) The meaning of the word ‘head’ to mean ‘leader’ or ‘ruler’ is a late 4th century anachronism corresponding to the rise of Roman Catholicism in large part because of the patriarchal corruption of the New Testament. While you often correctly use ‘preeminent’, ‘rank’, or ‘priority’ with respect to a husband as head elsewhere, you incorrectly use a man being the ‘head’ to claim that it refers to authority to rule in your attempt to use it to justify your views on the image of God and dominion. The purpose of veiling has to do with status (e.g. marital status), not dominion:
(7) You denied that the veiling of widows and unmarried women is an anachronism, and then when I proved it from Tertullian, you ignored my proof and just implied that I was as wicked as incest. You simply assume that your view was the correct one, ignoring all proof against your claim, and call everyone who disagrees with you wicked. You can figure out what logical fallacy that one is.
(8) Your view that patriarchy leads to civilization ascendancy is contradicted by history.
(9) You frequently make errors regarding the Greek middle voice as pertains to women (e.g. reverence; submission), asserting active imperatives that are not justified by the language and using those as premises in your arguments. Similarly, you do not acknowledge that the Bible never gives an explicit imperative for husbands to rule or lead their wives, nor does it ever give an explicit imperative for wives to obey their husbands. It does both of these things with respect to master/slave, parent/child, and regarding Christ himself, but never to the husband/wife. The only biblical imperative for husband/wife to exercise normal authority over the other is in 1 Corinthians 7:5, and it is mutual.
Remember that in the Greek language, only a masculine word—like ‘man’—is said to marry, divorce, fornicate, commit adultery, submit, or reverence. That’s patriarchy built right into the language. But only fools build their theology around the quirks and limitations of grammatical language features.
* I do acknowledge that in response to your (originally) contradictory viewpoints on Jerome, you did appear to go back and fix the mistakes and amend your viewpoints accordingly.
It literally says “wife”. You’re the one speculating that it can only mean a woman.
(without considering other evidence, I am, like you, speculating/hypothesizing that Paul was only referring to married women. But it ceases to be speculation when I use other evidence to establish this as fact. Rather than prove that 1 Corinthians 11 means what you say it means, you just assert that it means that and then use as proof that all women are inferior to men and that only men are made in the image of God! You do this over and over again. That is why your method is circular reasoning while mine is not. I do not assume the conclusion under debate, I either posit it as a possible explanation or I show it to be true by argument (e.g. “but woman is the glory of man” can only be referring to a wife). Your view of 1 Corinthians 11:7 is logically possible, but you have not shown it to be true.)
It’s not based on my being convinced I’m right—that’s actually irrelevant—but that I *might* be right: the competing views are equally plausible on first blush, and mine is sustained by the evidence. My objection is to your assertion of certitude and assumption of the moral high ground, which you can’t claim unless you’ve both proven my position false and proven your position correct. You have not done either, while a number of your claims have been falsified.
In the age of Tertullian, some churches believed that only married women had to cover, while other churches believed that virgins also had to veil. Indeed, Tertullian’s own church had only recently transitioned from the former to the latter. Tertullian—in a conflict of interest—was playing the political activist, trying to create a universal church doctrine. But of course that means that there was no such universal church doctrine to that point. Even Tertullian admits that it had been left to personal discernment.
So how do you know that Tertullian was right? He may very well have been leading the heretical movement. It wouldn’t be the last time. You just blindly join Tertullian without even considering his potential heresy. You assert, completely without logical justification, that anyone who disagreed with Tertullian was akin to a wicked heretic. But you can’t reinterpret history through the lens of your preferred theology of 1 Corinthians 11.
I do not do this. I only need to show that there were two competing factions, not make an on-the-spot determination about who was right. I don’t have to agree or disagree with Tertullian until I look elsewhere and find that only married women had to veil, when this helps me understand that Paul must have been talking about married women. That isn’t the only reason I know that either.
Derek,
Although you’ve obviously got more time than I to spend on these arguments, as you can see, you’re not convincing me just by announcing that you’re always the winner and unilaterally declaring all my belief’s to be nonsensical. You may be reassuring yourself, but I don’t believe much of what you say you’ve proven.
Derek said:
“Every quotation of Genesis 1:26-27 and Genesis 5:6 by early church writers is a quote that says women are—not possibly—made in the image of God. Each instance of these verses without the subsequent need to clarify their meaning is evidence enough that few people considered the distinction worth mentioning. Only the rare early writer who thought it worth disagreeing with said anything about it. This is an instance of survivorship bias:”
What you’re basically admitting there is that all the Apostolic fathers of the church who made their view explicit, stated that women were not the image of God. And yet you use that as proof that you’re right. By naming & claiming the name of a logical fallacy called “survivorship bias” which term seems to have little to do with what we’re discussing, since they’re all dead, but in your mind it worked, because you’d recited the name of a logical fallacy, and by doing so you became completely right in your own mind. Now upon a little more reflection and research you seem to have now started calling it “selection bias” which makes more sense, but it’s still no matter to you. Even if you’d initially named & claimed the wrong term, so long as you’d pinned the name of a logical fallacy on me in your own mind you became the winner. And you’re doing a victory dance claiming that the fact that no early fathers wrote sharing your view proves that they almost all of them must have shared your view. For somebody so bright, you sure get silly about the supposed magical victory powers of naming & claiming a logical fallacy, even when it doesn’t apply, or you named the wrong one.
I’m sure if, on the other hand, I declared that I was right because all the evidence was backing you up, that you’d come up with a logical fallacy name for that craziness too. Call it whatever sort of bias that you want, I’m not convinced that your complete lack of evidence and my preponderance of evidence somehow means I’ve been proven wrong, because it’s opposite day in Derek’s world of logical fallacies. SMH
“Your insistence on a narrow meaning of the word ‘adam is …”
I’m not the one narrowing the meaning of “Adam”. You said it couldn’t be a proper name. I showed from a Hebrew bible dictionary that one of the definitions was that it is the proper name of the first man. Furthermore, it can mean a man, or (all men) mankind as opposed to womankind, or even all people. I again refer you to the grammar of Genesis 1:27 to see that singular masculine pronouns are used and singular masculine constructs and “hā·’ā·ḏām” meaning “the man”. “bə·ṣe·lem” meaning “in the image” is a masculine singular construct. The verse makes it clear that a single man is being recorded as being made in the image of God. later on, of “them” (not “Adam”) it only says God created them. You’re the one who demands that “Adam” must mean “all people” in that specific instance, to keep your viewpoint alive. For me it can be the proper name of the first man, or mean “a man” or mean men, “mankind” as opposed to womankind. but the singular pronouns and singular constructs indicate that it is probably referring to the individual.
I have no power to convince you of anything.
I laid out nine different errors in your reasoning—including defeating your challenge—and I provided enough citations so that hopefully any reader can independently evaluate the claims. At this point I hope that my opinion on the matter shouldn’t matter one whit, and I cannot be accused of misrepresenting the situation. What happens next is up to you.
I’m content with that. I’ve done what I can to point out the errors. I don’t know what other burden can be placed upon me.
Survivorship bias is a specific type of selection bias. It has nothing to do with people surviving. Unlike selection bias, where the bias leads one to a merely *wrong* conclusion, the selection in survivorship bias leads one precisely to the *opposite* of the correct conclusion. I thought calling it “selection bias” might be somewhat helpful.
In the classic case of survivorship bias, they were completely certain that they made the correct analysis of the data, but in fact could not have been more wrong, drawing precisely the opposite conclusion from the available data.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe you cited from a concordance, which is neither a lexicon nor a dictionary. I believe you are mistaken.
Not “can’t”, but “isn’t.” The singular collective noun is not a proper name.
No, this is a meaningless distinction, just like saying water is wet. Of course singular masculine pronouns are used with a singular masculine collective noun. No other choice was available.
Its grammatical part-of-speech doesn’t have any semantic value at all. The conclusions you keep drawing from it being singular and grammatically masculine are simply not justified. You cannot conflate the grammatical masculine with the natural male sex. Even if you know the referent is an anatomical male, you still cannot draw any conclusion about the word itself from that (see below).
The word Adam is a singular collective noun that *denotes* a human or humans, that is, humanity. It can *connote* a wide variety of things, including multiple things at the same time, which is why it can refer to a single man and also every male and female at the same time.
Ezekiel is referred to as the “Son of Man”, literally, “the son of the human”, a Hebrew idiom simply meaning “the human.” Yet this doesn’t mean that “son of man” can only refer to Ezekiel or that “son of man” means “Ezekiel”. The word still means human, even when its referent is a specific man. For the same reason, adam doesn’t mean the first created man.
Adam, the proper name, can show up in a concordance or lexicon, but it isn’t proper in a dictionary.
I call myself “Ram-Man”, a combination of an adjective and a noun. I can assure you that the dictionary will never list under “man” anything pertaining to me as an individual, even though it is perfectly clear what I mean by the “man” in “Ram-Man.” Your interpretation is as equally weird as someone trying to alter the dictionary entry for “man” because I use it in my handle. My use of the word does not have any bearing whatsoever on what the word man means. So too the specific identity of the Adam mentioned in Genesis does not determine the meaning of the word.
Adam is not gendered:
Neither of us is narrowing the term by our definitions per se, but you are narrowing the term by gendering it.
Continuing on: it looks like only you get to define what “help”/helper means, or “head”. Because, if you allow the normal definition of those words apply then the woman is to serve her husband. The Bible does not say that the wife is a “military ally”, it says she’s the help. LOL
Then you quote Tertullian out of context:
I know plainly, that in a certain place a virgin of less than twenty years of age has been placed in the order of widows! whereas if the bishop had been bound to accord her any relief, he might, of course, have done it in some other way without detriment to the respect due to discipline; that such a miracle, not to say monster, should not be pointed at in the church, a virgin-widow! the more portentous indeed, that not even as a widow did she veil her head; denying herself either way; both as virgin, in that she is counted a widow, and as widow, in that she is styled a virgin. But the authority which licenses her sitting in that seat uncovered is the same which allows her to sit there as a virgin: a seat to which (besides the “sixty years” not merely “single-husbanded”(women)—-that is, married women—-are at length elected, but “mothers” to boot, yes, and “educators of children; … So true is it, that, on the ground of her position, nothing in the way of public honour is permitted to a virgin.
One virgin in one place was wrongly publicly honored (stolen valor) as if she were a widow. The offending bishop who thereby teaches licentiousness, AKA “the authority which licenses her”, is being called out and condemned for creating such a “monster” (a supposed virgin-widow), who should have been covered whether she was a virgin or an honored widow. Tertullian was saying that she was in no way deserving of the honor of sitting in a seat reserved for widows, and certainly not to be sitting there so arrogantly and immodestly as to even sit there with her head uncovered.
But not even between customs have those most chaste teachers chosen to examine. Still, until very recently, among us, either custom was, with comparative indifference, admitted to communion. The matter had been left to choice, for each virgin to veil herself or expose herself, as she might have chosen, just as (she had equal liberty) as to marrying, which itself withal is neither enforced nor prohibited. Truth had been content to make an agreement with custom, in order that under the name of custom it might enjoy itself even partially. But when the power of discerning began to advance, so that the license granted to either fashion was becoming the mean whereby the indication of the better part emerged; immediately the great adversary of good things—-and much more of good institutions—-set to his own work. The virgins of men go about, in opposition to the virgins of God, with front quite bare, excited to a rash audacity; and the semblance of virgins is exhibited by women who have the power of asking somewhat from husbands, not to say such a request as that (forsooth) their rivals—-all the more “free” in that they are the “hand-maids” of Christ alone —-may be surrendered to them. “We are scandalized,” they say, “because others walk otherwise (than we do); “and they prefer being “scandalized” to being provoked (to modesty). A “scandal,” if I mistake not, is an example not of a good thing, but of a bad, tending to sinful edification. Good things scandalize none but an evil mind. If modesty, if bashfulness, if contempt of glory, anxious to please God alone, are good things, let women who are “scandalized” by such good learn to acknowledge their own evil. For what if the incontinent withal say they are “scandalized” by the continent? Is continence to be recalled? And, for fear the multinubists be “scandalized,” is monogamy to be rejected?
Tertullian is saying that worldly customs have been admitted into communion (into the church). He wasn’t saying those were church customs, but that the church had allowed converted heathens to bring their immodest customs into church, by lack of church discernment and for their own enjoyment. (of gazing at the young virgins) Tertullian was not saying that virgins being uncovered was ever the practice of any discerning church, but only a popular secular custom that had crept into undiscerning (seeker friendly) churches that were worried about possibly offending the worldly ex-pagans, by enforcing strict Christian modesty.
Also notice the mention of “mutinubists” in the church. Those would be men with more than one wife or concubine. Tertullian advises that a man ought not to reject monogamy out of a fear of dishonoring the multinubists by the monogamist’s stricter piety. Basically – Don’t worry about making others look worse than you by being as pious as you can be, that’s their own problem to work through if they begin to feel like second class saints.
———————————————————————
J. D. Unwin detailed that throughout history societies rose when there was strict patriarchal enforcement of sexual morality. It takes men in charge to execute both adulterers and adulteresses without allowing any exceptions, and to assure husbands of a society of chaste women to take. Your idea that Rome fell despite making all the right choices in continuing to liberate and empower women is just Feminist silliness.
———————————————————————
Gynē – (Strong’s Concordance) Definition: a woman
———————————————————————
If I’m unconverted by your nitpicking things that are ancillary to my position, and by your daftly bandying about the names of logical fallacies which you clearly misunderstand, and by your twisting of the scriptures to suit today’s Feminism, can you really blame me for sticking with God’s truth? FWIW If you noticed, I only said your one-way statement was circular reasoning, “by your own style of assessment”. Nobody else in their right mind would think a single one-way statement was circular. That’s why you’re always pointing out these supposed logical fallacies, because nobody else’s sense of logic would be seeing those exact same baseless accusations everywhere you feel you have to make them. I don’t have to name yours. People can plainly see when you’re tying yourself into a pretzel to dodge the truth. Or when you’re pointlessly trying to forbid me from using a word like “unanimous” because you claim it’s a statistical impossibility. When normal people use the word, and it makes no difference to whether I’m right or wrong about what the Bible teaches, or even to the ancillary point of that being the unopposed published belief of multiple apostolic church fathers.
Have a happy Thanksgiving!
You keep talking about ancillary arguments (even though they are not actually secondary), but when your challenge on the core topic came to a head, you lost the argument. I noticed that you’ve been avoiding the topic. By your own challenge, your understanding of Genesis 1:27 is mistaken. It’s time to admit you were wrong and change your belief accordingly.
You also have not addressed the point that the Old Testament never genders ‘Adam, nor is it ever used in a way that explicitly excludes women.
Your view logically entails that the Old Testament never actually says that women are human.
You can believe whatever you want about what “helper” means, but since you seem intent on calling me a Feminist and laughing at me if I don’t agree with your take, then I do get a say on what it means.
It’s ironic that you claim to want to live in a high power-distance patriarchal society but you sow disrespect at other men and women (including yourself) as if you live in a low power-distance society. This is hypocrisy: you do not live by the ethical standards that you want to force upon others. Have you considered that the only reason you want women to veil is because you have an unhealthy need to control women and not because you care about patriarchy? After our discussion at Spawny’s on “Man-Up”, you demonstrated that your weak patriarchy is a good argument against real patriarchy. You risk doing significantly more harm to your cause than good. I don’t even have to do anything and you dig yourself a hole.
In any case, since the word for “helper” is used elsewhere in the Bible in a militaristic setting, we can infer the specific meaning from the context in which the word is used. There is a rational basis for this meaning. The word does not connote subservience.
You have no such rational basis. You are taking the English word for “helper” (which often implies subservience) and eisegetically reading it back onto the original. That begs-the-question (as is using an English translation/concordance/lexicon to infer the original meaning).
So you say, but Tertullian clearly says that being uncovered is part of the widow’s license—the ground of her position; her public honor—and that the virgin tries to gain both honors: to have the honor of being unveiled but not having the honor of having been a wife and raised children. In other words, she gets all the rewards without having put in any of the work.
Even your speculation that the authority refers to the bishop, the objection is not merely that she is uncovered, but that she is allowed to be uncovered as a widow while being a virgin.
What you are saying makes no sense. The virgin would have been veiled if not for being in the Order of Widows, so the whole reason she was uncovered is because she was in the Order of Widows. Tertullian is writing about virgins veiling (it’s in the title of the work) so his concern is that a virgin isn’t veiling. Tertullian was clearly objecting to this virgin getting out of the requirement to veil by joining the Order of the Widows.
That’s the whole point: widows were not veiling. It doesn’t matter if you think widows should have veiled or not. Your opinion isn’t binding on the church, and neither was Tertullian’s. All that matters is that members of the church disagreed and the practice was not unanimous. For the purposes of our discussion, your claim is disproved.
Even so, the Old Testament is very clear that Hebrew widows had no man as their head: no husband, no father, no son. They were free women. No free woman had to veil because any “symbol of authority” would have no referent. Your interpretation would have Paul contradicting Scripture itself.
Your explanation makes no sense, but you are entitled to it.
Once again it doesn’t matter what Tertullian (or you) thinks. The very fact that there was a disagreement shows that the belief was not unanimous. You think Tertullian was orthodox, I think he was a heretic. That doesn’t make your interpretation of Paul correct, nor does it allow you to discount the fact that widows did not veil and the practice of virgins veiling was not universal.
All you’ve done with this claim is beg-the-question. Sure, I know what you believe, but so what? Why should I reject my own view? You’ve given me no reason to think you are correct, just assertions and insults (i.e. “you are a feminist! LOL!”). If this is all you’ve got, you are wasting your effort.
Your explanation is disproven by the timeline I presented. You’ve done nothing to alter my citations. You didn’t even challenge when women got their rights! All you did was make a bad attempt to smear it with mean names. That’s a very poor tactic that makes you look like you lost the argument. Do you have an actual argument to make or are you going to continue to ignore the refutations I made?
I don’t know why you cited someone else, but his name doesn’t refute anything I presented as historical fact.
Yes they would. It’s called “begging-the-question” which you do regularly whenever you assert as a true conclusion—without argument—the very thing we are contesting. You are very good at making bold truth claims without backing them up with actual evidence or argument. Each time you do so, I will tell you that you are begging-the-question, until you learn to stop making empty claims. You’re going to be continually frustrated by me until you do.
I’m not sure why you keep repeating this claim. I listed 9 different errors you made, complete with citations. Everyone can see that I did not misuse the logical fallacies and that it is you who does not understand how they work. You are the one committing the errors, not me. I’m not obligated to teach you logic, nor could I do so if I wanted to. That you are remain “uncoverted” and call it “nitpicking” is your problem, not mine.
It’s Bayesian statistics. You should never have made the argument that the early church was unanimous on this, because no church has ever unanimous on everything. Everyone you talk to is rationally justified to just rejecting your claim without consideration on that basis alone.
Nevertheless, I knew I could find a counter to your claim, and it took my less than 5 minutes to do so. Since then we have gone over at least one or two more examples that defeat your claim.
The correct course of action is for you to stop claiming unanimity and admit that your view may, in fact, be the heretical one. Then we can have a meaningful discussion.
Have you gone back over your blog posts and fixed your incorrect assertion of unanimity, as well as qualifying the date at which we know for sure that the belief was opposed (the late 4th century)?
Pingback: Eve Is Trying To Subvert Her Curse