Female ministers in monotheistic religions?

[Bryce]

Is there any historical and archeological evidence that there were female cohanim in early Judaism or female priests in early Christianity?

[Melnorme]

There are absolutely no truly "official" religious positions for females in Judaism.
Sometimes the wives or daughters of male religious figures are accorded a certain elevated ceremonial status, though. This is especially likely if they have charismatic personalities.

Check out 'Women and the Priesthood' here.

[Educate Me]

No, there were no female priests in early christianity, there were deaconesses who had a totally different role, not priests at all.

Here you can read about deaconesses, from the catholic encyclopedia

www.newadvent.org/cathen/04651a.htm

[jrj26]

yeah, I've found the office of Deaconess very interesting. Of course, the Catholic Church no longer sees a need for them. However, the Orthodox Church(es) is thinking of reviving the office(they believe that it wasn't abolished, just not used recently). If I remember correctly, one of the Churches of Orthodoxy has already done so.

[Drooperdoo]

Monotheism has not historically been a hotbed of feminism. The ancient Middle East was far more strict about the different roles assigned to the genders. It's popular to beat up on Europe, but the ancient Jews were far, far more hard on women than their European [i.e., Greek] counterparts.
Jewish women couldn't divorce their husbands, while their husbands could divorce them. [In Greece, women had equal rights in this regard]. Jewish women couldn't own or inherit property. Greek women could. Even as late as the New Testament it specifically says that not only are women not to be ministers, but that they are not allowed to TALK in congregations. (If they had questions during the service, they were instructed to ask their husbands about any questions they had after the meeting.)
Christianity became more "Western" and permissive when Paul spread the gospel to Europe. By the time of the Pauline letters, there were prominent females in the church. And, in fact, the book of Hebrews may have actually been written by a Greek woman.
Later Europeanized Christianity also added the cult of Mary. [In the Bible, she's treated with scorn and disdain--by her own son. Read the several sarcastic comments Jesus directs at her all throughout the gospels.] But by the time the religion had reached Europe, Mary underwent a change from spurned lowly Jewish female to Super-heroine.
None of this happened among the original Middle Easterners.

P.S.--Read the Apocrypha. In the book of Ecclesiasticus [not to be confused with Ecclesiastes], Jewish fathers are instructed to beat their daughters "...lest they grow up and have spirit".

P.P.S.--Monotheism is a relatively new development in history. It started with the Egyptians and their god Aton. Interestingly, the Jews--who usually take credit for monotheism--were nothing of the sort. They believed in other gods; they just believed that their tribal God Yahweh was the best. Read in the Old Testament, the feats of strength between Yahweh and Ba'al. And remember: The Ten Commandments doesn't say there's one God. It says "hold no other gods before Yahweh". . . . So they believed in other gods. They just believed in loyalty to their own tribal deity. So, technically speaking, the Jews were never monotheists.

[Bryce]

Thanks for your most enlightening post, whose contents I anticipated but am glad to read. Sometimes I have to wonder why do I keep thinking that if one searches and forages with enough perseverance, one will dig up something positive out of corset-like systems.

[Educate Me]

Canon 19 of the Council of Nicea (425 AD) says, “We have made mention of the deaconesses, who have been enrolled in this position, although, not having been in any way ordained, they are certainly to be numbered among the laity.”

Epiphanius of Salamis wrote in his Against Heresies in 377 AD, “It is true that in the Church there is an order of deaconesses, but not for being a priestess, nor for any kind of work of administration, but for the sake of the dignity of the female sex, either at the time of baptism or of examining the sick or suffering, so that the naked body of a female may not be seen by men administering sacred rites, but by the deaconess.”

The Apostolic Constitutions of 400 AD confirm, “A deaconess does not bless, but neither does she perform anything else that is done by priests and deacons, but she guards the doors and greatly assists the presbyters, for the sake of decorum, when they are baptizing women.”

[Educate Me]

Bryce, in roman catholic, eastern orthodox, oriental orthodox churches, the mass is not based on the preacher, on the sermon, it is based on the eucharist understood as the real body and blood of christ, the reason why there are no female priests in those groups is that the ability of women for consacrating the eucharist (turning bread into the flesh and blood fo christ), forgiving sins, is dubious, because there have not been precedents in history, Jesus himself was male, he chose 12 males as his apostles, even Melchizedek was male.
For those groups female priests are something that just can exist, like cows that fly, women are considered impossible to ordain priests.

In the protestants groups that dont believe in the real presence of Jesus in the eucharist, they dont have a problem with female ministers, pastors, because in those groups the service is centered on the minister, the bible, the sermon, and a woman is as able as a man of giving a good speech.

[captainusa1]

^^ Protestant churches are divided on the issue. Some Protestant denominations oppose female ministers as much as the Catholic hierarchy opposes female priests. This often is true in conservative churches. Liberal denominations, like Episcopalian and United Church of Christ, are more likely to allow female clergy and homosexual clergy (shudder).

[Drooperdoo]

I've always looked upon religion as something that you either believe in or you don't. It's ridiculous to try and change it based on democratic principles. Religion is not supposed to be democracy.
As Jim Morrison said, "You can't petition God!"
So it strikes me--a non-believer--as obnoxious when activists try to force churches to "accept" them--even when they're spurned in the very scriptures they're pretending to believe in.
As I said, I'm an atheist. But I have great respect for religion in one regard. Religion seems to be a system whereby people try to be better human beings. God asks something of you. It is only the Devil who says that you should be accepted as you are. God demands struggle, sacrifice, change. It's Satan who seduces with doctrines of laziness and universal tolerance--where there's really no right or wrong.
But, then--as I said--I'm a non-believer. I just find it pathetic and sad when the Bible condemns an action or lifestyle a dozen times and people of that lifestyle try to get back into the church, and have those scriptures not read--because it would "hurt their feelings".
My solution: If it hurts your feelings, renounce that religion. It's just that simple. You have free will. Don't go to that church. Or find another religion that fits in with your particular philosophy.
But don't be a hypocrite and try to use techniques of politics and democracy to artificially inflict your position on a church. Religion isn't democracy.
Remember: "You can't petition God."

[asdf]

Remember: "You can't petition God."

How is that not prayer?

[Drooperdoo]

Bloody Partisan,
Prayer is supposed to be a communing with God, not a desperate bid to petition him to change his laws to personally please you. When Christ prayed, he said, "Let it be not my will, but your own. Let your own will be done."
That is what prayers are supposed to be: Asking God for guidance, not the vulgar attempt to schmooze Him, to wheel and deal. Praying isn't for asking for a new bicycle or a video game. Prayer is supposed to be about accepting God's plans for you and asking for the strength to accept the fact that you don't have a new bike or game.
The Supreme Being isn't supposed to be some sort of cosmic butler--that you order around.

P.S.--Unless I'm wrong and the true pronunciation of the Hebrew God's name isn't Jehovah but Jeeves. Oops. Let me hush now before I enrage the Jeeve's Witnesses

[asdf]

pe·ti·tion (pə-tĭsh'ən) pronunciation
n.

1. A solemn supplication or request to a superior authority; an entreaty.
2. A formal written document requesting a right or benefit from a person or group in authority.
3. Law.
1. A formal written application requesting a court for a specific judicial action: a petition for appeal.
2. The judicial action asked for in any such request.
4. Something requested or entreated.

My problem is the word petition. It sure doens't seem like it's something you'd do to a butler.

"Petition" is used again and again by Christians. Mark petitioned God. Jesus Petitioned God. "Then Eli answered and said, Go in peace: and the God of Israel grant thee thy petition that thou hast asked of him." (KJV) And you can infact petition God for what you really need.

[Drooperdoo]

Good points. You missed, however, a good opportunity to skewer my thesis by mentioning Abraham in the Old Testament. There's a point where Jehovah-of-Armies is so fed up with the human race again that he wants to wipe them all out and Abraham wrangles with God and gets us a second chance.
This is characteristic of the primitive Jewish conception of God. He was just a big version of them: a cosmic merchant willing to haggle.
Between the Old Testament and the New Testament, though, something happened: Alexander the Great conquered the Known World and spread Greek ideas. Even the pathologically xenophobic Jews were affected, and their primitive tribal deity was supplanted by Aristotle's more modern, ethereal vision of a Supreme Being.
It's this loftier, superior vision of God that is above haggling, or changing his plans to conform to the whims of mortals.
When the rock singer Jim Morrison screams, "You can't petition God," he's referring to this more modern [Indo-European] conception of God, this idea created by Aristotle of the "Unmoved Mover" which has gained historical ascendancy over the older concepts of God.

That idea colors my own personal convitions--the true Supreme Being--if indeed there is one--wouldn't be flighty enough to suspend his own plans to please wheedling human petitioners. He wouldn't, for instance, suspend the law of gravity just so that some woman praying could have her prayers answered about not having her breasts sag. He wouldn't change the laws of thermodynamics just to please someone praying about his hatred of the summer heat, etc.