Why were the disciples all male?

[woowoo22]

Was it purely socio-economic reasons? Were all the wimmin baking bread etc? Just reading the Bible and thought popped into my head

The 12? Probably just the way it was for women then. They wouldn't have been in a position to travel and teach the gospel.

I'd argue that Mary Magdalene was a disciple and the bible mentions other female followers.

Yes, Andrew, Peter, Judas/Judas Iscariot etc.

I'd have thought it was because the bible was written by men and they nabbed the best roles. Are their women who listen to Jesus and pass on the word?

I think I need to read up more on women in the Bible.

Because all Abrahamic religions are patriarchial and mysoginist.
Women are lesser creatures.

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

""Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.""

Many scholars suggest that they weren't. That there were far more than 12 disciples anyway. That the number 12 refers to the 12 tribes of Israel and was written/suggested by Pau to paint Jesus as the Jewish Mesiah. In Mark and Matthew there were suggestions of many women, lead by Mary Magdalene who followed him from Galilee to Jereuselem. If they followed him, wouldn't that suggest they were disciples?

Now it happened that after this he made his way through towns and villages preaching and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. With him went the Twelve, as well as certain women who had been cured of evil spirits and ailments: Mary surnamed the Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, Joanna the wife of Herod's steward Chuza, Susanna, and many others who provided for them out of their own resources.

Luke 8:1-3

There were some women watching from a distance. Among them were Mary of Magdala, Mary who was the mother of James the younger and Joset, and Salome. These used to follow him and look after him when he was in Galilee. And many other women were there who had come up to Jerusalem with him.

Mark 15:40-41

And many women were there, watching from a distance, the same women who had followed Jesus from Galilee and looked after him. Among them were Mary of Magdala, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee's sons.

Matthew 27:55-56

I'm sure woman passed on the gospel stories in every day life but socially just woman going off to preach without a man or husband would probable be accused of being a Prostitue.
Plus the testimony or witness in a court of a woman was not equal to that of a mans so it would have made sense to get men to do it.

Made sense to get a man to do it

Yeah, an infinitely wise God couldn't see that later on the inherent sexism of certain cultures would be a huge issue and that faiths would use the bible to defend the injustice.

Why couldn't jesus have done a speech where he made it clear;

'verily, verily I say unto you, men and women are fully equal and the law should uphold this in every way, oh, and racism disgusts me, and sick people do not have demons inside of them' says the Bible nowhere.

Instead we have jesus referring to the Canaanite woman as a dog.

And another thing, why doesn't God tackle paedophilia in the bible. He's found enough time to rant about homosexuality but not paedophiles? (I do not equate the two at all, making a point of the ridiculousness)

There is a Gospel of Mary (probably Magdalene). It is not part of any biblical canons – in fact ancient fragmentary versions of it were only discovered relatively recently. At some point in early Church history it may have been viewed as not quite fitting with preferred orthodoxy and allowed to fall into obscurity.

It is available to read on-line. gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm

The text – what survives of it - seems quite strange (to me!) but does suggest that Mary had an important part to play. Perhaps, if the Gospel of Mary had been included in the bible, women would have been taking on leadership roles in the Church much earlier on.

The Gospel of Mary, like most of the apocryphal gospels, is much, much later than the canonical gospels. Most were written by gnostic sects, and were never seriously candidates for inclusion in the New Testament.

It's clear that many of Jesus's followers were women, and that he loved and respected the women in his life. In the encounter with the Canaanite/Samaritan women referred to by HeadinHands, for example, Jesus shows that he listens to the woman and changes his mind because of what she says. Women were the faithful with him as he died, and were the first witnesses to the resurrection. It is clear from Acts and the Pauline letters that women were extremely prominent in the early church. All the historical records show that from its earliest days Christianity was especially attractive to women, mostly because women had a much higher status in Christianity than they did in paganism.

So why were all the apostles male? Because Jesus was living in a strongly patriarchal society, a society in which women and children had very little status. Priests, scribes, landowners -- all were men, and only men. By valuing women in the way he did he hugely challenged the society he lived in. The naming of the 12 friends as 'apostles' and 'disciples' (these words don't have hebrew equivalents appearing in the Old Testament) may well have been done by the gospel writers, who were fitting in the probably much more complicated group of Jesus's close followers into a pattern that would be comprehensible to their readers.

12 tribes of Israel: 12 disciples; male priests and scribes: male apostles. But there is plenty of evidence that women played a large part in Jesus's ministry and in the early church.

Wiki gives quite a ‘broad band’ estimate of 30 – 180 CE for the gospel of Mary. (Compare, for example, to the gospel of Matthew at 70 – 110 CE.) The biblical scholar Karen King, who is a Professor of Divinity from Harvard - and who has researched the gospel extensively - seems to be arguing for an early date such that, if I understand correctly, the gospel is (rather startlingly) prior to Paul’s letters.

Professor King does seem to be a bit of a maverick though! Most scholars estimate early second century.

Early second century (although wiki actually says 'sometime in the second century') is still later than John's Gospel, which is the latest of the four canonical gospels and later than all the Pauline letters.

I watched part one and two of a really interesting BBC 2 programme called Sex and The Church. I'm sure the professor mentioned a female apostle that Paul spoke about in one of his letters.

There were three parts to the documentary. I'd definitely recommend watching if they are still on iPlayer.

Yes. I don't know how much weight to put onto Professor King's work and the very early date she is suggesting. She certainly seems to have a bit of a feminist agenda going on and is bigging up the significance of Mary Magdalene to Jesus and the importance of the gospel she attributes to her. On the other hand Professor King is a bona fide biblical scholar from Harvard University.

There has always been a lot of speculation about the exact nature of the relationship between Mary Magdalene and Jesus. Personally, I think it would have saved a lot of angst down through the ages if it was clear that they were actually a couple and celibacy wasn't presented as such a virtuous condition.

The speculation about the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene is mostly fuelled by Dan Brown in The Da Vinci Code - ie it has no evidential basis.

Because the Christian Church is a patriarchal construct.

Some of the second and third century Gnostic gospels do seem to indicate speculation about the connection between Jesus and Mary. In the Gospel of Philip there is reference to Jesus having kissed Mary and of him loving her more than his other followers.

So Dan Brown in the da Vinci Code picked up on an idea of a close relationship between the two that was present amongst some unorthodox Christian believers centuries earlier.

This is not to say the gnostic writers had any secret information on the matter at that late stage.

I just feel that the Church would have had a healthier attitude towards sex from the outset if Jesus had been married to Mary Magdalene in a no big deal sort of way and there was no glorification of celibacy.

Aside from that, whether or not you call her a disciple, Mary was a faithful follower and had a pivotal role in events, being present at the crucifixion and the resurrection. Still – historically speaking at least - she does not seem to have been afforded the same sort of respect and recognition as the male disciples.

Junia - the possibly female apostle mentioned by Paul in his letter to the Romans.

Junia or Junias (Greek: ?????? / ???????, Iounia[s]) was a 1st-century Christian highly regarded and complimented by apostle Paul. Paul possibly refers to Junia as an apostle.[1] The consensus among many, though not all New Testament scholars is that Junia was a woman.[2]

Quoted from wiki page linked above.

"I just feel that the Church would have had a healthier attitude towards sex from the outset if Jesus had been married to Mary Magdalene in a no big deal sort of way and there was no glorification of celibacy."

This is where a little knowledge is so misleading. Firstly, there was no tradition of celibacy in Judaism, and certainly no prohibition on the disciples to get or be married - we know that Peter certainly was. The 'glorification' of celibacy comes from Paul, who says that he thinks that celibacy is better, but understands that it is not for everyone - for those who are married he recommends chastity, by which he means not sleeping around -- as was the widespread common practice for men in late antiquity.

The Eastern church has never required priests (who it regards to be in a direct line of succession from the apostles) to be celibate, and celibacy was only became a requirement for priests in the Western church in the second millennium.

And Jesus himself was not married - but then Jesus himself did not have a home or posessions. Would a married man have been able to court the kind of political danger that Jesus did? But in any case there really is no evidence that he had any kind of sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene or indeed anyone else.

But the story of the church and sex is a long and complex one.

Niminy I suppose I am mainly thinking about the legacy in the Catholic Church. It just seems healthier to me for priests to have out-in-the-open wives rather than 'housekeepers' and for the Church to be less hung up about sex in general. It would have been freeing for a lot of people down through the years if Jesus was a married role model rather than a celibate one - just my view.