I think what mina is calling "Gentile Jews" are the converts to Judaism. As I've pointed out, they were not fully integrated into Israel but were kept separate or 'probationary'. There were worries that they would revert to paganism or syncretize their paganism with Judaism, or at the least commit immoralities. Jesus Christ's ministry to the 'House of Israel' was to those who were firmly Israelite. The Gentiles came looking for him before He was ready to send out the missionaries. In fact, one finds the phrase 'fulness of time' more than once in the mouth of Our Lord - timing is important. The fact is, we find individuals like Luke who are part of this 'quasi-Jewish' class of converts - still Gentile in many respects, Jewish by faith but still under suspicion. With Cornelius we have the first of the next outer ring - the 'God-fearer', IOW a Gentile no longer pagan but following God's law for Gentiles. Then again, we have others 'outside' who are drawn to Christ - the Magi, the Samaritan St. Photini, etc. As Mina said, the Church had these outsiders beating on their doors even before they were established - they just didn't agree on what exactly to do with them until the Jerusalem council. St. Luke's iconography is particularly worrying from a Jewish standpoint - as a convert, that is something he simply shouldn't have been doing - making images. So, I still don't see where any of this bolsters the case of those who would anathematize any who don't jump on the W.O. bandwagon (or why its proponents have yet to present their case without demonizing their opponents through guilt by association.) The Church's tradition has a context that precedes the Empire by centuries, and the view of the Orthodox Church as merely an Imperial office seems to miss the point. If the Church cannot make the appeal to its Tradition as a theological answer to W.O. then the Church cannot make the appeal to Tradition for anything else - which dismantles pretty much all of Orthodox apologetics IMHO. In such a case - what is the point? I also think that St. Paul's epistles are theology enough, and foundational, to constitute Tradition in this case. As for modern bishops, I've met his Grace, Bishop Kallistos (Ware) - he is right that the Church has not spoken on the issue universally - but because it hasn't needed to. The sects that ordained women were all condemned particularly for other aspects of their teaching and praxis that were heretical and immoral. Only some local councils specifically dealt with women's ordination (again, as the Irish Canons.) But, from conversation with Bp. KALLISTOS, I don't believe he is a proponent for W.O. either. Too much of the case for W.O. seems to be built on mistaken notions of the equivelance of sex with gender roles, race, etc. Also, the arguments seem to assume an inferior position for women that is contrary to biology and psychology (the truth is, they are the stronger sex - and men shouldn't feel inferior over it). Until I can see a case for W.O. that is not based upon political rhetoric, then it can be debated - but so far, it has only been presented as political rhetoric (even the 'theological arguments' are only window dressing, still political formulations rather than theology as they begin and end with partisan political assumptions.) Then again, I listen to my wife - an educational psychologist who has spent some time researching sex differences - her opinion on the matter is simply "why would anyone want to be a priest?" She is not pro-W.O., and I find her arguments from the natural and social sciences convincing.