1 Corinthians 14:34

1 Cor 14:34 — LALEIN David Roe d.roe at t-online.de
Wed Sep 8 11:11:39 EDT 1999

Greek Concordances and Lexicons Romans 5:15 Greetings s,I’m a baby-Greek who has appreciated lurking the past few weeks. Ihesitate to solicit help, being unlikely able to return it, and Ihesitate to pose this particular case because of the perhapsstrongly-differing theological views on it. Never-the-less…1 Cor 14:34AhI GUNAIKES EN TAIS EKKLHSIAIS SIGATWSAN OU GAP EPITREPETAI AUTAISLALEIN…I interpret the infinitive present tense LALEIN as meaning “be talking,”and not as “talking.” What tense would Paul have used if he had meant toforbid any talking/speaking? Thankful for your help,DavidD. W. RoeRheinland-Pfalz, Germany

Greek Concordances and LexiconsRomans 5:15

1 Cor 14:34 — LALEIN Jim West jwest at Highland.Net
Wed Sep 8 13:32:50 EDT 1999

Romans 5:15 1 Peter 3:7 At 05:11 PM 9/8/99 +0200, you wrote:>1 Cor 14:34> >AhI GUNAIKES EN TAIS EKKLHSIAIS SIGATWSAN OU GAP EPITREPETAI AUTAIS>LALEIN…> >I interpret the infinitive present tense LALEIN as meaning “be talking,”>and not as “talking.” Actually- your translation would require a present participle or presenttense verb… the infinitive really needs to be translated with “to talk” or”to speak”.Now why Paul forbids women to speak is really not because he was anti-woman-but, for a simple historical reality… to wit- churches, like synagogues,divided the men on one side and the women on the other. Imagine, if youwill, women on one side of a house asking their husbands on the other sideof the house about what the speaker is talking about while the speaker istalking! what a racket! Paul, thus, simply requires the women to remainsilent during the sermon and ask their questions when they get home- so theydont disrupt the procedures. No need here to rescue Paul from misogynism.Further, hs is not saying that women should not speak (preach)- for hepresumes they do just that in 1 Cor 11. (rather a long answer for a shortquestion- sorry).>What tense would Paul have used if he had meant to>forbid any talking/speaking? I think the aorist.Best,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

Romans 5:151 Peter 3:7

1 Cor 14:34 — LALEIN yochanan bitan ButhFam at compuserve.com
Thu Sep 9 03:19:10 EDT 1999

Brenton’s LXX, my apologies 1 Cor 14:34 ? (1)>>I interpret the infinitive present tense LALEIN as meaning “be talking,”>>and not as “talking.” (2)>Actually- your translation would require a present participle or present>tense verb… the infinitive really needs to be translated with “to talk”or>“to speak”.…>but, for a simple historical reality… to wit- churches, like synagogues,>divided the men on one side and the women on the other.writer one above was trying to enunicate the aspect in english. if writertwo wanted to use fully infinitival glossing then he should propose “to betalking” “to be speaking”, but writer one was already clear in english.on the history, the divided synogogue appears to be a talmudic developmentand may not have been part of the first century. see especially chanasafrai in jerusalem perspective (english) [JerusalemPerspective.com].the explanation of talking could still work, though, because even talkingin small families scattered around a room can be distracting.errosorandall buth

Brenton’s LXX, my apologies1 Cor 14:34 ?

1 Cor 14:34 ? Mark Markham markhamm at topsurf.com
Thu Sep 9 04:37:55 EDT 1999

1 Cor 14:34 — LALEIN Wallace’s Grammar available in electronic book format Hello all,Since the word speak is used in this section regarding tongues and prophecyis it error to see this as a prohibition for these actions. Just look atthe context and the Greek here– ignore ch. 11 and other ergs in Timothyetc. What does this passage say and in it’s context what does it mean? BTWthe archives have much information on this passage forconsideration.Grace,Mark MarkhamHeidelberg, Germany—– Original Message —–From: yochanan bitan <ButhFam at compuserve.com>To: Biblical Greek < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Cc: < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Sent: Thursday, September 09, 1999 9:19 AMSubject: Re: 1 Cor 14:34 — LALEIN> (1)> >>I interpret the infinitive present tense LALEIN as meaning “be talking,”> >>and not as “talking.”> > (2)> >Actually- your translation would require a present participle or present> >tense verb… the infinitive really needs to be translated with “to talk”> or> >”to speak”.>> >but, for a simple historical reality… to wit- churches, likesynagogues,> >divided the men on one side and the women on the other.> > writer one above was trying to enunicate the aspect in english. if writer> two wanted to use fully infinitival glossing then he should propose “to be> talking” “to be speaking”, but writer one was already clear in english.> > on the history, the divided synogogue appears to be a talmudic development> and may not have been part of the first century. see especially chana> safrai in jerusalem perspective (english) [JerusalemPerspective.com].> the explanation of talking could still work, though, because even talking> in small families scattered around a room can be distracting.> > erroso> randall buth> >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: markhamm at topsurf.com> To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu>

1 Cor 14:34 — LALEINWallace’s Grammar available in electronic book format

1 Cor 14:34 — LALEIN Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Sep 9 05:59:11 EDT 1999

Wallace’s Grammar available in electronic book format The Septuaginta (2 Tim 3:15) At 10:37 AM +0200 9/9/99, Mark Markham wrote:>Hello all,> >Since the word speak is used in this section regarding tongues and prophecy>is it error to see this as a prohibition for these actions. Just look at>the context and the Greek here– ignore ch. 11 and other ergs in Timothy>etc. What does this passage say and in it’s context what does it mean? BTW>the archives have much information on this passage for>consideration.I’m not much inclined to think this particular passage concernsglossolalia, but I have often wondered whether the classical Attic sense ofLALEW–“chatter,prattle”–was still current in Hellenistic Greek; I don’tfind it in any of the NT dictionaries (L&N, Spicq, NAS Greek that I findready-to-hand) at home, but I seem to remember this suggestion being madeon previously, and one Latin poem of Horace where he seems to coina name “Lalage,” which must surely mean “chatterbox,” isn’t an indicationthat this sense was indeed still alive, although LALEW is generally used inthe GNT as an equivalent of LEGW or even KHRUSSW. It seems to me to makesense that Paul is here referring not to women’s participation in theliturgy or sharing parts of the gathering but rather to idle chatter of adisruptive nature.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

Wallace’s Grammar available in electronic book formatThe Septuaginta (2 Tim 3:15)

1 Cor 14:34 — LALEIN Christopher Hutson crhutson at salisbury.net
Thu Sep 9 15:06:04 EDT 1999

None A new E-List dedicated to GMark Carl wrote:> >I’m not much inclined to think this particular passage concerns>glossolalia, but I have often wondered whether the classical Attic sense of>LALEW–“chatter,prattle”–was still current in Hellenistic Greek; I don’t>find it in any of the NT dictionaries (L&N, Spicq, NAS Greek that I find>ready-to-hand) at home, but I seem to remember this suggestion being made>on previously, and one Latin poem of Horace where he seems to coin>a name “Lalage,” which must surely mean “chatterbox,” isn’t an indication>that this sense was indeed still alive, although LALEW is generally used in>the GNT as an equivalent of LEGW or even KHRUSSW. It seems to me to make>sense that Paul is here referring not to women’s participation in the>liturgy or sharing parts of the gathering but rather to idle chatter of a>disruptive nature.Carl,I have heard several NT interpreters appeal to this classical usage of LALEWas a way of rescuing Paul from mysogyny. I appreciate the intention, butI’m not sure that works for LALEW in 1 Cor 14:34. For one thing, thisinterpretation seems itself to be somewhat mysogynistic, since itstereotypes women as shallow and/or disruptive. But more important is thefact that Paul uses LALEW in the nearby context in passages that cannot mean”chatter” or “prattle.” In the immediate context, 14:26-33, Paul uses LALEWseveral times to refer to tongue speaking and to prophetic speech, both ofwhich occur under the influence of the Spirit and intended to edify. Inthe larger context of the letter, Paul uses LALEW at 2:6, 7, 13 to describehow “we speak the wisdom of God,” again a message from the Spirit whichsurely he does not mean to imply is mere prattle. So even if this classicalusage of LALEW was still alive in the early Empire, it doesn’t seem to behow Paul uses the word in 1 Cor. In 1 Cor, LALEW seems to be, as you say, ageneral equivalent of LEGW or even KHRUSSW.Cordially,XPIC————————————Christopher R. Hutson Hood Theological Seminary Salisbury, NC 28144crhutson at salisbury.net————————————

NoneA new E-List dedicated to GMark

1 Cor 14:34 — LALEIN Jim West jwest at Highland.Net
Sat Sep 11 11:16:34 EDT 1999

Greek Concordances and Lexicons Circumstantial Participles At 10:48 AM 9/11/99 -0500, you wrote:> >Colleagues:> >(Again, apologies for lateness–computer crash.)> > >Jim West repeats an old saw about division of men and women in synagogues>(and churches! what buildings did they have in Paul’s day?).They had houses! And, believe it or nay, houses are built in such a waythat some people can be on one side of a room and others on the other side. On the implied suggestion that an old idea is a priori a bad or outdatedidea- I would offer the opinion that older scholars are often far morecompetent and well read than younger ones, right Edward… :-)Thus, also, older ideas are not bad simply because they are old (though ouryouth worshipping culture would have us believe otherwise).> >Bernadette Brooten laid this to rest about two decades ago– she proved >that the supposed archeological evidence was grossly misinterpeted (the>imaginary “balcony” was used for grain-storage, not seating for women!).>And (as Randall has already stated), the segregation of women is a>much later development in the literature.Bernadette who?Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who is this Brooten person?;-)> > >The archives have a great deal to say about this–we’ve been around it>a great deal. The literature is heavy, and many hold that the sentence in >14 is a later gloss (there is even text-critical evidence for this, with>the sentence moving in some OL MSS.).Hmm.. wonder what would prompt those old latin scribes to move somethingaround when it came to women in the church….> >Ande if Paul did write it, he really WAS a misogynist! (Women chatter;>they interrupt services; their husbands are smarter than they are, and must >explain things at home; unmarried women will have to remain uncorrected.)>It sounds like good old Polycarp to me! (As Hans von Campenhausen argued,>quite persuasively once, in regard to 1 Timothy.)Nah- he was merely a child of his day. No need to label him something fromour day that doesnt apply to him- else we fall into the dread abyss ofanachronism.> > >See the archives.Indeed do.Best, as ever, and best wishes in the new school year to all.Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

Greek Concordances and LexiconsCircumstantial Participles

1 Cor 14:34 — LALEIN Jim West jwest at Highland.Net
Sat Sep 11 11:16:34 EDT 1999

Greek Concordances and Lexicons Circumstantial Participles At 10:48 AM 9/11/99 -0500, you wrote:> >Colleagues:> >(Again, apologies for lateness–computer crash.)> > >Jim West repeats an old saw about division of men and women in synagogues>(and churches! what buildings did they have in Paul’s day?).They had houses! And, believe it or nay, houses are built in such a waythat some people can be on one side of a room and others on the other side. On the implied suggestion that an old idea is a priori a bad or outdatedidea- I would offer the opinion that older scholars are often far morecompetent and well read than younger ones, right Edward… :-)Thus, also, older ideas are not bad simply because they are old (though ouryouth worshipping culture would have us believe otherwise).> >Bernadette Brooten laid this to rest about two decades ago– she proved >that the supposed archeological evidence was grossly misinterpeted (the>imaginary “balcony” was used for grain-storage, not seating for women!).>And (as Randall has already stated), the segregation of women is a>much later development in the literature.Bernadette who?Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who is this Brooten person?;-)> > >The archives have a great deal to say about this–we’ve been around it>a great deal. The literature is heavy, and many hold that the sentence in >14 is a later gloss (there is even text-critical evidence for this, with>the sentence moving in some OL MSS.).Hmm.. wonder what would prompt those old latin scribes to move somethingaround when it came to women in the church….> >Ande if Paul did write it, he really WAS a misogynist! (Women chatter;>they interrupt services; their husbands are smarter than they are, and must >explain things at home; unmarried women will have to remain uncorrected.)>It sounds like good old Polycarp to me! (As Hans von Campenhausen argued,>quite persuasively once, in regard to 1 Timothy.)Nah- he was merely a child of his day. No need to label him something fromour day that doesnt apply to him- else we fall into the dread abyss ofanachronism.> > >See the archives.Indeed do.Best, as ever, and best wishes in the new school year to all.Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

Greek Concordances and LexiconsCircumstantial Participles

1 Cor 14:34 — LALEIN Edward Hobbs EHOBBS at WELLESLEY.EDU
Sat Sep 11 11:48:26 EDT 1999

Circumstantial Participles Philippians 1:7 Colleagues:(Again, apologies for lateness–computer crash.)Jim West repeats an old saw about division of men and women in synagogues(and churches! what buildings did they have in Paul’s day?).Bernadette Brooten laid this to rest about two decades ago– she proved that the supposed archeological evidence was grossly misinterpeted (theimaginary “balcony” was used for grain-storage, not seating for women!).And (as Randall has already stated), the segregation of women is amuch later development in the literature.The archives have a great deal to say about this–we’ve been around ita great deal. The literature is heavy, and many hold that the sentence in 14 is a later gloss (there is even text-critical evidence for this, withthe sentence moving in some OL MSS.).Ande if Paul did write it, he really WAS a misogynist! (Women chatter;they interrupt services; their husbands are smarter than they are, and must explain things at home; unmarried women will have to remain uncorrected.)It sounds like good old Polycarp to me! (As Hans von Campenhausen argued,quite persuasively once, in regard to 1 Timothy.)See the archives.Edward Hobbs——–Jim wrote:—————>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now why Paul forbids women to speak is really not because he was anti-woman-but, for a simple historical reality… to wit- churches, like synagogues,divided the men on one side and the women on the other. Imagine, if youwill, women on one side of a house asking their husbands on the other sideof the house about what the speaker is talking about while the speaker istalking! what a racket! Paul, thus, simply requires the women to remainsilent during the sermon and ask their questions when they get home- so theydont disrupt the procedures. No need here to rescue Paul from misogynism.Further, hs is not saying that women should not speak (preach)- for hepresumes they do just that in 1 Cor 11. (rather a long answer for a shortquestion- sorry).Jim West

Circumstantial ParticiplesPhilippians 1:7

1 Cor 14:34 — LALEIN Blahoslav Èíèel cbmost at iol.cz
Tue Sep 14 03:53:49 EDT 1999

QEOTHS-Col 2:9 Col 1:4 Dne So, 11 záøí 1999 jste napsal(a):> Colleagues:> BIG SNIP> > Ande if Paul did write it, he really WAS a misogynist! (Women chatter;> they interrupt services; their husbands are smarter than they are, and must > explain things at home; unmarried women will have to remain uncorrected.)Was Paul misogynist or it was the society in Paul’s time?I suppose that most of the women were illiterate or of poor education. It wasnot because of lack of intelligence but because of the circumstances. If thiswas true, then Paul might be reacting to the facts without any miso-what bias.Blahopastor, Most, Czech rep.

QEOTHS-Col 2:9Col 1:4

1 Cor 14:34 — LALEIN Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Sep 14 06:58:55 EDT 1999

Col 1:4 1 Cor 14:34 — LALEIN At 9:53 AM +0200 9/14/99, Blahoslav »ÌËel wrote:>Dne So, 11 záøí 1999 jste napsal(a):>> Colleagues:> >> BIG SNIP>> >> Ande if Paul did write it, he really WAS a misogynist! (Women chatter;>> they interrupt services; their husbands are smarter than they are, and must>> explain things at home; unmarried women will have to remain uncorrected.)> >Was Paul misogynist or it was the society in Paul’s time?> >I suppose that most of the women were illiterate or of poor education. It was>not because of lack of intelligence but because of the circumstances. If this>was true, then Paul might be reacting to the facts without any miso-what bias.Frankly, I don’t think this is any MORE true in general of women than ofmen in the congregation at the time; it would depend on where in theMediterranean world one lived, probably also on a family’s wealth andstatus, but women were admitted to the gymnasia in many areas. I don’tthink we can generalize too much about either status or education inChristian congregations to which Paul wrote, although Gerd Theissen, WayneMeeks, and others too have helped to sketch some pictures of what elementsof population may have been involved in them. What Paul says in 1 Cor1:26-31 is loaded with rhetoric, but I don’t think Paul could or would havewaxed eloquent on the absence of eloquence or learning among his convertshad this not been essentially true. So I don’t think education is adistinct differentiating factor between men and women in thesecongregations.(I should add that I’m satisfied that LALEIN does NOT mean “chatter” in 1Cor 14:34)Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

Col 1:41 Cor 14:34 — LALEIN

1 Cor 14:34 — LALEIN Blahoslav Èíèel cbmost at iol.cz
Wed Sep 15 01:15:48 EDT 1999

1 Cor 14:34 — LALEIN Col 1:4 Dne Út, 14 záøí 1999 jste napsal(a):> BIG SNIP> > Frankly, I don’t think this is any MORE true in general of women than of> men in the congregation at the time; it would depend on where in the …> > Another SNIP> > … had this not been essentially true. So I don’t think education is a> distinct differentiating factor between men and women in these> congregations.> > (I should add that I’m satisfied that LALEIN does NOT mean “chatter” in 1> Cor 14:34)> > > Carl W. ConradThank you. When I followed this thread I realized something, what has to do morewith the goal of Paul’s letter than with the Greek itself. He writes aboutdiscipline at the time of worship and touches the specific issues of theCorinthians. And as we were not there, we may only think about (andspeculate of) the situation there with some level of probability. But, that isnot the aim of .God bless you.Blahopastor, Most, Czech rep.

1 Cor 14:34 — LALEINCol 1:4

1 Cor 14:34, KAQWS KAI hO NOMOS LEGEI Jim West jwest at Highland.Net
Sat Apr 29 13:04:36 EDT 2000

Previous message: Gal 2:20 – to the Son Next message: STOP: 1 Cor 14:34, KAQWS KAI hO NOMOS LEGEI At 11:45 AM 4/29/00 -0700, you wrote:> > >What should be the application today? Should we wait until >similar disturbances occur in order to apply the implication>of the OT law, or should we learn from this and lock the door>before the horse is stolen? Or, was Paul wrong in his thinking?> >Paul Dixon“where angels fear to tread….” Anyway, since im not as wise as an angel Iwill tread where they wont.Paul has “spirtualized” the OT law (as he frequently does). He merelyfollows the footsteps of Philo here and makes the law a universalized set ofprescriptions. We could take the same passage in hand and make it say anynumber of things to any audience we wished (as most preachers do on a weeklybasis and no one ever notices that the text has been disgorged of its lifeblood…) Is this right or wrong as a hermeneutical method? Yes and no. Yes it iswrong from the historical perspective because Paul and his heirs rip textsfrom contexts and make them mean what they did not mean. But it is rightbecause without this procedure the Bible is a time bound incoherentirrelevent set of scribbled lines.Was Paul right about his view of women? Again yes and no. Yes, in that anydisruption in the Church is rude and inconsiderate (including those bloodyscreaming babies and loud talking elderly folk who seem to roar at the mostinopportune times). But he is also wrong- because it wasnt just the womenfolk who were disruptive. It was the tongue speakers and the spiritualsuperiority-ists (???) who likewise disrupted the service.I think the principle Paul only halfway enunciated was– be polite inChurch. He picked on the women cuz they were no doubt the easiest target.he should have picked on the others too. But of course, even handedness isdifficult even for the great Apostle to the Gentiles.Best,Jim++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDjwest at highland.nethttp://web.infoave.net/~jwest

Previous message: Gal 2:20 – to the SonNext message: STOP: 1 Cor 14:34, KAQWS KAI hO NOMOS LEGEI More information about the mailing list

STOP: 1 Cor 14:34, KAQWS KAI hO NOMOS LEGEI Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Apr 29 13:15:31 EDT 2000

Previous message: 1 Cor 14:34, KAQWS KAI hO NOMOS LEGEI Next message: Gal 2:20 – to the Son Whatever Paul Dixon’s intentions may have been in posing this text fordialogue, it has become immediately evident that the focus of the questionsposed was NOT the meaning of the Greek text but on the one hand, ahermeneutical one, and on the other, a question of ecclesiastical polity.This is not the place for either sort of discussion. Please don’t continuethis.– Carl W. ConradCo-Chair, ListDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

Previous message: 1 Cor 14:34, KAQWS KAI hO NOMOS LEGEINext message: Gal 2:20 – to the Son More information about the mailing list

1 Cor 14:34, KAQWS KAI hO NOMOS LEGEI dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Sat Apr 29 14:45:26 EDT 2000

Previous message: Gal 2:20 – to the Son Next message: Greek software (vocabulary quiz) In 1 Cor 14:34 Paul says:hAI GUNAIKES EN TAIS EKKLNSIAIS SIGATWSIN OU GAREPITREPETAI AUTAIS LALEIN, ALLA hUPOTASSESQWSANKAQWS KAI hO NOMOS LEGEI.If the OT reference here is Gen 3:16 (so most), then Paulseems to be saying that a direct implication of the husband’srule over the wife is that she is forbidden to even speak in thechurches.Regardless of the situation at hand, it seems Paul is drawingthis conclusion from the OT law. The application to the Corinthianchurch, of course, is that the disruptions caused by certainwomen praying, prophesying or tongue-speaking must stop.What should be the application today? Should we wait until similar disturbances occur in order to apply the implicationof the OT law, or should we learn from this and lock the doorbefore the horse is stolen? Or, was Paul wrong in his thinking?Paul Dixon

Previous message: Gal 2:20 – to the SonNext message: Greek software (vocabulary quiz) More information about the mailing list

[] 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Quote? Ken Graham pfinder at access4less.net
Thu Jul 27 12:01:45 EDT 2006

[] “attain” for “find”? [] 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Quote? I’ve been lurking for a while on this forum but only asked one question some time ago. I’ve heard from a couple of sources now that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 are something Paul is quoting, perhaps from a the letter sent to him from the Corinthians or some other Jewish source. Are there any grammatical signs which clearly demonstrate that these two verses are a quote from someone else that Paul is then taking to task in the following verses? For instance some say the opening article in verse 36 indicates Paul is arguing or proposing an alternative to the quote. I would appreciate any understanding you can provide.Best Regards,Ken Graham

[] “attain” for “find”?[] 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Quote?

[] 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Quote? Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Thu Jul 27 17:06:51 EDT 2006

[] 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Quote? [] 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Quote? A.Wire rightly claims that the threefold repetition of the imperative** SIGATW … SIGATW … SIGATWSAN contributes to the discourse cohesion, knitting 1Cor14:34-35 lexically and semantically to the immediately preceding context. This undermines both the various interpolation theories and the notion that “Paul is quoting …”.1COR. 14:28 EAN DE MH Hi DIERMHNEUTHS, **SIGATW EN EKKLHSIAi, hEAUTWi DE LALEITW KAI TWi QEWi. 29 PROFHTAI DE DUO H TREIS LALEITWSAN KAI hOI ALLOI DIAKRINETWSAN: 30 EAN DE ALLWi APOKALUFQHi KAQHMENWi, hO PRWTOS **SIGATW. 31 DUNASQE GAR KAQ’ hENA PANTES PROFHTEUEIN, hINA PANTES MANQANWSIN KAI PANTES PARAKALWNTAI. 32 KAI PNEUMATA PROFHTWN PROFHTAIS hUPOTASSETAI, 33 OU GAR ESTIN AKATASTASIAS hO QEOS ALLA EIRHNHS. hWS EN PASAIS TAIS EKKLHSIAIS TWN hAGIWN 34 hAI GUNAIKES EN TAIS EKKLHSIAIS **SIGATWSAN: OU GAR EPITREPETAI AUTAIS LALEIN, ALLA hUPOTASSESQWSAN, KAQWS KAI hO NOMOS LEGEI. 35 EI DE TI MAQEIN QELOUSIN, EN OIKWi TOUS IDIOUS ANDRAS EPERWTATWSAN: AISCRON GAR ESTIN GUNAIKI LALEIN EN EKKLHSIAi.On Jul 27, 2006, at 10:40 AM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:> > On Jul 27, 2006, at 9:01 AM, Ken Graham wrote:> >> I’ve heard from a couple of sources now that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35>> are something Paul is quoting, perhaps from a the letter sent to>> him from the Corinthians or some other Jewish source. Are there>> any grammatical signs which clearly demonstrate that these two>> verses are a quote from someone else that Paul is then taking to>> task in the following verses? For instance some say the opening>> article in verse 36 indicates Paul is arguing or proposing an>> alternative to the quote.> > > The refutation of this notion is semantic and rhetorical, rather than> simply a matter of syntax. A.Wire has demonstrated that the silencing> of the “women prophets” 1Cor14:34-35 fits well within the rest of> Paul’s message to the Corinthian church. Her discussion is very> detailed and I will not attempt to summarize it. Wire also has a> detailed and technical discussion of the text critical issues with> 1Cor14:34-35, she rejects rightfully the both the relocation and the> exclusion of this passage. All of this is more or less off topic for> this forum.> > Antionette Clark Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets: A> Reconstruction Through Paul’s Rhetoric (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,> 1995),> > Elizabeth Kline> > > > >> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/Elizabeth Kline

[] 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Quote?[] 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Quote?

[] 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Quote? Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Thu Jul 27 13:40:19 EDT 2006

[] 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Quote? [] 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Quote? On Jul 27, 2006, at 9:01 AM, Ken Graham wrote:> I’ve heard from a couple of sources now that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 > are something Paul is quoting, perhaps from a the letter sent to > him from the Corinthians or some other Jewish source. Are there > any grammatical signs which clearly demonstrate that these two > verses are a quote from someone else that Paul is then taking to > task in the following verses? For instance some say the opening > article in verse 36 indicates Paul is arguing or proposing an > alternative to the quote.The refutation of this notion is semantic and rhetorical, rather than simply a matter of syntax. A.Wire has demonstrated that the silencing of the “women prophets” 1Cor14:34-35 fits well within the rest of Paul’s message to the Corinthian church. Her discussion is very detailed and I will not attempt to summarize it. Wire also has a detailed and technical discussion of the text critical issues with 1Cor14:34-35, she rejects rightfully the both the relocation and the exclusion of this passage. All of this is more or less off topic for this forum.Antionette Clark Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction Through Paul’s Rhetoric (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995),Elizabeth Kline

[] 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Quote?[] 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Quote?

[] 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Quote? Harold Holmyard hholmyard at ont.com
Thu Jul 27 18:05:03 EDT 2006

[] 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Quote? [] Romans 4:1 Hi Elizabeth,>A.Wire rightly claims that the threefold repetition of the >imperative** SIGATW … SIGATW … SIGATWSAN contributes to the >discourse cohesion, knitting 1Cor14:34-35 lexically and semantically >to the immediately preceding context. This undermines both the >various interpolation theories and the notion that “Paul is >quoting …”.> > HH: It goes further than that, of course. The verb MANQANW is in verses 31 and 35. The verb LALEIN occurs in verses 28-29 and 34-35. The verb hUPOTASSW appears in verses 32 and 34. The word EKKLHSIA stands in verses 28, 33, and 34-35.Yours,Harold Holmyard> >1COR. 14:28 EAN DE MH Hi DIERMHNEUTHS, **SIGATW EN EKKLHSIAi, hEAUTWi >DE LALEITW KAI TWi QEWi. 29 PROFHTAI DE DUO H TREIS LALEITWSAN KAI >hOI ALLOI DIAKRINETWSAN: 30 EAN DE ALLWi APOKALUFQHi KAQHMENWi, hO >PRWTOS **SIGATW. 31 DUNASQE GAR KAQ’ hENA PANTES PROFHTEUEIN, hINA >PANTES MANQANWSIN KAI PANTES PARAKALWNTAI. 32 KAI PNEUMATA PROFHTWN >PROFHTAIS hUPOTASSETAI, 33 OU GAR ESTIN AKATASTASIAS hO QEOS ALLA >EIRHNHS. hWS EN PASAIS TAIS EKKLHSIAIS TWN hAGIWN 34 hAI GUNAIKES EN >TAIS EKKLHSIAIS **SIGATWSAN: OU GAR EPITREPETAI AUTAIS LALEIN, ALLA >hUPOTASSESQWSAN, KAQWS KAI hO NOMOS LEGEI. 35 EI DE TI MAQEIN >QELOUSIN, EN OIKWi TOUS IDIOUS ANDRAS EPERWTATWSAN: AISCRON GAR ESTIN >GUNAIKI LALEIN EN EKKLHSIAi.> > >

[] 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Quote?[] Romans 4:1

1 Cor 14:34-35 Ward Powers bwpowers at eagles.bbs.net.au
Mon Jun 29 21:37:35 EDT 1998

Josephus Antiquities 3.1.173 Gal. 4:19 B-greekers all:At 04:45 98/06/29 EDT, David Palmer wrote:>Ward’s suggestion raises other questions in my mind (a mind not humble enough>to boast its opinions humble, though I am certainly of low estate).Questions>about the same words ANHR and GUNH in I Corinthians 14:34-35. There the>context is rules of order hOTAN SUNERCHSQE, when you assemble for church.>“hAI GUNAIKES EN TAIS EKKLHSIAIS SIGATWSAN,” and, “hUPOTASESQWSAN.”> >This EN EKKLHSIA setting is distinguished from “EN OIKWi” in v. 35. If in>church she wants to inquire about something, let her ask her husband at home.>This EI DE TI MAQEIN QELOUSIN reminds me of the MANQANETW EN PASHi hUPOTAGHi>in I Timothy 2:11.>MAQEIN, MANQANETW. Same word.This discussion started off under the heading of 1 Tim 2:12, but as Davidhas now moved over to discussing 1 Cor 14:34-35, I have place this as thenew heading above this post. All list members will be aware that here wehave another highly controverted passage, and one which has not escapedattention in previous posts to this list.It is relevant for me to make a few points in response to David’s post tothe list.1. A great many commentators and exegetes link this passage with 1 Tim2:11-15 and interpret them in tandem, as self-evidently referring to thesame situation. (The occurrence in each of MANQANW, which David mentions,is one of the reasons why this is done.) I would aver that, to thecontrary, these two passages address different situations. As I have soughtto demonstrate in other posts, 1 Tim 2:11-15 refers to a “home, marriageand family” situation; 1 Cor 14:34 expressly shows its context to be “inthe churches”, and (as David points out) hOTAN SUNERCHSQE, “when youassemble together” (verse 26), which is being distinguished from EN OIKWi(verse 35). Each passage needs to be considered in its own context and onits own terms.2. What women are forbidden to do EN TAIS EKKLHSIAIS is to LALEW. Now, I amwell familiar with the range of interpretations which have been given tothis: but I want to point out that the core meaning of LALEW is to sayingwords with one’s mouth, to converse. LALEO involves verbal utterance, it issomething that the mouth speaks (Matthew 12:34). Thus whenever the NTrefers to a person who has been dumb as now being able to speak, the wordused is ALWAYS and ONLY LALEW (Mt 9:33; 12:22; 15:31; Mk 7:37; Lk 11:14) -the emphasis is upon the FACT that he can SPEAK, not upon what it is thathe SAID. And LALEW is the normal word which is used when people areengaging in informal conversation. This informal conversation COULD beconveying teaching – LALEW is used of Jesus in this way (cf. Mt 13:3). Butthe central idea is that of engaging in oral communication, of being HEARD,and usually the idea of informal utterance is also present.3. Therefore the starting point for the consideration of Paul’s meaning in1 Cor 14:34 should be of taking LALEW to be referring to making a noisewith the mouth, of informal conversation. If the meaning in a particularcontext is other than this, that meaning will have to come from the contextitself.4. It is often taken that what Paul forbids in this passage is speaking inministry, i.e., preaching or teaching, where what is happening is thecommunication of particular content. It should be noted that Paul had athis disposal (and elsewhere uses frequently) a range of over a dozen Greekwords which refer in various ways to the communication of information (suchas DIDASKW, KHRUSSW, ANGELW and its various compounds, together with theordinary Greek words used for the conveying of meaningful content, LEGW,FHMI, EIPEIN). But Paul uses none of these here with reference to what thewomen are not to do. The implication then is that what he is referring tois not the speaking with the aim of conveying information, which would havebeen indicated by using one or more of these words.5. The word Paul uses (twice, once each in vv. 34 and 35) is LALEW – whichis a very ambiguous and inconclusive word to use if”preach/teach/communicate information to the congregation” is the meaningto be conveyed. And it would be very unPauline for Paul to be thatimprecise and unclear. On the other hand, if there were women who (nowenjoying a newfound freedom to be involved in worship in a way which wentfar beyond what was possible for them in Judaism) were conversing orcalling out to others in the course of worship, this is precisely the wordPaul would use to tell them to stop doing this.6. It is also very instructive to note what it is they are to do instead ofwhatever it is which Paul is forbidding them. If there is anything theywish to know, they are to ask their own husbands (TOUS IDIOUS ANDRAS) athome. Wanting to know something and asking their husbands at home is not analternative to preaching or teaching in church. It is however analternative to asking their neighbour about something in church, andespecially to asking their husbands in church about some point or another -particularly when we bear in mind that men and women sat on opposite sidesof the church, or the women sat at the back or upstairs in the balcony! I believe that in this approach (rather than a link with 1 Tim 2 or lookingto Numbers 30:3-8, as suggested by David) lies the best road tounderstanding the passage. Footnotes, references to other authorities,discussions of alternative interpretations, and further and more detailedpresentation of this viewpoint will be found in Chapter 3 of my book “TheMinistry of Women in the Church” (SPCKA).As usual, please understand that all comments above are IMHO.Regards,WardRev Dr B. Ward Powers Phone (International): 61-2-9799-750110 Grosvenor Crescent Phone (Australia): (02) 9799-7501SUMMER HILL NSW 2130 email: bwpowers at eagles.bbs.net.auAUSTRALIA.

Josephus Antiquities 3.1.173Gal. 4:19

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

2 thoughts on “1 Corinthians 14:34

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.