1 Corinthians 14:34

[] Women or Wives in Acts 21:5 Joseph Weaks j.weaks at tcu.edu
Wed Sep 22 14:39:04 EDT 2004

 

[] Women or Wives in Acts 21:5 [] translation of phrase On Sep 22, 2004, at 1:13 PM, Carl W. Conrad wrote:> At 12:53 PM -0400 9/22/04, Mark Wutka wrote:>> I was wondering about this portion of Acts 21:5>> PANTWN SUN GUNAIXI KAI TEKNOIS>> >> Most of the translations I have seen translate this as something like:>> “All of them, with their wives and children”>> …It’s really the “their” in the translations that I am wondering >> about.>> Is there something here that indicates possession? …> …You’ll find that often enough the article used with a noun> in the right context implies a “his/her/their” possessive aspect).This is one thing that doesn’t strike someone who studied Classical Greek first. Read Xenephon and the like and this is par for the course.”The man put the hand in the water.” = his hand, of courseI would reiterate that also in the GNT there is *often* the assumption of what we call a possessive.My 2¢,Joe Weaks**************************************************************Rev. Joseph A. WeaksSenior Minister, Bethany Christian Church, DallasPh.D. (Cand.), Brite Divinity School, Ft. Worthj.weaks at tcu.edu**************************************************************

 

[] Women or Wives in Acts 21:5[] translation of phrase

Women in the Church Perry L. Stepp plstepp at flash.net
Tue Aug 11 10:04:35 EDT 1998

 

Gal 4:14 Gal 4:14 Hello, all.> The background context in which this passage is> found is one that is dealing with the question of> good order in the congregation. The (correct)> alternative to whatever it is which the women are> doing in the congregation is to ask their husbands> their questions at home. This would suggest that> what they were doing was breaching good order in> the congregation by talking amongst themselves> or asking questions of their husbands during the> assembly. (Men and women sat separately in the> assembly.)A point of syntax: the prohibition uses the present infinitive (OU . . .LALEIN). The argument that I’ve heard–and I’ve never checked it across theNT, but the places where I’ve checked the argument it has stood up–is:normally when an infinitive is used in a prohibition, the aorist infinitiveis used. Any time a present infinitive is used in a prohibition, thereseems to be an emphasis on continuing action.Thus (the argument runs) the present OU . . . LALEIN implies somethingoutside of normal or acceptable speech, i.e., “they are not permitted totalk excessively” or “they are not permitted to keep on chattering.”How does that argument wash?PLStepp*****************************************************************Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TXPh.D. Candidate in Religion, Baylor University#1 Cowboy FanKeeper of the Top-10, news://alt.fan.lettermanIt is tremendous folly to put trashy people in positionsof trust and conspicuousness. –George Will, 6 August 1998*****************************************************************

 

Gal 4:14Gal 4:14

Women in the Church Ward Powers bwpowers at eagles.bbs.net.au
Thu Aug 13 03:39:15 EDT 1998

 

Romans 8:28 Romans 8:28 At 11:06 98/08/11 -0500, Bill Ross wrote:>I do not support a gender-neutral reading of the NT. The differences are>everywhere explicit.> >Here, though, it seems as I meditated these I Corinthians I came up with an>interpretation that I’d never heard anywhere, but it seems to tie together>much of the book. Much of this discussion may be too interpretive for some,>so I identify that section so those inclined to may skip it.Dear Bill, Some responses to your comments.>*** caution: interpretation section here:> >As I read it, the Corinthians were given to super-spirituality, especially>concerning women, and thus when Paul wrote to> >* avoid fornication>* not have fellowship with the immoralI would agree.>* not have women leadersThis rather depends upon what one means by “women leaders”. Paul certainlydid not say, “Do not have women leaders.”>they wrote back:> >* so, should we not touch a woman?>* should we separate from unbelievers, and divorce our wives [especially>unbelieving]?Yes, we can identify where they said these things (or something similar). >* we’ve silenced our women in Church and now they are protestingNow I cannot find any way in which you can attribute saying this (oranything like it) to the Corinthians. Bill, am I overlooking something?>So Paul clarifies that:> >* celibacy is his favorite, though not for everyoneAgain, everything depends upon what you mean by “celibacy” and “favorite”.In 7:1 he quotes the Corinthians who are recommending that in marriage itis better for a husband to refrain from having sexual relations (themeaning of the euphemism “to touch”) with his wife. In verses 2-5 Paulresponds by totally disagreeing with this proposition. He says that eachone should “have” his own wife. By this he means not only that each personshould be married, but, further (as he goes on to explain), that eachhusband should give his wife the fulfilment of her sexual needs, as alsoshould she to him: she does not have the “rights” over her own body but herhusband does, as also he does not have the “rights” over his own body, buthis wife does. They are each not to deprive one another [of their sexualrelationship] except perhaps by mutual agreement for a limited time forsome specific purpose (Paul mentions prayer, but it may be thought thatthere could on occasion be other reasons, in particular circumstances,because of which a couple may wish to suspend sexual relations for a shortperiod). Then they are to resume their sexual relationship (“come togetheragain”), otherwise they open the way for Satan to bring them intotemptation through a lack of sexual self-control. And this IS something, we should note, which he addresses to everyone, “toeach person”. This, it seems to me, can hardly be called an advocacy ofcelibacy. Then he takes up the situation where a person has been previously marriedand that marriage has terminated (whether through divorce or widowing):that is, the situation of people who have been in a sexual relationship(such as he has been describing) but which no longer exists. So, what arethey to do now? they might ask. Paul answers this in verses 7-9. For astart, they are to remain as he does. After Paul’s own marriage ended, hedid not (he tells us) marry again; and some people are given the gift ofbeing able to live single and celibate (as he has), while some are not butare given the gift of being able to be marriage partners. His wish is thatpeople in such circumstances would continue as he does, without remarrying(verses 7-8). Such people should test out first of all whether God is nowgiving them this gift and calling. But if they do not in fact now have thisgift of sexual self-control, then he gives an instruction: GAMHSATWSAN (anaorist imperative), “they must marry”. It is better that they should marrythan that they should be on fire with sexual desire which they are not ableto control or fulfil (verse 9).This is, I suppose, a limited advocacy of celibacy, for those who now findthat it is their gift and calling.>* if you are married, even to an unbeliever, remain as you are – >* the Scriptures are not only for menAgreed.>********** End of interpretive section:> >There is a textual issue with I Cor 14:34. It is either “epitetraptai” (“it>is allowed” in the perfect) or “epitepetai” (“is being allowed” in the>present) to speak. Both are indicative, but the latter suggests more>strongly that this is a local, contemporary prohibition. I must politely dissent. The verb is durative aspect, negated, which meansas an ongoing situation they are not permitted to do (whatever it is whichis being forbidden). There is no suggestion in such an expression that itin any way indicates “a local, contemporary prohibition” and certainly notthat it indicates a prohibition restricted to one church or one time.>If so, this might be an admonition to the women to submit to the ordinance,>rather than an affirmation of the correctness of the ordinance.I cannot at all agree that this follows.>This is further compounded by the textual issue of “hupotassesthai” (“to be>in subjection” in the infinitive) vs. (“let them be subject” in the>imperative). The infinitive seems to contrast “speaking” with “subjection”,>which doesn’t seem proper to me, whereas the imperative seems to contrast>civil disobedience with subjection.I cannot understand this point at all. My UBS GNT at 1 Cor 14:34 hashUPOTASSESQWSAN, which is present passive imperative, 3rd plural, “let them(or, they must) be in subjection/be subordinate”. No alternate reading ofan infinitive is given in the apparatus. You may care to clarify your pointhere.>**** mostly interpretive below:> >This also explains the phrase “to the degree as also the law says”. In the>infinitive reading, the silence in Church is said to be taught in the Law,>but I sure can’t find it. In the alternate, it is subjection that is said to>be said in the Law, which it is (ie: Sarah obeyed her husband, calling him>Lord).> >Now, in Verse 35, Paul charges husbands to allow their wives to EPERWTATWSAN>(“interrogate”) them at home, This comment involves a reworking of the verse. What Paul says is notaddressed to husbands, to tell them to allow their wives to do anything:EPERWTATWSAN is a present active imperative, 3rd plural, addressed towives, instructing them what they must do. And I am not sure what you havein mind in your choice of “interrogate” as your translation for this verb:BAGD gives its first and usual meaning as “ask (a question)”, and does noteven list “interrogate” as a translation for it. >because AISXRON (“censured”) it is for women>to speak in the assembly. AISXRON does not imply that it is actually>shameful, but rather that there is an external censuring (consult Vine’s).I have consulted BAGD, who give the meaning as “ugly, shameful, base,disgraceful”, and do not refer to any concept of censure.>Speaking to the husbands, Paul, shaming the husbands who have been like the>shepherds in Exodus 2:17, keeping the women from the Word, says, “the Word>didn’t come from you [it came through Mary?], or to you only it didn’t>arrive. [but to women as well]”.I can see nothing in 14:36 to suggest that this was addressed to husbandsas distinct from the whole of the Corinthians (men and women together).>So, the bottom line is: If you prevent women from talking in Church, they>must submit, but husbands, at least let them ask their questions at home.>The Word is for them as well.As for the Word (of God) being for women as well as for men: this is mostcertainly true. But as for your other comments: Sorry, but I just don’t seethis meaning in the verse at all. We are rather far apart in ourunderstanding of what Paul is saying, aren’t we?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.

 

Romans 8:28Romans 8:28

Women in the Church Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com
Thu Aug 13 12:37:08 EDT 1998

 

“Mounce” Greek font Women in the Church *** warning *** Translation, textual and interpretation intermingled below!{Bill}>* we’ve silenced our women in Church and now they are protesting{Ward}Now I cannot find any way in which you can attribute saying this (oranything like it) to the Corinthians. Bill, am I overlooking something?{Bill}I am referring to the fact that Paul says “*your* women/wives in thechurches be silent, for it is not being entrusted for them [your women] tospeak”>So Paul clarifies that:<snip><Bill>>There is a textual issue with I Cor 14:34. It is either “epitetraptai” (“itis allowed” in the perfect) or “epitepetai” (“is being allowed” in thepresent) to speak. Both are indicative, but the latter suggests morestrongly that this is a local, contemporary prohibition.{Ward}I must politely dissent. The verb is durative aspect, negated, which meansas an ongoing situation they are not permitted to do (whatever it is whichis being forbidden). There is no suggestion in such an expression that it inany way indicates “a local, contemporary prohibition” and certainly not thatit indicates a prohibition restricted to one church or one time.{Bill}Why does Paul say they are to be silent? Because it is being forbidden. Thechoice of present tense suggests to me that this is not something that hasalways been or always will be. An aorist would have made time irrelevant andan perfect would have made it something done in the past effecting them now.{Bill}>If so, this might be an admonition to the women to submit to the ordinance,rather than an affirmation of the correctness of the ordinance.{Ward}I cannot at all agree that this follows.{Bill}>This is further compounded by the textual issue of “hupotassesthai” (“to bein subjection” in the infinitive) vs. (“let them be subject” in theimperative). The infinitive seems to contrast “speaking” with “subjection”,which doesn’t seem proper to me, whereas the imperative seems to contrastcivil disobedience with subjection.{Ward}I cannot understand this point at all. My UBS GNT at 1 Cor 14:34 hashUPOTASSESQWSAN, which is present passive imperative, 3rd plural, “let them(or, they must) be in subjection/be subordinate”. No alternate reading ofan infinitive is given in the apparatus. You may care to clarify your pointhere.{Bill}Textus Receptus has hUPOTASSESQAI.<snip>>Now, in Verse 35, Paul charges husbands to allow their wives toEPERWTATWSAN (“interrogate”) them at home,{Ward}This comment involves a reworking of the verse. What Paul says is notaddressed to husbands, to tell them to allow their wives to do anything:EPERWTATWSAN is a present active imperative, 3rd plural, addressed to wives,instructing them what they must do. And I am not sure what you have in mindin your choice of “interrogate” as your translation for this verb:BAGD gives its first and usual meaning as “ask (a question)”, and does noteven list “interrogate” as a translation for it.{Bill}Vine’s says this about EPERWTATWSAN:”a strengthened form of EROTAO [which more frequently than AITEO suggeststhat the petitioner is on a footing of equality or familiarity with theperson whom he requests] (epi, “in addition”), <snip> The more intensivecharacter of the “asking” may be observed in Luke 2:46; 3:14; 6:9, 17:20;20:21, 27, 40; 22:64; 23:3, 6, 9. In Matt. 16:1, it virtually signifies todemand (its meaning in later Greek). See DEMAND, DESIRE, QUESTION.{Bill}>because AISXRON (“censured”) it is for women to speak in the assembly.AISXRON does not imply that it is actually shameful, but rather that thereis an external censuring (consult Vine’s).{Ward}I have consulted BAGD, who give the meaning as “ugly, shameful, base,disgraceful”, and do not refer to any concept of censure.{Bill}AISCHUNO relates to a feeling of fear or shame which prevents a peson fromdoing something, whereas AIDOS relates to moral repugnance. This has more todo with embarassment then guilt, as in:Luke 16:3 Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for mylord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed.{Bill}>Speaking to the husbands, Paul, shaming the husbands who have been like theshepherds in Exodus 2:17, keeping the women from the Word, says, “the Worddidn’t come from you [it came through Mary?], or to you only it didn’tarrive. [but to women as well]”.{Ward}I can see nothing in 14:36 to suggest that this was addressed to husbands asdistinct from the whole of the Corinthians (men and women together).{Bill}Not even that the wives are to “strongly ask” their own husbands in theirhomes [about the Word]?>So, the bottom line is: If you prevent women from talking in Church, theymust submit, but husbands, at least let them ask their questions at home.The Word is for them as well.

 

“Mounce” Greek fontWomen in the Church

Women in the Church Paul S. Dixon dixonps at juno.com
Sun Aug 16 20:02:25 EDT 1998

 

Women in the Church Sources for study of amhn On Fri, 7 Aug 1998 22:45:43 -0400 thmann at juno.com (Theodore H. Mann)writes:>Greetings all:> >I have an off-list question I hope someone can answer for me.> >In 1 Cor.14:34ff, women are forbidden to speak in the churches. >However, 1 Cor. 11:5, it indicates that women prophesy. I assume this >prophecy occurs in a social setting of some kind. What is the >solution to this apparent contradiction? ( I’m sure there is really >no contradiction at all. ) Can anyone suggest a really good article >or publication dealing with the role of women in the church ( head >coverings, etc.)? I haven’t checked the archives. Is there anything >there? Many thanks.> >Best in Christ,> >Theodore “Ted” H. Mann>Orchard Lake, Michigan>thmann at juno.comTed:We made it back let last night from the family reunion in the Rockies inColorado. Found my mailbox was full – 300 pieces. People at churchtoday informed me their email had been returned due to the jammed box.Anyhow, am back and raring to go.Check out my website for an answer to your question. Read the articlethere entitled, “Negative Inference Fallacies: Mt 19:9, Acts 2:38 and1 Cor 11:5.” http://users.aol.com/dixonpsIn summary, there is a conflict between 1 Cor 11:5 and 1 Cor 14:34-45,only if one assumes the negation of 1 Cor 11:5. As you well know,the negation of a conditional is not a valid inference. “If A, thenB” does not imply “if not A, then not B.” 1 Cor 11:5 says, “she whoprays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head.” This does not imply, as most usually erroneously infer, the negation:she who prays or prophesies with her head covered does not shame herhead.Sincerely in Christ,Paul S. Dixon

 

Women in the ChurchSources for study of amhn

Women in the Church Jonathan Robie jonathan at texcel.no
Tue Aug 18 07:46:22 EDT 1998

 

Names for the Greek letters Women in the Church At 08:02 PM 8/16/98 EDT, Paul S. Dixon wrote:>In summary, there is a conflict between 1 Cor 11:5 and 1 Cor 14:34-45,>only if one assumes the negation of 1 Cor 11:5. As you well know,>the negation of a conditional is not a valid inference. “If A, then>B” does not imply “if not A, then not B.” 1 Cor 11:5 says, “she who>prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head.” >This does not imply, as most usually erroneously infer, the negation:>she who prays or prophesies with her head covered does not shame her>head. Are you saying that she who prays or prophesies shames her head regardlessof what she is wearing? If this were true, why wouldn’t Paul have mentionedsuch an important factor, instead of telling women what to wear whileshaming their head, letting them know that praying or prophesying withtheir heads uncovered shames their head, and somehow failing to mentionthat she who prays or prophesies shames her head regardless of what she iswearing?Treated as a formal logical syllogism, you are right, but if this werePaul’s belief, then the whole question of covering the head or uncoveringthe head is completely irrelevant and the passage is almost perverselymisleading. It would be like saying:”He who commits adultery without wearing a hat sins”.I can’t think of any biblical admonitions that take that form.Jonathan jonathan at texcel.noTexcel Researchhttp://www.texcel.no

 

Names for the Greek lettersWomen in the Church

Women in the Church Paul S. Dixon dixonps at juno.com
Tue Aug 18 13:49:25 EDT 1998

 

Women in the Church A Question on Mathew 18.18 On Tue, 18 Aug 1998 07:46:22 -0400 Jonathan Robie <jonathan at texcel.no>writes:>At 08:02 PM 8/16/98 EDT, Paul S. Dixon wrote:> >>In summary, there is a conflict between 1 Cor 11:5 and 1 Cor 14:34-45,>>only if one assumes the negation of 1 Cor 11:5. As you well know,>>the negation of a conditional is not a valid inference. “If A, then>>B” does not imply “if not A, then not B.” 1 Cor 11:5 says, “she who>>prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head.” >>This does not imply, as most usually erroneously infer, the negation:>>she who prays or prophesies with her head covered does not shame her>>head.> >Are you saying that she who prays or prophesies shames her head >regardless of what she is wearing? If this were true, why wouldn’t Paulhave >mentioned such an important factor, instead of telling women what towear >while shaming their head, letting them know that praying orprophesying with>their heads uncovered shames their head, and somehow failing to >mention that she who prays or prophesies shames her head regardless ofwhat >she is wearing?> >Treated as a formal logical syllogism, you are right, but if this were>Paul’s belief, then the whole question of covering the head oruncovering>the head is completely irrelevant and the passage is almost perversely>misleading. It would be like saying:> >“He who commits adultery without wearing a hat sins”.> >I can’t think of any biblical admonitions that take that form.Hi Jonathan. Long time no hear. You at least do acknowledge that thelogic is correct, though you do not seem to think the application ofsuchlogic here is warranted. Let me try to defend the application of thelogic,especially in light of your final statement, “I can’t think of anybiblicaladmonitions that take that form.”What Paul the Apostle seems to be doing in 1 Cor 11:5 ff is assuming forthe sake of argument that a woman prays or prophesies with her headuncovered. To do so was a shameful thing. But, what about the woman who prays or prophesies with her head covered? He makes no judgment hereas to whether doing so was right or wrong. Indeed, he is under noobligation to do so. Rather, his point is simply to point out that doingso with her head uncovered brings shame. We cannot and must not deducefrom this that Paul condones a woman praying or prophesying with her headcovered. He never says that, and we go too far to infer this intent,expecially if other portions of scripture seem to forbid it (1 Cor14:34-35, 1 Tim 2:12-13).This “assuming for the sake of argument without implying consent or condemnation” is typical of Paul. Are we to assume from 1 Cor 7:11,”but if she does leave” that Paul condones or approves of a womanleaving her husband? Heavens no! That has been strictly forbidden inthe preceding verse. So, we must not assume that this assumption forthe sake of argument in v. 11 implies Paul now condones it.Then consider all those assumptions for the sake of argument in 1 Cor 15where surely Paul must not be construed to be giving his assent:”if there is no resurrection of the dead” (v. 13), “if Christ has notbeenraised” (v. 14), etc.No, just because Paul or any other author considers the possibility ofeventA occurring in no way suggests or implies he approves or gives his assentto its occurrence. You might ask then, what is the point in 1 Cor 11:5ff. The most we candeduce for sure is this: a woman who prays or prophesies with her headuncovered shames her head. In other words, if she is going to do it,thenat least she should be sure to cover her head. But, whether she shoulddoit in the first place is not even dealt with here. It is not Paul’spoint. Rather,the point was the shamefulness incurred by the woman who did so uncovered. It is that simple. We must not go beyond the words ofScripture itself; nor should we go beyond the rules of logicalimplication.Two other parallels to such thinking, Jonathan, is identified in mypaper.”Negative Inference Fallacies: Acts 2:38, Mt 19:9, 1 Cor 11:5.”Paul S. Dixon

 

Women in the ChurchA Question on Mathew 18.18

Women in the Church Ward Powers bwpowers at eagles.bbs.net.au
Wed Aug 19 00:15:39 EDT 1998

 

Women in the Church Mt 12:6 My apologies for taking so long to respond – I have been absolutely flatout with getting the new semester under way at my college.><snip>> ><Bill>>>There is a textual issue with I Cor 14:34. It is either “epitetraptai” (“it>is allowed” in the perfect) or “epitepetai” (“is being allowed” in the>present) to speak. Both are indicative, but the latter suggests more>strongly that this is a local, contemporary prohibition.> >{Ward}>I must politely dissent. The verb is durative aspect, negated, which means>as an ongoing situation they are not permitted to do (whatever it is which>is being forbidden). There is no suggestion in such an expression that it in>any way indicates “a local, contemporary prohibition” and certainly not that>it indicates a prohibition restricted to one church or one time.> >{Bill}>Why does Paul say they are to be silent? Because it is being forbidden. The>choice of present tense suggests to me that this is not something that has>always been or always will be. An aorist would have made time irrelevant and>an perfect would have made it something done in the past effecting them now.Bill, it is not valid to suggest that the use of the present tenseindicates that something has not always been so and will not necessarilycontinue to be so, i.e. that it is temporary. This is not indicated norimplied by the use of the present. To the contrary, the present is usedwhere you are saying that something continues to be the case. There is noway that the use of the present tense can be pressed to derive from it thenotion that Paul is giving a “local, contemporary prohibition”. And as whathe is forbidding is disruptive behaviour in the assembly, conversing,chatting or even chattering, and possibly calling out questions about whatis being said during the teaching being given (for this is the meaning ofthis discussion, ISTM, in its context, which is “for God is not a God ofdisorder but of peace”), why would we think that such an admonition onPaul’s part was not intended by him to continue to apply? And in any case,we should note that he says expressly that what he is saying now to theCorinthians is applicable to them “as in all the churches of the saints”,14:33.> ><snip>>>Now, in Verse 35, Paul charges husbands to allow their wives to>EPERWTATWSAN (“interrogate”) them at home,> >{Ward}>This comment involves a reworking of the verse. What Paul says is not>addressed to husbands, to tell them to allow their wives to do anything:>EPERWTATWSAN is a present active imperative, 3rd plural, addressed to wives,>instructing them what they must do. And I am not sure what you have in mind>in your choice of “interrogate” as your translation for this verb:>BAGD gives its first and usual meaning as “ask (a question)”, and does not>even list “interrogate” as a translation for it.> >{Bill}>Vine’s says this about EPERWTATWSAN:> >“a strengthened form of EROTAO [which more frequently than AITEO suggests>that the petitioner is on a footing of equality or familiarity with the>person whom he requests] (epi, “in addition”), <snip> The more intensive>character of the “asking” may be observed in Luke 2:46; 3:14; 6:9, 17:20;>20:21, 27, 40; 22:64; 23:3, 6, 9. In Matt. 16:1, it virtually signifies to>demand (its meaning in later Greek). See DEMAND, DESIRE, QUESTION.The extent to which EPERWTAW may have a “strengthened” meaning needs to bedrawn from its context. You may note that Vine does not include 1 Cor 14:35amongst those verses where he considers that it has its “more intensivecharacter”. I would hold that it is not valid to press such a”strengthened” meaning upon it in this context. I refer you again to BAGDwhich gives its first and usual meaning as being simply to ask (a question). > >{Bill}>>because AISXRON (“censured”) it is for women to speak in the assembly.>AISXRON does not imply that it is actually shameful, but rather that there>is an external censuring (consult Vine’s).> >{Ward}>I have consulted BAGD, who give the meaning as “ugly, shameful, base,>disgraceful”, and do not refer to any concept of censure.> >{Bill}>AISCHUNO relates to a feeling of fear or shame which prevents a peson from>doing something, whereas AIDOS relates to moral repugnance. This has more to>do with embarassment then guilt, as in:> >Luke 16:3 Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my>lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed.The word in question in 1 Cor 14:35 is AISCROS; the meaning is that it isshameful for a woman to be disrupting the assembly with her conversing,chatting or chattering.>{Bill}>>Speaking to the husbands, Paul, shaming the husbands who have been like the>shepherds in Exodus 2:17, keeping the women from the Word, says, “the Word>didn’t come from you [it came through Mary?], or to you only it didn’t>arrive. [but to women as well]”.> > >{Ward}>I can see nothing in 14:36 to suggest that this was addressed to husbands as>distinct from the whole of the Corinthians (men and women together).> > >{Bill}>Not even that the wives are to “strongly ask” their own husbands in their>homes [about the Word]?ISTM that this interpretation is eisegesis, reading in a meaning asdistinct from taking out the meaning of what the passage is saying. Thepassage does not say or indicate that Paul is addressing the husbands inverse 35, nor that it is the husbands whom the women are shaming. And”strongly ask” is not a translation of EPERWTAW which is required orappropriate in this context.>>So, the bottom line is: If you prevent women from talking in Church, they>must submit, but husbands, at least let them ask their questions at home.>The Word is for them as well.Thank you for sharing your understanding of the verse with us. For thereasons I have given, it is not an interpretation I can accept, and seemsto me to involve quite a degree of eisegesis. Rather, I see the passage assaying that Paul is concerned with another area in which the assembly ofthe church is experiencing a measure of disruption/disorder (14:33a), thatwhat he says to the Corinthians is in line with what is done in the otherchurches (14:33b), that the women are not to LALEW (“speak” in its normalsense of converse, chat, chatter) but to be silent in the assembly, fortheir conversing during the assembly is not permitted, and they are tosubmit to this requirement (14:34). Whatever it is they wish to learn, theright thing for them to do is to ask their own husbands about it when theyget home – for their speaking (LALEW again – conversing, chatting) duringthe assembly is shameful (14:35).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.

 

Women in the ChurchMt 12:6

Women in the Church Ward Powers bwpowers at eagles.bbs.net.au
Wed Aug 19 01:21:07 EDT 1998

 

PORNEIA in Matt. 5, 19 = Lev. 18? Women in the Church At 20:02 98/08/16 EDT, Paul S. Dixon wrote, in response to an enquiry fromTed Mann about 1 Cor 11:5:>Check out my website for an answer to your question. Read the article>there entitled, “Negative Inference Fallacies: Mt 19:9, Acts 2:38 and>1 Cor 11:5.” > >http://users.aol.com/dixonps> >In summary, there is a conflict between 1 Cor 11:5 and 1 Cor 14:34-45,>only if one assumes the negation of 1 Cor 11:5. As you well know,>the negation of a conditional is not a valid inference. “If A, then>B” does not imply “if not A, then not B.” 1 Cor 11:5 says, “she who>prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head.” >This does not imply, as most usually erroneously infer, the negation:>she who prays or prophesies with her head covered does not shame her>head.> >Sincerely in Christ,>Paul S. DixonPaul, it is indeed true that the valid negation of a statement cannot bedrawn by turning it the other way round. But this does not mean that thatsecond statement is then false – only that it does not automatically andlogically follow from the previous statement. This is important to realize.This means, as you point out, that the statement in 1 Cor 11:5 does notnecessarily mean that “she who prays or prophesies with her head covereddoes not shame her head”. True, indeed. But the fact that such animplication cannot validly be drawn from a reversal of the first statementDOES NOT MEAN that that second statement is therefore necessarily false. Itonly means that you cannot establish it on the basis of the firststatement. That second statement may be absolutely true – but you wouldhave to establish it on other grounds.In any case, it is fair to say that in 1 Cor 11:5 Paul is dealing with thesituation where a woman IS engaging in prayer and prophesying. The questionof the relationship of this and what Paul says in 1 Cor 14:34-35 about awoman being silent in the assembly is a substantial issue, one upon which agreat deal of ink has been spilt (or computer printer toner used up), andwhich of course goes outside the guidelines of , because it does notjust turn on questions of the Greek text.To mention, however, one facet of this which DOES turn upon the question ofGreek meanings: there is no conflict between these two passages you mentionif one takes LALEIN (twice occurring in 1 Cor 14:34-35) to have its normalmeaning of “converse, chat chatter”, and accepts that THIS is what Paul isforbidding, instead of reading into LALEIN ideas of “preach” or “teach” inthe assembly – for which meaning there are numerous other Greek words, andwhich Paul is not discussing in 1 Cor 14:34-35 and which he is certainlynot forbidding in his comments there.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.

 

PORNEIA in Matt. 5, 19 = Lev. 18?Women in the Church

Women in the Church Trevor and Margaret Nicholls tmjpbn at ihug.co.nz
Wed Aug 19 06:16:36 EDT 1998

 

A Question on Mathew 18.18 Holy Spirit – “He” or “it?” Paul Dixon wrote:> In summary, there is a conflict between 1 Cor 11:5 and 1 Cor 14:34-45,> only if one assumes the negation of 1 Cor 11:5. As you well know,> the negation of a conditional is not a valid inference. “If A, then> B” does not imply “if not A, then not B.” 1 Cor 11:5 says, “she who> prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head.” > This does not imply, as most usually erroneously infer, the negation:> she who prays or prophesies with her head covered does not shame her> head.At the risk of lapsing into symbolic logic and not Greek, IMHO Paul (D)has oversimplified the construction of Paul (the Ap).Note that his “A” is itself a compound (i.e. A = prays or prophesies andnot head covered). Better isif A and not B, then Cwhere A = prays/prophecies B = head covered C = head shamedNow there are three possible conversesif A and B then not C ?? — this is Paul D’s only propositionif not A and not B then not C ?? if not A and not B then not C ??Given that both B and C involve the head, the interpretationwhich most of us “erroneously infer” is not so stupid, methinks.> > Sincerely in Christ,> > Paul S. DixonRegardsTrevor Nichollstmjpbn at ihug.co.nz

 

A Question on Mathew 18.18Holy Spirit – “He” or “it?”

Women in the Church Paul S. Dixon dixonps at juno.com
Wed Aug 19 13:35:48 EDT 1998

 

Women in the Church A Question on Mathew 18.18 On Wed, 19 Aug 1998 15:21:07 +1000 Ward Powers<bwpowers at eagles.bbs.net.au> writes:>At 20:02 98/08/16 EDT, Paul S. Dixon wrote, in response to an enquiry >from Ted Mann about 1 Cor 11:5:> >>Check out my website for an answer to your question. Read the article>>there entitled, “Negative Inference Fallacies: Mt 19:9, Acts 2:38 and>>1 Cor 11:5.” >> >>http://users.aol.com/dixonps>> >>In summary, there is a conflict between 1 Cor 11:5 and 1 Cor 14:34-45,>>only if one assumes the negation of 1 Cor 11:5. As you well know,>>the negation of a conditional is not a valid inference. “If A, then>>B” does not imply “if not A, then not B.” 1 Cor 11:5 says, “she who>>prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head.” >>This does not imply, as most usually erroneously infer, the negation:>>she who prays or prophesies with her head covered does not shame her>>head.>> >>Sincerely in Christ,> >>Paul S. Dixon> >Paul, it is indeed true that the valid negation of a statement cannot >be drawn by turning it the other way round. But this does not mean that >that second statement is then false – only that it does notautomatically >and logically follow from the previous statement. This is important to >realize.> >This means, as you point out, that the statement in 1 Cor 11:5 does >not necessarily mean that “she who prays or prophesies with her head >covered does not shame her head”. True, indeed. But the fact that suchan>implication cannot validly be drawn from a reversal of the firststatement>DOES NOT MEAN that that second statement is therefore necessarily >false. It only means that you cannot establish it on the basis of thefirst>statement. That second statement may be absolutely true – but you >would have to establish it on other grounds.Ward:My point exactly. “If A, then B” does not imply “if not A, then not B.” But,this says nothing about whether “if not A, then B” is true or false, justthatthe truthfulness cannot be inferred from “if A, then B.”Thus, “if a woman prays or prophesies with her head covered, then she does not shame her head” may be either true or false. But, we cannotinfer it is true from 1 Cor 11:5. I raise this because it has often beenalleged that 1 Cor 11:5 appears to contradict 1 Cor 14:34-35. This isso,only if one assumes the negation to be true, then also assumes thatLALEIN in 1 Cor 14:34 includes the PROSEUCOMENH N PROQNTEUWN of 1 Cor 11:5.No, I am not saying the negation is true or false, just that it cannotandmust not be inferred from 11:5.>In any case, it is fair to say that in 1 Cor 11:5 Paul is dealing with >the situation where a woman IS engaging in prayer and prophesying. The >question of the relationship of this and what Paul says in 1 Cor14:34-35 about >a woman being silent in the assembly is a substantial issue, one uponwhich a>great deal of ink has been spilt (or computer printer toner used up),and>which of course goes outside the guidelines of , because it >does not just turn on questions of the Greek text.> >To mention, however, one facet of this which DOES turn upon the >question of Greek meanings: there is no conflict between these>two passages you mention if one takes LALEIN (twice occurring in>1 Cor 14:34-35) to have its normal meaning of “converse, chat>chatter”, and accepts that THIS is what Paul is forbidding, instead>of reading into LALEIN ideas of “preach” or “teach” in the assembly> – for which meaning there are numerous other Greek words, and>which Paul is not discussing in 1 Cor 14:34-35 and which he is >certainly not forbidding in his comments there.Yes, this is another plausible rebuttal of any necessary conflict between11:5 and 14:34-35. Either way, one must not infer the negation 11:5,thenuse this as the rudder for interpreting 14:34-35, as is so commonly done.Sincerely in Christ,Paul Dixon

 

Women in the ChurchA Question on Mathew 18.18

Women in the Church Paul S. Dixon dixonps at juno.com
Wed Aug 19 13:35:48 EDT 1998

 

Holy Spirit – “He” or “it?” Women in the Church On Wed, 19 Aug 1998 22:16:36 +1200 “Trevor and Margaret Nicholls”<tmjpbn at ihug.co.nz> writes:> >Paul Dixon wrote:>> In summary, there is a conflict between 1 Cor 11:5 and 1 Cor 14:34-45,>> only if one assumes the negation of 1 Cor 11:5. As you well know,>> the negation of a conditional is not a valid inference. “If A, then>> B” does not imply “if not A, then not B.” 1 Cor 11:5 says, “she who>> prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head.” >> This does not imply, as most usually erroneously infer, the negation:>> she who prays or prophesies with her head covered does not shame her>> head.> >At the risk of lapsing into symbolic logic and not Greek, IMHO Paul (D)>has oversimplified the construction of Paul (the Ap).>Note that his “A” is itself a compound (i.e. A = prays or prophesies and>not head covered). Better is> >if A and not B, then C> >where A = prays/prophecies> B = head covered> C = head shamed> >Now there are three possible converses>if A and B then not C ?? — this is Paul D’s only proposition>if not A and not B then not C ?? >if not A and not B then not C ??We are not talking about converses here, but negations.Using your notation, 1 Cor 11:5 may be denoted:If A and not B, then C.The negation usually inferred from this is:If A and B, then not C.The negation of the first statement (If A and not B, then C)is techically: if not (A and not B), then not C. This may appearas either:If A and B, then not C.If not A and not B, then not C, orIf not A and B, then not C.Any of the above three are negations of the original conditional,and may not be inferred from it.>Given that both B and C involve the head, the interpretation>which most of us “erroneously infer” is not so stupid, methinks.That B and C both involve the head has nothing to do with affirmingthe truthfulness of the negation.I would not call such a misinference “stupid,” just an oversight.If any wish to continue this discussion, we should probably do sooff-list.Paul Dixon_____________________________________________________________________You don’t need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.comOr call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

 

Holy Spirit – “He” or “it?”Women in the Church

Women in the Church CEP7 at aol.com CEP7 at aol.com
Wed Aug 19 14:03:06 EDT 1998

 

Holy Spirit – “He” or “it?” Women in the Church In a message dated 8/18/1998 5:54:25 PM, dixonps at juno.com writes:<<In summary, there is a conflict between 1 Cor 11:5 and 1 Cor 14:34-45,>>only if one assumes the negation of 1 Cor 11:5. As you well know,>>the negation of a conditional is not a valid inference. “If A, then>>B” does not imply “if not A, then not B.” 1 Cor 11:5 says, “she who>>prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head.” >>This does not imply, as most usually erroneously infer, the negation:>>she who prays or prophesies with her head covered does not shame her>>head.>>In a message dated 8/18/1998 5:54:25 PM, dixonps at juno.com writes:<<In summary, there is a conflict between 1 Cor 11:5 and 1 Cor 14:34-45,>>only if one assumes the negation of 1 Cor 11:5. As you well know,>>the negation of a conditional is not a valid inference. “If A, then>>B” does not imply “if not A, then not B.” 1 Cor 11:5 says, “she who>>prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head.” >>This does not imply, as most usually erroneously infer, the negation:>>she who prays or prophesies with her head covered does not shame her>>head.>>Recent literature on inferences has challenged the invalidity of assuming thenegative. In certain contexts a conditional is presented partially for thepurpose of inviting the negation. The examples from 1 Cor 7 and 15 and notparallel to 1 Cor 11:5 because the contexts deny the negations. First Cor 11:5seems to invite it. A parallel example would be: “If you mow the lawn, I’ll pay you $5.00.”invites the inference “if you don’t mow the lawn, I won’t pay you $5.00.” Nowthe speaker could pay the addressee for another reason but the context of thespeech at limits it to this circumstance,i.e., the only job underconsideration is mowing the lawn. I think both 1 Cor 11:5 and Matt 19:9 invitethe negations. On invited inferences see Geis, Michael L., and Arnold M.Zwicky. “On Invited Inferences.” Linguistic Inquiry 2 (1971): 561-66;Heringer, James Tromp. Some Grammatical Correlates of Felicity Conditions andPresuppositions. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1976.Charles PowellDTS

 

Holy Spirit – “He” or “it?”Women in the Church

Women in the Church Perry L. Stepp plstepp at flash.net
Wed Aug 19 13:45:34 EDT 1998

 

Women in the Church Holy Spirit – “He” or “it?” > From: Paul S. Dixon [mailto:dixonps at juno.com]> >Paul Dixon wrote:> >> In summary, there is a conflict between 1 Cor 11:5 and 1 Cor 14:34-45,> >> only if one assumes the negation of 1 Cor 11:5. As you well know,> >> the negation of a conditional is not a valid inference. “If A, then> >> B” does not imply “if not A, then not B.” 1 Cor 11:5 says, “she who> >> prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head.”> >> This does not imply, as most usually erroneously infer, the negation:> >> she who prays or prophesies with her head covered does not shame her> >> head.Not to be contentious or anything, . . .Your entire argument is specious. To accept your reading, we have to assumethat Paul wrote everything in specific syllogistic terms. In the end, it’sspecial pleading for the purpose of justifying your ideological position.And it has next to nothing to do with Greek. Get it out of my mailbox.PLStepp*****************************************************************Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TXPh.D. Candidate in Religion, Baylor University#1 Cowboy FanKeeper of the Top-10, news://alt.fan.lettermanIt is tremendous folly to put trashy people in positionsof trust and conspicuousness. –George Will, 6 August 1998*****************************************************************

 

Women in the ChurchHoly Spirit – “He” or “it?”

Logic (was: Women in the Church) John Baima jbaima at silvermnt.com
Wed Aug 19 16:33:59 EDT 1998

 

Concord of Gender and Number Concord of Gender and Number I don’t usually get involved in these discussions, especially when I havenot read all the posts. Anyway . . .If you have a sentence of the form if A then B, you can make 2 logicaldeductions from it depending if you know that the protasis is true or theapodosis is false. Thus, “if A is true, then B is true” and “If B is False,then A is False (modus tollens).” I believe that both of these are used inthe NT although the former is much more common.John BaimaSilver Mountain Software 1029 Tanglewood Dr, Cedar Hill TX 75104-3019 jbaima at silvermnt.com http://www.silvermnt.comFax 972 293-6641 Voice 972 293-2920

 

Concord of Gender and NumberConcord of Gender and Number

Women in the Church Paul S. Dixon dixonps at juno.com
Sun Aug 16 20:02:25 EDT 1998

 

Women in the Church Sources for study of amhn On Fri, 7 Aug 1998 22:45:43 -0400 thmann at juno.com (Theodore H. Mann)writes:>Greetings all:> >I have an off-list question I hope someone can answer for me.> >In 1 Cor.14:34ff, women are forbidden to speak in the churches. >However, 1 Cor. 11:5, it indicates that women prophesy. I assume this >prophecy occurs in a social setting of some kind. What is the >solution to this apparent contradiction? ( I’m sure there is really >no contradiction at all. ) Can anyone suggest a really good article >or publication dealing with the role of women in the church ( head >coverings, etc.)? I haven’t checked the archives. Is there anything >there? Many thanks.> >Best in Christ,> >Theodore “Ted” H. Mann>Orchard Lake, Michigan>thmann at juno.comTed:We made it back let last night from the family reunion in the Rockies inColorado. Found my mailbox was full – 300 pieces. People at churchtoday informed me their email had been returned due to the jammed box.Anyhow, am back and raring to go.Check out my website for an answer to your question. Read the articlethere entitled, “Negative Inference Fallacies: Mt 19:9, Acts 2:38 and1 Cor 11:5.” http://users.aol.com/dixonpsIn summary, there is a conflict between 1 Cor 11:5 and 1 Cor 14:34-45,only if one assumes the negation of 1 Cor 11:5. As you well know,the negation of a conditional is not a valid inference. “If A, thenB” does not imply “if not A, then not B.” 1 Cor 11:5 says, “she whoprays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head.” This does not imply, as most usually erroneously infer, the negation:she who prays or prophesies with her head covered does not shame herhead.Sincerely in Christ,Paul S. Dixon

 

Women in the ChurchSources for study of amhn

Women in the Church Jonathan Robie jonathan at texcel.no
Tue Aug 18 07:46:22 EDT 1998

 

Names for the Greek letters Women in the Church At 08:02 PM 8/16/98 EDT, Paul S. Dixon wrote:>In summary, there is a conflict between 1 Cor 11:5 and 1 Cor 14:34-45,>only if one assumes the negation of 1 Cor 11:5. As you well know,>the negation of a conditional is not a valid inference. “If A, then>B” does not imply “if not A, then not B.” 1 Cor 11:5 says, “she who>prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head.” >This does not imply, as most usually erroneously infer, the negation:>she who prays or prophesies with her head covered does not shame her>head. Are you saying that she who prays or prophesies shames her head regardlessof what she is wearing? If this were true, why wouldn’t Paul have mentionedsuch an important factor, instead of telling women what to wear whileshaming their head, letting them know that praying or prophesying withtheir heads uncovered shames their head, and somehow failing to mentionthat she who prays or prophesies shames her head regardless of what she iswearing?Treated as a formal logical syllogism, you are right, but if this werePaul’s belief, then the whole question of covering the head or uncoveringthe head is completely irrelevant and the passage is almost perverselymisleading. It would be like saying:”He who commits adultery without wearing a hat sins”.I can’t think of any biblical admonitions that take that form.Jonathan jonathan at texcel.noTexcel Researchhttp://www.texcel.no

 

Names for the Greek lettersWomen in the Church

Women in the Church Paul S. Dixon dixonps at juno.com
Tue Aug 18 13:49:25 EDT 1998

 

Women in the Church A Question on Mathew 18.18 On Tue, 18 Aug 1998 07:46:22 -0400 Jonathan Robie <jonathan at texcel.no>writes:>At 08:02 PM 8/16/98 EDT, Paul S. Dixon wrote:> >>In summary, there is a conflict between 1 Cor 11:5 and 1 Cor 14:34-45,>>only if one assumes the negation of 1 Cor 11:5. As you well know,>>the negation of a conditional is not a valid inference. “If A, then>>B” does not imply “if not A, then not B.” 1 Cor 11:5 says, “she who>>prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head.” >>This does not imply, as most usually erroneously infer, the negation:>>she who prays or prophesies with her head covered does not shame her>>head.> >Are you saying that she who prays or prophesies shames her head >regardless of what she is wearing? If this were true, why wouldn’t Paulhave >mentioned such an important factor, instead of telling women what towear >while shaming their head, letting them know that praying orprophesying with>their heads uncovered shames their head, and somehow failing to >mention that she who prays or prophesies shames her head regardless ofwhat >she is wearing?> >Treated as a formal logical syllogism, you are right, but if this were>Paul’s belief, then the whole question of covering the head oruncovering>the head is completely irrelevant and the passage is almost perversely>misleading. It would be like saying:> >“He who commits adultery without wearing a hat sins”.> >I can’t think of any biblical admonitions that take that form.Hi Jonathan. Long time no hear. You at least do acknowledge that thelogic is correct, though you do not seem to think the application ofsuchlogic here is warranted. Let me try to defend the application of thelogic,especially in light of your final statement, “I can’t think of anybiblicaladmonitions that take that form.”What Paul the Apostle seems to be doing in 1 Cor 11:5 ff is assuming forthe sake of argument that a woman prays or prophesies with her headuncovered. To do so was a shameful thing. But, what about the woman who prays or prophesies with her head covered? He makes no judgment hereas to whether doing so was right or wrong. Indeed, he is under noobligation to do so. Rather, his point is simply to point out that doingso with her head uncovered brings shame. We cannot and must not deducefrom this that Paul condones a woman praying or prophesying with her headcovered. He never says that, and we go too far to infer this intent,expecially if other portions of scripture seem to forbid it (1 Cor14:34-35, 1 Tim 2:12-13).This “assuming for the sake of argument without implying consent or condemnation” is typical of Paul. Are we to assume from 1 Cor 7:11,”but if she does leave” that Paul condones or approves of a womanleaving her husband? Heavens no! That has been strictly forbidden inthe preceding verse. So, we must not assume that this assumption forthe sake of argument in v. 11 implies Paul now condones it.Then consider all those assumptions for the sake of argument in 1 Cor 15where surely Paul must not be construed to be giving his assent:”if there is no resurrection of the dead” (v. 13), “if Christ has notbeenraised” (v. 14), etc.No, just because Paul or any other author considers the possibility ofeventA occurring in no way suggests or implies he approves or gives his assentto its occurrence. You might ask then, what is the point in 1 Cor 11:5ff. The most we candeduce for sure is this: a woman who prays or prophesies with her headuncovered shames her head. In other words, if she is going to do it,thenat least she should be sure to cover her head. But, whether she shoulddoit in the first place is not even dealt with here. It is not Paul’spoint. Rather,the point was the shamefulness incurred by the woman who did so uncovered. It is that simple. We must not go beyond the words ofScripture itself; nor should we go beyond the rules of logicalimplication.Two other parallels to such thinking, Jonathan, is identified in mypaper.”Negative Inference Fallacies: Acts 2:38, Mt 19:9, 1 Cor 11:5.”Paul S. Dixon

 

Women in the ChurchA Question on Mathew 18.18

Women in the Church Ward Powers bwpowers at eagles.bbs.net.au
Wed Aug 19 00:15:39 EDT 1998

 

Women in the Church Mt 12:6 My apologies for taking so long to respond – I have been absolutely flatout with getting the new semester under way at my college.><snip>> ><Bill>>>There is a textual issue with I Cor 14:34. It is either “epitetraptai” (“it>is allowed” in the perfect) or “epitepetai” (“is being allowed” in the>present) to speak. Both are indicative, but the latter suggests more>strongly that this is a local, contemporary prohibition.> >{Ward}>I must politely dissent. The verb is durative aspect, negated, which means>as an ongoing situation they are not permitted to do (whatever it is which>is being forbidden). There is no suggestion in such an expression that it in>any way indicates “a local, contemporary prohibition” and certainly not that>it indicates a prohibition restricted to one church or one time.> >{Bill}>Why does Paul say they are to be silent? Because it is being forbidden. The>choice of present tense suggests to me that this is not something that has>always been or always will be. An aorist would have made time irrelevant and>an perfect would have made it something done in the past effecting them now.Bill, it is not valid to suggest that the use of the present tenseindicates that something has not always been so and will not necessarilycontinue to be so, i.e. that it is temporary. This is not indicated norimplied by the use of the present. To the contrary, the present is usedwhere you are saying that something continues to be the case. There is noway that the use of the present tense can be pressed to derive from it thenotion that Paul is giving a “local, contemporary prohibition”. And as whathe is forbidding is disruptive behaviour in the assembly, conversing,chatting or even chattering, and possibly calling out questions about whatis being said during the teaching being given (for this is the meaning ofthis discussion, ISTM, in its context, which is “for God is not a God ofdisorder but of peace”), why would we think that such an admonition onPaul’s part was not intended by him to continue to apply? And in any case,we should note that he says expressly that what he is saying now to theCorinthians is applicable to them “as in all the churches of the saints”,14:33.> ><snip>>>Now, in Verse 35, Paul charges husbands to allow their wives to>EPERWTATWSAN (“interrogate”) them at home,> >{Ward}>This comment involves a reworking of the verse. What Paul says is not>addressed to husbands, to tell them to allow their wives to do anything:>EPERWTATWSAN is a present active imperative, 3rd plural, addressed to wives,>instructing them what they must do. And I am not sure what you have in mind>in your choice of “interrogate” as your translation for this verb:>BAGD gives its first and usual meaning as “ask (a question)”, and does not>even list “interrogate” as a translation for it.> >{Bill}>Vine’s says this about EPERWTATWSAN:> >“a strengthened form of EROTAO [which more frequently than AITEO suggests>that the petitioner is on a footing of equality or familiarity with the>person whom he requests] (epi, “in addition”), <snip> The more intensive>character of the “asking” may be observed in Luke 2:46; 3:14; 6:9, 17:20;>20:21, 27, 40; 22:64; 23:3, 6, 9. In Matt. 16:1, it virtually signifies to>demand (its meaning in later Greek). See DEMAND, DESIRE, QUESTION.The extent to which EPERWTAW may have a “strengthened” meaning needs to bedrawn from its context. You may note that Vine does not include 1 Cor 14:35amongst those verses where he considers that it has its “more intensivecharacter”. I would hold that it is not valid to press such a”strengthened” meaning upon it in this context. I refer you again to BAGDwhich gives its first and usual meaning as being simply to ask (a question). > >{Bill}>>because AISXRON (“censured”) it is for women to speak in the assembly.>AISXRON does not imply that it is actually shameful, but rather that there>is an external censuring (consult Vine’s).> >{Ward}>I have consulted BAGD, who give the meaning as “ugly, shameful, base,>disgraceful”, and do not refer to any concept of censure.> >{Bill}>AISCHUNO relates to a feeling of fear or shame which prevents a peson from>doing something, whereas AIDOS relates to moral repugnance. This has more to>do with embarassment then guilt, as in:> >Luke 16:3 Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my>lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed.The word in question in 1 Cor 14:35 is AISCROS; the meaning is that it isshameful for a woman to be disrupting the assembly with her conversing,chatting or chattering.>{Bill}>>Speaking to the husbands, Paul, shaming the husbands who have been like the>shepherds in Exodus 2:17, keeping the women from the Word, says, “the Word>didn’t come from you [it came through Mary?], or to you only it didn’t>arrive. [but to women as well]”.> > >{Ward}>I can see nothing in 14:36 to suggest that this was addressed to husbands as>distinct from the whole of the Corinthians (men and women together).> > >{Bill}>Not even that the wives are to “strongly ask” their own husbands in their>homes [about the Word]?ISTM that this interpretation is eisegesis, reading in a meaning asdistinct from taking out the meaning of what the passage is saying. Thepassage does not say or indicate that Paul is addressing the husbands inverse 35, nor that it is the husbands whom the women are shaming. And”strongly ask” is not a translation of EPERWTAW which is required orappropriate in this context.>>So, the bottom line is: If you prevent women from talking in Church, they>must submit, but husbands, at least let them ask their questions at home.>The Word is for them as well.Thank you for sharing your understanding of the verse with us. For thereasons I have given, it is not an interpretation I can accept, and seemsto me to involve quite a degree of eisegesis. Rather, I see the passage assaying that Paul is concerned with another area in which the assembly ofthe church is experiencing a measure of disruption/disorder (14:33a), thatwhat he says to the Corinthians is in line with what is done in the otherchurches (14:33b), that the women are not to LALEW (“speak” in its normalsense of converse, chat, chatter) but to be silent in the assembly, fortheir conversing during the assembly is not permitted, and they are tosubmit to this requirement (14:34). Whatever it is they wish to learn, theright thing for them to do is to ask their own husbands about it when theyget home – for their speaking (LALEW again – conversing, chatting) duringthe assembly is shameful (14:35).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.

 

Women in the ChurchMt 12:6

Women in the Church Ward Powers bwpowers at eagles.bbs.net.au
Wed Aug 19 01:21:07 EDT 1998

 

PORNEIA in Matt. 5, 19 = Lev. 18? Women in the Church At 20:02 98/08/16 EDT, Paul S. Dixon wrote, in response to an enquiry fromTed Mann about 1 Cor 11:5:>Check out my website for an answer to your question. Read the article>there entitled, “Negative Inference Fallacies: Mt 19:9, Acts 2:38 and>1 Cor 11:5.” > >http://users.aol.com/dixonps> >In summary, there is a conflict between 1 Cor 11:5 and 1 Cor 14:34-45,>only if one assumes the negation of 1 Cor 11:5. As you well know,>the negation of a conditional is not a valid inference. “If A, then>B” does not imply “if not A, then not B.” 1 Cor 11:5 says, “she who>prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head.” >This does not imply, as most usually erroneously infer, the negation:>she who prays or prophesies with her head covered does not shame her>head.> >Sincerely in Christ,>Paul S. DixonPaul, it is indeed true that the valid negation of a statement cannot bedrawn by turning it the other way round. But this does not mean that thatsecond statement is then false – only that it does not automatically andlogically follow from the previous statement. This is important to realize.This means, as you point out, that the statement in 1 Cor 11:5 does notnecessarily mean that “she who prays or prophesies with her head covereddoes not shame her head”. True, indeed. But the fact that such animplication cannot validly be drawn from a reversal of the first statementDOES NOT MEAN that that second statement is therefore necessarily false. Itonly means that you cannot establish it on the basis of the firststatement. That second statement may be absolutely true – but you wouldhave to establish it on other grounds.In any case, it is fair to say that in 1 Cor 11:5 Paul is dealing with thesituation where a woman IS engaging in prayer and prophesying. The questionof the relationship of this and what Paul says in 1 Cor 14:34-35 about awoman being silent in the assembly is a substantial issue, one upon which agreat deal of ink has been spilt (or computer printer toner used up), andwhich of course goes outside the guidelines of , because it does notjust turn on questions of the Greek text.To mention, however, one facet of this which DOES turn upon the question ofGreek meanings: there is no conflict between these two passages you mentionif one takes LALEIN (twice occurring in 1 Cor 14:34-35) to have its normalmeaning of “converse, chat chatter”, and accepts that THIS is what Paul isforbidding, instead of reading into LALEIN ideas of “preach” or “teach” inthe assembly – for which meaning there are numerous other Greek words, andwhich Paul is not discussing in 1 Cor 14:34-35 and which he is certainlynot forbidding in his comments there.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.

 

PORNEIA in Matt. 5, 19 = Lev. 18?Women in the Church

Women in the Church Trevor and Margaret Nicholls tmjpbn at ihug.co.nz
Wed Aug 19 06:16:36 EDT 1998

 

A Question on Mathew 18.18 Holy Spirit – “He” or “it?” Paul Dixon wrote:> In summary, there is a conflict between 1 Cor 11:5 and 1 Cor 14:34-45,> only if one assumes the negation of 1 Cor 11:5. As you well know,> the negation of a conditional is not a valid inference. “If A, then> B” does not imply “if not A, then not B.” 1 Cor 11:5 says, “she who> prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head.” > This does not imply, as most usually erroneously infer, the negation:> she who prays or prophesies with her head covered does not shame her> head.At the risk of lapsing into symbolic logic and not Greek, IMHO Paul (D)has oversimplified the construction of Paul (the Ap).Note that his “A” is itself a compound (i.e. A = prays or prophesies andnot head covered). Better isif A and not B, then Cwhere A = prays/prophecies B = head covered C = head shamedNow there are three possible conversesif A and B then not C ?? — this is Paul D’s only propositionif not A and not B then not C ?? if not A and not B then not C ??Given that both B and C involve the head, the interpretationwhich most of us “erroneously infer” is not so stupid, methinks.> > Sincerely in Christ,> > Paul S. DixonRegardsTrevor Nichollstmjpbn at ihug.co.nz

 

A Question on Mathew 18.18Holy Spirit – “He” or “it?”

Women in the Church Paul S. Dixon dixonps at juno.com
Wed Aug 19 13:35:48 EDT 1998

 

Women in the Church A Question on Mathew 18.18 On Wed, 19 Aug 1998 15:21:07 +1000 Ward Powers<bwpowers at eagles.bbs.net.au> writes:>At 20:02 98/08/16 EDT, Paul S. Dixon wrote, in response to an enquiry >from Ted Mann about 1 Cor 11:5:> >>Check out my website for an answer to your question. Read the article>>there entitled, “Negative Inference Fallacies: Mt 19:9, Acts 2:38 and>>1 Cor 11:5.” >> >>http://users.aol.com/dixonps>> >>In summary, there is a conflict between 1 Cor 11:5 and 1 Cor 14:34-45,>>only if one assumes the negation of 1 Cor 11:5. As you well know,>>the negation of a conditional is not a valid inference. “If A, then>>B” does not imply “if not A, then not B.” 1 Cor 11:5 says, “she who>>prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head.” >>This does not imply, as most usually erroneously infer, the negation:>>she who prays or prophesies with her head covered does not shame her>>head.>> >>Sincerely in Christ,> >>Paul S. Dixon> >Paul, it is indeed true that the valid negation of a statement cannot >be drawn by turning it the other way round. But this does not mean that >that second statement is then false – only that it does notautomatically >and logically follow from the previous statement. This is important to >realize.> >This means, as you point out, that the statement in 1 Cor 11:5 does >not necessarily mean that “she who prays or prophesies with her head >covered does not shame her head”. True, indeed. But the fact that suchan>implication cannot validly be drawn from a reversal of the firststatement>DOES NOT MEAN that that second statement is therefore necessarily >false. It only means that you cannot establish it on the basis of thefirst>statement. That second statement may be absolutely true – but you >would have to establish it on other grounds.Ward:My point exactly. “If A, then B” does not imply “if not A, then not B.” But,this says nothing about whether “if not A, then B” is true or false, justthatthe truthfulness cannot be inferred from “if A, then B.”Thus, “if a woman prays or prophesies with her head covered, then she does not shame her head” may be either true or false. But, we cannotinfer it is true from 1 Cor 11:5. I raise this because it has often beenalleged that 1 Cor 11:5 appears to contradict 1 Cor 14:34-35. This isso,only if one assumes the negation to be true, then also assumes thatLALEIN in 1 Cor 14:34 includes the PROSEUCOMENH N PROQNTEUWN of 1 Cor 11:5.No, I am not saying the negation is true or false, just that it cannotandmust not be inferred from 11:5.>In any case, it is fair to say that in 1 Cor 11:5 Paul is dealing with >the situation where a woman IS engaging in prayer and prophesying. The >question of the relationship of this and what Paul says in 1 Cor14:34-35 about >a woman being silent in the assembly is a substantial issue, one uponwhich a>great deal of ink has been spilt (or computer printer toner used up),and>which of course goes outside the guidelines of , because it >does not just turn on questions of the Greek text.> >To mention, however, one facet of this which DOES turn upon the >question of Greek meanings: there is no conflict between these>two passages you mention if one takes LALEIN (twice occurring in>1 Cor 14:34-35) to have its normal meaning of “converse, chat>chatter”, and accepts that THIS is what Paul is forbidding, instead>of reading into LALEIN ideas of “preach” or “teach” in the assembly> – for which meaning there are numerous other Greek words, and>which Paul is not discussing in 1 Cor 14:34-35 and which he is >certainly not forbidding in his comments there.Yes, this is another plausible rebuttal of any necessary conflict between11:5 and 14:34-35. Either way, one must not infer the negation 11:5,thenuse this as the rudder for interpreting 14:34-35, as is so commonly done.Sincerely in Christ,Paul Dixon

 

Women in the ChurchA Question on Mathew 18.18

!!! STOP !!! Women in the Church Jonathan Robie jonathan at texcel.no
Wed Aug 19 20:01:31 EDT 1998

 

the sense of APOLEIA Hebrews 2:13 ESOMAI PEPOIQWS Enough, please. Let’s stick to Greek and let some other mailing list dealwith questions of formal logic and its relationship to natural languagereasoning.Jonathan___________________________________________________________________________Jonathan Robiejwrobie at mindspring.comLittle Greek Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koineLittle Greek 101: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koine/greek/lessons Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/ Archives: http://sunsite.unc.edu//archives

 

the sense of APOLEIAHebrews 2:13 ESOMAI PEPOIQWS

Women in the Church Ward Powers bwpowers at eagles.bbs.net.au
Sat Aug 22 07:45:02 EDT 1998

 

A Question on Mathew 18.18 Present tense copulative verbs At 06:44 98/08/19 -0400, Henry Carmichael wrote:>Date sent: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 15:21:07 +1000>To: dixonps at juno.com (Paul S. Dixon)>From: Ward Powers <bwpowers at eagles.bbs.net.au>>Subject: Re: Women in the Church>Copies to: Biblical Greek < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>,> >>> To mention, however, one facet of this which DOES turn upon the question>> of Greek meanings: there is no conflict between these two passages you>> mention if one takes LALEIN (twice occurring in 1 Cor 14:34-35) to have>> its normal meaning of “converse, chat chatter”, and accepts that THIS is>> what Paul is forbidding, instead of reading into LALEIN ideas of “preach”>> or “teach” in the assembly – for which meaning there are numerous other>> Greek words, and which Paul is not discussing in 1 Cor 14:34-35 and which>> he is certainly not forbidding in his comments there.> >But LALEIN is used throughout chapter 14 – unless we are to say >that Paul has the saints “conversing in a tongue”, or that the >prophets are “conversing two or three.” Or are we to look past the >context of the chapter as a whole? > >In His service>Henry Carmichael> Henry:Yup. True ’nuff. LALEW occurs quite a few times in the rest of chapter 14,and in Paul’s writings and the GNT generally. Almost 300 times, all up.I am not saying that in every one of these occurrences you can translate itby “converse” (or “chat” or “chatter”). But I am saying that the centralcore idea for the word is that of making an audible utterance with one’smouth, and that this is where the emphasis lies, and that the idea ofinformal (as distinct from formal) utterance is usually present as well.You may be aware that there are interpreters who see the LALEW referencesof 14:34-35 as continuing the previous usage of the word, and thuscontinuing to refer to speaking in tongues – this then being what the womenare forbidden to do (on this interpretation). After examining the chaptercarefully, I cannot accept this understanding of the meaning of LALEW inthis context. I would hold that in the other occurrences of LALEW in thischapter, the reference in each case is to verbal utterance in an informalmanner, with a more precise degree of meaning to be drawn in relation tothe context of each use. In the verses we are looking at, I aver that theimmediate context indicates that LALEW is best taken (as previouslyindicated) as being to women conversing and/or calling out questions in theassembly, while Paul is saying they should discuss these questions withtheir husbands at home.Regards,Ward Rev 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.

 

A Question on Mathew 18.18Present tense copulative verbs

Women in the Church Paul S. Dixon dixonps at juno.com
Wed Aug 19 13:35:48 EDT 1998

 

Holy Spirit – “He” or “it?” Women in the Church On Wed, 19 Aug 1998 22:16:36 +1200 “Trevor and Margaret Nicholls”<tmjpbn at ihug.co.nz> writes:> >Paul Dixon wrote:>> In summary, there is a conflict between 1 Cor 11:5 and 1 Cor 14:34-45,>> only if one assumes the negation of 1 Cor 11:5. As you well know,>> the negation of a conditional is not a valid inference. “If A, then>> B” does not imply “if not A, then not B.” 1 Cor 11:5 says, “she who>> prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head.” >> This does not imply, as most usually erroneously infer, the negation:>> she who prays or prophesies with her head covered does not shame her>> head.> >At the risk of lapsing into symbolic logic and not Greek, IMHO Paul (D)>has oversimplified the construction of Paul (the Ap).>Note that his “A” is itself a compound (i.e. A = prays or prophesies and>not head covered). Better is> >if A and not B, then C> >where A = prays/prophecies> B = head covered> C = head shamed> >Now there are three possible converses>if A and B then not C ?? — this is Paul D’s only proposition>if not A and not B then not C ?? >if not A and not B then not C ??We are not talking about converses here, but negations.Using your notation, 1 Cor 11:5 may be denoted:If A and not B, then C.The negation usually inferred from this is:If A and B, then not C.The negation of the first statement (If A and not B, then C)is techically: if not (A and not B), then not C. This may appearas either:If A and B, then not C.If not A and not B, then not C, orIf not A and B, then not C.Any of the above three are negations of the original conditional,and may not be inferred from it.>Given that both B and C involve the head, the interpretation>which most of us “erroneously infer” is not so stupid, methinks.That B and C both involve the head has nothing to do with affirmingthe truthfulness of the negation.I would not call such a misinference “stupid,” just an oversight.If any wish to continue this discussion, we should probably do sooff-list.Paul Dixon_____________________________________________________________________You don’t need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.comOr call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

 

Holy Spirit – “He” or “it?”Women in the Church

Women in the Church CEP7 at aol.com CEP7 at aol.com
Wed Aug 19 14:03:06 EDT 1998

 

Holy Spirit – “He” or “it?” Women in the Church In a message dated 8/18/1998 5:54:25 PM, dixonps at juno.com writes:<<In summary, there is a conflict between 1 Cor 11:5 and 1 Cor 14:34-45,>>only if one assumes the negation of 1 Cor 11:5. As you well know,>>the negation of a conditional is not a valid inference. “If A, then>>B” does not imply “if not A, then not B.” 1 Cor 11:5 says, “she who>>prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head.” >>This does not imply, as most usually erroneously infer, the negation:>>she who prays or prophesies with her head covered does not shame her>>head.>>In a message dated 8/18/1998 5:54:25 PM, dixonps at juno.com writes:<<In summary, there is a conflict between 1 Cor 11:5 and 1 Cor 14:34-45,>>only if one assumes the negation of 1 Cor 11:5. As you well know,>>the negation of a conditional is not a valid inference. “If A, then>>B” does not imply “if not A, then not B.” 1 Cor 11:5 says, “she who>>prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head.” >>This does not imply, as most usually erroneously infer, the negation:>>she who prays or prophesies with her head covered does not shame her>>head.>>Recent literature on inferences has challenged the invalidity of assuming thenegative. In certain contexts a conditional is presented partially for thepurpose of inviting the negation. The examples from 1 Cor 7 and 15 and notparallel to 1 Cor 11:5 because the contexts deny the negations. First Cor 11:5seems to invite it. A parallel example would be: “If you mow the lawn, I’ll pay you $5.00.”invites the inference “if you don’t mow the lawn, I won’t pay you $5.00.” Nowthe speaker could pay the addressee for another reason but the context of thespeech at limits it to this circumstance,i.e., the only job underconsideration is mowing the lawn. I think both 1 Cor 11:5 and Matt 19:9 invitethe negations. On invited inferences see Geis, Michael L., and Arnold M.Zwicky. “On Invited Inferences.” Linguistic Inquiry 2 (1971): 561-66;Heringer, James Tromp. Some Grammatical Correlates of Felicity Conditions andPresuppositions. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1976.Charles PowellDTS

 

Holy Spirit – “He” or “it?”Women in the Church

Women in the Church Perry L. Stepp plstepp at flash.net
Wed Aug 19 13:45:34 EDT 1998

 

Women in the Church Holy Spirit – “He” or “it?” > From: Paul S. Dixon [mailto:dixonps at juno.com]> >Paul Dixon wrote:> >> In summary, there is a conflict between 1 Cor 11:5 and 1 Cor 14:34-45,> >> only if one assumes the negation of 1 Cor 11:5. As you well know,> >> the negation of a conditional is not a valid inference. “If A, then> >> B” does not imply “if not A, then not B.” 1 Cor 11:5 says, “she who> >> prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head.”> >> This does not imply, as most usually erroneously infer, the negation:> >> she who prays or prophesies with her head covered does not shame her> >> head.Not to be contentious or anything, . . .Your entire argument is specious. To accept your reading, we have to assumethat Paul wrote everything in specific syllogistic terms. In the end, it’sspecial pleading for the purpose of justifying your ideological position.And it has next to nothing to do with Greek. Get it out of my mailbox.PLStepp*****************************************************************Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TXPh.D. Candidate in Religion, Baylor University#1 Cowboy FanKeeper of the Top-10, news://alt.fan.lettermanIt is tremendous folly to put trashy people in positionsof trust and conspicuousness. –George Will, 6 August 1998*****************************************************************

 

Women in the ChurchHoly Spirit – “He” or “it?”

Women in the Church Perry L. Stepp plstepp at flash.net
Wed Aug 19 14:16:10 EDT 1998

 

Women in the Church Concord of Gender and Number Someone just slapped me around (properly) for my last post.> To the contrary: until this discurteous “get it out of my> mailbox” comment, the discussion was (to my view) entirely> concerned with how the Greek text is to be understood.My apologies for the harshness of my statement. Let me amend it: thediscussion as it stands is about interpretation and hermeneutics and hasnext to nothing to do with *Greek*, the central issue on the list.As such, it does not belong on the list, and (IMNSHO) should be takenelsewhere.Not that I’m the arbiter of such things, you understand . . .Perry L. Stepp*****************************************************************Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TXPh.D. Candidate in Religion, Baylor University#1 Cowboy FanKeeper of the Top-10, news://alt.fan.lettermanIt is tremendous folly to put trashy people in positionsof trust and conspicuousness. –George Will, 6 August 1998*****************************************************************

 

Women in the ChurchConcord of Gender and Number

Logic (was: Women in the Church) John Baima jbaima at silvermnt.com
Wed Aug 19 16:33:59 EDT 1998

 

Concord of Gender and Number Concord of Gender and Number I don’t usually get involved in these discussions, especially when I havenot read all the posts. Anyway . . .If you have a sentence of the form if A then B, you can make 2 logicaldeductions from it depending if you know that the protasis is true or theapodosis is false. Thus, “if A is true, then B is true” and “If B is False,then A is False (modus tollens).” I believe that both of these are used inthe NT although the former is much more common.John BaimaSilver Mountain Software 1029 Tanglewood Dr, Cedar Hill TX 75104-3019 jbaima at silvermnt.com http://www.silvermnt.comFax 972 293-6641 Voice 972 293-2920

 

Concord of Gender and NumberConcord of Gender and Number

!!! STOP !!! Women in the Church Jonathan Robie jonathan at texcel.no
Wed Aug 19 20:01:31 EDT 1998

 

the sense of APOLEIA Hebrews 2:13 ESOMAI PEPOIQWS Enough, please. Let’s stick to Greek and let some other mailing list dealwith questions of formal logic and its relationship to natural languagereasoning.Jonathan___________________________________________________________________________Jonathan Robiejwrobie at mindspring.comLittle Greek Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koineLittle Greek 101: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koine/greek/lessons Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/ Archives: http://sunsite.unc.edu//archives

 

the sense of APOLEIAHebrews 2:13 ESOMAI PEPOIQWS

Women in the Church Ward Powers bwpowers at eagles.bbs.net.au
Tue Aug 11 10:38:52 EDT 1998

 

Gal 4:14 Women in the Church At 22:45 98/08/07 -0400, Theodore H. Mann wrote:>Greetings all:> >I have an off-list question I hope someone can answer for me.> >In 1 Cor.14:34ff, women are forbidden to speak in the churches. However,>1 Cor. 11:5, it indicates that women prophesy. I assume this prophecy>occurs in a social setting of some kind. What is the solution to this>apparent contradiction? ( I’m sure there is really no contradiction at>all. ) Ted,Let me venture a comment or two which involves the question of Greek usage,and therefore legitimately can be given on-list.In 1 Cor 14:34-35 what Paul forbids is for women to LALEW in church. IfPaul were intending (as he is most frequently taken to be intending) to beforbidding women to communicate information, by way of teaching orpreaching or similar, he had available to him in Greek (and he useselsewhere) a vocabulary of about a dozen suitable words, from specificwords such as DIDASKW, KHRUSSW, PROFHTEUW, through the range of ANGELLWwords and compunds, to FASKW, FHMI, EIPEIN, and simply LEGW. All of thesewords have in common that they refer, specifically or generally, in one wayor another, to the concept of conveying information. Paul did not use anyof them when referring to what women are not to do in church.There is another word in Greek which refers to the fact or act of speakingwithout necessary reference to the content of what was said. This word isLALEW. This verb simply involves verbal utterance – it is what “the mouthspeaks” (Mt 12:34), the act of uttering words. Thus whenever the NT refersto a person who has been dumb as now being able to speak, the word used isalways LALEW (Mt 9:33; 12:22; 15:31; Mk 7:37; Lk 11:14). What that personsays is irrelevant, of course: what matters is the fact that he speaks at all.Similarly, LALEW is the normal word used for when people engage in informalconversation: it refers simply to talking, especially in the sense ofconversing, or chatting, or even chattering or babbling. On some occasionsLALEW is used of Jesus teaching people (e.g., Mt 13:3), but on suchoccasions the central idea conveyed is that of engaging in oralcommunication, of being heard; and usually the idea of informal utteranceis also present.In my judgement it is significant that when Paul says in 1 Cor 14:34-35that women are not permitted to speak in church, he does not use any of thewords that mean to teach or preach or communicate a message. He does noteven use one of the ordinary Greek words for “speak” which refer to theconveying of meaningful content (LEGW, FHMI, EIPEIN). The word Paul uses(twice, once each in 14:34 and 14:35) is LALEW – which is a VERY ambiguousand inconclusive word to use if “preach/teach/communicate information tothe congregation” is the meaning to be conveyed.The background context in which this passage is found is one that isdealing with the question of good order in the congregation. The (correct)alternative to whatever it is which the women are doing in the congregationis to ask their husbands their questions at home. This would suggest thatwhat they were doing was breaching good order in the congregation bytalking amongst themselves or asking questions of their husbands during theassembly. (Men and women sat separately in the assembly.)>Can anyone suggest a really good article or publication dealing>with the role of women in the church ( head coverings, etc.)? My comments above are drawn from Chapter 3, “Women Speaking in Church”, ofmy book “The Ministry of Women in the Church” (SPCK Australia, 1996, ISBN1-876106-05-0). Chapter 4 of this book deals with 1 Corinthians 11 andheadcoverings, headship, etc. Other chapters discuss other passages ofScripture considered relevant to the topic. It is not for the author tocomment on whether this book comes into the category of “good article orpublication”. But it does deal in some detail with all the Scripturestouching on the issue, examining the different interpretations which arefound in the church, and suggesting which interpretation most fully doesjustice (in the judgement of the author) to biblical teaching. (If the bookis not readily available locally, I can forward a copy postfree for $US15,paid into a US bank account.)>I haven’t>checked the archives. Is there anything there? Many thanks.> >Best in Christ,> >Theodore “Ted” H. Mann>Orchard Lake, Michigan>thmann at juno.comRegards,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.

 

Gal 4:14Women in the Church

Women in the Church Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com
Thu Aug 13 12:37:08 EDT 1998

 

“Mounce” Greek font Women in the Church *** warning *** Translation, textual and interpretation intermingled below!{Bill}>* we’ve silenced our women in Church and now they are protesting{Ward}Now I cannot find any way in which you can attribute saying this (oranything like it) to the Corinthians. Bill, am I overlooking something?{Bill}I am referring to the fact that Paul says “*your* women/wives in thechurches be silent, for it is not being entrusted for them [your women] tospeak”>So Paul clarifies that:<snip><Bill>>There is a textual issue with I Cor 14:34. It is either “epitetraptai” (“itis allowed” in the perfect) or “epitepetai” (“is being allowed” in thepresent) to speak. Both are indicative, but the latter suggests morestrongly that this is a local, contemporary prohibition.{Ward}I must politely dissent. The verb is durative aspect, negated, which meansas an ongoing situation they are not permitted to do (whatever it is whichis being forbidden). There is no suggestion in such an expression that it inany way indicates “a local, contemporary prohibition” and certainly not thatit indicates a prohibition restricted to one church or one time.{Bill}Why does Paul say they are to be silent? Because it is being forbidden. Thechoice of present tense suggests to me that this is not something that hasalways been or always will be. An aorist would have made time irrelevant andan perfect would have made it something done in the past effecting them now.{Bill}>If so, this might be an admonition to the women to submit to the ordinance,rather than an affirmation of the correctness of the ordinance.{Ward}I cannot at all agree that this follows.{Bill}>This is further compounded by the textual issue of “hupotassesthai” (“to bein subjection” in the infinitive) vs. (“let them be subject” in theimperative). The infinitive seems to contrast “speaking” with “subjection”,which doesn’t seem proper to me, whereas the imperative seems to contrastcivil disobedience with subjection.{Ward}I cannot understand this point at all. My UBS GNT at 1 Cor 14:34 hashUPOTASSESQWSAN, which is present passive imperative, 3rd plural, “let them(or, they must) be in subjection/be subordinate”. No alternate reading ofan infinitive is given in the apparatus. You may care to clarify your pointhere.{Bill}Textus Receptus has hUPOTASSESQAI.<snip>>Now, in Verse 35, Paul charges husbands to allow their wives toEPERWTATWSAN (“interrogate”) them at home,{Ward}This comment involves a reworking of the verse. What Paul says is notaddressed to husbands, to tell them to allow their wives to do anything:EPERWTATWSAN is a present active imperative, 3rd plural, addressed to wives,instructing them what they must do. And I am not sure what you have in mindin your choice of “interrogate” as your translation for this verb:BAGD gives its first and usual meaning as “ask (a question)”, and does noteven list “interrogate” as a translation for it.{Bill}Vine’s says this about EPERWTATWSAN:”a strengthened form of EROTAO [which more frequently than AITEO suggeststhat the petitioner is on a footing of equality or familiarity with theperson whom he requests] (epi, “in addition”), <snip> The more intensivecharacter of the “asking” may be observed in Luke 2:46; 3:14; 6:9, 17:20;20:21, 27, 40; 22:64; 23:3, 6, 9. In Matt. 16:1, it virtually signifies todemand (its meaning in later Greek). See DEMAND, DESIRE, QUESTION.{Bill}>because AISXRON (“censured”) it is for women to speak in the assembly.AISXRON does not imply that it is actually shameful, but rather that thereis an external censuring (consult Vine’s).{Ward}I have consulted BAGD, who give the meaning as “ugly, shameful, base,disgraceful”, and do not refer to any concept of censure.{Bill}AISCHUNO relates to a feeling of fear or shame which prevents a peson fromdoing something, whereas AIDOS relates to moral repugnance. This has more todo with embarassment then guilt, as in:Luke 16:3 Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for mylord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed.{Bill}>Speaking to the husbands, Paul, shaming the husbands who have been like theshepherds in Exodus 2:17, keeping the women from the Word, says, “the Worddidn’t come from you [it came through Mary?], or to you only it didn’tarrive. [but to women as well]”.{Ward}I can see nothing in 14:36 to suggest that this was addressed to husbands asdistinct from the whole of the Corinthians (men and women together).{Bill}Not even that the wives are to “strongly ask” their own husbands in theirhomes [about the Word]?>So, the bottom line is: If you prevent women from talking in Church, theymust submit, but husbands, at least let them ask their questions at home.The Word is for them as well.

 

“Mounce” Greek fontWomen in the Church

Women in the Church Perry L. Stepp plstepp at flash.net
Wed Aug 19 14:16:10 EDT 1998

 

Women in the Church Concord of Gender and Number Someone just slapped me around (properly) for my last post.> To the contrary: until this discurteous “get it out of my> mailbox” comment, the discussion was (to my view) entirely> concerned with how the Greek text is to be understood.My apologies for the harshness of my statement. Let me amend it: thediscussion as it stands is about interpretation and hermeneutics and hasnext to nothing to do with *Greek*, the central issue on the list.As such, it does not belong on the list, and (IMNSHO) should be takenelsewhere.Not that I’m the arbiter of such things, you understand . . .Perry L. Stepp*****************************************************************Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TXPh.D. Candidate in Religion, Baylor University#1 Cowboy FanKeeper of the Top-10, news://alt.fan.lettermanIt is tremendous folly to put trashy people in positionsof trust and conspicuousness. –George Will, 6 August 1998*****************************************************************

 

Women in the ChurchConcord of Gender and Number

Women in the Church Ward Powers bwpowers at eagles.bbs.net.au
Wed Aug 12 22:35:05 EDT 1998

 

Women in the Church Women in the Church At 23:55 98/08/11 +0800, Jeffrey L. Shelton wrote:>Greetings all:>see various comments marked with #### below:> >[SNIP]> >#### In 1 Tim 2:12 Paul does in fact use DIDASKW to speak of what women are>not to do.The context of this verse is the situation affecting, and the question ofthe relationship between, husband and wife within the home-and-familysituation. As a careful assessment of the context will show (especiallywith reference to the Greek), there is nothing in 1 Tim 2 which points tothis passage as referring to what may (or may not) be done in the assembly.What is under consideration by Paul is the outworking of the husband’sheadship in the marriage relationship, not what is done in the Christianassembly. In this passage (1 Tim 2:8-15) ANHR and GUNH should be translated”husband” and “wife”, as in the parallel passage 1 Peter 3:1-7.>>There is another word in Greek which refers to the fact or act of speaking>>without necessary reference to the content of what was said. This word is>>LALEW. This verb simply involves verbal utterance – it is what “the mouth>>speaks” (Mt 12:34), the act of uttering words. Thus whenever the NT refers>>to a person who has been dumb as now being able to speak, the word used is>>always LALEW (Mt 9:33; 12:22; 15:31; Mk 7:37; Lk 11:14). What that person>>says is irrelevant, of course: what matters is the fact that he speaks at>all.> > >#### Does the fact that he used the generic LALEW not in fact mean, as you>have pointed out, that they are not to speak at all, no matter what the>purpose of the speech may be? In addition to this I might add that in Acts>5:20 LALEW is used in connection with speaking the word of life. In Acts>11:15 concerning Peter speaking to Cornelius “words by which he might be>saved” it is said that “as he began to LALEW [those words]” In Acts 4:29:>LALEW is likewise used in Peter’s prayer that he be able to LALEW the>[Lord’s] word.As I pointed out earlier, LALEW is also used in reference to Jesus teaching(i.e., Mt 13:3). All these occasions (including those of Acts, quoted) aregeneral references to the fact of speaking. The nearest of any use of LALEWto a formal address would be Acts 5:20. When a general word like LALEW isused in a context, that context will indicate the scope of its meaning inthat context. In 1 Cor 14:34-35 the alternative which Paul tells them tofollow – to ask their questions of their own husbands at home – indicatesthat the activity of LALEW in which they were engaging was to talk to theirneighbours (or possibly, even, their husbands) in the assembly. Thiscontext indicates that that is what they are not to do in the assembly.Therefore I would not take this verse as being (or as intended to be) arestriction upon women joining in the singing in the assembly, or prayingin the assembly (as in 1 Cor 14:26; Ephesians 5:19; 1 Cor 11:5).>#### Your fellow servant>Jeffrey L. Shelton>President, Cebu Bible College>Cebu, PhilippinesAnd my best 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.

 

Women in the ChurchWomen in the Church

Women in the Church Phillip J. Long plong at gbcol.edu
Tue Aug 11 13:26:24 EDT 1998

 

Raymond Brown The meaning of hAPLOTHS in Romans 12:8 On Tue, 11 Aug 1998 11:15:00 -0500, you wrote:>{Philip}>I guess the question I have here is if OU modifies LALIEN. I thought it>went with EPITREPETAI, thus it would read “women should not be permited”> >{Bill}>Where is the “should not”? It is indicative, not imperative or subjunctive.I was following the NIV there, but the NIV is not alone in thistranslation. The RSV and the NLT are the same, The KJV and theASV/NASB have “let your women keep silent….” Why might this be?While the verb EPITREPETAI is indicative, it is also a passive.Passives can be permissive/causitive, although that is rare andusually limited to imperitives. Another option is to take the indicative as a “potential indicative.”Verbs of obligation, wish, or desire followed by an infinitive willhave a “potential” meaning even when in the indicative. I am readingfrom Daniel Wallace’s grammar, page 451-452, see also Brooks andWinbery 115ff.A third option is to take this in an impersonal sense, “it is notpermitted for women to speak.” (Fee, 706, Persbacher’s Grammar)This opens up an interesting interpretation since you have a passivewithout an obvious agent. One might take the implied agent as God, oras Paul, or as “the rules of the church”, etc.>There is a textual issue with I Cor 14:34. It is either “epitetraptai” (“it>is allowed” in the perfect) or “epitepetai” (“is being allowed” in the>present) to speak. You are right, the TR (and therefore the Majority text) has perfect.The textaul evidence is pretty thin for the perfect though.>Both are indicative, but the latter suggests more>strongly that this is a local, contemporary prohibition. If so, this might>be an admonition to the women to submit to the ordinance, rather than an>affirmation of the correctness of the ordinance.Are you also aware that some take this command to be non-pauline,Fee’s commentary mentions this in some detail. Fee seems also to takethe “to speak” as refering to tongues, not all forms of speaking /teaching, etc. Thomas Schreiner examines the argument that epitrepw only relates tospecific situations in _Women in the Church_ (GR:Baker Books, 1995),126. Ultimately he reject the idea that epitrepw can *only* be usedof specific situations.Phillip J. LongAsst. Prof. Bible & GreekGrace Bible College

 

Raymond BrownThe meaning of hAPLOTHS in Romans 12:8

Women in the Church Perry L. Stepp plstepp at flash.net
Tue Aug 11 11:39:58 EDT 1998

 

Women in the Church Gal 4:14 > Discussing 1 Cor 14:34…..> > I guess the question I have here is if OU modifies LALIEN. I thought> it went with EPITREPETAI, thus it would read “women should not be> permited”You’re right, I was intending to include the EPITREPETAI. Why can’t youread what I’m thinking instead of what I’m typing? B-)PLS

 

Women in the ChurchGal 4:14

Women in the Church Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com
Tue Aug 11 12:06:24 EDT 1998

 

Women in the Church Women in the Church I do not support a gender-neutral reading of the NT. The differences areeverywhere explicit.Here, though, it seems as I meditated these I Corinthians I came up with aninterpretation that I’d never heard anywhere, but it seems to tie togethermuch of the book. Much of this discussion may be too interpretive for some,so I identify that section so those inclined to may skip it.*** caution: interpretation section here:As I read it, the Corinthians were given to super-spirituality, especiallyconcerning women, and thus when Paul wrote to* avoid fornication* not have fellowship with the immoral* not have women leadersthey wrote back:* so, should we not touch a woman?* should we separate from unbelievers, and divorce our wives [especiallyunbelieving]?* we’ve silenced our women in Church and now they are protestingSo Paul clarifies that:* celibacy is his favorite, though not for everyone* if you are married, even to an unbeliever, remain as you are* the Scriptures are not only for men********** End of interpretive section:There is a textual issue with I Cor 14:34. It is either “epitetraptai” (“itis allowed” in the perfect) or “epitepetai” (“is being allowed” in thepresent) to speak. Both are indicative, but the latter suggests morestrongly that this is a local, contemporary prohibition. If so, this mightbe an admonition to the women to submit to the ordinance, rather than anaffirmation of the correctness of the ordinance.This is further compounded by the textual issue of “hupotassesthai” (“to bein subjection” in the infinitive) vs. (“let them be subject” in theimperative). The infinitive seems to contrast “speaking” with “subjection”,which doesn’t seem proper to me, whereas the imperative seems to contrastcivil disobedience with subjection.**** mostly interpretive below:This also explains the phrase “to the degree as also the law says”. In theinfinitive reading, the silence in Church is said to be taught in the Law,but I sure can’t find it. In the alternate, it is subjection that is said tobe said in the Law, which it is (ie: Sarah obeyed her husband, calling himLord).Now, in Verse 35, Paul charges husbands to allow their wives to EPERWTATWSAN(“interrogate”) them at home, because AISXRON (“censured”) it is for womento speak in the assembly. AISXRON does not imply that it is actuallyshameful, but rather that there is an external censuring (consult Vine’s).Speaking to the husbands, Paul, shaming the husbands who have been like theshepherds in Exodus 2:17, keeping the women from the Word, says, “the Worddidn’t come from you [it came through Mary?], or to you only it didn’tarrive. [but to women as well]”.So, the bottom line is: If you prevent women from talking in Church, theymust submit, but husbands, at least let them ask their questions at home.The Word is for them as well.

 

Women in the ChurchWomen in the Church

Women in the Church Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com
Tue Aug 11 12:15:00 EDT 1998

 

Women in the Church Raymond Brown {Philip}I guess the question I have here is if OU modifies LALIEN. I thought itwent with EPITREPETAI, thus it would read “women should not be permited”{Bill}Where is the “should not”? It is indicative, not imperative or subjunctive.

 

Women in the ChurchRaymond Brown

Women in the Church Jeffrey L. Shelton jeffreys at mozcom.com
Tue Aug 11 11:55:00 EDT 1998

 

Fw: Raymond Brown Women in the Church Greetings all:see various comments marked with #### below:>At 22:45 98/08/07 -0400, Theodore H. Mann wrote:>>Greetings all:>> >>I have an off-list question I hope someone can answer for me.>> >>In 1 Cor.14:34ff, women are forbidden to speak in the churches. However,>>1 Cor. 11:5, it indicates that women prophesy. I assume this prophecy>>occurs in a social setting of some kind. What is the solution to this>>apparent contradiction? ( I’m sure there is really no contradiction at>>all. )> > >Ted,> >Let me venture a comment or two which involves the question of Greek usage,>and therefore legitimately can be given on-list.> >In 1 Cor 14:34-35 what Paul forbids is for women to LALEW in church. If>Paul were intending (as he is most frequently taken to be intending) to be>forbidding women to communicate information, by way of teaching or>preaching or similar, he had available to him in Greek (and he uses>elsewhere) a vocabulary of about a dozen suitable words, from specific>words such as DIDASKW, KHRUSSW, PROFHTEUW, through the range of ANGELLW>words and compunds, to FASKW, FHMI, EIPEIN, and simply LEGW. All of these>words have in common that they refer, specifically or generally, in one way>or another, to the concept of conveying information. Paul did not use any>of them when referring to what women are not to do in church.#### In 1 Tim 2:12 Paul does in fact use DIDASKW to speak of what women arenot to do.> >There is another word in Greek which refers to the fact or act of speaking>without necessary reference to the content of what was said. This word is>LALEW. This verb simply involves verbal utterance – it is what “the mouth>speaks” (Mt 12:34), the act of uttering words. Thus whenever the NT refers>to a person who has been dumb as now being able to speak, the word used is>always LALEW (Mt 9:33; 12:22; 15:31; Mk 7:37; Lk 11:14). What that person>says is irrelevant, of course: what matters is the fact that he speaks atall.#### Does the fact that he used the generic LALEW not in fact mean, as youhave pointed out, that they are not to speak at all, no matter what thepurpose of the speech may be? In addition to this I might add that in Acts5:20 LALEW is used in connection with speaking the word of life. In Acts11:15 concerning Peter speaking to Cornelius “words by which he might besaved” it is said that “as he began to LALEW [those words]” In Acts 4:29:LALEW is likewise used in Peter’s prayer that he be able to LALEW the[Lord’s] word.>Similarly, LALEW is the normal word used for when people engage in informal>conversation: it refers simply to talking, especially in the sense of>conversing, or chatting, or even chattering or babbling. On some occasions>LALEW is used of Jesus teaching people (e.g., Mt 13:3), but on such>occasions the central idea conveyed is that of engaging in oral>communication, of being heard; and usually the idea of informal utterance>is also present.> >In my judgement it is significant that when Paul says in 1 Cor 14:34-35>that women are not permitted to speak in church, he does not use any of the>words that mean to teach or preach or communicate a message. He does not>even use one of the ordinary Greek words for “speak” which refer to the>conveying of meaningful content (LEGW, FHMI, EIPEIN). The word Paul uses>(twice, once each in 14:34 and 14:35) is LALEW – which is a VERY ambiguous>and inconclusive word to use if “preach/teach/communicate information to>the congregation” is the meaning to be conveyed.> >The background context in which this passage is found is one that is>dealing with the question of good order in the congregation. The (correct)>alternative to whatever it is which the women are doing in the congregation>is to ask their husbands their questions at home. This would suggest that>what they were doing was breaching good order in the congregation by>talking amongst themselves or asking questions of their husbands during the>assembly. (Men and women sat separately in the assembly.)> > >>Can anyone suggest a really good article or publication dealing>>with the role of women in the church ( head coverings, etc.)?> > >My comments above are drawn from Chapter 3, “Women Speaking in Church”, of>my book “The Ministry of Women in the Church” (SPCK Australia, 1996, ISBN>1-876106-05-0). Chapter 4 of this book deals with 1 Corinthians 11 and>headcoverings, headship, etc. Other chapters discuss other passages of>Scripture considered relevant to the topic. It is not for the author to>comment on whether this book comes into the category of “good article or>publication”. But it does deal in some detail with all the Scriptures>touching on the issue, examining the different interpretations which are>found in the church, and suggesting which interpretation most fully does>justice (in the judgement of the author) to biblical teaching. (If the book>is not readily available locally, I can forward a copy postfree for $US15,>paid into a US bank account.)> > >>I haven’t>>checked the archives. Is there anything there? Many thanks.>> >>Best in Christ,>> >>Theodore “Ted” H. Mann>>Orchard Lake, Michigan>>thmann at juno.com> > >Regards,> >Ward> > >Rev Dr B. Ward Powers Phone (International): 61-2-9799-7501>10 Grosvenor Crescent Phone (Australia): (02) 9799-7501>SUMMER HILL NSW 2130 email: bwpowers at eagles.bbs.net.au>AUSTRALIA.> #### Your fellow servantJeffrey L. SheltonPresident, Cebu Bible CollegeCebu, Philippines

 

Fw: Raymond BrownWomen in the Church

Women in the Church Phillip J. Long plong at gbcol.edu
Tue Aug 11 11:45:49 EDT 1998

 

Gal 4:14 Fw: Raymond Brown On Tue, 11 Aug 1998 10:04:35 -0400, you wrote:>A point of syntax: the prohibition uses the present infinitive (OU . . .>LALEIN). The argument that I’ve heard–and I’ve never checked it across the>NT, but the places where I’ve checked the argument it has stood up–is:>normally when an infinitive is used in a prohibition, the aorist infinitive>is used. Any time a present infinitive is used in a prohibition, there>seems to be an emphasis on continuing action.Discussing 1 Cor 14:34…..I guess the question I have here is if OU modifies LALIEN. I thoughtit went with EPITREPETAI, thus it would read “women should not bepermited”This is also found in 1 Tim 2:12, the OUK there goes with the mainverb, the infinitive is complementary.Imperitival infinitives are pretty rare (3x in the NT)Phillip J. LongAsst. Prof. Bible & GreekGrace Bible College

 

Gal 4:14Fw: Raymond Brown

Women in the Church Perry L. Stepp plstepp at flash.net
Tue Aug 11 10:04:35 EDT 1998

 

Gal 4:14 Gal 4:14 Hello, all.> The background context in which this passage is> found is one that is dealing with the question of> good order in the congregation. The (correct)> alternative to whatever it is which the women are> doing in the congregation is to ask their husbands> their questions at home. This would suggest that> what they were doing was breaching good order in> the congregation by talking amongst themselves> or asking questions of their husbands during the> assembly. (Men and women sat separately in the> assembly.)A point of syntax: the prohibition uses the present infinitive (OU . . .LALEIN). The argument that I’ve heard–and I’ve never checked it across theNT, but the places where I’ve checked the argument it has stood up–is:normally when an infinitive is used in a prohibition, the aorist infinitiveis used. Any time a present infinitive is used in a prohibition, thereseems to be an emphasis on continuing action.Thus (the argument runs) the present OU . . . LALEIN implies somethingoutside of normal or acceptable speech, i.e., “they are not permitted totalk excessively” or “they are not permitted to keep on chattering.”How does that argument wash?PLStepp*****************************************************************Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TXPh.D. Candidate in Religion, Baylor University#1 Cowboy FanKeeper of the Top-10, news://alt.fan.lettermanIt is tremendous folly to put trashy people in positionsof trust and conspicuousness. –George Will, 6 August 1998*****************************************************************

 

Gal 4:14Gal 4:14

Women in the Church Ward Powers bwpowers at eagles.bbs.net.au
Sat Aug 22 07:45:02 EDT 1998

 

A Question on Mathew 18.18 Present tense copulative verbs At 06:44 98/08/19 -0400, Henry Carmichael wrote:>Date sent: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 15:21:07 +1000>To: dixonps at juno.com (Paul S. Dixon)>From: Ward Powers <bwpowers at eagles.bbs.net.au>>Subject: Re: Women in the Church>Copies to: Biblical Greek < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>,> >>> To mention, however, one facet of this which DOES turn upon the question>> of Greek meanings: there is no conflict between these two passages you>> mention if one takes LALEIN (twice occurring in 1 Cor 14:34-35) to have>> its normal meaning of “converse, chat chatter”, and accepts that THIS is>> what Paul is forbidding, instead of reading into LALEIN ideas of “preach”>> or “teach” in the assembly – for which meaning there are numerous other>> Greek words, and which Paul is not discussing in 1 Cor 14:34-35 and which>> he is certainly not forbidding in his comments there.> >But LALEIN is used throughout chapter 14 – unless we are to say >that Paul has the saints “conversing in a tongue”, or that the >prophets are “conversing two or three.” Or are we to look past the >context of the chapter as a whole? > >In His service>Henry Carmichael> Henry:Yup. True ’nuff. LALEW occurs quite a few times in the rest of chapter 14,and in Paul’s writings and the GNT generally. Almost 300 times, all up.I am not saying that in every one of these occurrences you can translate itby “converse” (or “chat” or “chatter”). But I am saying that the centralcore idea for the word is that of making an audible utterance with one’smouth, and that this is where the emphasis lies, and that the idea ofinformal (as distinct from formal) utterance is usually present as well.You may be aware that there are interpreters who see the LALEW referencesof 14:34-35 as continuing the previous usage of the word, and thuscontinuing to refer to speaking in tongues – this then being what the womenare forbidden to do (on this interpretation). After examining the chaptercarefully, I cannot accept this understanding of the meaning of LALEW inthis context. I would hold that in the other occurrences of LALEW in thischapter, the reference in each case is to verbal utterance in an informalmanner, with a more precise degree of meaning to be drawn in relation tothe context of each use. In the verses we are looking at, I aver that theimmediate context indicates that LALEW is best taken (as previouslyindicated) as being to women conversing and/or calling out questions in theassembly, while Paul is saying they should discuss these questions withtheir husbands at home.Regards,Ward Rev 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.

 

A Question on Mathew 18.18Present tense copulative verbs

Women in the Church Ward Powers bwpowers at eagles.bbs.net.au
Tue Aug 11 10:38:52 EDT 1998

 

Gal 4:14 Women in the Church At 22:45 98/08/07 -0400, Theodore H. Mann wrote:>Greetings all:> >I have an off-list question I hope someone can answer for me.> >In 1 Cor.14:34ff, women are forbidden to speak in the churches. However,>1 Cor. 11:5, it indicates that women prophesy. I assume this prophecy>occurs in a social setting of some kind. What is the solution to this>apparent contradiction? ( I’m sure there is really no contradiction at>all. ) Ted,Let me venture a comment or two which involves the question of Greek usage,and therefore legitimately can be given on-list.In 1 Cor 14:34-35 what Paul forbids is for women to LALEW in church. IfPaul were intending (as he is most frequently taken to be intending) to beforbidding women to communicate information, by way of teaching orpreaching or similar, he had available to him in Greek (and he useselsewhere) a vocabulary of about a dozen suitable words, from specificwords such as DIDASKW, KHRUSSW, PROFHTEUW, through the range of ANGELLWwords and compunds, to FASKW, FHMI, EIPEIN, and simply LEGW. All of thesewords have in common that they refer, specifically or generally, in one wayor another, to the concept of conveying information. Paul did not use anyof them when referring to what women are not to do in church.There is another word in Greek which refers to the fact or act of speakingwithout necessary reference to the content of what was said. This word isLALEW. This verb simply involves verbal utterance – it is what “the mouthspeaks” (Mt 12:34), the act of uttering words. Thus whenever the NT refersto a person who has been dumb as now being able to speak, the word used isalways LALEW (Mt 9:33; 12:22; 15:31; Mk 7:37; Lk 11:14). What that personsays is irrelevant, of course: what matters is the fact that he speaks at all.Similarly, LALEW is the normal word used for when people engage in informalconversation: it refers simply to talking, especially in the sense ofconversing, or chatting, or even chattering or babbling. On some occasionsLALEW is used of Jesus teaching people (e.g., Mt 13:3), but on suchoccasions the central idea conveyed is that of engaging in oralcommunication, of being heard; and usually the idea of informal utteranceis also present.In my judgement it is significant that when Paul says in 1 Cor 14:34-35that women are not permitted to speak in church, he does not use any of thewords that mean to teach or preach or communicate a message. He does noteven use one of the ordinary Greek words for “speak” which refer to theconveying of meaningful content (LEGW, FHMI, EIPEIN). The word Paul uses(twice, once each in 14:34 and 14:35) is LALEW – which is a VERY ambiguousand inconclusive word to use if “preach/teach/communicate information tothe congregation” is the meaning to be conveyed.The background context in which this passage is found is one that isdealing with the question of good order in the congregation. The (correct)alternative to whatever it is which the women are doing in the congregationis to ask their husbands their questions at home. This would suggest thatwhat they were doing was breaching good order in the congregation bytalking amongst themselves or asking questions of their husbands during theassembly. (Men and women sat separately in the assembly.)>Can anyone suggest a really good article or publication dealing>with the role of women in the church ( head coverings, etc.)? My comments above are drawn from Chapter 3, “Women Speaking in Church”, ofmy book “The Ministry of Women in the Church” (SPCK Australia, 1996, ISBN1-876106-05-0). Chapter 4 of this book deals with 1 Corinthians 11 andheadcoverings, headship, etc. Other chapters discuss other passages ofScripture considered relevant to the topic. It is not for the author tocomment on whether this book comes into the category of “good article orpublication”. But it does deal in some detail with all the Scripturestouching on the issue, examining the different interpretations which arefound in the church, and suggesting which interpretation most fully doesjustice (in the judgement of the author) to biblical teaching. (If the bookis not readily available locally, I can forward a copy postfree for $US15,paid into a US bank account.)>I haven’t>checked the archives. Is there anything there? Many thanks.> >Best in Christ,> >Theodore “Ted” H. Mann>Orchard Lake, Michigan>thmann at juno.comRegards,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.

 

Gal 4:14Women in the Church

Women in the Church Ward Powers bwpowers at eagles.bbs.net.au
Thu Aug 13 03:39:15 EDT 1998

 

Romans 8:28 Romans 8:28 At 11:06 98/08/11 -0500, Bill Ross wrote:>I do not support a gender-neutral reading of the NT. The differences are>everywhere explicit.> >Here, though, it seems as I meditated these I Corinthians I came up with an>interpretation that I’d never heard anywhere, but it seems to tie together>much of the book. Much of this discussion may be too interpretive for some,>so I identify that section so those inclined to may skip it.Dear Bill, Some responses to your comments.>*** caution: interpretation section here:> >As I read it, the Corinthians were given to super-spirituality, especially>concerning women, and thus when Paul wrote to> >* avoid fornication>* not have fellowship with the immoralI would agree.>* not have women leadersThis rather depends upon what one means by “women leaders”. Paul certainlydid not say, “Do not have women leaders.”>they wrote back:> >* so, should we not touch a woman?>* should we separate from unbelievers, and divorce our wives [especially>unbelieving]?Yes, we can identify where they said these things (or something similar). >* we’ve silenced our women in Church and now they are protestingNow I cannot find any way in which you can attribute saying this (oranything like it) to the Corinthians. Bill, am I overlooking something?>So Paul clarifies that:> >* celibacy is his favorite, though not for everyoneAgain, everything depends upon what you mean by “celibacy” and “favorite”.In 7:1 he quotes the Corinthians who are recommending that in marriage itis better for a husband to refrain from having sexual relations (themeaning of the euphemism “to touch”) with his wife. In verses 2-5 Paulresponds by totally disagreeing with this proposition. He says that eachone should “have” his own wife. By this he means not only that each personshould be married, but, further (as he goes on to explain), that eachhusband should give his wife the fulfilment of her sexual needs, as alsoshould she to him: she does not have the “rights” over her own body but herhusband does, as also he does not have the “rights” over his own body, buthis wife does. They are each not to deprive one another [of their sexualrelationship] except perhaps by mutual agreement for a limited time forsome specific purpose (Paul mentions prayer, but it may be thought thatthere could on occasion be other reasons, in particular circumstances,because of which a couple may wish to suspend sexual relations for a shortperiod). Then they are to resume their sexual relationship (“come togetheragain”), otherwise they open the way for Satan to bring them intotemptation through a lack of sexual self-control. And this IS something, we should note, which he addresses to everyone, “toeach person”. This, it seems to me, can hardly be called an advocacy ofcelibacy. Then he takes up the situation where a person has been previously marriedand that marriage has terminated (whether through divorce or widowing):that is, the situation of people who have been in a sexual relationship(such as he has been describing) but which no longer exists. So, what arethey to do now? they might ask. Paul answers this in verses 7-9. For astart, they are to remain as he does. After Paul’s own marriage ended, hedid not (he tells us) marry again; and some people are given the gift ofbeing able to live single and celibate (as he has), while some are not butare given the gift of being able to be marriage partners. His wish is thatpeople in such circumstances would continue as he does, without remarrying(verses 7-8). Such people should test out first of all whether God is nowgiving them this gift and calling. But if they do not in fact now have thisgift of sexual self-control, then he gives an instruction: GAMHSATWSAN (anaorist imperative), “they must marry”. It is better that they should marrythan that they should be on fire with sexual desire which they are not ableto control or fulfil (verse 9).This is, I suppose, a limited advocacy of celibacy, for those who now findthat it is their gift and calling.>* if you are married, even to an unbeliever, remain as you are – >* the Scriptures are not only for menAgreed.>********** End of interpretive section:> >There is a textual issue with I Cor 14:34. It is either “epitetraptai” (“it>is allowed” in the perfect) or “epitepetai” (“is being allowed” in the>present) to speak. Both are indicative, but the latter suggests more>strongly that this is a local, contemporary prohibition. I must politely dissent. The verb is durative aspect, negated, which meansas an ongoing situation they are not permitted to do (whatever it is whichis being forbidden). There is no suggestion in such an expression that itin any way indicates “a local, contemporary prohibition” and certainly notthat it indicates a prohibition restricted to one church or one time.>If so, this might be an admonition to the women to submit to the ordinance,>rather than an affirmation of the correctness of the ordinance.I cannot at all agree that this follows.>This is further compounded by the textual issue of “hupotassesthai” (“to be>in subjection” in the infinitive) vs. (“let them be subject” in the>imperative). The infinitive seems to contrast “speaking” with “subjection”,>which doesn’t seem proper to me, whereas the imperative seems to contrast>civil disobedience with subjection.I cannot understand this point at all. My UBS GNT at 1 Cor 14:34 hashUPOTASSESQWSAN, which is present passive imperative, 3rd plural, “let them(or, they must) be in subjection/be subordinate”. No alternate reading ofan infinitive is given in the apparatus. You may care to clarify your pointhere.>**** mostly interpretive below:> >This also explains the phrase “to the degree as also the law says”. In the>infinitive reading, the silence in Church is said to be taught in the Law,>but I sure can’t find it. In the alternate, it is subjection that is said to>be said in the Law, which it is (ie: Sarah obeyed her husband, calling him>Lord).> >Now, in Verse 35, Paul charges husbands to allow their wives to EPERWTATWSAN>(“interrogate”) them at home, This comment involves a reworking of the verse. What Paul says is notaddressed to husbands, to tell them to allow their wives to do anything:EPERWTATWSAN is a present active imperative, 3rd plural, addressed towives, instructing them what they must do. And I am not sure what you havein mind in your choice of “interrogate” as your translation for this verb:BAGD gives its first and usual meaning as “ask (a question)”, and does noteven list “interrogate” as a translation for it. >because AISXRON (“censured”) it is for women>to speak in the assembly. AISXRON does not imply that it is actually>shameful, but rather that there is an external censuring (consult Vine’s).I have consulted BAGD, who give the meaning as “ugly, shameful, base,disgraceful”, and do not refer to any concept of censure.>Speaking to the husbands, Paul, shaming the husbands who have been like the>shepherds in Exodus 2:17, keeping the women from the Word, says, “the Word>didn’t come from you [it came through Mary?], or to you only it didn’t>arrive. [but to women as well]”.I can see nothing in 14:36 to suggest that this was addressed to husbandsas distinct from the whole of the Corinthians (men and women together).>So, the bottom line is: If you prevent women from talking in Church, they>must submit, but husbands, at least let them ask their questions at home.>The Word is for them as well.As for the Word (of God) being for women as well as for men: this is mostcertainly true. But as for your other comments: Sorry, but I just don’t seethis meaning in the verse at all. We are rather far apart in ourunderstanding of what Paul is saying, aren’t we?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.

 

Romans 8:28Romans 8:28

Women in the Church Ward Powers bwpowers at eagles.bbs.net.au
Wed Aug 12 22:35:05 EDT 1998

 

Women in the Church Women in the Church At 23:55 98/08/11 +0800, Jeffrey L. Shelton wrote:>Greetings all:>see various comments marked with #### below:> >[SNIP]> >#### In 1 Tim 2:12 Paul does in fact use DIDASKW to speak of what women are>not to do.The context of this verse is the situation affecting, and the question ofthe relationship between, husband and wife within the home-and-familysituation. As a careful assessment of the context will show (especiallywith reference to the Greek), there is nothing in 1 Tim 2 which points tothis passage as referring to what may (or may not) be done in the assembly.What is under consideration by Paul is the outworking of the husband’sheadship in the marriage relationship, not what is done in the Christianassembly. In this passage (1 Tim 2:8-15) ANHR and GUNH should be translated”husband” and “wife”, as in the parallel passage 1 Peter 3:1-7.>>There is another word in Greek which refers to the fact or act of speaking>>without necessary reference to the content of what was said. This word is>>LALEW. This verb simply involves verbal utterance – it is what “the mouth>>speaks” (Mt 12:34), the act of uttering words. Thus whenever the NT refers>>to a person who has been dumb as now being able to speak, the word used is>>always LALEW (Mt 9:33; 12:22; 15:31; Mk 7:37; Lk 11:14). What that person>>says is irrelevant, of course: what matters is the fact that he speaks at>all.> > >#### Does the fact that he used the generic LALEW not in fact mean, as you>have pointed out, that they are not to speak at all, no matter what the>purpose of the speech may be? In addition to this I might add that in Acts>5:20 LALEW is used in connection with speaking the word of life. In Acts>11:15 concerning Peter speaking to Cornelius “words by which he might be>saved” it is said that “as he began to LALEW [those words]” In Acts 4:29:>LALEW is likewise used in Peter’s prayer that he be able to LALEW the>[Lord’s] word.As I pointed out earlier, LALEW is also used in reference to Jesus teaching(i.e., Mt 13:3). All these occasions (including those of Acts, quoted) aregeneral references to the fact of speaking. The nearest of any use of LALEWto a formal address would be Acts 5:20. When a general word like LALEW isused in a context, that context will indicate the scope of its meaning inthat context. In 1 Cor 14:34-35 the alternative which Paul tells them tofollow – to ask their questions of their own husbands at home – indicatesthat the activity of LALEW in which they were engaging was to talk to theirneighbours (or possibly, even, their husbands) in the assembly. Thiscontext indicates that that is what they are not to do in the assembly.Therefore I would not take this verse as being (or as intended to be) arestriction upon women joining in the singing in the assembly, or prayingin the assembly (as in 1 Cor 14:26; Ephesians 5:19; 1 Cor 11:5).>#### Your fellow servant>Jeffrey L. Shelton>President, Cebu Bible College>Cebu, PhilippinesAnd my best 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.

 

Women in the ChurchWomen in the Church

Women in the Church Phillip J. Long plong at gbcol.edu
Tue Aug 11 13:26:24 EDT 1998

 

Raymond Brown The meaning of hAPLOTHS in Romans 12:8 On Tue, 11 Aug 1998 11:15:00 -0500, you wrote:>{Philip}>I guess the question I have here is if OU modifies LALIEN. I thought it>went with EPITREPETAI, thus it would read “women should not be permited”> >{Bill}>Where is the “should not”? It is indicative, not imperative or subjunctive.I was following the NIV there, but the NIV is not alone in thistranslation. The RSV and the NLT are the same, The KJV and theASV/NASB have “let your women keep silent….” Why might this be?While the verb EPITREPETAI is indicative, it is also a passive.Passives can be permissive/causitive, although that is rare andusually limited to imperitives. Another option is to take the indicative as a “potential indicative.”Verbs of obligation, wish, or desire followed by an infinitive willhave a “potential” meaning even when in the indicative. I am readingfrom Daniel Wallace’s grammar, page 451-452, see also Brooks andWinbery 115ff.A third option is to take this in an impersonal sense, “it is notpermitted for women to speak.” (Fee, 706, Persbacher’s Grammar)This opens up an interesting interpretation since you have a passivewithout an obvious agent. One might take the implied agent as God, oras Paul, or as “the rules of the church”, etc.>There is a textual issue with I Cor 14:34. It is either “epitetraptai” (“it>is allowed” in the perfect) or “epitepetai” (“is being allowed” in the>present) to speak. You are right, the TR (and therefore the Majority text) has perfect.The textaul evidence is pretty thin for the perfect though.>Both are indicative, but the latter suggests more>strongly that this is a local, contemporary prohibition. If so, this might>be an admonition to the women to submit to the ordinance, rather than an>affirmation of the correctness of the ordinance.Are you also aware that some take this command to be non-pauline,Fee’s commentary mentions this in some detail. Fee seems also to takethe “to speak” as refering to tongues, not all forms of speaking /teaching, etc. Thomas Schreiner examines the argument that epitrepw only relates tospecific situations in _Women in the Church_ (GR:Baker Books, 1995),126. Ultimately he reject the idea that epitrepw can *only* be usedof specific situations.Phillip J. LongAsst. Prof. Bible & GreekGrace Bible College

 

Raymond BrownThe meaning of hAPLOTHS in Romans 12:8

Women in the Church Perry L. Stepp plstepp at flash.net
Tue Aug 11 11:39:58 EDT 1998

 

Women in the Church Gal 4:14 > Discussing 1 Cor 14:34…..> > I guess the question I have here is if OU modifies LALIEN. I thought> it went with EPITREPETAI, thus it would read “women should not be> permited”You’re right, I was intending to include the EPITREPETAI. Why can’t youread what I’m thinking instead of what I’m typing? B-)PLS

 

Women in the ChurchGal 4:14

Women in the Church Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com
Tue Aug 11 12:06:24 EDT 1998

 

Women in the Church Women in the Church I do not support a gender-neutral reading of the NT. The differences areeverywhere explicit.Here, though, it seems as I meditated these I Corinthians I came up with aninterpretation that I’d never heard anywhere, but it seems to tie togethermuch of the book. Much of this discussion may be too interpretive for some,so I identify that section so those inclined to may skip it.*** caution: interpretation section here:As I read it, the Corinthians were given to super-spirituality, especiallyconcerning women, and thus when Paul wrote to* avoid fornication* not have fellowship with the immoral* not have women leadersthey wrote back:* so, should we not touch a woman?* should we separate from unbelievers, and divorce our wives [especiallyunbelieving]?* we’ve silenced our women in Church and now they are protestingSo Paul clarifies that:* celibacy is his favorite, though not for everyone* if you are married, even to an unbeliever, remain as you are* the Scriptures are not only for men********** End of interpretive section:There is a textual issue with I Cor 14:34. It is either “epitetraptai” (“itis allowed” in the perfect) or “epitepetai” (“is being allowed” in thepresent) to speak. Both are indicative, but the latter suggests morestrongly that this is a local, contemporary prohibition. If so, this mightbe an admonition to the women to submit to the ordinance, rather than anaffirmation of the correctness of the ordinance.This is further compounded by the textual issue of “hupotassesthai” (“to bein subjection” in the infinitive) vs. (“let them be subject” in theimperative). The infinitive seems to contrast “speaking” with “subjection”,which doesn’t seem proper to me, whereas the imperative seems to contrastcivil disobedience with subjection.**** mostly interpretive below:This also explains the phrase “to the degree as also the law says”. In theinfinitive reading, the silence in Church is said to be taught in the Law,but I sure can’t find it. In the alternate, it is subjection that is said tobe said in the Law, which it is (ie: Sarah obeyed her husband, calling himLord).Now, in Verse 35, Paul charges husbands to allow their wives to EPERWTATWSAN(“interrogate”) them at home, because AISXRON (“censured”) it is for womento speak in the assembly. AISXRON does not imply that it is actuallyshameful, but rather that there is an external censuring (consult Vine’s).Speaking to the husbands, Paul, shaming the husbands who have been like theshepherds in Exodus 2:17, keeping the women from the Word, says, “the Worddidn’t come from you [it came through Mary?], or to you only it didn’tarrive. [but to women as well]”.So, the bottom line is: If you prevent women from talking in Church, theymust submit, but husbands, at least let them ask their questions at home.The Word is for them as well.

 

Women in the ChurchWomen in the Church

Women in the Church Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com
Tue Aug 11 12:15:00 EDT 1998

 

Women in the Church Raymond Brown {Philip}I guess the question I have here is if OU modifies LALIEN. I thought itwent with EPITREPETAI, thus it would read “women should not be permited”{Bill}Where is the “should not”? It is indicative, not imperative or subjunctive.

 

Women in the ChurchRaymond Brown

Women in the Church Jeffrey L. Shelton jeffreys at mozcom.com
Tue Aug 11 11:55:00 EDT 1998

 

Fw: Raymond Brown Women in the Church Greetings all:see various comments marked with #### below:>At 22:45 98/08/07 -0400, Theodore H. Mann wrote:>>Greetings all:>> >>I have an off-list question I hope someone can answer for me.>> >>In 1 Cor.14:34ff, women are forbidden to speak in the churches. However,>>1 Cor. 11:5, it indicates that women prophesy. I assume this prophecy>>occurs in a social setting of some kind. What is the solution to this>>apparent contradiction? ( I’m sure there is really no contradiction at>>all. )> > >Ted,> >Let me venture a comment or two which involves the question of Greek usage,>and therefore legitimately can be given on-list.> >In 1 Cor 14:34-35 what Paul forbids is for women to LALEW in church. If>Paul were intending (as he is most frequently taken to be intending) to be>forbidding women to communicate information, by way of teaching or>preaching or similar, he had available to him in Greek (and he uses>elsewhere) a vocabulary of about a dozen suitable words, from specific>words such as DIDASKW, KHRUSSW, PROFHTEUW, through the range of ANGELLW>words and compunds, to FASKW, FHMI, EIPEIN, and simply LEGW. All of these>words have in common that they refer, specifically or generally, in one way>or another, to the concept of conveying information. Paul did not use any>of them when referring to what women are not to do in church.#### In 1 Tim 2:12 Paul does in fact use DIDASKW to speak of what women arenot to do.> >There is another word in Greek which refers to the fact or act of speaking>without necessary reference to the content of what was said. This word is>LALEW. This verb simply involves verbal utterance – it is what “the mouth>speaks” (Mt 12:34), the act of uttering words. Thus whenever the NT refers>to a person who has been dumb as now being able to speak, the word used is>always LALEW (Mt 9:33; 12:22; 15:31; Mk 7:37; Lk 11:14). What that person>says is irrelevant, of course: what matters is the fact that he speaks atall.#### Does the fact that he used the generic LALEW not in fact mean, as youhave pointed out, that they are not to speak at all, no matter what thepurpose of the speech may be? In addition to this I might add that in Acts5:20 LALEW is used in connection with speaking the word of life. In Acts11:15 concerning Peter speaking to Cornelius “words by which he might besaved” it is said that “as he began to LALEW [those words]” In Acts 4:29:LALEW is likewise used in Peter’s prayer that he be able to LALEW the[Lord’s] word.>Similarly, LALEW is the normal word used for when people engage in informal>conversation: it refers simply to talking, especially in the sense of>conversing, or chatting, or even chattering or babbling. On some occasions>LALEW is used of Jesus teaching people (e.g., Mt 13:3), but on such>occasions the central idea conveyed is that of engaging in oral>communication, of being heard; and usually the idea of informal utterance>is also present.> >In my judgement it is significant that when Paul says in 1 Cor 14:34-35>that women are not permitted to speak in church, he does not use any of the>words that mean to teach or preach or communicate a message. He does not>even use one of the ordinary Greek words for “speak” which refer to the>conveying of meaningful content (LEGW, FHMI, EIPEIN). The word Paul uses>(twice, once each in 14:34 and 14:35) is LALEW – which is a VERY ambiguous>and inconclusive word to use if “preach/teach/communicate information to>the congregation” is the meaning to be conveyed.> >The background context in which this passage is found is one that is>dealing with the question of good order in the congregation. The (correct)>alternative to whatever it is which the women are doing in the congregation>is to ask their husbands their questions at home. This would suggest that>what they were doing was breaching good order in the congregation by>talking amongst themselves or asking questions of their husbands during the>assembly. (Men and women sat separately in the assembly.)> > >>Can anyone suggest a really good article or publication dealing>>with the role of women in the church ( head coverings, etc.)?> > >My comments above are drawn from Chapter 3, “Women Speaking in Church”, of>my book “The Ministry of Women in the Church” (SPCK Australia, 1996, ISBN>1-876106-05-0). Chapter 4 of this book deals with 1 Corinthians 11 and>headcoverings, headship, etc. Other chapters discuss other passages of>Scripture considered relevant to the topic. It is not for the author to>comment on whether this book comes into the category of “good article or>publication”. But it does deal in some detail with all the Scriptures>touching on the issue, examining the different interpretations which are>found in the church, and suggesting which interpretation most fully does>justice (in the judgement of the author) to biblical teaching. (If the book>is not readily available locally, I can forward a copy postfree for $US15,>paid into a US bank account.)> > >>I haven’t>>checked the archives. Is there anything there? Many thanks.>> >>Best in Christ,>> >>Theodore “Ted” H. Mann>>Orchard Lake, Michigan>>thmann at juno.com> > >Regards,> >Ward> > >Rev Dr B. Ward Powers Phone (International): 61-2-9799-7501>10 Grosvenor Crescent Phone (Australia): (02) 9799-7501>SUMMER HILL NSW 2130 email: bwpowers at eagles.bbs.net.au>AUSTRALIA.> #### Your fellow servantJeffrey L. SheltonPresident, Cebu Bible CollegeCebu, Philippines

 

Fw: Raymond BrownWomen in the Church

Women in the Church Phillip J. Long plong at gbcol.edu
Tue Aug 11 11:45:49 EDT 1998

 

Gal 4:14 Fw: Raymond Brown On Tue, 11 Aug 1998 10:04:35 -0400, you wrote:>A point of syntax: the prohibition uses the present infinitive (OU . . .>LALEIN). The argument that I’ve heard–and I’ve never checked it across the>NT, but the places where I’ve checked the argument it has stood up–is:>normally when an infinitive is used in a prohibition, the aorist infinitive>is used. Any time a present infinitive is used in a prohibition, there>seems to be an emphasis on continuing action.Discussing 1 Cor 14:34…..I guess the question I have here is if OU modifies LALIEN. I thoughtit went with EPITREPETAI, thus it would read “women should not bepermited”This is also found in 1 Tim 2:12, the OUK there goes with the mainverb, the infinitive is complementary.Imperitival infinitives are pretty rare (3x in the NT)Phillip J. LongAsst. Prof. Bible & GreekGrace Bible College

 

Gal 4:14Fw: Raymond Brown
1 Cor 14.34-35, women in church–reply off-list, thank you Perry L. Stepp plstepp at flash.net
Fri Sep 4 16:07:09 EDT 1998

 

HELP Isaiah 45:19 Several weeks ago, in a thread on 1 Cor 14.34-35 (women in the church), twopeople suggested a couple of webpages to which listmembers could go to readpapers re. the issue. One of the webpages was for Christians for BiblicalEquality, I don’t recall the name of the other group, but it presented anopposite perspective.I, of course, need those web addresses! I’ve cleaned my hard drive sincethen, I no longer have the messages, and I have a preliminary exam in Ethicsnext week for which information from those pages might be useful. Cansomeone send copies of those messages to me, please? Off-list, of course.Grace,PLStepp*****************************************************************Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TXPh.D. Candidate in Religion, Baylor University#1 Cowboy FanKeeper of the Top-10, news://alt.fan.lettermanIt is tremendous folly to put trashy people in positionsof trust and conspicuousness. –George Will, 6 August 1998*****************************************************************

 

HELPIsaiah 45:19

1 Cor 14:34 speak?? Mark & Mary Markham markhamm at topsurf.com
Wed Sep 9 13:20:59 EDT 1998

 

TH FWNH in Acts 14:10a Hebrew questions 1 Corinthians 14:34aiJ gunai`ke” ejn tai`” ejkklhsivai” sigavtwsan: ouj ga;r ejpitrevpetaiaujtai`” lalei`n, ajlla; uJpotassevsqwsan, kaqw;” kai; oJ novmo” levgei.I have seen threads on this before, but am in the passage now. Taken byitself (forget Timothy and 1 Cor. 11 for a min) does the Greek here prohibitfemales( or wives?) from any speaking, speaking in tongues, or propecy (seethe form in verse 29.)?Thanks,Mark

 

TH FWNH in Acts 14:10aHebrew questions

1 Cor 14.34-35, women in church–reply off-list, thank you Perry L. Stepp plstepp at flash.net
Fri Sep 4 16:07:09 EDT 1998

 

HELP Isaiah 45:19 Several weeks ago, in a thread on 1 Cor 14.34-35 (women in the church), twopeople suggested a couple of webpages to which listmembers could go to readpapers re. the issue. One of the webpages was for Christians for BiblicalEquality, I don’t recall the name of the other group, but it presented anopposite perspective.I, of course, need those web addresses! I’ve cleaned my hard drive sincethen, I no longer have the messages, and I have a preliminary exam in Ethicsnext week for which information from those pages might be useful. Cansomeone send copies of those messages to me, please? Off-list, of course.Grace,PLStepp*****************************************************************Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TXPh.D. Candidate in Religion, Baylor University#1 Cowboy FanKeeper of the Top-10, news://alt.fan.lettermanIt is tremendous folly to put trashy people in positionsof trust and conspicuousness. –George Will, 6 August 1998*****************************************************************

 

HELPIsaiah 45:19

1 Cor 14:34 speak?? Mark & Mary Markham markhamm at topsurf.com
Wed Sep 9 13:20:59 EDT 1998

 

TH FWNH in Acts 14:10a Hebrew questions 1 Corinthians 14:34aiJ gunai`ke” ejn tai`” ejkklhsivai” sigavtwsan: ouj ga;r ejpitrevpetaiaujtai`” lalei`n, ajlla; uJpotassevsqwsan, kaqw;” kai; oJ novmo” levgei.I have seen threads on this before, but am in the passage now. Taken byitself (forget Timothy and 1 Cor. 11 for a min) does the Greek here prohibitfemales( or wives?) from any speaking, speaking in tongues, or propecy (seethe form in verse 29.)?Thanks,Mark

 

TH FWNH in Acts 14:10aHebrew questions

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]

6 thoughts on “1 Corinthians 14:34

  1. Link Hudson Link Hudson says:

    Does the conversation have much to do with how we interpret the passage? I can’t do every conversation. You could try to sell a conversation with an interesting issue we can see at the top of the thread instead of multiple tags and you moght have more success.

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.