1 Peter 3:7

1 Peter 3:7 John Barach jbarach at telusplanet.net
Wed Sep 8 19:49:10 εδτ 1999

1 Cor 14:34 — λαλειν Wallace’s Grammar available in electronic book format Fellow ers:Could any of you help me understand the syntax of 1 Peter 3:7? Thepassage reads:hOI ανδρεσ hOMOIWS συνοικουντεσ κατα γνωσιν hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει TWiGUNAIKEIWi απονεμοντεσ τιμην hWS και συγκληπονομοι ξαριτοσ ζωησ εισ τομη εγκοπτεσθαι τασ προσευξασ hUMWN.ι understand that the participle συνοικουντεσ is functioning as animperative here. The difficulty is understanding the two hWS clauses.(1) ι notice, for instance, that some translations and commentariestreat both hWS clauses as modifying απονεμοντεσ τιμην (“Giving honor tothe woman as the weaker vessel and as a co-heir of the gift/grace oflife”). (2) Some translations (e.g., νασβ), however, treat hWS ASQENESTERWiSKEUEI TWi GUNAIKEIWi as the indirect object of συνοικουντεσ (“Dwellwith [your wife] as a weaker vessel, since she is a woman”).Any help you could offer would be greatly appreciated.Thanks!John%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%John Barach (403) 317-1950Pastor, Trinity Reformed Church (υρξνα)113 Stafford Blvd. ν.Lethbridge, ABT1H 6E3jbarach at telusplanet.net

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

1 Peter 3:7 Carlton Winbery winberyc at popalex1.linknet.net
Wed Sep 8 22:31:45 εδτ 1999

Wallace’s Grammar available in electronic book format Brenton’s λχχ, my apologies John Barach wrote;>Could any of you help me understand the syntax of 1 Peter 3:7? The>passage reads:> >hOI ανδρεσ hOMOIWS συνοικουντεσ κατα γνωσιν hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει TWi>GUNAIKEIWi απονεμοντεσ τιμην hWS και συγκληπονομοι ξαριτοσ ζωησ εισ το>μη εγκοπτεσθαι τασ προσευξασ hUMWN.> >ι understand that the participle συνοικουντεσ is functioning as an>imperative here. The difficulty is understanding the two hWS clauses.> >(1) ι notice, for instance, that some translations and commentaries>treat both hWS clauses as modifying απονεμοντεσ τιμην (“Giving honor to>the woman as the weaker vessel and as a co-heir of the gift/grace of>life”).> >(2) Some translations (e.g., νασβ), however, treat hWS ASQENESTERWi>σκευει TWi GUNAIKEIWi as the indirect object of συνοικουντεσ (“Dwell>with [your wife] as a weaker vessel, since she is a woman”).> >Any help you could offer would be greatly appreciated.> ι have only an earlier edition of Nestle with me now, but there is apunctuation variation listed for this verse. Westcott and Hort punctuate itas follows:hOI ανδρεσ hOMOIWS συνοικουντεσ κατα γνωσιν, hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει TWiGUNAIKEIWi απονεμοντεσ τιμην, hWS και συγκληπονομοι ξαριτοσ ζωησ εισ τομη εγκοπτεσθαι τασ προσευξασ hUMWN.Punctuated this way would produce this, “Husbands, likewise dwell togetheraccording to knowledge, give honor to (your) wife as to a weaker vessel, asalso fellow heirs of the grace of life lest your prayers be hindered.”In the Nestle (edition 21) this way;>hOI ανδρεσ hOMOIWS, συνοικουντεσ κατα γνωσιν hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει TWi>GUNAIKEIWi, απονεμοντεσ τιμην hWS και συγκληπονομοι ξαριτοσ ζωησ, εισ το>μη εγκοπτεσθαι τασ προσευξασ hUMWN.Punctuated this way it would read,”Likewise husbands, live togetheraccording to knowledge with (your) wives as with a weaker vessel, givehonor as also fellow heirs of the grace of life, lest your prayers behindered.”ι agree that the participles are used as imperatives and the infinitive toshow purpose. Either set of punctuations is possible as for as the grammaris concerned. both readings involve the difficult construction hWS καισυγκληπονομοι ξαριτοσ ζωησ. This seems to say that συγκληπονομοι seems tobe in apposition with the participle απονεμοντεσ seemingly applying to thehusbands and not the husband and wife. It is awkward to say the least.1 Peter is notorious for the use of participles.Dr. Carlton λ. WinberyFoggleman Professor of ReligionLouisiana Collegewinbery at andria.lacollege.eduwinberyc at popalex1.linknet.netPh. 1 318 448 6103 hmPh. 1 318 487 7241 off

Wallace’s Grammar available in electronic book formatBrenton’s λχχ, my apologies

[] 1 Peter 3:17 θελοι…το θελημα Mitch Larramore mitchlarramore at yahoo.com
Sat Nov 5 09:18:38 εστ 2005

[] test message [] 1 Peter 3:17 θελοι…το θελημα 1 Peter 3:17KREITTON γαρ αγαθοποιουντασ, ει θελοι το θελημα τουθεου, πασξειν η KAKOPOIOUNTASHow would ει θελοι το θελημα του θεου differ from ει θελοι hO θεοσ? Mitch LarramoreSugar Land, Texas__________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.http://farechase.yahoo.com

[] test message[] 1 Peter 3:17 θελοι…το θελημα

[] 1 Peter 3:17 θελοι…το θελημα Carl ω. Conrad cwconrad at ioa.com
Sat Nov 5 11:02:53 εστ 2005

[] 1 Peter 3:17 θελοι…το θελημα [] my wooden interlinear translations On Nov 5, 2005, at 9:18 αμ, Mitch Larramore wrote:> 1 Peter 3:17> > κρειττον γαρ αγαθοποιουντασ, ει θελοι το θελημα του> θεου, πασξειν η κακοποιουντασ> > How would ει θελοι το θελημα του θεου differ from ει> θελοι hO θεοσ?μικρον τι παντελωσ!Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, νξ 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

[] 1 Peter 3:17 θελοι…το θελημα[] my wooden interlinear translations

[] Use of γυναικειο in 1 Peter 3:7 Calvin Lindstrom pclindstrom at yahoo.com
Thu Jun 14 10:58:04 εδτ 2007

[] –οτεραν or – ωτεραν? [] Use of γυναικειο in 1 Peter 3:7 Paul ψ. Achtemeier in his commentary on 1 Peter finds importance that Peter uses two different but related words referring to women/wives. For example on p. 208 of his commentary he argues that it is significant that Peter uses γυναικειο (adjective) in verse 7 and uses γυναικεσ (noun) in verse 1. Similarly, on p. 217 he notes that the use of γυναικειο (adjectival substantive) instead of the noun “points to a wider meaning, and probably refers to the way males in a household deal with its female members.”Is this is a legitimate insight or is Peter simply using the two different words for variety? Any thoughts or comments would be helpful.Calvin LindstromChurch of Christian LibertyArlington Heights, ILwww.christianliberty.com

[] –οτεραν or – ωτεραν?[] Use of γυναικειο in 1 Peter 3:7

[] Use of γυναικειο in 1 Peter 3:7 Carl ω. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Jun 14 13:49:04 εδτ 2007

[] Use of γυναικειο in 1 Peter 3:7 [] Use of γυναικειο in 1 Peter 3:7 On Jun 14, 2007, at 10:58 αμ, Calvin Lindstrom wrote:> Paul ψ. Achtemeier in his commentary on 1 Peter finds importance that> Peter uses two different but related words referring to women/wives.> For example on p. 208 of his commentary he argues that it is> significant that Peter uses γυναικειο (adjective) in verse 7 and uses> γυναικεσ (noun) in verse 1. Similarly, on p. 217 he notes that the> use of γυναικειο (adjectival substantive) instead of the noun “points> to a wider meaning, and probably refers to the way males in a> household deal with its female members.”> > Is this is a legitimate insight or is Peter simply using the two> different words for variety? Any thoughts or comments would be > helpful.(a) ι think you mean GUNAIKEIWi (in our standard βγ transliteration we differentiate between Omicron and Omega and note the iota- subscript with a lower-case “i.”(b) ι don’t understand what other word than γυναικεσ we should expect in verse 1, since the sense is pretty clearly “wives” in relationship to “their own husbands.”(c) Text of verse 7: hOI ανδρεσ hOMOIWS, συνοικουντεσ κατα γνωσιν hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει TWi GUNAIKEIWi, απονεμοντεσ τιμην hWS και συγκληρονομοισ ξαριτοσ ζωησ εισ το μη εγκοπτεσθαι τασ προσευξασ hUMWN.ι don’t think that ASQENESTERWi in verse 7 is an adjectival substantive at all but rather an adjective used attributively with σκευει. Here in verse 7 as in verse 1 previously, so far as ι can tell the focus is upon husbands and their own wives. While σκευοσ (‘instrument,” “tool,” “implement”) might seem an odd word to use of a marriage-partner — or sexual partner — , it is used elsewhere in such a sense (e.g. 1 Thess. 4:4, where the phrasing seems rather similar to what we find here in 1 Peter 3:7). ι frankly don’t see any bearing whatsoever of this verse on other women in a household — unless one imagines that the master of the house has several concubines, each of whom he is treat with respect on grounds that she is “a weaker vessel.” But ι really think what’s at stake here is the relationship between husbands and their own wives.Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, νξ 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

[] Use of γυναικειο in 1 Peter 3:7[] Use of γυναικειο in 1 Peter 3:7

Thu Jun 14 18:01:12 εδτ 2007

[] Use of γυναικειο in 1 Peter 3:7 [] Use of γυναικειο in 1 Peter 3:7 Dear Carl,Thank you for your comments on the transliteration and also for the other insights.Is it possible that the use of GUNAIKEIWi carries with it the idea that honor is given because of the wife’s ‘femininity’? This idea is necessarily brought out in our English translations, but it has been suggested by at least one commentator (Wayne Grudem, 143).Calvin LindstromOn Jun 14, 2007, at 12:49 πμ, Carl ω. Conrad wrote:> > On Jun 14, 2007, at 10:58 αμ, Calvin Lindstrom wrote:> >> Paul ψ. Achtemeier in his commentary on 1 Peter finds importance that>> Peter uses two different but related words referring to women/wives.>> For example on p. 208 of his commentary he argues that it is>> significant that Peter uses γυναικειο (adjective) in verse 7 and uses>> γυναικεσ (noun) in verse 1. Similarly, on p. 217 he notes that the>> use of γυναικειο (adjectival substantive) instead of the noun “points>> to a wider meaning, and probably refers to the way males in a>> household deal with its female members.”>> >> Is this is a legitimate insight or is Peter simply using the two>> different words for variety? Any thoughts or comments would be >> helpful.> > (a) ι think you mean GUNAIKEIWi (in our standard βγ transliteration > we differentiate between Omicron and Omega and note the iota- > subscript with a lower-case “i.”> > (b) ι don’t understand what other word than γυναικεσ we should > expect in verse 1, since the sense is pretty clearly “wives” in > relationship to “their own husbands.”> > (c) Text of verse 7: hOI ανδρεσ hOMOIWS, συνοικουντεσ κατα γνωσιν > hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει TWi GUNAIKEIWi, απονεμοντεσ τιμην hWS και > συγκληρονομοισ ξαριτοσ ζωησ εισ το μη εγκοπτεσθαι τασ προσευξασ hUMWN.> > ι don’t think that ASQENESTERWi in verse 7 is an adjectival > substantive at all but rather an adjective used attributively with > σκευει. Here in verse 7 as in verse 1 previously, so far as ι can > tell the focus is upon husbands and their own wives. While σκευοσ > (‘instrument,” “tool,” “implement”) might seem an odd word to use > of a marriage-partner — or sexual partner — , it is used > elsewhere in such a sense (e.g. 1 Thess. 4:4, where the phrasing > seems rather similar to what we find here in 1 Peter 3:7). ι > frankly don’t see any bearing whatsoever of this verse on other > women in a household — unless one imagines that the master of the > house has several concubines, each of whom he is treat with respect > on grounds that she is “a weaker vessel.” But ι really think what’s > at stake here is the relationship between husbands and their own > wives.> > Carl ω. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, νξ 28714/(828) 675-4243> cwconrad2 at mac.com> ωωω: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/> >

Thu Jun 14 19:41:49 εδτ 2007

[] Use of γυναικειο in 1 Peter 3:7 [] diamelisqhsetai On Jun 14, 2007, at 6:01 πμ, Calvin Lindstrom wrote:> Dear Carl,> > Thank you for your comments on the transliteration and also for the> other insights.> > Is it possible that the use of GUNAIKEIWi carries with it the idea> that honor is given because of the wife’s ‘femininity’? This idea is> necessarily brought out in our English translations, but it has been> suggested by at least one commentator (Wayne Grudem, 143).It does not surprise me that Wayne Grudem would suggest that. it doesn’t impress me either. ι suppose that if a wife displayed “masculinity,” there’d be less reason to honor her? Not that any ancient writer is likely to have suggested such a notion, but ι still think that GUNAIKEIWi is nothing more than an adjective to fit with σκευει — and that σκευει GUNAIKEIWi is simply a paraphrase for γυναικι.cwc> > Calvin Lindstrom> > On Jun 14, 2007, at 12:49 πμ, Carl ω. Conrad wrote:> >> >> On Jun 14, 2007, at 10:58 αμ, Calvin Lindstrom wrote:>> >>> Paul ψ. Achtemeier in his commentary on 1 Peter finds importance >>> that>>> Peter uses two different but related words referring to women/wives.>>> For example on p. 208 of his commentary he argues that it is>>> significant that Peter uses γυναικειο (adjective) in verse 7 and >>> uses>>> γυναικεσ (noun) in verse 1. Similarly, on p. 217 he notes that the>>> use of γυναικειο (adjectival substantive) instead of the noun >>> “points>>> to a wider meaning, and probably refers to the way males in a>>> household deal with its female members.”>>> >>> Is this is a legitimate insight or is Peter simply using the two>>> different words for variety? Any thoughts or comments would be>>> helpful.>> >> (a) ι think you mean GUNAIKEIWi (in our standard βγ transliteration>> we differentiate between Omicron and Omega and note the iota->> subscript with a lower-case “i.”>> >> (b) ι don’t understand what other word than γυναικεσ we should>> expect in verse 1, since the sense is pretty clearly “wives” in>> relationship to “their own husbands.”>> >> (c) Text of verse 7: hOI ανδρεσ hOMOIWS, συνοικουντεσ κατα γνωσιν>> hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει TWi GUNAIKEIWi, απονεμοντεσ τιμην hWS και>> συγκληρονομοισ ξαριτοσ ζωησ εισ το μη εγκοπτεσθαι τασ προσευξασ >> hUMWN.>> >> ι don’t think that ASQENESTERWi in verse 7 is an adjectival>> substantive at all but rather an adjective used attributively with>> σκευει. Here in verse 7 as in verse 1 previously, so far as ι can>> tell the focus is upon husbands and their own wives. While σκευοσ>> (‘instrument,” “tool,” “implement”) might seem an odd word to use>> of a marriage-partner — or sexual partner — , it is used>> elsewhere in such a sense (e.g. 1 Thess. 4:4, where the phrasing>> seems rather similar to what we find here in 1 Peter 3:7). ι>> frankly don’t see any bearing whatsoever of this verse on other>> women in a household — unless one imagines that the master of the>> house has several concubines, each of whom he is treat with respect>> on grounds that she is “a weaker vessel.” But ι really think what’s>> at stake here is the relationship between husbands and their own>> wives.>> >> Carl ω. Conrad>> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)>> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, νξ 28714/(828) 675-4243>> cwconrad2 at mac.com>> ωωω: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/>> >> > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] Use of γυναικειο in 1 Peter 3:7[] diamelisqhsetai

[] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 (was “Re: Gal 4.4” Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Wed Jul 22 11:15:55 εδτ 2009

[] Gal 4.4 [] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 (was “Re: Gal 4.4” On Jul 22, 2009, at 8:36 αμ, Mitch Larramore wrote:> As a great example, ι ran across the other day in the archives the > famous passage of women being the “weaker vessel.” The poster (Mark > Wilson) suggests that ‘weaker’ be translated ‘more vulnerable.’ More > vulnerable, by the way, was understood in a positive sense, a > vulnerability that accentuates a woman’s femininity. That changed > the whole way ι looked at that passage. (http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//2003-May/025342.html > )> > ι know ι had read 50+ books/articles on that one phrase and had yet > to find anything that made sense to me, until that post. So, that > was the driving force behind my asking. If you don’t see anything in > the Greek, that’s fine. But perhaps a Mark Wilson is out there who > has done some serious digging (original research, not checking more > lexica) on that phrase. ι don’t feel like ι‘m wasting anyone’s time > and many times my questions are, in the end, sophomoric and, as it > turns out, not very helpful, but ι just have yet to figure out how > to know which question is dumb before ι ask it 😮 )Mark Wilson has not been a list-member for many years. ι corresponded with him frequently off-list and will attest that he had numerous original ideas. ι must say that ι think the notion of “vulnerability” as a positive quality is an extraordinarily original idea. ι do note that there was no response to this message of May 14, 2003. ι cite the chief point:”ι took this “root” idea of “vulnerability” and applied it to a woman. It seems obvious to me that vulnerable can be both viewed negatively or positively. ι took the positive aspect and applied it to the wife of which Peter speaks.”‘Give honor to the wife, who is the more vulnerable partner.'”ι don’t think Peter is saying that we ought to give honor to the wife because we can lift a bigger rock than she can. Rather, ι think he is referring to a feminine, godly vulnerability that is so attractive to the male. It’s that beautiful quality of a wife that the husband is graced to protect.”The text in question is 1 Peter 3:7:Οἱ ἄνδρες ὁμοίως, συνοικοῦντες κατὰ γνῶσιν ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει τῷ γυναικείῳ, ἀπονέμοντες τιμὴν ὡς καὶ συγκληρονόμοις χάριτος ζωῆς εἰς τὸ μὴ ἐγκόπτεσθαι τὰς προσευχὰς ὑμῶν.[hOI ανδρεσ hOMOIWS, συνοικουντεσ κατα γνωσιν hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει TWi GUNAIKEIWi, απονεμοντεσ τιμην hWS συγκληρονομοισ ζωησ εισ το μη εγκοπτεσθαι τασ προσευξασ hUMWN.]ι would understand hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει TWi GUNAIKEIWi as construing with hOMOIWS, συνοικουντεσ, and απονεμοντεσ τιμην as construing with hWS συγκληρονομοισ ζωησ. On that understanding honor is not given because of the “greater infirmity/weakness” but because wives are “co-heirs of life.”Mark said that he had done considerable research into the usage of the adjective ασθενησ at the Perseus site and had been particularly impressed by the association of “vulnerability” with the adjective. That makes perfectly good sense, but it is a leap, it seems to me, to attribute a positive value to vulnerability. The vulnerable need protection, of course, but how is vulnerability something to be valued in and of itself? Is that really what this text is saying?Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

[] Gal 4.4[] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 (was “Re: Gal 4.4”

[] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 fullerming at gmail.com fullerming at gmail.com
Wed Jul 22 12:45:28 εδτ 2009

[] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 (was “Re: Gal 4.4” [] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 Also, vulnerability can be positive as in delicate and frail like a flower or a new born baby. ι will look for such inferences when ι get home tonight for ASQENESTERWi σκευει, but it seems reasonable.–Fuller Ming, Jr. Seminary Student, ξβσ, Lanham Md. (Currently no money or time so not taking classes)Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device—–Original Message—–From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 at earthlink.net>Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:46:49 To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Subject: Re: [] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 (was “Re: Gal 4.4″Carl,> The text in question is 1 Peter 3:7:> Οἱ ἄνδρες ὁμοίως, συνοικοῦντες κατὰ > γνῶσιν ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει τῷ > γυναικείῳ, ἀπονέμοντες τιμὴν ὡς > καὶ συγκληρονόμοις χάριτος ζωῆς εἰς > τὸ μὴ ἐγκόπτεσθαι τὰς προσευχὰς > ὑμῶν.> [hOI ανδρεσ hOMOIWS, συνοικουντεσ κατα γνωσιν hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει > TWi GUNAIKEIWi, απονεμοντεσ τιμην hWS συγκληρονομοισ ζωησ εισ το μη > εγκοπτεσθαι τασ προσευξασ hUMWN.]> > ι would understand hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει TWi GUNAIKEIWi as > construing with hOMOIWS, συνοικουντεσ, and απονεμοντεσ τιμην as > construing with hWS συγκληρονομοισ ζωησ. On that understanding honor > is not given because of the “greater infirmity/weakness” but because > wives are “co-heirs of life.”> > Mark said that he had done considerable research into the usage of the > adjective ασθενησ at the Perseus site and had been particularly > impressed by the association of “vulnerability” with the adjective. > That makes perfectly good sense, but it is a leap, it seems to me, to > attribute a positive value to vulnerability. The vulnerable need > protection, of course, but how is vulnerability something to be valued > in and of itself? Is that really what this text is saying?> ηη: My pastor preached on this text on Sunday, noting that one of the worst things men can say to a woman in tears over something is: “What is wrong with you,” or worse, “What is your problem?” It involves a failure to recognize that women were created differently than men, and tears may be the appropriate response from a woman in that situation. (He added than 90% of the time “you,” the husband, is the problem in such cases). So we live knowledgeably with our wives and show them honor by recognizing their different make-up. The pastor suggested that the fact that the man asks the woman for marriage shows her basically weaker position. The phrase “fellow heir of the grace of life” suggests equality, but there is this God-ordained difference, this relative weakness, that must be taken into account. If it is handled as a legitimate difference, and not as a defect, we act knowledgeably and honorably towards her.Yours,Harold Holmyard— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 (was “Re: Gal 4.4″[] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7

[] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 Mitch Larramore mitchlarramore at yahoo.com
Wed Jul 22 18:02:07 εδτ 2009

[] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 [] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 ι had only mentioned this post by Mark Wilson as an illustration, but one of the reasons ι think it is so good is that it rejects the earlier commentaries which have obviously been unable to offer any explanation. [Also, ι don’t think you will find a lot of earlier extra-biblical Greek examples of this ‘weaker σκευει.’ ι would look for the nuances of ASQENESTERWi by itself.But in the immediately preceding verses, Peter is talking about the ιννερ beauty of the woman. The reason ι understood Mark to be saying the “vulnerability” was ‘positive’ is because it is being viewed as part of the woman’s ιννερ beauty. The woman does not possess a weaker ‘character’ than man, and the focus of a woman’s physical weakness by most commentaries leads to dead ends. No, ι think Mark’s idea, a bit uncomfortable apparently due to his way of thinking, is heading in the right direction. This is exactly how “break throughs” happen, if you ask me. α guy like Mark comes along and redirects our thinking, and then scholars come along and do the hard work of perfecting this idea or redirecting it into some other direction, but still being carried by the original momentum gathered by the out-of-the-box first thinker. He had obviously done some groundbreaking work.Mitch LarramoreAugusta, γα

[] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7[] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7

[] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 (was “Re: Gal 4.4” Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net
Wed Jul 22 11:46:49 εδτ 2009

[] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 (was “Re: Gal 4.4” [] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 Carl,> The text in question is 1 Peter 3:7:> Οἱ ἄνδρες ὁμοίως, συνοικοῦντες κατὰ > γνῶσιν ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει τῷ > γυναικείῳ, ἀπονέμοντες τιμὴν ὡς > καὶ συγκληρονόμοις χάριτος ζωῆς εἰς > τὸ μὴ ἐγκόπτεσθαι τὰς προσευχὰς > ὑμῶν.> [hOI ανδρεσ hOMOIWS, συνοικουντεσ κατα γνωσιν hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει > TWi GUNAIKEIWi, απονεμοντεσ τιμην hWS συγκληρονομοισ ζωησ εισ το μη > εγκοπτεσθαι τασ προσευξασ hUMWN.]> > ι would understand hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει TWi GUNAIKEIWi as > construing with hOMOIWS, συνοικουντεσ, and απονεμοντεσ τιμην as > construing with hWS συγκληρονομοισ ζωησ. On that understanding honor > is not given because of the “greater infirmity/weakness” but because > wives are “co-heirs of life.”> > Mark said that he had done considerable research into the usage of the > adjective ασθενησ at the Perseus site and had been particularly > impressed by the association of “vulnerability” with the adjective. > That makes perfectly good sense, but it is a leap, it seems to me, to > attribute a positive value to vulnerability. The vulnerable need > protection, of course, but how is vulnerability something to be valued > in and of itself? Is that really what this text is saying?> ηη: My pastor preached on this text on Sunday, noting that one of the worst things men can say to a woman in tears over something is: “What is wrong with you,” or worse, “What is your problem?” It involves a failure to recognize that women were created differently than men, and tears may be the appropriate response from a woman in that situation. (He added than 90% of the time “you,” the husband, is the problem in such cases). So we live knowledgeably with our wives and show them honor by recognizing their different make-up. The pastor suggested that the fact that the man asks the woman for marriage shows her basically weaker position. The phrase “fellow heir of the grace of life” suggests equality, but there is this God-ordained difference, this relative weakness, that must be taken into account. If it is handled as a legitimate difference, and not as a defect, we act knowledgeably and honorably towards her.Yours,Harold Holmyard

[] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Thu Jul 23 06:07:25 εδτ 2009

[] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 [] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 revised On Jul 22, 2009, at 6:02 πμ, Mitch Larramore wrote:> ι had only mentioned this post by Mark Wilson as an illustration, > but one of the reasons ι think it is so good is that it rejects the > earlier commentaries which have obviously been unable to offer any > explanation. [Also, ι don’t think you will find a lot of earlier > extra-biblical Greek examples of this ‘weaker σκευει.’ ι would look > for the nuances of ASQENESTERWi by itself.> > But in the immediately preceding verses, Peter is talking about the > ιννερ beauty of the woman. The reason ι understood Mark to be saying > the “vulnerability” was ‘positive’ is because it is being viewed as > part of the woman’s ιννερ beauty. The woman does not possess a > weaker ‘character’ than man, and the focus of a woman’s physical > weakness by most commentaries leads to dead ends. No, ι think Mark’s > idea, a bit uncomfortable apparently due to his way of thinking, is > heading in the right direction.> > This is exactly how “break throughs” happen, if you ask me. α guy > like Mark comes along and redirects our thinking, and then scholars > come along and do the hard work of perfecting this idea or > redirecting it into some other direction, but still being carried by > the original momentum gathered by the out-of-the-box first thinker. > He had obviously done some groundbreaking work.Evidently this notion of the adjective ασθενησ having the sense of “vulnerable” and having a “positive” connotation. ι‘m rather dubious about this notion myself. On the one hand, ι would agree that “vulnerable” is one common idea associated with the adjective, but ι question that vulnerability is ever really conceived as something good in the ancient view. In particular, it seems to me that the notion of “fragile, delicate femininity” is closer to modern romantic, even Victorian conceptions of womanhood than to ordinary ancient sensibilities.Mitch is right to call attention to the immediately preceding context: verses 1-6 are addressed to wives and they do explicitly point to inner beauty, contrasting external sorts of κοσμοσ (coiffure, jewelry, flashy clothes and the like) with hO κρυπτοσ θσ καρδιασ ανθρωποσ εν TWi AFQARTWi του πραεωσ και hHSUCIOU πνευματοσ (v. 4). But ι rather think that “imperishable gentleness and peaceableness” are viewed as cultivated traits rather than “natural” feminine attributes. Verse 7, on the other hand, begins a new exhortation to husbands regarding behavior toward wives, and here’s where we encounter the phrase ASQENESTERWi σκευει. Mitch suggests that in researching the adjective ασθενησ we should ignore the word σκευοσ and focus on the adjective alone, but ι rather think that the word σκευοσ has much to do with how we can understand the adjective ασθενησ when used with it; σκευοσ means, fundamentally, “utensil.” βδαγ offers as the first sense, “a material object used to meet some need in an occupation or other responsibility” and a third sense, with reference to a person, “a human being exercising a function, instrument, vessel “. ι researched the noun a few years ago in connection with the phrase in 1 Thess 4:4 το hEAUTOU σκευοσ κτασθαι (http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//2002-July/021820.html ). ι think that ASQENESTERWi when qualifying σκευει must must say something about the quality of the σκευοσ as a “human instrument.”ασθενησ itself is given the essential sense in βδαγ> “of that which lacks strength: ‘weak, powerless’. βδαγ‘s categorization and subcategorization of senses in which the adjective is used is pretty thorough, it seems to me, and, although “vulnerable” certainly does seem an appropriate synonym, ι can’t see anything in it that suggests a vulnerability that has a ποσιτιβε sense. So if ASQENESTERWi in 1 Peter 3:7 is supposed to suggest vulnerability in a positive sense, ι‘d like to see some evidence supporting this view.Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

[] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7[] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 revised

[] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 revised Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Thu Jul 23 07:56:52 εδτ 2009

[] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 [] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 Proofreading is embarrassing — discovering that one’s nominativus is pendens.On Jul 23, 2009, at 6:07 αμ, Carl Conrad wrote:> > On Jul 22, 2009, at 6:02 πμ, Mitch Larramore wrote:> >> ι had only mentioned this post by Mark Wilson as an illustration,>> but one of the reasons ι think it is so good is that it rejects the>> earlier commentaries which have obviously been unable to offer any>> explanation. [Also, ι don’t think you will find a lot of earlier>> extra-biblical Greek examples of this ‘weaker σκευει.’ ι would look>> for the nuances of ASQENESTERWi by itself.>> >> But in the immediately preceding verses, Peter is talking about the>> ιννερ beauty of the woman. The reason ι understood Mark to be saying>> the “vulnerability” was ‘positive’ is because it is being viewed as>> part of the woman’s ιννερ beauty. The woman does not possess a>> weaker ‘character’ than man, and the focus of a woman’s physical>> weakness by most commentaries leads to dead ends. No, ι think Mark’s>> idea, a bit uncomfortable apparently due to his way of thinking, is>> heading in the right direction.>> >> This is exactly how “break throughs” happen, if you ask me. α guy>> like Mark comes along and redirects our thinking, and then scholars>> come along and do the hard work of perfecting this idea or>> redirecting it into some other direction, but still being carried by>> the original momentum gathered by the out-of-the-box first thinker.>> He had obviously done some groundbreaking work.> > Evidently this notion of the adjective ασθενησ having the sense of> “vulnerable” and having a “positive” connotationhas struck several as an attractive suggestion.> . ι‘m rather dubious> about this notion myself. On the one hand, ι would agree that> “vulnerable” is one common idea associated with the adjective, but ι> question that vulnerability is ever really conceived as something good> in the ancient view. In particular, it seems to me that the notion of> “fragile, delicate femininity” is closer to modern romantic, even> Victorian conceptions of womanhood than to ordinary ancient> sensibilities.> > Mitch is right to call attention to the immediately preceding context:> verses 1-6 are addressed to wives and they do explicitly point to> inner beauty, contrasting external sorts of κοσμοσ (coiffure, jewelry,> flashy clothes and the like) with hO κρυπτοσ θσ καρδιασ ανθρωποσ εν> TWi AFQARTWi του πραεωσ και hHSUCIOU πνευματοσ (v. 4). But ι rather> think that “imperishable gentleness and peaceableness” are viewed as> cultivated traits rather than “natural” feminine attributes. Verse 7,> on the other hand, begins a new exhortation to husbands regarding> behavior toward wives, and here’s where we encounter the phrase> ASQENESTERWi σκευει. Mitch suggests that in researching the adjective> ασθενησ we should ignore the word σκευοσ and focus on the adjective> alone, but ι rather think that the word σκευοσ has much to do with how> we can understand the adjective ασθενησ when used with it; σκευοσ> means, fundamentally, “utensil.” βδαγ offers as the first sense, “a> material object used to meet some need in an occupation or other> responsibility” and a third sense, with reference to a person, “a> human being exercising a function, instrument, vessel “. ι researched> the noun a few years ago in connection with the phrase in 1 Thess 4:4> το hEAUTOU σκευοσ κτασθαι (http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//2002-July/021820.html> ). ι think that ASQENESTERWi when qualifying σκευει must must say> something about the quality of the σκευοσ as a “human instrument.”> > ασθενησ itself is given the essential sense in βδαγ> “of that which> lacks strength: ‘weak, powerless’. βδαγ‘s categorization and> subcategorization of senses in which the adjective is used is pretty> thorough, it seems to me, and, although “vulnerable” certainly does> seem an appropriate synonym, ι can’t see anything in it that suggests> a vulnerability that has a ποσιτιβε sense. So if ASQENESTERWi in 1> Peter 3:7 is supposed to suggest vulnerability in a positive sense,> ι‘d like to see some evidence supporting this view.> > Carl ω. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> > > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 Mark Lightman lightmanmark at yahoo.com
Thu Jul 23 08:53:30 εδτ 2009

[] Epictetus Discourses Reading Group [] Anarthrous vs Arthrous Genitive in ιι Corinthians 3:6 &3:14 Carl wrote: <On the one hand, ι would agree that “vulnerable” is one common idea associated with the adjective, but ι question that vulnerability is ever really conceived as something good in the ancient view. In particular, it seems to me that the notion of “fragile, delicate femininity” is closer to modern romantic, even Victorian conceptions of womanhood than to ordinary ancient sensibilities.> In the Odyssey 21:6 Penelope goes to thestoreroom to get Odysseus’ bow which willsoon be used to slaughter the suitors. ειλετο δε κληιδʼ ευκαμπεα χειρι παχειῃhEILETO δε κληιδ‘ ευκαμπεια ξειρι PACEIHi “She took the well curved key with her stout, thick,sturdy, hand.” The idea of a graceful, beautiful woman having a thick hand strikes us, and only us, as out of place. While Homeris famous for having epiteths which do not alwaysmake alot of since, and are often used for metricalor formulaic reasons, ι agree with Carl that forthe ancient Greeks weak was never the new strong.Remember that κακοσ in Homer never meansmorally bad but always either weak, cowardly, orill-born. When searching Perseus we have tobe careful not to try to put the new wine intothe old skins. ΦωσφοροςMark λφωσφοροσ μαρκοσ— On Thu, 7/23/09, Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com> wrote:From: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>Subject: Re: [] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7To: “Mitch Larramore” <mitchlarramore at yahoo.com>Cc: ” ” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Date: Thursday, July 23, 2009, 4:07 AMOn Jul 22, 2009, at 6:02 πμ, Mitch Larramore wrote:> ι had only mentioned this post by Mark Wilson as an illustration, > but one of the reasons ι think it is so good is that it rejects the > earlier commentaries which have obviously been unable to offer any > explanation. [Also, ι don’t think you will find a lot of earlier > extra-biblical Greek examples of this ‘weaker σκευει.’ ι would look > for the nuances of ASQENESTERWi by itself.> > But in the immediately preceding verses, Peter is talking about the > ιννερ beauty of the woman. The reason ι understood Mark to be saying > the “vulnerability” was ‘positive’ is because it is being viewed as > part of the woman’s ιννερ beauty. The woman does not possess a > weaker ‘character’ than man, and the focus of a woman’s physical > weakness by most commentaries leads to dead ends. No, ι think Mark’s > idea, a bit uncomfortable apparently due to his way of thinking, is > heading in the right direction.> > This is exactly how “break throughs” happen, if you ask me. α guy > like Mark comes along and redirects our thinking, and then scholars > come along and do the hard work of perfecting this idea or > redirecting it into some other direction, but still being carried by > the original momentum gathered by the out-of-the-box first thinker. > He had obviously done some groundbreaking work.Evidently this notion of the adjective ασθενησ having the sense of “vulnerable” and having a “positive” connotation. ι‘m rather dubious about this notion myself. On the one hand, ι would agree that “vulnerable” is one common idea associated with the adjective, but ι question that vulnerability is ever really conceived as something good in the ancient view. In particular, it seems to me that the notion of “fragile, delicate femininity” is closer to modern romantic, even Victorian conceptions of womanhood than to ordinary ancient sensibilities.Mitch is right to call attention to the immediately preceding context: verses 1-6 are addressed to wives and they do explicitly point to inner beauty, contrasting external sorts of κοσμοσ (coiffure, jewelry, flashy clothes and the like) with hO κρυπτοσ θσ καρδιασ ανθρωποσ εν TWi AFQARTWi του πραεωσ και hHSUCIOU πνευματοσ (v. 4). But ι rather think that “imperishable gentleness and peaceableness” are viewed as cultivated traits rather than “natural” feminine attributes. Verse 7, on the other hand, begins a new exhortation to husbands regarding behavior toward wives, and here’s where we encounter the phrase ASQENESTERWi σκευει. Mitch suggests that in researching the adjective ασθενησ we should ignore the word σκευοσ and focus on the adjective alone, but ι rather think that the word σκευοσ has much to do with how we can understand the adjective ασθενησ when used with it; σκευοσ means, fundamentally, “utensil.” βδαγ offers as the first sense, “a material object used to meet some need in an occupation or other responsibility” and a third sense, with reference to a person, “a human being exercising a function, instrument, vessel “. ι researched the noun a few years ago in connection with the phrase in 1 Thess 4:4 το hEAUTOU σκευοσ κτασθαι (http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//2002-July/021820.html ). ι think that ASQENESTERWi when qualifying σκευει must must say something about the quality of the σκευοσ as a “human instrument.”ασθενησ itself is given the essential sense in βδαγ> “of that which lacks strength: ‘weak, powerless’. βδαγ‘s categorization and subcategorization of senses in which the adjective is used is pretty thorough, it seems to me, and, although “vulnerable” certainly does seem an appropriate synonym, ι can’t see anything in it that suggests a vulnerability that has a ποσιτιβε sense. So if ASQENESTERWi in 1 Peter 3:7 is supposed to suggest vulnerability in a positive sense, ι‘d like to see some evidence supporting this view.Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] Epictetus Discourses Reading Group[] Anarthrous vs Arthrous Genitive in ιι Corinthians 3:6 &3:14

[] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 Sarah Madden sarah.r.madden at gmail.com
Fri Jul 24 04:02:04 εδτ 2009

[] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 [] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 The best explanation My pastor explained this word by comparing a woman toan elegant china cup that can be broken if dropped. The china cup wascreated with intense fire and is just as useful a vessel as a pottery or tincup, but it cannot be mistreated or it breaks and loses all functionality.Also, speaking from a woman’s point of view, sometimes we just want someoneto listen to us — not to solve the problem at that point. The solution cancome later. Just a thought to all you guys out there …Sarah MaddenSeminary student & ταξβσ, Lanham, Md.sarah.r.madden at gmail.comOn Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 12:45 πμ, <fullerming at gmail.com> wrote:> Also, vulnerability can be positive as in delicate and frail like a flower> or a new born baby. ι will look for such inferences when ι get home tonight> for ASQENESTERWi σκευει, but it seems reasonable.> –Fuller Ming, Jr.> Seminary Student,> ξβσ, Lanham Md.> (Currently no money or time so not taking classes)> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device> > —–Original Message—–> From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 at earthlink.net>> > Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:46:49> To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Subject: Re: [] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 (was “Re: Gal> 4.4″> > > Carl,> > The text in question is 1 Peter 3:7:> > Οἱ ἄνδρες ὁμοίως, συνοικοῦντες κατὰ> > γνῶσιν ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει τῷ> > γυναικείῳ, ἀπονέμοντες τιμὴν ὡς> > καὶ συγκληρονόμοις χάριτος ζωῆς εἰς> > τὸ μὴ ἐγκόπτεσθαι τὰς προσευχὰς> > ὑμῶν.> > [hOI ανδρεσ hOMOIWS, συνοικουντεσ κατα γνωσιν hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει> > TWi GUNAIKEIWi, απονεμοντεσ τιμην hWS συγκληρονομοισ ζωησ εισ το μη> > εγκοπτεσθαι τασ προσευξασ hUMWN.]> >> > ι would understand hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει TWi GUNAIKEIWi as> > construing with hOMOIWS, συνοικουντεσ, and απονεμοντεσ τιμην as> > construing with hWS συγκληρονομοισ ζωησ. On that understanding honor> > is not given because of the “greater infirmity/weakness” but because> > wives are “co-heirs of life.”> >> > Mark said that he had done considerable research into the usage of the> > adjective ασθενησ at the Perseus site and had been particularly> > impressed by the association of “vulnerability” with the adjective.> > That makes perfectly good sense, but it is a leap, it seems to me, to> > attribute a positive value to vulnerability. The vulnerable need> > protection, of course, but how is vulnerability something to be valued> > in and of itself? Is that really what this text is saying?> >> > ηη: My pastor preached on this text on Sunday, noting that one of the> worst things men can say to a woman in tears over something is: “What is> wrong with you,” or worse, “What is your problem?” It involves a failure> to recognize that women were created differently than men, and tears may> be the appropriate response from a woman in that situation. (He added> than 90% of the time “you,” the husband, is the problem in such cases).> So we live knowledgeably with our wives and show them honor by> recognizing their different make-up. The pastor suggested that the fact> that the man asks the woman for marriage shows her basically weaker> position. The phrase “fellow heir of the grace of life” suggests> equality, but there is this God-ordained difference, this relative> weakness, that must be taken into account. If it is handled as a> legitimate difference, and not as a defect, we act knowledgeably and> honorably towards her.> > Yours,> Harold Holmyard> > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> — Sarah ><>sarah.r.madden at gmail.comwork: 301.429.8189

Fri Jul 24 06:56:47 εδτ 2009

[] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 [] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 On Jul 24, 2009, at 4:02 αμ, Sarah Madden wrote:> The best explanation My pastor explained this word by comparing a > woman to> an elegant china cup that can be broken if dropped. The china cup was> created with intense fire and is just as useful a vessel as a > pottery or tin> cup, but it cannot be mistreated or it breaks and loses all > functionality.> > Also, speaking from a woman’s point of view, sometimes we just want > someone> to listen to us — not to solve the problem at that point. The > solution can> come later. Just a thought to all you guys out there …Interesting. What’s helpful about this analogy is that it preserves the sense of σκευοσ as a utensil and adds to it an aesthetic dimension: a beautiful utensil. ι‘m troubled, however, by the very associations of utility and aesthetic excellence. ι don’t think the analogy can be pushed very far; it seems to me, as did the original notion of vulnerability as a positive value, just as much a modern romantic, even Victorian conception of womanhood: a fragile work of art that is also useful, an exquisite item to be kept in a cabinet and brought out to serve coffee only to guests of quality. The nearest ancient Greek analogy to this that oomes to my mind is Hesiod’s account of the mythic Pandora (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora — this is one of the better Wikipedia articles, ι‘d say, reasonably thorough and well-documented). Pandora is sent with her jar (πιθοσ, a ceramic vessel which became a “box” in later re-tellings of the myth) to an all-male humanity as a punishment for the theft of fire from the gods. The jar contains all the woes unleashed upon humanity and also the one ambiguous, potentially good and potentially evil, gift: hope (ελπισ). It requires little imagination to see that Pandora is identical with the jar. It also requires little imagination to discern the misogynistic perspective implicit in the story as an account of the origin of evil. While there is no evidence that he is alluding to the Pandora myth, Philo of Alexandria may possibly have known it as well as he knew Platonic philosophy; Philo’s interpretation of the creation of Eve and of her seduction by the serpent in Genesis 3 is set forth in Philo’s De Opificio Mundi (Englished as “On the Creation” — ξ.δ. Yonge’s translation: http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book1.html) . Philo’s account of Eve offers one perspective on how the phrase ασθενεστερον σκευοσ as a description of the essence of femininity might have been understood by a contemporary of the author of 1 Peter.Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 12:45 πμ, <fullerming at gmail.com> wrote:> >> Also, vulnerability can be positive as in delicate and frail like a >> flower>> or a new born baby. ι will look for such inferences when ι get >> home tonight>> for ASQENESTERWi σκευει, but it seems reasonable.>> –Fuller Ming, Jr.>> Seminary Student,>> ξβσ, Lanham Md.>> (Currently no money or time so not taking classes)>> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device>> >> —–Original Message—–>> From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 at earthlink.net>>> >> Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:46:49>> To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>>> Subject: Re: [] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 (was “Re: >> Gal>> 4.4″>> >> >> Carl,>>> The text in question is 1 Peter 3:7:>>> Οἱ ἄνδρες ὁμοίως, συνοικοῦντες >>> κατὰ>>> γνῶσιν ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει τῷ>>> γυναικείῳ, ἀπονέμοντες τιμὴν ὡς>>> καὶ συγκληρονόμοις χάριτος ζωῆς >>> εἰς>>> τὸ μὴ ἐγκόπτεσθαι τὰς προσευχὰς>>> ὑμῶν.>>> [hOI ανδρεσ hOMOIWS, συνοικουντεσ κατα γνωσιν hWS ASQENESTERWi >>> σκευει>>> TWi GUNAIKEIWi, απονεμοντεσ τιμην hWS συγκληρονομοισ ζωησ εισ το μη>>> εγκοπτεσθαι τασ προσευξασ hUMWN.]>>> >>> ι would understand hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει TWi GUNAIKEIWi as>>> construing with hOMOIWS, συνοικουντεσ, and απονεμοντεσ τιμην as>>> construing with hWS συγκληρονομοισ ζωησ. On that understanding honor>>> is not given because of the “greater infirmity/weakness” but because>>> wives are “co-heirs of life.”>>> >>> Mark said that he had done considerable research into the usage of >>> the>>> adjective ασθενησ at the Perseus site and had been particularly>>> impressed by the association of “vulnerability” with the adjective.>>> That makes perfectly good sense, but it is a leap, it seems to me, >>> to>>> attribute a positive value to vulnerability. The vulnerable need>>> protection, of course, but how is vulnerability something to be >>> valued>>> in and of itself? Is that really what this text is saying?>>> >> >> ηη: My pastor preached on this text on Sunday, noting that one of the>> worst things men can say to a woman in tears over something is: >> “What is>> wrong with you,” or worse, “What is your problem?” It involves a >> failure>> to recognize that women were created differently than men, and >> tears may>> be the appropriate response from a woman in that situation. (He added>> than 90% of the time “you,” the husband, is the problem in such >> cases).>> So we live knowledgeably with our wives and show them honor by>> recognizing their different make-up. The pastor suggested that the >> fact>> that the man asks the woman for marriage shows her basically weaker>> position. The phrase “fellow heir of the grace of life” suggests>> equality, but there is this God-ordained difference, this relative>> weakness, that must be taken into account. If it is handled as a>> legitimate difference, and not as a defect, we act knowledgeably and>> honorably towards her.>> >> Yours,>> Harold Holmyard

[] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 Oun Kwon kwonbbl at gmail.com
Fri Jul 24 22:09:10 εδτ 2009

[] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 revised [] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 6:07 αμ, Carl Conrad<cwconrad2 at mac.com> wrote:> <clipped>> Evidently this notion of the adjective ασθενησ having the sense of> “vulnerable” and having a “positive” connotation. ι‘m rather dubious> about this notion myself. On the one hand, ι would agree that> “vulnerable” is one common idea associated with the adjective, but ι> question that vulnerability is ever really conceived as something good> in the ancient view. In particular, it seems to me that the notion of> “fragile, delicate femininity” is closer to modern romantic, even> Victorian conceptions of womanhood than to ordinary ancient> sensibilities.> <clipped>’vulnerable’ is a marvelous choice; better than ‘fragile’. ‘Weaker’ isnot enough, easily misunderstood as simple ‘physically weaker’ (thoughmany are). Their socio-economic weakness is a norm in the past, but itis not in the context here.As ι listened to these interesting discussions, such understanding ofthe text seems to come from seeing it as the punctuation given as:1Pe 3:7Οἱ ἄνδρες ὁμοίως συνοικοῦντες κατὰ γνῶσιν,ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει τῷ γυναικείῳ ἀπονέμοντες τιμήν,ὡς καὶ συγκληρονόμοις χάριτος ζωῆς,εἰς τὸ μὴ ἐγκόπτεσθαι τὰς προσευχὰς ὑμῶν.hOI ανδρεσ hOMOIWS συνοικουντεσ κατα γνωσιν,hWS ασθενεστερω σκευει τω γυναικειω απονεμοντεσ τιμην,hWS και συγκληρονομοισ ξαριτοσ ζωησ,εισ το μη εγκοπτεσθαι τασ προσευξασ hUMWN.With such line breaks, hOS ασθενεστερω is (strangely to me) connectedto απονεμοντεσ τιμην.The way ι have understood this verse is as with the followingpunctuations (as well as line breaks – a poor man’s diagramming).Οἱ ἄνδρες ὁμοίως συνοικοῦντες,κατὰ γνῶσιν ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει·τῷ γυναικείῳ ἀπονέμοντες τιμήνὡς καὶ συγκληρονόμοις χάριτος ζωῆς·εἰς τὸ μὴ ἐγκόπτεσθαι τὰς προσευχὰς ὑμῶν.hOI ανδρεσ hOMOIWS συνοικουντεσ, κατα γνωσιν hWS ασθενεστερω σκευει· τω γυναικειω απονεμοντεσ τιμην hWS και συγκληρονομοισ ξαριτοσ ζωησ·εισ το μη εγκοπτεσθαι τασ προσευξασ hUMWN.Here, ‘woman being a vulnerable vessel’ is not connected at all to’giving honor’ (‘showing respect’). The text simply says, ‘Give honoras befitting to a woman.’This verse is really a beautiful statement by Peter’s pen, showing hissensitivity and concern about how women feel. [It is in which ι failmiserably.]Please kindly give me any correction on my understanding of the syntax.Oun Kwon.

[] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 revised[] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7

Sat Jul 25 07:00:15 εδτ 2009

[] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 [] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 On Jul 24, 2009, at 10:09 πμ, Oun Kwon wrote:> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 6:07 αμ, Carl Conrad<cwconrad2 at mac.com> wrote:>> > <clipped>> >> Evidently this notion of the adjective ασθενησ having the sense of>> “vulnerable” and having a “positive” connotation. ι‘m rather dubious>> about this notion myself. On the one hand, ι would agree that>> “vulnerable” is one common idea associated with the adjective, but ι>> question that vulnerability is ever really conceived as something >> good>> in the ancient view. In particular, it seems to me that the notion of>> “fragile, delicate femininity” is closer to modern romantic, even>> Victorian conceptions of womanhood than to ordinary ancient>> sensibilities.>> > > <clipped>> > ‘vulnerable’ is a marvelous choice; better than ‘fragile’. ‘Weaker’ is> not enough, easily misunderstood as simple ‘physically weaker’ (though> many are). Their socio-economic weakness is a norm in the past, but it> is not in the context here.> > As ι listened to these interesting discussions, such understanding of> the text seems to come from seeing it as the punctuation given as:> > 1Pe 3:7> Οἱ ἄνδρες ὁμοίως συνοικοῦντες > κατὰ γνῶσιν,> ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει τῷ > γυναικείῳ ἀπονέμοντες τιμήν,> ὡς καὶ συγκληρονόμοις χάριτος ζωῆς,> εἰς τὸ μὴ ἐγκόπτεσθαι τὰς > προσευχὰς ὑμῶν.> > hOI ανδρεσ hOMOIWS συνοικουντεσ κατα γνωσιν,> hWS ασθενεστερω σκευει τω γυναικειω απονεμοντεσ τιμην,> hWS και συγκληρονομοισ ξαριτοσ ζωησ,> εισ το μη εγκοπτεσθαι τασ προσευξασ hUMWN.> > With such line breaks, hOS ασθενεστερω is (strangely to me) connected> to απονεμοντεσ τιμην.> > The way ι have understood this verse is as with the following> punctuations (as well as line breaks – a poor man’s diagramming).> > Οἱ ἄνδρες ὁμοίως συνοικοῦντες,> κατὰ γνῶσιν ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ > σκεύει·> τῷ γυναικείῳ ἀπονέμοντες τιμήν> ὡς καὶ συγκληρονόμοις χάριτος > ζωῆς·> εἰς τὸ μὴ ἐγκόπτεσθαι τὰς > προσευχὰς ὑμῶν.> > hOI ανδρεσ hOMOIWS συνοικουντεσ,> κατα γνωσιν hWS ασθενεστερω σκευει·> τω γυναικειω απονεμοντεσ τιμην> hWS και συγκληρονομοισ ξαριτοσ ζωησ·> εισ το μη εγκοπτεσθαι τασ προσευξασ hUMWN.> > Here, ‘woman being a vulnerable vessel’ is not connected at all to> ‘giving honor’ (‘showing respect’). The text simply says, ‘Give honor> as befitting to a woman.’> > This verse is really a beautiful statement by Peter’s pen, showing his> sensitivity and concern about how women feel. [It is in which ι fail> miserably.]> > Please kindly give me any correction on my understanding of the > syntax.The question is whether you can legitimately understand TWi GUNAIKEIWi as independent of ASQENESTERWi σκευει. GUNAIKEIWi is not a noun meaning “woman” but an adjective meaning “womanly” or “wifely” or “feminine” Ordinarily an adjective that agrees with a noun (here σκευει) and that is preceded by an article is deemed attributive to the noun. If in fact you envision TWi GUNAIKEIWi απονεμοντεσ τιμην as a syntactic unit, then it will mean “allotting honor to what is womanlywifely.” It sounds a bit like “das ewig Weiblich” to which Goethe pays tribute in the final line of his epic drama, Faust.

Sun Jul 26 02:35:29 εδτ 2009

[] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 [] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 (was “Re: Gal 4.4” On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 7:00 αμ, Carl Conrad<cwconrad2 at mac.com> wrote:> > > The question is whether you can legitimately understand TWi GUNAIKEIWi as> independent of ASQENESTERWi σκευει. GUNAIKEIWi is not a noun meaning “woman”> but an adjective meaning “womanly” or “wifely” or “feminine” Ordinarily an> adjective that agrees with a noun (here σκευει) and that is preceded by an> article is deemed attributive to the noun. If in fact you envision TWi> GUNAIKEIWi απονεμοντεσ τιμην as a syntactic unit, then it will mean> “allotting honor to what is womanlywifely.” It sounds a bit like “das ewig> Weiblich” to which Goethe pays tribute in the final line of his epic drama,> Faust.> > > Thank you, Carl.ι can see how hWS ασθενεστερω σκευει and τω γυναικειω should be intango together.Oun Kwon.

[] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7[] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 (was “Re: Gal 4.4”
[] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 (was “Re: Gal 4.4” Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sun Jul 26 04:06:39 εδτ 2009

[] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 [] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1Peter 3:7″) —– Original Message —– From: “Carl Conrad” <cwconrad2 at mac.com><snip>[μω:]> “ι took this “root” idea of “vulnerability” and applied it to a woman.> It seems obvious to me that vulnerable can be both viewed negatively> or positively. ι took the positive aspect and applied it to the wife> of which Peter speaks.> “‘Give honor to the wife, who is the more vulnerable partner.’> “ι don’t think Peter is saying that we ought to give honor to the wife> because we can lift a bigger rock than she can. Rather, ι think he is> referring to a feminine, godly vulnerability that is so attractive to> the male. It’s that beautiful quality of a wife that the husband is> graced to protect.”> [ξξ:]> The text in question is 1 Peter 3:7:> Οἱ ἄνδρες ὁμοίως, συνοικοῦντες κατὰ> γνῶσιν ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει τῷ> γυναικείῳ, ἀπονέμοντες τιμὴν ὡς> καὶ συγκληρονόμοις χάριτος ζωῆς εἰς> τὸ μὴ ἐγκόπτεσθαι τὰς προσευχὰς> ὑμῶν.> [hOI ανδρεσ hOMOIWS, συνοικουντεσ κατα γνωσιν hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει> TWi GUNAIKEIWi, απονεμοντεσ τιμην hWS συγκληρονομοισ ξαριτοσ ζωησ εισ το μη> εγκοπτεσθαι τασ προσευξασ hUMWN.]> > ι would understand hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει TWi GUNAIKEIWi as> construing with hOMOIWS, συνοικουντεσ, and απονεμοντεσ τιμην as> construing with hWS συγκληρονομοισ ζωησ. On that understanding honor> is not given because of the “greater infirmity/weakness” but because> wives are “co-heirs of life.”In a recent post ξξ added:> GUNAIKEIWi is not a noun meaning “woman”> but an adjective meaning “womanly” or “wifely” or “feminine”. Ordinarily an> adjective that agrees with a noun (here σκευει) and that is preceded by an> article is deemed attributive to the noun.ι am not sure about the term attributive here, since σκευει has no article. συνοικειν needs an object in the dative because of συν, and it seems natural to take that object as TWi GUNAIKEIWi – the ‘feminine person’, i.e. in this context of ανδρεσ and συνοικειν, the wife. The subordinate clause hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει then gives part of the reason for needing to live with the wife κατα γνωσιν. The woman is the more “vulnerable/weaker vessel”. ι agree with Carl that in the ancient culture, women would be looked at as weaker, of lesser status and also in need of protection. Vulnerability was probably not a positive trait, at least not in Peter’s mainly Hebrew culture. ι am not sure about Greek and Latin culture (errare humanum est), but Carl knows better than me.It is quite possible that Peter is trying to tell a Christian man νοτ to follow common culture, but in contrast to that culture to “value and honour” – απονεμοντεσ τιμην – the weaker vessel, his wife, because she too has joined the life of grace – χάριτος ζωῆς.ι am wondering whether the Western, positive concept of vulnerability is not a result of Christian influence as we live a life of grace, and therefore we cannot always be sure that Paul is following the common culture. ι have lived for 3 decades in a culture where the wife traditionally has been seen as an instrument to be used for cooking, work and getting children rather than honoured and valued for her own sake, but the Christians are in the process of changing that culture. In this particular culture, Christianity was practically unknown 50 years ago.Iver Larsen

[] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7[] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1Peter 3:7″)

[] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1Peter 3:7″) Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Mon Jul 27 09:14:42 εδτ 2009

[] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 (was “Re: Gal 4.4” [] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1Peter 3:7″) The text in question is 1 Peter 3:7:Οἱ ἄνδρες ὁμοίως, συνοικοῦντες κατὰγνῶσιν ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει τῷγυναικείῳ, ἀπονέμοντες τιμὴν ὡςκαὶ συγκληρονόμοις χάριτος ζωῆς εἰςτὸ μὴ ἐγκόπτεσθαι τὰς προσευχὰςὑμῶν.[hOI ανδρεσ hOMOIWS, συνοικουντεσ κατα γνωσιν hWS ASQENESTERWi SKEUEITWi GUNAIKEIWi, απονεμοντεσ τιμην hWS συγκληρονομοισ ξαριτοσ ζωησ εισ το μηεγκοπτεσθαι τασ προσευξασ hUMWN.]There has been a disagreement among us regarding whether ASQENESTERWi in this text is to be understood in a positive of a negative sense, some respondents urging a positive understanding of the adjective while others feel strongly that it must have a negative connotation here. ι doubt that there’s anything more to add on either side of that question.But the issue has also arisen regarding how the syntax of 1 Peter 3:7 is to be understood as a whole and in particular how the dative sequence ASQENESTERWi σκευει TWi GUNAIKEIWi construes with what precedes and what follows it.On Jul 26, 2009, at 4:06 αμ, Iver Larsen wrote:>> ι would understand hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει TWi GUNAIKEIWi as>> construing with hOMOIWS, συνοικουντεσ, and απονεμοντεσ τιμην as>> construing with hWS συγκληρονομοισ ζωησ. On that understanding honor>> is not given because of the “greater infirmity/weakness” but because>> wives are “co-heirs of life.”> > In a recent post ξξ added:>> GUNAIKEIWi is not a noun meaning “woman”>> but an adjective meaning “womanly” or “wifely” or “feminine”. >> Ordinarily an>> adjective that agrees with a noun (here σκευει) and that is >> preceded by an>> article is deemed attributive to the noun.> > ι am not sure about the term attributive here, since σκευει has no > article.> συνοικειν needs an object in the dative because of συν, and it seems > natural to> take that object as TWi GUNAIKEIWi – the ‘feminine person’, i.e. in > this context> of ανδρεσ and συνοικειν, the wife. The subordinate clause hWS > ASQENESTERWi> σκευει then gives part of the reason for needing to live with the > wife κατα> γνωσιν. …Upon reading Iver’s remarks here, ι am more than halfway inclined to move over to his analysis, although aspects of it are troubling still. There seems to me something excessive in the two hWS + dative expressions here, reminding one of the manneristic colloquialism punctuating some υ.σ. teenage talk: “It’s like, you know, like … ” They do seem to serve a purpose here, but they obscure the syntactic complement of the two verbs, the dative that both συνοικουντεσ and απονεμοντεσ τιμην would seem to require. Some earlier versions (e.g. κψβ, ρσβ, δρξ) evidently understood the complement of συνοικουντεσ as an implicit γυναιχι(ν) and construed hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει with απονεμοντεσ τιμην — as did Oun in his earlier post in an earlier phase of this thread — in the sense, “allotting honor to the feminine as a weaker vessel”– and finally taking hWS συγκληρονομοισ ξαριτοσ ζωησ either as appositional to TWi GUNAIKEIWi or to the supposedly implicit γυναιχι(ν).Linking απονεμοντεσ τιμην to hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει TWi GUNAIKEIWi may make sense after all, particularly if we understand τιμην in the sense of “value”; it is a matter of attributing “worth” to something — “the feminine” — which is (inherently) a weaker/more-vulnerable vessel. The idea would be similar to that we see in 1Cor. 12:22-23: ἀλλὰ πολλῷ μᾶλλον τὰ δοκοῦντα μέλη τοῦ σώματος ἀσθενέστερα ὑπάρχειν ἀναγκαῖά ἐστιν, 23 καὶ ἃ δοκοῦμεν ἀτιμότερα εἶναι τοῦ σώματος τούτοις τιμὴν περισσοτέραν περιτίθεμεν, καὶ τὰ ἀσχήμονα ἡμῶν εὐσχημοσύνην περισσοτέραν ἔχει, …[ αλλα POLLWi μαλλον τα δοκουντα μελη του σωματοσ ασθενεστερα hUPARCEIN αναγκαια εστιν, 23 και hA δοκουμεν ατιμοτερα ειναι του σωματοσ τουτοισ τιμην περισσοτεραν περιτιθεμεν, και τα ασχμονα hHMWN ευσχμοσυνην περισσοτεραν εξει, … ]The other alternative is to construe απονεμοντεσ τιμην with an implicit γυναιχι(ν) — or an implicit αυταισ — as the intended sense of TWi GUNAIKEIWi — and understanding hWS συγκληρονομοισ ζοησ: wives are honored on grounds that they share the husbands’ lives.To me the most troubling feature of the whole construction is TWi GUNAIKEIWi. Why a neuter substantive (“the feminine/womanly/wifely thing”)? Is it really the dative complement of συνοικουντεσ and must we really understand hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει adverbially (husbands live together ‘understandingly’ with the womanly/wifely thing because it is a weaker vessel?If this really is a neuter substantive, it seems odd; ι‘m reminded of Vergil’s brief comment on Aeneas’ puzzlement at Dido’s behavior:,”Varium et mutabile semper femina” — “α woman is always subject to change” or of Gershwin’s “α woman is a sometime thing.” That’s what makes it hard for me to think of the adjective ASQENESTERWi as having a positive connotation here.Is the author really thinking of women or wives as a conglomerate notion — “wifeliness” — or as something like a Platonic idea (Goethe’s “das ewig Weiblich”)?Or is the neuter adjectival form chosen because ASQENESTERWi σκευει is neuter? And if so, then why shouldn’t TWi GUNAIKEIWi be understood as an attributive adjective? — as ι was originally inclined to suppose? Perhaps σκευει TWi GUNAIKEIWi is the dative complement to συνοικουντεσ as well as to απονεμοντεσ τιμην, in which case the hWS should be construed only with ASQENESTERWi. It does seem to me that κατα γνωσιν must be seen in conjunction with hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει: “consideration” is appropriate in view of the greater weakness/ vulnerability involved. In that case, we’d have something like, “husbands sharing existence with (their) feminine/wifely vehicle in an understanding way (since it is weaker/more-vulnerable), attributing worth to (it/them) as co-heirs of the grace of life … “ι confess that ι‘m not fully satisfied with any of the alternative options for construing this text as a whole.Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

[] ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7 (was “Re: Gal 4.4″[] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1Peter 3:7″)

[] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1Peter 3:7″) Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net
Mon Jul 27 14:15:18 εδτ 2009

[] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1Peter 3:7″) [] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1Peter 3:7″) Carl,> > Or is the neuter adjectival form chosen because ASQENESTERWi σκευει is > neuter? And if so, then why shouldn’t TWi GUNAIKEIWi be understood as > an attributive adjective? — as ι was originally inclined to suppose? > Perhaps σκευει TWi GUNAIKEIWi is the dative complement to συνοικουντεσ > as well as to απονεμοντεσ τιμην, in which case the hWS should be > construed only with ASQENESTERWi. It does seem to me that κατα γνωσιν > must be seen in conjunction with hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει: > “consideration” is appropriate in view of the greater weakness/ > vulnerability involved. In that case, we’d have something like, > “husbands sharing existence with (their) feminine/wifely vehicle in an > understanding way (since it is weaker/more-vulnerable), attributing > worth to (it/them) as co-heirs of the grace of life … “> ηη: Thanks for the summary of the discussion. ι believe that living together according to knowledge is the way that one shows honor. The verbs can work together. The weakness here cannot be bad because it is God-given. God created woman differently than man for a purpose. ι take TWi GUNAIKEIWi as clarifying what the author means by hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει: “as to a weaker vessel, the feminine one.” The last phrase TWi GUNAIKEIWi clarifies that he is picturing the man and wife as two vessels, with the weaker being the feminine one. ι have a hard time seeing the phrase as construed with both verbs because in English different prepositions would be involved: “living together as with a weaker vessel” versus “showing honor as to a weaker vessel,” but perhaps that problem would not have existed in Greek. ι don’t have a problem with the two instances of hWS possibly construing with a single verb because they seem to be functioning slightly differently. There is more of a comparison made with the idea of vessel, but more of a simple identification with respect to being a fellow-heir of the grace of life. “Fellow-heir of the grace of life” seems to recall God’s original purpose in creating male and female human beings as the unity of “man” or “humanity,” and so of course it recalls creation of the female as a complement to the male (Genesis 2).ηη: In looking at numerous Bible versions it is clear that some scholars have construed hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει with the first verb, and some with the second verb. ι would say that construing it with the second is more frequent. Examples of construing with the first verb are:νετ 1 Peter 3:7 Husbands, in the same way, treat your wives with consideration as the weaker partners and show them honor as fellow heirs of the grace of life. In this way nothing will hinder your prayers.νασ 1 Peter 3:7 You husbands likewise, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with a weaker vessel, since she is a woman; and grant her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.ξσβ 1 Peter 3:7 Husbands, in the same way, live with your wives with understanding of their weaker nature yet showing them honor as co-heirs of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.γων 1 Peter 3:7 Husbands, in a similar way, live with your wives with understanding since they are weaker than you are. Honor your wives as those who share God’s life-giving kindness so that nothing will interfere with your prayers.ηη: However, more lean in the other direction in English, construing the phrase with the second verb:ββε 1 Peter 3:7 And you husbands, give thought to your way of life with your wives, giving honour to the woman who is the feebler vessel, but who has an equal part in the heritage of the grace of life; so that you may not be kept from prayer.δρα 1 Peter 3:7 Ye husbands, likewise dwelling with them according to knowledge, giving honour to the female as to the weaker vessel, and as to the co-heirs of the grace of life: that your prayers be not hindered.εσβ 1 Peter 3:7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.κψβ 1 Peter 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.ναβ 1 Peter 3:7 Likewise, you husbands should live with your wives in understanding, showing honor to the weaker female sex, since we are joint heirs of the gift of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.νιβ 1 Peter 3:7 Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.νιβ 1 Peter 3:7 Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.νψβ 1 Peter 3:7 In the same way, husbands must always treat their wives with consideration in their life together, respecting a woman as one who, though she may be the weaker partner, is equally an heir to the generous gift of life. This will prevent anything from coming in the way of your prayers.νκψ 1 Peter 3:7 Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.νρσ 1 Peter 3:7 Husbands, in the same way, show consideration for your wives in your life together, paying honor to the woman as the weaker sex, since they too are also heirs of the gracious gift of life– so that nothing may hinder your prayers.ηη: One version may try to construe with both verbs:νλτ 1 Peter 3:7 In the same way, you husbands must give honor to your wives. Treat your wife with understanding as you live together. She may be weaker than you are, but she is your equal partner in God’s gift of new life. Treat her as you should so your prayers will not be hindered.Yours,Harold Holmyard

[] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1Peter 3:7″)[] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1Peter 3:7″)

[] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1Peter 3:7″) Michael Aubrey mga318 at yahoo.com
Mon Jul 27 14:21:29 εδτ 2009

[] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1Peter 3:7″) [] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7″) > ι have a hard time > seeing the phrase as construed with both verbs because in English > different prepositions would be involved: “living together as with a > weaker vessel” versus “showing honor as to a weaker vessel,” but perhaps > that problem would not have existed in GreekBe careful with this. Red flags should always go up when you’re apprehensiveness with a given interpretation is based on howEnglish would construe somethingMike Aubrey________________________________From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 at earthlink.net>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 11:15:18 AMSubject: Re: [] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7″)Carl,> > Or is the neuter adjectival form chosen because ASQENESTERWi σκευει is > neuter? And if so, then why shouldn’t TWi GUNAIKEIWi be understood as > an attributive adjective? — as ι was originally inclined to suppose? > Perhaps σκευει TWi GUNAIKEIWi is the dative complement to συνοικουντεσ > as well as to απονεμοντεσ τιμην, in which case the hWS should be > construed only with ASQENESTERWi. It does seem to me that κατα γνωσιν > must be seen in conjunction with hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει: > “consideration” is appropriate in view of the greater weakness/ > vulnerability involved. In that case, we’d have something like, > “husbands sharing existence with (their) feminine/wifely vehicle in an > understanding way (since it is weaker/more-vulnerable), attributing > worth to (it/them) as co-heirs of the grace of life … “> ηη: Thanks for the summary of the discussion. ι believe that living together according to knowledge is the way that one shows honor. The verbs can work together. The weakness here cannot be bad because it is God-given. God created woman differently than man for a purpose. ι take TWi GUNAIKEIWi as clarifying what the author means by hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει: “as to a weaker vessel, the feminine one.” The last phrase TWi GUNAIKEIWi clarifies that he is picturing the man and wife as two vessels, with the weaker being the feminine one. ι have a hard time seeing the phrase as construed with both verbs because in English different prepositions would be involved: “living together as with a weaker vessel” versus “showing honor as to a weaker vessel,” but perhaps that problem would not have existed in Greek. ι don’t have a problem with the two instances of hWS possibly construing with a single verb because they seem to be functioning slightly differently. There is more of a comparison made with the idea of vessel, but more of a simple identification with respect to being a fellow-heir of the grace of life. “Fellow-heir of the grace of life” seems to recall God’s original purpose in creating male and female human beings as the unity of “man” or “humanity,” and so of course it recalls creation of the female as a complement to the male (Genesis 2).ηη: In looking at numerous Bible versions it is clear that some scholars have construed hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει with the first verb, and some with the second verb. ι would say that construing it with the second is more frequent. Examples of construing with the first verb are:νετ 1 Peter 3:7 Husbands, in the same way, treat your wives with consideration as the weaker partners and show them honor as fellow heirs of the grace of life. In this way nothing will hinder your prayers.νασ 1 Peter 3:7 You husbands likewise, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with a weaker vessel, since she is a woman; and grant her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.ξσβ 1 Peter 3:7 Husbands, in the same way, live with your wives with understanding of their weaker nature yet showing them honor as co-heirs of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.γων 1 Peter 3:7 Husbands, in a similar way, live with your wives with understanding since they are weaker than you are. Honor your wives as those who share God’s life-giving kindness so that nothing will interfere with your prayers.ηη: However, more lean in the other direction in English, construing the phrase with the second verb:ββε 1 Peter 3:7 And you husbands, give thought to your way of life with your wives, giving honour to the woman who is the feebler vessel, but who has an equal part in the heritage of the grace of life; so that you may not be kept from prayer.δρα 1 Peter 3:7 Ye husbands, likewise dwelling with them according to knowledge, giving honour to the female as to the weaker vessel, and as to the co-heirs of the grace of life: that your prayers be not hindered.εσβ 1 Peter 3:7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.κψβ 1 Peter 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.ναβ 1 Peter 3:7 Likewise, you husbands should live with your wives in understanding, showing honor to the weaker female sex, since we are joint heirs of the gift of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.νιβ 1 Peter 3:7 Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.νιβ 1 Peter 3:7 Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.νψβ 1 Peter 3:7 In the same way, husbands must always treat their wives with consideration in their life together, respecting a woman as one who, though she may be the weaker partner, is equally an heir to the generous gift of life. This will prevent anything from coming in the way of your prayers.νκψ 1 Peter 3:7 Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.νρσ 1 Peter 3:7 Husbands, in the same way, show consideration for your wives in your life together, paying honor to the woman as the weaker sex, since they too are also heirs of the gracious gift of life– so that nothing may hinder your prayers.ηη: One version may try to construe with both verbs:νλτ 1 Peter 3:7 In the same way, you husbands must give honor to your wives. Treat your wife with understanding as you live together. She may be weaker than you are, but she is your equal partner in God’s gift of new life. Treat her as you should so your prayers will not be hindered.Yours,Harold Holmyard— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1Peter 3:7″)[] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7″)

[] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7″) Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net
Mon Jul 27 16:44:50 εδτ 2009

[] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1Peter 3:7″) [] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1Peter 3:7″) Mike,> > ι have a hard time> > seeing the phrase as construed with both verbs because in English> > different prepositions would be involved: “living together as with a> > weaker vessel” versus “showing honor as to a weaker vessel,” but > perhaps> > that problem would not have existed in Greek> > Be careful with this. Red flags should always go up when you’re> apprehensiveness with a given interpretation is based on how> English would construe somethingηη: ι know you’re right in general, but one possible red flag is that the same phrase would have different functions with respect to the two verbs. ι think ι am tending to agree with Iver:>> >> ι would understand hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει TWi GUNAIKEIWi as>> >> construing with hOMOIWS, συνοικουντεσ, and απονεμοντεσ τιμην as>> >> construing with hWS συγκληρονομοισ ζωησ.ηη: This does give an orderly structure to the sentence, with one hWS phrase modifying each verb. The υβσ 4th edition agrees with Iver, putting a comma after TWi GUNAIKEIWi.ηη: It seems that συνοικουντεσ probably has an understood object of the γυναικεσ (3:1) who were the subject of the previous set of instructions in 3:1-6. Carl expressed the understood term as possibly (ταισ) γυναιχι(ν). He was thinking of the second verb, but it is probably first understood with the first verb and so carries over with the second. That is why it is easy to shift to the plural συγκληρονομοισ, as referring back to the understood objects of the verbs.Yours,Harold Holmyard

Mon Jul 27 16:55:41 εδτ 2009

[] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7″) [] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1Peter 3:7″) That’s fine. And it may very well be the case. But argue the point from the Greek (as you did right here below) and not from how you would say it in English.________________________________From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 at earthlink.net>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 1:44:50 PMSubject: Re: [] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7″)Mike,> > ι have a hard time> > seeing the phrase as construed with both verbs because in English> > different prepositions would be involved: “living together as with a> > weaker vessel” versus “showing honor as to a weaker vessel,” but > perhaps> > that problem would not have existed in Greek> > Be careful with this. Red flags should always go up when you’re> apprehensiveness with a given interpretation is based on how> English would construe somethingηη: ι know you’re right in general, but one possible red flag is that the same phrase would have different functions with respect to the two verbs. ι think ι am tending to agree with Iver:>> >> ι would understand hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει TWi GUNAIKEIWi as>> >> construing with hOMOIWS, συνοικουντεσ, and απονεμοντεσ τιμην as>> >> construing with hWS συγκληρονομοισ ζωησ.ηη: This does give an orderly structure to the sentence, with one hWS phrase modifying each verb. The υβσ 4th edition agrees with Iver, putting a comma after TWi GUNAIKEIWi.ηη: It seems that συνοικουντεσ probably has an understood object of the γυναικεσ (3:1) who were the subject of the previous set of instructions in 3:1-6. Carl expressed the understood term as possibly (ταισ) γυναιχι(ν). He was thinking of the second verb, but it is probably first understood with the first verb and so carries over with the second. That is why it is easy to shift to the plural συγκληρονομοισ, as referring back to the understood objects of the verbs.Yours,Harold Holmyard— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7″)[] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1Peter 3:7″)

[] [οφφλιστ] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7″) Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net
Mon Jul 27 17:41:38 εδτ 2009

[] πασα γραφη θεοπνευστοσ καιδ ωφελιμοσ–2 Timothy 3:16 [] Etymology of θεοπνευστοσ in 2 Timothy 3:16 Mike,>> But argue the point from>> the Greekηη: Well, ASQENESTERWi σκευει would function as a dative of association with the first verb, but as a dative of indirect object with the second verb. It seems difficult to think the phrase would be having both functions at the same time. These are English categories but express grammatical functions.Yours,Harold Holmyard> > >

[] πασα γραφη θεοπνευστοσ καιδ ωφελιμοσ–2 Timothy 3:16[] Etymology of θεοπνευστοσ in 2 Timothy 3:16

[] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1Peter 3:7″) Yancy Smith yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Mon Jul 27 19:00:50 εδτ 2009

[] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1Peter 3:7″) [] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1Peter 3:7″) ι would like to suggest some further reasons why (1) σκεύει τῷ γυναικείῳ σκευει TWi GUNAIKEIWi should be construed with both συνοικοῦντες συνοικουντεσ or ἀπονέμοντες απονεμοντεσ, and (2) that the meaning of ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει τῷ γυναικείῳ hWS TWi GUNAIKEIWi, is rhetorically complex, indeed subversive. While it has a negative connotation (beyond doubt), yet it implies what was understood as a dangerous factor communicable to the man, or at least a factor which places the male in jeapardy. In this case the “weakness” of the “womanly vessel” actually puts the husband in a precarious position before God. If he does not give her appropriate honor as a fellow heir of the gift of life, God will not hear his prayers.On (1) there is not a problem with σκεύει τῷ γυναικείῳ σκευει TWi GUNAIKEIWi fulfilling two different dative roles, because the indirect object of ἀπονέμοντες is simply a result of ellipsis, which is common enough. Understood this way, the problem Harold adduces simply vanishes, as does the phrase itself, due to economy of style.On two, ι think that some cultural background can help. This use of the γυναικειοσ “power or ‘virtue'” of a woman as a feature of females that place men in danger or disadvantage is found in the language of Euripides, representing a feature of Medea, who was a prominent theme in Roman domestic wall art (See _Roman domestic art and early house churches_ By David λ Balch). The visualization of Medea brought the tragic figure into the world of the first century, even though the texts of Euripides plays were written centuries earlier. (The plays continued to be performed and remembered in the popular oral culture as well). Medea, a deeply tragic Georgian (from Cholchis) sacrifices her ancestral homeland for the man she loves only to have that man marry another woman. The motif of the tragic female also comes up in the frequent portrayal of Ariadne on Greco-Roman walls. But more to the point, γυναικειοσ ‘virtue,’ though of the weaker sex, has a liminal, potentially dangerous quality:Examples:Euripides Trag., FragmentaFragment 502, line 5πλοῦτος δ’ ἐπακτὸς ἐκ γυναικείων γάμωνἀνόνητος· αἱ γὰρ διαλύσεις <οὐ> ῥᾴδιαι.πλουτοσ δ‘ επακτοσ εκ γυναικειων γαμωνανονητοσ; hAI γαρ διαλυσεισ <ου> RAiDIAI.Wealth acquired from womanly bonds of matrimonyIs unprofitable, getting free from them is not easyEuripides Trag., FragmentaFragment 653, line 1ὦ παῖδες οἷον φίλτρον ἀνθρώποις φρενός κοινὸν γὰρ εἶναι χρῆν γυναικεῖον λέχος.ο children! The desire men have is a charmFor it is common to feel a strong need of the womanly bed.(υωσ trans.)In the case of Medea, the chorus sings the reversal of the common, natural order that takes place as she seeks her tragic revenge.Euripides Trag., MedeaLine 417{Chorus}: ἄνω ποταμῶν ἱερῶν χωροῦσι παγαί, καὶ δίκα καὶ πάντα πάλιν στρέφεται· ἀνδράσι μὲν δόλιαι βουλαί, θεῶν δ’ οὐκέτι πίστις ἄραρεν. τὰν δ’ ἐμὰν εὔκλειαν ἔχειν βιοτὰν στρέψουσι φᾶμαι· ἔρχεται τιμὰ γυναικείωι γένει· οὐκέτι δυσκέλαδος φάμα γυναῖκας ἕξει.ανω ποταμων hIERWN χωρουσι παγαι,και δικα παντα παλιν στρεφεται;ανδρασι μεν δολιαι βουλαι, θεων δ‘ουκετι πιστισ αραρεν.ταν δ‘εμαν ευκλειαν εξειν βιοταν στρευουσι φαμαι;ερξεται τιμα γυναικειων γενει;ουκετι δυσκελαδοσ φαμα γυναικασ hEXEI.The waters in the sacred rivers are flowing in reverse. And all well-ordered things are once more turning on themselves. Men’s plans are now deceitful, their firm trust in the gods is gone. My life is changing—common talk is giving me a better reputation. Honor is coming to the female sex. Slander will no longer injure women.(Ian Johnston, trans.)ι think it could be that such a potential reversal is being alluded to in 1 Peter, a common domestic theme, that serves as a warning to abusive males. Give appropriate honor to the woman, if not you will have to reckon with God.YancyYancy SmithYancy ω. Smith, PhDWorld Bible Translation Center4028 Daley Ave., Suite 201Fort Worth, τχ 76180p 817-595-1664f 817580-7013yancy at wbtc.orgBe kinder than necessary for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

Mon Jul 27 21:43:50 εδτ 2009

[] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1Peter 3:7″) [] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in1Peter 3:7″) On Jul 27, 2009, at 7:00 πμ, Yancy Smith wrote:> ι would like to suggest some further reasons why (1) σκεύει > τῷ γυναικείῳ σκευει TWi GUNAIKEIWi should be construed > with both συνοικοῦντες συνοικουντεσ or > ἀπονέμοντες απονεμοντεσ, and (2) that the meaning of > ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει τῷ > γυναικείῳ hWS TWi GUNAIKEIWi, is rhetorically complex, > indeed subversive. While it has a negative connotation (beyond > doubt), yet it implies what was understood as a dangerous factor > communicable to the man, or at least a factor which places the male > in jeapardy. In this case the “weakness” of the “womanly vessel” > actually puts the husband in a precarious position before God. If he > does not give her appropriate honor as a fellow heir of the gift of > life, God will not hear his prayers.> > On (1) there is not a problem with σκεύει τῷ > γυναικείῳ σκευει TWi GUNAIKEIWi fulfilling two different > dative roles, because the indirect object of ἀπονέμοντες > is simply a result of ellipsis, which is common enough. Understood > this way, the problem Harold adduces simply vanishes, as does the > phrase itself, due to economy of style.> > On two, ι think that some cultural background can help. This use of > the γυναικειοσ “power or ‘virtue'” of a woman as a feature of > females that place men in danger or disadvantage is found in the > language of Euripides, representing a feature of Medea, who was a > prominent theme in Roman domestic wall art (See _Roman domestic art > and early house churches_ By David λ Balch). The visualization of > Medea brought the tragic figure into the world of the first century, > even though the texts of Euripides plays were written centuries > earlier. (The plays continued to be performed and remembered in the > popular oral culture as well). Medea, a deeply tragic Georgian (from > Cholchis) sacrifices her ancestral homeland for the man she loves > only to have that man marry another woman. The motif of the tragic > female also comes up in the frequent portrayal of Ariadne on Greco- > Roman walls. But more to the point, γυναικειοσ ‘virtue,’ though of > the weaker sex, has a liminal, potentially dangerous quality:> > Examples:> Euripides Trag., Fragmenta> Fragment 502, line 5> πλοῦτος δ’ ἐπακτὸς ἐκ γυναικείων > γάμων> ἀνόνητος· αἱ γὰρ διαλύσεις <οὐ> > ῥᾴδιαι.> πλουτοσ δ‘ επακτοσ εκ γυναικειων γαμων> ανονητοσ; hAI γαρ διαλυσεισ <ου> RAiDIAI.> Wealth acquired from womanly bonds of matrimony> Is unprofitable, getting free from them is not easy> > > Euripides Trag., Fragmenta> Fragment 653, line 1> > ὦ παῖδες οἷον φίλτρον ἀνθρώποις > φρενός> κοινὸν γὰρ εἶναι χρῆν γυναικεῖον > λέχος.> ο children! The desire men have is a charm> For it is common to feel a strong need of the womanly bed.> (υωσ trans.)> In the case of Medea, the chorus sings the reversal of the common, > natural order that takes place as she seeks her tragic revenge.> > Euripides Trag., Medea> Line 417> > {Chorus}: ἄνω ποταμῶν ἱερῶν χωροῦσι > παγαί,> καὶ δίκα καὶ πάντα πάλιν στρέφεται·> ἀνδράσι μὲν δόλιαι βουλαί, θεῶν δ’> οὐκέτι πίστις ἄραρεν.> τὰν δ’ ἐμὰν εὔκλειαν ἔχειν βιοτὰν > στρέψουσι φᾶμαι·> ἔρχεται τιμὰ γυναικείωι γένει·> οὐκέτι δυσκέλαδος φάμα γυναῖκας > ἕξει.> ανω ποταμων hIERWN χωρουσι παγαι,> και δικα παντα παλιν στρεφεται;> ανδρασι μεν δολιαι βουλαι, θεων δ‘> ουκετι πιστισ αραρεν.> ταν δ‘εμαν ευκλειαν εξειν βιοταν στρευουσι φαμαι;> ερξεται τιμα γυναικειων γενει;> ουκετι δυσκελαδοσ φαμα γυναικασ hEXEI.> The waters in the sacred rivers> are flowing in reverse.> And all well-ordered things> are once more turning on themselves.> Men’s plans are now deceitful,> their firm trust in the gods is gone.> My life is changing—common talk> is giving me a better reputation.> Honor is coming to the female sex.> Slander will no longer injure women.> (Ian Johnston, trans.)> > ι think it could be that such a potential reversal is being alluded > to in 1 Peter, a common domestic theme, that serves as a warning to > abusive males. Give appropriate honor to the woman, if not you will > have to reckon with God.This discussion seems to assume that TWi GUNAIKEIWi is adjectival and attributive to σκευει rather than a substantive. That’s the way ι took it originally and ι still think that may be right, but ι‘m not fully satisfied with either way of taking it.As little as ι think that ASQENESTERWi involves a positive notion, just so little do ι believe that something sinister is implied by use of the adjective — perhaps substantival — GUNAIKEIWi. ι hardly think that the author of 1 Peter had Euripides’ Medea in mind when speaking of how men should treat their wives — the Jason upon whom Medea avenges herself there has abandoned her in favor of a young princess and cannot understand why she is upset with him. There are dangerous women in Greek literature, such as Medea and Clytemnestra, and there are the heroines such as Penelope and Antigone. ι really don’t believe that sinister connotations have been indelibly imprinted on the adjective γυναικειοσ/α/ον by Euripides.Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

[] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1Peter 3:7″)[] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in1Peter 3:7″)

[] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in1Peter 3:7″) Yancy ω Smith yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Mon Jul 27 22:51:43 εδτ 2009

[] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1Peter 3:7″) [] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in1Peter 3:7″) ι would suppose that the danger inherent in not giving honor one’s wife is, in part, the sort of message that stories of this sort embody. On the other hand images like that of these tragic figures would not have to evoke all aspects of their “canonical” version to be operative in any given context. Allusion does not work that way. On the other hand the γυναικειοσ/α/ον might substantival and be referring to the γυναικειον εικον as the creation of God, based on Gen 1:27 27 και εποιησεν ο θεος τον ανθρωπον κατ’ εικονα θεου εποιησεν αυτον αρσεν και θηλυ εποιησεν αυτους.και εποιησεν hO θεοσ τον ανθρωπον κατ‘ εικονα θεου εποιησεν αυτον αρσεν και θηλυ εποιησεν αυτουσ.If the author is drawing upon the imagery of this text, perhaps he is thinking of an image of God that is both womanly and manly expressed in the marriage of the couple. Not showing honor to the image of God hinders the male’s prayers. One could compare this concern with the one that arises in James 3:9.On Jul 27, 2009, at 8:43 πμ, Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com> wrote:> > On Jul 27, 2009, at 7:00 πμ, Yancy Smith wrote:> >> ι would like to suggest some further reasons why (1) σκεύει >> τῷ γυναικείῳ σκευει TWi GUNAIKEIWi should be construed >> with both συνοικοῦντες συνοικουντεσ or >> ἀπονέμοντες απονεμοντεσ, and (2) that the meaning of >> ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει τῷ >> γυναικείῳ hWS TWi GUNAIKEIWi, is rhetorically complex, >> indeed subversive. While it has a negative connotation (beyond dou >> bt), yet it implies what was understood as a dangerous factor comm >> unicable to the man, or at least a factor which places the male in >> jeapardy. In this case the “weakness” of the “womanly vessel” act >> ually puts the husband in a precarious position before God. If he >> does not give her appropriate honor as a fellow heir of the gift o >> f life, God will not hear his prayers.>> >> On (1) there is not a problem with σκεύει τῷ >> γυναικείῳ σκευει TWi GUNAIKEIWi fulfilling two different >> dative roles, because the indirect object of >> ἀπονέμοντες is simply a result of ellipsis, which is >> common enough. Understood this way, the problem Harold adduces sim >> ply vanishes, as does the phrase itself, due to economy of style.>> >> On two, ι think that some cultural background can help. This use of >> the γυναικειοσ “power or ‘virtue'” of a woman as a feature of >> females that place men in danger or disadvantage is found in the >> language of Euripides, representing a feature of Medea, who was a >> prominent theme in Roman domestic wall art (See _Roman domestic art >> and early house churches_ By David λ Balch). The visualization of >> Medea brought the tragic figure into the world of the first >> century, even though the texts of Euripides plays were written >> centuries earlier. (The plays continued to be performed and >> remembered in the popular oral culture as well). Medea, a deeply >> tragic Georgian (from Cholchis) sacrifices her ancestral homeland >> for the man she loves only to have that man marry another woman. >> The motif of the tragic female also comes up in the frequent >> portrayal of Ariadne on Greco-Roman walls. But more to the point, >> γυναικειοσ ‘virtue,’ though of the weaker sex, has a liminal, >> potentially dangerous quality:>> >> Examples:>> Euripides Trag., Fragmenta>> Fragment 502, line 5>> πλοῦτος δ’ ἐπακτὸς ἐκ γυναικείων γά >> μων>> ἀνόνητος· αἱ γὰρ διαλύσεις <οὐ> >> ῥᾴδιαι.>> πλουτοσ δ‘ επακτοσ εκ γυναικειων γαμων>> ανονητοσ; hAI γαρ διαλυσεισ <ου> RAiDIAI.>> Wealth acquired from womanly bonds of matrimony>> Is unprofitable, getting free from them is not easy>> >> >> Euripides Trag., Fragmenta>> Fragment 653, line 1>> >> ὦ παῖδες οἷον φίλτρον ἀνθρώποις φρε >> νός>> κοινὸν γὰρ εἶναι χρῆν γυναικεῖον >> λέχος.>> ο children! The desire men have is a charm>> For it is common to feel a strong need of the womanly bed.>> (υωσ trans.)>> In the case of Medea, the chorus sings the reversal of the common, >> natural order that takes place as she seeks her tragic revenge.>> >> Euripides Trag., Medea>> Line 417>> >> {Chorus}: ἄνω ποταμῶν ἱερῶν χωροῦσι παγ >> αί,>> καὶ δίκα καὶ πάντα πάλιν στρέφεται·>> ἀνδράσι μὲν δόλιαι βουλαί, θεῶν δ’>> οὐκέτι πίστις ἄραρεν.>> τὰν δ’ ἐμὰν εὔκλειαν ἔχειν βιοτὰν >> στρέψουσι φᾶμαι·>> ἔρχεται τιμὰ γυναικείωι γένει·>> οὐκέτι δυσκέλαδος φάμα γυναῖκας ἕξ >> ει.>> ανω ποταμων hIERWN χωρουσι παγαι,>> και δικα παντα παλιν στρεφεται;>> ανδρασι μεν δολιαι βουλαι, θεων δ‘>> ουκετι πιστισ αραρεν.>> ταν δ‘εμαν ευκλειαν εξειν βιοταν στρευουσι φαμαι;>> ερξεται τιμα γυναικειων γενει;>> ουκετι δυσκελαδοσ φαμα γυναικασ hEXEI.>> The waters in the sacred rivers>> are flowing in reverse.>> And all well-ordered things>> are once more turning on themselves.>> Men’s plans are now deceitful,>> their firm trust in the gods is gone.>> My life is changing—common talk>> is giving me a better reputation.>> Honor is coming to the female sex.>> Slander will no longer injure women.>> (Ian Johnston, trans.)>> >> ι think it could be that such a potential reversal is being alluded >> to in 1 Peter, a common domestic theme, that serves as a warning to >> abusive males. Give appropriate honor to the woman, if not you will >> have to reckon with God.> > This discussion seems to assume that TWi GUNAIKEIWi is adjectival > and attributive to σκευει rather than a substantive. That’s the way > ι took it originally and ι still think that may be right, but ι‘m > not fully satisfied with either way of taking it.> > As little as ι think that ASQENESTERWi involves a positive notion, > just so little do ι believe that something sinister is implied by > use of the adjective — perhaps substantival — GUNAIKEIWi. ι hardly > think that the author of 1 Peter had Euripides’ Medea in mind when > speaking of how men should treat their wives — the Jason upon whom > Medea avenges herself there has abandoned her in favor of a young > princess and cannot understand why she is upset with him. There are > dangerous women in Greek literature, such as Medea and Clytemnestra, > and there are the heroines such as Penelope and Antigone. ι really > don’t believe that sinister connotations have been indelibly > imprinted on the adjective γυναικειοσ/α/ον by Euripides.Yancy

[] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1Peter 3:7″) Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Tue Jul 28 03:17:01 εδτ 2009

[] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in1Peter 3:7″) [] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1Peter 3:7″) —– Original Message —– From: “Carl Conrad” <cwconrad2 at mac.com>To: “Iver Larsen” <iver_larsen at sil.org>Cc: ” ” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: 27. juli 2009 15:14Subject: Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter 3:7″)The text in question is 1 Peter 3:7:Οἱ ἄνδρες ὁμοίως, συνοικοῦντες κατὰγνῶσιν ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει τῷγυναικείῳ, ἀπονέμοντες τιμὴν ὡςκαὶ συγκληρονόμοις χάριτος ζωῆς εἰςτὸ μὴ ἐγκόπτεσθαι τὰς προσευχὰςὑμῶν.[hOI ανδρεσ hOMOIWS, συνοικουντεσ κατα γνωσιν hWS ASQENESTERWi SKEUEITWi GUNAIKEIWi, απονεμοντεσ τιμην hWS συγκληρονομοισ ξαριτοσ ζωησ ειστο μηεγκοπτεσθαι τασ προσευξασ hUMWN.]<snip>[ξξ:]Upon reading Iver’s remarks here, ι am more than halfway inclined tomove over to his analysis, although aspects of it are troubling still.There seems to me something excessive in the two hWS + dativeexpressions here, reminding one of the manneristic colloquialismpunctuating some υ.σ. teenage talk: “It’s like, you know, like … “They do seem to serve a purpose here, but they obscure the syntacticcomplement of the two verbs, the dative that both συνοικουντεσ andAPONEMONTES τιμην would seem to require. Some earlier versions (e.g.κψβ, ρσβ, δρξ) evidently understood the complement of συνοικουντεσ asan implicit γυναιχι(ν) and construed hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει withAPONEMONTES τιμην — as did Oun in his earlier post in an earlierphase of this thread — in the sense, “allotting honor to the feminineas a weaker vessel”– and finally taking hWS συγκληρονομοισ ξαριτοσζωησ either as appositional to TWi GUNAIKEIWi or to the supposedlyimplicit γυναιχι(ν).<snip>To me the most troubling feature of the whole construction is TWiGUNAIKEIWi. Why a neuter substantive (“the feminine/womanly/wifelything”)? Is it really the dative complement of συνοικουντεσ and mustwe really understand hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει adverbially (husbandslive together ‘understandingly’ with the womanly/wifely thing becauseit is a weaker vessel?If this really is a neuter substantive, it seems odd;<snip>Or is the neuter adjectival form chosen because ASQENESTERWi σκευει isneuter? And if so, then why shouldn’t TWi GUNAIKEIWi be understood asan attributive adjective? — as ι was originally inclined to suppose?Perhaps σκευει TWi GUNAIKEIWi is the dative complement to SUNOIKOUNTESas well as to απονεμοντεσ τιμην, in which case the hWS should beconstrued only with ASQENESTERWi. It does seem to me that κατα GNWSINmust be seen in conjunction with hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει:”consideration” is appropriate in view of the greater weakness/vulnerability involved. In that case, we’d have something like,”husbands sharing existence with (their) feminine/wifely vehicle in anunderstanding way (since it is weaker/more-vulnerable), attributingworth to (it/them) as co-heirs of the grace of life … “ιλ:ι like your last rendering and ι don’t think that the two hWS clauses are excessive since each of them is supporting its own verb. It may be helpful to explicate the deep structure which ι assume lies behind the text we have:hOI ανδρεσ hOMOIWS, συνοικουντεσκατα γνωσιν hWS ASQENESTERWi SKEUEITWi GUNAIKEIWi [σκευει],απονεμοντεσ τιμην [ταισ γυναιχι hUMWN]hWS συγκληρονομοισ ξαριτοσ ZWHSWhen Peter uses TWi GUNAIKEIWi σκευει rather than simply ταισ γυναιχι hUMWN, he is emphasizing the femininity and contrasting it to the masculinity. The use of σκευοσ to represent a wife reflects the culture of the time, which looked at the woman/wife as an instrument, almost as a possession, of the man, and certainly weaker. Paul also uses το hEAUTOU σκευοσ in 1 Thes 4:4 for a wife/woman.Peter is then fronting the reason for staying with the wife in a considerate way, namely because she is ασθενεστερον σκευοσ. Since σκευει now occurs in the surface structure before the σκευει that GUNAIKEIWi modifies, the second is left implicit to avoid unnecessary repetition. If the hWS clause had come after TWi GUNAIKEIWi σκευει, it would have been simply hWS ASQENESTERWi without the σκευει repeated (as you have in the English rendering above).It is also easy to supply the wives as the implicit dative object for απονεμοντεσ, and the second hWS clause naturally gives the reason for treating the wife with honour/value. This is where Peter goes against secular culture just as Paul has declared that in Christ there is no value difference between man/husband and woman/wife. Because they both have an equal share in the “life of grace”, the man must not (ab)use the wife. That such an admonition to value her is necessary is precisely because it is against the normal cultural practices at the time.Iver Larsen

[] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in1Peter 3:7″)[] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1Peter 3:7″)

Tue Jul 28 07:29:27 εδτ 2009

[] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1Peter 3:7″) [] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in1Peter 3:7″) On Jul 28, 2009, at 3:17 αμ, Iver Larsen wrote:> —– Original Message —–> From: “Carl Conrad” <cwconrad2 at mac.com>> To: “Iver Larsen” <iver_larsen at sil.org>> Cc: ” ” < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: 27. juli 2009 15:14> Subject: Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1 Peter > 3:7″)> > > The text in question is 1 Peter 3:7:> Οἱ ἄνδρες ὁμοίως, συνοικοῦντες > κατὰ> γνῶσιν ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει τῷ> γυναικείῳ, ἀπονέμοντες τιμὴν ὡς> καὶ συγκληρονόμοις χάριτος ζωῆς > εἰς> τὸ μὴ ἐγκόπτεσθαι τὰς προσευχὰς> ὑμῶν.> [hOI ανδρεσ hOMOIWS, συνοικουντεσ κατα γνωσιν hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει> TWi GUNAIKEIWi, απονεμοντεσ τιμην hWS συγκληρονομοισ ξαριτοσ ζωησ εισ> το μη> εγκοπτεσθαι τασ προσευξασ hUMWN.]> <snip>> [ξξ:]> Upon reading Iver’s remarks here, ι am more than halfway inclined to> move over to his analysis, although aspects of it are troubling still.> There seems to me something excessive in the two hWS + dative> expressions here, reminding one of the manneristic colloquialism> punctuating some υ.σ. teenage talk: “It’s like, you know, like … “> They do seem to serve a purpose here, but they obscure the syntactic> complement of the two verbs, the dative that both συνοικουντεσ and> απονεμοντεσ τιμην would seem to require. Some earlier versions (e.g.> κψβ, ρσβ, δρξ) evidently understood the complement of συνοικουντεσ as> an implicit γυναιχι(ν) and construed hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει with> απονεμοντεσ τιμην — as did Oun in his earlier post in an earlier> phase of this thread — in the sense, “allotting honor to the feminine> as a weaker vessel”– and finally taking hWS συγκληρονομοισ ξαριτοσ> ζωησ either as appositional to TWi GUNAIKEIWi or to the supposedly> implicit γυναιχι(ν).> <snip>> To me the most troubling feature of the whole construction is TWi> GUNAIKEIWi. Why a neuter substantive (“the feminine/womanly/wifely> thing”)? Is it really the dative complement of συνοικουντεσ and must> we really understand hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει adverbially (husbands> live together ‘understandingly’ with the womanly/wifely thing because> it is a weaker vessel?> > If this really is a neuter substantive, it seems odd;> <snip>> Or is the neuter adjectival form chosen because ASQENESTERWi σκευει is> neuter? And if so, then why shouldn’t TWi GUNAIKEIWi be understood as> an attributive adjective? — as ι was originally inclined to suppose?> Perhaps σκευει TWi GUNAIKEIWi is the dative complement to συνοικουντεσ> as well as to απονεμοντεσ τιμην, in which case the hWS should be> construed only with ASQENESTERWi. It does seem to me that κατα γνωσιν> must be seen in conjunction with hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει:> “consideration” is appropriate in view of the greater weakness/> vulnerability involved. In that case, we’d have something like,> “husbands sharing existence with (their) feminine/wifely vehicle in an> understanding way (since it is weaker/more-vulnerable), attributing> worth to (it/them) as co-heirs of the grace of life … “> > ιλ:> ι like your last rendering and ι don’t think that the two hWS > clauses are> excessive since each of them is supporting its own verb. It may be > helpful to> explicate the deep structure which ι assume lies behind the text we > have:> > hOI ανδρεσ hOMOIWS, συνοικουντεσ> κατα γνωσιν hWS ASQENESTERWi σκευει> TWi GUNAIKEIWi [σκευει],> απονεμοντεσ τιμην [ταισ γυναιχι hUMWN]> hWS συγκληρονομοισ ξαριτοσ ζωησ> > When Peter uses TWi GUNAIKEIWi σκευει rather than simply ταισ > γυναιχι hUMWN, he> is emphasizing the femininity and contrasting it to the masculinity. > The use of> σκευοσ to represent a wife reflects the culture of the time, which > looked at the> woman/wife as an instrument, almost as a possession, of the man, and > certainly> weaker. Paul also uses το hEAUTOU σκευοσ in 1 Thes 4:4 for a wife/ > woman.> Peter is then fronting the reason for staying with the wife in a > considerate> way, namely because she is ασθενεστερον σκευοσ. Since σκευει now > occurs in the> surface structure before the σκευει that GUNAIKEIWi modifies, the > second is left> implicit to avoid unnecessary repetition. If the hWS clause had come > after TWi> GUNAIKEIWi σκευει, it would have been simply hWS ASQENESTERWi > without the σκευει> repeated (as you have in the English rendering above).> It is also easy to supply the wives as the implicit dative object for> απονεμοντεσ, and the second hWS clause naturally gives the reason > for treating> the wife with honour/value. This is where Peter goes against secular > culture> just as Paul has declared that in Christ there is no value > difference between> man/husband and woman/wife. Because they both have an equal share in > the “life> of grace”, the man must not (ab)use the wife. That such an > admonition to value> her is necessary is precisely because it is against the normal > cultural> practices at the time.Thanks very much, Iver; the structure of this verse now seems a lot more intelligible, even if the phasing seems a bit awkward, and ι think that the differences in English versions that Harold has cited (ι had looked at several of them to see what construction of the textual elements they seemed to represent) reflect that awkwardness.ι might just note, with regard to the “normal cultural practices at the time,” that middle- and upper-class women iwere not so infrequently educated and empowered to act individually. That’s not to say that our text doesn’t indeed run counter to common practice.Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

[] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in1Peter 3:7″) Bryant ψ. Williams ιιι bjwvmw at com-pair.net
Tue Jul 28 10:47:29 εδτ 2009

[] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in1Peter 3:7″) [] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1Peter 3:7″) Dear Yancey,Although the reference to Medea are appreciated, yet the context of ι Peter3:5-6 gives enough examples, i.e. hAI γυναικεσ…ζαρρα….Furthermore, the particle, “hWS – likewise; in the same manner,” seems toindicate how the husbands are to be. hWS piggybacks on the previous phrasehOUTWS γαρ ποτε και. All this indicates that the verses 1c-4 are the indicatorsof the behavior required of a wife in subjection to her husband. This is quitein keeping with the Jewish mindset that Peter has in writing to those in theDiaspora in 1:1.En Xristwi,Rev. Bryant ψ. Williams ιιι—– Original Message —– From: “Yancy Smith” <yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net>To: “‘greek ‘” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 4:00 PMSubject: Re: [] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in1Peter 3:7″)> ι would like to suggest some further reasons why (1) σκεύει τῷ γυναικείῳσκευει TWi GUNAIKEIWi should be construed with both συνοικοῦντες συνοικουντεσ orἀπονέμοντες απονεμοντεσ, and (2) that the meaning of ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει τῷγυναικείῳ hWS TWi GUNAIKEIWi, is rhetorically complex, indeed subversive. Whileit has a negative connotation (beyond doubt), yet it implies what was understoodas a dangerous factor communicable to the man, or at least a factor which placesthe male in jeapardy. In this case the “weakness” of the “womanly vessel”actually puts the husband in a precarious position before God. If he does notgive her appropriate honor as a fellow heir of the gift of life, God will nothear his prayers.> > On (1) there is not a problem with σκεύει τῷ γυναικείῳ σκευει TWi GUNAIKEIWifulfilling two different dative roles, because the indirect object ofἀπονέμοντες is simply a result of ellipsis, which is common enough. Understoodthis way, the problem Harold adduces simply vanishes, as does the phrase itself,due to economy of style.> > On two, ι think that some cultural background can help. This use of theγυναικειοσ “power or ‘virtue'” of a woman as a feature of females that place menin danger or disadvantage is found in the language of Euripides, representing afeature of Medea, who was a prominent theme in Roman domestic wall art (See_Roman domestic art and early house churches_ By David λ Balch). Thevisualization of Medea brought the tragic figure into the world of the firstcentury, even though the texts of Euripides plays were written centuriesearlier. (The plays continued to be performed and remembered in the popular oralculture as well). Medea, a deeply tragic Georgian (from Cholchis) sacrifices herancestral homeland for the man she loves only to have that man marry anotherwoman. The motif of the tragic female also comes up in the frequent portrayal ofAriadne on Greco-Roman walls. But more to the point, γυναικειοσ ‘virtue,’ thoughof the weaker sex, has a liminal, potentially dangerous quality:> > Examples:> Euripides Trag., Fragmenta> Fragment 502, line 5> πλοῦτος δ’ ἐπακτὸς ἐκ γυναικείων γάμων> ἀνόνητος· αἱ γὰρ διαλύσεις <οὐ> ῥᾴδιαι.> πλουτοσ δ‘ επακτοσ εκ γυναικειων γαμων> ανονητοσ; hAI γαρ διαλυσεισ <ου> RAiDIAI.> Wealth acquired from womanly bonds of matrimony> Is unprofitable, getting free from them is not easy> > > Euripides Trag., Fragmenta> Fragment 653, line 1> > ὦ παῖδες οἷον φίλτρον ἀνθρώποις φρενός> κοινὸν γὰρ εἶναι χρῆν γυναικεῖον λέχος.> ο children! The desire men have is a charm> For it is common to feel a strong need of the womanly bed.> (υωσ trans.)> In the case of Medea, the chorus sings the reversal of the common, naturalorder that takes place as she seeks her tragic revenge.> > Euripides Trag., Medea> Line 417> > {Chorus}: ἄνω ποταμῶν ἱερῶν χωροῦσι παγαί,> καὶ δίκα καὶ πάντα πάλιν στρέφεται·> ἀνδράσι μὲν δόλιαι βουλαί, θεῶν δ’> οὐκέτι πίστις ἄραρεν.> τὰν δ’ ἐμὰν εὔκλειαν ἔχειν βιοτὰν στρέψουσι φᾶμαι·> ἔρχεται τιμὰ γυναικείωι γένει·> οὐκέτι δυσκέλαδος φάμα γυναῖκας ἕξει.> ανω ποταμων hIERWN χωρουσι παγαι,> και δικα παντα παλιν στρεφεται;> ανδρασι μεν δολιαι βουλαι, θεων δ‘> ουκετι πιστισ αραρεν.> ταν δ‘εμαν ευκλειαν εξειν βιοταν στρευουσι φαμαι;> ερξεται τιμα γυναικειων γενει;> ουκετι δυσκελαδοσ φαμα γυναικασ hEXEI.> The waters in the sacred rivers> are flowing in reverse.> And all well-ordered things> are once more turning on themselves.> Men’s plans are now deceitful,> their firm trust in the gods is gone.> My life is changing—common talk> is giving me a better reputation.> Honor is coming to the female sex.> Slander will no longer injure women.> (Ian Johnston, trans.)> > ι think it could be that such a potential reversal is being alluded to in 1Peter, a common domestic theme, that serves as a warning to abusive males. Giveappropriate honor to the woman, if not you will have to reckon with God.> > Yancy> > > > > > Yancy Smith> Yancy ω. Smith, PhD> World Bible Translation Center> 4028 Daley Ave., Suite 201> Fort Worth, τχ 76180> p 817-595-1664> f 817580-7013> yancy at wbtc.org> > Be kinder than necessary for everyone you meet is fighting some kind ofbattle.> > > > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> ——————————————————————————–Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.Checked by αβγ Free Edition.Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/696 – Release Date: 02/21/2007 3:19PM

[] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in1Peter 3:7″) Yancy Smith yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Wed Jul 29 17:23:29 εδτ 2009

[] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1Peter 3:7″) [] Gal 4.4 Iver writes:<snip>It is also easy to supply the wives as the implicit dative object for απονεμοντεσ, and the second hWS clause naturally gives the reason for treating the wife with honour/value. This is where Peter goes against secular culture just as Paul has declared that in Christ there is no value difference between man/husband and woman/wife. Because they both have an equal share in the “life of grace”, the man must not (ab)use the wife. That such an admonition to value her is necessary is precisely because it is against the normal cultural practices at the time.<snip>ι deeply appreciate Iver’s construal of the Greek text here, and think it is on target. ι am not so sure that the text offers a situation in which “there is no value difference” between the man and the woman in the writer’s eyes. Viewed in the context of 3:1-6, it is quite conventional. The male-female differ as strong-to-weak, dominant-submissive. In terms of type of communication, 1 Pet. 3:1-6 engages in a Platonic-Neopythagorean tradition of instruction directed to wives. It includes the common Greco-Roman demand that women be submissive to their husbands addressed to Christian wives. The exhortation does differ from the pagan conception of submission in that it from encourages the wife to maintain her own distinct religion. In this way she does not completely conform to the customs of her husband. The intent is missionary and ζαρρα is used as an example of obedience and marital harmony (Like some of the Rabbis, e.g. Akiva, Peter ignores context of the citation of Gen 18:12-13 where ζαρρα mocks Abraham). Just as ζαρρα was understood by another first century writer (Philo) as one who led Abraham to God, she is the model for those who live in mixed Christian–Pagan homes.The exhortation in 3:7 is a application of a Greco-Roman concern for husbands to live wisely and with kindness toward their wives. This kind of concern is also evident in Roman Stoics like Musionius Rufus and in Plutarch. Just as this text urges the subordination of wives, so these philosophers (sometimes thought to be egalitarian!) urge the subordination of wives. That gods or God might step in and vindicate an abused woman at times is also part of the general cultural background (thus my previous snippets from Euripides). In other words, any uniqueness that this text exhibits in the Greco-Roman environment in regard to the husbands valuation of the wife is a uniqueness shared by other groups. It would be the content of the notion of the “grace of life” that would set Christianity apart from its context.Yancy ω. Smith, PhDWorld Bible Translation Center4028 Daley Ave., Suite 201Fort Worth, τχ 76180p 817-595-1664f 817580-7013yancy at wbtc.orgBe kinder than necessary for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi σκευει in 1Peter 3:7″)[] Gal 4.4

People who read this article also liked:

Leave a Reply