Sat Oct 16 20:38:59 EDT 1999 Bear with me, here. :-) Bear with me, here. :-) At 8:13 PM -0700 10/16/99, Michael Abernathy wrote:>I would like some feedback on two questions concerning 1 Timothy 2:12.Text: DIDASKEIN DE GUNAIKI OUK EPITREPW OUDE AUQENTEIN ANDROS, ALL' EINAIEN hHSUCIAi.>1. Is it probable that authentein gives the purpose for the teaching which>Paul forbids?In terms of the grammar of the sentence, I would not say it's probable: thetwo infinitives are coordinated, which to me seems to indicate that"teaching" is not in itself deemed an instance of exercising authority.>2. Is the following translation viable?>I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority independent of>her husband?I think this is quite unlikely; more likely is "exercise authority over aman." ANDROS is the genitive direct complement in this instance; many verbsof governing or ruling take a genitive direct complement. Moreover, I wouldpersonally expect that if ANDROS referred specifically to the husband ofthe woman referred to be GUNAIKI, there would be an article and the phrasewould be AUQENTEIN TOU ANDROS.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/-------------- next part --------------A non-text attachment was scrubbed...Name: not availableType: text/enrichedSize: 1381 bytesDesc: not availableUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19991016/76211b4a/attachment.bin Bear with me, here. :-)Bear with me, here. :-)
1 Timothy 2:12 Michael Abernathy mabernat at cub.kcnet.org
Sat Oct 16 23:13:53 EDT 1999 Greek Pronunciation SKOPOS I would like some feedback on two questions concerning 1 Timothy 2:12.1. Is it probable that authentein gives the purpose for the teaching which Paul forbids? 2. Is the following translation viable?I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority independent of her husband?Michael AbernathyLock Haven-------------- next part --------------An HTML attachment was scrubbed...URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19991016/3d884c7b/attachment.html Greek PronunciationSKOPOS
1 Timothy 2:12 Michael Haggett michael at michaelhaggett.freeserve.co.uk
Sun Oct 17 17:23:20 EDT 1999 EI EXESTIN (Mt 19:3) EI EXESTIN (Mt 19:3) Michael Abernathy wrote8:13 PM -0700 10/16/99, |I would like some feedback on two questions concerning 1 Timothy 2:12.| |Text: DIDASKEIN DE GUNAIKI OUK EPITREPW OUDE AUQENTEIN |ANDROS.| |2. Is the following translation viable?|I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority independent of her husband?I think you have rightly grasped the two possible meanings of AUQENTEIN, but I would doubt that you can have it BOTH ways at the same time, I think you need to choose between "to exercise authority" and "to be independent/autonomous". "One-off" NT words are always a little problematic, even if we look at the ways non-Christians used it at the same time or Christians came to use it later, it isn't conclusive proof about the way Paul (or whoever it was, to cut that objection off!) used it. Personally I would put some weight on the way the adjective AUQAIRETOS is used in 2 Cor 8:17, and think that Paul is likely to be talking of autonomy/independence rather than authority, for which EXOUSIA is consistently used in the NT. 1. Is it probable that authentein gives the purpose for the teaching which Paul forbids? If I read your question correctly, Michael, I would say yes. Although Carl says no:|In terms of the grammar of the sentence, I would not say it's probable: the |two infinitives are coordinated, which to me seems to indicate that |"teaching" is not in itself deemed an instance of exercising authority.I completely agree that the two infinitives ARE co-ordinated, and therefore that teaching, in itself, is not what Paul is prohibiting. But I would say that the linkage is only to AUQENTEIN (whichever option for you choose for it) NOT directly to men/husbands. So, to me, Paul is prohibiting the teaching (either by women or not) of autonomy/independence between the sexes, not the teaching of men by women. The alternative, that Paul is saying:"but I do not permit a woman/wife to:a. teach nor b. be autonomous of a man/husband"doesn't seem to do justice to the phraseology. For what it's worth, my translation would be:"but as to teaching, I do not permit a wife to be independent from a husband either" (the "either" referring back to the preceding verses, not to the teaching)This keeps the degree of ambiguity in the Greek between whether Paul means women teaching autonomously, or the teaching (by anyone) of autonomy/independence between the sexes.I think that the use or non-use of the article isn't a decisive a factor in determining whether husband/wife or man/woman is meant here. The definite article seems to me to be far too capricious for that! Just figure it out from the context, but I'd go for husband/wife personally ... or is that just me being capricious!||||||| Michael Haggett||||||| 164 Holland Road||||||| London W14 8BEmichaelhaggett at altavista.net-------------- next part --------------An HTML attachment was scrubbed...URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19991017/6d28fc7f/attachment.html EI EXESTIN (Mt 19:3)EI EXESTIN (Mt 19:3)
1 Timothy 2:12 George Goolde goolde at mtnempire.net
Sun Oct 17 20:13:55 EDT 1999 EI EXESTIN (was: porneia) A good Greek Bible If it be allowed that "Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture"ORIf it be recognized that "Greek meanings are best determined by their context"THENI submit that there are two (or more) possible meanings of 1 Tim 2:12 until we put it in its context. But when put into its context considering1 Tim 2:11 AND1 Tim 2:13-15I submit the choices narrow to, IMO, only one.Regards,GeorgeGeorge A. GooldeProfessor, Bible and TheologySouthern California Bible College & SeminaryEl Cajon, Californiagoolde at mtnempire.net EI EXESTIN (was: porneia)A good Greek Bible
1 Timothy 2:12 and Hermeneutics Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Oct 18 07:17:59 EDT 1999 Jn 16.13 DIKAIOS At 5:13 PM -0700 10/17/99, George Goolde wrote:>If it be allowed that "Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture"> >OR> >If it be recognized that "Greek meanings are best determined by their context"> >THEN> >I submit that there are two (or more) possible meanings of 1 Tim 2:12 until>we put it in its context. But when put into its context considering> >1 Tim 2:11 AND>1 Tim 2:13-15> >I submit the choices narrow to, IMO, only one.While the second principle does have something to do with assumptions aboutunderstanding the Greek text--although its relevance is hardly limited tomeanings of GREEK words--, stating the first one is sneaking hermeneuticsin by the back door. PLEASE don't do that. I might very well agree withwhat you're saying about the relationship between verses 2:11, 2:13-15 and2:12; I might agree that "Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture"too, although you and might very likely disagree about how to apply such aprinciple legitimately, but it is a hermeneutical principle with which wedon't necessarily expect list-members to agree. The question confronting uswith regard to 2:12 is what alternatives may legitimately be implied by thegrammatical construction. Once that is sorted out, I think individualinterpreters go their own way about how they see that in context--whetherguided, or misguided.I confess that I don't much like this text and what it has to say, but Isubmit that it is irrelevant whether I like it or not; the question is whatis the Greek text really saying. I want to address Michael Haggett's viewof the verse separately as time permits.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/ Jn 16.13DIKAIOS
1 Timothy 2:12 Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Mon Oct 18 09:03:58 EDT 1999 Jo 19:25 DIKAIOS Andreas J. Kostenberg read a paper at the 1992 AAR-SBL Annual Meeting in San Francisco (S153) entitled: "Syntactical Parallels to 1 Timothy 2:12 in Extrabiblical Greek Literature." Does anyone have the "Abstracts" for that meeting, and was the basic argument for his paper presented in the "Abstracts"? I still have his handout from that meeting, but unfortunately his handout doesn't summarize his argument (nor did I think to write it down). I remember at that time being quite impressed with his argument (and thinking it important for understanding 1 Tim 2:12), but now I'm kind of vague on the details. If someone could help me out here, I would appreciate it.-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.com From Luther's Large Catechism: "Why, do you think, is the world now so full of unfaithfulness, shame, misery, and murder? It is because everyone wishes to be his or her own master, be free from all authority, care nothing for anyone, and do whatever he or she pleases. So God punishes one knave by means of another" (BoC 386.154). Jo 19:25DIKAIOS
1 Timothy 2:12 CEP7 at aol.com CEP7 at aol.com
Mon Oct 18 10:10:25 EDT 1999 Jo 19:25 Jo 19:25 In a message dated 10/18/99 8:26:47 AM, scmiller at www.plantnet.com writes:<< Andreas J. Kostenberg read a paper at the 1992 AAR-SBL Annual Meeting in San Francisco (S153) entitled: "Syntactical Parallels to 1 Timothy 2:12 in Extrabiblical Greek Literature." Does anyone have the "Abstracts" for that meeting, and was the basic argument for his paper presented in the "Abstracts"? I still have his handout from that meeting, but unfortunately his handout doesn't summarize his argument (nor did I think to write it down). I remember at that time being quite impressed with his argument (and thinking it important for understanding 1 Tim 2:12), but now I'm kind of vague on the details. If someone could help me out here, I would appreciate it. >>I think the same info from that paper is included in Andreas J. Köstenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin, eds. Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995).Charles PowellDTScep7 at aol.com Jo 19:25Jo 19:25
1 Timothy 2:12 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Oct 18 11:33:32 EDT 1999 Jo 19:25 1 Timothy 2:12 There are two problematic points in this post that concern me: (1) theinterpretation of AUQENTEIN ANDROS as "act independently from (a/her)man/husband" and (2) the interpretation of DIDASKEIN as functioning somehowepexegetically to AUQENTEIN).At 10:23 PM +0100 10/17/99, Michael Haggett wrote:>Michael Abernathy wrote>8:13 PM -0700 10/16/99,> >|I would like some feedback on two questions concerning 1 Timothy 2:12.>| > >|Text: DIDASKEIN DE GUNAIKI OUK EPITREPW OUDE AUQENTEIN |ANDROS.>| >|2. Is the following translation viable?>|I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority independent of>her husband?> >I think you have rightly grasped the two possible meanings of AUQENTEIN,>but I would doubt that you can have it BOTH ways at the same time, I think>you need to choose between "to exercise authority" and "to be>independent/autonomous". "One-off" NT words are always a little>problematic, even if we look at the ways non-Christians used it at the>same time or Christians came to use it later, it isn't conclusive proof>about the way Paul (or whoever it was, to cut that objection off!) used>it. Personally I would put some weight on the way the adjective>AUQAIRETOS is used in 2 Cor 8:17, and think that Paul is likely to be>talking of autonomy/independence rather than authority, for which EXOUSIA>is consistently used in the NT.There's my first problem. The usage of AUQAIRETOS as "of his own choice" in2 Corinthians 8:17 is perfectly intelligible, but I don't see how it bearsupon the sense of AUQENTEIN in 1 Tim 2:12. Are there any other instances ofAUQENTEIN in the sense "act independently" with an ablatival genitive ofthe one of whom one acts independently in Christian or non-Christian Greek?There are sufficient examples , even if they be few,of AUQENTEIN with agenitive of the person over whom one exercises authority, and suchgenitives are common with verbs of exercising authority.>1. Is it probable that authentein gives the purpose for the teaching which>Paul forbids?> >If I read your question correctly, Michael, I would say yes. Although>Carl says no:> >|In terms of the grammar of the sentence, I would not say it's probable:>the |two infinitives are coordinated, which to me seems to indicate that>|"teaching" is not in itself deemed an instance of exercising authority.> >I completely agree that the two infinitives ARE co-ordinated, and>therefore that teaching, in itself, is not what Paul is prohibiting. But>I would say that the linkage is only to AUQENTEIN (whichever option for>you choose for it) NOT directly to men/husbands. So, to me, Paul is>prohibiting the teaching (either by women or not) of autonomy/independence>between the sexes, not the teaching of men by women. The alternative,>that Paul is saying:> >"but I do not permit a woman/wife to:>a. teach>nor>b. be autonomous of a man/husband"> >doesn't seem to do justice to the phraseology. For what it's worth, my>translation would be:> >"but as to teaching, I do not permit a wife to be independent from a>husband either" (the "either" referring back to the preceding verses, not>to the teaching)> >This keeps the degree of ambiguity in the Greek between whether Paul>means women teaching autonomously, or the teaching (by anyone) of>autonomy/independence between the sexes.Here's my second problem. Although you say that you agree the twoinfinitives are coordinated, you evidently mean something different by thatfrom what I mean. I take both infinitives, DIDASKEIN and AUQENTEIN ANDROS,as governed by OUK EPITREPW, I understand GUNAIKI as dative with EPITREPW;I see the structure as elliptical so that the OUDE repeats GUNAIKI EPITREPWto govern the second infinitive phrase, AUQENTEIN ANDROS. If the ellipsisis filled in it would be:OUK EPITREPW GUNAIKI DIDASKEINOUDE (EPITREPW GUNAIKI) AUQENTEIN ANDROS.That is to say: I understand the author to be saying: "I don't allow awoman to teach, nor do I allow a woman/wife to exercise authority over aman/her husband."Now do I understand your argument rightly? It would be:OUK EPITREPW GUNAIKI DIDASKEIN AUQENTEIN ANDROSOUDE EPITREPW (ANDRI DIDASKEIN AUQENTEIN GUNAIKOS).That is to say: you intend AUQENTEIN ANDROS/GUNAIKOS to be what the authorforbids a woman (as well as a man) to teach--and you understand AUQENTEINwith the genitive as meaning "act independently of."That is to say: you understand the author to be saying: "I don't allow awoman to teach being independent of a husband, nor do I allow a man toteach being independent of a wife."I would not say this is absolutely impossible, but it seems to me that theelliptical elements are way too many to allow the Greek text we have beforeus to bear that extensive a sense. Moreover, I think that if AUQENTEINANDROS (or perhaps implicitly (GUNAIKA AUQENTEIN ANDROS) were the 'content'of what is being taught, it would be more natural for this infinitiveAUQENTEIN to be enclosed in an article thus: DIDASKEIN DE OUK EPITREPWGUNAIKI (TO) AUQENTEIN (GUNAIKA) ANDROS.>I think that the use or non-use of the article isn't a decisive a factor>in determining whether husband/wife or man/woman is meant here. The>definite article seems to me to be far too capricious for that! Just>figure it out from the context, but I'd go for husband/wife personally ...>or is that just me being capricious!This latter part concerns me less. In view of what follows in 13-15 I guessone could argue either way, that the reference to Adam and Eve in 13-14points to marriage partners, although the curious shift from singularSWQHSETAI (scil. hH GUNH) in the first clause of 15 to the plural MEINWSIN(scil. hAI GUNAIKES) in the second clause of 15 seems to point more towardthe role of women in the faith generally rather than of wives in particular.As I said in an earlier post, I don't particularly like this text (1 Tim2:11-15), but my liking or not liking it has nothing to do with what Ithink the Greek actually means.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu -------------- next part --------------A non-text attachment was scrubbed...Name: not availableType: text/enrichedSize: 6296 bytesDesc: not availableUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19991018/48f0372c/attachment.bin Jo 19:251 Timothy 2:12
1 Timothy 2:12 Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Mon Oct 18 11:43:09 EDT 1999 1 Timothy 2:12 Correction porneia To: Charles Powell,<< I think the same info from that paper is included in Andreas J. Köstenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin, eds. Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995). >>Do you have the book handy? Could you, or someone else, summarize the grammatical point for the Greek: DIDASKEIN DE GUNAIKI OUK EPITREPW OUDE AUQENTEIN ANDROS (1 Tim 2:12a)?-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.com From Luther's Large Catechism: "Why, do you think, is the world now so full of unfaithfulness, shame, misery, and murder? It is because everyone wishes to be his or her own master, be free from all authority, care nothing for anyone, and do whatever he or she pleases. So God punishes one knave by means of another" (BoC 386.154). 1 Timothy 2:12 Correctionporneia
1 Timothy 2:12 Correction Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Oct 18 11:40:07 EDT 1999 1 Timothy 2:12 1 Timothy 2:12 At 10:33 AM -0500 10/18/99, Carl W. Conrad wrote:>There are two problematic points in this post that concern me: (1) the>interpretation of AUQENTEIN ANDROS as "act independently from (a/her)>man/husband" and (2) the interpretation of DIDASKEIN as functioning>somehow epexegetically to AUQENTEIN).Since people do in fact tend to read and respond to the first thing theyread, and only then go on and read other incoming mail, this correctionwill do no good! Nevertheless, (2) above is stated wrongly and should read:"(2) the interpretation of AUQENTEIN KTL. as a doctrine that the authorwill not permit the teaching of."Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu -------------- next part --------------A non-text attachment was scrubbed...Name: not availableType: text/enrichedSize: 862 bytesDesc: not availableUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19991018/eac02f5f/attachment.bin 1 Timothy 2:121 Timothy 2:12
1 Timothy 2:12 Michael Haggett michael at michaelhaggett.freeserve.co.uk
Mon Oct 18 18:23:47 EDT 1999 1 Timothy 2:12 1 Timothy 2:12 Picking up on what Carl said in his response to George Goolde, (5:13 PM -0700 10/17/99) and his post of Monday, October 18, 1999 4:33 PM: I don't much like what most people take this verse to say either. So I confess at the outset that my approach is to try and see if the text can legitimately be interpreted another way. I feel like Henry Fonda in "Twelve Angry Men" - over the years I have got to the stage where I think I can put a large enough question mark over the normal interpretation to find Paul not guilty, but I'm not sure that I can yet PROVE him innocent. I thought that Michael Abernathy (8:13 PM -0700 10/16/99) was moving in a similar direction, I think that we have established that the text COULD possibly be translated, "but as to teaching, I do not permit a wife to be independent from a husband either" instead of "but I do not permit a woman/wife to (a) teach nor (b) be autonomous of a man/husband"But DOES it? The first thing is to re-construct some sort of plausible circumstances in which Paul could make such a statement. We have to do this with many of Paul's letters, a prime example being the nature of the Colossian "heresy" - if there actually was one! Please forgive me for moving off-base, but I can't think of another way to make the point.I think that such a notion of independence might be derived from Paul himself. Romans 5:12-19 talks of sin entering the world through one person, with death being the result for all mankind. He refers only to Adam, not Eve. He says the same sort of thing in 1 Cor 15:21-22, death came through a human ... for as in Adam all die, so in Christ will all be made alive. Now, would it not be at least possible for some to take this as meaning that sin was male-transmitted? Also, would that not be corroborated by Jesus being without sin because he did not have a human father? So is it impossible to imagine that some people could have thought that sin was a male problem rather than a human problem? Doesn't Paul also say that it is better to be single in 1 Cor 7, which could be taken to mean independence? And mightn't such ideas be all the more readily fostered in Ephesus, the centre of the cult of Artemis? Of course this is conjecture, but I think that it fits the thrust of Paul's argument very well. Certainly much, much better than the alternative - that women are gullible and must therefore be subservient.Back on-base now! With this scenario, it doesn't much matter whether the prohibition is on women teaching it, or anybody teaching it (although of course it's hard to imagine any MEN doing so) that's why I said that there was a degree of ambiguity in the Greek, which I tried to reflect in the translation I offered.I hope this answers Carl's second query. I wouldn't like to say that either of his options was the TRANSLATION of what the verse says. But, if I can draw a distinction between translation and interpretation, (i.e the difference between what the text says and what it means) I think it is most likely to mean, in Carl's words: <<That is to say: you intend AUQENTEIN ANDROS/GUNAIKOS to be what the author forbids a woman (as well as a man) to teach--and you understand AUQENTEIN with the genitive as meaning "act independently of." >>In his: <<you understand the author to be saying: "I don't allow a woman to teach being independent of a husband, nor do I allow a man to teach being independent of a wife.">> ... the second sentence can probably be inferred as a corollary. But I don't think the Greek could actually be construed as saying that, even elliptically. Now I need to put our "problem verse" into the context of what precedes it. First, I would imagine Paul putting a very positive emphasis on the imperative MANQANETW (v11) that women SHOULD learn, in exactly the same way as men. Perhaps it is in the nature of English that third person commands read more like grudging concessions. To me, the emphasis is on the MANQANETW (learning) rather than the EN PASH hUPOTAGH (in all submissiveness). But anyway, I do not interpret this as submissiveness to MEN, but instead as self-control, the same way as the hUPOTASSETAI of 1 Cor 14:32.This in turn relates to v8, where MASCULINE MEN, not women, are to hold up holy hands without ORGHS KAI DIALOGISMOU (anger or being argumentative). I think that this is in every way a parallel to the hUPOTAGH and hHSUCIA (quietness of disposition, NOT silence) that he wants women to have. Paul is surely being completely even handed. In the first place, Paul is putting himself forward as DIDASKALOS EQNWN (v7) - which is what occasions the rest of the chapter - and therefore these Gentiles need to have what we might call a teachable spirit - reflected in men by the absence of anger and being argumentative, and in women by self-subjection and quietness of disposition. As so often, Paul is treading a tightrope between the equality that both genders have (1 Cor 11:11 and Gal 3:28) but, at the same time, respecting the fact that the men and women of his churches did tend to behave in different ways. Now, back to Carl's first question. <<Are there any other instances of AUQENTEIN in the sense "act independently" with an ablatival genitive of the one of whom one acts independently in Christian or non-Christian Greek? There are sufficient examples, even if they be few, of AUQENTEIN with a genitive of the person over whom one exercises authority, and such genitives are common with verbs of exercising authority.>>Here I have to confess that I haven't researched enough to be able to PROVE the point. I would love someone else who can help out here to do so. To me, the use of a word other than EXOUSIA seems to indicate that Paul intends something different. Most of Perseus' examples of AUQENTE-W are of murder or suicide - but I suppose that is the ultimate form acting independently or "taking things into your own hands". I don't read any of the examples there as meaning "having authority over". I would like to have Carl's few examples. ||||||| Michael Haggett||||||| 164 Holland Road||||||| London W14 8BEmichaelhaggett at altavista.net -------------- next part --------------An HTML attachment was scrubbed...URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19991018/f26efeeb/attachment.html 1 Timothy 2:121 Timothy 2:12
1 Timothy 2:12 Maurice A. O'Sullivan mauros at iol.ie
Mon Oct 18 19:35:03 EDT 1999 EULOHMENOS hO ERCOMENOS EN ONOMATI KURIOU authentein At 08:03 18/10/99 -0500, Steven Craig Miller wrote:>Andreas J. Kostenberg read a paper at the 1992 AAR-SBL Annual Meeting in >San Francisco (S153) entitled: "Syntactical Parallels to 1 Timothy 2:12 in >Extrabiblical Greek Literature." Does anyone have the "Abstracts" for that >meeting, and was the basic argument for his paper presented in the >"Abstracts"? I still have his handout from that meeting, but unfortunately >his handout doesn't summarize his argument (nor did I think to write it >down). I remember at that time being quite impressed with his argument >(and thinking it important for understanding 1 Tim 2:12), but now I'm kind >of vague on the details. If someone could help me out here, I would >appreciate it.From:The Biblical Vision Regarding Women's Ordination By the Rev'd Dr Rodney A. Whitacrepublished on:http://www.episcopalian.org/cclec/paper-whitacre.htmhere is footnote 19:"The meaning of the word authenteo is highly debated. For the interpretation given see Andrew C. Perriman, "What Eve Did, What Women Shouldn't Do: The Meaning of authenteo in 1 Timothy 2:12," Tyndale Bulletin 44.1 (1993): 129-142. Perriman's findings should be supplemented by those of Andreas J. Kostenberger in "Syntactical Parallels to 1 Timothy 2:12 in Extrabiblical Greek Literature," a paper delivered at the Society of Biblical Literature in November, 1992. He found that when two infinitives are in the particular construction found here, they both refer to something positive or both to something negative. Since to teach is always positive in Paul, authentein is also positive. It therefore means something like exercise authority over, not a negative notion like domineer."Maurice A. O'Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ]mauros at iol.ie[ subscribed to MSN Messengero_sullivanmauric at hotmail.com ] EULOHMENOS hO ERCOMENOS EN ONOMATI KURIOUauthentein
1 Timothy 2:12 CEP7 at aol.com CEP7 at aol.com
Tue Oct 19 01:07:20 EDT 1999 Jo 19:25 1 Tim 2:14, GEGONEN In a message dated 10/18/99 6:37:19 PM, mauros at iol.ie writes:<< here is footnote 19:"The meaning of the word authenteo is highly debated. For the interpretation given see Andrew C. Perriman, "What Eve Did, What Women Shouldn't Do: The Meaning of authenteo in 1 Timothy 2:12," Tyndale Bulletin 44.1 (1993): 129-142. Perriman's findings should be supplemented by those of Andreas J. Kostenberger in "Syntactical Parallels to 1 Timothy 2:12 in Extrabiblical Greek Literature," a paper delivered at the Society of Biblical Literature in November, 1992. He found that when two infinitives are in the particular construction found here, they both refer to something positive or both to something negative. Since to teach is always positive in Paul, authentein is also positive. It therefore means something like exercise authority over, not a negative notion like domineer." >>The book, Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995) contains this essay, along with a thorough study of AUQENTEW by Baldwin (I think). Schreiner does an extensive dialogue with the scholarship over the different views of the passage. You may not agree with their conclusions, but is a very thoughtful study.By the way, I think it is possible that the OUDE is epexegetical. This use may be found in Rom 2:28; 3:10; 1 Cor 5:1; 15:50. While some may argue that none of these examples coordinate two infinitives, there are examples outside the NT where OUDE seems to have an epexegetical sense when coordinating two infinitives: Isa 42:24; Ezek 44:13; DanTh 5:8; Pol. Hist. 30.5.8.4-6; Jos. Ant. 6.20.3-5.Charles PowellDTScep7 at aol.com Jo 19:251 Tim 2:14, GEGONEN
1 Timothy 2:12 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Oct 19 08:27:41 EDT 1999 1 Timothy 2:12 1 Timothy 2:12 Correction I'm not really going to try to have much more input on this matter, chieflybecause I've already stated as clearly as I can my own views about how thetext ought to be construed. But I'd like to make an observation andpersonal comment to which I would welcome any personal (off-list) responsebut which I do not think it appropriate to discuss on the list itself.My observation is that the text of the Bible turns out, sooner or later, tobe an embarrassment for most of us (I won't say all, but I have seen thishappen to persons of conservative as well as to persons of liberaltheological tendencies). By "an embarrassment" I mean that we encounter,sooner or later, a passage that says something that strikes as wrong orshocking or inconsistent with what we think "the real teaching" of theBible about one or another topic is. Such passages tend to confound or evenshatter our fragile theoretical hermeneutical assumptions. I think thepassage in John 20 involving the text LABETE PNEUMA hAGION was such apassage for some who find what the passage seems to be saying inconsistentwith chapter 2 of Acts. Romans 16:7 with its commendation of Junia as"distinguished among the apostles" is such a passage for some others. Forme this chapter of 1 Timothy is such a passage, and I confess that I findit difficult to square the passage we've been discussing in this threadwith Galatians 3:28 and with my own reading of Genesis 1-3. I frankly don'tsee how anyone who thinks the Bible teaches gender-egalitarianism can becomfortable with chapter 2 of 1 Timothy. I've confessed my own discomfortin previous posts on this thread.What disturbs me more than the passage itself, however, is what seems to meto be a temptation that I imagine we all feel when confronting such apassage: "It can't mean what it seems to say, so it must mean somethingdifferent." If it's not this passage then it may be some other: afterlooking for a simple solution such as an overlooked variant in themanuscript solution, we consider more desperate alternatives such as thepossibility of interpolation of the passage into a context where it doesn'tbelong, or we seek to reinterpret the grammar and vocabulary to meansomething other than what they pretty clearly seem to indicate.And yet, as I wrote just a few weeks ago, "Nevertheless, however muchinterpretation may depend upon what the reader brings with him/her to theGreek text being interpreted, the process of interpretation can hardly bearbitrary. While we may all be inclined to favor one legitimate alternativeway of understanding a text over another legitimate alternative on thebasis of our personal belief, I think (I certainly HOPE) that we all want,so far as we are able, to avoid EIS-egesis: we want to read a meaning thatwe honestly think is there in the text for us to see, not to force upon thetext a meaning that we think would be convenient to find there. So, yes:our theological assumptions dohave a bearing on how we look at the alternative meanings that grammaticalanalysis discloses to us--and occasionally they may even incline us toconstrue the syntax in a way that seems suspect to others, but I reallydon't believe any of us honestly wants to be deluded about what the textreally means."I think we're facing the danger and temptation here of wanting to forceupon the text an interpretation that won't fit. I'm not making anyaccusations here, although it must appear that I am. I don't question thesincerity of the effort to construe the syntax of 1 Timothy 2:12 so as toimply gender-egalitarianism, but I question the wisdom of it.I frankly don't think it has ever been adequately established thatAUQENTEIN ANDROS can mean "be independent from a husband." I have beeninterested to read the items contributed by Maurice O'Sullivan, JohnBarach, and Charles Powell on this matter, but I must say that the viewI've expressed above has only been strengthened by what they've reported ofthe literature on the question.Finally, however paradoxical it may seem, I have to say that I am stillpersonally convinced that the Bible DOES teach gender-egalitarianism, but Isimply don't think we can force such an interpretation on 1 Timothy 2. Thisis certainly NOT the appropriate forum to discuss that larger issue, but ifthere is more to be said about the grammar and diction of this verse thatis not repetitive of what has already been said, let it be said. I shallhunt for examples of AUQENTEW with a genitive; the instances cited in LSJare not in the Perseus text database (that's almost exclusively Homeric andclassical Attic literary texts); I'll check TLG texts.Enough already.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu 1 Timothy 2:121 Timothy 2:12 Correction
1 Timothy 2:12 Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Tue Oct 19 09:54:32 EDT 1999 a good greek bible 1 Timothy 2:12 An HTML attachment was scrubbed...URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19991019/667bb182/attachment.html a good greek bible1 Timothy 2:12
1 Timothy 2:12 Dave Scarpino angs at sssnet.com
Tue Oct 19 10:28:40 EDT 1999 1 Timothy 2:12 a good greek bible Why not consider GUNAIKI to mean "woman of the man" or wife which would then be interpreted "not permit wife to teach or to exercise authority independent of man. MAN being her husband.respectfullyDave Scarpino 1 Timothy 2:12a good greek bible
1 Timothy 2:12 Michael Abernathy mabernat at cub.kcnet.org
Tue Oct 19 11:26:59 EDT 1999 Bear with me, here. :-) Denniston on Particles I want to thank by fellow ers for the feedback on 1 Timothy 2:12. Before we leave the subject entirely I have one further question. Considering the widespread disagreement on translation and interpretation is it possible that the author was intentionally ambiguous to force his reader to consider how this applied to two or more situations within the local church? Michael AbernathyLock Havenmabernat at cub.kcnet.org-------------- next part --------------An HTML attachment was scrubbed...URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19991019/70e3aea8/attachment.html Bear with me, here. :-)Denniston on Particles
1 Timothy 2:12 Michael Haggett michael at michaelhaggett.freeserve.co.uk
Tue Oct 19 16:49:48 EDT 1999 R: Denniston on Particles Present Tense Carl W. Conrad wroteSent: Tuesday, October 19, 1999 1:27 PMSubject: Re: 1 Timothy 2:12<<What disturbs me more than the passage itself, however, is what seems tometo be a temptation that I imagine we all feel when confronting such apassage: "It can't mean what it seems to say, so it must mean somethingdifferent." If it's not this passage then it may be some other: afterlooking for a simple solution such as an overlooked variant in themanuscript solution, we consider more desperate alternatives such as thepossibility of interpolation of the passage into a context where it doesn'tbelong, or we seek to reinterpret the grammar and vocabulary to meansomething other than what they pretty clearly seem to indicate.>>Pretty clearly seem to indicate?How about this parallel. Jesus talks about us eating his body and blood,Paul confirms it. This did lead some people to think that Christianspractised cannibalism.If we lived in a society which practised cannibalism, we wouldn't be at allconcerned about it. Such a cannibalistic interpretation of what Jesus andPaul said would go unchallenged ... for 2,000 years.But eventually it is challenged! So we go back to re-examine the text,trying to cut through 2,000 years of assumption layered upon assumption!Let's look at the way we're approaching this. We look hard at the words"eat" and "drink" because we want them to prove that Jesus wasn't advocatingcannibalism. But what happens ... we find that EVERY other instance of theuse of the word "eat" means something plain and obvious. So where wouldthis exercise have got us? Nowhere!Now findings such as, "we find that whenever the word eat is used, it speaksof the enjoyment of the thing eaten" ... or "the beneficial nutritionaleffects" ... or something like that. These are interesting, they are true,but haven't they missed the point?Although Jesus used these words he meant something quite specific by them.That's why I initially said "even if" we look at the way others used a wordit wouldn't necessarily get us anywhere. The only way we resolve theproblem is by figuring out what Jesus did mean from the context of HIS useof the words "eat my flesh and drink my blood". Isn't this an example of aplace where it's absolutely right to say,<< "It can't mean what it seems to say, so it must mean somethingdifferent." >>Fragile assumptions? Desperate alternatives? Aren't we crossing the lineby getting a little too personal here? What I find sad is that when a textcan be shown to be capable of being construed in another way the responseis: OK it could mean that, but it doesn't fit the context. And then, whena plausible context is put forward ...Don't simply shut the door on these things. Somebody, somewhere might beable to take this further. I find it quite inexplicable that because I amopenabout my motives, that should be taken as meaning that I have come toconclusions based on motive rather than fact. Remember that I started bysaying that I was putting a question mark against the conventionalinterpretation, but that I couldn't yet prove it wrong. The question markwas there long before I saw it. It is still there. But perhaps one more ofthe "Twelve Angry Men" will now see it ... there weren't any women on thatjury at all!||||||| Michael Haggett||||||| 164 Holland Road||||||| London W14 8BEmichaelhaggett at altavista.net R: Denniston on ParticlesPresent Tense
1 Timothy 2:12 "Domineering?" Joel Thomas Banks tomasbanks at u-naciones.org
Fri Jan 10 20:56:48 EST 2003 request offlist response ANASTASIS NEKRWN vs ANASTATIS EK NEKRWN In reading Carroll D. Osburn's "Women in the Church, Reclaiming the Ideal"(ACU Press, 2001) I noticed a different take on 1 Timtohy 2:12 which hasbearing on discussion on this verse in October, 1996. Quoting from page246, "It is easy to understand how 2:12 could be read in English with theconclusion that a woman is never to teach a man or be in a position ofauthority over a man. However in the Greek text, the verb "domineer" (NEB,"have authority" RSV NIV) qualifies "teach" and specifies what kind ofteaching is prohibited.(102) It is not that these women are "teaching" perse, but specifically that they are "teaching domineeringly" that annoysPaul.Footnote 102 states: When two Greek verbs are joined in this way, thenearer qualifies the farther, i.e., "domineer" qualifies "teach." SeeHerbert W. Smith, Greek Grammar (rev. G. Messing, Cambridge: Harvard Univ.press, 1956): 364-365.Returning to the text...(...)The term authentein is taken by some to mean "exercise authority"(RSV, NIV), but stronger reasons exist for taking it to mean "domineer."(105) Instead of "domineering over a man," they are encouraged to be"deferential" (2:11). Instead, they should evidence an attitude of"peaceableness / quietude." (105) This prohibition of "domineering" doesnot introduce a second prohibition, but qualifies the first--that is, theyare "not to teach in a domineering way, but are to be inpeaceableness/quietness." In this context, the term refers to the role thewomen are playing in teaching the erroneous information of the falseteachers. (106)----------------------Although Dr. Osburn's argument can be cited further, I believe thissufficient for those who are more knowledgeable about the grammaticalpoint mentioned to respond to? request offlist responseANASTASIS NEKRWN vs ANASTATIS EK NEKRWN
1 Timothy 2:12 "Domineering?" Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Jan 11 07:39:16 EST 2003 The Septuagint in Context ANASTASIS NEKRWN vs ANASTATIS EK NEKRWN In view of the fact that every discussion of 1 Tim 2:12 on this list hasengendered not only thoughtful analysis of the grammatical construction butalso spirited and diverse expressions of opinion, conviction, andantagonism, it seemed to me worth calling attention to earlier discussionsof the text on record in our archives, to wit:1/13/96Re: GUNH EN HSUCIA -- 1Ti 2.115/15-18/98AUQENTEIN, 1Tim2.125/18/98Feminine perspective and BG List History (was Re: AUQE5/18-19/98Re: AUQENTEIN6/30/981 Tim 2:1210/16-18/99Re: 1 Timothy 2:1210/18/99Re: 1 Timothy 2:12 authentein10/19/991 Tim 2:14, GEGONEN10/19-31/99Re: 1 Timothy 2:128/13/00Hermeneutics, 1 Tim. 2:12,and AUQENTEIN8/11-13/001 Tim. 2:12, meaning of AUQENTEIN2/18-19/01RE: OUDE in 1 Timothy 2:125/9/011 Tim 2:12--grammatical structure7/31-8/6/01KEFALH, hUPOTASSESQAI, H, AUQENTEIN, OUK ...5/8-9/02RE: 1 Tim 2:11-125/15/02Lexical Semantics Methods5/18/02Titus 2:12 Explicative OUDE5/20-24/02infinitive -> finite verbAll of the threads prior to May 2002 may be found in the main archives at:http://www.ibiblio.org//test-archives/html4/The May 2002 threads will have to be sought at the list's main web-site,since they haven't yet been moved over to the main archives site.-- Carl W. ConradCo-Chair, ListDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/ The Septuagint in ContextANASTASIS NEKRWN vs ANASTATIS EK NEKRWN
1 Timothy 2:12 "Domineering?" B. Ward Powers bwpowers at optusnet.com.au
Sat Jan 11 14:54:11 EST 2003 TE in John 1 Timothy 2:12 "Domineering?" Memo Joel.At 08:56 PM 030110 -0500, Joel Thomas Banks wrote:>In reading Carroll D. Osburn's "Women in the Church, Reclaiming the Ideal">(ACU Press, 2001) I noticed a different take on 1 Timothy 2:12 which has>bearing on discussion on this verse in October, 1996. Quoting from page>246,> > "It is easy to understand how 2:12 could be read in English with the>conclusion that a woman is never to teach a man or be in a position of>authority over a man. However in the Greek text, the verb "domineer" (NEB,>"have authority" RSV NIV) qualifies "teach" and specifies what kind of>teaching is prohibited.(102) It is not that these women are "teaching" per>se, but specifically that they are "teaching domineeringly" that annoys>Paul.There is an implication here that the passage in 1 Timothy 2 is referring to women in general in relation to men in general. This is indeed the way that most commentators and translators appear to take it. To the contrary, the conclusion which I am led to from assessing the Greek text in the wider context of biblical teaching is that 1 Timothy 2:8-15 is referring to the husband-wife relationship (the concept of headship/subordination) which is discussed quite extensively in the NT, rather than to the idea that it speaks about ALL women teaching ALL men (in any manner whatsoever). The words ANHR and GUNH used in this passage are in the singular, can equally well be translated and understood as "husband" and "wife", and are so translated in the parallel passage (which has much in common with this one) of 1 Peter 3:1-7, and the closely related passage (on my interpretation) Ephesians 5:22-33.If one recognizes that 1 Timothy 2:8-15 is referring to the issue of marital headship and subordination, one finds many NT passages which further elucidate this issue and clarify its meaning. If one takes this passage as referring instead to men in general and women in general (i.e. relationship between the sexes in ministry in the church) one goes against the ANHR/GUNH parallel with 1 Peter 3, against the fact that both these words here in the Greek are in the singular, against the context (for there is nothing in verses 8-15 which indicate a reference to the church as distinct from home and family); and in what it is taken to mean it is left as unique in all Scripture. By this "everybody" interpretation, Paul's teaching in this verse is made to contradict 2 Timothy 2:2 where the apostle explicitly says to Timothy that "the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people (ANQRWPOS, both men and women) who will also be qualified to teach others".I have set this out in full detail in my book "The Ministry of Women in the Church" (SPCK Australia, 1996); see also the article "Women in Church Leadership" in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol 4 page 1099.There is much to be said in favour of understanding the Greek of 1 Timothy 2:8-15 as referring to the husband/wife/home situation. Then verse 12 is seen as saying that the wife is not to "domineer" over her husband. It's a headship issue.Ward Powers http://www.netspace.net.au/~bwpowersRev Dr B. Ward Powers Phone (International): 61-2-8714-7255259A Trafalgar Street Phone (Australia): (02) 8714-7255PETERSHAM NSW 2049 email: bwpowers at optusnet.com.auAUSTRALIA. Director, Tyndale College TE in John1 Timothy 2:12 "Domineering?"
1 Timothy 2:12 "Domineering?" Ann Nyland accuratebibles at ozemail.com.au
Sat Jan 11 18:05:34 EST 2003 1 Timothy 2:12 "Domineering?" 1 Timothy 2:12 "Domineering?" Ward, this point takes a quite different view to the one you have expressed,but there is an excellent book on this topic, a most thorough treatment,written also by an Australian: J.M. Holmes, Text in a Whirlwind: A Critiqueof Four Exegetical Devices at 1 Timothy 2.9-15, Journal for the Study of theNew Testament Supplement Series 196, Studies in New Testament Greek 7,Sheffield, 1999. It was originally a PhD thesis.Ann Nyland----- Original Message -----From: "B. Ward Powers" <bwpowers at optusnet.com.au>To: "Biblical Greek" < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 6:54 AMSubject: [] Re: 1 Timothy 2:12 "Domineering?"> Memo Joel.> > At 08:56 PM 030110 -0500, Joel Thomas Banks wrote:> >In reading Carroll D. Osburn's "Women in the Church, Reclaiming theIdeal"> >(ACU Press, 2001) I noticed a different take on 1 Timothy 2:12 which has> >bearing on discussion on this verse in October, 1996. Quoting from page> >246,> >> > "It is easy to understand how 2:12 could be read in English with the> >conclusion that a woman is never to teach a man or be in a position of> >authority over a man. However in the Greek text, the verb "domineer"(NEB,> >"have authority" RSV NIV) qualifies "teach" and specifies what kind of> >teaching is prohibited.(102) It is not that these women are "teaching"per> >se, but specifically that they are "teaching domineeringly" that annoys> >Paul.> > > There is an implication here that the passage in 1 Timothy 2 is referring> to women in general in relation to men in general. This is indeed the way> that most commentators and translators appear to take it. To the contrary,> the conclusion which I am led to from assessing the Greek text in thewider> context of biblical teaching is that 1 Timothy 2:8-15 is referring to the> husband-wife relationship (the concept of headship/subordination) which is> discussed quite extensively in the NT, rather than to the idea that it> speaks about ALL women teaching ALL men (in any manner whatsoever). The> words ANHR and GUNH used in this passage are in the singular, can equally> well be translated and understood as "husband" and "wife", and are so> translated in the parallel passage (which has much in common with thisone)> of 1 Peter 3:1-7, and the closely related passage (on my interpretation)> Ephesians 5:22-33.> > If one recognizes that 1 Timothy 2:8-15 is referring to the issue of> marital headship and subordination, one finds many NT passages which> further elucidate this issue and clarify its meaning. If one takes this> passage as referring instead to men in general and women in general (i.e.> relationship between the sexes in ministry in the church) one goes against> the ANHR/GUNH parallel with 1 Peter 3, against the fact that both these> words here in the Greek are in the singular, against the context (forthere> is nothing in verses 8-15 which indicate a reference to the church as> distinct from home and family); and in what it is taken to mean it is left> as unique in all Scripture. By this "everybody" interpretation, Paul's> teaching in this verse is made to contradict 2 Timothy 2:2 where the> apostle explicitly says to Timothy that "the things you have heard me say> in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people (ANQRWPOS,> both men and women) who will also be qualified to teach others".> > I have set this out in full detail in my book "The Ministry of Women inthe> Church" (SPCK Australia, 1996); see also the article "Women in Church> Leadership" in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol 4 page1099.> > There is much to be said in favour of understanding the Greek of 1 Timothy> 2:8-15 as referring to the husband/wife/home situation. Then verse 12 is> seen as saying that the wife is not to "domineer" over her husband. It's a> headship issue.> > Ward Powers> > > http://www.netspace.net.au/~bwpowers> Rev Dr B. Ward Powers Phone (International): 61-2-8714-7255> 259A Trafalgar Street Phone (Australia): (02) 8714-7255> PETERSHAM NSW 2049 email: bwpowers at optusnet.com.au> AUSTRALIA. Director, Tyndale College 1 Timothy 2:12 "Domineering?"1 Timothy 2:12 "Domineering?"
1 Timothy 2:12 "Domineering?" Steven R. Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Sat Jan 11 18:26:17 EST 2003 1 Timothy 2:12 "Domineering?" ANASTASIS NEKRWN vs ANASTATIS EK NEKRWN On Friday, January 10, 2003, at 07:56 PM, Joel Thomas Banks wrote:> "It is easy to understand how 2:12 could be read in English with the> conclusion that a woman is never to teach a man or be in a position of> authority over a man.It's also easy to understand how it could be read in Greek with the same conclusion.> However in the Greek text, the verb "domineer" (NEB,> "have authority" RSV NIV) qualifies "teach" and specifies what kind of> teaching is prohibited.(102) It is not that these women are "teaching" > per> se, but specifically that they are "teaching domineeringly" that annoys> Paul.> > Footnote 102 states: When two Greek verbs are joined in this way, the> nearer qualifies the farther, i.e., "domineer" qualifies "teach." See> Herbert W. Smith, Greek Grammar (rev. G. Messing, Cambridge: Harvard > Univ.> press, 1956): 364-365.It's Smyth, and I have no idea how his comments on pp. 364-365 support the idea being proposed. I assume Osburn has sections 1634-1635 in mind. The heading over these two sections is "TWO VERBS WITH A COMMON OBJECT." I further assume the author is referring to Smyth's comments in section 1634. If so, this is a **very** sloppy and misleading handling of the section. While Smyth does use an example that indeed contains the same "neither ... nor" construction as 1 Tim 2.12 (OU ... OUD'; cf. OUK ... OUDE in 1 Tim 2.12), he uses it to illustrate the principle that "[t]he case of an object common to two verbs is generally that demanded by the nearer," i.e., the verb nearer the object. All this means for 1 Tim 2.12 is that we would expect the common object of DIDASKEIN and AUQENTEIN to take the case demanded by the nearer verb, which is AUQENTEIN, a verb that takes the genitive. This is indeed the case in 1 Tim 2.12, where the object of both verbs is ANDROS, the case demanded by AUQENTEIN, the nearer verb. Smyth goes on to say, "The **farther** [i.e., from the object] verb **may** contain the main idea." Smyth says nothing about the verb nearer the object **qualifying** the farther verb. What he says is that the verb farther removed from the common object of both verbs "**may** contain the main idea." The example he uses is EPITIMAi KAI APODOKIMAZEI TISI ("he censures some and rejects them at the scrutiny"). All he is saying is that, in this case, EPITIMAi (which takes the dative), though the verb farther removed from the common object of both verbs, nevertheless determines the case of the object and is therefore the verb that contains the main idea, since it seems to be dominant. He is **not** saying that APODOKIMAZEI **qualifies** EPITIMAi! In that case we would have, "he rejectingly censures some"! TISI, the object, is dative, as demanded by EPITIMAi, but because APODOKIMAZEI is the closer verb, we might have expected the accusative. This is why EPITIMAi, though the farther verb, is seen as the verb that contains the main idea. This section from Smyth lends no credence at all to the idea that AUQENTEIN adverbially qualifies DIDASKEIN, yielding the sense, "to teach domineeringly." What is so bizarre about Osburn's handling of Smyth is that 1 Tim 1.12 follows the convention of the nearer verb determining the case of the object, and does NOT follow the pattern of the farther, dominant verb determining the case, which is what we would expect from Osburn's comments, since they seem to be based on what Smyth says about the latter construction! This is just silly. Osburn doesn't even seem to understand what Smyth is saying.For another example of this construction in 1 Tim 2.12, with a main verb that also pertains to "permission," cf. the following:Acts 16.21 KAI KATAGGELLOUSIN EQH hA OUK EXESTIN hHMIN PARADECESQAI OUDE POIEIN hRWMAIOIS OUSIN"and are advocating customs that are not lawful for us to accept or practice, since we are Romans"Presumably, no one would want to take this to mean, "customs that are not lawful for us to receivingly practice."============Steven R. Lo VulloMadison, WI 1 Timothy 2:12 "Domineering?"ANASTASIS NEKRWN vs ANASTATIS EK NEKRWN
1 Timothy 2:12 "Domineering?" Anh Michael saigon_christ at hotmail.com
Wed Jan 15 19:30:09 EST 2003 Learning Koine and Classical Greek Amnos-Arnion Context is important rule in determining the meaning of words. autheneo precise meaning is a little difficult to determine. This is where the grammar will help. The phrase DIDASKEIN DE GUNAIKI OUK EPITRPW OUDE AUTHENEIN. Note how the two verbs DIDASKEIN and AUTHENEIN are connected by the coordinate conjunction OUDE.Andrea J Kostenberger, Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1Timothy 2:9-15, in the Chapter entitled "A Complex Sentence Structure," argued that OUDE connects two positives or two negatives (not an negative and an positive idea) ideas closely related together. In other words DIDASKEIN and AUTHENEIN must both be positive or both negative. He gave excellent evidence references of verb OUDE verb construction in the NT and gave parallel constructions inf OUDE inf from the LXX and literature. I have not found any errors in this grammatical argument as of yet. Neither anyone proving the grammatical study at fault from the CBE brethern. I do not mean that they support Kostenberger view point.AUTHENEIN is rare, only 110x. George Knight III also wrote an article in NT studies 34 Jan. 1988 143-57, L E. Wilshire, "the TLG computer and further reference to AGTHNTEW in 1 Tim 2:12. Kostenberger's Women in the Church has a chapter on the word and appendix 2 contains all the known references of AGTHENTEW.DIDASKEIN and AUTHENEIN negative or postive? Those who argue for negative AUTHENEIN explain that the women were false teaching (4:6-8, 5:11-15: 2Tim 3:1-9 see Gordon Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus NIBC as well as the CBE website) . Therefore women teaching false doctrine and dominated men. I and others are skeptical of these verses supporting such conclusions.However, DIDASKEIN has no support from the immediate or remote context that the teaching is negative. Furthermore, DIDASKEW is not neutral in meaning but positive unless the Context makes it clear like in Titus 1:11. the Pastorals use DIDASKEW to teach doctrine and one may conclude that AUTHENEIN in 1Tim 1:12 some sort of authoritative position. OUDE makes them closely relatedCompare Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (525) with Smyth."If this were a descriptive present (as it is sometimes popularly taken), the idea might be that in the future the author would allow this: I do not presently permit. . .However, there are several arguments against this: (1) It is overly subtle. Without some temporal indicator, such as APTI or perhaps NUN, this view begs the question. (2) Were we to do this with other commands in the present tense, our resultant exegesis would be both capricious and ludicrous. Does MH METHUSKESTHEOINW. . . ALLA PLHROUSTHE EN PNEUMATI in Eph 5:18 MEAN "Do not for the moment be filled with wine, but be filled at the present time by the Spirit" with the implication that such a moral code might change in the future? The normal use of the present tense in didactic literature, especially when introducing an exhortation, is not descriptive, but a general precept that has gnomic implications. (30) Grammatically, the present tense should be taken as a gnomic present. (4) Contextually, the exhortation seems to be rooted in creation (note v. 13 and the introductory GAR), rather than an address to a temporary situation.http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cbmw/rbmw/chapter9.htmlthis links to Douglas Moo's chapter in biblical manhood and womanhood, a FREE BOOK online. This is his careful study on the chapter. I am sure the CBE website has it critcisms of the traditonal understandings. I would not dream of not mentioning them but challenge one to examine CBE conclusions with Kostenberger, Moo and othersI prefer to put these references as something to think about and not as a final word. Only when one has checked the data, will one determine if the references are correct.Michael R. Mysliwiec_________________________________________________________________MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus Learning Koine and Classical GreekAmnos-Arnion
[] 1 Timothy 1:12 Mark Wilson emory2oo2 at hotmail.com
Wed Jul 2 17:32:07 EDT 2003 [] Matt. 4:3 in Swanson [] 1 Timothy 1:12 CARIN ECW TWi ENDUNAMWSANTI ME CRISTWi IHSOU TWi KURIWi HMWN,hOTI PISTON ME hHGHSATO QEMENOS EIS DIAKONIANI am reading a commentary on this verse and it makes the following comment:"Paul now tells Timothy why he thanked the empowering of Christ. Hisreasoning is somewhat difficult to follow because the structure of histhought does not follow the grammatical structure of the sentence, and theversification also hides the structure."He then says regarding PISTON...hHGHSATO as one possible meaning, "(b) Paul isprobably saying that God knew that he would be trustworthy in the future andtherefore appointed him to service in the present.What am I missing here as to the grammatical difficulty with this verse? It seems pretty straightforward to me that Paul is simply saying that God saw that Paul would be faithful IN THE FUTUREwhen he appointed him (whenever that was) to this service.Mark Wilson_________________________________________________________________STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail [] Matt. 4:3 in Swanson[] 1 Timothy 1:12
[] 1 Timothy 1:12 waldo slusher waldoslusher at yahoo.com
Thu Jul 3 06:02:21 EDT 2003 [] 1 Timothy 1:12 [] Biblical Greek and Hebrew reference books for sale Mark...Paul expresses a thankfullness to the one whoempowered (aorist) him. This empowerment would havetaken place when the Spirit indwelt him (and solikewise the placing of him into ministry, seeQEMENOS, also aorist) which might both be assumed tohave taken place at the moment of hiscalling/conversion. Furthermore, when thisempowerment/placement was received, Paul was deemed(another aorist) faithful. So when did Paul have timeto gain the Lord's confidence if all this happened inone fell swoop at his calling. Maybe this is thedifficulty imagined. Paul as much expresses hiswonderment because in his eyes he was nothing morethan a blasphemer before this placement took place.But this would also explain why Paul considered hisplacement a matter of grace and mercy. That would bemy stab at this difficulty.Waldo--- Mark Wilson <emory2oo2 at hotmail.com> wrote:> > > CARIN ECW TWi ENDUNAMWSANTI ME CRISTWi IHSOU TWi> KURIWi HMWN,> hOTI PISTON ME hHGHSATO QEMENOS EIS DIAKONIAN> > I am reading a commentary on this verse and it makes> the following comment:> > "Paul now tells Timothy why he thanked the> empowering of Christ. His> reasoning is somewhat difficult to follow because> the structure of his> thought does not follow the grammatical structure of> the sentence, and the> versification also hides the structure."> > He then says regarding PISTON...hHGHSATO as one> possible meaning, "(b) Paul > is> probably saying that God knew that he would be> trustworthy in the future and> therefore appointed him to service in the present.> > What am I missing here as to the grammatical> difficulty with this verse? It > seems pretty straight> forward to me that Paul is simply saying that God> saw that Paul would be > faithful IN THE FUTURE> when he appointed him (whenever that was) to this> service.> > Mark Wilson> > _________________________________________________________________> STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months> FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail> > ---> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/=====Waldo SlusherCalgary, AB__________________________________Do you Yahoo!?SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!http://sbc.yahoo.com [] 1 Timothy 1:12[] Biblical Greek and Hebrew reference books for sale
Michael Abernathy wrote:
Years ago I read an article (I can't remember which one) that argued that when the verb for permit is followed by two infinitives the second infinitive often states the purpose of the first infinitive. As I remember the author gave the example of Matthew 8:21 to substantiate his claim.
κύριε, ἐπίτρεψον μοι πρω̂τον ἀπελθει̂ν καὶ θάψαι τὸν πατέρα μου.
Lord, permit me first to go and to bury my father.
We do this in English with a few verbs like 'go' and 'try'.
'Go and buy some milk' = 'go to buy some milk'
'Try and fix your bicycle' = 'try to fix your bicycle'
It seems to me that this happens because the verb demands a complement of this sort. 'Try' is inherently purposeful, and purpose is implicit with going, because it is not the going that is the purpose, but whatever one does when one reaches the destination.
My English dictionary, under entry 'and', has an addendum which reads:
A small number of verbs, notably 'try', 'come' and 'go' can be followed by 'and' with another verb, as in sentences like 'we're going to try and explain it to them..' The structures in these verbs correspond to the use of the infinitive 'to', as in 'we're going to try to explain it to them..' .. Since these structures are grammatically odd - for example, the use is normally only idiomatic with the infinitive of the verb and not with other forms (i.e. it is not possible to say 'I tried and explained it to them') - they are regarded as wrong by some traditionalists. However, these uses are extremely common in just about every context and can certainly be regarded as standard English.
In English, this isn't idiomatic with most verbs. And 'I will teach [you] and fix your bicycle' would not mean 'I will teach [you] to fix your bicycle'.
I suspect that the same sort of thing is happening with ἐπίτρεψον μοι πρω̂τον ἀπελθει̂ν καὶ θάψαι τὸν πατέρα μου. καὶ is connective; I think one understands that the terms are sequential - to go and then to bury - and one infers purpose. So I don't find this example convincing as regards showing anything about ἐπιτρέπω followed by two infinitives. I suspect this is something that happens naturally with ἔρχομαι.
Andrew
Statistics: Posted by Andrew Chapman — March 17th, 2014, 1:54 pm