tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post114092196465057991..comments2024-03-10T10:54:59.776-07:00Comments on Ben Witherington: Literal Renderings of Texts of Contention-- 1 Tim. 2.8-15Ben Witheringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-70140148513064174572008-08-13T14:01:00.000-07:002008-08-13T14:01:00.000-07:00Ben,I appreciate your example of graciousness "und...Ben,<BR/><BR/>I appreciate your example of graciousness "under fire".<BR/><BR/>When there are interpretive choices, the truth is that there are interpretive choices and believers might disagree.Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05247071840577399185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-8165945130316304712008-05-09T11:56:00.000-07:002008-05-09T11:56:00.000-07:00I'm not a theological scholar or anything, but I w...I'm not a theological scholar or anything, but I would like to thank you for this post. Hate preachers have used slanted interpretations of passages like these to control elements of society for centuries.<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that if someone REALLY truly has given their life to the Lord, they understand what you are saying Dr. Witherington. Without intimately knowing the background information you so eloquently elaborated on, one should still be able to feel in their pure heart that the domination of any element of humanity stands only in complete and utter contrast to the preachings of Christ.<BR/><BR/>When I was a teenager, I went through a phase in my life where I became very religious--but it was a false zealotry. I was a literal interpretor of everything in the KJV, very judgemental, and the fire and brimstone message was the one that I pretty much believed. I see so many "Christians" who practice that kind of faith--many young, many much, much older. And I pray for them.<BR/><BR/>I went through a period of life in my early 20's where religion left me. But the Lord had a plan and showed me a great many things during that time, even though I showed him little. Now in my mid 20's, I've come to truly see His message, even if I haven't understood everything that He has tried to show me. There are several allusions by Christ in the NT to secret meanings...I would argue ABSTRACT meanings of what he is saying. I think when one, even as imperfect and unworthy as I, has been so blessed by the Lord, then there is an innate feeling of right and wrong that comes across from actions and messages. If this sounds confusing, I will try to explain from my neophyte experience.<BR/><BR/>In regards to this specific passage you have noted here (and in others that convey similar ones), I had always had a problem with excepting such a teaching. 99% of fellow Christians would not be knowledgeable of the background that you expounded upon (myself included), and so the common interpretation was taken at face value. When someone quoted this scripture, I didn't have much to say except I didn't believe it because I felt it was wrong. I realize the danger in that approach , but I can't help that I felt something was wrong despite its apparent scriptural clarity. Having seen your analysis and agreeing with it whole-heartedly, I am very thankful for the clarity you have given me. There are many other debated passages which I have a problem with the way they are taught. As I said, just from reading the NT as is (in native language and without context as 99.9% of Christians must do) there is nothing to defend my positions--only the feeling that those teachings are completely incongruent with Christ's message.<BR/><BR/>Finally, I would like to hear your insight into Romans 13-14 and Galatians 3. I think there is great meaning in these passages that not only pertain to the passage debated in this post, but toward many other teachings. I would like to hear your insight and then I would be happy to expound on mine.<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/>MarkMarkABhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11615570942232587184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-89419921753153499842008-04-24T19:05:00.000-07:002008-04-24T19:05:00.000-07:00Dr. Witherington, You've talked about why it is th...Dr. Witherington,<BR/><BR/> You've talked about why it is that in 1 Timothy 3 Paul does not mention women as overseers. However, I think there is something that can aid your view of women as overseers that may be neglected.<BR/><BR/> 1 Timothy 3:1 says, "If a man desires the office of a bishop..." The word for "man" in the Greek does not refer to the "male," but instead to "someone" or "anyone." Paul then, by doing this, leaves room open for male and female persons to take this office. After all, one of the first qualifications for the office is that a person "desires" it. Surely then, God would not discredit someone who desired the office on the basis of their gender. The emphasis is on the work, that the work is of the Lord, not on gender.<BR/><BR/> Next, examine the Greek in 1 Timothy 5. In v.1, Paul refers to "elder men," and in v. 3, to "elder women." While many have taken this to mean that Paul is referring here to "older" men and women, this is not true; why? because in Titus 2, Paul refers to "older" men and women with the use of the words "presbutas" and "presbutis," respectively. In 1 Timothy 5, Paul does not use "presbutas" and "presbutis," but instead "presbutero" (dative singular of "presbuteros") and "presbuteras," in which the "as" serves as the feminine form of "presbuteros." If you examine Titus 1, Paul says that these "elders" ("presbuterous," plural of "elders") are to be "ordained," which is the same word used in Acts 6 regarding the "appointing" of the male deacons.<BR/><BR/> Paul had a choice to use a different word to refer to both men and women in 1 Timothy 5 as being "older," but he doesn't; instead, he uses the term for both that is synonymous with the preaching and teaching office of elder. Paul's intention then, was to include women as overseers and not to discourage them. <BR/><BR/> So because women are part of "those who labor in the word and doctrine" (5:17), there is no right to discourage them from taking such positions. Notice also that in 5:17 Paul writes that the elders "rule" (proestontes), which means "to have authority over." This prohibition then, must have a reason to why Paul wouldn't allow women to teach or exercise authority. The answer then, is found in 1 Timothy 1:7-- "desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm...but we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully..." (1 Tim. 1:7-8)Michellehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17428508480983377227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-50281050427118388472007-05-20T17:46:00.000-07:002007-05-20T17:46:00.000-07:00I do appreciate good debate - and I appreciate sch...I do appreciate good debate - and I appreciate scholarship... but it is really unfair for men who have no particular ax to grind to say "this is not an emotional issue for me" or such. As a woman who absolutely knows i am called to teach and preach, this is an incredibly emotional issue... to all of those who would call me names or deny my call, I would ask how would you feel if it were you?sara-v.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17193855186822489980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1166399470168579582006-12-17T15:51:00.000-08:002006-12-17T15:51:00.000-08:00Why would Paul use the rigid order of creation to ...Why would Paul use the rigid order of creation to argue for politeness? Why not just say, "Please stop being disruptive"?<BR/><BR/>Why do all the examples and instruction about gender authority in Scripture infer male authority? Are you not saying the Holy Spirit has failed to lead us into all truth?Gregory Kirschmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17077958945679004412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1148417890210208482006-05-23T13:58:00.000-07:002006-05-23T13:58:00.000-07:00Thank you for sharing your views on that text. The...Thank you for sharing your views on that text. The real clencher for me was my looking back at my experience of growing up in a culture where evangelicals planted churches. Because of the stress on letting the "natives" (québécois)step into a position of leadership, many a church suffered a chronic lack of stability and recurent leadership crisis. I think that if Paul would have written to Timothy, he might have said: "I do not allow for now the québécois to lead their churches..." For some reason, I find that flight of imagination sheds a helpful light on the Paul's letter.Sydney W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02582812329758125482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1147110738269221202006-05-08T10:52:00.000-07:002006-05-08T10:52:00.000-07:00Forgive me. I am too physically ill right now to m...Forgive me. I am too physically ill right now to make any profound comment here... but my entire blog and ministry is based on Biblical womanhood and why women should not be in the pulpit teaching over men... and I am not a doormat.4givenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16604421713579961024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1147110362388391522006-05-08T10:46:00.000-07:002006-05-08T10:46:00.000-07:00Dr Witherington,You are one heck of a teacher and ...Dr Witherington,<BR/><BR/>You are one heck of a teacher and very very patient. Thank you. You've treated people here courteously and with respect. I have learnt much from the Christ-like way you've worked with people here.<BR/><BR/>Several Profs from Asbury (recently Ken Collins last month, Mulholland in May, & Tuttle in August)have come to the Methodist seminary in Tallinn, Estonia to help by teaching an elective. I'm starting to pray that you will be one. Women in ministry is a 'hot potato' in UMC Estonia with the first female elders ordained last annual conference, but many women working as local pastors. <BR/><BR/>I would be very interested to hear more about how your views on women in ministry changed in the UK (my home country).<BR/><BR/>Be blessed.see-through faithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10130170262035064482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1143864473328624482006-03-31T20:07:00.000-08:002006-03-31T20:07:00.000-08:00I have a simple view of the scripture on childbear...I have a simple view of the scripture on childbearing, I wondered if you might entertain the interpretation?<BR/><BR/>In the fall, women had an increased difficulty in childbearing that sometimes resulted in death. I had a close brush with that myself. But in this passage it seems that Paul reassures women that the salvation of Christ extends to removing this extra fear and vulnerability - they are saved from the effects of the curse in this thing also when they, singularly, would go through the experience of childbirth.<BR/><BR/>Maybe this view is too simple and homely, but I thought I'd post it anyway. Just in case your study of the Greek agreed with this possible interpretation.IlonaGardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07035401683506659646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1143126806782190392006-03-23T07:13:00.000-08:002006-03-23T07:13:00.000-08:00Well, what a comment thread. Whew! Some people get...Well, what a comment thread. Whew! Some people get it; other's don't. I'm going to ponder all this for awhile, but I must say you've convinced me that you have an excellent argument. Well said and argued with restraint.Hannah Imhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03492599174205493872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1142745272358846632006-03-18T21:14:00.000-08:002006-03-18T21:14:00.000-08:00Hello Mr. Witherington,I would be very interested ...Hello Mr. Witherington,<BR/><BR/>I would be very interested in your review of our new DVD on this subject. It is called "Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?" and it is a multi-media presentation on the hard passages of scripture that seem to restrict women in ministry. The reviews for this DVD are at http://www.mmoutreach.org/wim.htm and a description of the set is at http://www.mmoutreach.org. Please let me know if you are interested in seeing WIM. The research for this project actually opens up the discussion to a lot of information that has not been covered. Much of the research for this project was found by reading the Talmud, the Jewish oral law and understanding the mindset of the Jewish culture of that day. I would be interested in your review.<BR/><BR/>CherylCheryl Schatzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07319009906205048912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1142368580049059172006-03-14T12:36:00.000-08:002006-03-14T12:36:00.000-08:00I hear what you're saying, but you missed the poin...I hear what you're saying, but you missed the point: all but 2-3 are egalitarians. These egalitarians agreed with the syntactical argument put forth by Kostenberger on 1 Tim 2:12. They actually read the book. I don't understand why you wouldn't, at least now, get the second edition, read it, and explain why they are wrong, especially Kostenberger's chapter. It's very disappointing that a scholar of your reputation appears bent on not reading this significant work.<BR/><BR/>David CroteauDavid A. Croteauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15809705774955230769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1141820294801571552006-03-08T04:18:00.000-08:002006-03-08T04:18:00.000-08:00Hi:Thanks so much for the listing of these reviews...Hi:<BR/><BR/>Thanks so much for the listing of these reviews. Except for Hartenstein (and I am not sure about Webb), every single one of these persons are conservative evangelicals of one strip or another.<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/><BR/>Ben W.Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1141712471196840502006-03-06T22:21:00.000-08:002006-03-06T22:21:00.000-08:00Ben said: “I have seen no positive reviews of it o...Ben said: “I have seen no positive reviews of it outside of one particular swath of Evangelicalism, but I have only read a few reviews.”<BR/><BR/>Let me inform you, then. <BR/><BR/>Peter O’Brien, Southern Cross Newspaper (Sept 1996), published by Anglican Media in Sydney, Australia. Positive review.<BR/><BR/>Helge Stadelmann, Jahrbuch fur evangelikale Theologie 6 (1996): 421-25. Positive review.<BR/><BR/>Alan G. Padgett, “The Scholarship of Patriarchy (on 1 Timothy 2:8-15): A Response to Women in the Church,” Priscilla Papers 11, no. 1 (Winter 1997): 24. Though he refers to Kostenberger’s analysis as “a convincing syntactical analysis of v. 12,” he sided with the negative connotation of the words (false teaching and usurping authority).<BR/><BR/>Craig Keener, JETS 41, no. 3 (1998): 513-16, also agrees with Kostenberger’s syntactical analysis.<BR/><BR/>Marshall’s Pastoral Epistles, ICC (1999), 454-60. He said that the authors “argued convincingly on the basis of a wide range of Gk. usage that the construction employed in this verse [vs. 12] is one in which the writer expresses the same attitude (whether positive or negative) to both of the items joined together by oude.” Like Padgett, however, Marshall opts for negative connotations in both words.<BR/><BR/>Mounce’s The Pastoral Epistles, WBC 46 (2000), 120-30. He was very positive toward the book.<BR/><BR/>Kevin Giles, “A Critique of the ‘Novel’ Contemporary Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 Given in the Book, Women in the Church: Parts I and II,” EQ 72, no. 2 (2000): 151-67; 72, no. 3 (2000): 205-24. A confusing critique of the syntactical analysis of vs. 12.<BR/><BR/>Belleville, Women Leaders and the Church: Three Crucial Questions (2000): 173-75. This is really the only negative response to the syntactical analysis by Kostenberger on vs. 12.<BR/><BR/>Blomberg’s discussion (appendix of the Two Views book by Zondervan) was very positive as well.<BR/><BR/>Even William Webb’s (Slaves, Women and Homosexuals, 35) thoughts were very positive … Webb’s an egalitarian. He called the book “one of the finest exegetical treatments of 1 Timothy 2 available.”<BR/><BR/>Esther Ng comes to virtually the same conclusions regarding the syntax of vs. 12 (Reconstructing Christian Origins? 285, n. 170; 287, n. 184).<BR/><BR/>Judith Hartenstein, Review of Biblical Literature (May 2004). While she disagrees with the results of the book, she says: “I often find his [Kostenberger’s] analysis of texts and exegetical problems convincing and inspiring, especially if he uses linguistic approaches. . . . Likewise, I agree with Kostenberger’s reading of 1 Tim 2.” However, she concludes: “But with a different, far more critical view of the Bible, I need not accept it as God’s word. (It helps that I do not regard 1 Timothy as written by Paul.)” Now surely this review was first of all positive and secondly given by someone who is not a conservative.<BR/><BR/>I hope you’ll take the time to interact with the book. It was not simply preaching to the choir, but an analysis that has yet to have been answered.David A. Croteauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15809705774955230769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1141564601643055072006-03-05T05:16:00.000-08:002006-03-05T05:16:00.000-08:00Matt:The examples you cite only show that it is po...Matt:<BR/><BR/><BR/>The examples you cite only show that it is possible that the phrase in question could mean what you have suggested, implying an ongoing ban. I am however not sanguine that some of the examples you offer really have that sense, but for the sake of argument let's say they do. What you would have to demonstrate is that it 'must' have such a sense, that is that there is no other way to render the phrase in question. This you did not demonstrate.<BR/><BR/>I suggested other ways the phrase could be translated such as 'I am not (now) permitting', explained that there is nothing in this particular configuration of words that necessarily implied an ongoing ban (nor does the lexicography suggest otherwise), I suggested as well that if Paul had really wanted to clearly say what you are suggesting that we might have expected this phrase to include a word like 'eti'--- 'I am still not permitting....'<BR/><BR/>What this means is that neither you on the basis of the examples you have cited (which should be compared to Payne's examples) nor I have ruled out the other's possible rendering on the basis of this kind of argument. <BR/><BR/>I would add that it is a mistake, an a large one, to assume that just because we call the present tense in Greek 'the present continual tense' it is necessarily referring to something that has been previously true and/or will always continue to be true. It simply refers to some kind of ongoing activity or condition in the present--- that's it.<BR/><BR/>So, there is nothing which I originally said that is either implausible or impossible from the point of view of the koine Greek, and I have not waved any magic wands to impress the Greekless audience. Some of yur comments were simply inappropriate if not unChristian in tone.<BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, overall I think you have raised some important points.<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/><BR/>BenBen Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1141522766265268662006-03-04T17:39:00.000-08:002006-03-04T17:39:00.000-08:00Let me clarify. Of course, oude is negative. What ...Let me clarify. Of course, oude is negative. What I was trying to say (but I obviously failed) was that in the construction of verb oude verb, the verbs either have positive meanings or negative meanings. Thus, if they have negative meanings, "authentein" refers to "usurping authority" or "domineering" while "teaching" would have to refer to "false teaching." If positive connotations, then teaching refers to simply teaching (correct doctrine) and "authentein" refers to "having authority" in an appropriate way. Since Paul uses "didaskein" positively in all its uses in the pastorals (maybe I should say "Luke" for you), "authentein" must also be positive.<BR/>Hopefully that makes more sense. Sorry about that.<BR/>DaveDavid A. Croteauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15809705774955230769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1141517592084111512006-03-04T16:13:00.000-08:002006-03-04T16:13:00.000-08:00Hi Matt:Words only have meanings in contexts. You...Hi Matt:<BR/><BR/>Words only have meanings in contexts. You are suggesting they have meanings in the abstract-- I am saying they don't. Its not a case of 'in the beginning was the dictionary'. <BR/><BR/>So I guess we are talking at cross purposes--- when I said the verb epitrepho plus ouk means something, I meant that the verb means this in this context, and could mean that in others as well.<BR/><BR/> I did not mean that the phrase ouk epitrepho without an object and without a sentence context in the abstract necessarily means something of limited duration. If that is what you took me to mean-- then I am sorry. <BR/><BR/>I am simply saying that the phrase in a context like this could mean what I am suggestng. That's all I am claiming and Phil Payne has provided the examples. In other words its not a purely lexicographical issue, and in any case lexicons are drawn up on the basis of actual usage.<BR/><BR/>Sorry if we have ben talking past each other, but its time to draw this conversaton t a close.<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/><BR/>BenBen Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1141486810693928682006-03-04T07:40:00.000-08:002006-03-04T07:40:00.000-08:00Matt:Shame on you. Dishonesty--- now you have re...Matt:<BR/><BR/>Shame on you. Dishonesty--- now you have really gone much too far. Your examples simply do not prove what you are suggesting. Any Greek verb in the present tense can refer to an action that is currently happening which may or may not stop in the future. There is nothing in the present tense itself that suggests an infinite extension of time, a universal ruling or the like. Only the context can tell you that, and sometimes the context is not clear. <BR/><BR/>More to the point, since we are dealing with a present tense with the negative you can certainly render this either--- 1) I am not now permitting or 2) I am not permitting; or possibly 3) I do not permit. It is only if you render it the third way that you could come to the conclusions you do. But nothing in the verb with the negative itself requires such a meaning, and this would be true if the verb was some other verb. 4) as the Greek grammarians will tell you, the basic sense of Greek verbs is not TIME of action, but rather KIND of action--- complete, or incomplete, as is true with Hebrew as well. In this case the verb suggests ongoing action or refusal of permission in the present which may have begun in the past, or may have begun the minute Paul said this. You can't tell. Your examples are fine, but they do not give you an answer to this question either.<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/><BR/>BenBen Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1141476526971252352006-03-04T04:48:00.000-08:002006-03-04T04:48:00.000-08:00Matt:Thank you for this clarification. This makes ...Matt:<BR/><BR/>Thank you for this clarification. This makes much better sense. Here is the truth about this matter as I see it. <BR/><BR/>Had Paul said "You know I do not permit women to teach...." then we could talk about a standing prohibition. But here Paul has to take a position, seemingly for the first time, because of the problems he is dealing with with men grumbling, women dressing inappropriately and so on. The examples you cite don't prove your point. <BR/><BR/>By the way I suspect we could find plenty of examples of this verb plus the negative if the search was widened to classical Greek and Hellenistic Greek, not just church Greek. <BR/><BR/>Further, if Paul wanted to say 'I still do not permit',I would have thought he would use a particle like 'eti' to make this point, because the phrase as it now stands does not convey the strong sense you want it to make. <BR/><BR/>I am not saying your reading of it is totally impossible, I am simply saying it is unlikely, especially in view of the context which involves correcting a current problem.<BR/><BR/>You see Matt, there is no knock down argument that can prove your case. You may be right, and I may be right, or we could both be wrong. This issue, in this case can not be settled by lexicons and the minutiae of Greek grammar. That language like ours was flexible. <BR/><BR/>What helps is a better knowledge of all the contexts, including the way that Paul argues elsewhere about things. For example, there is absolutely no point to the long argument in 1 Cor. 11 about women praying and prophesying in worship with a headcovering, if in fact Paul's view is that women should be silent in church and never offer any sort of authoritative 'thus says the Lord' kind of utterances in that venue. He could have simply said in 1 Cor. 11 women should not speak in church.<BR/><BR/>He does not do that. Instead he permits speech with headcoverings, which in turn makes it very unlikely that he then contradicts himself by turning around in 1 Cor. 14 and forbids women speaking in church. <BR/><BR/>You need to understand that when I went to do my doctoral work in England on Women in the NT, I was skeptical about women's ordination and their assuming such roles, despite having several seminary professors who thought it was Biblical. <BR/><BR/>It was precisely the years of study and looking at all the evidence from multiple angles which thoroughly convinced me that I had previously been wrong about this. So I changed my mind. <BR/><BR/>As time has gone on in the last 25 years not only has this conviction been strengthened, I have seen what marvelous work women do as preachers and teachers, and have been blessed to work along side some of them. <BR/><BR/>I can tell you that some Evangelicals make it very hard for them to pursue God's call on their life-- and I see this as very sad and wrong. You should judge the tree by the fruit that it bears.<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/><BR/>BenBen Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1141442212423088612006-03-03T19:16:00.000-08:002006-03-03T19:16:00.000-08:00Mr. Dacroteau ( I hope I got that name right): You...Mr. Dacroteau ( I hope I got that name right): <BR/><BR/>You are absolutely right that either both verbs in a parallel construction like this (the verbs referring to teaching and authority/power) are positive or both verbs are negative and here the Greek is perfectly clear--- they are both negative here, not in themselves, but when coupled with 'not and nor'. <BR/><BR/>Sometimes the construction is 'neither... nor' sometimes the construction is 'not... nor' as here. <BR/><BR/>The Greek term 'oude' here means 'nor' not 'or'. It is a negative term just as the term 'not' (ouk) is a negative term. <BR/><BR/>I must say that this remark you have made baffled me as it is the opposite of what the Greek lexicons will tell you if you look up the term 'oude' or the construction 'ouk....oude' or 'oude...oude' or even 'alla... oude'. <BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/><BR/>Ben W.Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1141441550152172452006-03-03T19:05:00.000-08:002006-03-03T19:05:00.000-08:00Matt:May I just suggest, since there seem to be va...Matt:<BR/><BR/>May I just suggest, since there seem to be various gaps in your argument that you go and carefully read through my book Women in the Earliest Churches. You will see there are significant problems with the way you are approaching the Greek evidence on several grounds, not the least of which is you are reading far too much into the phrase "I am not permitting...".<BR/><BR/>Consider this comment of yours, which I quote here---<BR/><BR/>" As any parent can tell you, "I'm not giving you permission" implies a previously existing prohibition or prevention. This is not an "argument from silence" at all. A standing prohibition is entailed by the act of giving permission, as well as by the act of not doing so -- just as a surface is implied by the verb "to walk."<BR/><BR/>Frankly this remark dumbfounded me. I am parent and there have been plenty of times when I have said to one of my children-- "I am not giving you permission to do this", whereas I had given them permission previously on another occasion, and I did give them permission thereafter. I heard the same endlessly from my own mother. Sometimes there were reasons for not giving permission, sometimes there was no reason not to. It all depended on the circumstances. <BR/><BR/>There is absolutely nothing in the Greek phrase in 1 Tim. 2 itself which suggests a previously existing prohibition any more than there is in the English equivalent of this phrase. You would have to come to this conclusion on the basis of the context not the grammar or syntax. The verb 'permit' is a very ordinary verb in Greek. Once more, I suggest you go and read Philip Payne's careful work on this. <BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/><BR/>BenBen Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1141441347335240792006-03-03T19:02:00.000-08:002006-03-03T19:02:00.000-08:00Regarding 'authentein': it is in a construction (t...Regarding 'authentein': it is in a construction (two verbs [here infinitives] connected by oude) in which both verbs (in this case "to teach" and "to have authority") are either positive or negative. Since "to teach" is a positive term, 'authentein' should also be understood positively, and not in a usurping manner.<BR/><BR/>Have you ever considered the meaning of that construction? See http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/pdf/Studies12.pdf pages 245-46 for more on this.David A. Croteauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15809705774955230769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1141390814281835412006-03-03T05:00:00.000-08:002006-03-03T05:00:00.000-08:00In the paragraph that begins 'But alas there is no...In the paragraph that begins 'But alas there is no.....' I accidentally omitted the word 'doubt' in the sentence which should read 'But it is no doubt true....'Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1141390603609905502006-03-03T04:56:00.000-08:002006-03-03T04:56:00.000-08:00Well Matt, you have certainly gone out of your way...Well Matt, you have certainly gone out of your way to try and come up with some evidence that I am wrong about this. Glad to see you have done some homework on this, but there are flaws in your argument. <BR/><BR/>There are a whole variety of things you failed to say: 1) first of all most of the examples in regard to the verb permit are not at all relevant. As you admit the additional examples you cite are not negating anything (they do not involve the word 'not') and furthermore why in the world would you cite examples that aren't in the present tense, which are doubly irrelevant? This evidence does not prove what you think it does. 2) It is entirely an argument from silence to assume that someone is 'not' permitted to do something unless someone gives them permission. The only exception to this would be if there was some known previous ban of such activity. <BR/><BR/>But alas, there is no such previous banning of women speaking in an assembly, either in the OT or in other early Jewish literature, much less in Gentile religious assemblies. It is no true that many men did not take seriously the testimony of women when they spoke in religious settings. You can see this male prejudice quite clearly in the Gospels--- see Lk. 24.11, but of course in this story the men were quite wrong to ignore what the women said, as Peter apparently realized. <BR/><BR/>After 70 A.D. early Jewish leaders changed a lot of things, because they saw themselves as in survival mode. This unfortunately effected women negatively, as was the case with the way the church began to treat women in the 3rd-4th centuries. <BR/><BR/>There is textual evidence that 1 Cor. 14.33b-36 may not be an original part of the text, because some manuscripts have these verses at a later spot in the chapter. I do not find this argument compelling, despite Sampley's suggestions, but it is possible.<BR/><BR/>As for the TLG, the 'elative' reading is not impossible, but it is far from the most likely reading of the text in light of the context in Romans. I would refer you to Eldon Epp's new book on Junia which makes clear how very unlikely an elative reading which amounts to translating 'noteable to' is.<BR/><BR/>Finally, Bernadette Brooten did not make up the evidence that is in her book. It is papyrological and epigraphical evidence available for all to see and interpret. It is not appropriate to dismiss evidence because you disagree with a person's life style, since plenty of people who do not agree with her lifestyle have recognized that this evidence is valuable and should be considered. That's just a totally inappropriate ad hominem argument that ignores evidence. <BR/><BR/>It is true that there is at least one example where archisynagogos refers to a child. However the honorific inscriptions also make clear that many times this term refers to women assuming adult roles within the synagogue. So again, as with the 'elative force' argument, you should not assume that rare or exceptional cases rule out the majority of the evidence. This is simply not logical. <BR/><BR/>Finally, in regard to the silence argument in 1 Cor 14 there are the following points to note: 1) the same verb for silence is used of both men and women earlier in the discussion of speaking in tongues with interpretation. One should be silent while another speaks says Paul. This has nothing to do with a total ban on men or women speaking as the context makes clear. It is dealing with inappropriate speech, as is also the case in 1 Cor. 14.33b-36. Notice that the women are told in these verses to ask their questions at home. The issue then is not all speaking but questions which are causing chaos in worship. <BR/><BR/>It is understandable that it might be assumed by Gentiles that questions were appropriate, since this is what you did when you listened to a prophet in the Greek world-- you asked them personal questions like 'should I buy this land' or 'should I marry this woman'. See my commentary Conflict and Community in Corinth. <BR/><BR/>2) Lastly it is debated whether the phrase 'as in all the churches' goes with what follows or with what precedes. Is Paul concerned about how women behave in all the churches, or just this one when he writes this? The reason the phrase may go with what precedes is that Paul is most certainly concerned that decorum and behavior be the same in all the churches because 'God is a God not of chaos but of peace in all the churches'. Human behavior should match God's intent and presence and work in each assembly. Chaos was happening in Corinth. Paul must correct it, and one way to do so is to appeal to the fact that his audience needs to exhibit godly behavior.<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/><BR/>BenBen Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1141342010975072762006-03-02T15:26:00.000-08:002006-03-02T15:26:00.000-08:00Hi DDJ:I am happy to consider the evidence, as lon...Hi DDJ:<BR/><BR/>I am happy to consider the evidence, as long as we look at all of it. It would include the evidence that the term elder was used of both men and women in the Diaspora syangogue, and so the proof that elders are appointed hither and yon doesn't necessarily mean they are all men. See Bernadette Brooten's work on women as office holders in the synagogue. Secondly, if Junia was an apostle its pretty clear she had a leadership role, even if she did it in tandem with her husband. The supposition that elder=men does not work. It was the normal term for an older person, and was sometimes used of women though sometimes presbuteras is also used. The situation is much the same with the term deacon. And indeed John Chrysostom is perfectly clear about women apostles, and yes there were also women who served as overseers, house church leaders, presidents of synagogues and so on. <BR/><BR/>So by all means lets look at all the evidence from church history as well. Archaeologically we have also found evidence in Turkey for churches where women were some of the leaders of the church, and got themselves painted into the church walls in the lineup with the other leaders. <BR/><BR/>I am rather mystified by your comment about Clement of Rome. If you read his Corinthian letter it is based on Paul's 1 Corinthians, and I can find nothing whatsoever in that letter that suggests he thinks only men should hold 'offices' whatever that might mean. In a patriarchal culture women often bore male titles in religious movements-- such as priest, elder, deacon, overseer, president etc. This was true in Jewish, pagan, and Christian religion.<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/><BR/>BenBen Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.com