Re: AUQENTEIN, 1Tim2.12
Jonathan Robie (jonathan@texcel.no)
Sat, 16 May 1998 07:20:53 -0400
At 11:18 PM 5/15/98 -0400, Jim West wrote:
>At 10:04 PM 5/15/98 -0400, Paul Dixon wrote:
>>my guess is the word in I Tim 2 must be interpreted in line with:
>>1) her learning in silence with all subjection (v. 11), 2) her being
>>forbidden by Paul to teach men (v. 12), and 3) the reasons given by
>>Paul which pertain to the order of creation (which implies the same
>>kind of authority as found in the God-head, the authority of God the
>>Father in relation to the God the Son in whose image man (male and
>>female) was created) and to the order of the fall.
>
>It has nothing to do with "authority" in a positive sense, but with
>"domineering authority". That is, the women folk are here forbidden to
>"dominate" their hubbies. That Paul did, in fact, allow women to teach,
>preach, and pray in the assemblies is clear from 1 Cor 11. (Thus, he either
>changed his mind, or this letter is not from Paul, or the word must have a
>negative connotation here).
This word occurs only once in the New Testament. BAGD says it means either
to dominate or to have authority over. Louw & Nida say it means to control
in a domineering manner. LSJ says it can mean to have full power or
authority over, or to murder:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/lexindex?lookup=au)qente/w
The usage of the verb for "to murder" seems to indicate something a little
stronger than leading a bible study class, though the meaning of the word
might have changed by the New Testament period (when was Aeschylus?). So
Jim's argument may well have some merit here.
However, it is not clear to me now to interpret DIDASKEIN in this passage
if it is interpreted as Jim does. I have tried to see if it is ever used in
a pejorative sense - "to lecture to" - but I do not see this kind of usage
in the GNT.
Comments?
>Further, I must say that this patriarchal mentality is no longer culturally
>acceptable; and that it, like all cultural "husks" from the first century,
>are disposable as the have nothing to do with the "kernal" of the gospel.
>(A good Bultmannian I ever remain). :)
What is "culturally acceptable" is not a useful heuristic for understanding
the meaning of the original text. Naturally, we need to figure out how to
communicate with the current culture, but that is not the role of B-Greek.
Jonathan
jonathan@texcel.no
Texcel Research
http://www.texcel.no