authenteO

• To: b-greek@virginia.edu
• Subject: authenteO
• From: dturner@grbcs.edu
• Date: Wed, 18 May 1994 16:41:00 EDT

Another link in the "headtech," Massey, McCartney, Wigtil chain:

Whether or not the Kroegers are correct in their reconstruction of the
situation addressed in 1 Tim 2:12, the lexical problem with authenteO is
surpassed by the syntactical problem of the linkage of authentein with
didaskein as activities in which the author does not permit women to
participate.  What is the semantic relationship of these two infinitives?
Separate entities? Specific to general?  Hendiadys?  Etc.?

The syntactical problem is surpassed by the hermeneutical problem raised
by Keith.  Do we implement the author's prohibition today or view it as
situationally limited.  If we implement it, to what modern situation is it
applicable?  Whatever the merits of the Kroegers' work with authenteO, what do 
we make of the author's reasons for the stricture, reasons derived not from
a putative local problem with gnostics (anachronism?) but from the author's
exegesis of Genesis?


David L. Turner                         Office: 616/949-5300 x287
Professor of New Testament              Fax: 616/949-4154
Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary           E-mail: dturner@grbcs.edu

• Prev: Louw & Nida
• Next: Lexica and "authenteo"
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread