[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #683
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 26 April 1995 Volume 01 : Number 683
In this issue:
Re: 1 Tim 2:12, AUTHENTEIN
Announcing New List
Re: Memorisation of Principal Parts
Cancel from conference
Re: N27 and UBS proposed changes
Re: N27 and UBS proposed changes
Re: 1 Tim 2:12, AUTHENTEIN
Re: Gal. 3:8--An Optative?
authentein
Re: 1 Cor. 15:29
Re: 1 Tim 2:12, AUTHENTEIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 02:15:40 -0400
Subject: Re: 1 Tim 2:12, AUTHENTEIN
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
CC: lswain@wln.com
From: Timster132@aol.com
Larry, your structural analysis was insightful. I have a
few comments in response to your other "brave" comments.
Larry you replied on 4/24/94....
>Now specifically to these verses. One of the
>results of the gospel especially as Paul preached
>it was a general freedom. Women suddenly found
>themselves able to do things in the context of Christian
>freedom which they were GENERALLY (I emphasize
>that because there are very notable exceptions)
>restricted from doing in society. And as with all
>freedoms it seems that perhaps the author of I Tim
>wishes to correct what is a percieved excess.
>So it is still a very freeing moment for women may
>still learn and are encouraged to have the proper
>attitude of students.
Yes. The gospel was no doubt liberating for men and
women of that time (as it is now). Yes most women were
very limited in their freedoms at that time, except for those
who were wealthy, or from wealthy families. Women also
found leadership opportunities in a few other religions in this
period, as well as in Christianity in the time Paul was alive.
However, I am supposing that 1 Tim was written/redacted
after Paul was gone, and that it reflects the encroachment of
societal norms against the liberty Christian women
experienced in those earlier days. Do you agree?
>ANd I don't think that their
>learning is "from the men" as men, but rather from
>teachers. For Adam being created first, naming
>the animals, and hearing God's instruction regarding
>the trees must then teach Eve these things and she
>in turn is to walk in what God has instructed.
These aren't the reason [Deutero-]Paul gives, tho. I think
he is saying that women are more easily deceived
than men, and so men ought be teachers and women
quiet students. Women's salvation comes via childbirth,
not teaching, he seems to be saying. [NOTE: I am just
saying what I think [Dt-]Paul was saying, not that
I agree with this position for our present day
cultural context! ]
I was thinking I read about Adam teaching the
names of animal names to Eve in a church father
somewhere, but I can't remember. It's a nice,
but definitely patronizing, image.
>I am not certain however that we can read this
>instruction as a general prohibition against women
>teachers in the church. I think it has more to do with
>the fact that one must be a student before one is a
>master-which is also a rabbinic attitude. So in context
>it is still much further than ancient society was if not
>where we would like them to be if that makes sense.
>Hope it helps and I certainly entertain comments.
Certainly in Paul's day women were leaders (Cloe, Prisca,
et al) and probably women leadership continued in the
Lucan community (ie, his references to Lydia, daughters
of Philip, and Acts 2:17,18). But I can see how traditional
elements in the Deutero-Pauline community may have
asserted this prohibition and don't have any trouble imagining
that they were adamant about it.
Still, I think your interpretation of this verse makes an excellent
hermeneutical application. The idea you pull out of this text of learning in
quietness, (which was the KJV understanding of
"meekness", that is, a "teachable spirit") is something that is
definitely applicable for the church in our current culture, for
both men and women.
Strange how some literal-minded churches today
hold fast to the [Dt-]Pauline prohibition against
women in authority in 2:12, yet ignore a few verses
previous (v 8) where 1 Tim prohibits women braiding their hair,
wearing gold, pearls, or expensive clothes.
I admit my approach to the Scripture is more a dialogical
one rather than authoritative one, and I understand that
type of dialog with the Scripture is not always welcome
in some evangelical circles; but I find that it opens up lots
of room for my faith to grow.
Peace,
Tim
PS. Thanks, Larry, for all your comments.
------------------------------
From: Shaughn Daniel <zxmli05@student.uni-tuebingen.de>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 06:44:44 +0000
Subject: Announcing New List
For your info:
The Young Christian Scholar's Forum has started its listserver. You may
subscribe to the list by sending the message SUBSCRIBE YCSFORUM
to LISTSERV@UTARLVM1.UTA.EDU.
I would also like to thank Dustin Fu at the Univ. of Texas at Arlington for
granting listserver services to me.
Shaughn Daniel
Tuebingen, Germany
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 05:42:41 -0500 (GMT-0500)
Subject: Re: Memorisation of Principal Parts
On Mon, 24 Apr 1995, Bill Mounce wrote:
> Okay, I guess I overstated the case for regularity. Most are predicatable.
> A few aren't. Conrad, from your training were you taught that the "tense
> stem" technically (not pedagocically -- remember, I can't spell) includes
> the tense formative and augment, for example, or are they added to the
> tense stem to form the principal part?
Actually, no. I was taught the principal parts as the first-person
singular indicative of each of the six systems--e.g., HORAW, OPSOMAI,
EIDON, HEWRAKA, HEWRAMAI, WFQHN--and that one derived the tense-stem by
removing augment and personal ending: HORA-, OPS-, ID-, HEWRAK-, HEWRA-,
OFQH-. I don't know that I'd say this was "technically," however. Of
course there are other elements that enter in: from the personal endings
one can see whether or not this form is conjugated thematically or
athematically, whether it is active or middle-passive; one can see
whether a "deponent" is a "middle deponent" with aorist in the middle
voice, or a "passive deponent" with aorist in the passive; one can see
also whether the verb has sigma-alpha, thematic, or athematic aorist--or
two or more of them!--first and/or second perfect, and first and/or
second passive. Yes, the tense-formative was included.
And I would still say that it's only those verbs that are unpredictable
in one or more of these six forms that need to be memorized; yes, one
should understand the normal pattern of stem-lengthening for contract
verbs,the characteristic behavior of liquid/nasal verbs in future and
sigma-alpha aorist, but there are verbs in these categories that still
are not quite predictable, and these need to be memorized.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
From: MSHowell3@aol.com
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 07:50:45 -0400
Subject: Cancel from conference
I have enjoyed being on the message list for this conference but I believe
that it is a little over my head.
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 07:02:44 -0700
Subject: Re: N27 and UBS proposed changes
Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu> quoted and wrote:
>David Moore wrote
>> It would be interesting (at least to me) to dedicate some
>>bandwidth on B-Greek to going over some of the specific texts that
>>might be improved by employing a reading other than that of the N27.
>
>I will begin the discussion by suggesting that John 13:18 ought to
read MET'
>EMOU rather than MOU. MOU is supported by only part of the Egyptian
tradition
>(B C L 892 1071 1230 cop[sa] eth al) and is the reading found in the
LXX.
>MET' EMOU, on the other hand, is found in a papyrus (p66), Egyptian
witnesses
>(Aleph, W, 33), as well as Western (D, Latin), Caesarean (Theta, 28,
700, f1,
>f13), and Byzantine (A, K) authorities. This reading is remotely
similar to
>Mark 14:18, but anyone who actually looks at that supposed parallel
will
>realize that Hort (who loved B) got three votes on the committee for
this one.
What I really had in mind for discussion were those variants in
which NA27 differ from the previous NA editions, but as I reread what I
wrote I realize I didn't make that clear.
Bruce's question is interesting. I agree that the MS testimony
does appear to be more solidly behind MET' EMOU than the shorter
reading. The parallel cited in _Textual Commentary_ as rationalization
for adopting the shorter reading does not, IMO, show a convincing
enough similarity to have inspired MET' EMOU.
Upon reading the OT parallel (Ps. 41:10 [English 41:9; LXX
40:10]) in Hebrew, a possible explanation of the variant comes to mind.
if the waw in BO had been misread as (or had originally been?) a yod,
the resultant word could be read as BI (the preformative preposition B-
with the pronominal first-person singular suffix). This would give us
the phrase, "he who eats my bread with me . . ." (taking the yod at the
end of LAXMI as a posessive pronoun) which could be rendered in Greek
just as we have it in the MET' EMOU variant in Jhn. 13:18.
Other instances of variants between waw and yod in the Hebrew MSS
are fairly well documented (P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., _Textual Criticism:
Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible_, [Philadelphia: Fortress,
1986] p. 47; Ernst Wu:rthwein, _The Text of the Old Testament_ [Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979] p. 106).
If the original reading of Jhn. 13:18 had been MET' EMOU, the
shorter reading could logically have arisen from scribal efforts to
harmonize the text with the LXX and with Hebrew texts that confomed to
the present MT in Ps. 41:10. Another possibility to explain the
shorter reading could be that some scribe simply skipped from the first
mu in MET' EMOU to the second--a kind of haplography by homoioarcton.
David L. Moore Director of Education
Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
------------------------------
From: Vincent Broman <broman@np.nosc.mil>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 95 09:04:25 PDT
Subject: Re: N27 and UBS proposed changes
dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com suggested:
> ...going over some of the specific texts that
> might be improved by employing a reading other than that of the N27.
> ... those variants in which NA27 differ from the previous NA editions
If I remember the emailed comments correctly, the texts of NA27 and NA26
are identical, only the apparatus is updated.
Phillip Comfort in his book "The quest for the original text of the Greek NT"
(approximate title) had a chapter listing the changes he would like made
in the NA26 text. Generally, he rang the changes on the theme:
"They should have trusted Vaticanus more." but there were some thoughtful
comments, too.
Royce wrote quite an interesting article on the treatment of scribal
leaps in Metzger's textual commentary. He brings up a good number of
cases where the NA26 committee ignored or discounted the possibility
of deletions being caused by a homoio-something-on, or scribal leap.
There were also a few cases where loss of text _was_ attributed to a leap, but
the extent of the loss did not match the text that a leap would have deleted.
If interest is expressed I might type in some examples.
One case I came across myself recently was in Luke 16:21 in adding/deleting
TWN YIXIWN before TWN PIPTONTWN, where the shorter text is read by p75,
the Alexandrian uncials, and a few versions. Here is a good opportunity
for a deletion by means of scribal leap. Metzger attributes the longer text
to the influence of Mt 15:27, which certainly does contain the phrase
in question, but this reference raises no issue of _synoptic_ harmonization,
only of editorial heightening of the text by random borrowing or allusion.
On further examination, the longer reading looks more difficult.
While the Canaanite woman spoke of KUNARIA ESQIEI APO TWN YIXION,
Lazarus wanted to XORTASQHNAI/fill up/be satisfied APO TWN
YIXIWN/little crumbs/stueckchen falling from the table -- a rather
incongruous image, which could have been ameliorated by omitting TWN YIXION.
Whether TWN YIXIWN was omitted accidentally or purposefully, it should
be restored to the text.
Vincent Broman, code 572 Bayside Email: broman@nosc.mil
Naval Command Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Div.
San Diego, CA 92152-6147, USA Phone: +1 619 553 1641
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 10:58:30 CST
Subject: Re: 1 Tim 2:12, AUTHENTEIN
On Tue, 25 Apr 1995, Timster132@aol.com wrote:
> Women's salvation comes via childbirth,
>not teaching, he seems to be saying. [NOTE: I am just
>saying what I think [Dt-]Paul was saying, not that
>I agree with this position for our present day
>cultural context! ]
Personally, I am intrigued by James Moffatt's translation of 1 Tim 2:15:
"However, women will get safely through childbirth, if they continue to be
faithful and loving and holy as well as unassuming."
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 13:03:00 CST
Subject: Re: Gal. 3:8--An Optative?
Thanks to all who responded to my question about Gal. 3:8 possibly containing
an optative, especially to Carl Conrad for his insightful analysis and to Pat
Tiller for his suggested present tense translation.
>Perhaps we should translate: "The Scripture already understanding that
>God justifies the Gentiles by faith, ... ." In that case, the
>justification of the Gentiles would not be understood as future from the
>point of view of "Scripture," but as present already.
I am still wondering what others think about this suggested translation. I
have no problem with it theologically; I am just mulling over whether the
indicative has a continuously present time significance here, as this
translation would suggest, or is this a potential use of the indicative, "God
would justify."
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 95 09:26:39
Subject: authentein
Regarding the use of AUTHENTEIN--
S. Gritz article is heavily criticized by Carrol D. Osburn in an issue of
Restoration Quarterly--I don't have all the bibliographical information here,
but it was published approx. 1986.
The most complete study of AUTHENTEIN I'm aware of is Wilshire's in New
Testament Studies. He uses the TLG to do a computer search of extant classical
texts, and from that search draws some interesting conclusions.
Perry L. Stepp, Baylor University
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 16:08:52 CST
Subject: Re: 1 Cor. 15:29
On Thu, 20 Apr 1995, Rod Decker wrote:
>In article <a6.53173.60.0CBFD7BC@mandic.ax.apc.org>, Guy Marquardt
><guy.marquardt@mandic.ax.apc.org> wrote:
>
>> Anyway, my question has to do with 1 Corinthians 15:29. What does Paul
>> mean by the expression _hoi baptizomenoi huper twn nekrwn_ ...
>> _baptizontai huper autwn_?
>>
>> What are the major existing theories? I remember a few vague ideas but
>
********************Text Deleted************************
>
>It may well be that this is the most difficult verse in the entire Bible.
>There have been more than 40 interpretations proposed. (I don't have time
>to summarize them for this purpose.)
********************More Text Deleted*******************
IMHO, there are only a couple of the 40+ interpretations worth considering;
however, only one of the two has had any exposure to date on this list in
answering Guy's question. That is the one that takes (UPER in the sense of
"on behalf of" (a quite common meaning) and sees some sort of vicarious
baptism, either practiced by the Corinthians or by a group they were familar
with.
There is another, not uncommon, meaning of (UPER which gives rise to an
understanding that fits the context and has none of the difficulties involved
that the vicarious baptism interpretation does. Besides "on behalf of," (UPER
also is used "to denote the moving cause or the reason" (BAG 1d). As such, it
can be translated "because of, on account of, for the sake of" where "for the
sake of" does not mean "for the benefit of." When Paul says in 2 Cor. 12:10
that he went through sufferings (UPER CRISTOU, he is not saying that he was
doing this to benefit Christ, although some might argue that "this is the
plain sense of the words." (IMHO, it is always wrong to argue that a
preposition has to have a standard meaning/translation that can be applied to
all passages.) Eph. 5:20 does not mean "giving thanks in order to benefit
everything"; rather, the thanksgiving is a response to all things. 1 Cor.
10:30 would seem best to be translated "why am I slandered on account of that
for which I give thanks." It certainly does not mean "for the benefit of, on
behalf of."
If this other meaning of (UPER is applied to 1 Cor. 15:29, we get something
like "baptized on account of the dead." The situation would probably refer to
those who had been baptized after Christian loved ones had died in hopes that
they would be raised with them. If there is no resurrection, such action
would be foolish. This understanding has the advantage of 1) keeping NEKROI
as referring to dead people, which it does elsewhere in the passage, 2) taking
(UPER in a sense that Paul uses elsewhere, 3) referring to an action that is
understandable and occurs even in our times, 4) contributing to Paul's
over-all argument, and 5) not manufacturing a cultural situation for which
there is no background evidence from antiquity.
As you may can tell, I prefer this explanation to "baptized on behalf of the
dead." That translation involves several difficulties, and I happen to
believe that "the most difficult reading is to be preferred" is a canon of
textual criticism, not of hermeneutics.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 15:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: 1 Tim 2:12, AUTHENTEIN
On Tue, 25 Apr 1995 Timster132@aol.com wrote:
> Yes. The gospel was no doubt liberating for men and
> women of that time (as it is now). Yes most women were
> very limited in their freedoms at that time, except for those
> who were wealthy, or from wealthy families. Women also
> found leadership opportunities in a few other religions in this
> period, as well as in Christianity in the time Paul was alive.
> However, I am supposing that 1 Tim was written/redacted
> after Paul was gone, and that it reflects the encroachment of
> societal norms against the liberty Christian women
> experienced in those earlier days. Do you agree?
No, actually I don't read it that way at all, quite aside from the
question of date and authorship. I think that the gender reading is an
importation. This instruction regarding women is no more and no less
societal encroachment than the instructions to the men, to the bishops,
to the deacons-all of which reflect the general morality teaching of the
period.
Second, EPITREPW is fairly general, I do not see this as a firm for all time
interdiction against women in authority. There is a specific situation in
Ephesus which the author wishes to correct, not do away with. I do put a
lot of stress on AUTHENTEIN-to usurp or domineer-I think the whole
section needs to be read in light of that infinitive. We are not merely
speaking of authority in the church, we are speaking of women who have
gone and appointed themselves. And in this case it is women, it should
not be read as a statement for the whole church at all times anymore than
that Phillip's daughters as recognized prophetesses stand as permission
for all women (or men for that matter) to claim the prophetic office.
And of course both the advantage and disadvantage of reading canonically
is that while we grapple with verses like this, so many other places
assume women in authority positions. Anyway, that probably makes the
water muddier rather than clearer.
Third, a lot revolves around how we understand the reference to Adam and
Eve-it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. First, we have a
discussion about being deceived, and then we have a discussion about
childbirth, and on the surface they don't seem to be related to each
other at all. In short we have to read a lot between those lines. There
is a rabbinic tradition-and I use it with all the usual caveats of using
rabbinic materials for NT study-that Adam did not instruct Eve, hence Eve
was deceived and Adam sinned with full knowledge. I rather think that
something like that idea is behind this verse. Women are to learn as
students and the men are to teach so that the Eves of the church will not
be deceived and the Adams will have someone check up on them. Perhaps I
read too much into this.
> quiet students. Women's salvation comes via childbirth,
> not teaching, he seems to be saying. [NOTE: I am just
> saying what I think [Dt-]Paul was saying, not that
> I agree with this position for our present day
But he is also not saying that a man's salvation comes from teaching or
learning either. And if we read as many have done the reference to
childbirth as a reference to THAT Child's birth (Jesus), wouldn't Paul or
Dt. Paul say that we all are saved by that birth?
> Strange how some literal-minded churches today
> hold fast to the [Dt-]Pauline prohibition against
> women in authority in 2:12, yet ignore a few verses
> previous (v 8) where 1 Tim prohibits women braiding their hair,
> wearing gold, pearls, or expensive clothes.
Or the fact that women are in authority in their churches they just can't
be pastors.
Anyway, I hope that this has been helpful in some way.
Pax,
Larry
Regards to your betrothed and again congratulations.
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #683
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu