[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #797
b-greek-digest Tuesday, 25 July 1995 Volume 01 : Number 797
In this issue:
Mark 16
Retired or Retreaded?
Re: Literary vs. "direct" evidence
Re: Literary vs. "direct" evidence
Re: Junia, not Junias!
Re: Literary vs. "direct" evidence
Re: BG: MS Evidence for Ending of Mark
Re: Junia, not Junias! (sexism)
Re: Jesus a disciple
1 Cor. 14:34-36
Re: Jesus a disciple
Re: Junia again
Re: Junia, not Junias!
Re: Literary vs. "direct" evidence
Re: Literary vs. "direct" evidence
[none]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 95 14:12:34 -0400
Subject: Mark 16
Since the question about the ending of Mark is still unresolved, has anyone
out there read or read a critique of the book that came out last year called
THE UNFINISHED GOSPEL (hardback) wherein the author argues that he has found
the "end" of Mark's gospel -- and it's in our bibles as John 21! He bases
his case on the linguistic peculiarities of John 21 and on his theory that
John's gospel was written to discredit and warn people about Simon Peter. He
points out how the author of John closely links references to Judas son of
Simon with Simon Peter in order to smear Peter. He believes John 21 was
later tacked onto the end of John's gospel because it puts Peter back in a
favorable light.
The author is not a biblical "scholar" but he seems to know the material well
enough to make his case.
Any thoughts?
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 13:21:49 CST
Subject: Retired or Retreaded?
On Mon, 24 Jul 1995, Edward Hobbs wrote:
>--Edward Hobbs
> (Sometime professor at University of Chicago; University of
>California: Berkeley, San Francisco, and Davis campuses; Graduate
>Theological Union; University of Judaism; Harvard; and Wellesley;
>still refusing to retire)
This reminds me of Kenneth L. Pike's statement after his retirement from
Michigan when he showed up teaching at UT Arlington: "I'm not retired, just
retreaded."
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Mark O'Brien <Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 95 11:54:45 CST
Subject: Re: Literary vs. "direct" evidence
> Original message sent on Mon, Jul 24 7:20 AM by Carl W. Conrad:
<snip>
> ...I wonder what B-Greekers might think about the
> idea here expressed from Sir Russell Meiggs on the priority of
> historical evidence "unmediated by literary or philosophical
> imagination and reflection."
What kind of documents can be cited as "unmediated by literary or
philosophical imagination and reflection"? I would dare say that very
little of what is written is done without some amount of reflection
and creativity. This is not to say that this creativity and reflection
has somehow polluted the veracity of the contents, but rather to
note that the good Sir's conditions for accuracy are a trifle limiting, to
say the least. What thinkest thou?
Mark O'Brien
Dallas Theological Seminary
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 13:58:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Literary vs. "direct" evidence
At 9:52 AM 7/24/95, Larry Swain wrote:
>But Carl, in the case of the Irenaeus discussion, where is such a thing
>possible? I know of no evidence which I can honestly say is not
>mitigated by literary, rhetorical, or theological reflection, if you do
>please share. Thus, if I am correct, our task is to try to read through
>the reflections and recover in so far as is possible what MAY actually be
>the historical verity.
Larry, I agree with this 100% and methodologically, I'd even go so far as
to say that I cannot conceive any epigraphical evidence of something
happening that did not imply that somebody reflected sufficiently on it to
deem it worth remembering from among all those other things that have
happened but are "eminently forgettable."
Perhaps the Meiggs anecdote wasn't worth sharing, after all. I cannot
myself imagine a contextless fact that does not demand interpretation, for
which reason Meiggs' assertion seemed specious to me.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 14:29:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Junia, not Junias!
At 12:59 PM 7/24/95, Bruce Terry wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Jul 1995, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>
>> Those letters of Paul which have the best claim to
>>authenticity are remarkably free of anything that could be called "sexism"
>>or even "hierarchic" attitudes.
>
>Carl, are you including 1 Corinthians in that list? I, for one, have heard
>Paul bashed for his "sexist" attitudes in 1 Cor. 14:33b-36.
For one argument that these verses interrupt the flow of the passage and
are an interpolation, see Conzelmann's Semeia commentary (Fortress Press,
1975, tr. James W. Leitch), p. 246.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 14:30:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Literary vs. "direct" evidence
At 11:54 AM 7/24/95, Mark O'Brien wrote:
>> Original message sent on Mon, Jul 24 7:20 AM by Carl W. Conrad:
>
><snip>
>
>> ...I wonder what B-Greekers might think about the
>> idea here expressed from Sir Russell Meiggs on the priority of
>> historical evidence "unmediated by literary or philosophical
>> imagination and reflection."
>
>What kind of documents can be cited as "unmediated by literary or
>philosophical imagination and reflection"? I would dare say that very
>little of what is written is done without some amount of reflection
>and creativity. This is not to say that this creativity and reflection
>has somehow polluted the veracity of the contents, but rather to
>note that the good Sir's conditions for accuracy are a trifle limiting, to
>say the least. What thinkest thou?
Methinketh I have already answered this in a prior response to Larry Swain.
Perhaps I ought not even to have broached the question to so erudite a
readership. ;-)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: Dennis Burke <dennisb@test490.pac.sc.ti.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 95 14:44:42 CDT
Subject: Re: BG: MS Evidence for Ending of Mark
Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu> wrote:
>
> Can it really be true that three Greek MSS, one Latin, one Syriac, one Coptic,
> etc. outweigh all other MSS put together? Or perhaps the four uncials,
> thirteen minuscules, one lectionary, the margin of the Syriac Harclean
> version, and some Coptic and Ethiopic MSS that testify both ways tip the
> scales?
Well, I already admitted that I'm new at this and a layman, but, to me they do.
The fact that:
1. the mss in question are the oldest (at least the oldest which contain
the section in question)
2. the mss which mark the "extra" verses in asterisks and obeli, questioning
the "authenticity" of the verses
3. the mss which explicitly state that the "extra" verses were not found in
the earlier Greek mss
4. Clement and Origen don't acknowledge the "extra" verses
5. Eusebius and Jerome state that the verses were missing from all copies of
of the Greek New Testament known to them
All of these facts tilt me in the direction of the abbreviated ending of the
Gospel of Mark. The internal evidence just pushes me the rest of the way over.
> Wait, are you saying that the combined evidence of A C D K W Theta f13 28 33
> 565 700 892 most minuscules most Latin the Vulgate most Syriac and Coptic, the
> Diatessaron, and quotes by Irenaeus and Tertullian in the second century is
> *not* strong evidence? This is evidence from the Alexandrian, the Western,
> the Caesarian, and the Byzantine text families, some of it ancient.
By themselves, without considering the rest of the external evidence, I would
consider this strong evidence. But knowing about the evidence listed above,
I would not consider this strong. After all, considering the likely causes of
variations and their transmission is one of the things to be considered in
textual criticism. Once a long ending has been "generated", I think that it
would be unlikely for it to be removed. The more likely course of action would
be to mark it (with asterisks or obeli) and insert it so that you don't
accidentally delete from the Word or God. Later, people simply stop marking
the text and it becomes a "permanent" feature. This reasoning is not as "hard"
as the external evidence, but it is logical. Just think of the "stink" that
occurs today when part of 1 John 5:7 is removed or think of the KJV Only
controversy that is going on today.
> You understate the internal case. There are sixteen words in these verses not
> found elsewhere in Mark!
Sorry. I, by no means, meant to understate the internal evidence. I was simply
being conservative. That's why I said "at least 7". I have actually heard 17
words or phrases... However, I think some of these are actually just variations
of root words so I wanted to err on the conservative side. Again, I do agree
that the internal evidence supports the abbreviated ending of the Gospel of Mark.
It's just that I think the case is strong enough on the external evidence. The
internal helps, but, IMO, is not necessary. A point we obviously disagree upon.
But, as I've already implied, you'll have to take my opinion with a large grain
of salt since I'm new to this.
BTW, Larry Swain mentioned a paper you wrote on the ending of Mark. I have
logged onto your site and pulled it. I'll try to get to it sometime this week.
Dennis Burke
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 15:28:45 CST
Subject: Re: Junia, not Junias! (sexism)
On Mon, 24 Jul 1995, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>At 12:59 PM 7/24/95, Bruce Terry wrote:
>>On Mon, 24 Jul 1995, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>>
>>> Those letters of Paul which have the best claim to
>>>authenticity are remarkably free of anything that could be called "sexism"
>>>or even "hierarchic" attitudes.
>>
>>Carl, are you including 1 Corinthians in that list? I, for one, have heard
>>Paul bashed for his "sexist" attitudes in 1 Cor. 14:33b-36.
>
>For one argument that these verses interrupt the flow of the passage and
>are an interpolation, see Conzelmann's Semeia commentary (Fortress Press,
>1975, tr. James W. Leitch), p. 246.
For a couple of arguments that these verses are a part of the original see my
new book _A Discourse Analysis of First Corinthians (Dallas: SIL/UTA, 1995),
pp. 33, 112, 114. On this last page I argue against Fee, who has the same
conclusion as Conzelmann here.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Tom Blake <tblake@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 17:08:55 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Jesus a disciple
On Mon, 24 Jul 1995, Gregory Jordan (ENG) wrote (in part):
>... Jesus seems to have begun his career only after John was arrested, ...
Greg,
What about John 3:22-23 this seems to put them in parallel ministries.
John 3:22-23 (KJV)
After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of
Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. (23) And John
also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much
water there: and they came, and were baptized.
Tom Blake
------------------------------
From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 17:27:47 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 1 Cor. 14:34-36
Since I posted many pages on this a few years ago, I don't want to
repeat myself, or even repost. But for those who don't know the
logistics of the discussion, let me say that I believe (based on
frequent discussions with colleagues around the world, on meetings
of SNTS, SBL, the N.T.Colloquium, etc.) the sentiment about this
passage has shifted in the last fifteen years. I would estimate that
about half of all Pauline scholars consider this an interpolation,
and half do not. (I exclude counting those whose confessional or
denominational commitments do not leave them free to engage in
free discussion.) Numbers don't prove anything, of course, but they
do show how the winds are blowing. Twenty years ago, only a handful
of scholars considered it an interpolation. The evidence against
its Pauline authorship seems overwhelming to some, but others manage
to see Paul as much more like the Pastor (who surely COULD have written
these two sentences!), and don't find the problem of reconciling 1 Cor 11
with these verses which others do.
It is a little like the issue of Colossians, whose authorship
has been considered Pauline by fewer and fewer scholars over the last
30 years. (This pains me--I WANT to believe Paul wrote it, especially
because it greatly strengthens John Knox's theory about Philemon,
which, if it isn't true, OUGHT to be.) On the other hand, look at
2 Thessalonians: when I began teaching graduate students well over
40 years ago, most serious scholars considered it non-Pauline. Then
something like a tidal swell rose up, supporting Pauline authorship
for a few years. Then, over the last 15 years (aided and abetted by
seminars at Louvain, by the Thessalonians Seminar, and by newer
methods of tallying grammnatical transformations, etc.), the tide has
receded again, with the situation a lot like it was at the end
of World War II. (I hope this doesn't mean our scholarship is just
a matter of fashions!)
- --Edward Hobbs
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 17:34:08 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Jesus a disciple
On the question of Jesus' historical relationship to John the Bap., see
the fine study of the latter figure: R. L. Webb, _John the Baptizer and
Prophet: A Socio-Historical Study_ (JSNTSup 62; Sheffield:JSOT Press, 1991).
BTW, I see nothing "blasphemous" about the suggestion that Jesus
was a disciple of the Baptist, nor do I see evidence that earlier
Christians saw the possibility as blasphemous. Some may have
considered it unpleasant or even potentially misleading, but I reserve
"blasphemous" for defined uses.
There is I think *good* reason to see Jesus' ministry as emerging
out of the movement of the Baptist and as initially in tandem with the
latter's activity.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: Mark O'Brien <Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 95 17:19:30 CST
Subject: Re: Junia again
Without citing your entire posting concerning Patristic evidence, I
would like to point out that my question was actually exactly that...
a question. I claim no exceptional expertise in this area. However,
I feel that my comments were not altogether out of place. You and
others have stated that the early church was a patriarchal institution, or at
least that's the way it is portrayed, and this was my exact point.
If the early church was indeed patriarchal, would it be likely that one
would find a female apostle? I am not taking any position as to
whether the early church could be considered sexist or not, but simply
that the context would possibly tend to make the likelihood of a female
apostle slim.
Mark O'Brien
Dallas Theological Seminary
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 21:05:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Junia, not Junias!
Carl Conrad wrote,
"For one argument that these verses interrupt the flow of the passage and are
an interpolation, see Conzelmann's Semeia commentary (Fortress Press, 1975,
tr. James W. Leitch), p. 246."
The old Peake's one volume commentary on the NT has a good presentation of
the evidence for I Cor. 14:34ff being an interpolation because of its
differences from the context (ch. 11) and a couple of old latin mss where it
is out or order. I do not have my copy at home to give exact pages.
Carlton Winbery
Prof. Rel.
LA College, Pineville, LA
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 20:47:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Literary vs. "direct" evidence
At 9:06 PM 7/24/95, Michael L. Siemon wrote:
>>Larry, I agree with this 100% and methodologically, I'd even go so far as
>>to say that I cannot conceive any epigraphical evidence of something
>>happening that did not imply that somebody reflected sufficiently on it to
>>deem it worth remembering from among all those other things that have
>>happened but are "eminently forgettable."
>>
>>Perhaps the Meiggs anecdote wasn't worth sharing, after all.
>
>Yes, it was. Do not let "binary" thinking dominate what is, after all, a
>matter of careful judgement on a scale of plausibility. I commented in
>a previous post about this, but it bears emphasis. We *cannot* presume
>to understand the full motivation of an ancient author grinding his axe.
>We *can* hope to rely on such an author's casual references as matters
>that are, to him at least, "common knowledge." Similarly, the agendas
>in political epigraphy obviously shape the results -- but these are much
>more limited, and give more promise of critical control, than the agendas
>of individual authors.
>
>The deconstruction of texts is an important part of a) understanding
>them and b) placing them within a possibly wider range of meaning than
>we may first construe. But blunderbuss use of this tool to *eliminate*
>any critical judgment is merely perverse. Yes; critical judgements are
>necessarily provisional. No; we never know for certain the relation of
>any given text to the "historical facts" surrounding it. That is not a
>counsel of despair -- it is simply a reminder of the context of historical
>discussion.
>
>And it remains true that one is likely to get a better sense of "wie es
>eigenlich gewesen" in the side comments of literary documents and in
>the public presumptions of epigraphy than in the theses determinedly
>advanced by those arguing their own case.
Thank you very much for this response; I wonder whether you meant to
address it only to me personally. I take another liberty--if you did NOT
intend it to go to the list--of forwarding it TO the list, as I ought
perhaps also to have done with your earlier post addressed only to me.
If you are really speaking of a scale of plausibility, I guess I'm willing
to concede that you MAY be right here. On the other hand, a considerable
amount of epigraphical evidence differs from "literary" texts in little
more than the medium upon which it is inscribed. We PROBABLY learn more
about the Roman civil wars from Cicero's private correspondence than from
his edited speeches and essays (which is why Carcopino opined that Augustus
deliberately published them to expose Cicero's ulterior motives!). There is
a lot of sifting to be done--indeed, indeed. And how do we do this with
Biblical texts? I'm not an OT scholar (nor a NT scholar either!) and don't
know the bibliography, but I've always been intrigued by what appear to me
to be THREE different accounts of how the Israelite monarchy came into
being in 1 Sam 1-15.
But I'm pretty skeptical that we ever get very close to "wie es eigentlich
gewesen."
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 20:47:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Literary vs. "direct" evidence
This is the earlier post sent me by Michael Siemon, which, I believe,
really ought to have gone to the list.
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 20:42:50 -0400
>To: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
>From: mls@panix.com (Michael L. Siemon)
>Subject: Re: Literary vs. "direct" evidence
>Status:
>
>>I am taking the liberty of forwarding a recent post on the Classics list
>>which has begun to spark a bit of "humph, harumph," etc. reaction from
>>those who do not much appreciate the idea that literary evidence is
>>secondary. ...
>
>>Meiggs always stressed to him the necessity of beginning
>>with documents that had not been mediated by literary or philosophical
>>imagination and reflection.... No doubt Meiggs can be charged with relying
>>on an unreflective version of empiricism, but at least it's helpful to be
>>reminded of where in the order of things our texts do stand.
>
>I entirely concur. The issue is not that literary evidence is "bad" but
>that there are too many divergent impulses present in the texts for
>a critical inquiry to control, or at least to do so without *enormous*
>care to tease out every single thing going on in the author's mind (a
>possibility I think we should all regard as vanishingly hard to work.)
>
>Even matters of epigraphy have serious difficulties (consider the classic
>case of the "tyrannicides" in Athens, which exercises Aristotle so much.
>Despite the public inscriptional record, ordinary Athenians operated in a
>world of mythological construction of their past -- as of course Americans
>do today.) But with epigraphy, and with letters or contracts or other
>"quotidian" material, one may (plausibly) assume that any tendentiousness
>by the author is directed at the immediate goals of the text, and so one
>can grant considerable weight to tangential remarks or allusions -- and
>if one can construct enough historical context FROM these allusions, and
>if THEY are read with a sense of the ideological _tendenz_ of the author,
>one can laboriously build up a context in which the more subtle materials
>of rhetorical/literary *intent* operate on the (presumed) facts present
>to the author.
>
>Nobody ever claimed that critical analysis of ancient texts was easy!
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 21:36:50 -0500
Subject: [none]
At 2:50 PM 7/24/95, williamson@BIBLE.ACU.EDU wrote:
>On July 24, 1995 Carl Conrad wrote:
>
>" Those letters of Paul which have the best claim to
>>authenticity are remarkably free of anything that could be called "sexism"
>>or even "hierarchic" attitudes. Luke in Acts also shows women in positions
>>of leadership in the church."
>
>This statement strikes me because, as Bruce Terry has already noted, Paul
>has indeed been criticized heavily for "Sexist" statements in 1Cor. 14:33b-36.
>Even if one considers the section in chpt. 14 to be an interpolation (wrongly
>I think), do not the curious comments in Chapt. 11:3 & 7-9 indicate atleast
>some kind of heirarchicalism? What is interesting to me is that Paul can
>have what seems like a heirarchical outlook on male female relationships
>but at the time clearly approves of women praying and prophesying in the
>assembly of the church. Maybe he's neither a male chauvanist nor a
>feminist.
With this statement I am inclined to agree. Paul is "neither a male
chauvinist nor a feminist." I certainly wouldn't want to argue that Paul
promotes women to positions of authority ahead of men in the church any
more than I'd want to argue that Paul keeps women out of positions of
authority in the church.
The passage you cite is problematic, to be sure, but I am not so sure that,
taken in its whole context, it represents hierarchic thinking in terms of a
favored position of authority of one sex over another in the church.
For one thing, the letter as a whole is a powerful rhetorical and logical
attack upon a proto-gnostic "attitude" rampant in the Corinthian
congregation that favors religious individualism over against promotion of
the well-being of the entire community in worship and all else. There are
wondrous paradoxes of which Paul avails himself in this letter: he talks of
the "strong in faith" and the "weak in faith" and warns the former against
behaving in ways that undermine the spiritual growth of the latter. The
opening chapters harangue against the notion that imagined superior GNWSIS
or SOFIA raises some members of the community above others. Chapter 13
effectively undercuts the worth of any spiritual accomplishment that is not
accompanied by AGAPH.
Now, in chapter 11, there is, in the verses you cited (which I'm looking at
in a larger context than just vss 3 & 7-9), the discussion really concerns
the manner in which a man and a woman is to conduct himself/herself in
worship, NOT the relative superiority of God to Man and of Man to Woman.
And within worship, it appears that the man and the woman are both deemed
as likely to pray publicly and to prophesy publicly. One might question
whether ANHR and GUNH here really have anything to do with "husband" and
"wife," although linguistically that's possible. It appears to me rather,
however, that the Greek words are used generically of MAN and WOMAN, not of
marriage partners. Yes, it is said in vss. 7 & 8 that the man has his head
uncovered because he is the glory and image of God, while the woman has her
head covered because she is the glory of Man (anarthrous ANDROS). However,
it appears from vs. 9 that the basis of this difference is the sequential
order in which MAN and WOMAN were created, not a preferential or superior
status of MAN over WOMAN.
Parenthesis: what vs. 10 may mean: "A woman ought to hold authority over
the/her head BECAUSE OF THE ANGELS"--I await instruction from anyone who
really thinks he or she knows what Paul means--either by "holding
authority" or by "because of the angels."
Finally, if there should be any inclination to read vss. 2-10 to indicate
that Paul is asserting a hierarchical superiority of MAN over WOMAN, it
surely does appear to me that vss. 11-12 settle the issue quite decisively:
PLHN (which is, I dare say, a pretty powerful adversative) OUTE GUNH XWRIS
ANDROS OUTE ANHR XWRIS GUNAIKOS EN KURIWi. As I read this, Paul upholds
here the same proposition as in Gal 3:27-28, OUK ENI IOUDAIOS OUDE hELLHN,
OUK ENIDOULOS OUDE ELEUQEROS, OUK ENI ARSEN KAI QHLU: PANTES GAR hUMEIS
hEIS ESTE EN XRISTWi IHSOU. So I am still inclined to affirm the
proposition found "striking" and cited above:
>" Those letters of Paul which have the best claim to
>>authenticity are remarkably free of anything that could be called "sexism"
>>or even "hierarchic" attitudes. Luke in Acts also shows women in positions
>>of leadership in the church."
I will open my figurative mouth here and stick my figurative foot in it and
say/write that I don't think Paul's argument here for women covering their
heads in worship and for men uncovering their heads in worship (because
THAT's what it's about, NOT the superiority of one sex over the other) is
particularly cogent. And when he asks the rhetorical question in vss.
13-14: EN hUMIN AUTOIS KRINATE: PREPON ESTIN GUNAIKA AKATAKALUPTON TWi QEWi
PROSEUXESQAI? I'd have to answer in the affirmative and ask in turn, "And
why NOT?"
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #797
*****************************
** 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