[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #26
b-greek-digest Sunday, 3 December 1995 Volume 01 : Number 026
In this issue:
Re: Dative Direct Objects, Heb 1:6
Re: errors
Re: errors
Re: 1 Tim. 2:15--"get safely through"
Phoebe, Junia, and little old ladies
Re: Women elders and apostles
Women elders etc.: an alternative exegesis
Re: Women elders and apostles
Re: Women elders and apostles
Re: Women elders etc.: an alternative exegesis
Re: Dative Direct Objects, Heb 1:6
help
Re: help
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ray Mattera <73067.2630@compuserve.com>
Date: 02 Dec 95 01:49:52 EST
Subject: Re: Dative Direct Objects, Heb 1:6
Ellen you said:
>Vaughan and Gideon make this comment in their Greek Grammar:
>"Certain verbs take their direct object in the dative case rather than
>the accusative...Verbs that express close personal relations (e.g.
>hupakouw, to obey: diakonew, to serve; proskunew, to worship; akolouQew,
>to follow; pisteuw, to believe, etc.) MAY" (my emphasis) "take their
>objects in the dative case."
><omit>
>No matter what the extent of our study and
>scrutiny and knowledge of a language, some things still remain a mystery.
>As to why N.T. writers chose one case over the other, we can only speculate.
>Why one writer (or editor?) would use the dative direct object in one spot
>and accusative form immediately after, as in Rev 13, who can know for sure?
>Perhaps they sought a slightly different emphasis, i.e. "give honor to" vs.
>"honor".
>Several hundred years from now linguists might well wonder why someone today
>says, "It's me." rather than "It is I," or why that same person would say,
>"That was sent in behalf of my wife and I" rather than "my wife and me."
Thank you very much for your response. What you stated confirmed my research and
I am grateful to receive independent confirmation from another source. As you
said, languages tend to make their own "rules" as they are used and develop.
Grammars tell us how languages function--they do not tell languages how to
function. Thus one can expect all kinds of "exceptions to the rule" as one
studies the Greek text.
>May I mention also that Moule in his Idiom Book of N.T. Greek says this in
>a footnote: "The Dative and Accusative also overlap mysteriously"?
>I like the word "mysteriously."
Thank you for that quotation. If it is not too troublesome, could you tell me
on what page that footnote is found?
Once again, thank you for your assistance.
Ray Mattera
------------------------------
From: LISATIA@aol.com
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 03:19:54 -0500
Subject: Re: errors
dear Jack
thanks for you reply. I was thinking about scribal rewriting and
editing, and particularly the possibilities of finding some trace of an
original goof that was not completely covered up by now.
richard arthur Merrimack NH lisatia@aol.com
------------------------------
From: LISATIA@aol.com
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 03:57:53 -0500
Subject: Re: errors
dear hayden and list,
sorry if that mail went directly to you. I am only looking for some examples
of traces of what might have been once perceived as grammatical errors in the
early manuscripts by scribes who would have been helping correct them. In
fact, there is a grammatical error in I Jn 4.3 where MH occurs instead of
OUK. Much has been written about this inffelicity; I am looking for other
examples.
richard arthur Merrimack NH lisatis@aol.com
------------------------------
From: LISATIA@aol.com
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 04:22:33 -0500
Subject: Re: 1 Tim. 2:15--"get safely through"
dear Nichael,
Actually, logion 114 of the Gospel of Thomas is a school debate in which
the Chauvinist view of Peter must be rejected by the teacher. For his reply,
Jesus affirms that there is only one way to salvation, that of the masculine
spirit, and promises that he will lead Mary on this very path - "so that she
too shall become a living spirit like unto you gentlemen". The Valentinians
make much of the union of the feminine soul and the masculline spirit as can
be seen in The Exegesis of the Soul, Codex II, Nag Hammadi.
best wishes, richard arthur Merrimack NH lisatia@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Mike Adams <mikadams@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 03:09:33 -0800
Subject: Phoebe, Junia, and little old ladies
With the recent mention of Phoebe and the revival of Junia in B-Greek,
I would like to toss in a few comments of my own.
If Romans 16:1-2 instead had said, "I commend to you our brother,
George, 'diakonos' of the church of Chencrea...for he has been
'prostates' to many, including me..." would we have so much trouble
interpreting these verses? To be completely honest wouldn't most
of us assume that George was a deacon, particularly if he were
further described as a patron and/or administrator?
I know a woman who oversees a massive, incredibly effective
food/clothing/medical care program for needy families. Although
I doubt that anyone in her church would dare call her a deaconess,
for fear of impropriety, but I feel she is exactly the sort of woman
Paul spoke of in Romans 16.
And Junia. How modern science pales in comparison to this! Skilled
doctors could not hope to accomplish so quick and complete a gender
transformation as can be achieved by the mere moving of an accent.
(Is this akin to what Hobbs mentioned, "being given a masculine
essence, without which a woman could not obtain salvation", much less
apostleship?)
I admit I am being more than a bit facetious. But let me bring up just
one other thing.
I have a friend, formerly an elder in my church, who oft quoted I Tim.
5:1 from the KJV, "Rebuke not an elder" (presbuteros) concerning the
sanctity of the office. However, he also insisted that women could
never be elders. Since he was an elder and I a woman, I didn't dare
point out to him that in the very next verse, one with parallel
structure, what KJV translates as older women is the very same word,
only in its feminine form. Interesting!
Such scriptural enigmas make us all squirm. What we firmly believe is
challenged by what is evidently written. We are required to make a
choice, to alter our tenets to accomodate the exceptions, or alter our
translation of these exceptions to accomodate our beliefs.
Paul, whose apparent contradictions are the main source of our
consternation ought also by his example show us the solution. He
repeatedly taught the principles of headship and covering to establish
order and to avoid abuse. But for him there was one issue above all,
one standard beyond exception or compromise, to which all other
standards were secondary, that was the furtherance of the gospel of
Jesus Christ to the glory of God. And anyone, male, female, Jew, or
Gentile, who was likewise committed to and effective in the promotion
of that end was to him a valued co-laborer.
Should we not be equally disposed to afford honor to those people (past
or present) to whom honor is due?
Ellen Adams
------------------------------
From: BibAnsMan@aol.com
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 13:09:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Women elders and apostles
Regarding the discussion of whether women can be elders, I think it
important to consider 1 Timothy 2:11ff. Many have proposed that the reason
why Paul didn't want women teaching men is because of the Jewish culture of
those days. Some state that women weren't educated at that time and thus
were not to teach. Still others will make ANHR out to be husband, thus
making Paul say that women (wives) ought not to teach their husbands, but to
remain quiet. I would prefer not to accept any of the above explanations
because they do not rely on the text but rather upon conjecture. Paul's
reason for giving the instruction for women not to teach men is not cultural.
There is one very important Greek word that people often overlook here.
It is the simple conjunction GAR in verse 13. This causal GAR gives us the
reason why Paul gave the command. Paul said that a woman should not teach a
man because Adam was created first, then Eve. In other words, it stems to
the very foundation of creation itself. This transcends culture and history
and lands on the foundation of how God created man and woman. In Genesis,
man was created first and then woman as a helper.
Further, some have understood in verse 14 that the woman being deceived
indicates a difference in constitution. Men are designed by God different
from women. The Bible supports different roles for men and women. They are
equal in value and essence, but the difference could very well be implied
here in this verse.
If we let the text of Scripture speak here, we will have to admit that
Paul's reasons given there for women not teaching or exercising authority
over men is not cultural. Paul didn't say women shouldn't teach men because
they weren't educated, or that was the practice of those churches (as head
coverings cf. 1 Cor. 11:16). But Paul's reason transcends all this and lands
on creation, the foundation.
In any interpretation of Scripture, one should always bear in mind the
historical record. One must ask the question why church history for 1900
years has interpreted this different from some of the more modern
interpretations. Have we all of a sudden discovered something that has been
missing for centuries from any records except a few stray cultish brands? I
do not believe this subject is that hard to understand biblically.
I fully expect that this will be viciously attacked here. Some will
claim that such exegesis as this does not belong on this list. Others will
say that it is eisegesis. Still others will attack my character or say that
I have made up my mind before coming to the text. And even some might say
they are ashamed at such a presentation because it lacks the "scholarship"
they require for their approval. Attacks such as these are not Christ-like
nor helpful for our goal. It is doing the very thing one is accusing others
of doing.
Jim McGuire
Professor of Greek at
Logos Bible Institute
13248 Roscoe Blvd.
Sun Valley, CA 91352
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 17:13:10 -0600
Subject: Women elders etc.: an alternative exegesis
At 12:09 PM 12/2/95, BibAnsMan@aol.com wrote:
> Regarding the discussion of whether women can be elders, I think it
>important to consider 1 Timothy 2:11ff. Many have proposed that the reason
>why Paul didn't want women teaching men is because of the Jewish culture of
>those days. Some state that women weren't educated at that time and thus
>were not to teach. Still others will make ANHR out to be husband, thus
>making Paul say that women (wives) ought not to teach their husbands, but to
>remain quiet. I would prefer not to accept any of the above explanations
>because they do not rely on the text but rather upon conjecture. Paul's
>reason for giving the instruction for women not to teach men is not cultural.
>
> There is one very important Greek word that people often overlook here.
> It is the simple conjunction GAR in verse 13. This causal GAR gives us the
>reason why Paul gave the command. Paul said that a woman should not teach a
>man because Adam was created first, then Eve. In other words, it stems to
>the very foundation of creation itself. This transcends culture and history
>and lands on the foundation of how God created man and woman. In Genesis,
>man was created first and then woman as a helper.
>
> Further, some have understood in verse 14 that the woman being deceived
>indicates a difference in constitution. Men are designed by God different
>from women. The Bible supports different roles for men and women. They are
>equal in value and essence, but the difference could very well be implied
>here in this verse.
>
> If we let the text of Scripture speak here, we will have to admit that
>Paul's reasons given there for women not teaching or exercising authority
>over men is not cultural. Paul didn't say women shouldn't teach men because
>they weren't educated, or that was the practice of those churches (as head
>coverings cf. 1 Cor. 11:16). But Paul's reason transcends all this and lands
>on creation, the foundation.
>
> In any interpretation of Scripture, one should always bear in mind the
>historical record. One must ask the question why church history for 1900
>years has interpreted this different from some of the more modern
>interpretations. Have we all of a sudden discovered something that has been
>missing for centuries from any records except a few stray cultish brands? I
>do not believe this subject is that hard to understand biblically.
>
> I fully expect that this will be viciously attacked here. Some will
>claim that such exegesis as this does not belong on this list. Others will
>say that it is eisegesis. Still others will attack my character or say that
>I have made up my mind before coming to the text. And even some might say
>they are ashamed at such a presentation because it lacks the "scholarship"
>they require for their approval. Attacks such as these are not Christ-like
>nor helpful for our goal. It is doing the very thing one is accusing others
>of doing.
I shall have to disagree profoundly with the above interpretation, not
because I consider it a misreading of the Biblical text that is being made
the foundation of the exegesis, but rather because I believe it is more
reasonable to establish an understanding of NT doctrine underlying the
whole argument over women in positions of the authority in a very different
way. I am violating my own principle here--that we should be discussing the
Greek text and not arguing theological positions, but frankly, I think this
is a point on which our theological positions have a profound bearing on
what we are ready to see in the NT texts presented to us.
Let me first state the points for which I myself may be attacked in the
same way that Jim expects to be attacked for his points. I appreciate his
full exposition, because I can understand the basis on which he holds what
he holds to be true on this matter. I hope that he and others will bear
with my setting forth, as clearly as possible, why I hold a different view
of the same texts.
I find no fault whatsoever with Jim's reading of 1 Tim 2:13; it is quite
clear that the author bases his view that women should not teach on grounds
of the secondary status of woman in creation. My response is that this is a
wholly inadequate justification for women not teaching. Why? Because I
don't think Paul wrote 1 Timothy? Well, in fact, I DON'T think Paul wrote 1
Timothy, but I do not reject 1 Timothy's canonical status just because I
don't think Paul wrote it. Why then do I think it inadequate? For two
reasons:
(1a) I think that the Genesis creation narrative is being misapplied in 1
Tim 2, is being applied to a matter on which it has no bearing. In my
judgment the key element in the Genesis 2 account of the creation of the
man and the woman is to be found in Genesis 2:23 where "the man" recognizes
that "the woman" is a true and valid mate to himself. The point is not that
woman is secondary to "man" but rather that man and woman are fundamentally
and essentially one in nature. (If there should be any question about this
being the REAL point of this narrative of the "how" of woman's creation,
then it should be resolved, in my judgment, in consideration of the key
text from the earlier creation narrative, Genesis 1:27 (TEV): "So God
created human beings, making them like himself. He created them male and
female, blessed them ..." So I can see no basis in the Creation stories for
any assertion of the secondary nature or status of females to males.
(1b) I think the argument of 1 Timothy 2:14 might as well be taken up at
the same time. KAI ADAM OUK HPATHQH, hH DE GUNH EJAPATHQEISA EN PARABASEI
GEGONEN. This is no more adequate a justification for not allowing women to
teach than is the preceding argument; in fact, its foundation is even
shakier, because it is in clear contradiction to the facts of the narrative
in Genesis 3. If Adam was "not deceived," and if it is the woman who "was
deceived and was in transgression," then why is the punishment in Genesis
3:14-19 laid upon all parties involved, serpent, woman and man? The man is
not a whit less guilty than is the woman. So it appears to me that the
argument presented to justify not permitting a woman to teach is itself
grounded in an inadequate reading of Genesis 2 and 3. I would even go a
step further, and say that it might theoretically have been grounded on the
subordination of the woman to the man in the "sentencing phase" of those
verses in Genesis 3:14-19, BUT (a) that was not offered as a justification,
and (b) even if it had been offered, it would have been based upon an
understanding of the "fallen" human condition and would have dubious
validity as an argument for the relationship of the sexes once they are "in
Christ."
Which brings me, or will bring me, after a preliminary explanation, to my
second point. It will be said that I am accusing the apostle of bad
theology. If I am so be it, for it IS bad theology and I can see no
soundness in the argument. In point of fact, I don't believe Paul wrote
this, but I also do not dispute the canonical status of 1 Timothy, no
matter WHO wrote it. How then can I dispute the teaching of 1 Timothy 2 on
the status of women in the church?
(2a) As an adherent of reformed theology, I hold that scripture interprets
scripture, meaning that it is the whole of canonical scripture, and not the
part, that is authoritative. What do we do when we find something as
problematic in scripture as the doctrine set forth in 1 Timothy 2? We look
elsewhere in scripture. We look for a "canon of the canon." In general, I
would hold that the teaching of the New Testament outweighs a teaching of
the Old if there is a conflict (which, superficially, makes it appear that
I am letting my understanding of Genesis 2 and 3 outweigh the doctrine of 1
Timothy 2). But what if there is something problematic--a contradiction or
apparent contradiction in the NT (and I am one who thinks that I have found
a few such contradictions), how to resolve it? I would resolve it first and
foremost by attempting to ascertain whether the matter in question is
consistent with the teaching and action of Jesus as set forth in the gospel
accounts. If I find a what appears to me to be a conflict between what
Jesus teaches and does and what Paul teaches, and if I can find no other
way of resolving the conflict, I will deem the teaching and action--the
example--of Jesus as the greater authority.
(2b) So far as the status of men and women in the church (and, by
implication, in the way women and men should relate to each other
institutionally and socially in general), I believe that Paul has stated
the nature of redeemed humanity in fully egaliarian terms in full
accordance, so far as I can see, with the teaching and practice of Jesus,
in Galatians 3: OUK ENI IOUDAIOS OUDE hELLHN, OUK ENI DOULOS OUDE
ELEUQEROS, OUK ENI ARSEN KAI QHLU: PANTES GAR hUMEIS hEIS ESTE EN XRISTWi
IHSOU. I would hold this to be the canon of the canon when it comes to
questions of authority or competence to perform a function in the church.
One may perhaps discriminate on the basis of a judgment of intelligence or
character of suitable gifts to carry out a task, but one may NOT
discriminate on the basis of ethnic status, or on status in the social
hierarchy, or on gender.
I apologize for the length of this post, and I apologize all the more for
violating my repeated request that we avoid theological argument in this
forum. But I felt that it was important to demonstrate (a) that one need
not need not resort to personal attacks upon one who espouses an
alternative viewpoint on how a Biblical text may be read in order to
disagree with that reading of the text, and also (b) that it really is
possible to approach this question of women in positions of authority in
the New Testament without violating a fundamental respect for scripture
itself. I suspect that Jim and I will continue to disagree sharply with
each other over this issue, and that we will hold the views we do hold on
the basis of how we understand scripture.
Having said my say, let me say that I don't wish or intend, having stated
this thesis, to defend it or argue it further in this forum, which really
has another purpose altogether. I think it all started with the latest
round of attempts to make sense of the enigmatic verse at the end of 1
Timothy 2, a verse which, in my view, is just as enigmatic now as when I
first pondered it. I still like the idea of the Moffat translation, "A
woman will come safely through childbirth, provided that ..."--but the
shift from the singular in the first clause to the plural in the second
clause is just as puzzling as ever. Or did it really start with
Junia/Junias?
The next thing I'd like to investigate is the usage of APOSTOLOS in
different NT authors. The evidence ought to be readily available, and I
suspect that it has already been analyzed. My question is to what extent
the word is, in fact, used for others besides "the twelve."
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: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 15:24:09 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Women elders and apostles
Well, I'm back for a mere 1 day and already I can not be silent. Perhaps
I should take some of the Proverbs to heart regarding being silent. Then
again maybe not.
On Sat, 2 Dec 1995 BibAnsMan@aol.com wrote:
> Regarding the discussion of whether women can be elders, I think it
> important to consider 1 Timothy 2:11ff. Many have proposed that the reason
(snip)
> were not to teach. Still others will make ANHR out to be husband, thus
> making Paul say that women (wives) ought not to teach their husbands, but to
> remain quiet. I would prefer not to accept any of the above explanations
> because they do not rely on the text but rather upon conjecture. Paul's
> reason for giving the instruction for women not to teach men is not cultural.
>
You obviously take this seriously, though I cannot quite fathom how.
Those explanation are based on thoughtful, experienced, research and
intimate familiarity with the text and the period of history. I think
"conjecture" here is tendentious and insulting on your part. Feel free
to disagree with the interpretation, but don't denigrate it as
"conjecture", that is a nice rheotrical tool, but it won't fly here.
> There is one very important Greek word that people often overlook here.
> It is the simple conjunction GAR in verse 13. This causal GAR gives us the
> reason why Paul gave the command. Paul said that a woman should not teach a
> man because Adam was created first, then Eve. In other words, it stems to
> the very foundation of creation itself. This transcends culture and history
> and lands on the foundation of how God created man and woman. In Genesis,
> man was created first and then woman as a helper.
No, it is not overlooked. It is well taken account for if you looked at
the discussions that have been carried on in print over the issue.
Second, if you knew Hebrew as Paul did you would know that the word
translated helper in Genesis 2 is (w 2ords actually) Ezer kenegdo, a
helper equal to, a partner in other OT usuage. ANd you have confused
some things regarding the natural order described in Genesis, so hang on
to your hat and look below.
> Further, some have understood in verse 14 that the woman being deceived
> indicates a difference in constitution. Men are designed by God different
> from women. The Bible supports different roles for men and women. They are
> equal in value and essence, but the difference could very well be implied
> here in this verse.
Some have understood so yes, but that doesn't mean that is what the text
says, which it doesn't. Different roles do not make for difference in
kind or even degree.
But consider some facts:
1)given the meaning of the Hebrew "equal to"
2)given that the context of Genesis 2 and 3 in discussing Adam and Eve.
The focus of the creation of Eve is to resolve Adam's solitariness, and
God did not make another male, but rather a female. To make the direct
point: He made a couple, a pair, a marriage partner. Hence the one flesh
aspect is stressed. And in the "cursing" for sin in chapter 3 it is
interesting to note that to Adam God talks of Adam's relationship with
God and the earth, from whom Adam is said to be made; to Eve he discusses
the relationship to Adam from who she is said to be made (the rib?) and
to that which she makes and giveslife to, children. In short, Genesis 2
and 3 sees Adam and Eve not as first humans, but as First Family, first
couple, first married people.
3) The Greek word ANHR is perfectly acceptable as a word for husband
4) The context of I Tim 2 has a discussion of familial life preceeding
the verses in question
5)Paul repeats in these verses the order of Genesis 3, adam's relation to
God, Eve's relation to Adam and then children; husband's relation to God,
wife's relation to husband and children (or Child if you prefer).
The best conclusion seems to me based on these and other important
factors that this speaks of familial relationships and should not be
confused with leadership roles in the church.
> In any interpretation of Scripture, one should always bear in mind the
> historical record. One must ask the question why church history for 1900
> years has interpreted this different from some of the more modern
> interpretations. Have we all of a sudden discovered something that has been
> missing for centuries from any records except a few stray cultish brands? I
> do not believe this subject is that hard to understand biblically.
True. So why do you object to the fact that the early Fathers understood
Junia as a female apostle? And what do you do with the fact that those
first sent (APOSTELLW) with the news of the risen Jesus were
- ----->FEMALE<-------, or that in I Cor 11 Paul speaks favorably of women
prophesying, or of course there is Phoebe that deaconess, or Priscilla
and Aquila always mentioned in the same breath. And lest we forget what
do we do with all those historical records and inscriptions which mention
women as leaders in the churches? HHHMMM, seems to me that the Biblical
and historical record certainly don't favor your postion.
In the interests of brevity I won't even touch your comment that if
historically this is the way it has been interpreted therefore it is
correct, that I'll leave for another day.
> I fully expect that this will be viciously attacked here. Some will
> claim that such exegesis as this does not belong on this list. Others will
> say that it is eisegesis. Still others will attack my character or say that
> I have made up my mind before coming to the text. And even some might say
> they are ashamed at such a presentation because it lacks the "scholarship"
> they require for their approval. Attacks such as these are not Christ-like
> nor helpful for our goal. It is doing the very thing one is accusing others
> of doing.
Ah, the ol' "And if you attack this you're a bad guy" ploy, gets 'em
everytime. I say simply that you have jumped to conclusions. I invite
you to wrestle with the text a bit, with other information, and by all
means extend your knowledge of early church history.
Larry Swain
Parmly Billings Library
lswain@wln.com
"Logic! What do they teach them in these schools?" C. S. Lewis _The
Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe_
------------------------------
From: BibAnsMan@aol.com
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 18:38:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Women elders and apostles
In a message dated 95-12-02 18:25:52 EST, Larry Swain:
regarding 1 Timothy 2:11ff.
>The best conclusion seems to me based on these and other important
>factors that this speaks of familial relationships and should not be
>confused with leadership roles in the church.
Actually, in the very next chapter Paul wrote the reason of his writing, "but
in case I am delayed, [I write] so that you may know how one ought to conduct
himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the
pillar and support of the truth."
Also, note the content of chapter 3. This is the immediate context. Paul's
epistles to Timothy do deal with the church.
I missed the evidence for the following statement you made:
>True. So why do you object to the fact that the early Fathers understood
>Junia as a female apostle?
Where do the early church Fathers say this???
Jim
Professor of Greek at
Logos Bible Institute
13248 Roscoe Blvd.
Sun Valley, CA 91352
------------------------------
From: Bill Mounce <billm@teknia.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 16:27:48 -0700
Subject: Re: Women elders etc.: an alternative exegesis
A few comments on Conrad's post
>I find no fault whatsoever with Jim's reading of 1 Tim 2:13; it is quite
>clear that the author bases his view that women should not teach on grounds
>of the secondary status of woman in creation. My response is that this is a
>wholly inadequate justification for women not teaching. Why? Because I
>don't think Paul wrote 1 Timothy? Well, in fact, I DON'T think Paul wrote 1
>Timothy, but I do not reject 1 Timothy's canonical status just because I
>don't think Paul wrote it. Why then do I think it inadequate? For two
>reasons:
"Inadequate" is just a euphemism for wrong, wrong in an area of faith and
practice, wrong in a theological discussion meant to deal specifically with
this particular issue, and in contradiction -- you feel -- of another
passage whose purpose is not to deal specifically with this issue. It seems
to me best that you use terms that accurately describe your interpretation.
The author is wrong.
>(1a) I think that the Genesis creation narrative is being misapplied in 1
>Tim 2, is being applied to a matter on which it has no bearing. In my
>judgment the key element in the Genesis 2 account of the creation of the
>man and the woman is to be found in Genesis 2:23 where "the man" recognizes
>that "the woman" is a true and valid mate to himself. The point is not that
>woman is secondary to "man" but rather that man and woman are fundamentally
>and essentially one in nature.... So I can see no basis in the Creation
>stories for
>any assertion of the secondary nature or status of females to males
In other words, you feel that your interpretation of the Genesis passage
has more validity than the canonical interpretation of Genesis. At this
point I don't recognize how someone can hold to the validity of any concept
of canon. What does "canon" then mean?
>(2a) As an adherent of reformed theology, I hold that scripture interprets
>scripture, meaning that it is the whole of canonical scripture, and not the
>part, that is authoritative. What do we do when we find something as
>problematic in scripture as the doctrine set forth in 1 Timothy 2? We look
>elsewhere in scripture. We look for a "canon of the canon."
I was not aware that Reformed theology historically defined allowed for a
canon within a canon. Even Luther with his strong dislike of James would
not remove it from the canon. Even as a "right strawy epistle," Luther's
view of the canon forced him to accept it.
>(b) that it really is
>possible to approach this question of women in positions of authority in
>the New Testament without violating a fundamental respect for scripture
>itself.
I suspect Conrad that you did violate it, because you did not allow
Scripture to interpret Scripture. Your theology dictates that Galaians is
superior to 1 Timothy and hence disallowed the canonical interpretation in
chapter 2. But if Scripture interprets Scripture, then it must work the
other way around as well, and 1 Tim 2 can interpret Galatians, which it
easily can. As the context of Galatians shows (my opinion) Paul is there
discussing the essential nature of the person and in 1 Tim 2 is discussing
the issue of roles within the established church order. They are different
context, and hermeneutically the specific passage outweighs the general
passage. 1 Tim 2 specifically deals with one part of the question of women
in ministry. I don't see a conflict in theology unless a person insists
that role and worth are essentially tied together, a position I don't think
can be defened from the text.
Let's see. This is the Greek forum, so I better say something about Greek.
XARIS.
Bill Mounce
- -------------------------------
Teknia Software, Inc.
1306 W. Bellwood Drive
Spokane, WA 99218-2911
Internet: billm@teknia.com (preferred)
AOL: Mounce
CIS: 71540,2140 (please, only if necessary)
"It may be Greek to you, but it is life to me."
------------------------------
From: Mike Adams <mikadams@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 16:57:38 -0800
Subject: Re: Dative Direct Objects, Heb 1:6
You wrote:
>Thank you very much for your response. What you stated confirmed my research and
>I am grateful to receive independent confirmation from another source. As you
>said, languages tend to make their own "rules" as they are used and develop.
>Grammars tell us how languages function--they do not tell languages how to
>function. Thus one can expect all kinds of "exceptions to the rule" as one
>studies the Greek text.
There's a neat paragraph about this very thing in one of David Alan Black's
books, Linguistic Approach to N.T. Greek, I think. At this moment, unfortunately,
I can't even locate the book, much less the chapter.
>>May I mention also that Moule in his Idiom Book of N.T. Greek says this in
>>a footnote: "The Dative and Accusative also overlap mysteriously"?
>
>Thank you for that quotation. If it is not too troublesome, could you tell me
>on what page that footnote is found?
page 43 in my paperback.
I sincerely hoped I could find something more substantial there, but I didn't.
Still the little footnote was too provocative to let slip.
Ellen
------------------------------
From: Oldgringe@aol.com
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 20:25:17 -0500
Subject: help
as a peruser-I would not begin to think that my 1yr of greek makes me
conversant with this group-who is learning daily when the biblcal greek is
discussed, may I express my frustration at wading through discussions such
as-iounian-where a simple question of accents ended in a debate over apparent
preconceptions and church polity. I want to learn more of greek-then I'll let
my preconceptions(which are obviously correct-as I'm sure you all feel yours
are) do the interpreting.
have fun in him.
bill burger
------------------------------
From: John Calvin Hall <johnhall@gulf.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 1995 23:12:25 -0400
Subject: Re: help
At 08:25 PM 12/2/95 -0500, you wrote:
>as a peruser-I would not begin to think that my 1yr of greek makes me
>conversant with this group-who is learning daily when the biblcal greek is
>discussed, may I express my frustration at wading through discussions such
>as-iounian-where a simple question of accents ended in a debate over
>apparent preconceptions and church polity. I want to learn more of
>greek-then I'll let my preconceptions(which are obviously correct-as I'm
>sure you all feel yours are) do the interpreting.
>have fun in him.
Here, here!
May I have the privilage to be one of the first to welcome you to B-Greek!
Not all of us here are Junior Assistant Metzgers (Praise God!!), but if I
may say we all enjoy the subject of Biblical Greek. Please, feel free to
toss in a round or three - - like I tell my students, the only stupid
question is the question unasked - - and your opinion is as good as any
others. |8^)
...So, what do YOU think of Metzger's indirect statements that the original
autographs contained errors? |8'P
John Calvin Hall
johnhall@gulf.net
...Modern Textual Criticism and Biblical Textual Criticism are not the same.
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #26
****************************
** 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