[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #28
b-greek-digest Monday, 4 December 1995 Volume 01 : Number 028
In this issue:
aerete
Luke 4:4 Byzantine text vs Alexandrian text
Re: Women elders and apostles
Re: Women as Apostles, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "D. Peterson" <harpbard@ccnet.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 22:32:09 -0800
Subject: aerete
>> Not NT, but in 2 Clement there is that strange notion of the female having
>>to become male in order to have salvation. It's not a literal passage, but
>>some kind of allegory. I think it is referring to females needing to become
>>celibate in order to be saved-- the opposite of Paul's advice.
>>
>>Tim Staker
>>Timster132@aol.com
>
>Likewise, G of Thomas, Log 114 is pretty explicit in making exactly this point.
I thought the point there was not aerete as 'male' but as 'virtuous'.??
------------------------------
From: rlb4651@televar.com
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 22:40:17 -0800
Subject: Luke 4:4 Byzantine text vs Alexandrian text
Why are the Words "but by every word of God" omitted from the NIV version of
Luke 4:4 in the New Testament?
It is found in the King James,the Vulgate,and [(possibly) I cannot read
greek yet]
in the Byzantine texts (see below).
Luke 4:4 ----- VULGATE:
et respondit ad illum Iesus scriptum est quia non in pane solo vivet homo
sed in omni verbo Dei
Luke 4:4 ------ BYZANTINE:
KAI APEKRIQH IHSOUS PROS AUTON LEGWN GEGRAPTAI OTI OUK EP ARTW MONW ZHSETAI
[O] ANQRWPOS ALL EPI PANTI RHMATI QEOU
Does the Codex Sinaiticus omit the phrase "but by every word of God" in Luke
4:4?
Do the Alexandrian texts omit this phrase while the Greek Orthodox texts
include it?
------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 23:24:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Women elders and apostles
On Sat, 2 Dec 1995 BibAnsMan@aol.com wrote:
> 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."
You miss the point. First, the question is what is the IMMEDIATE context
of I Tim 2, not the general. The whole of the Bible is an instruction of
how to be the people of God, but there are specific situations which deal
with different types of relationships within, sometimes even in the same
epistle. (Wow! What a concept!) So the specific context of I Tim 2 is
about prayer, and unless you would argue that prayer and proper adornment
only occurs within the context of the gathered body of believers and not
at home (and these were basically churches which met in homes and
consisted of familial units as often as not-cf Meeks among others), then
I would suggest to you that the context of this passage has to deal with
familial relations as an immediate referent, otherwise Paul's use of
Genesis 2&3 makes very little sense.
Second, I was not introducing a dichotomy of Family vs Church context,
but rather which relationship within the church is being addressed. I
suppose this would mean that we offer prayer for kings and such only on
Sunday mornings? Or perhaps we should only pray then? And ANHR and GUNH
which are used to describe the most basic and universal human
relationship really don't do that here. I suppose you could maintain
this, but I prefer evidence.
Third, there is nothing in the verses themselves that alerts us to say
"Hey, women shouldn't teach Sunday school! Hey, we have a female choir
leader, that isn't Scriptural!! Rather, Paul is saying that along with
the qualities listed in verse10, there should also be submissiveness and
HSUXIA-the same quality that husbands are to display-see vs 2.
So In short, BibAnsMan, you missed my point entirly.
> Also, note the content of chapter 3. This is the immediate context. Paul's
> epistles to Timothy do deal with the church.
See above.
>
> 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???
Well, I refer you the discussion on Junia which has taken place on this
list more than once, including the last day or so in which more than one
person pointed out the available evidence. I can repost this if
necessary, but I won't bore the list with it again.
In short sir, on lexicographical, historical, theological, sociological
grounds I would say you need at the very least to reconsider your position.
Larry Swain
Parmly Billings Library
lswain@wln.com
------------------------------
From: Calvin David Redmond <credmond@usa.pipeline.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 15:49:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Women as Apostles, etc.
On 12/2/95, Carl Conrad wrote in response to Jim McGuire,
>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 i>ntelligence
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.
This was a very interesting post, and one in which Carl Conrad was gracious
to allow us insight into he theological method and commitments.
I find myself in full agreement with Jim McGuire's exegesis, and yet for
several years I have been unable to follow the author of 1 Tim.'s
reasoning, for the reasons Carl Conrad stated.
Unlike Carl, I do not see basic tension between the Timothy passage and the
actions of Jesus. While I would agree that Jesus was nicer to women than
his contemporary society might have allowed, I have not seen evidence of
Jesus either establishing or condoning women in positions of authority. In
fact, I have found no statements of Jesus on women in authority, and no
action of Jesus which directly touches the subject.
Perhaps a harder task is to reconcile the Timothy passage with Gal. 3:28.
Here I think we need to allow the immediate context to rule; Paul was not
writing on church order, but on acceptance before God. From 1 Cor. 11 and
14 , it is clear that Paul does not mean equality in all roles and
functions between men and women (though the meaning of these passages is
not always clear, the passages certainly convey some sense of gender
distinction, yet always with the understanding that gender does not commend
anyone to God.
With regard to APOSTOLOS, Luke restricts its use to the 12 except in Lk.
11:49 and Acts 14:14. In the other 3 gospels, the term is used only once
each: Jn. 13:16 in the sense of a messenger; Matt. 10:2 as a description of
the 12 just before they are sent out for mission (which fits more as
evangelist/missionary than authoritative office), and similarly in Mark
6:30 when the 12 return from their mission.
For Paul, he affirmed himself as an apostle 14 times in the Paulines, and
also affirmed Peter (Gal. 1:18), our friend Junias and Andronicus (Rom.
16:7), and perhaps Barnabas (Gal. 2:1). When Paul calls Titus,
Epaphroditus, and others "apostles of the churches (2 Cor. 8:23), he is
using the common sense of the term as messenger.
If this discussion, which I drew nearly verbatim from D. Mueller in _The
New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology_, ed. Colin Brown
(Zondervan, 1975), is correct, than the question of whether Junias is male
or female (as I believe) is irrelevant to the question of church office.
Cal Redmond
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
NEW ADDRESS: credmond@usa.pipeline.com
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #28
****************************
** 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