From: Paul S. Dixon (dixonps@juno.com)
Date: Fri Jun 27 1997 - 22:29:11 EDT
On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 13:51:57 -0400 Jonathan Robie
<jwrobie@mindspring.com> writes:
>At 12:57 PM 6/27/97 EDT, Paul S. Dixon wrote:
>>
>>On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 11:04:21 -0400 Jonathan Robie
>><jwrobie@mindspring.com> writes:
>>>At 08:21 AM 6/27/97 -0500, Troy de Jongh wrote:
>>>>Theresa J List, Dcs writes:
>>>
>>>>> Anyhow, there were most certainly women prophetesses,
>>>>> like Anna, for example who SPOKE (LALEIN! Look it up!) in
>>>>> the temple! So, women are not to speak (LALEIN, 1 Co 14:34)
>>>>> in the assembly, but, of course, Anna did this with God's
>>>>> sanction. Or, 1 Cor. 11:5, a mere few hundred words
>>>>> before the injunction against speaking in 1 co 14, where
>>>>> women are to prophesy with their heads covered. I refuse to
>>>>> believe that either God or Paul are schizofrenic, erego I know
>>>>> there is some way to understand these as not contradictory.
>>>
>> We should be careful here. Only if we infer the negation
>> of 1 Cor 11:5 is there a necessary conflict with 1 Cor 14:
>> 34-35. Negations, of course, are not valid inferences
>> ("If A, then B" does not imply "If not A, then not B").
>
>In a formal syllogism, you would be correct, but that's really
>not the formof literature that we have here. Besides, I don't
>think that the Greek says"if a woman prays...then" in a logical
>sense, as you seem to imply.
Jonathan: I disagree. 1 Cor 11: 5 can be accurately represented
logically as an "All P are Q" proposition where:
P = all women who pray or prophesy with heads
uncovered, and
Q = same women shame their heads.
This, of course, is equvalent to the conditional proposition:
If P, then Q.
The negation of this is, "If not P, then not Q." It fits perfectly.
And, of course, the negation is not a valid inference.
>
>>Likewise, in 1 Cor 11:5, "if a woman prays or prophesies with her
>>head uncovered, then she shames her head" does not imply,
>>"if a woman prays or prophesies with her head covered, then she
>>does not shame her head." This logical misinference is usually
>>assumed. Then, this inference often becomes the determining
>>factor in the interpretation of 1 Cor 14:34-35. See my article,
>>"Negative Inference Fallacies: Mt 19:9, Acts 2:38, and 1 Cor 11:5"
>>(http:users.aol.com/dixonps/nif.htm) for more.
>
>But look at the Greek in 1 Cor 11:4-5:
>
>PAS ANHR PROSEUCOMENOS H PROFHTEUWN KATA KEFALHS EXON KATAISCUNEI THN
>KEFALHN AUTOU
>PASA DE GUNH PROSEUCOMENH H PROFHTEUOUSA AKATAKALUPTWi THi KAFALHi
>KATAISCUNEI THN KAFAHN AUTHS
>
>I *think* that this *assumes* that both men and women pray and
>prophesy, and
>if the man does so with his head covered, he disgraces his head, but
>if a
>woman does so with her head uncovered, she disgraces her head. As the
>NASB
>puts it:
>
>1Cor 11:4 (NASB) Every man who has [something] on his head while
>praying or
>prophesying, disgraces his head.
>5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or
>prophesying,
>disgraces her head; for she is one and the same with her whose head is
>shaved.
>
>In your paper, I think you come to the wrong conclusion because you
>didn't
>set up a syllogism that corresponds to the premises of the text. This,
>incidentally, is the hardest part of applying formal logic. Remember
>story
>problems in algebra? If you got the problem set up correctly, solving
>it
>was easy. The same thing applies to formal logic - setting up a system
>that
>really reflects the problem you are trying to solve is much harder
>than
>solving the system once you have done so. I think your paper would be
>strengthened, incidentally, by actually setting up the syllogisms and
>showing how they correspond to the original text.
I know all about algebra. I used to teach it in high school. But, your
point does not carry, because it does set up properly, as I
demonstrated.
>
>Now I may be misinterpreting or overinterpreting the Greek here, and
>if so,
>I hope someone will correct me, but it sure looks that way to me. I've
>been
>equally sure about things that were wrong, though - being sure and
>being
>right aren't always the same thing...
>
I appreciate your suspicions that you may not be correct.
Hope this helps clarify things.
Sincerely,
Paul S. Dixon
P.S., I am using a new mailer. An earlier post by you gave
the impression this is being sent to the b-greek list, but my
reply to all does not indicate so. Is this going to the b-greek
list? I hadn't thought so.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:20 EDT