Resource Manager

(Page 17) Contradictory Arguments, Contra - Indicatory Evidence A study of key arguments in both papers helps to expose the flawed method of interpretation which has been used. Particularly illustrative are instances in which the authors have used arguments that contradict each other, and instances in which the Biblical evidence is contrary to their position. What Did Jesus Do? At least ten times in ‘All One - NT’ it is demonstrated that Jesus openly and deliberately overturned, broke, or otherwise directly contradicted the traditional views of the day, whether social or rabbinical: ‘he addressed his teaching and message to men and women alike’ (page 18) ‘Jesus considered that women should learn religious truth. He treated women with the honour and consideration which God had originally intended’ (page 18) ‘From the traditional point of view, Martha’s complaint was justified’, ‘This incident shows how Jesus thought otherwise, and was not prepared to allow the restrictive, traditional position to be enforced on Mary’ (page 18) ‘In John 4 not only did Jesus break accepted conventions by talking to a Samaritan but he discussed religious truth with a woman’ (page 19) ‘The manner of Jesus’ involvement with these followers shows a change in the understanding of the part women could play’ (page 21) ‘No other rabbi, as far as we know, travelled with a group of women followers’ (page 21) ‘Jesus also broke with convention in allowing women to touch him in a way which alarmed his more orthodox critics’ (page 21) ‘In his attitude to marriage and divorce Jesus likewise cut across the teaching of his contemporaries’ (page 22) ‘By this approach Jesus opened the way for men and women to mix together socially and ecclesially without the need for the artificial barriers erected by the rabbis’ (page 23) ‘In a very male-orientated society he is shown as revolutionary in his approach to women, as he was in his attitudes on many other matters’ (page 24) (Page 18) Here we see Jesus casting down tradition without fear or favour; throwing aside anything which contradicted his teaching with no concession to the indignation he knew he was provoking. No tradition of men was sacred to him, no social view immune to his criticism, no man made taboo respected by him. The significance of this is that for all Jesus’ total defiance of custom, social taboos and rabbinical tradition, the fact is that he appointed no female disciples nor gave any of his many women followers a position of teaching or leadership. We are told by ‘All One - NT’ that the reason for this is that Jesus chose to submit to social custom, tradition and rabbinical commandment, apparently out of concern for the opposition and conflict which would have been generated if he did anything different: ‘In view of the above it might be expected that Jesus would have appointed at least one woman among the twelve disciples. Considering, however, the common religious and social attitudes towards women, it would be surprising if he had done so’ (page 24) ‘Little success could have been expected if Jesus had attempted to appoint women followers in general in a preaching mission, for Jewish attitudes towards woman’s authority would have hindered his message. Although Jesus’ mission was soon to spread to the whole world, it started among the Jews, and was therefore restricted to what was possible within the Jewish environment’ (page 24) ‘It was only after the resurrection, when the message began to spread world-wide, that women, Gentiles and slaves were able to take a fuller part’ (page 24) Not only is there no evidence for this, but the evidence is completely to the contrary. As has already been described, Jesus spared no custom, taboo, or rabbinical tradition and yet attracted absolutely thousands of followers despite that in doing so he caused widespread controversy and aggravation at every level of Jewish society. Nor is there any evidence that the reason why he chose not to appoint any women as disciples was ‘the common religious and social attitudes towards women’. Previously in “All One – NT” we were told that Jesus ‘was not prepared to allow the restrictive, traditional position to be enforced on Mary’ (page 18), and yet now on page 24 we are told that Jesus was indeed ‘prepared to allow the restrictive, traditional position to be enforced on not only Mary but on all his faithful women followers’.

(Page 16) An unforced reading, with the text presented naturally instead of in an artificial manner and contrived order, together with basic principles of sound exposition, leads inevitably to a conclusion which is the complete opposite of the case being made in “All One”. In summary this review of arguments presented in the two papers has identified flaws in the authors’ method of interpretation: The papers claim that God’s true intention and will for the participation of women in the congregation followed a kind of ‘progressive revelation’ from the Old to the New Testament The papers do not, however, address the Biblical evidence in the order in which God presented it (in fact it is addressed in the reverse order); the papers work ‘backwards’ through the material, when the function of any ‘progressive revelation’ requires us to work ‘forwards’ The papers provide no evidence that key Old Testament teaching on the participation of women in the congregation had been completely overturned and replaced with new teaching (certainly there are no explicit statements to this effect in the New Testament, whereas there are explicit statements to this effect regarding circumcision and the Law of Moses) The papers present the Biblical material in an order to make a particular case, which suggests immediately that a certain selection bias is going to be present in the analysis of the material (and a closer examination proves that this is indeed what takes place) The papers contain a demonstrably flawed method of interpretation, which is not applied consistently

(Page 14) The following table lists verses described by Paul as based on divinely ordained eternal principles established by God both in Eden and in the Law, rather than the product of submission to societal norms or the product of a fallen world. Commandments Concerning Women Basis of the Commandment1 Corinthians 11: 3 But I want you to know that Christ is thehead of every man, and the man is thehead of a woman, and God is the head ofChrist.There is no reference here to societal norms or accepting the product of a fallen world. Paul starts his argument with the foundation of a divinely ordained hierarchy.1 Corinthians 11: 7 For a man should not have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man.Paul’s reason for men uncovering their heads is that he is the image and glory of God. Paul’s reason for women covering their heads is that she is the glory of the man.He does not say that men should uncover their heads because of societal norms or Gentile philosophy, nor does he make this the basis of his commandment that women should cover their heads.1 Corinthians 14: 34 the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak. Rather, let them be in submission, as in fact the law says.Paul’s argument for the silence of women in the ecclesia is based on the Law. He does not base it on societal norms or Gentile philosophy.1 Timothy 2: 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. She must remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first and then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, because she was fully deceived, fell into transgression.Paul’s argument for women not being permitted to teach or exercise authority over men is based on the order of creation in Genesis, and the events of the fall. The practice in Ephesus is not part of the apostle’s instruction. (Page 15) The following table lists occasions where Paul uses universal terms of the Scripturally ‘right way’ of doing things, not emergency measures applied merely to local situations Commandments Concerning WomenUniversal Application, Not Local Emergency 1 Corinthians 11: 16 If anyone intends to quarrel about this,we have no other practice, nor do the churches of God.Paul says this is the way things are done in all the ecclesias of God. There is no other practice. He does not say he is describing a local Corinthian custom.1 Corinthians 14: 37 If anyone considers himself a prophet or spiritual person, he should acknowledge that what I write to you is the Lord’s command.38 If someone does not recognise this, he is not recognisedPaul says that his instructions concerning the silence of women in the ecclesia are a commandment from the Lord, not a personal expedient he has devised for a local emergency.1 Corinthians 14: 34 the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak. Rather, let them be in submission, as in fact the law says.Paul’s argument for the silence of women in the ecclesia is based on the Law. He does not base it on societal norms or the product of a fallen world.1 Timothy 2: 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. She must remain quiet. 1 Timothy 3: 2 The overseer ... 8 Deacons likewise ... 14 I am writing these instructions to you 15 in case I am delayed, to let you know how people ought to conduct themselves in the household of God,Paul speaks in general terms of ‘a woman’ and ‘a man’. He does not say he is only speaking of the men and women in the ecclesia local to Timothy. In 3:2-13 Paul speaks concerning overseers and deacons generally. He does not say ‘The overseers in Ephesus should stop being drunkards’, or ‘The deacons in Ephesus should not be greedy for gain’. In verse 1 Paul says ‘If someone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a good work’, indicating that he is speaking of role of the overseer as an existing office to which some may aspire, not as an expedient he is suggesting as a means of overcoming a local problem. There is no language qualifying the application of these passages to a local area. In 3:14-15 he states explicitly that he is giving instructions concerning how brothers and sisters should behave. He is not simply addressing a local situation, he is telling Timothy how all brothers and sisters should behave.

(Page 13) Biblical Evidence and a Consistent Method of Interpretation When the Biblical evidence is approached in the order in which it appears in the Bible, the control texts are given priority, and explicit passages describing the Scripturally ‘right way’ of doing things are taken into account instead of being ignored, the consequences for the issue under discussion are found to be very different to the conclusions presented in ‘All One - NT’ and ‘All One - OT’: Leadership and teaching appointments in the Old Testament are almost always male, with female appointments exceptional and extremely rare and women being excluded from certain specific appointments (such as the priesthood and kingship) Christ and the apostles continue the practice of granting certain appointments to men exclusive of women, specifically where the leadership of the ecclesia is concerned (elders, PRESBUTEROI and overseers, EPISKOPOI), and such appointments are never presented as being the product of submission to societal norms Paul gives commandments regarding women speaking and teaching which are not given to men Commandments Concerning WomenCorresponding Commandments Concerning Men1 Corinthians 11: 3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.Paul nowhere says that the woman is the head of a man.1 Corinthians 11: 5 But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head, for it is one and the same thing as having a shaved head.Paul nowhere says that a man who prays or prophesies with his head uncovered dishonours his head. On the contrary, he says they should uncover their head (verse 7).1 Corinthians 11: 10 For this reason a woman should have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.Paul nowhere says that a man should have a symbol of authority on his head.1 Corinthians 14: 33 for God is not characterised by disorder but by peace. As in all the churches of the saints,34 the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak. Rather, let them be in submission, as in fact the law says.Paul nowhere says that the men should be silent in the ecclesias, nor that the men are not permitted to speak.(page 14) 1 Corinthians 14: 34 the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak. Rather, let them be in submission, as in fact the law says.Paul nowhere says that the men should be in submission, ‘as in fact the law says’.1 Corinthians 14: 35 If they want to find out about something, they should ask their husbands at home, because it is disgraceful for a woman to speak inchurch.Paul nowhere says that if the husbands want to find out something, they should ask their wives at home.1 Corinthians 14: 35 If they want to find out about something, they should ask their husbands at home, because it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church.Paul nowhere says that it is disgraceful for a man to speak in the ecclesia.1 Timothy 2: 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. She must remain quiet.Paul nowhere says that he does not allow a man to teach or exercise authority over a woman.

The Trinitarian case is described by Trinitarians themselves to be an inferred case derived syllogistically from statements which never explicitly define God as a trinity. The argument usually takes the form ‘These passages say Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, these passages say there is only one God, so therefore God is three persons’, rather than being made from explicit Biblical teaching concerning God. There are no passages in the Bible which teach that God is three persons, and there are many which teach that God is one person. The error into which the Trinitarian falls is failing to examine the explicit statements first and use them as the control texts (key texts which define the issue). Instead non-explicit statements are examined (Jesus performed miracles, Jesus is ‘worshipped’), and from them an inferred conclusion is drawn (Jesus is therefore God). Meanwhile the apostles’ own explicit teaching on the subject is completely ignored (repeated statements that Jesus is a man, Jesus is someone other than God, and that there is one God, the Father). The explicit statements concerning Christ are never addressed first by Trinitarians, but only after the case that Jesus is God has been inferred from non-explicit statements. When the explicit statements are finally approached, the argument is made that that they cannot possibly contradict the case that (page 9) Jesus is God, so they must be reconciled with it in a manner which does not contradict it. This is a flawed method of expounding Scripture. Similar examples could be provided of the same flawed method of interpretation being used to reach invalid conclusions regarding key Biblical issues (faith and works, baptism, Satan and demons, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, the atonement, etc). In every instance the methodological flaw is easily discerned by the presence of the following errors: An appeal to ‘progressive revelation’ is almost always made, despite the fact that there are no explicit statements in Scripture indicating that the case is a matter of ‘progressive revelation’ (unlike a subject such as circumcision or the Law of Moses). Progressive revelation assumes that later revelations replace earlier writings rather than building on them. The relevant Biblical material is presented in a contrived manner, with non-explicit, non-specific and sometimes completely irrelevant texts being collected and presented first, and the main case being derived from them by inference, whilst the control texts and other specific and explicit statements are left until later (or dismissed as irrelevant or uncertain). It is assumed that the inferred case is the truth, so any apparent contradictions between it and the control texts must necessarily be reconciled by interpreting the control texts in such a manner as harmonises them with the inferred case. The proper method of interpretation is completely opposite to this. Firstly the control texts should be identified and the overall case should be built on them. They should not be left until last, and they should certainly not be examined only after non-explicit passages texts and passages only slightly related to the issue have been examined. Secondly, non-explicit texts and passages, only slightly related to the issue should be examined once the control texts have been identified, and a case has been made from them, not the other way around. Thirdly, whilst inferred arguments may certainly be drawn from non-explicit texts, if an inferred argument derived from non-explicit texts is found to be in contradiction to explicit teaching on a subject (such as a control text), then the fault is with the inferred case not with the interpretation of the explicit teaching. Texts such as Galatians 3:28 (which does not address the issue of women holding positions of leadership and speaking in the ecclesia), are not control texts and cannot be used to ‘interpret’ texts such as 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 and 1 Timothy 2:12-14 (which do address specifically and explicitly the issue of women holding positions of leadership and speaking in the ecclesia). Where explicit descriptions of the Scripturally prescribed ‘right way’ of doing things agree with control texts (Jesus appointing only male disciples, and the (page 10) apostles appointing only male elders and overseers (PRESBUTEROI and EPISKOPOI), both of which agree with the transparent reading of texts such as 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 and 1 Timothy 2:12-14), but disagree with an inferred case, then the inferred case is at fault and attempts to ‘explain away’ the explicit descriptions of the Scripturally ‘right way’ of doing things will inevitably be logically flawed (typically employing the non sequitur or fallacy of the false cause). An accurate interpretation must be guided first by control texts and explicit descriptions of the Scripturally ‘right way’ of doing things. It is noteworthy that in the case under discussion in ‘All One - NT’ and ‘All One -OT’ there are no passages which can be presented which constitute explicit descriptions of sisters holding the leadership and teaching positions as the Scripturally ‘right way’ of doing things. This is a telling flaw in the case of which the authors appear aware, yet it is not addressed.

(Page 7) Errors of Logic When reading ‘All One - NT’ and ‘All One - OT’, it is immediately apparent that the Biblical evidence has been arranged and presented in a surprising manner. Although a key argument in the overall case is that God’s guidance regarding men and women followed a kind of ‘progressive revelation’ by which the previous guidance in the Old Testament is later developed, and in some cases superseded by the guidance in the New Testament, the two papers did not follow the evidence through in this order, despite arguing that this is how God has presented the evidence. Instead the New Testament is dealt with before the Old Testament. The clear aim of the two papers is to make the case regarding leadership and teaching by women from a handful of New Testament verses, and then dismiss the Old Testament evidence on the basis that it has been superseded. This is particularly unusual, since New Testament teaching regarding the issue draws explicitly on Old Testament teaching and principles and never presents a case for ‘progressive revelation’. Also the New Testament texts directly related to the issues under question are not addressed first, but much later. An attempt is made to beg the question, by making the case that since Jesus’ treatment of women was so radically equalising when compared with that of the society in which he lived, that any and all texts in the New Testament which appear to place limits on leadership or teaching by women cannot possibly be doing so. The first 34 pages of “All in One – NT” establish the fact that the position of women as they were treated by Christ and as they found themselves in the 1st century ecclesia was dramatically different to (and superior to), the position they held in traditional Jewish, Greek, and Roman societies. This is certainly not under dispute. However, even before the specific New Testament texts concerning the roles of sisters are addressed, it is implied that given this context, any interpretation which limits their participation in the leadership and speaking positions of the ecclesia, and any interpretation which identifies brothers as having been given appointments and positions exclusive of women must necessarily be wrong. This commits the error in logic where the conclusion does not logically follow the premise. From this basis the argument is also made that given the improved position of women within the Christian community, there must necessarily be no restrictions on their participation in positions of leadership and teaching, which would otherwise be contradictory to their new position of liberty. This reasoning commits the error, in which an argument establishing one conclusion is invoked as if it supported a related but different conclusion. These (page 8) two logical errors are repeated constantly throughout ‘All One - NT’, in various forms. An effort is made on the one hand to argue that they must be understood in the ‘context’ of the previously assumed conclusion (that there are no restrictions on the participation of sisters in positions of leadership and teaching), and on the other to argue that they must be understood in the ‘context’ of specific local conditions which did not apply universally. A careful examination shows that although ‘context’ is appealed to frequently, in actual fact a false context is assumed in each case. The fact is that even ‘All One - NT’ has to end up acknowledging that women were excluded by both Christ and the apostles from certain leadership positions, and certain restrictions were placed on women speaking which were not placed on men. Since this is in direct contradiction to the case the paper is attempting to make, highly strained efforts are made to explain this away. This is certainly the wrong approach. When a prior conclusion which has been inferred from non-explicit statements is found to be contradicted directly by explicit statements, then the correct response is to amend the prior conclusion. But the paper does not do this. Instead it takes on the very same form as the standard Trinitarian argument, that a case inferred from non-explicit statements should be used to interpret explicit statements relating to the same case.

Page 5 Introduction This booklet is a review of ‘All One – NT’ and ‘All One – OT’, two papers written by Brother Ian and Sister Averil McHaffie which present a case for the increased participation of sisters in the ecclesia. The preface from the first paper ‘All One – NT’ is reproduced here in order for the two papers to be introduced in the words of their authors. “From time to time those who favour a wider participation by sisters are criticised on the grounds that this is contrary to Scripture. Over the years various articles on the subject have been produced in the brotherhood, most arguing that sisters should remain silent in ecclesial meetings. Some of these have been sent to us with the request that we study them carefully. In addition we have examined the Bible in detail for ourselves, as well as commentaries, articles in religious journals, and books on the subject. It is sometimes stated that the desire for participation by sisters arises from modern feminist arguments. Feminist writers in the world accuse the Bible and particularly the apostle Paul of being anti-women. By contrast, writing from a Biblical position, not a feminist one, we consider that a proper analysis of the Bible and of the apostle Paul’s writings presents a very positive approach to the involvement of women. In these booklets we seek to examine the issues fairly, to be faithful to the Bible as the Word of God, and to explain what we consequently believe to be the correct Biblical application. The conclusion we reach is not based on feminist arguments but on direct Biblical exposition. We are indebted to a large number of people including those who have already commented on our exposition and offered helpful suggestions. We continue to welcome constructive criticism of anything we write, and will be happy to correct anything which can be demonstrated to be in error. It is hoped that the analysis produced here will encourage others to discuss the subject in depth, to seek to study anew what the Scriptures have to say, and to be faithful to the Bible by putting into practice the conclusions reached.” This review does not directly address the details of a number of the arguments made in ‘All One – NT’ and ‘All One – OT’. It does not, for example, enter into a discussion of the meaning of various words the meaning of which is contested (such as HSUCHIA, ‘silence’, EXOUSIA, ‘authority’, KEFALH, ‘head’, and AUTHENTEIN, ‘usurp authority’), nor does it address certain interpretations of (page 6) the historical background of the New Testament passages under question (such as the beliefs of the Gnostics). Such is not the purpose of the review. It simply examines the method of interpretation and process of reasoning by which the authors derive their conclusions. There are many other articles, books, and papers which address specifically the role of sisters from a traditional Christadelphian point of view. Readers will find the following helpful: • “Man and Woman: Their scriptural roles” by bro M Lewis (published by the Testimony magazine and also available through CSSS agents.) • “In the Image of God” – a series of articles by Michael Edgecombe, Rebecca Lines and Russell Taylor, currently being published in the Christadelphian Magazine. • “Male and Female Created He Them” a DVD of seminars held in Adelaide Australia February 2008 (Available through CSSS agents.) The appendices to this booklet contain other material which provides further challenges to those advocating changes to the role of sisters such as purported by the authors of “All One”.

(Page 3) Preface In recent times there has been much comment upon the roles of our sisters in Christadelphian ecclesias and in particular their position in respect to leadership and speaking. The matter was heightened when in late 2007, an internet edition of two volumes, entitled, “All One in Christ Jesus” – Volume I (New Testament) and Volume II (Old Testament) became widely available to many ecclesias. These works amounted to more than 200 pages and represented a very strong commitment to revise and overthrow the established understanding of the role of sisters in the ecclesia as it has been with us from our beginnings. Brother Jonathan Burke’s contribution to this ensuing debate has been to elucidate the rationale of exposition in “All One” (OT and NT). Many readers have felt a difficulty in this area. A feature of “All One” is to throw into conjecture the understanding of the specific Bible texts upon which all ecclesias had based their practice; then, having disturbed the foundation passages, to advocate a revolutionary position based upon incidental inferences in other passages of the Bible. It is a proverb that the exception proves the rule but it would seem here that the exception becomes the rule! In this booklet bro Burke seeks to analyse the rationality of this approach and it is felt that his work is a significant and timely contribution to the present discussion. There is a very large answer to the matter before us, which overwhelmingly presents the intention of God. In the Old Testament there were God, Moses, the High Priest, the King, the priests the Levites and the prophets: these shouldered the responsibility of judgment, leadership and teaching in the public religion of the nation. In the New Testament there are the Father, the Son, the Apostles, the elders and the deacons, upon whom rested the governance and teaching of the ecclesia. Without dispute these offices were held by males, in both dispensations. Is it wise for us to overturn such foundations? Surely it is only the philosophies of the modern world that have made us look to change that which our God has so obviously arranged. Division of thought among us is the only possibility if such views are advocated. In these evil latter days we could surely do without this further diversion. We have confidence that many will enjoy the reasoning of this treatise. Please note that it does not seek to answer or comment on the details of all the Bible passages related to the subject. That has been done in other works. In conclusion we should pay tribute to the wonderful contribution made by our sisters in our ecclesial and domestic lives. Their role is indispensable. All the (page 4) brethren know this; from childhood to aging years the care and wisdom of the mothers in Israel is an encouraging and essential role. Even the Lord knew that in his life; he was born of a dear and loving mother; she was still there at the cross and numbered among the earliest disciples after his resurrection. In the height of his agony he ensured her well-being in the hands of the apostle John. Any community that does not honour the beauty and faithfulness of motherhood is doomed to deteriorate. And there are many sisters in our meetings who, though not natural mothers in their own right, are yet mothers for many others, young and old. All of our ecclesias are tinctured with the willing service of our sisters in many aspects of our ecclesial life. No career can be higher than this. It’s the way God has made it. We revise it at our deepest peril. “If the foundations be destroyed what can the righteous do?” Psalm 11:3. BN LukeSecretary12 January 2009 “Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing (i.e. all that is motherhood, Gk TEKNOGONIA), if THEY continue in faith and love and holiness with sobriety” 1Timothy 2:15.

The Sister’s role – The Bible’s large picture __________________________________________________________________ An assessment of the method of argument in the “All one in Christ Jesus” papers Jonathan Burke Published by the Christadelphian Scripture Study Service. 85 Suffolk Rd Hawthorndene South Australia 5051 Australia Further copies are available from: csssadelaide@webshield.net.au or ph (08) 8278 6848 or (08) 8278 8256 __________________________________________________________________ The exception proves the rule __________________________________________________________________ Table of Contents Preface - 3 Introduction - 5 Errors of Logic - 7 An Inconsistent Method of Interpretation - 11 Biblical Evidence and a Consistent Method of Interpretation - 12 Contradictory Arguments, Contra Indicatory Evidence - 17 What Did Jesus Do? - 17 What Did The Apostles Do? - 19 Identifying Poor Reasoning - 20 Other errors in reasoning - ‘All One – NT’ - 24 Other errors in reasoning - ‘All One – OT’ - 31 A Study in Comparative Revisionism - 36 Comparative Revisionism – Identical Arguments - 38 False Doctrine (The trinity) – Identical Arguments - 40 Appendix A: Principles of Interpretation - 43 Appendix B – Comparison of “All One” with the “Principles of Interpretation” - 48 Appendix C Selecting the ‘Good Bits’ of the Bible - 57 List of Scriptural References in this booklet - 63 List of references in this booklet to the two “All One” papers - 66

'Following my identification of the pattern as from specific to general, Mounce concludes that "Paul does not want women to be in positions of authority in the church; teaching is one way in which authority is exercised in the church."‘48 Köstenbereger notes other egalitarians who agree with his syntactical analysis. Kevin Giles 'finds himself in essential agreement with the present syntactical analysis of 1 Tim 2:12‘,49 Craig Blomberg is quoted as saying 'Decisively supporting the more positive sense of assuming appropriate authority is Andreas Köstenberger‘s study‘,50 Esther Ng 'continues, "However, since a negative connotation of didaskein is unlikely in this verse (see below), the neutral meaning for authentein (to have authority over) seems to fit the oude construction better."‘,51 and Judith Hartenstein notes that 'Köstenberger shows through a syntactical study that 1 Tim 2:12 forbids women to teach and to have authority over men, not only to abuse authority‘.52 Thirty years have passed since the first egalitarian challenge to the meaning of authenteō. Throughout that time considerable lexical study of the word has been undertaken, and scholarly understanding of the word has been refined. However, the consensus over its lexical range has not been overturned. None of the standard lexicons have adopted the new meanings suggested by egalitarians. Meanings in the lexicons attributed to Paul‘s usage in 1 Timothy 2:12 include either a negative sense of domineering53 or a more positive sense of exercising authority‘, 54 though the most recent studies incorporating textual evidence not previously available to some of these lexicons (such as the studies of Baldwin and Wolter), substantiate the more positive sense. Significantly, Kostenberger‘s syntactical study has received wide acceptance from both complementarian and egalitarian scholars, substantiating the case for a positive sense of authenteō in 1 Timothy 2:12, whilst the egalitarian interpretation of authenteō as having a negative sense such as 'domineer‘, has been rejected by the majority of egalitarian and complementarian scholars. Standard modern Bible translations typically continue to render the word in its positive sense of having or exercising authority, which remains the most attested meaning in context. ------- 48 Ibid, page 48 49 Ibid, pages 48-49 50 Ibid, page 49 51 Ibid, page 49 52 Ibid, page 49 53 ANLEX, Louw/Nida, Zodhiates 54 BDAG, EDNT, LSJ The meaning of authenteo_E-Journal1.pdf

The lexical data was later supplemented by a large scale contextual study of the passage by Andreas Köstenbereger in 1995,41 which argued that the syntactical construction ouk didaskein oude authentein ('not teach nor have/exercise authority‘), requires that both didaskein and authentein have a positive sense. Köstenbereger examined fifty two examples of the same ouk... oude ('not... nor‘), construction in the New Testament, as well as forty eight extra-biblical examples covering the third century BC to the third century AD.42 His conclusion was that the syntactical construction has two patterns. Either both activities referred to must be positive (the first pattern), or both activities must be negative (the second pattern): 'The forty-eight syntactical parallels to 1 Tim 2:12 in extrabiblical literature (as well as the one exact parallel in the NT, Acts 21:21) identified in this study all feature the construction "negated fi-nite verb + infinitive + oude + infinitive" and in every instance yield the pattern positive/positive or negative/negative. This yields the conclusion that 1 Tim 2:12 is to be rendered either: "I do not permit a woman to teach [error] or to usurp a man‘s authority" or: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have (or exercise) authority over a man," the latter being preferred owing to the positive connotation of didaskein elsewhere in the Pastorals.'43 'Some examples of pattern 1 are Matthew 6:28 (they neither labor nor spin); Matthew 13:13 (they neither hear nor understand, but both hearing and understanding are viewed as desirable activities); Luke 12:24 (they neither sow nor harvest); or Acts 4:18 (neither speak nor teach). These activities are all viewed positively in their contexts. Examples of pattern 2, where both activities are viewed negatively, are Matthew 6:20 (neither break in nor steal); John 14:27 (neither be troubled nor afraid); Philippians 2:16 (neither run in vain nor labor in vein), and Hebrews 13:5 (neither leave nor forsake).44 Köstenbereger concluded that teaching has a positive meaning in such passages as 1 Timothy 4:11; 6:2, and 2 Timothy 2:2.45 The force of the ouk... oude construction would therefore mean that authenteo likewise has a positive meaning, and does not refer to domineering but the positive exercise of authority. Reception of Köstenbereger‘s study by the scholarly community was overwhelmingly positive. The majority of both complementarian and egalitarian scholars agreed, many considering that the contextual meaning of authenteo in 1 Timothy 2:12 has been conclusively decided by Köstenbereger. The following endorsements of Köstenbereger‘s conclusion are taken from prominent egalitarian scholars: "Peter O‘Brien, in a review published in Australia, concurred with the findings of this study,18 as did Helge Stadelmann in an extensive review that appeared in the German Jahrbuch für evangelikale Theologie.19 Both reviewers accepted the results of the present study as valid.‘46 'Another egalitarian, Craig Keener, in a review that appeared in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, says that while (in his view) the principle is not clear in all instances cited in the present study, "the pattern seems to hold in general, and this is what matters most." Keener concurs that the contention of the present essay is "probably correct that ‘have authority’ should be read as coordinate with ‘teach’ rather than as subordinate ('teach in a domineering way‘)."'47 ------- 41 Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, (1995) 42 Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, page 315 (2004) 43 Köstenberger, “Teaching and Usurping Authority: I Timothy 2:11-15” (Ch 12) by Linda L. Belleville, Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (10.1.44-45), 1995 44 Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, page 315 (2004) 45 Ibid, page 315 46 Köstenberger, “Teaching and Usurping Authority: I Timothy 2:11-15” (Ch 12) by Linda L. Belleville, Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (10.1.47), 1995 47 Ibid, page 47

Key Studies of authenteō Author Conclusion Andrew Perriman (1993) 'While it would be hazardous to speculate on the exact course of the term‘s semantic evolution, this sense of 'acting authoritatively‘ must at least be considered as an available and significant nuance alongside those of 'perpetrating a crime‘ and 'having authority‘. In fact, to introduce the idea of 'authority‘ into the definition at all may be misleading if it is taken to mean a derived or ordained authority: it is 'authorship‘, not 'authority‘, that is at the heart of the meaning of αὐθενтέω.‘34 H Scott Baldwin (1995)35 'H. Scott Baldwin then presents a study of the word αὐθενтέω, arguing that it involves the concept of authority and that in 1 Timothy 2:12 it may mean "control," "dominate," "assume authority over," or perhaps "flout the authority of." He rules out several other possibilities after an exhaustive, computer-assisted study of ancient sources, most of which are reproduced with context and translation in an appendix. It is difficult to imagine a more thorough study.'36 Albert Wolters (2000) 'With respect to the meaning of αυθεντεω in 1 Tim. 2.12, my investigation leads to two further conclusions. First, the verb αυθεντεω should not be interpreted in the light of αυθεντης ‘murderer’, or the muddled definitions of it given in the Atticistic lexica. Instead, it should be understood, like all the other Hellenistic derivatives of αυθεντης, in the light of the meaning which that word had in the living Greek of the day, namely 'master‘. Secondly, there seems to be no basis for the claim that αυθεντεω in 1 Tim. 2.12 has a pejorative connotation, as in ‘usurp authority’ or ‘domineer’. Although it is possible to identify isolated cases of a pejorative use for both αυθεντεω and αυθεντια, these are not found before the fourth century AD.135 Overwhelmingly, the authority to which αυθεντης 'master‘ and all its derivatives refer is a positive or neutral concept.‘37 Attention has been particularly focused on two early papyri using the word authenteō:38 'I [Trypho] considered that Antilochos having thrown out the goods and subcontracted to his advantage counting with that termination of purchase and this not having altered the dispute in any particular. So exercising my authority on him (the man who hired the boat) that he pay fully to Calatytis the boatman to his fare in the hour, to which he [Antilochos?] yielded.‘39 'Of Protogenos and Isidoros being bookkeepers of Leonides and being in charge of the memorandum and written-testimony of the clerk Leonides. Through the not-yet transmitted-items books done is at the risk of those bookkeepers having authority and he was in charge of his own portion, through-he himself Leonides being-present of one of those having authority bookkeepers.‘40 These two papyri are significant not only because they are proximate to Paul‘s own usage of authenteō, but because they both use authenteō with a sense which is in agreement with the recent studies by Baldwin and Wolters. The Tebtunis papyrus in particular indicates a usage which cannot mean 'usurp authority‘ or 'domineer‘, nor can it have any negative connotation (bookkeepers are supposed to have authority over their accounts, and it makes no sense to speak of them 'dominating‘ accounting records). ------- 34 Perriman, What Eve did, What Women shouldn’t do, Tyndale Bulletin (44.1.137), 1993 35 Köstenberger, Schreiner, and Baldwin, eds., Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, (1995) 36 Pyne, Review of Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9–15, Bibliotheca Sacra (154.122), 1997 37 Wolters, A Semantic Study of αυθεντης and its Derivatives, Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (11.1.54), 2006; originally published in Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism (1.145-175), 2000 38 Translation by brother Steven Cox 39 Papyrus BGU 1208 (c.27 BC) 40 Papyrus Tebtunis 15 (c.100AD)

It will be noted that 30 years of dispute over the meaning of authenteō has had little to no effect on the scholarly consensus. Within the lexical community there is no controversy over the lexical range of this word, and none of the standard lexicons have accepted the novel definitions suggested by egalitarians such as Catherine Kroeger. Nevertheless, the debate over its precise meaning in 1 Timothy 2:12 has resulted in a refinement of scholarly understanding of the word and its usage in Greek literature. The following table lists the key studies of authenteō which have been undertaken over the last 30 years. Such studies typically involve comprehensive searches of the largest available databases of Greek literature, Thesaurus Linguae Graecae,28 and the Duke Databank of Documentary Papyri.29 These databases enable researchers to study the word in context, as it is used in a wide range of documents over a long period of time. Key Studies of authenteō Author Conclusion Catherine Kroeger (1979) 'In 1979 Catherine Kroeger, a classics student at the University of Minnesota, published an article in which she argued that authenteō is an erotic term best translated "to engage in fertility practices," the implication being that in 1 Timothy 2 Paul is countering specific heretical aberrations in ancient Ephesus and hence not laying down a principle applicable for all time.'30 George Knight III (1984) 'Knight, who has made a thorough study of all the occurrences of αὐθεντέω in extant Greek literature, confirms the rendering "have authority" as the natural meaning. George W. Knight III, "ἈΥΘΕΝΤΕΩ in Reference to Women in 1 Timothy 2:12," New Testament Studies 30 (January 1984): 143-57.'31 Leland Wilshire (1988) 'A recent study by Leland Wilshire seeks to modify some of Knight’s conclusions based on the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae computer project at the University of California at Irvine. The research, however, in no way contradicts the basic theme of Knight’s work that αὐθεντέω means "exercise authority," not "domineer" in 2 Timothy 2:12. See especially the last paragraph of Wilshire‘s article on page 131, the last full paragraph on page 130, and Wilshire‘s recognition throughout most of the article of the importance of the papyri, which seems to butress Knight’s position, and the basic consistency of the early church fathers on understanding αὐθενηἐω as "exercise authority." (Leland Edward Wilshire, "The TLG Computer and Further Reference to ΑΥΘΕΝΤΕΩ in 1 Timothy 2:12," New Testament Studies 34 [1988]: 120-34).‘ 32 Catherine & Richard Kroeger (1992) 'Recently Kroeger and Kroeger have done significant research into the nature and background of ancient Ephesus and have suggested an alternative interpretation to 1 Tim 2:11-15. While they have provided significant background data, their suggestion that the phrase "to have authority" (authentein, authentein) should be rendered "to represent herself as originator of man" is, to say the least, far-fetched and has gained little support.'33 ------- 28 A very large database of Greek literature from approximately 850 BC to 1500 AD; it is online at http://www.tlg.uci.edu/ (though public access is granted only to a small selection of the texts) 29 A database of around 500 Greek papyri; it is online at http://papyri.info/ 30 Lutheran Church Missouri Synod Commission on Theology and Church Relations, AUTHENTEIN: A Summary, pages 3-4 (2005) 31 House, A Biblical View of Women in the Ministry Part 3: The Speaking of Women and the Prohibition of the Law, Bibliotheca Sacra (145.315), 1988 32 Ibid, page 315 33 Moss, 'NIV Commentary: 1, 2 Timothy & Titus', page 60 (1995); Moss is a complementarian, but his conclusion is well supported by egalitarians who have rejected the Kroeger‘s definition, as well as receiving support from the standard lexicon definitions

Those of the preceding lexicons which include authenteō are broadly in agreement with regard to its historical lexical range. Lexicon Definitions of authentō Lexicon Definition1493 ANLEX 'αὐθενтέω strictly, of one who acts on his own authority; hence have control over, domineer, lord it over (1T 2.12).'17 BDAG 'αὐθενтέω (s. αὐθένтης; Philod., Rhet. II p. 133, 14 Sudh.; Jo. Lydus, Mag. 3, 42; Moeris p. 54; cp. Phryn. 120 Lob.; Hesychius; Thom. Mag. p. 18, 8; schol. in Aeschyl., Eum. 42; BGU 1208, 38 [27 b.c.]; s. Lampe s.v.) to assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, dictate to w. gen. of pers. (Ptolem., Apotel. 3, 14, 10 Boll-B.; Cat. Cod. Astr. VIII/1 p. 177, 7; B-D-F §177) ἀνδρός, w. διδάσκειν, 1 Ti 2:12 (practically = ‘tell a man what to do’ [Jerusalem Bible]; Mich. Glykas [XII a.d.] 270, 10 αἱ γυσναῖκες αὐθενтοῦδι т. ἀνδρῶν. According to Diod S 1, 27, 2 there was a well-documented law in Egypt: κυριεύειν тὴν γυναῖκα тἀνδρός, cp. Soph., OC 337–41; GKnight III, NTS 30, ‘84, 143–57; LWilshire, ibid. 34, ‘88, 120–34).—DELG s.v. αὐθένтης. M-M.'18 EDNT 'αὐθενтέω authenteō rule (vb.)* 1 Tim 2:12: women should not rule over men (gen.). cf. G. W. Knight, ―Αὐθενтέω in Reference to Women in 1 Tim. 2,12," NTS 30 (1984) 143-57.'19 GELS20 'αὐθένтης,-ου+ N1M 0-0-0-0-1=1 Wis 12,6 Murderer Cf. LARCHER 1985, 710'21 Louw/Nida '37.21 αὐθενтέω: to control in a domineering manner—'to control, to domineer.' γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐттιтρέттω … αὐθενтεῖν ἀνδρός 'I do not allow women … to dominate men' 1 Tm 2.12. 'To control in a domineering manner' is often expressed idiomatically, for example, 'to shout orders at,' 'to act like a chief toward,' or 'to bark at.'22 LSJ923 'authent-eô , A. to have full power or authority over, tinos I Ep.Ti.2.12; pros tina BGU1208.37 (i B. C.): c. inf., Lyd.Mag.3.42. 2. commit a murder, Sch.A.Eu.42.'24 Newman'αὐθεντέω domineer, have authority over.‘25Swanson '883 αὐθενтέω (authenteō): vb.; ≡ Str 831—LN 37.21 control, have authority over (1Ti 2:12+).'26 Zodhiates '831. αὐθενтέω authentéō; contracted authentό; fut. authentésō, from authéntēs (n.f.), murderer, absolute master, which is from autós (846), himself, and éntea (n.f.) arms, armor. A self–appointed killer with one’s own hand, one acting by his own authority or power. Governing a gen., to use or exercise authority or power over as an autocrat, to domineer (1 Tim. 2:12). See anér (435, XI, C), husband. Syn.: exousiázō (1850), to exercise the right and power to rule; katexousiázō (2715), to exercise full authority over; kurieúō (2961), to lord it over, rule over as lord, and the more intens. katakurieúō (2634), to lord it over completely; basileúō (936), to rule, reign; hēgemoneúō (2230), to act as the ruler, to govern. Ant.: hupēretéō (5256), to serve, be a subordinate; douleúō (1398), to be a slave to, to serve; diakonéō (1247), to be an attendant, to minister.'27 ------- 17 Friberg, Friberg, & Miller 'Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament‘, volume 4, page 81 (2000) 18 Arndt, Danker, & Bauer, 'A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature‘, page 150 (3rd ed., 2000) 19 Balz & Schneider, 'Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament. Translation of: Exegetisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testamen‘, volume 1, page 178 (1990-c1993) 20 Readers will note that the definition here is very short, and contains only one sense, as this word is only used once in the LXX and only with this meaning; this usage was obsolete by the 1st century AD 21 Lust, Eynikel, & Hauspie, 'A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (electronic rev. ed. 2003) 22 Louw & Nida, 'Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains‘, volume 1, page 473 (2nd ed. 1989) 23 The reference 'BGU1208.37 (i B. C.)‘ cited as an example of the use of the word with the meaning 'to have full power or authority over' (which is cited as the meaning of the word in 1 Timothy 2:12), refers to line 37 of papyrus 1208 in volume 4 of the Aegyptische Urkunden aus den Königlichen (later Staatlichen) Museen zu Berlin, Griechische Urkunden (abbreviated as BGU), a collection of paypri; the papyrus is dated to 27/26BC, from Herakleopolite in Egypt, and the relevant line reads in Greek 'kai emou authentêkotos pros auton peripoiêsai Kalatutei‘, speaking of a man who 'exercised authority‘ over another to have him pay a ferryman 24 Liddell, Scott, & Jones, 'A Greek-English Lexicon‘ (electronic ed., 9th ed. with supplement, 2007) 25 Newman, 'Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament‘, page 28 (1993) 26 Swanson, 'Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament)‘, DBLG 883 (2nd ed. 2001) 27 Zodhiates, 'The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament‘, G831 (electronic ed., 2000)

In fact, the meaning of the word was not seriously disputed until 1979, when Catherine Kroeger (then a university classics student), asserted the meaning 'to engage in fertility practices'.11 Although the claim was rejected by the scholarly consensus, debate over the meaning of the word had been opened, and Christians affirming an egalitarian view of the role of women in the church continued to contest the meaning of the word authenteō.12 Reference to a concordance, Bible dictionary, or lexicon is a standard method of determining word meaning. On this subject readers should note the importance of the following modern professional lexicons, as lexical tools used commonly in our community (such as Thayer‘s, Strong‘s, Young‘s, and Vine‘s), are little respected by modern scholarship, and are considered inadequate for serious study and commentary on contested word meanings. Modern Professional Lexicons Abbreviation Lexicon ANLEX13 Friberg, Friberg, & Miller. (2000). Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Baker Books. BDAG14 Arndt, Danker, & Bauer. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. (3rd ed.). University of Chicago Press. EDNT Balz & Schneider. (1990-c1993). Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament. Translation of: Exegetisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testamen. T&T Clark. GES Lust, Eynikel, & Hauspie. (2003). A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. (electronic rev. ed.). Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft (German Bible Society). Lampe Lampe Lampe, Geoffrey. (1961-1968). A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Clarendon Press. Louw/Nida Louw & Nida. (1989). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains. (2nd ed.). United Bible Societies. LSJ915 Liddell, Scott, & Jones. (2007). A Greek-English Lexicon. (electronic ed., 9th rev. ed. with supplement.) Newman Newman. (1993). Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament. Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft (German Bible Society), United Bible Societies. Spicq Spicq. (1994). Ernst. (trans.). (ed.). Theological Lexicon of the New Testament. Hendrickson. Swanson Swanson. (2001). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament. (2nd ed.). Logos Research Systems, Inc. TDNT Kittel, Bromiley, & Friedrich. (1964-c1976). Theological dictionary of the New Testament. (electronic ed.). Wm. B. Eedrmans. Zodhiates Zodhiates. (2000). The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament. (electronic ed.). AMG Publishers. Differing in scope, depth, and presentation, these are the standard professional Greek lexicons recognized and used in the scholarly literature and represent the lexical scholarly consensus.16 ------- 11 Lutheran Church Missouri Synod Commission on Theology and Church Relations, AUTHENTEIN: A Summary, pages 3-4 (2005) 12 During the past two decades at least 15 studies examining in some detail the lexical data have appeared, mainly among evangelical scholars holding opposing positions on the role of women in the church (commonly referred to as a debate of complementarians vs egalitarians)‘, Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, Commission on Theology and Church Relations AUTHENTEIN: A Summary, page 3 (2005) 13 This lexicon only indexes words appearing in the LXX 14 This lexicon focuses specifically on Biblical usage of Greek words, but includes extensive references to extra-Biblical usage 15 This lexicon mainly indexes words appearing in the non-Biblical Greek literature, between approximately 600 BC and 600 AD 16 The scholarly consensus is the general collective agreement of professionals in a given field, but it is not synonymous with 'unanimity'; it refers to a view which has consistently been examined and is agreed on as accurate by the overwhelming majority of qualified professionals in the field (views outside the scholarly consensus are always minority views, and are almost invariably dismissed by professionals as suspect at best, unworthy of notice at worst)

The Meaning of Authenteō Considerable debate has raged over the last twenty years over the meaning of a single Greek word in Paul‘s first epistle to Timothy, and its application to the role of women in the church. 1 Timothy 2: 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. She must remain quiet.1 The Greek word in question, here translated 'exercise authority', is authenteō (used by Paul in the present infinitive active form authentein). The precise meaning of this word in this particular context is of importance in understanding exactly what Paul was forbidding women to do. The difficulty involved in understanding the word is complicated by two factors. The first is that the lexical history of this word is long and complex. Walter Liefeld (an egalitarian writer), describes briefly the word‘s problematically broad semantic range: A perplexing issue for all is the meaning of authentein. Over the course of its history this verb and its associated noun have had a wide semantic range, including some bizarre meanings, such as committing suicide, murdering one‘s parents, and being sexually aggressive. Some studies have been marred by a selective and improper use of the evidence.2The issue is compounded by the fact that this word is found only once in the New Testament, and is not common in immediately proximate Greek literature. Nevertheless, English Bible translations over the years have been generally in agreement when rendering the word. English Bible Translations of authentō Version Translation KJV 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.3 RSV 12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.4 GNB 12 I do not allow them to teach or to have authority over men; they must keep quiet.5 NIV 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.6 CEV 12 They should be silent and not be allowed to teach or to tell men what to do.7 NASB 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.8 NLT 12 I do not let women teach men or have authority over them. Let them listen quietly.9 NET 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. She must remain quiet.10 Given the substantial agreement among these representative translations (from archaic to modern, formal equivalence to paraphrase), the average Bible student would wonder why such a disagreement exists over this word within the scholarly world. ------- 1 Biblical Studies Press. (2005; 2005). The NET Bible First Edition (Noteless); (1 Ti 2:11-12) 2 Walter Liefeld, Women And The Nature Of Ministry, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (30:51), 1987. The Evangelical Theological Society. 3 The Holy Bible : King James Version. (electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version.; Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995), 1 Ti 2:12. 4 The Revised Standard Version (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1971), 1 Ti 2:12. 5 The Holy Bible : The Good News Translation (2nd ed.; New York: American Bible Society, 1992), 1 Ti 2:12. 6 The Holy Bible : New International Version (electronic ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984), 1 Ti 2:11-12. 7 The Contemporary English Version : With Apocrypha. (electronic ed.; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1995), 1 Ti 2:12. 8 New American Standard Bible : 1995 Update (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), 1 Ti 2:12. 9 Holy Bible : New Living Translation. ("Text edition"--Spine.;, 2nd ed.; Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, 2004), 1 Ti 2:12.; the alternative rendering usurp authority‘ is provided in a footnote 10 Biblical Studies Press. (2005; 2005). The NET Bible First Edition (Noteless); (1 Ti 2:11-12)

Witherington‟s own words are pertinent here: 'That the so-called Western text has certain definite theological tendencies not found in various other manuscript traditions is so well-known that it hardly needs rehearsing.'26 The evidence for deliberate theological revision of the text within the Western text type is indeed well recognized by the scholarly consensus. The evidence is so apparent and so abundant, that the case is undisputed. This is completely different to the suggestion that the Western text type also contains evidence of deliberate 'anti-feminist' revision of the text, as the evidence for the latter is not in any way equivalent to the evidence for the former.27 ------- 26 Witherington, 'The Anti-Feminist Tendencies of the 'Western' Text in Acts', Journal of Biblical Literature (103.1.82), (March 1984) 27 Together with brother Mark Olsen, the author has co-written a 40 page paper addressing commonly asked questions concerning New Testament textual criticism (especially with regard to the issue of identifying the most reliable manuscripts), which the interested reader may request by email (dixit-dominus (at) thechristadelphians.org) Misogynist alterations of Scripture_E-Journal1.pdf

Assessment of alteration, by Witherington and the UBS committee Witherington UBS Committee 'Consider the Western text of Matt 5:32b. D, ita, b, d, k, and other manuscripts omit καὶ through μοιχᾶται in 5:32b. Bruce Metzger suggests that some scribes felt that if the divorced woman is made an adulteress by illegal divorce, then anyone marrying such a woman also commits adultery. Alternatively, this omission may reflect the tendency of the Western text to highlight and protect male privilege, while also relegating women to a place in the background. In this case, the omission here is of material that reflects badly on men.'21 'The reading of B (ὁ … γαμήσας) seems to have been substituted for the reading of the other uncials (ὃς ἐὰν … γαμήσῃ) in order to make the construction parallel to the preceding participial clause (ὁ ἀττολύων). The omission of the words καὶ … μοιχᾶται (D ita, b, d, k Greek and Latin mssacc. to Augustine) may be due to pedantic scribes who regarded them as superfluous, reasoning that if “everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress [when she remarries],” then it would go without saying that “whoever marries a divorced woman [also] commits adultery.”'22 Author’s comment: Once again Metzger makes the point that the scribal tendency to smooth the text (in this case to create a neat parallel), and to remove material perceived as redundant, is an adequate cause for the alteration, so there is no necessity to attribute to this alteration an 'anti-feminist' motivation. Witherington UBS Committee 'This anti-feminist tendency appears also to be in evidence at Col 4:15. While B, 6, 424c, 1739, 1881, et al. have αὐτῆς indicating a church in the house of Nympha, D, G pm, et al. have αὐτοῦ indicating a church in the house of Nymphas.'23 'Νυμφαν can be accented Νύμφαν, from the feminine nominative Νύμφα (“Nympha”), or Νυμφᾶν, from the masculine nominative Νυμφᾶς (“Nymphas”). The uncertainty of the gender of the name led to variation in the following possessive pronoun between αὐτῆς and αὐτοῦ. On the basis chiefly of the weight of B 6 424c 1739 1877 1881 syrh, pal ms copsa Origen, the Committee preferred Νύμφαν … αὐτῆς. The reading with αὐτῶν arose when copyists included ἀδελφούς in the reference.'24 Author’s comment: Metzger notes that the gender of the name was uncertain to start with, giving rise to variations in the text. The difference between the female name Nympha and the male name Nymphas was a matter of accenting the Greek letters one way or another, but the earliest manuscripts did not use any accents at all, meaning that later scribes had to make interpretative decisions at times. There is therefore no need to attribute to this alteration an „anti-feminist‟ motivation, even given the fact that the ambiguity was settled in favour of the male name Nymphas. When all the facts are presented, the argument for significant alterations of the Greek text by 'anti-feminist' scribes becomes significantly diminished. Instead of alterations being observed from the second century onwards, we find instead alterations only from the 4th century onwards, some 200 years later. Instead of evidence of systematic scribal bias in collaboration with emerging 'anti-feminist' attitudes, we find a tiny handful of alterations in a mere handful of manuscripts, none of which contains all of the alterations, and most of which contain only one or two. Instead of clear evidence of 'anti-feminist' motivation in the case of each alteration, we find clear evidence that normal Western scribal influences (a tendency to paraphrase, eliminating perceived irregularities in the text, smoothing the grammar, creating parallels, and harmonizing with other passages), 25 were in most cases a more likely cause. ------- 21 Witherington, 'The Anti-Feminist Tendencies of the 'Western' Text in Acts', Journal of Biblical Literature (103.1.84), (March 1984) 22 Metzger, 'A Textual Commentary On the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (Fourth Revised Edition)', page 11 (2nd edition 1994) 23 Witherington, 'The Anti-Feminist Tendencies of the 'Western' Text in Acts', Journal of Biblical Literature (103.1.84), (March 1984) 24 Metzger, 'A Textual Commentary On the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (Fourth Revised Edition)', page 407 (2nd edition 1994) 25 'The chief characteristic of Western readings is fondness for paraphrase. Words, clauses, and even whole sentences are freely changed, omitted, or inserted. Sometimes the motive appears to have been harmonization, while at other times it was the enrichment of the narrative by the inclusion of traditional or apocryphal material. Some readings involve quite trivial alterations for which no special reason can be assigned', Metzger, 'A Textual Commentary On the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (Fourth Revised Edition)', page xx (2nd edition 1994)

Assessment of alteration, by Witherington and the UBS committee Witherington UBS Committee 'In the Western text of chap. 18, there is a definite effort to reduce the prominence of Priscilla, probably because she appears to the editors to be assuming her husband's first place and also because she was a well-known teacher of a male Christian leader, Apollos.'17 'Apparently the Western reviser (D itgig syr copsa arm al) desired to reduce the prominence of Priscilla, for he either mentions Aquila first (as here) or inserts the name of Aquila without including Priscilla (as in verses 3, 18, and 21). The unusual order, the wife before the husband, must be accepted as original, for there was always a tendency among scribes to change the unusual to the usual. In the case of Priscilla and Aquila, however, it was customary in the early church to refer to her before her husband (cf. Ro 16.3; 2 Tm 4.19).10 On an anti-feminist tendency, see the comment on 17.12 above.'18 Author’s comment: Although it is possible to read the tendency in some of the Western witnesses to place Aquila first or insert Aqulia's name without including Priscilla as a desire to reduce the prominence of Priscilla, there is also the fact (as Metzger observes), that the general tendency of the Western text type scribes was to 'change the unusual to the usual'. Since in their day (centuries later), it seemed to them unusual that Priscilla would be mentioned first, they altered the text to conform to what they considered to be more likely to be original. The fact that they did this with many other passages indicates that there is no necessity to attribute to this alteration an 'anti-feminist' motivation, even though in this case it is entirely likely. Witherington UBS Committee 'W. M. Ramsay has observed rightly that the omission in Codex Bezae of καὶ γυνὴ ὀνόματι Δάμαρις at 17:34 is in all likelihood more evidence of an anti-feminist tendency in this textual tradition.'19 'The omission in codex Bezae of the words καὶ γυνὴ ὀνόματι Δάμαρις has been taken by some (e. g. Wm. M. Ramsay) to be another indication of the anti-feminist attitude of the scribe (see the comment on ver. 12 above).9 It is, however, more likely, as A. C. Clark suggests,10 that a line in an ancestor of codex Bezae had been accidentally omitted, so that what remains in D is ἐν οἷς καὶ Διονύσιός τις Ἀρεοτταγείτης εὐσχήμων καὶ ἕτεροι σὺν αὐτοῖς (“among whom also was a certain Dionysius, an Areopagite of high standing, and others with them”). In either case, however, the concluding phrase σὺν αὐτοῖς suggests that Luke originally specified more than one person (Dionysius) as among Paul‟s converts. It is curious that codex Bezae reads εὐσήχμωνto indicate the high standing of Dionysius, though being an Areopagite would naturally imply his honorable estate without adding the adjective.11 Its presence, according to an ingenious explanation proposed by J. Armitage Robinson,12 is to be accounted for as follows. According to Robinson it is significant that in Acts the word εὐσήχμων is used only of women (13.50; 17.12). Under the influence of its usage earlier in Acts some gallant scribe added the word after Δάμαρις .13 Later, after the church had taken her stand against the pagan or heretical claims advanced in behalf of her ambitious women, a more orthodox if less chivalrous transcriber deleted the name of Damaris altogether, but left the adjective standing, a witness at once against his own deed and the deed of the scribe who had gone before him.'20 Author’s comment: There is a case to be made here that the alteration is a deliberate attempt to diminish the importance of the women in the text. However, as Metzger says, it is more likely to have been due to an accidental omission, so there is no necessity to attribute to this alteration an 'anti-feminist' motivation. ------- 17 Witherington, 'The Anti-Feminist Tendencies of the 'Western' Text in Acts', Journal of Biblical Literature (103.1.82), (March 1984) 18 Metzger, 'A Textual Commentary On the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (Fourth Revised Edition)', page 413 (2nd edition 1994) 19 Witherington, 'The Anti-Feminist Tendencies of the 'Western' Text in Acts', Journal of Biblical Literature (103.1.84), (March 1984) 20 Metzger, 'A Textual Commentary On the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (Fourth Revised Edition)', page 407 (2nd edition 1994)

Assessment of alteration, by Witherington and the UBS committee Witherington USB Committee 'We find the same phenomenon at 17:12. D* alters the text so that both the men and women are prominent (καὶ τῶν Ἑλλήνων καὶ τῶν εὐσχημόνων ἄνδρες καὶ γυναῖκες) and thus the women's prominence is lessened somewhat.'13 'After beginning the verse with a rather banal observation, τινὲς μὲν οὖν αὐτῶν ἐττίστευσαν, τίνες δὲ ἡττίστησαν (“Some of them, therefore, believed, but some did not believe,” cf. 28.24), codex Bezae smooths the grammar of the generally received text and reads καὶ τῶν Ἑλλήνων καὶ τῶν εὐσχημόνων ἄνδρες καὶ γυναῖκες ἰκανοὶ ἐττίστευσαν (“and many of the Greeks and men and women of high standing believed”). Besides being better Greek the readjusted order has the effect of lessening any importance given to women (cf. comments on ver. 34 and on 18.26). According to Menoud, “the antifeminist tendency of the writer of D seems to be more or less general in the last decades of the first century. In any case it is not one of the major trends in the thought of the Western recension.”'14 Comment: Metzger points out that the reason for Codex Bezae (D), altering the text was to smooth the grammar and render it into better Greek. Such alterations are a common feature of the Western text type, especially Codex Bezae, so this textual alteration is simply doing what the scribes of the Western text type typically did in any case. There is therefore no need to attribute to this alteration an 'anti-feminist' motivation. Witherington USB Committee 'Of a similar nature is the addition of καὶ τέκνοις at 1:14 by Codex Bezae so that women are no longer an independent group but are simply the wives of the apostles.'15 'Instead of the colorless σὺν γυναιξίν codex Bezae reads σὺν ταῖς γυναιξὶν καὶ τέκνοις (“with their wives and children”); compare 21.5, where the Tyrian Christians accompany Paul to his ship σὺν γυναιξίν καὶ τέκνοις, 16 and the Dura fragment of Tatian‟s Diatessaron, which apparently17 refers to the wives of those who accompanied Jesus from Galilee.'16 Comment: Metzger notes that the original text was 'colorless'. It is characteristic of the Western text type to alter the text to make it more stylistically 'interesting', and in this case Metzger also points out that the scribe altered the text to conform to the grammatical pattern already existing in Acts 21:5, an alteration which the scribe considered to be more likely to be in conformity with the original. Such 'harmonization' is also characteristic of the Western text type, so there is no necessity to attribute this alteration to an 'anti-feminist' motivation. In any case, does associating the women with the apostles as their wives really diminish them in any meaningful way? This sounds like the imposition of a 21st century cultural view onto the 1st century text. ------- 13 Witherington, 'The Anti-Feminist Tendencies of the 'Western' Text in Acts', Journal of Biblical Literature (103.1.82), (March 1984) 14 Metzger, 'A Textual Commentary On the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (Fourth Revised Edition)', page 402 (2nd edition 1994) 15 Witherington, 'The Anti-Feminist Tendencies of the 'Western' Text in Acts', Journal of Biblical Literature (103.1.82), (March 1984) 16 Metzger, 'A Textual Commentary On the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (Fourth Revised Edition)', page 246 (2nd edition 1994)

From this survey of Witherington's evidence it may be seen that he does not in fact present any actual textual evidence earlier than the 4th century, and most of his textual witnesses date to the 5th century. It is significant that these errors are all found in the Western text type, since this text type is most well known not for its 'anti-feminist' bias, but for its general tendency to paraphrase and edit the text in a particularly arbitrary manner.9 It is also significant that almost all of these errors are found in only one manuscript tradition of the Western text (D), with only three errors appearing in any other Western manuscript tradition (Gpm, ita, b, d, k, h), as this demonstrates that these are not even systematic changes to one particular manuscript tradition, let alone the entire Western text type. This is one of the reasons why modern textual scholars generally view few (if any), of these alterations as genuinely motivated by a desire to minimize the role of women in the early church. They are so few and far between, so inconsistently found, and some of them are so much more readily attributable to accidental scribal error or the desire to render the text more grammatically, that they contradict the idea that the New Testament was revised studiously by groups of 'anti-feminist' scribes as a result of changing attitudes to women in early Christian history. Thirdly, it should be pointed out that Witherington is an egalitarian scholar, whose interpretation of these textual alterations is demonstrably influenced by his own sensitivity to the subject. A comparison of Witherington's statements on the texts with the statements of the United Bible Societies' Committee,10 shows that in a number of cases there is a more likely explanation for the text's alteration than any 'anti-feminist' attitude by a particular scribe. The comments from the UBS Committee in the following table were in fact written by Bruce Metzger, and are considerably more moderate on the subject than his own previous comments in 'The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration', written two years earlier. Comments are given after the text from Witherington and the UBS Committee. Assessment of alteration, by Witherington and the UBS committee Witherington USB Committee 'While there is some ambiguity in the text of 17:4 as we have it in p74, K, A, B, E, P (so that γυναικῶν τε τῶν ττρώτων might be translated "the wives of leading men" instead of rendering "women of the first magnitude"), D and others give us the unambiguous καὶ γυναῖκες τῶν ττώτων.'11 'It is possible to translate γυναικῶν τε τῶν ττρώτων “and wives of the leading men,” an interpretation that the Western text enforced by reading καὶ γυναῖκες τῶν ττρώτων. A majority of the Committee preferred the reading supported by P74 א A B E P Ψ 33 81 614 1739 al, not only because of superior external attestation, but also because it was thought much more likely that copyists would replace the less usual connective by the more common καί (or δέ, as in l1021).'12 Comment: Both Witherington and Metzger agree that the text here is actually ambiguous in the first place, and could be read either way. This is therefore not clearly a matter of a deliberately „anti-feminist‟ reading being introduced, but a scribal decision as to which particular interpretation of the text made more sense to them. ------- 9 'The chief characteristic of Western readings is fondness for paraphrase. Words, clauses, and even whole sentences are freely changed, omitted, or inserted. Sometimes the motive appears to have been harmonization, while at other times it was the enrichment of the narrative by the inclusion of traditional or apocryphal material. Some readings involve quite trivial alterations for which no special reason can be assigned', Metzger, 'A Textual Commentary On the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (Fourth Revised Edition)', page xx (2nd edition 1994) 10 The committee responsible for the UBS Greek New Testament, 4th edition, the Greek text from which almost all modern English Bible translations are made (see the section „Standard works‟ in the introduction of the present work) 11 Witherington, 'The Anti-Feminist Tendencies of the 'Western' Text in Acts', Journal of Biblical Literature (103.1.82), (March 1984); Witherington says 'D and others', but does not specify which other texts he is referring to 12 Metzger, 'A Textual Commentary On the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (Fourth Revised Edition)', page 401 (2nd edition 1994)

Misogynist Alterations of ScriptureAn argument found among egalitarian scholars is that the New Testament text was altered by later generations of Christians in order to validate developing misogynist attitudes. This argument is found articulated in particular detail by egalitarian Ben Witherington III: 'In view of the above evidence, it appears that there was a concerted effort by some part of the Church, perhaps as early as the late first century or beginning of the second, to tone down texts in Luke's second volume that indicated that women played an important and prominent part in the early days of the Christian community.'1 Witherington says 'it appears that there was a concerted effort by some part of the Church, perhaps as early as the late first century or beginning of the second'2, but when it comes to presenting the actual evidence which can be observed, Witherington does not cite any textual evidence earlier than the 4th century,3 some 200 years after the 2nd century.4 Text cited by Witherington; Passage Text Name Text Type Date Matthew 5:32 D5, ita, b, d, k 6 Western 4th century, 5th century Acts 1:14 D Western 5th century Acts 17:4 D Western 5th century Acts 17:12 D Western 5th century Acts 17:34 D Western 5th century Acts 18:3, 18, 21, 26 ith 7 Western 5th century Colossians 4:15 D, Gpm 8 Western 5th century, 9th century ------- 1 Witherington says 'D and others', 'The Anti-Feminist Tendencies of the 'Western' Text in Acts', Journal of Biblical Literature (103.1.83), (March 1984); in fact, as shall be demonstrated, Witherington does not cite any texts earlier than the 4th century 2 Witherington, 'The Anti-Feminist Tendencies of the 'Western' Text in Acts', Journal of Biblical Literature (103.1.83) 3 In fact he only cites one text as early as the 4th century 4 Witherington's most frequently referred to text is the 5th century text D (Codex Bezae), but the Greek text type (called 'Western'), which D preserves cannot be dated any earlier than 250 AD, even if quotations from early Christian writers are used (there are no Western type Greek manuscripts or papyri earlier than the 4th century) 5 A Greek/Latin diglot, also known as Codex Bezae Cantabrigensis, or Dea (where 'ea' refers to the content of the text, the gospels (known as 'Evangelium') and Acts (known as 'Apostolos'), or '05' in the Gregory-Aland text numbering system; Witherington says 'D and others' ('The Anti-Feminist Tendencies of the 'Western' Text in Acts', Journal of Biblical Literature (103.1.82), (March 1984), but does not specify which other texts he is referring to 6 This is an African Old Latin copy of an earlier Greek text (the 'it' stands for 'Itala', meaning Latin, and the other letters stand for various specific copies of this Latin manuscript); this same reading is also found in Greek and Latin manuscripts, according to the 4th-5th century Christian writer Augustine 7 Witherington does not refer specifically to any particular text, but does quote JH Ropes as citing this text, 'The Beginnings of Christianity (London: Macmillan, 1926) 3. 178, note on v 26', in Witherington, 'The Anti-Feminist Tendencies of the 'Western' Text in Acts', Journal of Biblical Literature (103.1.82), (March 1984), while Metzger, 'A Textual Commentary On the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (Fourth Revised Edition)', page 246 (2nd edition 1994), notes that manuscripts itgig (a 13th century Old Latin manuscript), syr (a 5th century Syriac translation) copsa (a 4th century Coptic translation), arm (a 5thcentury Armenian translation), contain the same reading, but this does not provide Witherington with any textual evidence earlier than the 4th century 8 The text referred to as 'Gpm' (the 'pm' stands for the Latin 'permulti' meaning 'very many', and indicates that many manuscripts of this tradition have this reading), is a 9th century Greek/Latin interlinear diglot also known as Codex Boernerianus (Gregory-Aland number 012); Witherington (ibid, page 84), says 'D, G pm, et al. [and others]', but does not say which other manuscripts he is referring to