Rightly Dividing the Word - A review of arguments used in ‘All One’

[Resource Manager]

 

 

Assessment of Alleged Misogynist Alterations
Passage	Witherington	Malick	Kurek-Chomycz	Holmes
Romans 16:3-5	NA	NA	Unclear99	NA
1 Corinthians 16:19
Colossians 4:15	Yes100		NA

 

-------

⁹⁹ ‘In the end, of course, we cannot be sure about the intentions of the copyists responsible for inserting the diminutive form. Yet the consequence might be that Prisca’s image would be devalued to some extent for readers of the Pauline letters as a result of the use of the diminutive.’, Kurek-Chomycz , ‘Is there an ‘Anti-Priscan’ Tendency in the Manuscripts? Some Textual Problems with Prisca and Aquila’, Journal of Biblical Literature (125.1.117), 2007.

 

¹⁰⁰ ‘This anti-feminist tendency appears also to be in evidence at Col 4:15. While B, 6, 424^c, 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.’, Witherington, ‘The Anti-Feminist Tendencies of the ‘Western’ Text in Acts’, Journal of Biblical Literature (103.1.84), March 1984.

 

 

[Resource Manager]

Readers will note the lack of complete agreement among all four studies, even though three of them were carried out by scholars with a liberal or egalitarian viewpoint.¹⁰¹ In fact all of them identify at least some of the alterations Witherington interpreted as misogynist, as more credibly attributable to factors other than a deliberate intention to reduce the role of women in the text.

 

Holmes’ analysis was praised by egalitarian Anne Brock for his correction of an over-exaggeration of the evidence for intentional alterations intended to diminish women.

 

'In a recent contribution to text-critical assessment of Acts, however,

Michael Holmes challenges this scholarly conjecture of what he calls an "alleged" antifeminist bias in the Western texts

, stating that "the claim, though often repeated, has not, to my knowledge, been examined in a thorough or comprehensive fashion."

 

In his detailed examination he rightly argues

, in my view, that many scholars have taken variants or tendencies that appear in Codex Bezae and over-generalized them to describe Western texts as a whole,

overlooking that Bezae is only one representative of th

i

s text type, and possesses idiosyncracies of its own

.'

¹⁰²

 

Brock challenged Holmes’ conclusions on three of the nine texts for which he considered there was little or no evidence of intentional alteration for the purpose of diminishing the role or portrayal of women; Acts 1:14,¹⁰³ 2:17,¹⁰⁴ and 17:12.¹⁰⁵

 

However, she did not challenge him on the other six texts he considered had not been altered in this way; Acts 16:14-15; 17:34; 18:2-3, 7, 26, 27.

 

-------

¹⁰¹ Witherington, Malick, and Kurek-Chomycz.

 

¹⁰² Brock, 'Scribal Blunder or Textual Plunder? Codex Bezae, Textual-Rhetorical Analysis, And the Diminished Role of Women', in Stichele & Penner (eds.), ‘Her Master's Tools?: Feminist and Postcolonial Engagements of Historical-Critical Discourse’, Global Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship, p. 257 (2005).

 

¹⁰³ 'Their juxtaposition with children thus alters their presentation as peers and thrusts these women into the category of simply being the wives of the apostles.', ibid., p. 258.

 

¹⁰⁴ 'Yet if one already perceives a tendency to downplay the role of women and/or to reconfigure it in terms of a domesticating function, then one has to question seriously the alleged accidental character of the missing article.', ibid, p. 259.

 

¹⁰⁵ 'With this alternate order, Codex D's text thus gives greater emphasis to Aquila as the instructor of Apollos, as opposed to Codex B, which gives the first rank to Priscilla.', ibid, p. 261.

[Resource Manager]

1 Corinthians 14:34-35: disorderly or chatting women?

 

The claim made

 

‘Thirdly he enjoins silence (

sigan

, the same verb) on “the women” – not on those who are speaking acceptably as outlined above (one at a time)

but on the women whose speaking is adding to the confused uproar which Paul is trying to stop

. There are three clues to the fact that

it is disorderly speaking to which Paul refers

: (1) “... they... should be subordinate, as even the law says” (verse 34); (2) “If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home”; (3) “... it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”’

¹⁰⁶

 

‘Perhaps they were taking part in weighing up what the prophets said (verse 29)

but in a disruptive and arrogant manner

.’

¹⁰⁷

 

‘The suggestion here is that some women were disrupting the meeting by calling out to their husbands with questions or by talking to each other. Hence “If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home.”’

¹⁰⁸

 

‘We suggest in this book that similarly we should all decide by

context that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 should only be taken as a ban on

disorderly

speaking

.’

¹⁰⁹

 

-------

¹⁰⁶ ‘All One’, pp. 71-72 (2010), which is the edition available on the ‘sistersspeak’ website at the time of writing (http://www.sisterssp...s/pdf/AOICJ.pdf); this document is dated 2010 on the cover page, but this web version was created from a Word document in February 2011, according to the document’s metadata.

 

¹⁰⁷ Ibid., p. 72.

 

¹⁰⁸ Ibid., pp. 80-81.

 

¹⁰⁹ Ibid., p. 85.

[Resource Manager]

Examination

 

Ian and Averil do not inform readers that this suggestion is rejected strongly even by some egalitarian scholars. It is rejected by egalitarian commentator Gordon Fee.

 

'

The most commonly held view is that which sees the problem as

some form of disruptive speech

.

9 Support is found in v. 35, that if the women wish to team anything, they should ask their own husbands at home.

 

Various scenarios are proposed: that the setting was something like the Jewish synagogue, with women on one side and men on the other and the women shouting out disruptive questions about what was being said in a prophecy or tongue;

or that they were asking questions of men other than their own husbands; or that they were simply "chattering"10 so loudly that it had a disruptive effect

.

 

The biggest difficulty with this view is that it assumes a "church service" of a more "orderly" sort than the rest of this argument presupposes. If the basic problem is with their "all speaking in tongues" in some way one may assume on the basis of 11:5 that this also included the women;

furthermore, in such disarray how can mere "chatter" have a disruptive effect?

The suggestion that the early house churches assumed a synagogue practice

is pure speculation; it seems remote at best

.'

¹¹⁰

 

-------

¹¹⁰ Fee (egalitarian), 'The First Epistle to the Corinthians', p. 703 (1987).

[Resource Manager]

Egalitarian Richard Hays likewise rejects it.

 

'First, some interpreters have proposed that Paul is not really prohibiting women from praying and prophesying in the assembly.

Rather, he is addressing a specific local problem at Corinth and restricting certain kinds of disruptive speech, such as chattering and asking questions

(v. 35a).

 

(A variant on this explanation is Ben Witherington's suggestion that the women thought of Christian prophets on the analogy of the Delphic Oracle, which prophesied in response to particular questions about the personal life of the seeker [Witherington, 287].)

 

The difficulty with this explanation is that

it fails to reckon with the categorical declaration that it is "shameful" for women to speak in church at all

(v. 35b) and with the

clear statement that this rule is for "the churches" at large

, not just for a particular problem at Corinth.’

¹¹¹

 

The typical argument (that the Greek word for ‘speak’ here is a word which actually means ‘chatter’), is rejected by lexical and textual commentators.^{112 113} Egalitarian Marion Soards likewise rejects it.

 

‘Some suggest that he opposes only idle chatter or gossip. However, the verb to speak (Gk. lalein) is not, as some commentators suggest, equivalent with “to chatter.” The verb does not name an activity that is distinct from other sensible speech or prayer or prophecy. Through the rest of chapter 14 “to speak” clearly and consistently refers to inspired speech (see vv. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 18, 19, 21, 23, 27, 28, 29, 39).

 

The vocabulary employed in these verses

does not distinguish this reference from all other mentions of speaking in this and other chapters

.’

¹¹⁴

 

-------

¹¹¹ Hays, ‘First Corinthians’, Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, p. 247 (1997).

 

¹¹² It is worth noting that Ian and Averil do not appeal to the definition of this word in support of the argument; nevertheless, they still reach the same conclusion (though they do not explain exactly how, nor do they provide any lexical or historical evidence for their view).

 

¹¹³ ‘The widespread notion that whereas 11:2–16 speaks of prophetic speech, the use of λaλεῖν refers to chatter in these verses ignores first-century lexicographical evidence and the context of discussion in 14:27–40. Deluz writes: “Paul, then, is not forbidding women to undertake ‘ministry of the word’; he is forbidding them to indulge in feminine chatter which was becoming a considerable nuisance.”384 Moffatt asserts, “Keep quiet means even more than a prohibition of chattering. Worship is not to be turned into discussion groups.…”385 This view seems to have gained currency from Heinrici, who, together with Héring, cannot imagine Paul’s silencing “inspired” or “liturgical” speech, but can see him as calling to order “ordinary members of the congregation.”386 C. and R. Kroeger argue that Paul forbids either “chatter” or, at the other end of the spectrum, “frenzied shouting.”387 C. K. Barrett, however, soundly dismisses the faulty lexicography to which such interpretations of λaλεῖν often appeal. The meaning to chatter does occur in classical Greek of the earlier centuries, “but in the NT and in Paul the verb normally does not have this meaning, and it is used throughout chapter 14 (vv. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 18, 19, 21, 23, 27, 28, 29, 39) in the sense of inspired speech.”388 Fiorenza’s argument that 11:2–16 refers to women as such, but 14:33b–36 refers only to married women is also possible (especially since γυνaῖκες may mean married women, or wives, as well as women) but remains speculative and not perhaps the most obvious explanation if no contradiction between 11:2–16 and 14:33b–36 arises from a contextual exegesis.389’, Thiselton, ‘The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A commentary on the Greek text’, New International Greek Testament Commentary, p. 1157 (2000).

 

¹¹⁴ Soards, ‘1 Corinthians’, New International Bible Commentary, pp. 305-306 (1999).

[Resource Manager]

Egalitarian Gordon Fee also rejects the claim made that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is a prohibition only on one kind of speech, such as disorderly speaking.

 

'

The first reason for the rule comes in the form of a prohibition

: "They are not permitted to speak." What kind of speaking is intended depends on one's view, both of authorship and, if authentic, of its place in the present argument. The only internal suggestion is that of v. 35, that they should ask questions at home if they wish to learn.

 

If authentic, this unqualified use of the verb seems to tell against the probability that only a single form of speech is prohibited

.

 

Elsewhere Paul has said "speak in tongues" when that is in view, and when he means "discern" he says "discern," not "speak". Again, as with the opening "rule,"

the plain sense of the sentence is an absolute prohibition of all speaking in the assembly

.'

¹¹⁵

 

The fanciful idea that men and women were separated in 1^st century synagogues¹¹⁶ has long been refuted by archaeological evidence demonstrating that no such seating arrangements were made.¹¹⁷

 

Egalitarian Craig Keener is one of a number of egalitarians who point this out.

 

‘Others have suggested that the church services were segregated by gender like the synagogues, thus rendering any communication between the sexes disruptive;

but this view is refuted both by the architecture of synagogues in this period (Brooten) and that of homes like that in which the Corinthian church met

.’

¹¹⁸

 

-------

¹¹⁵ Fee (egalitarian), 'The First Epistle to the Corinthians', pp. 706-707 (1987).

 

¹¹⁶ In ‘All One’, p. 66 (March 2009), Ian and Averil wrote ‘The comment “as even the law says” would fit well with the possibility that former members of the synagogue wish to return to the type of meeting where only the men speak, where women sit apart from the men, and where any learning by the women would be at home.’, ‘All One’, p. 66 (March 2009); in the current edition they have amended this to ‘where women perhaps sit apart from the men’, without identifying the scholarly commentary which contradicts this view, or informing readers of the change in what they wrote.

 

¹¹⁷ ‘Nor did we find any evidence of a women’s gallery. By now it is widely accepted among scholars that synagogues from the early centuries of the Common Era did not have a separate women’s section.’, Weiss, ‘The Sepphoris Synagogue Mosaic’, Biblical Archaeology Review (26.05), 2000.

 

¹¹⁸ Keener, ‘Man and Woman’, in Hawthorne, Martin, & Reid, ‘Dictionary of Paul and his letters’, p. 590 (1993).

[Resource Manager]

Is 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 a quote which Paul rejects?

 

The claim made

 

‘Paul quotes his opponents and then refutes them’¹¹⁹

 

Ian and Averil cite this as the claim of others, rather than making the claim themselves.

 

‘Gilbert Bilezikian in Beyond Sex Roles (Second edition, tenth printing 1999, pages 286-288) suggests that “e” can frequently be translated as “Nonsense!”,

but this is only partly supported by the examples he gives

.’

¹²⁰

 

‘It is interesting that

The Bible

Translator (January 1995) suggests the following as an alternative

which should be offered in translations.

 

Some of you say, “Women should be silent in the churches, because they are not permitted to speak. As the Jewish law says, they should be subordinate to men. If there is anything they want to know, they should wait until they get home and then ask their husbands. It is shameful for women to speak in church.”

 

What kind of thinking is that? You are acting as if the word of God came from you! And you men, don’t ever think that you are the only ones who receive this word!’

¹²¹

 

Examination

 

What Ian and Averil do not tell readers are that both of these authors are egalitarian commentators. The following quotation is from a review of the work by Bilezikian which Ian and Averil cite.

 

‘

Bilezikian writes from an unabashedly egalitarian position

, calling for “

deliberate programs of depatriarchalization

” (p. 211) in our religious institutions and “

a systematic effort of deprogramming

” in our thinking so that we do away with “

regard[ing] the opposite sex as

opposite

” (p. 210; italics his).’

¹²²

 

‘He [David C. Arichea Jr] has also written numerous Bible studies for young people and on the subject of women in the Scriptures, one of which is entitled “

Laying to Rest the Misconception of the Subordinate Role of Women in the Church

.”‘

¹²³

 

In the article quoted by Ian and Averil, Arichea lists among the ‘advantages’ of this interpretation of the text the fact that it is supportive of the egalitarian case.

 

'a)

It changes the passage

from that of

an oppressive text that can be used as an anti-feminist tool

to one which

advocates the active participation of women within the church

.'

¹²⁴

 

'f)

The spirit of Gal. 3:28 is not violated

by Paul in any way.'

¹²⁵

 

-------

¹¹⁹ ‘All One’, p. 73 (2010, which is the edition available on the ‘sistersspeak’ website at the time of writing (http://www.sisterssp...s/pdf/AOICJ.pdf); this document is dated 2010 on the cover page, but this web version was created from a Word document in February 2011, according to the document’s metadata.

 

¹²⁰ Ibid., p. 74.

 

¹²¹ Ibid., p. 76.

 

¹²² Trotter, review of Bilezikian‘s ‘Beyond Sex Roles: A Guide for the Study of Female Roles in the Bible’, in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (30.1.101), 1987.

 

¹²³ 2008-09 Bulletin of the Duke University Divinity School; this is a publication by the university at which Arichea works.

 

¹²⁴ Arichea, ‘The Silence of Women in The Church: Theology and Translation in 1 Corinthians 14.33b-36’, The Bible Translator (46.1.110), 1995.

 

¹²⁵ Ibid., p. 110.

[Resource Manager]

Further, Ian and Averil do not tell readers that Arichea himself lists a number of objections against this interpretation of the text.

 

‘However, there are objections to this position as well, among which are the following:

 

1. There simply is no way to be certain, since the Greek text does not contain any interpretive markers of any kind. What then if Paul was actually advocating the silence of women in the church?
    
   
2. Such a position advocating the active participation of women in the church service seems too advanced for Paul and for the early church at that stage of its history.
    
   
3. Canonical history seems to indicate that vv 34-35 was understood primarily as an admonition to silence, as is clear in the repetition of these same arguments in 1 Tim. 2:11-15.
    
   
4. But the main objection has something to do with the difficulty of relating the passage to its immediate and wider context. Considering that the subject of the whole of chapter 14 is orderliness in the worship service, which came under threat due to the practice of speaking in tongues, it would be rather unlikely for the chapter to contain a section asserting the right of certain people, and specifically the women, to speak in the church service. It would be more likely for an admonition to silence to be included rather than a justification for speaking.'¹²⁶

 

Nor do Ian and Averil reveal that Arichea states clearly that the translation suggestion which he finally proposes has no support from the scholarly consensus whatever.¹²⁷

 

This suggestion has not found significant support among scholarly commentators, and remains a marginal position even among egalitarians. It is rejected by egalitarians such as Johnson and Witherington,^{128 129 130} Fee,¹³¹ Hays,¹³² Horrell,¹³³ and Keener.¹³⁴ Thiselton notes other commentators rejecting the suggestion.¹³⁵

 

Following the scholarly consensus, these verses are represented as Paul’s words (not a quotation from the Corinthians), by the CEV, GNB/TEV, HCSB, ISV, Message, NAB, NASB95, NET, NCV, NIRV, NIV, NLT, TLB, and TNIV. In fact, no standard modern Bible translation renders these verses as a quotation.

 

-------

¹²⁶ Ibid., p. 110.

 

¹²⁷ 'Considering the whole argument, it does seem that this third option is worth considering and pursuing further. It should be noted, however, that no translation (to my knowledge) has followed this option, nor has it been mentioned in the notes accompanying various translations. Of all the commentaries I have examined, only one advocates this position.', ibid., p. 110.

 

¹²⁸ ‘The best refutation of this view is given by Ben Witherington, who argues that the previous quotes of Corinthian views in the letter were actually stated and then refuted or circumstantially modified by Paul.’, Johnson, '1 Corinthians', Inter-Varsity Press New Testament Commentary Series, volume 7, p. 272 (2004).

 

¹²⁹ ‘More telling against this view is the large number of words in verses 34-35 that resonate with the immediate context (Witherington 1988:90-91).', ibid., p. 272.

 

¹³⁰ ‘Witherington offers stronger and more detailed arguments why the hypothesis of Odell-Scott and Flanagan and Snyder are open to doubt. In sum, because of such phrases as as in all the churches of God’s holy people, and because 6:12; 10:23; 7:1 et al. represent not “rebuttals” but circumstantial qualifications “they raise more questions than they answer.”359 With a deft turn, he adds: “In all probability Paul is anticipating the response he expected to get (v. 36) when the Corinthians read his argument (vv. 34–35).”360’, Thiselton, ‘The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A commentary on the Greek text’, New International Greek Testament Commentary, p. 1151 (2000).

 

¹³¹ 'The very first word *e, "or," "either... or," or the interjection "what!") should not be seen as introducing a statement rejecting the previous two verses, as if they were an aberrant Corinthian viewpoint, but as Paul's anticipation that his rules to control speech practices at Corinth would anger the Corinthians. As Gordon Fee correctly points out, "Has God given them [the Corinthians] a special word that allows them both to reject Paul's instructions... and to be so out of touch with the churches?" (1987:7210).’, Johnson, '1 Corinthians', p. 277 (2004); instead, Fee suggests these verses do not belong in the text at all, that they are ‘most likely unauthentic’, Fee, ‘God's Empowering Presence: the Holy Spirit in the letters of Paul’, p. 259 (1994).

"It appears that the Corinthians were trying to make up their own rules, and perhaps even thinking their own word is sufficient or authoritative or even the word of God themselves" (cf. v.36; Witherington 1988:98).', ibid., p. 277.

 

¹³² ‘Hays considers it “far fetched in the extreme” to think that Paul was quoting the Corinthians in verses 34-35 before he rejects the statement in verse 36. (Hays p.249)’, Mayer, ‘The Women Should Keep Silence in the Churches’, Resources for Sustenance and Renewal (2002).

 

¹³³ 'D.W. Odell-Scott's attempt to offer an 'egalitarian' interpretation of 14.33b-36 based on the contrary force of the particle h (at the beginning of v. 36 is highly implausible in relation to vv. 34f (which must then be read as a statement of Corinthian not Pauline opinion); the particle's 'contrary force' makes much better sense in connection with v. 33.', Horrel, ‘The social ethos of the Corinthians correspondence: interests and ideology’, p. 187 (1996).

 

¹³⁴ ‘Some have argued instead that Paul here quotes a Corinthian position (1 Cor 14:34–35), which he then refutes (1 Cor 14:36); but 1 Corinthians 14:36 does not read naturally as a refutation of 1 Corinthians 14:34–35.’, Keener, ‘Man and Woman’, in Hawthorne, Martin, & Reid, ‘Dictionary of Paul and his letters’, p. 590 (1993.)

 

¹³⁵ ‘Horrell finds the view of Odell-Smith and Allison “implausible” not least because, as Conzelmann also notes, v. 36, which attacks the self-important claims of some at Corinth to be “different,” then leaves v. 33b either as part of the Corinthian slogan, which would not cohere with our knowledge of Corinth, or as simply hanging without continuation until after an overly long quotation, or as belonging to vv. 26–33a, which, apart from Barrett, KJV/AV, RV, Alford, and Phillips, is widely accepted as belonging with vv. 34–37 (as UBS 4th ed., NRSV, REB, NIV, NJB, Conzelmann, and most writers).357 “The point about the particle … makes most sense when v. 36 is linked with v. 33.”’, Thiselton, ‘The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A commentary on the Greek text’, New International Greek Testament Commentary, p. 1151 (2000).

[Resource Manager]

What is the ‘law’ in 1 Corinthians 14:34?

 

The claim made

 

‘

The reference to the law could either be to a Jewish understanding of the Old Testament, or to the Jewish oral law

where women were forbidden to address the congregation in the synagogue:

 

Our Rabbis taught: All are qualified to be among the seven [who read],even a minor and a woman, only the Sages said that a woman should not read in the Torah out of respect for the congregation. (Babylonian Talmud, Megilla “The Scroll of Esther” 23a)

 

It is interesting that The Bible Translator (January 1995)

suggests the following as an alternative which should be offered in translations

.

 

Some of you say, “Women should be silent in the churches, because they are not permitted to speak.

As the Jewish law says

, they should be subordinate to men. If there is anything they want to know, they should wait until they get home and then ask their husbands. It is shameful for women to speak in church.” What kind of thinking is that? You are acting as if the word of God came from you! And you men, don’t ever think that you are the only ones who receive this word!’

¹³⁶

Examination

 

Ian and Averil do not tell readers that the article in ‘The Bible Translator’ which they quote was written by egalitarian Daniel Arichea Junior.¹³⁷ In the article quoted by Ian and Averil, Arichea lists among the ‘advantages’ of this interpretation of the text the fact that it is supportive of the egalitarian case.¹³⁸

 

Ian and Averil do not tell readers that the scholarly consensus is that Paul’s reference to ‘the law’ is a reference to the Old Testament, not a reference to Jewish oral law or a Jewish understanding of the Old Testament.

 

The very phrase which Paul uses is found in a number of Jewish writings of a relevant time period, and its meaning is not in doubt.

 

It is a clear reference to a principle drawn from the Biblical text (not a direct quote), either to the Pentateuch¹³⁹ or some other part of the Old Testament.¹⁴⁰ Several commentators note that this appeal to ‘the Law’ is a standard form of argument in Paul’s writings.^{141 142 143 144}

 

-------

¹³⁶ ‘All One’, pp. 75-76 (2010), which is the edition available on the ‘sistersspeak’ website at the time of writing (http://www.sisterssp...s/pdf/AOICJ.pdf); this document is dated 2010 on the cover page, but this web version was created from a Word document in February 2011, according to the document’s metadata.

 

¹³⁷ ‘He [Daniel C. Arichea Jr] has also written numerous Bible studies for young people and on the subject of women in the Scriptures, one of which is entitled “Laying to Rest the Misconception of the Subordinate Role of Women in the Church.”‘, 2008-09 Bulletin of the Duke University Divinity School; this is a publication by the university at which Arichea works.

 

¹³⁸ 'a) It changes the passage from that of an oppressive text that can be used as an anti-feminist tool to one which advocates the active participation of women within the church.', Arichea, ‘The Silence of Women in The Church: Theology and Translation in 1 Corinthians 14.33b-36’, The Bible Translator (46.1.110), January 1995.

 

¹³⁹ Paul’s reference to the teaching of “the law” probably has the Genesis creation narratives in mind, with their implications for order and propriety in relationships between men and women (see Thiselton 2000: 1153–54; Bruce 1980: 136; Carson 1987: 129; Keener 1992: 86–87; see also commentary on 1 Cor. 11:2–16 above).^[4]’ Beale &. Carson, ‘Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament’, p. 743 (2007).

 

¹⁴⁰ ‘Against the argument that the use of οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτρέπετaι, there exists no permission, is not Pauline, several writers refer with approval to S. Aalen’s argument that the key word is drawn here by Paul from a rabbinic formula used in the context of biblical texts, especially in the Pentateuch, which express a principle often introduced with ὁ νόμος λέγει, the law indicates.363 BAGD, Moulton-Milligan et al. and Grimm-Thayer provide instances of the verb in the sense of it is permitted (smetimes with the perfect stative sense, there exists permission) in the papyri, Josephus, and other first-century sources.’, Thiselton, ‘The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A commentary on the Greek text’, New International Greek Testament Commentary, p. 1151 (2000).

 

¹⁴¹ ‘In particular, Paul felt quite comfortable in employing Scripture texts from the Old Testament to prescribe and interpret aspects of assembly activities. In 1 Cor 5:4 the church is assembled to censure a sinful fellow believer. The expulsion of wayward believers is authorized on the basis of a frequently found command (“Expel the wicked man from among you”) from Deuteronomy (e.g., 17:7; 19:19; 22:21, 24; 24:7). First Corinthians 11 provides a singular example of the use of Genesis material from the Creation and Fall Narratives to insure propriety regarding liturgical head coverings in the worship assembly of believers. More to the setting and context of 1 Cor 14, Paul refers to the Law (though the quotation is principally from the Prophets) to interpret the phenomenon of tongue speaking in a worship service in the Roman colony of Corinth.’, Oster, ‘1 Corinthians’, College Press NIV Commentary (1995).

 

¹⁴² ‘The apostle’s reference to “the Law” (ὁ νόμος, ho nomos) is not as enigmatic as many scholars have suggested. This type of use of the Old Testament is generally in line with Paul’s technique at other places in 1 Corinthians.’, ibid.

 

¹⁴³ ‘The same apostle Paul who so naturally curbed unacceptable male and female head coverings practices during prophecy and prayer on the basis of principles from Genesis and challenged aberrant tongue speakers at Corinth with a theme from Isaiah, could with equal facility curb aberrant women’s speech with a theme from Genesis.’, ibid.

 

¹⁴⁴ ‘Fourth, “as the law says” does not refer to secular law restricting women’s actions in the public arena but to the OT law.34 Paul’s presumed impatience with the law is exaggerated. He appeals to it in the context in 14:21 and also in 7:19 and 9:8–10 (cf. Rom. 3:19; 7:7). The problem is that he does not cite a text from the law, and no OT passage instructs women to be silent. Perhaps he refers to a general assumption that the law calls for the wife’s submission to her husband.’, Garland (egalitarian), ‘1 Corinthians’, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, p. 672 (2003).

[Resource Manager]

Of twelve standard modern Bible commentaries,¹⁴⁵ almost all understand this as a reference to the Law of Moses or a general principle from Genesis or the Old Testament.¹⁴⁶ The same understanding can be seen in standard English Bible translations.

 

• CEV: The text has ‘as the Law of Moses teaches’, referring explicitly to the inspired Law of God given in the Old Testament
   
  
• ESV: The text has ‘as the Law also says’, the definite article and capitalization indicating that this is a reference to the law revealed in the Old Testament, not Jewish oral tradition or Roman law, and a footnote says ‘[ver. 21]’, referring to 1 Corinthians 14:21, where Paul quotes Isaiah 28:11–12 and refers to it as ‘the Law’
   
  
• GNB/TEV: The text has ‘as the Jewish Law says’, the definite article and capitalization, which may be a reference to the Jewish oral tradition rather than the Law of Moses
   
  
• HSCB: The text has ‘as the law also says’
   
  
• The Message: The text has ‘God’s Book of the law guides our manners and customs here’, referring explicitly to the inspired Law of God given in the Old Testament
   
  
• NAB: The text has ‘as even the law says’
   
  
• NASB95: The text has ‘just as the Law also says’, the definite article and capitalization indicating that this is a reference to the law revealed in the Old Testament, not Jewish oral tradition or Roman law, and a footnote says ‘1 Cor 14:21’, where Paul quotes Isaiah 28:11–12 and refers to it as ‘the Law’
   
  
• NCV: The text has ‘as the law says’
   
  
• NET: The text has ‘as in fact the law says’
   
  
• NIV: The text has ‘as the Law says’, the definite article and capitalization indicating that this is a reference to the law revealed in the Old Testament, not Jewish oral tradition or Roman law
   
  
• NIRV: The text has ‘as the Law also says’, the definite article and capitalization indicating that this is a reference to the law revealed in the Old Testament, not Jewish oral tradition or Roman law
   
  
• NLT: The text has ‘just as the law says’
   
  
• NRSV: The text has ‘as the law also says’
   
  
• TLB: The text has ‘the Scriptures also declare’, referring explicitly to the inspired Old Testament
   
  
• TNIV: The text has ‘as the law says’, and a footnote says ‘ver 21; Ge 3:16’, referring to 1 Corinthians 14:21, where Paul quotes Isaiah 28:11–12 and refers to it as ‘the Law’, and citing the subordination of Eve in Genesis 3:16 as the specific principle Paul has in mind

 

-------

¹⁴⁵ Orr & Walther, ‘1 Corinthians: A new translation’, The Anchor Bible (1976); Robertson, et al, ‘A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians. 2^nd ed.’, The International Critical Commentary (1971 ed.); McArthur (complementarian), ‘1 Corinthians’, MacArthur New Testament Commentary (1984); Ellingworth & Hatton, ‘A Handbook on Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians’ (2^nd ed., 1994); Morris, ‘The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians’, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (2^nd ed., 1985); Garland (egalitarian), ‘1 Corinthians’, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (2003); Beale & Carson, ‘Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament’ (2007); Oster (complementarian), ‘1 Corinthians’, College Press NIV Commentary (1995); Hodge, ‘An Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians’ (1980 ed.); Bruce (egalitarian), ‘1 and 2 Corinthians’, New Century Bible Commentary (1971); Kistemaker, ‘Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians’, New Testament Commentary (1986).

 

¹⁴⁶ Of these commentaries only one egalitarian commentary disagrees; Fee, ‘The First Epistle to the Corinthians’, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (2^nd ed., 1987).

[Resource Manager]

In 1 Timothy 1:9, does androphonos mean ‘manslayers’?

The claim made

 

In ‘All One’ (March 2009), Ian and Averil made the following claim.

 

‘Originally Artemis to the Greeks was a different goddess to Artemis in Ephesus, but the qualities attributed to each became assimilated.

Paul’s criticism of prevailing attitudes at Ephesus echoes these myths. Is it simply a coincidence?

 

... the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for

manslayers

. (1 Timothy 1:9)

 

“Manslayers” is the exact word used of the Amazons who gloried in their defeat of the men

. In mythology Artemis exercised power over men. Artemis was also the goddess to whom women appealed to save them through childbirth .

It is not surprising that believers in Ephesus risked being influenced by this pagan atmosphere, nor that problems arose over women dominating men.

’

¹⁴⁷

Examination

 

Ian and Averil did not tell readers that their argument with regard to the Greek word here translated ‘manslayers’ is not supported by any standard modern Bible translation, and is contradicted by standard professional lexicons.

 

Readers will note that whereas Ian and Averil typically quote from a modern gender neutral translation to support their arguments (usually the TNIV), in this case they have deliberately quoted from the KJV.

 

The KJV’s rendering of the Greek word androphonos in 1 Timothy 1:9 is ‘manslayers’, because the KJV uses the masculine gendered language of its era. The Greek word does not mean ‘man slayers’ as opposed to ‘woman slayers’.

 

The KJV is misleading, and creates precisely the false impression which Ian and Averil criticize in their work.¹⁴⁸ Ian and Averil actually correct this language where it occurs elsewhere in the KJV, but¹⁴⁹ they do not correct the error in 1 Timothy 1:9; they quote it as if it were accurate, and rely on it for their argument.

 

-------

¹⁴⁷ ‘All One’, p. 77 (March 2009).

 

¹⁴⁸ ‘The preface to the NIV 1995 Inclusive Language edition (page vii) gives further reasons for using inclusive language: “A major challenge facing the Committee is how to respond to the significant changes that are taking place within the English language in regard to gender issues. The word ‘man’, for example, is now widely understood to refer only to males, even though that is not the intention of the corresponding Greek or Hebrew words.”’, ibid., p. 42.

 

¹⁴⁹ ‘”In understanding be men” (1 Corinthians 14:20) This verse should not be used to suggest that brothers think in a better or superior way to sisters. The contrast is between being children and being grown up. The King James Version reads: Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. Most modern translations say “mature or “adult”: Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; be babes in evil, but in thinking be mature. (RSV) Brothers and sisters, do not be children in your thinking; rather, be infants in evil, but in thinking be adults. (1 Corinthians 14:20, NRSV)’, ibid., p. 233.

[Resource Manager]

Ian and Averil did not tell readers that standard lexicons define androphonos as ‘murderer’, not ‘manslayer’ in the gender specific sense of a man or woman who kills men.^{150 151 152 153 154}

 

-------

¹⁵⁰ ‘ἀνδροφόνος, ου, ὁ (s. ἀνήρ, φόνος; Hom. et al.; OGI 218, 99 [iII B.C.]; Kaibel 184, 6 [iII B.C.]; POslo 18, 4 [162 A.D.]; 2 Macc 9:28; Philo, Just.; Ath. 35, 1; Iren. 1, 6, 3 [Harv. I 55, 14] adj.) murderer (lit. ‘man-slayer’; Lex. Vind. p. 192, 13: a murderer of women and children as well as of men) 1 Ti 1:9.—DELG s.v. ἀνήρ A, θείνω. M-M.’, Arndt, Danker, & Bauer, ‘A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature’, p. 76 (3^rd ed., 2000).

 

¹⁵¹ ‘ἀνδροφόνος, ου, ὁ androphonos murderer* 1 Tim 1:9 in a vice catalog with reference to the fifth commandment of the Decalogue; → ἀνδρaποδιστής.’, Balz & Schneider, ‘Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament. Translation of: Exegetisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testamen’, volume 1, p. 96 (1990-c1993).

 

¹⁵² ‘ἀνδροφόνος,-ου+ N2M 0-0-0-0-1=1 2 Mc 9,28 Murderer’, Lust, Eynikel, & Hauspie, ‘A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint’ (electronic rev. ed. 2003).

 

¹⁵³ ‘20.85 φονεύς, έως m; ἀνδροφόνος, ου m; ἀνθρωποκτόνος, ου m: a person who murders another person—‘murderer.’: ἀπώλεσεν τοὺς φονεῖς ἐκείνους ‘ he destroyed those murderers’ Mt 22:7. ἀνδροφόνος: πaτρολῴaις κaὶ μητρολῴaις, ἀνδροφόνοις ‘murderers of fathers, murderers of mothers, and murderers of people’ 1 Tm 1:9. ἀνθρωποκτόνος: ἀνθρωποκτόνος ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς ‘he was a murderer from the beginning’ Jn 8:44.’, Louw & Nida, ‘Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains’, volume 1, p. 237 (2^nd ed. 1989)

 

¹⁵⁴ ‘✪ ἀνδροφόνος, ον, man-slaying, Homeric epith. of Hector, Il.24.724, etc.; of Achilles, χεῖρες ἀ. 18.317; homicide, Pl.Phd.114a; generally, murderous, ἀ. τὴν φύσιν Theopomp.Hist.217:—in Hom. usu. of slaughter in battle, but in Od.1.261 φάρμaκον ἀ. a murderous; ἀνδροφόνους .. Ἰλιάδaς E.Hec.1061; drug:—epith. of aἷμa, Orph.H.65.4. 2. of women, murdering their husbands, Pi.P.4.252. II. as law-term, one convicted of manslaughter, homicide, Lys.10.7, D.23.29, cf. ib.216:’, Liddell, Scott, & Jones, ‘A Greek-English Lexicon’, p. 129 (rev. and augm. throughout, electronic ed., 9th ed. with supplement, 1996).

[Resource Manager]

The word is defined consistently as ‘murderer’.¹⁵⁵ Three lexicons specifically identify the word as meaning ‘murderer’ in the context of 1 Timothy 1:9.¹⁵⁶ One explains it means ‘a murderer of women and children as well as of men’, identifying this as the meaning in 1 Timothy 2:9,¹⁵⁷ and another similarly says ‘a person who murders another person’, identifying this as the meaning in 1 Timothy 1:9.¹⁵⁸

 

Although the two words making up the word androphonos mean ‘man’ and ‘killer’ respectively, when they are combined to make the word androphonos the meaning is not ‘manslayer’ with the sense ‘someone who kills men as opposed to women’.

 

Ian and Averil committed the root fallacy by interpreting the word according to its root meaning rather than its cognate and contextual meaning. Standard modern Bible translations such as the CEV,¹⁵⁹ ESV,¹⁶⁰ GNB,¹⁶¹ HCSB,¹⁶² Message, NASB95,¹⁶³ NCV,¹⁶⁴ NET,¹⁶⁵ NIV,¹⁶⁶ NIRV,¹⁶⁷ NLT,¹⁶⁸ TLB,¹⁶⁹ and TNIV,¹⁷⁰ all render this word with an ungendered translation in 1 Timothy 1:9.

 

-------

¹⁵⁵ Ian and Averil provide no lexical evidence supporting their understanding of this word.

 

¹⁵⁶ BDAG, EDNT, Louw/Nida.

 

¹⁵⁷ Arndt, Danker, & Bauer, ‘A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature’, p. 76 (3^rd ed., 2000).

 

¹⁵⁸ Louw & Nida, ‘Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains’, volume 1, p. 237 (2^nd ed. 1989).

 

¹⁵⁹ ‘those who would even kill their own parents’.

 

¹⁶⁰ ‘those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers’.

 

¹⁶¹ ‘those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers’.

 

¹⁶² ‘those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers’.

 

¹⁶³ ‘those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers’.

 

¹⁶⁴ ‘those who kill their fathers and mothers, who murder’.

 

¹⁶⁵ ‘those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers’.

 

¹⁶⁶ ‘those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers’.

 

¹⁶⁷ ‘It is for those who kill their fathers or mothers. It is for murderers’.

 

¹⁶⁸ ‘who kill their father or mother or commit other murders’.

 

¹⁶⁹ ‘attack their fathers and mothers, and murder’.

 

¹⁷⁰ ‘those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers’.

[Resource Manager]

In ‘All One’ (February 2010), Ian and Averil removed their misleading claim ‘“Manslayers” is the exact word used of the Amazons who gloried in their defeat of the men’,¹⁷¹ having realized that the Greek word used by Herodotus is not the same Greek word used by Paul.¹⁷²

 

Unfortunately they retained their misleading statement that these words mean ‘mankilling’ or ‘manslaying’, giving the impression that these Greek words refer exclusively to the killing of males (as opposed to females).¹⁷³

 

In fact, neither word refers specifically to the killing of males as opposed to females; androktonos¹⁷⁴ is identified in the latest edition of the 'A Greek-English Lexicon’,¹⁷⁵ as referring generally to murder whether of men or women,¹⁷⁶ citing classical usage as evidence.

 

-------

¹⁷¹ Ibid., p. 77; however, they did not tell readers they were correcting their previous error.

 

¹⁷² ‘The word is androktonoi, not the word androphonoi in 1 Timothy 1:9, but both mean “mankilling” or “manslaying”.’, ‘All One’, p. 91 (February 2010).

 

¹⁷³ This error remains in the edition of ‘All One’ available on the ‘sistersspeak’ website at the time of writing (http://www.sisterssp...s/pdf/AOICJ.pdf); this document is dated 2010 on the cover page, but this web version was created from a Word document in February 2011, according to the document’s metadata.

 

¹⁷⁴ Though it does not appear in Greek lexicons covering the text of the New Testament, since the word is not used there.

 

¹⁷⁵ The standard classical Greek lexicon.

 

¹⁷⁶ ‘ἀδροκτόνος, ον, (κτείνω) man-slaying, murdering, σῦν ἀ. B.18.23 S.-M.; of Amazons, Hdt.4.110.1; of Cyclops, E.Cyc.22. 2. slayer of her husband, S.fr.187 R.’, Liddell, Scott, & Jones, ‘A Greek-English Lexicon’, p. 129 (rev. and augm. throughout, electronic ed., 9th ed. with supplement, 1996).

[Resource Manager]

Is 1 Timothy 2:11-12 a prohibition on Gnostic-influenced women?

 

The claim made

 

‘Paul says that Adam was formed first, then Eve,

because the false teaching in Ephesus, as seen later in Gnosticism, gave priority to Eve

.’

¹⁷⁷

 

‘

I Suffer Not a Woman – Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence, Richard & Catherine Kroeger (1992)

. This book has been much quoted and much criticised. The writers aim to give detailed background and analysis, to compare parallel grammatical usages in the New Testament, and explain how translation alternatives are reached. They suggest (page 103) that 1 Timothy 2:12 should be translated, “I do not permit woman to teach nor to represent herself as originator of man.... For Adam was created first, then Eve.”’

¹⁷⁸

 

Examination

 

Ian and Averil acknowledge that the Kroegers’ work has not been accepted by the scholarly consensus,¹⁷⁹ and advise due caution.¹⁸⁰

 

-------

¹⁷⁷ ‘All One’, p. 111 (2010), which is the edition available on the ‘sistersspeak’ website at the time of writing (http://www.sisterssp...s/pdf/AOICJ.pdf); this document is dated 2010 on the cover page, but this web version was created from a Word document in February 2011, according to the document’s metadata.

 

¹⁷⁸ Ibid., pp. 118-119.

 

¹⁷⁹ ‘This book has been much quoted and much criticised.’, ibid., p. 119.

 

¹⁸⁰ ‘Their suggested translation of authentein as “claim to be the originator” has received some, but not general, acceptance. In their notes they also refer to a fourth possibility which relies on understanding didaskein (“to teach”) as governing a dative case rather than the usual accusative. This construction is used in Revelation 2:14: “Balaam, who taught Balak [dative] to ...”. This would then produce something like: “I certainly do not permit people to teach a woman that she is superior to a man but she is to behave quietly. For Adam was created first, then Eve.” If such a translation is correct, Paul is objecting to what is taught to women, not by women, but we would like to see some definite support amongst other scholars before advocating a translation like this.’, ibid., p. 119; an earlier edition of ‘All One’ (March 2009), had ‘amongst reputable scholars’ (p. 95), but no explanation is given for this change in the current edition.

[Resource Manager]

Nevertheless, earlier in their work Ian and Averil spend some time attempting to build the case that ‘Gnostic teaching’ forms the context of Paul’s prohibition on sisters teaching.¹⁸¹ Careful readers will note that Ian and Averil stop just short of claiming that Gnostic teaching existed in the 1^st century, contemporary with Paul. They cautiously avoid saying this because they are well aware that the scholarly consensus is that Gnosticism was not contemporary with Paul.

 

However, they still insinuate strongly that Gnostic teachings were present in the 1^st century.¹⁸² In a footnote they include text from a scholarly commentary on the ‘Nag Hammadi Library’ which notes debates over whether some Gnostic texts might have originated in the first century,¹⁸³ but none of these texts contain references to the alleged ‘Gnostic teaching’ suggested by Ian and Averil as the background for 1 Timothy.

 

Readers will note that Ian and Averil’s own source says that the Gnostic writings in the Nag Hammadi Library are typically dated by scholars to the 2^nd and early 3^rd centuries, and that there is no mention here of any Gnostic writings contemporary with Paul.

 

-------

¹⁸¹ ‘The closing comment by Paul gives a useful clue to the probable nature of some of the false teachings, for Christianity was challenged for several centuries by various brands of heresy which came to be known as Gnosticism. Certain believers claimed to have superior knowledge (gnosis) beyond ordinary believers. Gnosticism flourished as a heresy particularly from the second to fourth centuries. There is debate as to when it began, but ideas such as were developed in Gnosticism do not spring suddenly out of nowhere, and a first century AD (or even BC) origin is very possible. A vast amount of literature from the ancient world details the various teachings of Gnosticism. The discovery of many Gnostic writings at Nag Hammadi in Egypt in 1945 has thrown more light on the subject than was previously available.’, ibid., p. 92.

 

¹⁸² ‘There is debate as to when it began, but ideas such as were developed in Gnosticism do not spring suddenly out of nowhere, and a first century AD (or even BC) origin is very possible.’, ibid., p. 92; a previous edition of ‘All One’ (March 2009), had ‘a first century AD (or even BC) origin makes good sense’ (p. 86), but no explanation is given for this change in the current edition, which reduces the strength of their original claim.

 

¹⁸³ ‘“The manuscripts were produced in the fourth century, but all of the texts are clearly translations from Greek originals. The original Greek compositions date most likely from the second century and the early third century, although there are debates over whether some texts might have originated in the first century, e.g. The Gospel of Thomas.” Dictionary of Later New Testament and its Developments, Gnosis, Gnosticism, 3.4.1. (IVP, 1997)’, ibid., p. 76.

[Resource Manager]

The scholarly consensus is overwhelmingly against the idea that Paul’s letter to Timothy had Gnostic groups in mind.¹⁸⁴ It is generally agreed that Gnosticism did not exist at the time of Paul, and that no Gnostic or proto-Gnostic texts have ever been found dating even close to the time of Paul.^{185 186 187 188}

 

The Kroegers’ work has been overwhelmingly rejected by the scholarly consensus across several disciplines (including New Testament interpretation, Gnostic studies, and archaeology), and is taken seriously only by egalitarian commentators attempting to re-interpret Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 2:11-15.¹⁸⁹

 

-------

¹⁸⁴ ‘Scholarship must in all likelihood abandon the hypothesis that a cohesive Gnostic movement204 is reflected in Paul’s letters.’, Lüdeman, ‘Primitive Christianity: A Survey of Recent Studies and Some New Proposals’, p. 150 (2003).

 

¹⁸⁵ ‘Egypt has yielded early written evidence of Jewish, Christian, and pagan religion. It has preserved works of Manichaean and other Gnostic sects, but these are all considerably later than the rise of Christianity.’, Unger, ‘The Role of Archaeology in the Study of the New Testament’, Bibliotheca Sacra (116.462.153), 1996.

 

¹⁸⁶ ‘Some modern researchers suggest that several NT and related texts evidence contact with “Gnosticism” in various stages of its development. Texts that especially stand out are Paul’s Corinthian correspondence, Colossians, Ephesians, the Pastoral Epistles, Jude, 2 Peter, and the letters of Ignatius of Antioch (d. ca. 115) and Polycarp of Smyrna (d. ca. 165) among others. But even here the issues discussed are diverse, demonstrating a complex assortment of competing new religious movements, but no evidence of “Gnosticism.”’, Freedman, ‘Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible’, p. 509 (2000).

 

¹⁸⁷ ‘Even if it could be proven that any of the previously discussed works or, for that matter, any of the NH tractates are non-Christian Gnostic documents, that would not in itself be evidence for pre-Christian Gnosticism.’, Combs, ‘Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism and New Testament Interpretation’, Grace Theological Journal (8.2.207-208), 1987.

 

¹⁸⁸ ‘And even if we are on solid ground in some cases in arguing the original works represented in the library are much older than extant copies, we are still unable to postulate plausibly any pre-Christian dates.’, McRae, ‘Nag Hammadi and the New Testament’, pp. 146–47, in Combs, ‘Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism and New Testament Interpretation’, Grace Theological Journal (8.2.208).

 

¹⁸⁹ ‘Kroeger and Kroeger have offered a unique interpretation of this injunction, suggesting that authentein at one time denoted participation in religious fertility rites. According to such an interpretation, the author was admonishing the women of the Ephesian church not to teach or engage in fertility practices with men, evidently referring to the Artemis cult at Ephesus and the role of courtesans as teachers. Kroeger and Kroeger stand alone in their interpretation.', Brown, in Meyers, Craven & Kraemer, 'Women In Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, and the New Testament', pp. 488-489 (2001).

[Resource Manager]

Of all the egalitarian attempts to provide an interpretation of the passage, this is the one which has received the most criticism from egalitarians, and has been demonstrated repeatedly by a range of scholars (egalitarian, complementarian, and unaligned third parties), to be completely without historical basis. Egalitarians criticizing the Kroeger’s claims include Liefeld,¹⁹⁰ Marshall and Towner,¹⁹¹ Scholer,¹⁹² Grenz and Kjesbo,¹⁹³ Holmes,¹⁹⁴ and Strelan.¹⁹⁵

 

-------

¹⁹⁰ ‘It is precarious, as Edwin Yamauchi and others have shown, to assume gnostic backgrounds for New Testament books. Although the phrase, "falsely called knowledge," in 1 Timothy 6:20 contains the Greek word gnosis, this was the common word for knowledge. It does seem anachronistic to transliterate and capitalize it "Gnosis" as Kroeger does.’, Liefeld (egalitarian), '1 Timothy 2:12 - A Classicist's View', in Mickelsen, 'Women, Authority & The Bible', p. 246 (1986).

 

¹⁹¹ 'Kroeger and Kroeger thus explain v. 13 as an answer to the false notion that the woman is the originator of man, with the Artemis cult in Ephesus, that had somehow crept into the church, possibly by way of the false teaching. However, this explanation cannot be substantiated (except from later Gnostic writings.', Marshall & Towner (egalitarians), 'A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles', p. 463 (2004).

 

¹⁹² 'Scholer's particular comment is also generally the case, that there is "no clear or particular evidence that connects this heresy [of 1 Timothy] with any pagan worship in Ephesus and its sexual activities and connotations" (1984:199 n 19).', Strelan, (egalitarian) 'Paul, Artemis, and the Jews in Ephesus', p. 155 (1996); Scholer is also an egalitarian.

 

¹⁹³ 'Thirdly, some scholars have sought to relate the opponents' teaching to Ephesian devotion to Artemis. Thus, Richard and Catherine Kroeger have argued that the opponents taught the priority of Eve over Adam and that Eve enlightened Adam with her teaching.11 Similarly, Gritz argues that the restriction on women teaching was related to the influence of the cult of Artemis among the addressees in Ephesus." However, both works go considerably beyond the evidence in their reconstructions of the opponents' teaching and its supposed connection with the context of Ephesian non-Christian religious life.', Grenz & Kjesbo (egalitarians), 'Women In The Church', p. 119 (1995).

 

¹⁹⁴ 'As a classicist, however, her [Catherine Kroeger] own contributions are reconstruction of a background and choices from linguistic options viewed as appropriate to that background. Both have been discredited.’, Holmes (egalitarian), 'Text In A Whirlwind', p. 26 (2000).

 

¹⁹⁵ 'The heresies and associated practices opposed in Timothy can be better understood on a Jewish background. That is not to say that they did not have a [distinctive] Ephesian flavor or that they were totally isolated from the influence of the Artemis cult - Jews and Christians did not live in a social or "religious" vacuum. But nor does it mean the problems came from gentlies who brought with them practices and ideas from the cult of Artemis.', Strelan, (egalitarian) 'Paul, Artemis, and the Jews in Ephesus', p. 155 (1996).

[Resource Manager]

In 1 Timothy 2:12, is authenteō used in a negative sense?

The claim made

 

‘There is disagreement among scholars as to the meaning of the word authentein which occurs only here in the New Testament. Suggested translations are “have authority” in a good sense, or “dominate” in a bad sense.’¹⁹⁶

 

‘Other writers continue to maintain the word has a negative meaning. I. H. Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles (1999), writes: “Ideas such as autocratic or domineering abuses of power and authority appear to be more naturally linked with the verb in view of the cognate nouns authentes and authenteia”.102 Bruce W. Winter (2003)103 concludes his discussion on authentein: “... it seems that here the term carries not only the connotation of authority but also an inappropriate misuse of it.”104’¹⁹⁷

Examination

 

English Bible translations over the years have been generally in agreement when rendering the word authenteō in 1 Timothy 2:12:

 

• CEV: ‘tell men what to do’
   
  
• GNB: ‘have authority over men’
   
  
• KV: ‘usurp authority over the man’
   
  
• NASB: ‘exercise authority over a man’
   
  
• NET: ‘exercise authority over a man’
   
  
• NIV: ‘have authority over a man’
   
  
• NLT: ‘have authority over them’
   
  
• RSV: ‘have authority over men’

-------

^{196 ‘}All One’, p. 118 (2010), which is the edition available on the ‘sistersspeak’ website at the time of writing (http://www.sisterssp...s/pdf/AOICJ.pdf); this document is dated 2010 on the cover page, but this web version was created from a Word document in February 2011, according to the document’s metadata.

 

¹⁹⁷ Ibid., p. 120.

[Resource Manager]

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’. Although The claim made 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.

 

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 Kroeger, though the well recognized sense ‘domineer’ has been proposed as appropriate to 1 Timothy 2:12.^{198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205}

 

-------

¹⁹⁸ ‘aὐθεντέω strictly, of one who acts on his own authority; hence have control over, domineer, lord it over (1T 2.12)., Friberg, Friberg, & Miller ‘Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament’, volume 4, p. 81 (2000).

 

¹⁹⁹ ‘...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].’, Arndt, Danker, & Bauer, ‘A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature’, p. 150 (3^rd ed., 2000).

 

²⁰⁰ ‘aὐθεντέω authenteō rule (vb.)* 1 Tim 2:12: women should not rule over men (gen.).’, Balz & Schneider, ‘Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament. Translation of: Exegetisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testamen’, volume 1, p. 178 (1990-c1993).

 

²⁰¹ ‘37.21 aὐθεντέω: to control in a domineering manner—‘to control, to domineer.’ γυνaικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω … aὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός ‘I do not allow women … to dominate men’ 1 Tm 2.12.’, Louw & Nida, ‘Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains’, volume 1, p. 473 (2^nd ed. 1989).

 

²⁰² ‘authent-eô , A. to have full power or authority over, tinos I Ep.Ti.2.12...’, Liddell, Scott, & Jones, ‘A Greek-English Lexicon’, p.275 (rev. and augm. throughout, electronic ed., 9^th ed. with supplement, 1996); note reference to the meaning ‘murder’, which was obsolete by the 1^st century CE.

 

²⁰³ ‘aὐθεντέω domineer, have authority over.’, Newman, ‘Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament’, p. 28 (1993).

 

²⁰⁴ ‘883 aὐθεντέω (authenteō): vb.; ≡ Str 831—LN 37.21 control, have authority over (1Ti 2:12+).’, Swanson, ‘Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament)’, DBLG 883 (2nd ed. 2001).

 

²⁰⁵ ‘... 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).’, Zodhiates, ‘The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament’, G831 (electronic ed., 2000).

[Resource Manager]

Two early papyri using the word authenteō, Papyrus BGU 1208 (c.27 BCE), and Papyrus Tebtunis 15 (c.100AD), are significant because they former contains the closest use of the word authenteō to the time of Paul and the latter uses the noun authentēs, one of the cognates of authenteō, and a word which has also been included in a number of lexical studies seeking to establish the meaning of authenteō itself. Both are supportive evidence for the recent studies by Baldwin ²⁰⁶ and Wolters. ²⁰⁷

 

The lexical data was later supplemented by a large scale contextual syntax study of the passage by Andreas Köstenberger in 1995,²⁰⁸ who argued that the neither/nor construction used in ouk didaskein oude authentein (‘neither teach nor have/exercise authority’), requires that both didaskein and authentein have a positive or negative sense. Köstenberger concluded that like the verbs in Luke 12:24 (‘neither sow nor harvest’), and Acts 4:18 (‘neither speak nor teach’), teaching has a positive meaning in such passages as 1 Timothy 4:11; 6:2, and 2 Timothy 2:2.²⁰⁹

 

This would therefore mean that authenteo has a positive meaning in 1 Timothy 2:12, and does not refer to domineering but the positive exercise of authority. The majority of both complementarian and egalitarian scholars agreed with Köstenberger’s study. Many consider that the contextual meaning of authenteō in 1 Timothy 2:12 has been decided conclusively by Köstenberger.

 

-------

²⁰⁶ Köstenberger, Schreiner, and Baldwin, eds., ‘Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15’, (1995).

 

²⁰⁷ Wolters, ‘A Semantic Study of aὐθέντης 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.

 

²⁰⁸ Köstenberger et al. (complementarian), ‘Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15’, (1st ed. 1995).

 

²⁰⁹ Ibid., p. 315.

[Resource Manager]

Among the egalitarians supporting Köstenberger’s study are Kevin Giles,²¹⁰ Craig Blomberg,²¹¹ Esther Ng,²¹² Craig Keener,²¹³ and Judith Hartenstein.²¹⁴

 

Ian and Averil make brief reference to Köstenberger’s work in a footnote, disputing Köstenberger’s conclusion on the grounds that the Greek verb didaskō (‘teach’), can have a negative connotation, and citing Titus 1:11, 1 Timothy 1:7; 6:34 as evidence.²¹⁵

 

What readers are not told is that didaskō, is not even used in two of the three passages cited by Ian and Averil. Furthermore, the only time when it is used there are words used in contexts which qualify the meaning of the word, proving it is not the word itself which has a negative meaning. None of the verses contain what Ian and Averil claimed.^{216 217 218}

 

In none of them is the Greek verb for ‘teach’ (didaskō), used in a negative sense. In fact the verb doesn’t even appear in two of them.

 

-------

²¹⁰ ‘finds himself in essential agreement with the present syntactical analysis of 1 Tim 2:12’, ibid., pp. 48-49; Giles suggests however that Paul may have broken this grammatical rule in 1 Timothy 2:12.

 

²¹¹ ‘Decisively supporting the more positive sense of assuming appropriate authority is Andreas Köstenberger’s study’, ibid., p. 49.

 

²¹² ‘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’, ibid., p. 49; Ng has critiqued both egalitarian and complementarian commentaries, and does not appear to be firmly established on either side, but inclines towards egalitarianism.

 

²¹³ ‘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’).”', ibid., p. 47.

 

²¹⁴ ‘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’, ibid., p. 49.

 

²¹⁵ ‘Also in this book, Andreas J. Köstenberger argues that for reasons of Greek syntax, if “teach” has a positive meaning (as often in the New Testament), so too should authentein. But in the Pastoral Epistles “teach” can have a negative connotation (Titus 1:11, 1 Timothy 1:7, 1 Timothy 6:3), so by Köstenberger’s argument, this could lead to authentein as also having a pejorative meaning in the context.’, ‘All One’, p. 120 (2010).

 

²¹⁶ 1 Timothy 1:7: ‘They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not understand what they are saying or the things they insist on so confidently.’: in this case the veb didaskō (‘teach’), is not even used, instead Paul used the noun nomodidaskalos (‘teachers of the law’), which does not have a negative meaning at all; Paul’s point is that these people want to be ‘teachers of the law’, but they are not able to.

 

²¹⁷ 1 Timothy 6:3: ‘If someone spreads false teachings and does not agree with sound words (that is, those of our Lord Jesus Christ) and with the teaching that accords with godliness,’: in this case the veb didaskō (‘teach’), is not even used, the negative verb heterodidaskaleō (‘teach falsely’), is used instead.

 

²¹⁸ Titus 1:11: ‘who must be silenced because they mislead whole families by teaching for dishonest gain what ought not to be taught.’; in this case it is the phrase ‘ought not’ (Greek dei mē), which tells us that the teaching here is wrong, not the word for ‘teach’ (the very fact that the word didaskō has to be qualified shows us that it has no inherent negative meaning here).

[Resource Manager]

In 1 Timothy 2:12, does authenteō mean ‘originator’?

 

The claim made

 

‘I Suffer Not a Woman – Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence, Richard & Catherine Kroeger (1992).

This book has been much quoted and much criticised

. The writers aim to give detailed background and analysis, to compare parallel grammatical usages in the New Testament, and explain how translation alternatives are reached.

They suggest

(page 103) that 1 Timothy 2:12 should be translated, “

I do not permit woman to teach nor to represent herself as originator of man

.... For Adam was created first, then Eve.” We quoted this in our 1996 draft version of this book. Their suggested translation of

authentein

as “claim to be the originator” has

received some, but not general, acceptance

.’

²¹⁹

 

Examination

 

Ian and Averil tell readers that the Kroegers’ suggestion that authentein (the infinitive form of the verb authenteō), means ‘claim to be originator’ has ‘received some, but not general, acceptance.’²²⁰ This is a considerable understatement of the facts. In reality, it has received acceptance only among some egalitarian commentators, and has even been rejected by other egalitarian commentators.

 

‘I Suffer Not a Woman is

filled with efforts to find “sex reversal,” “female dominance,” and “sex and death” motifs in Ephesian society

, because the Kroegers believe that, in the end, all these things are implied in Paul’s prohibition that women should not aὐθεντεῖν.

 

It is no wonder that L. E. Wilshire, even though he shares the egalitarian outlook, says: “This is a breathtaking extension into (pre-) Gnostic content yet an interpretation I do not find supported either by the totality of their own extensive philological study, by the NT context, or by the immediate usages of the word authenteo and its variants.”16 [original footnote reproduced in footnote ²²¹ below]’²²²

 

-------

²¹⁹ ‘All One’, p. 118 (2010), which is the edition available on the ‘sistersspeak’ website at the time of writing (http://www.sisterssp...s/pdf/AOICJ.pdf); this document is dated 2010 on the cover page, but this web version was created from a Word document in February 2011, according to the document’s metadata.

 

²²⁰ Ibid., p. 95

 

²²¹ ‘16. “Revisited,” 54. Wilshire observes that his earlier study on aὐθεντεῖν (NTS 34 [1988] 120-34) is missing in the Kroegers’ book, although it is normally cited in discussions of this verb. “The omission,” he says, “would seem to be deliberate” (p. 53).’, Baugh, ‘The Apostle among the Amazons’, Westminster Theological Journal (56.157), Spring 1994.

 

²²² Ibid., p. 157.

[Resource Manager]

Furthermore, Ian and Averil do not inform readers that the Kroegers’ definition of authentein has been completely rejected by lexicographers, and is ignored in all standard lexical authorities. The following quotations are definitions of authenteō (the primary form of the verb authentein), from the standard scholarly lexicons.

 

‘aὐθεντέω strictly, of one who acts on his own authority; hence have control over, domineer, lord it over (1T 2.12).’²²³

 

‘aὐθεντέω (s. aὐθέντης; 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]

..’

²²⁴

 

‘aὐθεντέω authenteō rule (vb.)*

1 Tim 2:12: women should not rule over men

(gen.). cf. G. W. Knight, “Aὐθεντέω in Reference to Women in 1 Tim. 2,12,” NTS 30 (1984) 143-57.’

²²⁵

 

‘aὐθέντης,-ου+ N1M 0-0-0-0-1=1 Wis 12,6

Murderer

Cf. LARCHER 1985, 710’

²²⁶

‘37.21 aὐθεντέω:

to control in a domineering manner—‘to control, to domineer

.’ γυνaικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω … aὐθεντεῖν 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.’

²²⁷

 

‘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.’

²²⁸

 

‘aὐθεντέω domineer, have authority over.’

²²⁹

 

‘883 aὐθεντέω (authenteō): vb.; ≡ Str 831—LN 37.21

control, have authority over

(1Ti 2:12+).’

²³⁰

 

‘831. aὐθεντέω authentéō; contracted authent

ó

; 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)

.’

²³¹

 

-------

²²³ Friberg, Friberg, & Miller ‘Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament’, volume 4, p. 81 (2000).

 

²²⁴ Arndt, Danker, & Bauer, ‘A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature’, p. 150 (3^rd ed., 2000).

 

²²⁵ Balz & Schneider, ‘Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament. Translation of: Exegetisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testamen’, volume 1, p. 178 (1990-c1993).

 

²²⁶ Lust, Eynikel, & Hauspie, ‘A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint’ (electronic rev. ed. 2003); 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 1^st century CE.

 

²²⁷ Louw & Nida, ‘Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains’, volume 1, p. 473 (2^nd ed. 1989).

 

²²⁸ Liddell, Scott, & Jones, ‘A Greek-English Lexicon’, p.275 (rev. and augm. throughout, electronic ed., 9^th ed. with supplement, 1996); note again reference to the meaning ‘murder’, which was obsolete by the 1^st century CE.

 

²²⁹ Newman, ‘Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament’, p. 28 (1993).

 

²³⁰ Swanson, ‘Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament)’, DBLG 883 (2nd ed. 2001).

 

²³¹ Zodhiates, ‘The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament’, G831 (electronic ed., 2000).

[Resource Manager]

In acknowledgment of the lexical agreement on this word, and in recognition of the Kroegers’ flawed scholarship concerning the meaning of this word, their proposed definitions of authentein have been rejected by of scholars across the entire spectrum of views.

 

‘Unfortunately she mars her study

by a questionable linguistic analysis of aὐθεντέω

, seeking to tie an etymological idea to the hapax legomenon, ultimately taking the word to mean “originator or source of something.”’

²³²

 

‘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

.'

²³³

 

‘The second part of the thesis is that the other verb, authenteo, "represents either a ritual act or a doctrinal tenet propounded by the heretical teachers."

This

does not seem to fit any of the meanings proposed for authenteo in her first paragraph

: "begin." "be... responsible for," "rule," "dominate," "usurp power or rights." "claim ownership, sovereignty or authorship."

Further, it is a bit of a twist

to claim that authenteo,

which is a verb

, could "represent a doctrinal tenet,"

when "tenet" is a noun

.'

²³⁴

 

‘Kroeger uses

older dictionaries

, projects backwards from

developed Gnosticism

, and

neglects the broader context

.'

²³⁵

 

'On the basis of

outdated lexicography, uncited and no longer extant classical texts, a discredited background

(see my Introduction n. 25), and the introduction of an ellipsis into a clause which is itself complete,

the Kroegers rewrite v. 12

.'

²³⁶

 

-------

²³² House, review of '1 Timothy 2:12 - A Classicist's View', in Mickelsen, 'Women, Authority & The Bible' (1986), Bibliotheca Sacra (145.458), April 1988; House is a complementarian, but he is well supported by Liefeld (see below), and the standard lexicon definitions.

 

²³³ Moss, 'NIV Commentary: 1, 2 Timothy & Titus', p. 60 (1995); Moss is a complementarian, but he is well supported by Liefeld (see below), and the standard lexicon definitions.

 

²³⁴ Liefeld (egalitarian), 'Response: 1 Timothy 2:12 - A Classicist's View', in Mickelsen, 'Women, Authority & The Bible', p. 245 (1986).

 

²³⁵ Holmes (egalitarian), ‘Text in a Whirlwind’, p. 86 (2000).

 

²³⁶ Ibid., p. 89.