Gender Blog has announced:
This past Sunday, Dr. Thomas R. Schreiner preached on the distinctive roles God has given to men and women in the kingdom at the Unity and Diversity Conference. The event was sponsored by Grace Reformation Church of Woodland, California. His expositional sermon is entitled “Who Does What?” taken from 1 Timothy 2:9-15.
If you would like to listen to Dr. Schreiner’s sermon click on the first link in the blog quote. Feel free to interact with the sermon contents in Comments here, of course, following our Comment guidelines.
The audios are not up yet so the link does not work.
Here is info from the flyer.
Orthodoxy
All Christians are to be unified on the essentials of our biblical faith–the doctrines of God, of the Fall, and Salvation. By God’s providence, the Church has not always been in complete agreement on every doctrine. Thus we ask, how can we work on our unity?
This conference will aid believers in answering that question by enabling Christians to have a better understanding of what some of those differences are, which is necessary for bringing about a more comprehensive unity.
This conference will bring Christians together to hear from four distinct Bible scholars who will speak with passion from their biblical perspective on areas where the Church is not in total unity. The interaction of these scholars will purposely aim to be an example of disagreeing in a loving, Christ-like manner. The forum format will allow for free dialogue between the speakers. Each of these men loves Christ, are unified in the essentials, and are convinced about what Scripture teaches.
Grace Reformation Church
(530) 406-8909 • grc411@gmail.com
Don observed:
The audios are not up yet so the link does not work.
I think it’s temporary. Yesterday I got the proper page with a link for downloading the mp3 file. I downloaded the mp3 just fine.
I’ve just listened to the first section. He had a very pleasant voice to listen to, and I appreciated what appeared to be his humilty, as well.
Those looking for a list of verified gender differences will appreciate the first part of the sermon, too.
From the sermon,
[men and women are equal heirs of the grace of life]…”But we have different roles, we have different functions, and God made us that way and we praise Him for that.”
“Christ had a different function from the Father, didn’t He? The Father commanded and the Son obeyed. …But the Son is of equal worth to the Father. He’s not less than the Father in His essence and His dignity, and that is true of male and female, as well.”
Then he gets into the passage in 1 Timothy 2.
I stopped at 11:49…I’ll get back to more of this later.
(I forgot to add that the quotes I provided are some of the “biggies” that comps and egals generally differ sharply on).
The webpage with the mp3 sermon file is back online again.
I listened to Schreiner, and my conclusion is: everyone operates and exegetes and preaches from assumptions and biases. There is so much in 1 Timothy 2 that can be unpacked and examined and discussed re: what it means and why (I’ve read the Kostenberger book, and have Mounce’s commentary on the Pastorals), and how to apply it, that a simple exposition of the text, whether biased (as I think Schreiner’s is even in his tangential comments, e.g., his reinterpretation around 12:30 of the meaning of “prophecy” as the public reading of Scripture) or unbiased (is that possible?) is hardly even a starting place.
It seems to me that many of the statements about this passage depend on assumptions and presuppositions about the passage, the book, the cultural context, the NT as a whole, the entire Bible, etc. And the way people apply this passage does not seem to be consistent.
So, what’s the bottom line? I have no idea. I am Joe’s State of Confusion. ;^)
Dr. Tom Schreiner is a comp. giving a talk at a conference hosted by a church that teaches male-only church leaders. The conference wants to discuss areas where there is disagreement (and not unity) in the church by giving examples of “disagreeing in a loving Christ-like manner”. Tom discusses 1 Tim 2:8-15, which contains the verse that probably is most contentious between egals and non-egals.
I agree with his general statements about differences of tendencies between men and women.
I agree with his deduction that the man was with the woman in the garden of Eden when she was deceived and that he should have intervened.
I agree with his advice to first listen to an someone who disagrees, and when they challenge you, to try to see how it might be true.
I agree that there is a difference between a cultural expression in the Bible and the principle behind it. I also agree that most often the principle and command in Scripture are the same.
I agree saved (sozo) is always used by Paul for spiritual salvation.
He gave some examples of how evangelical feminists may understand a verse. Since he does not believe in their understanding going in, guess which way he comes out. My take is the best that can be done at this conference would be to have both sides represented, failing that, try to give exact quotes with references so others can investigate for themselves.
I agree that his non-egal interpretation is A possible interpretation; the question is whether it is the preferred interpretation. My take is that this section are mirror verses; how one interprets these verses depends a lot on what one takes into the verses; that is, they reflect one’s presuppositions which are used to fill in the gaps of our understanding.
As an egal, I have many disagreements with what he said, but I am not sure how to express them under the new comment guidelines, specifically that I am not to lecture and not to challenge his scholarship. I do not question that Tom is trying his best to follow the Lord. Any clarification here would be useful.
Don wrote:
As an egal, I have many disagreements with what he said, but I am not sure how to express them under the new comment guidelines, specifically that I am not to lecture and not to challenge his scholarship.
Don, the guideline about lecturing has to do with us not lecturing each other in blog comments. We should not treat each other as our students to whom we need to impart our wisdom. My children reacted negatively to my lecturing them. They considered it a negative thing. Perhaps there is a better word to use than “lecture” since a lecture by a Bible teacher can be a good, informative thing. The idea of “don’t harangue” is meant to be a part of “don’t lecture.”
As for not challenging scholarship, that guideline is intended toward how we speak to each other as commenters. It does not come across well, if we tell someone that they have not read the “best” (how evaulated?!) exegetes on a topic of disagreement.
I’d be glad to revise the guidelines further. Perhaps you can help me do that. With the WordPress templates it is best to keep the guidelines concise. Yet we also want them clear enough, so it takes work to meet the needs for understanding what we are trying to communicate.
Thanks for implicitly asking for clarification.
UPDATE: Don, after writing the above, I tweaked the guidelines a bit. Did it help?
For some reason, I cannot copy text in a comment post. Is this deliberate?
Don asked:
For some reason, I cannot copy text in a comment post. Is this deliberate?
It is not deliberate, Don, and I am unable to replicate the problem. I copied and pasted your comment to my comment and added the html code for italics.
Tell me more, so I can try to replicate the problem.
Right, I just tried it and now I can do it. Since it was new software, I thought it might be a toggle. I do not know what I could not do it before.
Here are some aspects of what I teach about 1 Tim, with implied critiques of what Tom taught.
1. The purpose of the letter is to get Timothy, Paul’s representative, to correct false teaching at Ephesus and also to encourage Timothy. It is not a teaching letter, altho it contains teaching. The purpose of the letter provides some of the context for ALL the other verses, this is WHY this verse was written.
1Ti 1:3 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine,
1Ti 1:6 Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion,
1Ti 1:7 desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.
1Ti 6:3 If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness,
1Ti 6:4 he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing.
2. It is not known for sure what the connotation of authentein is in 1 Tim, whether it is positive or negative, let alone what it means. Sue gives some great analysis on how it can be negative.
3. It is not know whether “not teach nor authentein” is a hendiadys (1 thing described by 2 words) or 2 things. If it is 2 things then teach has no direct object and so is unrestricted in scope, so any scope limitation MUST come from elsewhere in the sentence or context. In other words, the sentence prohibits too much if a generic woman is meant.
5. hesuchia (quietness) is how everyone is supposed to act when learning, in this case, this is normal classroom order with the teacher in charge.
6. I see 1 Tim 2:11-12 as having an inclusio by the repeated hesuchia. This tightly binds these together. As 1 Tim 2:11 has an imperative verb (command) it dominates 1 Tim 2:12 with the present tense verb. The idea is that the woman at Ephesus MUST be allowed to learn, while learning she is not to teach nor authentein a man.
7. On the present tense verb in 1 Tim 2:12 “permit”, the way to understand 1 Tim 2:1, 2:8 and 2:12 (all present tense verbs) is to ground them in the situation at Ephesus, this is the primary meaning of the use of a present tense verb in the letter. So Paul is telling Timothy that the Ephesian church is to pray for all people and society’s leaders, that men in church are to stop fighting and instead pray (this implies some were fighting) and that a woman at Ephesus is to not to teach nor authentein while she is learning.
8. Timothy can identify the woman Paul intends to be taught as it was someone who was wearing costly attire and a proselyte (theosebeian). He avoids using her name as he hopes she will be restored and later able to teach as he was by the Lord when he was deceived.
9. The principles (applications) for today are that we are to pray for others and society leaders, that no one should fight in church, and that if someone is deceived about something, they are to learn before they can teach.
10. I think the reference to Adam and Eve in 1 Tim 2:13-14 is a direct refutation of part of the false teaching at Ephesus. That is, some at Ephesus were saying that Eve was formed first and Adam was deceived. It is known that Gnostics claimed these kinds of things, altho it is written down later.
11. I think the reference to “the childbearing” is a ref. to Christ as it is Christ who saves.
Don,
Would you expand on your point 6 please? What is the technical meaning of “inclusio” and can you provide a reference to another passage with the same sort of structure?
It’s difficult to catch exact words when listening to audio.
I have some difficulty with his concept that Paul is not saying that Adam was not deceived, but only that Adam wasn’t deceived first. I don’t think who was deceived first matters. And I find it difficult to get that from the Scriptures.
Also, I’m not sure but he may have said that Paul said women were to only teach women and children, or else he assumed that from something. Didn’t quite catch it. But I do know that Scripture doesn’t actually address who women can teach.
He did have some good things to say about tendencies of men and women, cultural expressions and about paying attention to principals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusio discusses inclusio.
wiki discusses inclusio.
Don, might this be the wiki link you are thinking of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusio
Yes, but I have a post that is waiting for moderation giving that link. Since it was in a wait, I gave the info without the link.
Titus 2 talks about older women teaching younger women.
Steven Runge’s Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament (Logos Bible Software) shows for 1 Timothy 2:11-12:
11 Sentence γυνὴ ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ μανθανέτω ἐν πάσῃ ὑποταγῇ
12 Sentence (Counterpoint) διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω
>>Elaboration οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός (end Counterpoint)
>>Elaboration ἀλλ ̓ (Point) εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ (end Point)
Thus, according to Runge, it appears that the important point that Paul is making is that a woman is to be quiet. I.e., “but to be in quietness” (2:12c) is not an afterthought or something just tagged on at the end, but is the primary point he is making, and I guess a repetition/reinforcement of what he wrote in verse 11 when he also wrote “quietness.”
Runge’s definitions/glossary for the above:
Point (Clause Level)—One part of a paired set of statements that is usually replaces the counterpoint, and is the more important of the two. Point-counterpoint sets accomplish two primary purposes:
• Explicitly linking two things together that otherwise might not have been connected.
• Drawing more attention to the ‘point’ that it would not otherwise have received.
See the Introduction for further discussion on Points.
Counterpoint (Clause Level)—One part of a paired set of statements that is usually replaced by a more-important point. Point-counterpoint sets accomplish two primary purposes:
• Explicitly linking two things together that otherwise might not have been connected.
• Drawing more attention to the ‘point’ that it would not otherwise have received.
Runge, S. (2008; 2008). The Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament (1 Ti 2:10-12). Logos Research Systems, Inc.
Eric,
I’m so glad to see you here!
*waves*
It was interesting to read about quietness being one of the primary attributes of students, somethign that male students were repeatedly admonished/encouraged to be, in other found documents, etc, during this time period of Scripture.
I wonder how often this kind of thing affects our interpretation—as with kephale/head, and also with silence, our modern concept of what that word means may/does interfere with what the original writer was actually trying to say. (I know that it really tripped me up…in my zeal to obey Scripture out of my love for God, I neglected to understand heurmenutical principles about cultural/historical context that really caused me to miss the point of many passages—well, at least, that’s what I think now).
This is an interesting article mulling over the difficulty of trying to apply these passages literally:
http://www.freedomsring.org/permit/chap13.html
(Not sure if the author is comp or egal, I just appreciated the honesty expressed in the article)!
Another interesting take–I don’t think I”ve ever heard this one before:
http://www.kencollins.com/question-33.htm
It is my understanding that “but to be in quietness”of verse 12, is subject to the main thought in verse 11 of Paul telling Timothy to ‘let the woman learn, in quietness with all submission’. “Let a woman Learn!” is the whole point. She was to learn in the manner of a student – in quietness, and again that means she was not to teach but to remain in the demeanor of a student. As well, she is to do this so that she is not deceived like Eve, so as to avoid falling into sin, like Eve.
That is my take.
I believe Cheryl has a thoughtful take on verse 15.
believer3:
FWIW, Runge indicates that “in quietness” has been syntactically moved to the place of prominence in 2:11. He tags “in silence” as:
I.e., “IN QUIETNESS let a woman learn with all submission….” (in the Greek the word “woman” preceeds “in quietness”)
Greek has the flexibility to change word order to indicate emphasis, and sometimes such emphases are not always conveyed in English translations. I think Runge may be right here, but those more knowledgeable about Greek and Discourse Analysis are better able to judge Runge’s analysis than I.
Ooops. I meant to write “in quietness,” not “in silence,” in my 2nd sentence.
‘It seems to me that many of the statements about this passage depend on assumptions and presuppositions about the passage, the book, the cultural context, the NT as a whole, the entire Bible, etc. And the way people apply this passage does not seem to be consistent.
So, what’s the bottom line? I have no idea. I am Joe’s State of Confusion. ;^)’
What can be proven and what cannot. That’s the bottom line. Interpretational choices, assumptions, presuppositions are entirely a different game. What’s been generaly taught about this passage? NOT the plain ol’ boring facts. Now that’s interesting to me.
Is there any 1 reason why we cannot build on the facts ALONE to try to know what Paul was saying? How simple and easy to do too..
We just cannot justifiably press further than the facts allow.
Greek has many prefixes and suffixes to indicate how a word is to be used in a sentence, this feature allows the word order itself to indicate prominence, the general guideline is the most important words are given first, whatever the author deems them to be. Since English does not do this, it can be hard to show this aspect in English. This is an area of judgment in translation.
One thing to realize is that Greek only had 4 punctuation marks and these were not always used in the manuscripts we have. So things for which we use punctuation marks needed to be indicated by other means.
For example, to bracket something they used an inclusio, which is a repeated term or idea. The text inside an inclusio can be short or very long. But one needs to find a repeat to even begin to wonder if an inclusio is intended, so they can be missed, esp. as we do not use such things today.
When one finds an inclusio, another can not see it, thinking it is something else, like repetition for emphasis. So my claim is that I see an inclusio with the repeated hesuchia and I invite others to see it with me.
So I tightly couple 1 Tim 2:11-12 together, in effect they are one “thing” (with parts) that Paul is charging Timothy to do with regards to a woman at Ephesus. The main part is that she MUST be allowed to learn, this was very counter-cultural. The secondary part is that WHILE LEARNING, she is not to teach nor authentein.
This gentle redemptive action to handle an unnamed woman at Ephesus needs to be contrasted with Hy and Al being kicked out of the church, which while still redemptive is much more severe.
Hello Eric,
FWIW, Runge indicates that “in quietness” has been syntactically moved to the place of prominence in 2:11. He tags “in silence” as:
I find some difficulty in making “in quietness” the primary subject of vs. 11-12. The word “in” is a preposition. Prepositions are modifiers of verbs. The Verb that the preposition is modifying is “Learning”. This is just one reason why most Greek scholars say that “Let (her) be Learning” is the primary subject. Also, the “let learning” has an emphasis in Greek that “in quietness” does not have. You can check the verb forms at
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/1ti2.pdf
TL:
Does the Greek third person imperative have the same force as an English imperative (i.e., a command)? I see the interlinear you linked to has “let-her-be-learning!” as the translation, which suggests (because of the !) that it is a command. Is that one reason why people say that “let a woman learn” is the emphasis here – i.e., because they view it as a command? (I’ll have to study donjo’s inclusio argument at another time.)
But the third person imperative doesn’t always mean a command. Jesus uses it in Matthew 26:39 – “My Father, if it is possible, let-pass (3rd person imperative) this cup from Me.”
Just some thoughts. I’ll have to see what the resources I have say about prepositional phrases being able, or not able, to have the place of prominence in a clause.
Imperative means command in general, there is also a super-imperative which is like a military command, to be immediately obeyed as in RIGHT NOW; this is not like that. But an imperative verb has priority over a present tense verb.
Ben Witherington points out that IF Paul had wanted to make it very clear that he did not want ANY women to teach, he could have used a different construction. So, for him, while that may be a possible understanding, it is not the preferred understanding; and I agree with him on this.
Sorry, I forgot to log in before, I’m believer3 & TL.
But the third person imperative doesn’t always mean a command.
This is true, as donjo clarified.
In this case the two choices compared still lean toward “let be learning”.
1. a preposition needs a verb to hook to, it rarely stands on its own, but I think it can.
2. standing a preposition next to an imperative, the imperative comes out in front.
3. since the preposition ALSO hooks into the imperative as its verb, then we’ve two reasons why “let be learning” would be the primary subject.
But the third person imperative doesn’t always mean a command. Jesus uses it in Matthew 26:39 – “My Father, if it is possible, let-pass (3rd person imperative) this cup from Me.”
Good example. I would say that because Christ said if it is possible that downgraded its strength to a strong request, still an imperative. As donjo said, it isn’t a super imperative.
I emailed Steven Runge re: our conversation here related to “in quietness” and its emphasis versus “Let a woman learn!” and hopefully he’ll respond. FWIW, he has a blog at:
http://www.ntdiscourse.org/
(reposted w/o active link indicators – WordPress doesn’t seem to like hyperlinks in comments these days)
I emailed Steven Runge re: our conversation here related to “in quietness” and its emphasis versus “Let a woman learn!” and hopefully he’ll respond. FWIW, he has a blog at:
ntdiscourse.org/
(reposted w/o active link indicators – WordPress doesn’t seem to like hyperlinks in comments these days)
Let me try another way. Does the following work as a link:
NT Discourse blog
OK, I see that the link worked. You have to type the html code for links directly into your comments. Here is the html code for a link:
{a href=”http://ntdiscourse.org/”}NT Discourse blog{/a}
I have used curly brackets so that the code would display as text rather than as a link. To get the code to work as a link, substitute angled brackets for the curly brackets.
Steven Runge emailed me a response re: the force of the 3rd-person imperative in 1 Tim 2, and here is the relevant portion (he gave me persmission to post it):
“First, using the third person imperative has an impact on the directness of the command, mitigating it. Compare to the second person imperatives in Eph 5 :25; 6:1, 4, 5, where the vocative identifies the addressee, and then the second person give the direct command.
“Second is the metacomment BOULOMAI in v. 8. Verse 9 could be viewed as subrogated to v. 8, since the verb form in v. 9 is an infinitive, parallel to PROSEUXESQAI. I charted v. 9 as though BOULOMAI is understood as elided, which puts you in the same place, but without indenting the text. This means that the whole discussion is more an urging or reasoning by Paul, rather than a strict hortatory command to DO THIS.”
He said that he may at some point post videos on working through passages, and said this would be a good one.
FWIIW, hortatory is what I called “super-imperative” a few posts back.
Interesting, Eric.
(Btw, an interesting aside, Eric was my Greek teacher at Bible school in TX…not that I retained anything)…
I should also add that while I was a alt-rock singer and living a wild life, it was Eric’s table (set up on the “cool” street to hang out on) of hand-written leaflets about Jesus and his warm non-assuming conversations that played a pivatol role as I turned from rebellion back to God.
Nice to know another Greek teacher. I’ve a few for friends.
Welcome, Eric.
“This means that the whole discussion is more an urging or reasoning by Paul, rather than a strict hortatory command to DO THIS.””
I would agree with this. Paul is urging Timothy to let “a woman” (or particular women) learn, regarding a situation that most likely Timothy wrote Paul about. It could be about ’some’ women (vs.3) along with some men, who were involved in teaching ‘other’ doctrines, who were engaging in fables and endless geneologies (vs. 4), and idle talk (vs. 6), thinking themselves to be teachers (vs. 7) yet not really understanding the law. Instead of turning them over to Satan as Paul did to Hymenaeus and Alexander (vs. 20), Paul is extending mercy because he believes they did so in ignorance (unlearned) just as the Lord extended mercy to Paul (vs. 13-14). Instead of handing them over to Satan along with some of the men, he is urging Timothy to rather “Let the woman Learn, in quietness and all submission” (a phrase used to indicate the demeanor of a student).
I’m not sure what he is saying with verses 8 & 9. Does he mean that the “I am intending” (boulomai) of verse 8 can be added into the beginning of verse 9 and “similarly” (hOhoutOs) as a stronger urging? If so, I would agree.
However I do not see verses 11-15 as part of verses 9-10. They are a subpoint, a new point, or another question to be dealt with. The TransLine NT Bible also shows it that way. The TransLine is a literal translation in outline format. Donjo can explain it better. I’ve only had mine a few months.
I consider both subsections of vs. 2:1 and 2:9 to be going back to 1:18 in Paul’s instructions to Timothy. In 2:9 we have 3 different subjects offshooting from the admonishment for women to adorn themselves in modesty and soundmindedness:
a. not in braided hair, etc.
b. but through good works for women professing godliness
c. and let “a woman” (interestingly changing fr. pl. to sing.) LEARN, in quietness and submission, the demeanor of a student (which phrase would have been clear to Timothy).
I know I sometimes think a bit ‘strangely’, so I hope the way I’ve explained how I view this is understandable, even if you may disagree.
That is a wonderful testimony for both you and Eric, Molleth. I can sense his warm, non assuming conversation.
You should see what he LOOKS like…
http://adventuresinmercy.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/this-blog-has-the-weirdest-readers/
*snicker*
Btw, I have no idea how credible or not this is, but it must be partly (at least based on how many times I’ve heard it from I-would-assume-to-be-credible sources), have you heard of the interpretation that takes into account the cult of Artemis (I think) and the creation story that went along with it…?
It’s something along the lines of that religous cult believing that the woman was created first, the man being more of an after-thought, and the woman being the more venerated of the two. Pregnant women would also pray and sacrifice to the goddess in order to be saved in childbirth (no small request during this time period—childbirth was a very dangerous thing then).
THe argument goes that Paul was
-correcting a specific (likely rich) woman who was engaged in a culture-specific error (the idea that a woman is in charge of a man, especially if she came from this cult and was of the upper class, this would have been a cultural given for her),
-charging the congregation to see that the women are taught the way of Christ (the reference to silence, again, being a reference saying, “let the women have full status as students, but see to it that they are taking on the mantle of student and learning as a student would, this isn’t “visiting at the well” time),
- Paul framing up the correct version of creation events,
- as well as the idea that the goddess will NOT save those in childbirth but that Christ is now their hope, etc)…
The argument’s conclusion is that to base Paul’s words as an “eternal for-all-time” doctrine of the church is to totally miss the context of the letter. I dunno, again, how accurate this is, but I have to say, it’s the most cohesive explanation of this very difficult text that I’ve ever run across.
*shrugs*
My take is that there are a few plausible scenarios that “fill in the gaps” of what we do not know in terms of the context of 1 Tim. At least one of these scenarios allows a non-egal understanding and at least one of these allows an egal understanding.
So what is a believer that is trying to be faithful to do? That is, the non-egals cannot show that their interpretation is the only one possible and neither can the egals. Each says the others arguments are not compelling. I fall back in this case on Rom 14 given there is not some way to make a determination, which might happen in the future.
Also, when we cannot tell which is a more accurate interpretation of something, it helps to take a look at how it fits into the whole of Scripture. If it grates at other Scriptures, or causes us to have to ‘adjust’ other Scriptures in order for them to work together, then we may need to take another look at how we are interpreting.
Yes, but what “grates” against other Scripture depends on how one sees other Scripture. It is because there are differing paradigms to understanding Scripture that makes this so complex.
It is so true, so true… I like the Romans 14 fall-back plan. Because other-wise, we are all just going to be at eachother’s throats till kingdom come, and that doesn’t make any sense at all…
While it may feed my flesh to win, I am called to love. I do not believe in a Magisterium, so I certainly cannot claim to be a part of it. Knowing I can be wrong, I can try to be teachable and offer my current understanding in the hope it may help others like others helped me.
http://www.linguistsoftware.com/Payne2008NTS-oude1Tim2_12.pdf
My take is that Payne has given a masterful analysis of 1 Tim 2:12 given our limited knowledge of the situation at Ephesus with Timothy. My take is the only way a non-egal interpretation holds is if it is the ONLY one possible, which Payne and others show is far from the case.
Thank you, donjo, for the link to Payne’s essay (and indirectly to his homepage and essays link, with mention of his forthcoming book, Man and Woman: One in Christ. I wonder if he’s the son of J. Barton Payne? I just received my copy of the revised edition of Two Views on Women in Ministry (Counterpoints, Zondervan). Unlike the original edition, this follows the Counterpoints format with each essay followed by responses from the other three contributors. 2 complementarians and 2 egalitarians.
donjo, et al.:
A possible objection to Payne’s essay/conclusion is where he looks at Andreas Kostenberger’s search for a syntactical match for 1 Timothy 2:12 in Greek literature for comparison, and he (Payne) says on p. 244 that:
(1) negated finite verb (1 Tim 2:12 ouk epitrepô – “I do not permit”) +
(2) infinitive (1 Tim 2:12 didaskein – “to teach”) +
(3) oude +
(4) infinitive +
(5) alla +
(6) infinitive,
“perfectly replicates 1 Timothy 2:12’s syntactical structure.”
However, the actual syntactical structure of 1 Timothy 2:12 is:
(1) infinitive (1 Tim 2:12 didaskein – “to teach”) +
(2) conjugation (de) +
(3) noun object of finite verb (1 Tim 2:12 gynaiki – “to a woman” dative case) +
(4) negated finite verb (1 Tim 2:12 ouk epitrepô – “I do not permit”) +
(5) oude +
(6) infinitive +
(7) noun object of infinitives (1 Tim 2:12 andros – “of a man” genitive case)
(8) alla +
(9) infinitive +
(10) prepositional phrase
I.e., even ignoring the nouns that are the objects of the verb and the infinitives, the negated finite verb (ouk epitrepô) does NOT precede the first infinitive, as Payne lists it (Payne’s (1) and (2)); rather, it follows it (my (1) and (4)).
Thus, an exact syntactic parallel to 1 Timothy 2:12 has not been shown.
If I can obtain an email address for Payne, I may email him this question/comment.
FWIIW, my understanding is that Greek can use word order in a sentence to indicate emphasis of importance, as the syntactical usage (subject, object, etc.) is indicated by prefixes and suffixies of the words.
So when Payne claims there is a SYNTACTICAL match, I believe him, as he is a Greek expert.
English can use word order in different ways than Greek.
donjo:
But syntax refers to word order and the order of the elements of a sentence [syntax comes from the Greek words syn (with) and tassein (to arrange)/taxis (order/arrangement)], and Payne’s (1)-(6) does NOT perfectly match the syntax (i.e., the word order arrangement) of 1 Timothy 2:12.
The order of the finite verb (i.e., its placement) in a sentence seems to me to be somewhat germane to the arguments re: 1 Tim 2:12 (maybe Wayne Lehman or other Greek readers/users can weigh in here), esp. since the argument includes how didaskein and authentein are joined, whether they are both positive or negative things, etc.
Maybe it makes no difference, or maybe it does make a difference whether the first infinitive comes before or after the negated finite verb.
Correction: My (2) should be “conjunction” not “conjugation.”
You are bumping up to the limits of MY knowledge, in such cases I defer to an expert such as Payne. If HE says there is a syntactical match yet the word order is different, then MY conclusion is that he is not including word order in his meaning of “syntactical match”.
If HE says there is a syntactical match yet the word order is different, then MY conclusion is that he is not including word order in his meaning of “syntactical match.”
Payne may have a reason for leaving out some of the elements of the sentence in his syntactical construction, but I still don’t see how he can say that his (1)-(6) is the “syntactical structure” of 1 Timothy 2:12. Payne’s argument is partly based on the oude joining two infinitives, and that’s how his “syntactical structure” portrays 1 Timothy 2:12 as doing, but in actual fact in 1 Timothy 2:12 oude does not directly join the two infinitives; the negated finite verb interrupts them.
I know too little about Greek syntax and linguistics to know whether it matters or not, but I am surprised that no one at NTS (New Testament Studies) noted this when they reviewed his essay for publication. I’m going to ask my DTS friend what he thinks.
C’mon, y’all – surely there is someone else here at Complegalitarian who knows more Greek than I and can chime in.
FWIW, a friend took a quick look at Payne’s essay and my comments (he said he thought I was correct, but didn’t comment on the importance or non-importance of the syntax/placement of the negated finite verb), and here are his initial thoughts about Payne’s essay/conclusion:
1. His database is too small to swing the pendulum much (with a final/semi-weak 4:6 ratio in his favor).
2. His (self-inflicted) criteria is too narrow when establishing certain (significant?) points.
3. He never discusses/defines if “single idea” = convertible or subset proposition.
4. He makes a few sweeping (and undocumented) statements on early MSS (e.g., “in many early MSS of Gal 1.12″) and even grammatical issues (e.g., “This submission applies most naturally to its closest referent”).
5. He makes several assertions on unproven presuppositions in support of this thesis (e.g., ftnt. 5).
6. His treatment on Origen appears very weak (especially with NO primary sources being quoted, and the “one” secondary source is on 1 Cor!!).
7. His use of secondary literature is dated (besides quoting his own book and also Swanson on MSS, the most recent literature he footnotes, if I remember correctly, is 2000. And I think ‘a few’ things have been written since then:).
But even then, he doesn’t appear to dialogue well with them, was not very thorough in sources used or foreign literature, and he periodically would just quote a source as if that proved his point.
So I guess I’m not ready to take Payne’s essay as conclusive. Also, Kostenberger is a Greek scholar as well.
Wayne’s out of town at the moment, so he can’t weigh in yet, Eric.
Oh, Peter…
Peter… ? Oh, yeah, he’s busy writing about Todd Bentley over at his personal blog. That means he’ll be too busy fielding comments there to weigh in here just yet… *grins*
I think Suzanne is taking a sabbatical from Complegal right now, so…
Who else are our Greek geeks, I mean, people, around here…?
FWIIW, I do not see ANYONE able to say something CONCLUSIVE on 1 Tim 2, hence the debates.
However, Payne shows that the non-egal interpretation is not required, there are other possible interpretations. FWIIW, Ben Witherington says there are at least 3 possible interpretations, only 1 of which is non-egal.
When there are multiple possibilities, then what one assumes coming into the text becomes how one reads it, I think.
My take is that we are not Timothy and there are significant gaps in our knowledge and what Timothy knew of the context in order for him to know what Paul was saying; but we are left in the position of looking over Timothy’s shoulders from about 1900 years and doing our best.
On 1 Tim 2, this was an interesting reflection/observation that I ran across today (overtly egal):
http://blestpickle.blogspot.com/2008/11/authentein.html
It seems to me we can be more conclusive about 1 Tim. if we are really diligent to study all the aspects. We cannot hang our hat on just the Greek words, although they do indeed need to be in the equation.
IMO we need to consider the context of chapter one, the flow and points of chapter two as well as three. Then we need to take into consideration the Scriptural testimonies of all the women in the Bible who are applauded for teaching, leadership, and ministry. We also should take into consideration other things that Paul has written on the subject because it is easy to misunderstand anyone when only a small portion of their thoughts on an issue are viewed.
John Zens has done some good exploring of the issues here:
http://searchingtogether.org/free-to-function.htm
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/
on Dec 14, 2008 Sue made some comments on 1 Tim 2 at her blog.