Monday, December 08, 2008

Payne and Kostenberger

Peter has sent me the link for the article by Philip Payne, to which Andreas Kostenberger has responded in this post. If you want to keep up with authentein you will want to read the article and Dr. K's post. In the comments Wayne asks him about authentein and he responds,
in the case of the use of didaskein and authentein in 1 Tim 2:12, in conjunction with oude, it does not appear that these verbs are of such a nature that they transparently and unequivocally convey a positive or negative connotation apart from consultation of the context and syntax of the passage.
Let me suggest that the secret is out. These words do not "transparently and unequivocally convey" much of anything. It is all in the context. However, if one can demonstrate that didaskein can be negative, and authentein was only negative, then that does rather tilt the data away from it being used to restrict women from doing something that men can do.

Dr. Kostenberger likes to quote feminist scholars, saying,
My findings regarding the syntax of 1 Timothy 2:12 in the first edition of Women in the Church were widely accepted even among feminist scholars (though, of course, they still don’t agree with the book’s overall thrust on other grounds).
Allow me to let you in on a secret. Some feminist scholars, not all, but some, are happy to find fault with the author of 1 Timothy. I do too. Why was he not more clear about what he wanted to say? Dunno. But that doesn't change the facts. One cannot dispose of the facts.

4 comments:

mike said...

thanks Sue for the link.

Don said...

My take is that Payne has given a masterful analysis given our limited knowledge of the situation at Ephesus with Timothy. 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.

Janice said...

Thanks for the link to Payne's paper.

And I must say that I admire you for the way you hold your peace at places such as John Hobbins'. He could learn from you.

Tom 1st said...

So, I've been reading your comments and additions to the discussions over at Denny Burk's page for a number of months now. I think it's a shame that most of your questions go unanswered and your assertions are largely ignored.

For my part, I just wanted to encourage you and let you know that there are some who read that page and are learning from you.

Plus, what has impressed me the most is that you have done all these things in a non-polemical manner - a far cry from the way most conversations take place on that page....which is why I rarely even post there; it seems Denny is much more interested in creating arguments than finding answers (but I don't know his hearts, so take that comment for what it's worth.).

Anyway, I have now subscribed to this blog via your RSS feed, so I will be frequenting here if that's alright with you.

Don't grow weary in your well doing - it's worth it!