tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post9058652615972578246..comments2024-01-29T06:02:39.583-08:00Comments on Suzanne's Bookshelf: Authentein in WoltersSuzanne McCarthyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-29608305668176201112015-05-14T18:44:13.914-07:002015-05-14T18:44:13.914-07:00If we suppose that Paul meant "I do not permi...If we suppose that Paul meant "I do not permit a woman (women) to domineer over men (and also to teach false doctrine), what do we do with the question, "Did Paul permit men to do that?" Why did he write that women were to be silent?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-45479700700617122992011-01-22T14:26:10.348-08:002011-01-22T14:26:10.348-08:00Re: Matt. 7:18: It would seem that the verb '...Re: Matt. 7:18: It would seem that the verb 'produce' is the same (positive) in both statements. The distinction is made in the objects: bad fruit or good fruit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-67499867598473114872008-11-17T03:03:00.000-08:002008-11-17T03:03:00.000-08:00Suzanne, I have recently found your blog and have ...Suzanne, I have recently found your blog and have enjoyed it immensely. I work in Thailand. Perhaps it is more difficult to understand the negative use of the word teach in English. It is interesting that the most common way to translate διδάσκ- to Thai is สั่งสอน (sangson) Like διδάσκ-, sangson, usually has a positive meaning, but it can also carry a very negative meaning that would translate back to english as to chasten or to punish.Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12509596389764649667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-26495042248012534092008-11-14T06:42:00.000-08:002008-11-14T06:42:00.000-08:00Can we be experimental here, i.e. try out possibil...Can we be experimental here, i.e. try out possibilities with a ‘scholarly openness’, take risks, be wrong? This has been such a hurtful topic to so many and such ‘pc-thinking’ is being imposed in so many places, that it is almost impossible to get folk together from whatever points of view who are not ‘pushing a point’. We all do have ‘points we push’ (=spins), true. But some do want to find more truth and light and hope and peace…and are even willing to sacrifice one’s own “position” to do so, but need good reasons, fair and honest and rigorous scholarship, etc. It has seemed to me that Wolters exemplifies that in many ways. (Do you know his article about the [feminine] gender of the Holy Spirit? …or his careful work re “Junia”?) He may be wrong on some points, but at least he sure seems to me to be trying to be fair to the evidence.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00153743407858102117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-70736026705675346482008-11-14T05:11:00.000-08:002008-11-14T05:11:00.000-08:00Suzanne,I was most surprised to read the following...Suzanne,<BR/><BR/>I was most surprised to read the following from someone you quoted above (my bold):<BR/><BR/>"The upshot, then, is the following: <B>if</B> <I>didaskein</I> ("to teach") has a positive connotation and <B><I>oude</I> ("or") always links verbs of like connotation</B>, it logically (and syntactically) follows that authentein must have a positive connotation as well …"<BR/><BR/>That's a big IF! Of course the problem for people who make such generalised, broad-bush statements is that they are hard to prove, but potentially easy to disprove: you only have to find one instance where the "rule" doesn't apply.<BR/><BR/>You've already falsified the first part (about <I>didaskein</I>), but the second intrigued me because it's not a suggestion I've ever met before. I didn't have to look very far before finding Matt 7:18: "It is not possible for a good tree to produce bad fruit, <B>nor</B> a bad tree to produce good fruit". Here we have two instances of the same verb linked by <I>oude</I>, but I find it difficult to avoid the conclusion that one has a positive connotation and the other a negative one. So I'd consider the possibility of differing connotations even more likely with different verbs.<BR/><BR/>Of course I realise that what I've said probably <B>neither helps nor hinders</B> your case (the same "connotation" idea at work in English!), but it does seem to demonstrate once again that someone is unlikely to reach a valid conclusion starting from an invalid assumption.John Radcliffehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17457933540067146460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-3944904495168643672008-11-13T20:06:00.000-08:002008-11-13T20:06:00.000-08:00Don,I would like Tom to restate his point because ...Don,<BR/><BR/>I would like Tom to restate his point because I may have missed it. I think that authentein maps to mashal. That seems fairly clear. <BR/><BR/>But is the man supposed to mashal his wife in Gen. 3:16? Chrysostom clearly says that a husband is never to authenteo his wife. It is forbidden.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-70378574259826138692008-11-13T19:05:00.000-08:002008-11-13T19:05:00.000-08:00My take is that there is a deliberate similarity o...My take is that there is a deliberate similarity of wording in Gen 3:16 and Gen 4:7. However, the woman does not map to sin, so what are we to make of the similar but not a perfect match mapping?Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05247071840577399185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-5220083108682983742008-11-13T18:49:00.000-08:002008-11-13T18:49:00.000-08:00Tom,Your questions are excellent. I'll do what I c...Tom,<BR/><BR/>Your questions are excellent. I'll do what I can and I look forward to your further notions on how gen. 3:16, 4:7 etc. contribute. I really haven't considered that one way or another.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-89950991971960078622008-11-13T14:48:00.000-08:002008-11-13T14:48:00.000-08:00Tom,There is clearly a lot of material on the word...Tom,<BR/><BR/>There is clearly a lot of material on the word autentein. You have asked a lot of questions about it. To jump now to teshuqah, which is even more difficult to interpret, before finishing with autentein, would be pretty tough. <BR/><BR/>If you think that Gen. 3:16 illuminates the meaning of authentein? Perhaps you could restate this or clarify. That would help.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-35285384029713748262008-11-13T13:13:00.000-08:002008-11-13T13:13:00.000-08:00I don't quite follow you; I'm not sure why you see...I don't quite follow you; I'm not sure why you see this as 'off topic for this thread'. I'm puzzled, but will drop it here...though let me first express my puzzlement: Did you not bring up the significance of the meaning of "dominari in the Vulgate, and mashal in the Hebrew," with regard to authentein in the Greek...and you alerted us to Gen. 3:16. Foh simply helps us see links to the meaning of those same words ("dominari in the Vulgate, and mashal in the Hebrew; and "desire" [teshuqah]), as used in a nearby passage...all suggesting if not offering a fuller understanding of those words and the issue at hand. (Leave Foh per se out of it; but the links are still there, and serve the fuller purpose of the thread.) Is that not all about what 'authentein' might mean in the redemptive context of male / female in 1 Tim, in light of the 'fall' of Genesis as the background? It sure puts a different spin on who's seeking to control/dominate/rule whom, and what the redemptive directives are meant to 'undo'. <BR/><BR/>Regardless, Genesis is referred to (both creation and fall) in the 1 Tim. context, so is no doubt at the heart of interpreting that passage...including authentein.<BR/><BR/>Like I say, I'm not sure why you see this as 'not the same thread'. But I guess you are the one to control your own blog.<BR/><BR/>Still eager to hear you out on whatever you find appropriate here.<BR/><BR/>Blessings.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00153743407858102117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-43801315568644219082008-11-13T12:07:00.000-08:002008-11-13T12:07:00.000-08:00Foh is off topic for this thread but email me - it...Foh is off topic for this thread but email me - its in the profile - and I will link to or comment on that.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-17300549380689124072008-11-13T11:25:00.000-08:002008-11-13T11:25:00.000-08:00Just a (not so incidental) 'by the way': ...Just a (not so incidental) 'by the way': do you work with the link between Gen 3:16 and Gen. 4:7: 'desire for...rule over' in both cases. I think it was Susan Foh who first introduced me to the parallel...and its (potential) significance. That is, it is not just (some might say, not primarily) the 'ruling' of man (over woman) that is the result of the curse, but the woman's desire to 'master' the man as the context within which and because of which the 'ruling' (of the man) presents itself as conflictual, oppositional and/or objectionable to the woman. That is, "desire for" in 3:16 has the sense of "desire for" in 4:7, i.e. to control, subdue, conquer.<BR/><BR/>And also, to follow up: do you find <BR/><BR/>1. Wolters' linguistic / philological methodology acceptable? (semantics, mostly)<BR/><BR/>2. Do you think he adequately prevents the 'murderer' acceptation from 'infecting' the word-family approach? (through more careful, rigorous & fair philological study)<BR/><BR/>3. How might one/you prevent his conclusion that 'master / mastery / authority' in a non-pergorative sense is inherent in and to the entire authent- family?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00153743407858102117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-80939690058921083312008-11-13T10:32:00.000-08:002008-11-13T10:32:00.000-08:00Tom,Thanks for your close attention to detail. The...Tom,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your close attention to detail. <BR/><BR/>The word family approach has been used to establish the meaning of "murderer" and other extremely negative associations. Therefore, many complementarians shy away from it. I don't think it is necessary to consider authentein as being that negative. <BR/><BR/>I tend to think of it as equivalent of dominari in the Vulgate, and mashal in the Hebrew, and therefore equivalent to the negative way in which man rules woman in Gen. 3:16.<BR/><BR/>So, my sense is that man rules woman as a consequence of sin, and this is wrong, but it is also wrong for a woman to rule man. <BR/><BR/>More later.Suehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06492732201892249157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-57091867880641458772008-11-13T07:55:00.000-08:002008-11-13T07:55:00.000-08:00thanks for this...let me see if I understand your ...thanks for this...let me see if I understand your line of thinking: the only usages of the verb form authentew/-ein prior to the NT are inconclusive; thus there is no prior evidence from outside the NT to understand the NT context of usage. Further Kostenberger's argumentation is flawed. In fact, following K's logic we should admit a range of meanings to auth. just as with 'teaching'...thus speaking against his conclusions and in favor of yours. (Though all that depends on accepting his understanding of the structure of the syntax/logic, something that would have to be independently verified.) Thus we are left with the NT, and the 1 Tim. passage to understand based on the context in the NT.<BR/><BR/>Ok; Wolters, however, rests a lot of his position on the word-family, not just the verb form...and there is lots of evidence (before, during and after the time of the NT) for his understanding of the verb form based on his understanding of "the cognates of authentns, which are all chronologically later than authentns itself, and derived from it. The semantic picture here is much less complicated, since the senses of the derivatives, as Chantraine has pointed out, are all based on authentns in the meaning ‘master’. (p 4)<BR/><BR/>So, in the absence of direct evidence for the verb form in 1 Tim. Wolters is leaning on the root form from which cognates (including the verb form) are purportedly derived...and he provides some hefty evidence for the plausibility of such derivations...and nothing against it. Well, there is the 'exception' of the sense of 'murderer' which he also attends to carefully. It might seem that that negative sense is what 'you' might want to use to establish the 'domineering'/overbearing/quenching sense of authority in 1 Tim., which Paul prohibits for women over men (and the NT in general, prohibits in all cases). If you did want to go that way, then there are the historical and philogical objections which Wolters notes (Attic, not Koine, and though appearing again after 312, with distinctives which also argue against the propriety of that sense in 1 Tim.; one might also wonder why Paul would want to highlight that sense in this case when such oppressive abuse of authority would not be an is-sue (;-)at all within the NT ethos).<BR/><BR/>So, do you find nothing of value in the 'word-family' approach, with root forms and senses sharing meanings with the derivatives (supported contextually / exegetically as well, not just based in abstract linguistic theory re etymological derivation)? In the absence of the evidence we seek re the verb form directly, and in the presence of such 'overwhelming'(his word) consistency of meaning within the word-family and the (claimed) absence of (unaccounted for) inconsistency, is there nothing to learn or gain from this exercise?<BR/><BR/>back to you...with blessings!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00153743407858102117noreply@blogger.com