Originally Posted by Jeffrey (Post 868805)

Well actually it was controversial with adding it to the canon (which it at first was added -- RCC still has it added to its collection of Apostolic Fathers.

Pls. don't tell me that you're one of those who infer that this was written by the Apostles themselves!! It was thrown out of the canon for goooooooood reason!

"Appealing to scripture, not history" is what pains me the most. Historical context frames enlightens us as to what was going on when the Text was written, and therefore helping us to further understand the author's intent, purpose and meaning. For the life of me, I don't understand how you throw out historical evidence and claim to be the "champion of scripture." This is why I pester you about your so-called "Hermeneutic" claims.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey (Post 868806)

There wasn't a finalized OT canon or Scripture at the time. Certain scrolls of books may have been available, but likely not. Much of the OT quotes from NT passages are out of oral tradition.

Well you're arguing against what the text actaully says again. Paul argued "from the Law and prophets,".....what in the world can't you see about that?

Your second statement -- what we do today in Church is irrelevant to understanding the author's meaning, and what they did then in church. Since you've used the word "eisegesis" so many times in this thread, I'll go ahead and give the word correct application: what we do today does not read into the Text of what they did then.

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear (Post 868813)

How could anyone alive today without history know what was going on...
lol...why even study history if you cannot use it...lol...

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear (Post 868815)

“The Meaning of ‘Authenteo’”
If the religious environment surrounding 1 Timothy 2 is important, so is the language. ‘Authenteo,’ translated ‘to usurp authority’ in the King James Version, is a Greek verb so rare that it appears nowhere else in the entire New Testament. The concept of ruling or exercising authority over another occurs frequently in the New Testament, but always with other words. The French etymologist Pierre Chantraine suggested that ‘authentes,’ the noun from which the verb ‘authenteo’ is derived, had essentially the significance of the person beginning or being responsible (aitios) for an action, situation, or state. From this stemmed two other basic meanings, namely, to be in charge or rule over something and to be ultimately responsible for a terrible crime, usually murder. In this way, Chantraine resolved an etymological problem that had perplexed scholars since late antiquity. How could the same word denote both murderer and ruler? In the earliest usages, the concept of murder was almost always involved. The concept of ruling came later. For the verb ‘authenteo,’ there is only one attested use in the sense of ‘to murder.’

Let us turn to the value that Chantraine held to be most basic, that of originating something or being held responsible for it. By the New Testament era, ‘authentes’ was already being used to denote an originator or instigator (Josephus Wars 1.582; Polybius 12.14.3; 22.14.2; Diodorus of Sicily 16.61. Psichari, “Effendi,” p. 426). The related adjective, ‘authentikos,’ like the English ‘authentic,’ implies something original or genuine. In the sense ‘to begin something, to take the initiative, or to be primarily responsible for it,’ the verb ‘authenteo’ is even used by the early church fathers for the creative activities of God (Eusebius “de ecclesiastica theologia” 3.5; J.P. Migne, “Patrologia Graeca” (Paris, 1857-66), 24:1013A; Dihle, “Authentes,” pp. 82 n.2, 83 n.1.). John Chrysostom (late fourth century) discusses the replacement of Judas in the book of Acts and writes, “Protos tou pragmatos authentei” (“He was primarily responsible for the matter”). In a discussion of lapsed brethren, Athanasius (mid-fourth century) suggests leniency for those who defected under compulsion but had not themselves instigated (authenteo) the problem: “Tois de me authentousi men tes asebeias parasyreisi de di’ananken kai bian” (Athanasius “Epistle to Rufinus” (ed. Migne 26.1180C).

“Authenteo,” as well as the related “authentizo,” could also mean “to take a matter or inheritance into one’s own hands” (Berliner griechische Urkunden [Aegyptische Urkunden aus den koniglichen Museen zu Berlin), vol. 1 (1895), no. 103.3, 8 (p. 122).It was equated with “autodikein” (“to have one’s own law courts or to take the law into one’s own hands”) (Thomas Magister (ed. Ritschl) 18.8; Moeris (ed. Piers), p. 58). For example, a bishop was asked to take a difficult marital situation in hand, and the pope to take a matter under his jurisdiction (Berliner griechische Urkunden 103; Basil “Epistle” 69.4.389A). In the sixth century, Lydus used the verb in the sense of taking the initiative, in a manner that combined the concepts both of starting something and of having the authority to do so (Johannes Laurentius Lydus, “de Magistratibus populi Romani,” ed. R. Wuensch (Leipzig; Teubner, 1903), 3:131.

In the late Renaissance, an era when scholars studied classical texts more thoroughly than is customary today and had materials to which we no longer have access, another definition was cited by lexiocographers: praebo me auctorem (“to declare oneself the author or source of anything”). “Authenteo,” when used with the genitive, as it is in 1 Timothy 2:12, could imply not only to claim sovereignty but also to claim authorship. “To represent onself as the author, originator, or source of something” was given in various older dictionaries that I have been able to consult, such as the widely used work of Cornelis Schrevel and the still-fundamental “Thesaurus Linguae Graecae” by Stephanus (Stephanus, “Thesaurus Graecae Linguae, ed. Dindorf (Paris: Didot, 1831-1865). The earliest of these entries date back to the Renaissance, the latest to the last century. This value disappeared from classical dictionaries about the time when the translation of 1 Timothy 2:12 was being challenged by feminists.

The differentiation between being an originator and professing to be one is a valid point. In several texts, the meaning is strengthened by the sense of asserting oneself to be the author or source of something. For instance, Saint Basil was in anguish because the rumor had gone out that he had anathematized his old friend Dianius. Where was he supposed to have proclaimed the anathema? he asked. In whose presence? Was he merely following someone else’s lead, or did he himself instigate the outrage or even profess himself (authenton) to be its author (katarchon kai authenton tou tolmetos)?(Basil “Epistle” 51.1) “Authenton” is the climax of this carefully constructed progression. It moves from a passive role to an active one and then to claiming responsibility for that role of instigator. Constantine’s Edict speaks of God who proclaims himself to be the author of judgment (“tes de kriseos authentei ho hypsistos theos”) (Eusebius “Vita Constantini” 2.48). Leo wrote to Pulcheria of Eutychus, the self-avowed author (authentountos) of the dissension in the church at Constantinople (Leo the Great “Epistle” 30.1).

Thus there is support for “authenteo” as meaning “to proclaim oneself the author or originator of something.” If we apply this meaning of “authenteo” to 1 Timothy 2:12, we would have “I do not allow a woman to teach nor to represent herself as the originator or source of man.” This then might be a prohibition against a woman teaching a mythology similar to that of the Gnostics in which Eve predated Adam and was his creator. Certain Gnostic myths also included the notion that Adam, who had been deluded, was liberated by the Gnosis of his more enlightened spouse. (Catherine Clark Kroeger, "The Meaning of 'Authenteo'", from "Women, Authority & The Bible" by Alvera Mickelsen, ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1986, pp. 229-232).

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear (Post 868838)

Sister Dana...

When Christ came to be anointed by a woman at the house of Simon the Leper in Bethany, two days before the Last Supper, he chided the chiding disciples, among them Judas, saying that what she has done will be told in remembrance of her wherever the Gospel is proclaimed in the whole world (Matthew 26.13; Mark 14.9; see also Luke 7.36-50, who had the event be earlier and in Galilee; John 12, who had it be six days before Passover). Jesus' words echo Psalm 44.8,18, which had described the anointing with the oil of gladness, then stated to the bride of the marriage, 'I will make your name to be remembered from one generation to another; therefore nations will praise you for ever and ever'. Jesus added, in three of the accounts, that this anointing by the woman was in preparation for his burial (Matthew 26.12; Mark 14.8; John 12.7).

In Judaism it was forbidden for a lay person to make or apply such chrism, which is olive oil mixed with myrrh and balm (Exodus 30.22-33). The tale of the anointing of Christ by a sinful woman occurs in all four Gospels, albeit with differences. That tale is followed by the 'idle' one (Luke 24.11) of the women, including Mary Magdalene, coming to the tomb with spices to anoint and embalm the corpse of Christ (Matthew 27.55-28.10, Mark 15.40-16.8 and shorter ending, Luke 23.55-24.11, John 20.1-2, 11-18), who thus become the first (though not legal), witnesses to the Resurrection. John, Jesus and whoever Mary was, whether the Magdalene or the sister of Martha and Lazarus or another, and the other women who followed Jesus from Galilee, supporting the disciples out of their resources (Luke 7.1-3), ministering to them, made it possible for all Israelites, women as well as men - and later all Gentiles - to be a priestly people consecrated to God.

Jesus' band, with John's before his, changed the rules, reversing hierarchies into liminality, Jesus' band even including women. John and Jesus together instituted a powerful Messianic reform of Judaism back to its earliest theocratic principles - which was resisted utterly by those who stood to lose from that reform, those who had gained privileges, wealth and power from the fear and corruption that conquest brings, such men as the privileged Priests and Scribes, and even from those normally opposed to them, the Pharisees, who, in this instance, colluded with them in plotting to destroy their critic and judge, Jesus.
(Praxis)


Although we may not always agree with every author it is interesting and helpful to get an insight to customs regarding women of those days.

Originally Posted by rdp (Post 868851)

How does any of this invalidate I Tim. 2:11-15, or I Cor. 14:34, just for starters? Do we believe ALL of the Word, or only some of it?

Originally Posted by rdp (Post 868763)

Honestly, I cannot for the life of me understand how in the world someone can make a statement like "I definitely believe that a woman can preach." And then look at God-breathed passages like "I do not allow a woman to teach, or to excercise authority over a man. She is to remain quiet."

Seriously Jeffrey, how in the world can you not uderstand "I do not allow....."?
The terms "teach" & "preach" are used synonymously in the Bible, just get your concordance & see how they're used. You know, maybe I should send you a copy of my book on this matter. I was very meticulous in the book. Just a thought.

Not to even mention I Cor 14:34................