Syria: Communication systems and foodstuff produced by Israel found in Al-Qaeda’ Positions
[It is not surprising to find that Israel conducts long-term false flags.]
Syria: Communication systems and foodstuff produced by Israel found in Al-Qaeda’ Positions
[It is not surprising to find that Israel conducts long-term false flags.]
If you have not yet read Barbara Ehrenreich’s Bright-Sided, you should take a look. It might explain a lot about your problems with society.
The very rich people at Forbes magazine thoughtfully gave an article to the plebs about happiness. This article uses lies and half-truths in a perfect demonstration of bright-siding. Obviously I don’t like this article and I am going to point out problems. However, a few of the article’s claims are reasonable and I do concede some points without conceding my main point.
The key material of the Forbes article is as follows:
Some habits lead to unhappiness more than others do. You should be especially wary of the ten habits that follow as they are the worst offenders. Practice emotional intelligence and watch yourself carefully to make certain that these habits are not your own.
1. Waiting for the future. Telling yourself, “I’ll be happy when …” is one of the easiest unhappy habits to fall into. How you end the statement doesn’t really matter (it might be a promotion, more pay, or a new relationship) because it puts too much emphasis on circumstances, and improved circumstances don’t lead to happiness. Don’t spend your time waiting for something that’s proven to have no effect on your mood. Instead focus on being happy right now, in the present moment, because there’s no guarantee of the future.
2. Spending too much time and effort acquiring “things.” People living in extreme poverty experience a significant increase in happiness when their financial circumstances improve, but it drops off quickly above $20,000 in annual income. There’s an ocean of research that shows that material things don’t make you happy. When you make a habit of chasing things, you are likely to become unhappy because, beyond the disappointment you experience once you get them, you discover that you’ve gained them at the expense of the real things that can make you happy, such as friends, family, and hobbies.
3. Staying home. When you feel unhappy, it’s tempting to avoid other people. This is a huge mistake as socializing, even when you don’t enjoy it, is great for your mood. We all have those days when we just want to pull the covers over our heads and refuse to talk to anybody, but understand that the moment this becomes a tendency, it destroys your mood. Recognize when unhappiness is making you antisocial, force yourself to get out there and mingle, and you’ll notice the difference right away.
For this record, this blog is on the side of the Platonists!
In that sense, the best way to develop resilience is through hardship, which various philosophers have pointed out through the years: Seneca noted that “difficulties strengthen the mind, as labor does the body” and Nietzsche famously stated “that which does not kill us, makes us stronger.” In a similar vein, the United States Marine Corps uses the “pain is just weakness leaving the body” mantra as part of their hardcore training program.
Update: White, a commenter here, offers an interesting PDF regarding the controversy. It seems to be from the Lutheran Church:
Here you go.
The Greek term authentein occurs only one time in the New Testament at 1 Timothy
2:12, where Paul writes: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a
man; she must be silent” (NIV; the English Standard Version has “exercise authority
over”). Given this single occurrence in the New Testament itself, scholars have had to
look elsewhere for clues as to its probable meaning in this passage. Until recent years
they have been hampered by the relatively few occurrences of the word discovered in
ancient Greek literature, including writings contemporaneous with the New Testament.
However, thanks to the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae project founded in 1972 by the
University of California, Irvine, and a data bank of ancient papyri at Duke University,
researchers now have access to the collected and digitized texts of over 3300 authors and
11,000 works stretching from the 8 th century BC to 1453 AD.
During the past 20 years a number of major studies of authentein have been conducted
making use of the vastly expanded database available. L. E. Wilshire who isolated 314
references to the term and its cognates published the first of these studies in 1988.
Scholars have now been able to refine their conclusions and to limit significantly the
probable range of meaning for this New Testament hapax legomenon (occurring once). In
this response to a request from the Atlantic District of The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod regarding the meaning of authentein, the Commission on Theology and Church
Relations has summarized this current research and the conclusions drawn from it,
focusing on the most thorough and comprehensive of them. The Commission has limited
itself to the more narrow task of describing the lexical aspects (relating to word meaning
and vocabulary) of the research, rather than to an exegetical analysis of 1 Timothy 2:12
Debate surrounding the meaning of authentein in 1 Timothy 2:12 has focused on whether
the term is to be viewed as a general or positive concept, with no pejorative connotation,
or whether it has a negative or pejorative meaning (such as “domineer”). The research of
those who have examined in detail all the evidence now available to us shows that the
predominant meaning of authentein in the Greek-speaking world during the time of Jesus
and Paul was the non-pejorative or positive meaning “to exercise authority over.”2
Atlantic District Request
In a letter dated June 8, 1994, the President of the Atlantic District of The
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod forwarded a resolution from the Atlantic District
Convention (June 3-4, 1994) requesting that the Commission on Theology and Church
Relations address concerns related to the “terms and definitions” of the following “as
they explicate how women function as the church”: Priesthood of Believers, Order of
Creation, and the Greek word “authentein” as used in 1 Timothy 2:12. At the
Commission‟s September 1994 meeting, its Executive Committee forwarded this request
to Standing Committee II “as it continues its work on the document „Service of Women
in Congregational Offices.‟” While it did not become possible for the Commission to
incorporate a treatment of these topics in its 1994 report on The Service of Women in
Congregational and Synodical Offices (adopted in November 1994), these subjects
remained on the agenda of the Commission for inclusion in other studies related to the
role of women in the church (e.g., the study on Biblical Revelation and Inclusive
Language  and the “Comprehensive Study of the Scriptural Relationship of Man
and Woman” requested by the 1995 convention).
In reviewing the Atlantic District‟s assignment, and in light of significant
advances in the lexical study of the Greek word authentein (1 Timothy 2:12) in recent
years, the Commission is now better able to respond to this portion of the District‟s
request by providing a summary of the current research on this word. It is not the3
Commission‟s intention in what follows to present a detailed exegesis of 1 Timothy
2:12ff., or to address contemporary applications of this text in the church‟s life and work.
A review of the considerable literature on this word quickly reveals, however, that a
determination of its definition (it occurs only once in the New Testament at 1 Tim. 2:12)
is a matter of no small importance. In his comprehensive and landmark study in 1995, H.
Scott Baldwin has made the observation that “the various definitions proposed result in
surprisingly different interpretations of the verse” (1 Tim. 2:12). 1
David K. Huttar, professor of Bible and Greek at Nyack College in Nyack, New
York, has recently written a highly technical article on the occurrence of authentein in a
9 th century A.D. manuscript of Aeschylus‟s [d. 456 B.C.] Eumenides. He begins the
article by noting that “numerous articles have been written on this word, trying to
establish whether it may have a general sense of holding authority over or whether its
predominating sense is that of a certain kind of authority (illegitimate, violent, abusive,
etc.).” 2 During the past two decades at least 15 studies examining in some detail the
lexical data 3 have appeared, mainly among evangelical scholars holding opposing
positions on the role of women in the church (commonly referred to as a debate of
complementarians vs egalitarians). 4
In 1979 Catherine Kroeger, a classics student at the University of Minnesota,
Andreas J. Köstenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin, eds., Women in the Church: A
Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995), 66.
David K. Huttar, “AUTHENTEIN in the Aeschylus Scholium,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 44 (December 2001): 615-25, esp. 615.
There are, of course, countless discussions in various commentaries, books, and articles, but the reference
here is to lexical studies as such.
A comprehensive review of this debate and the various questions at issue is presented by Wayne Grudem
in his recently published 850-page book Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth (Sisters, Oregon:
Multnomah Publishers, 2004).4
published an article in which she argued that authenteō is an erotic term best translated
“to engage in fertility practices,” the implication being that in 1 Timothy 2 Paul is
countering specific heretical aberrations in ancient Ephesus and hence not laying down a
principle applicable for all time. 5 Kroeger‟s article prompted a series of responses that
challenged the methodology and substance of her study, leading one scholar to conclude
that her proposal was “more curious than substantive.” 6 In 1992 Kroeger and her husband
Richard argued for a different meaning, suggesting that Paul used authenteō to mean
“proclaim oneself author of a man” in response to “a Gnostic notion of Eve as creator of
The appearance of a 1988 study by L. E. Wilshire based on a University of
California database of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae significantly advanced the lexical
study of the term authenteō. 8 Wilshire examined every known occurrence of authenteō
and its cognates (about 314 references) and concluded the following:
Sometime during the spread of koine, the word auvqente,w
went beyond the Attic meaning connecting it with murder
and suicide and into the broader concept of criminal
behavior. It also began to take on the additional meanings
of “to exercise authority/power/rights” which became
firmly established in the Greek Patristic writers to mean
“exercise authority.” 9
C. C. Kroeger, “Ancient Heresies and a Strange Greek Verb,” Reformed Journal 29 (1979):12-15.
Carroll D. Osburn, “
(1 Timothy 2:12),” The Restoration Quarterly 25 (1982):1-12. Also
responding to the Kroeger proposal were: G. W. Knight, “
in Reference to Women in 1
Timothy 2:12,” New Testament Studies 30 (1984): 143-57 [the most comprehensive lexical study to this
point]; A. J. Panning, “
A Word Study,” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 78 (1981): 185-91.
Richard and Catherine Kroeger in I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:12 in Light of Ancient
Evidence (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 103. See note 13 below for responses to this latest proposal of the
The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG), a research center at the University of California, Irvine founded
in 1972, has collected and digitized most literary texts written in Greek from Homer (8 B.C.) to fall of
Byzantium in A.D. 1453. It currently contains over 3,300 authors and 11,000 works, approximately 89
million words (this information is taken from http://www.tlg.usi.edu/~tlg/about.html. See note 18 in Baldwin‟s
study [Köstenberger, Schreiner, and Baldwin, 72-73] for information on two CD-ROMs available with the
full database from TLG and a Duke Data Bank of Documentary Papyri).
L.E. Wilshire, “The TLG Computer and Further Reference to
in I Timothy 2:12,” New
Testament Studies 34 (1988):131.
In a subsequent article Wilshire attempted to “clarify” his earlier work, proposing that
authenteō probably meant “instigating violence.” 10 However, in an extensive and
scholarly study surpassing earlier studies in scope, Albert Wolters of Redeemer
University College, Ontario, Canada, has shown that the work of Wilshire and some
others 11 is methodologically and lexicographically flawed. This is principally because
these studies have failed to distinguish carefully not only between the verb authenteō and
the noun authentēs, but more seriously between two meanings of authentēs having two
distinct semantic fields, 12 only one of which can be established to have a direct
relationship to authenteō. 13
We may look with appreciation at the scholarly contributions that have been made
during the past 20 years to the study of the Greek word authenteō. These studies show
conclusively, among other things, that the term was not nearly as rare in ancient usage as
previously thought, though conclusions must further be drawn, of course, regarding
Paul‟s use of it in 1 Timothy 2. Making use of a vastly expanded database, New
L.E. Wilshire, “1 Timothy 2:12 Revisited: A Reply to Paul W. Barnett and Timothy J. Harris,”
Evangelical Quarterly 65 (1993): 53. See Paul W. Barnett, “Wives and Women‟s Ministry (1 Timothy
2:11-15),” Evangelical Quarterly 61 (1989): 225-38; Timothy J. Harris, “Why did Paul Mention Eve‟s
Deception? A Critique of P. W. Barnett‟s Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2,” Evangelical Quarterly 62 (1990):
335-52; Paul W. Barnett, “Authentein once More: A Response to L.E. Wilshire,” Evangelical Quarterly 66
See, for example, A. C. Perriman, “What Eve Did, What Women Shouldn‟t Do: The Meaning of
auvqente,w in 1 Timothy 2:2,” Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1993): 129-42.
The term “semantic field” or “semantic domain” refers to a way of classifying the meaning of words
according to families of meaning (e.g., words for various plants, words related to each particular human
emotion, virtue, kind of behaviors, etc.). The two volume United Bible Societies‟ Greek-English Lexicon of
the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains by Johannes Louw and Eugene Nida (New York: United
Bible Societies, 1989) classes the senses of various words in this way. See Introduction, Volume 1, vi-xx.
See also Peter Cotterell & Max Turner, Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity
Press, 1989), 154-55; 167-68, and Moisés Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to
Lexical Semantics Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), 101-200.
Albert Wolters, “A Semantic Study of authentēs and Its Derivatives,” Journal of Greco-Roman
Christianity and Judaism 1 (2000), 145-75. See Grudem, 317. Specifically responding to the Kroegers‟
study, which has now been shown to be seriously deficient, are: Al Wolters, “Review: I Suffer Not a
Woman,” Calvin Theological Journal 28 (1993): 208-13; Robert W. Yarbrough, “I Suffer Not a Woman: A6
Testament scholars have now been able to refine their conclusions and to limit
significantly the probable range of meaning for this New Testament hapax. As Scott
Baldwin notes in the final paragraph of his important work, “We have come a long way
in our understanding of the meaning of auvqente,w [authenteō] as it is used by speakers
of koine Greek.” 14
Summary of Baldwin’s Study.
In what follows, the Commission has summarized the significant findings of H.
Scott Baldwin in his chapter titled “A Difficult Word: auvqente,w in 1 Timothy 2:12” in
the Köstenberger, Schreiner and Baldwin book previously mentioned (see note 2) and
then also has included a brief summary of the conclusions reached by Al Wolters in his
recent comprehensive study. 15 The Baldwin chapter is readily accessible and it is
methodologically and lexically thorough. It includes an appendix listing the original
Greek texts and English translations of every known occurrence of the verb auvqente,w
[authenteō] for those who wish to examine the evidence themselves. Commendable as
well is this study‟s cautiously modest approach to the evidence, with the repeated
reminder given to the reader that an examination of occurrences of the word
contemporaneous with the New Testament limits the range of possible meanings (and
appreciably so) but does not itself establish with absolute certainty the exact nuance of
Paul‟s use in 1 Timothy 2:12.
Review Essay,” Presbyterion 18 (1992):25-33; and Steven M. Baugh, “The Apostle Paul among the
Amazons,” Westminister Theological Journal 56 (1994):153-71.
Köstenberger, Schreiner, and Baldwin, 80.
See note 13 above. Dr. Wolters has kindly provided a copy of his 30-page article to the CTCR staff.7
Employing two CD-ROMs containing documentary papyri (as well as ostraca—
small pieces of pottery with written items on them) and the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae,
Baldwin has isolated about 110 occurrences of the word authenteō. Removing citations
where church fathers quote 1 Timothy 2:12 and another 10 occurrences in an undatable
work, Baldwin bases his study on 82 references spanning a period of fourteen centuries
(see his “Chronological Distribution Table,” 78).
Baldwin begins his study by noting limitations attached to an investigation of the
meaning based merely on New Testament and ancient Greek lexicons. Their listings of
sources where authenteō can be found are very few in comparison to current data
available, and there is no precise consensus among them on the meaning of the word. 16
With respect to word studies in general, Baldwin stresses the necessity of analyzing the
context of each use of a word, 17 a principle given new importance as a result of modern
linguistic study. Lexical studies, it should be remembered, do not prescribe what a word
must mean nor do they proscribe what it cannot mean in a given context. Rather, they
describe contemporaneous uses of words. Moreover, no lexical study “is a 100 percent
guarantee that a word has a specific meaning in a given passage.” But when a semantic
range is established, the burden of proof lies with those who argue for a meaning not
normal or well attested. Finally, on the basis of lexical data available and through a
See Baldwin‟s Table 3.1 “auvqente,w in Modern Lexicographers” on pages 66-67.
Baldwin warns against the hazards of determining the meaning of words based simply on etymology:
“…the principle is evident, once again, that it is language use, not etymology, which determines meaning
of words” (78).
process of trial and error one must seek to determine the possible meaning of a word in
its specific context. 18
Results of Analysis of the Data.
Limiting his analysis to the verb authenteō, 19 Baldwin concludes that “the one
unifying concept is that of authority” and he presents the following summary table:
1. To rule, to reign sovereignly
2. To control, to dominate 20
a. to compel, to influence someone/thing
b. middle voice: to be in effect, to have legal standing
c. hyperbolically: to domineer/play the tyrant
d. to grant authorization
3. To act independently
a. to assume authority over
b. to exercise one‟s own jurisdiction
c. to flout the authority of
4. To be primarily responsible for or to instigate something
5. To commit murder (10 th Century AD Scholia on Aeschylus 21 )
Baldwin discusses in some detail the data from which each of these meanings is
derived, making the final observation that “there appears among these data only limited
historical development of the meaning of authenteō across fourteen centuries”
[represented by the database]. 22
Baldwin concludes his study by providing the following summary with respect to
the meaning of auvqente,w in 1 Timothy 2:12:
1. The root meaning involves the concept of authority.
Baldwin, 66, 69-71.
The study is limited to the verb for three reasons: 1) “numerous examples in Greek [occur] where the
verbal form does not correspond to all the meanings of the noun”; 2) “this methodology (separating verb
and noun) is the same methodology employed by all recent lexicographers”; and 3) “we have precedent to
separate verb and noun forms—particularly in the case of auvqente,w from the ancient lexicographer
Baldwin cautions the reader not to take “dominate” here in the sense of “domineer.” See note 19, page
73, of his essay.
See note 25.
2. The context of 1 Timothy 2 appears to make meaning 1,
“to rule, to reign sovereignly,” impermissible. 23
3. Meanings 2 or 2a, “to control, to dominate” or “to
compel, to influence someone,” are entirely possible. 24
4. Meaning 2c, “to play the tyrant,” could only correspond
to Chrysostom‟s unique usage if the context could be
shown to intend the same clear use of hyperbole, and
the context does not seem to do that. 25
5. Noting that auvqente,w is transitive, a translation of
“assume authority over” (i.e., meaning 3a) could be
appropriate, while 3 or 3b, which are intransitive,
would not. If a negative meaning were intended,
meaning 3c, “to flout the authority of,” could be
6. It is difficult to imagine how meaning 2d, “to grant
authorization,” or meaning 4, “to instigate,” would
make sense in 1 Timothy.
7. Meaning 5 appears to be impermissible on
chronological grounds. 26
8. Further syntactical/contextual studies of 1 Timothy are
required to decide with certainty among the meanings
2, 2a, 3a, and 3c.
We may note here that following Baldwin‟s study in the aforementioned volume,
Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, a study of Greek syntax by
Andreas Köstenberger sheds more light on the meaning of authentein as it is used in 1
Timothy 2:12. Köstenberger concludes the following based on an analysis of New
Testament, as well as extrabiblical, examples of syntactical constructions similar to 1
Since, therefore, the term dida,skein is used absolutely in
the New Testament for an activity that is viewed positively
in and of itself, and since ouvde, coordinates terms that are
In 13 instances the word reflects unhindered authority to act based on inherent or divine right (73).
This meaning “reflects authority from the standpoint of actually having control or ability to dominate an
The only reference intended to convey the negative meaning “tyrannize” or domineer is the c. A.D. 390
Chrysostom quote (75).
While Baldwin thinks that tenth century scholium in the Aeschylus text means murder, Huttar, in the
previously cited article, has called into question this meaning even in this citation—which occurs nine
hundred years removed from the New Testament and even if substantiated hardly provides credible
evidence for this meaning. Huttar has found one other occurrence of the word in a manuscript of the 13 th
century (Huttar, 625; see footnote 3).
either both viewed positively or negatively, auvqente,w
should be seen as denoting an activity that is viewed
positively in and of itself as well. 27
That is to say, according to Köstenberger authentein viewed within its grammatical
context in 1 Timothy 2:12 should not be understood as having a pejorative or negative
connotation (such as, for example, the translation “domineer” would have), but a positive
The Contribution of Albert Wolters.
In 2000 Dr. Al Wolters of Redeemer University College, Ontario, Canada
published his “A Semantic Study of auqe,nthj [authentēs] and Its Derivatives.” 28 On the
basis of a near-exhaustive examination of every occurrence of the noun authentēs and its
derivatives in classical and Hellenistic Greek, Wolters has concluded that this noun
appears to have had three distinct senses in ancient Greek: “murderer,” “master,” and
“doer.” For New Testament scholars, he states, “the issue is whether auvqente,w in 1
Tim. 2.12 is based on the meaning „master‟, thus yielding the traditional rendering „have
authority over‟ (possibly with the pejorative connotation of „domineering‟), or whether it
is semantically indebted to one or both of the other two senses of auqe,nthj.” 29
Wolters first of all summarizes his findings regarding the three meanings of
authentēs. The meaning “murderer,” while found 24 times in classical Greek literature of
the fifth and fourth centuries BC (almost all in Attic writers), became relatively rare,
occurring only 16 times in 7 centuries from its last occurrence in the early fourth century
Köstenberger, Schreiner and Baldwin, 91. Köstenberger also argues on syntactical grounds that
“teaching” and exercising authority” in 1 Tim. 2:12 may well be “perceived jointly,” though they do not
“blend to the extent that they become one concept in which the two constituent elements are no longer
See note 13 above. The references in the next six footnotes are to this study by Wolters.
BC to AD 312. However, authentēs “in the meaning „master‟ has a very different
history.” Wolters has identified 30 examples of this meaning in extant Greek literature
from the turn of the era to 312 AD (none of the uses having a pejorative sense), and
observes that this became “the dominant sense of the word.” The third meaning
mentioned above, “doer,” is extremely rare, and is unattested in the first three centuries
after Christ. On the basis of his examination of the data, therefore, Wolters concludes that
the meaning “master” eclipsed the meaning “murderer” and became the “ordinary
meaning” of authentēs in Hellenistic Greek—the meaning “murderer” being no longer
understood “by the great majority of Greek-speakers.” 30
Wolters then examines three derivatives of the noun authentēs, including
authenteō. 31 Looking at eight occurrences of authenteō before 312 AD, Wolters
concludes that all of these examples derive their meaning from authentēs, “master,” and
“have to do with the exercise of authority or sovereignty, almost always in a non-
pejorative sense.” 32 Wolters‟ overall conclusion is that “there was a great semantic divide
in ancient Greek between auvqen,thj „murderer‟ and all other members of the auvqen,thj
family. They belonged to separate semantic domains.” 33
With respect to the implications of his study for the interpretation of 1 Timothy
2:12, Wolters states, in summary:
First, the verb auvqente,w [authenteō] should not be interpreted in light of
auvqen,thj [authentēs]„murderer (but)… in the light of the meaning
which that word had in the living Greek of the day, namely, „master‟.
Secondly, there seems to be no basis for the claim that auvqente,w
[authenteō] in 1 Tim. 2.12 has a pejorative connotation, as in „usurp
authority‟ or „domineer‟. Although it is possible to identify isolated cases
This paragraph is a summary of Wolters‟ conclusions on pages 147-49.
The other two words are: auvqentiko,j (including adverbial auvqentikw/j), with its well-attested meaning
“authoritative,” and auvqenti,a, almost always referring to authority or sovereignty. Wolters, 153ff.; 161ff.
of a pejorative use for both auvqente,w [authenteō] and
auvqenti,a [authentia; „authority‟] these are not found before the fourth
century AD. Overwhelmingly, the authority to which auvqen,thj
[authentēs] ‟master‟ and all its derivatives refer is a positive or neutral
It is important to repeat the point made at the beginning of this response,
namely, that it is not the Commission‟s intention in this response to engage various
exegetical questions that arise in the interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12. Nor is it the
Commission‟s purpose here to draw conclusions regarding the application of this verse in
the contemporary church. For a discussion of what the New Testament says in general
about the service of women in the church the Commission recommends the continued
study of its 1985 report The Service of Women: Scriptural Principles and Ecclesial
In commenting briefly on the term authentein and the rendering of the
Revised Standard Version (“having authority”), the Commission on Theology and
Church Relations in its 1968 report on Woman Suffrage in the Church expressed the view
that “it would seem that such a translation does not fully reflect the significance of this
particular term.” The Commission stated that “this term really means „usurping authority,
domineering, lording it over‟ someone,” meaning that women “are not to undertake such
things as give evidence of their exercising authority over men in their own right, as
persons created to be subject to men.” 35 This conclusion was based on the evidence
available to the Commission at that time, which was limited largely to the data presented
in the standard lexicons.
In its 1985 report on Women in the Church the Commission understood
authentein in the general sense of “have authority,” noting that “there is no explicit
Scriptural background for interpreting its meaning” and that “it is open to varying
definitions, some of them quite incongruent with Paul‟s actual concern.” 36 When this
report was being prepared, the Commission was aware of some of the studies of
authenteō that had begun to appear, most notably those prepared by Armin J. Panning in
1981 and George Knight in 1984. Though Knight‟s study was based on a limited
database, he concluded in that study: “The R.S.V., N.A.B., N.I.V. and The Translator’s
Testament have caught the essence of the meaning of auvqente,w [authenteō] and present
probably the most satisfactory rendering with their phrase „to have authority‟.” 37 Though
they have expanded and refined Knight‟s analysis, the lexical studies conducted since
1985, in the Commission‟s view, have strongly confirmed Knight‟s basic conclusion. The
studies have confirmed that the term ought to be translated “exercise authority over.” In
the Commission‟s view the English Standard Version accurately translates 1 Timothy
2:12: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she
is to remain quiet.”
Adopted April 16, 2005
Woman Suffrage in the Church, A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations, 1968,
Women in the Church, 35.
[Oddly, I can normally embed PDF files, but that one gets rejected by WordPress…]
Here is the post for people who don’t want to argue about how to translate New Testament Greek on Dalrock’s blog.
Post your comments. Here’s the original relevant verse:
|2 1321 [e]
12 to teach
I do permit
to use authority over
Back story –
In Brief, there is a guy, Derek Ramsey, who claims to have sola scriptura Christian theological arguments. But when you ask this guy to actually articulate his argument, he claims it’s too long-winded to post.
Derek Ramsey says:
June 21, 2017 at 4:02 pm
The grammar of 1 Tim 2:12 is highly ambiguous. Scholarly material on this is readily available. Shoot down, as you will, the following alternative to the KJV, NIV, and CBMW interpretations.
The proper interpretation rests on the rendering of authentein, a word only used once in the NT (!!). In the hundreds of known uses, it implies aggressiveness and abuse. It does not refer to the normal use of authority (exousía). A better rendering would be to abuse authority in a dominating way.
The Ephesians were dealing with the cult of Artemis which taught that woman was the originator of man. These women were trying to assert their dominance over men by teaching that man comes from woman. Verse 12 instructs the woman not to teach that she dominates a man due to the superiority of her gender. Now the applicability of verse 13 is obvious:…
Derek Ramsey says:
June 21, 2017 at 4:02 pm
The grammar of 1 Tim 2:12 is highly ambiguous. Scholarly material on this is readily available.
If it is readily available then you should look it up and post citations.
If you think grammar is ambiguous then you should walk us through the Greek and explain why you think the grammar is ambiguous.
June 21, 2017 at 10:34 pm
@info – “The only reason it was not exousia is that the husband is not the state. He doesn’t have the power to execute his wife the same way the state can execute criminals. That’s why.”
Three minutes with Strong’s is enough to show that this statement is absurd.
If you understand how to use Strong’s then you should post the details of your argument. We can look up references in books too.
June 22, 2017 at 10:51 pm
@gaikokumaniakku – “If you understand how to use Strong’s then you should post the details of your argument.”
I am generally hesitant to post links in the comments of someone else’s blog without their permission. Citing my arguments could result in many links that take up a lot of space. I’d prefer Dalrock to approve that. I’ll cite by Strong’s by the codes used, and you can just look it up yourself. I use biblehub or blueletterbible. The Greek interlinear translation is also useful.
“Oh, suck my dick, you fuckin Xer. One in ten million of you motherfuckers have even done a day’s work in your lives.”
The opening is a sex-themed insult. The “one in ten million” is a ridiculous anti-intellectual generalization. The vague lambasting of laziness is probably projection.
One of my entertainments is to go through comments on the Burning Platform and see how many of the Deadly Sins could reasonably be ascribed to the commenter.
Sexual insult – lust, wrath, and pride
Intellectual laziness- sloth
vague accusation of nonproductive status – pride, envy, and implicit sloth
Unfortunately the comment didn’t address money and food, or else he would have had a chance to score all seven with avarice and gluttony.
All in all, he gets a raw score of five, but only wrath, pride, sloth, and envy are strongly represented, so he gets marked down to four out of seven deadly sins.
The USA used to be a Christian nation.
Back then, the belief was that everyone’s SOUL could be saved. Your body might starve to death, you might have leprosy, but Jesus was omnipotent enough to save your soul. (Jesus might choose not to save someone who wickedly chooses of his own free will to spurn salvation, of course.)
(No amount of material observation or science could refute this claim, because souls are not material.)
Time went on, the USA forsook Jesus, and instead believed in MATERIAL salvation. The faith became the Just World Hypothesis, USA Edition: Everyone has a chance to succeed, if you fail it’s your own fault.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The just-world hypothesis is the assumption that a person’s actions are inherently inclined to bring morally fair and fitting consequences to that person, to the end of all noble actions being eventually rewarded and all evil actions eventually punished. In other words, the just-world hypothesis is the tendency to attribute consequences to—or expect consequences as the result of—a universal force that restores moral balance. This belief generally implies the existence of cosmic justice, destiny, divine providence, desert, stability, or order.
This faith is still alive in 2017, as shown by the following:
The refusal to accept pain, to learn from it, and to triumph in the face of the fear that tells us to turn back in from adversity, is what stops us from achieving our maximum potential.
The problem with Mr. Sinek’s advice above is that he refuses to acknowledge that, at some level, Millennials are ENTIRELY to blame for their own predicament after all of the other factors are accounted for. And that is what makes his conclusion so wrong and foolish.
Companies cannot save Millennials. They won’t have the first clue as to how even to start.
To any young Millennial, especially a young Millennial man, reading this, here is your first, last, and most important lesson in life: once you reach the age of majority, everything bad that happens in your life is, at some level, YOUR FAULT.
Only you can fix what is wrong with you. Only you can pick yourself back up after life has beaten you down. Only you can change yourself, push yourself to become stronger and better and more resilient against pain and suffering.
It is a terribly hard journey, make no mistake. But it’s worth the pain.
So if you go through pain, and you DON’T become stronger, IT’S YOUR FAULT for refusing to learn from the pain! In this narrative, the Just World Hypothesis is TRUTH.
This is just rehashed Christianity. If Jesus doesn’t save your soul, it’s because you have free will and you CHOSE to defy Jesus. If you go to Hell you are the only one to blame!
Here is an alternate theory: sometimes pain does make people stronger, and sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes you can do everything right and STILL get no reward. In this narrative, the Just World Hypothesis is a fallacy.
Profit$ are chump change.
The people who control our Brave New World Order are the shareholders of the multi-national corporations that control almost everything bought and sold in the world today. These are they that call all the shots. And one of the primary corporations that they control is the Central Usury Cartel that controls the central banking systems in most of the world.
In other words, all the fabulously wealthy elites that own the shares in all the corporations (only 147 entities control nearly 40 percent of all of monetary value of transnational corporations in the world,) could give a shit about making “Profits.” Profits is an idea for the proles to consume themselves with so that we don’t notice the ever increasing and burdensome controls being implemented in a gradual but escalating pace.
They have usurped and deceived we the sheeple into accepting the take over of our economies, governments and institutions through their fiat usury schemes aka “money creation” power. In other words, do you really think T.H.E.Y. give a shit about profit, when these are they who have the power to create as much “money” as they need at any time? Profit$ are for pikers. The real prize is control…total population control. With their power to “print” as much money as they’d like, they use it quite liberally to achieve this goal of total population control.
Wonder no more at the propaganda studio lots seeking to Poz the world with Californication and Celebridolatry, churning out infotainment programming with social justice themes and narratives that consistently lose money hand over fist.
The producers in charge of a never ending stream of box office bombs, tell-a-vision series cancellations, print media circulation drops and downsized publishing houses haven’t made genuine profits in a decade or more.. They don’t need to nor do they seem to really even want to. Their primary function is not to make profits, but to manufacture consensus, control the narrative and pacify the populace to get we the sheeple to fall in line and to think and behave how they want us to.
It is interesting that the picture above shows that the game-version females are very cute and no older than 25, whereas the movie actresses all looked considerably older than 30.
However, video games kind of suck.
To play a game nowadays, you basically have three public choices (and one private choice).
One, you can surrender to a console maker like SONY and pay through the nose to give up your freedom.
Two, you can surrender to Microsoft and keep spending money on their spyware OS every year, plus all your information goes to them. (You will also be subsidizing overpriced companies who give you a CD or underpriced companies like Steam who invade your privacy.)
Three, you can run Linux and content yourself with a very small selection of games. (And you might lose your privacy to Steam.)
Four, you can run Windows (either 7 or a pirated 10) and pirate games. This won’t necessarily preserve your privacy for long, but for the moment, it will allow you to test-run the new AAA games before deciding that they are not very fun.
What we need is a new gaming platform that respects privacy and allows game makers to produce for a decent profit. Some people are trying to build such a system, but we don’t have it yet.