I don’t think Krystal Olsen is being entirely truthful

Krystal Olsen has boasted that she put this man in a chokehold. I suspect that there is some truth to that part of the story.

How much help did Krystal receive from the bouncers? Is it possible the man was drunk and stumbling into people blindly rather than intentionally making a sexual advance? I don’t think we are ever going to get the full details of the incident.

I don’t think the self-proclaimed heroine is being entirely truthful.

Seth Stephens-Davidowitz claims that women are the majority of violent porn consumers

For the record, I don’t trust Seth Stephens-Davidowitz.

Article follows:

Contrary to what feminists like to claim, pornography that shows submissive natures and violence against women is mostly viewed by women.

The submissive nature of being dominated is a major fetish to many women who are aroused by the thought of being abused or choked or restrained. It’s a turn on.
Continue reading Seth Stephens-Davidowitz claims that women are the majority of violent porn consumers

A weak, almost evidence-free accusation against Roald Dahl

The following accusations have two relevant aspects: snozzberries and “Big Friendly Giants.”


Most people just assume that “snozzberries” is just a fictional word, but it actually has a meaning to the creator of Willy Wonka. Roald Dahl, the author of the original book, gave a meaning to the word in one of his other books. Snozzberries are dicks. Those kids were licking dick-flavored wallpaper.

The word “snozzberries” had its meaning revealed in Roald’s adult novel My Uncle Oswald. The story is about Oswald Hendryks Cornelius, the “greatest fornicator of all time.”

The meaning of snozzberry is revealed during a part of the book where a women describes how she placed a condom onto a man:

How did you manage to roll the old rubbery thing on him?”

There’s only one way when they get violent,” Yasmin said. “I grabbed hold of his snozzberry and hung onto it like grim death and gave it a twist or two to make him hold still.”

Does this mean Willy Wonka was a pedophile? Why would a candy maker tell kids to lick wallpaper that is the same flavor as a penis? Why would a candy maker even create that kind of wallpaper in the first place?

Well it wouldn’t be the only time that Roald Dahl created a pedophile character in one of his books. Ever heard of The BFG?

The BFG (short for “Big Friendly Giant”) is a 1982 children’s book written by Dahl, and was turned into a movie by Disney. The story is about a giant who steals a sleeping girl, from an orphanage, out of her bedroom. The giant then befriends the girl and takes her to a magical world. The sounds like a sweet story, but most people don’t know the origin of The BFG.

In Jeremy Treglown’s 1994 biography of Roald Dahl, it was revealed that The BFG was originally a pedophile. The biography mentions that Farrar, Straus and Giroux, who worked with Dahl, were the ones who would changed his child-inappropriate manuscript of the pedophile BFG into a loving giant.

However, some of the hints of pedophilia may still remain in final version of The BFG. The girl was taken from an orphanage, and statistics show that at least 75% of children in foster care will be sexually abused.

The story also showcases Stockholm syndrome, a syndrome present in many cases of sexual abuse, as the little girl befriends the giant who kidnapped her.

Therefore, just like The BFG, Willy Wonka may have also been a pedophile in the original manuscript. Some things may have been changed from that original manuscript, but the snozzberry reference remained and will forever make people question the true nature of Willy Wonka.


End quote.

The first accusation is that “snozzberry,” first used as a fictitious fruit in 1964, was a secret code for “penis.”

It is plausible that it could be used as such a code 15 years later.

That does not suggest it was originally intended as such a code.

The second accusation is that the “Big Friendly Giant” was supposed to be a pedophile.

And for that, we have no evidence but the allegations of Treglown, Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Why exactly are their testimonies supposed to be credible? Because they published four years after Dahl was dead, Dahl was not able to refute their accusations. Quite possibly they were accusing him falsely to confuse investigators.

Finally – is there any evidence that while Dahl was alive, he actually interacted inappropriately with any child? I have yet to see any.

On the flip side, some circumstantial evidence adds up to a fairly strong argument, as shown in the following from the same site.


J.M. Barrie, the author of Peter Pan, was a very creepy individual. He was portrayed as a kind and caring man by Johnny Depp in 2004’s Finding Neverland, but was that portrayal historically accurate? According to some evidence, Barrie may have preyed on young children.

Here are 5 reasons why Barrie’s true nature is questioned.

1. Barrie stole another couple’s children

According to Piers Dudgeon, the author of Captivated: J.M. Barrie, the Du Mauriers & the Dark Side of Neverland, Barrie forced his way into the lives of Sylvia and Arthur Llewelyn Davies, the parents of three boys, George, Jack and Peter. Barrie gave many gifts to the family and spent hours playing outside with the boys and making up stories.

Arthur and Sylvia eventually died of cancer within a couple years of each other, and Barrie took guardianship of the boys. In case any relatives of the boys protested, he had Sylvia’s will forged, giving him custody. Oddly, the family never tried to take custody of the children away from Barrie. It seemed the family had no idea of who Barrie truly was. After much time passed, Peter gave this statement about Barrie taking custody of him and his brothers, “The whole business, as I look back on it, was almost unbelievably queer and pathetic and ludicrous and even macabre in a kind of way.”


2. Barrie’s relationship with the boys

Barrie loved taking photographs of the boys, sometimes in weird costumes and often with no clothes on. In Today’s world, many would automatically suspect him as a pedophile for doing that. However, Barrie only showed an innocent front to the adults around him, which is why nobody ever suspected him of anything.

Barrie once wrote about the joy of undressing and sleeping next to a young boy. Barrie’s book, The Little White Bird, published in 1902, talked of his close relationship with George. “I lay thinking of this little boy, who, in the midst of his play while I undressed him, had suddenly buried his head on my knees… Of David’s dripping little form in the bath, and how I essayed to catch him as he slipped from my arms like a trout. Of how I had stood at the open door listening to his sweet breathing, had stood so long I forgot his name.”


3. The Creepy Candle Letter

In June 1908, Barrie wrote this strange letter to Michael for his eighth birthday, “I wish I could be with you and your candles. You can look on me as one of your candles, the one that burns badly — the greasy one that is bent in the middle. But still, hurray, I am Michael’s candle. Dear Michael, I am very fond of you, but don’t tell anybody.”


4. Barrie’s Impotency

Piers Dudgeon, Barrie’s Biographer, suggests the author was impotent and most likely never satisfied his wife sexually. Mary Ansell, wrote this about her husband, “Love in its fullest sense could never be felt by him or experienced.” The couple eventually divorced after Mary had an affair with one of Barrie’s friends.


5. The Deaths of the 3 Boys

During World War 1, George died in Belgium from a gunshot to the head. Many historians think George tried to escape Barrie by volunteering to serve in the war, but sadly it did not work out.

At 21 years of age, Michael drowned along with another young male, who was his lover. Many biographers think this was a suicide pact.

In 1960, at the age of 63, Peter threw himself under a moving train. He did this shortly after destroying almost all the letters from Barrie to the Davies boys, and said they were simply “too much.”

End quote.


I don’t want to post a tedious argument about Greek on Dalrock’s blog

Update: White, a commenter here, offers an interesting PDF regarding the controversy.  It seems to be from the Lutheran Church:


Here you go.


A Summary
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
The Assignment.
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 [1998] 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
Adam.” 7
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
(1994): 159-62.
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‟s Conclusions.
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
Hesychius” (72-73).
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.
Baldwin, 78.
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
Timothy 2:12:
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
object” (73).
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
distinguishable” (91).
See note 13 above. The references in the next six footnotes are to this study by Wolters.
Wolters, 146.11
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.
Ibid., 160.
Ibid., 170.
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
concept. 34
Concluding Observations.
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.
Ibid., 170-71.13
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.
Knight, 155.

end quote.

[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   didaskein
12   διδάσκειν
12   to teach
12   V-PNA
1161 [e]
1135 [e]
a woman
3756 [e]
2010 [e]
ἐπιτρέπω  ,
I do permit
3761 [e]
831 [e]
to use authority over
435 [e]
ἀνδρός  ,
a man
235 [e]
1510 [e]
to be
1722 [e]
2271 [e]
ἡσυχίᾳ  ;

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.

Grading flame comments on the Seven Deadly Sins

“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.

Waist Deep in the Just World Hypothesis, and the Baby Boomer says to work harder

I have noticed dozens of Baby Boomers bragging on the Internet about how hard they worked and how much money they have and how much they are enjoying their luxurious retirements.

There is a small element of truth to justify some of that boasting, but for the most part it is destructive and stupid and I will explain why.
Continue reading Waist Deep in the Just World Hypothesis, and the Baby Boomer says to work harder

A site that tolerates the intolerant