[Unified Topic] definitions of the authent- words

Greek Koine and Biblical and Medieval Greek
41

Thanks for the headsup, Jeidsath.

I had, in fact looked in vain for an online translation of the NRSV, after seeing that partial quotation taken from a pdf of Linda Belleville’s article “Exegetical Fallacies in Interpreting 1 Tim 2:11-15.” It was not clear that she herself, was not quoting the NRSV, but championing another unnamed translation likely to have been taken from the book by R.H. Charles: “The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 2 vols London 1913.” She has this information in a footnote where she takes a quotation from his book, saying “they shall also be registered according to their former restricted status” does not fit the lexical range of possibilities for authentia". From that, I had wrongly assumed that Linda quoted the “better” version of the NRSV, from which she had quoted and written a few lines previously, regarding the verse from WoS 12:6. My mistake. Sorry, everyone. Much egg on face, here.

Here is the NRSV:

28None of those who do not sacrifice shall enter their sanctuaries, and all Jews shall be subjected to a registration involving poll tax and to the status (here = ) of slaves. Those who object to this are to be taken by force and put to death; 29those who are registered are also to be branded on their bodies by fire with the ivy-leaf symbol of Dionysus, and they shall also be reduced to their former limited status (now = αὐθέντία!)"

I agree with R.H. Charles, it IS indeed “outside of its lexical range” and also αὐθέντία is not the same word in the preceding verse correctly defined as status, διάθεσις. Just as in Brenton’s translation, αὐθέντία is not the same word in the succeeding verse correctly defined as rights, πολίτας. Both “rights” and “status” in their respective translations for authentia, still don’t work, imo.

Another point of illogicality of the phrase “be reduced to their former limited status”, is that it is entirely superfluous … why repeat this fact already established by οἰκετικὴν διάθεσιν ἀχθῆναι? Spite? Rubbing it in? I really don’t think so!

Whether or not I dissected in detail someone else’s (RH Charles’?) faulty translation, it remains that both Brenton and the NRSV are also anomalous. Additionally, no translation has made sense of the context of his prohibition as an act of revenge against his own personal humiliation when attempting to make an offering to YHWH. No translation provides a LOGICAL reason for the prohibition, supposedly to be against those who do NOT want to sacrifice. From EVERY angle this cannot make sense. I offer an alternative possibility of an emphatic double negative, tentatively and sincerely ask you guys with a far more extensive knowledge of Greek, to assess whether it is viable … please?

Does this support my point that a review may still be needed of translations which are engineered to make definitions “fit” which are derived from the ἁνύω-της cognate, rather than the θείνω? The son of Marius, being a good example of someone coming to the text and trying to make Strong’s entry fit by unjustifiably adding “with his own hands”, because the lexicon entry said so … and it has managed to be placed into the LSJ.

I note that BGU 103.3, a papyrus of the 6-7th C AD is the sole entry for αὐθεντίζω, also being given a definition in LSJ of “to take in hand.” Might this be the actual verb which belongs to the etymology with the ἁνύω-της derivative? It may be that its context very easily defined it as accomplishing something. Otherwise, if it is assumed to be from the θείνω cognate, might it be as equally as unjustified as D.C.102.12? I have not managed to access an example of the texts for BGU 103.3 - have any of you?

I also note the fairly frequent use of authentia alongside exousia … that can’t both mean the same, nor is it LOGICAL to call one “absolute power/authority” and the other “authority”.

I do not possess any if the works cited in by Frisk which “attest” aunō to be the correct climate, but what I have gleaned is the analysis from Kretschner et al is it comes from aut-entes, a self-doer, a master, autocrat. This implies a usurping or illegal assuming of power … exactly what the desired definition for authentein andros dictates.

But given time, I can show you substantial evidence to say that Paul was forbidding Gnostic ascetic teaching inspired by the Galli priests of Cybele, to instigate men to self-castrate. This was esteemed as murder of one’s children (in the sperm) and had been made illegal in 83BC. Although, only a few years earlier, Claudius had lifted the ban on Roman citizens joining the cult or participating in its public processions, the other law was still in place.

The PUBLIC debating Hall of Tyrannus where they met for daily discussions with ALL comers, was not a church members only, closed shop liturgical service of worship plus a sermon … nothing like it! That’s why Timothy had to be instructed in how to rebut all the aspects of this false teaching, especially in chapter two, with good biblical answers otherwise to just not get involved with others disputing over genealogical irrelevancies.

The contemporary uses of authentes (three by Diordorus, one by Josephus) all had the indisputable meaning of an instigator of others to commit murder or violent crime … and so did Paul. There is zero contemporary use of any authentes derivative to mean exercising a self-appointed, illegal authority. The uses of authentia are ALWAYS in the context of LEGAL permission to pass verdicts … to have the power of life and death … or to be a SLAVE master with the LEGAL right to punish. This in effect means having absolute sway, LEGALLY over another, the definition which authentia has in the patristic writings.

i also spotted several times where exousia (authority) and authentia are coupled together - so how can one be authorised and the other “usurped”? The context is in Basil’s writing again - the first I mentioned by the slave master’s rights to be obeyed or to exact punishment. The other is the title of a book - "authentia and Exousia in the Exercise of pastoring work. Surely one is for DISCIPLINE and the other for instruction??? It is sooooooo obvious to me - and you?

So, to read an illegal authority into the meaning justifies the anuō derivative. My question is over whether the patriarchal goal was set first and then interpretations of the texts fitted around anuō? Or was there a genuine attempt to come from the theio cognate, WITHOUT steering it towards “usurping authority”? Was there an agenda driving the semantics?

I cannot answer, because I have not read the works, but perhaps you have. Is it just possible that theino was not given a “fair trial”, and that it would indeed give even more satisfactory results?

Is it even possible, that kteino, to kill, slay might be a cognate, rather than theino?

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ktei%2Fnw&la=greek#Perseus:text:1999.04.0073:entry=ktei/nw-contents

You may note that it applies to “slaying” people, ordering death, and even sometimes sacrificing animals. All of these fit within my train of thought. The “auto” component would be highlighting the responsibility of the party performing the action, and the kteinos component would be defining the action itself–combined the meaning becomes “being responsible for a slaying.”

I do not have the knowledge of how cognates combine and what is allowable, but is this worth considering as well?

I would very much appreciate some responses on this, guys and as you can see, I hope, that this topic is not exhausted, yet.

42

THANKS for the headsup, Jeidsath.

I had, in fact looked in vain for an online translation of the NRSV, after seeing that partial quotation taken from a pdf of Linda Belleville’s article “Exegetical Fallacies in Interpreting 1 Tim 2:11-15.” It was not clear that she herself, was not quoting the NRSV, but championing another unnamed translation likely to have been taken from the book by R.H. Charles: “The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 2 vols London 1913.” She has this information in a footnote where she takes a quotation from his book, saying “they shall also be registered according to their former restricted status” does not fit the lexical range of possibilities for authentia". From that, I had wrongly assumed that Linda quoted the “better” version of the NRSV, from which she had quoted and written a few lines previously, regarding the verse from WoS 12:6. My mistake. Sorry, everyone. Much egg on face, here.

Here is the NRSV:

28None of those who do not sacrifice shall enter their sanctuaries, and all Jews shall be subjected to a registration involving poll tax and to the status (here = ) of slaves. Those who object to this are to be taken by force and put to death; 29those who are registered are also to be branded on their bodies by fire with the ivy-leaf symbol of Dionysus, and they shall also be reduced to their former limited status (now = αὐθέντία!)"

I agree with R.H. Charles, it IS indeed “outside of its lexical range” and also αὐθέντία is not the same word in the preceding verse correctly defined as status, διάθεσις. Just as in Brenton’s translation, αὐθέντία is not the same word in the succeeding verse correctly defined as rights, πολίτας. Both “rights” and “status” in their respective translations for αὐθέντία, still don’t work, imo.

Another point of illogicality of the phrase “be reduced to their former limited status”, is that it is entirely superfluous … why repeat this fact already established by οἰκετικὴν διάθεσιν ἀχθῆναι? Spite? Rubbing it in? I really don’t think so!

Whether or not I dissected in detail someone else’s (RH Charles’?) faulty translation, it remains that both Brenton and the NRSV are also noticeably anomalous. Additionally, no translation has made sense of the context of his prohibition as an act of revenge against his own personal humiliation when attempting to make an offering to YHWH. No translation provides a LOGICAL reason for the prohibition, supposedly to be against those who do NOT want to sacrifice. From EVERY angle this cannot make sense. I offer an alternative possibility of an emphatic double negative, tentatively and sincerely ask you guys with a far more extensive knowledge of Greek, to assess whether it is viable … please?

Does this support my point that a review may still be needed of translations which are engineered to make definitions “fit” which are derived from the ἁνύω-της cognate, rather than the θείνω? The son of Marius, being a good example of someone coming to the text and trying to make Strong’s entry fit by unjustifiably adding “with his own hands”, because the lexicon entry said so … and it has even managed to be recorded as a “definition” in the LSJ.

I note that BGU 103.3, a papyrus of the 6-7th C AD is the sole entry for αὐθεντίζω, also being given a definition in LSJ of “to take in hand.” Might this be the actual verb which belongs to the etymology with the ἁνύω-της derivative? It may be that its context very easily defined it as accomplishing something. Otherwise, if it is assumed to be from the θείνω cognate, might it be as equally as unjustified as D.C.102.12? I have not managed to access an example of the texts for BGU 103.3 - have any of you?

I also note the fairly frequent use of authentia alongside exousia … that can’t both mean the same, nor is it LOGICAL to call one “absolute power/authority” and the other “authority”.

I do not possess any of the works cited in by Frisk which “attest” aunō to be the correct cognate, but what I have gleaned is that the analysis from Kretschmer et al pursues the line that murderer developed into an exercise of authority through itaut-entes, a self-doer, a master, autocrat. This implies a usurping or illegal assuming of power … exactly what the desired definition for authentein andros dictates. To me, this is both anachronistic and theological impossible, knowing Christ’s stricture against any believer exercising authority upon another … all social classes, including men over women!

In all the papers I have read around this subject, which have some scholarly input, the emphasis is rightly on lexicology, but sadly to the neglect of the essential sociology component to aid the exegesis. A notable exception is “Apostles Warning” by sociology professor, Bob Edwards. https://apostleswarning.wordpress.com/ But given time, I can provide substantial evidence, from my own and Bob’s research, to say that Paul was forbidding Gnostic ascetic teaching inspired by the Galli priests of Cybele, to instigate men to self-castrate. This was esteemed as murder of one’s children (in the sperm) and had been made illegal in 83BC. Although, only a few years earlier to Paul’s letter, Claudius had lifted the ban on Roman citizens joining the cult or participating in its public processions, the other law against murderers and poisoners (hemlock for chemical castration) was still in force. Paul was particularly concerned that they pray for “kings” (Emperor Nero) that they may lead an undisturbed life to promote the gospel … The context for the “therefores” in the chapter as a direct powering of the thrust of the whole letter … to fight the good fight of faith against the heterodidaskalia … Gnosticism. Therefore, he was concerned that no promoting or aiding and abetting of an illegal activity, should be charged against their assembling.

The PUBLIC debating Hall of Tyrannus where they met for daily discussions with ALL comers, was not a church members only, closed-shop liturgical service of worship plus a sermon … nothing like it! Any person could initiate a discussion sat in the kathedra, the teacher’s chair. That’s why Timothy had to be instructed in how to rebut all the aspects of this false Gnostic teaching, especially in chapter two, with good biblical answers otherwise to just not get involved with others disputing over genealogical irrelevancies. The whole pertinence of Eve’s example being used as a rebuttal, is that only knowing God’s command secondhand from Adam who was formed first, she was more easily deceived. So, like the deceived woman teaching gnosticism, to persuade/entice a man to murder his children in his seed, Eve also was deceived and enticed Adam to murder his children in his seed … “In Adam, all died, but in Christ, all will be made alive.”(1 Cor 15:22). The Woman’s Seed will have vengeance on the Serpent! The Childbearing has a twofold application … spiritually saved from the curse of the Serpent’s enmity and effects of the Fall, and also practical reassurance of safe delivery throughout (dia plus gen.) the process of childbirth … both the child not dying and the woman, “preserved"/saved. No need to implore Cybele, the Magna Mater and Patroness of pregnancy and childbearing. It is Eve, not Cybele who is the “mother of all living"!

(As a side issue, by telling a woman to sit and actually learn through the discourse from Tim, Paul is overturning all the Jewish patriarchal rules in the Talmud, which forbade it … it was stated that a “woman was neither of the intelligence nor disposition to learn Torah". They could not participate in the discourse, to ask questions, she had to ask her husband at home. Paul had already expressed his disgust at the Judaizing section wishing to promote this in the Corinthian Church in v 36 of chap 14. Patriarchalists only quote v 34-5, of course. The point being … no more insecure secondhand instruction!

The contemporary uses of authentes (three by Diordorus, one by Josephus) all had the indisputable meaning of an instigator of others to commit murder or violent crime … and so did Paul. There is zero use in Paul’s time, of any authentes derivative to mean exercising a self-appointed, illegal authority. Are the “authorisation" uses of authentia not ALWAYS in the context of LEGAL permission to pass verdicts … to have the power of life and death … or to be a SLAVE master with the LEGAL right to punish? This in effect means having absolute sway, LEGALLY over another - the definition which authentia has in the patristic writings. It is never an illegally self-assumed authority to domineer … apart from the eisegesis of 1 Tim 2:12!

I also spotted several times where exousia (authority) and authentia are coupled together - so how can one be authorised and the other “usurped” or “self-accomplished/appointed”? The context is in Basil’s writing again - the first I mentioned earlier regarding the slave/servant master’s rights/authorisation to be obeyed or to “exact punishment.” The other is the title of an Epistula: Αὐθεντία καὶ ἐξουσία στὴν ἄσκηση τοῦ ποιμαντικοῦ ἔργου, “Authentia and Exousia in the Exercise of Pastoral Work.” Is it not that in faithfully discharging the duties of pastoral work, one “authority” is for arbitration in church disputes and/or DISCIPLINE and the other for instruction? Surely one “authority” cannot be illegally “self-appointed” and the other “lawfully delegated”??? I don’t have the ability to quickly read the work, but I highly suspect that what I have suggested is the summary of its contents. It is so obvious to me - and you?

So, to read an illegal authority into the meaning may justify the anuō derivative; but I have a question which seem disingenuous, but nevertheless, sincere: was the patriarchal goal set first by Kretschmer et al and then interpretations of the texts fitted around anuō? Or was there a genuine attempt to come from the theino cognate, WITHOUT steering it towards “usurping authority”? Was there an agenda driving the semantics?

I cannot answer, because I have not read the works, but perhaps you have. Is it just possible that theino was not given a “fair trial”, and that it would indeed yield even more satisfactory results?

Is it even possible, that kteino, to kill, slay might be the missing cognate, rather than theino?

You may note that its frequent use applies to “slaying” people, ordering death, and even sometimes sacrificing animals. All of these fit within my train of thought. The “auto” component would be highlighting the responsibility of the party performing the action, and the kteinos component would be defining the action itself–combined the meaning becomes “being responsible for a slaying.”

I do not have the knowledge of how cognates combine and what is allowable, but is this worth considering as well?

I would very much appreciate some responses on this, guys and as you can see, I hope, that this topic is not exhausted, yet.

43

Joel’s suggestion that this thread will be closed reminded me why I arrived on Textkit after decades on and off of participation at the other place where threads were being shut down all the time. Trying to get a thread going was a dubious undertaking at best. You had to have body armor to protect you from the senior scholars whose responses were dripping with irony and bordering on the unintelligible due to half a century of talking among their colleagues they had lost contact with the outside world. I arrived at TEXTKIT and noticed that the moderation was moderate to nonexistent. Suggest that terminating threads be a last resort for incurable trouble makers. Shutting down enthusiasts is really bad since it creates a chilly atmosphere for people who are sensitive about their ignorance.

I had, in fact looked in vain for an online translation of the NRSV

I don’t understand this. Why would you want a translation of the NRSV? Translation into what language?

1Tim. 2:11 (NRSV) Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. 12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

44

I’ll leave it unlocked then.

45

THANK YOU!!

That was meant to be translation by the NRSV, or NET or any other attempt at making sense of the passage. R H Charles must have been quoting another 19 th Century translation, but one with which the NRSV basically agreed. I agree with Charles that status/disposition, congress from diaphesis, not authentia - it is indeed far outside of its lexical range.

I came here sincerely seeking help, wanting to be corrected as I know my own shortcomings in handling the language. Nevertheless, I also come with fresh eyes and a keen sense of logic as I seek to strip away preconceptions and the “established view” to recover the basic building blocks and ask if there may be a more unified and consistent construction which does not produce all the anomalies and problems which exist from the old construction.

Is anyone here willing to understand what I’m about? Perhaps its part of my HFA (high functioning autism) that I’m not “wowed” into silence by the acclamation of infallible credentials/status of an author or a publication. I don’t see emporers’ clothing and am not afraid to speak up. I apply logic to the words, irrespective of the person since I know everyone is human and susceptible to mistakes through ignorance, prejudice, protectionism and agenda driven practice. It is extremely difficult to be a true independent … and I can’t claim to be one either, but I try.

If it is of any value for your judgement of the process … this is the sequence of events. Over the last few weeks.

  1. I read Linda Bellevilles article and thought the 3 Macc quote stuck out like a sore thumb, so investigated it. I battled with the illogicality of the given translations in the immediate historical context and the logic of a Tyrant’s psychological response of tit for tat revenge. On reflection, it may have been a mistake to not reference either the whole context from chapter 1, or v 27 which states: “His purpose was to indict a public stigma upon our race.” It may have helped if I had.

In chap 1, Ptolemy sets off on a tour of his vassal states, on a unifying mission to offer sacrifices to all the indigenous deities. When he came to Jerusalem, this was the only place where he was denied entrance into the Court of the priests where the Altar for burnt offerings is. They did not permit him entrance to sacrifice!! This is the cause of his revenge!! I won’t repeat it all here, again, but to me it became evident from all the contexts and knowledge of the Dionysian Mysteries, that verse 28 HAD to be a double negative and that the whole reward for enduring those indignities is that they might make their sacrifices again. It was THIS which led me to the definition, which is also readily confirmed by the EXCLUSIVE connotation of murder and death in all literature with the authent- words at that time … When translations from the other etymology were not forced into them, of course.

  1. I started searching for other occurrences of authentia and by chance was directed to Andrew Chapman’s post on Alex Rhetor. Immediately, seeing the connection between “permission to slay” and the judicial setting, and the fact that authentai and kritai were different, it seemed obvious that the authentai, were the ones with “permission to slay”, who deliberated in order to come to a verdict. The authentai had authentia!

  2. I then found DC 102:12, without knowing any other translations, but immediately saw that the dative of authentia readily translated as “by (his) permission to slay” i.e. he was not acting in rebellion or insubordination, but justly, in his execution of two tribunes … because he was authorised to do so … he had AUTHENTIA!

  3. Looking into early patristic writings, eg Basil, I noticed that authentia and exousia were often coupled … either in reference to matters of master/servant relationships or in the pastoral duties of ecclesiastical ministers. Authentia describes Bishops presiding arbitration over a church dispute sat on his kathedra on a raised dias. To my mind, the semantic range of the “authority” connected with authentia became in later writings to be “permission to punish” (slaves) and “permission to discipline” (congregants).

  4. I wrote up the 3 Macc asking whether there were two “semantic families” (etymologies) involved . I asked some friends to look at it (Bob Edwards was one), but none of them were adept enough with the Greek. So I came here

  5. You have been amazingly helpful and patient with me, filling me in on so much I had no information on … especially the work of more modern lexicologists and the mass of further references to compare. Thank you, all

  6. I became perplexed that the insistence on anuō was being held illogically (to my mind) and theino was not given serious consideration. Also, as expected, my objections were dismissed as uninformed ignorance compared to the “great scholarship” of others.

:sunglasses: Up until this point, I had never known that the Greek word for “slay” was kteino. (Bob vaguely recalled reading another paper on it and passed his thoughts on to me on Thursday). It is such significant CONFIRMATION of how I have been led by the texts, themselves into the definitions which I wrote out for you the previous week. I was in no way engineering anything, nor coming with a predetermined theory and forcing the translations to confirm to that etymology.

  1. This happened just as I was needing to make the appeal to keep the thread going. I voiced many genuine questions in the above appeal and am particularly hopeful that someone with a lot more knowledge of the texts and language than myself might possibly help me pursue an investigation over the possibility that kteino ought to be the major cognate and anuō, be reserved for authentikos and the authentia certification of “authenticity” and possibly BGU 103.3 authentizo, as the verb, but I have never seen the text.

  2. This is where we are today. I have many technical questions still unanswered …

a. Is it possible that there is an emphatic double negative in 3 Macc 2:28?

b. Is it possible for auto and kteino to combine as authent- ?

c. Was there an agenda driving the preference for anuō, in order to arrive at an assumed meaning of “exercising (illicit) authority over” in 1 Tim 2:12?

d. If that (artificial) marker of domineering authority is removed from a first century writing, does the contemporary use of authentes and derivatives always show a connection to slaying … whether legitimate or illegitimate … and naturally progress into the later uses I have proposed authentia?

e. Is this piece of patristic writing, Αὐθεντία καὶ ἐξουσία στὴν ἄσκηση τοῦ ποιμαντικοῦ ἔργου, a treatise on bad and good pastoring using authentia, “self-assumed authority (taking the anuō etymology) and legitimate exousia authority in pastoral work” or is about the exercise of legitimate authentia authority to discipline/arbitrate (from the kteino/theino etymology I propose) and exousia authority to instruct and exhort? Is anyone able to read it for me, please? 9synedrio_afthentia.pdf (pasting in the url bar will take you to an active link)

f. Does anyone know of uses of authent- words (excluding authentikos) which could never have lexically and contextually viable translations from the “slaying”, (non-anuō) etymology which I am investigating?

I think that’s enough for now. Can anyone help me please?

46

As a separate, note, thanks for putting up 1 Tim 2:11-15.

Did you know that the 2011 ISV, is the first translation to acknowledge the violent connotation intended in Paul’s use of authentein? I still think they should have paid even more attention to the specific circumstances of the social and historical situation in the Ephesian church at the time and realised Paul was using authentein very specifically and exactly as it was in the usual vernacular … to instigate murder. But they have at long last, acknowledged the major flaws in the standard translations inherited from Jerome’s fixing of the meaning by translating authentein into Greek as dominari, a non-violent “lording over.”

This is the ISV of the passage:

11 Let a woman learn with a quiet spirit, and submissively 12 Moreover, in the area of teaching, I am not allowing a woman to instigate conflict toward a man. Instead, she is to remain calm. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve, 14 and it was not Adam who was deceived. It was the woman who was deceived and became disobedient, 15 even though she will be saved through the birth of the Child,[a] if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, along with good judgment.a.1 Timothy 2:15 I.e. through the redemptive work of the incarnation; or through childbearing
b.1 Timothy 2:15 Or modesty

It’s a step in the right direction, but imo, still also wrongly assumes it is a prohibition on teaching GOOD doctrine wrongly, rather than WRONG doctrine well!

How can it be a ban on women bible teachers, considering women are loudly encouraged by Paul to “let the word of Christ dwell in you richly teaching and admonishing one another (including men) in all wisdom” (Col 3:16) and when they “meet together, EACH ONE has a … teaching” (1 Cor 14:26)? And there are nine other NT refs where women are described doing, or not excluded by gender specific male only pronouns, from permission to teach men! It is evident that it is an utterly unjustified eisegesis to insert “the word of God” into the first phrase of Paul’s prohibition! Don’t you agree?

Enough of that, this thread is for discussion of lexicology, not theology … although the theological bias does prejudice the translation at times, sadly.

47

Just to answer a few of your questions.

a. Is it possible that there is an emphatic double negative in 3 Macc 2:28?

b. Is it possible for auto and kteino to combine as authent- ?

c. Was there an agenda driving the preference for anuō, in order to arrive at an assumed meaning of “exercising (illicit) authority over” in 1 Tim 2:12?

a. No. In the sentence in question, μηδένα τῶν μὴ θυόντων εἰς τὰ ἱερὰ αὐτῶν εἰσιέναι, the fact that μη is sandwiched between των and θυοντων means that it must apply exclusively to θυοντων. Each of the negatives has to function independently. The reference to sacrifice will be to non-Judaic Greek sacrifice, which would of course be repugnant to Jews. The Dionysiac branding seems in keeping with this, and it makes good contextual sense. In the Roman empire Jews were required to sacrifice to the emperor.

b. No. That’s morphologically impossible.

c. No. Historical linguists are a pretty dispassionate and disinterested bunch, and scientifically rigorous. Their interest is not in the New Testament but in Greek. They respect linguistic evidence.

As I said in my first post, I know this is not the response you were hoping for, but it’s the truth.

As to the meaning of αυθεντειν in that notorious 1 Tim. passage, I’ll just say I think you have been led astray. Bigly.

48

EUREKA!!! AUTHENTIA MEANS JURISDICTION IN LATER WRITING!!!

It works with

  1. magistrates
  2. masters/slave owners
  3. bishops
  4. city government eg.the 14th C inscription at Theodora retains this meaning … it wasn’t a LATER development.

I have been saying “permission to slay/punish”, but it is better expressed as the RESPONSIBILITY.

IF OFFICIALLY SANCTIONED, AN AUTHENTES HAS JURISDICTION! IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SLAY/PUNISH/ARBITRATE.

I think it may even be that Jerome had in mind that a woman cannot “arbitrate over” a man … knowing the Platonic social structure, only men could be High officials.

Also, Jerome, bring unlikely to know at the end of the fourth century, what had been pertinent to Ephesus in the first, he did not consider that it was at that actually referring to “responsibility to murder” … When authentia is NOT OFFICIALLY SANCTIONED !

MY QUESTION, therefore is will anyone with better knowledge of the texts and language help test this out with me?? My immediate tho thoughts from my limited experience, is that it DOES WORK, throughout, but I need help PLEASE, anyone?

49

I don’t think that all-caps makes your pamphletary message more convincing.

Now I typed out Pokorny’s entry from his Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (1959), for your pleasure:



The person referred to here actually said “big league”, though I’m not sure it’s at all better phrase than the quite sympathetic “bigly”.

50

Agreed, Timothhee,

I had wanted to remove the capitals, but had not the facility at the time to edit the post to a more measured question.

Unfortunately. I do not speak German - so could you help me there, please?

I am currently researching the Macedo-Egyptian Ptolemies and their the very complex relationship with the Seleucid (Syrian) monarchs, and the Maccabeans. Seleucid king, Antiochus Epiphanes invaded Egypt under Ptolemy VI Philometer, in 169. Meanwhile in Palestine, while more orthodox Jews remained faithful, many Palestinian Jews saw advantage to being allied to the Hellenistic gentile regime. There was an inflamatory period where ambitious Jews bribed there way to becoming High priest as a political move and then an orthodox/Hellenised Jewish conflict began. In an attempt to end this, Antiochus Epiphanes attempted a unification of religion in his conquered territories, by eliminating Judaism through a most heinous persecution of the Jews who refused to sacrifice to one of his gods - thought to have been Zeus. Antiochus Epiphanes died in 164.

Meanwhile in Egypt, Ptolemy VI Philometer and his younger brother, Ptolemy VIII Physcon were co-regents from 169-165, Philometer alone until his death in 145, then Physcon took the throne alone for his reign until 116. Coincidentally(?) during this time Seleucid king Antiochus VI DIONYSUS was in power in Palestine and Syria form 145 to 142.

You may well ask where is the king of 3 Maccabees, Ptolemy VII Neos Philopater, son of Ptolemy VI? Historians say he had been proclaimed Philometer’s successor, but never reigned because he was murdered by his uncle in 170. It is THIS Ptolemy VII who was given the name Philopater in the account of 3 Maccabees and is NOT Ptolemy IV Philopater (221-223) which has added some confusion to the mix. According to Josephus, Ptolemy VIII Physcon was responsible for slaughtering Alexandrian Jews by intoxicated elephants. In the later chapters of 3 Macc, this is the fate from which the Alexandrian Jews were reportedly twice rescued by divine intervention, from under the hand of Ptolemy VII Neos Philopater. Whom does one believe? Perhaps as Prince regent, he had assumed these powers in Alexandria and inspired by Antiochus Epiphanes, had attempted to crush the Jewish religion there as had happened in Jerusalem? Ptolemy VIII then finished the job with the elephants at a later date - in his solo reign, simultaneous to Antiochus VI Dionysus in the eastern Empire over Jerusalem, perhaps. Or was the writer of 3 Maccabees much later and elaborating on past events with some inaccuracies thrown in?

I had done this in order to ascertain what the “All Jews who will not sacrifice” was about. Being as independent as possible, I must therefore concede with mwh that this is indeed a fresh attempt to eradicate Judaism and to close the temple worship altogether (the inspiration for Jewish independence and unique identity) - as had been the earlier design of Antiochus Epiphanes.

I had also been inaccurate with my former synopsis of events prior to chapter two, since I had taken the synopsis of another writer, rather than reading it myself in Chapter 1. Ptolemy had indeed offered gifts on the altar in the Court of the priests, but had wished to enter the Holy of Holies, but was prevented by the priests, despite much persuasion. A great intercession by all the inhabitants of Jerusalem had resulted in Philopater falling to the ground in a fit and being taken to safety by his officials.

That leaves the question - what does αὐθέντία mean in 3 Macc 2:29?

Despite me now having to withdraw my earlier theory, I will nevertheless continue to propose that αὐθέντία means “jurisdiction.” This is the definition from dictionary.com:

  1. the right, power, or authority to administer justice by hearing and determining controversies.

  2. power; authority; control: e.g.“He has jurisdiction over all American soldiers in the area.”

  3. the extent or range of judicial, law enforcement, or other authority: e.g. “This case comes under the jurisdiction of the local police.”

  4. the territory over which authority is exercised: e.g.“All islands to the northwest are his jurisdiction.”

These are precisely the meanings I had deduced from context of the all the various passages at which I have looked to date. It also includes 3 Macc 2:28-29, which I suggest should read as:

28 No persons who will not sacrifice are to enter their own Temple; moreover all the Jews are to be registered as slaves; that all who are reported resisting shall be forcibly seized and put to death. 29Furthermore, those who are thus registered, are to be branded with the ivy leaf symbol of Dionysus, and to be separated into this limiting jurisdiction.”

A commentary on the final four verses is that in a repeat of the events described in 1 Maccabees, many Alexandrian Jews did agree, since Jerusalem had already become a largely Hellenised city as a political, more than a religious centre. They had lost faith that there was any future to the Jewish nation and religion and gladly took up Ptolemy’s second option: they saved themselves from slavery, instead becoming initiated in the Mysteries of Dionysus and winning full Alexandrian citizenship. They were disowned and excommunicated by the other Jews who remained faithful, boldly expecting future deliverance and by paying a sum of money, avoided the jurisdiction, thus remaining unmolested … but only for a while.

My appeal still remains for others to test this suggestion that αὐθέντία means “jurisdiction.”

51

I find it fascinating that Alison has so much energy on this subject, directed so unfortunately. An actual research program on these words could be conducted with that energy, and would be useful. It would look something like this:

  1. Learn Greek
  2. Collect every instance of the use of words in the αυθεντ– family
  3. Mark various types of contextual information, and organize usages into subgroups
  4. Use the above data to generate and test some hypotheses about the words

The sad part to me, however, is that anyone with such a bent would have noticed early on that the context of 1 Timothy 2:12 is strong enough that even if there were a lacuna in all of the manuscripts of the world at the word αὐθεντεῖν, so that we had no idea at all what word Paul used there, the context would still make it fairly clear:

ἀλλʼ ὃ πρέπει γυναιξὶν ἐπαγγελλομέναις θεοσέβειαν, διʼ ἔργων ἀγαθῶν. γυνὴ ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ μανθανέτω ἐν πάσῃ ὑποταγῇ· διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδὲ HOLE IN MANUSCRIPT ἀνδρός, αλλʼ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ. Ἀδὰμ γὰρ πρῶτος ἐπλάσθη, εἶτα Εὕα· καὶ Ἀδὰμ οὐκ ἠπατήθη, ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἐξαπατηθεῖσα ἐν παραβάσει γέγονεν. σωθήσεται δὲ διὰ τῆς τεκνογονίας, ἐὰν μείνωσιν ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀγάπῃ καὶ ἁγιασμῷ μετὰ σωφροσύνης.

The word has to be something that a woman can do in relation to a man (gen.), parallel with teaching, and opposed to ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ. The sentence before and after lock it down even more. There is no realistic word which could fit that context that would allow you to pin an “I’m With Her” button on the pseudo-Paul of the pastorals.

Because of this, I think, the modern exercise is to say “Okay, Paul said it” and interpret the word as a legal prescription, so that the spirit of what he is saying can be ignored, and any actual prohibition can be got around by narrow interpretation lawyering.

52

There have been other Textkit threads on that irredeemably sexist passage, e.g. http://discourse.textkit.com/t/1timothy-2-12-phil-payne-and-the-function-of-oude/13673/25 and earlier ones referenced there.

53

Thanks Jeidsath for the link to the oude thread. I read enough to know how much they are all missing a most basic point. … Who says what SORT of teaching Paul is not permitting “a” single woman to be teaching? Why is it assumed, eisegetically, that it is God’s word? It is not in the text, is it? Do they assume this is a Sunday service with praise preliminary plus a sermon, delivered with great authority from a pulpit?

What gets me frustrated about lexicology, is that it’s like staring down a microscope analysing a microscopic structure, very precisely, but not relating it to which part of what creature. The macro is also needed and the wide angle lens! It also helps to know what habitat it lives in, too!

I put together a very condensed post earlier illustrating the nature of the public meeting place and style of discursive teaching by debate/discussion. It obviously got heated at times and angry hands were raised … ever watched the manugesticulation of arguing middle-easteners? It WASN’T an ordered liturgical service!

This is the “habitat” … It sets a VITAL part of the context. The “creature” being studied is introduced in 1:3 as hetrodidaskalia and identified in 6:20 … “gnosis”. Identifiable parts of it are looked at and refuted in chapters 1, 3-6 … AND 2. There really is not the time and space here to go through all of the different aspects of Gnostic teaching that had surfaced throughout the other chapters. Bob Edwards covers them brilliantly in Apostles Warning which I referenced earlier.

The aspect of particular concern in Ch 2 is the issue of castration. The Galli priests of Cybele, being worshiped covertly alongside Artemis Ephesia with her Megabyzoi priests … once castrated, but no longer since the

54

Sorry accidentally submitted while trying on my phone to paste … “Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis” of BC 83. This was specifically aimed at stopping self-castration for ascetic religious reasons (especially the priests of Cybele in emulation of the act of Attis, her consort) either by physical (sicariis “murderers” was the Latin equivalent for authentes) or chemical (hemlock potions .. “poisoners” = venificis) since the Greaco-Roman Hermetic beliefs meant that doing so was murder of a man’s children in his sperm.

It really is utterly necessary to know the sociology of the real human lives involved in the situation, not just a clinical analysis of the structure of the text. It is the CRITICAL HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXT which is the major aid to define the unknown words!

I’ll come again with more, tomorrow.

55

Btw, my contribution to the oude thread would be:

Patriarchalists throughout the ages … and more specifically a branch of reformed theology popular in Calvanistic circles, assert that the PRIMARY element of prohibition is a woman’s authority over a man, then also forbidden are its ramifications - that she must not teach them, lead them in worship, take sunday school with “adult” boys, etc. IF the word, authentein, ACTUALLY means “exercise authority over”, then this forces a lack of textual integrity with how the verse is written.

Would not the correlative conjunction, oude, have an extremely specific use here as a prohibition of an activity from which proceed other elements which are also consequently forbidden? Therefore, IF the overarching prohibition is on a woman’s illicit authority, then it should come BEFORE oude, with a consequential element (teaching) AFTERWARDS. Paul would not make such a mistake when writing 1 Tim 2:12!

WHY did Paul write this? To make their Sunday sermon delivery “correct”? He tells us in 1:3 stop false teaching! Why is it assumed to be a prohibition on a woman’s Bible exposition to men? EISEGESIS - from the perspective of OUR 21st century Church sermon-centred culture!

Does Paul prohibit or encourage women to teach the word of Christ to men? There are, in fact, around 16 places in the NT where women are either encouraged or intentionally not excluded from permission to teach and/or lead men. For economy of space, the references are here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TbWJH8gXol809nCCCR4vtc7VtDWfTyumQEaSQGMUoEA/edit

Paul is more concerned that she sits still and LEARNS Christian truth instead of trying from her own deception through Gnosticism to teach and “authentein” a man. When Paul chose that term, other than about a dozen easily recognised verbs with a connotation of authority, he was writing so clearly and unambiguously to his recipient, that it needed no further explanation. It was a current and obvious issue, there. It was an aspect of one of the elements of ascetic Gnosticism, which Paul summarises in Col 2:18,22-23. Authentein comes under “harsh treatment of the body.”

Paul was always an advocate of freedom of speech and open discussion. Have any of you never wondered why in 4:1-5, Paul had said to Timothy to still permit the discussion of “demonic doctrines” by men of “seared conscience” “forbidding marriage and abstinence from certain foods”? Surely he should have told THEM to be quiet? No, instead he briefed Tim on how to answer them.

So what was so wrong about a woman teaching authentein? What was so serious, that he didn’t even want it being publicly aired? I believe the “therefore” at the beginning of this section about their public meeting is directly related to the beginning of the chapter - living peacefully with the authorities (Nero, don’t forget) in order to promote the gospel. This “praying for rulers” itself begins with a therefore, relating it to the preceding verses about the fight of faith against false doctrine. CONTEXT is all important!!

I believe he didn’t want the promotion of an activity in defiance of Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis. He did not want a woman inciting a man to self-castrate, as was taught in ascetic Gnosticism and especially prevalent in this area because of both the cult of Artemis Ephesia, but more specifically that of Cybele. It was enjoying a surge of popularity, Now that Claudius had rescinded a previous law banning Roman participation. It was a hot topic of current debate that the Lex Cornelia be also lifted for the fulfillment of all their gnostic and cultish reasons. There continued to be an alarming number of castrated Christians in that area for centuries afterwards, as well … Basil of Ancyra devoted several sections of his treatise On the True Integrity of Virginity (ca. 335-58) to the same practice. Unlike Justin, however, Basil hardly considers this evidence of a man’s continence: on the contrary, those who “perversely” castrate themselves “by this very deed make a declaration of their own licentiousness….” (His thinking was that those who castrated themselves remained slaves of lust in their hearts.)

Why am I so sure of that authentein is directly associated with this practice? Not only cultural research, but lexicologal. During the Hellenistic period, the primary meaning of the noun authentēs was still “murderer,” but the semantic range widened to include “perpetrator,” “sponsor,” “author,” and “master” of a crime or act of violence. This is the case, regardless of geographical location, ethnicity, or religious orientation. For instance, Josephus writes of the author of a poisonous draught (BJ 1.582; 2.240). Diodorus of Sicily uses it of

(1) the sponsors of some daring and violent plans (Bibliotheca Historica 35.25.1)
(2) the perpetrators of a sacrilege (Hist. 16.61)
(3) the master-mind of a murderous crime (Hist. 17.5.4.5)

By the first century AD, authentēs had become defined as the perpetrator of a murder committed by others (and not as the actual murderer, himself or herself).

Seeing that the contemporary uses of authentēs was “to instigate, or be responsible for murder or a violent crime”, why would Paul try to use authentein in a way that his audience would NOT understand? Why jump semantic domain?

It is true that authentia, as I understand it had become/was becoming a term of highest judicial authority, but how on earth could that fit into the train of thought here, or be connected to teaching, or to the justifications for his prohibition given in 13-15?

Knowing to self-castrate was considered as murder, doesn’t all the evidence from all contexts, clearly indicate that :

διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ’ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ.

means “Moreover, I do not permit a woman to teach, neither consequently, to instigate a man to murder, but rather to be calm”?

That’s enough for now to leave for your consideration. I honestly don’t believe it is me who has been led off course “bigly,” by ascertaining accurate context … doesn’t it apply more to the Christ-forbidden adoption of hierarchies and patriarchy of the institutionalised, Gentile structured monarchical “church” which viewed the Bible through the highly hegonomious Greco-Roman cultural lens and Augustine’s promotion of natural order, taken straight from Plato and not the New Testament?

Although highly relevant to the reason why authentein was assumed to be an illegal authority, I think it’s best not to open up all that sociology at the moment.

56

Calling all Greek geeks … what is the Greek word used for jurisdiction … It obviously has a Latin root, but what of the Greek?

If none obviously comes to mind, you already know my thoughts … and in my own going through the texts of the early centuries, I can’t yet see a context for authentia other than where jurisdiction perfectly fits. Do you know of any where it doesn’t?

Thanks in advance for those who might think about this for me

57

I probably shouldn’t venture into these somewhat turbid waters, but how can one possibly take αὐθεντεῖν plus genitive as meaning ‘incite to murder’? Apart from the linguistic/grammatical difficulties, this seems to me to make no sense in the context.

As Joel has said, what is wanted is something which a woman can do in relation to (hence the genitive) a man.

I fear that the desire to wring a particular meaning from these words - or rather, perhaps, to avoid a certain other meaning - for doctrinal reasons is causing things to go awry.

John

58

I have to admit that the statement that ‘The aspect of particular concern in Ch 2 is the issue of castration’ made me Google for the Apostle’s Warning mentioned by Alison. It’s a very well-done example of religious hucksterism, footnotes and everything. I hope that he enjoys the money. (There can’t be much.)

This time I am locking the thread, however. I feel like we’ve given full hearing to this. Future discussion is welcome in “The Academy” sub-forum.