Bridget Jack Meyers

The thing with the Greek fonts not working is perplexing. My blog is running on WordPress.org software as well and they display just fine. A friend of mine is running the Mistylook theme at WordPress.com and they display fine there as well, so it’s not the theme.

I have seen them not work on other WordPress.org blogs though, so I know it isn’t just you.

Best I can suggest if your son can’t figure it out is to ask on the WordPress.org Support Forums. People there are usually pretty helpful.

The latest issue of Priscilla Papers had a good article on this. Concerning modern translations:

Belleville also notes, significantly, that a variety of pre-modern versions of the Bible translate this word not simply as “have authority” or “exercise authority,” but with some negative sense, e.g., the Old Latin (second to fourth centuries A.D.): “I permit not a woman to teach, neither to dominate (dominari) a man”; the Vulgate (fourth to fifth centuries A.D.), “neither to domineer over a man”; the Geneva Bible (1560 ed.), “neither to usurpe authority over a man”; the Bishops Bible (1589), “neither to usurpe authority over a man”; and the King James Bible (1611), “nor usurp authority over a man.” In none of these cases can the translators be suspected of having a modern, “feminist” bias in translating authentein with a negative sense of “domineer” or “usurp authority.” These instances show that the “traditional” translation of authentein as “exercise authority” is neither uniform nor self-evident in the history of interpretation; if anything it could be argued that the burden of proof is on the (now) “traditional” view to justify its translation choice. (John Jefferson Davis, “First Timothy 2:12, the Ordination of Women, and Paul’s Use of Creation Narratives,” Priscilla Papers Vol. 23, No. 2, Spring 2009; p. 5)

Or in other words, back when men weren’t being threatened by equality with women in church leadership, they were free to translate the text more faithfully.

Whoops, looks like the comment function here doesn’t approve of Greek characters. The quote from Osburn should read:

“This verb [LALEW] always takes its precise meaning from the context. In v. 28, it refers to ’silent meditation.’ In vv. 23 and 27, it refers to ’speaking in tongues.’ In v. 19 it refers to ‘cognitive prayer.’ Here in vv. 34-35, however, there is no clear contextual indication of what is meant, but there is a significant grammatical indication. … Here the two present infinitives make it clear that the ‘ongoingness’ of the ’speaking’ is in focus. … [LALEIV] should be taken here to mean [the women] were ‘piping up,’ giving free rein to ‘irresistible impulses’ to ask question after question either of the speaker or of their husbands, creating chaos in the assembly by interfering with communication.” (Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity: Vol. 1, p. 232-233)

I have to confess, I’ve always been quite baffled by complementarian use of 1 Cor. 14:34-36. If taken as a restriction Paul is universally placing on women, then it is far too restrictive to be useful even to complementarians. “Silent in the churches” would not mean women cannot preach and teach in the assembly; it would also mean no praying, no prophesy, no tongues, no singing hymns, and no token pretty girl singing back-up for the otherwise all-male worship band.

While the “Paul was citing an opponent who was forbidding women to speak” interpretation is one possibility, I’ve also always appreciated the argument set forth by Carroll D. Osburn in Essays on Women in the Earliest Christianity Vol. 1. He argues that there are grammatical clues in the text to indicate that Paul is directing his comments at women who are speaking out of order and interrupting the service with questions. He says:

“This verb ????? always takes its precise meaning from the context. In v. 28, it refers to ’silent meditation.’ In vv. 23 and 27, it refers to ’speaking in tongues.’ In v. 19 it refers to ‘cognitive prayer.’ Here in vv. 34-35, however, there is no clear contextual indication of what is meant, but there is a significant grammatical indication. … Here the two present infinitives make it clear that the ‘ongoingness’ of the ’speaking’ is in focus. … ?????? should be taken here to mean [the women] were ‘piping up,’ giving free rein to ‘irresistible impulses’ to ask question after question either of the speaker or of their husbands, creating chaos in the assembly by interfering with communication.” (Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity: Vol. 1, p. 232-233)

As I see it, the one interpretation of this passage that really doesn’t work is the complementarian one, which tries to wrest “be silent in the churches” into “women can’t preach or teach in the assembly, but they can do all the other kinds of talking.” Talk about eisegesis.