Sue

Mark,

If I give evidence from Chrysostom that authentein in 1 Timothy 2:12 means “to be a tyrant” then that is considered by complementarians, like Grudem and Kostenberger, to be too late to rate as evidence. It is complementarian scholars like Grudem who have stated clearly that they will not accept such an example as this from Chrysostom as evidence for 1 Tim. 2:12. So I play by their rules as to what counts as evidence. (Fortunately there is no evidence from the era of the NT that authentein meant to have authority.)

This is what I meant by “not a slam dunk.” There is evidence for kephale, but it is not clear, not established. There is no evidence at the time of the NT or preceding, that “authority” is one of the meanings of kephale. This is how it is usually assessed.

I do understand how you could think that Chrysostom is evidence, and it is evidence of what Chrysostom thought. But it is not evidence of what the word meant for Paul.

The truth is that there is little to no evidence for kephale and authentein, at the time of the NT, as used outside of the NT, that “authority over” was part of their meaning.

It is not obvious. That is what I have meant. One can argue that it is so, and others argue that it is not. “Authority over” is not the clear and obvious only contender for the meaning of kephale and authentein. You have to persuade people that your understanding of the scriptures is better than any other interpretation. These are all things which depend on interpretation.

How can you defend your interpretation, that kephale means authority? How can you argue that the subordination of women is a better interpretation of the scripture than treating women as your neighbour? If both are possible interpretations, why is the subordination of women a BETTER interpretation?