Dave

Mark, you said, “We are always going to but heads. I recommend you read the scholarly work of comps such as that book i recommended before you continue to argue for Cheryl’s exegesis”.

Are be butting heads? Thats right, I forgot, you are the enemy. Thanks for the recommendation, but if you cannot express to me simply on a blog where I am wrong, then I do not think the issue is whether or not I should read a book you recommend. I would recommend you read Alice in Wonderland before you go discounting Cheryl’s exegesis!

Now, in regards to the use of the word “teach” and “authentein”, how can it be positive in this context? Paul is saying he does not permit it. Nowhere has Paul suggested that it is ok for anyone to authentein anyone else. He has not had a problem with anyone else teaching anyone else, unless they are false teachers (if I am wrong please show me an example). You have admitted that ‘teach’ can be positive or negative. Show me from the text that Paul thinks what this singular woman (this is not assumed – show me in the grammar where there is more than one woman) is doing is positive. Pretty hard since he is asking her to stop. I am happy that both the authentein and teach are negative…so thanks Mr Kostenberger!

Mark, you said, “Also Baldwin has done extensive research on authentein and concludes that there are 5 possible meanings. The common donominator is that they all represent authority of some sort. Now considering ‘teach’ must be positive to be consistent with the rest of the NT, authentein must also be. This is the only possible syntactical possibility.”

This only works on your unproven theory that teach is positive in this context.

Mark, I checked out Titus. Probably would be helpful if you told me exactly where you were in the text. Titus 1:7 speaks of a singular overseer, I assume a generic singular. In 6:10-11 it talks in the plural, but not about overseers, rather those who are unruly, eveil-doers etc (pretty sure they are NOT overseers). So Paul has not switched from using a generis singular to a plural for the same person, if that is what you are suggesting. Please note though that Cheryl’s exegesis accepts that there can be a singular generic, but that the context shows this to not be the case in 1 Tim 2.

Mark you quoted me, “There is no reason in the text to believe that the situation is more than something that was happening at the Church. ”

You then got all stressed out, “Are you arguing for an ad hoc situation here similar to Fee? If so, that is a dangerous hermeneutic to apply and is exactly what the Liberals tend to do. For example Galatians was written to a specific context and for a specific reason. Do we therefore say that Paul’s outline of the gospel is only relevant for that Church?”

Mark, please do not take me where I have not gone. Do you believe that in every church there is an overseer who needs to drink a little wine each day for his stomaches sake? Do you believe that in every church today there are people who get drunk at communion? I assume the answer is no. In the same way I am simply stating that we have no reason FROM THE TEXT to believe that Paul is not dealing with a situation here that was specific to this church – that there was a woman who was deceived and was falsely teaching and authenteining a man. To take this passage and say that women should not teach men is to adopt a liberal method of understanding scripture.

I thought this was all pretty clear, and I do not find any basis for you statement, “Your above quote begins the slippery slope to a complete rejection of Biblical authority and that is worrying. This is the whole problem of egalitarianismm, it adopts a liberal hermeneutic…you need to at least address this and be honest about it and try to rectify it.”

At the moment Mark, because you do not even want to seriously look at this passage and deal with the grammar, as Cheryl has done, then it appears as though you are rejecting Biblical authority. You’re right, that is worrying. How about you be honest and instead of storming off to cook up some more half-baked attacks on Cheryl’s exegesis you deal with the passage and either show from the text where Cheryl is wrong or at the very least present your own missing exegesis of the passage.