Frank

Isn’t it amazing how self-contradictory Wayne Grudem can be? On the one hand, he affirms that authenteo in 1 Tim. 2:12 does not have any negative connotations and that there isn’t sufficient evidence in ancient Greek texts to so understand this verb and its cognates, yet in a footnote he admits there is at least one such text where it does refer to hostile action and attitudes, and so should be translated as “compell”? Not to mention the points brought up by Sue McCarthy’s response. Nor does he seem to be aware of, or willing to respond to, the comparative studies Linda Belleville and Kenneth Bailey have made on the Latin and Arabic translations of this text. For example, Kenneth Bailey states:

So what is intended here? I would submit that the overtones of this rare, very strong word, make clear the author’s meaning. In Ephesus some women had acquired absolute authority over the men in the church and were verbally (and perhaps theologically) brutalizing them. Paul calls for a halt to this dehumanizing attack. Again our centuries-long middle-eastern exegetical tradition is instructive. The Peshitta Syriac (fourth century) translates with MAMRAHA. The root of this word has to do with insolence and bullying. The early Arabic versions, translated from the Greek, Syriac and Coptic, read either ‘YATA’AMARU’ (“to plot; to be domineering; to act as ‘lord’ and ‘master’; to be imperious”) or ‘YAJTARIU’ (“to be insolent”). The last two centuries have preferred ‘YATASALLAT’ (“to hold absolute sway”). Thus middle-eastern Christianity at least from the third century onward has always remembered that something dark and sub-Christian was involved (“Women in the New Testament: A Middle Eastern Cultural View,” THEOLOGY MATTERS, Vol. 6 No. 1, Jan/Feb 2000, p. 9)

Now if Grudem was an honest and thorough Greek scholar, he would acknowledge that in understanding the meaning and significance of a rare hapax legomenon, such as authenteo, one must consult the earliest translations of the Greek NT in Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Arabic. The fact that Grudem neither acknowleges or makes any reference to this evidence, which contradicts his own understanding of authenteo, leads me to doubt his sincerety to listen to egalitarians on this issue, or to seriously consider anything that goes against his set interpretation of this Pauline text.