Re: SIGATW in 1 Cor 14:34

Date: Wed Jul 09 1997 - 09:57:14 EDT

In a message dated 7/8/1997 1:53:40 PM, (Carl W.
Conrad) wrote:

<<peaking only for myself--NOT as a member of the B-Greek Staff--, I have to
say that I think this thread has become rather tedious. I've been reluctant
to comment about it because I know how important this issue is to Paul and
to Jonathan both. Nevertheless, it seems to me that Paul and Jonathan have
both made abundantly clear to anybody still reading the thread exactly what
the point of their disagreement is; I don't see any new arguments being
brought to bear upon the issue in the successive posts. On the one hand
Jonathan and some others as well find it incomprehensible that the apostle
would have interjected this comment about shaming the head IF he hadn't
assumed that women would naturally pray and prophesy in the congregation,
while Paul on the other hand insists that (a) one may not legitimately
assume any proposition that is not explicitly stated, and (b) the inner
consistency of scripture rules out any likelihood that the apostle DID
approve of women praying and prophesying in the congregation. Have I
misunderstood these two stances being taken in this discussion? I honestly
hope not, because I think I have read both of them repeatedly. I also think
it is evident that both parties to this discussion are approaching this
matter with assumptions about the nature of the Biblical text that are at
odds with each other--but while it is impossible for any of us to confront
any Biblical text without assumptions as well as deep convictions regarding
the nature of the Biblical text, those assumptions themselves are NOT the
proper focus of discussion here. I think it is quite appropriate that those
assumptions and convictions be frankly admitted "up front" when an exchange
such as this one continues, but I don't think that this is the appropriate
forum to carry on a discussion about the validity or non-validity of any
list-member's assumptions and convictions. It is the Greek text itself that
is our focus, and whatever we may think about the logic of the Greek
language's construction (Personally, I think it's one of the most rational
languages in the world, but I also think it has some strange anomalies), it
seems to me that the issue in this thread has become "How one should read
the Bible" rather than "How we should understand a particular Greek
text--whether in its narrow or in its broad context--in the Bible."


For the most part I agree and I've tried to bring out aspects of the Greek
text in this passage that applied to the discussion, such as the meaning and
referent of EXOUSIAN in 11:10, the referent of TOIAUTHN in 11:16 (by the way,
this thrad is connected with the 1 Cor 11:3-16 thread, where the discussion
centered around the meaning and referent of KEFALH), as well as other
relevant information. For Paul, the point is generic: does the Greek text
supply enough informnation to infer the negation? But it seems this thread is
close to an end.

Charles Powell

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:21 EDT