Re: AUQENTEIN, 1Tim2.12

From: Paul S. Dixon (
Date: Sat May 16 1998 - 12:47:35 EDT

On Sat, 16 May 1998 10:17:01 -0400 "Carl W. Conrad"
<> writes:
>At 7:20 AM -0400 5/16/98, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>>>Further, I must say that this patriarchal mentality is no longer
>>>acceptable; and that it, like all cultural "husks" from the first
>>>are disposable as the have nothing to do with the "kernal" of the
>>>(A good Bultmannian I ever remain). :)
>>What is "culturally acceptable" is not a useful heuristic for
>>the meaning of the original text. Naturally, we need to figure out how
>>communicate with the current culture, but that is not the role of
>Quite frankly, I'm not sure who wrote the comment above (but I'd guess
>it was Jim West--it's certainly not Paul Dixon), but Jonathan's comment
>is quite to the point.

Quite right, Carl. I would never say something like that. You have
to know me.

>This subject and particularly this verse has been brought as a query
>to this forum again and again--sometimes by persons who are not even
>list-members) and it is, if any question ever was, an agenda-driven
>one. Personally I don't think that much is to be gained by seeking in
>text and context of 1 Tim 2:12 any interpretation that gives any comfort
>any gender-egalitarian perspective of our own era; I also don't think it

>is really possible to discuss this text and context without having
>questions of our own era in the forefront of our minds. One may raise
>the question of what AUQENTEIN means in this particular passage, but
>that has been done honestly, there's not much room for maneuver, I
>by gender-egalitarians (and frankly speaking, I am one myself). One
>raise larger issues of how this text and context are to be interpreted
>in the larger context of the gospel and the NT--BUT, if we are honest
>with ourselves and each other, we must realize that we list-members
>in no small degree on this matter; hermeneutics is at the core of the
>question here; the hermeneutic principles we espouse will govern whether
>seek to "explain away" the authoritarian stance set forth in this
passage or
>whether we seek to uphold it as normative and authoritative for all
>gender issues in the church, or for how we relate this passage to the
>as a whole and the NT as a whole. BUT: Hermeneutics is not something
>ought to be discussed in this forum. I would think that, given
>"objectivity" and honesty, agreement might be reached on what this
>passage by itself, in terms of its lexicology and syntax, may
legitimately be
>understood to be saying. That still will leave a whole complex of
>interpretative questions that don't really belong to the legitimate
>province of B-Greek.

The camps seem to be split into two: egalitarianism and hierarchism,
but I fear the resulting stereotypes tend to be only counter-productive.
I personally find the best description of the husband-wife relationship
in the relationship between God the Father and God the Son. As they
are both one in essence and being, but have different roles and function,
so also are the man and woman who are created in the image of God.

Carl, you make an excellent horticulturalist and have a real knack for
nipping things in the bud. I say this not to condemn you, but to praise

Paul Dixon

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:44 EDT