infinitive -> finite verb

B. Ward Powers bwpowers at optusnet.com.au
Thu May 23 22:03:05 EDT 2002


At 10:05 AM 020523 -0700, waldo slusher wrote:
>Ward:
>
>I have this to ask of you
>
>____________________
>
> > > > 1TIM. 2:8 BOULOMAI OUN PROSEUCESQAI TOUS ANDRAS
> > EN PANTI TOPWi EPAIRONTAS
> > > > hOSIOUS CEIRAS CWRIS ORGHS KAI DIALOGISMOU.  9
> > hWSAUTWS [KAI] GUNAIKAS EN
> > > > KATASTOLHi KOSMIWi META AIDOUS KAI SWFROSUNHS
> > KOSMEIN hEAUTAS, MH EN
> > > > PLEGMASIN KAI CRUSIWi H MARGARITAIS H hIMATISMWi
> > POLUTELEI,  10 ALL' hO
> > > > PREPEI GUNAIXIN EPAGGELLOMENAIS QEOSEBEIAN, DI'
> > ERGWN AGAQWN.  11 GUNH EN
> > > > hHSUCIAi MANQANETW EN PASHi hUPOTAGHi:  12
> > DIDASKEIN DE GUNAIKI
> > > > OUK EPITREPW
> > > > OUDE AUQENTEIN ANDROS, ALL' EINAI EN hHSUCIAi.
>
>snip
>
> > The Greek word here in verse 11 is GUNH.
> > This does not mean
> > "women" - it means "woman". And "wife". Ditto verse
> > 12 - singular. This is
> > not a minor matter, changing this singular to a
> > plural. It makes the
> > reference become one relating to women in general,
> > and thus gives a basis
> > (albeit a false one) for making this passage relate
> > to women in general
> > (notice how Iver uses the plural throughout his
> > explanation?)
>_____________________
>
>It appears to me that Iver takes into consideration
>the entire paragraph, while you are commenting on a
>portion of the entire paragraph. The paragraph does
>reference women (plural), both at the beginning and
>end.
>
>What is your justification for taking the woman
>(singular) as perhaps unrelated to the preceding women
>and the ending women.
>
>Since this paragraph ends back with women (plural), it
>seems to make a sandwich of the entire paragraph
>beginning where Iver began.


I don't know how much of 1 Timothy 2 you are including in your term 
"paragraph", Waldo, but there is only two occurrences in the Greek of GUNH 
in the plural in the entire chapter, in verses 9 and 10 respectively. In 
verse 9 Paul says that GUNAIKES are to dress modestly etc. This is 
paralleled in 1 Peter 3:1-7, where Peter, in addressing wives (GUNAIKES), 
says that they are to dress modestly, using similar language. (Notice the 
same word is here translated "wives".) Now, neither passage is addressing 
how women are to dress for a church meeting, exclusive of other occasions. 
It is not that Paul (or Peter) is saying, "For the church meeting you dress 
like this, but on all other occasions you GUNAIKES can dress how you like." 
These comments apply in relation to appropriate dress on all and for all 
occasions.

It is worthy of note that the point at which this applies is WHEN and WHERE 
the GUNAIKES get dressed. And women get dressed at HOME. So once again we 
find this fits in with a "home and family" milieu. Women do not "get 
dressed" while at a church meeting.

Then there is (in both passages) a comment about this being appropriate for 
"women who profess godliness" (1 Timothy 2:10), and is the example set by 
"the holy women of the past"  (1 Peter 3:5).

After this comment for GUNAIKES (wives/women) at large, Paul narrows down 
to the singular for both husband and wife, talking now of the situation in 
any given marriage relationship. This is where he deals with an aspect of 
the outworking of the husband's headship/wife's submission, dealt with 
elsewhere in more detail in Ephesians 5:22-33.

Next you say,


>What is your justification for taking the woman
>(singular) as perhaps unrelated to the preceding women


I am not taking the one as unrelated to the other. Both 1 Timothy 2:9 and 
2:11-15 apply to home-and-family situations. Paul now narrows his general 
comment (2:9) down to the situation in particular individual marriages 
(2:11-15).


>and the ending women.
>
>Since this paragraph ends back with women (plural), it
>seems to make a sandwich of the entire paragraph
>beginning where Iver began.


When one looks at what Paul wrote in the Greek, one sees no sign that "this 
paragraph ends back with women (plural). It does not. Paul ends by giving 
the example of Adam and Eve (2:13-14), and uses GUNH (2:14) in reference to 
Eve, Adam's WIFE. Then he says "yet she will be saved through childbirth", 
SWQHSETAI DE DIA THS TEKNOGIAS (2:15). Note the singular - it is NOT plural 
(notwithstanding that numbers of translations, including the NIV, NAS and 
numbers of less literal versions, switch what Paul wrote to insert "women" 
here).

Then Paul says EAN MEINWSIN, "if they continue..." He has just referred to 
Adam and Eve, and before that to the ANHR and his GUNH. If we take our lead 
from Paul's Greek, then the antecedent of the "they" is the ANHR and GUNH, 
the husband and wife together. Not "women". But of course, if we were to be 
influenced by the NIV or similar translation we would see the antecedent as 
being "women". Which in fact is not in the Greek that Paul wrote.


>I really am not arguing
>whether or not this refers to a wife or a woman, or
>whether the woman of your verses is a representative
>of the women in the entire paragraph. I am just
>looking for justification on seemingly removing the
>portion on woman from the larger portion on women.


Well, a look at the Greek shows that after talking of GUNAIKES getting 
dressed, he switches to the singular to talk about the roles on a GUNH and 
ANHR in relation to each other, then to a person (singular) giving birth, 
and finally to the plural in MEINWSIN, which most logically is to be taken 
in reference to the aforementioned GUNH and ANHR taken together, the father 
and mother of the child which is being born.

So I would query the statement that


>The paragraph does reference women (plural), both at the beginning and
>end.


I hold to my thesis: that the setting for Paul's comments is a 
home-and-family situation, that ANHR and GUNH should be understood as 
"husband" and "wife" as in the parallel in 1 Peter 3:1-7, that within that 
context Paul is referring in 2:11 to an aspect of the headship relationship 
dealt with more largely in Ephesians 5:22-33, and that this is the 
reasonable interpretation of the Greek text as Paul wrote it rather than an 
interpretation which has him saying that women in general are 
subordinate/subservient to men in general, which Paul did not say. And for 
those interested, I have written a book about this which goes into more 
detail - see my website.

Regards,

Ward


                                http://www.netspace.net.au/~bwpowers
Rev Dr B. Ward Powers        Phone (International): 61-2-8714-7255
259A Trafalgar Street          Phone (Australia): (02) 8714-7255
PETERSHAM  NSW  2049      email: bwpowers at optusnet.com.au
AUSTRALIA.                         Director, Tyndale College




More information about the B-Greek mailing list