I suffer not a woman....
- If this gets read, I heard somewhere Kroeger' work 'I suffer not a woman..." was at some time and place totally discredited and supposedly Kroeger admitted falsifying stuff in their work. Is this true, where I could I find any info related to it? I ask because I have the book and had no idea it was so controversial.
Someone said Grudem's constant appeal to lexicon's is tiresome, I agree in fact, I find Grudems constant harping on this issue tiresome.
There are several issues here. Before attempting to answer this question, I would like to respond to a couple of comments made about the complementarian/egalitarian debate in the last month or so.
I personally do not think we can, or should try to, prove the egalitarian position through retranslating key passages in scripture. I am personally committed to using a pattern of translation that is traditional, literal and transparent, when doctrine of this importance is being discussed. I do not believe that gender inclusive language has been used to change the understanding of any key doctrine in the Bible since the first translations into modern vernacular.
I deplore the various attempts of others to try and reinterpret scripture without strong text critical evidence and scholarly consensus. I personally believe that neither complementarian nor egalitarian positions can be proved from scripture texts, nor should they be used to establish new translations. Having said that, I find the egalitarian position to be consistent with Christ's teaching to give up the use of power over other, and treat others as you would like to be treated.
I admit that I have not read the Clark Kroeger's book, nor is it on my list of books to read. I do not need to have egalitarianism proven to me, I simply need to know that the proofs for complementarianism contain many statements which are in error.
However, the question is, whether this book I do not suffer a woman is discredited. Al Wolters wrote a scathing review of this book, claiming that it was "riddled with linguistic blunders" and many significant errors.
My difficulty with this review is that it contains certain shaky information itself. Wolters makes the claim that "authentein is attested in New Testament times in the meaning of "have authority over". Ev. Feminism and Biblical Truth. by W. Grudem. page 312. However, when the 82 citations from Baldwins study are analysed only two are in New Testament times.
I had a friendly email discussion with Al Wolters recently with reference to other matters mentioned on this blog. I took the opportunity to ask him what he thought of the two citations of authentein which might be relevant to the discussion. He wrote,
- I've puzzled long and hard over authentew in BGU 1208 and in the Philodemus fragment. Although most of the lexicographical authorities seem to give it the meaning "have authority over" in those contexts, I don't think anyone can really be sure. Most people (including Grudem) are too sure about their conclusions in this regard. I do think it's quite well established that authentes and its cognates often have to do with mastery and authority.
When I asked if it was valid to characterize the spelling of Hygeia and aretology as errors Wolters answered,
- As for my review of the Kroegers' book, you are quite right that the misspelling of "Hygieia" and "aretalogy" is a relatively trivial matter. It only serves to illustrate, as I say in the review, the "innumerable minor errors throughout the book." The substance of my review deals with a whole series of what I take to be much more serious mistakes. As for the semantic history of Greek authenteo and its cognates, I refer you to my article "A Semantic Study of authentes and Its Derivatives," which appeared in the Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 1 (2004) 145-175 (also now available at www.cbmw.org/journal/editions/11-1.pdf). Needless to say, I disagree with Linda Belleville on these matters.
I haven't read the Kroeger's book, but I see absolutely no proof anywhere in the two examples of authentein that are contemporary with the NT to further this debate. We don't know if the word meant something bad like "have control over", or something good like "authority". The evidence leads away from "authority". However, we know that authentein is not a synonym of "exousia" and if it were the whole thing would be very odd, because Paul only once discusses authority and that is to build up the church. In fact, maybe he means that he has power only to build up, not for any other purpose.
Neither side can be proved and there is a lot of nonsense being written about these things. Wolters critiques the Kroegers, but, in my opinion, he makes his own mistakes and overstatements as he does so. I suspect there are errors on both sides, but I haven't confirmed this. I am a fan of Wolters writing on other topics, but when the subject is one of men having authority over women, few authors are impartial.
This cannot be solved by endless appeals to lexical studies. Sometimes the scriptures are difficult to understand.
It is as simple as whether people should treat others as equals or if God really intended that the most pervasive and intimate relationship on earth, and a reflection of his creation, was intended to be a hierarchy in which one person makes decisions for the other or not. Is that the core of the gospel, power of one over another? How can this not be a matter of self-interest?