tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post116466802498274968..comments2023-10-20T07:28:50.948-07:00Comments on Better Bibles Blog: Translating biblical quotesWayne Lemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comBlogger71125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1165185966326713712006-12-03T14:46:00.000-08:002006-12-03T14:46:00.000-08:00Anon, I won't take advantage of your absence by ha...Anon, I won't take advantage of your absence by having the last word, after my own probably briefer absence. I will simply note that you have, if not conceded my point, at least confirmed my suspicion concerning "<I>he alleged position of some Rabbis that every woman's voice is always sexually enticing and therefore women's voices should never be heard</I>". For you have confirmed that some Rabbis, or at least some of those responsible for the sayings in the Aggadah if they can correctly be called Rabbis, did in fact hold this position. But I am glad that this material was judged to be Aggadah and so non-binding, just as I am glad that most Christians, as well as Jews, have taken a rather similar position concerning <A HREF="http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/2006/11/some-verses-i-am-glad-are-not-in-my.html" REL="nofollow">the passage in Ben Sira which I recently discussed</A>. And since we seem to be agreed on this now, I am wondering why we have largely wasted our time in many of the preceding 150 comments. If you had simply started this thread by explaining briefly that the passages Wayne had quoted were Aggadah rather than Halachah, we could have avoided a lot of conflict.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1165015475238276372006-12-01T15:24:00.000-08:002006-12-01T15:24:00.000-08:00Hi Anon,Not sure if you will be around to read thi...Hi Anon,<BR/><BR/>Not sure if you will be around to read this or not. I actually wasn't referring to women praying but reading the Torah. I have never seen that she (they) were given permission to do that or that they ever practiced it. This is fairly consistent with many churches who share a complementarian view. They reason that since only Adam was given the prohibition by God directly, then only men are allowed to speak for God or to teach His Word authoritatively. Most people have missed the fact that after Eve was created, God spoke to both of them and told them both what they could eat. Eve was not left out of the relationship with God and she too received God’s instructions.<BR/><BR/>I realize that there is a vast difference between the Sadduccees and the Pharisees. However in my research on the Talmud, I learned that the Talmud is the teachings of the Pharisees and reading it will take me back to the understanding of the Pharisees in Jesus day.<BR/><BR/>You said that learning about Judaism would be best through someone who is in that faith. I am wondering how that would help when one isn’t even required to believe in basic doctrines except that God is one. Sounds like it might be better to read about Judaism from Jewish sources that lay out the basic doctrine. Besides I don’t have anyone to ask and I read quite well.<BR/><BR/>I am wondering if you also believe that to understand Christianity it would be wise to talk to someone who is a follower of Christ and believes all of the historic doctrines including the need to be born again. I noticed that Peter told you the position of the Christian church that the woman’s voice is not considered a sexual part of her. But I don't think you believed him. I would think it might be good to listen to someone who holds the Christian faith than to consult books that must be interpreted through your own bias. We all have a bias, so sometimes we just have to believe the other person that this is their faith and the faith of Christianity. I have been through a number of churches and denominations and I can attest to the fact that none of them considered the woman’s voice to be a sexual incitement. We can accept you saying that this is a part of Judaism whether it is a law or not and I think it would be good for you to hear Peter too. If you wanted to do a mini survey, you could ask a hundred Christians when having a woman speak in front of a Christian group would her voice be considered a sexual incitement to them. To make it fair let’s put her in a burka so we can’t see her. I have one if you would like to borrow it :)Cheryl Schatzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07319009906205048912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1164998409808075152006-12-01T10:40:00.000-08:002006-12-01T10:40:00.000-08:00I've been thinking.......while the laws in the Tal...I've been thinking.......while the laws in the Talmud may be binding for followers of the oral tradition, and the writings (sayings) may not be looked on as such a strict law, it seems that the writings are followed just as strongly. Case in point, how come women were not allowed to read the Torah in the synagogue? At least I have never seen anything from the "law" that gave them permission to speak forth from the Torah in the congregation. Perhaps then it may be merely a difference in semantics but in reality it is followed in the same way.Cheryl Schatzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07319009906205048912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1164993957344312792006-12-01T09:25:00.000-08:002006-12-01T09:25:00.000-08:00codepoke: Thanks for the link. I will have a look....codepoke: Thanks for the link. I will have a look.Cheryl Schatzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07319009906205048912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1164993319858346502006-12-01T09:15:00.000-08:002006-12-01T09:15:00.000-08:00Cheryl,The pertinent translation and notes are her...Cheryl,<BR/><BR/>The pertinent translation and notes are here, though there is a lot more material available higher up the URL.<BR/>http://www.godswordtowomen.org/studies/resources/Source/First%20Timothy%20with%20Notes2.pdfKevin Knoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16788817477327510023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1164988801989055032006-12-01T08:00:00.000-08:002006-12-01T08:00:00.000-08:00Hi tknomom,Thanks! I have been told that my exege...Hi tknomom,<BR/><BR/>Thanks! I have been told that my exegesis is thought-provoking by many. One Pastor told me that the section on 1 Corinthians 11 on headcoverings was the best exegesis he had ever heard on that passage and I was told the same thing by another Pastor concerning 1 Corinthians 14, the passage that this thread is on. I think you will enjoy it. It is also visually entertaining (I may be biased but I have also been told that by many people.) You can see reviews of the DVD at http://mmoutreach.org/wim.htm. <BR/><BR/>teknomom you made my day!<BR/><BR/>codepoke: no, I have not seen Dr. Nyland's material on the subject. Where would I see that?<BR/><BR/>CherylCheryl Schatzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07319009906205048912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1164985902183995732006-12-01T07:11:00.000-08:002006-12-01T07:11:00.000-08:00Cheryl, that's the best interpretation of the pass...Cheryl, that's the best interpretation of the passage in 1 Timothy 2 I've ever seen. The other theories always seem to stretch a little, but yours makes perfect sense of a most difficult writing, especially the "childbearing" part. Maybe I'll get some $$ for Christmas and I can order that DVD. :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1164968646686627572006-12-01T02:24:00.000-08:002006-12-01T02:24:00.000-08:00Anon, I acknowledge that the interpretation of Son...Anon, I acknowledge that the interpretation of Song of Songs 2:14 as that the woman's voice is sexually enticing is a possible one. It is indeed an ancient one. But it seems to me that insistence on this interpretation to the exclusion of others is "<I>the product of an impious dirty old man</I>", unless we take Whiston's view that this is true of the whole book. So I am pleased to see that you have now distanced yourself from suggesting this.<BR/><BR/>But even if we accept that in this verse one man was saying that one woman's voice was at a particular time sexually enticing, and was encouraging encouraging her to speak, that is still a long way from the alleged position of some Rabbis that every woman's voice is always sexually enticing and therefore women's voices should never be heard. We must agree that many women's voices can be used in a sexually enticing way - and so can many men's voices, at least to entice women. In fact Paul has to warn against false teachers who are usually presumed to be male (although it would be interesting to consider whether they might have been women, as is sometimes suggested as the background for 1 Timothy 2), "men of depraved minds" (the TNIV rendering of <I>anthropoi</I> here!), who entice women with their false teaching with clear sexual overtones, although it is not clear that their voices were actually enticing (2 Timothy 3:6-9). But most men and women can choose to use their voices in a non-enticing way as well, and indeed have to for everyday life. So the fact that some women's and men's voices can be used in a sexually enticing way should not be used as an argument to ban all women or all men from teaching.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1164952645088624582006-11-30T21:57:00.000-08:002006-11-30T21:57:00.000-08:00Cheryl, Taking this thread down a 1 Tim 2:12 path ...Cheryl, <BR/><BR/>Taking this thread down a 1 Tim 2:12 path is a long run, but I have to ask whether you have seen Dr. Nyland on the subject?Kevin Knoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16788817477327510023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1164946926285766262006-11-30T20:22:00.000-08:002006-11-30T20:22:00.000-08:00Great question, Anon!1 Timothy 2:11-15 is *definit...Great question, Anon!<BR/><BR/>1 Timothy 2:11-15 is *definitely* canonical!<BR/><BR/>In my thesis I bring up the following facts:<BR/><BR/>(1) In context, Paul is dealing with false deceived teachers who are teaching false doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3, 7)<BR/><BR/>(2) Paul did not leave Timothy behind in Ephesus to stop the false teachers AND all women who are teaching correct biblical doctrine….he only left Timothy behind to stop the false teachers from teaching false doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3)<BR/><BR/>(3) Paul says that he too had been deceived and he received mercy because of he fought against the church because he was deceived by false doctrine and was ignorant of the truth (1 Tim 1:13, 16)<BR/><BR/>(4) Paul differentiates between those who were teaching false doctrines because they were ignorant and deceived (1 Tim. 1:3, 7) and those who were deliberate deceivers (1 Tim. 1:19, 20)<BR/><BR/>(5) Paul names the deceivers (1 Tim. 1:20) but he does not name the ones who are deceived (1 Tim. 1:3, 6)<BR/><BR/>(6) Paul gives instructions to Timothy regarding how the men and women who claim godliness should conduct themselves in the church while they are in the midst of the false teachers (1 Tim. 2:1-10)<BR/><BR/>(7) All Christians should be praying for the lost even those who are lost in their midst – those who are embroiled in false doctrine (1 Tim. 2:1-4) <BR/><BR/>(8) The Christian men in the congregation are not to handle the false teachers with argumentation that might come out even in their prayers (1 Tim. 2:8)<BR/><BR/>(9) The women in the congregation who lay claim to godliness (1 Tim. 2:10) need to handle this false teacher situation with prayer as well (1 Tim. 2:9 “likewise” links back to prayer) and continue to produce good works (1 Tim. 2:10) and not expect that it is their appearance with elaborate dressing that will show forth the godly example, but their godly works (1 Tim. 2:8-10)<BR/><BR/>(10) Paul then abruptly changes from the godly men and women (plural) to the singular form of woman and man.<BR/><BR/>(11) Before Paul gives the prohibition, he gives the solution to one of the problems in the church. Paul instructs that “a woman” is to be given the opportunity to learn. This identifies the problem that she is not one of the deceivers, but one of the deceived. Paul never educates the deceivers – he names them, exposes them and shuns them. His solution to deception is education and he never ever identifies the deceived.<BR/><BR/>(12) Paul tells Timothy that he is not allowing “a woman” to teach or authenteo “a man”. It is out of context to even consider that Paul is here stopping godly women from teaching correct biblical doctrine. In context this can only be the stopping of false doctrine and dealing with a false teacher. (1 Tim. 2:12)<BR/><BR/>(13) We know this is false teaching that is being stopped because Timothy’s mandate to stop the teachers was only for *false* teachers. Also in the example given later of why the teaching is to be stopped, Paul ties the prohibition into the example of the first deceived woman (1 Tim. 2:14)<BR/><BR/>(14) Whenever gune and aner are mentioned together in scripture in any type of relationship, they are always translated as husband and wife. Verse 12 should be translated as a single wife teaching/influencing her husband.<BR/><BR/>(15) Paul has several times not identified people by calling them “a man” yet the context clearly identifies the “a man” as a specific person (2 Cor. 12:2, 5; 1 Cor. 5:1)<BR/><BR/>(15) Paul identifies the reason why the first man was not deceived and why the woman was. He refers us back to Genesis to discover the reason by stating that the man was created first and was not deceived and the woman created second was deceived (1 Tim. 2:13, 14) cf (Gen. 2:8, 19)<BR/><BR/>(16) The grammar from verse 15 requires the identification of a single female to refer back to “a woman” from verse 12. The “she” from verse 15 cannot be Eve because the tense is future and Eve is dead.<BR/><BR/>(17) The only “she” in this entire passage that verse 15 can refer back to is “a woman” from verse 12. “She” and “they” are given instructions regarding her salvation and it is future tense.<BR/><BR/>(18) 1 Tim. 2:15 gives the answer to whether the deceived woman can receive salvation even though she has been deceived by false doctrine. She (refer back to verse 12 the deceived Ephesian woman) will be saved through the Messiah born of the woman (the childbearing which is a noun and not a verb), if they (refer back to verse 12 the deceived Ephesian woman and her husband) continue on in their faith in God, love for the Savior, holiness, and self-control to stay away from false doctrine. This is how one deceived woman will be saved (and is a pattern for the salvation of all deceived teachers).<BR/><BR/>(19) Summary: Paul was not making a universal prohibition that stopped godly women from teaching sound doctrine to men. He was stopping one of the false teachers in the assembly from taking her Christian husband down the proverbial garden path towards the forbidden fruit.<BR/><BR/>For a full media production with pictures depicting this you would have to buy the DVD.<BR/><BR/>Does that make sense?Cheryl Schatzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07319009906205048912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1164935624236324602006-11-30T17:13:00.000-08:002006-11-30T17:13:00.000-08:00Hi,"(b) Cheryl, in support of her thesis, gives a ...Hi,<BR/><BR/>"(b) Cheryl, in support of her thesis, gives a certain interpretation of the Talmud which see says is not present in Scripture. (I cited Song of Songs 2:14; I could have also added Songs 8:13, but 8:13 is more obscure and the case there is weaker.)"<BR/><BR/>If the reference to Song of Solomon was implying that a woman's voice is a sexual incitement, then we should be able to find historical sources that forbid a woman from speaking in the congregation because her voice was sexually lewd or enticing. In my reading of scripture I have never seen any person stop a woman from speaking or refer to any law that stopped her because of sexual lewdness regarding her voice. I can appreciate that this is the interpretation of the Rabbis responsible for the Talmud and I can leave it with them. There is no reason to attribute these words to Paul as many Christians have. Paul never once attributed sexual lewdness to a woman's voice nor did he ever cite a non-Christian law in order to stop women's voices from being heard.<BR/><BR/>I appreciate Fee for many things especially since he stands up for the rights of women to speak and to use their gifts in the congregation. I do not agree that the two verses in question should be seen as an interpolation. If I remember right he cites some manuscripts which have these verses in a different place and takes that to mean that they could be looked on as being an addition. Yet if my recollection doesn’t fail me, every manuscript has these verses in them even if some have them in a different order. That speaks volumes to me concerning their inspiration. I am unconvinced by this argument for another reason. If you remove verse 34 from the context, you remove reference to the troublesome “law” but you still have Paul saying that women’s voices are filthy. If you remove both verses 34 & 35, then verse 36 has nothing to contradict. Previously I gave the references where the Greek shows a contradictory stance at the beginning of verse 36, contradicting the previous verses. If you remove the troublesome verses, then verse 36 stands out like a sore thumb. What on earth would Paul’s words be contradicting then? Then we would have to argue that we must remove verse 36 too. I don’t think so.<BR/><BR/>I think it much more reasonable to accept that this is a hard passage and understand that it has been difficult to interpret because we have assumed that the Old Testament had a law that prohibited women from speaking in the congregation and attributed their voices as a lewd act for some odd reason. It would have been far better for commentators to have admitted upfront that there is no such law in the Old Testament. While we may not be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt which non-Christian “law” was referenced, we certainly can prove that this “law” was contradicted by Paul. That really should be sufficient for us to release 1 Corinthians 14 as a stumbling block for allowing women to use their gifts and talents in the congregation for the benefit of our dear brothers in Christ.Cheryl Schatzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07319009906205048912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1164927936238232932006-11-30T15:05:00.000-08:002006-11-30T15:05:00.000-08:00Anon, I am not discussing the exegesis of Song of ...Anon, I am not discussing the exegesis of Song of Songs and therefore I am not going to read any commentaries on that subject, nor Ullendorff's work although I am sure that is excellent scholarship and very interesting.<BR/><BR/>The main issue on which we disagree is whether it is correct to call two forms which are listed as separate lexical entries in standard lexicons two separate words. I maintain that it is, and that that is my implicit definition of what a word is. You earlier made an error in taking the forms in question as two occurrences of the same word, and instead of admitting your error you are trying to redefine the science of lexicography in order to cover your tracks, complete with all kinds of <I>ad hominem</I> attacks on recognised scholars as well as myself whose definitions don't fit with your attempted redefinition of the subject.<BR/><BR/>I have accepted that the word in question in Song of Songs may have sexual connotations in that context, as clearly does the occurrence in Ezekiel of a different word (i.e. different lexical entry in standard lexicons). What I dispute is your claim that the sexual connotations in one case certainly imply a major sexual meaning component in the other case. This would not follow even if this was the same word, especially as there are other uses of the word which clearly have no sexual meaning component (unless of course you hold that God is sexually aroused by sacrifices made by humans). There is even less basis to your claim since it relates to two different words.<BR/><BR/>As for name calling, who have I been calling names? You can't even claim that I have been calling you names as you haven't given me a name to call you!<BR/><BR/>Then you write:<BR/><BR/><I>Fee's commentary (cited by Peter), which supports my view<BR/><BR/>HALOT (cited by Peter), which supports my view<BR/><BR/>HALOT's bibliography (cited by Peter), which supports my view<BR/><BR/>Babylonian talmud tractates (cited by Cheryl), which support my view</I><BR/><BR/>Please can we have some explanation here. You have expressed a number of views in this thread. What view is it which is supported by all four of these items? The view that Song of Songs 2:14 refers to a woman's voice as sexual attractive? Fee has nothing to say about this, and as I have proved nor does HALOT, although some of the many papers referred to in HALOT's bibliography might say this, but it is even harder to check all of them than to check the whole Talmud! The view that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is a later addition to the letter? Well, neither HALOT nor its bibliography has anything to say about that, and I would be very surprised if the Babylonian Talmud does either; anyway, we have not discussed this hypothesis for the origin of these two verses, but only an alternative hypothesis. Or your earlier insistence that Jewish tradition has nothing negative to say about a woman's role? Well, the Talmud itself is your source there, but HALOT and its bibliography have nothing to say on this issue, and Fee, in passing, presents some data (the Josephus quote and the Aalen reference) which appear to go against your position. I never said Fee was irrelevant, although I may have suggested that the hypothesis which you share with him that the verses are a later addition is of limited relevance to the discussion of an alternative hypothesis.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1164926766141589562006-11-30T14:46:00.000-08:002006-11-30T14:46:00.000-08:00Phew. This has been one of the most interesting an...Phew. <BR/><BR/>This has been one of the most interesting and profitable web discussions I have ever read. I don't often get to learn so much in so little space. Wow. <BR/><BR/>Thank you to Anon for challenging everything. I believe you ascribed to a peripheral hypothesis that Wayne made in supporting his primary assertion entirely too much weight due to your understandable sensitivity on the subject. Still, I am glad you did. I learned a lot of tolerance for Jewish oral tradition from you in these 100+ comments. Very valuable indeed. <BR/><BR/>Thank you to Cheryl for a fantastic counterpoint, and very well argued. I agreed with you before you started, and do so more strongly now. <BR/><BR/>Thank you to Wayne for setting up the discussion so well, and for letting it prosper. I agree with comments above - that took a lot of courage. <BR/><BR/>To Peter and the rest as well. Great stuff!<BR/><BR/>It's talks like these that keep me coming back here. The amount of raw data attached to this post is just staggering, and I will not soon forget it.Kevin Knoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16788817477327510023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1164923649651419512006-11-30T13:54:00.000-08:002006-11-30T13:54:00.000-08:00Anon, I'll say what the others are too polite to s...Anon, I'll say what the others are too polite to say (even so, I'm still holding my tongue so as not to 'entice' anyone):<BR/><BR/>Here you are raking Peter over the coals for name calling, while you've been dishing it out all along. No matter what sources anyone cites, you apparently have nothing better to do all day than hunt down someone with enough credentials to counter it. This is not, as you imagine, scholarship or an effort to find facts, but a witch hunt. You have returned Peter and Cheryl's patience and civility with sarcasm and ego.<BR/><BR/>Forgive me for sounding my too-sexy voice off, but whenever I read your posts, I can hear Jesus saying "Woe to you, Pharisees and teachers of the law..." <BR/><BR/>No, I'm not here to be popular either, but at least I don't go around pretending to be an expert. I only know a tantrum when I see one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1164917949141919172006-11-30T12:19:00.000-08:002006-11-30T12:19:00.000-08:00One thing that we can agree on is that the Talmud ...One thing that we can agree on is that the Talmud says that a woman’s voice is a sexual incitement. That means that her voice incites or spurs on sexual thoughts. It is no wonder then that she was not allowed to read from the Torah in public. The mere voice of a woman becomes a lewd act in public.<BR/><BR/>However all the commentaries I have checked as well as the Hebrew word studies I have checked do not show that in the bible, the voice of a woman was considered a sexual act. In fact no where in scripture is a woman ever refused the ability to speak with men even in an authoritative way because her voice is an incitement for men to sin.<BR/><BR/>So that difference here then, is that a woman is allowed to speak in church and the fact that she has a female voice is not used against her to stop her from speaking. Her voice then is not shameful. In 1 Cor. 14:35 the woman’s voice is said to be shameful. Wherever this “law” was taken from, whether it was from the Jewish oral law as I believe it was, or from some other non-Christian “law”, the fact is that it attributed some type of filth to the woman’s voice. I think it is pretty clear to see that the Talmud, by attributing sexual incitement to the woman’s voice is a clear contender for this “law”.Cheryl Schatzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07319009906205048912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1164917284190917902006-11-30T12:08:00.000-08:002006-11-30T12:08:00.000-08:00Anon, what I said about "the top scholars of bibli...Anon, what I said about "<I>the top scholars of biblical Hebrew</I>" (not, by the way, "<I>top bible scholars</I>"; I am talking about language experts, not biblical scholars) was that they list the meaning of both the verb and the adjective as "(to be) pleasant/pleasing", without the sexual meaning component of the definition which you put forward, but now seem to have deleted. Now are you denying that Koehler, Baumgartner, Brown, Driver and Briggs are or were top scholars of Hebrew? I accept that the last three are now a bit out of date. But HALOT is still considered the most authoritative dictionary.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile I have spent enough time already on answering your indefensible attack on proper linguistic and semantic scholarship, and I am not going to let myself waste any more time following up commentaries and other articles which may or may not have significant insights into the meaning of a phrase which apparently simply means "your voice is pleasant".Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1164915540086453362006-11-30T11:39:00.000-08:002006-11-30T11:39:00.000-08:00Anon, I am indeed using the electronic edition of ...Anon, I am indeed using the electronic edition of HALOT (you don't think I retyped all of that, do you?), which is not supposed to be abridged, but doesn't have the entry numbers you refer to. This edition doesn't appear to have a separate list of abbreviations. The definitions of some abbreviations appear when I hover my mouse over the text, but this does not work for "MHeb." or "Der." Thank you for telling me these definitions. But what period does "Middle Hebrew" refer to?<BR/><BR/>I did not intend to suggest that any term appeared only in "MHeb." I pointed this out only to note that HALOT does not support my thought that your position and mine might be reconciled by suggesting that the word acquired a necessarily sexual meaning between the biblical and Rabbinic periods.<BR/><BR/>As for "Der." meaning "Derived form", that is what I thought it meant although I didn't have the precise wording in front of me. This means that the adjective is a separate word which is derived from the verb, or more technically from the same triliteral root as the verb. It does not mean that they are the same lexical entry; that is why they are listed separately. I think you need to learn more about lexicography before making definitive pronouncements in this area. Then you need to learn some semantics, so that you understand that although different words derived from the same word are commonly semantically linked there is no guarantee of this. Indeed it is a well known fallacy, the etymological fallacy, to assume that two etymologically related words must have closely similar meanings.<BR/><BR/>I have not looked at Song 2:14 in detail and so do not make any claims about its meaning. But I note that neither HALOT nor BDB suggests that the word in question has an explicitly sexual meaning. Of course in the context it may have sexual connotations, but if so they are dependent on the context, not on the meaning of the word.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1164913646722327662006-11-30T11:07:00.000-08:002006-11-30T11:07:00.000-08:00Thank you Wayne and Cheryl for your responses.Than...Thank you Wayne and Cheryl for your responses.<BR/>Thanks also to “Anon” for certain comments referred to under (1) below.<BR/><BR/>I would seem that there are broadly four views of v34-35:<BR/><BR/>(1) <B>The words are Paul’s own</B>, but are not meant to be as all-encompassing as they seem: i.e. they were written to a particular situation, and the “silencing” is not to be taken as a general rule. I find helpful Anon's suggestion that the reference to the law may only be meant to apply to the immediately preceding clause (the “submitting”), and not in fact to the “silencing”. If that is the case, we would only be looking in the law for the concept of good order / submission to duly authorised leadership / etc, and not for a command silencing women. Perhaps having referred to what was “common practice” in the churches, Paul appeals to the law to drive the point home (after all, something can be common practice and still be wrong).<BR/><BR/>(2) <B>Paul is quoting the Corinthians</B>. In that case they were either (a) misinterpreting the (written) law, or (b) referring to the oral law (the latter being “Cheryl’s thesis”).<BR/><BR/>(3) <B>Paul himself is quoting the oral law</B> (“Wayne’s thesis”).<BR/><BR/>(4) <B>The words are spurious</B>. In favour of this is the fact that they appear to interrupt Paul’s argument, and that without them v36 seems to follow naturally on from v33.<BR/><BR/>While I find (4) very attractive, it's probably “too good to be true” (the “harder reading” principle). Nor am I (yet) convinced by (2) or (3), although I’m sure the final word has not been said on the matter (and I don’t just mean on this blog)!John Radcliffehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17457933540067146460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1164911215268813942006-11-30T10:26:00.000-08:002006-11-30T10:26:00.000-08:00Anon, since you ask, Jesus would condemn you as a ...Anon, since you ask, Jesus would condemn you as a hypocrite as he condemned the Pharisees whose methods of argument you seem to copy. I have been entirely open about how I used Fee's commentary, that I was quoting a footnote but not discussing Fee's main thesis about these verses. I have been entirely open about the Hebrew words we are discussing here, that they are etymologically linked but listed in dictionaries as separate items.<BR/><BR/>As for quoting material out of context, how about this? You claim that HALOT's definition of III ערב "includes" "<I>To be pleasing: a) a woman pleases her lover Ezk 16:37</I>". Well, yes, this is part of the definition. Let's see the whole definition:<BR/><BR/>III ערב: MHeb. to be pleasant; Arb. Hadram. dialect <I>ʿaru/ib</I> it is suitable (Ben-H. Lesh. 44 (1980):85ff).<BR/><B>qal</B>: pf. עָֽרְבוּ ,עָרַבְתְּ ,עָֽרְבָה; impf. יֶ/תֶּעֱרַב:—1. to <B>be pleasant</B>: sleep Jr 31<I>26</I> Pr 3<I>24</I>, a wish fulfilled Pr 13<I>19</I>; —2. to <B>be pleasing</B>: a) a woman pleases her lover Ezk 16<I>37</I>; b) offerings please God (tech. terminology in the cult, see vRad <I>Th.</I> 1<I>6</I>:274<I>78</I>): to be well-pleasing Jr 6<I>20</I> Mal 3<I>4</I>, שִׂיחַ Ps 104<I>34</I> (:: Dahood <I>Psalms</I> 3:47: to enter, Ug. <I>ʿrb</I> → Vulg. ערב), praise 1QPs<I>a</I> Song of Zion 14 (DJD 4:86), 3Q 6:1 (DJD 3:98). †<BR/><B>hif</B>: impf. יעריבו to make delightful, make lovely (a song) Sir 40<I>21</I>. †<BR/>Der. עָרֵב.<BR/><BR/>Koehler, Ludwig; Baumgartner, Walter; Richardson, M.E.J. (tr.), The Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, CD-ROM Edition, (Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill, NV) 1994-2000.<BR/><BR/>(I have had to retype the Hebrew and take some liberties with the formatting to get this into a comment.)<BR/><BR/>Note the last point: "Der." implies that the adjective עָרֵב is a derivative, which technically means it is a separate word or lexical entry with the same origin, as I have maintained from the start.<BR/><BR/>But my main point here is that "a woman pleases her lover" is only one of four or five meanings of this word listed in this the top scholarly dictionary of Hebrew. It is thus quite inappropriate to insist that this meaning is carried by a different occurrence of the same word, still less by an occurrence of a different but derived word. If the Rabbis interpreted the Song of Songs reference in that way, that is their prerogative. But this interpretation is by no means demanded by the evidence, and is not held by the top scholars of biblical Hebrew.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1164910962185341932006-11-30T10:22:00.000-08:002006-11-30T10:22:00.000-08:00teknomom: you expressed thoughts that I have had. ...teknomom: you expressed thoughts that I have had. If the Talmud is evolving as we have been told and different editions say different things and it has been corrupted through the years then it is amazing that the Talmud is held up as an interpretation of the Scriptures and is in essence equal in value to the Scriptures. I am so glad that the Word that God has given us has proved true throughout history. When we were in Israel years ago we went into a building that housed a copy of one of the books of the Old Testament that was extremely old. The really amazing thing is that this old copy is in essence what we still have today. That is clear evidence of God's preservation and of the meticulous work of the Jewish scribes who took great pains to be faithful in their work of copying God’s word. His inspired Word stands in stark contrast to the works of mere men.<BR/><BR/>I also liked your word picture of nailing jello to the wall. I have felt the same frustration.Cheryl Schatzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07319009906205048912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1164890571083199082006-11-30T04:42:00.000-08:002006-11-30T04:42:00.000-08:00Finding a version of any given section of the Talm...Finding a version of any given section of the Talmud that all agree on, appears to be about as easy as nailing jello to a wall. Your version says this? Well mine says that... on and on and on. Ironically, it's a conversation that would delight the Pharisees of old.<BR/><BR/>Hence the thread being hijacked from its point: that Paul is quoting someone else and refuting them. Who cares about the source of that quote, seeing that in all this time, no one has found it in the Bible itself? That's the crux of the post.<BR/><BR/>The mention of where the quote might have originated, while possibly an interesting study, is really not relevant at all to answering the question of whether Paul is ordering or refuting women's silence. I think that question has been answered decisively.<BR/><BR/>Let the Rabbis argue endlessly about interpretations of their traditions, which appear to be so vague and disputed that such a study would be a colossal waste of time. Perhaps the value in it is that it makes the Bible look all the more amazing, dependable, and clear.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1164885833217454202006-11-30T03:23:00.000-08:002006-11-30T03:23:00.000-08:00Hey anon: apology accepted. I am very much for wo...Hey anon: apology accepted. I am very much for women being given the freedom to speak their mind (and teach too!) but I also am very supportive of encouraging whomever is speaking to make sure to speak with dignity and respect because all people deserve to receive care and concern with dignity. Also I am a stickler for truth and documented facts and just as I have seen my faith misrepresented, I would not want anyone else's faith represented.<BR/><BR/>Wayne: I'd be willing to work with you to help verify as many quotes as I can and if possible to find better ones for any that are misleading. It make take me more than just a little awhile. I am busy in ministry with several "irons in the fire" and if I try to do too much at once, my husband tells me that all he sees of me is the back of my head (at the computer!) I need to respect him and slow down my pace a litte.<BR/><BR/>Anon: Can you give me any links or helps in how to find the Palestinian Talmud on line? Or second best (for the frugal types like me) how to buy a CD of that version of the Talmud? I am very interested in checking out the facts for myself. I know what I have personally seen from the books of the Talmud I have read and own, but I would like to have the opportunity to check out more, (if possible without spending mega dollars to purchase them if they are even available). Thanks!Cheryl Schatzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07319009906205048912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1164885489967352842006-11-30T03:18:00.000-08:002006-11-30T03:18:00.000-08:00Anon, I am well aware that Fee considers this pass...Anon, I am well aware that Fee considers this passage to be an interpolation, and have some sympathy with this argument myself. I made no claim to present Fee's full explanation of this passage. I merely pointed out one of his footnotes and a quotation he makes from Josephus which partially go against your earlier claim that no commentary discusses or gives citations for the theory that this reference to "the law" is in fact to the Jewish oral law.<BR/><BR/>As for "<I>I'm afraid that Peter is using Bowlderized references,</I>" it seems that it is you who can spell neither English ("Bowlderized") nor Hebrew. Song of Songs 2:14 is listed by HALOT (Koehler and Baumgartner dictionary), BDB (Brown, Driver, Briggs dictionary) and the Westminster Hebrew morphology database as an occurrence of the adjective עָרֵב. Ezekiel 16:37 with which you compared it is listed in the same sources as an occurrence of the verb ערב. The adjective and the verb are doubtless etymologically related and probably semantically similar, but they are considered by standard scholarly resources to be different lexical items. So please withdraw your "<I>the words are the same</I>".<BR/><BR/>As for "<I>every word reeks with eroticism</I>", I repeat that only those with an extremely dirty mind would read eroticism into the Proverbs references I listed, still less into the ones related to sacrifices pleasing to God. Maybe certain later Jewish readers who did have that kind of mind did read that into the words and so certain later commentators understood the passages differently. But the words do not have that meaning in biblical Hebrew, as recognised by the standard scholars. For example, HALOT defines the verb as simply "to be pleasant" (and incidentally gives the same meaning for "MHeb.", I'm not immediately sure if this is Mishnaic or modern Hebrew), and the adjective simply as "pleasant", with no hints of any sexual connotations.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1164865421929777692006-11-29T21:43:00.000-08:002006-11-29T21:43:00.000-08:00It looks like the version that is on Come and See ...It looks like the version that is on Come and See is the original version:<BR/><BR/>The publication was completed as a 35-volume set in 1952, and republished in 18 volumes in 1961. Each tractate was accompanied by a glossary, a table of abbreviations, an index of Biblical references, and a general subject index. In 1952, Soncino published a comprehensive Index volume collating the indices from all tractates, and included an index to the statements of each of the Sages. The Jew's College/Soncino English translation of the Babylonian Talmud has remained the gold standard of English Talmuds for six decades.<BR/><BR/>That must be why they are able to put the material on line. If it was republished again in 1990 I am sure they must have made changes again. You said there has been lots that have been censored (corrupted). Maybe there is even more censorship now. Who knows. If that is the case then each time they publish it they change. I will have a look at it. So far I checked one page and it is exactly the same.<BR/><BR/>The CD I have doesn't have a date and has the name ISIDORE EPSTEIN after some notes. The disk is labeled The Sonciono cincludes soncino English Text Talmud Hebrew Amaraic Texts Rashi commentary on the Talmud.Cheryl Schatzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07319009906205048912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1164864063560044732006-11-29T21:21:00.000-08:002006-11-29T21:21:00.000-08:00Well my book says translated into English with not...Well my book says translated into English with notes, glossary and indices by Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman, B.A. Ph.D. under the editorship of Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, B.A., Ph.D. D. LIT, New edition, London The Soncino Press 1966. I assume that this means I have a Soncino hard copy. I will check it myself.<BR/><BR/>Actually I just checked and the first book I have isn't even on line - Kiddushin.<BR/><BR/>I will check one that I have that is on line - Gittin. The date of my book says 1990. I can do the research myself and I will know what is the truth.Cheryl Schatzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07319009906205048912noreply@blogger.com