Suzanne,I didn't rule out the other 79 citations. ...

tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20011186.post-29595522250962502982008-02-16T16:39:00.000-08:002008-02-16T16:39:00.000-08:00Suzanne,I didn't rule out the other 79 citations. ...Suzanne, I didn't rule out the other 79 citations. Others have. You are the one who said, "To me it lists 79 irrelevant citations" and "Perhaps people feel that a study with 82 examples is significant but, in fact, only three are relevant." It may be you aren't the only one, but it seems to be the case that you yourself dismiss Baldwin's 79 other citations. But let's get on with the show, shall we? Page 680 [6th century AD]PLond 1708 Translation: my own (Baldwin's) "acted on his own authority" However, if you read the context, it clearly means that this man defrauded his family of money. It is not about someone who has authority, but someone who cheats. It is a very negative use of the word, but it is made to look better by Baldwin's translation. One can misuse legitimate authority. So the sense of auqentew here is not necessarily negative. Baldwin notes, "Preisigke lists this reference, along with PMasp 67151.174 below, under 'verfügungsberechtigt sein' ('having legitimate authority to dispose' [of something])." The same note applies, therefore, to your next example: page 681 [6th century AD] Jeanne Maspero "have authority in any fashion to detach outright goods of any kind from any manner of my estate." Once again, Baldwin has provided his own translation, thus creating the English phrase "have authority" where anyone else coming on this sentence might say that the wife is not to "defraud the husband in any fashion" by detaching goods from his estate. And frankly, I cannot see how one must look at auqentew as being purely negative. The husband is not granting his wife the right to take his goods to herself. Even if we grant, for argument's sake, that here it is definitely negative, we could say that this is regarding something to which she has no right at all in the first place, which meaning could just as well work in I Tim. 2 and maintain the traditional reading. Indeed, Paul certainly is not suggesting that it is legitimate for women to auqentein men; he is expressly prohibiting it. I will come back again to this below. Next, "assume authority" in F. Schubert might more easily be translated as "take over." Maybe, but it's quite evident the speaker is requesting (!) that his hearer take authority, or assume jurisdiction, in the matter before them, to bring it to a resolution. How is this "negative"? page 682 "Inhuman masters will have legal authority over their servants" Obviously a very negative use of the word. The translation "have legal authority" was created by Baldwin. No, not obviously. Baldwin gives a cogent explanation of his translation in the footnote. His argument is that the sense of auqentew is itself neutral. It's like saying that white slaveholders had legal authority over their black slaves. The expression, "had legal authority," is itself neutral. Almost every time the word is used as an action of a human, it denotes a very negative use, either defrauding or compelling or taking over. I don't think that there are many cases of a human as the subject of the verb authenteo that show a worthy or rightful use of authority, in a positive sense. A good example is on pg. 684, the second quotation from Basil's Letters: "It seemed to us advisable in the circumstances, moreover, to write to the bishop of Rome, that he may examine into the state of affairs here, and give us his opinion, so that, as it is difficult to send men to Rome by a general synodical decree, he may himself exercise full authority in this matter, by selecting men capable of enduring the hardships of a journey." And this is a good two centuries earlier than the citations which you've said are purely negative. The second citation from Chrysostom on pg. 685 is also rather telling: "Because she once exercised authority wrongly." "Wrongly" is actually in the Greek, kakws modifying auqentew. Or we can see Chrysostom on pg. 686 in his Homily on Psalm 92: "Just like the sunbeam I toil—but not like God do I reign." The sense of auqentew here is certainly not negative, or else God would be impugned by analogy. Still further, Chrysostom again, pg. 687, in his Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles: "For observe, there were an hundred and twenty, and he asks for one out of the whole body: with good right, as having been put in charge of them." This is said with referrence to Peter. And the same golden-mouthed preacher on pg. 689, from About Martha, Mary, and Lazarus: "Elijah raised the dead, but nevertheless he did not reign." (Although it must be admitted, most of these are Baldwin's own translation.) I could go on, as Baldwin provides many other citations, and it cannot be argued that these are all purely negative with referrence to human subjects of auqentew. Look at page 686, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew 57.239.50 About Christ it is written, "Neither doth he work all things as one who acted by His own power" So of Christ on earth is is said that he did not authenteo. This is extremely important. No human being can ever rightly authenteo, not even Christ. It does not says that Christ flatly did not auqentew. It says that Christ did not work all things in this manner. Otherwise, "nor doth He all things with prayer" means that Christ did not pray, and that would make nonsense of the passage. Your theological deduction is therefore without basis. On arche, ruler is not one of the meanings of arche, Can it not have this meaning, at least in the plural? E.g., Col. 1:16. nor do I suppose that Adam is our ruler. Do you see Adam as our ruler? In a sense, although being dead he can hardly auqentew. ;) But yes, Adam is the covenantal head of humanity. This is why Adam is rebuked for listening to his wife" when he ought to have exercised his appropriate authority over her to prevent her from eating the fruit of the tree. But Adam sinned, and so all humanity in him God regards as having sinned, by Adam's headship over humanity. For this reason a new Head is required for those who wish to escape condemnation, and that is Christ. As for the rest, you characterize my position in the most tendentious way. I can hardly continue a discussion with you at this rate.Kylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02576699017770933239noreply@blogger.com