THAT PESKY VERB PROBLEM: AUTHENTEIN AS AUTHORITY
Interpreting the verb authentein is extremely difficult, as this is the singular place in which it appears throughout the entirety of the Scriptural record.[1] The problem interpreter’s face concerning this singular usage regarding this solitary usage is that it restricts an interpreter’s ability to contrast this passage’s use at the time the passage was written against the whole of Scripture. Additionally, it is extremely dangerous to base an entire theology upon one appearance of any concept in Scripture, let alone one word. The commonly accepted practice in hermeneutics is to disregard any theology that has no other referents in Scripture, as the lack of supporting data lends itself to suspicion and bias. At a minimum, theologies that are based on a singular usage should be muted as to their impact on the general Body of Christ in so far as her actions are concerned. Virkler adds another word to this debate that appears to be relevant to the conversation. He addresses the concept of Scriptural analogy, which is the concept that restricts interpretation to an examination of other supporting passages at a minimum. His suggestion states that:
“Hypothesis about the pattern of God’s relationship to man are necessary, for they provide an organizational framework around which the biblical data can be understood. Without some sort of organizing principle, the bulk of data would be too great to comprehend. However, there are at least two major dangers in accepting a certain system or hypothesis about the nature of divine revelation… ‘They are…’ the danger of imposing one’s own system onto the biblical data rather than deriving the system from the data… and perhaps (an) even greater is that of accepting a theory about the pattern of divine revelation without even recognizing it as a theory, or without looking at other theories to see which theory fits the data best.”[2] These two dangers could be described as a myopic approach and an extremely myopic view of Scripture. Caution is the customary note when addressing any subject in Scripture that is not validated repeatedly throughout the revelation of God to man. Milton Terry further elucidates this point in his address of the subject of usus loquendi. Terry states that it is: “Important in interpretation to collate and compare all that is written. The obscure or doubtful passages are to be only explained by what is plain and simple… Sometimes the etymology of a word, or the context, or a parallel passage may have more weight than all the versions combined; while in other instances the reverse may be true.”[3]
Virkler’s usage of Terry’s cautionary note is an important one, as the use of translational cross-referencing allows the exegete the ability to view a vast compendium of different minds and the inherent struggle to produce valid Scriptural translations from the original language into their intended target language in order to add understanding. The more referrals one examines, the greater the surety of the conclusions that can be drawn. The opposite point can be offered up as a plausible argument as well. The scantier the referents that are available, the more suspect the conclusions.
Typically, the verb authentein has been translated as: ‘to usurp authority’ or ‘to have authority’ over a man. Research in the evolution of the words use in the ancient world may prove this to be erroneous conclusion however, as it appears that this view violates the context of the passage and the historical meaning of auvqentei/n (authentein) during the New Testament era that Paul was confined to as an expositor. It is important to look at the verbs tradition throughout the ages in the non-canonical writings that are accessible, as they are the only sources whereby meaning can be adduced. This is necessary in this instance, due to the lack of supporting biblical material. There are simply no alternative passages that are available in any Greek text’s available to grant us clarity in translating this critical verb. The earlier usages of the verb in Greek culture caries the thought of: “one who with his own hand kills either others or himself.”[4] Thayer’s identifies the term as existing both as a biblical and ecclesiastical term. Conversely, Thayer goes on to state that in later Greek the term meant: “One who does a thing himself, the author,” and citing Polybius, circa 122 B.C. Thayer further delineates the historical meaning as becoming: “One who acts on his own authority, autocratic,” Phrynichus, the grammarian, circa 180 A.D.
This is a word that underwent a transformation over a period of roughly 1,100 years. In the earliest appearances, the verbs usage in classical literature of the sixth century B.C. typically meant: “to initiate or be responsible for murder.” By 200-300 A.D., the verb usually meant: “to claim ownership of property,” through fraud. [5] It was during that time period that the term took on a dual connotation where it could mean to “usurp power” as well as the ownership of property clause. Again, Virkler adds to a proper approach to the recorded Word, as he addresses the topic of Sensus Plenior, as he advises that: “Words or phrases may have both popular and technical denotations… (and) connotations (with) implied emotional meanings… a word that has more than one denotation may also have more than connotation.” This leads to the conclusion that one must: “Study parallel passages in order to understand the meaning of an obscure word or phrase… Look for additional data in clearer passages… (And) distinguish between verbal parallels and real parallels.”[6] Virkler’s advice was focused on Scripture as the sole means of interpreting Scripture, however when there are no adequate passages to cross examine, the external alternatives must be utilized.
A further problem rises in this discussion when authentein’s use is examined during the New Testament period. The common use in classical application is: “to be, or to claim to be the author or the originator of something.”[7] It is entirely possible that this was the intended meaning of the Apostle Paul as he instructed his neophyte pastor Timothy. As such, the point of origin would be the prevailing issue, not authority. This would give the passage a meaning that would be akin to the restriction of women concerning the introduction of thoughts and practices that would be alien or novel concerning the Christian faith. The prevailing argument would state that women, as well as men, should never presume to alter or add to the meaning of Scripture. This is especially relevant when the mystery religions of the Ephesian region are brought into the conversation.
Russo under girds this thesis as he draws attention to the prevailing cultural concerns of the Ephesians believers. William Mounce addresses the cultural concerns in a commentary included in the Word Biblical Commentary series entitled: Pastoral Epistles where he postulates that a distinctly troubling time period existed among the populace due to the philosopher’s dismissal of the Greek Pantheon as primary influences for belief, and their inability to replace the lost gods with another means of hope.[8] When the temple of Artemis is included into the cultural milieu, Ephesus was a hot bed for religious sentiments that preyed upon the simplistic ideals of the populace who did not accept the high minded rejection of the gods of Olympus:
After all this had happened, Paul decided to go to Jerusalem, passing through Macedonia and Achaia. “After I have been there,” he said, “I must visit Rome also.” 22He sent two of his helpers, Timothy and Erastus, to Macedonia, while he stayed in the province of Asia a little longer. 23About that time there arose a great disturbance about the Way. 24A silversmith named Demetrius, who made silver shrines of Artemis, brought in no little business for the craftsmen. 25He called them together, along with the workmen in related trades, and said: “Men, you know we receive a good income from this business. 26And you see and hear how this fellow Paul has convinced and led astray large numbers of people here in Ephesus and in practically the whole province of Asia. He says that man-made gods are no gods at all. 27There is danger not only that our trade will lose its good name, but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be discredited, and the goddess herself, who is worshiped throughout the province of Asia and the world, will be robbed of her divine majesty.” 28When they heard this, they were furious and began shouting: “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” 29Soon the whole city was in an uproar. The people seized Gaius and Aristarchus, Paul’s traveling companions from Macedonia, and rushed as one man into the theater. 30Paul wanted to appear before the crowd, but the disciples would not let him. 31Even some of the officials of the province, friends of Paul, sent him a message begging him not to venture into the theater. 32The assembly was in confusion: Some were shouting one thing, some another. Most of the people did not even know why they were there. 33The Jews pushed Alexander to the front, and some of the crowd shouted instructions to him. He motioned for silence in order to make a defense before the people. 34But when they realized he was a Jew, they all shouted in unison for about two hours: “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” 35The city clerk quieted the crowd and said: “Men of Ephesus, doesn’t all the world know that the city of Ephesus is the guardian of the temple of the great Artemis and of her image, which fell from heaven? 36Therefore, since these facts are undeniable, you ought to be quiet and not do anything rash. 37You have brought these men here, though they have neither robbed temples nor blasphemed our goddess. 38If, then, Demetrius and his fellow craftsmen have a grievance against anybody, the courts are open and there are proconsuls. They can press charges. 39If there is anything further you want to bring up, it must be settled in a legal assembly. 40As it is, we are in danger of being charged with rioting because of today’s events. In that case we would not be able to account for this commotion, since there is no reason for it.” 41After he had said this, he dismissed the assembly (Acts 19:21-41).
[1] Kostenberger, Andreas & Raymond Bouchoc, The Book Study Concordance of the Greek New Testament, Broadman & Holman, Nashville TN, 2003, p. 1176
[2] ___ ibid, Virkler, pp. 118, 119
[3] Terry, pp. 186, 190
[4] Thayer’s Lexicon, p. 84:31
[5] I Suffer Not A Woman, Richard & Catherine Clark Kroegger, Baker Books Grand Rapids, MI, 1998: Don Rouso, unpublished article
[6] ____ ibid, Virkler, pp. 25-27, 99, 109
[7] ____ ibid, Kroegger/Ruso, p.4)
[8] Word Biblical Commentary: Pastoral Epistles, p.7
