Another important woman lost in translation...

[Tom Wetmore]

John317 said:

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

It is the word "lady" that doesn't quite capture the nuance of the original Greek word kyria, especially the modern usage of lady. Common usage conveys politeness and respectability or refinement, but it is largely synonymous with woman. Perhaps the old English or even British English comes closer to conveying a meaning as an aristocratic title.

According to all the Greek-English lexicons, kyria means "lady," and all of the English translations give it as "lady" or "dear lady" (NIV).

What is your evidence that it should not be so translated? If you were translating 2 John, how would you render it?

Quite simply, it is without question the masculine form of kyrios is consistently translated as "lord" or "master". One has to look outside of the NT context to find any clear understanding of the use of the feminine form. Bauer notes that it was not used as a proper name in the 1st century. It was used often as the title of the wife of the master, or mistress of the household and carried the same connotation of respect and deference as to one of superior standing.

It is not that lady is a completely wrong translation. But simply translating it as lady does not quite do it justice as we now use the word lady. A close approximation would be the British, or old English title of aristocracy, as in Lords and Ladies. As we understand the word "lady" today it is basically and too simplistically only understood as a synonym of "woman". That modern translations carry on the traditional translation is a dummying down of the real meaning or the original Greek. That is why I captioned this topic as I did.

Why should we be so resistant to what seems a reasonable suggested context of a woman lead (hosted, if you prefer) house church? This is accepted as being the case with a number of other house churches in the NT. - http://www.godswordtowomen.org/pastors.htm

[John317]

To the contrary, one should assume a literal meaning unless it is clearly meant as figurative. This is not a piece of apocryphal writing as in Revelation that one should first assume figurative unless clearly having a literal meaning. This is a personal letter that otherwise has quite plain and literal meaning bearing distinct similarities to his 3rd letter which was addressed to a person.

Here's the evidence that the "lady" is not an individual woman but a church:

Much of 2 John is written in the second person plural-- i.e., "you all" or "you people." For instance, see verses 6, 8, & 10. If John were writing to a single indivdiual woman, he wouldn't say, "you [plural] have heard... that you [plural] walk in love...You [plural] watch out that you [plural] do not lose what you [plural] have worked for... If anyone comes to you [plural]... you [plural] do not receive him..."

If John were writing to a particular woman, why did he write as he did, in the second person plural?

1 John 5 asks that the recipient of the letter and the writer "love one another." This is something that the apostle John is more likely to say in the context of a congregation than to say to a particular female Christian. The phrase makes better sense if addressed to a church.

The word "church" in Greek is feminine in gender, and "lady" would harmonize well with that.

Elsewhere in John's writings, the church is depicted as a "bride" (Rev. 21: 2,9; 22: 17).

The Greek word kyria ("lady") referred to a social subunit in the Greek city-state. John may use this word for a local congregation instead of the more common feminine word ekklesia.

The last verse of 2 John suggests that John writes from one congregation to another, which he terms "your elect sister."

[John317]

... This is a personal letter that otherwise has quite plain and literal meaning bearing distinct similarities to his 3rd letter which was addressed to a person.

Notice that Third John is written in the second person singular, whereas Second John is written in the second person plural.

The only way to explain this is that Third John is written to an individual, while Second John is written to a group of people, a church.

Third John names the person, Gaius, but Second John refers to the church under the name "lady" [Gk Kyria]. Since elsewhere in John's writings the pure church is called a "woman," "lady and her children" is an appropriate title for a church.

[John317]

Tom Wetmore said:

Quite simply, it is without question the masculine form of kyrios is consistently translated as "lord" or "master". One has to look outside of the NT context to find any clear understanding of the use of the feminine form. Bauer notes that it was not used as a proper name in the 1st century. It was used often as the title of the wife of the master, or mistress of the household and carried the same connotation of respect and deference as to one of superior standing.

It is not that lady is a completely wrong translation. But simply translating it as lady does not quite do it justice as we now use the word lady.

All the translations that I've seen translate it as "lady" or "dear lady." All the Greek-English lexicons and dictionaries also translate it as "lady."

I would agree with you that it is used as a title of the wife of the master, or mistress of the household, which carries the same connotation of respect and deference as to one of superior standing. However, this doesn't lead to the conclusion that the "lady" is "another important woman lost in translation."

As I've shown, there is excellent reason to believe that the letter is written to a group of Christians rather than to an individual woman.

[John317]

To the contrary, one should assume a literal meaning unless it is clearly meant as figurative. This is not a piece of apocryphal writing as in Revelation that one should first assume figurative unless clearly having a literal meaning.

Would you be willing to say the same thing about the lady's "children"? Are they also literal children of this lady? Or are they children of God, members of the church?

In the last verse of the letter, John wrote, "The children of your elect sister greet you."

Is this "elect sister" a literal sister of the "lady"?

If these are not a literal sister or literal "children," then it seems that it's only consistent for us to understand "lady" as also not literal.

[Woody]

Thanks Tom. This is a big help to me in understanding this issue.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

To the contrary, one should assume a literal meaning unless it is clearly meant as figurative. This is not a piece of apocryphal writing as in Revelation that one should first assume figurative unless clearly having a literal meaning.

Would you be willing to say the same thing about the lady's "children"? Are they also literal children of this lady? Or are they children of God, members of the church?

In the last verse of the letter, John wrote, "The children of your elect sister greet you."

Is this "elect sister" a literal sister of the "lady"?

If these are not a literal sister or literal "children," then it seems that it's only consistent for us to understand "lady" as also not literal.

I agree with you John, totally. I could never look at it any other way.

sky

[jasd]

>>Notice that Third John is written in the second person singular, whereas Second John is written in the second person plural.<<

That is simply not true John317. 2 John is not written in the plural. It addresses its subjects both in the singular and in the plural. What does that tell you?

Moreover, Gaius in 3 John is not compounded but remains the singular addressee.

>>The only way to explain this is that Third John is written to an individual, while Second John is written to a group of people, a church.<<

That is secondarily true; however, it is not in the first instance. 2 John is written to two aspects of the one composite; that is, to the Elect Lady – and to her ‘children’. The distinction is noteworthy and suffers when shadowed by the bold statement that excludes her singularity.

>>Third John names the person, Gaius, but Second John refers to the church under the name "lady" [Gk Kyria].<< [ed.jasd]

That, again, is not true – but is fallacy that depends entirely upon a false reading of text.

>>Since elsewhere in John's writings the pure church is called a "woman," "lady and her children" is an appropriate title for a church.<<

Whether “lady and her children” is appropriate re a church is subjectively wishful. One cannot assert that construct as a truth – the Lady is addressed in the singular, aside from the use of the second person plural in text.

Now, one may argue that the second person plural may apply to a supposed church, but one cannot state that the Lady is the singular recipient of the second person plural, as she has already received the address to the second person singular.

>>However, this doesn't lead to the conclusion that the "lady" is "another important woman lost in translation."<<

The very fact that you neglect to note that she is addressed in the singular suggests that she has been lost, at least in part.

>>As I've shown, there is excellent reason to believe that the letter is written to a group of Christians rather than to an individual woman.<<

Indeed, however, but with a distinct separateness of the Elect Lady from her ‘children’ – as noted by the select use of both the singular address and the plural. (Though it may be said that the secondary reading embraces them as a group)

Quote:

Quote:Tom Wetmore

To the contrary, one should assume a literal meaning unless it is clearly meant as figurative. [...]

>>Would you be willing to say the same thing about the lady's "children"? Are they also literal children of this lady? Or are they children of God, members of the church?<<

“it is clearly meant as figurative.”

In his immediately preceding epistle, Saint John called congregants 'children' eight times with a variant twice more. If he did not use 'children' in his second epistle in the same manner -- it would portray him as being out of character.

The precedent for his use of children-as-figurative was already set in 1 John.

>>In the last verse of the letter, John wrote, "The children of your elect sister greet you."

Is this "elect sister" a literal sister of the "lady"?<<

Would it prove difficult to assign literalness to the verse?--for this, many suggest that the Elect Lady is one of Philip's daughters.

>>If these are not a literal sister or literal "children," then it seems that it's only consistent for us to understand "lady" as also not literal.<<

“Consistency” is often a sometime thing, as we see by the following: ‘I am the good shepherd, feed my sheep.’ A good shepherd is literal; whereas, his sheep may be either literal or metaphor – neither detracts from the literal good shepherd.

[Tom Wetmore]

Thanks, jasd.

To what you have correctly noted I would also add that common figures of speech that are well understood and commonly used take on a meaning that requires little interpretation in context, virtually becoming a synonym. The sheep and the good shepherd reference is an excellent example. The point that seems lost by some is that "kyria" as a figurative 1st Century Greek reference to the church, a church, a group of believers or Christ followers, or an assembly of any sort, religious or secular, in the NT or any other Greek writing is completely unheard of. On the other hand children is commonly used to refer to believers throughout the NT, especially by John.

A perfectly reasonable reading allows for a letter addressed to a woman and the believers that meet in her house. It is sent to her for the benefit of them and her as the one responsible for leading them. One does not need to read into the text a foreign concept to arrive at that understanding.

On the other hand it is a strained reading to assume the chosen lady is not a real person. That seems born of a tradition that does not easily accept women in a position of any leadership responsibility within the church.

[John317]

>>Notice that Third John is written in the second person singular, whereas Second John is written in the second person plural.<<

That is simply not true John317. 2 John is not written in the plural. It addresses its subjects both in the singular and in the plural. What does that tell you?

Please show the verses of Second John which are written in the second person singular. Also show the verses in Third John which are written in the second person plural.

I'm writing this in a small library in Tennessee, so I don't have access to my Bibles. However, 2 John is definitely written in the second-person plural, whereas 3 John is written in the second person singular. Look at verses 5, 8, and 10. The Good News Bible correctly translates verse 5, "And so I ask you, dear Lady: let us ALL love one another." Verse 6: "... as you have ALL heard..." Verse 10, "... do not welcome him into your HOMES..."

As I said before, much of 2 John is written in the second person plural-- i.e., "you all" or "you people." For instance, see verses 6, 8, & 10. If John were writing to a single indivdiual woman, he wouldn't say, "you [plural] have heard... that you [plural] walk in love...You [plural] watch out that you [plural] do not lose what you [plural] have worked for... If anyone comes to you [plural]... you [plural] do not receive him..."

If John were writing to a particular woman, why did he write as he did, in the second person plural?

The entire letter of 2 John shows that it is written to a group of people and not to just a single person. On the other hand, Third John is written in the second person singular, addressed to one person, and has all the marks of a letter written to one individual.

For this reason and others, The Interpreters One- Volume Commentary on the Bible says, regarding Second John, "The letter is a message from one Christian congregation to another, either in Ephesus or in the province of Asia. The gracious figure used to describe the 2 churches in this exchange--- the elect lady and her children (vs. 1), the children of your elect sister (vs. 13)-- has a parallel in 1 Peter 5: 13, which was also written by an apostle-elder. Elect is not merely honorific but indicative of those who are esp. 'chosen' of God (cf. Matt 22: 14; Eph 1: 4; 1 Peter 2: 9). The figure of the church as a lady derives from the bridegroom-bride, husband-wife imagery common in the OT to express the loving relation of God to Israel (cf. e.g. Isa. 62: 5; Jer 31: 32; Hos 2: 16) and in the NT of Christ to his church (Matt 9: 15; 25: 1-13; 2 Cor. 11: 2; Eph. 5: 23-25); and in the Johannine writings John 3: 29; Rev. 21: 2,9)."

[John317]

]....it is a strained reading to assume the chosen lady is not a real person. That seems born of a tradition that does not easily accept women in a position of any leadership responsibility within the church.

Tom, please consider the information on post #552286. You will see there that there are very valid reasons to understand "chosen lady" (v. 1) to be referring to a congregation just as "chosen sister" (v. 13) is probably a reference to a different congregation.

Speaking of strained readings, the evidence shows that it certainly requires a strained reading to conclude that the "lady" of 2 John 1 & 5 is "another important woman lost in translation" due to tradition or to translators who are prejudiced against women. Even if we finally concluded that Second John was written to an actual woman, there is no reason to think that the arguments favoring a different conclusion are made up in order to hide "another important woman."

CONCLUSION:

Is it possible that Second John was written to an actual individual woman? Certainly. But there is also very good reason to believe the "lady" is a church. Therefore, even if we finally concluded that Second John was written to an actual woman, there is no reason to think that the arguments favoring a different conclusion are made up in order to hide "another important woman."

[John317]

The point that seems lost by some is that "kyria" as a figurative 1st Century Greek reference to the church, a church, a group of believers or Christ followers, or an assembly of any sort, religious or secular, in the NT or any other Greek writing is completely unheard of. On the other hand children is commonly used to refer to believers throughout the NT, especially by John.

While the word kyria ["lady"]only occurs in the NT in Second John, it is similar to other references in the Bible where God's relationship with Israel or the church is described in terms of bridegroom-bride, husband-wife imagery. (Is. 62: 5; Jer 31: 32; Hosea 2: 16; Eph. 5: 23-25; Rev. 21: 2, 9). So the fact that kyria is not used elsewhere is not nearly as significant as you make it appear. It is completely in harmony with the metaphors the Scriptures use in reference to God's people.

[Tom Wetmore]

I have indeed considered all the info you have put forward and did so even before you had ever responded to this topic. You have acknowledged that indeed the evidence does support the possibility that the chosen lady was a person. Indeed there is a clear division among the scholars on that point. What I have posted most definitely has support among the real experts. You seem to be approaching the response to it as if it is unsupported and wrong. It is neither. It is entirely plausible.

And after considering the additional evidence of the meaning, usage and root of kyria outside of Scripture, I am persuaded that it is more than merely plausible. It is not in fact similar to other Scriptural references as you suggested. The closer parallel usage of the word in Scripture is to look at the masculine form used frequently since the feminine form is not used elsewhere in Scripture. But it is used in other Greek literature.

The essential point that you seem to completely disregard is that the Greek word kyria is not simply a synonym for woman, nor simply a polite word to call a female. The masculine and feminine forms of words generally have the same essential root meaning. And in this case they both have an essential root meaning of authority or power over others. ( See Liddell) The masculine form does not simply mean a man or merely a gentleman. (In English gentleman would be the contemporary masculine corollary to lady.) The word is consistently translated as lord or master in reference to a male. In this instance that meaning is lost by simply translating it as lady, similar to "servant" being the overly simplistic translation for diakonos and even worse the wrong translation of prostatis as 'helper" in reference to Phoebe. If it is a man, the word gets translated closer to its full and essential root meaning. If it is the feminine form of the same word it gets dummied down. It is the importance of women lost in translation.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:John317

>>Notice that Third John is written in the second person singular, whereas Second John is written in the second person plural.

Quote:jasd

That is simply not true John317. 2 John is not written in the plural. It addresses its subjects both in the singular and in the plural. What does that tell you?

>>Please show the verses of Second John which are written in the second person singular.<<

I’ve already done so in my post above #551847 - 06/12/12 01:43 AM, to wit: “We know by Saint John's use of the singular (thee and thy of verses 4,5,13)”

>>Also show the verses in Third John which are written in the second person plural.<<

Whether that may be or not, it has nothing to do with anything I’ve said, as I’d not made such an assertion...

>>I'm writing this in a small library in Tennessee, so I don't have access to my Bibles.<<

Hey! have fun there – unlessin’ you run right smack dab intah my Dixiecrat familia, that is

>>However, 2 John is definitely written in the second-person plural,<<

There you go again – shading truth. Fact is: it is partially written in the second person plural – and partially written in the second person singular – not exclusively one or the other.

>>whereas 3 John is written in the second person singular.<<

...have no problem with that, as Gaius is [singularly] the one to whom the epistle is addressed.

>>Look at verses 5, 8, and 10.<<

I’ve already acknowledged those verses in my post above #551847 - 06/12/12 01:43 AM, to wit: “and the plural (some of which examples John317 has noted)...,”

>>The Good News Bible correctly translates verse 5, "And so I ask you, dear Lady: let us ALL love one another." Verse 6: "... as you have ALL heard..." Verse 10, "... do not welcome him into your HOMES..."<< [ed.jasd]

Okaayyy, the Good News Bible. I checked Online Parallel Bible and found nothing in agreement with the Good News Bible in its treatment of oikia as plural. I also found that KJV translated all 95 uses of oikia in the singular. Now, KJV I know, but Good News Bible – only by hearsay. Anyway,

even such notables as BAGD commit errors...

>>As I said before, much of 2 John is written in the second person plural-- i.e., "you all" or "you people."<<

I don't have an issue with “much of 2 John is written in the second person plural”, as that is true; however, what I took issue with were these words, following:

Quote:

Quote:John317

Notice that Third John is written in the second person singular, whereas Second John is written in the second person plural.[ed.jasd]

The latter quote lacked the qualifying “much of...”

>>For instance, see verses 6, 8, & 10. If John were writing to a single indivdiual woman, he wouldn't say, "you [plural] have heard... that you [plural] walk in love...You [plural] watch out that you [plural] do not lose what you [plural] have worked for... If anyone comes to you [plural]... you [plural] do not receive him..."<<

Saint John addressed two subjects in his greeting; singularly, the Elect Lady and plurally, her children, and/or together – plurally, the Elect Lady and her children, hence, the differing forms of grammatical usage...

>>If John were writing to a particular woman, why did he write as he did, in the second person plural?<<

I explained that immediately above.

>>The entire letter of 2 John shows that it is written to a group of people and not to just a single person.<<

That is simply not true, John317; for instance, it ends with the second person singular: “The children of thy elect sister greet thee. Amen.” (2 Jn 13)

>>On the other hand, Third John is written in the second person singular, addressed to one person, and has all the marks of a letter written to one individual.<<

Indeed, as is proper when addressing just the one subject, Gaius.

>>For this reason and others, The Interpreters One- Volume Commentary on the Bible says, regarding Second John, "The letter is a message from one Christian congregation to another, either in Ephesus or in the province of Asia.<<

I have the entire set, as well its One-Volume Commentary – and say that what I’ve noted above re BAGD applies also to the Interpreters Commentary. It contains its share of errors. For reasons of such errors there are more than 30,000-plus Protesting .orgs :-(

>>”The figure of the church as a lady derives from the bridegroom-bride, husband-wife imagery common in the OT to express the loving relation of God to Israel [...]”<<

That is commonly arrogant, assigning that sort of certainty where there exists no foundation for that certainty.

“Elect Lady”, elect sister, as referencing sister churches, has no context for such an extraction from a one-time only use of the terminology in 2 John. You yourself have chided me upon this very point re referent Sabbaths of Hosea and Jeremiah’s mention.

In the end of the matter, there is nothing in the text that suggests that it cannot be about a family with matters as might concern them. It may even be that the entire 2 John was written to and about two sisters of excellence and their respective children – moreso, than to and about any sort of church per se.

Would that have been exceeding strange? Happens all the time.

Moreover, we are told in Revelation 1:6 that those washed in the blood of Jesus Christ have already been made priests and Kings. That fact explicitly states that equally, men and women - have been given authority to function as leaders – for when has it ever been that priests and Kings had or received no authority to lead, govern, or to rule? Non, non, for should it be so that priests and Kings cannot lead, govern or rule – then we have no common point of reference with Writ – its language bearing no relevance to our understanding...

[John317]

I have indeed considered all the info you have put forward and did so even before you had ever responded to this topic. You have acknowledged that indeed the evidence does support the possibility that the chosen lady was a person. Indeed there is a clear division among the scholars on that point. What I have posted most definitely has support among the real experts. You seem to be approaching the response to it as if it is unsupported and wrong. It is neither. It is entirely plausible.

The bottom line is that all the information submitted here disproves your allegation of "another imporatant woman lost in translation." The scholars who believe the "lady" is representative of a church believe as they do because of valid evidence and not because of prejudice against women.

I concede that the "lady" may be a actual individual woman. That is a possibility. By the same token, it is a good possibility that the letter is addressed to a church. Those are two legitimate, possible views of the text.

[Tom Wetmore]

It really doesn't disprove what I and others have suggested as a distinct and plausible explanation of inadequate translation of ancient Greek found in Scripture but not well supported in wider Greek writings. This may not be a mistranslation to the degree of the words describing Phoebe, but it is in the same vein. I would suggest Liddell as being a very credible source that would be less susceptible to the long held Scriptural interpretative traditions of the Church from long before the time of the rise of Protestantism that strongly influenced translations even into the modern era. And as I have already noted, given this singular Scriptural usage of the feminine form of the Greek work for lord or master, reliance on secular usage is in order as well as a careful consideration of the very common usage of the masculine form. You have provided absolutely nothing to disprove any of that.

I am not saying that these scholars necessarily have a prejudice against women. That Biblical translators/interpretors, both modern and not so modern, may not have shown overt prejudice does not say that they weren't or could not have been influenced by long held traditional Church influences that can and have been traced back to the overtly and disturbingly misogynistic ideas of the early centuries following the NT church. These men and their heirs were the guardians of Scripture and its interpretation for centuries. This cannot be lightly dismissed as having no influence.

[doug yowell]

It really doesn't disprove what I and others have suggested as a distinct and plausible explanation of inadequate translation of ancient Greek found in Scripture but not well supported in wider Greek writings.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

Given the complete absence of a plain "thus saith the Lord".....

Interesting how that is thrown into any discussion where there is disagreement to supposedly be a decision statement. Where did the use of the God given brain come into all of this, suspend its use when the going gets rough! Do we have a static belief system or a dynamic one? I see that as a real stumbling block, making the decision and going forward. The Christian experience( practical knowledge, practice; training, learning, education, grounding, knowledge, understanding, wisdom) by definition indicates growth. We drag out the 'thus saith' for certain occasions, but avoid it for practically all other situations in life.

This is a subject where it seems to me is to just say ' I see if differently', with out all the added editorializing that often leans towards one side being right and the other wrong with salvation or slippery slope insinuations. This subject has been going on for ages with out resolution, does that give anyone, perhaps a clue, that it is at a stalemate and nothing further to be gained?

[olger]

The liberals they took a long look

To change and rewrite the Good Book

To get their old wish

They reached for the fish

But they ended up on the hook

[Tom Wetmore]

Quote:

And as I have already noted, given this singular Scriptural usage of the feminine form of the Greek work for lord or master, reliance on secular usage is in order as well as a careful consideration of the very common usage of the masculine form. .

But isn't building a Bible doctrine out of the focus on an alleged use of a one-time-used form of a Greek word a little presumptuous?

As I have said before, this not building a Bible doctrine. It is a matter of getting the historical facts right by correctly and precisely understanding the original language used. Truth is important.

And even if you were correct, I would say that there is a much greater danger of building a Bible doctrine out of a flawed understanding of the language, or as seems more to the point interpreting the language based on a flawed theology/doctrine influenced by a seriously skewed historical tradition. It strikes me as strangely incongruous that a denomination that maintains a firm anti-Catholic bias and in particular takes such a seriously dim view of the pre-reformation history of the Catholic Church, willingly and unquestioningly accepts this aspect of Catholic tradition as entirely correct and appropriate.

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

Like Phoebe, this unnamed woman leader of the NT church, gets downgraded to just a dear lady by the patriarchal tradition handed down by the church fathers that preceded and influenced the translators.

There's no valid evidence that either Phoebe or the "lady" of 2 John 1 & 5 were "downgraded" by anyone, let alone by a "patriarchal tradition handed by down by the church Fathers that preceded and influenced the translators."

With regard to Phoebe, this provides significant evidence from a respected Biblical scholar and published in Ministry Magazine - https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2013/04/phoebe-was-she-an-early-church-leader

[Neil D]

CONCLUSION:

Is it possible that Second John was written to an actual individual woman? Certainly. But there is also very good reason to believe the "lady" is a church. Therefore, even if we finally concluded that Second John was written to an actual woman, there is no reason to think that the arguments favoring a different conclusion are made up in order to hide "another important woman."

1] conclusions don't ask questions...they deduce from proceeding facts...[a non-sequitor statement to be ignored in like of more important issues]

2] 1 The elder,

To the lady chosen by God and to her children, whom I love in the truth—and not I only, but also all who know the truth— 2 because of the truth, which lives in us and will be with us forever:

a] given the fact that this letter is written to a lady, who had a charge over people.

b] it is a "lady" and emphasized " chosen by God"...This is characteristic and reminiscent of Medieval terminology of addressing the Lord of a mannor or of state, in addition to, the chief person of a house hold...

c]Those in the care of Royalty we also known as "children"....

During the European Middle Ages, a charge often meant an underage person placed under the supervision of a nobleman. Charges were the responsibility of the nobleman they were charged to, and they were usually expected to be treated as guests or a member of the household.

Today, the word is still used to mean anyone that a person is responsible for, such as a parent or chaperone's children, a supervisor's employees, a teacher's students, or a nurse or doctor's patients.

d] The following verses that are written in the second person plural also give evidence from a Christian perspective [specifically, John's] that all subjects of a duchess were children under her care.

ed] can not exclude the possibility that the letter was written to the modern day equivalent of a "duchess" or "princess" as alluded to by Gail.

John- you are very logical...but if your premises are faulty, the logical thinking that follows is also illogical in it's conclusions...

for example- All people who ate pickles in the 19th century died. All people from the 19th century have died. Therefore, eating pickles will cause you to die....

The process is logical...However, the result is not...

In another discussion on a similar subject, I noted that this was brought to your attention...

The observation by Moo and the misogynist statements by Epiphanius about women casts strong doubt to the appropriateness of this person providing any objective evidence in support of a male reading. His beliefs toward women may have certainly colored his thinking and writings. Therefore, we cannot conclude that this church father is an unbiased and credible witness.

Some of your conclusions are based upon some rather pointed misogynic statements based upon historical men pointedly making women the origionator of this current sinfull world.....Up to the 9th century, one female in the bible was translated as a female...but in the 9 thru 15 centurys, she was the only female to be translated as male for no other reason that she was "outstanding among the apostles". Also of note, that same female name is found commonly in Greek literature and ALWAYS TRANSLATED as female..Only the bible is her name translated as male...due to the translators and their misogynic viewpoints [biases]...Who is this biblical NT person? Junia

I conclude that you are arguing from a flawed base of knowledge in Greek and misogynic biases, inherited from the ancient scholars bent on keeping men in the ministry and prejudices of the times....Because we are receiving from scholars new information regarding the translations, you need to go back to the scholars and argue with them regarding the flawed knowledge....Greek may be a dead language, but new information is coming out of archeology and interpretation of those same dead languages.

[Tom Wetmore]

On June 3, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Tom Wetmore said:

Someone just brought to my attention this article - http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/the-chosen-lady-in-2-john/ .

An interesting discussion worth reviving...