1 Timothy 2:12
Michael Haggett
michael at michaelhaggett.freeserve.co.uk
Sun Oct 17 17:23:20 EDT 1999
Michael Abernathy wrote
8:13 PM -0700 10/16/99,
|I would like some feedback on two questions concerning 1 Timothy 2:12.
|
|Text: DIDASKEIN DE GUNAIKI OUK EPITREPW OUDE AUQENTEIN |ANDROS.
|
|2. Is the following translation viable?
|I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority independent of her husband?
I think you have rightly grasped the two possible meanings of AUQENTEIN, but I would doubt that you can have it BOTH ways at the same time, I think you need to choose between "to exercise authority" and "to be independent/autonomous". "One-off" NT words are always a little problematic, even if we look at the ways non-Christians used it at the same time or Christians came to use it later, it isn't conclusive proof about the way Paul (or whoever it was, to cut that objection off!) used it. Personally I would put some weight on the way the adjective AUQAIRETOS is used in 2 Cor 8:17, and think that Paul is likely to be talking of autonomy/independence rather than authority, for which EXOUSIA is consistently used in the NT.
1. Is it probable that authentein gives the purpose for the teaching which Paul forbids?
If I read your question correctly, Michael, I would say yes. Although Carl says no:
|In terms of the grammar of the sentence, I would not say it's probable: the |two infinitives are coordinated, which to me seems to indicate that |"teaching" is not in itself deemed an instance of exercising authority.
I completely agree that the two infinitives ARE co-ordinated, and therefore that teaching, in itself, is not what Paul is prohibiting. But I would say that the linkage is only to AUQENTEIN (whichever option for you choose for it) NOT directly to men/husbands. So, to me, Paul is prohibiting the teaching (either by women or not) of autonomy/independence between the sexes, not the teaching of men by women. The alternative, that Paul is saying:
"but I do not permit a woman/wife to:
a. teach
nor
b. be autonomous of a man/husband"
doesn't seem to do justice to the phraseology. For what it's worth, my translation would be:
"but as to teaching, I do not permit a wife to be independent from a husband either" (the "either" referring back to the preceding verses, not to the teaching)
This keeps the degree of ambiguity in the Greek between whether Paul means women teaching autonomously, or the teaching (by anyone) of autonomy/independence between the sexes.
I think that the use or non-use of the article isn't a decisive a factor in determining whether husband/wife or man/woman is meant here. The definite article seems to me to be far too capricious for that! Just figure it out from the context, but I'd go for husband/wife personally ... or is that just me being capricious!
||||||| Michael Haggett
||||||| 164 Holland Road
||||||| London W14 8BE
michaelhaggett at altavista.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/attachments/19991017/6d28fc7f/attachment.html
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list