Re: 1 Timothy 2:12

From: Michael Haggett (
Date: Sun Oct 17 1999 - 17:23:20 EDT

<x-html><!x-stuff-for-pete base="" src="" id="0"><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=GENERATOR>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3>Michael Abernathy wrote</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>8:13 PM -0700 10/16/99, </DIV><BR>|I would like some feedback
on two questions concerning 1 Timothy 2:12.<BR><FONT size=3>|</FONT><BR>
<DIV><FONT size=2>|2. Is the following translation viable?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>|I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority
independent of her husband?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>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".&nbsp;&nbsp;"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.&nbsp; Personally I
would put some weight on the way&nbsp;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.
<DIV>1. Is it probable that authentein gives the purpose for the teaching which
Paul forbids? <BR><BR><FONT size=3>If I read your&nbsp;question
correctly,&nbsp;Michael, I would say yes.&nbsp; Although Carl says
<DIV>|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
<DIV><FONT size=3>I completely agree that the two infinitives ARE co-ordinated,
and therefore that teaching,&nbsp;in itself, is not what Paul is
prohibiting.&nbsp; But I would say that the linkage is only to&nbsp;AUQENTEIN
(whichever option for you choose for it)&nbsp;NOT directly to
men/husbands.&nbsp;&nbsp;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.</FONT><FONT size=3>&nbsp; The alternative, that Paul is
<DIV><FONT size=3></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>"but I do not permit a woman/wife to:</DIV>
<DIV>a. teach&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>nor </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>b. be autonomous of a man/husband"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>doesn't seem to do justice to the phraseology. For what it's
worth, my translation would be:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>"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)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>This keeps the degree of ambiguity in the Greek between
whether Paul means&nbsp;women teaching autonomously, or the teaching (by anyone)
of autonomy/independence&nbsp;between the&nbsp;sexes.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>I think that the use or non-use of the article&nbsp;isn't a
decisive a factor in determining whether husband/wife or man/woman is meant
here.&nbsp; The definite article seems to me to be&nbsp;far too capricious for
that!&nbsp;&nbsp;Just figure it out from the context, but&nbsp;I'd go for
husband/wife personally ... or is that just me being capricious!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>|||||||&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Michael
Haggett<BR>|||||||&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 164 Holland
Road<BR>|||||||&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; London&nbsp; W14 8BE</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3><A
<DIV><FONT size=3></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:43 EDT