From: Wayne Leman (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Mar 27 2001 - 20:14:10 EST
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Darden" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> While you're ducking...is there a grammatical reason in 3:1 EPISKOPHS is
> used and in 3:2 EPISKOPOS?
Two possible reasons for EPISKOPHS in 3:1:
A1. To state that if "someone desires to be an overseer, she desires a good
thing." This can be assurance from the author that it is good for women to
A2. It is possible, following some lexicons, that, altho EPISKOPHS is
morphologically parallel with EPISKOPOS, it is not lexically parallel, that
is, it refers to the *office* of overseer rather than to any gender of
someone filling that office.
> Is the point of this that women (v1) will desire
> the position but only men qualify (v2)?
Two possible reasons for the rules in 3:2ff:
B1. The author assumes that women intuitively do a better job as overseer
and don't need so many rules as men do.
B2. From A2 above, only men are to be overseers.
For myself, until I can see evidence that EPISKOPHS is *not* both
morphologically and lexically parallel to EPISKOPOS, I prefer to go strictly
with the text and assume that EPISKOPHS is referring to someone being a
female overseer (which, in this case, means an overseer who is a female, not
an overseer of females). I am definitely open to linguistic evidence that
might tilt us toward one or more of the above options.
after all, what's fair for the goose is fair for the gander,
Bible translation site: http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:54 EDT