Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Lexicons are out redux

In the discussion on Parchment and Pen, with regard to 1 Tim. 2:12, Michael says,
    About the relationship between teaching and authority, I think you guys are entering into a classic case of “over-exegesis”! Semantic domains and relations and gramatical structures are certianly helpful, but the context is enough here. No need to jump into the type of diachronic lexical studies to understand that Paul see a relationship between the two. They are different aspect of the same thing: leadership in the church as Paul is talking about it.
So, if context is enough, why has Gen. 3:16b been translated in so many different ways,
    your recourse (return) will be to your husband NETS

    thou shalt be under thy husband's power Douay Rheims

    thy lust shal pertayne vnto yi hußbande, Coverdale

    thy desire shalbe subiect to thine husbande, Geneva Bible

    thy desire shall be to thy husband KJV

    You will want to control your husband, NET Bible
Context is very important, but it is not "enough." I know that Michael said that context is "enough here", but how do we know this for sure.


EricW said...

Re: NETS, it appears that the Greek translator of the verse misread t'shuqah (desire) as t'shubah (return).

Re: Douay Rheims, IIRC, we don't know why Jerome translated the verse this way in his Vulgate (which is the basis of Douay Rheims). It corresponds to neither the Hebrew t'shuqah nor the Greek apostrophê.

I posed this question to B-Greek awhile ago.

Lydia said...

If context is enough how come there is no prohibition on women teaching men in the Old Covenant but there is NOW in the NC?