Bridget Jack Meyers

The latest issue of Priscilla Papers had a good article on this. Concerning modern translations:

Belleville also notes, significantly, that a variety of pre-modern versions of the Bible translate this word not simply as “have authority” or “exercise authority,” but with some negative sense, e.g., the Old Latin (second to fourth centuries A.D.): “I permit not a woman to teach, neither to dominate (dominari) a man”; the Vulgate (fourth to fifth centuries A.D.), “neither to domineer over a man”; the Geneva Bible (1560 ed.), “neither to usurpe authority over a man”; the Bishops Bible (1589), “neither to usurpe authority over a man”; and the King James Bible (1611), “nor usurp authority over a man.” In none of these cases can the translators be suspected of having a modern, “feminist” bias in translating authentein with a negative sense of “domineer” or “usurp authority.” These instances show that the “traditional” translation of authentein as “exercise authority” is neither uniform nor self-evident in the history of interpretation; if anything it could be argued that the burden of proof is on the (now) “traditional” view to justify its translation choice. (John Jefferson Davis, “First Timothy 2:12, the Ordination of Women, and Paul’s Use of Creation Narratives,” Priscilla Papers Vol. 23, No. 2, Spring 2009; p. 5)

Or in other words, back when men weren’t being threatened by equality with women in church leadership, they were free to translate the text more faithfully.