Textkit Logo

Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Are you learning New Testament Greek with Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek? Here's where you can meet other learners using this textbook. Use this board to ask questions and post your work for feedback. Use this forum too to discuss all things Koine, LXX & New Testament Greek including grammar, syntax, textbook talk and more.

Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Postby Andrew Chapman » Wed Feb 19, 2014 1:13 pm

Do you mind if I re-post a question I asked recently at B-Greek, but which hasn't yet prompted any replies?

It's a sentence from Origen's commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Καὶ ἄλλοθεν δὲ τοῦτο παραστήσω, εἰ καὶ ἐκεῖνο ἀσφαλέστερον εἴρηται περὶ τοῦ μὴ τὴν γυναῖκα ἡγεμόνα γίνεσθαι τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ ἀνδρός·

I am trying to understand what ἐκεῖνο is referring to here. There is a translation by Judith Kovacs of almost all the whole passage, but she leaves out most of this sentence, so I wondered if it might be obscure. I found this translation by Dr Yancy Smith on B-Greek [link removed as per rules]

'But also from other passages I will support this thesis, since the point has been made more securely concerning the fact that a woman is not to be directing the man by means of discourse:'

Here is a longer excerpt:

ὅτε ἐλάλησε Μαριὰμ ἡ προφῆτις ἄρχουσα ἦν τινων γυναικῶν· αἰσχρὸν γὰρ γυναικὶ λαλεῖν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ, (20) καὶ διδάϲκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω ἁπλῶς ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρόϲ. Καὶ ἄλλοθεν δὲ τοῦτο παραστήσω, εἰ καὶ ἐκεῖνο ἀσφαλέστερον εἴρηται περὶ τοῦ μὴ τὴν γυναῖκα ἡγεμόνα γίνεσθαι τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ ἀνδρός· πρεϲβύτιδαϲ ἐν καταϲτήματι ἱεροπρεπεῖϲ, καλοδιδαϲκάλουϲ, ἵνα ϲωφρονίζωϲι τὰϲ νέαϲ, οὐχ ἁπλῶς ἵνα διδάσκωσιν.

For the whole Greek text, with translations of longer or shorter excerpts see [link removed, I can post the link to my site if it would help, or the Greek text itself - the relevant part is about 300 words]

Commentators, both conservative and egalitarian, have drawn conclusions about the meaning of 1 Timothy 2:12 from the phrase 'περὶ τοῦ μὴ τὴν γυναῖκα ἡγεμόνα γίνεσθαι τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ ἀνδρός'. But almost the whole passage concerns women speaking in the assembly, with regard to 1 Corinthians 14, and it strikes me that the phrase could very well be referring primarily to that.

I would like to ask what τοῦτο is referring back to, and whether ἐκεῖνο is referring to the same thing, or whether one should understand a contrast, as between 'this' and 'that'. Could it be that τοῦτο is referring back to the immediately preceding citation of 1 Timothy 2:12, and ἐκεῖνο is referring elsewhere? (Or the other way around?) I note that εἴρηται can be either present or aorist, which seems to expand the range of possibilities. [Plus one other question, which I didn't like to ask of the professionals at B-Greek - is there any possibility that ἐκεῖνο might be accusative, with an adverbial sense like 'there', rather than nominative as I think Yancy Smith translated it - 'the point'. I have looked in the lexicons to see if such exists, and the answer seems to be no, but I just wondered.]

Or, if I may ask a more open question, what is Origen saying here?

Andrew
User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Postby Qimmik » Wed Feb 19, 2014 2:13 pm

I'm not going hazard a guess about what this means as a whole, but εἴρηται is perfect passive.
Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1257
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Postby Paul Derouda » Wed Feb 19, 2014 4:04 pm

First a disclaimer: I don't know much about Koine Greek (not that I know much about Greek otherwise either), nor do I know much about the NT otherwise. I'm taking this as an excercise.

ὅτε ἐλάλησε Μαριὰμ ἡ προφῆτις ἄρχουσα ἦν τινων γυναικῶν· αἰσχρὸν γὰρ γυναικὶ λαλεῖν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ, (20) καὶ διδάϲκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω ἁπλῶς ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρόϲ. Καὶ ἄλλοθεν δὲ τοῦτο παραστήσω, εἰ καὶ ἐκεῖνο ἀσφαλέστερον εἴρηται περὶ τοῦ μὴ τὴν γυναῖκα ἡγεμόνα γίνεσθαι τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ ἀνδρός· πρεϲβύτιδαϲ ἐν καταϲτήματι ἱεροπρεπεῖϲ, καλοδιδαϲκάλουϲ, ἵνα ϲωφρονίζωϲι τὰϲ νέαϲ, οὐχ ἁπλῶς ἵνα διδάσκωσιν.

Who is the subject of ἐλάλησε? Paul, the author of the epistle?

I think τοῦτο and ἐκεῖνο definitely refer to two different things, τοῦτο would refer to something nearer and ἐκεῖνο to something more remote. But it's difficult to say what two things they are referring to.

In καὶ διδάϲκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω ἁπλῶς ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρόϲ, I have difficulties to interprete ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ - it seems to be adversative, while the two propositions it links are more or less in the same vein. My tentative translation: "Not only (ἁπλῶς) should teaching not be entrusted to women, but they should have no authority over men." I don't know if ἁπλῶς can be interpreted like this, but I can't see any any other possibility as some sort of opposition seems to be expressed.

Now if indeed there's an opposition between διδάϲκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω ἁπλῶς and οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρόϲ, τοῦτο could refer to the latter and ἐκεῖνο to the former. I'm saying this as a very tentative suggestion.

Or maybe τοῦτο refers to διδάϲκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω ἁπλῶς ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρόϲ and ἐκεῖνο to some more general point (or perhaps αἰσχρὸν γὰρ γυναικὶ λαλεῖν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ)?
Paul Derouda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 825
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Postby Qimmik » Wed Feb 19, 2014 4:51 pm

Paul, the subject of ἐλάλησε is Μαριὰμ.

is there any possibility that ἐκεῖνο might be accusative, with an adverbial sense like 'there', rather than nominative


No. εἰ καὶ ἐκεῖνο ἀσφαλέστερον εἴρηται "if that too is stated more soundly"

τοῦτο/ἐκεῖνο usually implies a this/that opposition.

Καὶ ἄλλοθεν δὲ τοῦτο παραστήσω, εἰ καὶ ἐκεῖνο ἀσφαλέστερον εἴρηται Literally: "and I will set this beside [a statement] from elsewhere, if that too is stated [or "if that is also stated"] more soundly about . . . "
Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1257
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Postby Paul Derouda » Wed Feb 19, 2014 5:26 pm

Qimmik wrote:Paul, the subject of ἐλάλησε is Μαριὰμ.

Yes; I wonder why they don't put a comma after προφῆτις, which would make the sense immediately clear. But I suppose I would not have been misled if I had read what preceeds this.

Qimmik wrote:Καὶ ἄλλοθεν δὲ τοῦτο παραστήσω, εἰ καὶ ἐκεῖνο ἀσφαλέστερον εἴρηται Literally: "and I will set this beside [a statement] from elsewhere, if that too is stated [or "if that is also stated"] more soundly about . . . "

That makes sense to me. ἐκεῖνο is "the statement from elsewhere".

What do you think about ἁπλῶς?
Paul Derouda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 825
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Postby Qimmik » Wed Feb 19, 2014 5:40 pm

What do you think about ἁπλῶς?


That's getting too deep controversial territory for me.
Last edited by Qimmik on Thu Feb 20, 2014 1:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1257
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Postby Markos » Wed Feb 19, 2014 5:51 pm

Andrew Chapman wrote:I would like to ask what τοῦτο is referring back to, and whether ἐκεῖνο is referring to the same thing, or whether one should understand a contrast, as between 'this' and 'that'. Could it be that τοῦτο is referring back to the immediately preceding citation of 1 Timothy 2:12, and ἐκεῖνο is referring elsewhere?


If for some reason you want (an artificial) precision I would say that τοῦτο is referring to the paraphrase of 1 Tim 2:12 (it's the last thing mentioned) and that ἐκεῖνο is referring to the paraphrase of Titus 2:3. But really both pronouns refer to the IDEAS under discussion, and the ideas of all the passages cited are similar. If I say in English

John 3:16 says the same thing as Romans 10:9 and this means we are going to Heaven.


The antecedent of "this" is probably technically Romans 10:9 but pragmatically it encompasses the ideas expressed in both verses.

Or, if I may ask a more open question, what is Origen saying here?


That women should not teach.
I am writing in Ancient Greek not because I know Greek well, but because I hope that it will improve my fluency in reading. I got the idea for this from Adrianus over on the Latin forum here at Textkit.
Markos
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Postby Paul Derouda » Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:22 pm

Markos wrote:If for some reason you want (an artificial) precision I would say that τοῦτο is referring to the paraphrase of 1 Tim 2:12 (it's the last thing mentioned) and that ἐκεῖνο is referring to the paraphrase of Titus 2:3. But really both pronouns refer to the IDEAS under discussion, and the ideas of all the passages cited are similar.

I agree, in this particular context τοῦτο must just mean "what I just said", and ἐκεῖνο "what I'm about to say". After that it's a question of interpretation, which is beyond the scope of simple a grammatical analysis.
Markos wrote: If I say in English
John 3:16 says the same thing as Romans 10:9 and this means we are going to Heaven.

The antecedent of "this" is probably technically Romans 10:9 but pragmatically it encompasses the ideas expressed in both verses.

Actually, the antecedent of "this" is technically "John 3:16 says the same thing as Romans 10:9". But I digress. :)

Markos wrote:
Or, if I may ask a more open question, what is Origen saying here?

That women should not teach.

Yes, but with some complications, which depend on the meaning of ἁπλῶς among other things. He also says women should not have authority over men - that's not exactly the same thing.
Paul Derouda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 825
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Postby Andrew Chapman » Wed Feb 19, 2014 9:04 pm

Thanks very much, everybody, that's a great help.

Markos wrote:If for some reason you want (an artificial) precision


Markos, I am back on that paper by Philip Payne. He uses this passage by Origen to support his strange understanding of the meaning of οὐδέ. Here is the relevant paragraph of that paper (p.246):

Image

He seems to say here that περὶ τοῦ μὴ τὴν γυναῖκα ἡγεμόνα γίνεσθαι τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ ἀνδρός is a paraphrase of 1 Timothy 2:12. So he is claiming precision about what it is referring to, whereas it wasn't at all clear to me from a grammatical point of view where the reference was. Semantically, there are a number of allied ideas quite close together, and I was thinking that περὶ τοῦ μὴ τὴν γυναῖκα ἡγεμόνα γίνεσθαι τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ ἀνδρός is perhaps something like a working summary of where he has got too so far, probably mainly about women not speaking in the assembly (this being a commentary on 1 Corinthians 14), but there may be perhaps be a reference to αὐθεντεῖν in the ἡγεμόνα. But looking ahead too, as Paul points out too.

Qimmik wrote:εἴρηται is perfect passive.
Thanks a lot. I looked it up in the Perseus Word Study Tool and found εἴρηται verb 3rd sg pres subj mp; εἴρηται verb 3rd sg aor subj mid; under εἴρω (say, speak, tell); but in my NT Analytical Lexicon it says perfect passive, as you say - of ῥέω - which may be the same word, I am not sure. Are the present and aorist middle possibilities too?

Paul Derouda wrote:I have difficulties to interprete ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ - it seems to be adversative, while the two propositions it links are more or less in the same vein.
I have the same problem, see my post on B-Greek, if you have time, under Church Fathers. I compare the way that ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ is translated in Luke 23:15, with the translation of 1 Corinthians 3:2. There was some discussion about it there.

Andrew
User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Postby Qimmik » Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:07 pm

εἴρηται isn't from ῥέω, it's from εἴρω, "to say." In Attic, this verb is defective--it isn't used in the present--and in the dictionary it's listed under its Attic future form, ἐρῶ. You will see from the LSJ entry that the 1st person of the perfect passive is εἴρημαι, and this means that the 3rd person is εἴρηται, "has been said".

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3De)rw%3D

"Are the present and aorist middle possibilities too?" No, because (1) this isn't subjunctive, and (2) the present εἴρω isn't in use in this Atticizing variety of Greek, and with the ending -ται, this couldn't possibly be an aorist form. For the present tense, φημί, λέγω, or ἀγορεύω would be used. The aorist active would be εἶπον. There's an aorist passive form ἐρρήθην from εἴρω. 3rd person ind. would be ἐρρήθη; subj would be ῥηθῇ. There's also an alternative aorist passive from λέγω, ἐλέχθην; 3rd pers. aor. indicative would be ἐλέχθη; subj. would be λεχθῇ.

The Perseus Word Study Tool is very unreliable, in my experience.
Last edited by Qimmik on Thu Feb 20, 2014 2:49 am, edited 2 times in total.
Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1257
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Postby Paul Derouda » Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:25 pm

I see Qimmik has already posted about this, but I'm submitting this since I already wrote it...

εἴρηται is perfect passive of... λέγω. Which is really confusing; the future is ἐρέω/ἐρῶ. There is a present form εἴρω but it's rare, I'm guessing that it will have totally disappeared by this time; I'm not sure I have seen it except in dictionnaries. Then there's ἔρομαι/ἐρέω "to ask", which is another mess. I think these forms vary from dialect to dialect and I don't know which ones are current in Koine. But my main point is to show that if you're confused, it's for a reason, and Perseus mixes these up even more, it proposes sometimes forms that don't existi in any dialect.

I don't think it can be ῥέω, which I think can only mean "to flow".

Probably I've mixed up something, so correct me...
Paul Derouda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 825
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:39 pm

I assume you know that G. Fee solved the problem by means of conjectural emendation. Virtually nobody accepted that solution otherwise why would we still find people arguing about it 25 years later. Why are you reading Payne? There are better things to read. I found Yancy Smiths post on b-greek.

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-gr ... 51994.html
Last edited by C. S. Bartholomew on Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Postby Qimmik » Thu Feb 20, 2014 1:15 pm

εἰ καὶ has a range of meanings. It probably means something like "if indeed" here or even "since". The εἰ καὶ clause may be stating a fact, not a condition.

Smyth 2375 ff.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Smyth+grammar+2375&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007

2377

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007%3Asmythp%3D2377
Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1257
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Postby Andrew Chapman » Thu Feb 20, 2014 2:32 pm

The εἰ καὶ clause may be stating a fact, not a condition.
Thanks a lot, Qimmik. I found something along these lines in Liddell and Scott while trying to understand Yancy Smith's translation: at εἰ B/VI: VI. in citing a fact as a ground of argument or appeal, as surely as, since; if (as was the fact, i.e. since)

Andrew
User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Postby Andrew Chapman » Thu Feb 20, 2014 2:48 pm

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Why are you reading Payne? There are better things to read.


In order to reply to him. The only reply I know of is Andreas Kostenberger's, but I don't think he really hit the nail on the head. I find it strange that neither of them really look at what the grammars and lexicons say about οὐδέ. It adds one negative to another; it doesn't subtract by qualifying the first negative adverbially. Kostenberger seems to think that one can find out what the sentence means by looking at lots of other sentences with the form οὐ.. Α.. οὐδέ.. Β.. ἀλλά.. Γ, find some statistical rules about the relationship between the 3 elements, and then apply the rules back to 1 Timothy 2:12. But that's not how one comprehends what one is reading. More importantly, he fails, in my opinion, to point out the massive flaws in Payne's argument. He (Payne) tries to create cases where (A+B) is not true, but A is true. One case in point is Galatians 1:16b-17, which I have just written about on my wife and I's blog.

which depend on the meaning of ἁπλῶς among other things

Carl Conrad gave the opinion that it means here 'absolutely' (not) 'at all'. 'I absolutely do not allow..'. Yancy Smith's 'clearly' is not too far from that, I would have thought.

Re: ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ. If οὐδέ is understood adverbially so that we have something like 'but not even' or 'no, not even' then we have some contrast. The question then is, in which direction is it ascensive? Is exercising authority over a man worse than teaching in Origen's view (or in his understanding of Paul's view,) or is it not so bad?

If we say, 'the rehab does not allow any drugs or alcohol in the premises, or even tobacco', the prohibition is going up a notch because tobacco is generally seen as less serious than drugs or alcohol. Is the same true in Greek?

In a translation by Roger Gryson which I found on Michael Marlowe's site, he renders it as 'For [as Paul declares] "I do not permit a woman to teach," and even less "to tell a man what to do." He understands the exercising authority over a man as worse, and so has to add 'less', to change the natural direction of it. But is this justifiable?

For myself, I am not sure which is the more serious matter. Who has more authority or influence over their charges, a schoolteacher or a policeman?

Andrew
User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Postby Paul Derouda » Thu Feb 20, 2014 5:29 pm

Andrew Chapman wrote:
which depend on the meaning of ἁπλῶς among other things

Carl Conrad gave the opinion that it means here 'absolutely' (not) 'at all'. 'I absolutely do not allow..'. Yancy Smith's 'clearly' is not too far from that, I would have thought.

Re: ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ. If οὐδέ is understood adverbially so that we have something like 'but not even' or 'no, not even' then we have some contrast. The question then is, in which direction is it ascensive? Is exercising authority over a man worse than teaching in Origen's view (or in his understanding of Paul's view,) or is it not so bad?

If we say, 'the rehab does not allow any drugs or alcohol in the premises, or even tobacco', the prohibition is going up a notch because tobacco is generally seen as less serious than drugs or alcohol. Is the same true in Greek?

In a translation by Roger Gryson which I found on Michael Marlowe's site, he renders it as 'For [as Paul declares] "I do not permit a woman to teach," and even less "to tell a man what to do." He understands the exercising authority over a man as worse, and so has to add 'less', to change the natural direction of it. But is this justifiable?


The basic meaning of ἁπλῶς is "simply", and I don't think we need to stray far from that - clearly, absolutely would all do I think; but the problem is how exactly it attaches to the rest. The sequence of word, ἁπλῶς ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ in particular is just unnatural to me, although I can't exactly articulate why. Since this is obviously a quote from 1 Tim 2:12, a solution to use quotation marks like Roger Gryson's looks very attractive to me and would explain the decontinuous syntax; I much prefer this to the interpretation I gave earlier. So let's write this again with some more puntuaction:

...καὶ "διδάϲκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω" ἁπλῶς, ἀλλ’ "οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρόϲ".

... and [as Paul says] "I do not permit women to teach", quite simply; on the contrary: "and [they] should not have authority over men"[, that is what Paul says!].

1 Tim 1:12, for comparison:
διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ᾽ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ.


Where I don't agree (at least for the present) with Gryson is the interpretation of ἀλλ’ (οὐδὲ); I don't see how it could mean "even less". I think Gryson's problem is that he puts the quotation mark slightly at the wrong place, while I think there's a syntactic discontinuity in the middle of ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ.
Paul Derouda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 825
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:19 pm

Andrew Chapman wrote:
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Why are you reading Payne? There are better things to read.


In order to reply to him. The only reply I know of is Andreas Kostenberger's, but I don't think he really hit the nail on the head. I find it strange that neither of them really look at what the grammars and lexicons say about οὐδέ. It adds one negative to another; it doesn't subtract by qualifying the first negative adverbially. Kostenberger seems to think that one can find out what the sentence means by looking at lots of other sentences with the form οὐ.. Α.. οὐδέ.. Β.. ἀλλά.. Γ, find some statistical rules about the relationship between the 3 elements, and then apply the rules back to 1 Timothy 2:12. But that's not how one comprehends what one is reading. More importantly, he fails, in my opinion, to point out the massive flaws in Payne's argument.


Andrew,

Well we are in agreement on several issues. There are "massive flaws in Payne's argument" which is why most NT scholars and advanced greek students don't appear to think it is worth their time to answer him. Kind of like my nephew who is a campus ministries director for the presbytery of Santa Barbara in St Louis Obis., he gets agitated now and then over the musings of a hyper-verbal mega-church pastor from Seattle, Mark Driscoll. I keep telling him, to chill out. Driscoll isn't a serious threat. That's my attitude about Payne. Who cares? He is the CEO of a software firm. I bought products from him 25 years ago, greek fonts and texts before Logos/Accordance.

I have same attitude toward Gordon Fee's musings on the textual history of 1Cor 14:34-35. Fee was a mega scholar. On the text of 1Cor 14:34-35 he made a very public error. Scholars are human, they make errors. I don't have any problem with Fee's exegetical method. Just willing to let him be wrong on one passage.

οὐδέ.. like other greek particles can be a real headache; see my last post on Rev 9:20
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=61120
which I could really use some help with.

The statistical method which has become very popular since the advent of tagged texts (last 20 odd years) is a standard approach used by many linguists like Iver Larsen (SIL). It is a valid approach but in the hands of some practitioners in yields less than optimal results. The proliferation of the software for doing these things has lead to a lot of people who have an inadequate theoretical foundation proposing arguments based on less than optimal data analysis that is fraught with both logical and procedural errors.

I could site some examples but why make enemies. The papers read at professional conferences that are good enough to get published are more often than not riddled with the similar kinds of problems found in Payne's paper.

On the other hand. it is good to critique the paper if others are using it as a platform for promoting their agenda. That happens to be the case with Payne's paper. So I can see some justification for responding if you are willing to put in the effort and spend the time it takes to sort out all the problems with his argument. I might go back and re-read the paper but in past when I have revisited it, I get overwhelmed with a sense of "I am not going to get embroiled in this" like a friend of mine who is a egalitarian feminist NT linguist said about this subject "It is black hole which will swallow you up" last I heard she was writing a book on Paul and Women, but I haven't seen it yet.

greetings, CSB
Last edited by C. S. Bartholomew on Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Postby Markos » Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:25 pm

Andrew Chapman wrote:
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Why are you reading Payne? There are better things to read.


In order to reply to him.


Again, I may well be wrong, but it seems to me that Payne does not know Greek. It seems to me that no one who knows Greek could possible have written his article. Maybe I am wrong. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. But your reply to him should begin by asking him if he knows Greek.

Origen wrote:
καὶ διδάϲκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω ἁπλῶς ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρόϲ.


Origen is just loosely quoting Paul here and ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ is just one natural way to move on to the next thought. As from your example in Luke 23:14-15:

Luke 23:14-15: εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς, Προσηνέγκατέ μοι τὸν ἄνθρωπον τοῦτον ὡς ἀποστρέφοντα τὸν λαόν, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐνώπιον ὑμῶν ἀνακρίνας οὐθὲν εὗρον ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ τούτῳ αἴτιον ὧν κατηγορεῖτε κατ' αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ' οὐδὲ Ἡρῴδης:


ἀλλ' οὐδὲ does not NECESSARILY say anything about the relation between Pilate and Herod. It does not NECESSARILY say anything about whether these are one unit, or whether one would be more expected to find evil in Jesus. The real point, what Payne needs to know is THAT YOU CANNOT READ THE MIND OF AN ANCIENT AUTHOR USING GREEK GRAMMAR, PARTICULARY WHEN NONE OF US, NOT BEING NATIVE SPEAKERS, KNOW ALL THE FINE NUSANCES OF THESE DISTINCTIONS AND IF YOU DON'T KNOW GREEK VERY WELL, YOU SURE AS HECK SHOULD NOT TRY.

Apologies for getting on the soapbox.
Markos
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Postby Andrew Chapman » Thu Feb 20, 2014 8:17 pm

I just re-read the passage from the beginning and realised that Origen used ἀλλ' οὐδέ in another place, and ἀλλά another 8 times so I thought it might be worth posting it up to the point where the original extract began. It is an interesting passage. (There's a link to the whole passage, plus translations where I have found them, at the link on the B-Greek thread called 'ἀλλ' οὐδέ in Origen' in Church Fathers.) Here goes:

Αἱ γυναῖκες ὑμῶν ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις σιγάτωσαν, οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτέτραπται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν, ἀλλ’ ὑποτάσσεσθαι, καθὼς καὶ ὁ νόμος λέγει.

εἰ δέ τι μαθεῖν θέλουσιν, ἐν οἴκῳ τοὺς ἰδίους ἄνδρας ἐπερωτάτωσαν, αἰσχρὸν γάρ ἐστι
γυναιξὶ ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ λαλεῖν.

Ὡς γὰρ πάντων λεγόντων καὶ δυναμένων λέγειν, ἐὰν ἀποκάλυψις αὐτοῖς γένηται, φησὶν Αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις σιγάτωσαν.

ταύτης δὲ τῆς ἐντολῆς οὐκ ἦσαν οἱ τῶν γυναικῶν μαθηταί, οἱ μαθητευθέντες Πρισκίλλῃ καὶ Μαξιμίλλῃ, οὐ Χριστοῦ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς τῆς νύμφης.

ἀλλ’ ὅμως εὐγνωμονῶμεν καὶ πρὸς τὰ πιθανὰ ἐκείνων ἀπαντῶντες.

τέσσαρές φασι θυγατέρες ἦσαν Φιλίππου τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ καὶ προεφήτευον.

εἰ δὲ προεφήτευον, τί ἄτοπόν ἐστι καὶ τὰς ἡμετέρας, ὡς φασὶν ἐκεῖνοι, προφήτιδας προφητεύειν; ταῦτα δὲ λύσομεν.

πρῶτον μὲν λέγοντες ὅτι Αἱ ἡμέτεραι προεφήτευον, δείξατε τὰ σημεῖα τῆς προφητείας ἐν αὐταῖς·

δεύτερον δὲ Εἰ καὶ προεφήτευον αἱ θυγατέρες Φιλίππου, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις ἔλεγον·

οὐ γὰρ ἔχομεν τοῦτο ἐν ταῖς Πράξεσι τῶν Ἀποστόλων.

ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ ἐν τῇ παλαιᾷ·

Δεββῶρα μεμαρτύρηται προφῆτις εἶναι, λαβοῦϲα δὲ Μαριὰμ ἡ ἀδελφὴ Ἀαρὼν τὸ τύμπανον ἐξῆρχε τῶν γυναικῶν.

ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἂν εὕροις ὅτι Δεββῶρα ἐδημηγόρησεν εἰς τὸν λαὸν ὥσπερ Ἱερεμίας καὶ Ἡσαΐας·

οὐκ ἂν εὕροις ὅτι Ὀλδὰ προφῆτις οὖσα ἐλάλησε τῷ λαῷ ἀλλ’ ἑνί τινι ἐλθόντι πρὸς αὐτήν.

ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ ἀναγέγραπται Ἄννα προφῆτιϲ, θυγάτηρ Φανουήλ, ἐκ φυλῆϲ Ἀϲήρ·

ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐλάλησεν.

ἵνα οὖν καὶ δοθῇ ἐκ σημείου προφητικοῦ εἶναι προφῆτις γυνή, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπεται ταύτῃ λαλεῖν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ.

ὅτε ἐλάλησε Μαριὰμ κ.τ.λ.
User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Postby Andrew Chapman » Fri Feb 21, 2014 8:56 pm

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:So I can see some justification for responding if you are willing to put in the effort and spend the time it takes to sort out all the problems with his argument.


Payne is much quoted by the activists pushing for an end to all biblical restraints on women's ministry, so I do see a need. Equally as alarming, if not more so, is that his view seems to be informing serious commentators too, whose works end up on the shelves of pastors. Actually the example I have to hand points back to Hurley's 1981 'Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective', which is the reference I H Marshall gives for οὐδέ αὐθεντεῖν introducing a 'closer definition' of διδάσκειν. So I need to look up Hurley (p. 201 if anyone has it to hand.)

Andrew
User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Fri Feb 21, 2014 11:58 pm

[quote="Andrew Chapman"
Payne is much quoted by the activists pushing for an end to all biblical restraints on women's ministry, so I do see a need. Equally as alarming, if not more so, is that his view seems to be informing serious commentators too, whose works end up on the shelves of pastors. [/quote]

I see what you mean. I just looked in both Marshal and Mounce commentaries on Pastoral Epistles. Both of them cite Payne several times. I haven't hardly flexed the bindings on these books since I bought them. Not an expert on Paul or deutro-Paul. A good reason to leave this job to someone who is better equipped. A friend of mine had his copy of Mounce Pastoral Epistles stolen from him! What a world we live in.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Postby Andrew Chapman » Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:58 am

Andrew Chapman wrote:Actually the example I have to hand points back to Hurley's 1981 'Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective', which is the reference I H Marshall gives for οὐδέ αὐθεντεῖν introducing a 'closer definition' of διδάσκειν.

Here is Hurley:

Image

Well, that seems all muddled to me. To start with, I think everyone would agree that teaching and the exercise of authority are related semantically; there is a considerable overlap. For example, it's hard to imagine any form of teaching that does not involve some sort of exercise of authority - eg 'please turn to p.123 of your textbooks' etc. And conversely, in the same letter to Timothy, Paul stipulates that the ἐπίσκοπος is to be διδακτικός, able to teach.

Hurley's 'Paul's grammar permits this reading by inserting the "or" ' seems strange to me, if not disingenuous, since 'permits' implies that the grammar allows for other readings, which are not however explained. What other ways are there of reading:

'διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός..' ?

The main argument, if one can call it such, seems to be that:
a) Verse 11 has only one exhortation - there is one verb, modified by two adverbial phrases:
γυνὴ ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ μανθανέτω ἐν πάσῃ ὑποταγῇ·
b) Verses 11 and 12 are parallel.
c)Therefore verse 12 contains only one prohibition, that of authoritative teaching.

In answer to which I would say that the big difference between verse 11 and verse 12a is that the latter has two verbs joined by a coordinating conjunction, whereas verse 11 has just the one verb, so there is obviously a limit to the parallelism, especially from a grammatical point of view.

Andrew
User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Thu Feb 27, 2014 6:53 pm

Andrew,

D. C. Parker[1] has a brief discussion of P. B. Payne's treatment of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

Searching on the Quote :
"Payne's argument , however, is weak, indeed part of it seems hopelessly confused … " this quote appears to be a quotation from one of D. C. Parker's journal articles which appear as block quote citations throughout the textbook.

I found the whole book online and amazingly, can't imagine Oxford is allowing free access to a text book published in 2008. I was able to cut and past the relevant material.

An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and their Texts [Paperback]
D. C. Parker, p275-26
8.9.1 1 Corinthians 14.34–5
Debate about the possibility that these verses are an interpolation has
grown over recent years, as the way in which the role of women changed
in early Christianity has been exposed to greater critical scrutiny. The fact
that Zuntz thought the verses were post-Pauline (though in the archetype
of the tradition) already suggests that there is more to this than a current
interest.
1. The Evidence
As with the shorter forms of Romans, our evidence is indirect. The most
important observation is that a small group of witnesses place the verses
after verse 40. These are the Greek manuscripts 06 010 012 88 915, the
Syriac Peshitta and the Latin manuscripts 61 89 with Ambrosiaster and
Sedulius Scotus. The Latin witnesses are largely the bilinguals, whose
agreement takes us back either to the mid-fourth or the third century. The
other Latin evidence, including Ambrosiaster’s writing between 366 and
378 in Rome, suggests that the reading was widespread in the Latin world.
Indeed, as Fee points out, it is the reading of all witnesses except those
which represent the Vulgate text, known from about 400 onwards. That is,
the only text in the west before 400 placed the verses after verse 40.
The Greek manuscript 88 was copied in the twelfth century and 915 in
the thirteenth. Both manuscripts belong to the Byzantine textual tradition.
As well as placing the verses after 40, 88 contains a correction
(perhaps by the scribe) indicating that they belong after verse 33.
Paul 275
Evidence for the different text forms in Greek in Text und Textwert 2.2, Teststelle 50. According to P. B. Payne, ‘Ms. 88 as Evidence for a Text without 1 Cor 14.34–5’, NTS 44 (1998), 152–6, the phenomenon in 88 can only be explained by positing that it was copied from a manuscript which lacked the verses. Payne’s argument, however, is weak, indeed part of it seems hopelessly confused. It is probably safest to posit that the exemplar of 88 had vv. 34–5 after v. 40. Payne has also raised the possibility that a double dot against the verses in 03 also supports ancient evidence for the omission of the verses (see 1.8.1). Finally, Payne has argued that the Latin manuscript Codex Fuldensis should be regarded as evidence in support of the verses’ omission: ‘Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1 Cor 14.34–5’, NTS 41 (1995), 251–62.
2. Explanations
Variation in positioning is often a sign of an interpolation. That is why
the evidence concerning the location of the verses is so important.
Perhaps the sentence was first written in the margin as a comment or
addition and then found its way into the text in two different places. The
wider the attestation, the older the interpolation is likely to be. The fact
that it had found its way at an early stage (it is already in P46) into the
Greek tradition and some of the versions after verse 33, and after verse 40
in the widely spread Peshitta and the archetype of the bilinguals, as well as
in some Greek manuscripts (attested only by two Byzantine witnesses)
provides evidence for its early date.
Again, the internal evidence (that comparison with 1 Cor. 11.5 suggests a
fatal inconsistency, that the structure of the sentence ismore Pauline without
it, that it disrupts the subject matter, and so on) I shall leave to others.
The interest of these verses text-critically lies in their study. The story
of its research is of a comment by Zuntz largely ignored; a proposal by
Fee which finds an interpolation with the aim of silencing women in the
Christian congregation; the search for external evidence to back up the
internal evidence. It is a search which has to be regarded as in need of
further study. In a paper read in 2006 J. Kloha drew attention to a large
number of other similar dislocations of text in the bilingual manuscripts
of Paul, arguing that the phenomenon is a feature of these manuscripts
and has nothing to tell us about the original authenticity of this passage.
On the one hand, a new approach to the study of the role of women in
early Christianity drew our attention to a textual problem in 1 Corinthians
14, and led to a fresh impetus in research. On the other hand, there has been
a tendency to find more evidence than the material really yields, and
caution is required.
Kloha’s paper, using material from his doctoral thesis at the University of Leeds, was read at the New Testament Textual Criticism Section, Society of Biblical Literature Annual Congress, Washington DC, 2006. For one of his discussions on the topic, see G. D. Fee, God’ s Empowering Spirit, Peabody, Mass., 1994, 272–81.
276
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Postby Andrew Chapman » Thu Feb 27, 2014 7:58 pm

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Payne's argument , however, is weak, indeed part of it seems hopelessly confused

Thanks, it's reassuring to find such an assessment. With regard to οὐδέ, it's been 'either Payne's argumentation is hopelessly confused or I am going crazy'.

Andrew
User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Postby Andrew Chapman » Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:25 pm

Robert Saucy, Professor of Systematic Theology at Talbot, 'Women's prohibition to teach men' JETS 37/1, 1994:

Most probably didaskw ("teach") and authenteo "exercise authority over" are to be understood not so much as two distinct activities but rather as two elements that "convey a single idea"[50].. Footnote 50: P Payne explains "Oude in 1 Tim 2 12 ought to be translated in harmony with Paul's use elsewhere. Its translation should indicate that it joins together two elements in order to convey a single coherent idea, or if it conveys two ideas these should be very closely interrelated"


Craig Blomberg, Review of Philip Payne's 'Man and Woman, One in Christ' at Denver Seminary web-site:

Payne is already known for his argument, of which I am convinced, now recently published in New Testament Studies, that parallel parts of speech conjoined with oude, as in verse 12, create an informal hendiadys. In other words, the expressions combine to define one activity rather than two separate ones.


Although Bill Mounce does not accept the hendiadys idea, his response seems rather peculiar to me:

Some argue that the two prohibitions are a hendiadys, the use of two different terms to denote one concept. .. The problem with this is that διδάσκειν and αὐθεντεῖν are separated by five words; words forming a hendiadys are usually side by side since the construction is used to "avoid a series of dependent genitives" (BDF §442[16])


The separation of the two words is certainly one problem, but surely a more fundamental problem is that BDF §442 concerns καὶ not οὐδέ. According to Winer, καὶ is conjunctive, τε is adjunctive, and οὐδέ is disjunctive (since δέ is disjunctive as Winer sees it). Even if that is only half true, it would surely suggest that καὶ is much more likely to form a hendiadys than οὐδέ is.

Andrew
Last edited by Andrew Chapman on Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Postby Markos » Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:28 pm

Andrew Chapman wrote:Robert Saucy, Professor of Systematic Theology at Talbot, 'Women's prohibition to teach men' JETS 37/1, 1994:

Most probably didaskw ("teach") and authenteo "exercise authority over" are to be understood not so much as two distinct activities but rather as two elements that "convey as single idea"[50].. Footnote 50: P Payne explains "Oude in 1 Tim 2 12 ought to be translated in harmony with Paul's use elsewhere. Its translation should indicate that it joins together two elements in order to convey a single coherent idea, or if it conveys two ideas these should be very closely interrelated"


Craig Blomberg, Review of Philip Payne's 'Man and Woman, One in Christ' at Denver Seminary web-site:

Payne is already known for his argument, of which I am convinced, now recently published in New Testament Studies, that parallel parts of speech conjoined with oude, as in verse 12, create an informal hendiadys. In other words, the expressions combine to define one activity rather than two separate ones.


Are these guys agreeing with Payne that Paul is saying it is okay to for a women to teach as long as she does it without exercising authority over a man? If so, then either their Greek or their logic or both is just as bad as Payne's.

Even if it is a type of hendiadys, this has nothing to do with anything. "I don't want my kids to do drugs or alcohol" is a type of hendiadys. The ideas are closely linked. But no one who knows English would say that I mean "I let me kids do drugs as long as they don't do it with along with alcohol."

This, at root, is the fundamental problem with using Greek for exegesis, especially if done so by people who lack fluency, that you can do things with the text that you can never do with English. Turn it around; if a text cannot mean something in English, it cannot mean that in Greek. Greek is not a magic key that allows you to ignore context. And yet it used that way not only by Payne but by a lot of other people, not just amateurs.

...either Payne's argumentation is hopelessly confused or I am going crazy...


ουδὲ μαίνῃ.
Markos
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Postby Andrew Chapman » Tue Mar 04, 2014 3:26 pm

Markos wrote:Are these guys agreeing with Payne that Paul is saying it is okay to for a women to teach as long as she does it without exercising authority over a man?


Yes, as I understand it. There are two versions of the theory. Payne's is that it is OK for a woman to teach so long as it does not involve her assuming for herself the authority to do so. The other version has a more positive understanding of αὐθεντεῖν, and they say that the sentence means that a woman is not allowed to do the type of authoritative teaching that is reserved for elders.

Kostenberger's line is similar to this second version in outcome, although he acknowledges that οὐδέ serves as a coordinating conjunction to join two distinct but related elements (I have no problem with that). He then says that teaching is a subset of exercising authority, and that Paul is moving from the specific case of teaching to the general case of exercising authority. He gives Acts 21:21 as an example of (μηδέ) doing the same kind of thing:

κατηχήθησαν δὲ περὶ σοῦ ὅτι ἀποστασίαν διδάσκεις ἀπὸ Μωϋσέως τοὺς κατὰ τὰ ἔθνη πάντας Ἰουδαίους, λέγων μὴ περιτέμνειν αὐτοὺς τὰ τέκνα μηδὲ τοῖς ἔθεσιν περιπατεῖν.

But it's not obvious to me that circumcision is merely a subset of the law - after all it pre-dates the law and could also be seen as a kind of gateway into the observance of the law. In any case, I feel that he is making the making the same kind of mistake as Payne in one respect - they both seem to be analyzing the semantic relationship of the two elements joined by οὐδέ, and drawing conclusions about what οὐδέ does, whereas actually οὐδέ is just a little conjunction that joins two negatives together, and the semantic relationship between the two elements is determined by the meaning of those two elements.

In English if we say A) 'try and mend your bike' that's much the same as B) 'try to mend your bike'. But it is wrong to conclude that 'and' is purposeful in A. It's just that trying is purposeful. Similarly with 'go and buy some milk'. There's another theory out there, proposed by Linda Belleville, that οὐδέ can mean 'so as to', which she gets by this sort of reasoning from Matthew 6:20 (plus Matthew 13:13, Acts 17:24):

θησαυρίζετε δὲ ὑμῖν θησαυροὺς ἐν οὐρανῷ, ὅπου οὔτε σὴς οὔτε βρῶσις ἀφανίζει, καὶ ὅπου κλέπται οὐ διορύσσουσιν οὐδὲ κλέπτουσιν·

which she thinks means 'breaks in to steal' .. and ends up with 'I do not permit a woman to teach so as to gain mastery over a man' - published in a book edited by Gordon Fee..

Andrew

P.S. http://womeninthechurch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Kostenberger%20A%20Complex%20Sentence%201%20Timothy%202%2012.pdf

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3myvzj5H9WVcjdzMWNid2w4Ymc/edit?usp=sharing
Last edited by Andrew Chapman on Tue Mar 04, 2014 8:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Postby Andrew Chapman » Tue Mar 04, 2014 8:16 pm

Markos wrote:Even if it is a type of hendiadys, this has nothing to do with anything. "I don't want my kids to do drugs or alcohol" is a type of hendiadys. The ideas are closely linked. But no one who knows English would say that I mean "I let me kids do drugs as long as they don't do it with along with alcohol."


As I understand it, a true hendiadys is something like 'lovely and warm'. It is possible to say 'it was a horrible room, horrible, dank and smelly, but it was lovely and warm': ie it wasn't lovely, but it was lovely and warm. This is the sort of thing Payne needs for his theory. In English, according to my dictionary, the two elements are joined by 'and'. In a negative sentence, one could just about say 'the room was beautiful and had a great view and was nicely decorated, but it wasn't lovely and warm'; 'the room was beautiful but ..it wasn't lovely or warm' doesn't work. I suspect it might be the same in Greek.

Andrew
User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England


Return to Koine Greek And Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 21 guests