is there any possibility that ἐκεῖνο might be accusative, with an adverbial sense like 'there', rather than nominative
Qimmik wrote:Paul, the subject of ἐλάλησε is Μαριὰμ.
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 . . . "
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?
John 3:16 says the same thing as Romans 10:9 and this means we are going to Heaven.
Or, if I may ask a more open question, what is Origen saying here?
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.
Markos wrote: If I say in EnglishJohn 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.
Markos wrote:Or, if I may ask a more open question, what is Origen saying here?
That women should not teach.
Markos wrote:If for some reason you want (an artificial) precision
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?Qimmik wrote:εἴρηται is perfect passive.
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.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.
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)The εἰ καὶ clause may be stating a fact, not a condition.
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Why are you reading Payne? There are better things to read.
which depend on the meaning of ἁπλῶς among other things
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?
διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ᾽ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ.
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 Chapman wrote:C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Why are you reading Payne? There are better things to read.
In order to reply to him.
καὶ διδάϲκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω ἁπλῶς ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρόϲ.
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:
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Payne's argument , however, is weak, indeed part of it seems hopelessly confused
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".. 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"
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.
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)
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".. 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.
...either Payne's argumentation is hopelessly confused or I am going crazy...
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?
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."
Users browsing this forum: C. S. Bartholomew and 15 guests