Textkit Logo

Does Payne's take on 1 Tim 2:12 pass the smell test?

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.

Does Payne's take on 1 Tim 2:12 pass the smell test?

Postby Markos » Fri Nov 29, 2013 5:51 pm

1 Tim 2:12 (N.A. 27)
διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ' εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ.


One Philip Payne has written an article in which he finds a way to claim that Paul is not preventing women from teaching here, but only preventing women from teaching in a way that would include them having authority over men. The full article is here:

http://www.pbpayne.com/wp-admin/Payne20 ... im2_12.pdf

from which I quote his summary:


Paul typically uses οὐδέ to convey a single idea, as do the two closest syntactical
parallels to 1 Tim 2.12. In the overwhelming majority of Paul’s and the NT’s οὐ...οὐδέ...ἀλλά
syntactical constructions, οὐδέ joins two expressions to convey a single idea in sharp contrast to the following ἀλλά statement. Furthermore, the earliest known commentary on 1 Tim 2.12, Origen’s, treats it as a single prohibition.
Accordingly, the most natural reading of 1 Tim 2.12 conveys, ‘I am not permitting a
woman to teach and [in combination with this] to assume authority over a man’.


There are many problematic things about this article. In fact, I think it is a textbook instance of all the bad things one can do with Greek to get to the "real meaning" behind the text. I won't go in to all of them right now. If someone wants to defend Payne, I can go through and show how fallacious are his methods and conclusions, but for now I just want to confirm my own sense that it is virtually impossible to understand this passage to mean "I do not permit women to teach with authority over men," "I do not permit women to teach in a way that involves them having authority over men," and that in fact the only natural way to construe the text is "I do not permit women to teach and I do not permit women to have authority over men."

Again, Payne is claiming that the text should be understood as if Paul wrote:

οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω γυναικὶ διδάσκειν αὐθεντοῦσαν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ' εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ.


or

οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω γυναικὶ διδάσκειν μετὰ ἐξουσίας ἀνδρός, ἀλλ' εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ.


But that cannot be right, right? οὐ... οὐδέ...ἀλλά cannot work that way, right? You can't say, that is,

οὐ θέλω ἐσθίειν κρέας οὐδέ πίνειν γάλα, ἀλλὰ ἐσθίειν μόνα λάχανα.


and have it mean "I don't want to eat meat and at the same time drink milk, (i.e. mix milk and meat) but I rather I want to only eat veggies" instead of "I don't want to eat meat, neither do I want to drink milk, but only to eat veggies." It's not possible, is it, to read this sentence and construe it that I don't mind eating meat as long as I don't do it along with drinking milk? (This is what Payne does with 1 Tim 2:12)

I want to be sure that I am not overreacting to how wrong I think Payne gets this. It seems to me that no one who really knows Greek could possible read the text the way he does, that this supremely fails the smell test. I would like those whose Greek is pretty good to take a look at this and tell me what you think.

(Just as a point of order, I happen to agree largely with Payne that men and women should have equal roles in the Church, and I also find this to be a "hard" saying. I would be forced to come up with my own solution to this problem. I just think that Payne does monstrous damage to the Greek here.)

τί νομίζετε ὑμεῖς?

Thanks.
Markos
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Does Payne's take on 1 Tim 2:12 pass the smell test?

Postby Andrew Chapman » Fri Nov 29, 2013 8:37 pm

It is noticeable that, despite the fact that his whole argument rests on the meaning or force of οὐδέ, he never refers to what the lexicons say the word means. When it follows a negative clause, all the lexicons agree that it means 'or', or 'nor', or 'and not', or 'also not' - it adds a second negative to the first one. The grammars (Smyth, Robertson) emphasize its origin as οὐ δέ, and not surprisingly it seems to have a similar range as δέ: BDAG giving '1. and not, nor: joins negative sentences or clauses to others of the same kind. 2. also not, not either, neither.'

Smyth: 'οὐδέ (μηδέ) as a conjunction (and not, nor connects two or more whole clauses.' Winer-Moulton: 'οὐδέ, μηδέ .. add negation to negation.' Robertson: 'In accord with the copulative use of δέ we frequently have οὐδέ and μηδέ in the continuative sense, carrying on the negative with no idea of contrast.'

οὐδέ adds one negative to another, it doesn't subtract, as Payne tries to make it do. One of the scary things about his paper is that having asserted, without any evidence, that this previously unknown force or meaning of οὐδέ exists, he then applies it to a number of other bible passages and gives them a previously unknown sense, whereupon he proceeds to use them as evidence for the existence of this new sense of οὐδέ.

For example, in Galatians 1:16-17:

16 ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐμοὶ ἵνα εὐαγγελίζωμαι αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, εὐθέως οὐ προσανεθέμην σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι,
17 οὐδὲ ἀνῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα πρὸς τοὺς πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀποστόλους, ἀλλὰ ἀπῆλθον εἰς Ἀραβίαν, καὶ πάλιν ὑπέστρεψα εἰς Δαμασκόν.

he says that Paul actually did consult with flesh and blood in Damascus, since he consulted with Ananias (!), so the meaning is something like 'I did not consult with flesh and blood by going up to Jerusalem..':

εὐθέως οὐ προσανεθέμην σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι, ἀνελθων εἰς .. [please correct my Greek, if necessary..]

He does this with Galatians 3:28, saying that actually there are Jew and Gentile in Christ, but not a Jew-and-Gentile distinction. Also in Romans 9:6, Payne says it does depend on man's will, but not on will-and-effort combined!

It's a bit like going to a restaurant, saying 'no salt and pepper, thanks' and being given salt, and on enquiry being told that they thought it was just the combination of salt and pepper you didn't want. Except in that case, they might be able to make a grammatical case for it, since 'and' can do that, at a pinch, which is more than can be said for οὐδέ.

Andrew
User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England

Re: Does Payne's take on 1 Tim 2:12 pass the smell test?

Postby uberdwayne » Sun Dec 01, 2013 1:01 am

Μαρκε, Φιλε μου,

I just took a glance at the article and its much longer than I expected, lol. I will weigh in after I've had a chance to read it!
μείζων ἐστὶν ὁ ἐν ὑμῖν ἢ ὁ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ
uberdwayne
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:29 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Does Payne's take on 1 Tim 2:12 pass the smell test?

Postby Markos » Mon Dec 02, 2013 4:04 pm

Andrew Chapman wrote:One of the scary things about his paper...


Thanks for your thoughts, Andrew. I'm glad to know that I am not the only one who finds the paper scary. I agree he mangles the passage from Galatians 1 in just the manner you have spelled out. The passage from Polybius also fails to support his flawed case. I hate to be uncharitable, but I wonder how well he knows Greek.

And yes, you could do the exact same thing to someone's English, but it would never pass the smell test. Payne can get away with this type of thing, I guess, because the vast majority of people who will read his books don't know Greek or don't know it well. It is scary, though, that this article was not peer reviewed, although it is being done so now, which is one of the good things about public forums like this.

Again, Payne's motives are good; what he and so many others do to Greek really does, with all due respect, stink.
Markos
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Does Payne's take on 1 Tim 2:12 pass the smell test?

Postby Andrew Chapman » Tue Dec 03, 2013 3:13 pm

Since you mention Polybius, let's try the first of Payne's references to his Histories:

βουλόμενοι γὰρ μηδένα τῶν ἐν ταῖς ὑπεροχαῖς καὶ δυναστείαις ἀπελπίζειν τὴν ἐξ αὑτῶν ἐπικουρίαν καὶ συμμαχίαν, οὐκ ἐβούλοντο συνδυάζειν οὐδὲ προκαταλαμβάνειν σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ὅρκοις καὶ συνθήκαις, ἀλλ’ ἀκέραιοι διαμένοντες κερδαίνειν τὰς ἐξ ἑκάστων ἐλπίδας. [Histories 30.5.8]

The Loeb translation is:

As they wished none of the kings and princes to despair of gaining their help and alliance, they did not desire to run in harness with Rome and engage themselves by oaths and treaties, but preferred to remain unembarrassed and able to reap profit from any quarter.

συνδυάζειν is 'to join one to one, couple', Liddell and Scott.

Payne wants this to mean that they didn't want to harness themselves to Rome by [laying hold of themselves in advance] with oaths and treaties. That would make good sense, if οὐδέ had that force, but it doesn't, and the translators don't render it that way. Instead they append one negative to another. Sure, the second one may have the effect of specifying more exactly what is meant, but that is because of the content of the clause, with its specific mention of oaths and treaties: it's not οὐδέ that does that.

And what Payne would need in this example, is for the text to mean that they would be quite happy to harness themselves to Rome, so long as it didn't involve engaging themselves with oaths and treaties. But it is saying the opposite: A) they didn't want to harness themselves; B) they didn't want to engage themselves with oaths and treaties. B reinforces A, perhaps it explains it to some degree, but then again it might be adding a different aspect - I think προκαταλαμβάνειν [ἑαυτόν] may have the force of committing oneself in advance to something (as one does with treaties and oaths). I think συνδυάζειν probably comes from δύο, hence 'couple'. Then we would two aspects of making an alliance: coupling and pre-committal. So the sentence makes perfectly good sense if οὐδέ is given its usual meaning.

Andrew
User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England

Re: Does Payne's take on 1 Tim 2:12 pass the smell test?

Postby Markos » Wed Dec 04, 2013 3:55 pm

Yes, Andrew, your analysis of the Polybius passage is spot on. I have nothing to add.

Let me say something else about Payne's flawed methodology. He says on the first page of the article:

In the overwhelming majority of Paul’s and the NT’s οὐ...οὐδέ...ἀλλά syntactical constructions, οὐδέ joins two expressions to convey a single idea in sharp contrast to the following οὐδέ statement.


First of all, as so happens with these types of linguistic analysis, the subjectivity is obvious. In many instances--maybe in most instances--a case can be made on both sides whether the two negated items are distinct ideas or combine to form one idea. In the passage you mentioned earlier from Gal 1, for example, I would argue that "going up to Jerusalem" and "consulting with flesh and blood" are two separate, though obviously related, ideas.

Secondly, Payne admits that in one instance Paul does use οὐδέ to negate separate ideas.

1 Thes 2:3-4:
ἡ γὰρ παράκλησις ἡμῶν οὐκ ἐκ πλάνης οὐδὲ ἐξ ἀκαθαρσίας οὐδὲ ἐν δόλῳ, ἀλλὰ καθὼς δεδοκιμάσμεθα ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ πιστευθῆναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον οὕτως λαλοῦμεν...


Payne obviously cannot argue that Paul means that "our exhortation was not a deceitful, unclean error," because this would lead to the response "Well, your exhortation was not deceitful or unclean, but is was an error." Paul would obvious deny that it was any of these things.

So, if Paul can use οὐδὲ to negate two separate ideas once, of course he can use it twice, so what's the point of the rest of the analysis?

Third, let's say that everywhere Paul in fact only used οὐδὲ to negate two closely related ideas, still the sample size would be too small. Payne comes up with 21 uses of the construction. If I use a construction 20 times in one way, why in the world can't I use it a different way the 21th time? We do this all the time.

Fourth, the οὐ...οὐδέ...ἀλλά construction is in fact super common. Would it make any sense for Paul, or any other writer, to use it with one particular tendency or another, let alone in a way that is bizarrely at odds with how the construction is ordinary used.

We never do this in English. If we are trying to determine what a writer means, we never go back and pore over his use of a given construction, make up a "rule" for how he uses it, and then use this rule to over-ride the normal grammar and the context. Here, I can even give you an example of how we would never do this to living writer in Ancient Greek.

Just the other day, Textkit's own Vladimir, in this thread

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=60824

wrote about the current troubles in the Ukraine. I asked him if whether he thought Ukraine should join the European Union or not. This is what he wrote:

Vladimir wrote:
Ἐγὼ δ΄οὐ βούλομαι τὴν Οὐκρανίαν κοινωνὸν τῆς ΕΣ γενέσθαι, οὐ γὰρ τηρεῖ ἡ νῦν Εὐρώπη τᾶς τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐντολὰς οὐδὲ χριστιανή ἐστιν· οὐδὲ θέλω αὐτὴν ἐν συστάσει τινὶ μετὰ τῆς Ῥωσσίας εἶναι. Ἀλλ΄ὀφείλει κατ΄ἐμὲ ἡ Οὐκρανία ἐαυτὴν μἐσην φυλάττειν πάσας τὰς πλήσιον χώρας ὡς φίλους ἔχουσα.


This reinforced for me how common the οὐ...οὐδέ...ἀλλά is. In fact, what Vladimir wrote is a very close parallel to 1 Tim 2:12, and it shows that you do not have to search very far to find parallels. To this extant I have no idea why Payne makes such a big deal about the Polybius passage. I am sure that you can find many, many other parallels. Anyway, it's pretty clear what Vladimir meant: "I don't want the Ukraine to join the E.U... nor do I want them to them to be a certain union with Russia, but rather, according to me, the Ukraine should keep for herself a middle position having all her neighbors as friends."

Now, there no way that Vladimir meant: "I don't want the Ukraine to join the E.U. and at the same time be in union with Russia" because that would not make any sense. But if we wanted to figure out if he did in fact mean this, would there be any reason to examine his previous to Greek to see how he uses the οὐ...οὐδέ...ἀλλά elsewhere? What would be the point of that? Sometimes he is going to use the construction to negate two separate ideas, sometimes to negate two ideas that combine to form one. This is how natural language works.

This is what really bothers me about Payne's approach, which is by no means unique to him. Rather than treating Greek as a natural language, the Greek is picked apart, reference works are consulted (incorrectly, as you pointed out in the post on B-Greek,) grammatical linguistical "rules" are developed and the natural meaning of the text is ignored and distorted.

I'm piling on Payne, maybe, but, as you can see, a nerve has been struck here.
Last edited by Markos on Thu Dec 05, 2013 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Markos
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Does Payne's take on 1 Tim 2:12 pass the smell test?

Postby Andrew Chapman » Thu Dec 05, 2013 10:57 am

Thanks, Markos, and I like your example from Vladimir about the Ukraine. I also agree that it seems really strange to even talk about Paul using οὐ .. οὐδέ in some way characteristic to him alone. These are such simple and basic words, it seems like writing a thesis comparing the way Shakespeare and Dickens use the word 'and'. Actually, the dictionaries do distinguish between differences in force that 'and' may have, for example:

a) used to connect two clauses when the second refers to something that happened after the first: he turned around and walked out.

b) used to connect two clauses, the second of which refers to something that results from the first: do that once more and I will skin you alive.


But both these come under the same heading - conjunction (1) - and I think one might say that the meaning of 'and' is the same in a) and b) - it just adds one clause to another. The listener understands that b) involves consequence from the meaning of the two clauses, not from the meaning of 'and'.

With regard to 1 Thessalonians 2:3, Payne actually makes a case that all three terms - ἐκ πλάνης, ἐξ ἀκαθαρσίας, and ἐν δόλῳ are saying much the same thing:

Both the first (πλάνη) and third (δόλος) nouns οὐδέ joins commonly mean ‘deceit’ (BDAG 822, 256), which fits this context perfectly. The second (ἀκαθαρσία) identifies impure motives (BDAG 34), so each points to impure intent.


First of all, 'deceit' is not at all a motive. Take Ananias and Sapphira, their motive may have been greed or reputation. Their method to achieve that was to use deception.

Second, he has failed to distinguish between the active and passive sense of 'deceit'. BAGD at least (which is what I have to hand) makes it very clear, and it would be surprising if Payne missed this:

πλάνη, ης, ἡ .. wandering, roaming, in our literature only figuratively of wandering from the path of truth, error, delusion, deceit, deception to which one is subject


Right at the end of the entry on πλάνη is this:

πλάνη τοῦ ὄφεως Dg 12:3 is probably not active, meaning deceiving by the serpent, but the deceit or error originated by it;


and that is the closest it gets to an active sense. δόλος, on the other hand, according to BAGD, means 'deceit, cunning, treachery' in the active sense, which is a very different thing.

Thus Ellicott expands: ἐκ πλάνη - 'being deceived; ἀκαθαρσίας - moral impurity.. especially.. covetousness.. and desire of gain; ἐν δόλῳ - 'in any deliberate intention to deceive'.

Payne says on page 241 that it is 'ambiguous' whether these are three ideas or one idea, or something in between; and then on the next page says that:

There is not even one unambiguous case where Paul uses οὐδέ to join conceptually distinct
concepts to convey two separate ideas


I agree with you that 1 Thessalonians 2:3 alone disproves this.

Finally, to reiterate the point we are both making, even if ἐκ πλάνη, ἐξ ἀκαθαρσίας, and ἐν δόλῳ did (for sake of argument) mean exactly the same thing, or if they did all 'convey a single internally-cohering idea' [Payne p.241], it wouldn't actually help Payne's case, since whatever the relation between the three terms, it is obvious that Paul is disavowing all three.

Andrew
User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England

Re: Does Payne's take on 1 Tim 2:12 pass the smell test?

Postby Markos » Fri Dec 06, 2013 3:00 pm

Andrew Chapman wrote: These are such simple and basic words...


They really are, and I think they work pretty much the same in English and in Greek. In English you might say:

"I don't want to go out and dance tonight."

This MIGHT mean that you don't mind going out to do something else, as long as you don't dance, or it might not. Grammar cannot decide this, only the context. "I would never let my kids drink and drive." Would you allow them to drink as long as they don't drive? The grammar (let alone previous ways that you use the word "and!") cannot decide this. It cannot decide this in English and it cannot decide this in Greek If Paul had written

οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω γυναικὶ διδάσκειν καὶ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ' εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ.

MAYBE this COULD mean what Payne wants it to mean, that it is okay for a woman to teach as long as she does not do it in a way that involves having authority over a man. But Paul did not write that.

διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ' εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ.

works just the same way as "I don't want to go out tonight, nor do I want to dance." This CANNOT mean, in English "I don't mind going out and doing something else." And 1 Tim 2:12 CANNOT mean in Greek, any more than it could in English, what Payne wants it to mean.

Again, Payne is by no means alone in the terrible way he "analyzes" Greek to make it say what he wants it to say. I blame the grammar-translation approach which encourages analysis without fluency, and I think people need to be called to account for this.
Markos
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Does Payne's take on 1 Tim 2:12 pass the smell test?

Postby Andrew Chapman » Mon Dec 09, 2013 12:53 pm

Markos wrote: If Paul had written
οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω γυναικὶ διδάσκειν καὶ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ' εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ.
MAYBE this COULD mean what Payne wants it to mean, that it is okay for a woman to teach as long as she does not do it in a way that involves having authority over a man.


Would one expect καὶ διδάσκειν καὶ αὐθεντεῖν if it was like 'both.. and' (I am not sure if that would be Greek)? I found this from David Lim on a B-Greek discussion about καὶ at http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=400&start=10

We can consider it to always assert both clauses/phrases that it joins.


So I wonder if even your 'MAYBE' is too strong? And it is hard to imagine anybody saying such a thing. If one wanted to ban teaching in an authoritarian way, then one would probably use an adverb or adverbial phrase - eg κῦρίως, αὐθεντικῶς (?). Or if one wanted to forbid a woman to assume the right to teach on her own authority (which is Payne's final take on it - see last sentence of his paper), then conceivably one might say αὐθεντεῖν ὥστε διδάσκειν (although that doesn't sound too good).

In English if you want to refer specifically to the combination of two things or activities, and to exclude the one or the other on their own, then you need to make it clear. 'Jews do not prepare dairy products and meat together/at the same time'. I suspect the same is true in Greek. ἀμφότερος seems to be similar to our 'both' (eg Ephesians 2:14-18). Or how about ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ, for the sense of 'together'?

But I realise your main point was to make the contrast with the word order and emphasis of:

διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ' εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ.

On this point, what do you think of the claim of the complementarians that ἀνδρός is the object of διδάσκειν as well as of αὐθεντεῖν? I find it impossible to read it that way, and none of the older commentators do (Fairbairn, Kelly, Ellicott etc etc). But here is Douglas Moo for example:

The word man (andros), which is plainly the object of the verb have authority (authentein), should be construed as the object of the verb teach also. This construction is grammatically
unobjectionable..(footnote: .. Greek word order [is] notoriously flexible in such areas)


Andrew
User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England

Re: Does Payne's take on 1 Tim 2:12 pass the smell test?

Postby Markos » Thu Dec 12, 2013 6:36 pm

Andrew Chapman wrote:... what do you think of the claim of the complementarians that ἀνδρός is the object of διδάσκειν as well as of αὐθεντεῖν?


I'd say it is ambiguous (as is the English;) grammar cannot decide the question. An expert in Paul, not in Greek, needs to answer the question of whether Paul thought it was okay for women to teach women.

I feel it is important to note that almost all the grammatical ambiguities in this verse and in verse 15 are found equally so in the KJV as they are in the Greek. I would have had more respect for Payne's position had he stuck to the English. (I happen to think that if you sat Paul down and asked him if it was okay for a women to teach in Church as long as she did so in a humble and non-authoritative way, he would say, sure, I guess so, why not?)

The way that we deal with this problem in my Church, which is about 75% female, is that no one teaches anybody anything. We read the Bible and ask each other questions and let the Holy Spirit teach us.
Markos
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Does Payne's take on 1 Tim 2:12 pass the smell test?

Postby Andrew Chapman » Thu Dec 19, 2013 10:56 am

Markos wrote:I feel it is important to note that almost all the grammatical ambiguities in this verse and in verse 15 are found equally so in the KJV as they are in the Greek.


The KJV:

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.


was translated from the Received Text, which reads:

γυναικι δε διδασκειν ουκ επιτρεπω ουδε αυθεντειν ανδρος αλλ ειναι εν ησυχια


Even this I find fairly clear - reading it I naturally pause for a moment after επιτρεπω and say αυθεντειν and ανδρος close together. And likewise I also pause at the comma after 'teach' in the KJV translation - I think the 'nor' does that. If you use 'or' instead, as in the ESV:

I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.


it becomes truly ambiguous, and then if you drop the second 'to' as in the NET Bible:

But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. She must remain quiet.


then it sounds definitely like 'man' is the object of 'teach', which I think is hardly defensible as a translation of:

διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ’ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ.


which is the text that these recent translations use.

Andrew
User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 25
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: Bing [Bot] and 8 guests