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.

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

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Fri Jul 18, 2014 5:40 pm

Andrew Chapman wrote:
What Payne is describing (see his first several examples) is negated parallelism. The fact that it is negated is more or less irrelevant.

οὐ γὰρ πάντες οἱ ἐξ Ἰσραὴλ οὗτοι Ἰσραήλ· 7) οὐδ’ ὅτι εἰσὶν σπέρμα Ἀβραὰμ πάντες τέκνα, ἀλλ’· ἐν Ἰσαὰκ κληθήσεταί σοι σπέρμα. [Rom 9.6b-7]

Even if οὐδέ were joining equivalent expressions here, as Payne claims, it hardly helps his case. Obviously, if two ideas are the same, then adding one to the other leaves you with just one. This isn't the same type of 'single idea' as he is arguing for in 1 Tim 2.12.

But in this text especially, they are not the same at all. The whole point of the following discussion about the seed of Abraham is that it was only one line that were the inheritors of the promises. Ishmael and Esau were excluded.

Andrew


Right. And most of the first group ...

"1. οὐδὲ Joins Equivalent Expressions to Convey a Single Idea"

… don't qualify as "Equivalent Expressions". And if they did, it would not prove anything relevant to 1Tim 2:11-12 for the simple reason that the syntax doesn't determine the semantics. This is not rocket science. The structure made up of a sequence of particles OU|OUK|OUDE …. OUDE … ALL' or something similar doesn't tell us anything about the meaning of constituents between the particles.

The way Payne breaks the examples out into four groups reminded me of some classic treatments of biblical parallelism[1]. Paul very frequently falls into a cadence in his rhetoric that imitates the poetic structures of the Hebrew scriptures.

Payne's first sample text (p237)

Rom. 2:28 οὐ γὰρ ὁ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ Ἰουδαῖός ἐστιν
οὐδὲ ἡ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ ἐν σαρκὶ περιτομή,
29 ἀλλ᾿ ὁ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ Ἰουδαῖος,
καὶ περιτομὴ καρδίας ἐν πνεύματι οὐ γράμματι,
οὗ ὁ ἔπαινος οὐκ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ.

The second statement expands on the first statement. It is not strictly equivalent. It is characteristic of Hebrew parallelism that the parallel constituents are rarely strictly equivalent, in as much as that defeats the purpose of parallelism. One certainly could argue that Paul uses parallelism to demonstrate a single complex concept. But that wouldn't help us much with the exegesis of 1Tim 2:12.

1Tim. 2:11 Γυνὴ ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ μανθανέτω ἐν πάσῃ ὑποταγῇ·
12 διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω
οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ᾿ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ.

The only thing parallel here is the use of an infinitive. Functionally γυναικὶ is the agent of διδάσκειν where as ἀνδρός is the patient of αὐθεντεῖν. So on semantic functional level this is not a parallel structure. If we understand οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω as assumed but omitted from the second line, this is common in parallelism, then perhaps we could see a somewhat complex sort of parallelism, but the agent-patient semantic roles are not in favor of that analysis.

None of this really matters for Payne's project. It is just an observation that cropped up tangential to the critique of this paper.


[1] Andrei Desnitksy, PhD., "Classifying Biblical Parallelism" https://www.dropbox.com/s/43mc92n9tjyyy ... cation.pdf

See also my previous quote on parallelism from Lee Irons, PhD.
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=60810#p165034
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

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

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Fri Jul 18, 2014 6:56 pm

Andrew Chapman wrote:
What Payne is describing (see his first several examples) is negated parallelism. The fact that it is negated is more or less irrelevant.

οὐ γὰρ πάντες οἱ ἐξ Ἰσραὴλ οὗτοι Ἰσραήλ· 7) οὐδ’ ὅτι εἰσὶν σπέρμα Ἀβραὰμ πάντες τέκνα, ἀλλ’· ἐν Ἰσαὰκ κληθήσεταί σοι σπέρμα. [Rom 9.6b-7]

Even if οὐδέ were joining equivalent expressions here, as Payne claims, it hardly helps his case. Obviously, if two ideas are the same, then adding one to the other leaves you with just one. This isn't the same type of 'single idea' as he is arguing for in 1 Tim 2.12.

But in this text especially, they are not the same at all. The whole point of the following discussion about the seed of Abraham is that it was only one line that were the inheritors of the promises. Ishmael and Esau were excluded.

Andrew


"they are not the same at all …"

I totally agree.

Yet another problem, if we can demonstrate that within Critical Orthodoxy's approved Pauline Canon Paul regularly does X, this tells us nothing about 1Tim 2:12. Why bother with a paper to prove something about Critical Orthodoxy's approved Pauline Canon and then turn around and try to apply it to a book outside the canon?

Payne's whole line of argument assumes that the Pauline Canon (traditional and/or critical) is a valid statistical sample from which we can draw an inference to predict a certain relationship between OUDE and the semantic content of the constituents either side of OUDE. That kind of reasoning falls apart at many levels, several of which have already been pointed out in this thread.

Paul didn't invent a new language for his epistles.

Postscript: I just looked again at Mounce (WBC Pastoral Epistles, pp. 128-129) where he addresses Payne's treatment of OUDE in verse 12. Not sure what to make of it. He thinks Payne is wrong but perhaps Mounce finds Payne wrong for the wrong reasons while accepting Payne's flawed assumptions and methodology. On the other hand, Knight (NIGTC 1992) doesn't do more than barely mention Payne.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

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

Postby Andrew Chapman » Sun Jul 20, 2014 1:34 pm

And most of the first group ..."1. οὐδὲ Joins Equivalent Expressions to Convey a Single Idea" … don't qualify as "Equivalent Expressions".And if they did, it would not prove anything relevant to 1Tim 2:11-12 for the simple reason that the syntax doesn't determine the semantics.

One of the strange things is that Payne seems to find something significant in the use of 'and not' to join the clauses in the translations he offers, rather than 'nor' or 'neither'. I think he is trying to suggest that there is some sort of combining going on because 'and' can be used to combine - as in his examples like 'hit 'n run'.

In fact, 'and not' if anything separates the two clauses even more than 'nor' does.

Payne's first sample text (p237)

Rom. 2:28 οὐ γὰρ ὁ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ Ἰουδαῖός ἐστιν
οὐδὲ ἡ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ ἐν σαρκὶ περιτομή,
29 ἀλλ᾿ ὁ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ Ἰουδαῖος,
καὶ περιτομὴ καρδίας ἐν πνεύματι οὐ γράμματι,
οὗ ὁ ἔπαινος οὐκ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ.

The second statement expands on the first statement. It is not strictly equivalent.

I agree. I think the difference emerges more strongly in the two clauses introduced by ἀλλά, and especially the second of these. Whereas περιτομὴ alone may refer to being in a state of circumcision, and so is perhaps close to being a Ἰουδαῖός, περιτομὴ καρδίας ἐν πνεύματι develops the idea into the process of spiritual circumcision, the cutting off of sin from the heart. 'Spiritual circumcision' has a referent more distinct from 'hidden Jew', than 'circumcision' from 'Jew'. But then because this is one sentence, this feeds back into the first two clauses, as now we understand what was meant by a Jew not being outward, and circumcision not being outward. In other words the difference between the two expressions joined by οὐδέ, is made clear by the following two clauses. In fact, when one says 'it's not this', it tends to create an expectation of being told what it actually is, which Paul does satisfy with the following clauses, and I think one may tend to wait for the explanation, rather than jumping to saying 'oh, these two things are the same'.

Andrew
User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 111
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 C. S. Bartholomew » Sun Jul 20, 2014 4:58 pm

Rom 2:28 is an example of negated parallelism[1] where οὐδὲ might be omitted or replaced with καὶ. Parallelism as a textual feature doesn't have anything to do with use or non use of οὐδὲ. This highlights the fundamental error in this paper. The various textual features of the Pauline texts under consideration are independent of the use of καὶ | οὐδὲ | δὲ | ἀλλ᾿ or no conjunction.

This fundamental error is once again illustrated (p328) where Payne cites Gal. 3:28 and Col. 3:11.

Gal. 3:28 οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲ Ἕλλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ· πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.

Col. 3:11 ὅπου οὐκ ἔνι Ἕλλην καὶ Ἰουδαῖος, περιτομὴ καὶ ἀκροβυστία, βάρβαρος, Σκύθης, δοῦλος, ἐλεύθερος, ἀλλὰ [τὰ] πάντα καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν Χριστός.


Here we see matched pairs of complimentary words, Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲ Ἕλλην, δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος. Col. 3:11 substitutes καὶ for οὐδὲ and drops the conjunction for the last two pairs. This demonstrates that οὐδὲ has nothing to do with this textual feature. A pattern of several pairs of complimentary words doesn't require any particular conjunction. Furthermore 1Tim 2:12 doesn't employ this textual feature, so it proves nothing in regard to 1Tim 2:12.


[1] viewtopic.php?f=23&t=60810&start=40#p165051
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

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

Postby Andrew Chapman » Mon Jul 21, 2014 9:00 am

Gal. 3:28 οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲ Ἕλλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ· πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.

Here is Payne's take on the verse:

‘There is no such thing as Jew and Greek, slave and freeman,
male and (καί) female . . .’ (NEB; cf. Fenton, 7 Goodspeed, JB, TEV, Way, 8
Weymouth, also translating οὐδέ ‘and’). Here οὐδέ parallels καί (‘and’), and in
the same couplets in Col 3.11 and Rom 10.12, καί replaces οὐδέ . These must not be
separate statements, ‘there is no Jew in Christ’ and ‘there is no Greek in Christ’,
since both statements are obviously false. The context of discrimination against
Greeks (Gal 2.11–3.14; 3.23–25) confirms that Paul means: ‘there is no Jew–Greek
dichotomy in Christ’. The antagonistic barrier represented by each pair is over-
come in Christ. Each pair functions together to convey a single idea. Paul’s mean-
ing is: there is no ‘Jew–Greek’ dichotomy in Christ, no ‘slave–free’ dichotomy in
Christ, and no ‘male–female’ dichotomy in Christ.

I am not convinced that it is only the 'dichotomy' that is being negatived. I am inclined to think that Paul is saying that in Christ there is no Jew and there is no Greek etc. It seems to me to be far too literalistic to say that these are 'obviously false' statements, just because, looking at in another way, I can still say I am an Englishman even though I am also a Christian. Anyway, if there is no Jew-Greek dichotomy, then how can there be a Jew, since the whole concept of being a Jew, or an Englishman for that matter, is built upon making distinctions between peoples? So his position seems self-contradictory.

I am inclined to translate it literally, as most English translations - eg there is no Greek or Jew, there is no slave or free, there is no male and female.. I think one naturally understands that Paul is talking about the eradication of barriers in Christ. There must be something in the ἔνι also - Eadie says that there is 'probably, in the phrase, the idea also of inner existence', where there is no Greek or Jew, one might say.

Andrew
User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 111
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 Andrew Chapman » Thu Jul 24, 2014 10:44 am

As an additional point against Payne's over-literalism, presumably he should say that πάντες .. ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, is 'obviously false' also, if he is to be consistent.

Andrew
User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 111
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 Andrew Chapman » Fri Sep 05, 2014 7:08 pm

I was looking today at another attempt, by David Kuske (professor emeritus of New Testament Theology at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary, and author of a commentary on 1 and 2 Thessalonians) in 1981, to evade the literal sense of 1 Timothy 2.12:

διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω (call this 12a) οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός (12b), ἀλλ’ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ (12c).

First, he invokes 'epexegetical' οὐδέ, which he renders as 'namely', and gives the sense of the text as:

Now I do not permit a woman to teach, namely, (I do not permit a woman) to exercise authority over a man, but (I want a woman) to be in quietness.

If this were the sense, then the prohibition on teaching would stand, accompanied by an explanation that teaching is prohibited because to teach would be to exercise authority over a man.

But then, in his summary, he changes the meaning to something more along the lines of Philip Payne's conjectures:

Paul instructs Timothy that God’s will does not permit a woman to become a teacher when this activity would in any way involve her in exercising authority over a man.

It dawned on me today that 12b has in effect turned into a conditional sentence. Please correct my Greek, but something like:

ει εν τη διδασκαλια, αυθεντει ανδρος.

Payne's version, which is substantially different, with αυθεντεω meaning 'to assume authority', could also just about be expressed with a conditional clause:

I do not permit a woman to teach, if she assumes authority for herself to teach a man. Something like:

διδασκειν δε γυναικι ουκ επιτρεπω, ει αυτη αυθεντει διδασκειν ανδρα.

As Michael pointed out some time ago, the central idea is to limit the prohibition. This is what a conditional clause does, I think. It's not so much that οὐδέ is the equivalent of a strong 'and' in a hendiadys, which is how Payne presents his theory. It's more that οὐδέ is to mean 'if', at least in 1 Timothy 2.12..

What do you think?

Andrew
User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England

Previous

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Isaac Newton and 27 guests