1Timothy 2:12 - Phil Payne and the function of "oude"

[Andrew_Chapman]

@mwh

This is not a question to be settled by examining the use of ουδε (or of και, its positive counterpart) but by considering how the idea of a woman/wife διδασκειν-ing and the idea of her αυθεντειν-ανδρος-ing related to each other in the writer’s mind. It can be argued that he thought of them as two separate activities, it can be argued that he thought of them as essentially one, viewed under slightly different aspects. I’d favor the latter.

@KaiKaiSimon

Also, I thought you had agreed on the point that authentein cannot limit didaskein in this “construction” (which would be the end of any discussion about the extend of the 1Tim 2:12 prohibition).

Here is Michael from the first thread, May 28, 2014, http://discourse.textkit.com/t/does-paynes-take-on-1-tim-2-12-pass-the-smell-test/12208/1

Where Payne goes wrong is in separating the two components in such a way as to make the second limit (rather than simply elaborate or expand) the first. “I don’t allow a woman to teach” is not qualified by the follow-up (“and/or to be a man’s boss”); as Markos and others have objected, the copulative ουδε couldn’t convey that. Rather, the second phrase gives some precision, some amplification: women exercising authority over men is what women teaching would amount to. The quoted Polybius is a good parallel: binding themselves with oaths and treaties is what would be entailed by partnering with Rome. It’s essentially a single notion, whose permitted opposite, of course, is “staying quiet.”

So yes, I think Michael has agreed that the second phrase doesn’t the first. I think he is saying that in Paul’s mind, a woman teaching and a woman αυθεντειν-ανδρος-ing are part and parcel of one general idea - maybe something like her being assertive/playing the role of a man/generally not being quiet and submissive. See also Michael’s comment on May 31:

Agreed, neither one limits the other; but the second may spell out the implications of the first.

I made a case for their being two related conceptions, both negatived, on May 29, 2014. I fully agree with Michael that this question has to be determined semantically, not grammatically. My feeling is that the matter of teaching is important to Paul not only because it involves a woman exercising authority over a man, but also because of his deep concern for sound doctrine and perhaps a concern that a woman may be more easily deceived - see the second reason for the prohibition in verse 14.

Andrew