I hope that Payne takes a moment to critique Paul’s terrible rhetorical technique. After all, Paul is being very sloppy putting διδάσκειν first, despite αὐθεντεῖν as the governing concept.
So, his argument then is that, according to Paul, a woman can teach but not be a pastor? I don’t know how it can be argued that a pastor does not ‘assume authority’. It’s ironic to me though, that after all that over-analysis he doesn’t really reach what I’m assuming is his desired interpretation of the text, i.e. his conclusion is still not “egalitarian” because it places a qualification on women that isn’t on men. At the end of the day, he still has to admit that Paul is not an egalitarian in the modern sense of the word.
kaikai,
The exact translation is what I am looking for.
No such thing is possible. That’s why we read Greek. Besides, we don’t have enough evidence to know just what αυθεντειν ανδρος might mean, though it’s easy enough to guess.
Since you suggest to solve the controversy (which of course really is no controversy) by looking at the immediate context (the alla-clause),
No, I suggested the only way of settling the question was “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.” That would take us well beyond the immediate context, though that of course is crucial. To dissect the first part of the sentence in isolation from the αλλα clause is an exercise in futility.
I was wondering what you would answer to the interpretation that hesuchia does not mean silence but rather a peaceful mindset and behaviour?
I would agree that ησυχια does not literally mean silence (I paraphrased as “keep quiet,” not keep silent). That may well be implied here (~ εχειν ησυχος), but the context makes clear that the dominant idea is that women should not be uppity, get above themselves, forget their proper place. Their role is to be submissive, compliant, obedient, to respect a man’s authority. The man:woman relationship is the teacher:pupil one; women are to listen and learn (Sit still, woman!), not to invert the relationship by teaching. (The very idea!) The writer’s attitude is still widely shared in the modern world.
That’s enough and more than enough from me.
Michael
So, his argument then is that, according to Paul, a woman can teach but not be a pastor?
No, I think Payne would say that a woman can serve as a pastor in the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, so long as she is properly appointed and doesn’t somehow seize or assume for herself that position. Then since, a man shouldn’t do that either, we are left with full egalitarianism to all practical purposes.
With regard to his analysis, and so as not to go over old ground (so far as I can remember), consider Payne’s understanding of Galatians 1.16a-17:
εὐθέως οὐ προσανεθέμην σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι οὐδὲ ἀνῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα πρὸς τοὺς πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀποστόλους, ἀλλ’ ἀπῆλθον εἰς Ἀραβίαν καὶ πάλιν ὑπέστρεψα εἰς Δαμασκόν.
I read this to say that Paul did not consult with flesh and blood (in Damascus), nor did he go up to Jerusalem to the apostles.
Some read this as saying that Paul did not consult with flesh and blood (at all), and that he did not (in particular) go up to Jerusalem to (consult with) the apostles.
Either seem possible with the normal understanding of the function of οὐδέ.
Payne seems to claim (NTS 2008, 240) that Paul was saying that he did not consult with any human being in his going up to Jerusalem to the apostles. He says that in fact Paul did consult with Ananias in Damascus. The second clause therefore limits the extent of the first.
Andrew
Michael, I would agree with you on what the writer seems to have had in mind. The general thrust of the passage is not hard to see to for an unbiased reader. I remember reading this verse for the first time many years ago. Back then I simply thought something like “are you serious”, but I had no questions about the author´s intent.
Still, this verse is quite painful for an evangelical Christian like Payne, who wants to “follow what the bible says” but at the same time can hardly accept such rather extreme statements. Giving a new understanding to the text is his only way out of the dilemma.
The general thrust of the text, on which I share your opinion, is not that hard to soften. For instance, Payne would (want to) understand the author´s wish/command that a woman should learn in quietness and subjection as simply making a statement about the way in which she should learn – and not about the general learning position. I do not think that this fits the context, since didaskein de is put at the beginning of the following sentence and thus really makes clear: women should learn, that´s it. But there are ideas, which help in arriving at an “alternative understanding”.
So for those, who have a hard time with the passage, the situation looks like this: The preceding verses are not as intense as 1Tim 2:12 and they can be softened. Only 1Tim 2:12 needs to be “overcome” now: authentein is not very clear, didaskein is clear. So the strategy is: Making use of the ambiguity of authentein, it is interpreted as speaking of evil authority, such as usurped authority. This is forbidden, but it would be bad for a man to usurp authority, too. So that is not offensive… Now only one last step is necessary: limit didaskein by saying it needs to be seen in combination with authentein in such a way that authentein (“evil authority”) is the only context, in which teaching becomes a problem. Result: The passage does not restrict women in any way. Payne knows that the the author´s thoughts in the preceding verse can be given an alternative understanding (even though it is forced). Also, he knows that authentein is too ambiguos to refute him with certainty. Didaskein is enemy number one, and he sees oude as its Achilees´ heel. That is why he is spending so much time on discussing oude. Whether or not the verb after oude can limit the verb before oude is infinitely important to him, because this (for him) decides whether a woman can be a pastor, elder, etc. or not.
I think the thrust of the passage is pretty clear, but it leaves room for speculation. The only entirely clear verse is 1Tim 2:12, and this is the reason for all the papers, books, etc, about it. The oude-issue is really central, because it is an attempt to remove the clarity from the clearest verse. This is what I have tried tr demonstrate above. To me, as I have said before, Payne´s thesis is not convincing, since he would need to establish an entirely new meaning/function for the word – which he does not achieve, imo. Andrew has posted your earlier assessment of his theory here in this thread: authentein cannot function as limiting didaskein. If that still is your opinion, then, to me, you have rejected Payne´s thesis based on grammatical considerations. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Thank you, Andrew, for the quotations from earlier threads. They were quite helpful. I hope that this thread will continue to shed more light on the use of oude. The quotations and the older paper, which you have posted above, were quite useful.
I don’t understand why the argument needs to be countered since we all perceive that it’s just a bunch of fluff. I’m assuming the reason is that you are encountering people who are using Payne’s “research” to support a bad interpretation of text? If that is the reason, I would go about countering the argument in a different way.
There is no evidence (as far as I know) of women pastors in the early church or during the time of the “Church Fathers”. One must argue some massive conspiracy of misogynists taking over the church and changing the policy from allowing women to teach to forbidding them. This argument falls flat for many reasons, first of all conspiracy theories are prima facie suspect. Secondly, it implies that this re-interpretation of the text happened during a time when there were still native Koine Greek speakers within the church who would’ve had a much easier time understanding Paul than Phil Payne. Lastly, I don’t think there is any evidence of tampering with the text of 1 Timothy 2:12. If this was a “problem text” for the early church, surely we would expect to find an attempt to “remove” the problem by changing a word or two to make the statement clearly forbid women from teaching. The fact that the text wasn’t meddled with in that way implies that the church that wanted to forbid women from teaching saw no threat from 1 Timothy 2:12, rather I’m sure they found it quite helpful to that end.