hendiadys with οὐδέ and 1Tim 2:12

Greek Koine and Biblical and Medieval Greek
1

Hello everyone,

I would like to take another look at an issue which has already been discussed in this forum to some extent:

Since this a clear example of an hendiadys with οὐδέ I wonder why 1Tim 2:12 cannot be a hendiadys as well. Phil Payne suggested something like:
12 διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός,
I do not allow a woman to teach (in combination with) exercising authority over a man.

Since οὐδὲ is used to form an hendiadys in other cases this does not seem impossible. Or am I wrong?

2

If Polybius had wanted to say that the enemy could have endured the weight of the elephants as long as they had not attacked (which would be a ridiculous thing to say) there are other ways he could have said this. If Paul had wanted to say it is okay for women to teach men men as long as they do it in a way that does not involve authority over men (an equally absurd thing, given Paul’s theology and the Greek view of teachers) there are other ways he could have said this.

You don’t establish meaning in this way. You don’t pick apart the inner logic of one sentence and apply it to another sentence to establish a meaning which is contrary to the ordinary Greek and the context.

3

I agree, the weight cannot be classified by the attack, but the attack could be classified by the weight - meaning that the weight made the attack overwhelming and thus caused them to flee. Then the attack alone would not have been a problem, but only the attack and the elephant power behind it.

If this is the case Payne´s idea does not seem to be entirely irrelevant. Of course - as you have said - other factors need to be taken into consideration, especially the context. And obviously the standart use of οὐδέ is well attested. Nevertheless, it seems to me that from a purely grammatical point of view his understanding of the text seems to be at least possible.

The Payne logic - from what I understand - would be: The Polybius passage shows a case of a hendiadys with οὐδέ (and possibly it links two words where one is classified by the other, s. my first sentence in this posting), therefore the word apparently could be used in such a way. Once this possibility is established you can argue about the context and present a context that supports a translation which is based on the use in Polybius (and possible others).

4

Since this a clear example of an hendiadys with οὐδέ I wonder why 1Tim 2:12 cannot be a hendiadys as well.

A Greek hendiadys, as described in the literature and the grammars, consists of two substantives placed side by side, joined by καί or τε. I found Sansone’s article very helpful: http://womeninthechurch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Sansone-hendiadys.pdf, or for something shorter, try Smyth, §3025:

  1. Hendiadys (ἓν διὰ δυοῖν > one by two> ) is the use of two words connected by a copulative conjunction to express a single complex idea; especially two substantives instead of one substantive and an adjective or attributive genitive.

The first example Smyth gives is:

αἵ τε πόλεις πολλαὶ καὶ χαλεπαὶ λαβεῖν αἱ τῶν Φωκέων, μὴ οὐ χρόνῳ καὶ πολιορκίᾳ: [Demosthenes, On the False Embassy, 19.123]

The cities of the Phocians were many, and difficult to take, except by time and siege.

I don’t think we would say ‘time and siege’ in English, except perhaps in poetry, but it’s readily comprehensible. Clearly, it means much the same as ‘a long siege’. The classicists here might be able to give some indication of why Demosthenes, the orator, would join two nouns like this rather than just say πολιορκίᾳ μακρᾷ (my guess); but I think it must be a matter of style.

See that the positive conjunction καί is used to join the two nouns, even though it’s a negative phrase. I have a theory that this is usually the case where two terms really are being joined into one, as for example in Galatians 1.16:

οὐ προσανεθέμην σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι (I did not consult with flesh and blood)

I don’t think the Polybius example is relevant to 1 Timothy 2.12 because it seems to me to look like a Greek hendiadys, in that it is joining two nouns placed side by side, and differs only in the use of the negative conjunction. I suspect that it should be viewed as an exceptional one-off, unless other examples can be produced.

This has nothing to do with the joining of two infinitive phrases, as in 1 Timothy 2.12, so far as I can see, especially with the two infinitives being so far apart.

Andrew

5

Hello Andrew,

I agree on most of your points. And most importantly, I think your evaluation of Payne´s argument is correct. By putting didaskein at the beginning of the sentence Paul made an hendiadys extremely unlikely, practically impossible.

We need to be very clear in our logic, though. Otherwise Payne will continue to mislead people about what Paul really wanted to say. Therefore, I want to take another look at the quote from Smyth. “Especially two substantives” does not mean only two substantives.
Do you have a source which explicitly negates the existence of a verb + verb hendiadys? This would be the ultimate death knell for Payne´s theory (even though it is much more dead than alive).

PS: I have received your email and read through your paper. You research is quite convincing, but I think the Polybius passage deserves a thorough examination in order to avoid loopholes.

6

Do you have a source which explicitly negates the existence of a verb + verb hendiadys?

No, on the contrary, Denniston sees a phenomenon with verbs similar to what is normally thought of as the Greek hendiadys with substantives: http://womeninthechurch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Denniston-hendiadys.pdf at 62-3. In all his examples, the two verbs are side by side and joined by a positive conjunction. For example:

ἄρχουσι καὶ τυραννοῦσι for which Denniston gives (they) ‘rule despotically’.

They rule and (what’s more) they tyrannise.

This is obviously a long way from Payne’s idea, which would be something like:

οὐκ ἄρχουσι οὐδὲ τυρρανοῦσι, ἀλλ ἄρχουσι - they do not rule tyrannically, but they do rule

which I maintain is impossible.

Andrew