Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Greek Koine and Biblical and Medieval Greek
1

Do you mind if I re-post a question I asked recently at B-Greek, but which hasn’t yet prompted any replies?

It’s a sentence from Origen’s commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Καὶ ἄλλοθεν δὲ τοῦτο παραστήσω, εἰ καὶ ἐκεῖνο ἀσφαλέστερον εἴρηται περὶ τοῦ μὴ τὴν γυναῖκα ἡγεμόνα γίνεσθαι τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ ἀνδρός·

I am trying to understand what ἐκεῖνο is referring to here. There is a translation by Judith Kovacs of almost all the whole passage, but she leaves out most of this sentence, so I wondered if it might be obscure. I found this translation by Dr Yancy Smith on B-Greek [link removed as per rules]

‘But also from other passages I will support this thesis, since the point has been made more securely concerning the fact that a woman is not to be directing the man by means of discourse:’

Here is a longer excerpt:

ὅτε ἐλάλησε Μαριὰμ ἡ προφῆτις ἄρχουσα ἦν τινων γυναικῶν· αἰσχρὸν γὰρ γυναικὶ λαλεῖν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ, (20) καὶ διδάϲκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω ἁπλῶς ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρόϲ. Καὶ ἄλλοθεν δὲ τοῦτο παραστήσω, εἰ καὶ ἐκεῖνο ἀσφαλέστερον εἴρηται περὶ τοῦ μὴ τὴν γυναῖκα ἡγεμόνα γίνεσθαι τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ ἀνδρός· πρεϲβύτιδαϲ ἐν καταϲτήματι ἱεροπρεπεῖϲ, καλοδιδαϲκάλουϲ, ἵνα ϲωφρονίζωϲι τὰϲ νέαϲ, οὐχ ἁπλῶς ἵνα διδάσκωσιν.

For the whole Greek text, with translations of longer or shorter excerpts see [link removed, I can post the link to my site if it would help, or the Greek text itself - the relevant part is about 300 words]

Commentators, both conservative and egalitarian, have drawn conclusions about the meaning of 1 Timothy 2:12 from the phrase ‘περὶ τοῦ μὴ τὴν γυναῖκα ἡγεμόνα γίνεσθαι τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ ἀνδρός’. But almost the whole passage concerns women speaking in the assembly, with regard to 1 Corinthians 14, and it strikes me that the phrase could very well be referring primarily to that.

I would like to ask what τοῦτο is referring back to, and whether ἐκεῖνο is referring to the same thing, or whether one should understand a contrast, as between ‘this’ and ‘that’. Could it be that τοῦτο is referring back to the immediately preceding citation of 1 Timothy 2:12, and ἐκεῖνο is referring elsewhere? (Or the other way around?) I note that εἴρηται can be either present or aorist, which seems to expand the range of possibilities. [Plus one other question, which I didn’t like to ask of the professionals at B-Greek - is there any possibility that ἐκεῖνο might be accusative, with an adverbial sense like ‘there’, rather than nominative as I think Yancy Smith translated it - ‘the point’. I have looked in the lexicons to see if such exists, and the answer seems to be no, but I just wondered.]

Or, if I may ask a more open question, what is Origen saying here?

Andrew

2

I’m not going hazard a guess about what this means as a whole, but εἴρηται is perfect passive.

3

First a disclaimer: I don’t know much about Koine Greek (not that I know much about Greek otherwise either), nor do I know much about the NT otherwise. I’m taking this as an excercise.

ὅτε ἐλάλησε Μαριὰμ ἡ προφῆτις ἄρχουσα ἦν τινων γυναικῶν· αἰσχρὸν γὰρ γυναικὶ λαλεῖν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ, (20) καὶ διδάϲκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω ἁπλῶς ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρόϲ. Καὶ ἄλλοθεν δὲ τοῦτο παραστήσω, εἰ καὶ ἐκεῖνο ἀσφαλέστερον εἴρηται περὶ τοῦ μὴ τὴν γυναῖκα ἡγεμόνα γίνεσθαι τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ ἀνδρός· πρεϲβύτιδαϲ ἐν καταϲτήματι ἱεροπρεπεῖϲ, καλοδιδαϲκάλουϲ, ἵνα ϲωφρονίζωϲι τὰϲ νέαϲ, οὐχ ἁπλῶς ἵνα διδάσκωσιν.

Who is the subject of ἐλάλησε? Paul, the author of the epistle?

I think τοῦτο and ἐκεῖνο definitely refer to two different things, τοῦτο would refer to something nearer and ἐκεῖνο to something more remote. But it’s difficult to say what two things they are referring to.

In καὶ διδάϲκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω ἁπλῶς ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρόϲ, I have difficulties to interprete ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ - it seems to be adversative, while the two propositions it links are more or less in the same vein. My tentative translation: “Not only (ἁπλῶς) should teaching not be entrusted to women, but they should have no authority over men.” I don’t know if ἁπλῶς can be interpreted like this, but I can’t see any any other possibility as some sort of opposition seems to be expressed.

Now if indeed there’s an opposition between διδάϲκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω ἁπλῶς and οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρόϲ, τοῦτο could refer to the latter and ἐκεῖνο to the former. I’m saying this as a very tentative suggestion.

Or maybe τοῦτο refers to διδάϲκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω ἁπλῶς ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρόϲ and ἐκεῖνο to some more general point (or perhaps αἰσχρὸν γὰρ γυναικὶ λαλεῖν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ)?

4

Paul, the subject of ἐλάλησε is Μαριὰμ.

is there any possibility that ἐκεῖνο might be accusative, with an adverbial sense like ‘there’, rather than nominative

No. εἰ καὶ ἐκεῖνο ἀσφαλέστερον εἴρηται “if that too is stated more soundly”

τοῦτο/ἐκεῖνο usually implies a this/that opposition.

Καὶ ἄλλοθεν δὲ τοῦτο παραστήσω, εἰ καὶ ἐκεῖνο ἀσφαλέστερον εἴρηται Literally: "and I will set this beside [a statement] from elsewhere, if that too is stated [or “if that is also stated”] more soundly about . . . "

5

Yes; I wonder why they don’t put a comma after προφῆτις, which would make the sense immediately clear. But I suppose I would not have been misled if I had read what preceeds this.

That makes sense to me. ἐκεῖνο is “the statement from elsewhere”.

What do you think about ἁπλῶς?

6

What do you think about ἁπλῶς?

That’s getting too deep controversial territory for me.

7

If for some reason you want (an artificial) precision I would say that τοῦτο is referring to the paraphrase of 1 Tim 2:12 (it’s the last thing mentioned) and that ἐκεῖνο is referring to the paraphrase of Titus 2:3. But really both pronouns refer to the IDEAS under discussion, and the ideas of all the passages cited are similar. If I say in English

John 3:16 says the same thing as Romans 10:9 and this means we are going to Heaven.

The antecedent of “this” is probably technically Romans 10:9 but pragmatically it encompasses the ideas expressed in both verses.

Or, if I may ask a more open question, what is Origen saying here?

That women should not teach.

8

I agree, in this particular context τοῦτο must just mean “what I just said”, and ἐκεῖνο “what I’m about to say”. After that it’s a question of interpretation, which is beyond the scope of simple a grammatical analysis.

Actually, the antecedent of “this” is technically “John 3:16 says the same thing as Romans 10:9”. But I digress. :slight_smile:

Yes, but with some complications, which depend on the meaning of ἁπλῶς among other things. He also says women should not have authority over men - that’s not exactly the same thing.

9

Thanks very much, everybody, that’s a great help.

Markos, I am back on that paper by Philip Payne. He uses this passage by Origen to support his strange understanding of the meaning of οὐδέ. Here is the relevant paragraph of that paper (p.246):

He seems to say here that περὶ τοῦ μὴ τὴν γυναῖκα ἡγεμόνα γίνεσθαι τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ ἀνδρός is a paraphrase of 1 Timothy 2:12. So he is claiming precision about what it is referring to, whereas it wasn’t at all clear to me from a grammatical point of view where the reference was. Semantically, there are a number of allied ideas quite close together, and I was thinking that περὶ τοῦ μὴ τὴν γυναῖκα ἡγεμόνα γίνεσθαι τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ ἀνδρός is perhaps something like a working summary of where he has got too so far, probably mainly about women not speaking in the assembly (this being a commentary on 1 Corinthians 14), but there may be perhaps be a reference to αὐθεντεῖν in the ἡγεμόνα. But looking ahead too, as Paul points out too.

Thanks a lot. I looked it up in the Perseus Word Study Tool and found εἴρηται verb 3rd sg pres subj mp; εἴρηται verb 3rd sg aor subj mid; under εἴρω (say, speak, tell); but in my NT Analytical Lexicon it says perfect passive, as you say - of ῥέω - which may be the same word, I am not sure. Are the present and aorist middle possibilities too?

I have the same problem, see my post on B-Greek, if you have time, under Church Fathers. I compare the way that ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ is translated in Luke 23:15, with the translation of 1 Corinthians 3:2. There was some discussion about it there.

Andrew

10

εἴρηται isn’t from ῥέω, it’s from εἴρω, “to say.” In Attic, this verb is defective–it isn’t used in the present–and in the dictionary it’s listed under its Attic future form, ἐρῶ. You will see from the LSJ entry that the 1st person of the perfect passive is εἴρημαι, and this means that the 3rd person is εἴρηται, “has been said”.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3De)rw%3D

“Are the present and aorist middle possibilities too?” No, because (1) this isn’t subjunctive, and (2) the present εἴρω isn’t in use in this Atticizing variety of Greek, and with the ending -ται, this couldn’t possibly be an aorist form. For the present tense, φημί, λέγω, or ἀγορεύω would be used. The aorist active would be εἶπον. There’s an aorist passive form ἐρρήθην from εἴρω. 3rd person ind. would be ἐρρήθη; subj would be ῥηθῇ. There’s also an alternative aorist passive from λέγω, ἐλέχθην; 3rd pers. aor. indicative would be ἐλέχθη; subj. would be λεχθῇ.

The Perseus Word Study Tool is very unreliable, in my experience.

11

I see Qimmik has already posted about this, but I’m submitting this since I already wrote it…

εἴρηται is perfect passive of… λέγω. Which is really confusing; the future is ἐρέω/ἐρῶ. There is a present form εἴρω but it’s rare, I’m guessing that it will have totally disappeared by this time; I’m not sure I have seen it except in dictionnaries. Then there’s ἔρομαι/ἐρέω “to ask”, which is another mess. I think these forms vary from dialect to dialect and I don’t know which ones are current in Koine. But my main point is to show that if you’re confused, it’s for a reason, and Perseus mixes these up even more, it proposes sometimes forms that don’t existi in any dialect.

I don’t think it can be ῥέω, which I think can only mean “to flow”.

Probably I’ve mixed up something, so correct me…

12

I assume you know that G. Fee solved the problem by means of conjectural emendation. Virtually nobody accepted that solution otherwise why would we still find people arguing about it 25 years later. Why are you reading Payne? There are better things to read. I found Yancy Smiths post on b-greek.

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2010-January/051994.html

13

εἰ καὶ has a range of meanings. It probably means something like “if indeed” here or even “since”. The εἰ καὶ clause may be stating a fact, not a condition.

Smyth 2375 ff.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Smyth+grammar+2375&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007

2377

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007%3Asmythp%3D2377

14

The εἰ καὶ clause may be stating a fact, not a condition.

Thanks a lot, Qimmik. I found something along these lines in Liddell and Scott while trying to understand Yancy Smith’s translation: at εἰ B/VI: VI. in citing a fact as a ground of argument or appeal, as surely as, since; if (as was the fact, i.e. since)

Andrew

15

In order to reply to him. The only reply I know of is Andreas Kostenberger’s, but I don’t think he really hit the nail on the head. I find it strange that neither of them really look at what the grammars and lexicons say about οὐδέ. It adds one negative to another; it doesn’t subtract by qualifying the first negative adverbially. Kostenberger seems to think that one can find out what the sentence means by looking at lots of other sentences with the form οὐ.. Α.. οὐδέ.. Β.. ἀλλά.. Γ, find some statistical rules about the relationship between the 3 elements, and then apply the rules back to 1 Timothy 2:12. But that’s not how one comprehends what one is reading. More importantly, he fails, in my opinion, to point out the massive flaws in Payne’s argument. He (Payne) tries to create cases where (A+B) is not true, but A is true. One case in point is Galatians 1:16b-17, which I have just written about on my wife and I’s blog.

which depend on the meaning of ἁπλῶς among other things

Carl Conrad gave the opinion that it means here ‘absolutely’ (not) ‘at all’. ‘I absolutely do not allow..’. Yancy Smith’s ‘clearly’ is not too far from that, I would have thought.

Re: ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ. If οὐδέ is understood adverbially so that we have something like ‘but not even’ or ‘no, not even’ then we have some contrast. The question then is, in which direction is it ascensive? Is exercising authority over a man worse than teaching in Origen’s view (or in his understanding of Paul’s view,) or is it not so bad?

If we say, ‘the rehab does not allow any drugs or alcohol in the premises, or even tobacco’, the prohibition is going up a notch because tobacco is generally seen as less serious than drugs or alcohol. Is the same true in Greek?

In a translation by Roger Gryson which I found on Michael Marlowe’s site, he renders it as 'For [as Paul declares] “I do not permit a woman to teach,” and even less “to tell a man what to do.” He understands the exercising authority over a man as worse, and so has to add ‘less’, to change the natural direction of it. But is this justifiable?

For myself, I am not sure which is the more serious matter. Who has more authority or influence over their charges, a schoolteacher or a policeman?

Andrew

16

The basic meaning of ἁπλῶς is “simply”, and I don’t think we need to stray far from that - clearly, absolutely would all do I think; but the problem is how exactly it attaches to the rest. The sequence of word, ἁπλῶς ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ in particular is just unnatural to me, although I can’t exactly articulate why. Since this is obviously a quote from 1 Tim 2:12, a solution to use quotation marks like Roger Gryson’s looks very attractive to me and would explain the decontinuous syntax; I much prefer this to the interpretation I gave earlier. So let’s write this again with some more puntuaction:

…καὶ “διδάϲκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω” ἁπλῶς, ἀλλ’ “οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρόϲ”.

… and [as Paul says] “I do not permit women to teach”, quite simply; on the contrary: “and [they] should not have authority over men”[, that is what Paul says!].

1 Tim 1:12, for comparison:

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

Where I don’t agree (at least for the present) with Gryson is the interpretation of ἀλλ’ (οὐδὲ); I don’t see how it could mean “even less”. I think Gryson’s problem is that he puts the quotation mark slightly at the wrong place, while I think there’s a syntactic discontinuity in the middle of ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ.

17

Andrew,

Well we are in agreement on several issues. There are “massive flaws in Payne’s argument” which is why most NT scholars and advanced greek students don’t appear to think it is worth their time to answer him. Kind of like my nephew who is a campus ministries director for the presbytery of Santa Barbara in St Louis Obis., he gets agitated now and then over the musings of a hyper-verbal mega-church pastor from Seattle, Mark Driscoll. I keep telling him, to chill out. Driscoll isn’t a serious threat. That’s my attitude about Payne. Who cares? He is the CEO of a software firm. I bought products from him 25 years ago, greek fonts and texts before Logos/Accordance.

I have same attitude toward Gordon Fee’s musings on the textual history of 1Cor 14:34-35. Fee was a mega scholar. On the text of 1Cor 14:34-35 he made a very public error. Scholars are human, they make errors. I don’t have any problem with Fee’s exegetical method. Just willing to let him be wrong on one passage.

οὐδέ.. like other greek particles can be a real headache; see my last post on Rev 9:20
http://discourse.textkit.com/t/the-text-of-the-apocalypse-of-john/12395/1
which I could really use some help with.

The statistical method which has become very popular since the advent of tagged texts (last 20 odd years) is a standard approach used by many linguists like Iver Larsen (SIL). It is a valid approach but in the hands of some practitioners in yields less than optimal results. The proliferation of the software for doing these things has lead to a lot of people who have an inadequate theoretical foundation proposing arguments based on less than optimal data analysis that is fraught with both logical and procedural errors.

I could site some examples but why make enemies. The papers read at professional conferences that are good enough to get published are more often than not riddled with the similar kinds of problems found in Payne’s paper.

On the other hand. it is good to critique the paper if others are using it as a platform for promoting their agenda. That happens to be the case with Payne’s paper. So I can see some justification for responding if you are willing to put in the effort and spend the time it takes to sort out all the problems with his argument. I might go back and re-read the paper but in past when I have revisited it, I get overwhelmed with a sense of “I am not going to get embroiled in this” like a friend of mine who is a egalitarian feminist NT linguist said about this subject “It is black hole which will swallow you up” last I heard she was writing a book on Paul and Women, but I haven’t seen it yet.

greetings, CSB

18

Again, I may well be wrong, but it seems to me that Payne does not know Greek. It seems to me that no one who knows Greek could possible have written his article. Maybe I am wrong. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. But your reply to him should begin by asking him if he knows Greek.

Origen wrote:
καὶ διδάϲκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω ἁπλῶς ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρόϲ.

Origen is just loosely quoting Paul here and ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ is just one natural way to move on to the next thought. As from your example in Luke 23:14-15:

Luke 23:14-15: εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς, Προσηνέγκατέ μοι τὸν ἄνθρωπον τοῦτον ὡς ἀποστρέφοντα τὸν λαόν, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐνώπιον ὑμῶν ἀνακρίνας οὐθὲν εὗρον ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ τούτῳ αἴτιον ὧν κατηγορεῖτε κατ’ αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ Ἡρῴδης:

ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ does not NECESSARILY say anything about the relation between Pilate and Herod. It does not NECESSARILY say anything about whether these are one unit, or whether one would be more expected to find evil in Jesus. The real point, what Payne needs to know is THAT YOU CANNOT READ THE MIND OF AN ANCIENT AUTHOR USING GREEK GRAMMAR, PARTICULARY WHEN NONE OF US, NOT BEING NATIVE SPEAKERS, KNOW ALL THE FINE NUSANCES OF THESE DISTINCTIONS AND IF YOU DON’T KNOW GREEK VERY WELL, YOU SURE AS HECK SHOULD NOT TRY.

Apologies for getting on the soapbox.

19

I just re-read the passage from the beginning and realised that Origen used ἀλλ’ οὐδέ in another place, and ἀλλά another 8 times so I thought it might be worth posting it up to the point where the original extract began. It is an interesting passage. (There’s a link to the whole passage, plus translations where I have found them, at the link on the B-Greek thread called ‘ἀλλ’ οὐδέ in Origen’ in Church Fathers.) Here goes:

Αἱ γυναῖκες ὑμῶν ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις σιγάτωσαν, οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτέτραπται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν, ἀλλ’ ὑποτάσσεσθαι, καθὼς καὶ ὁ νόμος λέγει.

εἰ δέ τι μαθεῖν θέλουσιν, ἐν οἴκῳ τοὺς ἰδίους ἄνδρας ἐπερωτάτωσαν, αἰσχρὸν γάρ ἐστι γυναιξὶ ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ λαλεῖν.

Ὡς γὰρ πάντων λεγόντων καὶ δυναμένων λέγειν, ἐὰν ἀποκάλυψις αὐτοῖς γένηται, φησὶν Αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις σιγάτωσαν.

ταύτης δὲ τῆς ἐντολῆς οὐκ ἦσαν οἱ τῶν γυναικῶν μαθηταί, οἱ μαθητευθέντες Πρισκίλλῃ καὶ Μαξιμίλλῃ, οὐ Χριστοῦ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς τῆς νύμφης.

ἀλλ’ ὅμως εὐγνωμονῶμεν καὶ πρὸς τὰ πιθανὰ ἐκείνων ἀπαντῶντες.

τέσσαρές φασι θυγατέρες ἦσαν Φιλίππου τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ καὶ προεφήτευον.

εἰ δὲ προεφήτευον, τί ἄτοπόν ἐστι καὶ τὰς ἡμετέρας, ὡς φασὶν ἐκεῖνοι, προφήτιδας προφητεύειν; ταῦτα δὲ λύσομεν.

πρῶτον μὲν λέγοντες ὅτι Αἱ ἡμέτεραι προεφήτευον, δείξατε τὰ σημεῖα τῆς προφητείας ἐν αὐταῖς·

δεύτερον δὲ Εἰ καὶ προεφήτευον αἱ θυγατέρες Φιλίππου, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις ἔλεγον·

οὐ γὰρ ἔχομεν τοῦτο ἐν ταῖς Πράξεσι τῶν Ἀποστόλων.

ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ ἐν τῇ παλαιᾷ·

Δεββῶρα μεμαρτύρηται προφῆτις εἶναι, λαβοῦϲα δὲ Μαριὰμ ἡ ἀδελφὴ Ἀαρὼν τὸ τύμπανον ἐξῆρχε τῶν γυναικῶν.

ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἂν εὕροις ὅτι Δεββῶρα ἐδημηγόρησεν εἰς τὸν λαὸν ὥσπερ Ἱερεμίας καὶ Ἡσαΐας·

οὐκ ἂν εὕροις ὅτι Ὀλδὰ προφῆτις οὖσα ἐλάλησε τῷ λαῷ ἀλλ’ ἑνί τινι ἐλθόντι πρὸς αὐτήν.

ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ ἀναγέγραπται Ἄννα προφῆτιϲ, θυγάτηρ Φανουήλ, ἐκ φυλῆϲ Ἀϲήρ·

ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐλάλησεν.

ἵνα οὖν καὶ δοθῇ ἐκ σημείου προφητικοῦ εἶναι προφῆτις γυνή, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπεται ταύτῃ λαλεῖν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ.

ὅτε ἐλάλησε Μαριὰμ κ.τ.λ.

20

Payne is much quoted by the activists pushing for an end to all biblical restraints on women’s ministry, so I do see a need. Equally as alarming, if not more so, is that his view seems to be informing serious commentators too, whose works end up on the shelves of pastors. Actually the example I have to hand points back to Hurley’s 1981 ‘Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective’, which is the reference I H Marshall gives for οὐδέ αὐθεντεῖν introducing a ‘closer definition’ of διδάσκειν. So I need to look up Hurley (p. 201 if anyone has it to hand.)

Andrew