1 Tim 2:12 - should both infinitives apply to ANHR?

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.

1 Tim 2:12 - should both infinitives apply to ANHR?

Postby Eric S. Weiss » August 22nd, 2011, 12:31 pm

1 Timothy 2:12:

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

DIDASKEIN DE GUNAIKI OUK EPITREPW, OUDE AUQENTEIN ANDROS, ALL' EINAI EN HSUXIAi.

Most (or at least many) seem to take both DIDASKEIN and AUQENTEIN as applying to ANDROS - i.e., he does not permit a woman to teach a man or to have/assume authority over a man, or to teach a man in an authoritative manner, etc. (depending on one's understanding of the OUK...OUDE clause).

It seems to me that if Paul had wanted both infinitives to apply to ANHR he would more likely have written:

DIDASKEIN DE ANDRA GUNAIKI OUK EPITREPW, OUDE AUQENTEIN, ALL' EINAI EN HSUXIAi.

(I.e., ANHR after the first infinitive rather than the second. The commentaries I was able to check (NIGTC and New American Commentary) didn't provide much help, and the examples NIGTC gave didn't seem to address this.)

So: Does the word order seem to favor just AUQENTEIN pertaining to ANHR, with Paul thus not in this passage permitting a woman to teach [anyone] at all, but only to learn in quiet submission?
Eric S. Weiss
Eric S. Weiss
 
Posts: 20
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 1:45 pm

Re: 1 Tim 2:12 - should both infinitives apply to ANHR?

Postby Stephen Carlson » August 24th, 2011, 8:16 am

Eric S. Weiss wrote:So: Does the word order seem to favor just AUQENTEIN pertaining to ANHR, with Paul thus not in this passage permitting a woman to teach [anyone] at all, but only to learn in quiet submission?


Syntactically ἀνδρός pertains only to αὐθεντεῖν, and διδάσκειν is absolute. The issue is that when a speaker does not supply an object for διδάσκειν explicitly, it can be implied from context. It's not necessarily the case that, because no object is given explicitly, no implicit object is given either.

The fronting of διδάσκειν, which appears to be for topicalization purposes (e.g., "Now as for teaching, I don't permit women to do it..."), suggests to me that the context for this verb is the same as in the previous verse, i.e. in whatever context in which women should learn in silence, the author does not permit the women to teach.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke, New Testament)
Stephen Carlson
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: 1 Tim 2:12 - should both infinitives apply to ANHR?

Postby Mark Lightman » August 26th, 2011, 11:01 pm

Hi, Eric,

I do think that ἀνδρός is, according to the sense, the object of both verbs, in a case of what linguists call "gapping," which is very common in Greek.

Now for something completely different. Ann Nyland, in her Source New Testament, does something very strange with this verse:

"I certainly do not grant authority to a woman to teach that she is the originator of man--rather she is not to cause a fuss.


Do you see what she is doing here? She is taking αὐθεντεῖν as indirect discourse after διδάσκειν. She has notes to justify this, as well as for her unusual renderings of αὐθεντεῖν and ἡσυχία.

Nyland was a member and sometime contributor to the old B-Greek. I think she is awesome, and would enjoy hearing from her on this and other topics. But if you have not seen her book, it is a remarkable example of the fact that Koine Greek, due to its ambiguity, is the perfect language if you want to make a text say something you want it to say.
Mark Lightman
 
Posts: 258
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 6:30 pm

Re: 1 Tim 2:12 - should both infinitives apply to ANHR?

Postby George F Somsel » August 27th, 2011, 3:56 am

I too have appreciated Ann's past contributions to the list. Unfortunately, however, she does have an agenda which is to remove perceived disabilities imposed upon women most particularly in Paul (assuming for the sake of argument that Paul did write this epistle). This derives form a very literal and authoritative understanding of the texts without taking into account the possibility of any accomodation to the social mileau of the time.

In this case she has latched onto an incorrect understanding of the word αὐθεντέω as "murderer" or "perpetrator, author." This understanding has been dispatched in Moulton and Milligan's Vocabulary of the Greek Testament.

The history of this word has been satisfactorily cleared up by P. Kretschmer, in Glotta iii. (1912), p. 289ff. He shows that αὐθέντης “murderer” is by haplology for αὐτοθέντης from θείνω, while αὐθέντης “master” (as in literary MGr) is from αὐτ-ἕντης (cf. συνέντης· συνεργός in Hesychius, root sen “accomplish,” ἀνύω).


I'm afraid I am compelled to disagree with my friend Ann on this matter. It would seem rather that the author was accomodating to the social customs of the time and advising conduct which would not bring disrepute upon the Church.
george
gfsomsel



… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.



- Jan Hus
George F Somsel
 
Posts: 109
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 10:11 am

Re: 1 Tim 2:12 - should both infinitives apply to ANHR?

Postby Mark Lightman » August 27th, 2011, 11:23 am

Hi, George. It's nice to see you on the new forum.

I too have appreciated Ann's past contributions to the list. Unfortunately, however, she does have an agenda which is to remove perceived disabilities imposed upon women most particularly in Paul...


I agree, not that this is NECESSARILY a bad thing. One might almost say that, for Nyland, context is queen. :mrgreen:
Mark Lightman
 
Posts: 258
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 6:30 pm

Re: 1 Tim 2:12 - should both infinitives apply to ANHR?

Postby Eric S. Weiss » August 29th, 2011, 8:15 am

Mark Lightman wrote:Hi, Eric,

I do think that ἀνδρός is, according to the sense, the object of both verbs, in a case of what linguists call "gapping," which is very common in Greek.

Now for something completely different. Ann Nyland, in her Source New Testament, does something very strange with this verse:

"I certainly do not grant authority to a woman to teach that she is the originator of man--rather she is not to cause a fuss.


Do you see what she is doing here? She is taking αὐθεντεῖν as indirect discourse after διδάσκειν. She has notes to justify this, as well as for her unusual renderings of αὐθεντεῖν and ἡσυχία.

Nyland was a member and sometime contributor to the old B-Greek. I think she is awesome, and would enjoy hearing from her on this and other topics. But if you have not seen her book, it is a remarkable example of the fact that Koine Greek, due to its ambiguity, is the perfect language if you want to make a text say something you want it to say.


I have Dr. Nyland's book, and refer to it on occasion. Sometimes it seems to me there is some eisegesis going on with her translations, though I don't have the expertise or familiarity with non-NT Greek texts to confirm or question her renderings. 1 Tim 2 is fraught with difficulties, and interpreters end up arguing on the word and clause/phrase level - e.g., the meaning of authentein, whether anêr is the object of both infinitives (my question here), if ê gunê in 2:14 is an anaphoric reference back to Eve in 2:13 or a reference back to gunê in 2:11, who may or may not be a particular woman who was teaching heterodoxy or even something gnostic like that man originated from woman, etc. I think the definitions and syntax and referents have to be determined first before one can attempt to accurately translate it, hence my syntax question here. Thanks for your (all of you) input and responses!
Eric S. Weiss
Eric S. Weiss
 
Posts: 20
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 1:45 pm

Re: 1 Tim 2:12 - should both infinitives apply to ANHR?

Postby timothy_p_mcmahon » September 3rd, 2011, 9:30 pm

Regardless of the meaning of αὐθεντεῖν, what about Nyland's take on the syntax? Is it really possible to understand αὐθεντεῖν as the content of the activity of διδάσκειν in this context? I find her notes unconvincing and am wondering what other, more-experienced readers think of the viability specifically of this aspect of Nyland's proposal.
timothy_p_mcmahon
 
Posts: 139
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:47 pm

Re: 1 Tim 2:12 - should both infinitives apply to ANHR?

Postby Michael Abernathy » September 4th, 2011, 3:23 am

Years ago I read an article (I can't remember which one) that argued that when the verb for permit is followed by two infinitives the second infinitive often states the purpose of the first infinitive. As I remember the author gave the example of Matthew 8:21 to substantiate his claim.
κύριε, ἐπίτρεψον μοι πρω̂τον ἀπελθει̂ν καὶ θάψαι τὸν πατέρα μου.
Lord, permit me first to go and to bury my father.
I haven't seen much else on this subject.but it appears to be a possibility.
Sincerely,
Michael Abernathy
Michael Abernathy
 
Posts: 18
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:49 am

Re: 1 Tim 2:12 - should both infinitives apply to ANHR?

Postby KimmoHuovila » September 6th, 2011, 2:53 pm

Michael Abernathy wrote:Years ago I read an article (I can't remember which one) that argued that when the verb for permit is followed by two infinitives the second infinitive often states the purpose of the first infinitive. As I remember the author gave the example of Matthew 8:21 to substantiate his claim.
κύριε, ἐπίτρεψον μοι πρω̂τον ἀπελθει̂ν καὶ θάψαι τὸν πατέρα μου.
Lord, permit me first to go and to bury my father.
I haven't seen much else on this subject.but it appears to be a possibility.
Sincerely,
Michael Abernathy


How do you see Matt 8:21 as parallel? There burying is the purpose of going. If that parallels 1 Tim. 2:12, would not αὐθεντεῖν be the purpose, not the content of διδάσκειν? Also, the difference between καί and οὐδέ may be significant. Are there any passages with οὐδέ or δέ introducing the content of indirect speech or teaching?
Kimmo Huovila
KimmoHuovila
 
Posts: 43
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 8:57 am

Re: 1 Tim 2:12 - should both infinitives apply to ANHR?

Postby Eric S. Weiss » September 12th, 2011, 7:51 am

I just thought of another reason why ἀνδρός might only be the object of αὐθεντεῖν and not both διδάσκειν and αὐθεντεῖν. Looking at both 2:11 and 2:12 we have:

11 γυνὴ ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ μανθανέτω ἐν πάσῃ ὑποταγῇ:
12 διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ' εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ.

If διδάσκειν is meant in contrast to μανθανέτω, and αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός is meant in contrast to ὑποταγῇ (with ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ being repeated in both verses), it would mean:

In quietness let a woman learn - but not teach.
In quietness let a woman be in subjection (to men [teachers]?) - but not be in, or take authority over, a man.
Eric S. Weiss
Eric S. Weiss
 
Posts: 20
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 1:45 pm

Next

Return to New Testament

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest

cron