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.
Andrew Chapman
Posts: 248
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England

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

Post by Andrew Chapman » June 19th, 2013, 3:02 pm

διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ' εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ.
I looked this up in some of the older commentaries - Ellicott, Fairbairn, Bernard, Kelly - they all take it for granted that διδασκειν here is intransitive. For example, Kelly:
But to teach I permit not a woman nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness
with a footnote:
The emphatic place is restored in accordance with א A D F G P, many cursives, Vulg. Goth. Arm. etc, and so I imitate in English.
More recently, Fung writes (in The Church in the Bible and the World, pp 198-9):
Some scholars take andros as the object of both didaskein and authentein, the sense being that in the life of the church of woman is not permitted to 'teach or have authority over' a man; and since teaching and having authority (equated with ruling) are among the chief functions of the presbyteros or episkopos (cf. I Tim. 3:2; 5:17) - the presbyter-bishop gives the congregation authoritative teaching which is enforced by means of church discipline — Paul is taken to mean that women are prohibited from serving in ruling and teaching offices or functions.[191] To this way of construing the grammatical function of andros, it has rightly been objected that it is 'too far removed from "to teach" to be understood as qualifying the meaning of that verb as well';[192] if Paul's intention had indeed been to say 'I do not permit a woman to teach men or to have authority over a man' he would probably have written either didaskein andra . . . ouk epitrepo oude authentein andros or, if that be considered a little clumsy, didaskein andra . . . ouk epitrepo oude authentein [sc. andros], to judge by similar constructions with ouk . . . oude.[193]
The relevant footnotes:
191 E.g. Knight, Role Relationship 30, 49, 51, 52; idem, 'Role Relation­ship' 84-85; Foh, Women 125-126, 239, 248.

192 Payne, 'Libertarian Women', 175.

193 With the first suggestion cf. 1 Jn. 3:6b, pas ho hamartanon ouch hed raken auton oude egndken auton', with the second suggestion cf. Jn. 14:173, hoti ou thedrei auto oude ginoskei (sc. auto). From the Pauline writings, two of the passages referred to in the next note seem to offer help here: Rom. 8:7 to . . . nomo tou theou ouch hypotassetai, oude gar dynatai Gal. 4:14 kai tonpeirasmon hymon . . . ouk exouthene sate oude exeptysate. While neither of these examples exactly repro­ duces the structure of i Tim. 2:12, in both of them the ou clause is complete in itself and the complement or object of the verb after oude is to be supplied from the ou-clause. With Gal. 4:14 cf. Heb. 10:8, thysias . . . ouk ethelesas oude eudokesas.

Andrew Chapman
Posts: 248
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England

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

Post by Andrew Chapman » March 17th, 2014, 1:54 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.
We do this in English with a few verbs like 'go' and 'try'.

'Go and buy some milk' = 'go to buy some milk'
'Try and fix your bicycle' = 'try to fix your bicycle'

It seems to me that this happens because the verb demands a complement of this sort. 'Try' is inherently purposeful, and purpose is implicit with going, because it is not the going that is the purpose, but whatever one does when one reaches the destination.

My English dictionary, under entry 'and', has an addendum which reads:
A small number of verbs, notably 'try', 'come' and 'go' can be followed by 'and' with another verb, as in sentences like 'we're going to try and explain it to them..' The structures in these verbs correspond to the use of the infinitive 'to', as in 'we're going to try to explain it to them..' .. Since these structures are grammatically odd - for example, the use is normally only idiomatic with the infinitive of the verb and not with other forms (i.e. it is not possible to say 'I tried and explained it to them') - they are regarded as wrong by some traditionalists. However, these uses are extremely common in just about every context and can certainly be regarded as standard English.

In English, this isn't idiomatic with most verbs. And 'I will teach [you] and fix your bicycle' would not mean 'I will teach [you] to fix your bicycle'.

I suspect that the same sort of thing is happening with ἐπίτρεψον μοι πρω̂τον ἀπελθει̂ν καὶ θάψαι τὸν πατέρα μου. καὶ is connective; I think one understands that the terms are sequential - to go and then to bury - and one infers purpose. So I don't find this example convincing as regards showing anything about ἐπιτρέπω followed by two infinitives. I suspect this is something that happens naturally with ἔρχομαι.


Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest