BDAG, I Tim. 2.12 [and] ἀνήρ?

I don't understand what my textbook is saying about X. Can someone help me?
Post Reply
R. Perkins
Posts: 74
Joined: January 18th, 2013, 9:55 pm

BDAG, I Tim. 2.12 [and] ἀνήρ?

Post by R. Perkins » May 28th, 2015, 3:25 am

ἀνήρ, ἀνδρός, ὁ (Hom. +, common in all the mngs. known to our lit.) a male person

1 an adult human male, man, husband a in contrast to woman man (Pla., Gorg. 514e; X., Hell. 4, 5, 5 et al.) Mt 14:21; 15:38; Mk 6:44; Lk 9:14; J 1:13; Ac 4:4; 8:3, 12; 1 Cor 11:3, 7ff; Hm 5, 2, 2; 6, 2, 7; 12, 2, 1 al. Hence ἄνδρα γινώσκειν (יָדְעָה אִישׁ Gen 19:8; Judg 11:39) of a woman have sexual intercourse w. a man Lk 1:34 (cp. Just., D. 78, 3 ἀπὸ συνουσίας ἀνδρός). Esp. husband (Hom. et al.; Diod. S. 2, 8, 6; Sir 4:10; Jos., Ant. 18, 149; Ar. 12, 2; fgm. Milne p. 74 ln. 3; Just., A II, 2, 5ff; for this shift from the general to the specific cp. our ‘that’s her man’, ‘my man’) Mt 1:16, 19; Mk 10:2, 12; Lk 2:36; J 4:16ff; Ac 5:9f; Ro 7:2f (Sb 8010, 21 [pap I A. D.] μέχρι οὗ ἐὰν συνέρχωμαι ἑτέρῳ ἀνδρί; PLond V, 1731, 16 [VI A. D.] κολλᾶσθαι ἑτέρῳ ἀνδρί); 1 Cor 7:2ff, 10ff; 14:35; Gal 4:27; Eph 5:22ff; Col 3:18f; 1 Ti 3:2, 12; 5:9; Tit 1:6 (on the four last ref. εἷς 2b, the comm. and JFischer, Weidenauer Studien 1, 1906, 177- 226; comparison w. non- Christian sources in J- BFrey, Signification des termes μονάνδρα et Univira:RSR 20, 1930, 48- 60; GDelling, Pls’ Stellung z. Frau u. Ehe ’31, 136ff; BEaston, Past. Epistles, ’47, 216ff; WSchulze, Kerygma und Dogma [Göttingen] 4, ’58, 287- 300) 2:5; 1 Pt 3:1, 5, 7; Hm 4, 1, 4ff; 1 Cl 6:3; Pol 4:2; AcPl Ha 4, 5. – 1 Ti 2:12 (cp. Ocellus Luc. c. 49:the wife wishes ἄρχειν τοῦ ἀνδρὸς παρὰ τὸν τῆς φύσεως νόμον). Even a bridegroom can be so called (cp. אִישׁ Dt 22:23) ὡς νύμφην κεκοσμημένην τῷ ἀνδρὶ αὐτῆς Rv 21. (BDAG)


**Hope I am not breaking any forum rules by asking this question on here (if so, pls. pardon my ignorance :oops: ), but here I am honestly confused? Is BDAG above interpreting ἀνήρ in I Tim. 2.12 to only refer to a "husband" - when they have previously identified the "shift from the general to the specific" as containing possessive markings (i.e., possessive pronouns)? There are no such possessive markings in I Tim. 2.12 - why then are they identifying this noun (ἀνήρ) in said verse (2.12) as a "husband"?

**Thank you much in advance (BTW, I really have gleaned from this forum - mostly just reading)!
0 x



Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 410
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: BDAG, I Tim. 2.12 [and] ἀνήρ?

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen » May 28th, 2015, 5:07 am

R. Perkins wrote:Hope I am not breaking any forum rules by asking this question on here (if so, pls. pardon my ignorance :oops: ), but here I am honestly confused? Is BDAG above interpreting ἀνήρ in I Tim. 2.12 to only refer to a "husband" - when they have previously identified the "shift from the general to the specific" as containing possessive markings (i.e., possessive pronouns)? There are no such possessive markings in I Tim. 2.12 - why then are they identifying this noun (ἀνήρ) in said verse (2.12) as a "husband"?
I don't think you're breaking the rules as long as we focus on the Greek language, not theological presuppositions. The passage is hotly debated and every word and grammatical detail and interpretation have been questioned in the debates. One right question here would be: in what kinds of contexts the word ανηρ refers to a husband of a woman instead of a male person in general? Is it enough that a woman is also mentioned? What about the article or the lack of it? Both γυνη and ανηρ are singular, anarthrous and refer to group of people instead of one particular person, singular as a representative of the whole group - unless ανηρ means husband. Then it would refer to only the husband of each woman. Is that possible? Would the article have been used if it meant a husband? Someone else must continue from here.
0 x

Paul-Nitz
Posts: 435
Joined: June 1st, 2011, 4:19 am
Location: Lilongwe, Malawi

Re: BDAG, I Tim. 2.12 [and] ἀνήρ?

Post by Paul-Nitz » May 28th, 2015, 8:59 am

R. Perkins,

Your question is fine. You are asking about the Greek and what it means. More specifically, you are asking what BDAG means to say about 1 Tim. 2:12.

I got a bit carried away in answering your question because I’m interested in the use of lexicons and how to advise my students. My general conclusion on that matter is that BDAG has such a clipped, abbreviated style that learners would need considerable direction in order to be able to use it. This is especially in the case of learners from an oral culture like my students. But I wonder too how many European/American students would find a lexicon like BDAG comprehensible.. A reader has to pay very close attention to specific conventions, such as the use of periods (full stops). Some of the conventions (em dash) are unclear. Some information can be understood only by implication. This entry on ἀνήρ is a prime example. I've written out an explanation of it to show just how hard it is to understand.
  • The beginning of the entry in BDAG reads "1 an adult human male, man husband (a) in contrast to woman man"

    Already, we have some conventions to understand. The words, "an adult human male" is the definition and "man husband" in italics are glosses. Then, in point (a) we have the words "in contrast to woman man" We must put this together with the previous words to make a full definition:"an adult human male in contrast to woman.’ And again we note that man is a gloss. The entry carries on by backing up this definition with several examples. Then we find a period.

    We have to understand from that period that a new point is being made, though we also need to note that BDAG is still commenting on definition 1a, ‘an adult human male in contrast to woman.’ The period is followed by the words, “Esp. husband.” I suppose BDAG means to say that the word ἀνήρ is not just used for a “male/man,” but also used especially for what in English would be glossed as “husband.”

    What follows is a section in parentheses. The first half of the parenthetical material is extra biblical references related to the point. This is followed by a semicolon and the words, “for this shift from the general to the specific cp. our ‘that’s her man’, ‘my man’)”.

    The implied thought is: Compare how we say in English “that’s her man.” It is similar to how Greek uses ἀνήρ.

    Two sets of NT examples follow (separated by a semicolon) and are concluded with a period.
    • Some of those examples contain ἀνήρ with a possessive, making it clear that the author has “husband” in mind (“her man” = husband).
      Other examples contain ἀνήρ preceded by an article, also making it clear that the author has “husband” in mind. E.g.
      • Matthew 1:16 Ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας. “the man of Mary”
        1 Corinthians 11:3 παντὸς ἀνδρὸς ἡ κεφαλὴ ὁ Χριστός ἐστιν, κεφαλὴ δὲ γυναικὸς ὁ ἀνήρ. “so the head of a woman is the (her) man.”
      Other examples have neither possessive or articularized ἀνήρ, but clearly the author has husband in mind. E.g. Mark 10:4 εἰ ἔξεστιν ἀνδρὶ γυναῖκα ἀπολῦσαι. …if it is lawful for a man (husband) to divorce a woman (his wife).
    Following the two sets of example references, we see the bit you are asking about:
    • —1 Ti 2:12 (cp. Ocellus Luc. c. 49: the wife wishes ἄρχειν τοῦ ἀνδρὸς παρὰ τὸν τῆς φύσεως νόμον).
    Now what does that em dash (—) mean? I suppose it means something like, “Related to this point…” The implied thought (I’m guessing) is: Related to the use of ἀνήρ meaning “husband,” Ocellus, in commenting on 1 Tim. 2:12 says, “the wife wishes to rule τοῦ ἀνδρός (her husband), setting aside natural order.”
So, to your specific question, “Is BDAG above interpreting ἀνήρ in ! Tim. 2:12 to only refer to ‘husband’?”, no. BDAG is just giving a extra biblical example of the use of ἀνήρ in the sense of “husband.”

Eeli Koikkonen’s comments bring us to the question of whether ἀνήρ in 1 Timothy 2:12 has in mind “men” or “husbands.” Here are my thoughts on that:
The literal and default (though not necessarily most common) meaning for a word is where I start. -Ἀνήρ indicates a man, one of those typically hairy and aggressive things, not just a human. There are other words in easy reach to convey “human.” There are no other distinct words on a nearby shelf for “husband” in Koine. The context usually makes it clear whether “a man” is being pictured or “a certain man who is the ‘man’ of a woman.” If there is a possessive or an article, the intent is often the idea of “husband.” The absence of a possessive (ἀνήρ αὐτῆς) or article (ὁ ἀνήρ) doesn’t in itself mean that the author did not have the idea of “husband” in mind.
  • In 1 Timothy 2:12, we don’t see either a possessive or article. It seems to me that Paul would state it differently if he had a husband in mind. He might have written, διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν τοῦ ἀνδρός. Or, ...ἀνδρός αὐτῆς.

    The general topic in the context is behaviour in church/ worship, not marriage.

    In verse 13, Paul supports what he teaches women in the church by calling back to the beginning of Time. He refers to the order of creation, first Adam, then Eve. If he wanted to support a point about the relationship between Adam and Eve as husband and wife, he might have written, “See how things got messed up when Eve took the lead and ate the fruit,” or something like that.
So, my understanding of the text and context is that Paul is teaching the women a principle about their relationship to men/males, rather than a guideline between individual wives and husbands.
0 x
Paul D. Nitz - Lilongwe Malawi

Andrew Chapman
Posts: 258
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: BDAG, I Tim. 2.12 [and] ἀνήρ?

Post by Andrew Chapman » May 28th, 2015, 9:06 am

It does look like BDAG has it under 'husband', but I would like to know what is the significance of the long dash just before it. [EDIT: Thanks, Paul, I now see, if I understand you, that BDAG sees ἀνήρ in 1 Tim 2.12 as uncertain, and is presenting the Ocellus text as information pertinent to making a judgement about it.]

Winer (W-Moulton 3rd, p152) has ἀνήρ with meaning 'husband' for 1 Timothy 2.12 and Ephesians 5.23, in a long section (19) entitled 'Omission of the article before nouns'. The section begins (I think an 'appellative' means a common noun, and has nothing to do here with the vocative case):
1. Appellatives which, as denoting definite objects, should naturally have the article, are in certain cases used without it, not only in the N. T. , but also in the best Greek writers: see Schaefer, Melet. p.4. Such an omission, however, takes place only when it occasions no ambiguity, and does not leave the reader in doubt whether he is to regard the word as definite or indefinite. Hence (a) The article is omitted before words which denote objects of which there is but one in existence , and which therefore are nearly equivalent to proper names. Thus ἥλιος is almost as common as ὁ ἥλιος ...

This first example shows me that relying on English intuition may not work - we use the article when we speak of the sun. I can also see that a husband is (so to speak) 'an object of which there is but one in existence', so it makes sense that the article could be dropped in some circumstances, at least.

On the other hand, Winer doesn't seem to me to be keeping to his own rule about ambiguity, since ἀνήρ certainly could mean 'a man' in 1 Timothy 2.12.

Andrew

This was written before I saw Paul Nitz's reply, which I am now going to study.
0 x

Andrew Chapman
Posts: 258
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: BDAG, I Tim. 2.12 [and] ἀνήρ?

Post by Andrew Chapman » May 28th, 2015, 9:28 am

Paul-Nitz wrote:Ocellus, in commenting on 1 Tim. 2:12
Ocellus Lucanus is dated II? BC in BDAG.

Andrew

[EDIT: to add to my previous post, BDF 257.3b has '1 T 2.12 γυναικὶ. . .ἀνδρός (instead of: "over her husband")'. Personally, I agree with Paul Nitz's opinion.]
0 x

Paul-Nitz
Posts: 435
Joined: June 1st, 2011, 4:19 am
Location: Lilongwe, Malawi

Re: BDAG, I Tim. 2.12 [and] ἀνήρ?

Post by Paul-Nitz » May 28th, 2015, 10:06 am

Okay, so Ocellus could not have been writing about 1 Tim. 2:12. Then what is BDAG meaning with the line:
  • “—1 Ti 2:12 (cp. Ocellus Luc. c. 49: the wife wishes ἄρχειν τοῦ ἀνδρὸς παρὰ τὸν τῆς φύσεως νόμον).”
The quotation doesn't really shed any light on the meaning of ἀνήρ in 1 Tim 2:12, as far as I see.

I can't find Ocellus online to look at the context. The way BDAG puts it ("The wife wishes...") it is clear that ἀνήρ would picture THE husband. τοῦ ἀνδρός is possibly picturing the whole class: husbands.

From Thompsons, A Syntax of Attic Greek
  • (B) The Article denotes the whole of a class, with substanticves or adjectives, in singular or plural.
    • ὁ ῥήτωρ the (professional) speaker
      οἱ ἱπποι the knights
      οἱ σοφοί ἄνδρες the wise men
      ὁ φρόνιμος the prudent man
      οἱ πονηροί bad men
0 x
Paul D. Nitz - Lilongwe Malawi

R. Perkins
Posts: 74
Joined: January 18th, 2013, 9:55 pm

Re: BDAG, I Tim. 2.12 [and] ἀνήρ?

Post by R. Perkins » May 28th, 2015, 9:13 pm

Okay - Many thanks to everyone who posted thus far. Interesting & helpful. It has been through much trial & error over the years that I have learned to read lexicons very carefully - attending to semicolons & periods specifically. The em dash (----) is confusing.

Even more confusing is BDAG's comparison of Ocellus to I Tim. 2.12. My suspicion is that they are making a comparison to the syntax in Ocellus's statement & I Tim. 2.12. But, the problem with this is that both nouns (i.e., "aner" & "gyne") are anarthrous - as well as lacking any possessives. Same with the excellent references in Thompsons Syntax of Attic Greek provided by Paul-Nitz (i.e., these references all have articular nouns - whereas I Tim. 2.12 does not).

Regardless, as Dr. Daniel Wallace told me personally (full email text below):

"Gune and aner are words which mean 'adult female' and 'adult male' in their unmarked meanings. Only if there are sufficient contextual clues that husband and wife are in view do the words mean 'wife' and 'husband.' Although there is a minority opinion that husband and wife are in view in both of these passages, it has not affected the majority of translations. Generally speaking, the definite article or 'idios' (one's own) or a possessive pronoun is required to show that husband and wife are in the text. None of these things occur in 1 Tim 2. The article occurs in 1 Cor 11, but only because it is syntactically required by the construction. Both passages are clearly talking about the Christian community in worship, which would of course involve single adults and married couples. Take a look at other passages that are clearly speaking about husband and wife--e.g., Eph 5, 1 Peter 3--and you'll see that they use these signals to note that husband and wife are in view." (email 9/28/10)

Again, I appreciate the input.
0 x

Andrew Chapman
Posts: 258
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: BDAG, I Tim. 2.12 [and] ἀνήρ?

Post by Andrew Chapman » May 29th, 2015, 3:42 pm

Here's the text from Ocellus, On the Nature of the Universe, 4.6:
(6) ὅθεν ἁμαρτάνουσι πολλοί, μὴ πρὸς τὸ <..... ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ> μέγεθος τῆς @1
τύχης μηδὲ πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον τῷ κοινῷ συνιστάντες τοὺς γάμους, ἀλλὰ
πρὸς τὸν πλοῦτον ἢ τὴν ὑπεροχὴν τοῦ γένους ἀποβλέποντες. ἀντὶ μὲν
γὰρ τοῦ νέαν καὶ ὡραίαν συναρμόζεσθαι συνηρμόσαντο ἂν τὴν ὑπερη-   (5)
λικεστέραν, ἀντὶ δὲ τοῦ συμπαθῆ τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ ὁμοιοτάτην ἐπίδοξον
τῷ γένει ἢ ὑπερχρήματον. τοιγάρτοι ἀντὶ συμφωνίας διαφωνίαν καὶ
ἀντὶ ὁμοφροσύνης διχοφροσύνην κατασκευάζουσι περὶ ἡγεμονίας διαμα-
χόμενοι πρὸς ἀλλήλους· ἡ μὲν γὰρ ὑπερέχουσα πλούτῳ καὶ γένει καὶ
φίλοις ἄρχειν προαιρεῖται τοῦ ἀνδρὸς παρὰ τὸν τῆς φύσεως νόμον, ὁ   (10)
δέ γε διαμαχόμενος δικαίως καὶ οὐ δεύτερος ἀλλὰ πρῶτος θέλων εἶναι
ἀδυνατεῖ τῆς ἡγεμονίας ἐφικέσθαι.
There's a translation here: https://ia802608.us.archive.org/14/item ... ocgoog.pdf at pp 24-5 (43-4 of the pdf).

Andrew
0 x

Post Reply