Titus 2:3 "καλοδιδασκάλους"

[Gustav Berloty]

Hi,

I was thinking about the forebidness for a woman to teach (cf. 1 Tim 2:12) and then I saw Titus 2:3.

Titus 2:3:

πρεσβύτιδας ὡσαύτως ἐν καταστήματι ἱεροπρεπεῖς, μὴ διαβόλους, μὴ οἴνῳ πολλῷ δεδουλωμένας, καλοδιδασκάλους,

In its context (Titus 2:2-4, R.P):

πρεσβύτας νηφαλέους εἶναι, σεμνούς, σώφρονας, ὑγιαίνοντας τῇ πίστει, τῇ ἀγάπῃ, τῇ ὑπομονῇ· πρεσβύτιδας ὡσαύτως ἐν καταστήματι ἱεροπρεπεῖς, μὴ διαβόλους, μὴ οἴνῳ πολλῷ δεδουλωμένας, καλοδιδασκάλους, ἵνα σωφρονίζωσιν τὰς νέας φιλάνδρους εἶναι, φιλοτέκνους,

It seems that all the translation that I could have found link "καλοδιδασκάλους" to "πρεσβύτιδας" ; the problem is that such a link create an apparent contradiction with 1 Tim 2:12.

Several parsers say that καλοδιδασκάλους is feminine (eg.: R.P, Tauber) but some others say that it's masculine (e.g: Perseus, Eulexis).
I think actually that the accusative plural -ους makes καλοδιδασκάλους masculine as some parsers say, not feminine.
So my first question is : what do you tink the morphology of this word is, masculine? feminine? if feminine, why?

I would say that if, like some people, we think of καλοδιδασκάλους as feminine then it seems obvious that it refers to πρεσβύτιδας.
Now if we think of καλοδιδασκάλους as masculine, then it seems to refer to πρεσβύτας ! this would implies to see the verse 2 as a kind of little digression, we can see such a kind of digression in multiple places in the New Testament.

With seeing καλοδιδασκάλους as reffering to masculine, we would read Titus 2:2-4 like this :
That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience, (the aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine), teachers of good things, that they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
With the "they" of "that they may teach the young women" as reffering to the aged men (πρεσβύτας) rather than the aged women (πρεσβύτιδας).
My second question is: what do you think of the Titus 2:2-4 reading I proposed ? Is there a mistake ?

I'm very happy to have discovered this reading: it removes the apparent contradiction between 1 Tim 2:12 and Titus 2:3 !

I wish you, with this new reading, a happy 2024 year,

Gustav.

[Eeli Kaikkonen]

EDIT: I'll have to read the original post more carefully...

[James Spinti]

It doesn't look like anyone answered this. This is a compound adjective, or sometimes called a two-termination adjective. Compound adjectives only have the masculine (or what is normally masculine) and neuter endings. The context tells you whether the adjective is masculine or feminine. This one, as you correctly assumed, should be feminine. See Smyth §§288, 289.

Hope that helps,
James

[Ken M. Penner]

If you are inclined to take καλοδιδασκάλους as masculine because of its second-declension ending, why not treat διαβόλους the same way?
Rather, James has the correct answer. Enter διδάσκαλος into the Fléchir un lemme field at https://outils.biblissima.fr/fr/eulexis-web/ or διδασκάλους into the Lemmatiser un texte grec field. The gender is ambiguous.

[Gustav Berloty]

This is a compound adjective, or sometimes called a two-termination adjective. Compound adjectives only have the masculine (or what is normally masculine) and neuter endings. The context tells you whether the adjective is masculine or feminine.

Thanks for the precision James, it helps.

If we isolate the text from the New Testament, and take it just as it is without anymore information, then we have no reason to see a digression as I saw and so the feminine meaning would be the good one due to the subject of such a sentence which would be πρεσβύτιδας.

However.

However, if we consider the epistle to Titus as being incorporated into the Paul's doctrine, then considering the Paul's doctrine could play a major role on how to understand the Paul's words in the epistle.

We know that a part of the Paul's doctrine is the forbidness for a woman to teach (1 Tim 2:12).
Knowing that, we know that the first understanding of Titus 2:3 (καλοδιδασκάλους seen as feminine) contradicts this doctrine of Paul concering women.
From this contradiction we have two ways to behave : either we search if there would not be another gramatically possible meaning of Titus 2:3, or either we just think that Paul (i.e the New Testament) contradicts himself.

But I don't think that the Bible says Yes then No, but rather : Mt 5:37.

Therefore I say : Would there be another gramatically possible meaning of Titus 2:3 ? Yes there is another one, the one I shared in the first post of this thread. And this one doesn't contradict Paul's doctrine.

Therefore knowing that in the Paul's mind it's like impossible for a woman to teach, and believing that the New Testament doesn't contradict itself, I only have one possible interpretation left : καλοδιδασκάλους seen as masculine. Is it wrong ? It depends on the context. The context tells me it's masculine. Which context ? Well, the informations about who is the author.

So, it's no more because of :

its second-declension ending

that I think that καλοδιδασκάλους should be understood as masculine, but because of :

The context

Now, why not see διαβόλους as masculine ? Seeing it as masculine would implies to stop the digression at "ἐν καταστήματι ἱεροπρεπεῖς" included.
At first glance, thus we would think of a translation of Titus 2:3 as that :

That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience, (the aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness), not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things, that they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blaspheme

However such a translation is wrong due to the fact that "δεδουλωμένας" is feminine and not masculine, so this word cannot refer to the aged men, but rather to the aged women. So it would mean that in order to have διαβόλους as masculine we would have to understand "becometh holiness" as reffering to the aged women, then "not false accusers" as reffering to the aged men, then "not given to much wine" as reffering to the aged women, then "teachers of good things" as reffering to the aged men. Is not that just non sense ? Given the point that there is no reason (nor sense I would say) that Paul would switch the subject again and again, we have no reason to see διαβόλους as masculine. That's why διαβόλους is not seen as masculine.

Treating διαβόλους as feminine makes the translation of Titus 2:3 looks like this :

That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience, (the aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine), teachers of good things, that they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

If I'm wrong somewhere please tell me.
If no one has a contradiction to bring to such a thinking, then I wouldn't have a reason to think that it's false.

Gustav.

[Shirley Rollinson]

- - snip snip - - -
We know that a part of the Paul's doctrine is the forbidness for a woman to teach (1 Tim 2:12).
Knowing that, we know that the first understanding of Titus 2:3 (καλοδιδασκάλους seen as feminine) contradicts this doctrine of Paul concering women.
From this contradiction we have two ways to behave : either we search if there would not be another gramatically possible meaning of Titus 2:3, or either we just think that Paul (i.e the New Testament) contradicts himself.
- - - snip snip - - -
Therefore knowing that in the Paul's mind it's like impossible for a woman to teach,

If one reads 1 Tim 2:12 in full, one gets that Paul does not permit women to teach men. It is not a prohibition against women teaching, but a statement that Paul does not permit women to teach men.
(1) It is not a prohibition or a command - it is a statement of fact - Paul did not permit women to teach men. 1 Timothy was written to guide Timothy during a period when Paul was not present (1 Tim 1:3) and when various heretical teachers were active (eg 1 Tim 1:6-7), and some of the women had come under their influence (2 Tim 3:6-7)
(2) Titus 2:3-5 describes what and whom Paul wanted women to teach

[Gustav Berloty]

If one reads 1 Tim 2:12 in full, one gets that Paul does not permit women to teach men.

I haven't ear any ambiguity in greek (neither in the some good english translations, cf. the KJV) : Paul does not permit women to teach. If you don't agree with the reading of 1 Tim 2:12, I invite you to try to demonstrate your interpretation on the threads relatives to 1 Tim 2:12.

it is a statement of fact

It doesn't change the fact that in the Paul's mind it's like impossible that a woman teach.

1 Timothy was written to guide Timothy during a period when Paul was not present (1 Tim 1:3) and when various heretical teachers were active (eg 1 Tim 1:6-7), and some of the women had come under their influence (2 Tim 3:6-7)

If you try here to explain why Paul doesn't permit a woman to teach, Paul himself justify his words by saying right after them :

For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

He didn't justify his words through your statement but by theses words of 1 Tim 2:13-14.

[Eeli Kaikkonen]

This is necessarily a larger exegetical and theological question, and also personal to many of us. This whole discussion has been beaten to death many times, thousands of articles and even whole books written about it, including lexicographical and grammatical problems and non-problems. No consensus has been reached. In my opinion Gustav argues wrongly, but it doesn't mean I would totally agree with Shirley, either.

In any case it's contextually unnatural to make καλοδιδασκάλους to refer to the men, jumping over the immediately preceding women. I recommend reading some good exegetical commentaries to see if any of them agrees with you in this detail. If nobody else mentions this interpretation, you're most probably wrong. See for example https://www.bestcommentaries.com/pastoral-epistles/. For the record, I happen to have Mounce and Towner in my shelf. They are the two best rated academic Greek based technical/semi-technical large commentaries, Mounce being a complementarian and Towner egalitarian. I can check out what they say about this word.

EDIT: neither of them mention in any way a possibility that the word wouldn't refer to the older women.

[Gustav Berloty]

https://www.bestcommentaries.com/pastoral-epistles/

I didn't kow this website, it looks great, thanks for sharing.

EDIT: neither of them mention in any way a possibility that the word wouldn't refer to the older women.

Interesting Eeli, thanks.