Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Are you learning Koine Greek, the Greek of the New Testament and most other post-classical Greek texts? Whatever your level, use this forum to discuss all things Koine, Biblical or otherwise, including grammar, textbook talk, difficult passages, and more.
User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Member
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by Andrew Chapman »

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

Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2090
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by Qimmik »

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

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2292
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by Paul Derouda »

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)?

Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2090
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by Qimmik »

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 . . . "

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2292
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by Paul Derouda »

Qimmik wrote:Paul, the subject of ἐλάλησε is Μαριὰμ.
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.
Qimmik wrote: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 . . . "
That makes sense to me. ἐκεῖνο is "the statement from elsewhere".

What do you think about ἁπλῶς?

Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2090
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by Qimmik »

What do you think about ἁπλῶς?
That's getting too deep controversial territory for me.
Last edited by Qimmik on Thu Feb 20, 2014 1:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Markos
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2966
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by Markos »

Andrew Chapman wrote: 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?
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.
οὐ μανθάνω γράφειν, ἀλλὰ γράφω τοῦ μαθεῖν.

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2292
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by Paul Derouda »

Markos wrote: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.
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.
Markos wrote: 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.
Actually, the antecedent of "this" is technically "John 3:16 says the same thing as Romans 10:9". But I digress. :)
Markos wrote:
Or, if I may ask a more open question, what is Origen saying here?
That women should not teach.
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.

User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Member
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by Andrew Chapman »

Thanks very much, everybody, that's a great help.
Markos wrote:If for some reason you want (an artificial) precision
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):

Image

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.
Qimmik wrote:εἴρηται is perfect passive.
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?
Paul Derouda wrote: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.
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

Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2090
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by Qimmik »

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/tex ... %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.
Last edited by Qimmik on Thu Feb 20, 2014 2:49 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2292
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by Paul Derouda »

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...

C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1259
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by C. S. Bartholomew »

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-gr ... 51994.html
Last edited by C. S. Bartholomew on Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2090
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by Qimmik »

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/tex ... 99.04.0007

2377

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... thp%3D2377

User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Member
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by Andrew Chapman »

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

User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Member
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by Andrew Chapman »

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Why are you reading Payne? There are better things to read.
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

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2292
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by Paul Derouda »

Andrew Chapman wrote:
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?
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.

C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1259
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by C. S. Bartholomew »

Andrew Chapman wrote:
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Why are you reading Payne? There are better things to read.
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.
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
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=61120
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
Last edited by C. S. Bartholomew on Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Markos
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2966
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by Markos »

Andrew Chapman wrote:
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Why are you reading Payne? There are better things to read.
In order to reply to him.
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.

User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Member
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by Andrew Chapman »

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.

User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Member
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by Andrew Chapman »

C. S. Bartholomew wrote: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.
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

C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1259
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by C. S. Bartholomew »

[quote="Andrew Chapman"
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. [/quote]

I see what you mean. I just looked in both Marshal and Mounce commentaries on Pastoral Epistles. Both of them cite Payne several times. I haven't hardly flexed the bindings on these books since I bought them. Not an expert on Paul or deutro-Paul. A good reason to leave this job to someone who is better equipped. A friend of mine had his copy of Mounce Pastoral Epistles stolen from him! What a world we live in.
C. Stirling Bartholomew

User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Member
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by Andrew Chapman »

Andrew Chapman wrote: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.
Here is Hurley:

Image

Well, that seems all muddled to me. To start with, I think everyone would agree that teaching and the exercise of authority are related semantically; there is a considerable overlap. For example, it's hard to imagine any form of teaching that does not involve some sort of exercise of authority - eg 'please turn to p.123 of your textbooks' etc. And conversely, in the same letter to Timothy, Paul stipulates that the ἐπίσκοπος is to be διδακτικός, able to teach.

Hurley's 'Paul's grammar permits this reading by inserting the "or" ' seems strange to me, if not disingenuous, since 'permits' implies that the grammar allows for other readings, which are not however explained. What other ways are there of reading:

'διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός..' ?

The main argument, if one can call it such, seems to be that:
a) Verse 11 has only one exhortation - there is one verb, modified by two adverbial phrases:
γυνὴ ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ μανθανέτω ἐν πάσῃ ὑποταγῇ·
b) Verses 11 and 12 are parallel.
c)Therefore verse 12 contains only one prohibition, that of authoritative teaching.

In answer to which I would say that the big difference between verse 11 and verse 12a is that the latter has two verbs joined by a coordinating conjunction, whereas verse 11 has just the one verb, so there is obviously a limit to the parallelism, especially from a grammatical point of view.

Andrew

C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1259
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by C. S. Bartholomew »

Andrew,

D. C. Parker[1] has a brief discussion of P. B. Payne's treatment of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

Searching on the Quote :
"Payne's argument , however, is weak, indeed part of it seems hopelessly confused … " this quote appears to be a quotation from one of D. C. Parker's journal articles which appear as block quote citations throughout the textbook.

I found the whole book online and amazingly, can't imagine Oxford is allowing free access to a text book published in 2008. I was able to cut and past the relevant material.

An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and their Texts [Paperback]
D. C. Parker, p275-26
8.9.1 1 Corinthians 14.34–5
Debate about the possibility that these verses are an interpolation has
grown over recent years, as the way in which the role of women changed
in early Christianity has been exposed to greater critical scrutiny. The fact
that Zuntz thought the verses were post-Pauline (though in the archetype
of the tradition) already suggests that there is more to this than a current
interest.
1. The Evidence
As with the shorter forms of Romans, our evidence is indirect. The most
important observation is that a small group of witnesses place the verses
after verse 40. These are the Greek manuscripts 06 010 012 88 915, the
Syriac Peshitta and the Latin manuscripts 61 89 with Ambrosiaster and
Sedulius Scotus. The Latin witnesses are largely the bilinguals, whose
agreement takes us back either to the mid-fourth or the third century. The
other Latin evidence, including Ambrosiaster’s writing between 366 and
378 in Rome, suggests that the reading was widespread in the Latin world.
Indeed, as Fee points out, it is the reading of all witnesses except those
which represent the Vulgate text, known from about 400 onwards. That is,
the only text in the west before 400 placed the verses after verse 40.
The Greek manuscript 88 was copied in the twelfth century and 915 in
the thirteenth. Both manuscripts belong to the Byzantine textual tradition.
As well as placing the verses after 40, 88 contains a correction
(perhaps by the scribe) indicating that they belong after verse 33.
Paul 275
Evidence for the different text forms in Greek in Text und Textwert 2.2, Teststelle 50. According to P. B. Payne, ‘Ms. 88 as Evidence for a Text without 1 Cor 14.34–5’, NTS 44 (1998), 152–6, the phenomenon in 88 can only be explained by positing that it was copied from a manuscript which lacked the verses. Payne’s argument, however, is weak, indeed part of it seems hopelessly confused. It is probably safest to posit that the exemplar of 88 had vv. 34–5 after v. 40. Payne has also raised the possibility that a double dot against the verses in 03 also supports ancient evidence for the omission of the verses (see 1.8.1). Finally, Payne has argued that the Latin manuscript Codex Fuldensis should be regarded as evidence in support of the verses’ omission: ‘Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1 Cor 14.34–5’, NTS 41 (1995), 251–62.
2. Explanations
Variation in positioning is often a sign of an interpolation. That is why
the evidence concerning the location of the verses is so important.
Perhaps the sentence was first written in the margin as a comment or
addition and then found its way into the text in two different places. The
wider the attestation, the older the interpolation is likely to be. The fact
that it had found its way at an early stage (it is already in P46) into the
Greek tradition and some of the versions after verse 33, and after verse 40
in the widely spread Peshitta and the archetype of the bilinguals, as well as
in some Greek manuscripts (attested only by two Byzantine witnesses)
provides evidence for its early date.
Again, the internal evidence (that comparison with 1 Cor. 11.5 suggests a
fatal inconsistency, that the structure of the sentence ismore Pauline without
it, that it disrupts the subject matter, and so on) I shall leave to others.
The interest of these verses text-critically lies in their study. The story
of its research is of a comment by Zuntz largely ignored; a proposal by
Fee which finds an interpolation with the aim of silencing women in the
Christian congregation; the search for external evidence to back up the
internal evidence. It is a search which has to be regarded as in need of
further study. In a paper read in 2006 J. Kloha drew attention to a large
number of other similar dislocations of text in the bilingual manuscripts
of Paul, arguing that the phenomenon is a feature of these manuscripts
and has nothing to tell us about the original authenticity of this passage.
On the one hand, a new approach to the study of the role of women in
early Christianity drew our attention to a textual problem in 1 Corinthians
14, and led to a fresh impetus in research. On the other hand, there has been
a tendency to find more evidence than the material really yields, and
caution is required.
Kloha’s paper, using material from his doctoral thesis at the University of Leeds, was read at the New Testament Textual Criticism Section, Society of Biblical Literature Annual Congress, Washington DC, 2006. For one of his discussions on the topic, see G. D. Fee, God’ s Empowering Spirit, Peabody, Mass., 1994, 272–81.
276
C. Stirling Bartholomew

User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Member
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by Andrew Chapman »

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Payne's argument , however, is weak, indeed part of it seems hopelessly confused
Thanks, it's reassuring to find such an assessment. With regard to οὐδέ, it's been 'either Payne's argumentation is hopelessly confused or I am going crazy'.

Andrew

User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Member
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by Andrew Chapman »

Robert Saucy, Professor of Systematic Theology at Talbot, 'Women's prohibition to teach men' JETS 37/1, 1994:
Most probably didaskw ("teach") and authenteo "exercise authority over" are to be understood not so much as two distinct activities but rather as two elements that "convey a single idea"[50].. Footnote 50: P Payne explains "Oude in 1 Tim 2 12 ought to be translated in harmony with Paul's use elsewhere. Its translation should indicate that it joins together two elements in order to convey a single coherent idea, or if it conveys two ideas these should be very closely interrelated"
Craig Blomberg, Review of Philip Payne's 'Man and Woman, One in Christ' at Denver Seminary web-site:
Payne is already known for his argument, of which I am convinced, now recently published in New Testament Studies, that parallel parts of speech conjoined with oude, as in verse 12, create an informal hendiadys. In other words, the expressions combine to define one activity rather than two separate ones.
Although Bill Mounce does not accept the hendiadys idea, his response seems rather peculiar to me:
Some argue that the two prohibitions are a hendiadys, the use of two different terms to denote one concept. .. The problem with this is that διδάσκειν and αὐθεντεῖν are separated by five words; words forming a hendiadys are usually side by side since the construction is used to "avoid a series of dependent genitives" (BDF §442[16])
The separation of the two words is certainly one problem, but surely a more fundamental problem is that BDF §442 concerns καὶ not οὐδέ. According to Winer, καὶ is conjunctive, τε is adjunctive, and οὐδέ is disjunctive (since δέ is disjunctive as Winer sees it). Even if that is only half true, it would surely suggest that καὶ is much more likely to form a hendiadys than οὐδέ is.

Andrew
Last edited by Andrew Chapman on Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Markos
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2966
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by Markos »

Andrew Chapman wrote:Robert Saucy, Professor of Systematic Theology at Talbot, 'Women's prohibition to teach men' JETS 37/1, 1994:
Most probably didaskw ("teach") and authenteo "exercise authority over" are to be understood not so much as two distinct activities but rather as two elements that "convey as single idea"[50].. Footnote 50: P Payne explains "Oude in 1 Tim 2 12 ought to be translated in harmony with Paul's use elsewhere. Its translation should indicate that it joins together two elements in order to convey a single coherent idea, or if it conveys two ideas these should be very closely interrelated"
Craig Blomberg, Review of Philip Payne's 'Man and Woman, One in Christ' at Denver Seminary web-site:
Payne is already known for his argument, of which I am convinced, now recently published in New Testament Studies, that parallel parts of speech conjoined with oude, as in verse 12, create an informal hendiadys. In other words, the expressions combine to define one activity rather than two separate ones.
Are these guys agreeing with Payne that Paul is saying it is okay to for a women to teach as long as she does it without exercising authority over a man? If so, then either their Greek or their logic or both is just as bad as Payne's.

Even if it is a type of hendiadys, this has nothing to do with anything. "I don't want my kids to do drugs or alcohol" is a type of hendiadys. The ideas are closely linked. But no one who knows English would say that I mean "I let me kids do drugs as long as they don't do it with along with alcohol."

This, at root, is the fundamental problem with using Greek for exegesis, especially if done so by people who lack fluency, that you can do things with the text that you can never do with English. Turn it around; if a text cannot mean something in English, it cannot mean that in Greek. Greek is not a magic key that allows you to ignore context. And yet it used that way not only by Payne but by a lot of other people, not just amateurs.
...either Payne's argumentation is hopelessly confused or I am going crazy...
ουδὲ μαίνῃ.

User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Member
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by Andrew Chapman »

Markos wrote:Are these guys agreeing with Payne that Paul is saying it is okay to for a women to teach as long as she does it without exercising authority over a man?
Yes, as I understand it. There are two versions of the theory. Payne's is that it is OK for a woman to teach so long as it does not involve her assuming for herself the authority to do so. The other version has a more positive understanding of αὐθεντεῖν, and they say that the sentence means that a woman is not allowed to do the type of authoritative teaching that is reserved for elders.

Kostenberger's line is similar to this second version in outcome, although he acknowledges that οὐδέ serves as a coordinating conjunction to join two distinct but related elements (I have no problem with that). He then says that teaching is a subset of exercising authority, and that Paul is moving from the specific case of teaching to the general case of exercising authority. He gives Acts 21:21 as an example of (μηδέ) doing the same kind of thing:

κατηχήθησαν δὲ περὶ σοῦ ὅτι ἀποστασίαν διδάσκεις ἀπὸ Μωϋσέως τοὺς κατὰ τὰ ἔθνη πάντας Ἰουδαίους, λέγων μὴ περιτέμνειν αὐτοὺς τὰ τέκνα μηδὲ τοῖς ἔθεσιν περιπατεῖν.

But it's not obvious to me that circumcision is merely a subset of the law - after all it pre-dates the law and could also be seen as a kind of gateway into the observance of the law. In any case, I feel that he is making the making the same kind of mistake as Payne in one respect - they both seem to be analyzing the semantic relationship of the two elements joined by οὐδέ, and drawing conclusions about what οὐδέ does, whereas actually οὐδέ is just a little conjunction that joins two negatives together, and the semantic relationship between the two elements is determined by the meaning of those two elements.

In English if we say A) 'try and mend your bike' that's much the same as B) 'try to mend your bike'. But it is wrong to conclude that 'and' is purposeful in A. It's just that trying is purposeful. Similarly with 'go and buy some milk'. There's another theory out there, proposed by Linda Belleville, that οὐδέ can mean 'so as to', which she gets by this sort of reasoning from Matthew 6:20 (plus Matthew 13:13, Acts 17:24):

θησαυρίζετε δὲ ὑμῖν θησαυροὺς ἐν οὐρανῷ, ὅπου οὔτε σὴς οὔτε βρῶσις ἀφανίζει, καὶ ὅπου κλέπται οὐ διορύσσουσιν οὐδὲ κλέπτουσιν·

which she thinks means 'breaks in to steal' .. and ends up with 'I do not permit a woman to teach so as to gain mastery over a man' - published in a book edited by Gordon Fee..

Andrew

P.S. http://womeninthechurch.co.uk/wp-conten ... 2%2012.pdf

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3myvz ... sp=sharing
Last edited by Andrew Chapman on Tue Mar 04, 2014 8:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Member
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by Andrew Chapman »

Markos wrote:Even if it is a type of hendiadys, this has nothing to do with anything. "I don't want my kids to do drugs or alcohol" is a type of hendiadys. The ideas are closely linked. But no one who knows English would say that I mean "I let me kids do drugs as long as they don't do it with along with alcohol."
As I understand it, a true hendiadys is something like 'lovely and warm'. It is possible to say 'it was a horrible room, horrible, dank and smelly, but it was lovely and warm': ie it wasn't lovely, but it was lovely and warm. This is the sort of thing Payne needs for his theory. In English, according to my dictionary, the two elements are joined by 'and'. In a negative sentence, one could just about say 'the room was beautiful and had a great view and was nicely decorated, but it wasn't lovely and warm'; 'the room was beautiful but ..it wasn't lovely or warm' doesn't work. I suspect it might be the same in Greek.

Andrew

User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Member
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by Andrew Chapman »

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.

I have a question about the last clause: οὐχ ἁπλῶς ἵνα διδάσκωσιν.

Can ἁπλῶς be taken with οὐχ ? - 'clearly not that they might teach'. Here Origen would be repeating what he said before - διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω ἁπλῶς. They may train (σωφρονίζωσι), but they certainly may not be teaching.

Or should it be taken with ἵνα διδάσκωσιν ? - 'not simply that they might teach'. Here Origen would be saying that although there is some permission to teach inherent or implied in καλοδιδασκάλους, this permission is not unqualified.

Thanks for your help,

Andrew

Markos
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2966
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by Markos »

Andrew Chapman wrote: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.

I have a question about the last clause: οὐχ ἁπλῶς ἵνα διδάσκωσιν.

Can ἁπλῶς be taken with οὐχ ? - 'clearly not that they might teach'. Here Origen would be repeating what he said before - διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω ἁπλῶς. They may train (σωφρονίζωσι), but they certainly may not be teaching.

Or should it be taken with ἵνα διδάσκωσιν ? - 'not simply that they might teach'. Here Origen would be saying that although there is some permission to teach inherent or implied in καλοδιδασκάλους, this permission is not unqualified.

Thanks for your help,

Andrew
Hi, Andrew,

My feeling is that it can be taken either way, with the caveat that even under the second scenario, for Origen, σωφρονίζειν τὰς νέας is "teaching" only in the most general sense, and is not at all like women teaching men theology.

The sense of the Greek is closer, I think, to the first scenario you outline.

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4790
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by mwh »

I won’t repeat my views on what Paul meant and what his ουδε is doing. And I freely admit I haven’t done more than skim this new flurry of posts, which seem largely to go over old ground. But as to Origen—Andrew’s original question—here’s how I read it:

At the time that Mary the prophetess spoke, she was in charge of certain women [exclusive of men], “for it’s shameful for a woman to speak in church” (1 Cor.14.35), and “And I don’t allow a woman to teach”—absolutely [i.e. no exceptions], but “nor to have authority over a man” (1 Tim.2.12).
I’ll set this passage [i.e. the 1 Tim.one] alongside [passages] from elsewhere too (και), even though that one [i.e. the 1 Cor. one] is stated more safely [i.e. it leaves less interpretive wiggle-room] on the subject of a wife’s not becoming her husband’s hegemon in speech. “Elder women [should be] … teachers of good, to make young women right-minded” (Titus 2.3, with cuts)—not in so many words to teach them.


Miscellaneous comments.
Reference of τουτο and εκεινο. τουτο refers to the 1 Tim. passage, the closer, and εκεινο to the 1 Cor. one, the more distant, which is said to be ασφαλεστερον (safer in the sense of leaving less room for dispute as to Pauline doctrine) on the woman/man relationship.

The quote from Titus fulfills the και αλλοθεν. It’s neither τουτο nor εκεινο but a third passage to add to the evidence of those two.

παραστησω doesn’t mean support but to set “this” passage alongside others from elsewhere (i.e. the Titus one; I don’t know if still others follow).

ει και means “even though.” He’ll adduce other passages even though they’re less open-and-shut.

απλως, αλλα intervene between the two parts of the 1 Tim. quotation. The απλως I take to mean “without qualification,” as often in commentaries: Paul says they’re not to teach—tout court, just that, the prohibition is not qualified in any way. The αλλα is more problematic. I think the sense has to be:
“(Paul says) ‘I won’t have women teaching’—(he puts it) in absolute terms, but (he adds ‘I won’t have them) αυθεντεινing a man either.”
If this is right, it could be taken to mean that Origen is taking Paul’s two-part sentence as two discrete prohibitions—or, more plausibly I think, it could be taken to mean that he's taking the second part as effectively qualifying or elucidating the first part (which in itself is unqualified). He doesn't really make himself clear (commentators often don't), any more than Paul himself does (preachers often don't). Too much hangs on that αλλα.

Michael

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2292
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by Paul Derouda »

Thanks, that's very illuminating.

User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Member
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by Andrew Chapman »

Thanks, all. With regard to οὐχ ἁπλῶς ἵνα διδάσκωσιν, it looks like Michael is taking ἁπλῶς more with ἵνα διδάσκωσιν.
Reference of τουτο and εκεινο. τουτο refers to the 1 Tim. passage, the closer, and εκεινο to the 1 Cor. one, the more distant, which is said to be ασφαλεστερον (safer in the sense of leaving less room for dispute as to Pauline doctrine) on the woman/man relationship.

The quote from Titus fulfills the και αλλοθεν. It’s neither τουτο nor εκεινο but a third passage to add to the evidence of those two.
This makes a lot of sense to me, except that I don't yet understand why, if εκεινο refers to a passage of scripture, why it is the subject of a passive verb. I would have thought that a scripture would speak, rather than be spoken.
The αλλα is more problematic. I think the sense has to be:
“(Paul says) ‘I won’t have women teaching’—(he puts it) in absolute terms, but (he adds ‘I won’t have them) αυθεντεινing a man either.”
If this is right, it could be taken to mean that Origen is taking Paul’s two-part sentence as two discrete prohibitions—or, more plausibly I think, it could be taken to mean that he's taking the second part as effectively qualifying or elucidating the first part (which in itself is unqualified).
I thought that the ἀλλ in ἀλλ' οὐδέ was not generally thought to be adversative. Lifting a bit out of my ουδε paper: 'In its entry for ἄλλα, as its third category of usage, BDAG says that it is used ‘before independent clauses, to indicate that the preceding is to be regarded as a settled matter, thus forming a transition to something new’, and thus introduces ‘other matter for additional consideration’. All five instances of ἀλλ’ οὐδέ in Luke-Acts and Paul’s letters are included within this third section of the BDAG entry for ἄλλα.'

And 'Robertson gives [ἀλλά's] fundamental meaning as ‘this other matter’. Thus ‘it is a mistake to infer that ἄλλος means “something different”. In itself it is merely “another”. Like δέ the thing introduced by ἀλλά is something new, but not essentially in contrast.’'

To take one example, from Luke 23.14-15:

οὐθὲν εὗρον ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ τούτῳ αἴτιον ὧν κατηγορεῖτε κατ’ αὐτοῦ. ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ Ἡρῴδης,

where there can be little sense of contrast, and many translate with 'no, nor has...', and the like.

In which case, it seems to me that Origen could be saying "'I do not permit a woman to teach" - clearly, that's settled, "nor αὐθεντεῖν a man"', with no particular sense of contrast.

Andrew

User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Member
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by Andrew Chapman »

See also, earlier in the same passage of Origen's commentary:

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·

ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ seems here to be without much or any sense of contrast. 'We don't have this in the Acts of the Apostles; no, and neither do we have it in the Old (Testament).' seems to be the idea.

Andrew

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4790
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by mwh »

ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ
αλλ’ουδε is irrelevant, just one more red herring. The ουδε recommences the direct quote, which Origen interrupted. His readers didn't have the advantage of quote marks.

The question is why this latter part of the quote is introduced by αλλα. I’m surprised <ουχ> απλως αλλα hasn’t been suggested (unless it has). That would read much more easily. But I think we can accept the given text. It’s a bit elliptical, as is normal [see PS, likewise irrelevant]:
“and (he also says) διδασκειν δε γυναικι ουκ επιτρεπω—unqualified, but (then he continues) ουδ’ αυθεντειν ανδρος.”
I don't yet understand why, if εκεινο refers to a passage of scripture, why it is the subject of a passive verb. I would have thought that a scripture would speak, rather than be spoken.

No, scripture doesn’t speak, any more than the Iliad does, it’s been spoken, i.e. written, by its author. ειρηται is standard commentator lingo. What “is said” (ειρηται) is what an author “says” (λεγει) or “has said” (ειρηκεν), i.e. what stands in the text. The modus operandi is to start with the given text (what “is said”), and then proceed to its meaning, what the author “wants to say” or “means” (θελει λεγειν). Exegetes ancient and modern, when they’re not simply misunderstanding, are in the business of trying to make the text clearer than it actually is.

And Origen’s unspoken premise, like yours, like Aristarchus', is that what an author says on one occasion is in harmony with everything else that he says. That too is standard operating procedure.

Michael

PS. Incidentally, on the combination αλλ’ουδε (which we don't have here):
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·
Ellipticality is the key to understanding how the αλλα in both these sentences works—as also in the others you've adduced.
"Even though Philip's daughters prophesied, (yes I grant this, they did prophesy) but they didn't speak in churches." Here the αλλα needn't be translated at all, but that's not to say it's meaningless. It means "but," as it always does.
"For (i.e. we can say this because) we don't have that in Acts, (and not only not in Acts) but not in OT either." Here we could translate αλλα as "and" (i.e. we could ignore it, for ουδε "nor" incorporates the connective) but again that's not what it actually means.
This pair of sentences also nicely illustrates the difference between simple ου and ουδε. ("This but not that" vs. "not this and not that either," "not this nor that.")

User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Member
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by Andrew Chapman »

Thanks a lot, Michael, I get it now. I had got it into my head that this was Origen's paraphrase, rather than direct quotation, plus interspersed very cursory remarks. Sorry to be slow.

"αἰσχρὸν γὰρ γυναικὶ λαλεῖν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ", καὶ "διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω" ἁπλῶς ἀλλ’ "οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός".

'for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the assembly,' and 'I do not permit a woman to teach' - clearly, since Paul has already said that a woman should not speak, so thus far we have added nothing new, but look there is something else in this verse - 'nor to αυθεντειν a man'.

Is it then possible that τουτο refers to οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός and εκεινο refers to διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, because that point - about a woman not becoming leader of the man in word (which relates to speech) has already been made more securely in αἰσχρὸν γὰρ γυναικὶ λαλεῖν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ.

So then we would be looking for Origen to set something beside οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός. The text goes on:

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. καλοδιδάσκαλοι μὲν γὰρ ἔστωσαν καὶ γυναῖκες, οὐχ ἵνα ἄνδρες καθήμενοι ἀκούωσι γυναικῶν, ὡς ἐκλειπόντων ἀνδρῶν τῶν δυναμένων πρεσβεύειν τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον.

For women are to be teachers of what is good, not that men should sit and listen to women...

It strikes me that the idea of women standing and men sitting might convey quite well what is meant by αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός.

I am sorry for not posting previously this text that follows. The complete passage, as published by C.Jenkins, JTS 10 (1909) 29-51, is here, at 41-2: http://womeninthechurch.co.uk/wp-conten ... -29-51.pdf

Andrew

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4790
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by mwh »

Andrew,
Forgive me if I bow out of this now. You have my two posts, and three's a crowd.
Michael

User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Member
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by Andrew Chapman »

mwh wrote:Andrew,
Forgive me if I bow out of this now. You have my two posts, and three's a crowd.
Michael
I am most grateful for your help with this, Michael.
mwh wrote:
I don't yet understand why, if εκεινο refers to a passage of scripture, why it is the subject of a passive verb. I would have thought that a scripture would speak, rather than be spoken.

No, scripture doesn’t speak, any more than the Iliad does, it’s been spoken, i.e. written, by its author. ειρηται is standard commentator lingo. What “is said” (ειρηται) is what an author “says” (λεγει) or “has said” (ειρηκεν), i.e. what stands in the text. The modus operandi is to start with the given text (what “is said”), and then proceed to its meaning, what the author “wants to say” or “means” (θελει λεγειν). Exegetes ancient and modern, when they’re not simply misunderstanding, are in the business of trying to make the text clearer than it actually is.
There seem to be many examples, both in the New Testament, and in Origen, of the scripture being referred to as speaking:

λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή· πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ’ αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται. [Romans 10.11]

ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ καθὼς εἶπεν ἡ γραφή, ποταμοὶ ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας αὐτοῦ ῥεύσουσιν ὕδατος ζῶντος. [John 7.38]

See also John 7.42, John 19.37, Romans 4.3, James 4.5.

Ἀλλ' ἐνταῦθα ἡ Γραφὴ λέγει, ὅτι τῷ Θεῷ εὐηρέστησε Νῶε, καθὼς γέγραπται καὶ περὶ τοῦ Ἐνώχ. [Origen, Commentary on Genesis, Migne 12, p. 104, l.38-40]

This last one also shows another common way of citing the scriptures - with γέγραπται, that is, with a passive verb but no separate subject. Likewise commonly, with ἐρρέθη:

Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη· οὐ μοιχεύσεις. [Matthew 5.27]

Are there examples of a scripture as the subject of a passive verb like εἴρηται?

Andrew

Markos
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2966
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by Markos »

Andrew Chapman wrote: Are there examples of a scripture as the subject of a passive verb like εἴρηται?
Rom 15:4: ὅσα γὰρ προεγράφη, εἰς τὴν ἡμετέραν διδασκαλίαν ἐγράφη, ἵνα διὰ τῆς ὑπομονῆς καὶ διὰ τῆς παρακλήσεως τῶν γραφῶν τὴν ἐλπίδα ἔχωμεν.

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4790
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Origen on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Post by mwh »

Yes quite right Andrew I shouldn’t have said scripture doesn’t speak, ἁπλῶς, in explaining the conventionality of εἴρηται in commentator-speak. The analogy with the Iliad doesn’t quite hold, and we can understand why. It's because we’re no longer dealing with a single author (Homer, Paul) but with a collection of works by different authors which is treated as a single whole—the Jewish holy books, the gospels, and by Origen’s time the rest of the works accepted into our “new testament,” more or less (since the canon wasn’t yet fixed). This conglomerate becomes “the writing,” ἡ γραφή, what we call “scripture.” (So I should’t have spoken of “Pauline doctrine” either. He’s not interested in differentiating Paul.) So instead of e.g. “Homer says” we now get “The writing/scripture says.” It’s a metaphor but a very easy one, given this background.

But that’s immaterial to what we have here, εἰ καὶ ἐκεῖνο ἀσφαλέστερον εἴρηται κτλ, in reference to a particular passage just quoted and distinguished from “this” one. One passage “is said/spoken” more “safely” than another. There’s nothing exceptional about the phraseology.

None of this is of significance for the Origen passage, but since you picked me up on it I wanted to acknowledge my misspeaking/miswriting.

[Biblical text can naturally be described in terms of writing or of speaking, in active or passive, present or past, aorist or perfect. The terms are not in fact interchangeable, as you’ll see if you observe usage carefully, but I won’t go into that any more than I already have.]

Oh and as I’ve indicated, απλως does not mean “clearly” in any sense.

Post Reply