Fri Oct 15 11:00:00 EDT 1999 The anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the Subjunctive the signifance of TOU toward the end of Matt. 2:13 1 Timothy 2:11-12 reads as follows in the King James Version:Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.I was advised by an acquaintance that this passage is not translated properly from the original Greek. She bases her view on the grammatical rule the an infinitive must take an accusitive object. She states that "women" (GUNAIKI)is not in the accustive form so the infinitive "to teach" (DIDASKEIN)cannot refer to woman. Another source, who I feel is much more knowledgable of the language, explains that(GUNAIKI) is the object of the verb "to allow (suffer)" (EPITREPW)and this verb always takes a dative object. As a result GUNAIKI could not be in the accusitive. He advised that the KJV translation is correct. My investigation to date supports the latter view, however, I would appreciate any further clarification. The anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the Subjunctivethe signifance of TOU toward the end of Matt. 2:13
1 Timothy 2:11 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Oct 15 12:19:37 EDT 1999 Architectural Lexicon the signifance of TOU toward the end of Matt. 2:13 At 11:10 AM -0500 10/15/99, Michael Steinman wrote:>1 Timothy 2:11-12 reads as follows in the King James Version:>Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a>woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.>I was advised by an acquaintance that this passage is not translated>properly from the original Greek. She bases her view on the grammatical>rule the an infinitive must take an accusitive object. She states that>"women" (GUNAIKI)is not in the accustive form so the infinitive "to teach">(DIDASKEIN)cannot refer to woman. Another source, who I feel is much more>knowledgable of the language, explains that(GUNAIKI) is the object of the>verb "to allow (suffer)" (EPITREPW)and this verb always takes a dative>object. As a result GUNAIKI could not be in the accusitive. He advised>that the KJV translation is correct. My investigation to date supports the>latter view, however, I would appreciate any further clarification.The relevant Greek text of 1 Tim 2:12 is DIDASKEIN DE GUNAIKI OUK EPITREPW..., wherein indeed the dative form GUNAIKI must be the direct complementof EPITREPW (which verb does require a dative rather than an accusative)and the infinitive DIDASKEIN must go along with OUK EPITREPW GUNAIKI. Theupshot is, regardless of whatever else one may want to say or not say aboutthis portion of the verse, the KJV rendering of it as "I suffer not a womanto teach ..." is accurate enough in 17th century English, but I think mostmodern translators would change "suffer" to "allow" or "permit."Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu Architectural Lexiconthe signifance of TOU toward the end of Matt. 2:13
1 Timothy 2:11 dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Fri Oct 15 12:54:16 EDT 1999 Matthew 19:9 Matthew 19:9 On Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:19:37 -0500 "Carl W. Conrad"<cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> writes:> > The relevant Greek text of 1 Tim 2:12 is DIDASKEIN DE GUNAIKI OUK > EPITREPW ..., wherein indeed the dative form GUNAIKI must be the direct> complement of EPITREPW (which verb does require a dative rather than an> accusative) and the infinitive DIDASKEIN must go along with OUKEPITREPW > GUNAIKI. The upshot is, regardless of whatever else one may want to sayor not > say about this portion of the verse, the KJV rendering of it as "Isuffer not > a woman to teach ..." is accurate enough in 17th century English, but I> think most modern translators would change "suffer" to "allow" or"permit."Just coming off the Mt 19:9 discussion I find the use of EPITREPW herein 1 Tim 2 especially interesting, since it is the word used by Christto correct the Pharisees use of ENETEILATO. They said Moses commanded the bill of divorcement. Christ says He suffered, tolerated,or permitted it.In 1 Tim 2:12 Paul does not even suffer a woman to teach or holdauthorityover a man. Moses suffered divorce. Paul did not suffer a woman todo either.Paul Dixon. Matthew 19:9Matthew 19:9
1 Timothy 2:11 Christopher Hutson crhutson at salisbury.net
Fri Oct 15 17:00:40 EDT 1999 Matthew 19:9 Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA >From: "Michael Steinman" <MikeSteinman at Juno.com>> >1 Timothy 2:11-12 reads as follows in the King James Version:>Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a >woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.>I was advised by an acquaintance that this passage is not translated >properly from the original Greek. She bases her view on the grammatical >rule the an infinitive must take an accusitive object. She states that >"women" (GUNAIKI)is not in the accustive form so the infinitive "to teach" >(DIDASKEIN)cannot refer to woman. Another source, who I feel is much more >knowledgable of the language, explains that(GUNAIKI) is the object of the >verb "to allow (suffer)" (EPITREPW)and this verb always takes a dative >object. As a result GUNAIKI could not be in the accusitive. He advised >that the KJV translation is correct. My investigation to date supports the>latter view, however, I would appreciate any further clarification.Yes, Michael, GUNAIKI is the object of EPITREPW. The other piece of thepuzzle you need is to understand that the infinitive often follows a verb ofseeing, perceiving, saying, indicating, and so forth. To understand thegrammar of the infinitive in such a construction, look at BDF §397, and/orSmyth §§1991-2000. Then check LSJ for usages of EPITREPW. You will seethat EPITREPW could be used with either a dative or accusative object plusan infinitive. XPIC------------------------------------Christopher R. Hutson Hood Theological Seminary Salisbury, NC 28144crhutson at salisbury.net------------------------------------ Matthew 19:9Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA
Could be. I didn't bother to check and it's the kind of thing that could cause the lemmatizer to go astray. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — March 24th, 2014, 2:03 pmAndrew Chapman wrote: Are not the three from Euripides all genitive plurals of αὐθέντης?
Are not the three from Euripides all genitive plurals of αὐθέντης? There is also BGU 1208, dated 27 to 26 BC, from http://papyri.info/ddbdp/bgu;4;1208 (where you can see the whole fragment): κἀμοῦ(*) αὐθεντηκότος πρὸς αὐτὸν περιποιῆσαι Καλατύτει τῶι ναυτικῶι ἐπὶ τῷ αὐτῶι φόρωι ἐν τῆι ὥραι ἐπεχώρησεν. And then there is Philodemus, Rhetorica 133.14, dated 1st Century BC according to Albert Wolters, which I only have to hand as it appears in Baldwin's essay: Philodemus and BGU 1208 Greek and English.png Aristonicus Baldwin with notes on all three 500.png In note e, Bladwin explains that he has changed ωοῦ to ἐμοῦ in line 45 of BGU 1208. The English of Philodemus's Rhetorica, by Hubbell, is as I remember on his own account, more of a paraphrase than a translation. The English of BGU 1208 and of Aristonicus are both Baldwin's translation. Andrew Statistics: Posted by Andrew Chapman — March 24th, 2014, 1:55 pm
Occurrences of αὐθεντεῖν in TLG up to and including the second century, in chronological order:
- Euripides, Andromacha 172: ἐς τοῦτο δ’ ἥκεις ἀμαθίας, δύστηνε σύ, ἣ παιδὶ πατρὸς ὃς σὸν ὤλεσεν πόσιν τολμᾶις ξυνεύδειν καὶ τέκν’ αὐθεντῶν πάρα τίκτειν. τοιοῦτον πᾶν τὸ βάρβαρον γένος·
- Euripides, Troiades 660: καὶ τῶνδε κληδὼν ἐς στράτευμ’ Ἀχαιικὸν ἐλθοῦσ’ ἀπώλεσέν μ’· ἐπεὶ γὰρ ἡιρέθην, Ἀχιλλέως με παῖς ἐβουλήθη λαβεῖν δάμαρτα· δουλεύσω δ’ ἐν αὐθεντῶν δόμοις.
- Euripides, Rhesus 873: καὶ πῶς με κηδεύσουσιν αὐθεντῶν χέρες;
- Aristonicus, De signis Iliados 9.694: ὅτι ἐξ ἄλλων τόπων ἐστὶν ὁ στίχος· νῦν γὰρ οὐχ ἁρμόζει· τότε γὰρ εἴωθεν ἐπιφωνεῖσθαι, ὅταν ὁ αὐθεντῶν τοῦ λόγου καταπληκτικά τινα προενέγκηται.
- 1 Tim 2.12: διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ’ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ.
- Claudius Ptolomaeus, Apotelesmatica 3.14.10 ὁ μὲν οὖν τοῦ Κρόνου ἀστὴρ μόνος τὴν οἰκοδεσποτείαν τῆς ψυχῆς λαβὼν καὶ αὐθεντήσας τοῦ τε Ἑρμοῦ καὶ τοῦ τῆς σελήνης, ἐὰν μὲν ἐνδόξως ἔχῃ πρός τε τὸ κοσμικὸν καὶ τὰ κέντρα, ποιεῖ φιλοσωμάτους, ἰσχυρογνώμονας, βαθύφρονας, αὐστηρούς, μονογνώμονας, ἐπιμόχθους, ἐπιτακτικούς, κολαστικούς, περιουσιαστικούς, φιλοχρημάτους, βιαίους, θησαυριστικούς, φθονερούς, ἐναντίως δὲ καὶ ἀδόξως κείμενος ῥυπαρούς, μικρολόγους, μικροψύχους, ἀδιαφόρους, κακογνώμονας, βασκάνους, δειλούς, ἀνακεχωρηκότας, κακολόγους, φιλερήμους, φιλοθρήνους, ἀναιδεῖς, δεισιδαίμονας, φιλομόχθους, ἀστόργους, ἐπιβουλευτικοὺς τῶν οἰκείων, ἀνευφράντους, μισοσωμάτους·
It is my understanding that αὐθεντεῖν is very rare in earlier texts. I think I saw some claim that there are only 7 uses in extant texts. I don't have those available so I can only rely on what others have claimed. Could someone with greater resources give us a few texts to compare? Sincerely, Michael Abernathy Statistics: Posted by Michael Abernathy — March 24th, 2014, 10:15 am
Thanks, Michael. You had suggested 'self-rule' as a meaning of αὐθεντεῖν. One can hardly say 'self-rule of a man (or husband)', so I had reckoned you must be thinking of something like your previous 'exercise authority independent of..'. I have no problem with Perriman's understanding of the meaning of αὐθεντεῖν, and agree that it is more to do with exercising authority than being in a position of authority per se. His idea that verse 12 is a parenthesis, so that verses 13 and 14 relate only to verse 11, seems very strange to me. There seems to be much agreement that διδάσκεῖν is emphatic because of it's position at the beginning of the verse. See eg Ellicott 'διδάσκεῖν is emphatic as its position shows'; Huther: 'διδάσκεῖν stands first in emphatic opposition to μανθάνεῖν'; and Humphreys, who makes the further point that this lends emphasis to the instruction itself: '12. The direction is made more emphatic by the position of the verb "to teach" .. at the beginning of the clause: "But teaching I permit not to a woman".' Likewise, in a discussion on the word order in verse 12 on ('Infinitive -> finite verb', May 2002), Carl Conrad rendered the sense of 11-12a as:
which met with general approval. See also Iver Larsen's 'Word Order and Relative Prominence in New Testament Greek', where he is so bold as to say 'The more to the left an item occurs, the more prominent it is.' I see that Perriman agrees that διδάσκεῖν is emphatic within verse 12, and actually sees this as favouring his parenthesis idea - but I don't see how this could work - 'Let a woman learn in quietness in all submission.. and by the way, to be teaching I do not permit a woman' - is impossible I think. He cites BDF §447 (7) in support of δέ being used to introduce a parenthesis, but the examples one finds there are hardly comparable, eg. Acts 12:3 .. (ἦσαν δὲ αἱ ἡμέραι τῶν ἀζύμων) (Now it was during the days of Unleavened Bread) .. where parenthetical information is being inserted into a narrative. Rather, I think δὲ is being used to express a 'general contrast' (BDF §447) between μανθανέτω and διδάσκειν. Paul's instructions and following explanation seem to me to flow quite naturally from verse 11 to 12 (contra Perriman p. 130) and then onwards to 13 and 14. I see no sign of a parenthesis. Andrew Statistics: Posted by Andrew Chapman — March 24th, 2014, 7:24 amI'd convey the force of the word-order thus: "A woman is to learn in silence in total submission, and as for teaching, I don't allow a woman (to do it) ..."
Actually, I wasn't referring to my earlier supposition but to an article by Carroll Osburn--Osburn, Carroll D. "AUQENTEW (1 Timothy 2:12)." Restoration Quarterly. vol. 24. no. 4 (1981): 1-12. But also see Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles: a Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972), 47. The author here is simply establishing that αὐθεντέω has a more general meaning than we normally assign it. He goes on to point to a first century reference where it means "self assured, firm conduct." That translation does not seem too far from the "act authoritatively" suggested by Perriman. Sincerely, Michael Abernathy Statistics: Posted by Michael Abernathy — March 23rd, 2014, 6:35 pm
Here is Moeris, in J. Pierson's edition of 1759: Moeris on authentein.png and note 3 reads: Moeris on authentein note.png which I believe says that Pierson accepts the conjecture that these are present infinitives. It may be worth pointing out, however, that in other cases, and I have checked a substantial portion of Moeris's Lexicon, present infinitives are given with the normal εῖν ending. But still, it seems hard to think of an alternative explanation. αὐτοδικεῖν means, according to Liddell and Scott, to [have] independent jurisdiction, with one's own courts; and this type of idea is reflected in the first meaning BDAG gives for αὐθεντεῖν - 'to assume a stance of independent authority'. You asked, on 16 October 1999:Michael Abernathy wrote: .. a third century lexicon written by Moeris, αὐθεντέω was defined as "self rule."
and Professor Conrad answered on the same day:Michael Abernathy wrote: Is the following translation viable? I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority independent of her husband?
There is no doubt that αὐθεντεῖν can have this sense of acting independently, in one's own sphere, but the question is whether it can be used in this way with the genitive of a person to mean acting independently of that person. In Henry Baldwin's chapter in 'Women in the Church' [Kostenberger.., 2nd ed] he distinguishes between two such senses - his 3. 'to act independently' and his 3b. 'to exercise one's own jurisdiction'. He claims that while there are several cases of αὐθεντεῖν being used with each of these senses (although the earliest he gives is 390AD), in no case does it carry an object as it does in 1 Timothy 2:12. So I feel that the onus is on you to demonstrate that αὐθεντεῖν can be used in this kind of way. Andrew Statistics: Posted by Andrew Chapman — March 23rd, 2014, 1:42 pmcwconrad wrote: I think this is quite unlikely; more likely is "exercise authority over a man." ANDROS is the genitive direct complement in this instance; many verbs of governing or ruling take a genitive direct complement. Moreover, I would personally expect that if ANDROS referred specifically to the husband of the woman referred to be GUNAIKI, there would be an article and the phrase would be AUQENTEIN TOU ANDROS.
(Just a quick note, Michael: this is actually found in Vol 25, no. 1Michael Abernathy wrote: and Carroll Osburn's article in Restoration Quarterly vol 24, no 4 "AUQENTEW (1 Timothy 2:12) among others. Osburn pointed out that αὐθεντέω one of the texts closest in time to 1 Timothy, a third century lexicon written by Moeris, αὐθεντέω was defined as "self rule."
- http://www.acu.edu/sponsored/restoratio ... tents.html - Desperately trying to find a place to get the article)
Statistics: Posted by S Walch — March 23rd, 2014, 6:27 am
Andrew Chapman wrote "None of them find any difficulty in verses 11 or 12, and they all seem to think that: διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ’ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ. means something like: But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to lord it over the man, but to be in silence" I can honestly say that some of those who have written on this passage give the appearance that they are desperately searching for any interpretation that does not confirm the traditional interpretation. However, it is a mistake to think that all those who question the traditional interpretation are coming from a theological bias. Some of the different interpretations have come about because the translator is making use of new resources unavailable to the classical works you mentioned. For example, the advent of the modern computer made it possible to examine every known reference to αὐθεντέω. See Wilshire's book Insight into Two Biblical Passages: Anatomy of a Prohibition I Timothy 2:12, the TLG Computer, and the Christian Church; A.C. Perriman's article in Tyndale Bulletin 44:1 "What Eve Did, What Women Shouldn't Do:The Meaning of Authentew on 1 Timothy 2:12, and Carroll Osburn's article in Restoration Quarterly vol 24, no 4 "AUQENTEW (1 Timothy 2:12) among others. Osburn pointed out that αὐθεντέω one of the texts closest in time to 1 Timothy, a third century lexicon written by Moeris, αὐθεντέω was defined as "self rule." I won't deny that the traditional translation is possible but I'm not certain it is the most likely translation. Wilshire noted that in every other New Testament passage connecting authority with teaching we find ἐξουσία instead of αὐθεντέω. And Gordon P. Hugenberger notes several reasons for translating ἀνδρός as husband (Hugenberger, Gordon P. "Women In Church Office: Hermeneutics Or Exegesis? A Survey Of Approaches To 1 Tim 2:8-15." Journal of Evangelical Theological Society. vol. 35. no. 3 (September 1992): 341-360). Don't misunderstand me. I'm not trying to convince you of any particular translation. I just want you to be aware that there are good reasons to take a second look at what appears to be a straightforward translation of the text. Sincerely, Michael Abernathy Statistics: Posted by Michael Abernathy — March 21st, 2014, 12:48 am
Andrew, It is good to make all these resources accessible since there are always students out there who have to confront these questions. In the last half century reading "against the text" has become mainstream. The "difficulties" are a matter of cultural assumptions which probably falls under heading of hermeneutics. If the reader adopts a secular feminist stance viewing the author of 1Tim as typical 1st Cent. Jewish male everything makes perfectly good sense and the message is abundantly clear. If the readier sets out to demonstrate that the author was promoting a realized eschatology where everyone was "equal" the task becomes exceedingly difficult. All of this is off topic for this forum. Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — March 20th, 2014, 7:04 pm
Clayton, I had in mind that those like myself who are relatively new to the forum and didn't participate in those threads, could read what has been discussed before before asking questions or making observations on these two verses of scripture. With regard to commentaries, I have compiled into one file nine commentaries on verses 11 to 15 published in English between 1850 and 1918 (http://womeninthechurch.co.uk/wp-conten ... e-1918.pdf). The authors are Bengel (originally 1742), Ellicott (1856), Alford (1865), Fairbairn (1874), Huther (1885), Humphreys (1897), Bernard (1899), Kelly (1913) and Brown (1917). None of them find any difficulty in verses 11 or 12, and they all seem to think that:
means something like:διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ’ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ.
with minor variations. None have ἀνδρός as the object of διδάσκειν, contrary to Knight and Mounce. Andrew Statistics: Posted by Andrew Chapman — March 20th, 2014, 1:44 pmBut I permit not a woman to teach, nor to lord it over the man, but to be in silence. [Fairbairn]
Andrew, I didn't read all those the threads. Rather I pulled out and dusted off Mounce, Marshal and Knight and read what they had to say again. Looking at the passage it really amazes me that such a lucid text could produce so much controversy. Someone has to really want very badly to misunderstand the author to find ambiguity here. Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — March 19th, 2014, 10:26 am
I have just been through the archives looking at threads relating to 1 Timothy 2:12, and pulling in one or two which concern verse 11, or the two verses together. I thought it might be helpful to others to post all the threads I have found. I have built upon the list posted by Professor Conrad in January 2003. I am not supposing that it is complete. In most cases the link is to the monthly archive, arranged by subject, so one only needs to scroll down to the title of the thread. For the January 2010 thread, you may need to search on the linked page for the title. I have given a very short extract from the first post in each thread, to give some idea of its nature. Where the thread has changed title mid-course, I have numbered each title. Andrew GUNH EN HSUCIA -- 1Ti 2.11 http://www.ibiblio.org//test-arch ... bject.html 5 messages Shaughn Daniel Jan 11 1996 “3. What do you think of this rendering of v. 11? "But I do not allow women to teach IN A WAY THAT (OUDE) they exercise authority over men, but to be in submission (EN HSUCIA)" 4. Can EN HSUCIA mean something like "to have a quiet manner", etc., without implying that they are not allowed to teach at all?” …............................ Greek help on women's issues http://www.ibiblio.org//test-arch ... html#13486 7 messages John R. Baldwin Jun 06 1996 “He is re-evaluating Church of Christ positions on interpretations of I Cor 14:26-40 and I Tim 2:11-15. ..” …............ 1) AUQENTEIN, 1Tim2.12 2) AUQENTEIN http://www.ibiblio.org//archives/ ... html#start 24 messages Kyrychenko 15 May 1998 "What does AUQENTEIN in 1Tim2.12 mean in the context of the letter?" …....... 1 Tim 2:12 http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-gr ... bject.html 22 messages Thomas Biddy Jun 25 1998 “Can 1 Tim 2:12 mean wife?” …................. 1 Timothy 2:11 (actually 2:12) http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-gr ... bject.html 4 messages Michael Steinman Oct 15 1999 “She states that "women" (GUNAIKI)is not in the accustive form so the infinitive "to teach" (DIDASKEIN)cannot refer to woman.” …....... 1 Timothy 2:12 http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-gr ... bject.html 18 messages Michael Abernathy Oct 16 1999 "A Is it probable that authentein gives the purpose for the teaching which Paul forbids? B Is the following translation viable? I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority independent of her husband?" ….................. 1 Tim 2:11-12 http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-gr ... bject.html 3 messages Roe Jun 13 2000 “.could not MANQANETW (EN PASHi hUPOTAGHi) DIDASKEIN of 1 Tim 2:11 and 12 mean "learn ... to teach"?” ….................. 1) 1 Tim. 2:12, meaning of AUQENTEIN 2) Meaning of AUQENTEIN 3) Thread closed http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-gr ... bject.html 20 messages Robert R Monti Aug 11 2000 "I'm trying to get some in-depth information on the meaning of AUQENTEIN in 1 Tim. 2:12 I noticed that ANHR appears in the genitive here. Is this an example of the genitive object?" …..................... OUDE in 1 Timothy 2:12 http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-gr ... bject.html 11 messages Dave Washburn Feb 16 2001 “ I'm wondering if the OUDE, "nor," might have some explanatory force..” …........................ 1 Tim 2:12--grammatical structure http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-gr ... bject.html 3 messages Jim Crouch May 9 2001 “Can the word "man" (genitive, ANDROS, object of the infinitve AUQENTEIN) also be the object of the infinitive "DIDASKEIN?" “ …........................ Lexical Semantics Methods http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-gr ... bject.html 4 messages c stirling bartholomew May 15 2002 “Just finished reading H.S. Baldwin's treatment* of AUQENTEIN.” …......................... Titus [sic: 1 Timothy] 2:12 Explicative OUDE http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-gr ... bject.html 2 messages Frazier Conley May 18 2002 "Lenski: '..'neither to exercise authority over a man' states the point involved in the forbidding 'to teach.' ' " ….................. infinitive -> finite verb http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-gr ... bject.html 12 messages c stirling bartholomew May 20 2002 “Andreas Kostenberger* states that the placement of DIDASKEIN prior to the finite verb EPITREPW does not have much significance..” …................. 1 Timothy 2:12 "Domineering?" http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-gr ... bject.html 6 messages Joel Thomas Banks Jan 10 2003 “..in the Greek text, the verb "domineer" (NEB, "have authority" RSV NIV) qualifies "teach" and specifies what kind of teaching is prohibited.(102)..” …..................... 1 Timothy 2:12 2) Fwd: Re: [] 1 Timothy 2:12 http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-gr ... bject.html 5 messages Oetla Simankane Jun 21 2004 "..Paul uses, DIDASKEIN (present infinitive) instead of > DIDAXAI (aorist infinitive).." …........................... I Tim 2:12 http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-gr ... 34787.html (not in June 2005 archive) 2 messages gene baker Jun 18 2005 “Can OUDE be taken as indicating the content of the DIDASKALIA?” …............................. question re: authentein andros http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-gr ... bject.html 2 messages greg coupe Sep 29 2005 “can the words "authentein andros" be interpreted to mean "To be self working (which is the task) of man." " …................... Present Tense http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-gr ... bject.html 4 messages Seth Jul 9 2007 “.. continual regularity in regard to teaching and leading; as opposed to individual, finite instances..” …............... 1Tim2:12 - man or husband? http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-gr ... bject.html 2 messages 'Adrian' Apr 19 2008 “I've read a few authors who say that the use of the genitive singular ANDROS in this verse means that this should be translated as husband” …......................... Diagraming 1 TI 2:12. http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-gr ... bject.html 4 messages bdgayton Jul 29 2008 “does the conjunction "nor" tie both of the infinitives "to teach" and "to have authority over" a man?” ….............. What case does the object of AUQENTEIN take? - 1 Tim 2:12 http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-gr ... hread.html 10 messages Eric S. Weiss Jan 16 2010 “What case does the object of AUQENTEIN usually take?” …................. 1 Tim 2:12 - should both infinitives apply to ANHR? viewtopic.php?f=6&t=684 12 posts Eric S. Weiss August 22nd, 2011 “Does the word order seem to favor just AUQENTEIN pertaining to ANHR ..” Statistics: Posted by Andrew Chapman — March 18th, 2014, 10:08 am