Titus 2:12

An Exegetical Analysis of οὐδὲ in 1 Timothy 2:12

This exegetical study of An Exegetical Analysis of οὐδὲ in 1 Timothy 2:12 is based on a b-greek discussion from May 18, 2002. The initial inquiry concerned the grammatical classification of the conjunction οὐδὲ in 1 Timothy 2:12, specifically referencing Lenski’s description of it as “explicative οὐδὲ.” This interpretation posited that the second prohibition, “neither to exercise authority over a man,” served to explicate or clarify the preceding prohibition against teaching.

The central exegetical issue at hand is the precise semantic and rhetorical function of οὐδὲ in 1 Timothy 2:12. Does it merely serve as a simple coordinating conjunction linking two distinct prohibitions, or does it carry a deeper explanatory or intensifying force, implying a relationship where the act of “exercising authority” further defines or constitutes the forbidden “teaching” in this specific context? The challenge in substantiating the explicit grammatical term “explicative οὐδὲ” in standard Greek grammars necessitates a focused analysis of the conjunction’s potential range of meaning and its contextual implications for understanding Paul’s injunction regarding women’s roles.

Greek text (Nestle 1904)

διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ’ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ.

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• No significant textual variants affecting the meaning of the words are present between the Nestle 1904 text and the SBLGNT (2010) for 1 Timothy 2:12. Minor differences might include punctuation or capitalization, but the lexical content remains consistent.

Textual criticism (NA28), lexical notes (KITTEL, BDAG):

From a textual critical perspective (informed by NA28 and UBS5), the Greek text of 1 Timothy 2:12 is remarkably stable across major manuscript traditions. There are no significant variants affecting the key terms under consideration (διδάσκειν, οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδὲ, αὐθεντεῖν, ἀνδρός, ἡσυχίᾳ), which lends confidence to the received text for exegetical analysis.

Lexically, several terms are crucial:

• διδάσκειν (didaskein): The present active infinitive of διδάσκω (didaskō), meaning “to teach, instruct, impart instruction.” (BDAG, s.v. διδάσκω). Its usage here highlights the ongoing nature of the activity.
• ἐπιτρέπω (epitrepō): “To permit, allow, give permission.” (BDAG, s.v. ἐπιτρέπω). The present indicative active οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω signifies a firm, ongoing prohibition: “I am not permitting.”
• οὐδὲ (oude): The conjunction meaning “and not, nor, not even.” (BDAG, s.v. οὐδὲ). This is the focus of the exegesis. BDAG notes its function both to introduce a second negative clause (“nor”) and to add emphasis (“not even”). The exegetical question is whether it also carries an explanatory force in this specific construction.
• αὐθεντεῖν (authentein): The infinitive meaning “to assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, domineer over, lord it over.” (BDAG, s.v. αὐθεντέω). This verb is a hapax legomenon in the New Testament and its precise nuance (e.g., legitimate authority vs. abusive domination) is highly debated, but its connection to διδάσκειν here is pivotal.
• ἀνδρός (andros): The genitive singular of ἀνήρ (anēr), typically meaning “man” or “husband.” In the phrase αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, it signifies “to exercise authority over a man/husband.”
• ἡσυχίᾳ (hēsuchia): “Quietness, silence, stillness.” (BDAG, s.v. ἡσυχία). The dative phrase ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ means “in quietness” or “in silence.” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT, s.v. ἡσυχία) often highlights that this term implies an orderly and peaceable disposition, not necessarily absolute muteness.

Translation Variants

The core of the translation discussion for 1 Timothy 2:12 hinges on the interpretation of οὐδὲ and its grammatical and rhetorical relationship between the two infinitives, διδάσκειν (“to teach”) and αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός (“to exercise authority over a man”).

1. **Simple Coordination (“nor”):** A common rendering treats οὐδὲ as a straightforward coordinating conjunction, linking two distinct, albeit related, prohibitions.
   
   Grammatical analysis: This view sees διδάσκειν and αὐθεντεῖν as two parallel, prohibited actions, both governed by οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω.
   
   Rhetorical analysis: It suggests Paul is listing two separate activities forbidden to women in this context, without explicitly stating a hierarchical or explanatory link between them. The reader is left to infer the connection.
2. **Intensifying/Emphatic Coordination (“nor even”):** This interpretation posits that οὐδὲ carries an intensifying force, highlighting the second prohibition as a more extreme, inclusive, or reinforcing aspect of the overall negative command.
   
   Grammatical analysis: Similar to simple coordination, but with an added nuance of emphasis on the second element. Carl Conrad’s suggestion of “nor even” aligns with this.
   
   Rhetorical analysis: This implies that exercising authority is either a more severe transgression or a natural, forbidden consequence of the preceding act of teaching, thus strengthening the prohibition.
3. **Explanatory Coordination (“that is, nor”):** This view, as advanced by Lenski, suggests that the second prohibition serves to explicate or define the first. Here, the act of “exercising authority over a man” explains the specific type or context of “teaching” that is being forbidden.
   
   Grammatical analysis: While not a standard grammatical category in all grammars, the semantic function is that of a virtual appositive or explanatory clause. The second infinitive clarifies the scope or nature of the first.
   
   Rhetorical analysis: This interpretation suggests that for Paul, “teaching” by a woman in this context inherently involves an inappropriate exercise of authority over men, making the second clause a specific clarification of the first. This is a common interpretive approach for those who see the two prohibitions as highly interconnected and context-dependent.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

While the explicit grammatical term “explicative οὐδὲ” may not be universally recognized in standard Koine Greek grammars, the semantic and rhetorical function it describes is a highly plausible interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12. Given the rarity and strong connotation of αὐθεντεῖν, it is unlikely that Paul is merely listing two unconnected prohibitions. The connection between teaching and authority is often observed in ancient Jewish and Greco-Roman contexts, particularly concerning public instruction and leadership roles. Therefore, οὐδὲ most likely functions to either clarify the nature of the forbidden teaching or to intensify the prohibition by adding a related, yet distinct, forbidden action that is understood as equally (or more) problematic.

Considering the available lexical and rhetorical analyses, the following translation suggestions attempt to convey these nuanced understandings:

1. “I do not permit a woman to teach, *nor indeed* to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain in quietness.”
   This translation employs “nor indeed” to capture an explanatory or intensifying force, suggesting a strong connection where exercising authority is intrinsically linked to or clarifies the nature of the forbidden teaching.
2. “But I am not allowing a woman to teach, *nor even* to assume authority over a man, but to be in quiet submission.”
   This option emphasizes an intensifying force, portraying the exercise of authority as a further, potentially more egregious, or encompassing prohibition, and uses “quiet submission” for a more interpretative rendering of ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ.
3. “I do not permit a woman to teach *or* to have authority over a man; instead, she is to be quiet.”
   This more concise and idiomatic translation uses “or” to connect the two prohibitions, allowing the reader to infer a close semantic relationship without explicitly stating “explicative” or “nor even,” thus preserving some ambiguity while still linking the concepts.