"'Neither/Nor' in 1 Timothy 2:12" Dr. Linda Belleville

Yesterday, in the Discovering Biblical Equality series, I published a post called DBE: Chapter 12 – Teaching and Usurping Authority: 1 Timothy 2:11-15. It is a review of an essay by Dr. Linda Belleville. Within the essay she discusses grammatical issues with regard to the construction of 1 Timothy 2:12. I included only portions of that discussion in the interest of keeping the post to manageable length but a couple of you have contacted me asking how she deals with certain grammatical aspects, especially "neither/nor." So as a supplement, I thought I would give you the four paragraphs in their entirety.

So how did “to exercise authority over” find its way into the majority of modern translations of 1 Timothy 2:12? Andreas Kostenberger claims that it is the correlative that forces translators in this direction. He argues that the Greek correlative pairs synonyms of parallel words and not antonyms. Since “to teach” is positive, authentein must also be positive. To demonstrate this point, Kostenberger analyzes “neither” + verb 1 + “nor” + verb 2 constructions in biblical and extrabiblical literature.

Yet there is a grammatical flaw intrinsic to this approach. It is limited to formally equivalent constructions, excluding functionally equivalent ones, and so the investigation includes only correlated verbs. Thus it overlooks the fact that the infinitives (“to teach,” authentein) are functioning grammatically not as verbs but as nouns in the sentence structure (as one would expect a verbal noun to do.) The Greek infinitive may have tense and voice like a verb, but it functions predominately as a noun or adjective. The verb in 1 Timothy 2:12 is actually “I permit.” “Neither to teach nor authentein” modifies the noun “a woman,” which makes the authentein clause the second of two direct objects. Us of the infinitive as a direct object after a verb that already has a direct object has been amply demonstrated by biblical and extrabiblical grammarians. In such cases the infinitive restricts the already present object. Following the paradigm, the 1 Timothy 2:12 correlative neither to teach nor authentein functions as a noun that restricts the direct object “a woman” (gynaiki).

It behooves us, therefore to correlate nouns and noun substitutes in addition to verbs. This greatly expands the possibilities. “Neither-nor” constructions in the New Testament are found to pair synonyms (e.g., “neither despised nor scorned, “ Gal 4:14), closely related ideas (e.g. neither of the night nor of the dark,” 1 Thess 5:5) and antonyms (e.g. “neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free,” Gal 3:28). They also function to move from general to the particular (e.g., “wisdom neither of this age nor the rulers of this age,” I Cor 2:6), to define a natural progression of related ideas (e.g., “they neither sow, nor reap, nor gather into barns,” Mt 6:26), and to define a related purpose or a goal (e.g., “where thieves neither break in nor steal” [break in to steal], Mt 6:20). [In a footnote Belleville list about fifteen other examples and references her book “Women Leaders in the Church.” 176-177]

Of the options listed above, it is clear that “teach” and “dominate” are not synonyms, closely related ideas or antonyms. If authentein did mean “to exercise authority,” we might have a movement from general to particular. But we would expect the word order to be the reverse of what we have in 1 Timothy 2:12, that is, “neither to exercise authority [general] nor to teach [particular].” They do not form a natural progression of related ideas either (“first teach, then dominate”). On the other hand, to define a purpose or goal actually provides a good fit: “I do not permit a woman to teach so as to gain mastery over a man,” or “I do not permit a woman to teach with a view to dominating a man.” It also fits the contrast with second part of the verse: “I do not permit a woman to teach a man in a dominating way but to have quiet demeanor [literally, ‘to be in calmness’].”

(“Teaching and Usurping Authority” an essay in Discovering Biblical Equality, Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2004. 217-219.)

Comments

[Removed]

Comment removed at author's request.

[Michael Kruse]

Thanks Jorge!

Somewhere around here I have a couple of articles by egalitarian writers who would support your claim that not all agree with Bellville. I took a quick look when I was doing that post and when I could not find them I decided I might post something later. What I seem recalling is that while they differed with Belleville on the Grammar the differed with other folks on the implications.

Thanks for raising this. I will take a look at the article (eventually) and see if I can dig up the articles. Maybe Kostenberger's article will reference them.

Peace!

[Rusty Bullerman]

Belleville's article is a very strong one. She documents her claims and quotes the authorities. Kostenberger must look beyond the verb to the verbal noun. This opens up a lot of other possibilities. She also engages the other authors of the book with the same precision and detail. I fail to see how this is a weak article. I would very interested to see Kostenberger and his buds respond with equal academic precision to her arguments. The fact that she is "out of step" with other egalitarians strikes me as a non-sequitur. This is par for the course as far as the rejoinders I have read.

I have read two of the Complementarians that accept Kostenberger's claim. Padgett accepts it then two lines later refutes Kostenberger's claim that teaching is always positive in Paul. Padgett shows that it is negative in at least two places in 1 Timothy alone. He then uses Kostenberger's point to refute Kostenberger's claim about Paul excluding women from teaching and any exercise of authority. Since this is one of the foundational points of the book, I fail to see how Kostenberger and company excel and exceed Belleville's and Padgett's critique.

The second egalitarian, Craig Keener, acknowledges Kostenberger's point and then shows that he doesn't have to use either sense to make his case in 1 Timothy 2 in Women in Ministry, 2 Views.

To show you that egalitarians cannot be cut from the same mold, Keener subscribes to the Eternal subordination of the Son, an almost exclusivly complementarian position. It is not safe or good scholarship to base your convictions and arguments on a person's label in a debate with the corollary assumption that they all hold to the same tenets.

Rusty

[Jeremy Pierce]

I think Kostenberger acknowledges that an occurrence of the verb for teaching can refer to something negative when a negative adjective or adverb modifies it. The occurrences I know of in I Timothy are such instances. What he argues, I believe, is that unmodified instances of that verb are always positive in Paul. I don't have it in front of me, but that's what I seem to remember of his argument.

[Michael Kruse]

The grammar stuff is hardly my forte. I do well to compose complete sentences in English. I understand Belleville's and Kostenberger's claims about the grammar but I am not the best to make and definitive claims. I have asked others who live in such debates, and who I trust, who find Belleville's position persuasive.

In short, it is all Greek to me.