Odds & Ends -- By: Anonymous

Journal: Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
Volume: JBMW 13:2 (Winter 2008)
Article: Odds & Ends
Author: Anonymous


Odds & Ends

Andreas Köstenberger Responds to Philip Payne on 1 Timothy 2:12

My findings regarding the syntax of 1 Tim 2:12 in the first edition of Women in the Church were widely accepted even among feminist scholars (though, of course, they still do not agree with the book’s overall thrust on other grounds). There has been a recent exception, though, in the case of Philip B. Payne, who recently published an article in the journal New Testament Studies (“1 Tim 2.12 and the Use of οὐδε, to Combine Two Elements to Express a Single Idea,” NTS 54 [2008]: 235-53). In my 1995 essay in the first edition, I provided a thorough critique of Payne’s earlier unpublished 1988 paper on oude. Now Payne, in turn, has responded to my study, claiming that nine of the over 100 syntactical parallels to 1 Tim 2:12 I presented do not match the pattern. I will respond in detail to Payne’s article in a forthcoming publication, Entrusted with the Gospel: Paul’s Theology in the Pastoral Epistles (Broadman & Holman). In brief, let me say, however, that, first, even if Payne is right and nine of the over 100 instances don’t fit the overall pattern, that would still be an over 90 percent success rate!

What is more, I carefully looked at Payne’s article and each of the nine instances he discusses, and I found that Payne’s analysis does not hold true. Essentially, he seems to be operating on the basis of the notion that verbs are “positive” or “negative” largely in and of themselves. More properly, however, verbs convey a positive or negative connotation in context. For example, one of the nine instances in which Payne disputes the validity of my argument is 2 Thess 3:7–8 (“For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you”). I maintained that both being idle and eating others’ bread without paying for it are viewed negatively by the author (Paul). Payne objects that there’s nothing wrong with accepting “free meals,” so here one negative and one positive verb are joined. I continue to maintain that, in context, “eating anyone’s bread without paying for it” is viewed by Paul negatively, as is made clear by the following clause “that we might not be a burden to any of you” (clearly not viewed positively by Paul).

For this reason, I would argue that Payne’s rebuttal is itself invalid and that my original conclusion stands. The other eight ins...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()