Date: Fri Aug 15 1997 - 02:44:22 EDT
I have a question about the "direct object" of the infinitives AUQENTEIN and
DIDASKEIN in I Tim 2:12.
It appears to me that DIDASKEIN is absolute, due to the word order.
However, a correspondant wrote, "DIDASKW always takes a direct object in the
pastorals; some of such instances involve an obviously implied direct object
(stated with only one verb). There are very, very few instances in which two
verbs are joined by OUDE when one is absolute and the other takes an object.
That the case has changed is not at all out of the ordinary. I see this
view--that DIDASKEIN is an absolute verb--to be quite unlikely in light of
Paul's style in the pastorals as well as the standard syntactical style of
the NT writers. Economy of usage is the norm."
But I found only a couple of occurances of DIDASKW in the pastorals--not
enough to establish that DIDASKW "always" takes a direct object. I Tim 4:11
was representative of the other occurances: PARAGGELLE TAUTA KAI DIDASKE.
As far as I'm concerned, the word order in I Tim 4:11 stands in marked
contrast with the word order of the infinitive pair in I Tim. 2:12: DIDASKEIN
DE GUNAIKI OUK EPITREPW, OUDE AUQENTEIN ANDROS. It seems to me that the
placement of DIDASKEIN up front and the considerable distance between it and
AUQENTEIN ANDROS makes it unlikely that ANDROS is the direct object (and
wouldn't ANDROS be the indirect object of DIDASKW if it did apply? Would
there be an ellipsis of the direct object: the subject matter taught?)
I'm writing you off-line because the last thing that I want to do is to start
another combative thread over the gender issue. But I would very much
appreciate your response.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:25 EDT