It seems to me, first of all, that he misconstrues Robertson who says:The grammatical use of οὐδέ which fits in this verse [1 Timothy 2:12] .. is the explanatory use of οὐδέ. The technical term which the grammars use (i.e. Robertson, Blass-Debrunner-Funk, Moulton) is epexegetical or explicative. The explanatory use of καί as a conjunction is commonplace (eg. Jn 1:16, 1 Cor 8:12, 12:27). But the Greek language does not tie one negative clause to another with καί; instead it uses οὐδέ. Thus οὐδέ is the conjunction in negative sentences which parallels all the uses of καί in positive sentences (Robertson, p 1185). Some examples in which οὐδέ is used after οὐ in an explanatory function (as it is used here in 1 Tm 2:12) are: Matthew 6:28; Mark 4:22, Romans 2:28–29, 1 Corinthians 5:11 [μηδὲ συνεσθίειν - not even to eat], 1 Thessalonians 5:5, 1 Peter 2:22, Acts 2:27. .. what we have in this οὐδέ clause is an appositive or explanatory statement which will help clarify the meaning of the first clause in this verse.
These are just the usual meanings of οὐδέ: A) after a previous negative, 1) 'and not', 'nor'; 2) 'also not', 'neither'; B) adverbially, 'not even'. None of these are epexegetical, so far as I can see.
Second, in all the examples he claims of an epexegetical use of οὐδέ, the normal senses fit perfectly well.
Third, according to the grammars, (Smyth, Robertson..) οὐδέ is οὐ plus δέ. Nobody has suggested that δέ can have an epexegetical force. So can οὐδέ?
Andrew