Epexegetical οὐδέ?

Post Reply
Andrew Chapman
Posts: 265
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Epexegetical οὐδέ?

Post by Andrew Chapman »

I came across an ingenious argument to justify the notion that οὐδέ can have an epexegetical force. It is in an article http://www.wlsessays.net/files/KuskeTimothy.pdf by David Kuske, formerly Professor of New Testament Theology at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary, and a bible translator, apparently. He writes:
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.
It seems to me, first of all, that he misconstrues Robertson who says:
Robertson on oude.png
Robertson on oude.png (83.52 KiB) Viewed 1758 times
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
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Epexegetical οὐδέ?

Post by cwconrad »

Andrew Chapman wrote:I came across an ingenious argument to justify the notion that οὐδέ can have an epexegetical force. ...
Reluctant as I am to say this, I'm inclined to think this is an eisegetical argument. There's just so very much argument in, over, above, around and beyond this particular οὐδὲ in this particular text (1 Tim 2:12) that perhaps it were better termed "aporetic" οὐδέ.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Andrew Chapman
Posts: 265
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: Epexegetical οὐδέ?

Post by Andrew Chapman »

cwconrad wrote: There's just so very much argument in, over, above, around and beyond this particular οὐδὲ in this particular text (1 Tim 2:12)
Thanks, Carl, you encouraged me to search the archives more fully, and I found a reference in a post by Clifford Kuehne on 11 January 1996 to a paper in the Journal of Theology of the Church of the Lutheran Confession September 1995, entitled 'The meaning of οὐδέ in 1 Timothy 2:12'. It takes the form of an answer to David Kuske, and is very thorough and well-argued. It is online at http://clclutheran.org/library/jtheo_arch/jtsep1995.pdf.

Andrew
Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”