Craig

Pinklight @215

Paul says “Adam was formed first” and connects that thought to “And Adam was not deceived.” Next he says “then Eve” and connects that to “but the woman…”
The reason why Eve was deceived is because of the things she did not learn as Adam had because he was created first and she was created after. What Paul is doing is connecting Eve being created after Adam to the woman’s deception and falling into sin, just as he connected Adam being created first to him not being deceived.
And we know from Genesis that because Eve was created second, she was deceived because of the knowledge she lacked that Adam did not.

You seem to be connecting Adam being created first to Adam himself not being deceived.
If we follow the pattern, then Eve being created second would connect with Eve herself being deceived, rather than the Ephesian woman.
If you connect Eve being created after Adam, with the Ephesian woman’s deception, then wouldn’t you have to connect Adam being created first with the Ephesian man’s deception, not Adam?
1a)Adam first b)Adam not deceived c) Illustrates Ephesian man
2a)Eve second b) Eve deceived c) Illustrates Ephesian woman
To connect 1a with 1b, and 2a with 2c misses 2b.

As I say, there seems to be a bit left out of the puzzle if Eve is not in v14b, but it can be filled in with the quote from Gengwall “but the woman, like Eve….” instead of just “but the woman….”.

But I may not be following what you are trying to say?

Perhaps there was a papyri shortage at the time and so he left out bits that could be assumed? 🙂

As I see it, we argue from v13,14 that Paul is saying
1 Eve was deceived
2 The Ephesian woman is deceived
3 The Ephesian woman is just like Eve
4 (The Ephesian man is like Adam in not doing anything to help- but that is another subject)

Cheryl’s 2006 view has the advantage that it mentions number 1, Eve’s deception, but has the disadvantage that it doesn’t say numbers 2 and 3, that the Ephesian woman is deceived, just like Eve. We have to assume these, but they are consistent with the rest of the passage.
Cheryl’s 2011 view has the advantage that it mentions number 2, the Ephesian woman’s deception but has the disadvantage that it doesn’t say numbers 1 and 3, that Eve was deceived and the Ephesian woman is just like Eve. We have to assume these, but they are consistent with the rest of the passage.
It seems that every view (whether comp or egal) that I have looked into has to make some assumptions and fill in some missing details. It seems a matter of prayerfully determining which view handles the available data in the best way, while still leaving some assumptions that are reasonable to accept as plausible. At this stage, no comp view comes close, but there are several egal views which still seem possibilities to me.
It would be very nice (just to make life easier for me of course 🙂 ) if Paul had clearly said
“but the woman, like Eve….” instead of just “but the woman….”. Then we would have numbers 1,2,3 all clearly stated! Oh well……..

Gengwall @213

“What is important is that Adam was not deceived while Eve was.”

This is why it would have been clearer if he actually said this.

“It would have helped, I suppose, if Paul had said “but the woman, like Eve….” instead of just “but the woman….”.

Exactly. I agree with you. If Paul actually had said this, then it would make good sense to me without having to assume, or add bits to fill in the detail.

“For Adam was created first, and then Eve. And Adam was not deceived. But the woman [in the same manner as Eve] was deceived and has fallen into transgression.
For Adam was created first, and then Eve. And Adam was not deceived. But the woman [who I have been discussing] was deceived and has fallen into transgression.
I see no difference between the two.”

I would like to be able to agree, but to me the first bracketed alternative seems to express your view more clearly to me.

Gengwall @212
“Even if the verbal aspect theory was correct ……the vs. 15 woman still can’t be Eve and also can’t be all women ”

Agreed

Gengwall@212

“I generally opt for the simple reading of a passage if it makes sense. Regardless of verbal aspect theories and comp wishful thinking, the passage makes the most sense if “the woman” of vs. 14 is not Eve. It fits the plain text (Adam is named twice but Eve is not named in the last part of the verse), it fits the plain understanding of the perfect tense (whereas the VAT leaves us hanging without a clear interpretation), it matches up “the woman” with “she” in vs. 15 and maintains the integrity of a contemporary woman interpretation, it holds up Eve as an individual example instead of making her some strange and otherwise unexplained representative of all women, and it shows how Adam and Eve both support Paul’s general commentary on deception, false teaching, and salvation. The only reason this passage is so “confusing” is that the English interpretations are all over the map. But the plain reading with focus on the Greek is very clear. Why would we reject the plain reading in favor of inconclusive, incoherent interpretations? Unless, of course, we had an agenda other than seekign the truth that we wanted to promote.”

A good summary of your view. Thanks.

“it holds up Eve as an individual example”
“it shows how Adam and Eve both support Paul’s general commentary on deception”

It only does these with some assumptions unfortunately. Technically, all Paul tells us about Eve is that she was formed after Adam – that’s all.

TL @211
“Craig, this is where I’m of the opinion that Paul is making a double reference. Gnostic beliefs had things mixed up about who was created first and who was deceived. So, it’s as if he were saying the woman Eve was not created first and she was the one deceived into sinning, not Adam. So, this woman is like Eve, a woman deceived into erroneous beliefs, but there is hope for her salvation if she and her husband continue in faith, love and holiness with self control.”

If we are trying to think about whether v14b could be about the Ephesian woman, rather than Eve, from the way you have expressed the view above, it would still suffer like the other views from the fact that part of it is about Eve’s deception, and Eve’s deception is not mentioned.
One way to turn these thoughts to a solution for the problem I see would be to paraphrase it
(For in contrast to what this Ephesian woman is teaching), Adam was actually the one who was formed first, and then Eve. And (in contrast to what this Ephesian woman is teaching)Adam was not deceived, but (rather than Adam whom she claims was deceived) this Ephesian woman is the one who is actually deceived and has come to be in the transgression.
Understanding it like this does not mention any deception of Eve in order to complete the thought, and contrasts the non-deception of Adam with the deception of the Ephesian woman as Paul does.
Its problem as I see it is that it depends on historical background material that may be impossible to be sure about.

TL @211
“There may be a lot more hidden in that word authentein than we realize because of the things done in the Artemis/Diana temple by the temple priestesses. If this woman or some women had been trying to forcefully mix in some of the agnostic teachings with their husbands or other men, it would have been ugly and confusing.”

This is the sort of thing I was wondering about a few days ago, and whether this may be the context of 11-15 and the whole of ch2.

I’m still struggling though with understanding Paul’s reasoning if Eve is not in v14b. It sounds like Paul is saying that there is something about Adam being formed first that meant he was not deceived. But this Ephesian woman is not like Adam because she is deceived.
Paul’s emphasis seems to be in contrasting the Ephesian woman with Adam, rather than comparing her to Eve as we have usually understood it.

If I am understanding you correctly @204, you are saying another clue why v14 is not Eve is because Paul changes tense from Adam to the woman when speaking of their deception (or non-deception). If I have heard this before it hasn’t sunk in, so thanks for saying this. This means that there are clues before it (with the change in tense from Adam), clues in it (perfect tense), and clues after it (v15) all pointing to the woman not being Eve in v14b. This is all very interesting.

When discussing Cheryl’s 2006 view @203, you said
“Is it possible that “she” could by pass “the woman” of v14 and refer back to “a woman” of v11 & 12?”
“It still doesn’t make sense.”

I have understood Cheryl’s 2006 view with v13,14 as a kind of parenthesis giving the reasons for v11,12. So Paul gives a prohibition to a woman, then gives the reason for this in v13,14. He then continues to discuss the woman in v15. Its only confusing because Paul happened to discuss a woman (Eve) in his reason. If he had of given some other reason with no woman in it, it would have been quite clear that “she” was referring back to v12. Of course Tim would have known these things and not been confused.
I’m not sure that I really follow what your seeing that doesn’t make sense. Sorry.

In discussing question 3 @200, 201 I can see you are considering the question but I am not sure that I am seeing an answer. Are you just thinking aloud or did I miss an answer somewhere?

Hi pinklight. From your responses @200 to my questions 1 and 2, it seems to me that we are really thinking fairly similarly about a lot of things. It sounds like you can understand why I still see Cheryl’s 2006 view as a strong possibility if I am not sure yet about the implications of the perfect tense in v14.
My experiences with comps who know a lot more Greek than me, has possibly made me a bit more hesitant to pursue that line of thinking than I need to be. I appreciate many of the points you, Cheryl and others have made that encourage me to learn more about the perfect tense, why Paul used it, how significant it is, and how it fits in with the rest of the passage.

Hi Pinklight.
I can appreciate the very real and important issues you are raising, but I’ll respond with some questions for whenever you (or if anyone else) get some time.

1 Have you watched Cheryl’s DVD? Before Cheryl discovered the issue of the perfect tense in v14, did you believe that the “she” of v 15 had to be “the woman” of v14, and this was an insurmountable problem and so Cheryl’s exegesis on the DVD must be wrong? Do you now believe that this is so?
2 Just hypothetically, imagine that Cheryl has not yet realized about the perfect tense in v14, and no one has thought of the idea that “the woman” of v14 may not be Eve. Your only options are the “Eve representing women” view for v15, so that “she” in v15 matches “the woman” in v14, or Cheryl’s view from the DVD, which would you choose?
3 How do you explain Paul’s reasoning in v13,14 without referring to the deception of Eve?
Thanks Pinklight

Thanks Cheryl @#186 for the info on verbal aspect theory. I haven’t looked it up for a while, and didn’t follow much of it when I did, but this sounds like what they are referring to. Looking forward to your refutation when you get a chance. In the meantime, I will try and do my homework 🙂 .
Language skills seem very important in all this stuff and I feel severely lacking in them at times.

Gengwall @179
“As for why Paul brought up Eve”

My question is rather why Paul didn’t bring up Eve.
I agree with all the things you write in #184 about why Paul brought in Adam and Eve. That’s why I think it a bit strange as to why Paul would have left Eve out and only included Adam in v14.

Gengwall @179
“Of course, verse 15 confirms this. “she” and verse 14’s “the woman” are the same person. Certainly this can’t be disputed.”

I would agree that this would be normal, but if the information you have about the perfect tense turns out to be inconclusive, and the woman of v14 really is Eve, then I think that Cheryl’s argument from 2006 that ‘she” in v15 must still refer back to v12 would still be valid.

Gengwall, I can see the argument working backwards from “she” in v15 (who can’t be Eve), being the same person as “the woman” in v14, and “a woman” in v12. This all fits very nicely if the Greek perfect tense definitely means what the traditional text books say.
It would be a lot easier to accept though if it made more sense of v14, rather than making it more confusing. Even with the perfect tense translated as you did, it would say
And Adam was not deceived, yet the woman from Ephesus, being deceived, has come to be in the transgression.
Why does Paul contrast Adam directly with the Ephesian woman? Why does he leave out a step in his logic and an essential point in his argument and not mention that Eve was deceived? Don’t you find this a bit of a “squirmy” part of your argument? Don’t you feel a bit uneasy about saying the passage is about how the woman is like Eve in her deception if Paul never mentions Eve’s deception?
Now if the Greek is clear, then so be it, and we need to assume Paul left out that bit and hoped that Tim would be able to fill in the gaps or that Eve “morphed” into the Ephesian woman in Paul’s mind as he was writing the sentence because they are so alike. Is that the way Paul normally writes? And then isn’t that getting just as bad as those who “morph” all women into Eve as the “she” in v15?
Cheryl’s 2006 interpretation, on the other hand, (if I understand it correctly) doesn’t have this problem, and doesn’t get me in quite so much bother when I discuss it with others. So at this stage, I am keeping an open mind on these two alternatives (Cheryl’s 2006 view v Cheryl’s 2011 view) until I can get a better understanding of it.
Thanks Gengwall and Cheryl for your comments here to help in this. I can see I have a bit of homework to do!

Hi gengwall. Thanks for joining in. I always appreciate your comments.
Thanks for the quote and explanation from the Concordant Literal NT. @#179.
Have you ever debated this with someone who believes in “verbal aspect theory”? I have given some comp friends of mine quotes from Cheryl and definitions of perfect tense from text books. People who have trained in Greek under the current Greek lecturer at Moore College in Sydney (Con Campbell) or those who are familiar with his work and book on verbal aspect theory all say that it is not as clear as what traditionally has been taught. One of the staff at church told me that pushing the perfect tense to mean what I was suggesting and you and Cheryl are saying is ridiculous and shows up the fact that “a little Greek is dangerous.”

Now I would love it to be crystal clear as you say, and I hope it is. But at this stage, I am not sure. Thank you for the reference in #182 re perfect tense.

I really appreciated your comments in #156. So many excellent thoughts.
I agree that your work with the scriptures, digging into the text, is outstanding and I am very grateful to God for you and the gifts he has given you.
I agree that a degree does not matter as far as truth goes. A passion for truth, godliness of character, and appropriate gifts from God are far more important. I thank God that I can see and benefit from these things that I see in you.

v14 again.
“Adam was not the one deceived
it was the woman who was deceived.”
Doesn’t this naturally read as though these two statements are contrasted with each other. Don’t we always discuss from this passage, and comparing it with Genesis 3, the difference between Adam’s deliberate sin and Eve’s sin through deception. All this is not in this passage if it is not talking about Eve. The contrast seems to naturally refer to the contrasting responses of Adam and Eve in the fall.
The Greek would have to be very conclusive to overcome this natural reading.

Cheryl @171,
“The fact is that “a woman” or “a girl” can be generic. However the complete context will determine whether the generic meaning fits the text.”

Yes. that’s what I’m thinking about and wanting people’s feedback. Thanks.

Cheryl @171
“remaining in the class is not akin to salvation being dependent on any boy who is being punched.”

It is just an illustration. I am just trying to emphasize the generics and their possible meanings, not making a theological statement about salvation.

Cheryl @171
“Your example shows a general usage but doesn’t exactly fit 1 Timothy 2:11-15 as there is no definite article”

The definite article is not in my illustration because it is in v14. If you are correct on vs14 then this whole suggested interpretation falls apart. I am assuming in this that v14 is Eve- this could be wrong, but it may also be correct. I am following the reasoning from #162 “So in this view, “a woman” is mentioned in v12, then kinda in parenthesis v13,14 gives some background reasons and example for the prohibition, then the “she” in v15 picks up again from “a woman” in v12.”
I am trying to make the generics in v12 and 15 stand out more clearly by this example, so they can be evaluated as a possibility or not.

Cheryl @170,
“NET | 1 Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, because she was fully deceived, fell into transgression.”

You can probably still appreciate that to most people reading that translation, Eve would fit perfectly. “Fell into transgression” I think would sound more like Eve to many people than someone who is probably not a Christian, deceived and teach – authenteining a man. To me, the clincher though is the Greek. As you say, you believed what most people do- that this was about Eve until you learned more about the Greek. I have heard both sides on this and it seems another issue that I would love to be clear, but isn’t. I’m interested to hear what you have found about the verbal aspect theory. Certainly, if the Greek can be clearly shown to not be able to refer to Eve, then that would virtually clinch your current view of the passage.

Cheryl @170,
“In your reference in #163 you did not use “the girl”. This is essential to use the definite article to have an anaphoric reference back to the indefinite noun.”

Thanks for that point. The idea that the passage later on clarifies what has gone before is what I was meaning. This is the way you understood it in 2006, with v 15 explaining v12. If that is not technically what an anaphoric reference is then thank you for that correction.

Having said what I think v11-15 means apart from the context, I will just elaborate a little on #146 and #163 in case the context should alter the way I think about v11-15.
In the particular school (in Australia this refers to 4-18 year olds) classroom mentioned in #163, there has become quite a problem with several of the girls involved in punching boys.
The principal writes to the teacher some general things that will help with the problem (v1-7)
Some of the boys have become quite angry over this punching behavior. (v8)
The girls doing the punching are dressing with boxing gloves appropriate to deliver a good punch (v9,10)
Then the principal writes in his letter to the teacher
“a girl needs to learn quietly. I do not permit a girl to punch a boy. But she can remain in the class, if they continue to behave appropriately”.
Now whereas I would naturally take this as described in #163, could the context imply that the principal is actually using these words to be discussing a wider phenomena in the classroom than just one girl and one boy. Could he mean
“a girl (any girl) needs to learn quietly. I do not permit a girl (any girl, and there are several involved in your class) to punch a boy (any boy- and this means that it is wrong for any girl to punch one boy, and so would certainly be wrong if any girl punched several boys). But she (any girl who is punching a boy, whether this is just one boy or several) can remain in the class, if they (any girl who is doing the punching together with any boy she is punching) continue to behave appropriately”.
I am not sure whether my grammar skills are good enough to know if this is possible. It sounds possible to me, given the context.
Problems I see if I read 1 Tim 2 this way
1 If “the woman” in v14 can only possibly refer to a particular Ephesian woman as Pinklight has raised- but still needs further proof to me.
2 It assumes that the context of ch 2 is dealing with the same problem as v11-15 and this is hard to prove.

Just another question about “the woman” in v14 being the Ephesian woman. In what sense has she become a sinner? Wouldn’t she have always been a sinner? Eve did at one point “become a sinner”.

A slightly squirmy problem for “the woman” in v14 not being Eve is that we really need Eve to be there to properly complete Paul’s thought. We want to refer to Eve’s deception from this passage but it is not there any more! We want Paul to have said “Adam was not the one deceived; it was Eve. The woman in Ephesus is just like Eve- she is deceived and has become a sinner.” So we have to insert the thought about Eve as understood, (or mix Eve and the Ephesian woman both into the words somehow) when Paul doesn’t actually say this. With Cheryl’s 2006 view (I hope I am correct in saying this), this is not a problem.

If anyone asks me what I really think about a natural reading of v11-15, apart from the context, I would answer like this. V11,12 sound like a general comment, but v15 indicates that Paul has a particular woman and man in mind.
A school principal writes to a teacher, “a girl needs to learn quietly. I do not permit a girl to punch a boy. But she can remain in the class, if they continue to behave appropriately”. It sounds like he is stating a general principle, but his conclusion indicates that he has a particular girl and boy in mind. I guess this is what the anaphoric issue is about.
I am just raising any other possibilities I can think of to see if I am missing something that could relate more easily with the context. Thanks.

Thanks everyone for your encouragement.
Pinklight. @#149 and following, you asked “Craig, in regards to your comment #146, I have a question. Where and how do you fit in “the woman” of v14?”
When I first found this blog, I read one of Cheryl’s early posts on 1 Tim 2 and bought the DVD’s. As I understand things, Cheryl at that time believed “the woman” of v14 was Eve.
Later on, I read a post that Cheryl did on Dave Woolcott’s blog, and at that stage, it seems Cheryl had learnt about the Greek tense and so “the woman” of v14 could not be Eve, but must refer to “a woman” of v12.
Later on, in the post you referred to, Cheryl learnt about the anaphoric reference in Greek and how this would apply to “the woman” of v14 referring back to “a woman” of v11,12.
In the view I am thinking about in #146 (BTW any of the views I am asking about here lately, are not really “my view”, but rather “a view I am thinking about at the moment as to whether it has any merit or not”), “the woman” of v14 is Eve. If I was to defend this I would say that Eve is mentioned in v13, she is naturally connected with Adam in the fall spoken of in v14, she is called “the woman” in Genesis, the verbal aspect theory in Greek allows for it to be referring to Eve, and Cheryl thought it was the natural reading in 2006.
The difficulty with this view is that “she” in v15 then naturally refers to Eve, which can’t be because Eve is dead. So we then have to think who else could Paul be referring to? We then go back to v12 to find the answer. So in this view, “a woman” is mentioned in v12, then kinda in parenthesis v13,14 gives some background reasons and example for the prohibition, then the “she” in v15 picks up again from “a woman” in v12. It is only confusing, because Paul happens to use Eve, a woman, in his example. If he had of given another reason, it would not be confusing because “she” would then clearly have referred back to v12.

I hope I’m not driving you all mad. You may all cry out “Oh no, not another suggestion from Craig! At the risk of boring you to tears, here goes…

If I am understanding things correctly, then to harmonize v12 and v15 grammatically, there are only 2 possible alternatives:
1 In v12 “a woman” refers to a particular Ephesian woman,“a man”refers to a particular Ephesian man/husband, In v15 “she” refers to the same woman, and “they” refers to both the woman and the man/her husband. This is Cheryl’s view. It has to overcome difficulties of a) v11,12 “sounding” generic to many people, and b) context- many people see the chapter dealing more with groups of people.
If the second possible grammatical alternative which I outline below is untenable, then this first alternative is the only possible one left, and so must be Paul’s meaning. We must accept the difficulties and work toward understanding the solutions to those difficulties -which Cheryl has been so wonderfully kind in working so hard at for us. Thank you Cheryl.
2 The second possible grammatically correct alternative would see “a woman”, “a man”,”she”, and “they” as all generic. Many accept “a woman” and “a man” (v12) as generic. Would that then mean “I do not permit any woman to teach-authentein any man”? This certainly includes prohibiting this activity to one man, but doesn’t necessarily sound to me like Paul would only be prohibiting this activity if it was to one man, but also to a number of men as the case may be.
I have heard many explanations that are”sort of” generic for v15 but none are precise if I understand properly what is meant by generic. I have a question. If “she” and”they” are generic in v15, and linked to v12, then does “she” then refer to any woman involved in authenteining a man and “they” to any woman involved in authenteining a man together with any man she is authenteining? I may well have missed it, but I don’t think I have heard this ever suggested as an alternative. I may be wrong, but I think I recall people usually referring to “she” as women in general, and “they” as women also, or perhaps “they” as women and men in general when thinking in terms of this alternative.
So am I correct in my understanding of what “she” and “they” in v15 would mean if they are generic, and grammatically linked to v12?
If I am, then for Cheryl’s explanation to be the only one possible, I must dismiss this second alternative as a viable option.
It has positives of context and being generic in v12 where many think it ‘sounds” generic.
It has two potential negatives that I can see:
a How could it be, that any woman who is teaching and authenteining a man, will be saved if she herself together with any man she is authenteining continue in faith etc. As I think about it, could Paul be drawing attention to how much of a team effort is needed to save these women? Imagine a deceived woman who has taught and authenteined ten men. If one of the men gives in to her false teaching and believes her (and possibly has sex with her as a result)- what an encouragement that would be in her deception. On the other hand, if all ten were united in their stand against the false teaching, what a help that would be in coming out of deception and into true faith and continuing on. (I wrote this before I saw your comment Cheryl @ #131, so I need to think about that more)
b v14 and the Greek tense regarding the woman. As I understand it, the traditional way of understanding Greek tenses points to “the woman” of v14 having to be alive at the time of writing, and so must be the particular Ephesian woman. This seems conclusive, but when I have mentioned this with Pastors at church, and another Moore Theological College student, they are all quick to tell me that the traditional understanding of the Greek is not correct, due to the new “verbal aspect theory”. I don’t know Greek, so at this stage I have no answer for this and so this point is not conclusive for me.
If anyone is still interested in my ramblings, and wants to help rule out option 2, so that only Cheryl’s view remains, please do. Or if anyone can see any merit in option two, I would be interested in knowing this also.
Thanks again everyone for putting up with me. 🙂