gengwall

I think I see what you are saying, though, Craig. A comp will ignore Genesis 1 if it is convenient. But even in Genesis 2, God says nothing about authority. It is an argument pulled out of thin air. For that argument to be true, all men for all time would have more authority over the animals, specifically in the act of naming, than any woman. Even in absence of Genesis 1 (which clearly rebuts such an assertion), that simply isn’t reality, either in the bible or in practical living, in any culture at any time any where.

“I am not sure I properly follow you here Gengwall. I think comps would argue (without any reason from Gen 1) that although Eve did have authority over the animals, it was not “equal authority” with Adam.”

They, of course, can argue anything they want. But their argument has no substantiation in Scripture. Genesis 1 clearly states:

Gen 1:26-28
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

There is no hierarchy of authority in there no matter how you read it. So any argument that Adam had more authority over the animals than Eve is a complete fantasy.

“For example, they would say that Adam could name tigers because he had authority over tigers.”

Two thoughts on that. First, Eve had equal authority over the animals with Adam according to Genesis 1. So if Eve was just as authorized to name them as Adam, what possible correlation to authority could Adam’s naming of her have? It couldn’t possibly be an extension of that naming authority because he and Eve were peers in that regard.

But was the Genesis 2 naming an act of authority at all? I don’t know how one can come to that conclusion based on the text. God did not bring the animals to Adam because there was some crisis of authority that need to be resolved. He brought the animals to Adam only because Adam was alone and that was not good. Adam needed to find his ‘ezer neged. Genesis 2:18-20 clearly show that Adam’s naming of the animals was an act of DISCOVERY, not authority.

It should be pointed out that even the naming=authority argument has many flaws. Naming someone does not establish, express, or validate any authority that doesn’t already exist. Nor is the presence of an authoritarian hierarchy necessary to give a name. While naming as an act and authority as a position may both be present in a relationship, as in parents naming their children, such coexistence does not prove any correlation. Naming our children doesn’t establish our authority over them. In fact, the act of naming is not an authoritative act at all. It is an act of love.

Thanks Craig – yes all went well with the wedding.

To “name” someone or something in the cultural context where authority is somehow attached to the naming act is to give a proper, individual name. Adam did do this when he named Eve “chue” in Genesis 3. (Side note – Cheryl and others will undoubtedly point out that this was after the fall and therefore Adam’s first act of sinful authoritarian “rule”). This, of course, is what we do when we name our children or our pets or our cars. (Am I the only one?)

That is not the activity that Adam carried out in Geneis 2. In that chapter, Adam catagorized the animals by type. He didn’t call an individual tiger “Bob”, he called all of that species “Tiger”. In other words, he gave a “name” (or really, description) to each type, not each individual.

That is a different kind of naming than the kind appealed to by naming=authority advocates. Therefore, the cultural naming=authority argument is irrelevant to Genesis 2.

The naming=authority argument fails on many fronts.

Adam (and Eve) already had authority over the animals per Genesis 1, so there was no need for God to invent some act to establish authority. Therefore, the naming must have had some other purpose, which of course, it did as scripture clearly shows – it was designed to illustrate to Adam how none of the other animals could meet his need for human companionship.

Adam’s “naming” of Eve shows how effective God’s chore for him was, as Adam rejoices in having his need met with one of his kind – “woman”. Adam really did not name Eve per se, but instead showed how Eve contrasted the animals in relation to his aloneness, which was the whole point of the naming exercise in the first place.

Besides, Adam didn’t “name” the animals (or Eve) at all, he categorized them. So appeals to parental or other authoritarian naming conventions are meaningless.

Those naming conventions themselves, like primogeniture mentioned above, are cultural in nature and have no basis in scripture.

And those naming conventions are not limited to males, so the whole argument that it demonstrates male authority over female is lost. Even Eve named some of her children. And no husband in the entirety of scripture ever named his wife (that I am aware of). So even the cultural argument fails when considered either on gender or inter-relational grounds.

I’ll take a breath now and wait for Cheryl to respond. I’m sure she’ll be typing furiously when she sees that I have not given up. (seems the right spot for an evil laugh – buwahahahahaha!)

“I can agree with all of that. It’s just not what Paul did. !Shrug!”

LOL – Why not?!? “Just because”? I agree that that might not be what Paul did. But you seem so sure.

Remember, I am not trying to convince you that it “has to be” my way. Frankly, without Timothy’s letters, I don’t know that we will ever know for sure. Unless it is grammatically impossible for it to be my way (a distinct but as yet unproven possibility), I think it is a very reasonable interpretation. Put simply, it works. So does Cheryl’s BTW – I think her interpretation has a lot of merit, especially when Adam and Eve come into view. But I believe it is an open question.

OK (# 52), now we are getting somewhere. That is a legitimate question to ask me. To what end would Paul need to be generic since Timothy could assume that what applies to “the woman” applies to any subsequent woman like her. Very early on in these discussions I dealt with that. Timothy was young, needed encouragement, and obviously felt he needed to rely heavily on Paul for instructions. Moreover, this was a very dicey situation. I suggest that we can NOT assume Timothy would take the instructions as generic if Paul had been exclusively specific. I suggest that Paul was letting Timothy know that his instructions absolutely could be expanded to other cases through the intentional use of the generic at first. Then Paul finished by dealing with the specifics of Timothy’s test case.

Simlar situations are not necessarily identical. Although general instructions can apply to a point, each case has its unique circumstances as well. Paul developed a general guideline for similar situations so that Timothy had the confidence to move foward (he did this repeatedly in 1 Timothy), but then provided specific encouragement for the specific case that Timothy wrote about and that Paul, quite probably, knew far more details of then we will ever know.

In our work example, it is true for me to say the “nobody should do ‘X'” (a prohibition). But it may not be true for me to say “everbody can fix things if they do ‘Y'”. That solution may only apply to Cheryl.

Let’s go back to Kristen’s example. Although I don’t remember the specifics it is easy enough to replicate because I am a manager.

TL – if I am a manager and you are a supervisor under me and you are having a problem with an employee, we’ll call her Cheryl, you might come to me and say something like “I’m having trouble with Cheryl – she is doing ‘X'”. Is it not a legitimate reply for me to say “well, nobody should be doing ‘X’.”? Is it not also legitmate for me to say, “as for Cheryl, she can fix her record if she does ‘Y’.”? I have moved from generic to specific. The generic “nobody” is directly related to the specific “Cheryl” because of ‘X’. The subject is the same and yet the generic to specific pattern is perfectly legitimate.

“Your example of George doesn’t work, because it’s regarding the same subject.”

EXACTLY! And that is why it does work. Paul is addressing the same subject in verses 11-15 and it is a different subject than verses 8-10. Just because it is the same subject doesn’t mean Paul can’t deal with it both generically and specifically. I’m not sure why y’all can’t see that.

“Paul switched subjects from dress and modesty to one woman and teaching with dominance.”

I totally agree, but I don’t know what your point is. Nothing I have said disagrees with this statement.

If I said “Men should not were dark socks with sandles.” and then went on to give my example, it would be clear that the “men” I referred to in my first sentence, and that sentence as a whole, have nothing to do with individual male bravado, bungy jumping, and George’s participation in it.

Why do you tie my example to the plural of verse 10? It has nothing to do with vs. 10.

“From my view a generic person applies to all persons.”

Well, that is simply wrong. A generic example refers to individuals of which there may be none, one, or many. But each is addressed individually. The generic does not refer to the collective. If it did, it would be plural.

“He would have continued on saying let all women learn, and learn in quietness and submission without domineering men. ”

Well, first of all, that is a true statement. But the difference between vs. 10 and 11 is that in vs. 10, Paul was addressing a group problem or dynamic and in vs. 11, he was addressing an individual problem or dynamic. The change in number is mandatory because of the change in subjects. The women of the congregation in vs. 10 were being immodest. But a woman was involved in false teaching and domineering. So Paul changes the number appropriately. And he has a real life example who he deals with in the end. But he also wants to address other individuals who may be similarly deceived. So he deals with it generically.

It is exactly the same pattern as 1 Cor 5 as I note above. Do you think when Paul said “a man who has his fathers wife” he was referring to all men? And when he said “the one such as this” he meant all men are collectively “such as this”? I sure hope not. Paul used generics to address individual sinners, then dealt with the specific real life sinner from whom he drew the generic model, then went back to addressing all similar individual sinners. There is no group, no collective, no plural involved. It is all on an individual basis.

Now let’s expand the expression. “A man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do. That is why George went bungy jumping at age 65”. Here we move from a generic to a specific even though the generic and specific are tied together (George is a real life example of the generic man doin what he has to do). This is a common pattern in speech. What I am suggesting is not some crazy, out of left field, grammatical gymnastics.

Let’s look at a common expression: “a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do”. This expression is not referring to a group of men. It is referring to an individual generic man. There is nothing plural about it. The same may hold true for vs. 11’s woman.

A generic is not a “singular plural”. This is the same misunderstanding Cheryl seems to be falling victim to. A generic individual is an individual “model” or example. There is nothing “plural” about it. When Paul says, in 1 Cor 5:5, “the one such as this” he is being generic and he is being singular. If “a woman” in 1 Tim 2:11 is generic, she is not a group. Like Cheryl always says, and I agree, “she” can not be “they”. “A woman” is an individual generic woman, not a group of women.

Let’s look even closer at 1 Cor 5. Paul uses ton twice. This is the definate article and transliterates as “the one” in this case where there is no noun associated. When Paul uses it in vs. 3 he says “…’the one’ who has done this thing” and is clearly referring to a specific person. When he uses it in vs. 5 he says “…’the one’ such as this…” and is clearly referring generically to any individual who acts like “the one” from vs. 3. Here, the definate article is being used both specifically and generically. I’m afraid we have to consider the context and surrounding text – there is no hard and fast grammatical rule, that makes it always one way or another. Even anaphoric references can be to a generic and generic and specific references can be tied directly together.

Now, I think the surrounding text of 1 Tim 2:14 makes it clear that “the woman” is a specific human being. There is no support for a generic interpretation – no “such as this” or anything else. The only possible generic would be “the woman of the species”, but again, there is no surrounding support for that conclusion. I have no problem with “the woman” being a specific woman that Timothy was dealing with.

The next question, since the topic is anaphorisms which entail looking back, is what do we do about the indefinate woman of vs. 11. I have no problem seeing her linked to “the woman” in vs. 15 and no problem disassociating her from the “women” of vs. 10. And I see some support to believe she is anaphoric and therefore the same specific woman as “the woman” in vs. 15. But I also see no problem with her being a generic representation of “the woman” in vs. 15. I will now search for an example to rebutt Cheryl’s contention that EVERY instance of indefinate “x” followed by definite “x” is an anaphoric reference (even though Cheryl’s own examples rarely follow that pattern in terms of the nouns being the same). If I can’t find a good example, there is more weight to Cheryl’s argument. I am comfortable with that. On the other hand, if I do find an example that clearly supports my generic-to-specific pattern, i.e. that is not an anaphoric reference, I think we have more to discuss.

TL – I agree that the transition from plural to singular is quite dramatic and signals a shift to an individual issue as opposed to a group issue. But just because we are now dealing with the behavior of individuals doesn’t mean that Paul can’t be handling that behavior generically and with a specific individual simultaneously. He clearly pulls off such a feat in 1 Cor 5.

My work is still not done. Now I need to find a passage where this pattern exists with the very same noun at each point.

Now here is a curious passage. It begins generic, gets specific about a real person, then ends generic again. 1 Corinthians 5:1-5.

(YLT) [1] Whoredom is actually heard of among you, and such whoredom as is not even named among the nations — as that one (Greek tina – “any” or “someone” – an indefinate reference) hath the wife of the father! —
[2] and ye are having been puffed up, and did not rather mourn, that he may be removed out of the midst of you who did this work (becomes more definate, refers to an individual rather than “any” person), for I indeed, as being absent as to the body, and present as to the spirit, have already judged, as being present, him (Greek ton – “the one” – clearly definate and referencing a real specific person) who so wrought this thing:
[3] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ — ye being gathered together, also my spirit — with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
[4] to deliver up such a one (back to indefinate, refers to anyone who behaves in the same manner as the specific person Paul has been told about) to the Adversary for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

The passage moves from “any” or, in the 1 Timothy sense, “a man” who has had his fathers wife, to “the one” specific real person in the congregation who has done this, to “such a one” as the specific person who does such a thing now or in the future. Clearly such a progression is possible in scripture and it is quite acceptable for Paul to be dealing with a specific real life person and any generic equivalents now and in the future within the same passage.

Let’s look also at a couple of verses that seem a better fit both as an anarthrous reference and with 1 Timothy 2;11-15.

1 Timothy 3:1-2 (transliterated with clarifying additions):

[1] faithful [is] the saying, if anyone (singular and indefinate) supervision is craving, ideal work he-is-desiring. [2] Must then the supervisor (definately definate) irreprehensible be…

So, is “the supervisor” referring to a real, specific individual? No. It is definate pointing back to the indefinate “anyone”, so it is anaphoric, but the whole passage remains generic!

It seems anaphoric references aren’t as clear cut and rigid as we might hope. Context still determines if specific real people or generic representatives are being spoken of.

Now, of course, it is my task to find an example outside of our passage where a move from indefinate to definate is clearly also a move from generic to specific. I will endeavor to do so within scripture (Kristen has already adequately provided English examples from the business world).

First off – “I was wondering if words like “believes…., is convinced….., must be….” is putting things more strongly than Gengwall is saying. I thought he was just putting forward another possible view to consider, that he could see some merit in.”

LOL – Thanks for some coming to my defence Craig and TL. The response to Cheryl’s characterization of my position is kind of “it was and it wasn’t”. It is indeed too strong a contention that I believed it “must be” the way I was arguing. But I was arguing rather strongly so a response such as this is warranted and welcome. Especially since it deals so directly with the one area of grammer which was a mystery to me – anarthrous nouns. Like Kristen, I am more comfortable now in that the evidence for a continually definate woman from vs. 11 forward is strong. Still, I have reservations (so don’t give in so easily Kristen – there is more to discuss).

Using John 4:7-9 since it seems to be a favorite. I don’t think this lines up well with our 1 Timothy passage. In John, the transliteration is “is coming a woman out of the Samaria to bail water” at the well where Jesus is sitting. Jesus then proceeds to address her directly. There is no possible way this could be seen as anything but a specific, individual Samaritan woman. In other words, there is no way “woman” in John 4:7 could possibly be considered a generic. The context does not allow it. So, in John 4:9, when the definate article is used, it does not clear up or reveal anything we didn’t already know.

That is not true of the 1 Timothy verses. Now if Paul had said something like: “Is a woman coming from the congregation to teach and dominate…” we might have a more parallel passage. But there is no context in verses 11 and 12 that points conclusively to an individual like there is in John 4 so I do not accept the example as applicable.

Let’s look at one of the other examples quoted in Cheryl’s post:

“Because he was very cold, David promptly put on his coat” the identify of the “he” is unknown until the individual is also referred to as “David”.”

To make this parallel to 1 Timothy, the sentence would have to read “Because a man was very cold, David promptly put on his coat”. That, of course, is jibberish. So such an example not only doesn’t fit our passage, but actually supports the idea that a generic must be in use in the first reference because to make it a definate makes nonsense out of the text.

Another scriptural example of the anaphoric reference was James 2:14: “What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?”

But this is an example of a generic! It is not referring to a specific, individual “he/him”, but to any “he/him” that fits the situation. “he” is not definate here in the true sense of referring to a real individual. In fact, as pointed out in the prior example of David’s jacket, “he” is an unknown reference. The “he/him” of James 2:14 is no more specific or definate than the “someone” of the same verse or the “he” who turned out to be David

So, I appreciate the instruction on anaphorics but find it lacking an example which fits well with the 1 Timothy verses. Let’s keep digging.

“masculinists” LOL – a new word to add to my vocabulary.

An interesting discussion which needs no addition from me other than to say, regarding Cheryl’s exegesis and paraphrasing The Matrix, “there are no holes”.

Hi all. Just wanted to let you know that I am, neck deep in wedding plans, activities, and chores (3 trips to the airport today alone) and that is why I have been AWOL. I will try to catch up next week, especially on this post because I suspect I might have had something to do with it 😉

I’m not going to go through this sentence by sentence. Just about every supposed argument of mine that you rebutt is not an argument I am making. I’m going to step back for a bit and try to pull out all the straw I find suddenly attached to me.

“However if verses 11 & 12 are about any woman, then this would include the women in verse 10. ”

I have never implied or even considered that verses 11 and 12 are about “any” woman. I am not sure why you are stuck on that thought but it colors your whole analysis of my argument.

“The concern that I have is making verses 11 & 12 being about any woman thus having a universal prohibition applied to any woman generically.”

But it isn’t about any woman and that is so clear. It is about a particular kind of woman based on a real example from Timothy. The prohibition isn’t for any woman, it for only a woman who is teaching false doctrine and domineering her husband. You are confusing “generic” with “general”. A generic woman is built on an archetype and the archetype here is plainly described. In addition, we have a specific example on top of all of that. There is nothing in the passage that would connect the prohibition to the women in vs. 10 but it is very clear that the prohibition is associated with the type of real woman brought forward in vs. 14.

I think you are overly concerned about a supposed connection of the “women” of vs. 10 and a generic woman in vs. 11. There are many stark indicators that paul has changed subjects beyond the obvious change in grammatical number. Just the introduction of authentein alone makes this a very different situation. As we all know, comps make illogical leaps of reading into the text all the time and your explanation for the anarthrous woman in vs. 11 won’t put a stop to that behavior.

So, your argument has a flavor to it that strikes of fear that it must be your way or egalitarianism can not survive. Put another way, you see a lot of danger in my position which I think simply doesn’t exist. I see a similar panick in the inter-church creation debate, where young-earth creationists insist that there can be no other interpretation because an old earth would guarentee victory to the evolutionists. It simply isn’t so.

The fundimental reason why my position doesn’t grant an inch to comps is that I am still arguing for an individual woman in vs. 11, just as you are. Mine is generic to be sure but she does not lose connection to yours, who is the archetype. Kristen’s example from the workplace is indeed a great analogy and makes perfet sense to me. I see no reason why Paul and Timothy couldn’t have had a similar dialog.

What needs to be established, and what I think is clearly established in the text, is that the topic is false teaching. Once that is accomplished, the separation from vss. 8-10 is complete and there is no threat from a generic woman in vs. 11.

Cheryl – as I said early on my objective isn’t to convince so much as to provide food for thought. I think this has been a good intellectual exercise. At the very least, it helps prepare us for the inevitable comp question about the anarthrous woman of vs. 11. (And BTW – I would love more instruction on anarthrous nouns since we have such a prominent one here).

I can keep responding if you think there is value in continuing the debate. Or we can let each explanation stand as is in anticipation of future dissection. Your call.