pinklight

Craig,

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.

Yes, I think so, and yes, I can understand why you still see Cheryl’s 2006 view as a possibility when not sure of the implications of v14. I’m ALL for wanting to be sure about things that interest me…

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.

I don’t know Greek, I didn’t understand the tense of v14 for a long time, and I couldn’t “get it” and in part it was because it had to do with Greek which made me feel uneasy.

@212
gengwall,

Even if the verbal aspect theory was correct and we couldn’t be sure about vs. 14, there is nothing in that theory that affects the grammar of vs. 15 where “she” is a singular woman whose salvation is in the future. So the vs. 15 woman still can’t be Eve and also can’t be all women of even a subgroup of women because singular is singular. So, punting on vs. 14 still doesn’t support a comp view of vs. 15.

Yep! *thumb up* 🙂

Let a woman learn. I do not allow a woman to teach a man, for Adam was formed first then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but Eve having been deceived fell into sin, but she will be saved through the childbirth, if they continue in faith, love and holiness.

In this case, the comp uses Eve as a rep.

Here, I’ve written in v14 the same tense as v13. When Paul writes in v13 on Adam and Eve he is talking in the past tense, “for Adam WAS FORMED first, then Eve, but Adam WAS NOT deceived”, so if v14 was Eve he would have continued using the past tense. The point in this example is that it shows that v14 coulnd’t be speaking of Eve anyway.

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?

Is it possible that “she” could by pass “the woman” of v14 and refer back to “a woman” of v11 & 12? Yes, if Paul’s thought went like this:
Let a woman learn. I don’t allow a woman to teach a man, for Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but Eve was deceived and was a sinner. But she will be saved if they remain in faith, love and holiness.
In this case, the thought though doesn’t make sense, because we are left with wondering why the woman will be saved in the future. What did she do? I tried. lol
How about this thought:
Let a woman learn. I do not allow a woman to teach a man, for Adam was formed first then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but Eve who was deceived fell into sin, but she will be saved if they continue in faith, love and holiness.
It still doesn’t make sense.

Let a woman learn. I don’t allow a woman to teach a man, for Adam was formed first then Eve, but Adam was not deceived, but this woman having been deceived has fallen into sin, but she will be saved if they remain in faith, love and holiness. (My translation) 🙂

V14 makes one think of Eve because it is linked back to v13 which speaks of Adam and Eve.

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?

Yes, I watched her DVD at least twice and a while ago. No, after watching her DVD I did not believe that “she” of v15 had to be “the woman” of v14. I never noticed the connection that I didn’t make between v14 & 15, that I should have. I thought “the woman” was Eve, and “she” was the woman of vv 11&12. I didn’t know or even think about how”she” had to link back to v14.

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?

If I didn’t understand that “she” has to connect back to v14’s “the woman” I would chose Cheryl’s view. In that case, “the woman” of v14 is Eve and “she” is the woman of vv11&12. In this case, Eve doesn’t have to be a rep which is forced into the text to make sense of out the singular “but she will be saved if…” because Paul just can’t be talking about one woman! lol

3 How do you explain Paul’s reasoning in v13,14 without referring to the deception of Eve?

Paul’s one long thought went something like this: I don’t allow a woman to teach, for Adam was formed first then Eve, but Adam was not deceived, but this woman having been deceived has fallen into sin, but she will be saved if they remain in faith, love and holiness. When I think of Paul’s thought, as I read it and approach v14 I would have expected him to say Eve in v14, but instead he says “the woman” or “this woman”. With that expectation in mind, since he was talking of Adam and Eve in the previous v13, I can see that Eve and this woman are similar because of their deception. (But without understanding Eve’s deception in Genesis apart from 1 Tim 2, it may not have been an expectation). So going along reading his thought, I naturaly expect Paul to have written in “Eve” in v14.

The reason why “the woman of v14 really is Eve” cannot be is because the tense of v14 and the grammar of v15 MUST be in harmony.

The tense of v14 and the grammar of v15 must be in harmony.

And I forgot to say, that I can’t wait for your next post, Cheryl 🙂

@189

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.

Here’s the problem I see with this, Craig. Assuming, while digging, that v14 could turn out to be Eve, the problem still resides in “But Eve will be saved.” What? Eve will be saved in the future? This makes no sense and cannot be biblicaly supported. At this point is where the comp makes Eve the rep of women. As Cheryl said, “which is taken care of by the indisputable remaining grammar that must go along with it.”
Spam word: import
Importing into the text, anyone? ;P

Sorry, love the second paragraph of your last comment #192.

Craig,
Stuff has come up and I won’t be able to comment much really, if I even will at all untell I’m less busy, but I wanted to say that what I really like about your comments is that it’s like you’re leaving no stone unturned. You’re on a mission! Love that.

Cheryl,
I won’t go into why…but I love the second or last paragraph of your last post #192.

So our quest should be to understand why Paul introduced Adam and Eve and then brought the focus on (or really, back to) this particular Ephesian woman. What is it about Adam and Eve that Paul wants us to see and how does it relate to the situation in Ephesus.

That was where I was goint to next! I was going to begin focusing on just that…but didn’t too far…

I hate to say almost all of our bible translators have made a huge mistake, but the evidence is clear.

*sigh*
Still on break…..! 🙂

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.

Ah, that’s cool! Works for me too! 🙂 Either way, with or without vv 13 & 14, “she” refers back to a specific woman because of v15. Yes, that’s what the anaphoric issue is about.

Craig,

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.

Just some more of my thoughts. For years, I’ve been trying to catch anything I could have missed since I learned of this view. The change from seeing v14 being Eve to not being Eve really didn’t effect the view either, and actually it made it more solid. It actualy made Paul’s statement more tighter when viewed from where I sit and took away any funny ideas about Eve being a represenative of women.

Craig,

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.

Yeah, it’s that v15 again. Assuming Paul had in mind “Eve” when he wrote “the woman” of v14 then we could reiterate v15 to say this -“But Eve will be saved if they…” and stop there cause things start to get confusing again and all over the place. Eve will be saved in the future, what? She’s dead. But we can’t make her the represenative of women just because all the sudden the passage seems confusing once “she” is connected back to v14 which is thought to be Eve for the reasons you gave and then to end up with an interpretation something like “women will be saved if women…” cause then we’re not sticking with the inspired grammar in v15 of a singular “she” and a plural “they” which results in gooblygooke – women must bare children to be saved, grammar is ignored, women’s salvation is dependant upon what other woman (plus men?) do, blah, confusion.
She refers back to v14, the woman is not Eve, (cannot be proven, should be added) everything fits nicely, and nothings forced, added or taken away, and there’s no confusion from this hard pasage. 🙂 Something like that? ;P

Wait, let me correct that. The comp view adds and subtracts to rid of the contradictions.

The text READS that Paul is making a statement about one specific unnamed woman. That is what the text gives us without addition by adding Eve into v14 or v15 and subtraction by not taking into account Paul’s singular usage throughout the passage thereby making it a generic statement about women that has to do with Eve being their represenative.

The comp view adds and subtracts from the passage. Woah! Double whammy! And that’s while it contradicts itself! lol

The bottom line is that truth is provable.

Love this!

Hope ya’ll don’t mind I post my thoughts 🙂 Having fun here 🙂 lol

In my summary of the three options, numbers 1 & 2’s difficulties are contradictions. I’m not aware of any contextual contradictions with option number three, Cheryl’s view. In number 1, if Paul is making a general statement about women, plural, then how come he uses the singular “she” in v15? In number 2 if Paul’s statement is generic and speaks of generic woman, “any woman” then how come he speaks of a specific woman in v14, ‘the woman”? Ofcourse comps force Eve into v14,15 but notice it’s a specific woman they force into v14! lol
Wish I new what the contextual issues were regarding Cheryl’s view, that Kristen you brought up. I don’t know what they are. I’m not asking you to post them, just saying wish I knew.
And I’m excited for the next post to come! And I’m very glad that you, Craig offered your suggestions, because it helped me work out the information that I’ve learned.

The three options and their difficulties as I understand them in summary:
1) Paul’s statement is about women in general. If this is the case then who’s “she” in v15 and “they”? “She” and “they” can’t be the same thing.
2) Paul’s statement is generic. If this is the case then who’s “the woman” of v14 that “she” of v15 refers back to?
3) Paul’s statment prohibits one individual woman – vv 11, 12 & 14. If this is the case then how come it’s placed in between general staments on women and men and general statements on leaders?

The text READS that Paul is making a statement about one specific unnamed woman. That is what the text gives us without addition by adding Eve into v14 or v15 and subtraction by not taking into account Paul’s singular usage throughout the passage thereby making it a generic statement about women that has to do with Eve being their represenative.

A person cannot give 1 Timothy 2:15 as proof that Eve represents all women by interpreting the “she” as Eve.

Also there’s no way to make “the woman” of v14 out to be Eve because there is no evidence and proof from the passage to do so. All one can do is interpret without warrant and in that way say that the woman of v14 is Eve.
So Eve is out of the picture since the text itslef doesn’t tell us that she is Eve, therefore we are left with only one option. One deceived woman whom Paul has left unanamed.

“But she will be saved”, the conjunction connects v15 to the previous v14 and so referes to “the woman” of v14 who must be a specific woman. Where does that lead then? How can “she” be generic when it must refer and connect back to “the woman” of v14 who is a specific woman?

This post is helpful on “the woman” of v14.
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/08/03/a-woman-anaphoric/

From what I understand “the woman” of v14 must be a specific woman, an actual person and one person because of the article, and the pronoun “she” of v15 must refer back to her. So now with your last suggestion, Craig, my question is how do you explain what Paul is saying since he in this case is speaking of generic woman and a specific woman?

Craig, in regards to your comment #146, I have a question. Where and how do you fit in “the woman” of v14?

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…

lol There’s nothing like asking questions and seeking and digging. In fact, I don’t have that where I come from ;P People don’t ask, don’t care, don’t think, don’t, don’t, don’t – and that drives me mad 🙂 lol So it’s refreshing, Craig that you do these things. 🙂

Pinklight asked @116 “But what would that subject be?” in relation to ch2.

I am thinking about false teaching and authenteining, and the problems in the congregation being caused by this.
Oh, okay. I was thinking that you would have answered differently considering where you were going. Glad I asked then, because I was curious.

I particularly found the comments about grammar useful. Thanks Cheryl, Pinklight, TL and Gengwall for being willing to go over things which may be quite basic for you in order to help me understand things better.

It took awhile for the grammar to really sink in because when I started learning about it life was busy and alot was going on… I’ve learned alot since finding Cheryl 🙂 She’s a treasure 🙂

@114 Love it! 🙂