gengwall

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.