Craig

Hi everyone,

From a different blog I have been involved with recently, there was a question raised over the legitimacy of thinking that Paul had a particular Ephesian woman in mind, from the perspective of the Greek. I was wondering if anyone had any comments that could help to confirm or deny whether Cheryl’s exegesis is possible from the Greek or not. Thanks.

Are there Greek experts who:
1.Agree that 1 Tim 2:11-15 is referring to a particular woman,
2.Agree that grammatically it is possible, but don’t agree for other reasons,
3.Don’t believe it is grammatically possible.

These are 2 comments from the other blog and one question of mine which unfortunately hasn’t been answered yet.
Thanks.

Martin Shields
15/11/2010 08:15 AM
Craig, you said
“My understanding is that “woman” singular, without the article, in Greek can legitimately refer to either a particular woman (eg John 4:7) or to women generically.”

ISTM there’s some confusion over the presence/absence of the article in general. The absence of the article in John 4:7 is the normal way of indicating that the referent is not a particular, known woman. Once the initial reference is made, of course, subsequent references to the woman in John 4 include an anaphoric article to make it clear the author is referring to the same woman.
A nice example is 1Kings 19:9. While most English translations read “he went into a cave,” the Hebrew reads ????? (“the cave”) and the Greek preserves the article (?? ????????), but there’s been no previous reference to a cave in the passage. Given the parallels with Exodus, most scholars believe the article indicates that Elijah has travelled to the very cave that Moses had hidden in many years earlier. It was not simply any unknown although specific cave.
So what of 1Tim 2:12? If the woman was known to the audience but the author wished not to name her it would be normal to either use the article or else a demonstrative (“that woman” or the like) — “I do not permit that woman…” or the like. The absence of the article in 1Tim 2:12 on ???? strongly indicates that the woman is not a woman known to the audience. It is the normal way to refer to an undefined woman. Context then determines whether this is a reference to a particular unknown woman or any non-specific woman. I would think the simplest reading of the text is that the absence of the article indicates that Paul is referring to any undefined singular woman. Otherwise Paul seems to be saying “I do not permit a (particular) woman (but I’m not going to tell you who she is!)…”
Examples are numerous, so I’ll just list a few indefinite nouns which refer to any particular instance of the nominee: Matt 5:28 (“a woman”); 7:24 (“a wise man”), 26 (“a foolish man”); 10:21; 13:33; 18:2 (“a child”); and so on.

Martin Shields
15/11/2010 07:41 PM
Hi Dave,

You asked
“I would ask, Martin Shields, have you read the link I gave earlier regarding the anaphoric article and the precedence for how we are claiming the grammar in 1 Tim 2 to be working?”

Yes, I did have a look. I think it does raise questions about the text which need to be examined in more detail which is why I remain somewhat undecided over the interpretation of the passage. In short (if I understand it correctly) the claim is that references to “[a] woman” in verses 11–12 are cataphoric pointing forward to the woman mentioned in verses 14–15. At that point the identity of the woman is disambiguated (sufficiently for Timothy to understand who Paul is referring to) by the additional description that she was deceived (aorist) and became disobedient (perfect) and (presumably) will be kept safe through childbirth (v. 15) if she and her husband (the singular ‘man’ of v.13 and, together with the woman, subject of the plural ???????? in v.15) remain in faith etc. The woman in verse 14 isn’t Eve because of the perfect verb and the non-repetition of the name “Eve.”
It does offer a fairly neat explanation for the most difficult verse (i.e. v.15, which is a problem for most other explanations and cannot be overlooked given it is clearly linked to the remainder of the passage), but unfortunately there remain, as I insinuated, problems with this reading which prevent me from wholeheartedly accepting it. (1) Unlike Paul’s other instructions to Timothy, he here uses the expression ??? ???????? (“I do not permit”) — elsewhere he speaks imperatively (e.g. 1Tim 2:11; 4:7, 11, 12, etc.). There may be plausible reasons for this, although the expression is unparalleled in the NT. If Paul was giving Timothy instructions for dealing with a member of the congregation why not simply use the imperative as elsewhere?
(2) Were this Paul’s meaning, he could have been a little clearer (just to keep me happy, you understand). If he’d written something like ??? ???? ?? ?????? ????????? ?? ???? ??????? (“Let a certain woman learn in quietness and full submission…”) for verse 11 there would be no question that he was referring to a specific individual.
(3) The perfect verb in verse 14 could be related to the deictic centre established by the aorist so fitting with the identification of ? ???? as Eve, an identification reinforced by the association established between that woman and Adam by the repetition of “deceived.”
(4) Although there are reasonable grounds for arguing for a cataphoric reference for ???? in verses 11–12, I don’t think there’s as good a case for so reading ?????? (‘a man’) for which there’s little beyond the plural verb in verse 15 to clarify the referent (if the woman’s husband is here identified the text as it stands may be sufficient, although identification of her husband could be made clearer with the use of a possessive pronoun [cf. Matt 1:19; 10:12; Acts 5:10]).
I could probably go into greater detail with the pros and cons as I see them, but time is limited. If the Bible contained another affirmation of the restrictions on women claimed to be stated here I’d be far happier. As it stands there remain, as I mentioned (much!) earlier, too many questions for me to feel happy choosing one interpretation over the other.

Craig Swift
16/11/2010 09:29 PM
Hi Martin S,
You said,
Although there are reasonable grounds for arguing for a cataphoric reference for ???? in verses 11–12, I don’t think there’s as good a case for so reading ?????? (‘a man’) for which there’s little beyond the plural verb in verse 15 to clarify the referent (if the woman’s husband is here identified the text as it stands may be sufficient, although identification of her husband could be made clearer with the use of a possessive pronoun [cf. Matt 1:19; 10:12; Acts 5:10]).
If you are still out there Martin, a question if you wouldn’t mind.? If Paul and Timothy were both very much aware of the problem here, so that Timothy knew exactly who Paul was referring to through the anaphoric reference to the woman, wouldn’t Timothy also then know exactly who the man is without any further clarification? Remember, this is first of all a personal letter from Paul to Timothy.? Thanks.