Chris

Schatz,
Regarding your two witness requirement, I’ve read Matt Slick’s response:
carm.org/apologetics/women-ministry/only-one-verse-prohibits-women-teach-men-so-it-doesnt-apply-whole-church
And I’ve read Diane’s response to the argument at CARM’s discussion boards. In effect, the law requires two witnesses before a person can be found guilty in a court proceeding. This is different from requiring a law itself to be repeated twice in order to be valid.
But I have yet to find a satisfactory defense of your two witness requirement against Slick’s and Diane’s reproof. Nevertheless, and as far as the success of your argument is concerned, it wouldn’t matter if you were right in claiming that two witnesses are needed to establish the patriarchalist reading of 1 Tim 2:12 because a modus ponens argument can be made in favor of the claim that the proscription against women teaching men is found in the OT. Roughly, the patriarchalist argument runs like this:
[P1]Women are not permitted to teach or exercise authority over men. (1 Tim 2:12)
[P2] If [P1] is a conclusion Paul draws from OT teaching, then OT teaching (properly understood) implies [P1].
[P3] Paul appeals to (OT teaching) the creation and fall of Adam and Eve to justify [P1].
[P4] Therefore, the explicit NT proscription against women teaching men repeats the implicit OT proscription that Paul finds in the account of the creation and fall of Adam and Eve.
Patriarchalists affirm the antecedent in [P2] because first, it is supported by the most natural reading of verses 12 to 14; second, this is the position the church has held to historically; and third, the proscription against women teaching in verse 12 is justified in Paul’s argument by an appeal to the account of the creation and fall of Adam and Eve in verses 13 and 14.
I understand that many egalitarians will take issue with the consequent in [P2]. They can find no teaching in the account of the creation and fall of Adam and Eve or anywhere else in the OT that explicitly or implicitly teaches [P1]. Consequently, they argue that Paul is not proscribing women from teaching or exercising authority over men. The egalitarian argument runs like this:
[E1] If [P1] is a conclusion Paul draws from OT teaching, then OT teaching (properly understood) implies [P1].
[E2] There is no OT teaching that implies [P1].
[E3] Therefore, [P1] is false.
[E4] If [P1] is false, we have misunderstood 1 Tim 2:12.
The claim in [E2] is a strong claim, but if egalitarians want to establish the conclusion of this modus tollens argument with necessity, then [E2] must be this strong. The trouble is that [E2] is too strong. Egalitarians could tone it down to say something like:
[E2*] Egalitarians can find no OT teaching that implies [P1],
But this seems more like a criticism of their ability to understand the OT than a justification for rejecting [P1]. Even so, a patriarchalist might likewise claim he can find no OT teaching that implies [P1]. He can confess ignorance about how Paul derived his conclusion [P1] and still consistently maintain, according to the logic of the patriarchalist argument, that [P1] is true. Further, he can also maintain that the consequent of [P2] is true! If Paul says the teaching is there in the OT, who am I to challenge Paul? God forbid that I should be so intellectually arrogant as to suggest I know more about the OT than Paul does.
Now your understanding of 1 Tim 2:12 is different from that of most egalitarians. You might rewrite [P1] to say:
[P1*] There is one specific woman in the church who is not permitted to teach one specific man in the church.
If you replace [P1] with [P1*] in the patriarchalist argument, what you get is an extremely specific application of a general principle which is repeated in the OT. It is not clear how your two witnesses requirement becomes unsatisfied with respect to 1 Tim 2:12.