Chris

Don: “In Greek the presence of the definite article makes the noun definite, but the absence of the definite article does NOT necessarily make the noun indefinite, see Wallace “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics”. There is no indefinite article in Koine Greek, so there are 3 basic possibilities when the definite article is not used:
1. The noun is definite, even tho the article is not used to mandate this.
2. The noun is indefinite.
3. The noun is describing a group, of 1 or more that meet the quality.

The decision about which is the best fit is decided by context and there can be disagreement among scholars in some cases.”

Thanks for this. Don, your posts seem to be a little more sensible than others who post here. Although, I think Wallace uses the words “definite”, “indefinite”, and “qualitative” to describe the options for an anarthrous noun. It still leaves me wondering, if Paul had meant a specific woman and man, why didn’t he use the article?

Previously I quoted Rebecca Groothhuis who says, “I am not persuaded that 1 Timothy 2:11-15 speaks only to one specific woman. Although I suppose it could be possible, the Greek text does not clearly state this to be the case. As NT scholar Craig Blomberg explains it, although the nouns (“a woman,” “a man”) are singular, they “are indefinite; hence ‘I do not permit a woman to. . .over a man.’ The nouns thus become generic. If they were definite–‘I don’t permit the woman to. . .over the man,’ one could argue that one specific man and one specific woman were in view. But if I write, ‘I don’t permit a child to sleep on a concrete floor,’ I am making a more general statement about not allowing any child to sleep on any concrete floor. ‘I don’t permit children to sleep on concrete floors’ is the semantic equivalent, meaning exactly the same thing.”

My trouble is like Groothuis’ when she says “the Greek text does not clearly state this to be the case”, that is, the context does not indicate that a specific woman and a specific man are in view. In chapter 2 Paul is talking about conduct in the worship assembly rather than an individual household. He uses the plural forms for men and women in verses 8-10 to speak to them in general and gives no reason to think he has switched to a particular woman and man or a particular husband and wife. Unless Paul gives me a good enough reason to think he has switched, I would assume continuity in his meaning on this. If “a woman” and “a man” meant a wife and husband, then, as Grudem shows, there would be a decisive clue. Grudem gives these examples in EFBT (pages 297-298) to support the point:

“Romans 7:2: “A married (hupandros) woman”

1 Corinthians 7:2: “Each man should have his own (heautou) wife and each woman her own (idion) husband.”

1 Corinthians 7:12: “If any brother has (echei) a wife” (and the entire context of 1 Corinthians 7 is a discussion about marriage)

1 Corinthians 7:39: “A wife is bound to her (aut?s) husband as long as he lives”

Ephesians 5:22: “Wives submit to your own (idiois) husbands” (Some translations, such as the NIV, RSV, NRSV, and NLT, omit the word “own” but in doing so they fail to translate the Greek word idiois; everyone agrees that Ephesians 5 is talking about marriage)”

For more examples see 1 Cor. 14:35, 2 Cor. 11:2, Gal. 4:27, 1 Tim 3:2, 1 Tim 3:12, 1 Tim 5:9, Titus 1:6, and Titus 2:5.

Given the fact there are decisive clues or qualifications in all of these verses that indicate a husband and/or wife is being spoken of, it seems safe to conclude that the lack of such specificity in 1 Timothy 2:12 indicates that Paul is speaking of men and women in general. Otherwise, he would give us a decisive clue as he did in the other places.

This claim that a specific husband and wife are being spoken of appears to be another ad hoc hypothesis designed to restrict the applicability of Paul’s proscription to one couple in the church, namely, the one couple, allegedly, that Paul is correcting.