24 Chris,

I apologize that I haven’t been too fast this past week. It has been an extremely busy time for me.

Cheryl, it seems to me that you have fabricated a rule of Greek grammar for yourself regarding what ‘she’ and ‘they’ can or cannot refer to in order to prop up your view on 1 Timothy 2:11-15. You then appeal to it as if it is some well known rule of Greek grammar that ‘she’ and ‘they’ cannot have the same antecedent.

It is a basic rule of grammar and if it is “fabricated” it should be so easy to disprove. All you have to do is provide another example of “she” or “he” called the plural “they” and I will stand corrected regarding both the Greek grammar and the inspired scriptures. Since no one yet has been able to provide such an example, and you are so certain that it is perfectly fine for a singular to be spoken of as a plural (she=they), then go ahead and prove it. I dare you to find such an example.

As Rene Descartes has said, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.

My claim is that there is no second witness that shows a grammatical construction of a she=they in the entire bible. I do not have to go through all the grammatical examples to prove my case since my claim is one of non-existence. Your claim is that she can equal they. Yours is a positive claim and so you are the one who must prove their claim.

Now, if one specific woman were in view, then I trust you will agree that the plural ‘they’ would more likely refer to a husband together with his wife than anything else. But, as I’ve already argued, husbands and wives are not in view here.

Read my newest post http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/04/02/5-apostle-paul-they/ to see that my argument is not about husbands (plural) and wives (plural).

So making the antecedent of ‘they’ out to be a husband and wife is almost certainly wrong. Even your own writers recognize the problems with this….See Linda Belleville’s article…“I also want women . . .” (NIV,vv. 9-10) simply cannot be limited to husbands and wives. Nor can the verses that follow be read in this way. Paul does refer to Adam and Eve in verses 13-14; but it is to Adam and Eve as the prototypical male and female, not as a married couple…
What Linda Belleville is saying here verses 11 & 12 cannot mean just married women (plural). She isn’t arguing that Paul isn’t talking about one woman in particular and one man in particular. In fact in the portion you quoted, she doesn’t even entertain this interpretation so she could not be refuting it. You have certainly misrepresented Linda Belleville by trying to make it out as if she is refuting me. Nice try, but you are shooting blanks.

Notice here that Belleville answers the argument that the reference to Adam and Eve shows that a husband and wife are in view (a claim that was made here recently).

As stated above, Linda Belleville is stating that she doesn’t believe that husbands and wives are in view. She is dealing with the argument regarding all wives and stating that it couldn’t be a prohibition against only wives vs. single women. It is a respectful thing to properly represent the opposition.

So, given the problems with taking ‘they’ to refer to a husband and wife (among other things), I have to return to the patriarchalist view that ‘they’ refers to the women in the church to whom Paul is giving instructions. And, I have to regard this alleged rule of Greek grammar you’ve put forward as implausible.

This is where your problem is. If you want to make “they” as women in the church, then who is “she”? It is improper grammar to make a singular equal to a plural regarding these persons. I have not seen an example in English nor have I ever seen such an example in Greek grammar. It is not “implausible” to be grammatically consistent. It is the way that language is built so that sentences do not become nonsense.

I eagerly await your ability to prove me wrong. You have such a simple task ahead of you. All you need is one example. Without a grammatical case to point to, we cannot understand Paul in any other way than the grammatical standard in language. A singular pronoun is not equal to a plural pronoun. The singular goes with the singular and the plural goes with the plural. Paul is to be taken at face value and his grammar is carefully crafted and it is not nonsense.