Kristen

I wanted to reply to Cheryl here:

Timothy 2:10 (NAS)
10 but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.

This is a statement about all women “who are making a claim to godliness”. It appears that these are women who claim to have maturity and are godly examples of the faith.
Would Paul really be saying that only those women who claim to have maturity and are godly examples, should be dressing modestly? That only they should be focusing on inner character rather than outward adornment– while those women in the church who are immature Christians are exempt? This doesn’t seem likely. It seems to me that Paul is talking about all the women in the church here, as he was talking about all the men a verse earlier. Just as the men are to “lift holy hands,” the women are to dress modestly. “As is proper for women making a claim to godliness” seems to me to be saying, “Women who consider themselves Christians (ie., have repented of their sins and left their old way of life, thus making a claim to godliness) should dress modestly.”

“The women in vs. 10 needed a correction for behavior in the worship service that was inhibiting the spread of the gospel.”

I am not sure where you are getting this from other then this is typically what comp teachers say. Is the “correction” that Paul is giving a correction for behavior that is inhibiting the spread of the gospel, or is the correction the proper way to show their godliness through their inner character and not through expensive dresses and jewelry?
I’m not sure whether or not Paul is making a correction to the Ephesian church’s behavior or not. I think he’s simply saying, “In order to be a good witness to the surrounding culture, the men should have “holy hands” and the women should have “holy dress.” This doesn’t mean that women shouldn’t also have “holy hands” or that men shouldn’t also have “holy dress,” but it is referring areas of focus that are particular to women and to men, where the other area (holy hands for women and holy dress for men) does not need that focus.

Is verses 11 & 12 about a general “kind” of woman who is deceived and who needs to stop teaching her husband her errors and who needs to learn while verse 14 is about a specific woman who is called “the woman”? This would seem a bit odd if we consider that only one is said to be still in the transgression and results of it. Are we to think that there could be many women who are teaching their husbands false doctrine and none of the husbands are correcting them yet none of them are still in the transgression but one? If that would be the case, then there would be no reason for a generic example needed. I think that Timothy is smart enough to take Paul’s way of dealing with the specific case and using that as a template to deal with any further issues that may come up in the future.
I think it’s simpler than that. There is indeed ONE woman that both Paul and Timothy have in mind. But because Paul’s letter is about Timothy fixing the church, he speaks at first in terms of policy. He uses the non-definite singular to show that this policy COULD apply to any woman who might (theoretically, in the future) get into the same situation as this specific woman they both know they are really talking about.
An analogy would be a head boss giving a supervisor instructions on how to deal with a particular employee situation. They would both know they were talking about one employee, but the boss would be most likely to frame the issue in terms of policy (saying, in effect, this is nothing personal; this is not a singling out of this one employee– any employee who did the same thing would face the same policy). The supervisor might say, “Hey, John Smith keeps talking to his wife on the phone when he’s supposed to be working.” The head boss might reply, “An employee is not to make personal phone calls during his shift [stating policy]. The employee [now referring to John Smith in particular] is to be given a warning.”
No other employees are breaking the policy, but the head boss still makes his statement in terms of policy. It makes sense to me that this is what Paul could be doing here.

So we are back to why did Paul use the singular in verses 11 & 12 without the definite article and then choose to use the definite article in verse 14? Here is what I think. I believe that his pattern has been to not use the definite article when the context is clear to the audience that a specific person is in mind.
It could be as you say– but the examples you have given so far– “I know a man who was caught up to the third heaven,” for example– seem to always contain some kind of qualifier: a “who” statement that MAKES the context clear. I agree that possibly Paul was simply referring to this one woman both in verses 11 and 12 and in verse 14– but then (when it comes to verse 11, at least) we lose the strength of “let a woman learn!” as a POLICY. We also lose the “this is nothing personal, I’m not singling her out” idea that I think may very well be what Paul is saying here.
I do think that in verses 14 and 15 Paul is definitely talking about this one woman’s situation, this one woman’s salvation, and this one couple’s need to walk in sanctification.

I hope that makes it clearer why I like Gengwall’s interpretation so much.