Comments on: Is “a woman” representative of “all women”?

By: pinklight

pinklight — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 09:14:16 +0000

Obviously because comps claim that the usage of ‘woman’ in v.14, is used to refer to a singular particular woman being Eve therefore it can be said that it’s usage elsewhere in the SAME passage was also for a singular particular woman (an unnamed woman at Ephesus who was teaching false things to her husband). But the comps will pick and choose it’s usage. Does it even make sense that the grammatical singular could have a two sided usage in the passage? How absurd.

I’ve been thinking on thispassage lately, obviously, so am giving my two cent thoughts.

By: pinklight

pinklight — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 09:04:55 +0000

Do we need to be consistent? Was paul’s usage consistent? Why would it have not been?

By: pinklight

pinklight — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 09:03:51 +0000

Can Matt pick and choose when ‘a woman’ is used to mean singular particular as in v.14, it is said that ‘a woman’ refers to ‘Eve’, but then in v.11 & 12, Matt will say that Paul’s usage of the singular is generic for all women.

Was tradition consistent? Did it interpret ‘a woman’ in v.11, 12 AND 14 to mean generic for all women and this is why all women were thought to be deceived, or easily deceived? Why do some pick and choose today in the passage when the grammaticaly singular is generic and also singular, particular?

By: Cheryl

Cheryl — Mon, 19 May 2008 13:19:36 +0000

Lin,
Amen! You have hit the nail on the head.

By: Cheryl

Cheryl — Mon, 19 May 2008 13:19:01 +0000

Don,
I have the book on order and I will verify what you have shown.

By: Lin

Lin — Mon, 19 May 2008 13:15:16 +0000

If ‘a woman’ is representative of ‘all women’ then the NT scriptures are contradictory. We have too many examples of women teaching in front of men in the NT.

What happened?

We know scripture does not contradict itself. So, there must be a problem of proof texting an interpretation.

By: Don Johnson

Don Johnson — Sat, 17 May 2008 23:23:43 +0000

Your update is fine, you could show how Matt misses the gune in 1 Cor 7:10 yet verse 11 is a specific unnamed woman, as the verb is aorist which is a instant in the (historical) past. This shows his “a woman” analysis as deficient.

I hope you have Wallace’s book and verify my summary. It is considered a standard Greek reference work.

By: Cheryl

Cheryl — Sat, 17 May 2008 22:57:20 +0000

Don,

I updated my post. Your wisdom was certainly worth listening too!

By: Cheryl

Cheryl — Sat, 17 May 2008 20:17:32 +0000

Don,

Good points and I will submit to your suggestions and rewrite the article to include these.

By: Don Johnson

Don Johnson — Sat, 17 May 2008 14:41:39 +0000

I agree with most of your analysis.

I think it could be improved by using the Greek terms actually in the NT and then translating them as you choose, based on the context.

Also, gune does not necessarily mean “a woman”. I think this is conceding too much from the start and also making assumptions. It is possible, but not required. As there is no indefinite article in Greek (in English, the indefinite articles are a and an) it is POSSIBLE that “a woman” is meant, but it is also POSSIBLE that “the woman” is meant or even “a group that has the quality of being like a woman” (that is, women).

That is, the use of the definite article means the noun is definite, but the non-use of the definite article just means there are 3 possibilities, including possibly being definite. See Wallace “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics” on anarthrous nouns (anarthrous means without an article).