You must admit that Paul does not state that there was some specific problem with women talking too much in church or being overwhelmed at being allowed into the temple. The specific problems in Ephesus are enumerated in your reference, but the extrapolation that it was 'women being chatterboxes in Ephesus' that prompts his later statement is nowhere to be found.
That's not what I believe 1 Timothy 2:12-15 is talking about.
I think the false teaching Paul was addressing in that passage was a form of goddess worship that taught that Eve was created first and that Adam was deceived. It taught that women had special
gnosis - a stronger connection to the spiritual/mystical and should rule over men.
Historical research has shown that such a cult existed in Ephesus at the time.
That would perfectly explain why Paul brought Adam and Eve into the mix.
I see absolutely no reason to set aside an explicitly given rationale for an extrapolated one.
I see lots of reasons that give rise to questions if, indeed, Paul was using the example of Adam and Eve to explain why no woman should ever teach or be in authority over any man.
The first is the numerous examples of women teaching and being in authority over men in Scripture. If it was a universal law based on the created order then God would never break that law. But God appointed Deborah to be the leader [in authority] over all of the men in Israel and to judge them and teach them. Even one example of a woman being given the role of leader by God destroys the claim that God created us unfit to lead. Yet there are many examples of women exercising authority in Scripture.
The second reason is the implication present. If Paul's reason for women not being in authority is because Eve was deceived, then the implication is that all women are more deceivable than all men. I am not alone in finding such an implication morally repugnant. It suggests that women are morally inferior to men. And why would women's deceivableness make them unfit to teach or exercise authority only over men? If women are more prone to being deceived than men are, then why can women teach and exercise authority over other women and children? If men are less likely to be deceived, then wouldn't they be stronger and so less likely to be led in deception by the women? But other women who are also more deceivable would have no protection against a deceived woman leading them! It makes no sense. If the reason women shouldn't teach or exercise authority is because Eve was deceived, then they shouldn't teach or exercise authority, period. But Paul only says "over a man." Also, why did Paul say "a woman" and "a man". If he meant it to apply to all women and all men, then why didn't he say "women" and "men"?
The third reason is the word
authentein in that passage. Like I said earlier, it only appears once in Scripture and, as the articles I linked to note, the proper translation is not "have authority" but "usurp authority" with the connotation of committing murder. If Paul had meant a regular exercise of authority (i.e. the kind of authority that would be unquestioned if a man were exercising it) he would have used the word
exousia. Paul had in mind a specific kind of action that some woman, or women, were doing in Ephesus at the time.
The fourth reason is what follows in the passage: " But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." This seems to say that women can only be saved by having children. As we all know, we are all saved by grace, through faith, not by works. And not all women have children.
Furthermore, the translators have taken some liberties with this passage. It shouldn't be "women will be saved through childbearing," it should be "the woman [singular] will be saved through the childbearing, if they continue in faith..." This indicates that "a woman" that Paul doesn't want to teach or
authentein "a man" is "the woman" that will be saved through the childbearing if they ("a woman" and "a man") continue in faith. "The childbearing" is a noun in the sentence not a verb, which means that a particular birth is in mind. I'm of the opinion that it's referring to Christ's birth. And again, combating a gnostic heresy.
I was looking around at Greek prepositions earlier and I couldn't find a Koine Greek equivalent of "by" fwiw. We may be somewhat spoiled by the rich English lexicon.
Dia (#1223)
No, that's not what I'm doing. I was taking out the whole prepositional phrase not just the preposition.
Even worse.
"A&J are of note" makes perfect sense, just as "Jesus was born" makes perfect sense.
Oh, sure it does. So does "A&J are noteworthy" and "A&J are outstanding".
But you had to
remove a whole phrase from Scripture to make it mean that. You can't just take out a whole phrase from the sentence and say it has no meaning. If we remove words and phrases from Scripture, we can make any verse say anything we want it to say.
I think we should do a concordance search to see what uses en has and if it is used as a Koine Greek equivalent for "by". It will be alot, but I trust that between us we can parse the information.
Greek prepositions:
http://www.stfonline.org/pdf/rev/appendix%20c_commentary.pdf
As I said, I think a concordance search is in order because now we are dickering over whether a more descriptive preposition in modern english ("by") had a Koine Greek equivalent.
Actually, Greek had more propositions than English.
This is fun by the way
I'm glad to do this sort of work, looking at the raw data rather than trusting informed opinions.
Neither of us is looking at the raw data. Strongs is an informed opinion.