Toward An Egalitarian Ecclesia
tom September 21st, 2007
During the next few posts I will seek your thoughts on a fresh interpretation of I Tim. 2 and the way Paul deals with women in this chapter. Some of the arguments will be stronger than others, but hopefully in the end my arguments will be articulated well. Far from being a proof-text for male-only-pastorates, this passage is in fact a text against female dominance! I will argue that the text is not forbidding women to pastor/preach, but is actually forbidding them to abuse their male counterparts.
Argument #1: the use of authentein.
I Timothy 2:12 – (NIV) “I do not permit a woman to teach of to have (authentein) over a man.”
The first issue I wish to deal with is the use of this Greek work authentein. Some important points concerning this word must be noted:
1. Authentein is a hapaxlegomena. For those of you not familiar with terminology of the biblical studies elites, hapaxlegomena is merely a fancy expression for a word that only appears in the New Testament a single time. The sole time it appears is here in 1 Tim. 2. Hapaxlegomena’s always pose difficulties for biblical translators and interpreters. They are forced to go outside of the biblical text to derive the words meanings and nuances. This becomes especially important for determining the meaning of this word.
2. While I noted that this word is a hapaxlegomena, I must also inform you that 2 cognates of this word appear in the deuterocanonical books. In both cases the context reveals the meaning of this word: In 3 Maccabees 2 the word was used in the context of slaves having their bodies “branded with fire.” Furthermore, the Wisdom of Solomon 12:6 uses authenta as a noun referring to the murder of children in child sacrifice ceremonies of the Canaanite peoples. So, from these two examples, we know that the word was used before the first century in a manner related to the physical oppression of other people.
3. The word was also used in Greek tragedies and was exclusively used in reference to suicide and murder. As we move further into the Hellenistic period we find that the word retains its meaning as “murderer” but it expands to include crimes of violence, master-mind of a crime, and perpetrator.
Since we know the meanings of words are fluid and they change with time, and we have seen that the meaning of this word was modified over time, the question becomes, how was the word used in the first and second centuries?
First, we must recognize there were many words Paul could have used if he merely wanted to denote authority. In fact, Paul uses these other words (especially exousia) throughout his other (non-disputed) letters. Since we know Paul uses these other words, and this word is only used by him once in all his extant writings, then this word must have a specific meaning in mind for ‘Paul’ that is relevant to the Ephesian context.
This is exactly what we find. Authentein is never used in the first or second century denoting simple authority. In the literature of this time this word was used in a similar way to those previously mentioned: to dominate, destroy, murder.
Interestingly enough, the history of translations of this passage is that the dominant translation of this word before WWII had to do with the violent treatment of men in the congregation – ‘usurping authority’ in the KJV is among the least obvious of these and even it has remnants of the idea.
What happened after WWII that shifted the translation to “authority” from something like “dominate”? The women left the home. Once the American/Western women began working outside their homes American patriarchy had to attempt to theologically keeping women ‘in their place.’ As the conservative translations of the Bible presupposed a woman should be in the home, they twisted this word in translation to justify their patriarchal bias.
In the end, what we have here is a word describing, not that women shouldn’t have authority, but women shouldn’t dominate men – implying they did have some rightful authority.
Next post – Toward an Egalitarian Ecclesia Part 2/6 – I Timothy 2 and the Artemis Cult – bringing historical context into our reading of an otherwise difficult passage. And yes, my analysis will eventually explain the ever intriguing “they shall be saved through childbearing.”
- Toward an Egalitarian Ecclesia , Women in Christianity
- Comments(17)
(sigh)
Bob - why? I would be interested to hear a dissenting reply. I think that Tom is making a strong argument here.
I agree… you're clearly disgruntled, but give us a comment that will move the discussion forward.
Fair enough, I didn’t really want to kick off the soon to come fray just yet, I did however want to express my disagreement as to where this is going. Just the two reactions I got from a simple (sigh) gives a bit of an indication of the kind of slobber knocker this sort of topic may erupt into. That said I mainly take issue with this sort of reasoning:
“This is exactly what we find. Authentein is never used in the first or second century denoting simple authority. In the literature of this time this word was used in a similar way to those previously mentioned: to dominate, destroy, murder.”
While it may be true that the etymology of the word is more closely related to the above (even that is debateable), those statements are it does not follow that Paul is NOT including authority under that umbrella, that is a bit of slight of hand going on in the reasoning in this post. Authentein, is stronger than often translated THEREFORE authority (which is less than a more robust translation) is not in Paul’s mind. I simply say given the context it absolutely is. The simple fact that ch.2 is proceeded by ch3 where the church leaders are unanimously referred to as masculine in qualifications is unambiguously spelled out.
Bob -
I don't think you're giving fair credence to Tom's arguments. He's using accepted scholarly methods of examining hapaxlegomena, and, as he pointed out, no one before WWII translated authentine as "authority".
If Paul meant "authority", he would've used exousia. That he used a different word, especially one he uses nowhere else, should signal to an honest interpreter that something else is going on.
As for chapter 2, women are not precluded from being deacons, and given Paul's ::ahem:: liberal use of women as leaders elsewhere in the scriptures, we should be careful how quickly we read patriarchy into chapter 3.
Bob,
You may criticize my reasoning and logic if you must…I have no problem with that, I enjoy it and find it necessary. But do not call it ’slight-handed.’ This implies that I am purposely deceitful when in fact I am trying to lay my cards out on the table. This is neither helpful to the discussion, nor is it godly. -Oh, and the same goes for your passive aggressive sigh. If you weren’t going to engage me on this, of all things you shouldn’t have written that. It suggests to me either 1. you refuse to change your mind no matter what I say, or 2. you think my reasoning is invalid and I’m too stupid to see why yours is superior. Either way, it’s not helpful.
Now,
If you would like me to go further in my lexical analysis I will, but I’m afraid it’s only going to further support my argument. As I demonstrated, before the first century authentein was never used to mean mere ‘authority.’ What I didn’t say, though, is that it isn’t well into the 3rd and 4th centuries that the word even takes on a hint of mere authority.
Modern scholarship in lexicography attests to this. If you doubt, check out Theodor Nageli’s “Der Wortschatz des Apostles Paulus” (be sure to bring your German dictionary). Or, check out Liddell-Scott-Jones, “Greek-English Lexicon.” There are a number of others credible sources, and after you’ve checked these ones out, I’ll shoot you a few more.
Finally, in further support of my translation argument:
Old Latin Translation (2nd-4th cent.) - dominate
Vulgate (5th cent.) - domineer
Geneve Bible (1560) - usurpe
Casiodoro de Reina (1560)
As before, really great work. I’m glad you’re reposting this, because I was explaining it to a friend of mine and he was really interested in investigating this further. I’ll be sure to direct him in the direct of this series of posts.
Tom,
Thank you for your post. As a former complimentarian, I used to read such texts as the one you are looking at, along with many other passages from Paul (or a follower of Paul’s) with dismay. I used to wish that it said something else because from what I understood about God (and Paul) did not make sense with what I was reading. As I am looking at the historical context and meaning of the words used, I am becoming more hopeful.
I remember conversations with my then saying, “I don’t like it, but the text seems to exclude you from leadership and authority. It does not make sense, but who am I to argue with God?” Since then I have begun to see where the text might not be as straight forward as it might seem at first.
I have read some pro-eglatarian material in the past and they have not impressed me much. I am thinking of Loren Cunningham and David Joel Hamilton’s Why not Women?. However, studies such as yours and T. Bristow’s in What Paul really said about Women have have helped me - just wanting to say thanks.
However, while you have successfully argued against the use of authority as we Americans use the term in Tim, a positive case for the “authority” of women has not yet been constructed. If a woman does not dominate me, she would also not have authority over me… or at least, I could read the text that way. Now, I fully realize that this is part 1 of 6, so I don’t expect you to have built a case yet, I am just looking forward to it!
On a side note, an interesting work to read is Ordained Women in the Early Church by Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek. In the work, the two go through the evidence for women in ministerial positions in the ante-nicean period. The results were surprising. One of the claims that they demonstrated was how Deacon was used instead of Deaconess to describe women deacons from the 100’s until the 300’s where deaconess began to be used.
Also, for our complimentarian readers, I would be interested in a presentation of your case as well.
Tom,
Very interesting and I am excited to see what you further have to say. I just want to make sure that you will include in the six posts why in this context the word means "dominate" and not "usurp authority." Sometimes a person will open up a lexicon and see a possible meaning and then run with it when there are reasons why a word means what it means in that particular context (i.e. tetagmenoi in Acts 13:48). I wish we would have more discussions like this on the blog, exegeting Scripture.
Hank,
Having read where Tom is going with this on his previous blog, I think you'll see that the exact meaning isn't terribly important - what matters is that the word does not mean merely "authority". Rather, Paul is exhorting women at Ephesus not to dominate or take authority that is not necessarily theirs. Of course this begs the question of what authority (if any) is rightfully theirs (as Honzo pointed out).
HT,
I am right there with you, with wanting more exegesis. However, it is only one step in the hermeneutical process.
Tom et. al.,
First, Tom. Great stuff. I don’t know JACK ALL about readin Greek (It’s all…no…I won’t). But, I do know that you are building a positive case for something that people have jumped to.
I think the main problems I’ve seen with the ordination of women and inclusion in control of church government is that feminism was an issue. People thought, ‘Well, women can work, they can earn a living, they can abort their children, they can be cops and army men, and firefighters. We should let them be preachers and deacons and stuff too.’ That is bad, and faulty reasoning.
I think that the Bible is pretty clear that women have a right to work in the church, and even lead people, including men. The fact that John’s narrative deconstructs divisions within the body (thank you for that JR), there are more than a fair share of priestess and prophetesses in the OT, and other such, I think is great proof of this. But, when it has come to arguing the case against more conservative thinkers, I’ve never been able to make a case that separated me from the pop-feminists they thought I was (m)ali(g)ned with.
I say all of that to say that this: ‘Thank you for this study.’ And to say: ‘Exegesis is cool even for people who know JACK ALL about it.’
I have been researching this subject for the past year and have had discussions with other women with Master and Doctorate level degrees from conservative schools of theology regarding their research on this topic. Sarah Sumner has written a book entitled, Men and Women in the Church which might be helpful to your discussions.
I look forward to continuing to read your dialogue here as I am scheduled to teach the last in a series of three classes on the topic of “Women in Ministry” in our Critical Issues in Christianity class at a small church in the LA area in California.
[…] Tom’s great series on women in Christianity, and a lack of response from the complimentarian camp, I wanna get a feel for where people are […]
[…] Toward An Egalitarian Ecclesia at Theology for the Masses (writing of 1 Timothy 2:12): Interestingly enough, the history of […]
Hey, if anyon’es interested, the person who cited this post above has an excellent criticism of one of my points here. She demonstrates that I overstated the point, more exactly.
I don’t think this ruins my argument exactly, but I think it challenges my provided reason why authentein came to be translated just as ‘authority.’
Well worth the read!
Thanks for stopping by (I always like it when the trackbacks work as planned…)