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.”