Just a side note of support, the preposition “dia” here definitely means “throughout” or “during.” “Through” is a poor choice by the translators, because the english translation could easily cause the reader to think that “childbearing” is the actual agent of the saving. That would require the preposition “hupo” (I’m horrible at transliteration), which is not the case here.

That raises the question, why is it necessary to say that the women will be saved “throughout/during childbearing?” What has brought this about? What crisis has led the women of Timothy’s community to think that they may be under threat during childbearing? I’d say that the Artemis mythos, with the fear that she may kill mothers, holds interesting weight here. In that case, the text is clearly subversive to the Greek religious Paradigm of Ephesus.

However, I’m always skeptical of theologized definitions and grammatical concepts, as if the Biblical writers had some Christian-specific theological lexicon they were writing from.

Loved your quote on grammar, Cheapham!

By being skeptical is of the “divine passive,” I’m more or less just weary of the term. It implies that the actual morphology of the word denotes divine agency, when that is not the case. We can absolutely infer divine agency by looking at the context in which a future passive takes place, but that is not something that is implicit in the grammar of the word itself. That’s my main point. I know you aren’t just making it up, and I’m sure it’s referenced in many Biblical Greek grammar books. However, I’m always skeptical of theologized definitions and grammatical concepts, as if the Biblical writers had some Christian-specific theological lexicon they were writing from.

I know this is just a blog entry, and I definitely understand not having enough time to do more work (I really shouldn’t even be writing this right now). I guess I just desperately want to be convinced by your argument, and thus I feel like I need more for that to happen. Next time I get the chance, I’ll definitely look into the history of the Artemis mythos and see what I can get out of it.

My whole point in this is that the Artemis Cult deals with the text as a whole - including this difficult passage.

and I think you are right - I haven’t seen an interpretation that deals with all of the features of the text as this one does.

Tom is spot on about  the "divine passive." The "divine passive" is a vital part in understanding the book of Revelation, for example. This text is filled with passives that have as their actor God, e.g. angels in heaven receiving bowls of God’s wrath. Only God could have those bowls to give to anyone to pour out. You might indeed want to expand your selection of grammars.

As far as fleshing it out more - I would if I had time. I’ve already written all these posts, which is why I am able to post them once a week. But at this time, with school and all, I just don’t have time to go back and flesh them out in the ways you would like. Besides, though these posts are somewhat academic, they are not dissertations. So in whatever way you all might find them lacking, contribute your own scholastic research and fill it in a bit…I’d be cool with that - I need help thinking through this stuff just as much as the next guy.

My whole point in this is that the Artemis Cult deals with the text as a whole - including this difficutl passage. This verse is not central to my main argument. The traditional reading of this text can still stand and my reading still be viable. That is probably why i didn’t originally flesh this out further - it is only supplementary to my argument, not necessary for it. In the end, my reading does not have to ignore this weird verse. If you all want to go beyond that - go ahead, I’d be happy to read what you have to say - assuming you all have more time than I do, and you can put such a thing together.

As far as the Divine Passive goes - I’m sorry that has not appeared in any Gk. grammars, but I’m not pulling this out of my ass. If a passive verb appears without an agent, and the agent is clearly God, then it is called the Divine Passive. Now, I admit, you may not think the agent here is necessarily God. However, I don’t know of theologically consistent way of dealing with this verb otherwise (no matter if one is an Egalitarian or a BC). I would suggest looking at some other Gk. grammars - particularly ones put together by people who primarily work with the biblical text - cuz the Divine passive is everywhere in the GNT. Consider Wallace - “The passive is also used when god is the obvious agent. Many grammars call this a divine passive or theological passive…” (Daneil B. Wallace, Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics. 437-438) Again, maybe a divine agent is not ‘obvious’ here, but I don’t know of that NT speaks of being saved by any other agent! If you have an alternative, theologically consistent way of interpreting this verb then let me know, I’d be happy to listen.

I’m not going to flesh out the Artemis Myth - I just don’t have time. There are numerous good books out there that I’m sure can assist you. I gave the basics of the story so as to get my point across. If I have skewed the evidence then I’m sure a more faithful reading of the Artemis Myth can be pointed out by someone by looking at these sources - though, as NT Wright was on board with my reading, good luck! The same goes for citing sources. If this were an academic paper then you can be sure I’d cite my sources. But this is a blog, not a research paper. I don’t see anyone doing that on this blog page, nor on any other blog page. I don’t know b/c I didn’t look, but I bet NT Wright, in the paper I gave the link to a few days ago, may have a great bibliography. If not, you all are intelligent people, look this stuff up for yourself. This is a blog, not a dissertation.

I’d really appreciate a more fleshed out rendition of the Artemis myth (along with a citation or two). Then, make the connections with 1 Tim. more explicit. I honestly think there is something to this whole thing, and that a compelling case can indeed be done…I just need more.