Translating 1 Timothy 2:8-15
8 I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; 9 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. 11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. (ESV)
New Testament scholar Ben Witherington III proposes a new literal transaltion of 1 Timothy 2:8-15, claiming to take into account the social and religious context.
Here is Witherington’s literal translation:
“I wish then men to pray in all places, lifting up holy hands without anger and argument, and likewise women in tasteful dress with modesty and sobriety adorning themselves not with plaited hair with gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but what is fitting for women professing to worship God with good works. A woman should learn in quietness in all submission, but to teach I am not permitting women nor to domineer over men, but rather to be in quietness. For Adam was formed first, only then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman being truly deceived fell into transgression. But she may be saved through (the) Childbearing, if they remain in faith and love and holiness with sobriety/modesty.”
This is one of the so-called “texts of terror,” used in most conservative churches to disallow women from teaching or holding positions of authority. Among his assertions:
- Paul is giving a temporary correction to a localized problem–upper-class Ephesian women who assumed their status and education entitled them to teach in the church immediately after conversion. That these are the women addressed he supports by pointing out that they are the only ones who would have “gold or pearls or costly attire” (vs 9). He is not issuing a universal prohibition forbidding all women to teach in any circumstance. These women are to “learn quietly” at first, but (according to Witherington) eventually would be allowed to teach.
- The verb usually translated “I do not permit/allow” (ouk epetrepo) Witherington translates “I am not permitting.” This is the verb’s only occurrence in the New Testament, and Witherington claims that everywhere else in Greek literature it is used with a sense of a temporary prohibition, never as a permanent ban.
- He says authentein can be translated “to domineer” rather than “to exercise authority over” and claims that this better fits the context. In other words, the problem wasn’t women holding some office of authority but rather these new wealthy female converts feeling they had the right to assert authority over established leaders in the church.
- Finally, he sides with those who thnk the resolution of the very weird translation “women may be saved through childbirth” in seeing childbirth not as referring to the individual partum experiences of church members, but rather to the Childbirth, the birth of Jesus through Mary, where Mary acts as a second Eve who is not deceived (which Witherington interprets as “poorly taught” [by Adam]), thus reversing the curse on women.
Interesting, to say the least. Read his complete defense here.
Share on Facebook
February 26th, 2006 at 1:45 am
FANTASTIC link, Mark. I passed this on to my NT prof; I’ll let you know what he says.
February 26th, 2006 at 2:15 am
Interesting. I am not qualified to assess any of that. As Paul Simon says “I have no opinion about this…”
February 26th, 2006 at 8:21 am
Yes, I don’t feel qualified to assess it either, but it is an intriguing alternative take.
Setting aside the question of whether women may be pastors/elders, which is not what is in dispute in this passage, I’ve long suspected that the prohibition against women teaching men, even mature, competent Christian women, was based in weak exegetical arguments. This passage is a case where translation is critical, and it may be that most of our modern translations are based on ecclesiological presumptions.
I’d like to see any strong counter-arguments to Witherington. I’ll be monitoring his post for comments and will report here if anyone comes up with something.
February 26th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
He seems to prove too much by saying it is a specific injunction directed at a particular situation. To argue that this is the case and then to eisegete (it’s not in the text after all) that Paul intends this ban on teaching to be lifted at some point is a real stretch, especially in light of what Paul says elsewhere about qualifications for elders. As I’ve often said in my curmudgeonly-old-school-tongue-in-cheek-way, I have no problem with women being elders, as long as they are the husband of one wife. (For any who are slow on the uptake, I’m not arguing for homosexual marriage there . . .)
February 26th, 2006 at 6:02 pm
As I think I said earlier, I think there is more support for male eldership than for a ban on women teaching. Obviously I am separating the two. Elders are to be “apt to teach,” but that does not say that they are the only ones able to teach.
In response to your assertion of eisegesis; yes, of course, an end to a temporary ban is not in that text. However, in a follow-up comment on his own post, Ben Witherington gives several examples in the New Testament text that he thinks demonstrate that women teaching in the church was not abnormal. I’ll quote him here:
You can still claim that Witherington is arguing from silence (there is no text saying, “Now when women teach…”), but it is proper to argue from probabilities, and at this point I think the citations he gave above offer a reasonable probability that there were situations in which women taught men.
However, Witherington continues…and here I think he does get on to very thin ice.
The whole “Junia” question has been around for a long time. I would have to see Epp’s book to be convinced that he has resolved an issue that no one’s been sure about for centuries. But the real weakness I wanted to address is point #5 (actually should be 6, but who’s counting?). This is indeed a leap: we are to assume that only women were untrained and immature in both the Ephesian church and Timothy’s church. That seems a big stretch to believe. Women were only left out from Paul’s list of elder qualifications because…only women were “untrained”? So I’ll grant you that one.
However, I think Witherington’s original argument is still worth considering if we allow that there were teachers other than elders…unless you believe the first Christian churches were all members of the OPC!
February 26th, 2006 at 9:17 pm
Excellent and provocative post, Mark. I’ve had similar thoughts to Witherington’s in regard his comments, “The prophetic office clearly involved Christian women in Paul’s day and it clearly involved proclaiming the Word of God directly to some group. It does not make sense that it was o.k. for women to do this, but not to exposit texts; 2) Acts 18 is clear enough about Priscilla and Aquila instructing Apollos.” I actually had a guy tell me on one occasion that it was O.K. for women to “preach” the gospel to men (meaning “evangelize” because it really doesn’t take any theological expertise to do this–you just memorize the “main points” of the Gospel and repeat them). But as to exegeting and teaching the Word to men (except for male children under 18), women were not to do this because of Paul’s prohibition in 1 Tim. 2 and the fact that “women in general” are more easily deceived. There are of course a number of things that one might want to say in response to such a view, (some might require more repentance than others); yet, one thing that comes to mind is how one gets “women in general” from Eve’s one act. If we follow that same logic, I suppose we would have to say that men “in general” are more overtly rebellious than women because Adam sinned with his “eyes wide open” so to speak. Of course given our view of depravity that is completely absurd. It also appears to implicate God in a sense because it would seem to imply that he from the original, pristine creation (pre-fall state) made Eve somehow ontologically deficient in her rational capacities. Things get even stickier if one says that it is the case that “women in general” are more easily deceived even after having been united to Christ. This, it seems to me, would suggest that Christ’s death and applied blessings to women believers (e.g, the mind of Christ, divine illumination etc.) is somehow below par. Either way, it seems like a problematic view.
February 26th, 2006 at 9:26 pm
Let’s add to that, Cynthia, how ridiculous this prohibition gets when churches actually try to enforce it. How far do you go? What about reading Christian books written by women? Aren’t you being “taught” by them? How about hymns written by women? And that whole thing of it’s OK to teach boys until they are “x” age (because we woulnd’t have any Sunday School teachers if we didn’t allow that!). At what age do they magically become unable to be taught by women? 18? Where is that in the biblical text? So could my wife teach a Bible class to that young man until his 18th birthday, and then the next day she couldn’t?
Last semester we had a panel discussion in my ministerial formation class. The idea was for people in leadership of church and parachurch ministries to share their experiences with us. I was told that one pastor would not participate if there was a woman on the panel because she would be “teaching” ministerial candidates!
February 26th, 2006 at 11:05 pm
Hey, great points, Mark and Cynthia, and thanks for this discussion. I had a couple of thoughts. If Paul is saying that he does not (temporarily) permit these new female converts to domineer over established male leaders, it makes sense that he would provide an example like Adam and Eve — Adam was “formed first” (he had received instruction from God for a longer period of time), and Eve, deceived by pride, led him astray. Similarly, these wealthy women could be deceived by pride and lead the more established men away. If Paul is using Adam and Eve as an example in this way, then he is making a point about this church’s situation, and not about the creational constitution of men and women in general. Women as women are not more easily deceived, but those who are young in the faith potentially are. To put it another way, what if the general principle which Adam and Eve are called upon to illustrate here is one of pride and humility and experience/instruction in the faith rather than the nature of maleness and femaleness?
My other observation/question is the singular “she” and plural “they” in verse 15 — why aren’t those subjects the same number?? Does W. address this is his exegesis? I am definitely intrigued by the idea of “THE Childbearing” as an interpretation to that bizzare verse.
February 26th, 2006 at 11:21 pm
Witherington makes a very similar point about the Adam & Eve example in his post:
And he does address the singular/plural mismatch, something that many modern English translations just gloss over:
February 26th, 2006 at 11:28 pm
And by the way, I couldn’t agree more with the ridiculous nature of trying to consistently follow through with the views you were mentioning above. I actually saw a Trinity Hymnal in the home of a friend one time, in which a notation had been made at the top of each page as to the theological acceptability of each hymn; several were marked “OK– (Woman Author).” I was shocked! It had never occurred to me before to check for the hymnwriter’s sex.
Cynthia, I thought your point about the implication of such ideas for the application of redemption to women was excellent.
February 27th, 2006 at 9:52 am
What are we doing w/ 1 Cor 14:33-34?
February 27th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
1 Cor 14:33-34 says:
Since Witherington started all this mess, I’ll let him comment first:
I’d imagine that you’d next ask about the following verse in 1 Cor 14, verse 35: “If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”
I’d say in the context that Witherington has developed that this text is not referring to teaching by a qualified (i.e., trained and mature) woman. To do so is to read “formal teaching” into “speak.” Since the context is orderly worship, I think it more likely that Paul was addressing a specific situation in Corinth: women (perhaps the same kind of women of high status as in Ephesus) who are being disruptive in public worship by thinking they have the right to “chat” about what is being taught while the service is going on.