Earlier this year I was confronted with one of those
questions that prompted a strong desire in me to change the subject. I was able to avoid the question for a while
but it kept coming up in different situation with different people. The question was something like this: “What
does Paul mean when he writes ‘I do not allow a woman to have authority over a
man”? In other words, “What does it mean
to αυθεντειν a man?” I didn’t want to give a definite answer until
I, at a minimum, did a casual study of the passage. However, the more I looked at I Timothy
2:9-15 and specifically I Timothy 2:12, the more it seemed that almost every
word, structure and grammar point of I Timothy 2:12 is debated (διδασκειν δε γυναικι ουκ επιτρεπω ουδε αυθεντειν ανδρος, αλλ’ ειναι εν ησυχια.). We can add to this debate issues concerning
cultural scope, audience and OT background.
Following is a list of just some of the questions that came to my mind:
- Is Paul talking about women or wives?
- If what Paul says in 2:9ff is strictly cultural and applies only to first century Ephesus, what textual clues tells the reader that this is so?
- Are the instructions for men in 2:1-8 also not relevant for today or do they only apply to first century Ephesus?
- Since we know that Paul had no problem with women prophesying and praying at public Christian gatherings, what does he mean by the term typically translated “remain quiet”?
- Are the two infinitive two separate actions or does one compliment the other? In other words, is there one or two prohibitions here?
- What does he mean by the prohibition “to teach”?
- What does he mean by the verb typically translated “to have authority over a man”?
- How is Paul using the Old Testament in 13-15?
- When Paul writes what is usually translated something like, “a women shall be saved by the bearing of children…” what does he mean?
At this point, I was distracted for a couple of months
because we were moving back to Odessa, Ukraine.
However, now that we are here in Odessa and I am having trouble
sleeping, I think it is a good time to finish some of my thoughts.
After reading several commentaries, the most common
translation of αυθεντειν ανδρος I read
was “have authority over a man” or the like.
Kostenberger and Schreiner are a good representation of this translation
and the rational behind it. They looked
at 85 different uses of the word in both the verbal and noun form from the New
Testament, Old Testament, secular material and early church fathers. Their research spanned a timeframe that
includes the OT usages up to the sixth century AD. Here is an example of their conclusions.
Upon analyzing these eighty-five
currently known occurrences of the verb αυθεντεω, it becomes evident that
the only unifying concept is that of authority.
Four outworkings of authority are reflected in the distinct meanings of
the verb.
If out of the 85 known uses of the word “the only unifying
concept is that of authority”, I was convinced that “have authority over a man”
was a good translation of what Paul meant.
Further, as I continued my research, Douglass Moo convinced me that I was
on the right track. He says,
Translations of this
Biblical Greek hapax range from the simple “have authority” (NIV; NASB) to the
more nuanced “dictate” (Moffat) to the remarkable dissimilar “engage in
fertility practices.” …While the
evidence is not extensive, the information outlined above allows for the fairly
certain conclusion that αυθεντεω in I Tim. 2:12 must mean,
“have authority.” This is the meaning of
the verb in one of the two pre-Christian occurrences, in the second century,
and in the Church Fathers. Furthermore,
whatever the etymology of the noun be, it is clear that its meaning in the
Hellenistic period was most often “master, authority.”
I have a lot of respect for both Kostenburger and Moo and
their arguments were ringing true. Moo
makes a very strong statement when he says “…that αυθεντεω in I Tim.
2:12 must mean ‘have authority.” It is
both the only unifying concept and Moo added that “This is the meaning of the
verb in one of the two pre-Christain occurrences.” Case closed – the meaning must be “have
authority”. Then I decided to read one
more commentary.
I had never heard of Leland Wilshire, but I picked up his
book. He had a suggestion that messed
with my thinking. He suggested that
since the only significantly unclear use of the word αυθεντεω was Paul’s
use, we should limit our lexical study of the word to citations during the four
centuries surrounding the New Testament period.
This made a lot of sense to me.
It seems more than reasonable that 200 years before and after Paul
should provide us with a good idea of the semantic range of the word during
Paul’s lifetime. Languages and the range
of word meanings are always in flux.
There are many examples of how words change their meaning over time or
how their range of meaning widens or narrows over time. Sometimes this can even happen during a
generation. I myself can think of
several examples of words that have changed meanings during my lifetime. I read Wilson’s analysis and followed his
advice. I made a timeline of the 85
occurrences, who used them and what the word meant. I was surprised at the results and found
myself persuaded by Wilshire’s arguments.
He says in part:
An analysis of this
list shows that one can find very few citations during this four century period
surrounding the New Testament that have the meaning of “exercising authority,”
“holding sway or using power,“ or “being dominant” (the one citation from
papyrus #1208 is in a variant form authentekotos and the word in Ptolemy is the
variant authentesas). Although one faces
a frustrating mixture of contextual meanings at the time of the New Testament,
the preponderant number of citations from this compilation have to do with self
willed violence, criminal action, or murder or reference to the person who does
these actions.
As I looked at my timeline, I couldn’t help but agree with
Wilshire’s analysis. I am not sure how he
defines “very few citations”. There are
some usages that fall into the semantic range of “have authority”, but even
most of those are second/third century. As
I further considered the data of that 400 year period, two things became very
clear. First, from the second century BC
to the second century AD, the word αυθεντεω
had a wide and somewhat bizarre semantic domain. The idea of “exercising
authority” is included in the range of meaning, but so are ideas like the
following (I will try to list them in semantically connected categories):
- doer of a massacre, murderous, slayer, murderer
- killer of self, being one’s own murderer, suicide
- criminal, author of crimes, perpetrator of a crime, supporters of violent actions
- perpetrator of sacrilege
- builder of a tower
- sole power, authority, to control, to dominate, to exercise one’s one jurisdiction, master
Second, starting in about the fourth century AD, where most
of the 85 examples are from, the meaning is almost exclusively connected with
authority. This is not to say that the
data was somehow skewed in favor of the meaning “have authority”. It is simply that around the fourth century
the word became more common.
That tells me a couple more things. First, before the fourth century, the word
was not a common word. Second, something
happened in the fourth century that both made αυθεντεω more common and narrowed the meaning of it to ranges
connected with authority. Third, during
Paul’s time, the range of meaning of the word was very broad indeed. Fourth, if we look at about 1000 years of
evidence, the majority of meanings is “have authority”. However, the majority of those usages occur
350 to 400 years after Paul. If we remove
the later usages, then we have no clear single meaning. So where does that leave us?
Paul chose to use this word in place of his usual word for
“authority”. If we assume that he did
this intentionally, it is reasonable to assume that the word αυθεντεω had a nuanced meaning that better
fit what he wanted to communicate than his usual word εξυσια.
That fact alone throws doubt on the meaning of authority for αυθεντεω. Second, we cannot come to a confident
conclusion that Paul meant, “have authority” simply based on the number of
uses. During his time, the meaning of
the word was not that clear or set.
Third, if Paul did indeed mean something like “have authority,” he
probably had a nuanced meaning that this word communicated. What is the nuanced meaning? Good question. I’m not sure, but it probably has something
to do with violence and authority.
So, what have I learned here? Maybe I should first say what I have not learned. I have not learned a clear meaning of what it means to αυθεντειν ανδρος in Paul. If I have contributed in any way to this discussion, I think, what I have done is ruled out that “to αυθεντειν a man” means simple to “have authority over a man.” Whatever Paul is saying is, at a minimum, more nuanced than that and possible quite different.
