Paul’s letters are already difficult to interpret because they are like listening to one side of a telephone conversation, but faulty translations only further complicate our understanding of his words. There are a few key words that are conveniently mistranslated in 1 Timothy 2: 11-15.
Hesuchios/Hesuchia: Traditionalists normally translate this word as “silence” (at least in passages concerning women), but the word in all other places is translated as “peacefulness” “Peaceable” or “quietness.” The word does not carry the meaning of literal silence or absence of speech, but of an atmosphere or presence in which learning should take place. Strong’s Greek Dictionary defines
hesuchios/hesuchias as “properly, keeping one’s seat,” “stillness” “undisturbed,” “undisturbing,” and “peaceable.”
When Paul has absence of speech in mind, he uses the term
“sigao.” The same word is used just nine verses earlier and is translated as “peaceable,”
1 Timothy 2:1-2. Hesuchios/hesuchia is translated as quiet/quietness in
1 Thess. 4:11,
2 Thess. 3:12,
1 Peter 3:4. None of these verses are about silence, as in the literal absence of speech, but a
tranquil quietness or peaceable presence/environment. This fits the context much better than a literal silence, since Paul just rebuked the men in the congregation for
praying while angry and quarreling. Obviously, this would NOT be the optimum environment for anyone to learn in. Thus, Paul tells Timothy to make sure the woman can learn in quietness or peacefulness, and not amid the chaos that was taking over church meetings.
Paul also instructs that women should learn in full submission. This is not a unique request asked only of women, but men are also suppose to learn in full submission to the gospel and sound teaching. The reason this command is directed toward women here is only because teaching women in the same way as men was still a revolutionary practice and still repulsive to many men, believers or not.
Now, onto the grand-daddy of mistranslations and controversy….
“…nor to have authority over [authentein] a man…”
Exousia is the normal word used for “authority,” a carrying out of one’s official duties. But this is not the word Paul uses here. He instead picks the word authentein and it is the ONLY time this word appears in the New Testament. Exousia, however, appears over 100 times. Other uses of authentein from the same time period show that this word does not simply mean legitimate or routine authority, but carries violent, sexual, and dominating meanings.
Authentein.
It cannot be stressed enough how unusual this word is, especially for Paul. Paul writes about authority quite a bit and he never uses authentein as a synonym for legitimate, godly authority. For most mentions of authority, he uses exousia. Louw and Nida’s Lexicon lists 12 common ancient Greek words that are synonyms for routine or legitimate authority, exousia being the most common throughout the new testament. There are 47 words that are synonyms for legitimate “rule” or “governing.” Yet Paul uses none of these words in 1 Timothy 2:11, he chooses the unusual authentein.
We do not find any evidence that authentein, in any of its forms, connotates a routine or legitimate authority until the late third to fourth centuries, far too removed from Paul’s era to provide relevant meanings and contexts. And even once the word took on a less severe meaning in later centuries, THIS passage was ALWAYS been understood as Paul forbidding women to dominate a man, not simply exercise legitimate Christ-like authority. Consider these early translations: 
Old Latin Version from the second – fourth century translates this verse as “I permit not a woman to teach, neither to dominate a man {neque dominari in viro}.
The Vulgate, from the second to fourth century, translates this verse as “I permit not a woman to teach, neither to domineer over a man {neque dominari in virum}.
“There is a basically unbroken tradition, stemming from the oldest version and running down to the twenty first century, that translates authentein as “to dominate” and not “to exercise authority over.”-Linda Belleville
It is not until the 1500s that the verb authentein used in this verse changes from the drastically negatively-charged “to dominate/domineer” to a slightly water-downed phrase, “to usurp authority” (thanks, King James). Still different from exercising legitimate authority, but much less forceful than the violent and even sexual connotations of the original authentein. The King James version asserts that women are not to wrestle authority or seize it from men. No believer is permitted to usurp authority or act in self-interest over others. It is not until after World War II that authentein really gets the botched-translated: “to exercise/assume authority over.” That’s right, less than 80 years ago! So, the notion that women may never exercise godly authority within the body based on this verse is completely unbiblical, both logically and historically.
Exegetical Fallacies in Interpreting 1 Timothy 2:11–15
This is by far the best article I’ve read on 1 Timothy 2:11-12. Linda Belleville, a new testament professor, put together a thorough and compelling paper on 5 exegetical fallacies concerning 1 Timothy 2:11-12 : Contextual/historical, Lexical, Grammatical, Cultural, and Doctrinal. She provides a thorough survey of the early uses of
authenteo, in all its forms. This is a MUST read to gain a proper understanding of the egalitarian position.
Catherine C. Kroeger also put together a brilliant survey of
authentein (and all it’s sister-nouns/adjectives) uses from before Paul up until the third and fourth centuries. I would particularly challenge Tonya and Catrina to read these articles in full before giving me CBMW rebuttals. :)
These combined articles find that early uses of authentein (in its noun, verb, and adjective forms) collectively mean “criminal mastermind,” “a perpetrator,” “one who slays with his own hand,” “self-murder,” “women who can command domestic and sexual services from their male concubines,” “incestuous sex and murder,” “religious sexual orgies,” “to dominate,” “to control,” “to restrain,” and “to domineer.”
Hardly the meaning we find in modern translations of 1 Timothy 2:11.
One of the earliest meanings to authentein is the act of murder or the act of violence.
Wisdom of Solomon 12:6, an apocrypha book translated into ancient Greek, considered “scripture” by both Jews and Christians until the second century AD, uses a form of
authentein.
“With their priests out of the midst of their idolatrous crew, and the parents, that killed with their own hands [authentas] souls destitute of help.”
Ancient Greek grammarians and lexicographers define authentein as “to dominate,” “to control, restrain, and domineer.” It is also classified as a “vulgar” term, possibly because of it’s sexual uses.
Other notable uses of the word include:
Josephus, the famous Jewish historian from Paul’s own time, used the noun form, authenten, to describe the “author” of a poisonous drink. Diodorus of Sicily wrote about the “sponsors” (authentas) of daring plans and the “perpetrators” (authentas) of a crime. John Chrysostom, an early church father, used the same word, authentia to express “sexual license” or perverse sexual practices. Clement, another early church father, linked the word with women involved in sexual orgies.
Catherine Kroeger makes an excellent analysis of the implications of the original meaning of authentein:
“Chrysostom [the early church father] uses autheritia to denote “sexual license.” If the word in this context refers to sexual behavior, it puts a quite different interpretation on the entire passage. For instance, if we were to translate the passage, ‘I forbid a woman to teach or discuss higher algebra with a man,’ we would understand the prohibition to be directed against instruction in mathematics. Suppose it read, ‘I forbid a woman to teach or talk Japanese with a man.’ Then we infer that the injunction applies to the teaching of language. ‘I forbid a woman to teach or dangle a man from a high wire’ would presuppose that the instructor was an aerialist. ‘I forbid a woman to teach or engage in fertility practices with a man’ would imply that the woman should not involve a man in the heretical kind of Christianity which taught licentious behavior as one of its doctrines. Such a female heretic did indeed ‘teach to fornicate’ in the Thyatiran church mentioned in Revelation 2:20 (cf. 2:14f.; Num. 25:3; 31:15f.).
Too often we underestimate the seriousness of this problem for the New Testament church. A passage in 2 Peter expresses concern not only for those drawn into this error but also for the illegitimate children which it produced:
‘But Israel had false prophets as well as true; and you likewise will have false teachers among you. . . . Having eyes full of adultery, that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls, an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children which have forsaken the right way … following the way of Balaam…. They utter big empty words, and make of sensual lusts and debauchery a bait to catch those who have barely begun to escape from their heathen environment (2:1,14f.,18).’”
Others have conducted in depth word studies on authentein with similar results…
Dr. David H. Scholer sites Leeland Edward Wilshire’s exhaustive study of the word
authentien.
“Wilshire is the first to use the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG) computer database, which contains virtually all three thousand ancient Greek authors from Homer to A.D. 600. The database showed that authentein and its cognates occurred about 330 times and over a large number of centuries almost exclusively meant “a perpetrator of a violent act, either murder or suicide.”
But there is no evidence from the first century that authentein means ordinary or legitimate authority. Nothing exists until the late third and fourth centuries to suggest other meanings, and even then, the verse in question still translates authentein as “dominating men” or “domineer over men.”
Paul is not allowing a woman to teach others to dominate men, to teach the domination of men, nor to dominate a man themselves, but to be peaceable (heshucias). This verse has nothing to do at all with mature, trained christian women exercising their spiritual gifts and serving the body through teaching, preaching, or leading. These were women led astray by false teaching, whom Paul is correcting in these verses and who must start at the beginning with full submission to the gospel and sound teaching.
He ties in the creation story to draw a correlation between Eve being deceived by the voice of false teaching and these women. It is a reminder to the church of the devastating effects of false teaching and deception.
I know someone is going to say, “Well, if Paul is forbidding dominating others as opposed to holding mere authority and it’s wrong for all believers to dominate each other, why does Paul only address this to women?” Consider that HERE IN THIS LETTER, Paul is correcting the ones exhibiting specific behaviors. Consider that Paul only tells the men to lift up holy hands in prayer without anger or disputing. Now, just because he only directs the men here in this verse, does that mean women shouldn’t lift up holy hands? Does it mean women are free to be angry and constantly disputing in or out of church? Of course not. But the men in the body were the ones exhibiting this behavior, so Paul only addresses them, even though it’s inappropriate for all believers to behave that way. Likewise, he only addresses the women about dominating and seizing authority through false teachings, possibly sexual ones, because they were the ones doing it in this instance.
Consider this reality of ancient Greek culture pointed out by Catherine Koeger:
“Virtually without exception, female teachers among the Greeks were courtesans, such as Aspasia, who numbered Socrates and Pericles among her students. Active in every major school of philosophy, these hetairai (high-class, intellectual prostitues) made it evident in the course of their lectures that they were available afterwards for a second occupation. But the Bible teaches that to seduce men in such a manner was indeed to lead them to slaughter and the halls of death (cf. Prov. 2:18;
5:5; 7:27; 9:18). The verb authentein is thus peculiarly apt to describe both the erotic and the murderous.”
It becomes overwhelming clear from the
the well-documented culture of Ephesus coupled with the original word meanings used in 1 Timothy 2:11-12, that this mandate is not a prohibition against all women teaching/preaching/leading in the church. It’s simply absurd to keep gifted and qualified women from teaching the truth of the gospel, leading church bodies in the ways of Jesus, or simply contributing their gifts by vocally participating in the gatherings of the entire body because of a verse that was originally a disciplinary action against
women at Ephesus. who were lead astray by false teaching.
July 5, 2008 at 8:44 am
Excellent article, thanks! Having spent quite a few years in a group of churches that taught patriarchal complimentarianism very heavily, I’m still wading through these issues trying to understand my freedom to use all my gifts as a woman in the church. I really appreciate your blog and am finding it very very helpful!
July 7, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Well put, well argued, and I believe right on the money. One other key word would be the word for “permit”as in “I do not permit a woman to teach”
The verb here is actually “I am not now permitting” (*hat tip to Ben Witherington). There is not a single instance in Greek literature where this verb form means “I will never permit”. Paul could easily have said, “I will never permit” but he does not. Is he correcting a local problem? Yes.
Is it possible, given the tense of “permit”, the loaded word “authentein” and the injunction to learn in “quietness” (specifically targeting women for that learning), that Paul here is not talking about appropriate instances where women may teach and have authority (which they do elsewhere) but about an issue in Ephesus, where women who are seeking to teach or take authority (domineer) over men, without first being quiet and learning about the faith? Yes.
July 29, 2008 at 9:17 am
Wow, really great article – I recently discovered this blog and I wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading it. I especially love that you use scripture and good logic to make your points.
Thanks for posting this!
July 29, 2008 at 10:27 am
Why thanks. :)
August 2, 2008 at 8:07 am
Just found this blog and it seems really great. I am egal and always looking for the latest insights and this blog seems to have many, so I need to investigate it further.
August 3, 2008 at 9:51 pm
welcome don to you and all our other new readers! :)
September 11, 2008 at 12:00 am
[...] – bookmarked by 2 members originally found by coty on 2008-08-19 The Mistranslation of 1 Timothy 2:11-12 http://christianfeminism.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/the-mistranslation-of-1-timothy-211-12/ – [...]
December 20, 2008 at 11:06 am
1 Timothy 2:12 clearly states “I suffer not a woman to teach.” This entire blog failed to address that, for OBVIOUS reasons… Feminism is the devil!
January 18, 2009 at 6:17 am
[...] The Mistranslation of 1 Timothy 2:11-12 via christian feminism [...]
February 20, 2009 at 12:57 pm
A very insightful description. My appreciation to the researchers. I found this blog after reading ‘Misquoting Jesus’ by Bart D. Ehrman. There is a section ‘Women and the Texts of Scripture’ that your readers may find interesting and very much on a par with the evidence shown here. Thanks.
March 12, 2009 at 5:31 pm
I believe you are coming to this issue from completely the wrong direction. You have made up your mind and are looking to the Bible to back you up (and in some places looking beyond the Bible). And as such going against the command of Proverbs 3:5 “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding”
How you should attack this issue and every other spiritual issue you come across is to have no opinion! Then read the Bible and let God speak to you through your open and ready to learn heart!
God can not speak to you if you come to him with closed ears, a symptom you are clearly displaying through out this blog page.
If you were to look through the Bible carefully I think there is only one conclusion you can truely come to. That being that women should not have an ultimate position of spiritual leadership within the church (pastor, preacher or elder) however their leadership can come in more practical areas (including the area of deaconship).
I think the you have already discovered the verses that are clearly speaking against women in spiritual leadership. However I would point you to the story of Deborah, Barak and more importantly Jael (Judges 4). Here Barak is told (by God, through Deborah) to go to war and that if he does then he will win. However because of his indecion and frankly cowardness Jael took the responsibility of killing the leader of part of the Canaanite army.
This to me is how the church should be displayed.
Men are first and foremostly given the order to be incharge of the church until Christ’s return. However there are very rare times when the chosen men simply do not step up to the plate! In that case their will be women on hand to point the church in the right direction (back to God) but eventually they should lead the church back in to male leadership!
March 12, 2009 at 7:17 pm
jpw,
we engage in respectful dialog on this blog, not contentious debate. if you continue in the manner you have displayed in your previous comments please know you will not be allowed to comment further. disagreeing with a post is fine but being rude and disrespectful will not be tolerated here.
March 26, 2009 at 3:18 am
Could you provide how you would translate the greek and add paraphrasement for the scripture verses 1Timothy 2:11-12.
August 14, 2009 at 5:12 am
Praise the Lord! I’m glad I came back to this website. This article is magnificent. Frankly, it
makes me want to study the original Greek and Aramaic. It’s amazing to me what people want to put
in the Lord’s mouth; it’s horrifying how people won’t go back to the actual languages, cultures, and
histories to actually find out what was being said.
I really needed to read this article. Thank you,
and I’ll be back! God bless you.:)
August 20, 2009 at 6:20 am
This could very well be true of AUTHENTEIN in that the women of the time were teaching (primary job) and taking a (second job) on the side “sex” or “domination of men” etc according to the history of the time by Catherine Koeger. But a critical word of verse 1 Timothy 2:12 is “or”. Paul could have used “and” but he used “teach OR authentein”. 2:12 “I do not permit a woman to teach or ‘to exercise authority over’(Authentein) a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” Therefore these were two seperate things not necessarily being done in combination. Same as for the verses for men, not all would have been both angry and and verbaly quaralling again the use of OR was used. Paul was simply not permiting women to teach (primary job) or if this translation of Authentein is correct, seduce/sexually dominate men (second job). Paul then continues in 1 timothy 3 by giving a checklist for overseers and deacons.
September 15, 2009 at 9:03 am
Often times the true point is made clear not in what is said or written rather what is not said and not written. The message that jumps off of this page is “The Bible Cannot Be Trusted!” This of course is the rouse of the evil one because if the Bible can be found inaccurate on one account, even mis-translation, then the entire infallibility of the Scriptures can no longer be assumed. This is dangerous ground you are treading and is counter-productive to the advancement of the Kingdom that is in Jesus Christ our King.
September 15, 2009 at 11:45 am
Linda, where exactly was JPW being rude? You said it’s ok to disagree with the article, so how in the world is he supposed to express that on here? Perhaps everything is rude and disrespectful to theists? Is it instances like this that created the word “blasphemy”? Is this another one of those “anti-opposition” cesspools of unchallenged christian knowledge? I think he actually hit the nail on the head with Proverbs 3:5. “Don’t think for yourself! Just close your eyes, put in your earplugs, and obey.”
Anyways it’s to bad the latter part of the verse about eve being formed second after adam, and that she was a fool for being deceived rather then Adam wasn’t really touched on because now it sounds like decisions/opinions were already decided before this article was even made and that the author put on the holy tap shoes to dance around this enigma.
Even if you changed the first verse to “Yahweh loves all the beautiful woman of the world and thinks they are just awesome!”, it still doesn’t change anything. Why would he bother mentioning that Adam came first, and eve’s faults unless he was saying something negative about woman beforehand? It’s like your trying to change it from saying “Stupid woman should keep their mouth shut and submit to men’s will, because they are less then men and are at fault of it because adam came first as well as eve screwed up and adam didn’t.” to “Beautiful woman that should learn in a peaceful environment are less then men because adam came first and because and it’s their fault eve screwed up and adam didn’t.” You can sugarcoat the adjectives all you want but it’s still mentioning retardation due to Eve.
Now if JPW’s post was considered somehow rude and disrespectful then my post must be the work of the devil. Push this under the rug and hide it if you’d like, not my problem. Just proving my point if so.
September 16, 2009 at 10:26 am
Hey Everyone! So sorry for my absence. Motherhood has severely cut into my computer time! Ok I have a few things to say in response to some of the comments.
JPW. Hello. Let me tell you the quick version of my story. I was raised in a VERY complementarian church. Women did not address the congregation, let alone lead it. Like most complementarian churches they were regulated to leading women only ministries, children ministry, or singing on the worship team. The first time I encountered an egalitarian argument (in a book by one of my favorite authors) I threw it across the room in disgust! I set out originally to disprove his claims—not affirm them. But once I studied BOTH sides, looked at the whole of scripture, the heart of scripture, the original language of these texts, the unique cultural settings in which they were written, I became convinced of the egalitarian position. So rest assured, I did not just decide one day to be an egalitarian and then search for evidence to affirm my already existing view. I hope that helps.
Josh, I would recommend you checking out Linda Belleville’s analysis of the grammatical construction of this verse, in which she shows the EXACT opposite is true of what you are saying. There original greek uses a correlative construction, neither/nor (ouk, oud). The usage does not imply separate ideas, but interwoven ideas—most examples we have of this construction are used to convey the same ideas or a pair of synonyms (neither sleep, nor slumber, or neither despised, nor scorned). antonyms (neither greek nor jew), or moving from the general to the specific (wisdom neither of this age, nor the rulers of this age), but the flow is always related, where as teaching and dominating are not related ideas at all. If I said the sentence, “I do not permit you neither to study nor to read the Kamasutra,” you would not think I was forbidding you to study or read in general, but only to not study or read the Kamasutra. This is the case with these verses. Paul is not forbidding women to teach the message of Jesus or the truth of scripture, but is forbidding them to teach in a domineering way, or forbidding them to teach the actual domineering of men. This reading fits both the grammatical construction, the larger context of 1 Timothy, and the historical context in Ephesus, in which the cult of Artemis taught the SUPERIORITY not equality) of women to men.
Justin, God’s word is reliable, but not all versions convey what is in the original texts. That is why we have the body of Christ, so we can study and ensure we stay as close to the originals as possible.
Erik, since you have come to the conclusion that all women have suffered some form of retardation as the result of Eve’s deception, I doubt my words will have any affect on you. I believe Linda thought it was rude of JWP to assume that I, the author of this article, started with an egalitarian view and THEN studied to find only the evidence that supported my view. It is a little rude to assume you know someone’s motives or personal story, instead of just dealing with the information presented.
As for you, I address extensively in a previous post about Paul’s words about Adam being formed first and Eve being deceived. The quick version: Gnostics of the time taught Eve was created FIRST and that by eating the fruit she gained secret knowledge. They painted her as a hero. Women in Ephesus, who coming from an Artemis infested culture already believed women were superior to men, so once they joined the church, it would not be so hard for them to embrace Eve has some sort of hero. Paul is simply correcting a false teaching, not degrading all women. The fact of the matter is that Adam was formed first (and he was insufficient alone and NEEDED Eve) and Eve was deceived, not some beacon of knowledge and power. She sinned. I am surprised you are insinuating that Adam didn’t “screw up.” On the contrary Adam willingly and KNOWINGLY disobeyed God’s command, he was not tricked into it, but did it out of pure rebellion, where as Eve was deceived into it. So the original man and woman both messed up. Paul is using the example of Adam and Eve to correct a prevalent false teaching and to call for the learning of women (who up until now were forbidden to learn the sacred scriptures the way men were allowed to, so that was quite liberating) and for them to do so in a quiet atmosphere (free from the disruptive angry arguments the men were having) with full submission to the true word of God, not cult legends or gnostic fairytales. To take this verse written for a specific situation and try to use it to silence all women for all time is just ludicrous. As the late great Katharine Bushnell once said “”If women must suffer domestic, legislative, and ecclesiastical disabilities because Eve sinned, then the Church must harbor the appalling doctrine that Christ did not atone for all sin.”
Stop all the power struggles. Men and women submit yourselves one ton another, esteem each other higher than yourselves and let’s work together to bring about God’s kingdom!
September 16, 2009 at 1:09 pm
erik, you asked where jpw was being rude. it was in another comment of his that i deleted because i found it to be quite rude. i left his other one up. as the admin of this blog that is my call. i have no problem with people disagreeing but it must be done with gentleness, respect, and love. people will know us by our love for one another…