[B-Greek] Arthur Way and 1 Tim 2:15

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Fri Nov 19 02:48:30 EST 2010


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel Buck" <bucksburg at yahoo.com>
To: <B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: 18. november 2010 22:12
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Arthur Way and 1 Tim 2:15


> Iver Larsen wrote:
> <<One famous passage where all English versions that I know off (except Way 
> and
> an NLT and CEV footnote) have failed to understand the author is 1 Tim 2:15, 
> and
> they therefore present non-sensical translations. The reason for their failure
> is the lack of awareness or recognition of metonymy (and synecdoche) which is
> much more common in NT Greek than it is in English. Some commentators, like D.
> Moo, have understood Paul, as quoted by the NET bible note: "“It is not 
> through
> active teaching and ruling activities that Christian women will be saved, but
> through faithfulness to their proper role, exemplified in motherhood” (Moo, 
> 71).
> In this view τεκνογονία [TEKNOGONIA] is seen as a synecdoche in which
> child-rearing and other activities of motherhood are involved."
>
> Way translates: Yet through her motherhood shall woman be saved, if your women
> swerve not from faith and love and self-consecration, coupled with virtuous
> self-control.>>
>
> The CEV footnote left no stone unturned: saved by having children: Or "brought
> safely through childbirth" or "saved by the birth of a child" (that is, by the
> birth of Jesus) or "saved by being good mothers."

Footnotes are often a defense mechanism. Since various commentators have 
suggested all these possibilities, then it is safest to mention them. Bible 
translators once risked to be burned at the stake, but usually were are just 
told how wrong we are and how we are mistaken. Better to be safe, though, and 
cover your bases, when the verse is disputed.

> Ironically, however, the Greek does not read "by the birth of A child", but 
> "by
> the birth of THE child."  If Paul wanted to emphasize that it was motherhood 
> in
> general--or, even less specifically, just traditional womanly behavior (so not
> to exclude motherless children from salvation)--how effectively could he 
> expect
> to communicate that by putting the article THS in front of TEKNOGONIAS?
>
> Daniel Buck

But the text does not say DIA THS GENESEWS TOU TEKNOU (through the birth of the 
child). Nor does it say TWN TEKNWN. The interesting Greek question is: what does 
TEKNOGONIA really mean? When the NT talks about the birth of a child, it usually 
uses GENESIS as in Matt 1:18 (the birth of Jesus Christ), Luke 1:14 (his birth). 
John 9:1 has GENETH. Common verbs for giving birth (to children, no less!) are 
TIKTW and GENNAW (Luke 1:57). hO TEKWN is used to refer to the father as 
procreator as opposed to GONEUS as a parent. Similarly hH TIKTOUSA can be used 
to refer to the mother as child-bearer as opposed to parent. hOI TEKONTES refers 
to both father and mother. Both the TIKTW and GENNAW words focus on bringing a 
child into the world. TEKNOGONIA does not.

TEKNOGONIA is a rare word, not occurring elsewhere in the Bible, but it does 
have a relationship to both TEKNON and GONEUS. My suggestion is that rather than 
referring to child birth with focus on birth, the term refers to parenting. You 
hardly need to specify that a woman bears a child. What else would she bear?

The definite article indicates a known scenario. In the culture of the time, 
especially for the Jews, the place of the woman was in the home. That may not be 
the case in modern Western society, but that is irrelevant for understanding 
what Paul is saying. The woman will eventually inherit eternal life in the new 
world (which is the meaning of the future - shall be saved) as long as she does 
not get sidetracked from her faith by teaching things she is not qualified to 
teach, but rather fulfills the calling she was expected to fulfill in that 
society, namely good parenting. Isn't that a Christian value?

The corresponding verb TEKNOGONEW does occur in the same letter, namely 1 Tim 
5:14.

NIV translates: "So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to 
manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander."

But translating TEKNOGONEW as "have children" does not make much sense. It is 
expected in the society at the time that once you marry (and are still a young 
woman) then you will have children. Paul is not counseling them to have 
children, but counseling them, when they have children, to parent them properly. 
That is (was?) an honorable calling of wives together with managing their homes 
well.

NET is better here: "So I want younger women to marry, raise children, and 
manage a household..." It is not a matter of bearing children, but of rearing or 
raising children, of good parenting.

I have looked at the JBL article from 2004 that Oun Kwon referred to. It seems 
that the best way to get an article published is to suggest an entirely new 
reading of a passage, no matter how far-fetched the suggested idea is. He says: 
"1 Timothy 2:11–15 is an allegory in which the virtues faith, love, holiness, 
and temperance are portrayed as the children of those women in Ephesus who will 
be saved." It is ingenious, but I am sure that this is not what the text means. 
The author violates the most basic principles of exegesis by imposing the 
philosophy of Philo on Paul.

Iver Larsen 




More information about the B-Greek mailing list