----------------------
At long last we have found someone who addresses the alternate rendering of 1 Timothy 2:12, one that we favor. We have made the case that this passage does not address church order, but rather the marriage relationship. We shall try not to rehash our arguments here. Our intent today is to see what passes as a refutation. We will find it is a sad example indeed.
At long last we have found someone who addresses the alternate rendering of 1 Timothy 2:12, one that we favor. We have made the case that this passage does not address church order, but rather the marriage relationship. We shall try not to rehash our arguments here. Our intent today is to see what passes as a refutation. We will find it is a sad example indeed.
Ms. Lesley is asked a question about the subject verse, but she will not make a biblical argument, or even any argument at all. She simply issues summary denials and various fallacious appeals. In fact, she will be unable to quote a single Scripture in her response. Not one.
He responses will be centered around five fallacies:
- Appeal to Experts
- Appeal to "this is the way it is"
- Appeal to "we have more than you"
- Appeal to Tradition
- Appeal to "we have to translate it the same everywhere."
------------------------------
Q. A popular Christian apologist I follow says that the prohibition against women preaching, teaching Scripture to men, and holding authority over men in the church in 1 Timothy 2:12 is translated incorrectly.
I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
He says it should not be translated as “woman” and “man” “but as “wife” and “husband”, and that he believes Bible translators mainly translate it as man woman due to tradition (i.e. men have historically been the pastors and teachers in the church).
A. This is why linguists – professional experts in the biblical languages – are hired to translate Scripture, not apologists. (Her first claim, which employs the first fallacy, an Appeal to Experts.)
Bible translators (of reliable translations) are true to the text, (Ms. Lesley repeats her claim, as if it is enough to simply claim that experts are, well, experts.)
Q. A popular Christian apologist I follow says that the prohibition against women preaching, teaching Scripture to men, and holding authority over men in the church in 1 Timothy 2:12 is translated incorrectly.
I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
He says it should not be translated as “woman” and “man” “but as “wife” and “husband”, and that he believes Bible translators mainly translate it as man woman due to tradition (i.e. men have historically been the pastors and teachers in the church).
A. This is why linguists – professional experts in the biblical languages – are hired to translate Scripture, not apologists. (Her first claim, which employs the first fallacy, an Appeal to Experts.)
Bible translators (of reliable translations) are true to the text, (Ms. Lesley repeats her claim, as if it is enough to simply claim that experts are, well, experts.)
not church tradition or personal convictions. (How does she know this? She simply makes the assertion, without evidence, that we should trust the experts. But translators are fallible men, just like every man. It is very nearly preposterous to suggest that they aren't influenced by tradition or personal convictions.)
Furthermore, when translators are working on the text, it is not a lone individual who writes down what he thinks the Greek words say and that’s the Bible you end up reading. There are teams of translators, linguists, editors, and even computer experts who work on the text. They check, and double check, each other’s work. So even if one translator was translating according to tradition or opinion, it would be caught by others and not allowed to slip through the cracks. (Unless of course they all happen to possess the same bias. The number of experts working on something does not mean no mistakes are made. A variety of people does not mean their work is self-correcting.)
All of the most reliable English translations translate the words as “man” and “woman”, not “husband” and “wife”. (This is the second fallacy, an Appeal to "this is the way it is." But just because something is this way does not mean it should be.)
And just for kicks, I checked this verse in about a dozen of the less reliable translations, and every single one of them translates it “man” and “woman”. Even versions that got other parts of verse 12 incorrect still use “man” and “woman.” For goodness sake, even The Message and The Passion “Translation” possibly the two worst English versions of the Bible (They’re not even translations. The Message is a paraphrase, written by someone who endorsed the heresy-laden book The Shack and has made statements affirming homosexuality. And Passion is the new New Apostolic Reformation version of the Bible, based, supposedly, on new revelation directly from God.) both say “man” and “woman”. And the NAR is totally OK with female preachers, so you know they’re not using “man” and “woman” due to tradition.
So we’ve got one apologist who’s of the opinion that it should be “husband” and “wife” against scads of translators who are experts in their fields and whack job NAR “translators” who approve of female pastors, who all use “man” and “woman”. (Here is the third fallacy, an Appeal to "we have more than you.")
All of the most reliable English translations translate the words as “man” and “woman”, not “husband” and “wife”. (This is the second fallacy, an Appeal to "this is the way it is." But just because something is this way does not mean it should be.)
And just for kicks, I checked this verse in about a dozen of the less reliable translations, and every single one of them translates it “man” and “woman”. Even versions that got other parts of verse 12 incorrect still use “man” and “woman.” For goodness sake, even The Message and The Passion “Translation” possibly the two worst English versions of the Bible (They’re not even translations. The Message is a paraphrase, written by someone who endorsed the heresy-laden book The Shack and has made statements affirming homosexuality. And Passion is the new New Apostolic Reformation version of the Bible, based, supposedly, on new revelation directly from God.) both say “man” and “woman”. And the NAR is totally OK with female preachers, so you know they’re not using “man” and “woman” due to tradition.
So we’ve got one apologist who’s of the opinion that it should be “husband” and “wife” against scads of translators who are experts in their fields and whack job NAR “translators” who approve of female pastors, who all use “man” and “woman”. (Here is the third fallacy, an Appeal to "we have more than you.")
You would think someone out of all of those people would have translated it “husband” and “wife” if that was the correct translation. It’s telling that even “translators” who push the egalitarian agenda won’t go so far as to change it to “husband” and “wife”. I think the apologist is somewhat out of his depth here. (So here we have it. The experts say its *this*, then someone has the temerity to question it, but the one who questions it is the problem.
Does this sound familiar? Does this sound like the techniques political leftists use to silence their opponents, for things like climate change, abortion, gay rights, and COVID?
Ms. Lesley argues like a leftist.)
A few more quotes from said apologist: (Actually, this will be the only quote from this person...)
“Verse 11 and following is directed at women in the context of their relationship with a man to whom they are supposed to be entirely submissive. That is a marriage relationship…1 Timothy 2 talks about the relationship between husband and wife; it’s chapter 3 that talks about church leadership.”
No, verse 11 is not directed at women. Neither are any of the other verses in chapter two or the rest of the book. First (There will be no "second" or "third.")
A few more quotes from said apologist: (Actually, this will be the only quote from this person...)
“Verse 11 and following is directed at women in the context of their relationship with a man to whom they are supposed to be entirely submissive. That is a marriage relationship…1 Timothy 2 talks about the relationship between husband and wife; it’s chapter 3 that talks about church leadership.”
No, verse 11 is not directed at women. Neither are any of the other verses in chapter two or the rest of the book. First (There will be no "second" or "third.")
Timothy is a pastoral epistle. (Now comes the fourth fallacy, Appeal to Tradition, that is, these are pastoral epistles because people have always said they were. However, there is nothing in either letter to Timothy that suggests he's a pastor. That's the traditional view, but there is no text that supports it.
Timothy was not the pastor, he was an associate of Paul, sent ahead to this church by Paul to correct some problems until he arrived:
1Ti. 1:3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer...
1Ti. 3:14-15 Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household...
1Ti. 4:13 Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching.
In fact, Paul directly tells Timothy who runs the church, and it's not him, and it's not pastors:
1Ti. 5:17 The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.
2 Timothy continues the same theme, adding the need to train up men in this church so that they may teach:
2Ti. 2:2 And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.)
In short, Timothy was Paul's helper, sent to this church by Paul so as to correct it until he was able to come himself.
Which means 1 Timothy is not a pastoral epistle.)
It was directed at Timothy by the Holy Spirit via Paul as sort of a “policy and procedure manual” for the church. (It is from the initial false idea the error expands.)
This passage is not talking to women about their marriages, it is talking to pastors and elders about how to run the church. (Ms. Lesley repeats her assertion adding no new information.)
Verses 11-12 are talking about the role and behavior of women (all women, not just wives) in the church setting. (Ms. Lesley just keeps repeating her assertion over and over.)
They are not to instruct men in the Scriptures or exercise authority over men. (Ms. Lesley just keeps repeating her assertion over and over.)
That definitely “talks about church leadership” by excluding women from leadership roles that place them in authority over, or instructing, men. (Ms. Lesley just keeps repeating her assertion over and over.
Essentially, she denies that the verse is about wives, because the passage is supposedly about church leadership, because the passage is about women in church. This is a circular argument.)
And keep in mind that when 1 Timothy was written, there were no chapter and verse markings. The text was one continuous flow. If you begin reading in 2:11 and go through 3:13 (try reading it here, adjusting the settings to remover (sic) chapter and verse markings), I believe there’s a strong case to be made that 2:11-15 is actually the introduction to the qualifications for pastors, elders, and deacons. (Oh, so now it's a strong case to be made? Previously she wrote, no, verse 11 is not directed at women. Period. End of story.
Now it's merely a strong case. We hope she actually does make a case. At some point. From the Bible.)
The passage (2:11-3:13) starts by stating who is disqualified from those positions and why (2:11-15) and then moves on to who is qualified and how (3:1-13). (Ms. Lesley makes her very first biblical appeal, studiously avoiding quoting it.
If she was intellectually honest she would ask us to go to the beginning of the letter, not just half way into the second chapter, and read it without any pre-conceived notions. Let the text speak for itself, separated from how she thinks it should read.
We shall take our own advice. Chapter one is introductory remarks regarding some false teachers, personal encouragements, and a teaching about the law and grace. Then in verse 1:18 Paul tells Timothy why he wrote:
in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by following them you may fight the good fight, 19 holding on to faith and a good conscience.Timothy is to remember the prophetic word spoken over him, which will keep him centered in the faith.
Paul continues into chapter two, gives some more general teaching, and by verse 8 begins to get more specific about how people should conduct themselves.)
Furthermore, if you’ll take a look at verses 8-10 of chapter two, which immediately precede the verses in question (11-12) and provide context, you’ll see more instructions to both men and women. (Let's actually quote the passage:
1Ti. 2:8-14 I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing. 9 I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. 11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
Let's provide the ASV translation of verse 8 for clarity:
I desire therefore that the men pray in every place, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and disputing. ASV
We chose the ASV because we think it more accurately conveys that the thought that wherever someone is praying, in every place they pray they should lift up holy hands.
But Ms. Lesley wants the narrative to be solely and specifically about in-church instruction. But there is no way an unbiased reader would reach such a conclusion. It is clear that one must impose this idea, because it just isn't in the text. It's just an assumption, based on what someone told Ms. Lesley, because of what an expert believed based on what another expert believed.)
Are only husbands to pray? Are only wives to dress modestly and respectably and adorn themselves with good works? What about single men and women, divorced men and women, widows and widowers? (Ms. Lesley commits her fifth fallacy, Appeal to "we have to translate it the same everywhere." She wants us to be amused at the foolishness of those who claim this is about husbands and wives by insisting every occurrence of the word be translated the same, which no translator ever does with any word.
The Greek words can be either woman/wife and man/husband, depending on the context. We discuss this in great detail here.
Further, there is a refutation of Ms. Lesley's rules right in the quoted text:
14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."The woman" is clearly Adam's wife. So why isn't it translated "wife?")
(Now comes some impenetrable prose. We read this several times and are unable to discern what Ms. Lesley is talking about.) No other place in Scripture teaches that all women should be under the authority of all men in the church. If this passage is to be interpreted the traditional way, this makes a new and unusual pattern of submission.
And this passage (1 Timothy 2:12) doesn’t teach that either. The statement that women are not to have authority over men doesn’t flip around to mean that all men are in authority over all women. That’s fallacious logic, silly reasoning, and patently unbiblical. (??? Who says that all men are supposed to have authority over all women? How does this come from translating "a woman" to "a wife," and "a man" to "a husband?" These are truly mystifying statements.
Let's provide the text, changing only four words, to see that the changes do no violence to the passage and do not suggest whatever it is that Ms. Lesley thinks is fallacious:
1Ti. 2:8-14 I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing. 9 I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.11 A wife should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a wife to teach or to have authority over [her] husband; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was [his] wife who was deceived and became a sinner.
The only thing threatened by the changes is the author's tradition.)
The text says what it says and that’s it. (No, the text says what the experts say and what Ms. Lesley says.)
You can’t turn it inside out and make an inference from an incorrect converse. (Again Ms. Lesley makes strange statements. What does this mean? Who wants to do this?)
That’s being a poor workman and mishandling Scripture.
It’s abundantly clear that “man” and “woman” are the correct translation in 1 Timothy 2:12. If anyone is being more loyal to an agenda than to the text here, it’s the apologist, not the translators. (Irony alert. Ms. Lesley is also loyal to an agenda. She has written extensively about the correct way to understand this verse, parsing it, micro-analyzing it, and stretching and twisting it until it's unrecognizable. You can read some of our posts about this here.)
It’s abundantly clear that “man” and “woman” are the correct translation in 1 Timothy 2:12. If anyone is being more loyal to an agenda than to the text here, it’s the apologist, not the translators. (Irony alert. Ms. Lesley is also loyal to an agenda. She has written extensively about the correct way to understand this verse, parsing it, micro-analyzing it, and stretching and twisting it until it's unrecognizable. You can read some of our posts about this here.)
No comments:
Post a Comment