Artemis, Ephesus, and the Background to 1 Timothy 2: Dr. Sandra Glahn
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.ย. 2024
- Dr. Glahn is a professor of Media Arts and Worship at Dallas Theological Seminary and holds a Th.M. from DTS and a Ph.D. from University of Texas at Dallas. She's the author of many books, both fiction and non, including the forthcomiong book Nobody's Mother: Artemis of the Ephesians in Antiquity and the New Testament (IVP, Fall 2023), which forms of topic of our rather scintilating and in-depth conversation.
If you've enjoyed this content, please subscribe to my channel!
Support Theology in the Raw through Patreon: / theologyintheraw
Or you can support me directly through Venmo: @Preston-Sprinkle-1
Visit my personal website: www.prestonspr...
For questions about faith, sexuality & gender: www.centerforf...
My Facebook public page: www.facebook.c...
My Facebook private page: / preston.sprinkle.7
Twitter: @PrestonSprinkle
Instagram: preston.sprinkle
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 78 | คู่เอก "ปกรณ์ vs ฟาบิโอ"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LSOmgl0Th2c/mqdefault.jpg)
Very grateful for your work and your heart behind your work Dr Glahn! I love how God used your passions and journey with Him to bring light to the culture at the time. Culture and context is important. Interpreting biblical text without it may lead to false teaching and you’ve given the listener much to consider.
Preston! Dude! You are ON FIRE with these interviews. Dr. Glahn is a rock star, correcting a lot of misunderstandings people have about Artemis. I am not totally convinced as to how her Artemis background argument supports a purely egalitarian reading of 1 Timothy, but she has set a high bar with her scholarship which both sides of the "women in ministry" discussion need to contend with. Looking forward to her book release in the fall.
Wow. What a great use of time! Thank you!
So happy to see this! Thank you for all these great interviews, Preston!
Great interview and discussion. Thank you Dr. Glahn and Dr. Sprinkles!
This was a fabulous interview. I may have to listen again 😊 Thank you!
This was a brilliant interview! l learned so much from Dr Glahn and have been trying to research more information about Artemis myself. I thought the most powerful points that she made was thevery strong connection of Artemis on this city and how much Paul was addressing the religious belief in Timothy. I think also the idea of widowhood being more aligned with a calling, ministry or office for single women. I thought she touched on such an important point that we put our cultural view of authority onto ideas such as elder and and deaconesses as positions of power and how Paul and Jesus describe our relationships in the church as more of family. The thing that hit me the hardest was when she said that she did not believe that Paul was referring to Genesis as a principle for women’s roles such as I was taught.
Really good historical background. Thanks for sharing
Also I pre-ordered the book
I listened to this in my car yesterday, then watched it last night on my TV. Though I found the discussion interesting, it was easier to listen to than to watch. I also, thought, If I have to go to Ephesus and read inscriptions on buildings to understand the message of Ephesians, I'm never going to be able to understand the letter. I also wondered if no one in church history has been able to understand Ephesians correctly until now. I love digging in, and listening to scholars investigate stuff, but sometimes and mostly when someone can't accept a passage of Scripture due to some issue in their own life and then sets out to find some acceptable answer, it gives me pause.
If you were a woman and had had 7 miscarriages...a verse saying that you would be "saved through childbearing" might give you pause as well.
Exactly. This kind of approach to the text that is so dependent on speculating about the cultural background rips the Bible out of the hands of the common man and woman. It becomes an elitist hermeneutic driven by a personal agenda or ideology. And often simple inductive observation of the inspired passage reveals the inadequacies of their speculation.
Leaning complementarian here.
Great interview/conversation.
So much in my heart to ask.
Looking forward to this book.
There seems to be an assumption that if this teaching is contextual, that much of it doesn't apply directly to us- at least not in the way it's written.
Is that a really a good idea?
Is our context really so different that it wouldn't apply? Our modern context seems strikingly similar to theirs.
Oh but also, I really enjoyed this episode, thank you!
I agree that it shouldn't be used to say it doesn't apply but I do think it changes how it is applied.
I don't know what to think of this video yet as I don't have enough evidence either way. But none of the red flags I have come to associate with historical revisionists were present. So I think it is worth further looking into as a way to get an originalist understanding of what Paul meant and apply that to our lives instead of a message filtered through the cultural shift.
Great conversation. I had never heard that “widow” could be used for a woman who was never married around 14:30.
This interview was fascinating. I have so much respect for both you and your guest. I’m looking forward to reading her book. There was so much great information. I do have a question. Because of the line a woman will be saved through childbearing didn’t work for her situation, seems a little ego centric. Very few general principles in Scripture would be true for ALL people. That hit me right away when she started. It made me curious to how objective she could be? Similar to how some Christian, LGBTQIA, people would say the six passages in Scripture on homosexual behaviors don’t work for them so their must be a different interpretation.
Thank you so much for this podcast episode. You mentioned houshold codes and its affects on the people or previous beliefs maybe, it was hard to tell as you were both talking at the same time. Do you have more information on where you were going with this that you could tag/link here??
Have either of you heard of Alicia Batten writing about gold or hair adornment?
Her argument is not consistent. If Paul was addressing certain issues with Artemis worship, and there was an office of widow within the Church, then why does Paul specifically forbid women teachers?
1) To say they were teachers in the Church, that they were allowed some type of deaconess role to minister to men as well, then Paul wouldn’t say it’s forbidden.
2) Paul’s creation reference to Adam created first, then Eve, was a qualifier to male headship in home and the Church.
3) Paul is consistent concerning elder qualification in his writings to Titus. There is a consistency in Church teaching concerning male only qualification for teaching and eldership. Jesus had no female apostles, no female priests, and etc.
4) Paul doesn’t have to say “this is from the Lord and this is from me” to qualify if something is applicable to the Church. The only example of him doing so was concerning marriage, he didn’t use the same wording (when he rightfully could have) concerning female headship or authority exercised in the Church.
5) to read the book as someway as correcting the fall, and the relation of man and woman in leadership, is not the lense of his reference to Adamic headship. It was specifically concerning authority.
6) the junia reference is a single reference, could have been male or female, and a single mention. The theory does where it stands. We don’t build doctrine on a single mention of an androgynous name.
Interesting! This makes me think of Anna. In one verse she's described as a woman who lost her husband, and in another verse, she's described as a widow--and that's not necessarily saying the same thing twice.
“She was advanced in years and had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, and then as a widow to the age of eighty-four.”
I’m not seeing anything in this description of 2 different states. Anna was married to her husband and then lived as a widow.
WOW! I am learning!!! How interesting and exciting. I just might be having to reassess some of my understanding of things (and adjust some of my held beliefs?). This is goood.
Awesome interview. Is there a way that someone can share where to get ahold of the Gary Hogue article?
He has a video on the Seedbed TH-cam channel. There may be clues there. Just search "Gary Hoag Seedbed"
My comment might be a bit late. When speaking about the unusual number of single women at the church, are the wars of that time considered? Could it be that a high number of men were killed in a war>
The morphing of Artemis into the venerated Mary mother of Jesus.
From a virginal Jewish woman into a semi god in Roman Catholicism.
Dude you're in Boise?? I'm in that area. I'd love to chat with you sometime.
You have the scriptures to giver you answers. Why search answers on stones. All scriptures are GOD breathed. Seek what your FATHER has said. It's all in there. This subject interlocks with many scriptures of the timeline HE tells us. FATHER tells you what you'll not get from this woman. The story is awesome and revealing all the way back from Babylon to now. Unfortunately, we are our fathers children and nothing has changed. I am an elder. Ask and I'll tell anyone about this Bible information. It's not magic or some extra curricular adventure outside of scriptures. FATHER'S love upon you all, William
So where was the biblical text? As a ThM grad from DTS I am sad and shocked at how exegesis was neglected and supplanted by cultural speculation. What was presented was the typical framework for egalitarianism yet DTS supposedly is complementarian. Very disappointing and misleading in terms of what the text is saying in the context of the letter and the canon. Why no mention of 1 Timothy 3:14-15 as the purpose of the letter?!?! Very clearly this is not merely a Pauline “personal” letter to Timothy about a local situation.
I also have a ThM from DTS and the exegesis is there when you consider 1st century understandings. That was my training at DTS. When I was at DTS a woman was not on the faculty...NONE! In addition to exegesis, that was my cultural setting for my understanding of 1 Timothy. We had students leave a chapel when Elizabeth Elliot spoke. Certainly, her book is part of a dissertation from UT Dallas and not biblical exegesis but something to consider when studying our Bible, a 1st century text. Whatever conclusion I reach from Dr. Glahn or other scholars, I do need to take this history to the text for further thought and application to my exegesis. I look at the history and early culture every time I do exegesis...word study for example (also her comments on "widow" in the 1st century) etc. So, I am taking this historical research and considering it in my exegesis...grammatical, HISTORCAL and contextual, as I was trained to do. We do it elsewhere, why not here? My Greek Prof, Dr. Herold Hoehner wrote deeply (in his 900-page commentary on Ephesians) on the historical setting of Ephesians 5 and the "Household Code" that is within the cultural setting of Ephesius. Eye-opening. Thanks for your thoughts and this is simply a counter thought.
When someone reads the scripture’s ancient eastern world with a modern western eyes! Hmmm.
Such twisted/warped understanding in the name of scholarship, with all due respect to her😀
It feels as if i have found my tribe:-DDD Im here reading Gary Hoags Dissertation and listening to your Interview. I like the Idea, that Paul is answering the Originstory of Artemis. I want to add a thought of mine here: I believe paul is addressing false teaching widows, that want to get free from their tutor in order to bee free and have total control of their money. In ancient rome there were some ways to gain legal freedom of your tutor. You could be a priestess for Artemis and stay single (you find this well documented for the vestalls) or you can give birth to 3 children according to the ius trium liberorum. I believe this is what he means by saying you can be saved trough childbearing. he means they will be free from the tutorship of men. it is not about salvation.
When speaking to the widows later he is also reffering to a roman law(lex lulia et papi) by which you are obligated to be married between the age of 20 to 50. So he is being overly correct and tells the widows under 60 to be married again.
Too many questions just to question with , no answers just talk that feels like she feels she is smarter . And She loses herself in her own voice.
Glad the interviewer could stand the smugness with mismatch quilted answers..
She isn't very well spoken but I noticed a hesitation and a lowering in tone quite often. Much more of lack of confidence then smugness. So I am not sure what our on about here.
I don't know if she is correct about any of this. But I will point out that if you think she is wrong, launching personal attacks against her way of speaking will not help discredit anything she said.
Is it possible that Paul is referencing the local Roman law of Jus Trium Liberorum, that gave women their legal independence after bearing 3+ children?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_trium_liberorum