*Editor’s Note: Rick Oster (PhD, Princeton Theological Seminary), Professor Emeritus of New Testament at Harding School of Theology, spent a year doing postdoctoral research on ancient Ephesus and the Artemis Cult.
Sandra L. Glahn, Professor of Media Arts and Worship at Dallas Theological Seminary, has written a book on a timely issue, namely 1 Timothy 2:15: “But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety” (NIV).
The author’s vulnerability and transparency when discussing the experience of 8 failed pregnancies and 3 unsuccessful attempts to adopt are commendable. Most readers, and certainly this reviewer, can hardly imagine the pain, isolation, and spiritual uncertainties that both she and her husband endured throughout those many years and beyond.
As a Christian woman unable to have children, it was understandably perplexing for Prof. Glahn to read in Scripture that “women will be saved through childbearing.” What was Paul meaning by this statement? Glahn’s exploration has led her to conclude that the key to understanding Paul’s meaning—indeed, the meaning of the entire 1 Timothy 2:8-15 passage—is to understand the Artemis cult in the city of Ephesus, the location of the church Timothy was leading.
But why is the book called “Nobody’s Mother”? Artemis in Ephesus was a paradox—a goddess who always remained childless (hence she was nobody’s mother) yet supervised the birth processes of all women. With the author’s expressed interest in the cultural and religious background of 1 Timothy 2:15, the reader easily imagines her deep interest in the role of the midwifery myths of the Ephesian Artemis.
“Artemis in Ephesus was a paradox—a goddess who always remained childless (hence she was nobody’s mother) yet supervised the birth processes of all women.”
Glahn thus explores 1 Timothy 2:15, the only NT text that discusses the birthing process of believers, in light of the concomitant presence of the Ephesian Artemis. The modestly sized book, under 160 pages of text, is a potpourri of arguments and tools: lexicography, grammar, exegesis, hermeneutics, history of research, patristics, epigraphy, eisegesis, mythology, and sociology—to name some of the important ones.
The Aim of Nobody’s Mother
I have neither the interest in trying nor the ability to discern Prof. Glahn’s beliefs in her heart of hearts, but her stated goals seem suspect when compared to their actual fruit.
What fruit? The repeated implication of her methods and results are church leaders deciding to ordain women for the regular ministries of shepherding and teaching God’s people. Even still, Glahn argues, “The focus of my research has been to answer a different question than ‘can a woman teach men in the church today?’” Regarding the complementarian-egalitarian debate, she states her objective as merely “to know whether a woman with a teaching gift is limited to applying it in childrearing” (156).
Prof. Glahn does not appear to see the connection between the results of her research and the catalyst, indeed inducement, it supplies for many egalitarian-leaning believers who wish to disambiguate biblical verses about gender and ministry issues. Yet, at the same time, the publisher’s description of the book ends by saying, “Nobody’s Mother lays a biblical foundation for men and women serving side by side in the church.”[1] Likewise, Madison N. Pierce’s review of the book for Christianity Today describes how understanding the Artemis cult “aids our interpretation of 1 Timothy as a whole—but especially 1 Timothy 2, where misconceptions of Artemis have influenced Christian understandings about how women participate in the church.”[2]
In short, whether acknowledged by the author or not, Nobody’s Mother is being used by egalitarians to limit and localize the scope of Paul’s argument in 1 Timothy 2:8-15. Let’s delve into some of the major points Glahn makes and then ask whether they lead to persuasive egalitarian implications.
“Nobody’s Mother is being used by egalitarians to limit and localize the scope of Paul’s argument in 1 Timothy 2:8-15.”
The Influence of Artemis on Pauline Literature/Theology?
Prof. Glahn has an understandable devotion to acquiring and using every fragment from ancient sources to better understand the Ephesian goddess, Artemis of the Ephesians. In so doing, however, she developed a surprising shortsightedness that at times kept her from seeing the larger picture of the Ephesian Artemis and the pervasive significance of other idolatrous deities in the Mediterranean womb of early Christianity. At times, for example, she imagines a verbal influence of the Artemis cult on Pauline literature and theology.
Most scholars trained in the past two generations have been warned to eschew the dangers of “parallelomania” which “exaggerate(s) the importance of trifling resemblances” between the wording of two texts.[3] Exaggerations of “trifling resemblances” include the following. In Homer’s Iliad, Homer calls Artemis “Queen of the wild beasts (potnia thērōn), Artemis of the wild wood.”[4] Since Paul wrote to the Corinthians that he “fought with wild beasts at Ephesus” (1 Corinthians 15:32), Glahn concludes, “Perhaps we find in Homer’s description of Artemis an explanation for Paul’s meaning when he describes fighting beasts” (47-48).
Are we really to anticipate that Paul and his audience were so well versed in Homer’s Iliad? Paul’s infrequent quotation of a pagan poet or philosopher (Acts 17; Titus 1:12) is hardly license to associate random words used by pagans about Artemis with Paul’s writings in 1 Corinthians.[5]
“Paul’s infrequent quotation of a pagan poet or philosopher is hardly license to associate random words used by pagans about Artemis with Paul’s writings in 1 Corinthians.”
Fluctuating the Range of Literary Influence
Prof. Glahn has good instinct when she wants to limit the ancient resources to the first and second centuries before Christ and the two centuries after Christ’s appearance. She quickly and frequently, however, departs from that standard when she drags the reader through pages and centuries of Greek literature beginning at Homer (45-80). In spite of her efforts to cover all the important sources, she again departed from the general standard of using primary sources from two centuries before and after the birth of Christ.
One of these is seen in the often-asserted connection between the statue of the Ephesian Artemis and magic seen in the “nonsense syllables” of Ephesia grammata. Scholars often use C. E. Arnold for this topic,[6] and Glahn also leans upon it (109-110). In a failed effort to establish this connection between the Ephesian Artemis and the magic stories in Acts 19, scholars usually refer to the later literary source of Eustathius of Thessalonica, who lived in the latter half of the 12th century A.D. Eustathius is quoting from the lost works of Greek lexicographer Pausanias (not to be identified with the well-known contemporary geographer with the same name) writing a millennium earlier. This is poor historical method to rely upon this literary fragment, especially since not a single extant statue of the Ephesian goddess manifests such ephesia grammata inscribed on it. In Luke’s account, he does not, unlike Glahn, connect the magic books in Ephesus (Acts 19:18-20) with Artemis (Acts 19:23-41); Luke narrates the burning of the magic books with a flawed attempt at exorcism by wandering Jewish thaumaturgists (Acts 19:13-17).
“She again departed from the general standard of using primary sources from two centuries before and after the birth of Christ.”
A second example of Glahn’s flawed use or neglect of ancient sources in her research is the serious problem of her neglecting the very important Salutaris Greek inscription from Ephesus. This inscription dates from ca. A.D. 104; its existence has been known for over a century; and it is over 550 lines, making it one of the longest Greek inscriptions from Ephesus during the Roman era. The Salutaris inscription has been studied in detail by English writing authors. Permanent funding for the Artemis of Ephesus festival and parade are mentioned in the inscription, and there is information about varying visual presentations of the goddess. It furthermore gives evidence of the growing cultural hegemony of Rome over Greek Ephesus and the incorporation of emperor worship into the precincts of the Artemis Temple. This single inscription mentions both the Roman era Temple of Artemis and the well-reconstructed Ephesian theater. While both of these important architectural monuments are treated by the Salutaris inscription and by Luke in Acts 19, they seem untreated by Prof. Glahn.
Local or Universal?
In my own teachings I have advocated for exploring hermeneutical issues involving the relationship between “local issue[s]” in Pauline churches and their “theological ramifications for the universal church.” Many students of Paul see these hermeneutical opportunities. Every Pauline letter bristles with one or more examples of “cultural connections” with the first century and “theological ramifications for the universal church.” In light of the stated purpose of Scripture, the Sacred Writings, it is no wonder that one finds “theological ramifications for the universal church.”
The task of connecting Paul’s treatment of “local issues” with its implications for the universal church requires a methodological sensitivity and maturity. Glahn’s work seems to lack these. For example, Paul’s strident insistence that Gentile, believing males not be circumcised, falls on deaf ears in American churches, who do not question for a moment whether they are faithful to the gospel even though disobeying this apostolic teaching. At least in America this disconnect with Galatian’s concern with the shape of the male organ has not kept churches from seeing the “ramifications for the universal church” based upon the theology of Galatians. The same point mutatis mutandis[7] can be made about the male and female head covering issue in 1 Corinthians 11.
“The task of connecting Paul’s treatment of ‘local issues’ with its implications for the universal church requires a methodological sensitivity and maturity. Glahn’s work seems to lack these.”
Glahn’s work itself proposes a certain set of historical circumstances behind 1 Timothy 2:15, viz. the goddess Artemis, and then postulates a particular hermeneutical technique and a meaning for 1 Timothy 2:15. In her concluding pages (146-156), she concludes that the promise of 1 Timothy 2:15 is that in Ephesus and Ephesus alone faithful women who are pregnant will experience a safe delivery and no Christian women can die during childbirth. Thus she limits the promise of 1 Timothy 2:15 to the very narrowly defined location of Ephesus and during a narrow window of time circumscribed by the duration of Timothy’s ministry there. These are her words in the book:
“This is not to suggest Paul is making a universal statement that would be true for all women in all eras. Rather, it would be true in the case of Timothy and his congregation in the short term . . . in this foundational period of their assembly.” (146)
On the face of it, Paul promising safe pregnancy deliveries seems biblically implausible, as its implications smack of a health-and-wealth gospel out of step with both biblical teaching and human experience. Glahn’s way to help us not have that instinctive reaction is to minimize the significance of what Paul is apparently saying—both geographically (only Christians in Ephesus) and chronologically (only as long as Timothy is there). Although localizing the issue in this way might make Paul’s promise of safe deliveries more plausible, Glahn’s hermeneutical reasoning strikes me as an example of “I wish the Bible said that” hermeneutic masquerading as historical research and exegesis.
Arbitrary Numbering
In a podcast interview, Glahn states that the Ephesus congregation was probably “fewer than 100 members.” On another podcast, Glahn says that the Ephesian church might have 20 or so pregnant women during Timothy’s ministry there. And in a “Theology in the Raw” interview, she states that the church in Ephesus had about 40 members at this time in history.
One reason her numbers are so astonishingly arbitrary and unstable is that historical scholars do not know whether the congregations in Ephesus had 40 members or 400 members or 4,000 members.
We can be confident that this Roman era city had a population of about 200,000. Luke records that “all Asia, both Jew and Greek” heard the gospel in the hall/school of Tyrannus (Acts 19:10). And what of Luke’s report about Ephesus that “the word of the Lord was growing mightily and prevailing” (Acts 19:20)? Does it seem likely that these two reports from Acts 19:10 and 19:20 are a harbinger of a city-wide number of Christians at only 40 or even 100 members?
“Does it seem likely that these two reports from Acts 19:10 and 19:20 are a harbinger of a city-wide number of Christians at only 40 or even 100 members?”
Given the significant trouble that the gospel caused the most significant and wealthiest polytheistic religion in Ephesus (Acts 19), the Ephesian Artemis, Glahn’s numbers are not justified. She knows, however, that her explanation of 1 Timothy 2:15 requires such small numbers, and so she fabricates them, in my opinion, to accommodate her exegetical speculations.
What About the Surrounding Towns?
Glahn agrees with Luke’s report about Artemis being worshipped outside Ephesus and with independent inscriptional research that the Ephesian Artemis was worshiped throughout Roman Asia. What about those pregnant, faithful, Christian women living in those villages and towns but not within the confines of Ephesus?
If I were an expectant Christian father living in a nearby city, I imagine I would get my pregnant, faithful wife and expeditiously move her to the church in Ephesus. In the Seven Letters of Jesus, the recurring phrase “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches” (e.g., Revelation 2:29; 3:6) makes clear that church members in one city knew of God’s promised blessings or punishments for believers in another city.
Greek Missteps
While admittedly Prof. Glahn doesn’t present herself as a Greek scholar, she does, nevertheless, state “I went on to get my PhD with a focus on first-century backgrounds” (13), which connotes some facility with the primary languages of that era, it seems to me. Consequently, the reader would expect more precision rather than less when evidence and conclusions from the Greek text of 1 Timothy 2:8-15 are argued.
Glahn wanted to make the argument that women could be among the false teachers in Ephesus (1 Timothy 1:3), so she follows another author who states that the indefinite pronoun (tis) found in the dative plural (tisin) is a neuter pronoun. That is the truth, but not the whole truth. In the genitive and dative plurals (tisin) of the indefinite pronoun, the masculine, feminine, and neuter genders all have the same spelling. Women false teachers may well be included in 1 Timothy 1:3, but it is not because it is neuter. Rather, it is probably since tisin can be either masculine or feminine in the plural. This information should be in any first-year Greek textbook.
Prof. Glahn also has in mind marginalizing Paul’s imperative in 1 Timothy 2:8-15 when Paul writes, “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness” (1 Timothy 2:11, ESV). If it really is an imperative, then why is the term “let” used? Well, English only has imperatives in the second person, singular and plural. Greek has second- and third-person imperatives, and so scholars have generally agreed the best way to express a third person Greek imperative into English, which does not have one, is to use the extra term “let.” There are over 80 of these third-person imperatives in the Pauline letters.
“The reader would expect more precision rather than less when evidence and conclusions from the Greek text of 1 Timothy 2:8-15 are argued.”
Next, utilizing an aspect of Greek rules for present tense indicative mood verbs, Glahn foists them upon imperative mood verbs. Then the reader learns from the author that this, conveniently, “suggests that he [Paul] did not necessarily intend for his instruction to stand for all people, in all places, and for all time” (137). Once again, we encounter “exegetical” ventriloquism.
Moreover, there is very little sense of exegetical honoring of Paul’s epistolary context for his instruction. Glahn slips glibly some of Paul’s teachings from 1 Corinthians 7 here to diminish the present-day authority of 1 Timothy 2:1-15. The final pages of the final chapter especially are filled with specious arguments and eisegesis.
Exaggerating Patriarchal Context
By portraying Paul as progressive on these gender issues, Glahn makes the incorrect observation that, “In the context of biblical instruction, woman had often been excluded from public learning contexts. . . .” (136). With certainty one can say that this was not the custom in the post-Exodus community: “Assemble the people, the men and the women and children and the alien who is in your town, so that they may hear and learn and fear the LORD your God, and be careful to observe all the words of this law” (Deuteronomy 31:12, NASB), nor was it the practice of the post-exilic Israelite community to exclude women from biblical instruction:
“And all the people gathered as one man at the square which was in front of the Water Gate, and they asked Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses which the LORD had given to Israel. Then Ezra the priest brought the law before the assembly of men, women and all who could listen with understanding, on the first day of the seventh month. He read from it before the square which was in front of the Water Gate from early morning until midday, in the presence of men and women, those who could understand; and all the people were attentive to the book of the law.” (Nehemiah 8:1-3, NASB)
And of course, both Jesus and Paul found women attending at least some of the synagogues, both in the Holy Land and in the Diaspora, for biblical instruction.
“Both Jesus and Paul found women attending at least some of the synagogues, both in the Holy Land and in the Diaspora, for biblical instruction.”
Imaginative Conclusions
At the close of her book, Prof. Glahn refers to “sanctified imagination” as a key to better understanding some of Paul’s choices and theology (150). I think some readers might not fully understand the role of imagination in parts of Prof. Glahn’s perspectives and conclusions. Much of the groundwork for her book was launched in her PhD efforts. Dr. Glahn has a doctorate in Humanities, with a major in “Aesthetic Studies” from the University of Texas at Dallas. The title of her dissertation is The Ephesian Fragments: A Creative Dissertation, 2013. While Prof. Glahn’s book certainly reflects her devotion to creativity, those more committed to historical exegesis within the context of biblical theology will find it lacking in many regards.
As I read Nobody’s Mother, it became clearer and clearer why this book found emotional resonance with certain readers, especially those looking for a justification for their egalitarian longings. In Glahn’s interaction with 1 Timothy 2:11-15, I on the other hand saw again and again a fertile imagination at work and several conclusions drawn only on the basis of a dearth of historical facts. An example of the dearth of information is evident when the author mentioned the importance of ancient coins in better understanding her topic, yet Glahn never employs visual numismatic testimony about the goddess.
A Better Alternative
In some instances, the author certainly dipped into the large reservoir of available exegetical tools, ancient resources, and biblical theology, but at other times she missed important opportunities to do so. For example, a dip into BDAG, the Greek-English Lexicon, used by most NT scholars and seminary students working with Greek, could have made a difference. After all, Paul wrote in Greek.
To illustrate with an example of egregious oversight by the author, the Greek preposition dia plays a significant role in the translation of 1 Timothy 2:15. The Greek English lexicon lists a probable use and meaning of dia that, I believe, was untouched by the author. Specifically, BDAG (p. 223, A.3.c) gives the meaning of dia followed by the genitive case as meaning “of attendant or prevailing circumstances.”
This possible meaning of dia opens possibilities beyond being forced to deal only with the translation “she will be saved through childbirth/childbearing.” Perhaps Paul meant women had the promise of salvation while they were bearing children, even though false teachers and heretics seemed to deny this certainty of salvation for faithful, believing moms. This could clearly resonate with the demonic heresy described in 1 Timothy 4:1-3, especially with the heretics’ refusal to recognize marriage as part of the sanctified life of God given to believers guided by the creation story of Scripture. Recognition of this use of dia would have given Prof. Glahn some other possibilities, perhaps more meaningful, to investigate.
“Recognition of this use of dia would have given Prof. Glahn some other possibilities, perhaps more meaningful, to investigate.”
Regretfully, this is not a book (though written by a devoted and godly scholar) that I can endorse for those seeking a better understanding of 1 Timothy 2:11-15.
[1] Sandra L. Glahn, Nobody’s Mother: Artemis of the Ephesians in Antiquity and the New Testament, IVP, https://www.ivpress.com/nobody-s-mother.
[2] Madison N. Pierce, “The Myth Behind the Meaning of Paul’s Words on Women and Childbearing,” Christianity Today, March 25, 2024, https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2024/march-web-only/sandra-glahn-nobodys-mother-artemis-ephesians-paul-women.html.
[3] “Parallelomania,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallelomania.
[4] Homer, Iliad, Book 21, ll. 470-71.
[5] Let’s not forget the most formative influence in Paul’s early life and training:
- “And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers” (Galatians 1:14, ESV)
- “According to the strictest party of our religion I have lived as a Pharisee” (Acts 26:5. ESV)
- “. . . a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee” (Philippians 3:5, ESV)
When thinking about 1 Corinthians 15:32, would it not seem reasonable to investigate in Paul’s Bible (the Old Testament) whether “wild animals” was used metaphorically to describe one’s opponents? Granted, Paul was impacted by aspects of Hellenistic-Roman culture, but it was a lifetime of devotion to studying the “oracles of God” (Romans 3:2; cf. 2 Timothy 3:15-16) that had the greatest impact on Paul’s life. See the references to wild beasts (e.g., lions, dogs, wild oxen, fiery beasts) in Psalm 7:1; 17:12; 22:20; and 57:4.
Jewish language contemporary with Paul that uses “beasts” in such a metaphorical way also has a voice in the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QHa 13:15-17) or Paul’s older contemporary Philo, where “beasts” can refer to untamed passions against which God’s people struggle or the feral behavior of humans in antisemitic attacks (Alleg 2:1; Alleg 2:106; Flaccus 66; Gaius 131) or, finally, Josephus who highlights bestial acts among the Hasmonean and Herodian royal families and Romans (Antiq. 17:120, 309; War 1:589, 623).
[6] C. E. Arnold Power and Magic: The Concept of Power in Ephesians (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1989), 22-26, 34-37.
[7] Mutatis mutandis means “once the necessary changes have been made.”
