It is widely known that, beginning especially in the 1970s, there were proposals that worship of the goddess Artemis in Ephesus fomented an atmosphere of female libertarian spirit. Reflections on this theory led to an argument that Paul’s prohibition against women “not teaching nor having authority over a man” (1 Tim 2:12) was a temporary restriction due to the situation of the egalitarian Artemis spirit, which motivated a group of women to assume authority over men and to teach falsely in the Ephesian church. Accordingly, 1 Timothy 2:11–15 should not be taken to be true for the church at all times and in all places. Paul was only restricting women from false teaching.¹See Steven M. Baugh, “The Apostle Among the Amazons,” WTJ 56 (1994): 153, who summarizes some of the representative sources here.

In 1992, Richard C. Kroeger and Katherine C. Kroeger wrote a book called I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11–15 in Light of Ancient Evidence,²Richard C. Kroeger and Katherine C. Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11–15 in Light of Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992). which further fostered this general view by appealing to widespread ancient literary writings and archeological evidence.

Since it is difficult to find a clear summary of the overall argument by the Kroegers in their book, it is helpful to cite that of Steven M. Baugh’s:

The actual argument of I Suffer Not a Woman has many parts; its main lines run as follows. The Kroegers begin from what is now a standard egalitarian assumption that all distinctions between men and women are erased in Christ. When Paul forbade women from exercising the authority of the pastoral and teaching office (“teaching and ruling over a man,” 1 Tim 2:12), he was addressing only the Ephesian situation because of its feminist religious culture where women had usurped religious authority over men. Paul’s real purpose was only to prevent Ephesian women from teaching men. More specifically, he was only forbidding women from teaching a particular gnostic notion concerning Eve. They conclude in light of this scenario that women should be ordained to pastoral ministry.³Baugh, “The Apostle Among the Amazons,” 155–56. Baugh cites other helpful reviews of the Kroegers’ book, which give critiques of their exegesis and their treatment of Gnosticism (p. 156).

The Kroegers proposed that there was an amalgam of gnostic tradition and elements of influence from Artemis worship in the Ephesian church. In light of a proposed gnostic background, the Kroegers believed that women were assuming an authoritative role in teaching that men were created second in the creation⁴E.g., Kroeger and Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman, 103, 119–20; cf. 156 (where Eve is said to be “mother of all that live”) and similarly 167. and that Eve was an enlightener of men.⁵E.g., Kroeger and Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman, 103, 119, 146 (citing Philo), 123–24, 151. According to this view, Paul wants to correct this erroneous teaching⁶See Thomas R. Schreiner, “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9–15: A Dialogue with Scholarship,” in Women in the Church: An Interpretation and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9–15, ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Thomas R. Schreiner, 3rd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016), 168–71, for a brief critique of the gnostic and Artemis background proposed by the Kroegers and others. by saying that, indeed, Adam “was first created, then Eve” and that “Adam was not deceived but the woman [Eve] came about in transgression, as a result of having been deceived” (1 Tim 2:13–14).⁷These translations of 1 Tim 2:12–14 are mine and not those of the Kroegers with whom I disagree, especially their rendering of v. 12. Their preferred translation, reflecting the gnostic teaching about Eve, is “I do not allow a woman to teach or proclaim herself author of man” or “I do not permit a woman to teach or to represent herself as originator of man” (Kroeger and Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman, 103). Alternatively, they also suggest that an “appropriate” translation be, “I categorically forbid a woman to teach [anyone] to maintain that she is responsible for man.” But, if there is not a gnostic background, then the translation of “author [or “originator,” “responsible for”] of a man” loses its significance. The gnostic sources appealed to by the Kroegers are from later centuries and not from the first century AD or directly prior centuries, so that one cannot be confident that the ideas found in these sources was extant in the first century AD. As another possibility they suggest that, “beside the notion of dominance,” αὐθεντέω intimates the early lexical meaning of “murder” in the sense that Eve brought death to Adam. Accordingly, apparently, they see Paul telling women not to act in a way that would bring spiritual and, ultimately, physical death to men (pp. 85–86). All of the above meanings piled into one Greek word is an example of “illegitimate totality transfer” (on which see D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984], 62). But this explanation (as the basis for v. 12) was only Paul’s response to a temporary situation of false teaching, so that his statement, “I do not permit a woman to teach nor to have authority over a man” (1 Tim 2:12), is also only a temporary restriction.

Rather than evaluating their exegetical conclusion or their understanding of Gnosticism, which has been done by others,⁸E.g., Schreiner, “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9–15,” 168–71; Robert W. Yarbrough, “I Suffer Not a Woman: A Review Essay,” Presbyterion 18.1 (1992), 25–33. Baugh’s review mainly criticized the Kroegers’ book for trying to argue that matriarchy in religious affairs was prevalent in first-century Ephesus. They had argued that “the writer of the Pastorals was opposing a doctrine which acclaimed motherhood as the ultimate reality,”⁹Kroeger and Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman, 31. which, along with a background of Amazon influence,¹⁰Within which circle women purportedly ruled over men (Kroeger and Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman, 93). contributed to “a monopoly on religious power by women”¹¹Kroeger and Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman, 93. The Kroegers deduce that the fact there was a priestess of the Artemis cult was evidence that “the primary religious power lay with women by the first century” (p. 196). But this does not follow, since there were priestesses throughout the Greco-Roman world “where no matriarchy was present” (Baugh, “Apostle Among the Amazons,” 169). in the Ephesian church. He contended through detailed research of the relevant sources that matriarchy was not widespread in first-century Ephesus. Baugh concludes his critique of the Kroegers by saying, “The Ephesian religious and cultural situation was not, in fact, marked by matriarchy of any sort,”¹²Baugh, “Apostle Among the Amazons,” 170. and also, “that Ephesus was a ‘bastion of women’s rights’ or ‘matriarchy’ should be dropped once and for all. It was not.”¹³Baugh, “Apostle Among the Amazons,” 171. Baugh’s critique showed that most of the significant claims made by the Kroegers about the Artemis cult in Ephesus were either erroneous or were based on inaccurate interpretation of the ancient sources.

Now enter Sandra L. Glahn’s book, Nobody’s Mother, which attempts to offer further evidence from the ancient Greek world that supports the arguments that Paul’s instructions in 1 Timothy 2:11–15 are temporary restrictions and statements addressed only to a very specific occasion in first-century Ephesus. Glahn agrees with the Kroegers about the widespread influence of Artemis in Ephesus, but she does not agree that Artemis was portrayed as a sovereign mother. Rather, Artemis was widely known as a midwife, who delivers women through childbirth or enables them to have a painless death through it. As far as I am aware, no one had tried to show how verse 15 was directly related to the Artemis background. Glahn does this by attempting to show that Paul’s expression, “She will be saved through childbearing,” refers to a slogan in Ephesus about Artemis delivering women through childbearing. Accordingly, Paul reverses the slogan to show that only Christ can truly deliver through physical childbirth. Since Glahn sees that Paul’s reference in 2:15 is relevant only for the temporary situation in Ephesus, this strongly implies for her that what Paul says in 2:11–14 is also only temporarily relevant and not true for the church throughout the ages.

Glahn offers a brief survey of 1 Timothy 2:11–14, where she does not attempt to argue anything exegetically original. She merely shows agreement with past egalitarian views that Paul is addressing a unique local situation in Ephesus about false teaching and that his instructions are not to be universalized for all churches in all times.¹⁴Sandra L. Glahn, Nobody’s Mother: Artemis of the Ephesians in Antiquity and the New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2023), 136–43. In so doing she agrees with commentators such as Linda Belleville. However, she makes the original suggestion that the phrase, “She will be saved through childbearing,” in 1 Timothy 2:15 was a “popular saying that Paul was co-opting for his own purposes.”¹⁵Glahn, Nobody’s Mother, 147. She first argues that in his letters “Paul borrowed local sayings with some regularity.”¹⁶Glahn, Nobody’s Mother, 147. In this respect, she cites only 1 Corinthians 6:12 (so also in 10:23¹⁷Though Glahn does not cite this text. ), 6:18, and 7:1–2. Scholars generally agree that 1 Corinthians 6:12, “All things are lawful for me,” was a local slogan among the Corinthians. Likewise, the expression in 1 Corinthians 7:1, “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman,” could be a slogan.¹⁸More precisely, the majority viewpoint is that the phrase is a quotation from the Corinthians’ letter to Paul, not a local slogan (e.g., see Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT, revised ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 304. In addition to these, Glahn also sees the phrase in 1 Corinthians 6:18, “Every sin a man commits is outside the body,” to be a Corinthian slogan, though significant commentators disagree with this.¹⁹E.g., Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 289–90; so also David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 236; Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 263, expresses caution about accepting the statement as a Corinthian slogan. This is not sufficient evidence that “Paul borrowed local sayings with some regularity.”²⁰Though Glahn could have added to her list the local slogan in Titus 1:12: “One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, ‘Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.’” But, unlike the Corinthian expressions, it is crystal clear that this is a local saying in Crete.

Next, she adduces in support of this the repeated formulas by Paul, “It is a trustworthy statement” (1 Tim 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; 2 Tim 2:11; Titus 3:8). After showing that sometimes the formulas introduce a statement (as in 1 Tim 1:15 and 2 Tim 2:11) or conclude a statement (as in 1 Tim 4:9 and Titus 3:8), she argues that the formula should be seen as concluding the statement in 2:15, “She will be saved through childbearing,” and should not be viewed as introducing the statement in 3:1 about bishops. This is possible, but it clearly could just as easily have an introductory function as a part of 3:1. No translations, of which I am aware, see it as referring to the preceding in 2:15.²¹I checked over twenty English translations, and all say the “trustworthy saying” follows in 3:1 (though the HCSB has a marginal note observing that the “trustworthy saying” could be in v. 15; so, likewise, the ASV). Both could qualify as “trustworthy statements.” Glahn compares all the other “trustworthy statements” in the Pauline epistles to the purported one in 1 Timothy 2:15, but none of the other “trustworthy statements” refer to local slogans, as far as commentators have been able to discern. So, if the “trustworthy” formula concludes and refers to the purported local saying, “She will be saved through childbearing,” this would be the only example of such a thing in the Pauline epistles. Finally, perhaps the greatest problem with seeing “She shall be saved through childbearing” as a slogan referred to by the “trustworthy saying” is that the following phrase, “If they continue in faith and love and holiness with self-control” separates it from the “trustworthy saying” formula. None of the other formulas in the Pauline epistles are separated by a phrase from their referent, making it improbable that the formula concludes 2:15. If it was concluding, it would have to refer to the whole of 2:15, not just the supposed “slogan.”²²This is an observation made by my research assistant, Ethan Preston. One would have to see all of verse 15 as the slogan, and the entire verse does not have a slogan-like ring.

Furthermore, Glahn formulates the local slogan, “She shall be saved through childbearing,” as meaning that a woman would be delivered physically through childbirth and not die. But the problem with this is that Paul never uses σῴζω to refer to physical salvation in this life but to an end-time salvation²³I would argue that the “salvation in this life” is a beginning spiritual resurrection, as evident from my discussion on 1 Timothy 1:16; 4:8 (Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, ZECNT [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, forthcoming]). from sin and death and to being consummated with physical, eternal, resurrection life (so 26x outside of 1 Tim 2:15).²⁴See BDAG 982–983, s.v. “σῴζω”; σωτηρία also has the same sense throughout Paul, on which see BDAG 985–986, s.v. “σωτηρία.” The verb is used this way in the Pauline epistles (7x), and the noun as well (2x), and this is its use in verse 15. Why does Glahn limit her word study of σῴζω to the third person future passive indicative verbs, and why does she expand the word study to the whole NT, where she is able to find the meaning of “physical salvation or deliverance” twice? She never gives a rationale for these two procedural moves in her word study, though I suspect that doing so makes her think there is a closer link to the use in 1 Timothy 2:13. But it would be dubious to think so on the basis solely of a third person future passive indicative verb form. Glahn then says physical deliverance is the meaning of σῴζω in 1 Timothy 2:15. In fact, the uses in Paul (which are numerous, including the noun forms) always refer to so-called end-time salvation, which, as noted above, includes seven uses of the verb and two uses of the noun in the Pauline epistles. Paul’s uses should trump uses by other NT authors, especially since he uses the word so often. It is a well-tested lexical principle that, when an author uses a word a sufficient number of times elsewhere in his writings, and if the word means the same thing, then that meaning should have supremacy over other NT authors’ uses in determining the meaning in the focus passage in question. But, as we will see, physical as opposed to spiritual “salvation” is crucial to Glahn’s argument, which likely led her to this lexical conclusion.

Glahn argues that physical deliverance is the best meaning of σῴζω because of the mythology of “Artemis’s role as midwife” (either in delivering women physically or sedating them to give them a painless death). Consequently, she draws the conclusion “that Paul may well have been quoting a local proverb about childbirth, perhaps a familiar Artemis-related saying about being [physically] delivered—giving the phrase his own Christianized meaning.”²⁵Glahn, Nobody’s Mother, 150. “A conflict existed between her [Artemis’s] followers” and the Christians in Ephesus.²⁶Glahn, Nobody’s Mother, 155. Paul’s purported point was “to replace a human-made idol of a midwife [Artemis] with Christ the King,”²⁷Glahn, Nobody’s Mother, 157. thus employing the local proverb as a polemic against the Artemis cult. But is there any inscriptional, papyrus, or literary evidence of such a saying in Ephesus or the ancient Greco-Roman world outside of Ephesus? The answer is “no.” No such saying can be found in any of Glahn’s many numerous ancient citations about Artemis. Such an interpretive approach by Glahn is equivalent to saying that Paul’s phrase, “She will be saved through childbearing,” is an early Jewish saying, though we have no evidence of it. Or it is like some scholars who conclude that a NT author’s paraphrase of an OT text that does not comport with any Hebrew or LXX texts must represent some non-extant text, no longer available. All of these are possible conclusions, but they are not “probable” without further forthcoming evidence. In my own work on 1 Timothy, I do argue that a repeated phrase in 1 and 2 Timothy, “fight the good fight” (1 Tim 1:18; 6:12; 2 Tim 4:7) is a borrowed saying from the Greco-Roman world (“fight the fight” [sometimes “fight the good fight”]) based on inscriptional, papyri, and literary sources. However one may evaluate my argument, I would not have concluded this unless I had found not merely the concept but the very same lexical combination (same verb plus cognate noun) numerously from these extra-biblical sources.²⁸See G. K. Beale, “Background to ‘Fight the Good Fight’ in 1 Timothy 1:18, 6:12, and 2 Timothy 4:7,” ZNW 113 (2022): 202–30; and “The Greco-Roman Background to ‘Fighting the Good Fight’ in the Pastoral Epistles and the Spiritual Life of the Christian,” Themelios 48.3 (2023): 541–51. This is a general rule, for example, in determining the validity of OT allusions in the NT: there needs to be not only a conceptual correspondence but a unique lexical correspondence.²⁹E.g. see G. K. Beale, Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012), 31–35. Conceptual correspondences by themselves are harder to determine because the enterprise becomes more subjective. This is why Glahn’s conclusion that her interpretation (about the saying of 1 Tim 2:15) is “probably” correct³⁰Glahn, Nobody’s Mother, 256. is not persuasive. If she had found not merely the concept but the exact verbal combination in Greek of “save” (σώζω) plus “in” (or “through” []διά], or synonymous prepositions or syntactical expressions) plus “childbirth” (τεκνογονία or verb form) in several sources, her view that this is a definite reflection of an Artemis background would have been more convincing. Indeed, her view is “possible,” but not “probable.”

It is surprising that she could write a monograph on 1 Timothy 2:11–15 and cite so few secondary sources focusing on those verses (essays, books, and commentaries).³¹Especially surprising is the omission of interaction with the most important recent monograph on this theme: Elif Hilal Karaman, Ephesian Women in Greco-Roman and Early Christian Perspective, WUNT 2/474 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018). Likewise, though older sources, the lack of mention of James B. Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981) and Gilbert Bilezekian, Beyond Sex Roles: What the Bible Says About a Woman’s Place in Church and Family, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006) is unfortunate (the latter source would have given further support to her overall argument). Also a bit startling is omission of Gordon P. Hugenberger, “Women in Church Office: Hermeneutics or Exegesis?” JETS 35.3 (1992): 341–60, whose essay argues better and more thoroughly for the notion which Glahn herself contends (see Nobody’s Mother, 133–36), that 1 Timothy 2:11–15, based on a parallel with 1 Peter 3:1–7, is about “wives” and “husbands,” and not generally about “women” and “men.” Omission of these two sources is just the tip of the iceberg of Glahn’s inadequate awareness of and interaction with relevant bibliography. For a thorough bibliography she could have consulted the bibliography at the end of Andreas J. Köstenberger and Thomas R. Schreiner, Women in the Church, 3rd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016), 360–90. Since the topic of her book is such an important issue for her (and for many in the church on both sides of the issue), one would think she would have wanted to be more thorough in her interaction with secondary literature and in her own exegesis of the passage (though she could claim this was not her aim, which would be a misjudgment on such an important issue). She never seriously engages the heft of the opposing views on 1 Timothy 2:11–15. Her response might be that she wanted to write a popular book, but she still could have interacted in footnotes with much of the more relevant material, and the book could have been 30 or 40 pages longer (as it is, the book is only 140 pages of relevant discussion, the first 15 pages or so being introductory material).

There are a few other issues I cannot pass by. The treatment of Paul’s allusion in 1 Timothy 2:13 to the order of creation from Genesis 2 and of his allusion to Genesis 3:6, 13 in 1 Timothy 2:14 is also too cursory (she dedicates only two pages to this!). She says that verse 13 “should not be understood as a male-first creation order that equals hierarchy”;³²Glahn, Nobody’s Mother, 142. rather, the point of Paul’s allusion there is to “restore interdependence in a context in which pride of creation order in a goddess-first context emphasizes preeminence and autonomy. In the Ephesian origin story, Artemis is first; it’s one of her titles. In her own creation story, with its female-male pairing, she is firstborn.”³³Glahn, Nobody’s Mother, 142. Thus, accordingly, “the apostle corrects a false story with a true one. He is using a narrative to counter a competing narrative.”³⁴Glahn, Nobody’s Mother, 143. This is Paul’s only purpose in referring to the creation narrative. Again, she is presupposing that the Artemis background is why Paul alludes to the order of creation in Genesis 2. This is possible but not probable, without adducing further evidence. There is no clear wording in 1 Timothy 2:13–14 or elsewhere in the Pauline epistles that reflects an Artemis background. She deals with the “deception” issue of verse 14 in one brief paragraph,³⁵Glahn, Nobody’s Mother, 143. which is not adequate, especially since she never attempts to relate how the concept of “deception” relates in any way to the purported Artemis background.³⁶She conceivably might say that verse 14 is just a concluding part of the Genesis narrative to which Paul wants to appeal, and his main concern is to highlight the part in verse 13, but this leaves a whole verse without any viable explanation. For example, why did Paul not stop with citing the Genesis narrative in verse 13, leave out the deception part, and then move immediately to the childbearing verse?

Also, Glahn never discusses the various ways γάρ (often rendered as “for”) is used to introduce verses 13–14. There are, at least, four possible functions of γάρ, of which ground and clarification are the most viable. How one takes the γάρ is decisive for the interpretation of verses 13–14. She appears to understand the γάρ as giving reasons (a ground) for verse 12.³⁷Glahn, Nobody’s Mother, 141–142. Furthermore, she is not clear how the Genesis 1–3 narrative relates specifically to Paul’s command in verse 12 that women should not teach so as to usurp the authority of men³⁸Glahn, Nobody’s Mother, 137–146. (so that “both husbands and wives in the assembly” should “calm down”³⁹Glahn, Nobody’s Mother, 139. ). Her contention that Paul’s use of the Genesis 1–3 narrative counters the competing Artemis narrative in verses 13–14 is possible, but one major difference between the two narratives is that Genesis 1–3 is about the creation of the original world and the Artemis narrative is only about the creation of two twin gods, Artemis being firstborn of the pair. This dilutes to some degree the comparison. These are just a few examples of a lack of exegetical precision and emphasis in her book.

Generally, the contribution of Glahn’s book is to make available to readers in a convenient form all the many references to Artemis from more recent primary sources (inscriptions, papyri, and literary sources now published online) or ones ignored in the past. But most of these sources do not speak of Artemis as a midwife who delivers through childbirth or gives a painless death through it, though some of the references to Artemis do. Indeed, out of 48 primary literary sources, only four are relevant:

1. “Artemis” is the one “who eases all our labor pains.”⁴⁰Glahn, Nobody’s Mother, 52–53, citing Euripides, Hippolytus 9–30, within which the quotation is contained.
2. With regard to “the cities of men I [Artemis] will visit only when women vexed by the sharp pain of childbirth call me to their aid. Even in the hour I was born, the Fates ordained that I should be their helper forasmuch as my mother suffered no pain either when she gave me birth … but without travail put me from her body.”⁴¹Glahn, Nobody’s Mother, 54, citing Callimachus, Hymn 3.1–45, within which the quotation is contained.
3. “It was no wonder the temple of Artemis was burned down, since the goddess was busy bringing Alexander [the Great] into the world.”⁴²Glahn, Nobody’s Mother, 72, citing Plutarch, Life of Alexander 3.3, in The Parallel Lives.
4. A still birth and the death of a mother were blamed on “Artemis,” who “wert busy with thy beast-slaying hounds.” It is implied that if she had not been so diverted with her dogs, she would have aided in the birth and saved the mother.⁴³Glahn, Nobody’s Mother, 77, citing Diodorus of Sardis, The Greek Anthology III, xlv.

Of the 31 primary source inscriptions cited by Glahn, only one refers to Artemis as a “midwife and augmenter of mortals … full of joy: she will provide deliverance from your afflictions….” ⁴⁴Glahn, Nobody’s Mother, 88. The primary source reference is cited from an essay in Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 92 (1992): 269. It is not clear that the final two phrases quoted above for this reference refer to Artemis doing the work of midwifery. Finally, in Glahn’s description of art and architecture there is no reference to Artemis being a midwife, saving through childbearing, or painless death. Thus, out of all the ancient sources cited by Glahn, at best, there are five references to Artemis in some way aiding in the birth of women. In all of the 79 literary sources and inscriptions, plus reference to art and architecture, nowhere does the phrase, “saved through childbearing,” appear, and only once is she called a “midwife.” Thus, there is no evidence that “saved through childbearing” was a slogan, much less that Artemis was widely known as a goddess who aided in some way in childbirth. Glahn cites many sources that give the appearance that her argument is stronger than it is. Glahn herself mentions the idea of Artemis as a midwife, savior in childbirth, or anesthesiologist 19 times and hinges her interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:15 on this idea, an idea faintly found in the original sources.⁴⁵I am grateful to my research assistant, Ethan Preston, for his statistical research into Glahn’s work.

The ancient references certainly show how influential in Ephesus was the worship of the goddess Artemis. So, it is true that Paul would have been quite aware of this influence in Ephesus, but it is quite a different issue to say that Paul intended to make polemical references to Artemis in his letters to Timothy.

Glahn’s contention is similar to others who find, for example, polemical references to Caesar in Paul’s and other NT writings, since Caesar as a divine king was so widely known in Palestine and in the ancient world in general in the first through third century AD.⁴⁶E.g., see N. T. Wright, “Paul and Caesar: A New Reading of Romans,” in A Royal Priesthood? The Use of the Bible Ethically and Politically: A Dialogue with Oliver O’Donovan, ed. Craig Bartholemew, The Scripture and Hermeneutics 3 (Carlisle, PA: Paternoster, 2002), 173–93, though he makes a better case for Paul’s intentional interaction with a Caesar background than does Glahn for Paul’s purported polemic against Artemis in 1 Timothy 2:15. Wright sees a broad influence and does not attempt to see Paul making precise polemical phraseological allusions to ancient sources referring to Caesar. Indeed, Caesar was more well-known or influential in the Roman Empire, including Ephesus, than were other gods (including Artemis), though Caesar sometimes came to be identified with some of the other gods (e.g., Greek gods). Scholars debate whether such polemical references really exist. It is hard to know, though there is a little more lexical evidence for this from the ancient primary sources. For example, the phrase “peace and safety” (εἰρήνη καὶ ἀσφάλεια) in 1 Thessalonians 5:2 is sometimes viewed by significant scholars to be a well-worn Roman propaganda slogan concerning their ability to establish “peace and security” in society. Accordingly, these scholars view Paul as employing the slogan to subvert the Thessalonians’ belief in this Roman ideology. The notion that the phrase was a slogan, however, has been seriously questioned.⁴⁷Joel R. White, “‘Peace and Security’ (1 Thessalonians 5:3): Is It Really a Roman Slogan?” NTS 59 (2013): 382–85. Nevertheless, the exact phrase does occur three times in Greek (from sources in the first century BC, second century AD, and third century AD [in reversed form]), which pertain to the general subject of the consequences of Roman sovereignty (though the last source may not pertain to Rome). In addition, the two Greek words occur very closely as a description in another first-century BC source. Furthermore, the Latin equivalent (pax and securitas) occurs as a phrase in three sources (dating from first century BC to first century AD), though not in the exact order and not separated by a conjunction (except possibly for the phrase Pax Augusta together with securitas). While it is true that this evidence is not enough to establish that the phrase in 1 Thessalonians 5:3 is a slogan, it does occur enough as a unique phrase or combination of words to indicate that Paul may be making an allusion. The allusion may merely and generally indicate that the “peace and security” that the Thessalonians may have assumed from the welfare of the Roman empire, representing the world’s security, will be exploded through judgment on unbelievers at Christ’s final coming.

But, in 1 Timothy 2:15 the wording σώζω plus διά plus τεκνογονία does not occur in any of the many sources Glahn cites, whether as an exact phrase or as a combination of the words or combination of cognate words. Therefore, in contrast to the examples in 1 Thessalonians 5:3 and 1 Timothy 1:18 (“fight the good fight”), the phrase, “saved through childbirth,” can neither be considered a literary allusion to an Artemis saying, much less can it be viewed as a “slogan” to which Paul is responding.

Glahn states in her conclusion that her objective has been twofold:

(1) To discern whether a local situation was likely on Paul’s mind when he wrote to Timothy about women, especially about childbearing; and

(2) To know whether a woman with a teaching gift is limited to applying it in childbearing.⁴⁸Glahn, Nobody’s Mother, 156.

Her first objective is understandable, but her second is difficult to understand: What does it mean that a “teaching gift is limited to applying it to childbearing”? How can you “apply a teaching gift to childbearing,” unless she understands “childbearing” to refer figuratively to the context of raising children? This could be possible, but Glahn understands “childbearing” to refer to the literal event of giving birth to an infant. So, this could not be her meaning. To conclude a book on such a confusing note without further explaining her second objective is, to say the least, infelicitous.

More issues raised by Glahn need discussion (e.g., her discussion of widows in relation to the Artemis cult background⁴⁹Glahn, Nobody’s Mother, 123–24, 128. Likewise, note her discussion of the significance of Paul’s present tense, οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω (“I am not permitting”), as indicating only a local situation and not a command “for all people, in all places, and for all time” (Glahn, Nobody’s Mother, 137). She does not even acknowledge that there are arguments against this by significant commentators (e.g., see the discussion on 1 Tim 2:12 in my forthcoming Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, ZECNT [Grand Rapids: Zondervan]). ), but the above is sufficient for my purposes in this essay.

Sandra L. Glahn’s book, Nobody’s Mother, attempts to offer further evidence from the ancient Greek world supporting the arguments that Paul’s instructions in 1 Timothy 2:11–15 are temporary restrictions and statements addressed only to a very specific occasion in first century Ephesus. Since Glahn sees that Paul’s reference in 2:15 is relevant only for the temporary situation in Ephesus, she also sees that this strongly implies that what Paul says in 2:11–15 is also only temporarily relevant and not true for the church throughout the ages. If Glahn is correct, it means that 1 Timothy 2:11–15 cannot be used by the church today as a normative understanding for the role of women in the church. However, since I believe that she has not proved the probability of her argument, then 1 Timothy 2:11–15 still has ongoing validity for understanding the role of women in the church of the present day.