Little Known Facts about 1 Timothy 2:9-10

[HarleyER]

Nobody else seems to have the courage to actually read my work on the subject, Harley, but I do have a suggestion for what I believe would be a more appropriate translation... although my focus is on the translation of kosmios katastole. I actually agree with the NASB translators that aidous is probably closer to "modest" than kosmios is.

To be clear, I'm not arguing against the use of the word "modest" entirely... provided it's the traditional meaning of the word... "Having or showing a moderate estimation of one's own abilities, accomplishments, or value." (American Heritage Dictionary)

What I am arguing is that Paul's use of aidous and kosmios definitely have nothing to do with "making sure that enough skin is covered to abate lust."

When it comes to aidous, my take from the etymology of the word (eyes down) would be better carried by the English word "demurely" than "modestly" ... since "demure" pretty much means only one thing in English (matching what the Greek word means) while "modest" tends to be treated as meaning a lot more than just "demure."

In this article, I took great pains to go through the text step by step and test the existing translations and testing my suggested alternative translation of kosmios katastole. I'd love to hear what you think.

Rightly Dividing 1 Timothy 2:9

Incidentally, I know that The Message is not a translation, but I was a bit startled when I completed my study and took a look at how Eugene Peterson rendered the passage; he actually did not utilize the word "modest."

I suspect that after the KJV was written, that "modest" and 1 Tim. 2:9 got so ingrained into the cultural conscience that nobody would really consider eliminating the word "modest" from the text entirely, lest their entire credibility as translators would be called into question! The NASB translators knew that kosmios didn't mean "modest," so they translated a different word using "modest"... one that was actually a closer match.

I would enjoy reading your thoughts on the matter but the link isn't working.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

I would enjoy reading your thoughts on the matter but the link isn't working.

https://mychainsaregone.org/new/articles/Rightly-Dividing-1-Timothy-2-9.pdf

https: //mychainsaregone.org /new/articles/Rightly-Dividing-1-Timothy-2-9.pdf

(Remove spaces)

Does this link work any better? Can you copy/paste the link address minus the extra spaces?

 

[HarleyER]

https://mychainsaregone.org/new/articles/Rightly-Dividing-1-Timothy-2-9.pdf

https: //mychainsaregone.org /new/articles/Rightly-Dividing-1-Timothy-2-9.pdf

(Remove spaces)

Does this link work any better? Can you copy/paste the link address minus the extra spaces?

Thanks. I'll have to study it in more detail. But I'm not sure using The Messager as proof of your conclusion is a strong argument. To me The Messager is a heretical version.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Thanks. I'll have to study it in more detail. But I'm not sure using The Messager as proof of your conclusion is a strong argument. To me The Messager is a heretical version.

No, The Message is no proof of anything! My only point was that Peterson chose to not invoke the word "modest" ... which surprised me!

Do I think The Message is "heretical"? No... not really. Would I endorse everything in it? Nope. It's one guy reading the Bible and trying his best to render a paraphrase of what he's read in modern lingo. So, I wouldn't expect it's accuracy to be any more flawless than any one person's paraphrase of any passage of Scripture. Plenty of pastors get up in the pulpit every week and deliver very flawed interpretations/paraphrases of God's Word. Are they heretical? In most cases, no. They're just wrong.

And I suspect that I've been guilty of the same thing. Likely you have, too!

So... if we read it as someone's studied opinion of how the text might sound in modern lingo, it can be an interesting read. He might have caught something I missed. And he might have missed something I caught.

In point of fact, I almost never read The Message... I don't even own a copy of it. But when I completed this study, I just thought I'd check a number of translations/paraphrases just to see what they came up with.

 

[JSRG]

The KJV was based off the Septuagent which was written in Latin. The NASB was based off the original Greek. One was Latin, the other Greek. They have two different sources.

This is incorrect. The Septuagint was not in Latin, but was rather a Greek translation of the Old Testament (most quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament are from the Septuagint translation). Also, neither the KJV nor the NASB were based on Greek or Latin for the Old Testament. Both the KJV and the NASB used the Masoretic Text (mostly Hebrew with a few books in Aramaic) for the Old Testament and both translated the New Testament from the Greek.

 

[HarleyER]

This is incorrect. The Septuagint was not in Latin, but was rather a Greek translation of the Old Testament (most quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament are from the Septuagint translation). Also, neither the KJV nor the NASB were based on Greek or Latin for the Old Testament. Both the KJV and the NASB used the Masoretic Text (mostly Hebrew with a few books in Aramaic) for the Old Testament and both translated the New Testament from the Greek.

Thank you for the correction. The Wycliff Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate. Not the KJV.

This is from Cendarville University:

The new translation authorized by King James was done by six committees, three assigned to work on the Old Testament, two on the New Testament, and one on the Apocrypha. Once the work of the committees was completed, two members from each committee met for the final review before publication. The text was not really newly translated as claimed. Translators were told to follow the Bishops' Bible as much as possible, and to be guided by the previous translations of Tyndale and Coverdale when they agreed better with the original texts and manuscripts, supported by translations of available Biblical manuscripts. The New Testament was translated using the Textus Receptus (Received Text) series of Greek texts. For the Old Testament, the Masoretic Hebrew text was used, and for the Apocrypha, the Greek Septuagent text was used primarily. Since the translators were instructed to use the Bishops' Bible (1568) as a guide, which was a revision of the Great Bible (1539), which was a revision of the Matthew's Bible (1537), which was a revision of Coverdale's first Bible that included all of Tyndale's translation work (1535), the King James version includes much of the wording of the Tyndale and Coverdale translations. Thus the preface to the first edition says that the translators never set out to make a totally new translation, but to make out of many good ones, one principal good one. Interestingly enough then, the King James Bible reflects the spoken English of the early 1500's rather than the early 1600s in which it was printed. Scholars agree, that though the translation work was done by a committee, this large group of men, with diverse resources, produced a better version of the English Bible than had previously been available. It certainly was not perfect nor was the English text inspired, but it was carefully done, faithful as possible to the available texts and manuscripts, and has stood the test of time and study.

The Texts | The King James Bible: A Translation for the Ages | Cedarville University

digitalcommons.cedarville.edu

 

[misput]

This is a very weak argument.

When trying to assert some sort of moral absolute or moral requirement in God's word, this sort of argument amounts to...

I admit that the Bible doesn't spell out the moral requirement, but that's because it's so obvious that we can just assume it... God has to agree with me, so what I believe is a moral requirement for you.

Every person in every culture and every time could claim the exact same thing.our

Your post are fraught with literalism which usually amounts to gagging at a nat and swallowing the camel. Sounds like u might be interested in a nice christian nudest community.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Thanks. I'll have to study it in more detail.

Have you had a chance to review the article?

 

[HarleyER]

Have you had a chance to review the article?

Not yet. Lots going on.

 

[misput]

This is a very weak argument.

When trying to assert some sort of moral absolute or moral requirement in God's word, this sort of argument amounts to...

I admit that the Bible doesn't spell out the moral requirement, but that's because it's so obvious that we can just assume it... God has to agree with me, so what I believe is a moral requirement for you.

Every person in every culture and every time could claim the exact same thing.

PS: There is only one moral absolute.

 

[Gary K]

POST #6​

Here's the text in KJV:
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

Here's the text in NASB:
Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.

Here's my final observation on this passage...

Paul very specifically tells women what not to wear, but very little specifics about what TO wear! "Modest apparel" and "Proper clothing" are very non-specific... (and the Greek words kosmios katastole may not be a reference to clothing at all). However, the one thing that Paul offers in direct contrast to the forbidden clothing items is "good works!!"

In other words, it seems that you can violate Paul's teachings by wearing the wrong things, but if you want to fully follow his teaching, it's a matter not of what you wear, but what you DO!

It's as if there's an intentional DE-emphasis on clothing for women rather than any sort of emphasis! Rather, the emphasis is on "good works!"

Have we misapplied this passage in the Western Church by making this a passage about what women SHOULD wear instead of what they should NOT wear but instead what they should DO?

How is "modest apparel: not specific? We know it's not a skimpy bikini, skin tight clothing. see through clothing. or anything that encourages lustful thoughts in a man. What was Paul supposed to do? List all types of cloth. colors, lengths, etc...? How would that be useful today as clothing has changed a lot since his day?

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

How is "modest apparel: not specific? We know it's not a skimpy bikini, skin tight clothing. see through clothing. or anything that encourages lustful thoughts in a man. What was Paul supposed to do? List all types of cloth. colors, lengths, etc...? How would that be useful today as clothing has changed a lot since his day?

Your idea of what “modest” means is based entirely on what that word has come to mean in the last century or two… not at all based on what Paul had it mind when he wrote those instructions.

Even a few hundred years ago when the KJV was translated, “modest” meant something completely different than what it means when it is tossed out as a “mandate” for women’s attire by modern Christians.

You should read what C.S. Lewis wrote about “modesty” and “chastity” in Mere Christianity. He literally says that a Victorian woman dressed from head to toe and a woman from the Pacific Islands wearing almost nothing at all could be equally modest and equally chaste (or equally unchaste) according to their own cultures and customs.

 

[Gary K]

Your idea of what “modest” means is based entirely on what that word has come to mean in the last century or two… not at all based on what Paul had it mind when he wrote those instructions.

Even a few hundred years ago when the KJV was translated, “modest” meant something completely different than what it means when it is tossed out as a “mandate” for women’s attire by modern Christians.

You should read what C.S. Lewis wrote about “modesty” and “chastity” in Mere Christianity. He literally says that a Victorian woman dressed from head to toe and a woman from the Pacific Islands wearing almost nothing at all could be equally modest and equally chaste (or equally unchaste) according to their own cultures and customs.

I have read C.S. Lewis.

I don't disagree with him at all, They wore skin tight bodices with girdles that greatly accentuated their figures and very low cut necklines that showed a maximum of cleavage. There wasn't anything modest about it. They were designed to turn men on. What does that have to do with modern women and the clothes they wear? The skin tight stretch pants now in vogue are no different. They are designed to catch the eye of men and turn them on just as are 1/4 zip sweatshirts left 2/3 of the way unzipped so that when the woman bends over he cleavage is fully exposed. Women know exactly what they are showing off and what they expose.

When I still drank coffee there was a woman who worked as barista in this small town. She dressed as provacatively as possible. She is big breasted and would flaunt them enough so that when she walked you could see her breasts bounce as nothing covered most of them.. Absolutely nothing modest about it. She's a beautiful woman too.

In the large cities there are naked baristas.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

I have read C.S. Lewis.

I don't disagree with him at all, They wore skin tight bodices with girdles that greatly accentuated their figures and very low cut necklines that showed a maximum of cleavage. There wasn't anything modest about it. They were designed to turn men on. What does that have to do with modern women and the clothes they wear? The skin tight stretch pants now in vogue are no different. They are designed to catch the eye of men and turn them on just as are 1/4 zip sweatshirts left 2/3 of the way unzipped so that when the woman bends over he cleavage is fully exposed. Women know exactly what they are showing off and what they expose.

When I still drank coffee there was a woman who worked as barista in this small town. She dressed as provacatively as possible. She is big breasted and would flaunt them enough so that when she walked you could see her breasts bounce as nothing covered most of them.. Absolutely nothing modest about it. She's a beautiful woman too.

In the large cities there are naked baristas.

You are misconstruing what Lewis said and what he meant.

Here is the direct quote to which I was referring.

A girl in the Pacific islands wearing hardly any clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might both be equally ‘modest’, proper, or decent, according to the standards of their own societies: and both, for all we could tell by their dress, might be equally chaste (or equally unchaste).

The emphasis in bold is mine.

Lewis' point was precisely that the Victorian woman was completely covered.

And he's saying that a woman wearing almost nothing at all--certainly topless--could be just as modest as a Victorian woman who is, indeed, "completely covered."

True modesty has nothing to do with how much skin is covered.

A woman who is fully covered can be immodest. And a woman who is fully naked can be modest. This is a heart attitude and a motivation issue, not a reflection of the amount of skin which is exposed.

Indeed, all the illustrations that you gave and what you wrote were of women who were flaunting their bodies intentionally for sexual attention. Absolutely and unequivocally and modest. But note that you had to describe what their attitude and intent was in order to prove that it was immodest.

Lewis didn't stop there. He also said this:

I do not think that a very strict or fussy standard of propriety is any proof of chastity or any help to it, and I therefore regard the great relaxation and simplifying of the rule which has taken place in my own lifetime as a good thing.

Here, in the very same context as the previous remarks, Lewis is saying that fussy standards of propriety about how much skin is covered are no help to--nor proof of--chastity.

Furthermore, he states straight up that relaxing of such rules is actually a good thing.

It doesn't sound like you agree with CS Lewis.