Little Known Facts about 1 Timothy 2:9-10

[MyChainsAreGone]

I have already seen how you twist God's Word ... I don't need to see more!

That's a cop out.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

How do you know it was in public? And even if it was, what did they do afterward with their clothes? throw them away? give them to needy non-Christians? Or did they put them back on?



So, do I need to repeat what I said because you don't remember? See above for how it applies to you.

I can give a reason for why they might baptize in the buff and then put their clothes back on (who wants to hang out in drippy clothes?), but can you?

Can you explain why the one disciple (not all of them) in the garden ran away naked?

You need to repeat yourself because you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

First, you say that nakedness is shameful.

Then you said that God does not view our naked bodies as shameful.

But then you declare again, that yes indeed we should be ashamed of our nakedness.

Then it seems that you acknowledge that yes, indeed the early church did perform nude baptism.

But, it seems you're still holding on to this silly notion that making this actually a shameful.

So, yes, you need to clarify what you really believe. Is nakedness shameful in the eyes of God or not? If it is not shameful in the eyes of God, why is it shameful in your eyes?

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

I don't want to have to "check it out." I want you to cite your damned sources! Can you do that? Or, are you just going to push us to play your own spin on pin the tail on the donkey?

Here's what you need to know: I have degrees in both Philosophy and Education/Social Science. What this means is that no one here on this entire forum is going to run circles around me. Kapeesh?

As far as I'm concerned, this thread has nothing to do with either basic life facts of social significance like: how women breastfed their children in the past and as to how they did so "modestly" or whether or not some churches practiced naked baptism.

What I want to know is if your intending inference for a thesis in this thread is attempting to make room for the presence of indecent content among Christian men. Is it? Answer that!

I also want to know what your take is on the social and cultural nature of 1st century Ephesus as a contextual backdrop for the passage in 1 Timothy that you're attempting to explicate. For instance, despite that a scholar like S.M. Baugh says that there was no cultic prostitution taking place in the Ephesus of Paul's time, I'm not so sure that it's an absolute impossibility. But even if cultic prostitution involved the Goddess Artemis/Diana of the Ephesians didn't involve a sexually immoral component, the "new women" of the Roman Empire of that time, especially in Ephesus, had various pagan influences which heavily leading them to challenge Christian leaders, and that surely plays into how we are to read and understand what Paul was saying to Timothy (.....and that's assuming that 1 Timothy is indeed an authentic letter of Paul and that we don't have to get into the additional side debate about whether or not it really is authentic).

​

BiblicalStudies.org.uk: Cult Prostitution In New Testament Ephesus: A Reappraisal by S. M. Baugh

Also, I'm referring to Kroeger & Kroeger's book for additional support in my interpretive beginning point here:

Kroeger, Richard Clark, and Catherine Clark Kroeger. I suffer not a woman: Rethinking I Timothy 2: 11-15 in light of ancient evidence. Baker Academic, 1998.​

My source? My source is the Bible itself. I like to use blue letter Bible as a study tool, since I am no expert on the original languages, I lean heavily on the inside that can be gained from tools like that.

That's why I have raised questions based upon the original language words that were used to translate the text.

 

[Derf]

You need to repeat yourself because you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

First, you say that nakedness is shameful.

Then you said that God does not view our naked bodies as shameful.

But then you declare again, that yes indeed we should be ashamed of our nakedness.

Then it seems that you acknowledge that yes, indeed the early church did perform nude baptism.

But, it seems you're still holding on to this silly notion that making this actually a shameful.

So, yes, you need to clarify what you really believe. Is nakedness shameful in the eyes of God or not? If it is not shameful in the eyes of God, why is it shameful in your eyes?

Is any of that an answer to any of my questions?

It is true that God doesn't see our naked bodies as shameful. It is equally true that that humans see public nakedness as shameful. These are not exclusive statements.

Whether we should or should not view public nakedness as shameful, private nakedness is a completely different, and necessary, thing. We come into this world naked. So your attempts to equate the two are ignorant, at best.

Now, would you like to tell me where I lied to you?

 

[enoob57]

There are some rules here ... God says:
Philippians 4:8 (KJV)
[8] Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

setting around and causing ones to think of nakedness- which is shameful seems to challenge the responsible nature of the above leading of God...

 

[enoob57]

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My source? My source is the Bible itself. I like to use blue letter Bible as a study tool, since I am no expert on the original languages, I lean heavily on the inside that can be gained from tools like that.

That's not good enough.

That's why I have raised questions based upon the original language words that were used to translate the text.

That's not enough to establish much of anything the Bible says. It takes a lot more than that.

So, do us all a favor and stop trolling us....

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's not good enough.


That's not enough to establish much of anything the Bible says. It takes a lot more than that.

So, do us all a favor and stop trolling us and wasting our time with your "less than" attempt at Christian Philosophy ....

 

[misput]

My source? My source is the Bible itself. I like to use blue letter Bible as a study tool, since I am no expert on the original languages, I lean heavily on the inside that can be gained from tools like that.

That's why I have raised questions based upon the original language words that were used to translate the text.

How we dress is part of our behavior and of course God is concerned about how we behave. If scripture does not directly address this fact, maybe God thinks it to obvious to address. I think how some of the Jews act and dress is part of why they are held in such contempt by some.

 

[HarleyER]

There's really no other passage in the Bible that is used to teach that "Women must dress modestly"

But most people don't know some very interesting and important facts about the words used in the Greek for this passage... so here's some things that might surprise you!

POST #1​

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, 10 but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.​

Here it is in Greek:

Ὡσαύτως γυναῖκας ἐν καταστολῇ κοσμίῳ μετὰ αἰδοῦς καὶ σωφροσύνης κοσμεῖν ἑαυτάς, μὴ ἐν πλέγμασιν καὶ χρυσίῳ ἢ μαργαρίταις ἢ ἱματισμῷ πολυτελεῖ, ἀλλ’ ὃ πρέπει γυναιξὶν ἐπαγγελλομέναις θεοσέβειαν, δι’ ἔργων ἀγαθῶν.​

Notice anything interesting?

• Both KJV and NASB use a form of the word "Modest," but they literally translate different Greek words!

So... lots of smart people did these translations... why don't they agree on which word really means modest?

Which one of those words κοσμίῳ (kosmio) or αἰδοῦς (aidous) means "modest"? Which one speaks to how much of a woman's skin can be exposed? Do either of them carry that meaning?

What does this discrepancy between these two translations mean? I'm not sure, but surely it's worth thinking about!

​

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.

With most good and solid translations such as the NASB, there were a number of strong Christian scholars who collaborated and came to a consensus when putting the translation together. This is true with some of the other translations (not paraphrases). I don't know Greek or Hebrew, but I wouldn't second guess why these scholars chose the words they did since we were not privy to their discussions. I just accept the translation with some further study on complex text.

Today one can use multiple sites to look at the text in the original language and compare various translations. There are also a good many sound commentaries out there to explain various words. So if one has a question about what the text states, they can look it up and come to their own conclusion.

One just has to be careful not to stray from sound teaching to one extreme or the other. People have used the above verse to say women shouldn't wear jewelry or makeup, while others have said this was simply the customs of the time and has no bearing for us. The truth is in the middle and the principle is applicable not only for women but men as well.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

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.

With most good and solid translations such as the NASB, there were a number of strong Christian scholars who collaborated and came to a consensus when putting the translation together. This is true with some of the other translations (not paraphrases). I don't know Greek or Hebrew, but I wouldn't second guess why these scholars chose the words they did since we were not privy to their discussions. I just accept the translation with some further study on complex text.

Today one can use multiple sites to look at the text in the original language and compare various translations. There are also a good many sound commentaries out there to explain various words. So if one has a question about what the text states, they can look it up and come to their own conclusion.

One just has to be careful not to stray from sound teaching to one extreme or the other. People have used the above verse to say women shouldn't wear jewelry or makeup, while others have said this was simply the customs of the time and has no bearing for us. The truth is in the middle and the principle is applicable not only for women but men as well.

Thanks, Harley.

In the main, I think you're right... be reticent to question the scholarship and decisions of people who have devoted their lives to the study of original languages in order to provide us with accurate translations.

But at the same time, we should not forget that the translators themselves were human and fallible, and even subject the the preconceptions that came by means of their own culture and the bias from the work done before them.

I suspect that the cultural influence is in play on this passage, though. This is THE passage that supposedly teaches "modesty"... and so the translators themselves would be reticent to retranslate the passage without mentioning "modesty"... the fact is that that's what they have always believed the passage is about.

So, I raise these points to show that there's adequate textual basis for asking questions and perhaps even seeking for a more accurate translation, particularly in light of the fact that the meaning of the word "modest" as it is used today in Western Christian contexts is NOT what it meant when the original KJV translators used the word.

And the NASB translators as much as admitted that when they chose a different word to translate as "modest."

The real question is... do either of these Greek words mean what the church means today when they say "modest"? The answer seems obvious to me that they do not.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

That's not good enough.

Seriously? The Studying the Bible itself "is not good enough"? You need the opinions of other men?

That's not enough to establish much of anything the Bible says. It takes a lot more than that.

In my "POST" submissions, I did NOT try to assert any meaning about what the text means... and what I asserted about what the Bible actually says (the words used in Greek and the words used in the KJV and NASB) are actually not opinions, but statements of fact. I quoted the Greek, KJV, and NASB directly.

What more do you want? That's exactly what the text says!!!

So, do us all a favor and stop trolling us....

This is priceless... I started the thread.... you chose to comment on the thread... and I responded to your comments.

... and I'm the one trolling you???

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

How we dress is part of our behavior and of course God is concerned about how we behave. If scripture does not directly address this fact, maybe God thinks it to obvious to address. I think how some of the Jews act and dress is part of why they are held in such contempt by some.

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.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Or biblical

Or a reasonable bible study.

Derf, here's where you lied about me.

By agreeing with @2PhiloVoid and adding your own commentary, you were asserting that I am not experienced in hermaneuetics and exegeting God's Word.

It was a lie, and you were all in on it.

 

[HarleyER]

Thanks, Harley.

In the main, I think you're right... be reticent to question the scholarship and decisions of people who have devoted their lives to the study of original languages in order to provide us with accurate translations.

But at the same time, we should not forget that the translators themselves were human and fallible, and even subject the the preconceptions that came by means of their own culture and the bias from the work done before them.

I suspect that the cultural influence is in play on this passage, though. This is THE passage that supposedly teaches "modesty"... and so the translators themselves would be reticent to retranslate the passage without mentioning "modesty"... the fact is that that's what they have always believed the passage is about.

So, I raise these points to show that there's adequate textual basis for asking questions and perhaps even seeking for a more accurate translation, particularly in light of the fact that the meaning of the word "modest" as it is used today in Western Christian contexts is NOT what it meant when the original KJV translators used the word.

And the NASB translators as much as admitted that when they chose a different word to translate as "modest."

The real question is... do either of these Greek words mean what the church means today when they say "modest"? The answer seems obvious to me that they do not.

I'm not sure what word you would use in place of "modest". I understand biases might creep in but I find it hard to believe when:

1) we are talking about hundreds of translators (if not thousands) since every single Bible translation and paraphrase translates the word this way (please see biblehub.com/mutil/1timothy2-9),​

2) this verse is supported and similar to 1 Peter 3:3, and​

3) the Greek word in Strong's concordiance supports the word "modest".​

αἰδοῦς (aidous)​

Noun - Genitive Feminine Singular​

Strong's Greek 127: Shame, modesty. Perhaps from a and eido; bashfulness, i.e., modesty or awe.​

These are the Greek translation and one can look up the original word in the Greek text. So if you don't like "modesty", how would you translate it?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Seriously? The Studying the Bible itself "is not good enough"? You need the opinions of other men?

Yes. Seriously. It's inescapable. Hermeneutics---and just education in general---requires that we learn and think beyond both ourselves and our individual reading of a single text.

In my "POST" submissions, I did NOT try to assert any meaning about what the text means... and what I asserted about what the Bible actually says (the words used in Greek and the words used in the KJV and NASB) are actually not opinions, but statements of fact. I quoted the Greek, KJV, and NASB directly.

What more do you want? That's exactly what the text says!!!

This is priceless... I started the thread.... you chose to comment on the thread... and I responded to your comments.

... and I'm the one trolling you???

You haven't answered my questions and, likewise, I feel no need to answer yours.

Please spare the Christian Philosophy section of the forums from your so-called "Christian Nudist" drivel.

 

[Derf]

Derf, here's where you lied about me.

By agreeing with @2PhiloVoid and adding your own commentary, you were asserting that I am not experienced in hermaneuetics and exegeting God's Word.

It was a lie, and you were all in on it.

I just "liked" your post where you claimed I lied. I disagree with your conclusion, but I like that you answered my question. I sometimes agree with some point or another, but don't always agree with everything. To say that I agree with @2PhiloVoid may or may not mean that I agree with everything in his post, just like when I "liked" your post, that doesn't mean I like everything in it.

However, I don't see that Phil lied about you, as he gave an opinion about your ability to exegete the texts, not an assessment of all your credentials. Opinions are not lies. And by your standard, you have now lied about me. It's a slippery slope, and I've mostly seen it used as a way to take the attention off the meat of the conversation when one party is feeling they are losing the argument...at least it seems that way to me.

Shall we continue to discuss your actual content? Or are you done? If you're done, then I definitely agree with Phil. But you might show me to be wrong, even in my opinion. And I don't necessarily respect someone's hermeneutical ability just because they've gone to school or have letters after their name. But so far, you haven't exhibited much discernment in your posts.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

I'm not sure what word you would use in place of "modest". I understand biases might creep in but I find it hard to believe when:

1) we are talking about hundreds of translators (if not thousands) since every single Bible translation and paraphrase translates the word this way (please see biblehub.com/mutil/1timothy2-9),​

2) this verse is supported and similar to 1 Peter 3:3, and​

3) the Greek word in Strong's concordiance supports the word "modest".​

αἰδοῦς (aidous)​

Noun - Genitive Feminine Singular​

Strong's Greek 127: Shame, modesty. Perhaps from a and eido; bashfulness, i.e., modesty or awe.​

These are the Greek translation and one can look up the original word in the Greek text. So if you don't like "modesty", how would you translate it?

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.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

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?

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

POST #7 (Bonus post)​

This post is not an observation about 1 Timothy 2:9, but rather 1 Peter 3:3

Here' the text in KJV:

Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit​

Here's the text in NASB:

Your adornment must not be merely external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.​

Here's the text in Greek:
ὧν ἔστω οὐχ ὁ ἔξωθεν ἐμπλοκῆς τριχῶν καὶ περιθέσεως χρυσίων ἢ ἐνδύσεως ἱματίων κόσμος ἀλλ᾽ ὁ κρυπτὸς τῆς καρδίας ἄνθρωπος ἐν τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ τοῦ πρᾳέος καὶ ἡσυχίου πνεύματος

The observation here is the word that is not there in the Greek!

Neither the KJV or the Greek include the word "merely." In point of fact, the word is not from the Greek but added for "understandability" by the translators of the NASB. And they do not hide that fact, which is why the NASB renders the word in italics... which is their consistent pattern throughout the translation when they've added an English word that was not translated directly from the Greek.

So... we could correctly and accurately read the NASB translation this way:

Your adornment must not be external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.​

Now it matches the KJV and the Greek.

But how does that change the apparent meaning of the command? Why did the translators feel like they needed to add that word, when it's not in the KJV? Why didn't the KJV translators add something similar if that word really is implied by the original Greek text?

This passage is clearly a parallel to Paul's instructions to women in 1 Timothy 2:9... so we really do need to interpret the two passage in parallel rather than independently.

This observation seems to indicate that Peter was not emphasizing what women should wear, but rather what they should not wear! Which, as we could see in POST #6 that there is also a de-emphasis in Paul's instructions on what women should wear.

So, do Paul or Peter either one make a point of telling women what they need to wear? If not, then why have these passages been almost universally used to enforce a standard of attire on women that is not to be found in these passages at all?