There is actually a lot of historical context missing and — like most things Biblical — this has been terribly mistranslated and deeply abused and twisted by patriarchal leaders to suit their own political ambitions.
Ephesus was home to the cult of Artemis/Diana, and the Temple of Artemis which was one of the Seven Wonders of the ancient world. The cult was matriarchal, Artemis being the goddess of girls and fertility, natural forces and archery, among other things. Her priestesses spoke with the authority and voice of their goddess, who was strong, fierce, and independent and the culture developed around this for hundreds of years.
The entire letter is to a specific group of people regarding specific cultural conflicts. What the letter is saying is that women who are converting must not be allowed use their sex as an excuse to suppress or dominate male teachers. Instead, they need to learn this new religion respectfully from the existing teachers, who are men, rather than taking over by force as the culture would have historically promoted as their Ephesian/Artemisian birthright. Flaunting wealth and social status is also frowned upon. And while the sexist “women made the mistake” line is there and is intentional, the call back to being “saved by childbearing” is meant to extend a familiar bridge for Artemis cultists. If it’s not immediately obvious why, then do you remember what Artemis was goddess of?
That’s a historical text interpretation of the Bible, which is legit to me. However I’d say only a minority of practicing Christians regard it that way. With the rest, you have more fundamentalist views of the Bible as the literal word of God and the flexible view of it as metaogorical teachings inspired by God. Therefore these views treat the Bible specifically as authoritative, timeless, and divine, elevating it above a mere human document and transcendent of historical context. Timothy 3:17 seems to reflect the common idea that “the Bible is the only book you need”.
I do agree that one can make a historical argument for an interpretation of scripture, and maybe even do so in a way that reifies one’s personal relationship with God. However it doesn’t engage with the Bible the way most Christians do and therefore is not likely to be all that persuasive.
There is actually a lot of historical context missing and — like most things Biblical — this has been terribly mistranslated and deeply abused and twisted by patriarchal leaders to suit their own political ambitions.
Ephesus was home to the cult of Artemis/Diana, and the Temple of Artemis which was one of the Seven Wonders of the ancient world. The cult was matriarchal, Artemis being the goddess of girls and fertility, natural forces and archery, among other things. Her priestesses spoke with the authority and voice of their goddess, who was strong, fierce, and independent and the culture developed around this for hundreds of years.
The entire letter is to a specific group of people regarding specific cultural conflicts. What the letter is saying is that women who are converting must not be allowed use their sex as an excuse to suppress or dominate male teachers. Instead, they need to learn this new religion respectfully from the existing teachers, who are men, rather than taking over by force as the culture would have historically promoted as their Ephesian/Artemisian birthright. Flaunting wealth and social status is also frowned upon. And while the sexist “women made the mistake” line is there and is intentional, the call back to being “saved by childbearing” is meant to extend a familiar bridge for Artemis cultists. If it’s not immediately obvious why, then do you remember what Artemis was goddess of?
That’s a historical text interpretation of the Bible, which is legit to me. However I’d say only a minority of practicing Christians regard it that way. With the rest, you have more fundamentalist views of the Bible as the literal word of God and the flexible view of it as metaogorical teachings inspired by God. Therefore these views treat the Bible specifically as authoritative, timeless, and divine, elevating it above a mere human document and transcendent of historical context. Timothy 3:17 seems to reflect the common idea that “the Bible is the only book you need”.
I do agree that one can make a historical argument for an interpretation of scripture, and maybe even do so in a way that reifies one’s personal relationship with God. However it doesn’t engage with the Bible the way most Christians do and therefore is not likely to be all that persuasive.