The Apostle Among the Amazons: I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence by Richard Clark Kroeger and Catherine Clark Kroeger

Tools: Print E-mail

This essay appeared as: "The Apostle Among the Amazons: A Review Article" Westminster Theological Journal 56 (1994): 153-171, as a review of: Richard Clark Kroeger and Catherine Clark Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11–15 in Light of Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992). Endnotes are at the bottom of the page. The place where the notes appear in the essay itself are marked in brackets. You may think that this essay engages in needlessly technical discussion. However, the reconstruction of ancient societies demands careful interpretation of a great amount of seemingly unrelated data from coins, inscriptions, literature, architecture, etc. In order to justify my evaluation of the Kroegers' book, I feel that the reader should see some of the data which may otherwise be inaccessible.

S.M.B.

Introduction [1]

Not long ago, Marcus Barth said in regard to Pauline Ephesus: "The cult of the Great Mother and the Artemis temple stamped this city more than others as a bastion and bulwark of women's rights."[2] Echoes of this speculation have formed the foundation of a popular egalitarian argument that the prohibition of women "teaching and exercising authority over a man" in 1 Tim 2:12 was only designed to correct a radical situation at Ephesus (cf. 1 Tim 1:3).[3] "The gospel [was] struggling in Ephesus with gnostic–influenced women trumpeting a feminist reinterpretation of Adam and Eve as precedent for their own spiritual primacy and authority."[4] In other words, because "the Ephesian women were radical feminists and trying to dominate men,"[5] Paul merely objects to Ephesian women teaching and exercising authority.

Up to this point, no one has established historically that there was, in fact, a feminist culture in first century Ephesus.[6] It has merely been assumed, sometimes merely because the patron deity of Ephesus was a goddess.[7] Enter Richard and Catherine Kroegers' I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11–15 in Light of Ancient Evidence. As the sub–title suggests, the chief purpose of this book is to support the egalitarian restriction of 1 Tim 2:12 to a feminist climate at Ephesus through presentation of a wide range of archaeological and ancient literary material. (Mrs. Kroeger speaks from her twin vantage points as a classicist and founder of an evangelical feminist organization).[8]

The Feminist Thesis

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.[9] They conclude in light of this scenario that women should be ordained to pastoral ministry.

Several reviews of I Suffer Not a Woman have already exposed this book's unacceptable handling of the Bible, of the Greek language, and of ancient gnosticism. The reviews of Al Wolters and Robert Yarbrough in particular ought to be consulted.[10] I do not intend to cover the same ground as previous reviews (with one exception). Instead, I will concentrate upon the Kroegers' attempt to substantiate "matriarchy" at ancient Ephesus, since the cultural and religious background is less familiar to NT students and has not received specialized investigation in this connection to date.

The Bottom Line

The Kroegers (and the others mentioned above) have painted a picture of Ephesus which wanders very widely from the facts. Yet because the Kroegers cite a number of ancient authors, their portrait of Ephesus and of the cult of Artemis Ephesia seems at first glance to be based upon impressive evidence and therefore to be more plausible than it actually is. Let me be absolutely clear. The religious and cultural situation at Ephesus was never anything like the picture portrayed in I Suffer Not a Woman. Their thesis is as compelling as one based on reading Victorian England to have been a feminist society because it was ruled for over 50 years by a queen. This is patently absurd.

How then have the Kroegers managed to convince at least some people that Ephesus was feminist in some sense?[11] There are two reasons: through errors of historical fact and through errors of interpretation. There is little in I Suffer Not a Woman which is historically accurate for ancient Ephesus. If this judgment seems unduly harsh, let me clarify here that this is a debate over the issues affecting the interpretation of an important and contested biblical passage. It is not a personal attack on Richard or Catherine Kroeger or on anyone else. In my opinion, if women are to be well served by biblical scholarship, it will not be through error, no matter how well intentioned. The truth and the truth alone must guide our reading of the Bible. And the truth about Ephesus can be easily shown. It was not a feminist city in any sense of the word as the Kroegers and others believe. The role of women in ancient Ephesus was demonstrably little different than in any other contemporary city, so that Paul's general directives for women in 1 Timothy 2:9–15 are not to be seen as restricted to any particular culture.

Because the Kroegers cite a host of ancient sources to support their case, we will need to examine at least some of these sources in our review. I will contend, though, that much of the evidence the Kroegers adduce for Pauline Ephesus is either wildly anachronistic and irrelevant for our period or is misinterpreted. I will also bring in some pertinent data which is either ignored or unknown to the Kroegers. However, I have given a fuller presentation of the position of women in Pauline Ephesus elsewhere for the reader who wants a more detailed historical treatment.[12] Nevertheless, we will have to discuss some technical historical details which bear on the issue. Let us begin by briefly reviewing the Kroegers' treatment of the key 1 Timothy 2:12 passage.

“Teaching and Exercising Authority”

The portrayal of Ephesus in I Suffer Not a Woman is intimately related to an eccentric reading of 1 Tim 2:12. In general, the Kroegers tend to interpret biblical passages idiosyncratically without defense for their dubious readings.[13] Their interpretation of 1 Tim 2:12 is defended, but it is confused and confusing at best. Their translation is: "I do not allow a woman to teach nor to proclaim herself author of man but she is to be in conformity (with the Scriptures) (or that she keeps it a secret)" (pp. 103, 189, et al.). In the discussion which follows, we will focus upon their interpretation of the first two infinitive clauses.[14]

In the authors' rendering and interpretation, the lead verb "I do not allow" has two parallel, infinitive complements: "to teach" and "to proclaim herself author of." The authors' clearly wish to interpret the second infinitive as indirect discourse (pp. 37, 190–92, et al.), even though their translation expresses it as a complement. If the second infinitive functions as indirect statement, the rendering would be: "I do not allow a woman to teach that she is the originator of man" (p. 191; emphasis added), which ignores the conjunction oude. Although they confuse the reader at this point, the authors seem to recognize that the Greek does not allow taking the second infinitive as indirect discourse after all,[15] yet they adopt this interpretation anyway: "We can understand the content of the forbidden teaching as being the notion that woman was responsible for the creation of man" (p. 103).[16]

The Kroegers claim justification for their interpretation of 1 Tim 2:12 by taking authentein as an act of speech: "to proclaim oneself author of," an impossible interpretation of this verb.[17] (And it does not function as indirect discourse with this meaning!) What is most interesting in the authors' philological treatment is that they come up with a classic case of "illegitimate totality transfer," which becomes programmatic for their historical investigation:

Authentes and authentein sometimes occur in contexts in which both sex and murder are present (p. 95). Possibly [Paul] wished to evoke more than one image [with authentein] (p. 79). It is strange indeed that our target verse should include a pivotal word which has implications of killing, beginning, and copulating, as these all were elements of the mystery religions practiced in Asia Minor (p. 87).

I Suffer Not a Woman is filled with efforts to find "sex reversal," "female dominance," and "sex and death" motifs in Ephesian society, because the Kroegers' believe that, in the end, all these things are implied in Paul's prohibition that women should not authentein. In this light, we can turn now to the historical reconstruction of ancient Ephesus.

The New Testament Evidence

There are a few indications in the NT itself that Ephesus was a typically Hellenistic culture in regard to female roles in family and society. For instance, we have no direct evidence that women taught in any official or public capacity at Ephesus (or elsewhere).[18] In line with this, the false teachers mentioned in the pastorals are said to be men "who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women" (2 Tim 3:6; NIV; cf. 1 Tim 1:6–11). And Ephesian women do not appear as the sophists, rhetors, teachers, philosophers, or their disciples in our ancient sources, whereas several men do.[19]

Furthermore, the evidence of Acts hints that men took a leading role in economic, civil, and religious affairs at Ephesus; no Ephesian women are mentioned in these connections. Demetrius the silversmith and his guild (whom he addresses as andres, "men") were in the marketplace deriving a lucrative profit from the Artemisium tourist trade (Acts 19:24–27). Luke also mentions the (male) Asiarchs who were members of the premier social circles in the province of Asia (Acts 19:31).[20]

When we look further into Acts 19, we find hints of male involvement in Ephesian religious affairs. It was the Secretary of the People (grammateus), certainly a man,[21] who defused the excited mob in the theater by defending the goddess' honor (Acts 19:35–40). The Secretary mentions that Ephesus itself was "neōcoros of the great goddess" (Acts 19:35). This term, neōcoros, is frequently used for the individual or group charged with the oversight of a cult.[22] Since women were not citizens of Greek poleis like Ephesus,[23] it was the male citizen body of Ephesus—acting through its municipal officers, the grammateus and the all-male boulē ("State Council")—who claimed the oversight of the cult of Artemis Ephesia. We can safely infer from this slight NT evidence alone that religious affairs at Ephesus were not exclusively in the hands of women as the authors of I Suffer Not a Woman allege.

The Kroeger Case

Turning to the Kroegers' main thesis, we might mistakenly think that they hope to establish that Ephesian society in toto was "a society that looked upon the feminine as primal source" (p. 105; emphasis added). They say that "for millennia the matriarchal goddesses reigned supreme" and that "the maternal aspect was glorified in a manner almost unknown farther west" (p. 50). Hence, this "divine maternal principle" was "the concept underlying the political, economic, and social existence of Ephesus" (p. 57; emphasis added). This certainly is the force of Marcus Barth and others' understanding noted above.

Yet, conversely, the Kroegers also say quite explicitly that Ephesus was not a "matriarchal" society!

Nevertheless there is no evidence that women took an ascendant role over the men in civil life (p. 92). Modern scholarship tends to find that female dominance is not attested in the civil affairs of western Asia Minor, and that matriarchy can be found with certainty only in the religious realm of Bronze Age Crete.[24] Nevertheless the tradition of a religiously-based rule of men by women is incontestable . . . The Lycians were said to have been ruled by women from ancient times. They claimed descent through their mothers, honored women more than men, and bestowed the inheritance on daughters rather than sons (pp. 193–4).[25]

The Kroegers are trying to establish a careful distinction despite their hazy statements about "Ephesus' strong emphasis on the maternal principle" (p. 55; emphasis added).[26] They are aware that historians are unanimous: there were no matriarchal (or gynococratic) societies in antiquity. So, in order to establish their thesis about the background and interpretation of 1 Tim 2:9–15, they need some type of "matriarchy" at Ephesus. The answer? Although women were not dominant in civil affairs, they say: "Religious affairs were significantly different . . . within its (Asia Minor's) temple systems and especially in the mysteries, matriarchy prevailed" (p. 92). Hence, they would have us believe that "Ephesus stood as a bastion of feminine supremacy in religion" (p. 54; emphasis added).

Now, the notion that any ancient culture could maintain a "matriarchy" only in the religious sphere but not in the social-civic spheres of life betrays an astonishing unawareness of how ancient societies worked. It is a commonplace in the study of antiquity that all areas of life were interconnected, evidenced in that "a magistrate was usually a priest as a part of his official functions" in Hellenic cities.[27] To separate these spheres of existence and to assert patriarchy or something similar in the civil sphere and matriarchy in the religious sphere is prima facie implausible. Accordingly, we must look carefully at the arguments the Kroegers advance to support their novel idea.

Our authors' argumentation is quite complicated actually, so I will try to reproduce its main points in this simpler form:

Premise 1: First century worship of Artemis Ephesia embodied an ancient Anatolian sex-reversal principle. Hence, Pauline Ephesus may be characterized as the "bastion of a strongly developed theological system" (p. 58) of female dominance in religion ("matriarchy").

Evidence A: The Anatolian religious situation was begun by the Amazons (mythical gynecocrats) and preserved in their myths (pp. 47, 52, 93, 193–96).

Evidence B: There is a myth that Hercules was forced into submission to Lydian women as one of his labors (pp. 194–95).

Evidence C: Herodotus mentions matrilinearity in fifth century BC Lycia (pp. 109, 194).[28]

Evidence D: It is assumed that Artemis was syncretized to the Anatolian Great Mother and given the nature of a fertility goddess (p. 50–54).

Evidence E: Eunuch priests and hermaphrodites were part of Artemis Ephesia's entourage according to the authors (p. 196).

Evidence F: Women had greater religious status at Ephesus as "principal mediators of the gods" (p. 71; see pp. 70–74). In line with this, Artemis' "high priest" (a misnomer) was replaced by a "high priestess" (another misnomer) in the first century AD (pp. 71, 89, 196).

Evidence G: "Sex and death" is a theme of second or third century AD novels set in Ephesus (Appendix 4, pp. 197–202).

Premise 2: Gnostic teaching on the reversal of the role of Eve in creation was popular in Pauline Ephesus.[29]

Conclusion: 1 Tim 2:9–15 is merely countering this theological matrix of the Artemis cult and gnosticism combined: "In 1 Timothy 2:5–15 (sic) Paul addresses the notion that women were necessary to communicate ultimate truth. He is as well combating the willingness of women to assume that they had a monopoly on the divine enlightenment" (p. 73). "We suggest that the writer of the Pastorals was opposing a doctrine which acclaimed motherhood as the ultimate reality" (p. 112).[30]

Some First Impressions

It is difficult to imagine how such a momentous conclusion could have been erected upon such fragile, tottering evidence. And what is more egregious than the Kroegers' reliance upon such implausible information is the fact that among their "enormous amount of supplemental material" (p. 14) they virtually ignore a vast body of evidence of a historically much more reliable and relevant quality: the almost 4,000 Ephesian inscriptions and the burgeoning secondary literature surrounding them.[31]

Furthermore, evidence which contradicts the authors' position from materials they do utilize often goes unmentioned by them. For instance, the second century novel by Achilles Tatius is discussed by the Kroegers in Appendix Four (pp. 200–202). It challenges the authors' theses in three ways: (1) A male priest appears as the head of the Artemisium at Ephesus and no priestess appears in the novel; however, this fact goes unnoticed in place of some (fanciful) interpretations of "sex and death" motifs. (2) Artemis Ephesia herself is presented in this novel as the classic Greek "goddess of purity" and "the Virgin," yet this does not detour the authors from taking her as a fertility goddess dedicated to "sex-reversal." (3) Tatius writes: "From ancient days this temple [the Artemisium] had been forbidden to free women who were not virgins. Only men and virgins were permitted here. If a non-virgin woman passed inside, the penalty was death."[32] If non-virgins (e.g., mothers) were specifically barred from access to Artemis Ephesia's temple, it would seem to undermine the idea that "within [Asia Minor's—including Ephesus'] temple systems and especially in the mysteries, matriarchy [i.e., the rule of mothers] prevailed" (p. 92; emphasis added).

As one can now guess, I believe that each piece of evidence noted above (Evidence A–G) is open to the gravest of doubts. But rather than give a detailed response to each point seriatim—which would tax the reader's patience beyond limits—let me respond in a general way and then take up specific points in varying degrees of detail.

Please observe, first, how few genuinely historical facts support the Kroegers' elaborate argument: Artemis the Virgin's worshippers lifting their skirts in worship as part of fertility rites?! (pp. 74–75). This is at best sheer imagination, when, in fact, Artemis' female devotees prided themselves on their modest piety. Take Laevia Paula, for example, who died a few decades before Paul was in Ephesus. She was the wife of M. Antonius Albus, "the patron (prostatēs) of the temple of Artemis" (IEph 614c)—please notice again male leadership in the cult. At Laevia's funeral a herald proclaimed: "The Council and People crown Laevia Paula daughter of Lucius, who lived a modest and decorous life" (IEph 614b).[33]

Please note also the Kroegers' heavy reliance upon mythology as historical sources. Amazons?[34] Hercules? (Evidence A–B). Were we to analyze modern American society, would we rely on myths of Paul Bunyan and his blue ox Babe or on tales of Johnny Appleseed? Certainly the ancients did not all take their myths very seriously: "The bards tell many lies" was proverbial by Plutarch's day (ca.AD 50–120).[35]

Second Impressions

Other evidence for "matriarchy" adduced by the Kroegers is wildly anachronistic, and some is historically unreliable even for its own day. For instance, they rely upon Herodotus (fifth cent. BC; pp. 109, 194); Autocrates (fourth cent. BC; p. 70); and Aristophanes (fifth cent. BC; pp. 70–71). Let us look briefly, for example, at the evidence from Herodotus (Evidence C).

A Greek man would normally state his full name as "So-and-so, son of So-and-so" (his father).[36] But, says Herodotus, a Lycian "will say that he is the son of such a mother, and recount the mothers of his mother" (1.173; LCL). Now, let us accept the veracity of Herodotus' remark for the moment.[37] How is this statement relevant? Tracing lineage through one's mother does not itself prove matriarchy. But more critically, how can Herodotus' distant statement carry any weight in light of all the abundant names on first centuryAD Ephesian inscriptions that conclusively demonstrate that Ephesians listed their father's name, not their mother's?[38] Herodotus' statement is not only anachronistic and irrelevant, but goes contrary to more germane, lavish evidence.

The Kroegers' argument relies heavily on two key points: (1) that Artemis Ephesia was a manifestation of the Anatolian mother goddess; and, (2) that fertility practices and ideologies were therefore connected to Artemis' cult (Evidence D). Both of these crucial questions are begged by the Kroegers, and both are most implausible for Artemis the Unbroken Virgin.[39] Although she may have originated from the Anatolian Great Mother in pre-Hellenic times, the identification of Artemis Ephesia with the Great Mother in historical times is most unlikely according to Richard Oster, a specialist in this area. He writes:

The nature and essence of the cult of Artemis was open, as all religions are, to change and flux. Even if the eunuch priests known as Megabyzi [who disappeared after the first century BC] suggest fertility rites similar to the Mother Goddess of Asia Minor, it is necessary to remember that this part of the cult vanished in the period of the early Roman Empire . . . . A final argument against a fertility interpretation of the goddess in the Roman Empire is the deafening silence from all the primary sources. None of the extant myths point in this direction, neither do the significant epithets of the goddess.[40]

Errors of Fact

If the Kroegers' argument is based upon shaky interpretations of doubtful evidence so far, we should also point out the outright errors of fact (Evidence E). For example, we have the following statement of evidence:

The inclusion of castrated priests and hermaphrodites in the official retinue of the Ephesian Artemis further suggests the presence of sex reversal. The assumption of ultimate power in the cult by a high priestess rather than a high priest again indicates that the primary religious power lay with women by the first century C.E. (p. 196).[41]

First, the Kroegers' have derived these "castrated priests and hermaphrodites" from the well-known "Megabyzus," a eunuch priest who served as head of a hierarchy of maiden priestesses according to Strabo (Geog. 14.1.23). But our evidence indicates that this priesthood was discontinued toward the end of the first century BC.[42] Not only have the Kroegers multiplied this one eunuch into many (and invented hermaphrodites!), but they tacitly affirm that this priesthood was discontinued—the Megabyzus was the only discontinued Ephesian priesthood of which I know—and was replaced by a "high priestess." This fact, therefore, cannot support their argument for "sex reversal" in Pauline Ephesus. If anything, the formerly Persian character of Artemis' retinue was being conformed to traditional Graeco-Roman standards by this time.

Similarly, the replacement of a eunuch priest by a "high priestess"[43] by the first century (Evidence F) would seem to undermine the Kroegers' point that Artemis Ephesia's character as a fertility goddess is derived from the previous cult of the Anatolian Great Mother. If "primary religious power" lay with women because of a centuries old principle of female dominance, as they argue, why would the rise of a "high priestess" only occur by the first century? We would have expected women to hold the reigns of "religious power" from the earliest period.[44]

But the truth is, the presence of a "priestess of Artemis" in the cult of Artemis Ephesia—evidenced by a fair number of inscriptions—does not nullify the fact that "religious power" at Ephesus was firmly in the hands of: a) the Roman government; b) the municipal magistrates and council (see on Acts 19 above); and, c) various sacred offices filled primarily by men. This assertion is easy to validate from several sources, but let us look closely at only one, the edict of the Roman proconsul of AD 44, Paullus Fabius Persicus, which reads in part:

. . . The temple of Artemis herself—which is an adornment to the whole province because of the magnificence of the building, the antiquity of the worship of the goddess, and the abundance of the incomes granted to the goddess by the Emperor—is being deprived of its proper revenues. These had been sufficient for the maintenance and for the adornment of votive offerings, but they are being diverted for the illegal wants of the Koinon's leaders,[45] according as they consider will bring them profit. . . . While using the appearance of the divine temple as a pretext, they sell the priesthoods as if at public auction. Indeed, they invite men of every kind to their sale, then they do not select the most suitable men upon whose heads the crown would fittingly be placed. (Instead) they restrict incomes to those who are being consecrated to as (little) as they are willing to accept, in order that they themselves might appropriate as much as possible. (The edict goes on to regulate other matters.) (IEph 17, 1–20).

From the fact that a) the Roman proconsul (possibly acting for Claudius) pronounced on the election of priests of Artemis, and that b) certain incomes were granted to the goddess by the emperor as an exercise of his auctoritas,[46] we can conclude that the Roman government was quite willing to believe that it held the ultimate religious power in Ephesus (and in other provincial cities).[47] And we know that the Ephesians sometimes acknowledged this Roman overlordship in the religious realm.[48]

But what were the priesthoods which these men (anthrōpoi) were "buying"? The title, "priest of Artemis," does occur on early imperial inscriptions. C. Julius Atticus was "priest of Artemis Soteira (and) of the family of Caesar" (IEph 1265), and Apollonius Politicus was "the priest of Artemis" who dedicated a local altar.[49] C. Stertinius Orpex (whose daughter was a priestess of Artemis) says that he donated 5,000 denarii "to the Council of the Ephesians and to the priests" (IEph 4123; under Nero). Although "priest of Artemis" is not a commonly mentioned title, these few occurrences are enough to show that women did not exclusively hold priesthoods of Artemis Ephesia in the imperial era.[50]

Key Errors of Fact

The Kroegers make no mention of male priests of Artemis. Instead, they present a quite different scenario, such as this:

In Ephesus women assumed the role of the man-slaying Amazons who had founded the cult of Artemis of Ephesus. . . . The female dancers at the temple of the Ephesian Artemis clashed their arms, so lethal weapons were part of the priestesses' religious accoutrements. There are reasons to suspect that the dances may have contained a simulated attack on males, especially as they were performed with spears. . . . They would surely have inspired terror; and this, Strabo tells us, was one of the purposes of the dance (pp. 186–87).

Now, Strabo says that this ritual act—he does not call it a "dance"—was performed by the kouretes.[51] The Kroegers have identified them as priestesses of Artemis. The only problem is that we have honorary lists naming kouretes on over 50 extant Ephesian inscriptions.[52] On first centuryAD inscriptions alone there are over 100 kourētes named (IEph 1001–20, 1047). These kouretes are all men. For example, a list dating to AD 54–59 reads:

When Tiberius Claudius Hermias, son of Arieos, Quirinian tribe, was prytanis, the loyal, pious kouretes were: Halys son of Arieos, Dionysius son of Charesios son of Mithridatus, Ti. Claudius Erastus son of Hermias, Antiochus son of Antiochus, Trypho Assklas son of Trypho (son of Trypho); Marcus was victim-inspector, Menodotus was sacred herald, Olympicus was incense-bearer, (and) Metras was flautist of the drink offering (IEph 1008).[53]

Somehow, the Kroegers turn the male kouretes into women, and use these phantom priestesses as evidence for Amazonian religious power! Since many of these kouretes inscriptions were published as long as a century ago, are we wrong to expect them to have entered into the Kroegers' purview?[54]

Ephesian Priestesses

That women were involved in the cult of Artemis Ephesia is not in question. But the Kroegers interpret the fact that there was a priestess of Artemis as an indication that "the primary religious power lay with women by the first century" (196). Let us ignore for the moment the previously discussed involvement of Roman and Ephesian men in the cult. Do the authors not know that priestesses were a common phenomenon throughout the Graeco-Roman world where no amount of "matriarchy" or what have you was present? Although it is not invariable, "a priestess very commonly officiates for goddesses and a priest for gods" in Greek cults.[55] The fact that Artemis Ephesia had a priestess does not at all act as evidence of "matriarchy," "sex-reversal," or "primacy of the maternal." Instead, it shows that this cult had typical Hellenic features where men still might play a leading role.[56]

The social and religious role of the priestess of Artemis is hard to discern precisely. Sometimes the title "priestess" is joined with the title cosmēteira, "adorner" (IEph 892, 983–984, 989, etc.), suggesting that the priestesses were involved with clothing the cult statue of Artemis, since we know that sacred clothing was part of her cult.[57] Their role may have been much like the girls and priestesses who made and helped present an ornate new robe (peplos) to Athena during the Panathenaia procession of Athens.[58] Such processions were not only "very prominent features of Greek festivals" in general (OCD) but are explicitly mentioned in connection with Artemis Ephesia.[59]

The priestesses of Artemis may have had not only a ceremonial part in Ephesian pageants, but were probably expected to underwrite some of its expenses also. As evidence, one first century (?) priestess, Vipsania Olympias, says that she not only "served as priestess circumspectly," but she "wreathed the temple and all its precincts in the days of the goddess' manifestations" (IEph 987). Another priestess, Ulpia Euodia Mudiane, daughter of Mudianus and Euodia "performed the mysteries and made all expenses through my parents" (IEph 989), showing, by the way, that she was undoubtedly an unmarried girl.[60] But that these Ephesian girls and matrons carried spears and performed "simulated attacks on males" is, frankly, incredible. They may have resembled "Rose Bowl Queens" in Artemis Ephesia's parades more than Amazon warriors!

Sex and Death in Ephesus

Finally, the Kroegers' Evidence G consists of a creative, abstract use of ancient "gothic novels" to establish that there was "sex and death in an Ephesus-oriented context" (p. 200). But are not "sex and death" everywhere present in ancient (and modern) literature? Look at the Iliad: sex and death. Plato's Symposium: sex; his Apology: death. Suetonius' Nero: lots of sex and death. Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet": sex and death on stage. Any modern novel or television program: sex and death ad nauseam. What exactly is the point?

Well, we could find much more to critique in I Suffer Not a Woman,[61] but the reader has probably seen enough to gather that the Ephesian religious and cultural situation was not, in fact, marked by "matriarchy" of any sort. And it seems quite clear to me after prolonged study of the issues that 1 Tim 2:9-15 is an appropriate mandate in any ancient (or modern) city or culture.

Final Remarks

Despite my negative evaluation of I Suffer Not a Woman, I should mention that I sincerely agree with the authors' stated purpose: "Our purpose is to maintain on the basis of Scripture that both men and women are equally called to commitment and service, wherever and however God may lead" (p. 14). But let us be clear that the point at issue between us is in defining the areas of "commitment and service" into which God leads women. The ordination issue is not about whether women may "teach or make decisions" as the Kroegers put it (p. 17), but whether God calls women to the office(s) of elder or pastor-teacher or not.

The Kroegers adduce NT examples of women active in service to Christ in support of women's ordination. But aren't these merely illustrations of the general office of believer? In order for discussions to advance among evangelicals, one would hope that writers such as the Kroegers will begin by clarifying their views of gifts and church office—which would have been highly desirable in I Suffer Not a Woman.

Furthermore, let us discuss these issues of church office from known ecclesiastical positions. For the Kroegers to speak vaguely about their opponents as "traditionalists," or worse, anecdotally as "those who justify the abuse of women by citing Scripture" (p. 38), is itself an abuse of one's brothers and sisters who, we trust, are motivated by the love of God and his truth rather than by "a monopolistic attitude" (p. 93). Let us discuss this issue without rancor or prejudice. But let us discuss it clearly, with a competent grasp of the issues and of the historical facts. On the latter point, let the notion that Ephesus was a "bastion of women's rights" or "matriarchy" be dropped once and for all. It was not.

And let us further be clear about the consequences of the women's ordination debate. If God does not call women into the pastoral office, they are in danger of acting like non-Levites who would presumptuously handle the tabernacle equipment (Num 1:51; 2 Sam 6:6–7). God does not take the office of pastor-teacher lightly: "Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly" (Jas 3:1; NIV).

Tools:Top Print E-mail