I was honoured to write a guest blog post recently (January 2022) for Michael Bird’s blog “Word from the Bird.” Dr Bird is a prolific author, an ordained Anglican priest, and Academic Dean and Lecturer in New Testament at Ridley College in Melbourne, Australia. You can find it on his blog, here, or just keep reading on this page.
3 reasons why “to have authority over” is an inadequate translation of authentein in 1 Timothy 2:12
I do not allow a woman to teach, or authentein a man; rather, she is to be in quietness. 1 Timothy 2:12.
For some, 1 Timothy 2:12 is a clear verse with a clear message which is usually understood as women can never be pastors or teaching elders in congregations. For others, 1 Timothy 2:12 presents some genuine hermeneutical challenges, especially in the Greek. Understanding precisely what Paul meant when he used the word authentein is one of these challenges.
The Greek word authentein (from the verb authenteō) is a relatively rare word in surviving documents written before or during the first century AD, and I used to think its meaning was a bit of a mystery. But after looking long and hard at the meagre ancient evidence, I no longer hold this view. Instead, I believe there should be a consensus on the general sense, if not Paul’s precise meaning, of authentein.
In this blog post, I draw from ancient texts and briefly outline three reasons why I believe the general sense of authentein in 1 Timothy 2:12 is self-centred, domineering behaviour.
1. Authentein is translated in early translations of 1 Timothy 2:12 with a negative sense.
The first translations of 1 Timothy 2:12 from the Greek were in Latin, Syriac, Sahidic, and Arabic, and authentein was understood by the translators as a negative behaviour, not as a healthy or beneficial kind of authority.
For example, the Vetus Latina (Old Latin translations) (second–fourth centuries) render authentein as dominari (“to dominate”) or, occasionally, words with similar senses. The Vulgate (fourth–fifth centuries) likewise has dominari.[1] The Sahidic Coptic (third century) has erjoeis (“to be lord”). And these translations were done when Koine Greek was a well-known living language. For someone to dominate another person, or act as their lord, is not what Jesus wanted for his people (Matt. 20:25–28).[2]
I have more about ancient translations of authentein in 1 Timothy 2:12 (as well as authenteō in ancient Greek papyri) here.
2. Chrysostom used authentein in a negative sense when speaking about the actions of people.
Writing in the fourth century, admittedly hundreds of years after 1 Timothy was written, Chrysostom used the verb authenteō several times in his sermons.
For example, in his tenth homily on Colossians, Chrysostom comments on Colossians 3:19 (a verse addressed to husbands) and says that a husband should not authentei his wife. This is translated into English as “act the despot” in Volume 13 of The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (First series). (Online source: New Advent)[3]
In his eleventh sermon on Colossians, he refers to Paul’s exhortation, “Act wisely toward outsiders, making the most of (or, redeeming) the time.” Using the word authentein, Chrysostom warned against self-centredness: “… the time is not yours, but theirs. Do not then wish to have your own way (authentein) but redeem the time.” (New Advent, see under “verse 11”)[4]
In his sermon on Matthew 12:46–49, Chrysostom interprets Mary wanting to speak to Jesus as wanting “to show the people that she has power (kratei) and control of, or full authority over (authentei) her child.”[5] From his use of authentei with kratei, a word with a strong forceful sense, we see that Chrysostom did not see authenteō as a mild kind of authority.
In his day, Chrysostom understood authenteō as referring to harsh, selfish, or ruling behaviour when the verb is used in the context of the actions of people, male and female, and in many cases, he did not approve.[6]
3. Authentein can refer to the supreme power and rule of divine beings and celestial bodies.
A primary meaning of authentein is to exercise full power or absolute rule. (See, for example, the entry in Liddell and Scott’s Intermediate Greek-English lexicon, here, or their exhaustive lexicon, here.) Authentein and the related noun authentia are used with these senses in both pagan and Christian texts when speaking about various deities, including God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
For example, Chrysostom comments on Paul’s words about the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:11 and says that the Spirit is “exercising autonomous authority (authentoun), not being subject to supreme authority (authentia).” Chrysostom’s Second Homily on Pentecost (PG 50, 464).
Authentein also occurs in ancient astronomical texts, dating to the first–third centuries, when describing the controlling influence of celestial bodies such as planets. For example, in the second century CE, Ptolemy wrote, “Therefore, Saturn when he alone takes control of the soul and has gained dominance/ mastery (authentēsas) of Mercury and the moon . . .” (Tetrabiblos 3.14.10). (More on this here.) But exercising this kind of power is not for husbands or wives or for any Christian. Christians are called to mutually serve and submit to one another, not dominate or rule over capable, fellow believers.
In the context of human behaviour, authentein can mean to domineer or control.[7] Speaking about authentein, Cynthia Long Westfall notes that “the people who are targets of these actions are harmed, forced against their will (compelled), or at least their self-interest is being overridden because the actions involve an imposition of the subject’s will, ranging from dishonour to lethal force.”[8]
Conclusion
I make every effort to see the validity of different interpretations of Bible verses through the eyes of Christians who hold different views than mine. However, I have become reasonably convinced that Paul’s general sense of authentein in 1 Timothy 2:12 was self-centred, domineering behaviour.
Authentein is a rare word in surviving ancient texts that date roughly to the first century. The verb doesn’t occur elsewhere in the New Testament or in the ancient Greek Old Testament. Yet Paul chose it because it conveyed a particular sense. He was not writing about ordinary or healthy authority in 1 Timothy 2:12. He was addressing bad behaviour when he used authentein.
In fact, all of 1 Timothy 2:8–15 is Paul addressing bad behaviour from certain people in the Ephesian Church: angry quarrelling men in verse 8, overdressed rich women in verses 9–10, and a woman who needed to learn quietly (as it says in verse 11) and not teach, and not domineer a man who was probably her husband. 1 Timothy 2:8–15 is not Paul’s general teaching on ministry.
Precisely how a woman was controlling or domineering a man is not known with certainty. Nevertheless, we can apply a general sense of “domineer” in 1 Timothy 2:12. One thing I am certain of is that Paul was not disallowing capable women from ministering, even as leaders. Paul valued the ministry of leading women such as Priscilla, Phoebe, and Nympha.
I do not allow a woman to teach, or to domineer a man; rather, she is to be in quietness. 1 Timothy 2:11-12
Footnotes
[1] A participle of the Latin word dominari is used in 1 Peter 5:3 in the Vulgate where elders are warned not to lord it over fellow believers in their congregations. Dominari is a translation of the Greek word katakurieuō in 1 Peter 5:3 (see here) and of authenteō in 1 Timothy 2:12 (see here).
[2] Authentein refers to a type of domineering behaviour which in some contexts was seen as bad, but in other contexts in the ancient world was seen as fine. Until recently, officials, bosses, and masters had a level of sanctioned authority that most of us would regard as unhealthy and abusive today. It’s safe to say that Jesus did not want his followers to authenteō fellow believers.
[3] The Greek of the relevant phrase is, Μὴ τοίνυν, ἐπειδὴ ὑποτέτακται ἡ γυνὴ, αὐθέντει.
[4] The Greek of the relevant phrase is, μὴ τοίνυν βούλεσθε αὐθεντεῖν.
[5] The Greek of the relevant phrase is, ἐβούλετο γὰρ ἐνδείξασθαι τῷ δήμῳ ὅτι κρατεῖ καὶ αὐθεντεῖ τοῦ παιδός … (Chrysostom, Homily 44 on Matthew, PG 57 464-465. An English translation is on the New Advent website.)
[6] Also in the fourth century, Basil the Great used the related abstract noun authentia in a letter (Letter 169). This letter is about Glycerius, a deacon, who insolently disregarded his superiors and behaved very badly to a group of virgins. He even used force with some of the women. Basil says Glycerius rounded up the virgins “according to his own power and authentia“: κατ’ ἰδίαν ἐξουσίαν καὶ αὐθεντίαν.
[7] This text uses authenteō with the sense of tyranny.
“And the children will lay hands on their parents. The wife will give up her own husband to death, and the husband will bring his own wife to judgment like a criminal. Cruel masters ‘will tyrannise’ their slaves [or, Masters ‘will lord it over’ their slaves savagely].”
Pseudo-Hippolytus, De consummatione mundi (“On the End of the World”) Section 7 line 5 (PG 10.900).
The Greek of the relevant phrase is δεσπόται εἰς τοὺς ἰδίους δούλους ἀπάνθρωποι αὐθεντήσονται. “On the End of the World” has been attributed to Hippolytus (d. 235). However, it may date to the fifth or sixth century.
[8] Westfall, Paul and Gender: Reclaiming the Apostle’s Vision for Men and Women in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016), 292.
Explore more
A Spanish translation of this article is here.
Authentein in 1 Timothy 2:12, in a Nutshell (A simple article)
The meaning of authentein with a brief history of authent– words (A long, technical article)
Authenteō (Authentein) in Greek-English Lexicons
All my articles on authentein are here.
All my articles on 1 Timothy 2:12 are here.
Paul’s Theology of Ministry
A short report on this article is on the Eternity News website.
Image credit
The papyrus bird is part of the logo of Michael Bird’s blog. Used with permission.
Thank you to those who support my work. It is greatly appreciated!
You can support my work for as little as $3 USD a month at Patreon.
Become a Patron!
24 thoughts on “Authentein as Bad Behaviour in Ancient Texts”
Thanks for this.
I’m including this concept in my core theology (and philosophy of life in general), along with similar items. The title of that category is “Why You Shouldn’t Be A Butthead.”
I avoid, as much as it is possible, people who thrill at causing controversy and enjoy fussing at folks, but it’s helpful to have good citations when the inevitable happens.
what about the teach part of the verse?
Hi Kia, I don’t write much about didaskein (“to teach”) because this word is reasonably straightforward and easier to understand than authentein. I don’t believe Paul used didaskein in an especially technical or restricted sense.
In Paul’s letters, didaskein usually refers to teaching doctrine or to instructions about behaviour.
Paul uses didask– words about 20 times in the Pastoral Epistles in the context of both good and bad teaching or instruction. Bad teaching was one of Paul’s main concerns when writing to Timothy in Ephesus and to Titus in Crete.
Bad Teaching
There are several instances in the Pastoral Epistles where the verb didaskō and its cognates are used for corrupt, inadequate, or “other” teaching. Note that most of these are from 1 Timothy.
heterodidaskalein (infinitive) “to teach” other doctrines in 1 Timothy 1:3.
nomodidaskaloi (concrete noun) [unqualified] “teachers of the law” in 1 Timothy 1:7.
didaskaliais (noun) “doctrines/ teachings” of demons in 1 Timothy 4:1.
heterodidaskalei (verb) “teaches other doctrines” in 1 Timothy 6:3.
didaskalous (concrete noun) “teachers” that cater to itching ears in 2 Timothy 4:3.
didaskontes (participle) “teaching” things that shouldn’t be taught in Titus 1:11.
I believe didaskein (infinitive) “to teach” in 1 Timothy 2:12 should be included in this list.
Sound Teaching
False teaching was such a problem at Ephesus and Crete that Paul often uses positive descriptions to qualify “teach/ teaching/ teacher” words to distinguish good teaching from the prevalent false teaching.
didaskalos (concrete noun) a “teacher” of the Gentiles in faith and truth in 1 Timothy 2:7.
didaskalias (noun) good/ fine “teaching ” in 1 Timothy 4:6.
didaske (vocative verb) command and “teach” these things [the things Paul had just taught Timothy] in 1 Timothy 4:11.
didaskalia (noun) pay attention to the [public] reading of scripture, to exhortation, and to “teaching” in 1 Timothy 4:13.
didaske (verb) “teach” and exhort these [correct] things in 1 Timothy 6:2.
didaskalia (noun) sound/ wholesome/ healthy “teaching” in 1 Tim. 1:10; 2 Tim. 4:3; Tit. 1:9; Tit. 2:1. (“Sound words” occurs in 1 Tim. 6:3 and 2 Tim. 1:13. Logos is used frequently with the meaning of Christian teaching in the Pastoral Epistles).
didaskalia (noun) godly “teaching” in 1 Timothy 6:3.
didaskalia (noun) my [i.e. Paul’s] “teaching” in 2 Timothy 3:10.
didachē (noun) “correct, rebuke, and encourage with complete patience and “teaching” in 2 Timothy 4:2.
didachēn (noun) the “teaching” of the faithful word in Titus 1:9.
kalodidaskalous (noun) “teachers” of good things in Titus 2:3.
Didaskalia, which can mean instruction or teaching, occurs several more times in the Pastoral Epistles.
I suggest a woman in Ephesus was teaching a strange version of Genesis 2 and 3, so Paul tells Timothy that she needs to learn like a good student (1 Tim. 2:11) and is not allowed to teach (1 Tim. 2:12a).Paul then provides a correct summary of Genesis 2 and 3 in 1 Tim. 2:13-14.
She also needs to stop domineering a man/husband: authentein andros.
I have more on 1 Timothy 2:12 here: https://margmowczko.com/category/1-timothy-212/
Chrysostom’s record on αὐθενθέω seems a little more mixed than perhaps is implied here.
He uses the word somewhat positively about people several times, and neutrally even more.
To take two broadly positive examples, he uses the verb to describe Peter taking charge at the beginning of the church in the appointment of an apostle to replace Judas.
He also uses the word in a broadly positive context connected to Priscilla teaching and converting Apollos (connecting the noun αὐθεντία very closely to this cognate verb in the immediate context).
He further during a sermon on the book of Titus explicitly exposits the αὐθεντέω verse and strongly links it to the office of public teaching (thus representing an early reading that combines διδάσκω and αὐθεντέω together in terms of explanation).
A tenable suggestion that the word is always intended negatively when applied to human beings must take into account these and a variety of similar passages – many of them from the self-same Chrysostom mentioned.
I’d love to read the passages where authent– words occur. This sounds like important information.
Can you give the citations for these, Mojay? Links would be great too. Thanks again.
MoJay, I spent a bit of time reading Chrysostom’s first homily on Titus today (beginning on p. 363), but I didn’t see an authent– word. I may have missed it. Can you give me specific reference? I really need to know about this.
Apologies – have been away for a few days. I’ll try to find the open source versions. I’ve been performing a personal study of all authentein words in Chrysostom recently (part of my *very* long and slow journey towards understanding this range of issues) from which I have notes, so will hopefully be able to source it pretty quickly.
The Homily Greeting Priscilla and Aquila can be found in English translation here: https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/john-chrysostoms-first-homily-greeting-priscilla-and-aquila/ . The relevant section is section 3. The phrase translated as “right to teach” in this section (connected closely to the discussed quotation of 1 Tim) is τὴν αὐθεντίαν τῆς διδασκαλίας, or “the authentia of teaching” – which is explicitly not deprived from Priscilla (according to Chrysostom) in the case where she is instructing Apollos.
As far as the Titus homily goes, the discussion is in the fourth homily: a translation is found here: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/23084.htm
In both cases he is attempting to harmonize his reading of the 1 Tim passage with positive things said about women teaching in other contexts. (in this case, it is Paul commanding the elder women to teach the younger women. The question he anticipates: “but hang on, aren’t women forbidden from teaching?” his response: “No. they are forbidden from teaching and authentei-ing. i.e. presiding in the assembly/giving long speeches like men. Other contexts are fine.”).
Thanks so much, MoJay!
Note that there is a reference to Peter authentei-ing (as a way of describing him taking the lead in the early church/selecting a new apostle) that reads very positive (in Chrysostom’s 3rd homily on acts) – but English translations have a footnote that suggests that the textual evidence for the relevant line is somewhat shaky, so, not being equipped to do full-blown textual criticism on the church Fathers, I have “noted” the reference but am cautious about making anything of it for the time being.
I have some pressing work I need to do that doesn’t involve authentein, so I don’t have time to look at these references at the moment, but I do apreciate them.
Have you come across authent– words in passages, other than the one’s I’ve mentioned in the article, where Chrysostom, or someone else, disapproved of the behaviour?
My study of the word is far from complete (I’m basically working backwards through the fourth century towards the NT)
It’s really tricky to work out when the word is being used negatively in terms of its *intrinsic* (rather than contextual) meaning. But softening that bar and just looking for passages where the behaviour (neutral or negative) is being denied or frowned upon (and where 1 Tim is not explicitly in view)
We have in Chrysostom:
Sermon 3 in Genesis:
“Adam replied, ‘The woman you gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.’ What a pretext without a sound reason! What an apology that does not benefit the speaker! What a bitter speech, not saving the speaker!
I gave you the woman as a helper, not an αὐθεντοῦσαν; as an advocate, not a mistress[female despot]; a like-minded partner, not a teacher; a yoke-partner, not a ruler; under your hand, not higher; bowing with you, not overpowering you. Hence, as you listened to the enemy and ignored me, accept the full reprimand, which long ages will not shake” (here an implicit ref. to 1 Tim can’t be ruled out)
Homily on Romans volume 60 p525:
For this wreath is far greater than the earlier one. Therefore, he did not simply say, ‘Those who live by the Spirit of God,’ but, ‘Those who are led by the Spirit of God,’ showing that He wants to be the lord of our life, as the captain of a ship, or the charioteer of a team of horses. And it is not just the body that is subjected to these reins, but also the soul. He does not even want that one to αὐθεντεῖν, but He has placed its power under the influence of the Spirit. So that we do not, confident in the gift of baptism, neglect the life that follows, he says that even if you have been baptised, but do not intend to be led by the Spirit thereafter, you have lost the dignity that was given to you, and the precedence of sonship. Therefore, he did not say, ‘Those who have received the Spirit,’ but, ‘Those who are led by the Spirit of God,’ that is, ‘Those who live their entire life in this way, these are the sons of God.’
(here the soul is being prevented from authenteing, so is negative contextually… but not clearly negative intrinsically (this passage is actually one of my key ones for grasping the semantics of the word)
Next negative example I found was in Socrates Scholasticus (Ecclesiastic history, book 2 ch 34): this is the one example I have (so far) that is unambiguously negative in its valence, and it it the one example that I really haven’t been able to explain perfectly with my own developing understanding of the “core” of the word:
After doing this, Gallus did not bear his fortune well but instead plotted to revolt against the one who had chosen him and aspired to tyranny. So it was not long before his plot was plainly revealed to Constantius. For he, αὐθεντήσας, killed Dometian, the prefect of the east, and Magnus the Quaestor, who had revealed his plot to the emperor. Enraged by this, Constantius summoned Gallus to him. Out of fear, Gallus unwillingly proceeded. However, once Constantius had him in the western regions and near the island of Flanona, he ordered Gallus to be executed. Not long after, he appointed Julian, the brother of Gallus, as Caesar and sent him to deal with the barbarians in Gaul.
(its an attendant circumstances participle)
Along with the two you’ve mentioned (the instruction to husbands and the passage with Mary) these are the only other ones I’ve found (across about 27 passages and at least 35 uses of the word and closely connected cognates, and across three figures so far (Chrysostom, Severianus, and Socrates Scholasticus). I am currently working through spur. works of Ephrem the Syrian, as well as those of Didymus the blind.
I’d love to know more about your work, MoJay. Your comments are very helpful! Thank you for sharing your findings with me!
One final note on Chrysostom’s supposed usage of αὐθεντεῖ in Acts.
I’ve just had the opportunity to read the “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers” introduction to these homilies.
A key feature of them is that they are quite rough (in terms of style and flow) compared to much of Chrysostom’s other extant works. The reason seems to be that they were transcribed from his sermons during a very tumultuous time of his stay in Constantinople, and he never had a chance to go back over them and rework them into a final ‘published’ form.
This has left them a lot more ‘rough’ and ‘abrupt’ than his other works, and it appears a copyist working several centuries later attempted to smooth over and improve it. The resulting manuscript (in their edition ‘E’) is from the 10th century, and since the manuscripts A, B & C were from later times, they were neglected in the original editions. However, now A-C are accepted to be reflective of the original transcription, with divergences in E resulting from a later hand attempting to improve and smooth.
As a result, newer editions drop the phrase πρῶτος τοῦ πράγματος αὐθεντεῖ as not reflecting the original). However, I think the placement of the footnote in the Nicene Fathers edition has given the misleading impression that this addition was placed in a section referencing Judas (that others have picked up and run with). In actual fact, the interpolation occurs (if the TLG version of E is right) in the line before, talking about Peter’s authoritative action in seeking the appointment of a new teacher/apostle.
The long and the short of it is that I think this usage is broadly positive and connected to the exercise of some kind of church authority (a typical gauntlet thrown down in these debates to be proven) – but that the interpolation only supports how the word was understood sometime after Chrysostom, closer to the tenth century. It is fascinating, but fairly remote from the centuries we are interested in.
Thanks Mojay.
In Chrysostom’s time the word could be used in a positive way for church governance and for people with the highest status.
Westfall makes this observation (which she then expands on),
“The actors with the highest status that were the subjects of the verb αὐθεντέω included those that can be characterized as absolute rulers, including God, the members of the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and supreme authorities such as Pope Leo I.”
“The Meaning of Aὐθεντέω,” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism, 10 (2014): 138–173, 158. (A PDF of this paper is here.)
Westfall cites Chrysostom several times in this paper.
But, so far, there’s no circa first-century evidence for the use of αὐθεντέω in the context of legitimate church leadership.
[…] Added for the sake of clarity: Words that are etymologically related can be different in meaning. I suspect that the concrete noun authentēs and the abstract noun authentia may have had different histories and different meanings. I believe the verb authenteō (authentein) in 1 Timothy 2:12 is closer in meaning to authentia than to authentēs, and that it means “to domineer,” “control,” or “to selfishly get one’s own way.” My much shorter articles on authentein are here and here. […]
Thanks for all the work you do, Marg! Lots of helpful stuff.
In my own study, I’ve been most persuaded by Cynthia Long Westfall’s argument in her 2014 paper on Authenteo. I don’t have my ear to the ground in scholarly circles. Have there been any major responses to her paper? Any other major papers/articles on authentein in 1 Tim 2:12 since 2014? What is the current state of scholarship on this question – have commentaries or other scholarly resources begun to get any closer to a consensus?
Hello Joel, these are great questions. I don’t know of responses to Westfall’s 2014 paper.
I quote from more sources, including Westfall’s 2016 book Paul and Gender and Belleville’s 2019 article, “Lexical Fallacies in Rendering Aὐθεντει̂ν in 1 Timothy 2:12: BDAG in Light of Greek Literary and Nonliterary Usage,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 29.3, in this article: https://margmowczko.com/authentein-1-timothy2_12/
I plan on looking at the literature for a book chapter on 1 Tim. 2:11-15 that is due at the end of this year.
Are we closer to consensus? From my vantage point, it seems more scholars are acknowledging authentein refers to some kind of bad behaviour, but we are far from a consensus.
On the other hand, I think we are heading to some consensus on the idea that 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is addressing a specific, local issue with only a limited application more broadly.
I look forward to seeing that chapter!
Thanks again for all the work you do.
I’ve been spending a lot of time wrestling with the Chrysostom examples recently, especially the interaction between Jesus and Mary.
My main growing thought: ‘it looks quite likely that Chrysostom actually thinks the words κρατέω and αὐθεντέω are (almost) appropriate to describe the relationship between a mother and a son’.
Firstly, κρατέω + gen. often simply has the meaning ‘to rule/be in charge of’. It isn’t necessarily that intense. (for example, in LXX Judges 7:8, it is the word used to describe Gideon ‘commanding’ the 300 men that he would soon lead into battle (in contrast with those he sent away). And it is used often about kings and their countries.
Secondly, the key motivation (/error?) Chrysostom sees in Jesus’ mother is φιλοτιμία (ambition/love of honour) which turns out to be κενοδοξία (vain-glory or seeking glory inappropriately), especially as demonstrated by his brothers.
Her desire to ‘show to the crowd’ that she κρατεῖ and αὐθεντεῖ her son is identified as φιλοτιμία.
He repeats this idea a few lines later: the fact she (and the brothers) did this publically shows ‘excessive’ φιλοτιμια, and that ‘they are commanding him with much authority’ (μετὰ πολλῆς αὐτῷ ἐπιτάσσουσι τῆς ἐξουσία).
Granted, the words mean something stronger than merely ‘suggested’. They imply that she thinks Jesus needs to obey her(/them). Granted, Chrysostom doesn’t think it appropriate between a husband and a wife ( that’s another conversation *).
Yet Chrysostom doesn’t primarily take her to task for wanting to αὐθεντεῖν Jesus. He takes her to task for wanting to ‘show the crowd’ that she was doing this. He also does more than this. For he seems to expose the root of her ‘love of honor’ that made her wish to command him in this way, as that she was ‘not yet understanding anything about him to be great’ (οὐδὲν οὐδέπω περὶ αὐτοῦ μέγα φανταζομένη ‘nothing yet about him great imagining’). This is directly connected to ‘αὐθεντεῖ τοῦ παιδὸς’. I understand this to mean that there is an implicit contrast going on between her viewing Jesus as her (physical) son and his true greatness (i.e. His Divinity). That is, her intentions are those of a mother wanting to bask in the honour of a son, not those of someone wanting to learn from the Master.
That this is his focus is picked up a little later in the discourse: “For since they were understanding him as a mere man, and were seeking empty glory (through him [as a man]), he expells this vice – not using violence, but setting them right. You [Chrysostom addresses his audience), don’t just examine the words that contain an appropriate rebuke, but also the impropriety of the brothers and their reckless action, and Who the One rebuking is, that He is not a mere man, but the only-begotten Son of God; and why he wanted to rebuke: for he didn’t want to confound them, but to remove this most tyrranical passion, and little by little to bring them into a proper understanding of him, and *** to persuade them that he is not only her son, but also Master.***”
But what persuades me further is how Chrysostom’s discourse develops, and how he moves forward in section 2, as he continues with the passage:
” ‘These things saying he [Jesus] went out from the house.’ Do you see how he both rebuked them, and did what they wanted? This is just what he did at the wedding. For there he rebuked Mary for asking at the wrong time, however, did not refuse the request; first, correcting her weakness, second, showing his affection for his mother. Thus also in our passage, he both heals the sickness of κενοδοξία(vain-glory), and gives the proper honour to his mother, even though she asked at an inappropriate time. For in that day, it says, going out to her, Jesus sat by the sea.”
Chrysostom primarily thinks that Mary cannot αὐθεντεῖ her son because her son is also the Master: and it is by knowing this that her prideful desire for glory in her physical progeny will be corrected. There is a tension being worked out here for Chrysostom in terms of Jesus’ divinity and humanity: while Jesus, being divine, does not owe Mary his obedience, it is part of his ‘entering into’ humanity that sees him choosing to yield the respect and honour due his earthly mother, all while leading her and others onto something more. (it reads to me like Jesus in the temple both telling his parents ‘didn’t you know I must be about my Father’s business?’ but then returning home and submitting to them).
This doesn’t ultimately get us very far, for Chrysostom, of course, had an early AD understanding of the relationship between children and parents, and such things were often defined by honour/shame, obedience/submission (e.g. Sirach 3:7 tells a child to ‘be a servant as to masters among those who gave life/birth to you’). We have to understand those aspects quite well to fully unpack this word in this context.
But nonetheless, whatever else Chrysostom intends here, it isn’t at all clear to me that a strong case can be made for him considering αὐθεντεῖ here to be negative, that doesn’t rely on essentially importing a presumed negative reading from elsewhere. Given Chrysostom’s deep involvement with the word αὐθεντέω to describe the authority the Son has as part of the trinity (which I believe to be a key part of how he argues that the substances of the Father, Son & Spirit are the same), he may well be intending his listeners to hear echoes in what Mary (semi-appropriately) wants to show over her son, of the true authority that the Son actually has at that and every other moment – the ‘great things’.
Regardless, I think this occurrence offers very little support to a ‘negative’ reading of αὐθεντέω (though it does place it squarely in the category of ‘things that are responded to by obedience, even in unideal circumstances)
* for husband and wife: the relationship between husband/wife and parent/child is different, and I think Chrysostom conceptualises them differently, and is actually quite nuanced: he does not see the same dynamic of authority between a husband and wife as he sees between parent/child or master/slave or bishop/congregation. (I’m not necessarily equating these three either). Chrysostom actually seems to have a pretty mutualist understanding of marriage that he keeps working towards in his thinking, while still fundamentally being patriarchal. Note that the parallel issue for the wife to the husband’s αὐθεντέω (because of submission) is φυσιόω (i.e. to be prideful). Nothing in the passage suggests that Chrysostom is speaking about something dramatic such as physical abuse (though he does discuss fights earlier) rather, he is speaking from an earlier point he made: as he says earlier, when Paul says to ‘submit because of God’ he is not advocating a submission that is like that to a master (οὐ γὰρ δεσποτικὴν ὑποταγὴν)… but that because of God (ἀλλὰ τὴν διὰ Θεόν).
EDIT: people vary in how they translate the Gideon passage: some ‘retain’ some ‘strengthen’ – but there or other passages that show a similar thing.
Thank you, as always, Mojay. I’ll have to think about this. If Chrysostom didn’t mean it negatively, at least Homily 44 indicates αὐθεντέω can be akin to κρατέω. (Plutarch thought it was perfectly acceptable and expected that husbands κρατέω their wives.)
“Chrysostom actually seems to have a pretty mutualist understanding of marriage that he keeps working towards in his thinking, while still fundamentally being patriarchal.” I agree. I love some of what Chrysostom says about marriage, especially in his homily on Ephesians 5. Nevertheless, he thought the husband had to be in charge, otherwise there would be chaos. He couldn’t envision that a husband and wife could get along with a leader.
Following this all up some time later. It is my continued opinion that this article paints a picture of the word αὐθεντέω that would be quite misleading to the naive reader.
In particular, there is far too much swept under the carpet with the caveat ‘when applied to humans’. It is certainly within the semantic domain of the word to refer to the domination of a master, but this article makes the picture seem (imo) far more clear than it actually is.
There’s too much moving back and forth between ‘this ancient writer didn’t use the word positively’ and ‘ok, they did, but it’s because they had a patriarchal view of women’ to give us much stability moving forwards.
I value your thoughts, Mojay, and I don’t claim that this is a comprehensive article, but I continue to see αὐθεντέω being used with a very strong sense and often a negative sense when a person is doing this.
I can’t see that my thoughts on αὐθεντέω, and what I write about this word, is anything like “it’s because ancient writers had a patriarchal view of women.” I don’t think this way about the word and I can’t see that idea reflected in my article.
I reread my article just now, but I can’t see that I’ve referred or alluded to patriarchy at all in the article. Patriarchy just isn’t the point.
If you’re referring to my previous comment, the second paragraph about Chrysostom was about his general views on marriage. It was not about how he used αὐθεντέω. And the first paragraph was just an observation that κρατέω is a strong word. (Though, not as strong as αὐθεντέω.)
That Plutarch thought it was perfectly acceptable and expected that husbands κρατέω their wives doesn’t affect the meaning of αὐθεντέω at all.
My interest in αὐθεντέω is especially how it is used for the actions of humans. While I am somewhat interested in how it is used for the actions of divine beings and planets, this is not relevant for its use in 1 Timothy 2:12. 1 Timothy 2:12 is the whole reason why I continue to be alert for αὐθεντ- words in my reading.