gengwall

Some light reading to pass the time. I dug this up from an old thread I had started on Christianforums. I find it just as curious in the current discussion……..

I thought it might be fun to give the breakdown of the word that we derive “patriarch” from. It is derived from the Greek word “patriarches”

Strong’s Number: 3966 Patriarches
None Masculine
Definition
patriarch, founder of a tribe, progenitor
of the twelve sons of Jacob, founders of the tribes of Israel
of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob

Although masculine in gender, and a male founder is presumed, this could be applied to any founder including a female if the culture was set up that way.

“Patriarches” comes from two Greek words

patria – meaning family (Strong’s 3965)
archo – meaning “beginning” i.e founder (Strong’s 757)

Curiously, “patria” is a feminine noun. But it, in turn is derived from:

pater – meaning father (Strong’s 3962)

“Pater” can also mean parents in the plural and can have other gender neutral (although male assumed in the culture) meanings such as teacher.

What I find curious in all of this is the relative gender neutrality and the lack of overt hierarchy or authority. It goes to show even more that our current definitions for patriarchy have more to do with historical context than the original meaning of the word. Another interesting point is that there was no corresponding “matriarch” word in Greek. That word did not surface until the 17th century abstracted from patriarch to recognize and differentiate female heads of state. So, in biblical times, “patriarches” could technically refer to a female, although the male dominated culture makes it unlikely it ever found such a practical use. (It would be interesting research to see if any godesses or other females in Greco/Roman mythology, or other female leaders outside of Greek and Roman governement, were ever referred to as “patriarches”)

So…truthseeker mentioned elsehwere that she has heard the argument that “head is mentioned hundreds of times in the OT in reference to families and clans, geneologies, etc.” Being the obsessive compulsive researcher that I am, I had to check this out since it sounds quite exaggerated.

The Hebrew word I researched is ro’sh:
1) head, top, summit, upper part, chief, total, sum, height, front, beginning
a) head (of man, animals)
b) top, tip (of mountain)
c) height (of stars)
d) chief, head (of man, city, nation, place, family, priest)
e) head, front, beginning
f) chief, choicest, best
g) head, division, company, band
h) sum

There are 598 verses where this word occurs. Of those, I found 158 which refer to some hierarchical arrangement in human relations. Hardly the “hundreds” that are claimed.

Within that subset, it gets very interesting. I found only 25 that refer directly to the family unit. All of them were recounting some kind of census or other listing of families. I put them under the category of “Factual reality without practical application”. In other words, they simply state a cultural, historical fact without and indication of how that arrangement works (if at all) and without any incling of a Word by God on His view of that arrangement.

All of the remainder fall under categories relating to leaders of people, not heads of a “household”. Although that includes tribal and clan leaders, which the comps would like to include, I reject their inclusion in the “hundreds” as it relates to the family because in reality they were community leaders. The other references refer to kings, princes, military officers, or “chief”, i.e. prominent, community figures. None of these 133 references are applicable to the family.

So, in reality, there are only 25 references to the “head” of a family, and all of them are census related, and they all occur in the pure historical books of Exodus, Numbers, and 1 Chronicles. It is true that all of those heads are male. But what is more important, and really the point, is that there is absolutely NO OT teaching (or even law) that says “the ‘head’ of a family unit is always and only the husband (or worse, any male), and he shall have unilateral and complete authority over all other members of the family.” Of course, such an idea would be nonsense because it would not account for the countless widowed mothers that certainly existed, or even the wives, left at home, of the men who were constantly off to war. It also wouldn’t account for the Proverbs 31 woman’s marriage, which by all indications is about as close as it gets to God’s model. Plus it is simply impratical, as we have been discussing here.

So, truthseeker, I think to call your freinds “misguided” or “mistaken” is putting it too mild. “Liars” comes to mind as a more accurate assessment.

I blogged on equality in marriage as outlined in the Genesis 2 model and one of the specific hierarchical arguments I rebutt is “first=authority”. You may find it helpful. If Cheryl will excuse the shameless plug…

http://gengwall.blogspot.com/2008/09/equality-in-original-marriage-design.html

Oh yes, and regarding this:

“I do think source makes the most sense in the passage speaking of Christ being the head of every man, man being the head of woman, and God being the head of Christ, however. ”

I tentatively agree, but I would argue that the (primary) social sphere being addressed in that passage is the church, not marriage. So, I am not so sure the same analysis can be ported to Ephesians 5. At any rate, Ephesians 5 becomes a bit nonsensical to me if “head” means “source”, although I am certainly open to exploring such an analysis. Cheryl has not dealt much with the Ephesians 5 marriage passage here as the focus is women in minstry. As such, I haven’t had any exposure to an extended argument along those lines. (I confess I have not read every thread here so I maybe am just uninformed). At any rate, when I look at Ephesians 5, as a man, the focus for me is not so much the title of “head” as it is the actions of agapao love. In other words, “Headship” is exemplified by selfless love. From that perspective, “head”=”source” just doesn’t make much sense to me.

Cheryl – I hope you will induldge us a little longer in this sidebar.

truthseeker said – “Our culture has such a strong concept of leadership attached to certain words that I suspect it might even be hard to separate ‘boss’ from ‘team captain.’ ”

I think you have hit on the major stumbling block. Remember first of all that we are dealing with English translations of Greek words. Sometimes those translations are woefully inadequate. Add to it the cultural context impacting both the original Greek meaning and the current English meaning and you have a recipe for disaster. Finally throw into the mix the tendancy to cherry pick and myopically interpret scripture and it is easy to turn “head” into “boss” and “submit” into “obey”. But a full review of Paul with the broad context of his teaching in view and his example of Christ as the focus and hopefully we can defeat those cultural influences and see the truth of God’s word. “Head” most definately does not mean “boss” and wives are never, ever, EVER told to “obey” their husbands.

truthseeker – “What I am puzzled by in the husband is head context is that whatever it is somehow is separate from what women are. Women are never referred to as head so it would seem that somehow, whatever the meaning of head is in the ‘head’ passages referring to men or husbands would have to be their exclusive domain.”

I am not so sure. Women are exclusively called “helper” (and we all know the godly nature of that term; what a high calling that is). Does that mean that men are never to be engaging in “helper” kinds of activities within the marriage? I certainly don’t think so. It also does not mean, IMO, that women are free (or restricted) from the “headship” activities of intercession, sacrifice, and service.

Also remember that Paul is trying to outline a practical model that both men and women can look to. Christ and the church is the best parallel he can draw, (there certainly was no current cultural model), but even within that, Paul admits that there are parameters to the Christ/church relationship that remain a mystery, or inapplicable. So he ends the Ephesians passage with the very practical instructions for husbands to “love” (not “be the head”) and wives to “respect” (not “submit”).

And finally, remember that headship has nothing to do with the activities of daily living within marriage. Nowhere does the bible say “the head of the house unilaterally does x”. It isn’t about decisions, tasks, or even primary roles (I know many women who are far better intercessors than their husbands, for example.) It is about responsibilities. The husband MUST interceed on behalf of the family, sacrifice for their betterment, and serve their needs. Guess what – that doesn’t feel natural to him because of his tendancy to act in the opposite manner, i.e. to “rule”. Therefore, he needs to be explicitly told that he must do these things. The wife, in reality, is just as responsible (and free) to do these things, but they are more natural for her so, in essence, at least for Paul’s purpose in fighting the corruptions of the fall, she doesn’t need to be told to do them.

The bottom line is that Christ never exercises authority over His bride. He never “rules” over her*. His only attitude and action toward her is selfless love. If that is what it means to be the “head” it is something to be embaced and celebrated, not feared.

*It should be noted that Christ does “rule”, but the social spheres in which He exercises authority and dominion are never the marital one. Whenever the church is being referenced as “bride”, Christ never “rules”. How could he! He is the second Adam. He has conquored the corrupt spousal “rule” brought on by and propogated the first Adam.

truthseeker – I think head is a position of responsibility, not right or authority. I think headship is exemplified just as Paul says – by loving your wife just as Christ loved the church. This is what I see when I read the essential “head” passage as it relates specifically to marriage – Ephesians 5. When I look at Jesus’ example when acting as the bridegroom for the church, i.e. as “head” of His “wife” and family, I see Him engaging in three primary activites:

1. Intercessory prayer
2. Self Sacrifice (even unto death)
3. Service

I also think that men are designed to be guardians and that is why Adam was given that responsibility. I think the activities above are guardian activities. I think godly men should try to succeed where Adam failed, just as our example, Jesus, has succeeded as the second Adam in all areas that the first Adam failed. We can’t be perfect like Jesus, but we absolutely should try to emulate Him.

NOW – before everyone freeks out, I will highlight the usual objection to such a model and show you why that objection is unnecessary.

What I usually hear when I lay this out is: “oh, so you mean the woman can’t interceed, she can’t sacrifice, she can’t serve, she can’t provide, she can’t protect, she can’t guard, etc., etc.” What people often don’t understand because of the patriarchal influences we have all grown up with is that I am not defining “roles”. It is not the man’s exclusive job to interceed, etc., but it is his responsibility. What does that mean; and why would Paul outline it only for the men? Because we men, in our fallen state, are simply not good at it. It doesn’t mean that women don’t also have these responsibilities, but they don’t need the reminder (and boot to the head, no pun intended, that men do) because they don’t have the same fallen tendancies that we do.

In short – Christ-like headship is the exact opposite of the kind of “rule” that Genesis 3 shows we will be inclined toward.

People often try to look for cultural models to help them visualize such concepts and I believe I have a fairly close one. I have tried to find such a model since the usual ones proposed, like pilot/co-pilot, still reflect an authoritarian hierarchy. The closest model I can think of for “head” in the biblical sense is the captain of a team. The team captain has no authority over the other team members. That is reserved for the Coach (Jesus/God). His position is only one of responsibility and service to the team. He does not have unilateral decision making authority, nor does he uniquely and individually do any team job. In fact, in reality, the captain is often not even the most skilled player on the team. But he does have a “guardian” responsibility and is expected to interceed, sacrifice, and serve on behalf of the others.

So – what think you of that model?

Incidentally, I believe the “submit” and ‘respect” directives for wives follow a parallel purpose and reasoning from Paul. But I have written too much already and I don’t want to derail this thread any more.

Alison – I have had many discussions with complimentarian men (comp women are very scarce in the circles I run in) and I challenge them to define for me what “head” means in a practical sense. They find it very hard to do, if they offer any definition at all. Most say some mumbo jumbo about decision making, but in terms of activities of daily living like handling the money or house keeping or cooking or child rearing, they agree, (sometimes grudgingly and sometimes enthusiastically) that both partners have to play a role. Even regarding “breadwinning” , since most of them have wives that work out of financial necessity, they agree that women really don’t have a specific “place” (as in “a woman’s place is…”), at least not anymore (which begs the question of whether such a “place” ever really existed or was it just a patriarchal myth). Anyway, it can be almost comical to listen to them try to figure out something, anything, that distinguishes “headship”.

Now, for full disclosure, I don’t necessarily buy the “head”=”source” argument either. That is best left for another time. Suffice it to say that “head” definately does not mean “authority”, “ruler”, or any other hierearchical position and Paul’s writings coupled with Jesus’ example confirm this truth.

I would challenge your spiritual mentor to clarify what it means in a practical, day to day way, for the husband to be “head”. Of course, she should be challenged to also back up that position with scripture. My firm belief is that she will struggle greatly to put headship into practical terms. The response then, of course, is “if it can’t be defined, if there is no blueprint for what it means in our day to day lives, how can we ever implement it? And why would God require of us an arrangement that can’t possibly be accomplished in any practical sense?”

Again, my point is not that “headship” can be ignored, it is just that complimentarians are looking in all the wrong places to find examples of it. They never look to Jesus, and that is why they stumble.

Cheryl – “It seems to me that men who are able to think and reason and actually feel for their wives should be able to get that this is not a good thing. And many must be able to get it because a good majority of marriages, even comp ones, are actually lived out as egalitarian.”

And the reason this is what is observed is very simple. A truly complimentarian marriage is a practical impossibility. Most (although not all) men realize very early on that they are neither qualified nor have the time, patience, or even vested interest to make all the decisions in the marriage. They also find out quickly that, at least in the culture as it exists, being a 100% breadwinner is nigh impossible.

The greatest argument against complimentarianism is that it is woefully impractical. If it is God’s design, then God set us up to fail.

Alison said: “I’ve come to realize that regardless of what my mentor thinks, my spouse and I (if I ever get married) will have to prayerfully discern what will work for us, which will look different than what works for someone else’s marriage. ”

And I think this is exactly how God planned it. Despite how biblical history (and world history for the most part) panned out, biblical teaching never, ever defines “the way” for marriages to function day to day. In fact, the Proverbs 31 woman pretty much throws all convention and cultural paradigms out the window. The terms “role” and “job” have no relevant meaning in marriage, at least in terms of being gender defined.

I truly believe God leaves it up to the partners in each individual marriage to define “what works for them” as far as decisions and activities of daily living. The bible, in it’s teaching, continually reaffirms this. The world, in it’s fallen state, as reflected in biblical history, continually defies the biblical teaching….just as God said it would in Genesis 3.

As I keep thinking about why people have such a hard time breaking out of the comp paradigm, Darth Vader’s immortal words ring in my ears: “You don’t know the power of the dark side”. We should keep in mind who our battle really is against and in what realm it really is being fought. Our brothers and sisters are not the real enemy.

Our church tries constantly to tread that fine line. They exclude women from pastor and elder but have many women in the next tier of leadership (adult ministries, children’s (of course), and worship). On the marriage front they definately encourage a more egalitarian approach, but again, they struggle to come to grips with terms like “submit” and “head”.

Lin said – “Many of the women became manipulators because they had to stay in their place but actually knew better than the man on something.”

There is much to be sad about in the truth of this statement. I believe it is a reflection of the fall for both genders. Men fail to embrace (or even recognize) the gifts their wives have because they feel as ruler they should need no help. Wives in turn utilize those gifts in a negative fashion because they have been deprived from using them for a blessing to their marriage in the first place. The same holds true, and to even a greater degree, in many churches, especially, ironically, the evangelical variety. For someone who truly believes that women have a unique design which gives them an entirely different perspective, it pains me to know so many men are depriving themselves of the blessing that perspective can bring to our relationships and minitries.

Now, I have not always been this way. My wife and I had some of the same youthful enthusiasm for comp-ness that Lin sees in so many young couples. The difference with us is that we BOTH saw the light. My wife doesn’t have to “manipulate” because I have learned to welcome and even cherish her influence and perspective. We make a great team…now (at least I would like to believe we do).

Here is the real irony. Some of the most egalitarian couples I know are the generations that preceeded us within our own families. Although those families were “traditional” on the outside, my observation was that the women were fully equal partners within the relationship. Both my wife’s and my parents had very egal marriages in terms of family decisions, parenting, and problem solving. Most of our grandparents did as well, although it took her grandfather a little time to fully appreciate the contributions of his wife. But somehow, and I don’t want to blame it on feminism or the 60’s or anything, but somehow in the last 40 years, there has been this crazy shift. It makes no sense to me.

pinklight,

I can maybe answer to a degree from the male perspective (since the vast majority of male supremecists are male). I think there are several factors that come into play.

1. Some of the text generally can be seen in a comp light IF it is not reconciled with the rest of scripture. Since Christians often tend to cherry-pick anyway, a tunnel visioned look at the pertinent scriptures can easily lead to comp conclusions.

2. Pride and control – men struggle with pride, especially when it comes to admitting we are wrong. Heck – look at Adam. Once we come to a conclusion, ESPECIALLY one that gives us power, it is very, very difficult to go back.

3. Tradition – when men look back at “the good old days”, we have a hard time seeing a problem with “the way it has always been”. Since we have never had to be on the receiving end of authoritarian patriarchy, we are blind to the pain it causes.

4. Male ego – this is a little different than pride. This is the sense we have that we really are superior to women. The reality is that we are simply different than women, but we see the differences as being “better”.

None of this should come as a surprise. God said it would happen. Such attitudes are really the “norm” when we are living in our fallen state. Enlightenment to the truth in scripture and a view of male/female relationships that mirrors the unfallen state in the garden requires that we live in the Spirit, but that takes effort for a fallen man. It is much easier to believe that God commanded males to “rule over” females for their own good. As fleshly human males, that perspective “feels” right. Sad, but true.

There is good news in all of this. I think all men have a yerning deep inside to return to the garden. I believe that much of the equivocation and politically correct gymnastics you see many pastors going through when talking about these issues indidcates that many, many men really struggle with the comp perspective they have grown up with (and even have been taught in their seminaries). I know many other men who, although spouting the comp line “headship”, actually live fairly egal lives with the women in their circle. I believe they struggle every day trying to understand what really is the truth and it is almost as if they are just dying for someone to say the comp view is wrong so that they can stop living that lie.

The complimentarian perspective is a paradox for many men, I believe. The comp life feels right (in the flesh) and wrong (in the spirit) all at the same time. This is one of the most obvious manifestations (in men) of the battle Paul describes in Romans 7, IMO. The degree to which a man sees the lie of the comp paradigm is, I believe, a great indicator of how successful he is in battling his flesh. I think commentators such as Neo are not having a very good go of it currently.

Back to the serious again….

My wife has started collecting the Life Application Bible Commentary and she recently received their volume including 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. Of course, in light of these posts, I was curious to see how they would handle 1 Tim 2. Drum roll please…..

Well, they did quite a dance around the main flash points and took a politically correct approach. Basically, they followed the main stream translations of the text, but emphasized that the letter deals specifically with Ephesian issues and therefore can not be considered to be applicable to the church as a whole or even to the Ephesians permanently. i.e. they played it safe.

I was mildly disappointed (although not surprised) because in other volumes they dig deeper into the Greek and do not seem to be afraid to say a translation is “inadequate” or even flawed. For example, their treatment of “submit” in Ephesians 5 is much better IMO, although still not perfect.

oh! oh! oh!…STUD – Scripture Tells Us to Dominate

How about WARM…We Are Ruling Males (or We Are Rightful Masters)

Good words Frank. I also think that it frustrates people like Neo when reasonable, sensible men who have loving marriages, effective ministries alongside women, and in general, good relationships with women, point out the simple truth that it doesn’t have to be the patriarchal way. Nothing is more unsettling than to have the counter arguement to your own lived out in very positive ways right in front of your face.

Whew! “Supremacism” is much better than the possibilities I thought of….sort of 😉

OK…I know I missed a memo, but I don’t know what “PMS” stands for, although I am sure “patriarchal” or some form thereof is part of it. I shudder to think what the “MS” represents but the sarchastic side of me can think of several options that probably aren’t too complimentary (no pun intended) to my gender.

Back to arguments.

Neo’s claim that vss. 8-15 is a chaistic, and that the antecedent of his “all Christian women” in vs. 15 is all Christian women in vs. 9, requires that the shift in focus has changed from the congregation at Ephesus to the church as a whole. Yet he provides no indication of when this presumed shift took place. Chapter 1 clearly ends still in Ephesus, and chapter 2 begins with “therefore, I exhort you”. The “therefore” retains the connection to what has just preceeded in Chapter 1 and subsequently keeps the focus in Ephesus. Vss. 2:1-2:9 are an unbroken narrative on proper behavior for those Ephesians (with Paul as an example) in dealing with the circumstances and people in their midst. I see no expansion beyond the Ephesus city limits in Paul’s exhortations, unless the somewhat dubious clause “I will therefore that men pray every where” is somehow seen to instantaneously shift the focus from Ephesus to the entire globe.

So, if the “women” in vss. 9-10 are Ephesian women only, then the case that “they” in vs. 15 are all Christian women simply blows up. He must first prove that Ephesus is no longer the focus in vss. 8-10 or his “chiastic structure” is but a house of cards.

(BTW – he also doesn’t explain why Paul’s carefully constructed chiastic coldly abandons the men from vs. 8. In reality, if the chiastic analysis was true, there would be a verse 16 dealing with all Christian men.)

“I also fail to see how Neopatriarch has so boldly proclaimed that he has refuted me.”

I will refrain from the urge to launch an ad hominem attack by comparing Neo to my 4 year old niece who I mentioned in my comment on your Isaac post. Suffice it to say that some people truly believe simply saying “na-ah!” is a legitimate, lucid, and logical refutation.

If Chris/Neopatriarch/statisticallyodd’s internet postings were a t.v. series, he has definately “jumped the shark” with the referenced “refutation”. Lol – I kill myself.

“How can “she” (any woman) be saved…if “they” (all women) remain in faith….??? Not only has Neopatriarch completely failed to prove his case that Eve is to be taken as a generic representative for women but he has failed to show how a woman’s salvation depends on what all women do?”

Not to mention the fact that “she” is also a member of “they”. “She ” becomes a logical impossibility – how can “she” remain in faith with ALL of her sisters if “she” is the one who has fallen out of faith in the first place, therefore requiring salvation. Can “she” save herself? If so, then Eve has also saved herself through her generic childbearing and therefore has not continued in transgression. Cheryl! “gobblygook” is too gracious a description of this argument.

I also see a problem in Genesis 2 if the passage is not allowed to be fit together with Genesis 1. Genesis 2 is primarily sequential and there is no food provided for animals until after Adam is created.

Well, Cheryl, I think you are employing some presumptive reasoning. You presume 24 hour days so you presume that the period between the mist falling over the earth to water the seeds and the forming of the man occurred within hours of each other (i.e. not long enough for the plants to sprout or the man to get too hungry). I don’t argue with the sequential aspect (or order) of the narrative but there is no data to determine the time interval. It is very possible that God misted the earth, millions of years passed (and the mist continued) in which animals and plants thrived (but were not “subdued”), and the result was a wild but quite alive earth for Adam to see at his birth. I have no problem with the rest of the account (Adam seeing much more than Eve was privy to).

Thank you Cheryl, especially for indulging the sidebar. I always feel like we are just not quite in the right post to really get into this, so I will say no more. I know we are all saying 95% the same thing. I suspect the other 5% are just sore spots for each of us that get our dander up. I know that is the case for me – that any inkling toward a “sameness” philosophy gets me in a lather (and I know you aren’t saying that Paula, but that is what I “hear”).

I will try to be less sensitive…er…more sensitive…oh my…what is the appropriate gender neutral response…my compartmentalized masculine brain just can’t come up with it. (Sorry. I couldn’t help slipping that one in.)

Cheryl,

Would you both agree that being Christlike has nothing to do with imitating testosterone but rather the spiritual qualities that Jesus had that all of us can imitate?

Absolutely – That is what I was trying to say.

Is there anything that Jesus did that women are not allowed to follow and imitate?

The simple answer is “no”. But I think we dishonor God when we try to cover up the significant design differences he so clearly built into males and females.

Per my personality (not my gender) I can have various tendencies, and per my gender I may fit into some (but not all) generalities.

The problem comes when people try to force all men to be this and all women to be that; that is truly a case of erasing differences!

I agree…to a degree…

The reason some try to “remake Jesus into some kind of macho commando” is because they perceive he has previously been remade by others into some kind of mushy sissy. I agree that they go overboard in their reaction, but I suggest that their perception is not entirely unjustified. One must not forget that Jesus was still a male. He had just as much testosterone as the rest of us guys and acted accordingly (although without the sinful side effects that we continually fall into). Certainly, no one would suggest that Jesus was androgynous, would they?

I don’t see gender distinctions having any connection to being Christlike, as Christlikeness is an expression of love without concern for the methodology employed in expressing that love. Both the machoest man and [whatever the antonym for machoest would be] woman can reflect Christ to the world, even if their ways of doing it are worlds apart.

Granted, this is not extensive research, but…

The wikipedia article on the Greek goddess Artemis has a section discussing her as the lady of Ephesus. The article even mentions the story from Acts.

The wikipedia article on Diana also associates her with the Greek goddess Artemis AND places worship of her in Ephesus. The reference there to the “Anatolian ‘Diana’ of Ephesus” refers to how she was portrayed (or more specifically, dressed) in statues and other depictions, but does not suggest either Diana or Artemis in Ephesus were anything other than the corresponding Greek and Roman goddesses.

The article on the temple at Ephesus clearly states that, at least in its last two constructions, it was a thoroughly Greek temple to the thoroughly Greek goddess, and that it was “known less precisely as Temple of Diana”. The article does discuss pre-Greek temples and icons of “the lady of Ephesus” dating further back than any Greek influence in the region: “At Ephesus, a goddess whom the Greeks associated with Artemis was passionately venerated in an archaic, certainly pre-Hellenic cult image”. But any pre-Hellenic personality would have been forgotten as the Greek culture assimilated and synthesized “the Lady of Ephesus” into Artemis.

What is absolutely indisputable is that “Artemis” is the name used in the Greek in the account in Acts by the worshippers in the city of Ephesus. What is also indisputable was that Diana was the Roman equivalent of the Greek goddess Artemis. I would be interested in what research you have seen that indicates the Artemis of 1st Century Ephesus is not the Greek Artemis.

Additional note: To be fair, the Greek does say Artemis, because that was the goddess’ Greek name. But the translation as “Diana” is correct because it was the Roman version of the goddess that was at the center of worship at the time. The Vulgate says Dianae and any Latin speaker would have also identified the goddess as Diana. But I guess in the long run it is kind of “you say ‘po-taa-toe’, I say ‘po-ta-toe'”.

Hi Don. Although the temple in Ephesus was officially the temple of Artemis, by the first century the Romanized populace had associated Artemis with Diana and the cult that persisted had the Roman Diana at the center. It was Diana who was idolized by the artisans and silver smiths in Ephesus when the citizens rioted against Paul’s teaching in acts:

“For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, which made silver shrines for Diana, brought no small gain unto the craftsmen; Whom he called together with the workmen of like occupation, and said, Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have our wealth. Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands: So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth.” (Acts 19:24-27 KJV)

Diana and Artemis were in essence the same goddess (at least in Ephesus) – Artemis to the Greeks and Diana to the Romans. Today, Diana is still worshipped as “mother of all” in wicca, where she is often referred to as Artemis-Diana. At any rate, the cult in Ephesus at the time of the apostles was decidely “dianic”, not “artemisian”.