Gideon_70
New Member
Okay, I read something that really hit me hard... as in nuclear.
I was looking up a passage about marrying your virgin. I found it in 1 Timothy 5. So as I generally do, I looked at the interlinear version and the Greek. Then, my world fell apart.
Okay, last retreat we were talking about verses that were purposely mistranslated. Things that were hidden, changed, or added/omitted. So when I read this verse, then looked at the greek... KJV - "If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed."
NIV - "If any woman who is a believer has widows in her care, she should continue to help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need."
There are major issues with both translations. MAJOR issues. For one, "Woman," is not in either of them.
The word translated as "Woman," is tis. This is translated as woman -0- times. It's always someone or man.
Then we get to the next word. Pistos. This is translated as believer - but is more closely "Faithful," referring to business. A man who has proven himself faithful in business and family life. Strongs says, "of persons who show themselves faithful in the transaction of business, the execution of commands, or the discharge of official duties." There is a variation of this word, Pistas, which is a woman who is faithful - and I'll grant that some older manuscripts use this instead of pistos, but the oldest ones use pistos.
"Have," is the word, "echo," and it means to be closely joined to a thing... and it gives the idea of being around someone close to you, someone intimate not in the sexual way but intimate in that you know them well.
Widows is widows but is translated as "Dependent Widows." This is not supported in the Greek.
"She must assist," is now BLB translates, "eparkeō." Even though it doesn't mean that at all. It means to be strong enough to ward off or drive away [danger] to someone's advantage. It's a way to say be strong enough to provide assistance and protect someone else.
The next word is, "autos," which means to deal with something personally.
Re-translated, this would and SHOULD read, "If any man has proven himself faithful [reliable] and knows widows personally, he should defend them and care for them himself and not let the church get involved so they can help those who really need it."
Now, here's the kicker.
Read the whole passage with the new translation for 16.
As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also busybodies who talk nonsense, saying things they ought not to. So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan. If any man has proven himself faithful [reliable] and knows widows personally, he should care for them himself and not burden the church so they can help those who really need it."
This is a FAR cry from the way it was made to look! Gentlemen, this is in line with Kinsman Redeemer and other passages that even Jesus dealt with... and in line with polygyny. It is saying in it's entirety that we should marry widows, and not let them burden the church, and not let them get up to mischief on their own.
Now, I wrote John Dunham of the Translation Technology Operations at Biblica.com formerly the 'International Bible Society', the publishers of the NIV, about this. This is his response.
Thanks, Matthew, for your gracious and substantive reply. [personal note omitted]
There are passages with a history of interpretation—supported by excellent translation practices—that might miss a point because they didn’t pick up on discourse cues. I appreciate the position you have laid out, but I’m not sure I am compelled by the case. Language is so tricky. I’ve been through Greek twice and Hebrew once in Bible college and seminary, and I now appreciate that I would need to spend years soaking in the original texts to really pick up the associations, allusions, and idioms. You have done well to comb through to find these for specific words in various texts. That is more diligence than I have had. I have found when I come up with a theory on how to make sense of some topic, and I ask a scholar about it, they will gently give me the six reasons why it doesn’t work. And I didn’t even know these other dynamics were at play.
This is not to discourage you from study and promoting justice for issues you care about. It’s just to gently caution that the case might not be as strong as you make it out to be. On the other hand, I could be wrong as well, and we are left with the call to join in God’s big story of redemption, building the kingdom of King Jesus and living in love and grace and truth.
I would caution against overreliance on etymologies or root forms. When Paul uses a form of pistos, he is almost always talking specifically about keeping God’s commands, trusting that the way of Jesus is the best/right way to live, and living according to the way of Jesus. NT lexicons give glosses like “faithful, reliable, trustworthy, stable.” Even though secular culture used pistos to refer to official duties, Paul does not often use it that way when referring to believers. You cannot pull those nuances into NT usage, since Paul was honing the meaning to communicate certain things to his audience.
It feels like tis piste is the crux of the issue. I’ll offer that a little more than half of the earliest, most reliable manuscripts use piste, the feminine form of pistos. Gender in language can be so confusing—there is nothing inherently female about la mesa in Spanish. Similarly in Greek, grammatical gender applies certain forms to words, and these forms create classes of words. However, when it comes to adjectives in Greek, they can actually refer to human gender. When these adjectives appear by themselves, they take on the force of a noun, and you can supply “man, woman, people” to make the text more readable in English. A masculine word like pistos can mean “a faithful man.” It can also mean “a faithful person” when speaking of a general topic where men and women are considered faithful. Pistoi, the masculine plural form, means “faithful people,” unless there is something in the context that specifies it is a group composed exclusively of men. Piste, the word in question, is always “a faithful woman.” Pistai, the feminine plural, is always “the faithful women.” Keep in mind, this only applies when a form of the adjective pistos (or any adjective) stands alone. If it describes a noun, then it becomes “a faithful ______.” This part about tis is very important. The reason it never appears to translate as “some woman” is because it never appears with a feminine noun or adjective. Greek writers have all the flexibility they need to specify “some person” when using tis + masculine. Remember from my last epistle, tis is both masculine and feminine in form! Tis + masculine can be “some man” or “some person.” Tis + feminine can only mean “some woman” (unless the context is clear that it is a young girl or something like that). Tis is an indefinite pronoun. It signals that we’re not talking about “the person” or even “a person.” It’s “any person who” or “some person.” And it is no help in sorting out masculine or feminine, because the form is both masculine and feminine.
As I read the context before verse 16, it’s all about widows. Verse 1 talks about older men, but they don’t govern the following verses. Paul is talking about groups of ages and genders. Then he turns specifically to types of widows and how Timothy and the church are supposed to care for them. Verse 17 finally turns to masculine words (which could include male and female elders, perhaps), and this is about compensation—double honor most likely refers to double pay, and Paul says this is especially about those who preach and teach. Context/discourse analysis here does not point to a faithful man being the subject of verse 16, but it doesn’t necessarily make it a woman.
The real determinant of your argument is if you look at all the manuscript evidence and can in good conscience say, “Paul’s original letter used the form pistos rather than piste.” If you can say that, then it is “some faithful person” or “some faithful man.”
I hope this lends some understanding. It can also sharpen your argument, for better or worse, depending on one’s perspective.
I tend to think Paul wrote piste, but that is not something I would fight for.
Now, I want to note something.
I want you to take a moment, just a moment and think of history. Think of WWI when 53,000 men died leaving our population out of balance, and the widows of those men who did everything up to selling their own children to survive. Of the 400,000 men who died in WWII who left widows behind with no money, no resources, and no hope - who turned to prostitution, adoption and even murder of their own kids to survive. But go back, even further. All the widows who were put in bad situations, who did terrible things to survive when there were good Christian families who could have taken those women in, given them a home, a loving family - but the false translation pushed them out, all but guaranteeing the outcome specified in 1 Timothy, given over to Satan.... of the preachers who preached about Wonton Women, of the movies showing the vamp who was trying to steal a man, or the HomeWrecker who was named Joline, trying to take Dolly's man. Think of the women who died, who were pushed into work houses. Think of the children in the cotton mills and who's bodies were tossed out like trash because they were cheap to buy and replace.
I was looking up a passage about marrying your virgin. I found it in 1 Timothy 5. So as I generally do, I looked at the interlinear version and the Greek. Then, my world fell apart.
Okay, last retreat we were talking about verses that were purposely mistranslated. Things that were hidden, changed, or added/omitted. So when I read this verse, then looked at the greek... KJV - "If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed."
NIV - "If any woman who is a believer has widows in her care, she should continue to help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need."
There are major issues with both translations. MAJOR issues. For one, "Woman," is not in either of them.
The word translated as "Woman," is tis. This is translated as woman -0- times. It's always someone or man.
Then we get to the next word. Pistos. This is translated as believer - but is more closely "Faithful," referring to business. A man who has proven himself faithful in business and family life. Strongs says, "of persons who show themselves faithful in the transaction of business, the execution of commands, or the discharge of official duties." There is a variation of this word, Pistas, which is a woman who is faithful - and I'll grant that some older manuscripts use this instead of pistos, but the oldest ones use pistos.
"Have," is the word, "echo," and it means to be closely joined to a thing... and it gives the idea of being around someone close to you, someone intimate not in the sexual way but intimate in that you know them well.
Widows is widows but is translated as "Dependent Widows." This is not supported in the Greek.
"She must assist," is now BLB translates, "eparkeō." Even though it doesn't mean that at all. It means to be strong enough to ward off or drive away [danger] to someone's advantage. It's a way to say be strong enough to provide assistance and protect someone else.
The next word is, "autos," which means to deal with something personally.
Re-translated, this would and SHOULD read, "If any man has proven himself faithful [reliable] and knows widows personally, he should defend them and care for them himself and not let the church get involved so they can help those who really need it."
Now, here's the kicker.
Read the whole passage with the new translation for 16.
As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also busybodies who talk nonsense, saying things they ought not to. So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan. If any man has proven himself faithful [reliable] and knows widows personally, he should care for them himself and not burden the church so they can help those who really need it."
This is a FAR cry from the way it was made to look! Gentlemen, this is in line with Kinsman Redeemer and other passages that even Jesus dealt with... and in line with polygyny. It is saying in it's entirety that we should marry widows, and not let them burden the church, and not let them get up to mischief on their own.
Now, I wrote John Dunham of the Translation Technology Operations at Biblica.com formerly the 'International Bible Society', the publishers of the NIV, about this. This is his response.
Thanks, Matthew, for your gracious and substantive reply. [personal note omitted]
There are passages with a history of interpretation—supported by excellent translation practices—that might miss a point because they didn’t pick up on discourse cues. I appreciate the position you have laid out, but I’m not sure I am compelled by the case. Language is so tricky. I’ve been through Greek twice and Hebrew once in Bible college and seminary, and I now appreciate that I would need to spend years soaking in the original texts to really pick up the associations, allusions, and idioms. You have done well to comb through to find these for specific words in various texts. That is more diligence than I have had. I have found when I come up with a theory on how to make sense of some topic, and I ask a scholar about it, they will gently give me the six reasons why it doesn’t work. And I didn’t even know these other dynamics were at play.
This is not to discourage you from study and promoting justice for issues you care about. It’s just to gently caution that the case might not be as strong as you make it out to be. On the other hand, I could be wrong as well, and we are left with the call to join in God’s big story of redemption, building the kingdom of King Jesus and living in love and grace and truth.
I would caution against overreliance on etymologies or root forms. When Paul uses a form of pistos, he is almost always talking specifically about keeping God’s commands, trusting that the way of Jesus is the best/right way to live, and living according to the way of Jesus. NT lexicons give glosses like “faithful, reliable, trustworthy, stable.” Even though secular culture used pistos to refer to official duties, Paul does not often use it that way when referring to believers. You cannot pull those nuances into NT usage, since Paul was honing the meaning to communicate certain things to his audience.
It feels like tis piste is the crux of the issue. I’ll offer that a little more than half of the earliest, most reliable manuscripts use piste, the feminine form of pistos. Gender in language can be so confusing—there is nothing inherently female about la mesa in Spanish. Similarly in Greek, grammatical gender applies certain forms to words, and these forms create classes of words. However, when it comes to adjectives in Greek, they can actually refer to human gender. When these adjectives appear by themselves, they take on the force of a noun, and you can supply “man, woman, people” to make the text more readable in English. A masculine word like pistos can mean “a faithful man.” It can also mean “a faithful person” when speaking of a general topic where men and women are considered faithful. Pistoi, the masculine plural form, means “faithful people,” unless there is something in the context that specifies it is a group composed exclusively of men. Piste, the word in question, is always “a faithful woman.” Pistai, the feminine plural, is always “the faithful women.” Keep in mind, this only applies when a form of the adjective pistos (or any adjective) stands alone. If it describes a noun, then it becomes “a faithful ______.” This part about tis is very important. The reason it never appears to translate as “some woman” is because it never appears with a feminine noun or adjective. Greek writers have all the flexibility they need to specify “some person” when using tis + masculine. Remember from my last epistle, tis is both masculine and feminine in form! Tis + masculine can be “some man” or “some person.” Tis + feminine can only mean “some woman” (unless the context is clear that it is a young girl or something like that). Tis is an indefinite pronoun. It signals that we’re not talking about “the person” or even “a person.” It’s “any person who” or “some person.” And it is no help in sorting out masculine or feminine, because the form is both masculine and feminine.
As I read the context before verse 16, it’s all about widows. Verse 1 talks about older men, but they don’t govern the following verses. Paul is talking about groups of ages and genders. Then he turns specifically to types of widows and how Timothy and the church are supposed to care for them. Verse 17 finally turns to masculine words (which could include male and female elders, perhaps), and this is about compensation—double honor most likely refers to double pay, and Paul says this is especially about those who preach and teach. Context/discourse analysis here does not point to a faithful man being the subject of verse 16, but it doesn’t necessarily make it a woman.
The real determinant of your argument is if you look at all the manuscript evidence and can in good conscience say, “Paul’s original letter used the form pistos rather than piste.” If you can say that, then it is “some faithful person” or “some faithful man.”
I hope this lends some understanding. It can also sharpen your argument, for better or worse, depending on one’s perspective.
I tend to think Paul wrote piste, but that is not something I would fight for.Now, I want to note something.
I want you to take a moment, just a moment and think of history. Think of WWI when 53,000 men died leaving our population out of balance, and the widows of those men who did everything up to selling their own children to survive. Of the 400,000 men who died in WWII who left widows behind with no money, no resources, and no hope - who turned to prostitution, adoption and even murder of their own kids to survive. But go back, even further. All the widows who were put in bad situations, who did terrible things to survive when there were good Christian families who could have taken those women in, given them a home, a loving family - but the false translation pushed them out, all but guaranteeing the outcome specified in 1 Timothy, given over to Satan.... of the preachers who preached about Wonton Women, of the movies showing the vamp who was trying to steal a man, or the HomeWrecker who was named Joline, trying to take Dolly's man. Think of the women who died, who were pushed into work houses. Think of the children in the cotton mills and who's bodies were tossed out like trash because they were cheap to buy and replace.
