• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Greek "mia"

CecilW

CecilW

Member
Real Person
Male
Need a little help, scholars.

For years, I have understood that the word used by Paul for "one" in the troublesome Titus & Timothy passages, (Titus 1:6, 1Tim 3:2,12) "mia" had three (3) possible translations, namely "one", "a", and "first".

Further, that an example of the latter was found in the resurrection passages, where Jesus arose one the first (mia) day of the week.

I am being challenged on that by a pastor who took 2 years of NT Greek in college, and claims that it is merely the feminine form of heis, and ALWAYS refers to a singularity.

Needless to say, I don't think he is right. And even so, his exception merely proves the rule (which left him somewhat speechless except to say that he believed what he believed and we'd have to agree to disagree. *grrrrr*) Nonetheless, I'd prefer to be proved NOT a liar.

Can any of you lead me to a more learned reference article proving the incorrectness of his view? Preferably with verses showing other uses? When it comes to study in Greek, I'm kinda lost. Used to know where there was an article or two that convinced ME, but what do I know? And it has been a long, long time.

Thanks, guys.
 
Checked Strongs again (I don't know Greek either unfortunately). In the KJV mia is translated as:
one / but one / the one / of one etc.: 59 times
a / a certain: 7 times
the first / upon the first: 8 times
the other: 1 time
So all three translations of it are possible, as it is actually used in all three ways by the translators. "One" is the most common rendering though.

The same goes for heis. By far the majority of the time it is translated as "one" or a phrase containing the word "one". However it is translated "a", "an" or "a certain" 10 times, and occasionally translated as other terms also.

But that isn't really what your Greek scholar is getting at. He does not appear to be stating that it is always translated "one", which is clearly incorrect, but that it "ALWAYS refers to a singularity". That is absolutely correct. The words "one", "a" and "first" are ALL singular terms. Each of them, in this context, can only refer to one wife.

The difference is that the word "one" in this context is an exclusive singularity (there can only be one), while "a" and "first" refer to one wife but do not exclude the possibility of there being others as well.

This whole "singularity" thing seems to be a distraction from the real issue - it is completely true, and completely irrelevant.

If language were governed by statistics, it would probably be best to translate this word as "one". But that contradicts the clear acceptance of polygyny in religious leadership roles throughout the history of Israel, while giving no reason for this new law. It is because of this apparent theological contradiction that we must consider alternative translations - and the KJV translators themselves showed that this word can also be translated as "a" or "first". We then consider how well these potential translations allow the passage to agree internally with the rest of Scripture, and find that either gives a better fit than the word "one".

This does not mean the passage definitely should not be translated "one" here. But it does make it rather difficult to affirm that it definitely MUST be translated "one" in this context, as your friend clearly believes, but hasn't backed up ("singularity" does not only mean the word "one").

Does that sound helpful? I do wish I could read Greek. One day...
 
Good explanation, Samuel.

Just read Bill Luck's explanation in Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible with interest. Demolished the anti-PM argument WITHOUT addressing te possible interpretations of mia.

Interestingly enough, I just found an excellent justification of the various translations in a NON PM discussion at http://www.gospelminutes.org/onewife.php .

Another reference of a sort can be found at http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3391 . Interestingly, it offers a number of OTHER possible translations I had never heard before.

Hmmm ... (I'm editing this post as I find more references...)

From http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-gr ... 02029.html, a question asked in '98, come these references which use mia ...

The "one wife" spoken of in 1 Timothy 3:2 & 3:12 and in Titus 1:6 can also be translated as "a wife" since elsewhere, the same Greek word "mia" as used in these verses is translated as "a". See Matthew 21:19 "a fig tree", Matthew 26:69 "a maid" or "a servant girl", Revelation 9:13 "a voice". This would make the verse translate "husband of a wife" meaning that he must be a married man.

The "one wife" spoken of in 1Timothy 3:2 & 3:12 and in Titus 1:6 is translated elsewhere as first. For example, in Mat 28:1, Mark 16:1 & 2 and in Acts 20:7 the writer uses the same Greek word "mia" as used in these verses addressed to Timothy and Titus when referring to the first day of the week. Therefore, "husband of first wife" would be a possible rendering.
Click to expand...
Good. That offers some specific references.

Apparently, the word was also used on the Mount of Transfiguration, where the disciples requested permission to erect tabernacles for Jesus and His two visitors. It WAS translated "one", but could have been translated "a" with equal validity, as no-one would argue that the disciples were suggesting building 5 tabernacles for each party.
 
Ok, this one's funny. Found it at http://www.vbvbc.org/bible-verse/1-timothy3-2

A DEBATE/DIALOG ON 1 TIMOTHY 3:2 with SOME CommentS

Source: http://www.facebook.com/ChesterBesterFe ... 8642407992

DIALOG WITH A BIBLE THUMPING RED NECK

BTR (Bible thumping redneck): Yew caen’t have two wives… Itsa sin’ I tell ya!!

BBP (Bible believing patriarch): So you say, but GOD is the one Who says what is sinful and what is right.

BTR: And He does!!! He says it rite thar in the Good Book!

BBP: Where? Please show me where it is written.

BTR: Waell, everwhere… Lots of vursis say a man caen’t have but one wife.

BBP: Name one.

BTR: Waell, there’s this vurse about if a man wants tah be a biship he must have but one wife. An’ the same fer deecunz an’ elders.

BBP: Hold on… Let me check that. If its in the Bible I’ll believe it. You’re talking about first Timothy three… No, sorry, it doesn’t say “but one wife”. The verse says “one wife” and it does not say ‘only one wife’ so I think it can be understood to mean AT LEAST one wife. If it said “only one” I would believe you.

BTR: It says, “but one wife”! I know cuz I red it!

BBP: Perhaps in the New International Per-Version it says it, but not in the book first delivered to the saints who spoke English and was suffered by GOD to be published abroad where so many others had failed.

BTR: It’s in the NIV BIBLE. Says, “but one wife”.

BBP: The NIV says lots of things that are false because it’s only a perversion of the Scripture. Did you know that the text for that book was published by a Darwinist and a necromancer? The NIV bible is full of lies. Wescott and Hort took the Catholic Latin Vulgate and translated it into Modern Greek which later became the source code for an English translation called the NIV. That New Age Bible has been revised so many times I wouldn’t trust it for all the tea in China. Would you trust a Bible based on the writings of two theologians who never once professed to be believers in Christ, summoned the dead from the grave, and believed in evolution?

BTR: That’s jist yer opinyun!

BBP: No sir, that is historical fact. Check it out. There’s nothing opinionated about it. These are hard-core historical facts. Not only that, but the same people who were so arrogant as to put a copy write on their version of GOD’s word also just happen to be one of the world’s leading publishers of pornography: Penthouse magazine being one of their corporate publications. Would you really receive that publishing over the Holy Bible that was deliberately made Public Domain?

BTR: Waell, I don’t bleeve yew. My pastur uses it and if he uses it then that’s good enuff fer me. He’s a good man and he says itsa sin for a man to have more than one wife. I bleeve him.

BBP: That’s your choice. One day you will have to give account and your pastor won’t be standing there with you when you do, but we digress. The Bible does not say “only one wife” and the Bible does not say it’s a sin for a man to have more than one wife. The reference that you speak of in your book is an insertion. An insertion is something that was added to the text when it wasn’t there before to make it more “readable”, so it is said. Howbeit, in the Greek texts there is no counterpart for the word “but” in that verse because that “but” isn’t in the original translations, BUT was added!

BTR: That’s yer opinyun.

BBP: No sir, that’s documented fact. Any Greek interlinear bible will reveal it. I recommend reading a good KVJ/Greek Interlinear.

BTR: Don’t be talking any Greek gobbledy-gook to me about the Bible. My pastor warned us about people who do this. He says they’re gonna go strait ta hell! Them Greeks is pervurts too ya know! Just sayin’.

BBP: Okay, have it your way. Let’s just suppose for example that the “but” really was scriptural even though all the manuscripts not even two centuries ago and older never once used it. This would be directed to Bishops, Deacons, and Elders. What about the rest of the men in the congregation? The instructions were precise and they were conditional. Why didn’t GOD declare that all men must have “only one wife” then? Why are these verses being specifically directed to only certain types of men and not to all men?

BTR: Waell now, that’s simpul… Coz we all ’sposed ta follow the exampul of the elders and the biships, and the deacons don’tcha know. That’s why they can only have but one wife to show the rest how ta live moral like and stop livin’ in sin.

BBP: I think to an extent you are correct, but the Apostle Paul put it differently. He said, “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?” Clearly not all have the same calling. One of the oldest commandments of GOD was to be fruitful and multiply.

BTR: Now jist wait one cottin pickin’ minit here! Are yew sayin’ whut I think yer sayin’??? Are yew sayin’ yew wuz CALLED to have more than one wife???

BBP: Ayeeup. That’s EXACTLY what I’m saying.

BTR: Lord have mercy! Yew think yer all that! Well, I never…

BBP: You probably never did. GOD knows it’s not my business. But I’ll say this much: You read the Bible carefully and you can see where GOD called men to marry wives plural. I’m not making it up. And if you agree everything in the Bible is the truth then you’ll also agree that the Changeless One never changed His moral law.

BTR: There ya go, twistin’ things again outta contex.

BBP: No, that’s straight talk directly out of your own bible. But I recommend the KJV to the English speaking people because it is far more accurate and hasn’t been tainted with the perverse thinking of the lesbians and homosexuals who published the NIV translation.

BTR: Boy, yor pushing it…

BBP: Your granny. I’m not your boy. I’m a child of GOD and I stand on every word written in the volume of the Book. Go ahead and check for yourself who was the director of the publishing of the NIV Bible. Those people were a bunch of perverts and queers and your pastor is waving that book around like it’s the gospel truth.

BTR: I think we’re done here.

BBP: Me too. You already have alot to check out before you check out. I’ll be praying for you.

BTR: Son, yer gonna burn in hell.

BBP: GOD bless you, sir. Let me know what you think after you do your homework.
Click to expand...
 
Hi,

I definitely do not have time to give a detailed study on this issue, but I lean heavily toward "mia" being translated as an indefinite article here. Here is some food for thought:

According to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon when addressing mia, “The numerical force of this word... is so often weakened that it hardly differs from the indefinite pronoun... or from our indefinite article.”

According to Grammar of Septuagint Greek when talking about heis, the masculine form of mia, “Under the influence of Hebrew idiom we find the numeral heis turning into an indefinite pronoun in the Greek of the LXX, as in Gen. 42:27... There are instances of the same usage in the two most Hebraistic books of the N.T. Mt. 8:19... 9:18... 21:19...26:69... Rev. 8:13... 9:13... 18:21... 19:17...” (Conybeare, Frederick Cornwallis (1856-1924))
 
Good one, Randy! Thanks.
 
I would be very cautious about anything from gospelminutes.org, his ideas come predominately from the "Book of Jasher", which is a rather dubious source that is quite likely a 16th century forgery and is rejected by the Jews for that reason - there are a lot of disagreements between it and scripture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefer_haYashar_(midrash)

For instance, that site has an article "Did Abraham really marry his sister", which states that he did not, and uses the book of Jasher to back up this statement. However the Bible actually says very clearly in Genesis 20:12 "And yet indeed [she is] my sister; she [is] the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife." You don't get much more explicit than that. Abraham married his sister. However the book of Jasher claims he married his neice - so this guy accepts that as correct in defiance of scripture. Not great. Most of his articles on all topics refer to the book of Jasher as a primary source, alongside selectively quoted scriptures.

Having said that, his article on "one wife" is basically the only one that doesn't use that book, and looks reasonably sound!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top