Hello,
I feel obligated to post concerning this topic. Misinformation will only cause confusion. My response does not represent my full view on this topic, but I am not content to allow more confusion about this topic to be spread as if it is the truth. (for you personally Ed, if you have a place online somewhere where we can debate this issue, I am more than willing to debate this topic in extreme detail!) [NOTE: This doesn't necessarily mean I disagree with the conclusion - but what has been written does not prove the position. It actually weakens it.]
"Mia" is not nearly the numerical form of "one" in the Greek. In this respect I disagree with you. "Mia" is used of one but it is not the genuine article, anymore than the phraze "an apple" literally means "one apple". The word "an" is used of one, but does not literally mean "one". I realize that in this example the difference in comparison is somewhat vague and some would go so far as to say that I am "splitting hairs" as it were, but it makes a big difference when we apply this truth to scripture.
Please provide some sources proving that it is not “normative” to translate “mia” as “one”.
It should be clearly stated as possible that the Greek word for “one” is “heis”. “Heis”, “mia”, and “hen”, respectively, are the masculine, feminine, and neuter nominative forms of the exact same word. In fact, “henos”, “mias” and “henos” are the masculine, feminine, and neuter genitive forms of the exact same word. “Heni”, “mia”, and “heni” are the masculine, feminine, and neuter dative forms of the exact same word. Moreover, “hena”, “mian” and “hen” are the masculine, feminine, and neuter accusative forms of the exact same word. That word is “one”. What I have given is ALL the declensions for the word “heis”, or the English equivalent “one” (New Testament Greek for Beginners, by Machen, p. 164, section 371 and The Analytical Greek Lexicon, by Moulton, p. xi).
“Heis, mia, hen, gen. Henos, mias, henos numeral one” (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, ed. By Walter Baur, p. 230)
I don’t want to bring 50 quotes here to prove this contention. This post is long enough! However, this is actually pretty standard information that can be found in all the Greek grammars and dictionaries.
This doesn’t mean, on the other hand, that there are not nuances for each form of the word “heis”, but it does mean that positions taken to present the truth of polygyny must be clear, concise and very accurate! Too many “arm chair” scholars are presenting the case for polygyny inaccurately. This makes all of us look like fools, and is very embarrassing. I read one pro-polygyny article recently that actually said that “heis” and “mia” are two separate words. This is a total falsehood! They are the exact same word “declined”, or the exact same word written in another grammatical form.
The burden of proof is upon you to prove that "mia" literally means the number one and not just "a", "an", "some", or "someone" (but no one in specific).
I have provided some proof already above. You should know that by you merely stating that “mia” is “a”, “an”, “some” or “someone” does not make it so... and this isn’t to say that I disagree that this can take place. However, the way you are presenting it does not “prove it”.
I say that the word is "obscure" in meaning because it has absolutely no direct counterpart in the English language and can only be defined by a proxy of words, plural, in the English, most of which can be equally arbitrary if not ambiguous.
This is simply not true. There is a very normative translation for “heis” and all of its forms. It is not obscure at all! What you need to do is prove that there are legitimate options through source referencing, not by merely saying something is so.
I'm getting much of my information from Thayer's and Strong's lexicons and concordances but I've sifted through a good many other reference materials, concerning this word, as well. Judging by your apparent knowledge of the Greek, I'm sure you can appreciate the ambiguity of the concoctions that have been cooked up by so many supposed authorities regarding the word "mia" and I suspect the reason for this is typical: none of them actually know (or knew) themselves and are too professionally proud to admit the fact.
Look, I have taken more than a few years of Greek, and I am the first to admit that I am not a Greek scholar. However, to merely criticize other Greek scholars because they do not agree with your position does not automatically make your position the correct one. Every Greek scholar should rise and fall on the case he presents for any given word. Sometimes they will do a better job than other times, but having studies the languages and having translated the languages, I would say that it is quite a daunting task to be a perfect translator.
I don't believe the initial problem lies with all the reference materials that you mentioned here either, but rather that the problem is rooted in the interpretation of these texts into English. I suppose we will just have to respectfully disagree with one another. I'm doing a separate study on the word "heis", which appears to be a far more accurate term for the literal English numerical equivalent for "one".
“heis” and “mia” are the same word!
I am considering adding this information to my book. After reading a considerable abundance of these texts (not excluding all of those you mentioned) and the English interpretations of these works by so-called authorities, I am convinced that I can do no worse than they have. For example, "mia" never literally means "only one" and I defy anyone to prove it.
Actually, there are cases where it means “only one”. Instead of me typing the abundance of information on all the Greek literature that supports this, I suggest you go buy to source by Bauer I used above, and look on page 231
"Mia" never literally means the "cardinal number" one either. I am well aware that the scholars consider "mia" to be the feminine genetive of "heis" but that doesn't mean they're right. They can call it what they wish. "Mia" does not mean "one" except in the most loosest, abstract, and general sense of the word, and never does it mean "only one". No, not once, not ever. Perhaps that is why Kittel defines it not as the "feminine genetive" of "heis", but the "irregular feminine genetive" of the word. (Emphasis mine) So much for regularity and consistency. I wonder how many Greeks he paid to endorse his finding. (Just jesting.)
You are joking, right. I just read the entire section of Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament on “heis”, there is no such quote. Even if there were, Kittel is merely speaking in terms of grammar, not in terms of “wrong”. The fact of the matter is “the feminine genitive” form is the same thing as the “irregular feminine genitive” form. It is merely a matter of normative regular declensions verses irregular declensions. My goodness, this is basic Greek grammar, Ed!
I am combing through this information with a relatively "fine-toothed" impliment so I am bound to come across these "rarities" from time-to-time. My mission is to prove that "mia" does not literally mean "one" or "only one" and I believe I am able to prove it.
This actually makes me very sad. You see, the motive of true scholarship is not to prove one’s position, but rather, to come to understand the author’s intent when originally writing the text.
"Prōtos", "protēs", and "prōtōn" are not listed as feminine genitives by Thayers and Smith, Strongs, or Kittel. I suspect that your sources are secularist in nature. That said, since none of these authorities seem to consistently agree betwixt themselves anyway, so I submit that I can do no worse than they have and likely a good deal better. If that seems like hubris to you, so be it. The said authorities are certainly not without their fair share of hubris and I have little time for dealing with wiser fools than myself. Too much damage has already been done by toxic pastors and pretenders to truth. The time has come to call a spade a spade and a shovel and a shovel. To wit, I might add, the fertilizer has long since been spread and I believe our focus would be better spent on distributing the seed of the word as it is received directly from the source.
Actually, I really do not see any of them disagreeing. Some may be more detailed than others, but that is different than merely disagreeing. I would suggest that you do much more homework before you write a book.
and then God showed me a new "twist" that had been done to Paul.)
