• 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.

Must a deacon be monogamous? What does Greek heis/mia/en mean here?

IshChayil

Seasoned Member
Real Person*
Male
ב"ה

This has stirred some interest so I thought it may be worthy of a discussion thread on it’s own.
I will not provide my own translation here as that'd be self-serving for my perspective.

The topic is 1 Timothy 3:12. The popular ESV rendering follows:
Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well.

First I want to reiterate that I’m not saying @andrew ‘s perspective of “heis/mia/en” possibly beginning to function as an indefinite article at the koine stage of the language as an impossibility; only as improbable from my observations as a student of Greek. Simply saying "woman" would have sufficed for "a wife" in the normal use of the language then so we have to see why the superfluous eis/mia/en would need to be used here as "a" instead of it's common usage as "1".
I'm not a master of the language so if someone finds some stuff contrary that will be a good growing point for me. That said, there are certainly occasions when even in English "1" can be substituted with "a/an" and we know Greek eventually did develop an indefinite article from the same word used here.

As I wrote in Biblical Familes: my concern about “heis” functioning as the indefinite article in that thread...
“I'm skeptical of εἷς (eis) being used as an indefinite article here. I think this is more of a modern Greek development. I'm not certain though.”

Follow up from 2 Greek grammars and a Greek guy’s web page:
*****************************
Grammar Foundation:
Currently the best-selling Greek (Koine) grammar states:

5.7 Indefinite article. In English, the indefinite article is the word “a.” In the sentence, “a good student works every day on her Greek,” the article is indefinite because it does not identify any one particular student. It is indefinite about the person of whom it is speaking. Greek does not have an indefinite article, although in some circumstances you will be able to add “a” to your translation.

6.21 Summary. The definite article is the only article in Greek. There is no indefinite article (“a”). For this reason you can refer to the Greek definite article simply as the “article”.
Mounce, William D. (1993). Basics of Biblical Greek: Grammar (1st ed, pgs 24,37). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

Another popular new grammar states:
Greek has no indefinite article (Eng. “a” or “an”).
Thus ἄνθρωπος means “man” or “a man.”
Black, D. A. (2009). Learn to read New Testament Greek (3rd ed, p. 29). Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group.

Here’s a summary about the definite and indefinite articles in Greek in various stages (Ancient and Modern) from a native Greek.
  • In Modern Greek the word "one" (ένας, μία, ένα) is used in the singular, and "some" (μερικοί, -ές, -ά) in the plural.
  • In Ancient Greek there was no indefinite article.(1) Instead, the indefinite adjective τις, τις, τι ("a certain") could be used in some cases where we use "a/an" in English, with its corresponding plural form τινές, τινές, τινά (some). The same word, as an indefinite pronoun, also meant "someone" and "anyone". For completeness, I include the indefinite adjective ένιοι,-αι,-α, which also meant "certain", "some" (in the plural sense only).
Foundalis, H. (2007, May 1). The Greek Language (Modern and Ancient). Retrieved from http://www.foundalis.com/lan/artindef.htm

Here we see that in Ancient Greek when an author wished to explicitly bring the feel that the English indefinite article presents, they used instead the word tiys / tiynes / tina. No mention of “heis/mia/en”.


***** For those who want to dig deeper on the Greek usages of “heis, mia, hen” (one in Greek) read on******
I recently got my hands on a used set of the English translation of the Classic German masterpiece “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament”. For those unfamiliar it is a massive 10 volume scholarly work which offers full essays on individual Greek words. The essay on “heis/mia/en” is 9 pages long. Here’s the teaser … if you want to delve deeper I took photos of the full essay and have attached them to this post. Be advised the Germans are very thorough and they make extensive use of Greek and Hebrew originals often without translating… not for the faint of heart :) For those of you who are pastors / rabbis and have a decent handle on Greek, I heartily recommend this resource to dig deeper than a lexicon on your Greek vocabulary…


Teaser...
1. The Understanding of Uniqueness in the NT.
Only rarely is εἷς used as a digit in the NT (e.g., 2 Pt. 3:8). It usually means “single,” “once-for-all,” “unique” or “only,” or “unitary,” “unanimous,” or “one of two or many,”2 “only one.”

Stauffer, E. (1964–). εἷς. G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley, & G. Friedrich (Eds.), Theological dictionary of the New Testament (Vol. 2, pgs. 434-443). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

The entire article (no pun intended :p ) is attached as images to this post.
*** Warning: Please please be careful if you decide to print out this essay. The divine name is present in original Hebrew letters as well as transliterations. If you print those pages, please treat the print out with the proper respect deserved by something with the Creator’s name on it. Please don’t throw them away, treat them as you would a bible.***

Syntax: I searched my “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament” by Wallace, to see if I could find any specific syntactical rules governing using heis/mia/en as the indefinite article and I couldn’t find anything.

For comparison I skipped KJV since most scholars agree the Greek text underlying ESV and other translations as superior to that used in King Jimmy (unavailable to Erasmus).

So, I checked the ESV translation to see where others translated (eis/mia/en) in this syntax (the Genitive) as the English indefinite article. I found only 2 verses. 1 could obviously just as easily be “1”:

Lk 22:59 “..after the interval of about 1/an hour…”
Rev 8:13 “Then I looked, and I heard an Eagle crying…”. Here ‘an’ certainly makes sense.

There could be special significance here that would cause us to want to specify “a solitary Eagle / one Eagle crying” so that single verse in syntactic agreement with 1 Timothy 3:12 is hardly enough to move me from my current opinion.

****** translating heis/mia/en as FIRST - what the heck happened? *****
The cases where we translate heis/mia/en as “first” have to do with the underlying Hebrew oddity for those getting carried over into the semitized Greek. For example. In Hebrew, Sunday is called “day 1”. Yom echad. This is a semitic way of thinking (construct state for those studying Hebrew) where you can force the 2nd, 3rd etc word in a “contruct chain” to function adjectivaly. In modern times we use the adjective “first” rishon so we say “yom rishon” but still the biblical “yom echad” gets used as well. Literally “Day of 1” (Sunday in Hebrew) Monday is “day 2” … etc. these get carried over into the New Testament as “on the 3rd day such and such happened”. It’s a semitic oddity/influence on the Greek from that area or an attempt to be true to a lost Hebrew/Aramaic original.

It’s always useful to see how Hebrew underlies the Greek of the new Testament. It’s my personal policy to always investigate the Greek Old Testament’s mapping of Greek translated words for the underlying Hebrew. You may or may not find this a useful approach for viewing Greek New Testament vocabulary. I never learn a new Greek word without examining if it is used in the Septuagint and how; I then memorize the Hebrew definition of the word rather than the English unless it's ambiguous in meaning.

Click the following link for a Biblical Families discussion of heis/mia/en mapping to the Greek Septuagint LXX and Hebrew including it’s overwhelming mapping to Hebrew אחד (one,unified,united).

This next verse is not a proof, just a nice example of heis/mia/en showing up in all it’s forms: masculine, feminine, and neuter and in this verse meaning "1".

Ephesians 4:4-6
4 Ἓν σῶμα καὶ ἓν πνεῦμα, καθὼς °καὶ ἐκλήθητε ἐν μιᾷ ἐλπίδι τῆς κλήσεως ὑμῶν·
There is one living body and one spirit, even as you were called in one hope of your calling.
5 εἷς κύριος, μία πίστις, ἓν βάπτισμα,
One L-rd, one faith, one mikvah (Baptism),
6 εἷς θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ πάντων, ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων καὶ διὰ πάντων καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν⸆.
One G-d and Father of all, who is over all things and through all things and in all things.

Summary:
I do think it is plausible to translate heis/mia/en as “a” in the verse in question; I just think it’s unlikely for that phase of the Greek language since the common way to say "a wife" is just to say gynei - "woman" ... caveman style. So for Paul to deviate from the norm of the language at that stage isn't something I'm comfortable with yet. In Modern Greek, absolutely heis/mia/en became the indefinite article, but that’s 2000 years of language development later. How many of you can understand English from just 500 years ago? Go back much further and it’s closer to German than to Modern English.

The spirit of this post is one of discovery and sharing. I love this community and it’s great that we can explore secondary issues like this verse. I'm not a Greek expert yet, just a student like many of you so maybe we'll find something more to this together.

To shake it up more, please see the Biblical Families: idea that “deacon” in the verse in question may mean “assistant” or “aide” in which case the lowly position is for guys with just 1 wife only as polygamous men should be trusted with more responsibility. :)


Shalom!
(9 page article on eis/mia/en attached)
 

Attachments

  • heis-pg.434.jpg
    heis-pg.434.jpg
    369 KB · Views: 8
  • heis-pg.435.jpg
    heis-pg.435.jpg
    617.6 KB · Views: 7
  • heis-pg.436.jpg
    heis-pg.436.jpg
    575.1 KB · Views: 7
  • heis-pg.437.jpg
    heis-pg.437.jpg
    552.2 KB · Views: 7
  • heis-pg.438.jpg
    heis-pg.438.jpg
    609.3 KB · Views: 7
  • heis-pg.439.jpg
    heis-pg.439.jpg
    611.7 KB · Views: 8
  • heis-pg.440.jpg
    heis-pg.440.jpg
    617.1 KB · Views: 7
  • heis-pg.441.jpg
    heis-pg.441.jpg
    574.1 KB · Views: 7
  • heis-pg.442.jpg
    heis-pg.442.jpg
    540.8 KB · Views: 7
  • heis-pg.443.jpg
    heis-pg.443.jpg
    429.4 KB · Views: 7
Last edited:
My complements on a well explained train of thought.

In the past, I have associated the usage of mia in Timothy to the usage when Christ rose on the first (Mia) day of the week. Perhaps erroneously from your explanation above.

Something that I have heard/read (but have not had the opportunity to corroborate) is that for a priest to be able to serve in the temple, he must be married. As I recall the article, this is why the marriage in Canaan is listed as the first of the miracles of Christs ministry. The point of the article was that Jesus was married and that the wedding in Canaan was his own. Whether that's true or not, I don't know and wouldn't argue, but if true, it would shed light upon the requirements listed in the letters to Timothy and Titus.

As I see it, this would make Paul's requirements for the bishop or deacon to be the husband of mia gyne a positive prescription, (as in he must at least be married to a wife) not a negative prescription (as in he may not be married to more than one)

@Kevin mentioned that the members of the Sanhedrin must be married in his thread on Paul being married, and this seems to follow the same thought with what I had read about the priests being married before officiating. Any confirmation or sources you might know of ?

I do know that the law specifically states that a priest cannot begin officiating until he is 30 yrs old, and I believe that this is why Luke makes the distinction about Christs age, but if there was a requirement for a priest to be married under the Old Covenant, I think it places the "priestly" requirements for the New Covenant in an entirely new light.

Basically, I think it would come down to restricting positions of authority to men who have already demonstrated an aptitude and willingness to accept responsibility and fill the role of advocate/Adown for another.
 
I am not scholar enough to weigh in much here.

If someone were to be able to show me the proper Greek way to say "husband of one wife" and then the proper Greek way to say "Husband of at least one wife" in such a way that they would not be confused; and then show me which one is used in the text, we'd be on to something.

As it stands, I go with my own understanding which is that a deacon may have one wife, not two. I view a legitimate deacon with more than one wife with the kind of cynicism that I hold for a unicorn with two horns: I'm not sure it works like that, but I haven't seen any unicorns at all. Just donkeys with birthday hats on.
 
I have collection of diffrent bible translations. I've noticed in several of the newer prints they are using "husband to but one wife" where as the same but older prints they still use "husband of one wife". There are a few that now read "one woman man".
 
I have collection of diffrent bible translations. I've noticed in several of the newer prints they are using "husband to but one wife" where as the same but older prints they still use "husband of one wife". There are a few that now read "one woman man".
That seems to me a pretty bold example of cultural artifacts creeping into translation.

As I see it, this would make Paul's requirements for the bishop or deacon to be the husband of mia gyne a positive prescription, (as in he must at least be married to a wife) not a negative prescription (as in he may not be married to more than one)
This to me is a yuuuuge insight worthy of further discussion. Whatever we make of this and wherever we end up, it seems to fall into the 'must be married (to somebody somehow)' side more than the 'must not exceed one' category. However, either way, if we take the indefinite article off the table (not sure how I feel about that yet, but let's go with it), we're left with either "first" or "there can be only one". I do not see how it could function as a negative injunction "you cannot have more than one wife" without also containing the positive injunction "you must have one wife".

@Slumberfreeze, I disagree (so far) with your conclusion, but I'm interested in your reasoning. @IshChayil, if Paul in an natural and unforced way were trying to say "a man being considered for leadership cannot have more than one wife", how would he word that in koine Greek?

Run with "Ancient Greek" doesn't have an indefinite article. The link Kevin posted on that other thread pointed this out and then looked for the idiom that would be invoked when someone uses eis/mia. They focused on "first day of the week" (I was checking on this following up on Chris's post referencing Ac 20:7), which at the time I thought was just a "Sunday/Lord's Day" prejudice, but now I've learned about the Hebrew idiom for referring to days of the week, :cool: so it seems legit to me for them to go with "first day". In the same way, the question becomes 'what idiom is being invoked here?'.

Formerly, the idea that he meant 'first wife' was my third choice, and seemed the most forced. If he were not using mia as an indefinite article, then maybe now 'first' is the front runner. Or maybe he really meant to emphasize 'one' in the 'at least one' sense. But is he really emphasizing 'one and only one'?

So back to my question: If I were just an ordinary koine-speaking chucklehead in the first century, and I wanted to say something that would translate into "but there'll be no more of that polygamy stuff that you've been doing for thousands of years", how would I say that?
 
https://sports.yahoo.com/mike-mccarthy-brett-hundley-quarterback-204545865.html
But is he really emphasizing 'one and only one'?

So back to my question: If I were just an ordinary koine-speaking chucklehead in the first century, and I wanted to say something that would translate into "but there'll be no more of that polygamy stuff that you've been doing for thousands of years", how would I say that?

You wouldn't, because neither Jesus, Peter, or Paul sought to undo the Law.

But I think I see what you are saying. Is there a clear, concise way we could delineate "first, one, at least one, or only one"? If there is, and the koine didn't appropriate it, then we know it wasn't saying "only one". Right?
 
But I think I see what you are saying. Is there a clear, concise way we could delineate "first, one, at least one, or only one"? If there is, and the koine didn't appropriate it, then we know it wasn't saying "only one". Right?
Right. Exactly.
 
@Slumberfreeze, I disagree (so far) with your conclusion, but I'm interested in your reasoning.

I suppose my reasoning is that it's actually very easy (if tedious) to pick apart the difference between heautos and idios, because even someone like me can just track down every instance of their use and see that there are clear differences.

I traveled the same path with mia, but I could not find any instance where mia can be intelligently made to mean "at least one". Scripture relies mightily upon mia to mean precisely one for the purpose of mathematics.

The only hang up I can see to interpreting these verses "must be the husband of one wife (as opposed to multiple) is that we all recognize that to have multiple wives isn't sinful, so why should it be forbidden to Elders or Deacons? I have my guesses, but when it comes down to it, it has been my discipline to try to obey first, and sort out the doctrine second.

What I do know is that I don't see it as a contradiction of the law to command monogamy for Elders or Deacons. I do not recall any who sat at the gates as elders or those who served as servants that were polygamous in the Old Testament either. Whether or not it was ever officially ordained to be that way doesn't reeeeaaallly matter to me, because if Paul's teaching on Melchizedek informed me of anything, it is that the completely inconspicuous absence of a thing can still be relied upon later for doctrine.

This is a disagreeable topic for me because no man with any amount of wives has ever approached my door claiming to represent the Church of my city looking for money to sustain widows. To be fully honest even if a man showed up roaring drunk at my door for this very purpose, I would be sorely tempted to give him money anyways for the sheer novelty of doing something that at least resembled what I read in the bible.

His own failings be upon his own head, as it were.
 
This is a disagreeable topic for me because no man with any amount of wives has ever approached my door claiming to represent the Church of my city looking for money to sustain widows. To be fully honest even if a man showed up roaring drunk at my door for this very purpose, I would be sorely tempted to give him money anyways for the sheer novelty of doing something that at least resembled what I read in the bible.
Slumber, I love you.

My saying that may come back to bite me if you say something that really pisses me off, but, eh, whatever.
 
My complements on a well explained train of thought.

In the past, I have associated the usage of mia in Timothy to the usage when Christ rose on the first (Mia) day of the week. Perhaps erroneously from your explanation above.

Something that I have heard/read (but have not had the opportunity to corroborate) is that for a priest to be able to serve in the temple, he must be married. As I recall the article, this is why the marriage in Canaan is listed as the first of the miracles of Christs ministry. The point of the article was that Jesus was married and that the wedding in Canaan was his own. Whether that's true or not, I don't know and wouldn't argue, but if true, it would shed light upon the requirements listed in the letters to Timothy and Titus.

As I see it, this would make Paul's requirements for the bishop or deacon to be the husband of mia gyne a positive prescription, (as in he must at least be married to a wife) not a negative prescription (as in he may not be married to more than one)

@Kevin mentioned that the members of the Sanhedrin must be married in his thread on Paul being married, and this seems to follow the same thought with what I had read about the priests being married before officiating. Any confirmation or sources you might know of ?
I do know that the law specifically states that a priest cannot begin officiating until he is 30 yrs old, and I believe that this is why Luke makes the distinction about Christs age, but if there was a requirement for a priest to be married under the Old Covenant, I think it places the "priestly" requirements for the New Covenant in an entirely new light.

Basically, I think it would come down to restricting positions of authority to men who have already demonstrated an aptitude and willingness to accept responsibility and fill the role of advocate/Adown for another.

Thanks VerifyV.
To be a member of the Sanhedrin a candidate had to have children. I don't believe there was a requirement for him to be married though one would certainly spring from the other. Perhaps if the wife had died or they had divorced yet the Rav would have at least had this life experience. I remember the reason behind this requirement was so that the judge would be more merciful in his rulings (if he had children). I can check tractate Sanhedrin in my Talmud later to be sure this is right.
I'm certain about the having to have children just not certain about the technicality of marriage or not.

I agree this may be a positive principle regarding having 1 (or more); though it would be nice if Paul had been clearer on that; there are ways to specify in Greek minimums and such and it's not so hard to say "or more".

I'm currently inclined to think that we have greatly misunderstood the Greek word for deacon since it's so close to the English.
I think we use deacon differently in Western churches than how they were used in the Greek text.
I want to chase that down a bit later today when I have some time.
What if the wisdom in Paul's request goes like this (I'm just meandering here):
"Ok so guys if you get servants/helpers/assistants for the church leaders, let's make sure those guys aren't going to have a problem with authority; let's make sure they are really malleable. Don't get rich guys with large households as they are used to giving orders not receiving them; save them for the larger posts like elders/pastors/apostles/etc..."
I'm just thinking aloud here but I'm interested what you think. It could just be Paul giving some practical advice concerning who is "fit" to be a low-level intern/aide.
A celibate guy may not be used to thwarting his own will for someone else's sake.

Regarding Paul being a member of the sanhedrin/ I doubt it. I know his teacher Gamliel was as we have rulings from Gamliel recorded. It would make more sense to me if Paul was a member of a beit Din (a court of 3 judges) which rules over smaller matters. Even that I'm unsure of because it wasn't the judges / Sanhedrin members who went around arresting people and having them executed etc. It almost seems more like he may have been affiliated with the Temple guard somehow. He's not a Levite though so there is more difficulty there.
Definitely more to explore here.
 
Last edited:
I read it is a requirement both in halakhah and Josephus confirms in practice, for members of Sanhedrin to be married.

I also read that it was not a requirement for Pharasees, Sadducees, and Esseends which were more flavors of religions or schools of thought. Today, they might be analagous to the various movements in Judaism, or submovements with movements.

I could be wrong.
 
I traveled the same path with mia, but I could not find any instance where mia can be intelligently made to mean "at least one". Scripture relies mightily upon mia to mean precisely one for the purpose of mathematics.
Nobody's trying to make it say that, and mia is also translated "a", "the first", "a certain", and one or two off the wall things in scripture.

The obvious candidates are "one", "a", and "the first". It's clear that the translation choice a translator make will depend mightily on his presuppositions and what he understands of the context.

IC suggests that mia wasn't really used as an indefinite article in the first century, and he may be right. He advances the idiomatic usage of Hebrew (day one, day two) for a reasonable explanation of "the first" in reference to a day.

What I haven't heard yet is what else the translation would be for "he saw a fig tree" or "I heard a voice". Those are two examples of mia that don't really work for "one" or "first". If IC is correct that mia wasn't used as an article back then, then we need an explanation of what other idiomatic usage is defensible (if mia wasn't used as an article, then why was it used at all?).

Nobody that I'm aware of is arguing that the proper translation should be "at least one". Just the indefinite article "a", as in "husband of a wife", which would point to a married man. If that's not acceptable for wives, I'd like to hear why it's acceptable for fig trees and voices....
 
I think we use deacon differently in Western churches than how they were used in the Greek text.
Like a lot of words in scripture, by using a transliteration instead of a translation, the translators gave us a "churchy" word that we can now make up a "churchy" definition and a "churchy" usage for.

"Pastor" is just a Latin word for "shepherd". "Apostle" is just a Greek word for "messenger". "Church" is just a sort of Greekishly substituted word for "gathering". Etc. If those underlying Greek words had been translated instead of Anglicized, we'd be better off....
 
I have collection of diffrent bible translations. I've noticed in several of the newer prints they are using "husband to but one wife" where as the same but older prints they still use "husband of one wife". There are a few that now read "one woman man".
the "to but" is superfluous and not in the Greek.
The literal flow of the Greek is (Imagine this next part in a pirate voice to approximate Greek word order/style):
διάκονοι ἔστωσαν μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρες, τέκνων καλῶς προϊστάμενοι καὶ τῶν ἰδίων οἴκων.
Lad-servants they be! of one woman, men, of children well managed and of their own households.

I chose "servant" for deacon because that's the most common way the Greek Septuagint translates from Hebrew this word נער (lad, servant-like what Avraham took with him when he was gonna sacrifice Yitzchak). In Filipino culture it is common to have a "boy" meaning a part time servant boy who does errands for the family.

I suspect the "one woman man" you mentioned derives from the German of the Luther bible 1545
"Die Diener laß einen jeglichen sein eines Weibes Mann, die ihren Kindern wohl vorstehen und ihren eigenen Häusern." which had a lot of influence on other biblical traditions.
 
Last edited:
Like a lot of words in scripture, by using a transliteration instead of a translation, the translators gave us a "churchy" word that we can now make up a "churchy" definition and a "churchy" usage for.

"Pastor" is just a Latin word for "shepherd". "Apostle" is just a Greek word for "messenger". "Church" is just a sort of Greekishly substituted word for "gathering". Etc. If those underlying Greek words had been translated instead of Anglicized, we'd be better off....
Yes yes exactly and then even when we want to be scholarly and dig deep it's so tempting to just ignore those cognates as "I know what that means" since we have words which sound exactly like it... and the original definition is lost (well on us).

This even happens in Israel when people who know modern Hebrew but aren't religious hear a psalm or something.
They think they understand, but they have no clue... my favorite is an Orthodox rabbi told a story of when he was a young kibbutznik he heard the psalm about how "the ends of the Earth will turn to the L-rd". In Modern Hebrew this word is like a "zero" and it's used to mean a "looser" instead of "end". So he always thought the psalm meant "the loosers of the Earth will turn to the L-rd" haha.
Many examples like that exist and it's the same language! Not even coming from Greek into English often via Latin.
 
I read it is a requirement both in halakhah and Josephus confirms in practice, for members of Sanhedrin to be married.
I also read that it was not a requirement for Pharasees, Sadducees, and Esseends which were more flavors of religions or schools of thought. Today, they might be analagous to the various movements in Judaism, or submovements with movements.
I could be wrong.
Makes sense Kev. Probably true.

Nobody's trying to make it say that, and mia is also translated "a", "the first", "a certain", and one or two off the wall things in scripture.
The obvious candidates are "one", "a", and "the first". It's clear that the translation choice a translator make will depend mightily on his presuppositions and what he understands of the context.
(I'm quoting @andrew but just chiming in as in "exactly" and making a public point for the group).
right, I'm not even saying it's not possible to translate heis/mia/en as "a" even English allows us to sometimes swap in "a" for the word "1" in some contexts. I just wanted us to explore other possibilities because since Greek didn't really have an indefinite article at this phase in the language I rather not to use "a" when 1 works fine.

What I haven't heard yet is what else the translation would be for "he saw a fig tree" or "I heard a voice". Those are two examples of mia that don't really work for "one" or "first". If IC is correct that mia wasn't used as an article back then, then we need an explanation of what other idiomatic usage is defensible (if mia wasn't used as an article, then why was it used at all?).
yeah those are fair questions.
So I looked up Mark 11:13 starts this way "καὶ ἰδὼν συκῆν ..."
"And He saw [a] fig tree ..." here there is no heis/mia/en we just need to add "a" in English to make it flow for us.
The Greek there is more cave-many "He saw fig-tree... " grrrr....

Now Matthew tells it a bit differently...
Matthew 21:19 "καὶ ἰδὼν συκῆν μίαν..."
"And He saw [a] fig tree one..." mia is in bold (the extra nu 'ν' is Accusative marker).
So Andrew has a good point here what's up with this mia?

Since we are dealing with translation issues, I'd like to point out the official Russian Orthydox translation in Slavonik:
"и увидев при дороге одну смоковницу..."
"And seeing by the road one fig tree..." now that's a language which doesn't have an indefinite article yet they decided to bring across the point that Yeshua saw one particular fig tree. Why did they do that? Ok don't say they had too much vodka :p

A Modern German translation chooses to emphasize the singularity expressed here by mia:
"Und als er einen einzelnen Feigenbaum am Weg sah..."
"And he saw a single fig tree along the way..."

The Message bible translates:
"Seeing a lone fig tree alongside the road..."
Notice we still need the 'a' in English but we clearly see many translators choosing to focus on the fact that mia is present to bring that across in their translations.
English translations choosing to translate mia directly:
MSG - lone (lone fig tree)
LEB - single (a single fig tree)
HCSB - lone (a lone fig tree)
DRA - certain (a certain fig tree)
DLNT - one (one fig tree)
Darby - one (one fig tree)
CSB - lone (lone fig tree)
AMPC - single
AMP - lone
NASB - lone
NTE - single
OJB - the
TLV - lone
VOICE - lone
YLT (Young's Literal) - certain (a certain fig tree)
(that's 15 English translations + a German and a Slovanik one).

And of course there are also a slew which translate simply 'a' here. I'm going to hypothesize that those going with 'a' are following King James' lead. So it may be tradition. Never underestimate how tempting it is to the mind to agree with what you've got memorized in English when you're translating from the original recipe, especially if you think there's no reason to differ from it. That being said I checked also other languages like Russian / Ukrainian (and as I shared Slovanik / German) and they chose the extra emphasis offered by mia.

*******Another thought about Greek Grammar***word order*******
In Koine the adjective can take different positions in the sentence though here it is following the noun (normal for an adjective).
The normal position for the definite article (the) is before the noun or any the noun/adj. chain. Here, we see mia following the noun it is modifying (like a good adjective). One would expect an indefinite article to behave positionally as a definite article.
In fact, this is what seems to have happened in Modern Greek.
"He saw a fig tree" in Modern Greek is "είδε μια συκιά" (I used Google translate for this to test my hypothesis so it could be flawed).
mia is playing nicely where I would expect it to be positionally functioning as an article.

All this being said, it's still possible to translate this verse as "a" wife; I just would have expected different wording, i.e. no need to write mia just go caveman style.
I didn't check your other reference as my response is kind of big already. I expect to have similar findings.
 
Last edited:
IC, could mia be taken out of the phrase and it would still mean a “married man” if that’s what Paul was wanting to say? Could it simply say, aner gyne, and that would mean married man?
 
Back
Top