Has anyone besides me noticed...

[Wesley]

ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ Α΄ 3:2
2 δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, νηφάλιον, σώφρονα, κόσμιον, φιλόξενον, διδακτικόν,(1 Timothy 3:2 SBL Greek New Testament (SBLGNT))

ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ Α΄ 3:12
12 διάκονοι ἔστωσαν μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρες, τέκνων καλῶς προϊστάμενοι καὶ τῶν ἰδίων οἴκων·(1 Timothy 3:12 SBL Greek New Testament (SBLGNT))

ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΤΟΝ 1:6
6 εἴ τίς ἐστιν ἀνέγκλητος, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ, τέκνα ἔχων πιστά, μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας ἢ ἀνυπότακτα.(Titus 1:6 SBL Greek New Testament (SBLGNT))

The legalistic monogamists have beaten us over the head with these verses for years claiming that they say that a church leader is supposed to be monogamous.

Has anyone else besides me noticed that the word for "wife" in these passages is plural rather than singular?

• γυνή = root word for for woman or wife, singular
• γυναῖκα = commonly used Koine Greek word for either woman or wife, singular.
• γυναικὸς = the word that is used in the above passages, commonly used Koine Greek word for women or wives, plural.

The Greek word μιᾶς, the word that they like to translate as "only one", has more than just one possible translation. How is that translation affected by the knowledge that it is followed by a plural noun?

In case anyone wants to participate in this discussion but doesn't have access to translational capability here is a link that can be of at least some service. It works best if you put in one word at a time as the sentence structure of Koine Greek seems to confuse the utility.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

I believe you've gotten some bad information.

gunaikos (I'm not savvy enough to know how to put the mark over the omicron) is the genitive singular form of the word.

http://biblehub.com/greek/gunaikos_1135.htm

I myself hold to the doctrine that Elders and Deacons should both be limited to one wife each, which I know is frowned upon (but I've been worse than frowned at, so whatevs). I am not a monagamist in poly clothing, though! It was the greek that led me out of strict monagamist thought, and it is the greek that keeps me from consenting to poly Elders. Not that it is likely to be an issue I'll face...
My guess for why google translate calls it plural is that modern greek is not the same as 1st century (koine) greek. They are closely related to the point of intelligibility, but the language has noticeably shifted (as most languages have) in the last two thousand years.

 

[Wesley]

My guess for why google translate calls it plural is that modern greek is not the same as 1st century (koine) greek. They are closely related to the point of intelligibility, but the language has noticeably shifted (as most languages have) in the last two thousand years.

I have never held to the idea that elders are required to be monogamous but it is not because of my recent discovery of the plural nature of the the Greek word γυναικὸς. The Greek word μιᾶς is never definitively translated as "only one" anywhere else in the Bible. The word can be legitimately translated as "one", "first", "a" or "even one" (as in "not even one" or "can't you find """ but in all my reading of Koine Greek text, both in and out of the Bible, I have never seen it translated anywhere else as "only one"

As for the link you offered I prefer to use secular sources for translation because the religious sources generally have an ax to grind. That's how the Koine Greek word μιᾶς ended up being mistranslated as "only one" to begin with.

To this end I am currently researching the writings of Ovid and Plutarch to see how they used the word, if at all. Since they wrote in the first century A.D, if he used the word as the plural form then that would be the common Greek usage.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

Why bother Ovid when you can use the bible to interpret itself?

Luke 3:19 : is it more likely that Herodias was the name of Herod's immorally gotten wife, or were they all named Herodias?

Luke 17:32 How many wives did Lot have that would make good case studies on the dangers of looking back?

John 4:9 How many women did Jesus ask for a drink of water? And how many Samaritan women (v39) did Jesus tell their life stories to?

John 8:10 How many women were accused of adultery?

Acts 5:2 How many wives did Ananias have that knew that he had kept money back and lied about it? If multiple, why is only Sapphira mentioned?

Acts 16:1 How many Jewish moms did Timothy have?

Rev 12:4 How many women was the dragon standing before?

Rev 17:7 How many women ride the beast?

I don't discount the value of learning Koine Greek, but if the Bible uses a term enough time to adequately define it, ancient Greek pop culture should not be allowed to unduly color our perceptions. For instance the greeks wrote much on Hades and Tartarus, but I wouldn't define those realms quite the way they do in their stories. I would try to stick to using Koine only in cases that the bible doesn't mention a word enough times to cross reference, and in any case I would not allow the Koine greek to contradict the plain meaning of the biblical text.

 

[Wesley]

Why bother Ovid when you can use the bible to interpret itself?

I don't discount the value of learning Koine Greek, but if the Bible uses a term enough time to adequately define it, ancient Greek pop culture should not be allowed to unduly color our perceptions. For instance the greeks wrote much on Hades and Tartarus, but I wouldn't define those realms quite the way they do in their stories. I would try to stick to using Koine only in cases that the bible doesn't mention a word enough times to cross reference, and in any case I would not allow the Koine greek to contradict the plain meaning of the biblical text.

As for the Koine Greek you are entitled to your opinion. I'm not sure that I agree with your opinion. I have already found passages of the Bible that I know for a fact were mistranslated. One of the most obvious is Revelation 22:19. The KJV says "Book of Life." When I noticed that the NIV said "Tree of Life" I decided to research the Greek. "Tree of Life" is the correct reference. That was what got me started in my interest in the reading the Greek text.

I would also challenge you to find me another passage in the Bible, besides 1 Timothy 3:2 & 12 and Titus 1:6 where the Greek word μιᾶς is translated as "only one". The concept of "only" does not belong in those verses because the word μιᾶς does not support that translation.

Nevertheless it appears that you may be correct in this case. Some of the passages that you offered could use the term in plural but that doesn't prove the point. It appears that the word may have been one of the words that is its own plural (like the word 'fish' you can have 'one fish', 'two fish' or a 'school of fish') but in order to prove that I would need to find a reference that is definitively plural. Several of the biblical passages that use the word could be plural but aren't definitively plural.

 

[UntoldGlory]

I would humbly point out that the guidance in question is just that, guidance. Paul himself sends greetings to a deacon who does not fit those guidelines, affirming that they are just that, guides.

Romans 16:1-3 "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a deacon in the church in Cenchrea. 2 Welcome her in the Lord as one who is worthy of honor among God’s people. Help her in whatever she needs, for she has been helpful to many, and especially to me."

I'm all for finding things that support Poly, because the good Lord knows we are so often on the defensive, but I think we should be careful to avoid falling into legalism.

Personally I've been really digging Romans 14 lately. I think it can really help find some common ground for dealing with other believers who don't share our views. "Oh, you believe it's a sin? Well, then I guess for you it is, congratulations, but please don't judge me for honoring God in this way."

 

[Wesley]

I'm all for finding things that support Poly, because the good Lord knows we are so often on the defensive, but I think we should be careful to avoid falling into legalism.

Personally I've been really digging Romans 14 lately. I think it can really help find some common ground for dealing with other believers who don't share our views. "Oh, you believe it's a sin? Well, then I guess for you it is, congratulations, but please don't judge me for honoring God in this way."

Romans 14 is one of my favorite chapters. It can be used as you suggested for the friendly types or it can be used to get unfriendly types to go away by quoting verse four and pointing out that I am God's servant not theirs.

I'm curious about this legalism issue however? Even if I were right and the word is its own plural, which means that it could be either singular or plural (putting the final nail in the coffin of their argument against polygamy), how would that translate to legalism?

They're practicing legalistic monogamy in that they are trying to enforce monogamy on everyone. Monogamy is not a sin. Legalistic monogamy is sinful because legalism is a sin. (1 Timothy 4:1-3, Matthew 15:7-9 and Mark 7:6-7)

How is combating their legalism falling into the sin of legalism?

 

[FollowingHim]

Wesley, which version of the Greek are you using?

I ask because the primary difference between the KJV and the NIV is NOT different translators, but rather that they were translated from different sets of the Greek text.

The KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus. The NIV, like all modern translations, was translated from the Nestle-Aland text, a set of manuscripts selected in the 19th century as the "correct" ones and promoted as such by Bible Societies for the past century or so.

In Revelation 22:19:
The KJV correctly translates the Greek "βίβλου", as it appears in the Textus Receptus, as "book".
The NIV correctly translates the Greek "ξύλου", as it appears in the Nestle-Aland text, as "tree".

This is not a translation issue at all. It comes down to which text is the correct one. This passage is explored in great depth at the below link. They point out that the reading "book" appears in the earliest commentary texts that we have, and appears to have been accepted by the early church, the suggestion that this should be "tree" is recent and more questionable. Personally, I don't know the actual answer - but I raise this issue so you are aware of how complex this issue is. You can't say the KJV translators made a mistake - when you look at the text they used they actually translated it correctly.
http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/book-of-li ... ation-2219

There are many reasons for thinking that the Textus Receptus is actually more accurate than the Nestle-Aland text, while others argue the other way, this is a massive debate...

 

[FollowingHim]

I would humbly point out that the guidance in question is just that, guidance. Paul himself sends greetings to a deacon who does not fit those guidelines, affirming that they are just that, guides.

Romans 16:1-3 "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a deacon in the church in Cenchrea. 2 Welcome her in the Lord as one who is worthy of honor among God’s people. Help her in whatever she needs, for she has been helpful to many, and especially to me."

I had never spotted that, thankyou. Also had to check the Greek to be sure of that one, yes, you're right... You've just thrown my entire view on the qualifications for deacons, which makes me wonder about the qualifications for bishops... This is why I love Biblical Families! Lots to ponder there...

 

[Wesley]

Wesley, which version of the Greek are you using?

I use the:

• Textus Secundum III (In PDF form saved on my hard drive)
• Peschito Syriac (Originally accessed online but the site has recently been taken down for some reason)
• SBL Greek New Testament (SBLGNT) (on BibleGateway.com)
• 1550 Stephanus New Testament (TR1550) (on BibleGateway.com)
• 1894 Scrivener New Testament (TR1894) (on BibleGateway.com)
• 1881 Westcott-Hort New Testament (WHNU) (also on BibleGateway.com)
• Apostolic Bible Polyglot Greek Text

I ask because the primary difference between the KJV and the NIV is NOT different translators, but rather that they were translated from different sets of the Greek text.

The KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus. The NIV, like all modern translations, was translated from the Nestle-Aland text, a set of manuscripts selected in the 19th century as the "correct" ones and promoted as such by Bible Societies for the past century or so.

First of all, since the KJV was finished in 1611 and the Textus Receptus was finished thirteen years later in 1624 it is highly unlikely that the Textus Receptus was the source document for the KJV. (Note: In this case "highly unlikely" means totally impossible unless you believe that King James I had a time machine.)

Both the KJV and the Textus Receptus were made from an incomplete compilation of Greek texts compiled by Erasmus in the 1500's. The missing parts were translated from the Latin Vulgate which is why there is so much errata in the KJV.

In Revelation 22:19:
The KJV correctly translates the Greek "βίβλου", as it appears in the Textus Receptus, as "book".
The NIV correctly translates the Greek "ξύλου", as it appears in the Nestle-Aland text, as "tree".

This is an error in the Textus Receptus and a few other Greek manuscripts caused by translation to Greek from the Latin Vulgate rather than usage of actual Greek text.

This is not a translation issue at all. It comes down to which text is the correct one. This passage is explored in great depth at the below link. They point out that the reading "book" appears in the earliest commentary texts that we have, and appears to have been accepted by the early church, the suggestion that this should be "tree" is recent and more questionable. Personally, I don't know the actual answer - but I raise this issue so you are aware of how complex this issue is. You can't say the KJV translators made a mistake - when you look at the text they used they actually translated it correctly.

This statement is materially false. In the 350+ years since the KJV was completed many manuscripts of the Bible that are far older than anything Erasmus had available to him have been discovered by archaeologists. None of the older manuscripts have the "book" reference. They all say "tree." Because they are older they are also more reliable. The Erasmus text has been pretty solidly discredited as anything resembling accurate.

There are many reasons for thinking that the Textus Receptus is actually more accurate than the Nestle-Aland text, while others argue the other way, this is a massive debate...

This statement is also materially false for the same reason.

 

[FollowingHim]

Ok, you've done a fair bit of research! And I am very glad to see that you're using multiple Greek sources. Note though that quite a few details of your above logic are challenged in that link I added above, it would be well worth reading through for an alternative opinion. I must also note:

In Revelation 22:19:
The KJV correctly translates the Greek "βίβλου", as it appears in the Textus Receptus, as "book".
The NIV correctly translates the Greek "ξύλου", as it appears in the Nestle-Aland text, as "tree".

This is an error in the Textus Receptus and a few other Greek manuscripts caused by translation to Greek from the Latin Vulgate rather than usage of actual Greek text.

The very fact that the Vulgate, which was translated from the Greek a lot earlier than any English translation, uses the word "book", is evidence for this being the correct translation, not something to be simply dismissed. For the same reason, some hold the LXX to be potentially more reliable than the Hebrew Torah at least in some places, because although it is a translation it is an ancient one that was accepted by the early church.

Anyway, this is a minor issue, and I really don't have overly strong feelings either way on the translation of that word. The point of my last post was to simply make sure you were looking into things in depth and not dismissing the KJV simply because it disagreed with the Nestle-Aland Greek text. I am now satisfied that you're taking this very, very seriously!

 

[ylop]

This statement is also materially false for the same reason.

I think materially false is a bit harsh.

There is a variety of opinions on the text source debate within academia and on this forum.

 

[UntoldGlory]

I'm curious about this legalism issue however? Even if I were right and the word is its own plural, which means that it could be either singular or plural (putting the final nail in the coffin of their argument against polygamy), how would that translate to legalism?

They're practicing legalistic monogamy in that they are trying to enforce monogamy on everyone. Monogamy is not a sin. Legalistic monogamy is sinful because legalism is a sin. (1 Timothy 4:1-3, Matthew 15:7-9 and Mark 7:6-7)

How is combating their legalism falling into the sin of legalism?

Oh I'm not saying that it does, I apologize, as I realize that's how it came across. Legalism was a poor word choice. My thought is mostly that even with the failings of the various translations that we use, none of them actually condemn poly. In my experience, people that refuse to accept it's biblical accuracy do so in *spite* of what the Bible says, not because they have some deeper understanding of the original texts, and that when I attempt to educate them using the greek, they get even more hostile and defensive. I was mostly focusing on being secure in the knowledge that we are honoring and serving God with our beliefs, and not feeling that we need to turn ourselves into the fringe nuts that people would like to portray us as in our efforts to defend ourselves. lol. I was also thinking of the spirit of Romans 14, and how we should act in love in regards to other believers with different views about what is and is not a sin, not in a combative kind of way.

I find the research itself pretty fascinating, but I pretty much figure I'd gain zero ground trying to use any of it to change someone's mind about poly, lol.

 

[Wesley]

I find the research itself pretty fascinating, but I pretty much figure I'd gain zero ground trying to use any of it to change someone's mind about poly, lol.

I can relate to what you're saying. I don't even try to convince the legalistic monogamists as a general rule. It's just not worth my time because they're not going to listen anyway. I find that setting the example and letting people ask honest questions is a better option than trying to proselytize.

My knowledge of the scriptures that support polygyny actually comes from two places.

First, I argued with myself and God after a near death experience in the Navy. I had seen first-hand the hypocrisy of various churches growing up with my religiously eclectic mother. I was looking for something real that would actually get me to Heaven and I started reading the Bible. When I started seeing polygamy all over the place I was like, "Hey God, what's up? You're supposed to be leading me AWAY from the crap I was doing as a teenager. This is worse. I won't just be called a pervert. I'll be called a womanizer." I tried quite a few arguments to prove to myself, and God, that polygamy was sinful and He needed to let me off the hook on this. None of it worked. He was sympathetic but not willing change His mind.

Second, I ended up defending myself quite a bit when my family started calling me a heretic and/or a womanizer. My family may not be the best in the world but they're important to me. I cared what they thought for a long time and tried to present rational arguments in my own defense when they went on the attack. It didn't work but I tried. They hit me with just about everything imaginable but God supplied me with an answer for them just like He supplied me with answers when I was arguing against myself and Him. The mistake was trying to offer those answers to them instead of simply using them to comfort myself that I really am living His calling.

 

[Gideon_70]

ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ Α΄ 3:2
2 δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, νηφάλιον, σώφρονα, κόσμιον, φιλόξενον, διδακτικόν,(1 Timothy 3:2 SBL Greek New Testament (SBLGNT))

Keep in mind that these were letters sent to various churches from Apostles and others, and those letters were handed down generation after generation - often re-copied and sometimes even translated. The Bible was assembled about 300 AD, 300 years after Jesus (Joshua) and some letters were included over objections and controversy, and others were excluded because they didn't line up properly with what men wanted to achieve with the New Testament. So this kind of analysis should be kept in it's proper place. For all we know there was a controversy about plural marriage that necessitated writing a letter... but we can glean some of the reasoning of the letter from it's context, but there were always things going on the verbal topic that were not addressed or part of the written topic.

I tend to take it like I see it, using common language and a passing knowledge of Greek - with excessive help from Blueletterbible.com and occasionally a Rabbi that I call on to answer difficult issues.