CLAOTE: Conclusion

Print Friendly

Considering Lingual Aspects of the English:
Conclusion:
Modernity Specifically Limits and Defines The Term “husband” and The Term “wife”

 
Importantly, as I have discussed, centuries ago the term “husband” and the term “wife” had multiple definitions, where one of the definitions of each term had applicability to “marriage”.

But here in modernity, while each term has its colloquial (slang) definitions, the term “husband” and the term “wife” are almost exclusively associated with “marriage”.

That means modern English predominately associates the term “husband” and the term “wife” with the term “marriage”, which legally, religiously, relationally, and/or socially defines a personal relationship.

However, my studies of anthropological history and biblical history show that the personal relationship is in configurations that the State or Church or an individual or a family may or may not recognize as a “marriage”.

While intensely debated, the same-sex relationship has been able to obtain tentative recognition as a “marriage” (recall that “marriage” is a reference back to the use of the word “marriage” as found within the definition for the term “husband” and for the term “wife”).

Furthermore, there is an on-going debate as to whether the State should recognize a same-sex relationship as a “marriage”.

That is due, in part, to how the term “husband” and the term “wife” are defined, which is why the term “partner” is now located within the definition for the term “husband” and the term “wife”.

All I am trying to identify is that the way we define terms has direct and immediate application, even when people disagree about how the terms should or should not be defined.

In the past, the term “husband” meant frugal, and manger, along with cultivator of the soil.

In the past, the term “wife” was functionally synonymous with the term “woman”.

But those definitional applications have fallen out of use, which means that here in modernity, we read the English term “husband” and the English term “wife” with our primary definition and our predispositions for how we prefer to define those terms.

This is not a lament.

Instead, it is recognizing that English speakers have changed the primary definition of the term “husband” and the term “wife”, but both terms remain in the English Bible.

That means that the term “husband” and the term “wife” are functionally archaic, because they were placed into the English Bible by speakers of archaic English, people who used their 1100 to 1500 English terminology in ways that we no longer identify, or use as primary definitions.

That means the archaic English readers did not read their English Bible with our specific and primary modern definitions applying to the legal, religious, relational, and social nature of the “husband” and his formal relationship to his “wife” in a “marriage”.

With that in mind, I want to present the following idea:

Since it is possible to trace the lingual development of the English term “husband” and the English term “wife”,

and
since it is possible to see how the English language has used those terms in different ways,

and
since the ancient peoples defined, developed, and understood their personal relationships different than modernity,

and
since the archaic English people defined, developed, and understood their personal relationships different than modernity,

then
it follows that when Modern English Bibles:
    a) translate the Hebrew term (ish) and/or Greek term (ανηρ) for “man” into the archaic English term “husband” instead of the generic term “man”
and/or
    b) translate the Hebrew term (ishshah) and/or Greek term (γυνη) for “woman” into the archaic English term “wife” instead of the generic term “woman”

then
it follows that Modern English Bible Translations seem to be unintentionally continuing the use of the archaic English term “husband” and the archaic English term “wife” to present the Hebrew and Greek terms,

therefore
it follows that Modern English Bible readers are unknowingly interpreting those archaic English terms (“husband”, and “wife”) through modern English definitions.

Why?

Because the ancients (Hebrew speakers and Greek speakers) and the archaic English people did not use the term “husband” and the term “wife” in the manner we are using those terms.

In other words, the modern English terms (“husband”, and “wife”) are used differently than the Hebrew terms (ish, and ishshah), just as the modern English terms are used differently than the Greek terms (ανηρ, and γυνη), just as the modern English terms are used differently than the archaic English definitions of those English terms.

Stated another way, here in modernity, the term “husband” and the term “wife” are strictly associated with the term “marriage”, but in antiquity (Hebrew, and Greek) and in archaic English, neither the term “man” or the term “woman” (antiquity) nor the term “husband” or the term “wife” (archaic English) had to have direct association with the modern/current definition of “marriage”, which I have identified as the SCECS Accepted Marriage.

However, since it is unlikely that the term “husband” and/or the term “wife” will become uncoupled from their union with the term “marriage” and since the term “marriage” is primarily associated with the SCECS Accepted Marriage, then it matters how one refers to themselves in a Private Contract, even though the anthropological ancients, the biblical ancients, and the archaic English people did not have these specific terminological constraints.

It would be a generous thing if SCECS and the SCECS Accepted Marriage did not own the primary definitions of the term “husband” and the term “wife” and the term “marriage”, but SCECS and the SCECS Accepted Marriage own the primary definitions.

Since SCECS has established the primary definitions of those terms, then those primary definitions influence what can be done with terminology.

Considering all of that, then two things can be known.

One, modernity does not commonly use the archaic English definition of the term “husband” and modernity does not commonly use the archaic English definition of the term “wife”; that is why the definitions have become archaic, because those definitions have fallen into disuse, because those definitions are from a bygone era.

Two, it seems certain that in modernity a male who is not in a SCECS Accepted Marriage does not want to be called “husband”; similar seems to hold true for the female, a woman who is not in a SCECS Accepted Marriage does not want to be called “wife”.

Share