CLAOTB: Conclusion

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Considering Lingual Aspects of the Bible:
Conclusion

 
The primary issue for English Bible readers occurs when English readers read the English term “husband” and the English term “wife” and how those English terms related to the English term “marriage”.

Recall that the archaic English people defined the English term “husband” as an occupation.

Recall that the archaic English people defined the English term “wife” as synonymous with the English term “woman”.

That means for the archaic English people, they most likely did not impose a legal or religious status on the personal relationships found within the Bible.

Yet, modern English speakers most certainly interpret a lingual difference between the English term “woman” and the English term “wife”.

Additionally, modern English speakers most certainly interpret a lingual difference between the English term “man” and the English term “husband”.

That is because modern English speakers understand the English term “husband” and the English term “wife” to refer specifically to the legal and/or religious constructs of “marriage”.

Importantly, the modern concept of “husband”, the modern concept of “wife”, and the modern concept “marriage” developed centuries after the Biblical cannon was considered closed.

In the Pentateuch (Torah), we find the personal relationship.

In the Pentateuch (Torah), we find the ‘scecs’ practice of private contracting, and the ancient ‘scecs’ practice of paying the bride price.

Centuries later, the ancient ‘scecs’ practice of paying the bride price seems to have been replaced by the Israelites and their ‘scecs’ practice of the ketubah.

Then long after those things, the Bible canon was closed.

Then centuries after the closing of the Biblical canon, the English language developed.

Then centuries later, the practice of the modern “marriage” (the SCECS Accepted Marriage) became a cultural norm.

That means that it is historically impossible for the SCECS Accepted Marriage to have existed during the time of the AD/CE First Century, or for the SCECS Accepted Marriage to have existed during the time before the book of Matthew.

That means that historically “marriage” (the SCECS Accepted Marriage) did not exist within the Biblical context, whether at the Garden or in the early church.

That means, unlike how my KJV Bible section heading indicates, Adam and Eve were not the first “marriage”, but it is true that Adam and Eve do represent the first personal relationship.

In other words, within the Biblical narrative, labeling Adam and Eve as the first “marriage” is to create a tremendous anthropological and historical error in the development of the personal relationship, in the development of social constructs (e.g. the Private Contract), and the development of human government and religious organizations within humanity.

Therefore:
when the English translates the Hebrew term ish and the Greek term aner into the archaic or the modern English term “husband”,

and
when the English translates the Hebrew term ishshah and the Greek term gune into the archaic or the modern English term “wife”

then
the English imposes on the ancient peoples something that never existed in their time,

and then
the English leads English readers to misunderstand the Biblical narrative with regard to the personal relationship.

That is what is done.

Why?

Because the English translates in the above manner, the English reader is not capable of seeing that the personal relationships within the Scriptures are different in a social, legal, and religious nature from the modern “marriage” (the SCECS Accepted Marriage).

Furthermore, it is not linguistically critical, or literarily contextual, or necessary for Biblical translation to identify any woman as a “wife” or to identify any man as a “husband”.

Why?

Because the Hebrew term ishshah, the Greek term gune, and the English term “woman” place the female in relationship to her man, as being associated with him.

That type of phraseology is still in use today, where a female describes the male as “her man” or describes her personal relationship to him by saying “I’m his woman.”

That might be considered uncultured, but that is common, and that common phraseology is used to define their personal relationship, and that common phraseology is found in the Hebrew and Greek.

What type of personal relationship?
What level of commitment is their personal relationship?
How is their relationship recognized?
Who recognized their relationship?

All of that, and perhaps more, is open for discussion, but the ability to define the personal relationship in the most basic way matters.

 
 
As I have demonstrated, whether Hebrew or Greek, the Hebrew and the Greek do not have one term for “man” and another term for “husband”, and the Hebrew and the Greek do not have one term for “woman” and another term for “wife”.

Therefore,
since in the Biblical Hebrew, ish is always ish;

and
since in the Biblical Hebrew, ishshah is always ishshah;

and
since in the Biblical Greek, aner is always aner;

and
since in the Biblical Greek, gune is always gune;

then
it follows that there the Hebrew and Greek make no linquistic differentiation.

Therefore
since the archaic English understood the English term “husband” as an occupation;

and
since the archaic English understood the English term “wife” as synonymous with “woman”;

and
since the modern English defines the English term “huband” as a man in a “marriage”

and
since the modern English defines the English term “wife” as a woman in a “marriage”

and
since the English term “husband” and the English term “wife” did not exist during the Biblical narrative

then it follows that:
it is anachronistic for the English to translate the generalized nature of the Hebrew terms (ish, ishshah) and to translate the generalized nature of the Greek terms (aner, gune) into English terminology that alters the historic linguistics of the Biblical narrative;

and, it follows that:
the English should translate the Hebrew term ish and the Greek term aner into the English term “man”;

and
the English should translate the Hebrew term ishshah and the Greek term gune into the English term “woman”.

By doing that the English reader will be able to read the Scriptures and determine what type of personal relationship exists or does not exist between a “man” (ish, aner) and a “woman” (ishshah, gune).

 
 
When we look at the linguistic nature of the Hebrew and the Greek, and when we look at the ‘scecs’ practices within the Scriptures, the question becomes: Which method of defining, developing, and understanding the personal relationship and Private Contract does God accept?

What does God prefer:
– the Garden with no government and legal system?
– the Private Contract system that Abraham used to secure a personal relationship for Isaac?
– the Private Contract system that Jacob used to secure a personal relationship?
– the bride price system?
– the ketubah system?
– the Private Contact method of Western culture?
– the prenuptial and SCECS Accepted Marriage?

Or does God not really have a preference about how the personal relationship and Private Contract originates?

Broadly speaking, since those differences can be found throughout anthropological history and/or biblical history, and since God did not provide any specific revelation to what God prefers, then it follows that God does not really have any particular preference of the above methods.

An individual can pray to God asking for assistance to find their personal relationship, and then establish a Private Contract for that personal relationship.

Or an individual can walk life and use the available methods found within ‘scecs’ or SCECS and then establish the formality of their personal relationship.

Yet, as we can see, from within the Scriptures, for Israel there are teachings that are provided about who can have a personal relationship with whom, and in the New Testament similar concepts are brought forward.

But as for the recognition, governance, and practical documentation for that personal relationship and Private Contract, God has left that in the purview of the individuals.

When that is understood, it becomes of little wonder that the English Bible translations of the Hebrew and the Greek have created some ethical dilemmas for the English speaking people, and have created some ethical dilemmas with regard to the personal relationship and the Private Contract, dilemmas that were never experienced by our ancient western ancestors, our ancient Biblical ancestors, or our archaic English ancestors.

Share