Thoughts about the NT, PR, & PC: Matthew 19.1-12 and English Terminology

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Thoughts about the New Testament, Personal Relationship, and Private Contract:
Matthew 19.1-12 and English Terminology

 
As for the terminology of Matthew 19.1-12, as I discussed throughout the section: Considering Lingual Aspects of the Bible, and specifically discussed in Greek Terminology, More Greek Terminology, and Even More Greek Terminology, the English Bible is not completely consistent with the Greek.

That simply means that the Greek terminology for referring to the man and to the woman in the personal relationship is not the exact same type of terminology used in English.

In modern English, there is a linguistic difference between the English term “man” and the English term “husband”.

In modern English, there is a linguistic difference between the English term “woman” and the English term “wife”.

Unlike modern English, a functional reality is that the Biblical Hebrew and the Biblical Greek make no distinction.

As discussed in the section: Considering Lingual Aspects of the Bible, the Biblical Hebrew does not have one term for “man” and another term for “husband”, just as the Biblical Hebrew does not have one term for “woman” and another term for “wife”.

As discussed in the section: Considering Lingual Aspects of the Bible, the Biblical Greek does not have one term for “man” and another term for “husband”, just as the Biblical Greek does not have one term for “woman” and another term for “wife”.

What can be known from that, is that the Israelite system, which included the Biblical Hebrew and the Biblical Greek (Hellenistic Judaism), had its methods of:
– defining, developing, and understanding the personal relationship,
– assigning the accountabilities and responsibilities of those within the Private Contract, and
– terminating a personal relationship and/or a Private Contract.

Without doubt, Matthew 19.1-12 records that Jesus was asked about the grounds for terminating the personal relationship and/or Private Contract.

But as I have expressed, both the question to Jesus and Jesus’ answer are within the context of the Israelite system.

That Israelite system did not have distinctive Biblical terms for “man” and “husband”, and did not have distinctive Biblical terms for “woman” and “wife”.

However, the English does have distinctive terms for “man” and “husband”, just as the English has distinctive terms “woman” and “wife”.

That means the English Bible will use the term “husband” and the term “wife”, which will convey specific concepts about “husband” and specific concepts about “wife”, as those terms relate to the concept of “marriage” (i.e. the SCECS Accepted Marriage).

Importantly, as I discussed in the section: Considering Lingual Aspects of the English, archaic English did not automatically associate the English term “husband” and the English term “wife” with the legal or religious status of “marriage”.

In the section: Considering Lingual Aspects of the Bible, I discussed that whether the usage of the Hebrew or the Greek term was general or the usage of the Hebrew or the Greek term was specific within the context of a personal relationship, the Hebrew and the Greek terms made no distinction with terminologically.

Here is the Biblical terminological reality:

 
Since the Biblical Hebrew does not have terminology that will make a distinction between “man” and “husband”,

and
since the Biblical Hebrew does not have terminology that will make a distinction between “woman” and “wife”,

and
since the Biblical Greek does not have terminology that will make a distinction between “man” and “husband”,

and
since the Biblical Greek does not have terminology that will make a distinction between “woman” and “wife”,

then
that reality with the Hebrew and Greek terminology make it difficult to ascertain:

if the man in the personal relationship referred to the woman in his Private Contract as his “woman” or his “wife”,

and/or
if the woman in the personal relationship referred to the man in her Private Contract as her “man” or her “husband”.

Importantly though, under the legal system of the Israelites, it matters little whether the man referred to the woman as his “woman” or his “wife”, and it matters little whether the woman referred to the man as her “man” or her “husband”.

Why?

Because, as I have expressed, the Biblical Hebrew and the Biblical Greek make no linguistic terminological differences.

However, that is not the case with the modern English.

Applied differently, in English, terminology matters.

Why?

Because the English Bible is translating the Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek with English terminology, having specific modern applications and definitions.

That means when the English translates the Biblical narrative using modern English terms, the English is making the Biblical personal relationship and/or Biblical Private Contract appear similar to our modern SCECS Accepted Marriage, which affects the English reader’s reading of the Biblical narrative.

In other words, using English terms that are directly associated with the SCECS Accepted Marriage cannot adequately or accurately represent the personal relationships and/or Private Contracts found within the Biblical narrative.

Why?

Because the English term “husband” and the English term “wife” are directly associated the SCECS Accepted Marriage.

Therefore, it is accurate to conclude that the English term “husband”, and the English term “wife”, and the SCECS Accepted Marriage did not exist during the Biblical narrative.

However, it is just as accurate to understand that those English terms are directly associated with the SCECS Accepted Marriage, refering to a legal union, having legal ramifications, unique to the SCECS Accepted Marriage, having direct legal ramifications to those participating in the SCECS Accepted Marriage, which during the Biblical narrative cannot be said to exist as we know it.

Share