Before this verse, in verse 21, Paul mentions how the ‘Law’ (shorthand for the Law and the Prophets, in this case, Isaiah) predicted that Jehovah will speak to his people (believers) in other languages.
Afterwards, in verse 23, Paul remarks how unbelievers will just think Christians are crazy if they see Christians speaking in other languages; and then in verses 24 and 25, he says than if an unbeliever should hear congregation members prophesy, then the unbeliever will benefit. In other words, prophesying is for unbelievers, while speaking in tongues is for believers. Yes, exactly the opposite of what was stated in verse 22.
For this reason we strongly suspect that 14:22 suffered some early corruption in copying, that someone accidentally switched the statement around. Remember that it took some time for Paul’s writings to be accepted as inspired scripture, and very few copies circulated for many years, allowing corruptions to be overlooked more easily.
So, either there was a corruption, or Paul contradicted himself. We’re assuming there’s a corruption.
Let’s not be too harsh on the scribal copyists. Remember, coffee was not yet known in the ancient world!
1 Corinthians 15:33 – ‘bad company’ or ‘evil communications?’
In most Bibles, 1 Corinthians 15:33 reads something like this:
‘Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.”’
This may indeed be a universal truth, but is it what the verse originally said? No. These words are actually a common mistranslation. You may have suspected this from seeing how it doesn’t flow with the rest of the argument very well.
First, consider the word variously translated as company, companionships, associating, or friends. According to ancient sources, the word does not refer to people at all, but to bad (or evil) ideas, stories, and communications.
This would make sense, because the context is Paul refuting the idea, or teaching, that the resurrection has already occurred. He is not talking about bad people, but bad talk and its logical consequences – and older Bibles seem to agree.
For example, the first Bible ever made in English (Tyndale, 1526) says:
‘Be not deceived: malicious speakings corrupt good manners.’
Also, the Aramaic version of the text clearly says communications or stories. Every English translation of the Aramaic agrees on this. For example, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English says:
Be not deceived, evil discourse corrupts pleasant minds.
The only Bibles that translate the word in a way that refers to bad people, and not bad talk, are those from the Greek. The Greek word is ομιλίαι (homilia) – which is defined in most Bible dictionaries as meaning ‘company, association’.
However, if we check the word in the Greek lexicon (which catalogs the real-world ancient uses of Greek words), we find that in ancient times it had many meanings. Yes, it included company and association, but also persuasion, instruction, and intercourse – meaning an interaction of ideas. To put it another way, talk. This matches up well with the Aramaic word. But wait, there’s more.
There is a very odd thing about the verse in Aramaic. The words seem to have a poetic, repetitive cadence, where the endings of the words seem to be deliberately matched up:
Mablan reyaneh basiymeh
shuw-yatah biy-shatah
Literally:
They/corrupt minds fair,
stories evil
This is phrased as if this is a common saying, told in the typical way that was very common in ancient times: making a slight rhyme so it’s easier to remember.
There is a good reason for this: it is a poetic quote! Indeed, it was probably a well-known one at the time. It was used by a popular ancient Greek poet, Menander. Unfortunately, most of his work was lost, and we only have fragments. So how do we know that Paul was using a quote also used by Menander? Because ancient writers tell us so.
The ancient Church historian Socrates of Constantinople reported in his book, Historia Ecclesiastica:
‘Again this sentence [of Paul], ‘Evil communications corrupt good manners,’ is a sufficient proof that he was conversant with the tragedies of Euripides.’– Book III, chapter 16, verse 114
Notice that not only does this confirm that the phrase is indeed a well-known quote, but look at how Socrates quotes it from Paul: ‘Evil communications corrupt good manners.’ He does not say ‘bad company’.
Interestingly, the Hermeneia Bible commentary series on 1 Corinthians says ‘This saying was widely known as a familiar quotation.’ Then it gives an example of its use by the 1st century BCE historian Diodorus Siculus who, speaking of Philip II of Macedon, said:
‘So, organising bands of traitors in the several cities by means of bribes and calling those who accepted his gold “guests” and “friends”, by his evil communications he corrupted the morals of the people’ –Bibliotheca Historica, 16.54.4
Do you see how it was offering bribes, and then calling these bribed people ‘friends’ – evil communications – that the people were corrupted? So it’s clear why Paul was using this common phrase, because the ‘evil’ teaching that the resurrection had already occurred was corrupting the congregation.
The second part
The second part of the phrase, usually translated as ‘good character,’ or ‘good morals’ needs to be re-examined too.
Let’s tackle the first word. The Aramaic word mostly means sweet or pleasant, and the Greek word mostly means useful, gentle, kind, or pleasant. So which is it?
Since this is a moral tale where something is corrupted, it must be the opposite beforehand, so we could collectively summarize all of these simply as good. Things that are good or can be corrupted, we don’t really speak about corrupting things that are pleasant, kind, or sweet. Also, good was the word used by Socrates of Constantinople when he quoted Paul.
But what about the second word? The Aramaic word can mean mind, thought or attitude, as well as will. The Greek word is éthos, and is where we get the word ethics. It can mean habit, manner, custom, or morals.
So, are we talking about corrupting a good mind? Or good morals? Good habits? Good manners? A good conscience? All of these?
We can immediately rule out habits, because, in our modern language, a good habit is something like brushing your teeth before bed. Good habits – as we think of them today – do not fit in the context. No longer believing in a future resurrection will not stop you brushing your teeth.
We can rule out manners for the same reason, because in modern English, good manners are things like saying please or thank you, or keeping the door open for someone behind you. This is nothing to do with being corrupted by an incorrect teaching about the resurrection!
Good conscience could fit, but when both Socrates of Constantinople and Diodorus Siculus (quoted above) used the expression, they did not say anything so specific as conscience.
So we are left with corrupting the morals or the mind. These are similar thoughts. However, corrupting your morals is the best choice for two reasons: it’s how Diodorus Siculus quoted Paul, and that’s what Paul was talking about. The previous verse said:
‘And if the dead aren’t going to be raised, and if it was just as a man that I fought wild animals at Ephesus, what good did it do me? Why not rather say, ‘Let’s eat and drink, for tomorrow we will die!’ —1 Corinthians 15:32
Clearly the implication is that, if this life is all there is, why not just enjoy it in an immoral way? So if people believe this false teaching about the resurrection, throw your morals to the wind, and enjoy life! Then comes the warning, that evil communications, or ideas, like that, can corrupt your good morals.
It makes perfect sense. Therefore our translation puts 1 Corinthians 15:33 as:
‘So, don’t allow [anyone] to mislead you about this… Remember that “evil communications corrupt good morals!”’
This fits the context perfectly, flows extremely well, matches the ancient uses of the words, and agrees with ancient historians quoting the same expression.
Are bad companions okay?
So, are we saying that the Bible doesn’t condemn associating with bad people? No, of course not. There are numerous warnings about befriending evil people, especially in the Psalms and Proverbs. However, 1 Corinthians 15:33 is not one of them.
This verse is warning about something else: how what you believe affects your morals!
Indeed, the 20th century had a very stark example of evil beliefs causing people to lose their morals. Hitler’s beliefs in a German master race, the pseudoscience of eugenics, Nietzsche’s nihilist philosophy that life is meaningless, and Darwin’s survival of the fittest, all combined to create some of the greatest horrors ever inflicted upon humanity.
1 Corinthians 6:9 – ‘the perverted’
The word that we translate as the perverted has puzzled Bible translators for years. Usually translators assume that it’s something to do with homosexuality, yet the next listed type of person is about homosexuality. So, is homosexuality listed twice? If so, why?
We say that no, homosexuality is probably not listed twice, and this first mention is really talking of something else. However, most Bible translators do not share this belief, and think that there’s two mentions of homosexuality.
So they speculate that this first mention is actually talking about male prostitutes (as in the New Living Translation). Others say that this first mention is specifically talking about effeminate gay men (as in the King James Version). A few even say that it’s talking about the passive role in gay sex, whereas the next listing is the active role in gay sex (as translated in the Berean Study Bible). The New International Version combines both terms into one, ‘men who have sex with men,’ hiding the fact that two separate things were listed. The New King James Version really confuses things, by listing them as ‘nor homosexuals, nor sodomites.’ Huh?
Here’s an alternative answer, found in the Aramaic word (and from a little critical thinking).
Not so specific
1 Corinthians may have originally been penned in Aramaic. The Greek text may be an ancient translation. Now, the Aramaic word used is ܡܚܒܠܐ (m’hab’leh), which comes from a root which literally means to injure. The exact spelling means to be defiled, or to be corrupted. Other words derived from this same root have meanings including to disfigure, to act perversely, to be perverted, and even to deflower.
Put this all together, and it sounds like the Apostle was listing people who corrupt or pervert either themselves or others. Or as we would say in English, perverts.
This would also solve a small puzzle. Fornication, adultery, and homosexuality all got their own special mentions by Paul, but not incest, bestiality, rape, voyeurism, pedophilia, or prostitution. Why? Well, they are all probably covered by this word.
Also, in the old law, cross-dressers were specifically condemned to a death sentence, yet in the New Testament, there’s no mention of it. How puzzling that a capital offence in Israel, would now be permitted among Christians by Paul. Why the change? Was it just forgotten? Or, in the Apostle Paul’s mind, was such a thing actually covered by this word? Perhaps, but we don’t know.
What explains the Greek?
But what about the word used in the Greek version? That says something quite different. It’s μαλακοί (malakoi). It’s the masculine plural word for soft, and so can literally mean, soft males. It could indeed be translated as effeminate males or passive males. Basically, it’s slang: softies.
However, if this was merely the choice of an Ancient Greek translator, then it may be a mistranslation. How so?
When our Ancient Greek translator – probably Jewish – saw the word m’hab’leh (the perverted), what may have first come to his mind was how, in Ancient Greece, it was quite normal for older men to ‘court’ teenage boys and enter a relationship with them, which was often sexual. We call this pederasty. Such relationships would often be illegal today due to age-of-consent laws. Yet the Ancient Greeks celebrated it. We can only imagine how much it must have shocked Greek-speaking Jews!
Ancient Greek culture also featured male prostitutes who shaved their beards off to make themselves look more feminine. Even being clean-shaven was against the Jewish Law, never mind being a male prostitute! In the Old Law at Leviticus 19:27, all men must have beards (with a exception of a cleansing ritual in Leviticus 14:9). This ordinary part of Greek culture would have also shocked the Jews.
So when our Jewish Christian translator, who perhaps lived among the Greeks in Corinth, saw the Aramaic word for the perverted, it’s not surprising that he translated it as the Greek term soft males. To him, the pederasty and effeminacy he saw every single day were shocking perversions. Yet, by doing this, he likely mistranslated.
The term, the perverted, can cover many persons, including many heterosexuals. By mistranslating it as soft males, he was seriously limiting what Paul said to apply to just one group. And this was probably a mistake, as 2,000 years later, translators are puzzling over why we have two mentions of same-sex relations. Yet, it seems that we actually don’t.
What is perverted?
Exactly what things are the perverted guilty of doing in the Apostle’s mind? Well, it would very likely cover all of the sexual crimes in the Old Law; so incest, bestiality, and so on, would be included. Beyond that, it’s up for debate.
We may get some clues from the root word, meaning to injure or perish. If an activity would injure or even kill someone’s innocence or moral purity, then it might be covered by this word. It may also imply something more rare and unusual than mere fornication, adultery, or homosexuality, which are mentioned separately and are very common.
1 Corinthians 8:6 – everything made through Jesus, or everything in Jesus’ hand?
In most translations (including this one, at one time), the latter half of this verse sounds like it’s talking about Jesus being involved in creation:
“And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist.” –Berean Standard Bible
However, the Aramaic could be taken in one of two ways. It could agree with what is said above, but it could also simply be about everything being in Jesus’ hand, or power. Literally, the Aramaic reads:
…and-one lord, Jesus Anointed-One, all-of in/with-his-hand/arm also we in/with-his-hand/arm.
We translate this as:
There’s also just one Lord, Jesus the Anointed; everything is in his hand, and we are in his hand too.
The confusion arises because the Aramaic for ‘in’ can also mean ‘with’ or ‘by means of’, and the expression ‘hand/arm’ is part of a common way of talking about acting, fighting, and so on. Consider how many times Yahweh talks about showing his ‘mighty arm’ in the Old Testament.
So the Aramaic text could mean:
- ‘all [is] by means of his hand’, or
- ‘all [are] in his hand’.
Or, in other words:
- Everything was created by/through Jesus, or
- Everything is in Jesus’ hand.
Which is correct?
Well, the ancient Greek translator (remember, our project assumes that this book was originally in Aramaic) seems to quite clearly believe that it should mean ‘all [is] by means of his hand’. He clearly translated it as ‘through whom all’. Modern Bibles translate this to mean that everything was created by God through Jesus.
However, could the Greek translator have made a mistake here? Was it really just a statement about everything being in Jesus’ dominion? Well, if the Greek text really was just an uninspired translation, then yes, it’s possible that a mistake was made.
So is there any further context to clarify what was meant?
Well, the idea of everything being in Jesus’ hand nicely fits many other scriptures, including ones further on in the same letter. Paul later talks about ‘everything’ being acceptable because ‘everything’ belongs to the Lord.
1 Corinthians 10:22-26:
Yes, everything is legal, but not everything makes us stronger… you can eat whatever’s sold at the meat markets without it bothering your consciences, for the earth and everything in it belongs to the Lord.
It also agrees with many other statements, such as Hebrews 2:8, which says:
…when [God] put everything under [Jesus’ feet], He didn’t leave anything out… There’s nothing that he isn’t in charge of.
However, this does not prove anything. It just shows that the alternative translation could be correct.
So, does this verse talk about everything being in Jesus’ hand, or everything being created through Jesus? Well, we can’t ask the Church Fathers for help, since if the Greek translator really did get it wrong, then all these other men would have been working from the mistranslation!
We really can’t say which version is the correct one without stepping outside of translation and into theology. We are not taking sides on any controversy over Jesus’ pre-human existence. The question we’re considering here is one of translation of a few words.
If the Aramaic text really is the original, then it’s our duty to point out that it can be translated in two different ways. We are merely using the alternative translation to bring your attention to this issue; that’s all.
1 John 5:7-8 – ‘these three are one’
In several other Bibles, 1 John 5:7-8 reads:
‘There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.’
However, these words are missing from every ancient Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, Slavic, Georgian, Coptic, and Arabic manuscript. In fact, they do not appear in any Greek manuscript of the Bible until the 14th or 15th century – approximately 1,400 years after the Apostle wrote this Bible book!
It does appear in one 10th century Greek manuscript, but it’s clearly been added by someone later on, believed to be during the 19th century. Also, the words themselves have three significant variants, typical for a spurious addition to the Bible.
Further, the Church fathers did not mention this verse, even when collecting verses that they argued supported the Trinity doctrine. Clement of Alexandria quoted these verses and didn’t include these words.
You can find these words in a document from the 4th century, but it’s not a Bible manuscript – it’s a homily called Liber Apologeticus by a writer called Priscillian of Ávila.
So how did these words get into the Bible? Well, the words were first deliberately added to the Latin Vulgate translation by persons working for the Catholic Church. They moved them from a marginal note into the main body of the text. It remained there, alone among Bibles, until recent centuries. However, even then, they are missing from the two oldest Vulgate manuscripts, the Codex Fuldensis and the Codex Amiatinus. This suggests that Jerome, the original creator of the Latin Vulgate, did not recognize the words. There is one quote of his that supposedly mentions it, but it’s now thought to be from a pseudo-Jerome – a later impostor.
Today, it is easily the most well-known fake verse in the Bible. Entire books have been written about this. Even several Catholic Bibles now omit the ‘verse,’ including the Jerusalem Bible and the New American Bible, both sponsored by the Vatican.
If that wasn’t enough, even the context shows that the words do not belong there. John chapter 5 is speaking about the three witness-bearers of Jesus:
- The water (baptism),
- The Holy Spirit (in Greek, Pneuma – Breath),
- His shed blood
So adding words mentioning ‘the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost’ makes the rest of what John wrote illogical, because he wasn’t talking about that.
Scholars call this fake verse the Johannine Comma.
See our list of spurious texts that are crossed out in our Bible.
1 Kings 6:1 – How many years?
There is a disagreement here between the different Bible source texts. The Greek Septuagint says:
‘It was in the four hundred and fortieth year after the sons IsraEl left Egypt … that the foundation of the Temple of Jehovah was laid.’
However, the Hebrew text says the foundation of the Temple was laid four hundred and eighty years after the exodus from Egypt.
So, which is correct?
Well, the period from IsraEl’s entry into the promised land – from the period of the Judges to the start of the reign of King Saul (as shown in the books of Judges and 1 Samuel) – seems to have been about 400 years. Then if we add the 40 years of Saul’s rule and the 40 years of David’s rule, you can see that there had to be at least 480 years between the time of the Exodus and the laying of the Temple foundation by David’s son Solomon.
So the Greek Septuagint text is probably is error here, and the Hebrew Masoretic text is most likely correct.
It can be argued that this 480-year period may not have actually started with the Exodus, but with IsraEl’s entry into the Promised Land. To learn more, see the commentary, Who was Pharaoh during the Exodus?.
1 Samuel 24:3 – Was Saul preparing himself, having a sleep, or having a poo?
The Greek text says that Saul entered the cave to “make preparation,” while the Hebrew says he went in to “cover his feet.” What does this mean?
Some say that that the Hebrew expression refers to taking off your outer garments to lie down and sleep. After all, David is then spoken of as creeping up to him and cutting off part of his garment. It would make sense if he was asleep. So this may be correct.
However, feet are often used as a euphemism for your nether regions, much like the word loins. And why not just say ‘sleep?’ Why would an expression be needed? And why would the Greek Septuagint say something completely different, unless the translators was using an equivalent Greek-language euphemism? Saul was, of course, King. If he wore many layers, he may have had to remove his outer coat and set it aside before easing nature. There was also an entire army outside, and the noise generated by it may have helped David to sneak up and cut Saul’s garment without Saul hearing.
So it may be a euphemism for answering a call of nature. Since the Hebrew text implies pulling down underclothes to cover the feet, it seems likely that this was not just for urination, but to empty the bowels.
However, we don’t know for sure.
Saul may indeed have been sleeping. If Saul was easing nature, then it may add to our understanding of the account, showing why David refused to strike Saul. Not only would he be killing the King, but he would be killing him in the most humiliating way possible. Saul would have forever been known as the King who was killed while having a poo.
1 Timothy 1:10 – fornicators, the sexually immoral, or whoremongers?
There is a slight disagreement here between the Greek and Aramaic texts. In Greek, it just uses a derivative of porneia, which means that which is sold (by prostitutes), just like it does in 1 Corinthians 6:9. So the Greek text is always translated as fornicators or the sexually immoral. It is not about prostitutes specifically.
However, in the Aramaic, the word might be slightly more specific. It is walzanayeh. The wa- and -l- pieces are prefixes meaning and for/to, while zanayeh just means prostitute. So literally we have and for/to prostitutes. Everything in Aramaic is derived from verbs (action words), so this literally means someone who goes to prostitutes. In English, such persons are called a whoremongers.
Now, somewhat like in Greek, the Aramaic word for fornication (sexual immorality) is derived from the word for prostitute. So, is the word an expression that means all kinds of sexual immorality, or is it being specific to using a prostitute? It’s difficult to say. The Aramaic translations are split on the matter. The George Lamsa Bible says ‘whoremongers.’ The Murdock translation says the same. However, the Etheridge translation says ‘fornicators.’
It seems that our Ancient Greek translator also thought it implied fornicators, rather than specifically just customers of prostitutes. After all, would visiting a prostitute be wrong, while having sex with a slave be acceptable? Surely both would be wrong. 1 Corinthians 6:18 uses a different version of the same word, and the context makes it clear that we’re talking about more than prostitutes.
However, since we tend to trust the Aramaic, and since it is slightly different to the word used in 1 Corinthians 6:9, in this instance we go with the meaning of whoremongers (or people who use prostitutes). Perhaps the apostle was wishing to be more specific here. After all, the entire list is slightly different to the one in 1 Corinthians. This note should explain that the true meaning might be more broad. Indeed, in 1 Corinthians 6:9, the related Aramaic word zanayeh is translated as sexually immoral.
1 Timothy 1:18 – ‘fight in a good war’
Most Bible translations say something like he will ‘fight the good fight.’ However, in our opinion, Paul wanted to use a much stronger imagery.
The Greek source seems to indicate that Timothy would act as soldier or warrior in fighting (strateun) in a good (kalen) war (strateian). Presumably, this would be a spiritual war.
What may be the original Aramaic source agrees, saying that Timothy would perform military work or service (dəṯeplūḥ) in a good, or proper, (šappīrtā) war (pālḥūṯā).
We feel that this is more colorful than merely ‘fight a good fight’. It is also logical, because both letters to Timothy follow a theme of a soldier in battle. For example, Paul refers to him as a ‘fine soldier’ at 2 Timothy 2:3-4.
1 Timothy 2:9-15 – verses about women
Since this passage is about an emotionally-charged topic, here’s a breakdown of why we translate it in this way.
Verses 9-10
In the NKJV:
9 in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, 10 but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.
In our translation:
9 Likewise, the women’s clothing should be modest, respectable, and sensible; not with fancy hairstyles, gold, pearls, or expensive clothes. 10 But instead, [their fancy clothing] should be good works – something befitting women who say that they fear God.
The problem is that all three words used (in both Greek and Aramaic) could reasonably be translated as some variation of modesty. So the differences must be subtle. So the question is, what are the differences?
According to the interlinear Apostolic Bible, the Greek literally says ‘composed apparel with respect and discreetness’, while the Dukhrana interlinear of the Aramaic text gives ‘modest/sober apparel with modesty/reverence and modesty/sobriety.’
Now we must turn this into everyday English. If we instead look at the opposite of these words, we can start to see how to convey this in modern terms.
What is the opposite of being sober and modest? Probably wild (or drunk) and showing off. What’s the opposite of modesty and reverence? Probably showing off (again) and being disrespectful. What’s the opposite of modesty and sobriety? Making poor choices that also results in showing off.
So in everyday English, we could say modest (opposite of wild showing off), respectable (opposite of disrespectful), and sensible (opposite of making poor choices). Also, if these comments are made in the context of Christian meetings (like the next comments about learning seem to be), the reference to respect could refer to respecting the solemness of the occasion.
These Aramaic-based translations are all very similar to the Greek words, except for ‘discreetness’ instead of ‘sensible.’ However, in Greek ‘discreet’ also means ‘wise,’ ‘sanity,’ and ‘self-control’. So both languages seem to be saying the same thing.
Verse 11
In the NKJV:
11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission.
In our translation:
11 Let a woman [or, wife] learn quietly and obediently.
In this place, our translation is very similar to others, but phrases like “in silence” and “with all submission” are old-fashioned.
Further, some men take the phrase “all submission” out of context in order to tell women that they should allow themselves to be subjugated and abused because “the Bible says you ought to be silent and submit to me!” However, this verse is just talking about learning – being obedient to Christian teachers, probably in the context of Christian meetings.
Look at it this way, the opposite meaning would be to behave “loudly and disruptively”. Should any Christian act like that when learning about their Faith, male or female?
Verse 12a
In the NKJV:
12 And I do not permit a woman to teach …
In our translation:
12 Indeed, I don’t argue that a woman [should] teach …
The differences between the Greek and Aramaic are interesting here. The Aramaic word is usually translated as ‘allow/permit,’ but it’s actually a stronger inflection of the verb ‘to persuade’, so it could be order, but the root is usually used to mean beg or plead. If that’s correct, then Paul isn’t setting up a rule, rather, he is stating that he would never argue for a woman to teach. In other words, he would never demand it, nor try to make it happen.
If this is right, then it may resolve a problem, because if he really had set up a ‘rule’ that women can never teach, then what about places where the local Christian group has no Christian men willing (or able) to teach? The problem disappears when we see that it’s not a rule, it’s just not what he would argue for; it’s not the ideal.
While the Christian books mention women praying, prophecying, singing, and preaching, they don’t mention women teaching a congregation. On the contrary, James recommended that very few ‘brothers’ should be teachers (James 3:1).
Being a teacher is, however, different from leading the congregation in song, saying a prayer, prophecying, speaking in tongues, or sharing testimonies and experiences. Teaching is something very specific that (according to James) few should do. And nobody (male or female) should be the Leader other than the Anointed One. (see below)
Verse 12b
In the NKJV:
… or to have authority over a man…
In our translation:
… nor [that she should] domineer a man;
The Aramaic uses a strong inflection of ‘to dare’, or ‘to be bold’. The Greek can mean to be something like a despot. In the everyday English of our translation, we choose to say ‘to domineer a man’.
One might think that authority and domination are the same thing, but they are not. Saying ‘have authority over’ implies an official appointment to an office. Therefore, the meaning of the verse is changed entirely; it sounds like Paul is implying that while women can’t gain such authority, men can.
We have learned through our translation efforts that men are not permitted to have authority (or to act as ‘Lords’) over other Christians, for only the Anointed One is the Leader. Even the Apostles were mere servants. See our page on mistranslations to support the authority of men.
To ‘have authority over’ implies some official appointment, whereas anyone can be domineering. No appointment is needed. So, if Paul was saying that a woman shouldn’t be domineering over a man, it changes the sense to something much broader. Also, keep in mind that the Aramaic and Greek words for woman and man also mean wife and husband. The actual meaning is only seen by context. You could choose to read it as ‘nor [should a wife] domineer a husband’.
Verse 12c
In the NKJV:
…but to be in silence.
In our translation:
… rather, stop it.
Finally, instead of ‘be silent’, our translation says ‘stop it’ because the broader sense of the Aramaic word (and its root) means to cease something, including speaking and doing, but ‘be silent’ would be a reasonable choice too.
Verses 13-14a
In the NKJV:
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived …
In our translation:
13 For Adam was created first, then Eve. 14 Also, Adam wasn’t seduced, but the woman was seduced …
The Aramaic word has a broad range of meanings – from simply making a mistake, to going astray, to be seduced. Since we know the context – what happened in the Garden – we know that seduced is the correct meaning here.
Eve was not just deceived – there was more to it. She was enticed to look at the tree and to develop a desire for its fruit; the ‘snake’ aroused feelings in her and then used these against her. This is more than mere deception, it’s seduction.
To translate it as ‘deceived’ could imply that she was simply tricked and that God will punish innocent people if they are fooled by someone – yes, that He punishes people for being victims! It makes far more sense when one understands that it’s not that simple; she wasn’t just lied to, she was enticed to fulfill her own desires and to sin.
According to HELPS Word Studies, the scholar Deissmann stated that “deception with [this word] is often sensual (personal desires, pleasure)”.
Verses 14b
In the NKJV:
… fell into transgression.
In our translation:
… broke the commandment.
There are three problems with ‘fell into transgression’. First, it’s old-fashioned (and our translation is supposed to be in modern English). Secondly, it speaks generally, whereas the original text is referencing a specific event. The actual words in Greek say that Eve was in violation – meaning, she broke a law. The Aramaic says she broke the command. Yes, she ate the fruit. So that’s what we have in our translation.
Finally, the more general statement, unfortunately, implies to some that through Eve, all women have fallen into transgression (or sin) in some way that Adam (and all men) did not. Therefore, they say, women are uniquely sinful. Yet this is not supported by the original words.
There is no implication that by extension, through Eve, all women are somehow uniquely sinful. Surely, by this logic, the men would be uniquely sinful since Adam wasn’t seduced and knew what he was doing.
Verse 15
In the NKJV:
15 Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.
In our translation:
15 However, she’ll be sustained by her children – as long as they[, that is, her children] remain in the Faith in love, holiness, and sensibleness.
This verse has caused some to think that giving birth to multiple children will save (or at least help to save) women.
There are two main problems with this. First, only faith in the sacrifice of Jesus can save. Paul could hardly tell Timothy that a woman is saved by having kids. He can’t say that; only Jesus saves.
The problem evaporates when you realize that the word for ‘saved’ has further everyday uses (in both Aramaic and Greek) than just salvation through Jesus. The Aramaic word can also mean the ordinary sustaining things of life (money, food, drink, shelter, etc.), or to be kept safe and well. Also, the Greek can mean to be safe and sound. Only the context reveals which is the correct meaning. We choose “sustained”.
So Paul is not saying that the woman will be saved in a religious sense (how could he?), but looked after, sustained. But how can giving birth sustain you? Well, the Aramaic word can mean either births or children. Again, the context is key. Paul must be referring to the support of her grown, believing children in the Faith – not little babies! So here our translation says “sustained by her children”.
If the Greek is merely a translation of an Aramaic original (as we suspect), then we can see where the misunderstanding came from – the Greek translator chose the wrong definition. He saw “births/children”, ignored the obvious context, and turned children into childbearing! Suddenly, giving birth grants women salvation.
Further, when it says “she’ll be sustained by her children as long as they remain in the Faith”, the Aramaic word meaning ‘they remain’ has a masculine plural spelling. So it can’t be referring back to the singular woman, it must refer to her children remaining in the Faith (a mixed-sex group of people uses a plural masculine spelling). Also, newborn babies cannot be ‘in the Faith.’
Therefore, by considering the context, Paul said that a woman will be sustained via her faithful children. Sustained in what way? Perhaps sustained in the Faith, and protected from what he mentioned previously, being seduced by something and led away from the Faith.
1 Timothy 3:16 – ‘he’ or ‘God’?
The wording was altered – either accidentally or deliberately – in some Greek manuscripts to say that God appeared in the flesh instead of ‘he.’ This is one of the most famous corruptions of the Bible text that researchers have found. It is corrected in most modern Bibles, but still appears in a few translations, such as the King James Version and the World English Bible.
Sir Isaac Newton even wrote a pamphlet about this corruption, which also covered the fake words of the ‘Johannine Comma’ too.
Sharing is caring
Share
+1
Tweet
Share
Share