• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

3rd century Christian with more than one wife

It is worth noting that these brothers were raised Christian. So this isn't a case of a polygamous convert to Christianity. Not only that they were active in public life / holding public office. So this was culturally acceptable.
 
Great find.
Does Fox allow for comments? It would be great for folks to point out the fact that polygyny seemed to be no big deal, even to politically active folks.
 
I decided to buy the book 'Papyri and the Social World of the New Testament', which has a copy of the letter according to the website. In the book, the line in question reads:

"...Our lady mother is well and salutes you as well as our wives and sweetest children and our brothers and all our people. ..."

Which was confusing because multiple news sites including the University of Basel's (which is where the letter is being kept I believe) reported the line to read:

"...Our lady mother is well and salutes you as well as your wives and sweetest children and our brothers and all our people. ..."

I contacted the author and she confirmed that this was a mistake and that the actual reading is "..our wives.."
 
I decided to buy the book 'Papyri and the Social World of the New Testament', which has a copy of the letter according to the website. In the book, the line in question reads:



Which was confusing because multiple news sites including the University of Basel's (which is where the letter is being kept I believe) reported the line to read:



I contacted the author and she confirmed that this was a mistake and that the actual reading is "..our wives.."

This may well be correct, however, I would research further. This is most likely a translation bias. Which side it occurs on would be the question of the hour.

Something I recently found was the 1 Corinthians 12:12 passage which is translated correctly, but the translation process minimizes the connection for a monogamous culture. Look up the passage and see what the Greek word is for the English word “many”. Then read the passage using the Greek word. Also verses 18-21
 
This may well be correct, however, I would research further. This is most likely a translation bias. Which side it occurs on would be the question of the hour.

Something I recently found was the 1 Corinthians 12:12 passage which is translated correctly, but the translation process minimizes the connection for a monogamous culture. Look up the passage and see what the Greek word is for the English word “many”. Then read the passage using the Greek word. Also verses 18-21
Enjoyed your exposition of this at the Retreat! Thanks! Highlights again the bias of MO writ large upon our eschatology, yet a proper understanding of marriage and our King leads to amazing wonder of HIS work in restoring His people.
 
I decided to buy the book 'Papyri and the Social World of the New Testament', which has a copy of the letter according to the website. In the book, the line in question reads:



Which was confusing because multiple news sites including the University of Basel's (which is where the letter is being kept I believe) reported the line to read:



I contacted the author and she confirmed that this was a mistake and that the actual reading is "..our wives.."
That’s interesting but the sentence reads a little weird with “our” instead of “your”. I’m sure it could work but it doesn’t seem like the simplest explanation. It would mean that both brother’s wives were with the one brother for an extended period of time. It’s certainly feasible it starts to feel a little forced.
 
Reads fine with "our" because the remainder of the sentence also says "our". It just makes the whole sentence a list of all the people who are sending greetings. To be honest, I actually think that reads more comfortably and seems more likely - as translated anyway.
 
It seems odd to me that the brother transmitting the greetings to his own wives would be sending them by letter thru his brother.

Our lady mother is well and salutes you as well as our wives and sweetest children and our brothers and all our people. ..."
 
It seems odd to me that the brother transmitting the greetings to his own wives would be sending them by letter thru his brother.

Our lady mother is well and salutes you as well as our wives and sweetest children and our brothers and all our people. ..."
I agree, it seems to be an odd ordering of the relationships. Why isn’t the writer greeting his wife at the same time he’s transmitting his mother’s greetings to her? Very strange.
 
I read it as meaning "Our lady mother, our wives, children, brothers, and all our people, send you greetings." So it's just a list of people the writer is writing on behalf of.
 
Does the translation difference change the existence of a plural marriage in their situation, or just who it was that had multiple wives?
 
Changes the existence of it. The whole idea that there was someone with multiple wives hung on the phrase "your wives", combined with the reasonable assumption that "your" referred to the singular person the letter was being written to and was not referring to a group. If the one word "your" should read "our", there is no polygamy here. So the whole argument disappears.
 
Weird, I made a post and it posted in stereo.
So I removed one and they both disappeared.

Maybe I am to keep that smartaxx comment to myself :D
 
There was only ever one post, as only one is reported as being deleted. So this was probably a display issue with your browser accidentally printing it twice. Haven't seen that before.
 
There was only ever one post, as only one is reported as being deleted. So this was probably a display issue with your browser accidentally printing it twice. Haven't seen that before.
Probably
May have been Yah’s way to tell me to cool my jets.
 
Back
Top