1 Tim 3:8—Double-Tongued Deacons (Monday with Mounce 44)

As I continue down the list in Mark Strauss’ paper, I am finding it easier and easier to find more with which I disagree, and I am being reminded how fundamentally different formal and functional translations are. The ESV is a good example of one, and the TNIV of the other, but never the two shall meet, I suspect.

1 Tim 3:8 says that a deacon must be self-controlled in speech ("not double-tongued" ESV), in drink ("not addicted to much wine"), and in one’s desire for wealth ("not greedy for dishonest gain"). Mark comments that the ESV "sounds like a mock ‘Indian-speak’ (with forked-tongue) or some strange alien creature" and adds that the word means "‘insincere,’ ‘lacking integrity,’ ‘hypocritical,’ or even ‘two-faced.’"

Before jumping in, let me say something about humor in academic circles. Mark is a funny guy (remember, we are friends). And yet it seems that in academic circles we think that if it is said with humor, we can say anything we like. Mark’s presentation elicited more laughter than I have ever heard at an ETS paper. But did the humor in truth hide the lack of academic discussion and debate we had all hoped to hear in the room? By using humor as a tool of debate, haven’t we in essence gone outside of academic debate? Ridiculing a position can sway the masses, but it should have no effect on us.

For the life of me, I cannot remember the discussion of this word in the ESV committee, and I noticed that my own translation in my commentary is "gossips." But I am pretty sure of why we went with "double-tongued." We simply do not know what the word truly means.

διλογος is a rare word occurring only one other time in Greek literature, and that in the second century A.D. where it means “repeating.” Its two closest cognates are equally rare, διλογια meaning “repetition” and διλογεω meaning “to repeat.” The closest form in the LXX is διγλωσσος, used in Prov 11:3 of a person who reveals secrets as opposed to one who keeps secrets (and elsewhere).

So where do we go to find a word’s meaning in this situation? You have to go to etymology. Since we have no prior use of this word, and since Paul shows openness to making up words, especially in the Pastorals, it makes sense he coined the word here. διλογος is from δις meaning “twice” and λογος meaning “something said.” Suggestions for its meaning range from “repetitious, gossips, saying one thing and meaning another, saying one thing to one person but another to another person.” The basic meaning is clear. When a deacon speaks, his words must be true, rigorously honest.

But beyond this, can we know—with precision—what it means? Of course not. We just don’t know. And hence we have the two solutions proposed by formal and functional translations. The formal tries to replicate the form of the Greek word, retaining any ambiguity or imagery that might be there in the Greek (ESV), and the functional must interpret the word, removing the discussion of its possible meaning from Bible study (the TNIV goes with “sincere”).

But let’s get back to Mark’s point. Is this an example of bad translation? Of course not. It is the recognition that we simply do not know for sure what the word means, and in line with our philosophy we wanted to leave that debate for the commentaries, pastors, and blogs. We did that throughout the ESV.

And I have a hard time believing that anyone engaged in even semi-serious Bible study would look at the word and think of a Lone Ranger episode or the latest sci-fi thriller. They would see the imagery and have to decide for themselves. Mark even agrees with this. Really! He suggests “two-faced” as a possible translation. Really? Is this Harry Potter where the bad guy has two heads? Or perhaps another weird Picasso painting? Oh, you mean we use metaphors in speech? Sure, even a functional equivalent guy like Mark.

I still think, in light of the problems in Ephesus, that “gossip” is the best meaning. And since gossip in the native language of the modern church, the qualification is as important today as it was 2,000 years ago.

William D. [Bill] Mounce posts every Monday about the Greek language, exegesis, and related topics at Koinonia. He is the author of numerous books, including the bestselling Basics of Biblical Greek (third edition coming in 2009!), and general editor for Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of the Old and New Testament Words. He served as the New Testament chair of the English Standard Version Bible translation. Learn more and visit Bill's blog (co-authored with scholar and his father Bob Mounce) at www.billmounce.com.  

Comments

[Robert Slowley]

A friend said to me (and I'm curious as to what your answer will be):

My question is about this bit:

"διλογος is a rare word occurring only one other time in Greek
literature, ... where it means "repeating." ... The closest form in
the LXX is διγλωσσος, used in Prov 11:3 of a person who reveals
secrets as opposed to one who keeps secrets"

I'm questioning the rationale behind using this so-called "closest
form" - which is derived from a different root word - as a basis for
guessing the meaning of "dilogos", overriding the "repeating" meaning
which "dilogos" and its related forms are actually known to have. It
seems a bit like saying "my radio is not digital" means the same as
"my radio is pointless" (assuming point:digit::word:tongue).

[Joel H.]

The formal tries to replicate the form of the Greek word, retaining any ambiguity or imagery that might be there in the Greek (ESV), and the functional must interpret the word, removing the discussion of its possible meaning from Bible study (the TNIV goes with "sincere").

But wouldn't an equally formal word-form-replicating translation be "bilingual"?

Also, I wonder if what you're calling "ambiguity" isn't just a lack of knowledge on our part.

-Joel

[Bill Mounce]

Sometimes ambiguity is not far from ignorance. But what else do you do? We don't know for sure what a word means, so since this is a made-up word we assume the etymology holds. So it is ambiguous in that we don't know for sure. But using related words is the only way to come at the meaning of thousands of Hebrew words.

[Roger]

Perhaps the citation should be to 1 Timothy.

[Koinonia Admin]

I corrected it, Roger. Thanks.

[Tony Pope]

We don't know for sure what a word means, so since this is a made-up word we assume the etymology holds.

Why should we suppose Paul coined the word? In a list of qualities required of deacons he is hardly likely to have used a word whose meaning was not well-known. Our problem is that it is not attested elsewhere in the sense he used it. Etymology takes us some way, but "saying twice" could apply to various situations. However, we do have the Vulgate translation using "bilinguis", a Latin word that is well attested as "hypocritical, deceitful, false, treacherous." Also we have explanations from two Greek-speaking early church writers, one as "deceitful" and another as "saying one thing to this man, and another to that".

The ESV's "not double-tongued" is handed down from KJV, which itself looks like a calque of the Vulgate version. The complaint about it is that it's not how we say it in English. Formal Bible versions typically produce odd-sounding English, which, though comprehensible, detracts from the actual message by drawing attention to the oddity of language.

The NIV and TNIV's "sincere" is evidently derived from the Arndt & Gingrich Greek lexicon, which gives for dilogos "insincere". From the evidence we have, that does not seem to say quite what Paul meant.

[J. K. Gayle]

Is it possible that Paul and Timothy (and their congregations) were aware of Δισσοι Λόγοι / Dissoi Logoi / (or "Twofold Arguments")? It's a work of comparative cultures - arguing for cultural pluralism and ethical relativism - written perhaps during the early Sophistic movement (as noted by T. M. Robinson, Contrasting Arguments: An Edition of the Dissoi Logoi, Salem, NH, 1979). D. T. J. Bailey says it's "largely composed in Doric, but with numerous Atticisms and dashes of Ionic." Nonetheless, Paul and his contemporaries might have contracted the title to make his δι·λόγους / di-lógous / as a warning that deacons should not be pluralistic and relativistic with their espoused morals. I've played with a translation here.

[Bill Mounce]

Let me comment on a few things.

1. I don't think anyone suggests bilingual because it would not fit the context.

2. It is true that Paul may not have coined the word; it may be that we just don't know. However, Paul does this repeatedly throughout his writings, and coining words was as acceptable then as it is today in German or in American educational circles.

3. The argument from two early church fathers (i.e., Greek) that they understood it to mean "deceitful" and another as "saying one thing to this man, and another to that" is significant. Greek was their language and their opinion linguistically (as opposed to theologically) is generally seen as important.

4. I am unaware of Δισσοι Λόγοι, so I don't really have an opinion. We do know that Paul was very aware of their Greek culture of his day and often find, for example, uses of technical terms in Stoicism but given a Christian meaning.