I have heard men use "woman" to refer to their wives, but I grant that this practice has fallen into disuse due to centuries of cultural baggage surrounding marriage.

That alone makes translating γυνή as "woman" all of the time virtually certain to lead people astray for the reasons I've already stated. 

You also said:

I agree that most translations are correct where they choose wife or woman and do not confuse the meaning when they do so, but you and I both take issue with at least one place where that is done. (You with Matt 5:28 and me with Matt 5:32.) Hence, why my proposed solution is to eliminate that type of interpretation entirely.

Okay, so it sounds to me like almost the entirety of the issue for you surrounds the translation of just two passages, as you agreed that most of the time, it's not an issue.  Instead of changing γυνή everywhere, wouldn't it make sense to just concentrate on the two passages where you think it's problematic then?

And perhaps it's not as clear as it seems to be for me. I have heard men use "woman" to refer to their wives, but I grant that this practice has fallen into disuse due to centuries of cultural baggage surrounding marriage. Yet this only makes me feel like it is more important to be disciplined about translation choices. As you said about linguistic baggage; it is my contention that the word "wife" is actually linguistic baggage that we impose upon the scriptures. Scripture transcends culture and is counter-cultural. 

The language simply didn't have a word to distinguish a married woman from an unmarried one.

But it does: παρθένος. That fact undercuts your argument.

You also said:

Further, I don't agree that, in English, woman can't mean wife because my wife is a woman and while formal English does not tend to use "woman" to refer to wife, it is sufficiently prevalent in informal use.

I agree with the first highlighted clause, but completely disagree with the second.  As far as I can recall, I've literally never heard it used that way.  I asked my own wife if she had, since we grew up quite different backgrounds and areas.  She hasn't ever heard it used that way either as far as she can recall. 

Have you personally heard others use "woman" to mean "wife" with significant frequency? 

In fact, if you think about it, the modern English cultural connotations of "marriage" do not lend to a good understanding of Scripture anyway. As I'm sure you know, the English speaking world does not treat marriage with any sort of reverence. People get married through the secular pagan court system, possibly with a religious ceremony covering over that, and then when they get tired of their spouses, they go back to the secular pagan court system and ask for the marriages to be undone. In fact, this is not unlike the pagan way of doing things during the time of the ancients, who also practiced serial polygamy by "having one spouse at a time", remarrying after forsaking the previous one(s). Yet it was not this way from the beginning. "What the God yokes together, man: be no separating." (Matt 19:6b and Mark 10:9 GHT)

So this is my point. Scripture informs scripture. It is clearly presented in scripture that sexual immorality exists and is inappropriate. Marriage as the representation of Christ and his bride is to be held in regard and undefiled. This theme is clearly and simply shown in the context of scripture, and does not need us, as translators, to add clarity, even if the option for further specificity exists in our language. Instead, we allow the reader to read scripture and learn what it means for himself. Scripture transcends culture and is counter-cultural, so what right have we to introduce our own cultural bias into it (our concept of marital status) based on the cultural bias present (assumption that a woman was married) at the time of writing.

So, we are still faced with the problem of interpretation bias. I agree that most translations are correct where they choose wife or woman and do not confuse the meaning when they do so, but you and I both take issue with at least one place where that is done. (You with Matt 5:28 and me with Matt 5:32.) Hence, why my proposed solution is to eliminate that type of interpretation entirely. Additional specificity introduces bias.

I appreciate that you went and tested my hypothesis, but I wonder if you found it more confusing simply because you aren't used to it and because your translation maintains many of the prevailing translation traditions that impose English language on the Greek source rather than allowing the simplicity of the Greek source to shine through, even if it results in poor English.

But for this thread, the underlying issue is that γυνή/gune means wife/woman, while the English word "woman" means only "woman" and doesn't mean "wife".  For example, if you say "He has a new woman", I would assume that the woman was not married to him for the simple reason that if she was married, in English, you would've said "He has a new wife". 

The additional specificity/precision is a function of the English language, not translation, because the English and Greek words simply mean different things.  The ancients simply had different words.  This is a limitation of English and I don't see a way around it.  

We can completely jettison any discussion of cultural context and that's still true. 

I did a find/replace in a Word file on some of the marriage passages to be more like you suggested to see if I was wrong about the above. The result gave me the impression that it was about cohabitation because again, the Greek and English words don't mean the same thing.  (It also made a lot less sense.)

That's part of the reason for the "Avoiding "Linguistic Baggage"." section of the translation principles page. 

The Greek word and English words simply don't mean the same thing, so we need to close off some meanings in translation; that's unavoidable.  Translating it "wife" closes off cohabitation, while "woman" implies that cohabitation is acceptable.  So if I have to close off a meaning in translation, I'd rather close off the immoral application.   

Even if you disagree, does that make sense?

And BTW, feel free to start a thread about Matt 5:28 and we can discuss it there.  🙂

To your point about 1 Cor 11, what right have you, the translator, to tell me, the reader, that 1 Cor 11 applies to all women? If you are correct that gune is better translated to "wife" then how can you be sure that 1 Cor 11 doesn't only apply to married women? I seem to recall that there have been, in history, debates about this very question.

Likewise how are you sure that Col 3:18-19 does not speak in a more general sense? Literally it would say; "the women, be submitting to the men as is proper in [the] Lord. The men, be loving the women and do not be embittered toward them." It is only through context that we would be able to see that this is talking to members of a household (fathers/children, slaves/masters).

You say you "translated it wife or woman depending on the context" but why must you assume that the readers and the local assemblies are not competent enough to see the same context you see?

So, the question you are faced as an uninspired translator of inspired words: do you affirm the verbal, grammatical, plenary inspiration of the Bible? Or do the words of God need some additional "specificity" or "precision"? If the ancients did not need a different word to distinguish between a married and unmarried woman, allowing the context to dictate, why do we think we are better than them? Once again, I appeal to your "Translate, Not Interpret Or Change" and "Translator Bias" sections in your translation theory page.

I was somewhat arbitrary in which word I chose to argue this point on. I don't have a specific axe to grind about woman/wife. I find that scripture tends to be clearer and simpler when we leave it as "woman". I feel the same about many other words that are translated into multiple English words from one Greek word. So yes, I would wish to see you do the same for man/husband, servant/deacon, immerse/baptize, assembly/church, change-of-mind/repent, evil-assertion/blasphemy, justice/righteousness, etc. (some of these are "context dependent" words from the same Greek word and others are just modern "Christianese"). I was emboldened to bring it up specifically because you had asserted what you had in the previously mentioned sections as well as the "Avoiding 'Chrstianese'" section. I figured I'd dip my toe in the water with a single word rather than shotgunning a bunch of threads at you.

I will acknowledge that, as I implied in my previous post, I take significant issue with your interpretation of Matthew 5:28, but this is a conversation best had elsewhere. I only seek to address that there are many places such as these where a translator inserts his interpretation into Scripture without considering that he is not infallible and should avoid interpretation as much as possible. If you seek for this to be a truly open-source translation you would need to acknowledge this bias you have and adjust your perspective to minimize interpretation.

So you said:

The semantic range of the Greek word perfectly overlaps that of the English, covering every adult female human. As you know, the word "wife" simply does not exist in Scripture and represents a subset of that semantic range.

I wholly disagree with that. 

One of the most interesting and fascinating things for me is the cultural assumptions embedded in language.  In both Hebrew and Greek, there were a few "classes" of women, such as: virgins (unmarried and assumed to have not had sex), widowed, divorced, prostitutes, and "wife/woman".  The cultural assumption was that every "adult female" would be married and thus a wife.  Thus, they didn't have a different word for "woman" than for "wife" because it was assumed that every "adult female" was also a wife, and every wife was also an "adult female".

(The same is true of man/husband.  And BTW, they didn't even have a conception of the word "adult"; that's a recent concept invented by John Locke, but I digress.)

English is more precise than Greek for some terms, and with our greater precision in (some) technical terms creates a dilemma for a translator.  While the Greeks see γυνή/gune and assume that such a woman is married unless stated not to be, we don't have that assumption. 

Thus, it would be more semantically accurate to always translate γυνή/gune as "wife" instead of "woman".  However, that creates problems when women are spoken of in a general sense, like in the first half of 1 Cor 11.  It just wouldn't make much sense.

However, because we don't have the cultural assumption of "woman = wife", translating passages like Col 1:18 as you suggest would read like this:  "Women, submit yourselves to your men"   In English, that doesn't make a lot of sense because we don't share the Greek (and Hebrew) cultural assumption of "woman = wife".  You could read this as a native English speaker and think it applies to cohabitation.  The same problem is created in many other passages as well. 

Thus, that's why I translated it wife or woman depending on the context. 

You're right that it applies to other words as well, including ἀνήρ/anér, which is "male/male/husband."  I assume you would prefer to strike "husband" as well? 

To Matthew 5, again, I would argue that the primary meaning of γυνή/gune is actually "wife", and the meaning of "woman" is a secondary meaning if you take language and cultural assumptions into account.  (And looking back at the article now, I see that I didn't make the above clear; I really should make an edit to fix that.)

The semantic range of the Greek word perfectly overlaps that of the English, covering every adult female human. As you know, the word "wife" simply does not exist in Scripture and represents a subset of that semantic range. 

I recognize that there are plenty of words such as ποιέω/poieo "do/make" which cannot be translated into a single English word. In these cases interpretation is unavoidable. But everywhere "wife" is used instead of "woman", the context speaks for itself.

(This argument applies to many other words such as διάκονος/diakonos "servant/deacon" with the preference for "servant" in all cases; see Rom 16:1 vs 1 Tim 3:8)

"It is not as if they were deprived of some important words, or that our language is superior to theirs.  For thousands of years they could have invented those words if they wanted to, but they didn't.  So, that is the way it is.  We ought not to add words to the scriptures, but rather, we ought to work with what the scriptures actually say. " - Garth Wiebe

The reason is because in most people's mind, if you can prove one component of the argument wrong, you've proven the whole argument wrong.  This appears to be a subconscious thing and of course isn't true, but it looks true to many people.  Thus, since it's easy to cast doubt on γάμους here, that casts doubt on the entire line of reasoning in Matthew 25.  Thus, it's best to ignore weaker and/or more debatable arguments whenever possible to avoid introducing these perceived/rhetorical weaknesses into your position.  

Additionally, weak arguments allow people to ignore your main/strongest arguments by focusing on your weaker arguments.  If the goal is truth and correct doctrine -- and it should be -- then you really would prefer discussing the stronger arguments for both sides.  And BTW, this cuts both ways; make sure you tackle opposing arguments head on and answer them soundly with scripture.  Don't just "pit one scripture against another"; look at the opposing side's arguments and demonstrate why they are wrong.  

Personally, I would only use "Jesus pictures Himself as a polygynous man in a parable" as a secondary argument.  I prefer to focus on the stronger argument of God directly commanding polygyny several times in the Old Testament. It's rather hard to argue that something is wrong when God issued a standing command to do that thing.  The Matthew 25 parable works better as a "cherry on top" sort of argument in my opinion.  (And I'm guessing you've read it, but I do have an article on polygyny if you haven't read it.)  

Would this also apply to Matthew 25: 1-13? The virgins go into the γάμους with the bridegroom which can imply he would be marrying them as the virgins represent believers who are betrothed to Christ (2 Corinthians 11:2). Must γάμους always mean wedding feast or is weddings appropriate in this context? It seems they are waiting for the bridegroom like a bride would be in Jewish customs around that time and if he isn't marrying the virgins who represent us believers, then who is he marrying?

I am asking because I recently had a debate on polygyny (on Twitter lol) and used this as a defense. They had no answer but I always want to prove points for weaknesses so I can be best prepared. I will continue to research so I can better understand the Bible. Thank you for taking the time to respond!

plural (referring apparently to the several acts of feasting)

If you look at verse 4, he says that his ἄριστόν (dinner, singular) is ready.  That's important because it's a different word than the one we're discussing, indicating that it seems a singular dinner is in view.  Thus, it likely means a single marriage, not multiple marriages. 

In verses 8 and 10, he uses γάμος in the singular as well.  Those two uses seem to reinforce the idea that the word means a marriage or wedding in the singular, but then refers to the feast(s) after the wedding in the plural.  A wedding celebration in those days would go on for days, so saying "feasts" (plural) makes sense.  It literally is the "feasts" (plural) are ready because there would be multiple days of feasting, thus explaining the slight change of meaning from singular to plural.  

I copy/pasted γάμους into Google translate and here's what I got back: (emphasis mine)

a marriage ceremony, especially considered as including the associated celebrations.
Synonyms:
marriage, marriage ceremony, wedding ceremony, nuptial ceremony, marriage service, wedding service, marriage rites, wedding rites, matrimony, holy matrimony, nuptials, union; archaic: espousal(s)  informal: big day

I wouldn't use Google for word definitions ordinarily since that will reflect modern Greek not Koine Greek, but it seems the meaning of the word hasn't change much (if at all) in the last ~2000 years.  

There are places where (mis)translation touches on polygyny, but I don't think this is one of them. 

All that said, I might tweak the translation to make them plural "wedding feasts" in the appropriate places.  However, that runs the risk of being misleading. Hmm.  I'll have to think about that. 

This is my first post on here. I've been using interlinear bibles more often and in Matthew 22 and 25 the Greek word γάμους is translated often as marriage feast. However, this doesn't make much sense to me as it is just the plural form of γάμος which is translated marriage or wedding. When i put γάμους into translators it comes back as weddings or marriages but never wedding feast which would be the phrase "γαμήλια γιορτή". Also when putting the entire Greek verse of Mat 22:2 into the translator it also translated it as "the kingdom of heaven is likened to a man, a king who made marriages for his son".

I suspect that biblical translations of γάμους into wedding feast is just a way to avoid the implication of polygyny in the text. I saw in your BOS bible it was also translated as marriage feast so I didn't know if it was an oversight or maybe I am missing something that would make marriage feast a more correct translation over marriages. 

I do not know anything about the Greek language so your response would be a great help to me in my biblical studies.

Thank you!

I went back to the About page and realized I hadn't included something.  For a long time now I've been trying to consistently translate words and tenses so this translation can be a window into the Greek.  This is also the reason I'd like to have a basic rule/rules for translating the different tenses, including the perfect tense.  That way, someone can know the Greek tenses without checking the Greek.  That's a principle that I now realize I hadn't communicated. 

That's entirely my fault, and I'm sorry about that. 

I've edited the About page to include this principle. 

Regarding the ancients not having categories of subtenses: I agree.  Yet I still think they are useful to us.  To draw an analogy, medieval sword enthusiasts talk about arming swords, bastard swords, long swords, war swords, side swords, etc.  However, the medieval people themselves simply called all of these a "sword".  Despite that, the classifications are still useful in a modern context to discuss medieval swords. I see the subdivisions of the Greek perfect tense as similarly useful, but mostly as a way to have a more precise discussion.  

Ultimately, I think that language is organized enough to extract rules from, even if the speakers of a language themselves are unaware of the rules.  (I've had this happen often, where someone who speaks perfect English didn't understand what made it perfect English.  For example, no one would say "him talked to he" because they know it's wrong; most people just can't articulate that "he" is a nominative form and "him" is an accusative form like you or I could.) 

I recognize that sometimes a verse/translation might not fit the rules, but I think the occasional exception isn't enough to completely eliminate the usefulness of rules.  I have rules that work for all the other tenses, and -- a few rare exceptions aside -- they work well.  Thus I'm thinking "why couldn't there also be rules for the perfect tense?"

It seems we are fundamentally at odds on that though, as you said forming or adopting rules would be a mistake.