1 Timothy 1:10 – fornicators, the sexually immoral, or whoremongers?
Here in 1 Timothy 1:10 we find a slight disagreement between the Greek and Aramaic texts.
- Greek: porneia = that which is sold (by prostitutes)
- Aramaic: walzanayeh = whoremongers
The Greek text of 1 Timothy 1:10 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. That term 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,
- The zanayeh part 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 it’s slightly different to the word used in 1 Corinthians 6:9, we’re going with ‘whoremongers’ (or people who use prostitutes).
If the letter was originally in Aramaic, perhaps the apostle was wishing to be more specific here, and that was lost in its translation to Greek. However, if the letter was originally in Greek, then the Aramaic translator either translated it too specifically, or he may have understood something we don’t today about the common meaning.