Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: 1Cor. 7:36-38

Expand Messages
  • Stevan Davies
    ... This isn t B-Greek, it s crosstalk where things are loose. I too want to know where this virginism notion is supposed to be found in Paul. ... Wrong.
    Message 1 of 9 , Jun 5, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      > It is probably out of B-Greek bounds to do so, but I feel I have to call
      > Jim on this one. But, first, what is your evidence for this pracice of
      > "virginism"?

      This isn't B-Greek, it's crosstalk where things are loose. I too want
      to know where this "virginism" notion is supposed to be found in
      Paul.

      > Replies off list are probably best.

      Wrong. Reply on-list. This is an actual point for discussion and
      not the recent bitching and whining and so should be encouraged.

      Steve
    • Jim West
      At 10:51 AM 6/5/98 -0700, you wrote: ... I am sure you mean crosstalk. As you know, I am presently persona non grata on b-greek for a little while. And, as
      Message 2 of 9 , Jun 5, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        At 10:51 AM 6/5/98 -0700, you wrote:

        Again, I reiterate:

        >> [The following should be understood as my own comments on the text, and are
        >> intended, in no way, to attempt to speak for all NT scholars]
        >
        >It is probably out of B-Greek bounds to do so, but I feel I have to call
        >Jim on this one.

        I am sure you mean crosstalk. As you know, I am presently persona non grata
        on b-greek for a little while.

        And, as long as you don't call me late for supper, I don't care what you
        call me! :)

        >But, first, what is your evidence for this pracice of
        >"virginism"?
        >

        See TDNT vol 5, p. 836. #3- parqenos in the Ascetic Sense. "Parthenos
        seems to have a specific ascetic sense in 1 C. 7:34, 36-38 and also in v. 25
        (perhaps of both women and men) amd v. 28. The reference is to women in the
        community who have agreed to set up house with a man in order that they may
        acheive the ideal of Christian asceticism in economic independence. Almost
        insuperable philological difficulties prevent us from seeing here a
        reference to unmarried daughters" (contra Jeff Gibson, here). See
        further J. Weiss, I Kor.

        >Second, where is an expectation of a imminent parousia evident in chpt.
        >7?

        I agree that it is not explicit in ch 7- but it is made explicit in the 15th
        chapter, which, I would suggest, must be taken into account. That is, we
        must have the whole in mind when we examine the parts.

        >If it is the main assumption here, why does not Paul take the time to
        >disabuse the Corinthians of that notion?

        But that is exactly what he is doing.

        > It seems to me that the trying
        >times Paul refers to as the reason he thinks it would be wise for a
        >father not to give his daughter in marriage (or for a bethrothed male
        >not to marry his bethrothed, if we accept your reading of the text) are
        >simply those being experienced in Corinth due to an unsettled political
        >situation.

        But what unsettled situation? We are in the midst of the Pax Romana. What
        political situation is it you have in mind? Is it only at Corinth that
        things are politically uncertain? Where in the letter does Paul address
        such political concerns?

        >
        >In any case, the issue stands or falls (I think) on how one interprets
        >GAMIZW.
        >

        I think that is too narrow. The context, here as everywhere, is of ultimate
        significance. By context, of course, I mean political, archaeological,
        social, and theological as well as textual.

        >Replies off list are probably best.
        >

        nah. Since the questions were posed on list it is always proper to resond
        on list.

        >Yours,
        >
        >Jeffrey
        >

        Best, as ever,


        Jim
        +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
        Jim West, ThD
        Adjunct Professor of Bible
        Quartz Hill School of Theology

        jwest@...
      • Stevan Davies
        ... I do not see where this set up house business is supposed to be in chapter 7. Do you know what they re talking about? ... But isn t 7:29 assumed by
        Message 3 of 9 , Jun 5, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          > See TDNT vol 5, p. 836. #3- parqenos in the Ascetic Sense. "Parthenos
          > seems to have a specific ascetic sense in 1 C. 7:34, 36-38 and also in v. 25
          > (perhaps of both women and men) amd v. 28. The reference is to women in the
          > community who have agreed to set up house with a man in order that they may
          > acheive the ideal of Christian asceticism in economic independence. Almost
          > insuperable philological difficulties prevent us from seeing here a
          > reference to unmarried daughters" (contra Jeff Gibson, here). See
          > further J. Weiss, I Kor.

          I do not see where this "set up house" business is supposed to be in
          chapter 7. Do you know what they're talking about?

          > >Second, where is an expectation of a imminent parousia evident in chpt.
          > >7?
          >
          > I agree that it is not explicit in ch 7- but it is made explicit in the 15th
          > chapter, which, I would suggest, must be taken into account. That is, we
          > must have the whole in mind when we examine the parts.

          But isn't 7:29 assumed by virtually everybody to have to do with the
          parousia?

          > >If it is the main assumption here, why does not Paul take the time to
          > >disabuse the Corinthians of that notion?
          >
          > But that is exactly what he is doing.

          Huh?

          I particularly like the Thomasine = Gnostic statements in 7:31.

          But otherwise I don't see what the problem is here. Don't get married
          but it's OK if you do seems to be the gist. Paul's statement that
          this is his own opinion and not the Lord's necessarily, coupled with
          the overall propensity to compromise makes me think that Paul
          is doing what he says, giving his own odd opinion, and that there's
          no "cult of virginity" or anything of the sort at issue here.

          Steve
        • Paul Miller
          ... snip^ ... What insuperable philological difficulties? The NASV text seems to read one way, with daughters in the text, changing the meaning to something
          Message 4 of 9 , Jun 5, 1998
          • 0 Attachment
            > Almost
            > insuperable philological difficulties prevent us from seeing here a
            > reference to unmarried daughters" (contra Jeff Gibson, here).
            snip^
            > Jim
            > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
            > Jim West, ThD
            > Adjunct Professor of Bible
            > Quartz Hill School of Theology

            What insuperable philological difficulties? The NASV text seems to read
            one way, with daughters in the text, changing the meaning to something
            altogether different than the RSV.

            36But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin
            daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so,
            let him do what
            he wishes, he does not sin; let [1][THEM]her marry.
            37But he who stands firm in his heart, [2]being under no
            constraint, but
            has authority [3]over his own will, and has decided this in
            his own
            heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well.
            38So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage
            does
            well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do
            better.



            [1]Lit them
            [2]Lit having no necessity
            [3]Lit pertaining to

            Again I must appeal to the Greek folks on the list, what are the
            meanings of the word unbecomingly in this context?


            Paul Miller
          • Jeffrey B. Gibson
            In response to my question what is your evidence for this pracice of virginism which Jim West posited as explanatory background for the ... I am highly
            Message 5 of 9 , Jun 5, 1998
            • 0 Attachment
              In response to my question "what is your evidence for this pracice of
              "virginism" which Jim West posited as explanatory background for the
              test of 1 Cor. 7:36-38, Jim wrote:
              >
              > See TDNT vol 5, p. 836. #3- parqenos in the Ascetic Sense. "Parthenos
              > seems to have a specific ascetic sense in 1 C. 7:34, 36-38 and also in v. 25
              > (perhaps of both women and men) amd v. 28. The reference is to women in the
              > community who have agreed to set up house with a man in order that they may
              > acheive the ideal of Christian asceticism in economic independence. Almost
              > insuperable philological difficulties prevent us from seeing here a
              > reference to unmarried daughters" (contra Jeff Gibson, here). See
              > further J. Weiss, I Kor.


              I am highly suspicious of claims which prove their point by using as
              evidence the very texts they are supposed to be elucidating - which is
              exactly what we have in this section of the TDNT article. The
              argumentation is patently circular, and involves reading into the
              "evidence" exactly what one wants to get out of it. Where is there any
              *other"* evidence that PARQENOS was used with thus sense?

              Moreover, this reading of the 1 Cor. text, though popular amongst German
              commentators, and often parroted by Anglophones, seems to me to be both
              a recent invention and wholly a scholarly construct. It imbues the
              passage with assumptions about the politics of marriage which did not
              exist in first century and/or in which Jews and Greco/Romans did not
              share (i.e., that marriage was something undertaken by two young folks
              in love rather than a matter arranged between fathers of households or
              the father of a prospective bride and a young man). Notice that in the
              history of scholarship on this passage, it is only after the relatively
              modern model of who arranges marriages or betrothals arises, that the
              passage in question gets interpreted as if it speaks of a young man who
              has the hots for his betrothed and is seeking advice on what to do. Look
              for instance at how the translators of the KJV (who shared 1st century
              assumptions about the politics of marriage) render the passage, i.e. as
              if it speaks of a father who is worried about whether he is acting
              wrongly toward his daughter in not letting her get married when she
              should have been by this point in time.

              Yours,

              Jeffrey (who according to Bill Pinard, is neither a gentleman nor a
              scholar)
              --
              Jeffrey B. Gibson
              7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
              Chicago, Illinois 60626
              e-mail jgibson000@...
              jgibson@...
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.