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

Re: 1Cor. 7:36-38

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 9 , Jun 5, 1998
      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 2 of 9 , Jun 5, 1998
        > 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 3 of 9 , Jun 5, 1998
          > 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 4 of 9 , Jun 5, 1998
            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.