"good" or "better"

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Mon Jun 24 04:58:48 EDT 2002


Dear Ward

You have an interesting and unorthodox exegesis of 7:1. We probably won't
agree since you have written a book about your views on this verse.

Let me just comment on some of your points below:

[Iver:]
> >But now you introduce another questionable translation by saying
> "with his wife". The text says:
> >
> >ANQRWPWi GUNAIKOS MH hAPTESQAI - a man not to have sexual
> relations with a woman
> >
> >Your translation would require THS GUNAIKOS AUTOU (not found in any
> >manuscript). Alternatively, if GUNAIKOS was dependent on ANHR rather than
> >ANQRWPOS it could possibly be construed to mean wife, but it
> should still be definite since a husband has only one wife, and it is
obvious
> that he should not have sex with just any woman who is not his wife. The
text
> of 7:1 refers to a woman, not a wife. I am not aware of any translation
that
> renders the word here "wife" rather than "woman".

[Ward:]
> I have already set out the reasons which there are for taking
> GUNH here as woman, and I will just summarize here the main ones:
>
> 1. The word GUNH is the ordinary word for "wife". In the passages
> familiar to us in any of our respected translations in English where the
> word "wife" occurs, if we check the Greek, we are going to find GUNH.

I am afraid this is flawed argumentation, both on linguistic and logical
grounds. GUNH is a word that covers a semantic area of meaning which does
not correspond to any English word, but roughly to the union of two semantic
areas in English: Woman and wife. In some contexts these two words in
English overlap since a woman may also be a wife. In such cases, the two
words may refer to the same person, but that does not mean that the two
words have identical meanings.
You are saying that since the English "wife" is used in certain contexts as
a translation of the Greek GUNH, then the Greek GUNH ordinarily means
"wife".
No, GUNH covers the area of meaning corresponding to woman+wife, and only
the context will tell whether the intended meaning corresponds to English
"wife" or "woman".

Since you refer to "respected translations" I am tempted to counter that by
asking you: "Does any respected translation render 7:1 as you have suggested
with "his wife" rather than "a woman"?
>
> 2. In chapters 5 and 6 Paul refers to incest, homosexuality, adultery,
> prostitution, and those who engage in idolatrous "sacred" sex with the
> "temple prostitutes" of pagan gods (I take it these are covered by the
> "idolaters" of 6:9) and fornication (or, "sexual immorality" in general).
> Is there any type of human-to-human sexual behaviour (marriage
> apart) that
> he does not cover? (Rape would be covered also by one or other of the
> categories he does mention.)

Correct, but in no way leads to the conclusion you have drawn about 7:1.

> 3. He identifies "some of you" in Corinth as having engaged in such
> behaviour (6:11). So sexual behaviour was an issue at Corinth.

As above.

> 4. He says that he is now turning to a new topic (7:1a). He next
> discusses
> the one thing he has not covered thus far: sexual activity within
> marriage.
> He strongly approves of it, even to the extent of describing withholding
> sex as "depriving one another" (of something which is a
> legitimate part of
> the marriage relationship), something they must not do (MH APOSTEREITE,
> 7:5a). To do so would be to expose themselves to Satan's
> temptation (7:5b).

The error here is that you are imposing the more specific content of 2-5
unto v. 1 without considering what Paul is saying outside of 2-5. There is
no grammatical or textual justification for doing so.

> 5. He has said that the Corinthians (or some of them) had written to him
> about issues affecting sexual behaviour (7:1) and in response to
> what they
> said he responds that "But because of the temptation to sexual
> immorality,
> each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband" (7:2,
> ESV). The DIA TAS PORNEIAS here (7:2, with the article) would most
> logically be taken as the various kinds of wrong sexual behaviour
> to which
> he has just been referring. If one does not have a sexual relationship
> within marriage, the temptation would be to engage in some sort of such
> relationship OUTSIDE marriage.

Correct, but again does not logically lead to your conclusion about 7:1.

> 7. The word GUNH is used several times in verses 2ff. with the
> significance
> "wife". It is no great leap to see its use in 7:1 as having that
> meaning also.

Oh, yes, it is. It is actually a rather "fatal" leap, exegetically speaking.
The context in 2ff makes it clear that GUNH here has the restricted sense of
"wife", but the context of v. 1 makes it equally clear that here the word it
used in its more general sense of "woman". That is why all "respected
translations" render the word in v. 1 as "woman" and the same word in v. 2
as "wife". The situation is paralleled by the word ANHR which is either
rendered as "man" or "husband", depending on the immediate context. By the
way, you are well aware that the word ANHR "man" is quite a different word
from the word ANQRWPOS "person" used in v. 1. That is obscured by English
using the same word "man". If Paul had intended to reader to think of "wife"
he should at least have used ANHR.

> 8. There are quotations of or references to what is being said or done at
> Corinth in such verses as 1:11-12, 3:4, 6:12, 10:23, 11:2, 14:12, 15:12,
> 15:35, 16:17; and apparently also in 4:5, 4:18, 5:1, 6:6, 6:18, 8:1, 8:4,
> 9:3, 10:20-22, 10:27-28, 12:3. In these passages we find an indication of
> the extent of Paul's knowledge about the Corinthian church. I submit that
> when Paul says PERI DE hWN EGRAYATE, "Now concerning the matters about
> which you wrote" (7:1), and goes on to make a statement with
> which he then  disagrees, it is reasonable to recognize that statement "It
is good for a
> man not to have sexual relations with a GUNH" (ESV plus a Greek word) as a
> citation of what is being said at Corinth, and in their letter he
received.

By lumping together "quotations" and "references" the point is obscured.
There is no doubt that Paul makes many references to what the Corinthians
wrote. The question is which of these are direct quotes (like 3:4), which
are indirect quotes (like 15:12), which are echoic utterances used for the
sake of irony, rebuke or correction (6:12, etc), and which are quotes of an
imaginary rhetorical opponent (15:35). And even if one of these is
definitely a direct quote, it in no way leads to the conclusion that 7:1 is
also a direct quote. One needs to look at the individual text in each
instance to ascertain what kind of reference it is.
>
> 9. In response to the comment:
>
> >Your translation would require THS GUNAIKOS AUTOU (not found in any
> >manuscript). Alternatively, if GUNAIKOS was dependent on ANHR rather than
> >ANQRWPOS it could possibly be construed to mean wife, but it
> should still be
> >definite since a husband has only one wife, and it is obvious
> that he should
> >not have sex with just any woman who is not his wife. The text
> of 7:1 refers
> >to a woman, not a wife.
>
> If it were referring to a woman not his wife, it would simply be a
> restatement of Paul's condemnation of fornication and adultery
> from chapter 6, whereas we have noted that Paul is going on to a new
topic,
> that the one topic about sex that he has not dealt with is marital sex,
and
> that what he goes on to discuss is sex within marriage.

No, a general statement about the goodness of celibacy is very different
from a condemnation of fornication and adultery.
>
> I started checking the usage of ANHR and GUNH without AUTOU (and with and
> without an article). Certainly the article is often used, and often also
> AUTOU or similar. I only checked a few places, as it seemed to me these
> indicated GUNH did not HAVE to have an AUTOU (or similar) to mean "wife"
> (or ANHR "husband"). Many places GUNH would definitely appear to
> refer to a  married woman without any particular emphasis upon the fact. I
> noted these places, for instance:

It is correct that although AUTOU or similar is a very common means of
contextual disambiguation between "woman" and "wife" and the article is
another very common way of doing so, there are occasionally other means. I
already mentioned the use of ANHR as one such way.
>
> Matthew 11:11; 13:33; 18:25; 19:29 (Majority Text); 22:27; Mark 10:2;
> 12:19; 12:20; Luke 2:36; 18:29; 20:28; 20:29; Ephesians 5:23; 5:24; 5:25;
> Colossians 3:18; 3:19.

Since you are giving apparent evidence for your point, I needed to look up
these places to check whether they can stand up to scrutiny.

Mt 11:11 "born of a GUNH" - an idiom for a an ordinary human being. Notice
that no translation would say "born of a wife".
Mt 13:33 a GUNH is making bread. Of course, this may be a wife, but again no
translation would say that, because the context does not indicate the
meaning "wife".
Mt 18:25 it talks about a man, the GUNH and the children. The article and
the context of a man with children disambiguates to "wife".
Mt 19:29 and Luke 18:29 Again the context disambiguates to "wife" because it
talks about a man leaving either property, mother, father, GUNH, brother or
sister.
Mt 22:27 story of GUNH married to seven men. The text says "the GUNH died".
"Wife" is suggested by the article. But one could argue that when her last
husband has died, she has ceased to be a "wife" and is now back to being a
"woman".
Mrk 10:2 a husband (ANHR) divorces a GUNH. Context indicates "wife" but the
wifeness may not be in focus. Maybe the focus is on the state of a woman who
is being divorced.
Mrk 12:19-20 A "brother" who dies leaves behind a GUNH, but no children.
Obviously, the GUNH must be his wife who has ceased to be a wife and is now
a woman, who can then be taken to become the wife of another man.
Luke 2:36 this verse has no GUNH
Luke 20:28 A "brother" who has a GUNH dies childless. The "childless"
disambiguates to "wife".
Luke 20:29 The first "brother" having taken a GUNH dies childless. "Take a
GUNH" is an idiom for "marry" as the parallel in Matthew 22:25 has it.
Eph 5:23ff The use of ANHR disambiguates to "wife" in all cases.
Col 3:18f The same as Eph. When hAI GUNAIKES are to submit to TOIS ANDRASIN,
it is most likely a wife-husband relationship. Notice the use of the
articles.

So, my point is that contrary to all your citations above there is nothing
in the context of 7:1 that would lead the normal reader to think that the
word GUNH in this verse could refer to a wife rather than a woman. And that
is recognized by all "respected translations."

> For consideration.

Iver Larsen




More information about the B-Greek mailing list