"good" or "better"
B. Ward Powers
bwpowers at optusnet.com.au
Mon Jun 24 19:38:26 EDT 2002
Dear Iver,
At 10:58 AM 020624 +0200, Iver Larsen wrote:
>Dear Ward
>
>You have an interesting and unorthodox exegesis of 7:1.
I can't take the credit for an original thought about this verse (or the
subsequent passage). This was part of the field of my London Uni Ph.D., for
which I had to read hundreds of books looking at every point of view. After
evaluating these views against the Greek and the context of this verse, the
interpretation which I have set out (and I can't now remember who were the
scholars who espoused it, but there were a number) is the one to which, it
seemed to me, the evidence clearly pointed.
I recognize that you have come to a differing conclusion.
> We probably won't
>agree since you have written a book about your views on this verse.
I have much appreciated and benefited from contributions of yours in the
past. However, you are right. We are not going to agree re 1 Cor 7:1-5.
>Let me just comment on some of your points below:
[SNIP]
>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".
If I may say so, you are missing my point here. I am not saying that GUNH
only or mainly means "wife". I am saying that if you want to say "wife"
this is the word you use. Or from another perspective, if you check when
the word "wife" is used in English translations, you will normally find
that the Greek word being translated is GUNH. What I am seeking to
establish is that if Paul had intended the meaning "wife" here, then GUNH
is the word he would have used. I am not claiming that this works in
reverse: that if he said GUNH he must have meant wife. What you say about
the area of meaning of GUNH is common ground and not in dispute between us.
> 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
>onto v. 1 without considering what Paul is saying outside of 2-5. There is
>no grammatical or textual justification for doing so.
This pinpoints where we differ. I say that the whole flow of Paul's
treatment of these various issues in chapter 5 and 6 and subsequent to 7:1
is very relevant for and indeed ultimately determinative of how one should
view 7:1. And I aver that they point to the interpretation (a) that Paul is
here citing a viewpoint held at Corinth, and (b) that that view is that it
is good for husband and wife to forego an ongoing sexual relationship
together (and that in verses 2:5 Paul explains his rebuttal of this view).
You find my presentation of this interpretation to be unconvincing. Okay.
We differ.
> > 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". [SNIP] If Paul had intended to
>reader to think of "wife" he should at least have used ANHR.
This is where we differ. I consider the passage clear as it stands. (Though
indeed he could have put it beyond doubt if he had used the kind of wording
you mention. I acknowledge that there is room for opinions other than mine
with the text as it stands: even if I choose to see the explanation I have
given as the logical one.)
> > 8. There are quotations of or references to what is being said or done at
> > Corinth in such verses as [SNIP]
My point is simply that the abundance of other citations of and references
to what is being said and done at Corinth demonstrate the extent of Paul's
personal knowledge of the situation there. This cannot of course PROVE that
7:1 (or any other verse) contains a quotation from the Corinthians. Not did
I claim that for it. But Paul's observable "policy" in this regard puts us
on the alert to watch for places where he quotes the Corinthians and then
answers them. And when he says "Now concerning the matters about which you
wrote", and gives a statement with which he proceeds to differ, I find this
a decisive indicator.
[SNIP]
>No, a general statement about the goodness of celibacy is very different
>from a condemnation of fornication and adultery.
I had not fully grasped that you were interpreting 7:1 as Paul advocating
celibacy. I acknowledge that this indeed is how some have taken the verse.
I myself cannot see this - especially as in verses 2ff. he disagrees with
what is said in verse 1 (whatever it means) - and discusses sex in marriage
(not just marriage as such). Which (I say) indicates that what is being
referred to in 7:1 is also sex in marriage. This view (that 7:1 advocates
celibacy) puts this verse at variance with what then follows. I see what
follows as Paul's response to a view (from the Corinthians) with which he
differs - but 7:1-5 is all discussing the same issue. There is nothing in
7:2 to suggest that Paul is "changing the subject" when he is now
championing the role of sex in marriage.
> > 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.
[SNIP]
>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.
Your careful examination of my examples establishes afresh that context
determines meaning. I agree, of course, with your point here.
>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.
But here I disagree. I would say that examples such as I have cited show
that GUNH in 7:1 CAN be legitimately taken as "wife". They do not PROVE
that it MUST BE taken thus. And of course I did not claim this for them. To
take it thus I look to overall context, and the flow of Paul's treatment in
chapters 5 to 7.
We have of course wandered a fair bit now from a consideration of the theme
in the subject line, "good" vs "better". And we recognize that we still
differ. But perhaps we have a clearer view of where and how and why we
differ. It has been an interesting discussion.
Regards,
Ward
http://www.netspace.net.au/~bwpowers
Rev Dr B. Ward Powers Phone (International): 61-2-8714-7255
259A Trafalgar Street Phone (Australia): (02) 8714-7255
PETERSHAM NSW 2049 email: bwpowers at optusnet.com.au
AUSTRALIA. Director, Tyndale College
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list