Blondie's "...Comments..." thread made me think

by robhic 12 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Euphemism

  As far as I'm aware, the KJV's translation is the most literal, and it preserves the ambiguity that is in the original, as to what "his virgin" means. Hypotheses I've seen are:

  1. His virgin daughter/ward. It is a stretch to suggest that the interpretation is condoning incest; it is far more likely, rather, that it was urging against fathers refusing to marry off their daughters because they wanted the daughters to stay celibate for spiritual reasons.

  2. His engaged virgin. It is suggested that this would refer to couples who were engaged, but who indefinitely postponed marriage for the sake of spiritual celibacy. (cf Rutherford's encouragement of this step in the book Children.)

  3. His virginity. The WTS are not the only ones to suggest this reading, although I do not believe it has wide support.

  4. His spiritual wife. Some scholars try to relate this to the later Christian practice of spiritual marriage, where couples would marry but abstain from sex. (cf 1 Cor 7:1,5) From what I saw, most scholars seem to feel that this interpretation is an anachronism; although of course, that depends on the dating of the passage.

  Sorry that I don't have references for any of the above; it's been quite some time since I researched this. Like peacefulpete, I too would be very eager to see what Narkissos has to say on this topic.
• 

  Narkissos

  Sorry I had some difficulty finding this thread after I found PP's mention of it on the KIT one...

  I've not any recent research on the subject, but from previous study I would definitely choose Euphemism's # 4, i.e. some kind of ascetic, virginal union, although I would avoid the term "marriage", since in the text the verbs gameô (v. 36) and gamizô (v. 38), "to marry", are clearly seen as putting an end to it.

  Cf. Delling in TDNT V, 836:

  3. parthenos 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) and 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 achieve the ideal of Christian asceticism in economic independence. Almost insuperable philological difficulties prevent us from seeing here a reference to unmarried daughters. The literal ascetic sense is possible in Rev. 14:4 (especially if aparkhè ["firstfruits"] is used precisely).

  As to the suspicion of anachronism (especially raised by Protestant apologetic scholars), one must take into account that (1) the Corinthian ethics and practice are definitely different from the later "Great (Catholic) Church" (e.g. the admission of sacred prostitution, which the author criticizes in chapter 6, or the "baptism for the dead" which the author doesn't challenge in chapter 15) and (2) the date and authorship of 1 Corinthians are still an open question. Whatever the case, I don't see the reason why 1 Cor. wouldn't refer to a practice similar to the later attested "spiritual marriage" (although not called "marriage" at this stage). The later spiritualization of full marriage (including the sexual relationship) in Ephesians 5 (cf. v. 32) would be the next step, actually giving equal (moral and spiritual) value to both ascetical and non-ascetical "marriages".
• 

  peacefulpete

  Thanks Narkissos for the imput. I've got to believe that the intent of the writer is being veiled, either thru deliberate ambivolence or thru later redaction.
  
  The Gnostics interpreted this marriage section a symbolic union with their syzygos (consort/true spirit). Just how the text looked in their time, (I'll try to see if we have Marcion's text peserved) I don't know, but being that "Paul" used much gnostic terminolgy and christology it must be assumed that his audience was familiar with the words, words used only by protognostics. So maybe we can't understand the passage because we are not "Pnuematics"......or because the meaning has been obfuscated with redaction.