(continued from previous post - Comments on 1 Corinthians 7:36 - post 2 of 3; see next post, too)
THE MEANING OF ὑπέρακμος
A number of writers include a special appendix in their commentaries on these terms. Allo, e.g., includes a detailed discussion of the views of Achelis, Lietzmann, and others. In summary, three main views, with a fourth scarcely supported option, and a fifth worthy of thought may be considered. By subdividing the fifth, Schrage arrives at six options.
592
(i) The view that the man and woman in this passage refer to father and daughter is widely said to constitute the normal interpretation among the Fathers. On closer inspection of the actual sources, however, the interpretation is less “universal” than is often claimed. Chrysostom’s
Homilies on 1 Corinthians are not conclusive, but his reference in his
De Virginitate does adopt the father-daughter view.
593 Ambrose interprets
ὑπέρακμος as
si sit ultra pubertatem, and the comments which he makes on
quod faciat, non peccat, si nubat … seem hardly to restrict the application explicitly to fathers and daughters.
594 On the other hand, Theodore of Mopsuestia does explicitly write
εἰ τις εὐθράσει τῇ τῆς θυγατρὸς προαιρέσει,
φοβεῖται δὲ μὴ ὑπέρακμος γενομένη … , which is said to be the usual patristic view.
595 Augustine also follows this view, and Theodoret’s Latin version is equally explicit in its use of
filiam, just as his Greek version uses
τὴν θυγατέρα.
596 Luther also attempts to explain how, if fathers are the subject of inquiry, behaving “in ways not proper” could be at stake. He replies: “if it is the custom in your city … that one is ashamed to have his daughters become old maids, one should do as he wishes.…”
597 Calvin declares, “Paul now turns to address the parents who had children under their control.”
598 In the face of all the talk at Corinth about celibacy, Paul wants the parents to act in the interests of the daughter “when a father has weighed up his daughter’s temperament.”
599 Chrysostom, Theodore, Augustine, Theodoret, Luther, and Calvin are followed by the writers listed below.
600 Allo places most of the weight on the force of
ὑπέρακμος and the transitive use of
γαμίζω.
601
(ii) We have already discussed the hypothesis advocated by Achelis (probably following E. Grafe) about “spiritual” marriages, i.e., couples living together who practiced, and had probably vowed, celibacy. Achelis refers to “pseudo-marriages” (Pseudo-Ehe) of the third and fourth centuries mostly on the part of clergy and finds an allusion in the Synod of Nicea of ad 325.
602 We concluded that we could neither establish nor exclude this possibility (see above on 7:2, 25). To the present verse Weiss, Héring, Conzelmann, and other writers listed below apply this view.
603 Héring produces many arguments against the first view. But a direct, firsthand examination of the ancient primary sources indicates that certain difficulties have been anticipated. Thus Luther explores why it might not be “proper” for a father to withhold consent to marriage by his daughter: as against Héring’s doubt about such a reason Luther discusses the social status of the unmarried daughter.
604 Nevertheless, most of Héring’s arguments stand, and are strengthened by Hurd’s careful list of eight relevant factors (see below). The closest English translation which explicitly supports this view is probably Moffatt’s
spiritual bride.
(iii) A clear majority of twentieth-century scholars interpret v.
36 as referring to
engaged couples. As against RV, ASV, and TCNT (the AV/KJV probably also, but it has some ambiguity) virtually every modern English translation reflects this view: NRSV, REB, NIV, NJB, Goodspeed, Collins, and Barrett. Among specialist writers, Lietzmann, Kümmel, Wolbert, Senft, Fee, Hurd, Lang, and Schrage argue for the view, while it is also supported or adopted by Bruce, Barrett, Harrisville, Talbert, and Witherington.
605 Fee, Senft, and Schrage argue that the third plural imperative
γαμείτωσαν is difficult for the father-daughter view, since now not only an unidentified
τις has entered the text, but some third party implicit in the verb.
606 Only by reading the selective D, G, L MS family (not well supported), i.e., the singular
γαμείτω,
let her marry (with NASB) could this be overcome. But the change in MSS is easy to explain as secondary. The indefinite pronoun would hardly refer to a new unidentified subject, and most of the impressive array of thirteen scholars cited above contend that the contextual theme of
engaged couples in the larger section must be assumed unless there is evidence to the contrary.
607 As Hurd, Lietzmann, and Schrage concede, the only argument which remains strong in favor of the father-daughter view is the use of the normally transitive verb
γαμίζω in v.
38. But Lietzmann appeals to Debrunner and other grammarians for intransitive instances of the verb, and Schrage finds intransitive uses in the LXX.
608 Further, -
ιζω endings are not always transitive:
ἐλπίζω,
I hope, represents one example.
Allo,
Première Épitre, 191–94; cf. Lietzmann,
An die Korinther, 35–37; Schrage,
Der erste Brief, 2:197–99.
593 Chrysostom,
On Virginity, 73 (Migne,
PG, 48:586–88), which appears to have been omitted from the library of NPNF in English translation. Chrysostom,
1 Cor. Hom., 19:7, is more ambiguous, and indeed a possibly implied allusion to second marriages might be thought to suggest the opposite view.
594 Ambrose,
Opera Omnia: In Epist. 1 ad Cor., 138A (Migne,
PL, 17.2.2, 237).
595 Theodore of Mopsuestia,
1 Kor, 5 Frag. 271, in K. Staab (ed.),
Pauluskommentare,183.
596 Theodoret,
Opera Omnia: Interpr. Ep. 1 ad Cor, 211C (Migne,
PG, 82:283–84).
597 Luther,
Works, 28:54 (
WA, 12:140).
598 Calvin,
First Epistle, 164.
599 Ibid., 165.
600 Bengel,
Gnomon, 633:
aliquis, parens; Bachmann,
Der erste Brief, 280; Lightfoot,
Notes, 234; Parry,
1 Cor, 78; Grosheide,
First Epistle, 182–84; Edwards,
First Epistle, 200–201; Allo,
Première Épitre, 177, 184, and 191–94; Morris,
First Epistle, 120: “The
man is a general term for the parent or guardian of a girl …”; Robertson and Plummer,
First Epistle, 158: “The Corinthians had asked him about the duty of a father with a daughter of age to marry”; Snyder,
First Cor, 115; Goudge,
First Epistle, 62, alludes to Ecclus 42:9, 10. It was a disgrace for a virgin never to have “a marriage song” (Ps 78:63); Heinrici,
Das erste Sendschreiben, 211–13.
601 Allo,
Première Épitre, 191–94.
602 See above on 7:2 and in further detail on 7:25. Achelis,
Virgines Subintroductae. Ein Beitrag zu 1 Kor VII, 4 and 5 cites the work of E. Grafe (1899) and compares 1 Cor 7:36–38 (6, n. 1). But apart from the reference to Hermas (discussed above) Achelis depends mainly on such later sources as Cyprian and the Acts of Carthage (ad 256) (7–15) and Montanist practices (18–20). His discussion of 1 Cor 7:36–38 (20–33) has been overtaken by more recent research. Some of his sources for the early church remain obscure (41–59), and his arguments speculative (60–75).
603 Weiss,
Der erste Korintherbrief, 206–9 who refers to E. Grafe’s research prior to Achelis, and to the subsequent research of J. Sickenberger in
BZ 3 (1905): 44–69; Lake,
Earlier Epistles, 190 (cf. 184–91); Schlier, “Über das Hauptanliegen des 1 Korintherbriefes,”
EvT 8 (1948–49): 469; Thrall,
1 and 2 Cor, 59; Héring,
First Epistle, 63; Hurd,
Origin of 1 Corinthians, 171–80; Conzelmann,
1 Cor, 134–36. See further G. Delling,
Paulus’ Stellung zu Frau und Ehe (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1931), 86ff.
604 Luther,
Works, 28:54 (
WA, 12:140).
605 An early detailed discussion in favor of this view is W. G. Kümmel, “Verlobung und Heirat bei Paulus (1 Kor 7:36–38),” in
Neutestamentliche Studien für Rudolf Bultmann, 275–95. Kümmel suggests that this view was first proposed by W. C. van Manen in 1874 (
Neutestamentliche Studien, 277); also Lietzmann,
An die Korinther, 35–37 (with Kümmel’s additional comment, 178–79); Senft,
La Première Épitre, 105–6, esp. n. 11; Schrage,
Der erste Brief, 2:197–200; Wolbert,
Ethische Argumentation und Paränese in 1 Kor 7, 131–32; Lang,
Die Briefe, 102–3. Support can be found in Bruce,
1 and 2 Cor, 76; Harrisville,
1 Cor, 127–29; Barrett,
First Epistle, 184; Talbert,
Reading Corinthians; Witherington,
Women in the Earliest Churches, 41.
606 For example, Fee,
First Epistle, 352.
607 For example, Senft,
La Première Épitre, 106, n. 11; Schrage,
Der erste Brief, 2:197–99.
608 Lietzmann,
An die Korinther, 35–36; Schrage,
Der erste Brief, 2:198 cites Deut 25:3; Ezek 16:7.
Thiselton, A. C. (2000).
The First Epistle to the Corinthians : A commentary on the Greek text (594). Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.
