The Interpretation of 1 Cor 7:1, and its Relevance for Translation and Retranslation, Revisited

This is a very large file, containing a 19-minute video summarizing my research and conclusions.

You can find the document with other occurances of the euphemism in ancient Greek here:

Extracted text from Touching_video.mov:

Hello my name is Royte champ . And I'm happy to share my research with you on the social and euphemism of touching . And first from the inception one reconsidering the euphemism in light of a wider range of literary and lexical data as well as the latest research on First Corinthians and relevant of Greco-Roman backgrounds . And the meaning of touching as a sexual euphemism How did we get to the current consensus . That it is a euphemism meaning to engage in sexual relations . Some had argued that the euphemism meant to marry in the original NIV translated it that way . Gordon based on an examination of eight examples of the euphemism found in various lexicons and other resources showed that it did not mean to marry and was a more general euphemism for sexual relations . In the 20th century we've seen a tendency to adopt exotic sizing portrayals of the Corinthians so treat them as some exotic unusual kind of group . For example many scholars in the last half of the 20th century see especially Gordon we have the view that some Corinthians suffered from an over realized eschatology . And from that background it was suggested that Corinthian obsession with speaking in tongues was related to overanalyzed eschatology and explained various statements in First Corinthians . So for example it has been suggested that the Corinthians thought the tongues they spoke were angelic languages and thus that they were like angels already running with Christ not needing to wait for the resurrection of the dead . And in other ways having a very different experience with this world . Another view was that they were early Gnostics . In any case it is thought that the Corinthians or some Corinthians thought all people should remain celibate even in marriage . So what has changed . Well first we have a large number of examples of the euphemism that has been uncovered and examined leading to a more nuanced interpretation . And secondly the consensus about the primary source of growth in issues has changed . We'll start with the second issue and then pivot to the first so how has the consensus about the source of the issues changed . Most recent scholars and commentators now think the Corinthians issues were mainly related to pressures coming from dominant Greco Roman cultural and philosophical ideas rather than rare or exotic ideas that are found just amongst them . The Corinthians tended to adopt positions that would help them continue to fit in in their context rather than ones that would cause them to be further marginalized . That has many of the ideas would be consistent with the popular stoic ideas of that time . Perhaps the last three were portrayals of the Corinthian still tend to be exotic sized is in the area of sex in Paul's world you could find cynics who discovered marriage but that was quite a minority viewpoint . And the cynics were not widely spread or deeply concentrated in particular places certainly not in Corinth so far as we know finding people who thought that even married people should refrain from sexual relations would have been a challenge in Paul's context . So what were the dominant views or debates on sex in Paul's world . The two most dominant views on sex in Paul's world tended to have contrasting ideas about what we might call procreational sex and recreational sex most thought that sex within marriage was for procreation providing suitable heirs . Both did not condemn men for pursuing recreational sex outside of marriage through into intercourse with household slaves prostitutes or others . So the two dominant positions were first that men should have sex with their wives for procreation and no sex other than that . And secondly that men should have sex with their wives for procreation and should or may turn to other outlets especially with slaves and prostitutes but not other men's wives for recreational sex . Adultery was understood as consisting of having sex with another man's wife . There are many opportunities for men to have sex outside of marriage . It was not considered adultery . To anticipate our conclusions it seems the euphemism of touching was used for sex that did not fall into the first category that is sex that was not marital sex for the purposes of purposes of procreation . Rather it was used for things in the second category which were condoned by many but disapproved of by others including ancient Jews and Roman moralists . So how does the context of First Corinthians 7 weight to those ongoing debates . Paul's position is closer to the first . That is that sex should be only within marriage for procreation but rather than limit marital relations to procreational sex he considers it important to recognize marital sex as among other things or guard against Poornima in First Corinthians Paul reflects a particular concern with what early Jews and then Christians termed Poornima . The early Jewish term for sexual Lewton looseness in the Greco Roman world . Referring to sexual behaviors that were considered acceptable to most non-Jews but were understood to be sinful by Jews . Terms related to Poornima show up in First Corinthians 5 won twice and then in Chapter 5 verses 9 10 and 11 and in chapter 6 verses 9 13 15 16 and twice and in verse 18 and then Chapter 7 verse 2 and twice in chapter 10 verse say . Notice how the use of the terms related to they are concentrated in the two chapters leading up to the verse with the euphemism of touching appears in chapter 7 verse 1 . In fact the euphemism is sandwiched between references to Poornima with two near the very end of Chapter 6 in one in chapter 7 verse 2 immediately following the euphemism . And in fact in the same sentence . So here is that text . Chapter 6 for say teen Paul says flee Poornima every sin which a man commits is outside of his body . But the one committing Kornelia sins in His own body . Or don't you know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit in you and what you have from God . And you are not your own . You were bought at a price . If we glorify God in your body concerning things about which you wrote you are quoting the Corinthians according to most scholars . It is good for a man not to touch a woman but because of opportunities for Parnia each man should have his own wife and each woman should have her own husband . Here you can see the way in which the Corinthian reference to touching shows up tucked between Paul's references to Parnia . Before going on for view the evidence for the use of the euphemism in Greek we should note the emphasis on mutuality in Paul's language about marriage in chapter 7 verses 2 through 5 false as each man should have his own wife and in the same way each husband her own and each woman her own husband . The husband should give to his wife for conjugal rights and likewise the wife should do the same to her husband . The wife does not have authority over her own body but the husband does . And the husband doesn't have authority over his own body but the wife does . He says you should not deprive one another . That idea of one another is reflected throughout those verses as what Paul says about the husband . He says also about the wife . This we'll see is actually quite a contrast with the way the euphemism for touching operated . So how is the euphemism of touching used in Greek as already mentioned previous conclusions were drawn from the widely known and referenced examples . Those eight were enough to establish that it was not a euphemism for marriage but for various kinds of sexual relations that they did not provide enough data to say much more . I have found 27 examples of the euphemism in greek more than tripling the data set in providing a much better opportunity to recognize the parameters for its usage . I have posted the list of examples on my website . W w w dot vice Regency dot com forward slash . Touching . In there you can see the examples in some of my comments on them . So here are my conclusions . First the euphemism is not used indiscriminately for any and all sexual relations is not used for normal procreational relations with a man's wife . When thinking about the procreational versus recreational sex distinction it's important to note the kinds of relations the euphemism is used to refer to and the kinds that speakers and writers don't use it to refer to . Secondly it is used for sexual relations with women and with boys . That's not particularly relevant to our discussion of first and seven one where Paul indicates it's talking about touching a woman but that's just part of the background of the usage of that euphemism . Thirdly it is not something mutuel . And here's a contrast with Paul's own language the euphemism of touching is unilateral . Men and women are men and boys don't touch each other when having sexual relations it is something that a man does to the object of his sexual desire . It's always what the man does to the other person . Finally it is not expressed only with the verb hoptoad the middle voice which is the way we find that the first for the ends . 7 1 . But it also shows up with the verbs saw all in thing Garneau . Two other verbs meaning touch . As already suggested as is rather for sexual relations that do not fall into the category of sex for procreation within marriage . Its use may suggest that the conflict in Corinth was not between some people approving of the use of prostitutes and other people rejecting sex altogether . But between some people who approved these of prostitutes and hustled slaves and other common sexual outlets besides one spouse and others who felt that section only be engaged in within marriage and for the purposes of procreation . Those were the dominant positions of Paul's day . Now looking at the examples that I've posted they fall into the following categories . Euphemism has been used in reference to acting on sexual passions for the sake of pleasure or sexual relief . Using various kinds of people for one's own sexual gratification . Slaves are people taken forcibly into one's household and choose to have sex with a defenseless woman . Sex with a virgin placed in one's protective care . Sex with a wife during her menstrual period . It's used of a Petraeus ship with his lover of what are described as other unnatural same sex relations . Of incestuous relationships including a relationship with one stepmother . It is used for rape or adultery . It's used for sex with one's defiled concubine sex with any Wellborn or free person other than one's wife and sex with anyone at all other than one's wife . No . Paul is a Jew when he tells us in First Corinthians 5 9 that he had written the Corinthians about not associating with poor Noi . Those who practice Poornima he also suggest that the Corinthians didn't quite understand what he was saying . See Chapter 5 verse 10 has already mentioned the term Poornima was commonly used by early Jews and then by Christians but not by others . Outside of Hellenistic Judaism the touching euphemism might have been the closest thing to expressing something like but not exactly the same as what Jews meant by Kornelia . And we note that many and most scholars think Paul is citing the Corinthians and 7:01 . Know someone has suggested that my research has failed to distinguish between meaning and reference . That is the difference between what a word refers to and what it means . But when a word refers to things or behaviors the boundaries of its referents become a key to its meaning . While we still distinguish between meaning and referent in one language a word for ball might be used to refer to soccer balls basketballs baseballs and golf balls . But not to refer to rugby balls or American footballs . We made sure that the word means spherical ball and does not refer to oblong balls . It's not part of its meaning . Years from now someone will examine all the references to and warnings that we now have about not to drink and drive in American society . And if they study carefully enough they will eventually discern that those using the expression Don't drink and drive had no concerns at all about drinking coffee water or soft drinks while driving . But wrongly meaning don't drink alcoholic beverages and drive . This discernment is not about confusing meeting and referent but about recognising the integral relation between discerning meaning and referent with certain kinds of expressions . It was a tremendous amount of sexual activity in the Greco Roman world and most of it was inferred to by way of other terms and euphemisms and not by means of the euphemism of touching . However it is noteworthy that when touching was used it was not for sexual relationships in general but for sexual relations motivated by pleasure or passion . This leads to the question about how to translate the euphemism in my view there's almost never a one right way to translate anything . It depends on the language the intended audience and the kind of translation they want or need some translators may find it best to keep the euphemism as it is . This was the approach of the King James Version the RSV and the New Revised Standard Version where they all just translated it's good for a man not to touch a woman . The problem in English at least is that many may not recognize it as a sexual euphemism . And if they do recognize it as a euphemism they might think it refers specifically to marriage or generally to any kind of sex . It's not a euphemism in the English language . Some may find it best to use a euphemism in the receptor language in English we have a number of sexual euphemisms that are not typically used of marital sex . Examples that come to mind include to better woman or to shag a woman in British English even to sleep with a woman since husbands sleep with their wives all the time . But it seems sleep with is used mainly for non-marital sex . Harry slept with Sally . Bob is sleeping with Barb in these cases . We usually don't think of them as being married . The first two examples here may fit better with the unilateral nature of the euphemism that is that euphemism is something that men do to women or others but not vice versa . I can't think of an English translation that takes the approach of using a euphemism already known in the receptive language . A third approach . Is to try is a euphemism in non euphemistic terms this has been the most common approach in recent English translations . This approach in the past has resulted in translations like it's good for men not to marry a woman in the original NIV or it's good for men not to have sexual relations with a woman . And the more recent and IVI are the ESV of NET Bible and others of course all of these reflect other understandings of euphemism than that proposed here . I had suggested in my earlier publications it is good for men not to use a woman for sexual gratification . Recently the Christian Standard Bible revised its translation of Chapter 7 verse 1 to read it is good for men not to use a woman for sex which I think represents Well the results of my research . If you know of or discover other examples of the euphemism Murphey have feedback on my research please email me at our Chamba at American Bible work some key bibliography includes my essay in The Journal for the Study of the New Testament . On revisiting the euphemism a follow up essay on fleeing sexual immorality in the wisdom of the cross exploring one Corinthians edited by greit Rossner and then the pillar commentary on the New Testament coauthored by myself Brian Rosner . We dedicated 100 pages to first Trinian's Chapter 7 . And here you can see not only how we interpret first in one but how the whole how this makes sense of all of the details throughout Chapter 7 previous essays that are important are these two essays published by Gordon fee back in 1980 and in 2003