It is good for a man not to touch a woman ...

[rsr]

It makes me wonder also, if the ESV's rendering is right, then Catholic asceticism is a good thing...right??

The ESV's (and others') rendering aside, how can you read the entire chapter and not conclude that Paul's preference is for celibacy?

But I digress. The original question, as poorly posed as it was, concerned not the proper translation of "touch" but of the use of quotation marks, a question only John has dealt with.

 

[Askjo]

1 Cor. 7:1 is that Jack Hyles told the boys at his college saying, "Get your hands off from girls!" Never forget his son, Dave!"

 

[Marcia]

According to BAGD, the phrase also occurs in Aesop in the same construction as here, with the genitive case, with the meaning of simply touching a woman generally.

Also, in one of the cases given by Fee, Ruth 2:9, it is extremely problematic whether physical relations are meant in either the Hebrew or LXX. "Boaz charged the young men not to touch her." Eh what? Sounds like old Boaz was just saying, "Leave her alone while she gleans, guys." In others of the cases given by Fee (Aristotle, etc.) the reading is in classical Greek, meaning it is quite possible the idiom was not valid for koine. Aristotle was 4th century BC, the same gap as between us and the KJV. Makes me wonder what I would find if I checked out all 9 of Fee's examples.

So the ESV interpretation is not a done deal. My view is, when in doubt about the meaning of the idiom in the original, translate literally and let the reader study it out and decide.

Makes me wonder also, if the ESV's rendering is right, then Catholic asceticism is a good thing...right??

Could it mean touching in a (sexually) suggestive way?

 

[Deacon]

Also, in one of the cases given by Fee, Ruth 2:9, it is extremely problematic whether physical relations are meant in either the Hebrew or LXX. "Boaz charged the young men not to touch her." Eh what? Sounds like old Boaz was just saying, "Leave her alone while she gleans, guys." In others of the cases given by Fee (Aristotle, etc.) the reading is in classical Greek, meaning it is quite possible the idiom was not valid for koine. Aristotle was 4th century BC, the same gap as between us and the KJV. Makes me wonder what I would find if I checked out all 9 of Fee's examples.

So the ESV interpretation is not a done deal. My view is, when in doubt about the meaning of the idiom in the original, translate literally and let the reader study it out and decide.

You caught me in a beginners err, John.
I should have checked Fee’s proof texts.
Particularly the Ruth text is no gimme.
I don’t know how many times I’ve read a Systematic Theology text and found the verses they offered didn’t support their theology.

(1) The usual Greek way to give a quote is by preceding it with oti (hoti), and this passage does not do that. So I believe the quote marks are probably unjustified.

Interesting John! I’m learning here so please bear with me.
It isn’t always used as a discourse marker.
Please comment on Matthew 7:21-23

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’
And then will I declare to them, [ὁτι] ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
Matthew 7:21-23 ESV

There are a couple of quotes here but only in one instance was the marker ὁτι used, why?

Certainly there are many other quotes that don’t use this formula.

I looked closer at this section in the ESV.
There are a few nearby verses where the ESV also uses quotation marks (1 Corinthians 6:12 (x2),13,16).

I also noticed that in this and the surrounding chapters Paul frequently uses the phrase, “do you not know that…” [“οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι”, see 6:2, 3, 9, 15, 16, 19, ] and “we know that” [“οἴδαμεν ὅτι”, see 8:1, 4].

Chapter 8:1 and 4 both use this phrase and have quotation marks signaled by the marker.

Maybe I need to get a Greek Grammar... but I'm still struggling with my Hebrew ones.

Rob

 

[John of Japan]

Could it mean touching in a (sexually) suggestive way?

Yes, I think the context shows this. Obviously there is okay touching and there is not-okay touching. So Paul didn't say it was a sin to touch a woman, just good not to, right?

 

[AresMan]

No, it's not that question.

Instead, while reading along with the pastor from my HCSV, I noticed some unaccustomed punctuation, i.e., the addition of quotation marks around “It is good for a man not to have relations with a woman.”

I looked in my ESV, and, sure enough, the translators do the same thing:

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman."

So do the NRSV and the New American Bible.In these instances, it appears the purpose of the quotations marks is to make clear that the "It is good for a man not to touch a woman" is a statement of the Corinthians, not Paul's judgment. After all, why would be be quoting himself? (Although reading the rest of the chapter makes it clear that Paul does not disagree with the statement, but he does qualify it considerably.)

Are the quotations marks justified, or are they an unwarranted interpolation by the translators?

(The NIRV, BTW, goes the full distance: Now I want to deal with the things you wrote me about. Some of you say, "It is good for a man not to have sex with a woman.")

I would say that the quotation marks are not justified here. Paul is saying "Regarding the things you asked of me in your letter, here is my response: it is good (or acceptable) for a man to commit to perpetual chastity. However, I do not recommend that as the norm. To avoid fornication, you probably should look to get married. If you have strong desires, you should satisfy them with a wife."

Just my loose interpretation.

 

[AresMan]

"touch" is a euphemism for intercourse just as "know" is a euphemism for intercourse.

 

[Deacon]

Thanks Rsr, this thread has certainly made me examine the Scripture I read even more closely.
I don't think I've seen those quotation marks before!

Google Book Search is amazing.
There are lots of good up-to-date commentaries available for viewing.
I can’t imagine a commentary where three or four pages would be devoted to whether or not quotes should be placed in 1 Corinthians 7:1, …but here it is.

The First Epistle to the Corinthians by Anthony C. Thiselton in the NIGTC (2000) [LINK]

Whether the clause καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ γυναικὸς μὴ ἅπτεσθαι constitutes a Pauline statement which he will modify, a question form, or a quotation from Corinth is a notorious crux. p. 498

Rob

 

[Jim1999]

I don't think the quotations belong here, but then, I don't think they change the essence of what Paul is saying. How many letters do we write and include quotation marks?

Paul already states he is commenting on things the Corinthian people wrote him about, and this chapter is dealing with the state of marriage. Paul is single and he speaks as such. He woul rather many stay as him; single.

"It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." Nevertheless, he goes on, to avoid fornication....because we are weak and may give in to the flesh....let every man get married and have his own wife.

So, whether he is quoting the Corinthians, or simply stating what they wrote him about is playing with grammatical construction and in this case doesn't alter the meaning of the chapter...As I see it, anyway.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[John of Japan]

You caught me in a beginners err, John.
I should have checked Fee’s proof texts.
Particularly the Ruth text is no gimme.
I don’t know how many times I’ve read a Systematic Theology text and found the verses they offered didn’t support their theology.

Isn't that the truth! Proof-texting is rampant.

Interesting John! I’m learning here so please bear with me.
It isn’t always used as a discourse marker.
Please comment on Matthew 7:21-23

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’
And then will I declare to them, [ὁτι] ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
Matthew 7:21-23 ESV

There are a couple of quotes here but only in one instance was the marker ὁτι used, why?

Certainly there are many other quotes that don’t use this formula.

Right. That's why when I commented on 1 Cor. 7:1 I was careful with my language in my first post: "The usual Greek way to give a quote is by preceding it with oti (hoti), and this passage does not do that. So I believe the quote marks are probably unjustified."

As to why Matt. 7:21 doesn't have ὅτι, you've got me there. I'd have to do more research to figure that one out. (Maybe later.) At least it has "says" when 1 Cor. 7:1 does, so I still lean towards not including quotes there. There is this: "Lord, Lord" in Matthew is vocative, so that assumes a quote.

I looked closer at this section in the ESV.
There are a few nearby verses where the ESV also uses quotation marks (1 Corinthians 6:12 (x2),13,16).

I also noticed that in this and the surrounding chapters Paul frequently uses the phrase, “do you not know that…” [“οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι”, see 6:2, 3, 9, 15, 16, 19, ] and “we know that” [“οἴδαμεν ὅτι”, see 8:1, 4].

Chapter 8:1 and 4 both use this phrase and have quotation marks signaled by the marker.

Maybe I need to get a Greek Grammar... but I'm still struggling with my Hebrew ones.

Rob

The difference between 1 Cor. 7:1 and Matt. 7:21 (and the other Corinthian quotes you give) is that Matthew has legwn, "says," and Corinthians does not. Daniel Wallace says, "The declarative oti comes after a verb of perception (e. g., verbs of saying, thinking, believing, knowing, seeing, hearing)" (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 456). If you want a great, up-to-date Greek grammar I suggest this one, by the way. And I hear you about Hebrew gammar!

 

[Salamander]

The expression "to touch a woman" is not foreign to scripture. It is used in Gen 20:26 and again in Prov 8:29 LXX, as a euphemism for sexual intercourse. Perhaps the translators have missed the mark here in how it should read.

Cheers,

Jim

More importantly is for one to KNOW what the "touching" of a woman relates to that as being of a sexual impression upon her body as an advance towards her person.

It all has to do with James 1: 14,15 concerning the enticement which leads to lust, which leads to fornication, which leads to death.

The Bible's words are meant to be expounded upon, not exacted out and leaving the hearer to conclude something without consideration of all the implications of the passage.

The modern versions leave too much out in this consideration of Scripture.:tongue3:

 

[Keith M]

The expression "to touch a woman" is not foreign to scripture. It is used in Gen 20:26 and again in Prov 8:29 LXX, as a euphemism for sexual intercourse. Perhaps the translators have missed the mark here in how it should read.

More importantly is for one to KNOW what the "touching" of a woman relates to that as being of a sexual impression upon her body as an advance towards her person.

It all has to do with James 1: 14,15 concerning the enticement which leads to lust, which leads to fornication, which leads to death.

The Bible's words are meant to be expounded upon, not exacted out and leaving the hearer to conclude something without consideration of all the implications of the passage.

The modern versions leave too much out in this consideration of Scripture.:tongue3:

Sal, maybe you should check your "facts" before you jump in to denigrate modern Bible translations. There IS no Gen. 20:26. And Pro. 8:29 has nothing to do with a man touching a woman in ANY way. If you had bothered to verify what Jim said, you would have quickly seen the modern translations can't be said to "leave too much out in this consideration of Scripture" when one verse doesn't exist and the other has nothing to do with the subject.

When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: Proverbs 8:29 KJV

Jim1999, I'm sure the references in your post were typos. I have never known you to deliberately mislead in any of your posts.

Sal, your response shows you don't even bother to check the veracity of what you're saying before you start denigrating modern Bible translations. Your misguided zeal often shows your utter lack of credibility and knowledge regarding modern Bible translations.

 

[Deacon]

typo's

Genesis 20:6 [LINK]

Proverbs 6:29 [LINK]

 

[sag38]

Looks like the schooner missed a stay on this one.:laugh:

 

[rsr]

The First Epistle to the Corinthians by Anthony C. Thiselton in the NIGTC (2000) [LINK]

Thanks, Rob. Interesting reading there.

I think Jim is right that whether the statement should be attributed to Paul or the Corinthians does not make a huge difference in the meaning, but I do think it changes the context in which the rest of the chapter should be read.

 

[rsr]

Yes, I think the context shows this. Obviously there is okay touching and there is not-okay touching. So Paul didn't say it was a sin to touch a woman, just good not to, right?

I am at a loss to understand how the context could mean "touching" in any other sense than the ESV has made explicit. The entire chapter is about marriage and, presumably (and at times explicitly), the intimate relations involved.

 

[John of Japan]

I am at a loss to understand how the context could mean "touching" in any other sense than the ESV has made explicit. The entire chapter is about marriage and, presumably (and at times explicitly), the intimate relations involved.

My objection is to the translation of the specific word. I think the ESV goes too far. What the context makes clear is that it is intimate touching, not necessarily that it is "sexual relations" as the ESV has it. I'm not convinced that the Greek phrase is the idiom the ESV would have us believe it is. There can be intimate touching without sexual relations.

For example, look again at Gen. 26:6. This passage makes perfect sense without it being intimate relations, yet it is used as proof for the supposed Greek idiom. The same is true with Prov. 6:29, which can be intimate touching without intimate relations. That alone has gotten men killed without them "going all the way."

If 1 Cor. 7:1 actually meant an adulterous relationship, then surely Paul would have said it was sin, not just that it is good not to do. Again, the word porneia, or "fornication" in the second half of the verse (edit: sorry, in verse 2 actually) means a wide variety of intimate sin, not just adulterous relationships. So if we are going strictly by context, "sexual relations" as per the ESV is still not a slam dunk.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I am not a Greek scholar by any stretch of the imagination, so i throw this out to see what you guys thinks.

I studied this, as extensively as I could, at one point and the explanation that I came up with is that this idea of 'touch' was to 'touch in such a way to incite sexual passion.'

We don't need to delve into the details of that - but does that make any sense in light of the word used and the context. It didn't see, from what I studied, that it had to mean full blown sexual relations.

If giving a hug or even holding hands incites passion, that it is not good that we do it.

Does that make any sense?

 

[John of Japan]

I am not a Greek scholar by any stretch of the imagination, so i throw this out to see what you guys thinks.

I studied this, as extensively as I could, at one point and the explanation that I came up with is that this idea of 'touch' was to 'touch in such a way to incite sexual passion.'

We don't need to delve into the details of that - but does that make any sense in light of the word used and the context. It didn't see, from what I studied, that it had to mean full blown sexual relations.

If giving a hug or even holding hands incites passion, that it is not good that we do it.

Does that make any sense?

That's pretty much how I interpret it, only I wouldn't even go that far. I would say an intimate touch. So it's not wrong to shake hands with a woman, it's not wrong to hug a relative, but there is a point at which touching becomes "not good" because of the temptation it opens up. This fits the "not good" phraseology Paul uses.

But if we interpret it the ESV way, then this interpretation is kaput, to use a good theological term. Again, the ESV translation is so clearly about a sin that why would Paul say, "It is good not to..."? That means it might be okay to do it, it's just better not to. If a young unmarried couple touches intimately, it might not be a sin per se but can quickly lead to fornication, the word used in verse 2.

 

[Deacon]

Along the same lines…
I think the term is a simple euphemism for sexual relations.
and what you're describing is a broad way to describe sexual relations.

I’m reminded of a past president’s infamous legacy, “I did not have sex(ual relations) with that woman.”
Yet we all knew he did, even if it wasn’t classically what we consider as such.
It was the intimacy thing.

Translating it openly is a wee bit crude IMHO, but it gets Pauls point across better.


********************

Here's a small part of a "Hebrew euphemism's" collection I've been gathering for a while.
It's by not by any means complete or perfect, I just add to it as I find one.

qarab (verb) – to come near or approach
Isaiah 8:3; Lev. 18:6; Genesis 20:4
approached (NASB95); went to (AV, ASV, NRSV, NIV, ESV); intimate with (HCSV); had sexual relations with (NET), slept with (NLT), made love to (TNIV)

shakab (verb) – to lie down
Exodus 22:19
lies with (NASB, ESV), sexual relations (TNIV, NLT)

2 Samuel 13:14
lay with (NASB, ESV), raped (NLT, TNIV)

tegaleh ‘er-vatah (clause) – uncover nakedness
Leviticus 18
uncover the nakedness (ESV, NAS), sexual relations (TNIV, NLT)

shekabet le-zara’ (clause) – give a lying with seed (semen)
Leviticus 18:20, 23; 20:15; Numbers 5:20
have intercourse (NASB), lie sexually (ESV), sexual intercourse (NLT), have sexual relations (TNIV)

Numbers 5:13
has intercourse with (NASB), lies with (ESV), has sex with (NLT), has sexual relations with (TNIV)

qah – take, lay hold of , seize, acquire, be taken in marriage, Leviticus 20:17
takes (NASB, ESV) , marries (NLT, TNIV),

ra’ah ‘et-‘er-vat(ah) (clause) - sees her/his nakedness
Leviticus 20:17
sees her/his nakedness (NASB,ESV), have sexual relations (NLT, TNIV),


Numbers 25:1
play the harlot with (NASB), whore with (ESV), sexual relations with (NLT), indulge in sexual immorality with (TNIV),

2 Samuel 20:3
did not go into them (NASB, ESV), no longer slept with (NLT), had no sexual relations with (TNIV)

1Kings 1:4
did not cohabit with (NASB), knew her not (ESV), had no sexual relations with (NLT, TNIV),

Enjoy, but don't touch :laugh:

Rob