Terrance Callan, «Partenoi in Corinth: 1 Cor 7,25-40», Vol. 97 (2016) 264-286
Interpreters differ significantly regarding the identity of the 'partenoi' discussed in 1 Cor 7,25-40. There is some uncertainty about whether they are men and women, or only women. And those who understand them as only women differ as to whether they are betrothed women, unmarried daughters, spouses in spiritual marriages, or young widows who are possible candidates for levirate marriage. I argue that the 'partenoi' are only women, and that they are unmarried daughters of Corinthian Christians. The argument is based mainly on usage of 'partenos' in literature written before, and at approximately the same time as, 1 Corinthians. In addition i offer an interpretation of 1 Cor 7,25-40, especially of vv. 36-38, that supports understanding the word as designating young, unmarried daughters.
Parq/e,noi iN CoriNtH: 1 Cor 7,25-40 277
less, i will argue that understanding vv. 36-38 as referring to father and
daughter is the best interpretation.
the strongest recent argument for understanding vv. 36-38 as re-
ferring to fiancées has been advanced by Bruce W. Winter. Winter ar-
gues that many of the key terms used in vv. 36-37 indicate that the
problem Paul discusses here results from the strong sexual desires of
a man betrothed to a woman 45. thus avschmone,w in v. 36 can have
strong sexual innuendos; u`pe,rakmoj in v. 36 refers to the sexual passions
of either sex, usually a man; avna,gkh in v. 37 has sexual references that
are well attested; and qe,lhma in v. 37 is used in pagan sources for
“sexual desire” 46.
Winter is correct about the possible meanings of all these terms ex-
cept u`pe,rakmoj. thus he establishes the possibility of interpreting vv.
36-38 as referring to fiancées. However, these terms are not likely to
have the meanings Winter describes in this passage. avschmone,w can
also refer to unseemly behavior that is not sexual. that it does so in v.
36 is suggested by the use of the cognate antonym euvsch,mwn in v. 35.
in v. 35 euvsch,mwn is paired with euvpa,redron (= devotion) and does not
seem to have a sexual connotation (cf. acts 13,50; 17,12). the use of
avsch,mwn and euvsch,mwn (and a cognate of the latter) in 1 Cor 12,23-24
probably does have a sexual connotation; cf. also the use of avschmosu,nh
in rom 1,27. However, Paul’s use of the adverb euvschmo,nwj in rom
13,13; 1 Cor 14,40 and 1 thess 4,12, and his use of avschmone,w in
1 Cor 13,5 probably do not have primarily a sexual connotation. the
overall pattern of Paul’s use of avschmone,w and related terms does not
suggest that it has a sexual meaning in 1 Cor 7,36.
likewise, Paul uses avna,gkh in v. 26 probably without sexual refer-
ence. Winter himself thinks the word in v. 26 refers to grain shortages
and subsequent social dislocation 47. thus there is no reason why it is
45
B.W. WiNter, “Puberty or Passion? the referent of UPERAKMOS in
1 Corinthians 7:36”, TynB 49 (1998) 71-89, reprinted in After Paul Left Corinth.
the influence of Secular ethics and Social Change (Grand rapids, Mi 2001) 243-
252. WiNter’S argument is accepted by GarlaNd, 1 Corinthians, 340-341. this
argument is a development of that made by KüMMel, “Verlobung und Heirat”,
280-283.
46
WiNter discusses avschmone,w in “Puberty or Passion?”, 78-83 (After Paul
Left Corinth, 243-246); u`pe,rakmoj in “Puberty or Passion?”, 74-78 (After Paul
Left Corinth, 246-249); avna,gkh and qe,lhma in “Puberty or Passion?”, 85 (After
Paul Left Corinth, 251).
47
WiNter, After Paul Left Corinth, 216-225. FitzMYer (First Corinthians,
315) rejects WiNter'S interpretation; he thinks the word in v. 26 refers to the hard-
FOLLOW US