Some Observations on the Punctuation in 1 Corinthians 7.16-17

Abstract

The construction of 1 Cor 7.17 has been described as difficult. In light of its grammatical problems, this is an understatement. It appears that the difficulty stems not so much from the grammar of the Greek syntax but rather from the perception of what constitutes a sentence in Greek. A proposed change of the punctuation makes 1 Cor 7.17 part of a well-constructed Greek sentence. The suggestions advanced in this contribution, supported by evidence from Greek manuscripts, pertain to both the punctuation of 1 Cor 7.17 and its relation to 1 Cor 7.16. The treatments of this passage in Erasmus’s Greek New Testament, the Vulgate, Luther’s Bible, and other versions are considered.

Keywords

1 Corinthians 7.17 Greek grammar New Testament manuscripts Erasmus Martin Luther

1. Introduction

Punctuation can result in huge differences in meaning. “Let's eat, grandpa” conjures up the image of children telling their grandfather that he should eat something. “Let's eat grandpa” suggests carnivores who tend to eat their elders. The difference between the two sentences is that the first is addressed to “grandpa”; thus, grandpa becomes part of the group that is going to eat. The object to be eaten is not mentioned in this case. In the second instance, “grandpa” is the direct object of the verb. Consequently, in this case punctuation makes an important difference.

In this article, I explore a passage in the New Testament where punctuation makes such a difference. The passage under discussion (1 Cor 7.16-17) is—in current editions—the end of a paragraph (1 Cor 7.16) and the beginning of a new paragraph (1 Cor 7.17). The preceding text deals with the question of mixed marriages. Paul addresses the case in which one of the two partners is not a believer, and raises the question whether the believer should stay in such a relationship or end the marriage. The next passage begins with the statement of a general rule (1 Cor 7.17) and then moves on to apply this rule also to circumcision and its possible reversal (1 Cor 7.18). The division of the two parts is marked in NRSV, where 1 Cor 7.16 reads,

Wife, for all you know, you might save your husband. Husband, for all you know, you might save your wife.

Then, a section heading, “The Life That the Lord Has Assigned,” separates this from 1 Cor 7.17, which reads,

However that may be, let each of you lead the life that the Lord has assigned, to which God called you. This is my rule in all the churches.

If 1 Cor 7.20 is to be seen as a summary of the advice on circumcision and uncircumcision (“Let each of you remain in the condition in which you were called”), one might be tempted to see a parallel construction that would make the statement in 1 Cor 7.17 a summary of the preceding passage. This structural perception is precluded by the textual division as presented in the editions and mirrored, for example, in NRSV as quoted above.

The marking of a new paragraph after 1 Cor 7.16 separates v. 17 from the preceding text. On the level of Greek grammar, the words at the beginning of 1 Cor 7.17 indicate that the verse is an integral part of 1 Cor 7.16.¹ It appears that the rather incomplete sentence starting with 1 Cor 7.17 has led to this punctuation of the verse in modern editions. Although it creates more problems than it solves, the separation of the two verses in standard editions of the Greek New Testament is taken for granted. This article will discuss evidence from Greek manuscripts, Erasmus, the Vulgate, and Martin Luther to suggest how these verses relate to each other.

Luther used the second edition of the Novum Testamentum published by Erasmus in 1519,² basing his translation on it, but adding his own editorial decisions to the structure of the text. In consequence, he introduced problems into his authoritative German translation, making the detection of the original problem even harder for all those who followed in his footsteps. Recently, Martin Karrer suggested that Luther might also have made use of Nikolaus Gerbel's Greek edition of the New Testament (1521). This is a reprint of the second edition of Erasmus's text, but with some changes by Gerbel to that text (Karrer 2017, 78–82). Another possible source of influence that has been identified is an edition of the Vulgate published in 1519 in Lyon.³ Its textual layout is similar to Johannes Petri's edition of the Vulgate (1509) and Johannes Froben's edition (1514). One of these editions would have been available to Luther. Neither of them uses paragraphs to add structure to 1 Cor 7.

It is likely, then, that Luther's translation was influenced both by the punctuation of Erasmus's Greek text and by the textual division of the Vulgate edition available to him. This, in consequence, might have contributed to the persistence of the problem of these two verses over the centuries. There are numerous editions presenting the text of Luther's translation and the edited Greek text on facing pages. The problematic punctuation of the Greek text is mirrored in the translated text, and so discourages identification of the possibility of an alternative punctuation that might pose fewer problems.⁴

2. The problematic structure of 1 Cor 7.17

It is reasonable to start the discussion of the problems of 1 Cor 7.16-17 with the syntactic structure of 1 Cor 7.17 because this verse is a rather incomplete and structurally difficult sentence. The troubles need to be identified in order to make the argument that at least parts of v. 17 might be better Greek if they are seen as part of v. 16.

The Greek text of 1 Cor 7.17 in NA28 is as follows: Εἰ μὴ ἑκάστῳ ὡς ἐμέρισεν ὁ κύριος, ἕκαστον ὡς κέκληκεν ὁ θεός, οὕτως περιπατείτω. καὶ οὕτως ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις πάσαις διατάσσομαι. This difficult sentence has not come under close scrutiny; its perceived “difficulty” has simply been accepted. Bible translations show that highly different translations are possible on the basis of this Greek text. GNB has here, “Each of you should go on living according to the Lord's gift to you, and as you were when God called you. This is the rule I teach in all the churches.” The original KJV has, “But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.” NIV offers, “Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches.” NLT phrases here, “Each of you should continue to live in whatever situation the Lord has placed you, and remain as you were when God first called you. This is my rule for all the churches.” There is agreement that a continuity is expected from those whom Paul addresses. Whether this continuity pertains to gifts given (GNB), whether it is a matter of just continuing according to a contribution (KJV), whether it concerns matters of faith and the exhortation to be faithful in every situation (NIV), or whether it deals with the expectation that everybody should stay in the situation in which he or she received God's calling (NLT) is open to debate. The last sentence (including its proleptic hypotaxis) indicates that the preceding sentence concerns a general rule, the contents of which appear to be somewhat elusive.

The different translations indicate that the text as presented in standard editions is not easy to understand in its construction and, therefore, is the basis for different and somewhat contradictory translational decisions.⁵ In the absence of a thorough grammatical analysis, or rather, without an understanding, based on Greek philology, of the grammatical structure, 1 Cor 7.17 is open to translational arbitrariness.⁶

Many editions of the Greek text are constructed according to a grammatical analysis of the text that leads to the presentation of the textual structure in such editions. Thus one is able to deduce the grammatical analysis underlying the textual structure as exhibited in the editions. With regard to 1 Cor 7.17, in standard editions there is the beginning of a rather awkward conditional clause (Εἰ μὴ ἑκάστῳ) interrupted by a subclause (ὡς ἐμέρισεν ὁ κύριος); after this insertion the conditional clause is continued and actually also concluded with only one additional word, a distributive pronoun (ἕκαστον). Its grammatical case and function are rather oblique. The distributive pronoun might be either a direct object (assuming that it is the accusative masculine or neuter) or the nominative (in this case it can only be the neuter singular). Contextual analysis makes the neuter singular impossible since Paul is addressing persons (these are construed in the direct context of v. 16 as either male [ἀνήρ] or female [γυνή]). Consequently, the distributive pronoun cannot be a neuter nominative but must be an accusative. As an accusative, it would be the direct object of a verb. Unfortunately, there is no verb governing this accusative.

A second subclause follows directly, introduced by the same conjunction as the first subclause (ὡς κέκληκεν ὁ θεός). One is invited by the punctuation to see these as parallel constructions, since both distributive pronouns (ἑκάστῳ, ἕκαστον) appear to be followed directly by subclauses introduced with ὡς. After the conclusion of the second subclause in the conditional clause (ὡς κέκληκεν ὁ θεός), the main clause follows (οὕτως περιπατείτω).

The following conclusion appears reasonable: There is by all means a highly complicated and quite unusual Greek structure in 1 Cor 7.17. It is rare—if not unheard of—that a Greek sentence would consist of a conjunction (Εἰ), a negation (μή), an indirect object (ἑκάστῳ), and a direct object (ἕκαστον) without either subject or predicate. Even if ἕκαστον were actually the subject (as mentioned, this is impossible due to the context), the predicate is truly missing. Due to the structure of Greek verbs, it is possible to make a full sentence out of one word—one finite verb is sufficient. There are also nominal sentences in Greek where a substantive is used in a way that it can be called the predicate of a nominal sentence. However, to have just two objects in different cases or a subject without predicate appears to be a hopeless case in Greek. The grammar appears faulty beyond repair. This grammatical analysis follows the presentation of the Greek text in NA28. One should point out that this edition has a paragraph between 1 Cor 7.16 and 1 Cor 7.17, highlighting the division between the two verses.

Even more interpretive is UBS5. Its textual layout introduces a section heading between vv. 16 and 17: “The Life Which the Lord Has Assigned.” This heading effectively distances the passage 1 Cor 7.8-16 from 1 Cor 7.17-24 and is, as indicated above, repeated in translations such as NRSV. With this layout, the editors of UBS5 declare 1 Cor 7.17 to be the beginning of a new unit. This may be in line with the standard interpretation of the passage. It is, however, in clear contradistinction to how early Bible manuscripts interpret the textual coherence and grammar of the passage.

3. Manuscripts and their punctuation

In this context the question arises whether the editorial decisions in ancient manuscripts concerning textual layout and punctuation may be used to suggest corrections to modern editions. Textual criticism has for centuries used the textual transmission of manuscripts in order to establish the text of critical editions. The older manuscripts preserve readings and—in the layout—also interpretations of syntactic structure.

If the layout differs fundamentally between ancient codices and modern editions, especially in the case of difficult passages, it might be possible to suggest an alternative layout on the basis of such manuscripts. If this new (or rather, very old) layout suggests a syntactic structure that solves the grammatical problems of a given passage, such a suggestion should be taken into consideration for altering the layout of current editions.

Recently, I suggested a change to the punctuation of John 8.25 based on the layout of an early Greek manuscript of the New Testament, thereby solving the puzzling problem of an “obscure” Greek sentence structure (cf. Förster 2016a). One of the core characteristics of that manuscript, Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis, is its structural layout: The text was copied with public reading in mind (cf. Aland and Aland 1989, 118). The lines are generously distributed over the page, giving precedence to presenting a readable and understandable text by dividing the sentences in sense units.

Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis does not contain the Pauline Letters, so it cannot be used for our passage. Codex Claromontanus, which exhibits features similar to Bezae and contains the Pauline Letters, is unfortunately missing the page containing 1 Cor 7.17. This does not constitute too great a problem: Even manuscripts containing little punctuation are of great help here. This will be demonstrated using Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus. Both use almost no punctuation; however, both give distinctive clues as to how the sentence can be structured differently.

Figure 1.

Codex Sinaiticus fol. 269v; 3rd column; lower half. © The British Library Board. Source: http://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/manuscript-workspace (Doc ID 20001).

Figure 2.

Codex Alexandrinus; fol. 120v, beginning of the 2nd column. © The British Library Board. Source: http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=royal_ms_1_d_viii_f094v.

Both codices use special line breaks or paragraphoi in order to structure larger units. Thus, not every line break (in contradistinction to the use of line breaks in Bezae Cantabrigiensis) is a unit, but—as is immediately evident with only a glance at the manuscripts—there are larger units. The structure is created using paragraphoi. In the case of Codex Sinaiticus, the structuring feature is basically the same as a paragraph in modern editions (see Figure 1). In the case of Codex Alexandrinus, a space within the text (spatium), in combination with a larger character at the beginning of the line following this spatium between two words, indicates a unit (these larger characters may actually appear in the middle of a word; see Figure 2).

This has consequences for the syntactic structure of 1 Cor 7.17. Codex Sinaiticus offers the following unit (equivalent to 1 Cor 7.15b-17a):

ἐν δὲ εἰρήνῃ κέκληκεν ὑμᾶς ὁ θεός· τί γὰρ οἶδας γύναι εἰ τὸν ἄνδρα σώσεις ἢ τί οἶδας ἄνερ εἰ τὴν γυναῖκα σώσεις εἰ μὴ ἑκάστῳ ὡς μεμέρικεν ὁ κύριος ἕκαστον ὡς κέκληκεν ὁ θεός οὕτως περιπατείτω και` οὓτως ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις πα´σαις διατα´σσομαι.

Codex Alexandrinus presents an even larger unit (equivalent to 1 Cor 7.12-17). The following observation is of relevance: There is no line break or paragraphos between vv. 16 and 17. There exists disagreement between the two manuscripts as to whether the next sense unit starts in the middle or at the end of what is today 1 Cor 7.17.⁷

Taking into consideration the structure of 1 Cor 7.16-17 as presented by the NT manuscripts discussed above, the following sentence structure can be suggested: τί γὰρ οἶδας γύναι εἰ τὸν ἄνδρα σώσεις ἢ τί οἶδας ἄνερ εἰ τὴν γυναῖκα σώσεις εἰ μὴ ἑκάστῳ, ὡς ἐμέρισεν ὁ κύριος ἕκαστον; ὡς κέκληκεν ὁ θεός, οὕτως περιπατείτω. καὶ οὕτως ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις πάσαις διατάσσομαι. The grammatical structure of the text becomes less problematic and easier to understand: There are two questions introduced with the interrogative particle τί and coordinated as paratactic sentences via the adversative conjunction ἤ. The combination of conjunction and negation (εἰ μή) is according to standard Greek grammar, usually intrinsically and inseparably connected to the preceding text, introducing a concession on what is said (cf. Bornemann and Risch 2012, §283). The grammatical coherence of this structure is supported by the layout of Greek manuscripts. Consequently, the editorial decision in modern editions to introduce a new paragraph after 1 Cor 7.16 may be deemed counterintuitive if standards of Greek grammar and manuscript layout are taken into consideration.

The negated conditional clause comprises the following words: εἰ μὴ ἑκάστῳ. The rather defective sentence supports the grammatical analysis presented above: The strong connection to the preceding makes the repetition of the verb unnecessary in Greek (cf. Bornemann and Risch 2012, §283). This structure often leads to the translational decision to introduce the verb used in the preceding sentence within the phrase introduced by εἰ μή.

This phrase is followed by a subclause which ends after ἕκαστον. Since the verb μερίζω needs a direct object, it is reasonable to conclude that the distributive pronoun directly following the subject of the subclause might actually constitute the direct object of the verb occurring in the subclause.

It becomes apparent—if similar phrases from the New Testament are adduced—that the distributive pronoun in the accusative (ἕκαστον) can be understood as the direct object of the verb μερίζω and pertains to what “God” or “the Lord” has foreordained or allocated as fate.⁸ The preceding sentence deals with the knowledge of who will be saved; this sentence deals with fate as allocated by God: In the end no human being knows what will happen to those travelling with him through time with respect to salvation. This pertains also to those closest to us: A husband does not know this concerning his wife, and a wife does not know this concerning her husband.

Based on this grammatical analysis, the following translation is possible: “For how do you know, wife,⁹ whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? What do you know if not this:¹⁰ to each one as the Lord has foreordained it.”

With this solution to the structural problems of 1 Cor 7.17a, the structure of the following text also becomes easier to understand: ὡς κέκληκεν ὁ θεός οὕτως περιπατείτω “As God has called, in this way he or she should walk.” A less literal and more appropriate translation would be, “Each of you should walk according to God's calling.” It should be apparent that the translation suggested here for 1 Cor 7.16-17 differs from the translations quoted above. The revised translation and the suggestion that vv. 16-17 belong to the preceding passage together raise the question what this might mean for the understanding of the newly identified sense unit 1 Cor 7.10-17.

4. A new sense unit: 1 Cor 7.10-17

Based on the grammatical analysis, the suggestion can be advanced that 1 Cor 7.10-17 constitutes a sense unit dealing with the question of dissolving marriages, including the problem of a person married to an unbelieving spouse. In vv. 10-11 Paul argues that he is following the Lord's orders in this matter. Paul advances the position that the believer who is married to an unbelieving spouse should not initiate divorce (vv. 12-14). It is only when the unbeliever initiates the separation that the believer should accept the resulting break in the relationship (v. 15). Paul concludes his argument by pointing to God as the guiding force of history (vv. 16-17a): The fate of all human beings—whether they are believers or not—rests in the hands of the Lord. The believing spouse is to place his or her faith in the Lord and to let him work while he or she tries to remain in the relationship. As a final comment Paul offers, “As the Lord has called you (i.e., whether as a person married to an unbeliever or as a person who is left by his unbelieving spouse), in this way should you walk.” This (i.e., that an unbelieving spouse may not be used as an excuse to end a marriage) is the content of what Paul has taught in all Christian communities.

This understanding of the passage may be placed within the overall discourse of 1 Cor 7.10-17. It is generally assumed that the reference to the “Lord” (vv. 10 and 12) is to Jesus,¹¹ which raises the problem that Paul appears to contradict Jesus while quoting him.¹² One possible solution to this contradictio in adiecto would be that the reference is to God (i.e., the God of Israel as venerated by Paul and his communities). This possibility is indicated by the reference to “the Lord” in 1 Cor 7.17. There, ὁ κύριος definitely refers to God. This could then be an indication that Paul's discourse on marriage and its possible dissolution is a reference to Jewish marriage laws as presented by Ezra 9 and 10 and Neh 10 and 13 (cf. Häusl 2008, 41).

The relevant texts enforce the prohibition of exogamy which, in consequence, leads to the dissolution of such marriages.¹³ The ban on exogamy is defended with reference to the Torah and to prophetic literature (e.g., in Ezra 9.11). Häusl contends that there is no possibility of identifying the source of the words that Ezra seems to quote (Häusl 2008, 42). Arguably, this could be a reference to, for example, Isa 17.10. There, abandoning the Lord is connected to planting an unfaithful plant. It does not come as a surprise that one of the few occurrences of ἄπιστος in the LXX may be found there.¹⁴ The reference is to the unfaithful plant and seed,¹⁵ which may be understood to refer to marriages and offspring.

The high incidence of ἄπιστος within 1 Cor 7.10-17 might be understood as a reference to both Isa 17.10 and the marriage laws as promulgated in Ezra and Nehemiah. Paul would have been facing a situation comparable to what is discussed there: Israelites married “outside the tribe” after the exile, resulting in mixed marriages. Paul calls non-Jews to the exclusive veneration of the God of Israel, which—if only one of the spouses reacts to the call—leads again to the problem of mixed marriages.¹⁶ Arguably, this might also be a reference to King Solomon, who was led astray by his Gentile wives (1 Kgs 11.1-8).

The suggestion that 1 Cor 7.12ff. could be a reference to Ezra and Nehemiah seems to resolve also the problems posed by the use of “to make holy” and the question of unclean and clean offspring in 1 Cor 7.14.¹⁷ If this passage indeed may be understood to discuss the precepts of Ezra and Nehemiah, the question of “unclean offspring”¹⁸ would be a natural topic for Paul to discuss,¹⁹ and constitutes the “religious question” which appears to be at hand here.²⁰ This might be closer to Paul's understanding of the matter than the assumption that “biological categories” are discussed here,²¹ or the suggestion that this concerns children from the time before conversion who were not yet baptized.²² The presumption that “holiness” is in this respect not connected to Jewish concepts has led scholars to the proposal that there were ascetic groups in Corinth that held the opinion that even physically touching an unbelieving spouse might convey uncleanliness.²³

If “the Lord” means “God” not only in 1 Cor 7.17, but also in the context of 1 Cor 7.10ff., Paul would, with regard to the ban on exogamy, argue that this ban is against the Torah. Häusl points to the fact that the quotations from the Torah as combined in Ezra and Nehemiah introduce such a ban on exogamy, which appears to be alien to the meaning these quotations have within the context of the source texts (Häusl 2008, 42). Paul would see the Torah (and especially its precepts on marriage) as an expression of God's will for those who join the congregations founded by Paul. This understanding of 1 Cor 7.12-17 would place Paul and his discourse in a context where rival Jewish interpretations of the Torah and the halakhic laws concerning marriage are discussed.²⁴

Something similar appears to be what happens in 2 Cor 11, where other (Jewish) teachers are criticized by Paul. Paul choses a different road when compared to Ezra and Nehemiah. He argues for continuing a marriage, while Ezra and Nehemiah might be understood to see the necessity of ending such marriages.²⁵ The rationale behind this might have its roots in a different understanding of membership within the congregation: For Ezra and Nehemiah, genealogy decides whether one is “part of the tribe.” In contradistinction, for Paul faith and commitment to the God of Israel and his son Jesus Christ are decisive for becoming a member of Paul's congregation. It is impossible to change one’s genealogy, but a conversion may take place. Thus, while the situation of a mixed marriage is hopeless for Ezra and Nehemiah, there is always hope for the unbelieving spouse who is faithful to the bond of marriage. As to the disagreement over Paul's statement in 7.15ab²⁶ the solution suggested above would indicate the possibility of a new marriage after the separation initiated by the unbelieving spouse²⁷—which would be in line with the regulations of Ezra and Nehemiah.²⁸

5. Aspects of the history of the transformation of textual coherence

The following section details the structural segmentation of the Greek text as evidenced in Erasmus, in some editions of the Vulgate, and in Luther. These sources divide the text differently from the division found in NA28.

5.1 Erasmus

Erasmus differs fundamentally on the macro-level from modern editions. He has paragraphs at the beginning of 1 Cor 7.8, 10, 12b (starting with εἴ τις), and 20. Thus, in contradistinction to modern editions and in accordance with older manuscripts, Erasmus still sees no paragraph break between 1 Cor 7.16 and 17 (Erasmus 1519, 364; see Figure 3). This observation points to the possibility that modern editions, introducing a paragraph here, might disrupt a passage which—according to older tradition—has an internal coherence.

Figure 3.

Erasmus Novum Testamentum (1519), 364. Source: https://archive.org/details/novumtestamentum00eras/page/364/.

Erasmus used a manuscript (GA 1) from Basel. An image of the passage at hand illustrates the problem (see Figure 4). The first line contains the last words of 1 Cor 7.16 (ἄνερ, εἰ τη`ν γυναῖκα σω´σεις). The manuscript then uses a στιγμὴ μέση (middle stop) to separate the negated conditional clause (εἰ μή) from the preceding text. The same stop is used in this manuscript to separate the negated conditional clause from the preceding text in Matt 5.13. Erasmus uses a comma in Matt 5.13. The situation is more complicated for 1 Cor 7: In the Greek text of his edition of 1516, Erasmus uses a comma between vv. 16 and 17. In the Latin text, he uses a question mark. In the edition of 1519 he uses a semicolon (signifying a question mark in editions of Greek texts) to separate v. 16 from v. 17. His editorial decision seems to be influenced by his understanding of the function of εἰ μὴ as advanced in the Annotationes in his NT edition of 1516. Erasmus states in his Annotationes that he sees the structure introduced by εἰ μή on the grammatical level as a separate entity which is a summary to what is stated before.²⁹ While Erasmus acknowledges that εἰ μή should be rendered into Latin as nisi,³⁰ he argues that this would lead to an incomplete sentence.³¹ In his Latin rendering of this passage he replaces the negated conjunction (εἰ μή) with a complete clause.³² He follows his understanding of the text by introducing a semicolon into the Greek text of his edition of 1519, thereby separating the negated conjunction from the preceding text. As such, εἰ μή becomes, in this edition, the starting point for the introduction of a strong division between 1 Cor 7.16 and 17.

Figure 4.

Ga 1 (= Codex Basiliensis A. N. IV. 2) fol. 91r; lines 1–3. © University Library Basel. Source: http://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/manuscript-workspace (Doc ID 30001).

Still on the macro-level, GA 1 introduces in the fourth line of this image a larger break indicated by a στιγμὴ τελεία (full stop) and a spatium after the last word of v. 17 (πα´σαις διατα´σσομαι) at the beginning of v. 18. In contradistinction, Erasmus sees a new unit starting with v. 20. On the micro-level, GA 1 has a ὑποστιγμή (lower stop) at the end of the first line after ἑκάστῳ and before ὡς, while Erasmus introduces a comma before this personal pronoun, effectively removing the pronoun from its syntactic context.

Based on the evidence presented above, it is possible to point to different ways of segmentation: Erasmus increased the perceived distance between vv. 16 and 17 through the use of a semicolon in the Greek text of his second edition, replacing the comma used in his first edition. This separates the phrase εἰ μὴ ἑκάστῳ from the preceding text more strongly. In modern editions the perceived distance between 1 Cor 7.16 and 17 may be indicated by a paragraph (as in NA28) or by means of a section heading (as in UBS5). These markers indicate the beginning of v. 17 as the opening of a new textual unit.

5.2 The Vulgate's text of 1 Corinthians

All three editions of the Vulgate mentioned in the introduction (Lyon, Petri, and Froben) offer a similar structure concerning the punctuation. Therefore it is sufficient to offer images from Petri's and Froben's editions. In Petri (Figure 5), it can be seen clearly that there are two questions: Unde eni(m) scis mulier / si vir(um) salvu(m) facies? Aut unde scis vir si mulierem salvam facies? The answer to these questions is: Nisi unicuique sicut divisit Dominus. A formally equivalent translation would be: “How do you know, woman, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, man, whether you will save your wife? If not to each as the Lord has allotted it.” This translation shows Erasmus to be correct in stating that a formally equivalent translation of εἰ μή by nisi leads to an incomplete sentence. A similar division of the text may be observed in Froben (Figure 6).

Figure 5.

Petri (1509): fol. 314v. © Austrian National Library. Source: http://digital.onb.ac.at/OnbViewer/viewer.faces?doc=ABO_%2BZ137118300 (p. 668).

Figure 6.

Froben (1514), fol. 318v. © Austrian National Library. Source: http://digital.onb.ac.at/OnbViewer/viewer.faces?doc=ABO_%2BZ137129000 (p. 668).

This textual structure is mirrored in German translations predating Martin Luther. The Mentelin Bible (Figure 7) offers as text: “Wann wo von waist du weyp ob du macht behalten den man. Oder wo von waistu man ob du macht behalten das weyp? Neuer als gott hat geteilt eim ieglichen.” This may be rendered into English as follows: “How do you know, woman, whether you will keep the man? Or how do you know, man, whether you will keep the woman? God alone has divided to each one.” The use of “to divide” makes the text hard to understand. This lexical choice is supported by the Douay Rheims Bible (DRB; 1582, 394), which is an English translation of the Vulgate by the members of the English College in Douai, France. It offers here: “But to every one as our Lord hath devided.” From this sentence division it follows that neither the Vulgate nor the translation sees the sentence starting with nisi as part of the questions that precede this sentence. This is in line with how Erasmus understands the text and possibly transforms its meaning.³³

Figure 7.

Mentelin Bible fol. 363r. © Bayerische Staatsbibliothek (BSB). Source: https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/en/view/bsb00036981?page=729.

5.3 Martin Luther's decision about the text

Martin Luther offers a text structured by many paragraphs already in his Septembertestament, that is, his translation of the New Testament published in 1522. The first paragraph in ch. 7 is at the beginning of v. 6. Additional paragraphs are found at the beginning of vv. 10, 12, 17b (before ἕκαστον), and 25. This division shows that he might have been influenced by Erasmus: He divides the text into shorter units in contradistinction both to the Vulgate and to earlier German translations that depended upon the Vulgate. He is, however, using Erasmus creatively in making divisions that might coincide in some, but not all, instances with Erasmus's division of the text. It was Robert Estienne, with his introduction of verse numbers in his 1551 edition of the New Testament, who opened the possibility of moving the paragraph to the beginning of v. 17.³⁴

6. Conclusion

This essay makes the suggestion that the grammatical problems of 1 Cor 7.17 are due to the presentation of the text in current editions of the Greek New Testament, a presentation that is called into question by standard Greek grammar and also by the layout of ancient manuscripts. The text may by structured as follows, using only very little punctuation:

τί γὰρ οἶδας γύναι εἰ τὸν ἄνδρα σώσεις ἢ τί οἶδας ἄνερ εἰ τὴν γυναῖκα σώσεις εἰ μὴ ἑκάστῳ, ὡς ἐμέρισεν ὁ κύριος ἕκαστον; ὡς κέκληκεν ὁ θεός, οὕτως περιπατείτω. καὶ οὕτως ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις πάσαις διατάσσομαι.

A possible translation would be:

For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? What do you know if not this: to each one as the Lord has foreordained it.

A differently structured text would suggest that Paul is discussing the question of mixed marriages with reference to the Jewish regulations on those marriages as presented in Ezra and Nehemiah. Paul appears to allege that these regulations are not in line with the regulations on marriages that are found in the Torah. He appears to continue his argument with the suggestion that—in contradistinction to the rulings of Ezra and Nehemiah—a believer may not initiate the process of dissolving his/her marriage even if the spouse is not a believer. This authoritative interpretation of Jewish law in 1 Cor 7 is mirrored by 2 Cor 3.13, where Paul sees himself as similar to Moses, addressing an audience that is incapable of understanding the precepts of the Torah.³⁵

As suggested, an improved understanding of the grammatical structure can be a first step to a better understanding of the entire passage at hand. The analysis presented here calls for a revision of the way this passage is displayed in the critical editions of the Greek New Testament.

This result is in line with a suggestion made recently for John 8.25, which is also commonly held to be grammatically troubled. Roger Omanson comments on the sentence in John 8.25, stating that “the words of Jesus, Τὴν ἀρχὴν ὅ τι καὶ λαλῶ ὑμῖν, are an incomplete sentence. They have been called ‘the most obscure sentence in the Gospel and the most uncertain how to translate’” (Omanson 2012, 185). It was, among others, Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis that indicated the traditional punctuation to be contrary to Greek grammar (Förster 2016a). A similar suggestion now appears possible for 1 Cor 7.16-17. In light of these results it seems reasonable to suggest that Greek manuscripts might yield important information that has been overlooked so far for other passages as well.

It is reasonable to suggest that Greek NT editions could adhere more closely to the layout of the Greek text as presented in Greek manuscripts in those cases where ancient textual layout might indicate textual structures that pose fewer problems of syntax or grammar when compared to modern editions. In cases where the syntactic structure in the critical editions is difficult to understand, these Greek manuscripts might actually offer important suggestions for the textual layout and the understanding of the syntax as indicated by this layout.³⁶

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Hans Förster

Notes

Abbreviations

References

Aland

Kurt

Aland

Barbara

. 1989. Der Text des Neuen Testaments: Einführung in die wissenschaftlichen Ausgaben sowie in Theorie und Praxis der modernen Textkritik. 2nd edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

Barrett

Charles K.

1968. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Black’s New Testament Commentaries. London: HarperCollins.

Baumert

Norbert

. 2007. Sorgen des Seelsorgers: Übersetzung und Auslegung des ersten Korintherbriefes. Würzburg: Echter.

Bornemann

Eduard

Risch

Ernst

. 2012. Griechische Grammatik. 2nd edition. Frankfurt: Diesterweg.

Cameron

Euan

. 2016. “The Luther Bible.” Pages 217–38 in The New Cambridge History of the Bible. Vol. 3. From 1450 to 1750. Edited by Cameron

Euan

. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dungan

David Laird

. 1971. The Sayings of Jesus in the Churches of Paul. Oxford: Blackwell.

Erasmus

Desiderius

. 1516. Novum instrumentum omne. Basel: Froben.

Erasmus

Desiderius

. 1519. Novum testamentum. Basel: Froben.

Fee

Gordon D.

2015. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Revised edition. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

10.

Förster

Hans

. 2016a. “Überlegungen zur Grammatik von Joh 8,25 im Lichte der handschriftlichen Überlieferung.” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 107: 1–29. DOI: 10.1515/znw-2016-0001.

11.

Förster

Hans

. 2016b. “Die syntaktische Funktion von ὅτι in Joh 8.47.” New Testament Studies 62: 157–166.

12.

Froben

Johannes

. 1514. Biblia cum pleno apparatu summariorum, concordantiarum etc. Additi sund Eusebij pamphili Cesariensis episcopi decem canones. Basel.

13.

Gardner

Paul

. 2018. 1 Corinthians. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament 7. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

14.

Gerbel

Nikolaus

. 1521. Novum Testamentum Graece. Strasbourg.

15.

Häusl

Maria

. 2008. “Wenn aus Unterscheidung Scheidungen werden: Zur Mischehendiskussion in den Büchern Esra und Nehemia.” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Technischen Universität Dresden 57: 41–45.

16.

Jacoby

Norbert

. 2012. “Karriere ja oder nein? 1 Kor 7,21.” Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt 37: 49–68.

17.

Jongkind

Dirk

Williams

P. J.

Head

Peter M.

James

Patrick

. 2017. The Greek New Testament. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

18.

Karrer

Martin

. 2017. “Ein Meilenstein in der Geschichte der Bibel: Luthers Übersetzung der Heiligen Schrift.” Pages 67–101 in Von des christlichen Standes Besserung: 500 Jahre Reformation. Edited by Mennecke

Ute

Zschoch

Hellmut

. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt.

19.

Klauck

Hans-Josef

. 1984. 1. Korintherbrief. Neue Echter Bibel 7. Würzburg: Echter.

20.

Land

Christopher D.

2015. The Integrity of 2 Corinthians and Paul’s Aggravating Absence. New Testament Monographs 36. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press.

21.

Lang

Friedrich

. 1994. Die Briefe an die Korinther. 17th edition. Das Neue Testament Deutsch 7. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

22.

Omanson

Roger L.

2012. A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament: An Adaptation of Bruce M. Metzger’s Textual Commentary for the Needs of Translators. 2nd edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

23.

Petri

Johannes

. 1509. Biblia cum pleno apparatu summariorum. Basel.

24.

Pietersma

Albert

Wright

Benjamin G.

, eds. 2007. A New English Translation of the Septuagint. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

25.

Rex

Helmut H

. 1955. “Attempt to Understand 1 Corinthians 7.” The Reformed Theological Review 14: 41–51.

26.

Schottroff

Luise

. 2021. Der erste Brief an die Gemeinde in Korinth. 2nd edition. Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 7. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

27.

Schrage

Wolfgang

. 1995. Der erste Brief an die Korinther. Teilbd. 2. 1Kor 6,12–11,16. Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 7/2. Zürich: Benzinger.

28.

Taylor

Mark

. 2014. 1 Corinthians. New American Commentary 28. Nashville: Holman Reference.

29.

Thiselton

Anthony C.

2000. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster.

30.

Wendland

Heinz-Dietrich

. 1980. Die Briefe an die Korinther. 15th edition. Das Neue Testament Deutsch 7. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

31.

Widmann

Sören

. 1999. “Von der Wartburgpostille bis zum Septembertestament 1522: Luther als Übersetzer des Neuen Testaments.” Pages 61–93 in Eine glossierte Vulgata aus dem Umkreis Martin Luthers: Untersuchungen zu dem 1519 in Lyon gedruckten Exemplar in der Bibelsammlung der Württembergischen Landesbibliothek Stuttgart. Arbeitsgespräch in der Württembergischen Landesbibliothek Stuttgart von 20. bis 22. Februar 1997. Edited by Brecht

Martin

Zwink

Eberhard

. Vestigia Bibliae 21. Bern: Peter Lang.

32.

Witherington

Ben

III . 1995. Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster.

33.

Wolff

Christian

. 2011. Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. 3rd edition. Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament 8. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt.

34.

Young, Arthur, William Gregory Martin, and Francis Fry. 1582. The Nevv Testament of Iesus Christ, Translated Faithfully into English out of the Authentical Latin. Rheims: Fogny.