| << | Contents | >> |
Ethical
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 8884
[8874] As to the distinction between “women” and “virgins.”
[8875] Gen. ii. 23. In the LXX. and in the Eng. ver. there is but the one word “woman.”
[8876] These words are regarded by Dr. Routh as spurious, and not without reason. Mr. Dodgson likewise omits them, and refers to de Virg. Vel. cc. 4 and 5.
[8877] In de Virg. Vel. 5, Tertullian speaks even more strongly: “And so you have the name, I say not now common, but proper to a virgin; a name which from the beginning a virgin received.”
[8878] 1 Cor. vii. 34 et seq.
[8879] γυνή.
[8880] Mr. Dodgson appears to think that there is some transposition here; and at first sight it may appear so. But when we look more closely, perhaps there is no need to make any difficulty: the stress is rather on the words “by interpretation,” which, of course, is a different thing from “usage;” and by interpretation γυνή appears to come nearer to “femina” than to “mulier.”
[8881] θηλεῖα.
[8882] Or, “unveiled.”
[8885] For a similar use of the word “virgin,” see Rev. xiv. 4.
[8887] See Gen. vi. 2 in the LXX., with the v. l. ed. Tisch. 1860; and compare Tertullian, de Idol. c. 9, and the note there. Mr. Dodgson refers, too, to de Virg. Vel. c. 7, where this curious subject is more fully entered into.
[8888] i.e. according to their definition, whom Tertullian is refuting.
[8890] i.e. If married women had been meant, either word, “uxores” or “feminæ,” could have been used indifferently.
[8893] i.e. long hair.
[8894] i.e. veiling.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0130 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page