ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

General Christian Theology
Post Reply
User avatar
Robert
Site Janitor
Posts: 8522
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:16 pm
Affiliation: Anabaptist

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Robert »

Soloist wrote:Is it cultural when Paul tells women to revere her husband as to the Lord? or is it cultural to tell the man to love his wife as Christ loved the church?
There are some cultural tones to it, but Paul is calling people to care and honor each other. I think that is healthy and balanced.
Soloist wrote:Does a woman have to obey/submit to her husband or was that cultural in your eyes?
Paul calls a wife to submit and a man to sacrifice. We seem to only focus on what he calls women to do and not what he calls men to do. That is unbalanced and unhealthy, in my opinion.
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are not after you.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
Sudsy
Posts: 5854
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Sudsy »

Robert wrote:
Soloist wrote:Is it cultural when Paul tells women to revere her husband as to the Lord? or is it cultural to tell the man to love his wife as Christ loved the church?
There are some cultural tones to it, but Paul is calling people to care and honor each other. I think that is healthy and balanced.
Soloist wrote:Does a woman have to obey/submit to her husband or was that cultural in your eyes?
Paul calls a wife to submit and a man to sacrifice. We seem to only focus on what he calls women to do and not what he calls men to do. That is unbalanced and unhealthy, in my opinion.
I agree Robert. Imo, if we men were to obey loving our wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her, the issue of wives submitting to their husbands would not be a difficult area of obedience. And as you said about focus on the woman's obedience, I might as well throw in my favourite argument that men are to pray with lifted hands, which often men interpret as not a timeless command and they explain it away.

Another area that I believe is a practise of that day not to be taken literally is foot washing. And back then, it occurred whenever someone entered your house. I don't think the common practise of those who today say they follow this with a once a year foot washing, imo, is anything like what was practised daily back then on dirty, dusty feet. But there should be a modern way to practise this serving of others that is spiritually beneficial. Our previous MB pastor would go around serving coffee refills at any eating event, which I thought was somewhat related to the spirit of the practise.

I also think the slavery argument to be a good one. According to NT scripture, it would not be a sin to own a slave. This is an obvious example of being a Christian within a cultural norm, imo.
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14439
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Bootstrap »

Josh wrote:This one reason I really dislike the ESV; it's incredibly biased to translate the word in Greek for "woman" which can mean "woman" or "wife" as "wife", when the English word is very specific. The German word "Frau" is a lot closer in meaning to the Greek word.
It's equally biased to translate the word "woman".

The only unbiased approaches I can think of are (1) to translate into a language like German, (2) do not translate at all, expect people to read Greek, or (3) choose to translate "woman" or "wife" and provide a footnote explaining why you made the choice you did. The ESV chose the third approach.
Greek gune. This term may refer to a woman or a wife, depending on the context. In verses 5-13, the Greek word gune is translated wife in verses that deal with wearing a veil, a sign of being married in first century.
I don't think the meaning of the Greek word is controversial, it can clearly mean either, look in any reputable Greek lexicon.

I think you are taking issue with their understanding that veiling was a sign of being married? We can look at history separately (and should), but perhaps it would be helpful to look at context first?

Let's compare these two translations at several points in 1 Corinthians 11. I'll choose CSB and ESV for comparison.
CSB wrote:But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of the woman, and God is the head of Christ.
ESV wrote:But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
Is every man the head of a woman, or only her husband? I think only her husband. That's a useful clue to what is intended here.
ESV wrote:For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.
If married women were veiled, then this might well mean that a wife would veil as a symbol of her husband's authority, based in creation. I don't think all men have that authority over any given woman.

One first quick look at history. In Tertullian's On the Veiling of Virgins, Tertullian acknowledges that his teaching is at odds with the custom of most churches in Africa at his time, and the main reason for the title and the article is that most churches in his time and place did not believe all women needed to be veiled, but Tertullian believed they did.

Tertullian also claims that the churches founded by apostles had their virgins "fully covered".
Throughout Greece, and certain of its barbaric provinces, the majority of Churches keep their virgins covered. There are places, too, beneath this (African) sky, where this practice obtains; lest any ascribe the custom to Greek or barbarian Gentilehood.
But if you read what Tertullian thought it meant to be fully covered and compare that to images of women in the catacombs, his claims are clearly inaccurate. European Christians never asked virgins to cover like Berber women would in northern Africa. In the images of the catacombs, women in prayer did veil, but were not covered anything like as strictly as Tertullian claimed.

Does anyone know of early Christian sources from Rome or Greece that make claims similar to Tertullian's? Not North Africans like Clement of Alexandria or Tertullian, but Christians in Rome or Greece or the cities to which Paul wrote his letters? What I have seen so far indicates that Christians did not dress differently from others of the same culture.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14439
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Bootstrap »

Soloist wrote:Is it cultural when Paul tells women to revere her husband as to the Lord? or is it cultural to tell the man to love his wife as Christ loved the church?
I really think those are at the heart of God's teaching. A wedding ring is one cultural way of expressing that.

One common understanding of 1 Corinthians 11 is that a married woman's veil is a similar cultural expression, like today's wedding ring. I recently had about a 30 minute discussion with a serious Greek scholar who has written a soon-to-be-published book that takes this view. It's certainly an old understanding - going back at least to the time of Tertullian.

I really think there are some parts of 1 Corinthians 11 that are hard to be sure about - wife or woman? veiling only during the service or at all times? veiling or hair? what does "because of the angels" mean? Simple obedience is difficult when a passage is hard to understand - is our obedience expressing the same thing that Paul meant or not? I suggest that we do our best to follow scriptural teaching without judging each other for having different understandings of a passage that is not entirely simple.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Valerie »

Bootstrap wrote: Does anyone know of early Christian sources from Rome or Greece that make claims similar to Tertullian's? Not North Africans like Clement of Alexandria or Tertullian, but Christians in Rome or Greece or the cities to which Paul wrote his letters? What I have seen so far indicates that Christians did not dress differently from others of the same culture.
Headcoverings according to the Early Church Fathers

Mary Magdalene, wearing a headcovering
St. Mary Magdalene, wearing a headcovering

St. John Chrysostom (d. A.D. 407), in a sermon at the Feast of the Ascension, spoke both of angels and the veiling of women:

“The angels are present here . . . Open the eyes of faith and look upon this sight. For if the very air is filled with angels, how much more so the Church! . . . Hear the Apostle teaching this, when he bids the women to cover their heads with a veil because of the presence of the angels.”

Origen, another prominent teacher in the early Church, said,

“There are angels in the midst of our assembly . . . we have here a twofold Church, one of men, the other of angels . . . And since there are angels present . . . women, when they pray, are ordered to have a covering upon their heads because of those angels. They assist the saints and rejoice in the Church.”

The Apostolic Tradition was written in the second century, and the author is believed to be St. Hippolytus of Rome. This book has instructions for catechumens, including this:

“And let all the women have their heads covered with an opaque cloth . . .”

Myrrh Bearing Women
The Myrrh-Bearing Women, all wearing headcoverings

And St. Cyril of Alexandria, commenting on First Corinthians, wrote:

“The angels find it extremely hard to bear if this law [that women cover their heads] is disregarded.”

From:

https://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2 ... coverings/

There is a movement presently, going on several years now, for women to return to the practice of headcovering- there is a facebook page "Headcovering Movement" with testimonies- and so there are entire congregations, that didn't practice this before, that having been willing to seek truth & history about it, has returned to this Biblical practice- I have enjoyed reading the testimonies of those who have sought out the truth, and decided to simply obey. I also agree it's not something to be pushed on anyone- just simply decide to obey any passage of Scripture we misunderstood before, and if someone asks why, share with a loving and humble attitude.
My bringing this up had more to do with translations that make a statement as being true, if we know it is not- like in this case.
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14439
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Bootstrap »

Valerie wrote:
Bootstrap wrote: Does anyone know of early Christian sources from Rome or Greece that make claims similar to Tertullian's? Not North Africans like Clement of Alexandria or Tertullian, but Christians in Rome or Greece or the cities to which Paul wrote his letters? What I have seen so far indicates that Christians did not dress differently from others of the same culture.
Headcoverings according to the Early Church Fathers

Mary Magdalene, wearing a headcovering
St. Mary Magdalene, wearing a headcovering
Hmmmm, I don't think we have good evidence of what they did. Presumably, they were both Jewish, and would have followed Jewish practice, which was not binding on the Gentile church. But paintings and icons produced much later really aren't useful evidence.
Valerie wrote:St. John Chrysostom (d. A.D. 407), in a sermon at the Feast of the Ascension, spoke both of angels and the veiling of women:
By AD 407, John Chrysostom plainly did believe that women should be covered at all times. I was really wondering about other people at or before the time of Tertullian, a lot of things had happened by AD 407.
Valerie wrote:Origen, another prominent teacher in the early Church, said,

“There are angels in the midst of our assembly . . . we have here a twofold Church, one of men, the other of angels . . . And since there are angels present . . . women, when they pray, are ordered to have a covering upon their heads because of those angels. They assist the saints and rejoice in the Church.”
Origen is about the right time. He spent much of his time in Alexandria, of course, which is Egypt. In this quote, he seems to be saying they should do this when they pray in the public assembly, but not that they should do this at other times. Can you identify the quote so we can read it in context?
Valerie wrote:The Apostolic Tradition was written in the second century, and the author is believed to be St. Hippolytus of Rome. ]This book has instructions for catechumens, including this:

“And let all the women have their heads covered with an opaque cloth . . .”
I'm not sure if your source is accurate about where and when this was written, but at the very least, The Apostolic Tradition does not teach that women always have to be covered, this is a specific time mentioned in Section 18.

And in Section 21, it says that in baptism women should be entirely naked:
Then they shall take off all their clothes. The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family. After this, the men will be baptized. Finally, the women, after they have unbound their hair, and removed their jewelry. No one shall take any foreign object with themselves down into the water.
If we're going to accept The Apostolic Tradition as authoritative, we might have to change a few things ...
Valerie wrote:And St. Cyril of Alexandria, commenting on First Corinthians, wrote:
Alexandria again. Egypt.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14439
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Bootstrap »

Valerie wrote:My bringing this up had more to do with translations that make a statement as being true, if we know it is not- like in this case.
The statement they made about the Greek word is certainly true.

The statement they made about the veil as "a sign of being married in the first century" is certainly something many serious scholars believe. I don't think that you have looked carefully at the evidence they offer for this position. I don't think you are in a position to question their scholarship or their motives.

Personally, I think that there were several cultures with different practices, and that the practices in North Africa (where covering women like modern Muslims do was important) were different from those shown in the catacombs (as I understand it, these images show women covering during prayer). But I also think there's room for more than one understanding of this passage - and we've seen that even in the early church. I don't think there's room for dismissing what scholars say without engaging with their evidence. Ignore what they say, if you want, but don't make accusations without first understanding what they are saying and why. They have likely studied this in much greater depth than we have.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Valerie »

Bootstrap wrote: They have likely studied this in much greater depth than we have.
Yes, from 'modern' theologians but we do have the 2000 year historic Church that really has a leg to stand on in opposition to modern theologians and their scholastics/universities- we have not been in darkness until they have arrived
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14439
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Bootstrap »

Valerie wrote:
Bootstrap wrote: They have likely studied this in much greater depth than we have.
Yes, from 'modern' theologians but we do have the 2000 year historic Church that really has a leg to stand on in opposition to modern theologians and their scholastics/universities.
If I questioned your motives and dismissed what you say with the kind of one-liners you use for these scholars, you wouldn't like it. It wouldn't be fair to you, and it isn't fair to them either. I'm talking about scholars who are seriously doing their best to understand what the early church taught and why. Expertise and scholarship are useful when looking at ancient languages and history. If you aren't interested in what they write, feel free to ignore them, but please don't claim to know better than them and condemn their motives without carefully engaging with what they have said and understanding why.

Blog posts made by 21st century Orthodox writers are not the same thing as the 2,000 year historic church. Most Mennonites believe that the Orthodox Church and Catholic Church each wandered from original church teaching, and different traditions have different takes on what the early church taught and why. These scholars are trying to understand what the teaching of the early church was.

On the other hand, you don't have to be a scholar to say that you have a particular understanding of a passage and apply it in your own life, and it has worked well for you in various ways. A personal testimony does not need expertise in Greek and history and patristics. Talking about what you do and why might be a better way to share your own experiences and beliefs.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Valerie »

Bootstrap wrote:
Valerie wrote:
Bootstrap wrote: They have likely studied this in much greater depth than we have.
Yes, from 'modern' theologians but we do have the 2000 year historic Church that really has a leg to stand on in opposition to modern theologians and their scholastics/universities.
If I questioned your motives and dismissed what you say with the kind of one-liners you use for these scholars, you wouldn't like it. It wouldn't be fair to you, and it isn't fair to them either. I'm talking about scholars who are seriously doing their best to understand what the early church taught and why. Expertise and scholarship are useful when looking at ancient languages and history. If you aren't interested in what they write, feel free to ignore them, but please don't claim to know better than them and condemn their motives without carefully engaging with what they have said and understanding why.

I am interested in "Truth" Bootstrap, and the fact that it was prophesied that there would be false teachings and doctrines in the days before Christ returns- it was not prophesied to be the case in the early days of the Church, although heresies and sects did pop up and they were addressed and still are today- I certainly wouldn't make the claim that these scholars are less educated than people that contend for the Apostolic faith and traditions- simply pointing out they are 'taught' in modern schools- my brother is one of them- and he is also against the headcovering (he's a pastor) but I realize he dismisses Orthodoxy just like Anabaptists do, which is primarily I believe due to their connection with the Catholic Church, which "Catholic" Church was mentioned LONG before Constantine came around, so we both disagree on Apostolic succession, I realize- I'm just saying, for example we attended the Antiochian Orthodox Church & still visit- their roots were in the original Antiochian Church where Christians were first called Christians- they still exist, headquarters for EO is on the Street Called Straight in Acts- the women still will fully cover their heads in worship (not all, some dropped it)- they simply know more than modern scholars- forgive me if that sounds like an 'attitude' issue but I get frustrated with the way the enemy of our souls starts messing with truth.

Blog posts made by 21st century Orthodox writers are not the same thing as the 2,000 year historic church. Most Mennonites believe that the Orthodox Church and Catholic Church each wandered from original church teaching, and different traditions have different takes on what the early church taught and why. These scholars are trying to understand what the teaching of the early church was.

I will agree with you to a point, especially the Roman Church- I don't agree the Orthodox Church wandered from original Church teaching as they are the Original Church- you dismiss the 'records' they have & writings they use- but lean heavily on modern scholars, so we differ on that- yes-where you contend they wandered I have learned the basis for what you think is wandering, and so my opinion on this will differ from many Protestants today, as well as Anabaptist on some of these things

On the other hand, you don't have to be a scholar to say that you have a particular understanding of a passage and apply it in your own life, and it has worked well for you in various ways. A personal testimony does not need expertise in Greek and history and patristics. Talking about what you do and why might be a better way to share your own experiences and beliefs.
Well, again, the topic wasn't meant to be a headcovering thread as much as it is ESV- and why they chose the meanings they did and how it affects what people believe. Other translations would disagree with ESV. So then what- we pick which one lines up with our own personal preference to fit what we 'like' to believe? If that is the case, I would LOVE to believe ESV has it right and go back to not covering and just forget about it altogether- and be like the rest of my sisters in the Lord (for the most part) who do not cover. And yes, witness and testimony is more important than debate- I do have two friends that began covering, by asking me why I did and wanting to learn- other friends probably apply Romans 14 (which I don't think is accurate to do that) but I know I didn't cover because I was ignorant about it based on modern interpretations & pastors that explain it with those- but pastors didn't used to do that because before this last century, all Christian women covered their heads in church in one way, or another
0 x
Post Reply