ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

General Christian Theology
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23823
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Josh »

haithabu wrote:It's funny that that vernacular version is much wordier than the original German, just as it is in English paraphrases. That's one reason why I stay away from paraphrases: there is usually a loss of compactness and style without necessarily clarifying the meaning.
The vernacular version is written the way people speak and write modern German; the other one is not necessarily "word for word" or literal, but is also written in a dead, 500-year old language.

The KJV might say something like "He shall not tarry", which seems compact, but a better, modern translation would say something like "He's not going to wait around", which, whilst less compact, is also how people actually speak today.
0 x
Heirbyadoption
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:57 pm
Affiliation: Brethren

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Heirbyadoption »

Bootstrap wrote:
Josh wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:If we have to agree on everything or else have division, we will have division. If we don't want division, I think Hat's Off is right on. If I say that my interpretation of this kind of issue is the only valid one and denounce those who disagree, I am choosing division.
Would you apply to this to the "diverse" interpretations of Romans 1?
I really don't consider gay marriage and questions about veiling in the same category. I think the teaching on gay marriage is much clearer.
Boot, forgive me for being dense or repetitive, but could you explain (summarily) in what way the command of the headship veiling is less clear about homosexual activity?
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Bootstrap »

Heirbyadoption wrote:Boot, forgive me for being dense or repetitive, but could you explain (summarily) in what way the command of the headship veiling is less clear about homosexual activity?
Have you read my posts in this thread so far? I would rather not repeat them.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
haithabu
Posts: 361
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:11 pm
Location: Calgary
Affiliation: Missionary Church

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by haithabu »

Josh wrote:
haithabu wrote:It's funny that that vernacular version is much wordier than the original German, just as it is in English paraphrases. That's one reason why I stay away from paraphrases: there is usually a loss of compactness and style without necessarily clarifying the meaning.
The vernacular version is written the way people speak and write modern German; the other one is not necessarily "word for word" or literal, but is also written in a dead, 500-year old language.

The KJV might say something like "He shall not tarry", which seems compact, but a better, modern translation would say something like "He's not going to wait around", which, whilst less compact, is also how people actually speak today.
Strange as it may seem, I found that after studying German the King James English seemed much more natural to me, partly I think because it's closer to its German roots and has some constructions which are no longer used in English today but are similar to German usage.
0 x
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23823
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Josh »

Makes sense. Present-day English and German have had four centuries to diverge from one another. If you go back another ten centuries, they were still the same language.
0 x
temporal1
Posts: 16279
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:09 pm
Location: U.S. midwest and PNW
Affiliation: Christian other

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by temporal1 »

Valerie,
i received the post below for you from Knight-light.
i have not been reading MN during July, i will now go back and read this thread. :)
Valerie wrote:
Anyone familiar enough with ESV and or Greek that cares to speak into this? Or just speak into this regarding what they know about it?
When thinking about the translation of 1 Cor 11, I find it helpful to consider the very similar passage in Ephesians 5, and the way Paul writes about married and unmarried people in 1 Cor 7. How any particular author uses words matters far more than a list of meanings in a lexicon.

1. In Ephesians 5, Paul is clear: the head of the woman is her own husband. As Robert pointed out, Paul calls the woman to submit and the man to sacrifice.
2. Paul was writing to a very hierarchical society. I doubt a male slave thought he had "headship" over his master's wife, let alone over the woman who owned him herself.
3. In 1 Cor. 7, Paul does not talk about female submission/male headship at all. Instead, he talks about the mutual slavery of married men and women, and the freedom of unmarried men and women.
4. Adam and Eve were not a random male and female. Eve was created as Adam’s “own wife.” So a “headship” order based on “creation principles” is about a husband and wife.
5. Regarding the Greek:
Paul is pretty consistent in 1 Cor 7 and Ephesians 5 in using gune to mean wife and aner to mean husband. In 1 Cor 7, he uses anthropos for “man” when he means a man who is not a woman’s husband. With 1 Cor 7 so close to 1 Cor 11, it seems to me that if Paul intended to say that “every man is the head of every woman,” he would include the “every” and keep the parallel structure, and use anthropos, to be clear that a man who is NOT her husband is also the head of a woman, ie “the head of every anthropos is Christ, and the head of a woman is every anthropos.” No need for aner, because if every man is head of every woman, marriage is irrelevant to headship.
So I think there are good reasons for the translation “the head of a wife is her husband” in 1 Cor. 11. I think it would be reasonable to even have this translation: “The head of every husband is Christ, and the head of the wife is her husband.” Then in vrs 11-12, Paul introduces the “procreation order,” where he reminds husbands that although Eve came from Adam, every man since has come from a woman; ie Paul restates the equality in 1 Cor 7. Depending on what exactly the Corinthians asked, that could be what Paul was explaining, and would harmonize with Ephesians 5 and 1 Cor 7.
As far as women veiling as a sign of marriage in the first century, the translators may have been thinking of Roman women who wore veils for the wedding, but not routinely afterwards.
If anyone can read Greek, I think it is helpful to read Ephesians 5 and 1 Cor 7 a few times and get hold of Paul’s style, and then read 1 Cor 11.
Knight
0 x
Most or all of this drama, humiliation, wasted taxpayer money could be spared -
with even modest attempt at presenting balanced facts from the start.


”We’re all just walking each other home.”
UNKNOWN
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Bootstrap »

Bootstrap wrote:
Heirbyadoption wrote:Boot, forgive me for being dense or repetitive, but could you explain (summarily) in what way the command of the headship veiling is less clear about homosexual activity?
Have you read my posts in this thread so far? I would rather not repeat them.
I just re-read this message and notice that you say "about" in the phrase "in what way the command of the headship veiling is less clear about homosexual activity". If I said "about", I meant "than", and I understand why this was confusing. The teaching on homosexual sex is quite clear, there's no question about the underlying principle, and it's hard to argue that allowing homosexual sex is just a different cultural expression of the same principle.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Bootstrap »

Knight's post has a lot of really useful information - thanks for sharing it, Temp!
Knight-light wrote:When thinking about the translation of 1 Cor 11, I find it helpful to consider the very similar passage in Ephesians 5, and the way Paul writes about married and unmarried people in 1 Cor 7. How any particular author uses words matters far more than a list of meanings in a lexicon.
I agree. Particularly when looking at usage in the same letter, written at the same time to the same people.
Knight-light wrote:1. In Ephesians 5, Paul is clear: the head of the woman is her own husband. As Robert pointed out, Paul calls the woman to submit and the man to sacrifice.
2. Paul was writing to a very hierarchical society. I doubt a male slave thought he had "headship" over his master's wife, let alone over the woman who owned him herself.
3. In 1 Cor. 7, Paul does not talk about female submission/male headship at all. Instead, he talks about the mutual slavery of married men and women, and the freedom of unmarried men and women.
4. Adam and Eve were not a random male and female. Eve was created as Adam’s “own wife.” So a “headship” order based on “creation principles” is about a husband and wife.
Yes, I agree with all of this. The Shepherd of Hermas is one example of how a Christian woman would relate to her male slave, some people here have read it.

Here's an issue for me: in today's culture, how do we express both the mutual slavery relationship of 1 Corinthians 7 and the creation order of 1 Corinthians 11? If we want to express the same principle that Paul was getting at then, would we do it the same way?

For some of you, the answer is obviously "yes". It's not for me. And part of this is that I'm not even confident I understand the principle - how does this all relate to praying and prophesying in public worship and "because of the angels"? Part of it is that I have seen some groups use head coverings to express things that I don't think Paul was saying, including a community I was part of.
Knight-light wrote:5. Regarding the Greek:
Paul is pretty consistent in 1 Cor 7 and Ephesians 5 in using gune to mean wife and aner to mean husband. In 1 Cor 7, he uses anthropos for “man” when he means a man who is not a woman’s husband. With 1 Cor 7 so close to 1 Cor 11, it seems to me that if Paul intended to say that “every man is the head of every woman,” he would include the “every” and keep the parallel structure, and use anthropos, to be clear that a man who is NOT her husband is also the head of a woman, ie “the head of every anthropos is Christ, and the head of a woman is every anthropos.” No need for aner, because if every man is head of every woman, marriage is irrelevant to headship.
So I think there are good reasons for the translation “the head of a wife is her husband” in 1 Cor. 11. I think it would be reasonable to even have this translation: “The head of every husband is Christ, and the head of the wife is her husband.” Then in vrs 11-12, Paul introduces the “procreation order,” where he reminds husbands that although Eve came from Adam, every man since has come from a woman; ie Paul restates the equality in 1 Cor 7. Depending on what exactly the Corinthians asked, that could be what Paul was explaining, and would harmonize with Ephesians 5 and 1 Cor 7.
I'll read through Ephesians 5 later today. I've read 1 Cor 7 a few times in Greek this morning, and I agree with Knight.
Knight-light wrote:As far as women veiling as a sign of marriage in the first century, the translators may have been thinking of Roman women who wore veils for the wedding, but not routinely afterwards.
Maybe.

In Corinth, we have a good handful of different cultures to choose from - Greek, Roman, Jewish, freed slaves from all over the Roman Empire - and some of the things previously taught about several of these cultures are now clearly false. Which is frustrating. To understand the principle, it would be really helpful to know what it meant to them at the time. I'm sure this was very clear to them. I'm not convinced that it's equally clear to us today.

I think it would have been helpful if the ESV note said more specifically what they were thinking of.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23823
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Josh »

I'd be interested to see people who explain away 1 Co. 11 as being only for prayer/prophecy and for wives only, not single women, actually obey the scriptures and cover their heads (or for married men uncover their heads) when praying and prophesying.

Since I never see this happen from people who explain it this way, and I don't think disobedience to the scriptures is an option, I find myself stuck with people who choose to practice it with unmarried women too and who veil most of the day.
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Bootstrap »

Josh wrote:I'd be interested to see people who explain away 1 Co. 11 as being only for prayer/prophecy and for wives only, not single women, actually obey the scriptures and cover their heads (or for married men uncover their heads) when praying and prophesying.
The phrase "explain away" is a little strange there. If you wanted simple obedience to the outward sign, this seems to be the most straightforward interpretation of the text. This thread is about translation. Would you like to argue against the things Knight has said? If so, why?
Josh wrote:Since I never see this happen from people who explain it this way, and I don't think disobedience to the scriptures is an option, I find myself stuck with people who choose to practice it with unmarried women too and who veil most of the day.
Some people seem very willing to judge others about head covering. This is something I would stick in the Romans 14 category - even people who practice head covering don't agree what it means, and that makes it difficult to know whether wearing a head covering today means the same thing that it did back then. There are other parts of Scripture that seem clearer and more central.

But I think some people feel that as long as you have the same outward sign you are doing something important. OK, I get that, and I don't have a problem with people who feel this way. But consider a wedding ring - there are some women who choose not to wear a wedding ring, but are faithful to their marriage. Should we judge them for not using the same outward sign that many other women choose? What exactly do you want women to be saying today by wearing a head covering?
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Post Reply