ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

[ohio jones]

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.

If you are married, the ESV would make no difference in whether or not you should cover. Using the word "wife" and associating the veil with a sign of being married would only affect the question of whether an unmarried woman should cover.

[Valerie]

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.

If you are married, the ESV would make no difference in whether or not you should cover. Using the word "wife" and associating the veil with a sign of being married would only affect the question of whether an unmarried woman should cover.

Except for their footnote OJ:


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. And then the footnote to 'angels' in vs 10 it says "Or messengers, that is, people sent to observe and report".

According to their 'teaching' no one after the first century needs to concern themselves with this at all, married, or not-

(I should clarify my previous post- It's not that I mind covering, I do not- I mind all the differences about it so it would be easier if it didn't apply to today, but we disagree with ESV that it was 1st century only).

[Bootstrap]

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. And then the footnote to 'angels' in vs 10 it says "Or messengers, that is, people sent to observe and report".

Is it only the underlined part that bothers you? The words it refers to in the other portion do have more than one possible meaning, and I think it's basic responsibility to point that out in a footnote, since a translation has to pick just one of these meanings. You do want readers to be aware of the other possible meaning. In this case, the ESV translates "wife" and points out that it could also be interpreted "woman".

Are you asking what the evidence is for the view that the veil was a sign of being married in the first century?

According to their 'teaching' no one after the first century needs to concern themselves with this at all, married, or not-

The ESV is a translation, not a teaching. If Paul meant for wives to be veiled rather than all women, we still have to ask whether we should be doing it today. The ESV does not answer that kind of question for us, it simply says what it thinks Paul is saying in the original text.

The ESV translators had to decide whether to translate one Greek word as 'wife' or 'woman' and whether to translate another Greek word as 'angels' or 'messengers'. I don't know how a translation can avoid facing that kind of decision. The Greek can be understood either way, but I can't think of a way to translate it into English without closing off one of the understandings. I think it's great that they document the reasons for their choices.

[silentreader]

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.

If you are married, the ESV would make no difference in whether or not you should cover. Using the word "wife" and associating the veil with a sign of being married would only affect the question of whether an unmarried woman should cover.

Except for their footnote OJ:


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. And then the footnote to 'angels' in vs 10 it says "Or messengers, that is, people sent to observe and report".

According to their 'teaching' no one after the first century needs to concern themselves with this at all, married, or not-

(I should clarify my previous post- It's not that I mind covering, I do not- I mind all the differences about it so it would be easier if it didn't apply to today, but we disagree with ESV that it was 1st century only).

Simple, ignore the footnote, just read the text. Too many people study footnotes, and avoid the text.

[Josh]

If the translators base their translating decision on the (entirely erronius) idea that in the 1st century veils functioned like wedding rings, then one does need to read the notes.

And what a disingenuous note. Roman society used wedding rings just like people do today. Veils were more of a North African thing.

[Bootstrap]

Simple, ignore the footnote, just read the text. Too many people study footnotes, and avoid the text.

Amen to that.

But perhaps read the text in more than one translation, too ...

[Bootstrap]

If the translators base their translating decision on the (entirely erronius) idea that in the 1st century veils functioned like wedding rings, then one does need to read the notes.

And what a disingenuous note. Roman society used wedding rings just like people do today. Veils were more of a North African thing.

One of the reasons this passage is difficult to understand is that we really want to know what head covering meant to the people at the time in their culture. Most interpretations seem to have an answer to that question. I don't really blame the ESV for doing what most people seem to do - look for a simple cultural explanation. And I know some serious Bible scholars who have come to the same conclusion the ESV did.

But Corinth represented a good handful of cultures during a time that a lot of things were changing, so it is a difficult question to answer. I agree with this note.

From the discussion of customs given above, it may be seen that interpreting 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 in the light of customs of the day is no simple matter. Aside from our uncertainties about Jewish, Greek and Roman customs, in Corinth we have these three cultures coming together in one place, at a time when the Greek and Roman traditions were losing their force. In fact this cultural ferment and dissolution is one of the things that set the stage for Paul's successful mission in Greece. The old gods and the old ways were dying, and the Greek world was wide open to change.

It may not even be helpful to ask about a prevailing custom in Corinth. The question presupposes that there was a prevailing custom. But Corinth was a large and diverse cosmopolitan city, and it is probably more useful to think of multiple customs and fashions rather than a single custom in this context. Corinth was not the kind of social setting in which we would expect the stability and uniformity of a traditional culture. We might compare it to a modern metropolis, such as New York City, in which one might see on the same street a significant variety of people dressed according to ethnic customs or styles of the day. Probably differences of custom and style were taken in stride, and aroused little notice. And it is entirely possible that the current fashion of some segments of the Corinthian population was to go bareheaded. Corinthian women may have been less inclined to wear a headcovering simply because it was not prescribed by custom in Corinth. One scholar has recently suggested the traditional custom of dress in Corinth was to cover the head in public, but that this Greek custom was breaking down in the first century. Bruce W. Winter has shown that in patrician Roman society, at least, many women of the first century were departing from the traditional roles and customs of wives, and this involved symbolical departures from traditional decorum in dress. Corinth, as a Roman colony, would likely have been affected by this movement as women there emulated the behavior of the high-class women in Rome. (17) In this case, Paul would be urging the Corinthian women to desist from imitating the avant-garde "fashion leaders" of Roman society and return to the traditional attire which was formerly expected of women in Corinth.

[Josh]

One wonders if one can ever accept NT scripture at face value or if it always has to get redefined through a cultural lens.

1 Cor. 11 is one of those things that makes sense in its own. It's not hard to understand. So why is it so popular in Christendom to ignore it or come up with complex explanations why you can ignore it?

[joshuabgood]

The answer is pretty simple...they don't want to wear a veiling when praying or prophesying.

[Valerie]

One wonders if one can ever accept NT scripture at face value or if it always has to get redefined through a cultural lens.

1 Cor. 11 is one of those things that makes sense in its own. It's not hard to understand. So why is it so popular in Christendom to ignore it or come up with complex explanations why you can ignore it?

Simple. ALL Christian women covered their heads except for the decline a little over a century ago. Decisions made by women, not addressed by the pulpit. Denomination by denomination started the decline. New denominations popped up that never started the practice, since it was already in decline. Pope announces in 1978 'Catholic' women no longer 'had' to veil- first time in their over 1900 history- the decline continued. Scholars then, in the last several decades that aren't old enough to remember or know about all women covering, had to figure this out and looked for some kind of proof outside of 1900 years of historical practice- also women didn't start cutting their hair short, until the roaring 20's- all this led to a decline and now, what used to be a 'simple' understanding, became a complicated passage. It didn't used to be.