ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

[Bootstrap]

Also, with relevance to the OP, and maybe this has already been covered and I missed it in skimming, but it seems that the bulk of the blame for the ESV applications of gune as "wife" can be laid at the feet of Bruce Winter's emphasis on cultural analysis over textual exegesis...

I don't know if that's true or not, but the ESV is not alone in translating this "wife" in some of these verses.

I'm curious how you would answer the questions I posed about this here:

http://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php ... 11#p178211

FWIW, I don't think I know all the answers on this question. I am not sure how I would translate this if it were up to me. But I don't think it's as simple as some people think it is, and I don't think it's an obvious mistranslation.

[Heirbyadoption]

I agree with you and Ernie, I don't think it's likely that this has to do with temple prostitutes. I am more convinced by the possibility that it had to do with the Dyonisian cult. Knight argued for that, Richard Hays also favors that interpretation in his commentary on 1 Corinthians.

I think it's really hard to interpret this passage at all without some appeal to the culture of the time and what the veil meant in that context. And I don't think that's as straightforward as some people think.

I miss Knight too. To that last bit about it not being very straightforward, I enthusiastically disagree, though I can understand why you might feel that way.

I'll try to answer your above questions in a bit. I'm hopping on between customers at the office today...

[Bootstrap]

But let us assume that the correct interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 requires the amount of cultural knowledge that Winter asserts. What are we to do with people of the time who had greater knowledge of their own customs and laws than we do today, and who came to differing conclusions than those of Bruce Winter? I’m thinking specifically of Tertullian (approx. 160-225 AD), who is used by historians as a source of information on Roman Law from the first century up to his time. He does not interpret 1 Cor 11 the same way Bruce Winter does despite living in a society and time from which Winter takes evidence for his own interpretation!

I don't think anyone here advocates interpreting this the same way as Tertullian. I don't see Mennonite women covering their neck and covering every part of their head where unbound hair would be found. Tertullian is as influenced by his North African culture as Bruce Winter is by his North American culture.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0403.htm

Let them know that the whole head constitutes "the woman." Its limits and boundaries reach as far as the place where the robe begins. The region of the veil is co-extensive with the space covered by the hair when unbound; in order that the necks too may be encircled. For it is they which must be subjected, for the sake of which "power" ought to be "had on the head:" the veil is their yoke. Arabia's heathen females will be your judges, who cover not only the head, but the face also, so entirely, that they are content, with one eye free, to enjoy rather half the light than to prostitute the entire face.

We see this, for instance, when we look at images of Christian women at prayer in the Roman catacombs. Tertullian would find them scandalously underclad. His culture was different from the culture in Rome.

[Heirbyadoption]

But let us assume that the correct interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 requires the amount of cultural knowledge that Winter asserts. What are we to do with people of the time who had greater knowledge of their own customs and laws than we do today, and who came to differing conclusions than those of Bruce Winter? I’m thinking specifically of Tertullian (approx. 160-225 AD), who is used by historians as a source of information on Roman Law from the first century up to his time. He does not interpret 1 Cor 11 the same way Bruce Winter does despite living in a society and time from which Winter takes evidence for his own interpretation!

I don't think anyone here advocates interpreting this the same way as Tertullian. I don't see Mennonite women covering their neck and covering every part of their head where unbound hair would be found. Tertullian is as influenced by his North African culture as Bruce Winter is by his North American culture.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0403.htm

Let them know that the whole head constitutes "the woman." Its limits and boundaries reach as far as the place where the robe begins. The region of the veil is co-extensive with the space covered by the hair when unbound; in order that the necks too may be encircled. For it is they which must be subjected, for the sake of which "power" ought to be "had on the head:" the veil is their yoke. Arabia's heathen females will be your judges, who cover not only the head, but the face also, so entirely, that they are content, with one eye free, to enjoy rather half the light than to prostitute the entire face.

We see this, for instance, when we look at images of Christian women at prayer in the Roman catacombs. Tertullian would find them scandalously underclad. His culture was different from the culture in Rome.

This site ceased to be "Mennonite" quite awhile back. As for Tertullian, are you referring to his reference to women/girls in Tarsus, or another reference specifically?

[Heirbyadoption]

FWIW, I don't think I know all the answers on this question. I am not sure how I would translate this if it were up to me. But I don't think it's as simple as some people think it is, and I don't think it's an obvious mistranslation.

I don't think I have all the answers either (contrary to my much speaking ), and I don't mean to come off confrontational with my response. I apologize if I do. Having said that, it seems like a pretty obvious translative bias issue to me. Ultimately we'll probably just have to disagree, but I'll try and answer your questions as promised. Let s see if I can reply in one post without screwing up the quote boxes too badly.

It's because the word for woman (gune) can be translated woman or wife. But the ESV translators are in error because if you use wife instead of woman consistently throughout the passage, it doesn't make sense.

I don't think the answer is obvious here, and I would want any translation to provide a footnote mentioning that it can be translated either way. This is a passage where translations struggle and you can't simply carry the Greek over without deciding what you think it means.
ESV actually translates this word as "woman" sometimes and as "wife" other times in the same passage. It's easy to see why when you look carefully:

I’d actually be pretty slow to want a translation to provide a footnote just to satisfy my uncomfortableness with the bi-translatoriality of a word (in this case, “gune” being either woman or wife). ESV’s differing usages shows a distinct bias of the passage being primarily towards the marriage relationship (ergo, I refer you back to Winter’s material and influence, and I encourage you to read it as you have time, it’s not that long).

... the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

A wife's head is one specific man, her husband. This passage is not saying that every man is in authority over every woman. So "wife" seems most natural here.

...UNLESS the overarching context is relating to gender and the Divine pattern/order of headship (ie. administrative order) in this life (and especially for Christians), which the overall context seems to repeatedly suggest.

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.

Clearly, a man is not born of his wife, so here, "woman" seems to be the right way to translate. But it's uncomfortable to translate this differently in the same passage, and hard to make sense of it if we translate it the same way.

ONLY if you continue to view it through the presupposition that Paul is specifically addressing a marriage context in at least part of the passage, which seems thoroughly eisegetical, imho.

For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

It also makes sense to say "For the husband was not made from the woman, but the woman from man. Neither was the man created for woman, but the woman for man." Especially when you read Genesis 2 carefully and see how "the man" and "the woman" are used in that chapter.
I don't think you can make sense of this without throwing in a little interpretation, and people will interpret this differently and apply it differently accordingly.

Certainly, there is interpretation with any passage, but I again refer you to letting context speak, which has no indication of marriage, especially in view of things like Paul’s usage of the birth analogy, as well as early church emphases on veiling unmarried women/girls as well.

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.

Is the wife the glory of her husband, or is every woman the glory of every man? If every woman is the glory of every man, what does that even mean? Why would a woman need to cover if her glory is meant for every man?
In each of these cases, a translator needs to try out "wife" and "woman" as a possibility, think about what it would mean, look at how others have interpreted it, and make a decision. Preferably with a footnote pointing out the other possibility. You cannot translate without interpretation.

Verse 3 – “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.” The argument from said passage is that a woman only has one head, and that is her husband, correct? I think we can all affirm that, but again with the appeal to context, the scope of Paul’s argument is far broader than married individuals. Paul is stating the order of creation here, not the order of marriage roles - after all, every man has Christ as head, not just every husband.
Which shows us that this isn’t some limited statement for only a select segment of people, but is instead an all-encompassing statement relating to everyone. He’s dealing with men and women and their administrative roles as determined by creation, not Tom and Sally as a couple. We see creation roles as the context specifically because he expands on this in verses 7-9: “For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.”
Notice that Paul is talking about the big picture – differences between genders as a whole, not with a narrow focus on married individuals. Otherwise, if he was and we consistently translated “gune” as “wife” here, you are correct that Paul would saying that wives originate from their husbands (verse 8), which is idiotic, obviously, and it makes the point that women (not just wives) are in view. Trying to jump context (the broader Creation context) only confuses it, and leads to confusing presuppositions (like a marriage context).

While it's on my mind, Daniel Wallace wrote a paper on head covering called “What is the Head Covering in 1 Cor 11:2-16 and Does it Apply to Us Today?” that you can find online, or may be have already seen. In discussing the use of “gune”, I simply quote: “Suffice it to say that gune” should be taken as “woman” (as opposed to “wife”) unless there are sufficient contextual reasons to argue otherwise.”Which he does not suggest that there are. I respectfully submit that once you step back from the 21st century ESV ideology and promotion of a marriage context, and refer to the context of the passage as a whole, it can be far less confusing. Not popular in many North American Christian circles, I realize, but it's certainly simpler and seems more faithful to the text and evidence, imho…

[Heirbyadoption]

But let us assume that the correct interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 requires the amount of cultural knowledge that Winter asserts. What are we to do with people of the time who had greater knowledge of their own customs and laws than we do today, and who came to differing conclusions than those of Bruce Winter? I’m thinking specifically of Tertullian (approx. 160-225 AD), who is used by historians as a source of information on Roman Law from the first century up to his time. He does not interpret 1 Cor 11 the same way Bruce Winter does despite living in a society and time from which Winter takes evidence for his own interpretation!

I don't think anyone here advocates interpreting this the same way as Tertullian. I don't see Mennonite women covering their neck and covering every part of their head where unbound hair would be found. Tertullian is as influenced by his North African culture as Bruce Winter is by his North American culture.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0403.htm

Let them know that the whole head constitutes "the woman." Its limits and boundaries reach as far as the place where the robe begins. The region of the veil is co-extensive with the space covered by the hair when unbound; in order that the necks too may be encircled. For it is they which must be subjected, for the sake of which "power" ought to be "had on the head:" the veil is their yoke. Arabia's heathen females will be your judges, who cover not only the head, but the face also, so entirely, that they are content, with one eye free, to enjoy rather half the light than to prostitute the entire face.

We see this, for instance, when we look at images of Christian women at prayer in the Roman catacombs. Tertullian would find them scandalously underclad. His culture was different from the culture in Rome.

Incidentally, the question of how MUCH to cover is inherently different than WHO should cover. The reference to "long hair" tends to support the "whole gender" concept as well, rather than married women only, unless history shows that young women/girls had their hair cut short as opposed to married women... We should probably keep our apples and oranges separate lest we get completely befuddled.

[RZehr]

And we have the fact that essentially 100% of Christiandom understood for 1,900 years that this to mean a physical covering should be worn.
But apparently Western Christians have finally made a breakthrough and have achieved a higher level of understanding of the matter. It was the hair all along, and a case of mistaken prostitute identity.
Pity those poor historical women who needlessly muddled in their covering wearing ignorance for 1,900 years.

[Bootstrap]

And we have the fact that essentially 100% of Christiandom understood for 1,900 years that this to mean a physical covering should be worn.

I don't actually know if that's true or not. There are quite a few truisms that get passed on from one person to another without careful scrutiny. I know that I have heard this said, but I haven't checked to see if it is true.

I'm also careful about arguments made from tradition. Essentially 100% of Christians understood for 1,000 years that you should be Catholic and use the Catholic liturgy and follow Catholic customs that most Mennonites have rejected.

[Bootstrap]

Incidentally, the question of how MUCH to cover is inherently different than WHO should cover.

To me, at least, it's not inherently different, because it points to Tertullian's main concern: in Northern Africa, pagan women would cover entirely, something like the modern Burqa. In the quote I provided, he says that they would show only one eye, preferring to see but not be seen. Tertullian's concern is about modesty, that women should not be seen. And his concern comes from his North African cultural perspective.

That's a fundamentally different concern than what we see in 1 Corinthians 11. To me, at least, blurring over that distinction is misleading. Beyond that, Tertullian doesn't do much of anything to explain what Paul meant.

[Heirbyadoption]

And we have the fact that essentially 100% of Christiandom understood for 1,900 years that this to mean a physical covering should be worn.
But apparently Western Christians have finally made a breakthrough and have achieved a higher level of understanding of the matter. It was the hair all along, and a case of mistaken prostitute identity.
Pity those poor historical women who needlessly muddled in their covering wearing ignorance for 1,900 years.

RZehr, I'd probably be a bit slow to be very sarcastic about it tho. From a scriptural resource standpoint, much of the blame for said shift lies with higher criticism, feminism, and various commentators promoting such theories which eventually evolved into accepted facts, along with legalism and abuse among headcovering churches of the 20th century. I'm not suggesting personal responsibility isn't paramount, but well meaning people (and 3 or 4 generations) have been misled thru the impact of the aforementioned factors. On the whole, it hasnt been a malicious rejection. Occasionally, an apathetical one, perhaps.

And yet, those who teach do seem to often suffer from the same tendency of the unlearned masses like ourselves, to take on faith the veracity of the material from those who have gone before, especially where it doesnt threaten our interpretations or preferences on how to apply the Word.