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.
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?