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.