(10) Paul answers Questions? “We have no such practice”
Alternative translations
1 Corinthians 11:13-15 can be translated
as follows:
Judge for
yourselves. It is proper for a woman
to pray to God with her head uncovered, and nature itself does not teach you
that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has
long hair it is her glory, for hair is given [to men and women] instead of a
covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no such
practice [as headcovering] – nor do the churches of God. (1 Corinthians 11:13-15)
If these verses existed on their own, this is how they would be
translated. But because of verses 2-12, translators assume that we have here
two rhetorical questions (questions put to the readers for them to produce
their own answers). The usual translation, as in RSV, is:
Judge for
yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading
to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride? For her hair is given to
her for a covering. If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no
other practice, nor do the churches of God. (1
Corinthians 11:13-15, RSV)
The original Greek texts have no punctuation marks, so where
question marks should be inserted is a matter of judgment.
Paul asks rhetorical questions regularly, but nearly always he
shows this by an introductory question word.
In this passage, there are no question words. Verse 14 begins with the word “oude”, which regularly means “and not”,
and is not used elsewhere by Paul to introduce a rhetorical question, though
there are three occurrences in the gospels (Mark 12:10, Luke 6:3, & 23:40).
There is a grammatical reason, therefore,
to wonder whether it is correct to translate verses 13 and 14 as questions.
We have already observed another reason,
that Paul himself wore his hair long for a time – or perhaps it was Aquila (Acts 18:18) – but with no hint of this practice
being regarded as a disgrace; and by nature men’s hair does grow long.
And although we have given a few passages on pages 37-38 which
suggest that some people found long hair on men objectionable, more passages
can be produced which say the opposite.
Approval of Long Hair in the Bible
From the Bible there is the Nazirite vow:
And the LORD said to Moses,
“Say
to the people of Israel, When either a man or a woman makes a special vow, the
vow of a Nazirite, to separate himself to the LORD, he shall
separate himself from wine and strong drink; he shall drink no vinegar made
from wine or strong drink, and shall not drink any juice of grapes or eat
grapes, fresh or dried. All the days of his separation he shall eat nothing
that is produced by the grapevine, not even the seeds or the skins. All the
days of his vow of separation no razor shall come upon his head; until the time
is completed for which he separates himself to the LORD, he shall be
holy; he shall let the locks of hair of his head grow long.” (Number 6:1-5)
Both men and women could take this vow, and after their hair had
grown long, it was shaved off.
And the Nazirite
shall shave his consecrated head at the door of the tent of meeting, and shall
take the hair from his consecrated head and put it on the fire which is under
the sacrifice of the peace offering. (Numbers 6:18)
Samson said to Delilah:
“A razor has never
come upon my head; for I have been a Nazirite to God from my mother’s womb. If
I be shaved, then my strength will leave me, and I shall become weak, and be
like any other man.”
(Judges
16:17)
Samuel’s
mother prayed:
And she vowed a
vow and said, “O LORD of hosts, if thou wilt indeed look on the
affliction of thy maidservant, and remember me, and not forget thy maidservant,
but wilt give to thy maidservant a son, then I will give him to the LORD all the days of
his life, and no razor shall touch his head.”
(1
Samuel 1:11)
Absalom
was greatly admired for his hair:
Now in all Israel there
was no one so much to be praised for his beauty as Absalom; from the sole of
his foot to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him. And when he cut
the hair of his head (for at the end of every year he used to cut it; when it
was heavy on him, he cut it), he weighed the hair of his head, two hundred
shekels by the king’s weight. There were born to Absalom three sons, and one
daughter whose name was Tamar; she was a beautiful woman. (2 Samuel
14:25-27)
Paul or Aquila “cut his hair, for
he had a vow” (Acts 18:18). In Jerusalem,
James and the elders of the church asked Paul to take part in a ceremony,
presumably the Nazirite vow again:
“We have four men
who are under a vow; take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay
their expenses, so that they may shave their heads.” (Acts
21:23-24)
Since the above people are noted for growing their hair long, the
majority of people most of the time presumably cut their hair shorter. But
there is no suggestion (apart from in 1 Corinthians 11) in Old or New
Testaments that in itself long hair was a disgrace or a dishonour.
Approval of Long Hair in the Greek World
In Greek history the famous Greek army which destroyed Troy consisted largely of
the Achaeans. They are proudly described as “long-haired Achaeans” (Homer c. 800 BC, e.g. Iliad II:51). In New Testament times Corinth
was the capital city of Achaea.
Not far from Corinth is Sparta. The Spartan
soldiers were known for their long hair. Before the battle of Thermopylae
and expecting an imminent death, they calmly combed their hair. Plutarch
writing about 75 AD comments that at Delphi
there is a statue of the Spartan general Lysander “representing him with his
hair at full length, after the old fashion, and with an ample beard.” He
comments that the reason Spartans wear long hair is because it is
one of the ordinances of Lycurgus, who, as it is
reported, was used to say, that long hair made good-looking men more beautiful,
and ill-looking men more terrible. (Plutarch,
Life of Lysander)
There was
also a practical reason. By braiding their long hair tightly they could protect
their heads better from sword blows.
At Athens,
down to the Persian wars, the hair was worn long…. … a free Athenian citizen
did not wear his hair very short, or he would have been mistaken for a slave,
who would be obliged to do so.
(Oskar Seyffert, A Dictionary of Classical
Antiquities, page 296)
Portraits of
Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) show him with longish hair, but he is said to
have instructed his soldiers to wear their hair short so that they could not be
grabbed so easily in battle. Alexander’s invasion of the east resulted in the
spread of the Greek language and the consequent writing of the New Testament in
Greek.
Epictetus, c. 100 AD, commented, that people see a man with long
hair and conclude that he is a philosopher – which could mean that he was dressing differently to show his
disdain for conventional customs.
The above
comments suggest that men generally cut their hair, but it was not thought in
any way a disgrace or degrading for men to have long hair.
Romans and Long Hair
As
with the Greeks and Jews, Roman practice varied.
In early
times the Romans wore their hair long, as was represented in the oldest statues
in the age of Varro (De Re Rust. II.11 §10),
and hence the Romans of the Augustan age designated their ancestors intonsi
[“uncut”] (Ov. Fast. II.30) and
capillati [“longhaired”] (Juv. VI.30). But after the introduction of
barbers into Italy
about B.C. 300, it became the practice to wear their hair short.
(William Smith, A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities,
John Murray, pages 328-330)
The only quotations we have found which suggest
any disapproval of long hair are those already quoted on pages 37-38. Two of
these are from Jewish sources, so it may be that Jewish believers at Corinth questioned whether it was appropriate or not for men to have long
hair. And in view of the prevailing view among the Greeks, Romans and Jews, and
in the light of Paul’s advising, “Give
no offence to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God,” (1 Corinthians
10:32), it would fit better than the usual translation if Paul says “And nature itself does not
teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him”.
If, however, we translate the passage as statements, like this,
the difficulty is that to do so seems to say the reverse of the usual
understanding of verses 2-9.
So, can it be done?
Quotations within Paul’s Letters to
the Corinthians
In several places in this letter Paul
refers to matters which have been reported to him:
... it has been
reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarrelling among you, my
brethren. (1
Corinthians 1:11)
It is actually
reported that there is immorality among you.
(1
Corinthians 5:1)
Now concerning the
matters about which you wrote... (1
Corinthians 7:1)
Sometimes
he responds to information received, sometimes he responds to written
questions. Paul’s method seems to be to paraphrase or quote the words or
terminology of his critics or his correspondents at Corinth, and then either partly agree and
give the argument a twist, or directly contradict what has been said by them.
In the following passage Paul is thought to be quoting or echoing terminology
used by those with whom he disagrees, using words such as “rich”, “kings”,
“reign”.
Already you are
filled! Already you have become rich! Without us you have become kings! And
would that you did reign, so that we might share the rule with you! ... We are
weak, but you are strong. You are held in honour, but we in disrepute. (1
Corinthians 4:8-10)
Opinions
differ on how much he quotes, but it can be more than a single word or
sentence. For example, the following words in italics have been suggested as
quotations in 1 Corinthians 6, followed by Paul’s response.
“All things are lawful for me” – but not
all things are helpful.
“All things are lawful for me” – but I
will not be enslaved by anything.
“Food is meant for the stomach, and the
stomach for food, and God will destroy both one and the other” – but the
body is not meant for immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body,
and God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. (1 Corinthians 6:12-16)
“Every sin which a man may commit is outside
his body” – but the immoral man sins against his own body. (1 Corinthians 6:18)
Likewise
1 Corinthians 8 is generally agreed to contain quotations, though it is not
possible to be sure how long or short. Again, the sections in italics may be
quotations of things written or spoken by people at Corinth:
Now
concerning food offered to idols: “We
know that all of us possess knowledge”. “Knowledge” puffs up, but love builds up. If anyone imagines that he
knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if one loves
God, one is known by him.
Concerning,
therefore, the eating of food offered to idols, “We know that an idol has no real existence and that there is no God but
one. For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth – as indeed
there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’ – yet there is one God, the Father, from
whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through
whom are all things and through whom we exist.” – but not all possess this
knowledge. Some, through being hitherto accustomed to idols, eat food as really
offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. “Food will not commend us to God. We are no
worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do.” – but take care
less this liberty of yours somehow becomes a stumbling block to the weak....
(1
Corinthians 8:1-9)
Verses
5 and 6 are usually attributed directly to Paul, but they could as reasonably
be part of the letter or comments presented to him as backing for the position
taken by the believers in Corinth
who laid claim to special Christian “knowledge”.
We have quoted from chapters 4, 6 and 8 of 1 Corinthians firstly
to illustrate the possibility of quotations which Paul then rebuts, and
secondly because these sections are not controversial. Some quotation or
paraphrase is definitely there, and the apostle is clearly disagreeing with
views emanating from Corinth
or modifying them. Paul’s correspondence with Corinth, more than any of his other letters,
seems to contain a continual “to and fro” between himself and the Corinthians.
Quotations or Echoes in 1
Corinthians 11
It is suggested, therefore, that the same
can reasonably be done in 1 Corinthians 11 in a manner which resolves some of
the problems. Further, it would be surprising if there is not some echo or
quotation in this section as there is in so many others. If some of the verses
are questions to Paul, or Paul’s paraphrasing of “the matters about which you
wrote”, this would present the whole picture in a different light.
Paul commends the Corinthians (verse 2), which
implies he is pleased with their response. It is only when he gets to verse 17
that he says “I do not commend you”. It would make a better reading, therefore,
of 1 Corinthians 11 if verses 2-16 are expressing approval, rather than the
strong disapproval which comes across in the conventional reading.
Those who questioned Paul would recognise
their questions and the answers given. We can pick out some possible questions
(e.g. “If a woman will not veil herself, should she cut off her hair?”) but the
difficulty is to know what might be the original question, what might be a
paraphrase of comments made, what might be expansion on the comments, and at
what point Paul gives his answers.
Suggested
alternative translations of 1 Corinthians 11
The words in italics and surrounded by
quotation marks, it is suggested, are either echoes or quotations from what has
been written to Paul, or a paraphrase of them, or actual questions.
Explanatory comments are inserted in
small capitals within squared brackets, explaining how we think Paul would have
explained if Paul later had been questioned on this passage and asked to expand
on his meaning. In Alternative Translation (1) we are putting verse 3 as a
question.
Alternative Translation (1)
So,
whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give
no offence to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to
please all men in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of
many, that they may be saved. Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. I commend you because you “remember me in everything” and “maintain the traditions” even as I have
delivered them to you. But do I want you to understand that “the head of every man is Christ, the head of
a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God”?
[I TAUGHT YOU, (AS
I TEACH IN MY LETTER TO THE EPHESIANS, CHAPTER 5) THAT THE HUSBAND IS HEAD OF
THE WIFE JUST AS CHRIST IS HEAD OF THE CHURCH. CHRIST IS THEREFORE THE HEAD OF
BOTH HUSBAND AND WIFE, NOT JUST OF THE HUSBAND, AS SOME OF YOU ARE SAYING.
FURTHER, SINCE CONTROVERSY HAS ARISEN ABOUT HEADCOVERING PRACTICES, YOU ASK:] “Does every man who prays
or prophesies with his head covered dishonour his head? And does every woman
who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonour her head? Is it the
same as if her head were shaven? For
[AS SOME PEOPLE SAY] if a woman will not veil
herself, then she should cut off her hair, but if it
is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil”. [HERE IS MY ANSWER:] Indeed a man ought not to cover his head, since [AS YOU SAY] he is the image and glory of God; but a wife is a husband’s glory. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was
man created for woman, but woman for man. [SINCE A WOMAN IS
THE GLORY OF HER HUSBAND, SHE SHOULD NOT
COVER HER HEAD EITHER. THERE IS NO TEACHING IN THE BIBLE THAT RESPECT FOR
ANOTHER IS SHOWN BY COVERING ONE’S HEAD.]
Here is why a woman ought to have control over her head [TO DECIDE WHETHER
TO WEAR A HEADCOVERING OR NOT, RATHER THAN BEING PUSHED INTO IT BY THOSE WHO
FAVOUR RITUAL DRESS CODES]: because
of the angels. [THE ANGELS WERE PRESENT AT THE CREATION OF HUMAN BEINGS WHEN GOD
SAID, “LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE”, AND THEY KNOW WELL WHAT GOD INTENDED.] The point is, in the Lord woman is not apart from the man [AS REGARDS
HEADCOVERING] nor man
apart from the woman [AS REGARDS HEADCOVERING]; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And
all things are from God. [THIS, THEN IS WHAT I ACTUALLY WANT YOU TO KNOW.]
Judge for yourselves. It is proper for a woman to pray to God
with her head uncovered, and nature itself does not teach you that if a man has
long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair it is her
glory, for hair is given [TO MEN AND WOMEN] instead of a covering. If
anyone wants to be contentious about this, we [PAUL
AND SOSTHENES] have no such practice [AS
HEADCOVERING OR RULES ABOUT HAIR LENGTH] – nor do the churches of God.
Comments
on suggested Alternative Translation (1)
(1) This resolves the apparent
inconsistency in the usual translations that Paul seems very keen to stress a
hierarchy in verse 3, but then presents a non-hierarchical view in verses 11
and 12. To say – “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” – fits better if Paul has not appeared to teach the opposite of this
a few verses earlier.
(2) In Ephesians 5:23, Paul
teaches that the husband is head of the wife, as Christ is head of the church.
This is a slightly different hierarchy from that expressed in 1 Corinthians
11:3. Because Christ is head of the church which consists of both men and
women, Christ is the head of the husband and head of the wife directly. This
translation suggests that the Corinthians had misunderstood his teaching that
the husband is head of the wife and were suggesting that Christ is not her head
directly but only through her husband (as Augustine took it).
(3) It seems more compatible
with Paul’s teaching about equality in Galatians 3:28.
(4) It responds to the claim
that Paul is misusing Genesis or that he considers woman is not in the image of
God. He is responding to others who use such arguments.
(5) It resolves the seemingly
rather weak claim that nature itself teaches it is a disgrace for a man to have
long hair.
(6) It fits well with Paul’s
usual attitude to ritual practices, whether circumcision, or keeping of special
days. He regards these as no longer applicable now that the Messiah has come
and has established spiritual worship.
(7) It does not force oude (“and not”) in verse 14 to
introduce a rhetorical question.
(8) The text literally says:
“we have no such practice” – which fits better if the practice of headcovering
(rather than the non-practice) was the subject of discussion.
(9) It is interesting that the
Vulgate, the Latin translated from the Greek in the late 4th century
AD, likewise does not insert any interrogative phrases in verses 13 and 14,
although Latin would normally use interrogative words.
(10) Some of the comments
about the consequences of not veiling sound harsh, and surprising in the
context, since Paul is commending the Corinthians for following his teaching.
If they are questions from Corinth, or a
paraphrase of what has been said in Corinth,
the harshness is on the Corinthians side, not Paul’s. And here we have Paul’s
answer: “It is proper for a woman to
pray to God with her head uncovered”.
(11) It may seem surprising to
quote from a Corinthian correspondent at such length, but ancient writers can
quote extensively.
One further possibility is that a later hand with access to the original letter
to Paul could have inserted the questions beside his reply, and they could
subsequently have been incorporated in the text.
This is not the only alternative way the
passage can be translated and understood. It is worth offering a second, partly
because further alternatives can be presented, and partly because we do not to
wish to give the impression that we regard this as the definitive answer!
Second suggested alternative translation of 1 Corinthians 11
The words in italics and surrounded by
quotation marks, it is suggested, are either echoes or quotations from what has
been written to Paul, or a paraphrase of them, or actual questions.
Explanatory comments are inserted in
small capitals within squared brackets, explaining how we think Paul would have
explained if Paul later had been questioned on this passage and asked to expand
on his meaning. In Alternative Translation (2) we are putting verse 3 as a
statement by Paul.
Alternative Translation (2)
So,
whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give
no offence to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to
please all men in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of
many, that they may be saved. Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. I commend you because you “remember me in everything” and “maintain the traditions” even as I have
delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that the head of every man
is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
[I TAUGHT YOU, (AS
I TEACH IN MY LETTER TO THE EPHESIANS, CHAPTER 5) THAT THE HUSBAND IS HEAD OF
THE WIFE JUST AS CHRIST IS HEAD OF THE CHURCH. A HUSBAND MUST THEREFORE HONOUR
CHRIST IN THE WAY HE BEHAVES TOWARDS HIS WIFE, JUST AS A WIFE MUST HONOUR HER
HUSBAND IN HER BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS HIM, AND CHRIST GIVES US THE EXAMPLE HIMSELF
IN HOW HE HONOURS GOD. IN THIS CONTEXT YOU RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT
HEADCOVERINGS:]
“Does every man who prays or
prophesies with his head covered dishonour his head? And does every woman who
prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonour her head?
Is it the same as if her head were shaven? For [AS SOME PEOPLE
SAY] if
a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair, but if it is
disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil”.
[HERE IS MY
ANSWER:] Indeed
a man does not have to cover his head,
since [AS
YOU SAY] 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. Neither was man created for woman,
but woman for man. [SINCE WOMAN IS THE GLORY OF HER HUSBAND, SHE SHOULD NOT COVER HER HEAD EITHER. RESPECT FOR
ANOTHER IS NOT SHOWN UNDER THE NEW COVENANT BY EXTERNAL PRACTICES LIKE COVERING
ONE’S HEAD.]
For this reason a woman ought to have control over her head [TO DECIDE WHETHER
TO WEAR A HEADCOVERING OR NOT, RATHER THAN BEING PUSHED INTO IT BY THOSE WHO
FAVOUR JEWISH DRESS CODES]: because
of the angels. ANGELS VIEW THE FACE OF GOD DIRECTLY (JESUS – MATTHEW 18:10).
THEY DO NOT VEIL IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD, NEITHER SHOULD WE.] The point is,
in the Lord woman is not apart from the man [AS REGARDS HEADCOVERING] nor man apart from the woman [AS REGARDS HEADCOVERING]; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And
all things are from God.
Judge for yourselves. Is it
proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Nature itself does
not teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if
a woman has long hair it is her glory, for hair is given [TO
MEN AND WOMEN] in
place of a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we [PAUL
AND THE OTHER APOSTLES]
have no such practice [AS HEADCOVERING OR
RULES ABOUT HAIR LENGTH]
– nor do the churches of God.
The above translations are
drawn from the various suggestions we have read, along with a careful reading
of the Greek text. In presenting these two suggested translations, we are not
making any dogmatic claim that these are “the correct translations.” If any
reader considers we have misused the Greek language or made serious mistakes of
logic, we would be pleased to have these pointed out to us with a specific
explanation based on the Greek text.
“Entirely different, even opposite things”
Norman E. Anderson commented that 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 “is one of the most
difficult passages in the Bible to interpret, not the least because at each of
several points it can mean entirely different, even opposite things.”
Verse 10 is a good example:
That is why a woman
ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels.
(1 Corinthians 11:10,
RSV)
The RSV footnote says: “Greek authority (the veil being a symbol of
this)”. Traditionally this has been understood to mean her husband’s authority
over her.
The realisation, however, that
“have authority” in the New Testament only ever means “have authority or right
to do something” has caused a rephrasing in translations. Hence TNIV reads:
It is for this reason that a woman ought
to have authority over her own head
(1 Corinthians 11:10, TNIV)
This
is understood to mean that she should be able to decide for herself whether to
wear a veil or not. Or, since verse 2 says that her head is her husband, does
it mean: “It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her
husband”?
Surely Paul can’t mean that!
Or can he? What does he say in 1 Corinthians 7?
… the husband does not rule over his own
body, but the wife does.
(1 Corinthians 7:4)
Having given an equality to
both husband and wife in 1 Corinthians 7:4 (see the whole verse), we can
presume that this is the kind of thing Paul taught and which he considered as
amongst “the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Corinthians
11:2). And this fits well with his teaching in verse 11: “… 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.”
This “answering questions” approach would resolve some of the
difficulties, but it brings problems of its own like each interpretation
offered.
By reading the Greek text we first observed the possibility of
translating verses 14 and 15 as statements rather than questions about 1989. We
subsequently found that several writers had suggested the same: John Lightfoot
(1602-1675), then Katharine Bushnell (1856-1946) in her book God’s Word to Women (1923).
More recently, several others have produced versions of it.
This explanation would provide a solution, but there is no
conclusive evidence. The alternative translations cannot merely be dismissed,
but nor can they be advocated as definite. Accordingly, we have sought in our
expanded version on pages 33-35 to explain the passage as a unified whole.
The difficulty of being in any degree
certain as to the meaning forces us back to the conclusion that first century
custom lies behind this passage. We cannot apply the practice literally today,
even if we wish to, because we do not know what it was.
There are nevertheless very many clear principles which can be can
be understood and put into practice (see Section 12, pages 55-60), and we
should not allow the uncertainties in this passage to obscure those.
An alternative interpretation of “We have no such custom” is: “We
have no such custom as being contentious on this issue. We don’t lay down rules
on it.”
![next chapter next chapter](/theme/7/btn_next.jpg)