Eutychus] I'm still hoping for insights into your motivations, but I'd just like to say that the underlying logic used in 1 Corinthans about women and authorty is exactly the same, and in virtually the same terms, as that used in 1 Timothy 2*.
1 Tim. 2* is considerably later than 1 Cor. We should not overlook the possibility that 1 Cor. was known to the author of 1 Tim. 2*. If it was Paul, then he definitely would have remembered, which would explain the similarities, but if not then one has to face the fact that the Pastorals are more troublesome regards authenticity than any other NT documents. If someone was trying to copy Paul's style and content, then obviously he would include what he thought to be 'original Paul'.
There are all sorts of reasons to question whether 1 Tim. was actually written by Paul. Many more reasons than to question most of 1 Cor. It certainly claims itself to have been written by Paul, but so then were many other letters which never actually got into the cannon of scripture.
<snip>
1 Tim. […] certainly claims itself to have been written by Paul, but so then were many other letters which never actually got into the cannon of scripture.
That’s not something I’ve come across. What is your source for these ‘Pauline’ epistles that are not in the NT?
That’s not something I’ve come across. What is your source for these ‘Pauline’ epistles that are not in the NT?
The Gospel of Peter and the attribution to Paul of the Epistle to the Laodiceans are both examples of pseudepigrapha that were not included in the New Testament canon.[12] They are often referred to as New Testament apocrypha. Wikipedia
No doubt there were others which we never got to hear about. pseudepigraphy was fairly common before 300AD. Hence the decision to close the cannon on what was then considered authentic.
Thank you for that comprehensive reply. We agree on a lot of things, apparently. You are right that none of my arguments disprove scribal intervention. So I guess I'm applying Occam's razor for now. YMMV!
[Eutychus] if that is the kind of problem one is looking to solve, I would suggest it's easier and quicker to solve it by appealing to the "simpler texts trump difficult ones" line of argument - specifically, here, Galatians 3:28, already mentioned upthread - than by trying to find reasons for it being an interpolation.
I'm not looking to solve anyone else's problems and have none of my own with it. I'm just exploring the possibility of it having happened, in the interests of revealing another alternative possible reason for it being there, other than Paul must have written it so it must make sense so here is what we experts think it must mean'.
The fundy creationist commentators then launch into ever more gymnastic hyperbole and esoteric explanations of hierarchy, authority, female subservience, angelic uptightness about women with their heads uncovered, glorious hairstyles, shameful baldness, and crew cuts for men etc. as if it actually makes sense in today's world and is binding upon Christians of every generation.
Yet no mention whatever is made of the fact that the whole passage appears to have been stuffed right into the middle of a single, perfectly understandable, straight forward simple sentence.
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you,{Inserted Text} but in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; {What Pauls finds wrong with them followed by:-} What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.
The phrase "for in the first place" should alert us to the fact that all that headship, haircuts and veils stuff shouldn't have been there, because that then makes it 'the first place issue' that Paul would be writing about, (if it were actually Paul), and the Communion bad behaviour would then have been pushed back into being the 'second place issue', surely?
Which do we think was more important to Paul as an 'in the first place' issue? Women's hairstyles and head coverings or Greed, Arrogance and Selfishness at The Lord's Supper?
_________________________________________
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.
That exegesis doesn"t require the digression to have been written by somebody other than Paul; it simply requires one to tease the logical sequence of ideas out of the text.
I'm still intrigued by your apparent insistence on the idea that in order to be less authoritative, the excurcus needs to have been written by a non-apostolic hand.
OK, but more interestingly for me that means you think "Apostolic authority" trumps "is in the canon". I'm genuinely curious about how one makes the case for Apostolic authority over and above the authority of Scripture.
Well, yes and no really. 'Apostolic Authority' would clearly trump 'just being in the cannon' for me, on the grounds that those who decided the cannon were sincere human beings but not Apostles. They were not infallible and they did not have all of the hermeneutic and textual analysis tools we have today. Their criteria were more along the lines of:
1. Is it widely accepted as authentic by the wide community of the church.
2. Are there any major objections to it in any quarter of the church.
3. Does it contain any doctrine that contradicts any other already canonically accepted documents.
4. Does it have a respectable pedigree, a plausible source and enough manuscripts to make comparisons.
I don't think they were very interested in textual analysis or fine nuances of writing style.
That having been said though, I think the process of deciding the cannon was fairly objective and responsibly carried out by sincere spirituals.
I therefore accept everything in the cannon as being 'inspired', just not all 'useful' in the same way. I regard 1 Cor. 11:3-16 and 14:34-35 'useful' for teaching discernment and demonstrating the need for 'right judgment' when comparing scripture with scripture.
As Paul himself said. (or did he?), "Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine". NRSV.
the grounds that those who decided the cannon were sincere human beings but not Apostles. They were not infallible
This is what I'm getting at.
This reads (to me at least) as though you think the apostles were more than human and less fallible.
Which seems to me to be in danger of substituting one problem (biblical inerrancy, another Dead Horse) for another (apostolic inerrancy), on the grounds of...?
(Having finished my speech translations for World Women's Day, now I have to go and have dinner with a bunch of RC seminarians. It's been an interesting day).
Oh, given what my Scots friends would call the right stushie (commotion) that very mixed early church membership could create, I wouldn't be in the least surprised that women's roles and head coverings got quite of lot of mention in correspondence between Paul and the local leaders.
Pastoral issues can by like that. The greatest noise might not be being made over the more profound matters. Think about 'to pew or not to pew' for example today. People can find lots of things to create unrest about.
Our posts seem to be simultaneous, I don't want to appear to be contradictory, so excuse any repetition.
That exegesis doesn"t require the digression to have been written by somebody other than Paul; it simply requires one to tease the logical sequence of ideas out of the text.
Undoubtedly there was a 'logical sequence' to be teased out, but the question still remains whether it was Paul's logical sequence, or the perceived logicality in the considerably less able mind of a rather partisan and superstitious in situ, ex Jewish scribe. If it was then I don't really need to go to all the trouble of trying to decode his ramblings. If it was Paul, he really should not have started his paragraph about contempt of The Lord's Supper with the phrase 'In the first place'. He should have started it with 'secondly'.
I'm still intrigued by your apparent insistence on the idea that in order to be less authoritative, the excurcus needs to have been written by a non-apostolic hand.
I'm suggesting that the subject matter is less likely to be one of Paul's concerns than it might be to a Corinthian church member who is incensed at the conduct of Corinthian women. I'm not so much concerned about the degree of 'authority' it might be thought to have as scripture. We make of it what we will and I don't make much of it as far as advice for practical Christian living in the 21st century, whoever wrote it.
Paul was both radical and conservative, Martin, and there is some evidence that his understanding developed through time. The letters in his name cover at least a decade, during which he would have seen and experienced much. But we cannot find in the scriptures a man so far out of his time that he fits your colourful anachronistic description. Which is by far the majority opinion in this thread. Whether or no any of us sees value in form criticism.
In short, this thread generally follows the predominant scholarly opinion that 1 Corinthians was written entirely by Paul, variations and all. RdrEmCofE is a lone voice to the contrary. Which doesn't say he's wrong of course.
"Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven. For 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 an example of the kind of eisegetical conclusion hurdling which 1 Cor.11:3-16 can engender when all possibilities, other than that it is a command to us from the Apostle Paul are rejected.
The purpose for head coverings is to provide a visual symbol to the gathered church. If angels are a reason why we obey this command, it presupposes that they must be watching us worship. Nothing else would make sense. So, one understanding of why we practice head coverings is so that we may rightly symbolize the created order to all present; both visible and invisible.
so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places. (Eph 3:10 ESV)
These rulers and authorities are the angels of God (Col 1:16, 1 Pet 3:22). We see from this passage that what our Lord is doing through the church, shows to them how incredibly wise He is. Peter describes the angels as “longing to look” into what God is doing (1 Pet 1:12). They’re captivated by what God is doing and want to see more of it. I believe this is a desire that God would take pleasure in fulfilling. Allowing them to watch us worship could be one way of fulfilling that desire.
I love thinking about what the angels must be thinking, since they have such a unique perspective. The angels were the very first of God’s creation. We know they’ve seen all of history unfold as God told Job that the angels rejoiced watching Him make the world (Job 38:4-7).
They’ve spent their entire lives in the presence of a Holy and perfect God. They watched Him create a perfect world where there was no sin, death or suffering. Those concepts were unknown to them. Then one of their own, Satan, sins. God puts him and the angels who follow him out of His presence forever (Jude 6). No opportunities for repentance and no one to intercede of their behalf. The angels know that sin has a high cost.
Then as a repeat, the first couple God created also sins. However, there’s a twist in this storyline. God kills an animal in their place and promises them a redeemer. He then sets apart a group of these sinful humans to display His love and affection on. It culminates in God Himself entering the world in human flesh. He lives a perfect life and then lays it down as an unblemished sacrifice. The Father slaughters Him, the Lamb of God, so that ill-deserving children of the devil can be totally forgiven and adopted into His family. What a story! No wonder the angels long to look into this.
So now put yourself in their shoes as they watch the gathered people of God worship.
They see enemies of God now worshiping because they’re forgiven and redeemed. They see Jews and Gentiles worshiping together as members of one another in unity. They see males and females worshiping together as equals. On top of all that through head coverings our women show all present that their position as a woman is also redeemed. No longer are they at war usurping and longing for the mans position of authority (Gen 3:16). Instead they’re content in the role God ordained for them in Genesis 2.
The men likewise through their bare heads communicate that they will exercise authority in their respective roles. However, no longer will it be through domineering (Gen 3:16) or being passive like the first Adam. Their position as a man is also redeemed.
The angels with their jaws dropped must cry out as they watch this, “behold the manifold wisdom of God!”
Let’s not forget that as sinless beings they would be much more sensitive to sin. If we’re dishonorable & disgraceful from a human perspective (1 Cor 11:4-6), how must we look to angels if we disobey this command? If we don’t pray and prophesy as God said to, the only thing we may be symbolizing to them is the role distortion of Genesis 3!
All closely reasoned, even plausible, all concluded from just two obscure sentences, which are by no means certain to have actually come from St Paul himself.
This is 'temple cat' reasoning par excellence.
_________________________________________
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.
Undoubtedly there was a 'logical sequence' to be teased out, but the question still remains whether it was Paul's logical sequence, or the perceived logicality in the considerably less able mind of a rather partisan and superstitious in situ, ex Jewish scribe. If it was then I don't really need to go to all the trouble of trying to decode his ramblings. If it was Paul, he really should not have started his paragraph about contempt of The Lord's Supper with the phrase 'In the first place'. He should have started it with 'secondly'
Again, this suggests to me that you put Paul on an unreasonably unhuman pedestal and you assume unreasonable amounts of bad faith and intellectual inferiority on the part of those around him.
My experience of geniuses and great leaders is that they are just as human as the rest of us.
There's also no need to quote huge chunks of head-covering fundamentalism. I think those arguments have been well-rehearsed and well-dismissed here (well in Dead Horses).
What such views don't do in my view is make the case for excising everything in the epistles which we deem to be off-topic, intellectually inferior, or simply not our idea of what we think Paul (or Apostolic™ whoever) ought to have said.
As to "glory" - can someone with Greek say if the word used here is that which Paul uses elsewhere?
Then the growing of hair. The condemnation of a man's having long hair may not be inconsistent with the old practice you note. Firstly, that practice was of a particular circumstance, for a man who has taken the vow of a Nazarite, not more general. Second of course is the argument that Christ did away with the old law in any event.
There are all sorts of reasons to question whether 1 Tim. was actually written by Paul. Many more reasons than to question most of 1 Cor. It certainly claims itself to have been written by Paul, but so then were many other letters which never actually got into the cannon of scripture.
The Gospel of Peter and the attribution to Paul of the Epistle to the Laodiceans are both examples of pseudepigrapha that were not included in the New Testament canon.
The Gospel of Peter does not claim to be a Pauline epistle, and the NT suggests that an epistle from Paul to the Laodiceans existed, but no copy exists which has not been thought to be a forgery since the days of the early church. There simply is no evidence for your “many other letters [claimed to have been written by Paul] which never actually got into the cannon of scripture”
On the wider point, I think you have misunderstood those parts of 1 Cor 11 which you think are not Pauline, I don’t think they mean what you are suggesting they mean. I think rightly understood, in their textual, cultural and historical context, they do not express thinking which is unworthy of Paul or contrary to his clear statement in Galatians of our equality in Christ. In my earlier post I picked out three scholars who at different times in the last thirty years have specifically sought to address that issue through an informed, close and nuanced reading of the text. I think if you look at what they say you will find that there are no grounds to excise these texts on the basis of misogyny, and that our reading of them as misogynistic is about how they have been interpreted rather than about what Paul intended. This is fortunate as there is no text critical basis for excluding these verses either.
For word clarity I have used Youngs Literal Translation to get as close to Paul's actual words as possible in English.
I am disappointed that so far no one has come forward with an explanation for the fact that Paul introduces his rebuke to the Corinthian church with the words:
"And I praise you, brethren, that in all things ye remember me, and according as I did deliver to you, the deliverances ye keep, [ some extra instructions first ] and this declaring, I give no praise, because not for the better, but for the worse ye come together; for first, indeed, ye coming together in an assembly, I hear of divisions being among you,
{Then the rebuke about abusing The Lord's Supper}
{Then the historical explanation of The Lord's Supper}
{Then advice on the correct conduct and practice of The Lord's Supper}
Then a statement saying "The rest of what I was going to tell you off about can wait until I come there in person." "and the rest, whenever I may come, I shall arrange" 1 Cor.11:34b.
So why does Paul first bang on about heads, haircuts and coverings and women keeping in their proper place, then say "for first indeed, . . . ." {then the rebuke, historical background of the Eucharist, and advice on seemly behaviour} Finally rounding off effectively saying "there is no second rebuke on this matter in this letter, it can wait until I come there in person".
Why is the "forFIRSTindeed," there if it was indeed notfirst? It had been preceded by all the hair, heads, angels, coverings and putting women in their place, stuff.
[BroJames] they do not express thinking which is unworthy of Paul or contrary to his clear statement in Galatians of our equality in Christ. In my earlier post I picked out three scholars who at different times in the last thirty years have specifically sought to address that issue through an informed, close and nuanced reading of the text. I think if you look at what they say you will find that there are no grounds to excise these texts on the basis of misogyny, and that our reading of them as misogynistic is about how they have been interpreted rather than about what Paul intended. This is fortunate as there is no text critical basis for excluding these verses either.
They wouldn't be likely to be wildly out of kilter with real Paul obviously. Any interpolator would be a fool indeed if he inserted stuff which was clearly and identifiably non Pauline. In any case IF it was interpolation it would have been most likely what the interpolator would have liked Paul to say, not something he obviously knew Paul would never say in a million years.
Who is talking about 'excising' any text from 1 Cor? I'm not. I have no axe to grind about misogyny either. Paul's ideas on equality developed over time and 1 Cor. is early Paul so it is not surprising that dichotomies exist between Paul's later view on female leadership and might clash somewhat with 1 Cor. 11:3-16. However, the whole of 1 Cor. was written telling off men because their bad behaviour had been reported to Paul by the house-church members of a woman for whom Paul had respect enough to mention at 1 Cor.1:11 I bet that went down well among the male leadership team at Corinth. Paul even counts Junia, a woman, among the Apostles. Rom.16:7. Junia was a woman's name and it had no male equivalent in Rome, such as Junius.
"for it was signified to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe, that contentions are among you;" 1 Cor.1:11.
"Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me." Rom.16:7.
So Paul would hardly be seeking to silence people he had spent time in jail with, who knew Christ before he had and held positions of leadership in the church, would he.
Why is the "forFIRSTindeed," there if it was indeed notfirst? It had been preceded by all the hair, heads, angels, coverings and putting women in their place, stuff.
Because Paul is human, not a robot, and engaging in digressions and forgetting which number point you had got to, is something people, including him in my estimation, do.
Any interpolator would be a fool indeed if he inserted stuff which was clearly and identifiably non Pauline.
Wait, what?
You appear to be arguing that the more Pauline a text looks, the more likely it is to be the work of a (really clever) interpolator, essentially "because you say so".
(Well, really clever except that apparently he was so bad at covering his tracks that he couldn't adjust the argument so its points were in numerical order...)
Again, this is a rabbit-hole I'm loth to go down. It creates more problems than it solves. It reminds me (again) of dispensationalism.
It's just like the argument about the Rapture in another place which, on the sole and highly dubious linguistic grounds of understanding Paul saying "now, then" in 1 Thes 5:1 to mean "this is what chronologically happens next", inserts an entirely novel doctrine of a two-stage parousia, millenium, etc.
Like your arguments here, dispensationalism seeks to "harmonise" the text: to impose order on what is deemed to be chaos. Again, I think you lose far more than anything that might be gained by such an approach.
In any case IF it was interpolation it would have been most likely what the interpolator would have liked Paul to say, not something he obviously knew Paul would never say in a million years.
It's hard not to get the feeling that your agenda is to get rid, at virtually any cost, of everything you would liked Paul (whose Apostolic™ status seems to raise him to inerrantist levels of infallibility in your mind) not to have said.
I agree with you, RdrEmCofE that Paul is not attempting to silence women in any of 1 Cor 11 (all of which I regard as Pauline)_. I agree with you too that Paul’s theological thinking probably evolved, though with the uncertainty of dating it’s hard to be confident about how. (That said, however, Galatians, with its ringing statement of equality in Christ is generally regarded as earlier than 1 Cor)
It is actually unhelpful (in your other post) to use Young’s Literal Translation. It is helpful to an extent in giving a Greek word order, and giving in English an indication of the meaning and grammatical form of the words, but, for example, in this section
and this declaring, I give no praise,
it fails to show that the word used which is translated as ‘and’ can also be translated as ‘now’ or ‘but’ according to context. Additionally, “this declaring” ignores how Greek functions, and is very poor as a translation as a result. It is clear that Paul moves on to a different train of thought “in these commands I do not commend you. When you come together it is not for the better but for the worse” and when he goes on to say “in the first place” it is not the beginning of a list. The Greek word here translated first can also mean chiefly or most importantly. So Paul gets the most important issue out of the way, and then concludes by saying he’ll deal with the other things when he sees the Corinthians.
To confirm my view that BroJames is right about the meaning of the Greek text. And his point is well taken.
I take Eutychus point as well, having spent a good deal of time historically talking with folks affected by dispensational views. The presuppositional argument cuts both ways. Textual criticism and form criticism work best when they work from the lines, and seek to avoid reading too much between the lines.
[Eutychus] Because Paul is human, not a robot, and engaging in digressions and forgetting which number point you had got to, is something people, including him in my estimation, do.
Paul was no robot, obviously, but he was no sloppy linguist either. He was perfectly capable of getting his sentences in order and there is no reason to assume that he was 'at fault' on this occasion, just to do straw clutching to justify the preceding sentences being from Paul. In any case the 'in the first place' phrase is not necessarily numerically speaking as [BroJames] informs us.
[BroJames] When you come together it is not for the better but for the worse” and when he goes on to say “in the first place” it is not the beginning of a list. The Greek word here translated first can also mean chiefly or most importantly. So Paul gets the most important issue out of the way, and then concludes by saying he’ll deal with the other things when he sees the Corinthians.
Except Paul does notget the most important issue out of the way. He rambles on about heads, hair, angels being, (shocked, upset, scandalised, angry, lustful . . . . [actually we have no idea why the angels are involved], because the writer does not tell us, he just says "Because of the angels", whatever he might have meant by that.
The "most important issue" is obviously their conduct at The Lord's Supper and the proof of that is the fact that Paul underlines the fact that for this 'He will not commend them'. And then the closed the subject saying he'll deal with it when he visits in person.
So why is all the 'angels and head covering' bunk dealt with first, as if it is 'more important'. Simple answer: It was probably never there in the first place because Paul probably never dictated it to his scribe, in the first place.
And [Martin54] It is not I who needs a shave. This passage of Jewish scribal goblydy gook 11:3-16 is a prime hairy candidate for Occam's famous razor, if ever I saw such a dishevelled and straggly full set of nonsense.
[Eutychus] It's hard not to get the feeling that your agenda is to get rid, at virtually any cost, of everything you would liked Paul (whose Apostolic™ status seems to raise him to inerrantist levels of infallibility in your mind) not to have said.
You need to take control of your feelings then Eutychus . My agenda is nothing more than alerting others to the possibility that 1 Cor. 11:3-16 might not be Paul speaking, but someone else, trying to look like him, with a definite agenda of their own. That is all.
Wait, what? You appear to be arguing that the more Pauline a text looks, the more likely it is to be the work of a (really clever) interpolator, essentially "because you say so".
What I am saying is that an interpolator would be clever enough to make his addition plausible but perhaps not clever enough to notice his own contradiction introduced 2 chapters later. 14:34-35. Another case for a shave from Occam's razor, to solve the contradiction at a stroke, rather than doing exegetical somersaults in an effort to maintain Biblical infallibility.
I'm not one to favour infallibility whether claimed by Popes, Apostles, Biblical inerrantists or any other whacky bakky religionists. I just point out the reasons why 1 Cor.11:3-16 and 1 Cor.14:34-35 are suspect. I think I have done that to my own satisfaction. I'm not really concerned overmuch if others want to think otherwise. As Paul himself says in so many words:
"You are bound to have disagreements, how else are you going to get at the truth?"
_________________________________________
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.
Paul was no robot, obviously, but he was no sloppy linguist either. He was perfectly capable of getting his sentences in order and there is no reason to assume that he was 'at fault' on this occasion, just to do straw clutching to justify the preceding sentences being from Paul.
I think where we differ is on whether it is more straw-clutching to assume outside interference in the text or to assume a lapse of syntax on Paul's part.
What I am saying is that an interpolator would be clever enough to make his addition plausible but perhaps not clever enough to notice his own contradiction introduced 2 chapters later. 14:34-35. Another case for a shave from Occam's razor, to solve the contradiction at a stroke, rather than doing exegetical somersaults in an effort to maintain Biblical infallibility.
Alright, but there are other options.
Of course you can "solve the contradiction at a stroke" by "rightly dividing" the word between what's "authentic" and what's "interpolation", but this is exactly what dispensationalism seeks to do. It might make sense of some difficult passages, but in my view it's too easy to get carried away and make the system more important than the text.
Some of us just prefer to live with the contradictions.
I'm not one to favour infallibility whether claimed by Popes, Apostles, Biblical inerrantists or any other whacky bakky religionists.
OK, but my reading of you is that you ascribe more authority to what you think Paul said than to what any interpolators said. I sort of get that logic, except that I'm curious (still) as to what grounds you base that apostolic claim to authority on given your approach to Scripture.
[BroJames] When you come together it is not for the better but for the worse” and when he goes on to say “in the first place” it is not the beginning of a list. The Greek word here translated first can also mean chiefly or most importantly. So Paul gets the most important issue out of the way, and then concludes by saying he’ll deal with the other things when he sees the Corinthians.
Except Paul does notget the most important issue out of the way. He rambles on about heads, hair, angels being, (shocked, upset, scandalised, angry, lustful . . . . [actually we have no idea why the angels are involved], because the writer does not tell us, he just says "Because of the angels", whatever he might have meant by that.
The "most important issue" is obviously their conduct at The Lord's Supper and the proof of that is the fact that Paul underlines the fact that for this 'He will not commend them'. And then the closed the subject saying he'll deal with it when he visits in person.
So why is all the 'angels and head covering' bunk dealt with first, as if it is 'more important'. Simple answer: It was probably never there in the first place because Paul probably never dictated it to his scribe, in the first place
We can agree to differ. As I've argued earlier, I think the issues are examples of various pastoral problems. And we don't have the preliminary correspondence to inform us about which of these the Corinthian elders addressed first, or which was most important to them, pastorally. So there might be a variety of reasons why Paul addressed issues in the order in which he did. Maybe they were that way round in the correspondence from Corinth? Maybe Paul decided to get the lesser issue out of the way first? That's not an unknown approach.
We can't know any of these things for sure, and we've got what we've got! I think your argument about the order of the text has a point, but it is not for me conclusive. It is not the only argument you advance in favour of some form of interpolation, of course. And I have read you carefully. But hold to the unity of the text, as the great majority of scholars argue. Which I realise doesn't bother either of us all that much!
Eutychus] OK, but my reading of you is that you ascribe more authority to what you think Paul said than to what any interpolators said. I sort of get that logic, except that I'm curious (still) as to what grounds you base that apostolic claim to authority on given your approach to Scripture.
The apostles had certain special qualifications. They were directly called by Christ, Gal.1:1, saw Christ after the resurrection, 1 Cor. 9:1, were conscious of being inspired, 1 Cor.2:13, performed miracles, 2 Cor.12:12, and were richly blessed in their labours, 1 Cor.9:1.
I would be more inclined, as a believer, to consider their advice more weighty than some local scribe with a bee in his bonnet about women wearing hats in church or else shaving all their hair off like a Corinthian prostitute. (and are we really sure they did that? Sounds singularly unattractive to me. I'd keep my money in my wallet if approached by a bald headed sex worker.) But that's all a matter of taste I suppose.
____________________________________
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.
[Barnabus62] And I have read you carefully. But hold to the unity of the text, as the great majority of scholars argue. Which I realise doesn't bother either of us all that much!
I concur. My interest is merely out of curiosity. Curious texts excite my interest, especially ones that seem to be contradictory.
There is one more thing though that makes me suspicious of 11:3-16. That is the fact that Paul, (and at this point I'm pretty sure it actually is Paul), gives as his reason for writing the following sentences, that Chloe's people had 'informedhim'.
"For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it," 1 Cor. 11:18.
"For it has been reported to me by Chlo′e's people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren". 1 Cor.1:11.
I think it may have been a deputation from Chloe to Paul that had alerted him to the situation in Corinth. Chloe's people may have been either male of female, but probably members of a house church headed by Chloe and held in some considerable respect by Paul. We know nothing about Chloe, but obviously Paul trusted her and her followers judgment so highly that he sat down and dictated the greater part, (or as you would have it), the whole of 1 Corinthians, addressing the very issues that Chloe's people had reported to him. I think Chloe's people met Paul in person and Paul therefore got a comprehensive breakdown of just what was going on at Corinth, and he was not well pleased with the treatment Chloe and her people were getting from the church.
The possible interpolations at 11:3-16 and 14:34-35 could perhaps be evidence of the very same attitudes that Paul was concerned about. If so it is doubly ironic that some churches slavishly still try to enforce the same conduct on women in the assembly, thinking they are following Paul's instructions.
____________________________________
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.
The apostles had certain special qualifications. They were directly called by Christ, Gal.1:1, saw Christ after the resurrection, 1 Cor. 9:1, were conscious of being inspired, 1 Cor.2:13, performed miracles, 2 Cor.12:12, and were richly blessed in their labours, 1 Cor.9:1.
OK. But to me there's a certain irony in you citing a list of Bible references as authoritative in this respect as though nobody was in danger of coming along and questioning the reliability of the text at those points.
Not to mention the fact that this list of special qualifications is drawn up by none other than Paul* himself, hardly a disinterested party... what makes these qualifications authoritative to your mind?
==
*Well, assuming it was Paul, of course, and not some cleverer-than-average interloper inserting suitable qualifications after the fact to legitimise his particular Pauline branch of the early church...
[Eutychus] OK. But to me there's a certain irony in you citing a list of Bible references as authoritative in this respect as though nobody was in danger of coming along and questioning the reliability of the text at those points.
Anyone who wants to is free to do so as far as I'm concerned.
The authenticity of Galatians was unhesitatingly accepted in ancient times, and is not seriously questioned today.
1 Cor.9:1 "Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord? If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord."
Paul is clearly claiming the right to Apostleship, but only because the Corinthian church seemed to doubt his authority, probably indicative of their arrogance, cliqueyness, and highbrow, know it all, attitude.
"Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit."
No reason to question the authenticity of this either, quite straightforward and understandable considering the kind of church Paul was writing to. Would you care to take Paul to task about it? Probably not.
"For I was not at all inferior to these superlative apostles, even though I am nothing. The signs of a true apostle were performed among you in all patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works. For in what were you less favoured than the rest of the churches, except that I myself did not burden you? Forgive me this wrong!"
Obviously the self inflated, 'know it all', 'apostles' at Corinth had got right up Paul's nose, and no mistake. (We may well be in the 'Letter that made them weep for a season' here, some clever scribe shunting it all into the back of 2 Cor. in the hope that it might all get forgotten eventually.) Paul must have demonstrated his credentials as an Apostle, with signs and wonders and mighty works, otherwise he would forever have been a laughing stock. As it is here, he rounds off the rebuke with a delicious slice of heavy sarcasm. "Forgive me this wrong!" Very authentic indeed.
I don't see any reason the question the authenticity of any of these texts. Conversely I see half a dozen good reasons to question 1 Cor.11:3-16 and 14:34-35, and I would go as far as to say that those who see no reason whatever to question them are just more concerned about their scholarly reputations than to risk being academically 'put out into utter darkness, where is wailing and gnashing of teeth', than they are to properly examine the evidence. You don't sell many books on interpolations to fundamentalist bible inerrantists, and they form a large lucrative market here and in the USA especially.
I however have no scholarly reputation, or am worried about book sales, so I just don't care. I'm free to speculate to my hearts content.
Not to mention the fact that this list of special qualifications is drawn up by none other than Paul himself, hardly a disinterested party... what makes these qualifications authoritative to your mind?
Mostly the fact that he was struggling with a bunch of 'know it all', shepherd trampling, greedy , ("look at wonderful me"), sheep, Paul being as tactful and compassionate as possible, but being dismissed and ignored by snooty academics and misogynistic male supremacists alike. The First? Corinthian Church letter teaches us the valuable lesson that, churches can sometimes contain some very unpleasant power freak people, and it is imperative to prevent them, if possible, from gaining positions of leadership. A lesson that is as relevant today as it ever was.
____________________________________
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.
Except Paul does notget the most important issue out of the way. He rambles on about heads, hair, angels being, (shocked, upset, scandalised, angry, lustful . . . . [actually we have no idea why the angels are involved], because the writer does not tell us, he just says "Because of the angels", whatever he might have meant by that.
The "most important issue" is obviously their conduct at The Lord's Supper and the proof of that is the fact that Paul underlines the fact that for this 'He will not commend them'. And then the closed the subject saying he'll deal with it when he visits in person.
Just to get it out of the way, I am amused that this "most important issue" waited until Chapter 11 to come up....
But more seriously, within my limited skills in this area, the flow of the passage makes a little more sense than you have suggested.
I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you...
Okay, we know that isn't completely true because they are not maintaining the tradition of the Lord's Supper as Paul delivered it to them. But let that incongruity pass. He says, "well done, you have remembered my teachings and maintained the traditions." I would suggest that the next bit about hair and head-covering is not to be read as a rebuke so much as a gloss by Paul: "Here is something I did not tell you but I want you to understand..." Then, after adding to his new instructions, he gets to: "And now the part I do not commend you for: you are doing these things wrong. First, you have divisions. Second, you are doing the Lord's Supper wrong. This is the explanation of "in the first place." It is the first point of the things that they are doing different from how they were instructed. If you read the head covering bit as a new instruction--not a rebuke for going against an old instructions--it follows reasonably well. Not perfectly, of course, but Paul is not perfect.
[Hedgehog] Just to get it out of the way, I am amused that this "most important issue" waited until Chapter 11 to come up....
I meant 'important' with relation to the "I commend you blahdy blah. . .I don't commend you on the following . . blahdy blah. In previous chapters Paul dealt with some difficult issues sequentially, such as: divisions in the church, moral disorders, marriage questions, social questions, circumcision (whether essential or not), dietary regulations, (mandatory or not), etc. Most, though potentially controversial, not necessarily subjects for a right ticking off.
My guess is that Paul was putting it off until he had won them over a bit, before 'putting them on the carpet', over their disgraceful behaviour at Communion. This seems to have been one of the issues previously reported to Paul, which he refused to commend them about.
Its just odd that the hair, angels, head covering, baldness stuff comes first before the 'firstly' about your behaviour at The Lord's Supper . . .etc. Especially if you take out 11:3-16, what is left then makes perfect sense, just as if nothing at all has been removed. Even the "For this I don't commend you" and the first of all' comes in exactly the right place, and the whole thing is rounded off by a repetition of "Shall I commend you? No I certainly shall not"
Okay, we know that isn't completely true because they are not maintaining the tradition of the Lord's Supper as Paul delivered it to them. But let that incongruity pass.
That 'incongruity' completely vanishes when 11:3-16 is removed, from where it was probably stuffed into the middle of the sentence.
You get: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you, but in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; {then all the rebuke about Communion conduct} then "Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not."
Now, I have no inerrancy or infallibility of scripture agenda driving my choices here, so I would choose to think all the angels, heads, and baldness stuff just should never have been there, because taking it out makes perfect sense and the sentence it was poked into makes a lot more sense as well.
I may be wrong, and there are many in here who will confirm that they think I am, but I maintain that when scripture 'makes sense' it is more likely to be of relevance to us, than when it is ambiguous, opaque and insufficiently explained. 11:3-16 meets all three of those obscurantistic criteria. So I choose to ignore 11:3-16 and 14:34-35, as Apostolic rules of life, and concentrate on the scripture that most people can understand.
____________________________________
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.
I maintain that when scripture 'makes sense' it is more likely to be of relevance to us, than when it is ambiguous, opaque and insufficiently explained. 11:3-16 meets all three of those obscurantistic criteria. So I choose to ignore 11:3-16 and 14:34-35, as Apostolic rules of life, and concentrate on the scripture that most people can understand.
None of which requires the additional complication of scribal interpolation to make perfect sense.
While I have no opinion on whether the 1 Corinthians 11 passage is an interpolation, I understand that the theory that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is an interpolation is held by a large number of scholars. In favour of the theory is the fact that in 'Other ancient authorities' as the NRSV puts it, the passage occurs after 1 Corinthians 14:40. That suggests that at one point the 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 passage was a marginal note that was then incorporated into the main text in two different places when it was copied. If a marginal note, then presumably not part of the text as Paul dictated it.
I've heard that too. I think Gordon Fee, a major Pentecostal scholar, espouses it, which came as quite a surprise to me reading his commentary.
I'm not saying the text as we have it is wholly devoid of mix-ups any more than I'm denying the presence of the "telescoping of prophecy" in some passages.
What I am contesting is that textual interference should be the default option for explaining difficult passages, any more than assigning two halves of a verse to completely different eschatological ages, as dispensationalism often does, should be.
[Eutychus] What I am contesting is that textual interference should be the default option for explaining difficult passages, any more than assigning two halves of a verse to completely different eschatological ages, as dispensationalism often does, should be.
So, would you say that the above criteria are perhaps influencing the objectivity with which you approach the available evidence? Admittedly the evidence is largely circumstantial but it is true that:
1. There were serious problems at Corinth.
2. Corinthian scribes doctored Paul's documents.
3. The possible insertion points are easily ascertained.
4. The inserted text at 11:3-16 is difficult to explain or contextualize.
5. 14:34-35 appears in several different places in several different manuscripts, as if different scribes were puzzled as to where it should go.
6. There is a puzzling contradiction with 11:3-16 introduced at 14:35-36.
7. Paul had considerable opposition in the Corinthian church.
8. Paul's opinions on the status of women in the Pauline corpus seem either confused, ambiguous or he is somehow being misrepresented by 11:3-16 and 14:34-35.
9. No where else in the Pauline corpus does Paul try to enforce 'tradition' by quoting of 'law'.
10. Whatever 'law' is referred to in 14:36, it is not either Mosaic law, nor Levitical law, and Paul does not elsewhere impose local custom on Christian believers to regulate conduct. It is always an appeal to the 'Law of Christ' or 'Life of The Spirit'.
I can't see that adopting a skeptical stance on the issue of whether 11:3-16 and 14:34-35 are scribal interpolations would detrimentally affect any of what you feel about the dodgy methodology associated with dispensationalism. That seems to me to be a completely unrelated issue.
I prefer to just deal with the issues surrounding these two texts, without considering at all how the principle of possible scribal insertions might affect a preferred hermeneutic.
____________________________________
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.
8. Paul's opinions on the status of women in the Pauline corpus seem either confused, ambiguous or he is somehow being misrepresented by 11:3-16 and 14:34-35.
I'll just take this one.
I think it's more straightforward to assume that Paul can be confused or ambiguous than to assume deliberate misrepresentation.
I'm not saying there are no scribal interpolations, but if this becomes one's default way of understanding Paul, it seems to easy to produce the text one wants to engage with rather than the text one actually has - which is exactly what dispensationalism does in my view.
I'm also still puzzled by the way in which you seem to rule out any possibility of Paul being confused or ambiguous, as if he were writing ex cathedra, albeit unawares. I'm not disputing his apostolic qualifications, but I'm having trouble understanding why you seem to assume his opinion should attain unprecedented levels of clarity and unambiguity compared to everyone else's.
(ETA to put it another way: I may be wrong, but it seems to me that you assume anything that appears to you as the least bit confused or ambiguous simply cannot, by virtue of it being confused or ambiguous, come from Paul's hand).
It seems to me you can see Paul in Romans building and refining his ideas as previously expressed in Galatians.
And in Romans 8-11 I see him struggling with an absolutely fundemental problem that arises out of his thinking - if the New Covenant is the real deal, where does this leave God's promises to Israel? - without really hammering out a definitive answer. His conclusion at the end of Romans 11 may be a nice doxology but it's hardly a clear unambiguous answer to this problem, is it? To me it reads more like "I give up".
Paul was a work in progress like the rest of us and there is evidence of that in the letters.
Recognising that we might be straying into DH territory here, it is quite interesting to reflect that the high point re women in the church is to be found in a very early letter - Galatians - and the more qualified and controlling thoughts are associated with letters generally reckoned to be later. Maybe Paul's experience with the dispersed communities taught him that this was a very radical and disturbing view and there was a need for some pastoral compromise? The textual evidence re those 1 Cor 14 verses suggests that there was some controversy in play.
At any rate, there is at least an open question in play now.
Jerome Murphy O'Connor maintained that there were originally four Epistles to the Corinthians which ended up as two in canonical scripture. Whether he was right is a riddle for the ages, but I'm guessing that people in Corinth didn't get the message from the courier and say "OK, Lads, this is canonical scripture, let's put in the special file until we get the definitive version and we can write it up in codexes". I'm guessing it might have been more - "we need to get the teaching of the Apostles written down in a definitive version. What have we got?"
On the other hand, it might have been the case that the letter was written as a unity and St. Paul saw the stuff about hair covering as every bit as basic to his mission than the other stuff. Pre-modern people are not like us. When people have a go at the JEDP, thesis for the Pentateuch, they normally mention that the dichotomy between spirituality and The Law, made sense to the liberal protestants who invented it, but might not have seemed quite so obvious to the people who were the actual recipients of the Pentateuch. It may be incongruous to us, but not so much to St. Paul or the people he was writing to.
[RdrEmCofE] 8. Paul's opinions on the status of women in the Pauline corpus seem either confused, ambiguous or he is somehow being misrepresented by 11:3-16 and 14:34-35.
[Eutychus] I think it's more straightforward to assume that Paul can be confused or ambiguous than to assume deliberate misrepresentation.
Not in this case, with all the other circumstantial evidence. If it was just the text, then yes, Paul could be 'confused or ambiguous', but then you have to cite the other occasions when Paul is 'confused or ambiguous' to build a case against him for 'confused and ambiguous' statements. Can we do that?
I'm not saying there are no scribal interpolations, but if this becomes one's default way of understanding Paul, it seems to easy to produce the text one wants to engage with rather than the text one actually has - which is exactly what dispensationalism does in my view.
I'm not saying this case is anything other than unique, unless we include 14:34-35 as being perhaps from the same hand as 11:3-16. There are actually very few scribal interpolations anything like these two. These, if they are interpolations, seem deliberate. They would form a special case, not a 'default way of understanding Paul' or even 'a default way' of explaining and identifying interpolations, or oddities in the text.
Both these passages exhibit strikingly similar characteristics:
1. They both appear to have been inserted into sentences, or at least in between sentences, which when the material is removed, leave the remaining sentences perfectly comprehensible. (This perhaps betrays a modus operandi of one individual, of a first copy of an original document. there being no examples of 1 Cor. with either of these passages missing).
2. They both introduce material specifically seeking to regulate the position and behaviour of women.
3. Neither of them can easily be excused as 'mistakes', 'transpositions', 'repetitions' or other accidental scribal errors.
4. They both contain some phraseology or arguments found nowhere else in the Pauline corpus.
I'm also still puzzled by the way in which you seem to rule out any possibility of Paul being confused or ambiguous, as if he were writing ex cathedra, albeit unawares. I'm not disputing his apostolic qualifications, but I'm having trouble understanding why you seem to assume his opinion should attain unprecedented levels of clarity and unambiguity compared to everyone else's.
Simply put, I don't rule out the possibility. Some of Paul's chains of thought are difficult to follow. It is a characteristic of his style, and perhaps the result of being dictated and Paul often having to wait for his scribe to catch up with him. Nevertheless, the digression at 11:3-16 is unusually extensive and opaque compared to most of Paul's other 'digressions'.
(ETA to put it another way: I may be wrong, but it seems to me that you assume anything that appears to you as the least bit confused or ambiguous simply cannot, by virtue of it being confused or ambiguous, come from Paul's hand).
Not at all, though I do see 11:3-16 as being unusually un-Paul like, by comparison to:
Phil. 4:3,
Eph.5:22,24-25,28.
Col.3:18-19.
Add to that the fact that the following 6 terms appear absolutely nowhere else anywhere in Paul's writings.
And interestingly the word σιγάω sigaō : (Keep Silent) appears only in 1 Cor. 14. Twice applied to prophets generally regardless of gender, (14:28, 30, probably genuine Paul), and then, perhaps additionally, once specifically and exclusively aimed at women, (14:34, in contradiction to 11:5 and 11:13), nowhere else in any of Paul's other letters to his churches.
All this, in itself does not prove the case for interpolation, but it certainly adds credence to the possibility that a Corinthian scribe might have taken opportunity to 'go one step better than Paul' in imposing order and restoring classic Jewish male decorum, in a church situation he had considered had 'gone to the dogs'.
It seems to me you can see Paul in Romans building and refining his ideas as previously expressed in Galatians.
And in Romans 8-11 I see him struggling with an absolutely fundamental problem that arises out of his thinking - if the New Covenant is the real deal, where does this leave God's promises to Israel? - without really hammering out a definitive answer. His conclusion at the end of Romans 11 may be a nice doxology but it's hardly a clear unambiguous answer to this problem, is it? To me it reads more like "I give up".
Pretty clear to me, I'd have to say, and pretty unambiguous. There is only one church throughout history and all who enter it enter according to God's Grace and through 'faith'. Gentiles are 'grafted' onto the rootstock of Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac, through whom The Everlasting Covenant is established.
if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity: Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land. Lev.26:40-42.
God said, "No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasing covenant for his descendants after him. Gen.17:19.
Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many; but, referring to one, "And to your offspring," which is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came four hundred and thirty years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance is by the law, it is no longer by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. Gal.3:16-18.
But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. 2 Cor.14.
But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. Heb.8:6.
And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children after them: And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me. Jer.32:39-40.
All this is hinted at by Paul in Ch.11 Rom. The Israelite Nation, (Including Judah and Levi), are still the apple of God's eye.
For Israel was God's own personal possession!
God protected them in the howling wilderness
As though they were the apple of his eye. Deu. 32:9b-10.
____________________________________
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.
I'm not saying this case is anything other than unique, unless we include 14:34-35 as being perhaps from the same hand as 11:3-16. There are actually very few scribal interpolations anything like these two. These, if they are interpolations, seem deliberate.
While I am sympathetic to the case for Chapter 11 being an insertion, and I think the case for Chapter 14 is largely made, I think the evidence you cite tells against them being by the same hand. As you point out, the Chapter 11 passage contradicts the Chapter 14 passage (Chapter 11 allows women to prophesy if they have head-coverings, Chapter 14 doesn't allow them to speak at all). Also, the main evidence for Chapter 14 being an interpolation, namely that it occurs in different places in different traditions, tells against it being deliberate: if it were deliberate it would have been inserted into a definite place in all the copies.
[Dafyd] Also, the main evidence for Chapter 14 being an interpolation, namely that it occurs in different places in different traditions, tells against it being deliberate: if it were deliberate it would have been inserted into a definite place in all the copies.
Possibly, but not necessarily. It is thought that various different scribes at different times puzzled over where it should actually go. Partly because the gap between 14:33 and 14:36 makes more sense if 34 and 35 are left out, and partly because they noticed the contradiction, so decided to poke it at the end of Ch.14 as a kind of marginal, or even thinking it to be a 'marginal note' that had somehow found its way into the text. The fact is that it slots in between 33 and 36 and seems to make sense, until you take it out. Then the remaining text just says:
For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached? If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord.
So the teaching from Paul is just about orderly oratory, speaking in turn and not monopolizing the meetings.
It becomes suspect, according to my suspicious mind, because it supports the very same issue as 11:3-16. i.e. subjugation of Corinthian women.
I'm sure there was a pastoral issue here. The real danger is extrapolation. Taking the comments out of their time and place as part of an ongoing argument about behaviour.
What it meant then (whoever meant it then) is less important than its current applicability.
(Which may of course bring a second Dead Horse, of inerrancy, into view! )
I'm sure there was a pastoral issue here. The real danger is extrapolation. Taking the comments out of their time and place as part of an ongoing argument about behaviour.
What it meant then (whoever meant it then) is less important than its current applicability.
(Which may of course bring a second Dead Horse, of inerrancy, into view! )
A direction forbidding the dragging of putrefying equine corpses from the depths should not preclude any mention at all of their demise and its relevance to certain aspects of a current thread, I think.
That being said however, the passages in question are probably agreed by most commentators to be uniquely relevant to the Corinthian church at a particular historical period and have far less contextual relevance to today's church. Only the most fearful of any possible precedent warranting close examination of assumed Biblical inerrancy and infallibility, would insist upon complete silence of every woman in every prayer meeting or worship service in the churches today. Also I rather doubt that any woman today faces the kind of misogyny in the western world that was rife in the Roman Empire and Greek and Jewish society.
On a slightly different tack though, I have found an interesting passage in The Apocrapha which just might add another explanation to the many exegetical explanations of 'Because of the Angels':
It is not at all unlikely that a Corinthian scribe may have had this passage of scripture in mind when he was thinking about the Corinthian women and their conduct. There are some parallels between the thrust of 1 Cor.11:3-16 and the following Apocryphal 2 Esdras. At Corinth, at the time 1 Cor. was written, there was an imminent expectation of the parousia or return of Christ.
Just as a respectable and virtuous woman abhors a harlot, so righteousness shall abhor iniquity, when she decks herself out, and shall accuse her to her face, when he comes who will defend him who searches out every sin on earth. Therefore do not be like her or her works. For behold, just a little while, and iniquity will be removed from the earth, and righteousness will reign over us. Let no sinner say that he has not sinned; for God will burn coals of fire on the head of him who says, "I have not sinned before God and his glory." . . . . Woe to those who sin and want to hide their sins! Because the Lord will strictly examine all their works, and will make a public spectacle of all of you. And when your sins come out before men, you shall be put to shame; and your own iniquities shall stand as your accusers in that day. What will you do? Or how will you hide your sins before God and his angels? 2 Esd.16:49-53 . . . 63b-66.
Themes such as 'respectability', 'virtue', 'harlotry', 'shame', 'being observed by God and angels'.
If this passage has any connection with 1 Cor.11:6-10, it only my own theory, but I think a Corinthian Jewish Christian, in a largely Pagan church, with unusually emancipated women believers in it, all expecting an immanent return of Christ, might well have penned 11:3-16, and incidentally held similar beliefs to this as well:
Better is the wickedness of a man than a woman who does good;
and it is a woman who brings shame and disgrace. Sirach 42:14.
Definitely not Pauline opinion, after his Damascas road conversion. Perhaps Paul held similar Pharisaical beliefs about women before his conversion, but he was not writing to churches then, he was persecuting them.
It is quite possible though that a Jewish Christian scribe in Corinth might have held such views. They were common views among many Jews then.
The disgrace theme appears here in Sirach 42:14 and in 1 Cor. 11:6 and 14. (αἰσχρόν aischron) and (ἀτιμία atimia): shame and disgrace, which seem to loom large in the mind of the author of 11:3-16, whoever he was, (and I think we must conclude, he was definitely a man).
____________________________________
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.
Yes, the issue is of historical interest, which is fine to pursue. Paul was both a visionary and a man of his time. Plus a jew. Plus a Roman citizen. Should think he wrestled quite a lot with various cognitive dissonances!
But the mixed views on women? Current relevance? My personal view is that I'm glad Gal 3:28-9 has the high ground. And I don't buy into gender related roles. Talent, gifting and character should be the touchstones for assessing callings. That's my conclusion, weighing scripture, reason, tradition and experience.
RdrEmCofE "And [Martin54] It is not I who needs a shave. This passage of Jewish scribal goblydy gook 11:3-16 is a prime hairy candidate for Occam's famous razor, if ever I saw such a dishevelled and straggly full set of nonsense." that's Paul for you.
I accept that the recipients of the letter(s) and more likely their agendist successors had motive for patriarchal editing, but Paul was struggling to transcend Jewish patriarchy. If it was a struggle for Jesus how much more for His only human followers? Was the East wilder and woollier than the West? The West would have been sorely tempted to mess with the epistle to the Romans say with 'Pete says Hi!', but they daren't. It wouldn't have actually entered their minds even with an 'If only...'. Why would Eastern prelates conspire against the Holy Spirit with cut and paste or even inserts and why would He let them? Both sides were more than capable of making sh..tuff up. But perverting sacred texts, even before they were sanctified?
I accept that the recipients of the letter(s) and more likely their agendist successors had motive for patriarchal editing, but Paul was struggling to transcend Jewish patriarchy.
Which it seems he was doing fairly successfully, with the help of The Holy Spirit and some 3 years of intensive study in the scriptures, (and a visit to heaven in the spirit, if that was a personal trstimony of his), before he wrote 1 Cor. which he wrote between Autumn AD 52 and spring 55, from Ephesus. Galatians could not have been written earlier than 14 years after Paul's Damascus Rd. experience, and possibly more than 17 years after it. Galatians was written sometime between AD 49 and 53. So Paul's theology at the time of writing Galatians was already well formed and was probably still much the same as it was when he wrote 1 Corinthians.
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. Gal.3:27-29.
If it was a struggle for Jesus how much more for His only human followers? Was the East wilder and woollier than the West? The West would have been sorely tempted to mess with the epistle to the Romans say with 'Pete says Hi!', but they daren't. It wouldn't have actually entered their minds even with an 'If only...'.
Why? I ask why should someone want to 'doctor the Romans document'? Were there serious social problems at Rome that Paul needed to deal with? No! But there were at Corinth, and we know that the Corinthian church repudiated Paul and disdained his credentials as an Apostle. Not so with the Roman Church, which Paul had not founded anyway. They had no argument with Paul, they had no gross misconduct to hide, they had no motive to doctor documents or to subvert Paul's doctrines. Conversely the Corinthian church had many motives known to us that might have caused a Corinthian scribe to doctor the document from Paul, from when it first arrived at Corinth.
Why would Eastern prelates conspire against the Holy Spirit with cut and paste or even inserts and why would He let them? Both sides were more than capable of making sh..tuff up. But perverting sacred texts, even before they were sanctified?
Corinthian prelates were the very people who most vehemently opposed Pauls doctrine and repudiated him. They had many things to hide, besides incest and greed, selfishness and attitudes stemming from an arrogant Helenistic culture, (pneumaticos : spirit) is used 14 times in 1 Cor. alone, over against only 4 times in the rest of the letters commonly agreed to be Pauline. Paul was much less than pleased with the conduct and spiritual character of The Corinthian church. It was basically 'Proto Gnostic' and quite distanced from Paul's own spirituality.
And, as far as they were concerned they weren't perverting sacred texts. They were just editing a letter from someone they detested because:
(1) they wanted to hide their own shame and disgrace and
(2) They wanted to consolidate their pernicious misogyny which they mistakenly considered superlatively spiritual by comparison to Paul's simple message of 'neither slave nor free, male nor female, all one in Christ'. and
(3) What would the Holy Spirit do to stop them? Strike them dead? Set their quills on fire? Make their ink transparent?
And for what crime? Doctoring an embarrassing series of letters, from someone they had no respect for, which would not become Holy scripture until another 300 years in the future, which, of course, they had no possible way of knowing at the time?
____________________________________
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.
Comments
1 Tim. 2* is considerably later than 1 Cor. We should not overlook the possibility that 1 Cor. was known to the author of 1 Tim. 2*. If it was Paul, then he definitely would have remembered, which would explain the similarities, but if not then one has to face the fact that the Pastorals are more troublesome regards authenticity than any other NT documents. If someone was trying to copy Paul's style and content, then obviously he would include what he thought to be 'original Paul'.
There are all sorts of reasons to question whether 1 Tim. was actually written by Paul. Many more reasons than to question most of 1 Cor. It certainly claims itself to have been written by Paul, but so then were many other letters which never actually got into the cannon of scripture.
The Gospel of Peter and the attribution to Paul of the Epistle to the Laodiceans are both examples of pseudepigrapha that were not included in the New Testament canon.[12] They are often referred to as New Testament apocrypha. Wikipedia
No doubt there were others which we never got to hear about. pseudepigraphy was fairly common before 300AD. Hence the decision to close the cannon on what was then considered authentic.
Thank you for that comprehensive reply. We agree on a lot of things, apparently. You are right that none of my arguments disprove scribal intervention. So I guess I'm applying Occam's razor for now. YMMV!
I'm not looking to solve anyone else's problems and have none of my own with it. I'm just exploring the possibility of it having happened, in the interests of revealing another alternative possible reason for it being there, other than Paul must have written it so it must make sense so here is what we experts think it must mean'.
The fundy creationist commentators then launch into ever more gymnastic hyperbole and esoteric explanations of hierarchy, authority, female subservience, angelic uptightness about women with their heads uncovered, glorious hairstyles, shameful baldness, and crew cuts for men etc. as if it actually makes sense in today's world and is binding upon Christians of every generation.
Yet no mention whatever is made of the fact that the whole passage appears to have been stuffed right into the middle of a single, perfectly understandable, straight forward simple sentence.
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you, {Inserted Text} but in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; {What Pauls finds wrong with them followed by:-} What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.
The phrase "for in the first place" should alert us to the fact that all that headship, haircuts and veils stuff shouldn't have been there, because that then makes it 'the first place issue' that Paul would be writing about, (if it were actually Paul), and the Communion bad behaviour would then have been pushed back into being the 'second place issue', surely?
Which do we think was more important to Paul as an 'in the first place' issue? Women's hairstyles and head coverings or Greed, Arrogance and Selfishness at The Lord's Supper?
_________________________________________
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.
I'm still intrigued by your apparent insistence on the idea that in order to be less authoritative, the excurcus needs to have been written by a non-apostolic hand.
Well, yes and no really. 'Apostolic Authority' would clearly trump 'just being in the cannon' for me, on the grounds that those who decided the cannon were sincere human beings but not Apostles. They were not infallible and they did not have all of the hermeneutic and textual analysis tools we have today. Their criteria were more along the lines of:
1. Is it widely accepted as authentic by the wide community of the church.
2. Are there any major objections to it in any quarter of the church.
3. Does it contain any doctrine that contradicts any other already canonically accepted documents.
4. Does it have a respectable pedigree, a plausible source and enough manuscripts to make comparisons.
I don't think they were very interested in textual analysis or fine nuances of writing style.
That having been said though, I think the process of deciding the cannon was fairly objective and responsibly carried out by sincere spirituals.
I therefore accept everything in the cannon as being 'inspired', just not all 'useful' in the same way. I regard 1 Cor. 11:3-16 and 14:34-35 'useful' for teaching discernment and demonstrating the need for 'right judgment' when comparing scripture with scripture.
As Paul himself said. (or did he?), "Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine". NRSV.
(That is so 'Paul' that I really think Paul did)!
This reads (to me at least) as though you think the apostles were more than human and less fallible.
Which seems to me to be in danger of substituting one problem (biblical inerrancy, another Dead Horse) for another (apostolic inerrancy), on the grounds of...?
(Having finished my speech translations for World Women's Day, now I have to go and have dinner with a bunch of RC seminarians. It's been an interesting day).
Pastoral issues can by like that. The greatest noise might not be being made over the more profound matters. Think about 'to pew or not to pew' for example today. People can find lots of things to create unrest about.
Undoubtedly there was a 'logical sequence' to be teased out, but the question still remains whether it was Paul's logical sequence, or the perceived logicality in the considerably less able mind of a rather partisan and superstitious in situ, ex Jewish scribe. If it was then I don't really need to go to all the trouble of trying to decode his ramblings. If it was Paul, he really should not have started his paragraph about contempt of The Lord's Supper with the phrase 'In the first place'. He should have started it with 'secondly'.
I'm suggesting that the subject matter is less likely to be one of Paul's concerns than it might be to a Corinthian church member who is incensed at the conduct of Corinthian women. I'm not so much concerned about the degree of 'authority' it might be thought to have as scripture. We make of it what we will and I don't make much of it as far as advice for practical Christian living in the 21st century, whoever wrote it.
Here is an example of the kind of eisegetical conclusion hurdling which 1 Cor.11:3-16 can engender when all possibilities, other than that it is a command to us from the Apostle Paul are rejected.
All closely reasoned, even plausible, all concluded from just two obscure sentences, which are by no means certain to have actually come from St Paul himself.
This is 'temple cat' reasoning par excellence.
_________________________________________
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.
My experience of geniuses and great leaders is that they are just as human as the rest of us.
There's also no need to quote huge chunks of head-covering fundamentalism. I think those arguments have been well-rehearsed and well-dismissed here (well in Dead Horses).
What such views don't do in my view is make the case for excising everything in the epistles which we deem to be off-topic, intellectually inferior, or simply not our idea of what we think Paul (or Apostolic™ whoever) ought to have said.
Then the growing of hair. The condemnation of a man's having long hair may not be inconsistent with the old practice you note. Firstly, that practice was of a particular circumstance, for a man who has taken the vow of a Nazarite, not more general. Second of course is the argument that Christ did away with the old law in any event.
I replied
You responded, The Gospel of Peter does not claim to be a Pauline epistle, and the NT suggests that an epistle from Paul to the Laodiceans existed, but no copy exists which has not been thought to be a forgery since the days of the early church. There simply is no evidence for your “many other letters [claimed to have been written by Paul] which never actually got into the cannon of scripture”
On the wider point, I think you have misunderstood those parts of 1 Cor 11 which you think are not Pauline, I don’t think they mean what you are suggesting they mean. I think rightly understood, in their textual, cultural and historical context, they do not express thinking which is unworthy of Paul or contrary to his clear statement in Galatians of our equality in Christ. In my earlier post I picked out three scholars who at different times in the last thirty years have specifically sought to address that issue through an informed, close and nuanced reading of the text. I think if you look at what they say you will find that there are no grounds to excise these texts on the basis of misogyny, and that our reading of them as misogynistic is about how they have been interpreted rather than about what Paul intended. This is fortunate as there is no text critical basis for excluding these verses either.
I am disappointed that so far no one has come forward with an explanation for the fact that Paul introduces his rebuke to the Corinthian church with the words:
"And I praise you, brethren, that in all things ye remember me, and according as I did deliver to you, the deliverances ye keep, [ some extra instructions first ] and this declaring, I give no praise, because not for the better, but for the worse ye come together; for first, indeed, ye coming together in an assembly, I hear of divisions being among you,
{Then the rebuke about abusing The Lord's Supper}
{Then the historical explanation of The Lord's Supper}
{Then advice on the correct conduct and practice of The Lord's Supper}
Then a statement saying "The rest of what I was going to tell you off about can wait until I come there in person."
"and the rest, whenever I may come, I shall arrange" 1 Cor.11:34b.
So why does Paul first bang on about heads, haircuts and coverings and women keeping in their proper place, then say "for first indeed, . . . ." {then the rebuke, historical background of the Eucharist, and advice on seemly behaviour} Finally rounding off effectively saying "there is no second rebuke on this matter in this letter, it can wait until I come there in person".
Why is the "for FIRST indeed," there if it was indeed not first? It had been preceded by all the hair, heads, angels, coverings and putting women in their place, stuff.
They wouldn't be likely to be wildly out of kilter with real Paul obviously. Any interpolator would be a fool indeed if he inserted stuff which was clearly and identifiably non Pauline. In any case IF it was interpolation it would have been most likely what the interpolator would have liked Paul to say, not something he obviously knew Paul would never say in a million years.
Who is talking about 'excising' any text from 1 Cor? I'm not. I have no axe to grind about misogyny either. Paul's ideas on equality developed over time and 1 Cor. is early Paul so it is not surprising that dichotomies exist between Paul's later view on female leadership and might clash somewhat with 1 Cor. 11:3-16. However, the whole of 1 Cor. was written telling off men because their bad behaviour had been reported to Paul by the house-church members of a woman for whom Paul had respect enough to mention at 1 Cor.1:11 I bet that went down well among the male leadership team at Corinth. Paul even counts Junia, a woman, among the Apostles. Rom.16:7. Junia was a woman's name and it had no male equivalent in Rome, such as Junius.
"for it was signified to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe, that contentions are among you;" 1 Cor.1:11.
"Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me." Rom.16:7.
So Paul would hardly be seeking to silence people he had spent time in jail with, who knew Christ before he had and held positions of leadership in the church, would he.
Wait, what?
You appear to be arguing that the more Pauline a text looks, the more likely it is to be the work of a (really clever) interpolator, essentially "because you say so".
(Well, really clever except that apparently he was so bad at covering his tracks that he couldn't adjust the argument so its points were in numerical order...)
Again, this is a rabbit-hole I'm loth to go down. It creates more problems than it solves. It reminds me (again) of dispensationalism.
It's just like the argument about the Rapture in another place which, on the sole and highly dubious linguistic grounds of understanding Paul saying "now, then" in 1 Thes 5:1 to mean "this is what chronologically happens next", inserts an entirely novel doctrine of a two-stage parousia, millenium, etc.
Like your arguments here, dispensationalism seeks to "harmonise" the text: to impose order on what is deemed to be chaos. Again, I think you lose far more than anything that might be gained by such an approach.
It's hard not to get the feeling that your agenda is to get rid, at virtually any cost, of everything you would liked Paul (whose Apostolic™ status seems to raise him to inerrantist levels of infallibility in your mind) not to have said.
It is actually unhelpful (in your other post) to use Young’s Literal Translation. It is helpful to an extent in giving a Greek word order, and giving in English an indication of the meaning and grammatical form of the words, but, for example, in this section it fails to show that the word used which is translated as ‘and’ can also be translated as ‘now’ or ‘but’ according to context. Additionally, “this declaring” ignores how Greek functions, and is very poor as a translation as a result. It is clear that Paul moves on to a different train of thought “in these commands I do not commend you. When you come together it is not for the better but for the worse” and when he goes on to say “in the first place” it is not the beginning of a list. The Greek word here translated first can also mean chiefly or most importantly. So Paul gets the most important issue out of the way, and then concludes by saying he’ll deal with the other things when he sees the Corinthians.
I take Eutychus point as well, having spent a good deal of time historically talking with folks affected by dispensational views. The presuppositional argument cuts both ways. Textual criticism and form criticism work best when they work from the lines, and seek to avoid reading too much between the lines.
Paul was no robot, obviously, but he was no sloppy linguist either. He was perfectly capable of getting his sentences in order and there is no reason to assume that he was 'at fault' on this occasion, just to do straw clutching to justify the preceding sentences being from Paul. In any case the 'in the first place' phrase is not necessarily numerically speaking as [BroJames] informs us.
Except Paul does not get the most important issue out of the way. He rambles on about heads, hair, angels being, (shocked, upset, scandalised, angry, lustful . . . . [actually we have no idea why the angels are involved], because the writer does not tell us, he just says "Because of the angels", whatever he might have meant by that.
The "most important issue" is obviously their conduct at The Lord's Supper and the proof of that is the fact that Paul underlines the fact that for this 'He will not commend them'. And then the closed the subject saying he'll deal with it when he visits in person.
So why is all the 'angels and head covering' bunk dealt with first, as if it is 'more important'. Simple answer: It was probably never there in the first place because Paul probably never dictated it to his scribe, in the first place.
And [Martin54] It is not I who needs a shave. This passage of Jewish scribal goblydy gook 11:3-16 is a prime hairy candidate for Occam's famous razor, if ever I saw such a dishevelled and straggly full set of nonsense.
You need to take control of your feelings then Eutychus
What I am saying is that an interpolator would be clever enough to make his addition plausible but perhaps not clever enough to notice his own contradiction introduced 2 chapters later. 14:34-35. Another case for a shave from Occam's razor, to solve the contradiction at a stroke, rather than doing exegetical somersaults in an effort to maintain Biblical infallibility.
I'm not one to favour infallibility whether claimed by Popes, Apostles, Biblical inerrantists or any other whacky bakky religionists. I just point out the reasons why 1 Cor.11:3-16 and 1 Cor.14:34-35 are suspect. I think I have done that to my own satisfaction. I'm not really concerned overmuch if others want to think otherwise. As Paul himself says in so many words:
"You are bound to have disagreements, how else are you going to get at the truth?"
_________________________________________
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.
Of course you can "solve the contradiction at a stroke" by "rightly dividing" the word between what's "authentic" and what's "interpolation", but this is exactly what dispensationalism seeks to do. It might make sense of some difficult passages, but in my view it's too easy to get carried away and make the system more important than the text.
Some of us just prefer to live with the contradictions.
OK, but my reading of you is that you ascribe more authority to what you think Paul said than to what any interpolators said. I sort of get that logic, except that I'm curious (still) as to what grounds you base that apostolic claim to authority on given your approach to Scripture.
We can agree to differ. As I've argued earlier, I think the issues are examples of various pastoral problems. And we don't have the preliminary correspondence to inform us about which of these the Corinthian elders addressed first, or which was most important to them, pastorally. So there might be a variety of reasons why Paul addressed issues in the order in which he did. Maybe they were that way round in the correspondence from Corinth? Maybe Paul decided to get the lesser issue out of the way first? That's not an unknown approach.
We can't know any of these things for sure, and we've got what we've got! I think your argument about the order of the text has a point, but it is not for me conclusive. It is not the only argument you advance in favour of some form of interpolation, of course. And I have read you carefully. But hold to the unity of the text, as the great majority of scholars argue. Which I realise doesn't bother either of us all that much!
The apostles had certain special qualifications. They were directly called by Christ, Gal.1:1, saw Christ after the resurrection, 1 Cor. 9:1, were conscious of being inspired, 1 Cor.2:13, performed miracles, 2 Cor.12:12, and were richly blessed in their labours, 1 Cor.9:1.
I would be more inclined, as a believer, to consider their advice more weighty than some local scribe with a bee in his bonnet about women wearing hats in church or else shaving all their hair off like a Corinthian prostitute. (and are we really sure they did that? Sounds singularly unattractive to me. I'd keep my money in my wallet if approached by a bald headed sex worker.) But that's all a matter of taste I suppose.
____________________________________
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.
I concur. My interest is merely out of curiosity. Curious texts excite my interest, especially ones that seem to be contradictory.
There is one more thing though that makes me suspicious of 11:3-16. That is the fact that Paul, (and at this point I'm pretty sure it actually is Paul), gives as his reason for writing the following sentences, that Chloe's people had 'informed him'.
"For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it," 1 Cor. 11:18.
"For it has been reported to me by Chlo′e's people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren". 1 Cor.1:11.
I think it may have been a deputation from Chloe to Paul that had alerted him to the situation in Corinth. Chloe's people may have been either male of female, but probably members of a house church headed by Chloe and held in some considerable respect by Paul. We know nothing about Chloe, but obviously Paul trusted her and her followers judgment so highly that he sat down and dictated the greater part, (or as you would have it), the whole of 1 Corinthians, addressing the very issues that Chloe's people had reported to him. I think Chloe's people met Paul in person and Paul therefore got a comprehensive breakdown of just what was going on at Corinth, and he was not well pleased with the treatment Chloe and her people were getting from the church.
The possible interpolations at 11:3-16 and 14:34-35 could perhaps be evidence of the very same attitudes that Paul was concerned about. If so it is doubly ironic that some churches slavishly still try to enforce the same conduct on women in the assembly, thinking they are following Paul's instructions.
____________________________________
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.
Not to mention the fact that this list of special qualifications is drawn up by none other than Paul* himself, hardly a disinterested party... what makes these qualifications authoritative to your mind?
==
*Well, assuming it was Paul, of course, and not some cleverer-than-average interloper inserting suitable qualifications after the fact to legitimise his particular Pauline branch of the early church...
Anyone who wants to is free to do so as far as I'm concerned.
The authenticity of Galatians was unhesitatingly accepted in ancient times, and is not seriously questioned today.
1 Cor.9:1 "Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord? If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord."
Paul is clearly claiming the right to Apostleship, but only because the Corinthian church seemed to doubt his authority, probably indicative of their arrogance, cliqueyness, and highbrow, know it all, attitude.
"Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit."
No reason to question the authenticity of this either, quite straightforward and understandable considering the kind of church Paul was writing to. Would you care to take Paul to task about it? Probably not.
"For I was not at all inferior to these superlative apostles, even though I am nothing. The signs of a true apostle were performed among you in all patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works. For in what were you less favoured than the rest of the churches, except that I myself did not burden you? Forgive me this wrong!"
Obviously the self inflated, 'know it all', 'apostles' at Corinth had got right up Paul's nose, and no mistake. (We may well be in the 'Letter that made them weep for a season' here, some clever scribe shunting it all into the back of 2 Cor. in the hope that it might all get forgotten eventually.) Paul must have demonstrated his credentials as an Apostle, with signs and wonders and mighty works, otherwise he would forever have been a laughing stock. As it is here, he rounds off the rebuke with a delicious slice of heavy sarcasm. "Forgive me this wrong!" Very authentic indeed.
I don't see any reason the question the authenticity of any of these texts. Conversely I see half a dozen good reasons to question 1 Cor.11:3-16 and 14:34-35, and I would go as far as to say that those who see no reason whatever to question them are just more concerned about their scholarly reputations than to risk being academically 'put out into utter darkness, where is wailing and gnashing of teeth', than they are to properly examine the evidence. You don't sell many books on interpolations to fundamentalist bible inerrantists, and they form a large lucrative market here and in the USA especially.
I however have no scholarly reputation, or am worried about book sales, so I just don't care.
Mostly the fact that he was struggling with a bunch of 'know it all', shepherd trampling, greedy , ("look at wonderful me"), sheep, Paul being as tactful and compassionate as possible, but being dismissed and ignored by snooty academics and misogynistic male supremacists alike. The First? Corinthian Church letter teaches us the valuable lesson that, churches can sometimes contain some very unpleasant power freak people, and it is imperative to prevent them, if possible, from gaining positions of leadership. A lesson that is as relevant today as it ever was.
____________________________________
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.
I meant 'important' with relation to the "I commend you blahdy blah. . .I don't commend you on the following . . blahdy blah. In previous chapters Paul dealt with some difficult issues sequentially, such as: divisions in the church, moral disorders, marriage questions, social questions, circumcision (whether essential or not), dietary regulations, (mandatory or not), etc. Most, though potentially controversial, not necessarily subjects for a right ticking off.
My guess is that Paul was putting it off until he had won them over a bit, before 'putting them on the carpet', over their disgraceful behaviour at Communion. This seems to have been one of the issues previously reported to Paul, which he refused to commend them about.
Its just odd that the hair, angels, head covering, baldness stuff comes first before the 'firstly' about your behaviour at The Lord's Supper . . .etc. Especially if you take out 11:3-16, what is left then makes perfect sense, just as if nothing at all has been removed. Even the "For this I don't commend you" and the first of all' comes in exactly the right place, and the whole thing is rounded off by a repetition of "Shall I commend you? No I certainly shall not"
That 'incongruity' completely vanishes when 11:3-16 is removed, from where it was probably stuffed into the middle of the sentence.
You get: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you, but in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; {then all the rebuke about Communion conduct} then "Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not."
Now, I have no inerrancy or infallibility of scripture agenda driving my choices here, so I would choose to think all the angels, heads, and baldness stuff just should never have been there, because taking it out makes perfect sense and the sentence it was poked into makes a lot more sense as well.
I may be wrong, and there are many in here who will confirm that they think I am, but I maintain that when scripture 'makes sense' it is more likely to be of relevance to us, than when it is ambiguous, opaque and insufficiently explained. 11:3-16 meets all three of those obscurantistic criteria. So I choose to ignore 11:3-16 and 14:34-35, as Apostolic rules of life, and concentrate on the scripture that most people can understand.
____________________________________
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.
I'm not saying the text as we have it is wholly devoid of mix-ups any more than I'm denying the presence of the "telescoping of prophecy" in some passages.
What I am contesting is that textual interference should be the default option for explaining difficult passages, any more than assigning two halves of a verse to completely different eschatological ages, as dispensationalism often does, should be.
So, would you say that the above criteria are perhaps influencing the objectivity with which you approach the available evidence? Admittedly the evidence is largely circumstantial but it is true that:
1. There were serious problems at Corinth.
2. Corinthian scribes doctored Paul's documents.
3. The possible insertion points are easily ascertained.
4. The inserted text at 11:3-16 is difficult to explain or contextualize.
5. 14:34-35 appears in several different places in several different manuscripts, as if different scribes were puzzled as to where it should go.
6. There is a puzzling contradiction with 11:3-16 introduced at 14:35-36.
7. Paul had considerable opposition in the Corinthian church.
8. Paul's opinions on the status of women in the Pauline corpus seem either confused, ambiguous or he is somehow being misrepresented by 11:3-16 and 14:34-35.
9. No where else in the Pauline corpus does Paul try to enforce 'tradition' by quoting of 'law'.
10. Whatever 'law' is referred to in 14:36, it is not either Mosaic law, nor Levitical law, and Paul does not elsewhere impose local custom on Christian believers to regulate conduct. It is always an appeal to the 'Law of Christ' or 'Life of The Spirit'.
I can't see that adopting a skeptical stance on the issue of whether 11:3-16 and 14:34-35 are scribal interpolations would detrimentally affect any of what you feel about the dodgy methodology associated with dispensationalism. That seems to me to be a completely unrelated issue.
I prefer to just deal with the issues surrounding these two texts, without considering at all how the principle of possible scribal insertions might affect a preferred hermeneutic.
____________________________________
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.
I'll just take this one.
I think it's more straightforward to assume that Paul can be confused or ambiguous than to assume deliberate misrepresentation.
I'm not saying there are no scribal interpolations, but if this becomes one's default way of understanding Paul, it seems to easy to produce the text one wants to engage with rather than the text one actually has - which is exactly what dispensationalism does in my view.
I'm also still puzzled by the way in which you seem to rule out any possibility of Paul being confused or ambiguous, as if he were writing ex cathedra, albeit unawares. I'm not disputing his apostolic qualifications, but I'm having trouble understanding why you seem to assume his opinion should attain unprecedented levels of clarity and unambiguity compared to everyone else's.
(ETA to put it another way: I may be wrong, but it seems to me that you assume anything that appears to you as the least bit confused or ambiguous simply cannot, by virtue of it being confused or ambiguous, come from Paul's hand).
It seems to me you can see Paul in Romans building and refining his ideas as previously expressed in Galatians.
And in Romans 8-11 I see him struggling with an absolutely fundemental problem that arises out of his thinking - if the New Covenant is the real deal, where does this leave God's promises to Israel? - without really hammering out a definitive answer. His conclusion at the end of Romans 11 may be a nice doxology but it's hardly a clear unambiguous answer to this problem, is it? To me it reads more like "I give up".
Recognising that we might be straying into DH territory here, it is quite interesting to reflect that the high point re women in the church is to be found in a very early letter - Galatians - and the more qualified and controlling thoughts are associated with letters generally reckoned to be later. Maybe Paul's experience with the dispersed communities taught him that this was a very radical and disturbing view and there was a need for some pastoral compromise? The textual evidence re those 1 Cor 14 verses suggests that there was some controversy in play.
At any rate, there is at least an open question in play now.
On the other hand, it might have been the case that the letter was written as a unity and St. Paul saw the stuff about hair covering as every bit as basic to his mission than the other stuff. Pre-modern people are not like us. When people have a go at the JEDP, thesis for the Pentateuch, they normally mention that the dichotomy between spirituality and The Law, made sense to the liberal protestants who invented it, but might not have seemed quite so obvious to the people who were the actual recipients of the Pentateuch. It may be incongruous to us, but not so much to St. Paul or the people he was writing to.
Not in this case, with all the other circumstantial evidence. If it was just the text, then yes, Paul could be 'confused or ambiguous', but then you have to cite the other occasions when Paul is 'confused or ambiguous' to build a case against him for 'confused and ambiguous' statements. Can we do that?
I'm not saying this case is anything other than unique, unless we include 14:34-35 as being perhaps from the same hand as 11:3-16. There are actually very few scribal interpolations anything like these two. These, if they are interpolations, seem deliberate. They would form a special case, not a 'default way of understanding Paul' or even 'a default way' of explaining and identifying interpolations, or oddities in the text.
Both these passages exhibit strikingly similar characteristics:
1. They both appear to have been inserted into sentences, or at least in between sentences, which when the material is removed, leave the remaining sentences perfectly comprehensible. (This perhaps betrays a modus operandi of one individual, of a first copy of an original document. there being no examples of 1 Cor. with either of these passages missing).
2. They both introduce material specifically seeking to regulate the position and behaviour of women.
3. Neither of them can easily be excused as 'mistakes', 'transpositions', 'repetitions' or other accidental scribal errors.
4. They both contain some phraseology or arguments found nowhere else in the Pauline corpus.
Simply put, I don't rule out the possibility. Some of Paul's chains of thought are difficult to follow. It is a characteristic of his style, and perhaps the result of being dictated and Paul often having to wait for his scribe to catch up with him. Nevertheless, the digression at 11:3-16 is unusually extensive and opaque compared to most of Paul's other 'digressions'.
Not at all, though I do see 11:3-16 as being unusually un-Paul like, by comparison to:
Phil. 4:3,
Eph.5:22,24-25,28.
Col.3:18-19.
Add to that the fact that the following 6 terms appear absolutely nowhere else anywhere in Paul's writings.
akatakalyptos : Uncovered
ξυράω xyraō : Shaven
κείρω keirō : Short / Cut / Shear
katakalyptō : Cover
κόμη komē : Hair
κομάω komaō : Hair
And interestingly the word σιγάω sigaō : (Keep Silent) appears only in 1 Cor. 14. Twice applied to prophets generally regardless of gender, (14:28, 30, probably genuine Paul), and then, perhaps additionally, once specifically and exclusively aimed at women, (14:34, in contradiction to 11:5 and 11:13), nowhere else in any of Paul's other letters to his churches.
All this, in itself does not prove the case for interpolation, but it certainly adds credence to the possibility that a Corinthian scribe might have taken opportunity to 'go one step better than Paul' in imposing order and restoring classic Jewish male decorum, in a church situation he had considered had 'gone to the dogs'.
Pretty clear to me, I'd have to say, and pretty unambiguous. There is only one church throughout history and all who enter it enter according to God's Grace and through 'faith'. Gentiles are 'grafted' onto the rootstock of Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac, through whom The Everlasting Covenant is established.
if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity: Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land. Lev.26:40-42.
God said, "No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasing covenant for his descendants after him. Gen.17:19.
Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many; but, referring to one, "And to your offspring," which is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came four hundred and thirty years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance is by the law, it is no longer by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. Gal.3:16-18.
But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. 2 Cor.14.
But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. Heb.8:6.
And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children after them: And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me. Jer.32:39-40.
All this is hinted at by Paul in Ch.11 Rom. The Israelite Nation, (Including Judah and Levi), are still the apple of God's eye.
For Israel was God's own personal possession!
God protected them in the howling wilderness
As though they were the apple of his eye. Deu. 32:9b-10.
____________________________________
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.
Possibly, but not necessarily. It is thought that various different scribes at different times puzzled over where it should actually go. Partly because the gap between 14:33 and 14:36 makes more sense if 34 and 35 are left out, and partly because they noticed the contradiction, so decided to poke it at the end of Ch.14 as a kind of marginal, or even thinking it to be a 'marginal note' that had somehow found its way into the text. The fact is that it slots in between 33 and 36 and seems to make sense, until you take it out. Then the remaining text just says:
For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached? If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord.
So the teaching from Paul is just about orderly oratory, speaking in turn and not monopolizing the meetings.
It becomes suspect, according to my suspicious mind, because it supports the very same issue as 11:3-16. i.e. subjugation of Corinthian women.
What it meant then (whoever meant it then) is less important than its current applicability.
(Which may of course bring a second Dead Horse, of inerrancy, into view! )
A direction forbidding the dragging of putrefying equine corpses from the depths should not preclude any mention at all of their demise and its relevance to certain aspects of a current thread, I think.
That being said however, the passages in question are probably agreed by most commentators to be uniquely relevant to the Corinthian church at a particular historical period and have far less contextual relevance to today's church. Only the most fearful of any possible precedent warranting close examination of assumed Biblical inerrancy and infallibility, would insist upon complete silence of every woman in every prayer meeting or worship service in the churches today. Also I rather doubt that any woman today faces the kind of misogyny in the western world that was rife in the Roman Empire and Greek and Jewish society.
On a slightly different tack though, I have found an interesting passage in The Apocrapha which just might add another explanation to the many exegetical explanations of 'Because of the Angels':
It is not at all unlikely that a Corinthian scribe may have had this passage of scripture in mind when he was thinking about the Corinthian women and their conduct. There are some parallels between the thrust of 1 Cor.11:3-16 and the following Apocryphal 2 Esdras. At Corinth, at the time 1 Cor. was written, there was an imminent expectation of the parousia or return of Christ.
Just as a respectable and virtuous woman abhors a harlot, so righteousness shall abhor iniquity, when she decks herself out, and shall accuse her to her face, when he comes who will defend him who searches out every sin on earth. Therefore do not be like her or her works. For behold, just a little while, and iniquity will be removed from the earth, and righteousness will reign over us. Let no sinner say that he has not sinned; for God will burn coals of fire on the head of him who says, "I have not sinned before God and his glory." . . . . Woe to those who sin and want to hide their sins! Because the Lord will strictly examine all their works, and will make a public spectacle of all of you. And when your sins come out before men, you shall be put to shame; and your own iniquities shall stand as your accusers in that day. What will you do? Or how will you hide your sins before God and his angels? 2 Esd.16:49-53 . . . 63b-66.
Themes such as 'respectability', 'virtue', 'harlotry', 'shame', 'being observed by God and angels'.
If this passage has any connection with 1 Cor.11:6-10, it only my own theory, but I think a Corinthian Jewish Christian, in a largely Pagan church, with unusually emancipated women believers in it, all expecting an immanent return of Christ, might well have penned 11:3-16, and incidentally held similar beliefs to this as well:
Better is the wickedness of a man than a woman who does good;
and it is a woman who brings shame and disgrace. Sirach 42:14.
Definitely not Pauline opinion, after his Damascas road conversion. Perhaps Paul held similar Pharisaical beliefs about women before his conversion, but he was not writing to churches then, he was persecuting them.
It is quite possible though that a Jewish Christian scribe in Corinth might have held such views. They were common views among many Jews then.
The disgrace theme appears here in Sirach 42:14 and in 1 Cor. 11:6 and 14. (αἰσχρόν aischron) and (ἀτιμία atimia): shame and disgrace, which seem to loom large in the mind of the author of 11:3-16, whoever he was, (and I think we must conclude, he was definitely a man).
____________________________________
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.
But the mixed views on women? Current relevance? My personal view is that I'm glad Gal 3:28-9 has the high ground. And I don't buy into gender related roles. Talent, gifting and character should be the touchstones for assessing callings. That's my conclusion, weighing scripture, reason, tradition and experience.
Which it seems he was doing fairly successfully, with the help of The Holy Spirit and some 3 years of intensive study in the scriptures, (and a visit to heaven in the spirit, if that was a personal trstimony of his), before he wrote 1 Cor. which he wrote between Autumn AD 52 and spring 55, from Ephesus. Galatians could not have been written earlier than 14 years after Paul's Damascus Rd. experience, and possibly more than 17 years after it. Galatians was written sometime between AD 49 and 53. So Paul's theology at the time of writing Galatians was already well formed and was probably still much the same as it was when he wrote 1 Corinthians.
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. Gal.3:27-29.
Why? I ask why should someone want to 'doctor the Romans document'? Were there serious social problems at Rome that Paul needed to deal with? No! But there were at Corinth, and we know that the Corinthian church repudiated Paul and disdained his credentials as an Apostle. Not so with the Roman Church, which Paul had not founded anyway. They had no argument with Paul, they had no gross misconduct to hide, they had no motive to doctor documents or to subvert Paul's doctrines. Conversely the Corinthian church had many motives known to us that might have caused a Corinthian scribe to doctor the document from Paul, from when it first arrived at Corinth.
Corinthian prelates were the very people who most vehemently opposed Pauls doctrine and repudiated him. They had many things to hide, besides incest and greed, selfishness and attitudes stemming from an arrogant Helenistic culture, (pneumaticos : spirit) is used 14 times in 1 Cor. alone, over against only 4 times in the rest of the letters commonly agreed to be Pauline. Paul was much less than pleased with the conduct and spiritual character of The Corinthian church. It was basically 'Proto Gnostic' and quite distanced from Paul's own spirituality.
And, as far as they were concerned they weren't perverting sacred texts. They were just editing a letter from someone they detested because:
(1) they wanted to hide their own shame and disgrace and
(2) They wanted to consolidate their pernicious misogyny which they mistakenly considered superlatively spiritual by comparison to Paul's simple message of 'neither slave nor free, male nor female, all one in Christ'. and
(3) What would the Holy Spirit do to stop them? Strike them dead? Set their quills on fire? Make their ink transparent?
And for what crime? Doctoring an embarrassing series of letters, from someone they had no respect for, which would not become Holy scripture until another 300 years in the future, which, of course, they had no possible way of knowing at the time?
____________________________________
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.