Clarke Morledge -- Computer Network Engineer, College of William and Mary...
I hiked the Mount of the Holy Cross, one of the famous Colorado Fourteeners, with some friends in July, 2012. My buddy, Mike Scott, snapped this photo of me on the summit.
Announcing the seventh in this Veracity summer blog post series….
Should 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 even be in our Bible? Are these verses in some sense completely foreign to the mind of Paul? This idea may sound really strange, but this proposition has actually been entertained by some competent scholars.
This hypothesis, the “Interpolation” view, is fairly straightforward, even though the evidence for it is widely disputed. An “interpolation” is a fancy academic word to say that something was added into the text that really did not belong there in the first place. Most people, if they have ever heard of the concept of “interpolation,” recognize it as a mathematical term, but few know that there is a literary concept of “interpolation” as well. Essentially, the idea is that you have an original letter or document, where additional material was added either intentionally or unintentionally by a later copyist of that letter or document.
There are a couple of famous examples of interpolation that at least a few Christians know about, but I will mention only one here. In just about any modern Bible translation today, there will be a marginal note after Mark 16:8. The English Standard Version (ESV) inserts the following:
[Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9–20.]
What in the world is THAT all about?
Everything about head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11 (well, maybe not “everything,” but we try to hit the highlights here at Veracity)
Most Christians have probably never heard of the “Quotation/Refutation View” of anything in the New Testament. There is an understandable reason for this.
The original Greek manuscripts of our New Testament contained no punctuation, particularly no quotation marks. In modern English today, we use quotation marks in general to show when someone else is speaking. In contrast, in ancient New Testament Greek, you have to look for contextual and grammatical clues to figure out when someone else is speaking. Sometimes picking up those clues is fairly straight-forward, if you pay attention. At other times, it is not so easy at all. But without some knowledge of what the author is doing, certain passages in the New Testament make no sense at all.
This is partly why, even though it is perhaps the most beautiful, elegant, and classic translation of the Bible, the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is not to be recommended for a close, verse-by-verse analysis of what the Scriptures are teaching, without having some kind of help to go along with it. For the KJV includes no quotation marks anywhere in the text. Some KJV Bibles try to get around this limitation a little bit by printing out the words said by Jesus in red, so-called “Red Letter Bibles,” but these red letter Bible printings rely on a lot of guesswork that can easily mislead the reader.
Everything about head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11 (well, maybe not “everything,” but we try to hit the highlights here at Veracity)
Modern English Bible translations make more use of quotations, in order to help the reader to understand the text better. A classic case for this can be found in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. Many Christians do not realize that our two letters to the Corinthians are part of a multi-letter back-and-forth conversation between Paul and the Corinthian church, where only two of these letters have actually survived. We only see a small part and one side of that conversation!! In fact, our “1 Corinthians” might be the second letter Paul wrote to the Corinthians, where the first letter is now lost. Thankfully, Paul does quote and respond to certain Corinthian slogans, even refuting them when necessary, thus assuming that at least some of these slogans were probably in the letters written by the Corinthians addressed to Paul, letters that are now lost to us.
The Traditional, Hyper-Conservative, and Symbol of Protection views discussed thus far all suggest that the head coverings referenced in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 are about some type of cloth covering the head. Or perhaps a hat of some sort? But what if the hair covering is simply the hair itself? The basic idea behind the so-called “Hairstyle” view of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is that whenever you see something like “head covering” in this passage you should think “hairstyle” or “hair length” instead.
Everything about head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11 (well, maybe not “everything,” but we try to hit the highlights here at Veracity)
Hair as a “Head Covering?”
This may over-simplify the argument for some, but there are two fundamental premises that underline this view. First, nowhere in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 does Paul tell us the exact nature of this extra head covering that women are to wear. Readers often assume a type of cloth or hat, but Paul never explicitly says that.
Second, the key to unlocking this view is found in the concluding statement Paul makes about head coverings in verses 14-15:
Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
Paul says that a woman’s longer hair IS the head covering. There you go. Therefore, Paul is only talking about hairstyle when he is talking about head covering. Mystery solved!… (well…. sort of…. I will explain below).
Nevertheless, how this is all worked out in the rest of the passage requires a good amount of unpacking. Here is an outline used by egalitarian scholar Philip Payne as to how his interpretation of the hairstyle view works in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16:
11:2 Praise for upholding the traditions Paul had taught them
11:3 Theological introduction, establishing the basis for respecting for one’s source/head
11:4-6 Critique of hairstyles which symbolize inappropriate sexual freedom in the Corinthian church
11:7-10Theological basis for not adopting these hairstyles symbolizing sexual freedom
11:11-12 Affirmation of the equal standing of woman and man in Christ
11:13-15 Argument from nature against adopting hairstyles symbolizing sexual freedom
11:16 The churches do not have a custom of displaying sexual freedom through wild hair
To avoid getting too far into the weeds, we can just hit some of the main issues: For example, in what sense is hair itself a head covering? Some suggest that when the hair itself is “done up” in a particular way that this is the head covering. Others simply say that keeping a woman’s hair long is the head covering. The main point is to say that the Hairstyle view rules out the need to have some type of cloth or other means to cover the head.
Philip Payne suggests that verses 4-6 are primarily about discouraging sexual immorality. For a man in Corinth, long hair was a sign of him trying to be effeminate, and possibly leading to homosexual practice; that is two persons of the same sex engaging in physical intimacy with one another, which Paul definitely did not agree with. For a woman in Corinth, loose hair hanging down was a sign of sexual promiscuity, and abuse of the Christian’s freedom. Paul does not come out directly and say that sexual immorality is the problem, because he is trying to be discrete and not be crude, in his rebuke of the Corinthians.
The bottom line, as briefly noted in verse 16, concludes the passage by suggesting that in all of Paul’s churches men wear their hair short and women wear their hair long (or “done up”). Paul therefore wants the Corinthians to follow the same practice as found in all of the other Christian communities, and not argue about it.
What is interesting about this view is that there are egalitarians like Philip Payne, and even some complementarians, who agree that this passage is about hairstyles and/or hair length, and not a cloth hair covering. Furthermore, to make the discussion even more spicy, a lot of the research available today suggests that we have evidence for both men and women wearing cloth head coverings as part of pagan worship practices. But there are other cases where cloth head coverings were not to be worn. Mmmmmm…… The implications for how all of this should illuminate what is going on in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is disputed among scholars.
Is 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 teaching about a woman’s “head covering” with respect to the hairstyle, as opposed to a piece of cloth? Is long hair itself a “head covering?”
Hair as Long or Hair as “Done Up?”
But which perspective is Paul advocating for women? Wearing the hair long, or wearing the hair “done up? Regarding the Hairstyle view, if one drills down a little deeper in verse 15, you can get at the heart of the debate between the “long hair” for women position and the hair “done up” position. Let us quote the verse again (ESV):
…but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
…but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.
Note that the NIV 2011 interprets a bit more for us by repeating the reference to “long hair,” despite the fact that “long” is not actually in the second half of the verse. In that second half, it simply reads “hair” in the Greek, which is ambiguous, thus the ESV simply leaves the ambiguity in there, thus omitting the reference to the hair being “long.” Some then read this to say that having “long hair” is sufficient to indicate that having long hair is the covering.
However, those who say that the hair needs to be “done up,” so as to deter sexual immorality for the woman, wrestle with that word “covering” at the end of the verse, in Greek peribolaion , a peculiar word which will become VERY important to yet another perspective we will consider later in this blog series.
The generally accepted definition of peribolaion is “that which is thrown around.” Those who argue for the cloth head covering view contend that this should not be taken figuratively, since it makes sense to say that a cloth is what can be thrown around the hair. But the hair “done up” proponents say that it should be taken figuratively, in that hair that is “done up” on top of underlying hair should be best understood as “thrown around.” Proponents of this view, particularly Philip Payne, argue therefore that the “thrown around” aspect of wearing the hair “thrown around” itself, rules out the idea that Paul would approve of women wearing long hair by itself. Instead, a woman’s long hair should be “thrown around” itself, in much the same way a woman might wear a cloth covering.1
The details do get a bit tricky.
An example of a woman’s hair being “done up” consistent with the Hairstyle view of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16
No Cloth Head Covering?
It is helpful to note that the question of hairstyle versus a cloth head covering is fairly irrelevant for even certain complementarian interpreters of the passage. For them, cloth or no cloth, the issue has to deal with male headship, which involves either a more top-down view of authority, or a milder understanding having to deal with preeminence or prominence in the male-female relationship.
Nevertheless, the main idea associated with the Hairstyle view should be evident. In the Hairstyle view, this passage is not about a cloth hair covering. Rather, it is something about hair, either the hair length or how the hair is worn.
In our next installment in this summer blog series, we will look at the Quotation/Refutation view of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. Listen up and buckle up, because the Quotation/Refutation view gets very, very interesting. Stay tuned!!
Both the Traditional and Hyper-Conservative views of 1 Corinthians 11:21-6 generally assume that the women in Corinth were in some sort of rebellion, which prompted the Apostle Paul to issue some instruction to require the use of head coverings.
But is this “women in rebellion” assumption accurate? Another perspective, the “Symbol of Protection” view, as I call it, seriously questions that assumption, actually flipping it on its head.
Instead of admonishing the women of Corinth to put on a head covering, this perspective suggests the situation was ironically just the opposite. Women in Corinth were being encouraged to ditch the head covering, even though the women were hesitant to do so. Instead, the women of Corinth looked upon the head covering as a sign of protection, and Paul was chastising the Corinthians (mainly the men) for discouraging the women from wearing their head covering.
Everything about head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11 (well, maybe not “everything,” but we try to hit the highlights here at Veracity)
Have you ever been told that if you are reading the Old Testament you are reading someone else’s mail? If that preacher also tells you that instead the New Testament was mail written to you, then this is a lie your preacher has told you.
While much of the Old Testament was written to ancient Israelites, some of Paul’s letters were written to first century Corinthians. Greco-Roman Corinth culture is far away from the 21st century, says Old Testament scholar Brent Strawn. When we read anything in the Bible, yes, we are reading someone else’s mail, written to people in ancient times, but that same correspondence was also written for us today as Christians.
The fact is that the very issues we run into while reading the New Testament are also present when we read the Old Testament. But not only that, the New Testament is constantly recalling the message of the Old Testament. For without a good understanding of the Old Testament, the message of the New Testament becomes hard to grasp. That is a good argument for not ignoring the Old Testament.
Taking a More Honest Look at the Old Testament
Brent Strawn teaches the Old Testament at Duke Divinity School, and in Lies My Preacher Told Me: An Honest Look at the Old Testament, the author is spinning off from the well-known title by James W. Loewen, Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong. It is a bit of a click-bait title, as Dr. Strawn admits that he has had some wonderful Bible teachers and preachers in his own life. But we as Christians can all use some correction now and then in making changes to bad reading habits of the Bible.
Lies My Preacher Told Me is written in the style of similar short books written by scholars writing for a general public audience, like Dr. Michael Heiser’s 60 Second Scholar series, or the Urban Legends series, pioneered by David A. Croteau, among other scholars in that series. In Dr. Strawn’s short and concise book, he outlines ten mistruths that are in need of correction:
Mistruth 1: The Old Testament is “someone else’s mail.”
Mistruth 2: The Old Testament is a boring history book.
Mistruth 3: The Old Testament has been rendered permanently obsolete.
Mistruth 4: The Old Testament God is mean . . . really mean.
Mistruth 5: The Old Testament is hyper-violent.
Mistruth 6: David wrote the Psalms [and other simplistic historical assertions]
Mistruth 7: The Old Testament isn’t spiritually enriching.
Mistruth 8: The Old Testament isn’t practically relevant.
Mistruth 9: The Old Testament Law is nothing but a burden, impossible to keep.
Mistruth 10: What really matters is that “everything is about Jesus.”
Brent Strawn is not just an author of a short pithy book like Lies My Preacher Told Me. He is also a well-respected Bible translator, most significantly the editor of the Old Testament portion of the Common English Bible.
Dr. Strawn has done a great service to the church for exposing and correcting these ten mistruths. Nuggets of truth are sprinkled throughout Lies My Preacher Told Me.
How about this one on page 23?: Whenever I have read Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, Jesus goes through a series of “you have heard it said, but now I tell you this...” sayings. For years I thought that all of them, such as “love your neighbor,” were all in our Old Testament. But the second half of that one found in Matthew 5:43, “hate your enemies,” simply is not found in the Old Testament.
Shocker of shockers!! So, where did this “hate your enemies” come from? It actually comes from the Community Rule of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1QS 9.21, to be more precise, which endorses hating those who are wicked. Did the Jewish community at Qumran subscribe to the idea that this Community Rule was also part of Sacred Scripture? This little nugget suggests that the definition of what constituted Jewish “Scripture” among some Jewish groups in Jesus’ day was perhaps slightly broader than what we have in our Old Testament today.
Though hidden in one of the very few footnotes in the book, Dr. Strawn succinctly handles a rather difficult question regarding the nature of the Old Testament canon of Scripture. Many Christians often assume that the list of books included in our Old Testament today was well settled by the time of Jesus. Not so. It took another century or more after the days of Jesus before the Jewish community finally settled on a definitive list of books to be included in their Hebrew Scriptures, a listing that eventually was picked up and settled upon by the Protestant movement, in the 16th century. However, if this makes someone nervous, it is abundantly clear that the books of our Old Testament today were all composed before the time of Jesus, and enjoyed their authoritative status in Jesus’ day.
In mistruth #9, Dr. Strawn tackles the common misperception that for the Jews the Old Testament Law was impossible to keep, which is why Christianity teaches a message of grace, as opposed to the Jewish message of salvation by works. However, the Apostle Paul tells us in Philippians 3:4-6 that prior to being a Christian, as a Pharisee he was “blameless” under the Law.
“Blameless?” How could Paul say that if indeed the Law was impossible to keep? Rather, it is Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, who insists that no one can enter God’s Kingdom without exceeding the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. Jesus himself sets the higher standard, thereby exposing everyone’s need for grace, Jew and Gentile.
In the final mistruth, Dr. Strawn gives a more modest and accurate estimate of what constitutes Old Testament prophecy concerning the coming of Jesus. A number of Christian apologists tend to over-inflate claims about how much the Old Testament predicts the coming of Jesus as the Messiah. So while certain Old Testament texts could be read in a way such that we can find somewhere around “300” to even “400” Old Testament prophecies being fulfilled in the New Testament by Jesus, Dr. Strawn estimates that the number should be more modestly put at around thirty-nine. Though not zero, 39 is significantly less than 300 or 400.
But why only about 39? Why not 300 or 400? Well, a lot of the mismatch has to do with how Christians believe a prophecy is being fulfilled in Jesus. It turns out that the interpretation of prophecy is generally more complicated than that depicted by popular thinking.
Having worked previously with a Jewish colleague for a number of years, I have come to realize that while a strong case can still be made for predicting the coming of Jesus from the Old Testament, overzealous attempts to read Jesus almost anywhere into the Old Testament can backfire when conversing with a Jewish person well-informed about their Hebrew Scriptures. A modest defense for the Christian faith is far more effective than making extravagant claims which can be easily shot down by a non-believer better informed than we are.
One Pushback For Lies My Preacher Told Me
Alas, if I had but one pushback against Lies My Preacher Told Me, it would be this: Brent Strawn makes plentiful use of the Common English Bible when quoting from Scripture in his book, page after page, which is both good and not so good.The “not so good” might limit the outreach capability of Dr. Strawn’s book. I hesitate to pick on an esteemed scholar who has poured himself so much into a bible translation. It feels like telling someone that their baby is both cute and ugly at the same time. Yikes. I do not mean to do that so I hope this comes across in the right way.
First, the good: The Common English Bible (CEB) is quite a fine translation in that it offers a very accessible level of reading without becoming too loose, as paraphrases tend to be. Something like Eugene Peterson’s The Message is very readable, but the Common English Bible (CEB) is just as readable as The Message, if not more so, but the CEB stays much closer to the actual Scriptural text. I think of the CEB as the “entry level” version to the more academic New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible. Nerdy Bible geeks like me generally like the NRSV, but busy soccer moms on the go will find the CEB more suitable. I like reading the CEB when desiring to tackle longer portions of the text, and I value its freshness and willingness to break out of a traditional mold.
Read Ezekiel 23:20 if you want a good jolt…. Just do not read it with your small children present….
….Trust me on this one.
On the downside, the Common English Bible (CEB) is marketed more towards mainline Protestant churches and less towards conservative evangelical, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox churches. So while a number of evangelical scholars like Brent Strawn contributed to the making of the CEB, the main publishing houses for the Common English Bible are associated with the Disciples of Christ, the Presbyterian Church U.S.A., the Episcopal Church, the United Church Christ, and the United Methodist Church, which are perhaps the most theologically liberal denominations in America today. As noted in a recent “Ready to Harvest” YouTube video, the Pew Center reports that these mainline Protestant churches sadly are heading towards a speedy decline over the next few decades. Miracles can still happen, but it is unlikely that the CEB will have the widest reach when its primary reading audience gets smaller and smaller every year.
Furthermore, in an effort to make the text more readable there are times when the CEB over-interprets the text in ways that can obscure rather than clarify. For example, the CEB likes to use the terminology of “the Human One” when giving an alternative to the more traditional “the Son of Man,” the former which seems a little gender-inclusively clunky.
Towards a Better Way of Reading and Appreciating the Old Testament
But do not let this one pushback dissuade the reader from picking up a copy of Lies My Preacher Told Me. The chapters are short but the content found therein is rich with golden nuggets that can nourish the reader and get them excited about the Old Testament.
The second century heterodox preacher in Rome, Marcion, will forever be associated with the sometimes unfortunate Christian dislike, or even hatred, of the Old Testament. Marcion is known to be the first churchman to draft a list of what he considered to be canonical Scripture for Christians, and yet he conveniently scratched the entire Old Testament off of his list. For Marcion, the Old Testament God was not the God of the New Testament. That made his Bible significantly shorter, but the historically orthodox Christian community believed that Marcion stripped out the riches of the Old Testament, thus emasculating the Bible as a whole. Marcion was rightly condemned for his heresy. Be ye aware, there are Marcions still lurking around in many corners of the church today.
Brent Strawn is committed to encouraging the revived use of the Old Testament among Christians. Lies My Preacher Told Me serves as a pithy, clear, and helpful resource for promoting an increase of interest in the Old Testament, something Marcion would surely have hated.
I suggested to Brent that he should have a portrait of Marcion in his home, and use it as a dart board. Perhaps he will make a meme out of that, and we might find it in his next book. We shall see!
.
For the “real” Bible nerds, you might be interested in the following interview with Dr. Brent Strawn. Enjoy.
Veracity 