For those who are more gifted in understanding how language works please assist me with these two questions:
(1) Since the question mark (;) would not have been at the end of v. 13 or in the middle of v. 15 until added later for clarification is it possible to read these vv. as a statement rather than a question? In other words, could it say, “Judge for yourselves: it is proper for a woman to pray to God uncovered. Neither does nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a shame to him, but if a woman has long hair it is a glory to her”
(2) You may have noticed my second question while reading the first: Why not translate οὐδὲ as “neither” rather than “does not” at the beginning of v. 14?
Your insight is much appreciated in advance!
the archives near Emmaus 
Ron, I have a book from a friend who states that makes a similar assertion. I will try to post a quote … it’s his view that this is not a question but rather a statement.
oh, boy. I called you, Ron, Brian. The senility begins. Ron is the friend who studied a bit with Robert Allon. I will scour for his booklet (IF I CAN FIND IT) where he translates this passage in a similar fashion. Allon is deep into Hebraic roots and came from a similar background as you and I.
He has an interesting booklet on hair. His Fire at the Altar study is interesting.
You can peruse his site here: allon.org
@Daniel: No worries, let me know if you find his argument. I have mixed feelings about him coming from our background because I fear our collective “axe-to-grind” will influence our exegesis, but it would still be worth reading what he has to say.
(1) Unless signaled by interrogative pronouns or other question words (ἆρα, μή, etc.), questions are usually very difficult to ascertain. Here, Paul seems asking his recipients to judge the following sentence, so it seems (to me at least) that there’s little difference between a statement or a question. Either way, it is to be judged. The preceding context suggests that Paul would have the statement judged to be wrong (vv.5-7, 10), so marking it as a rhetorical question is the least misleading option.
(2) οὐδέ usually means “and not” (if conjunctive) or “not even” (if adverbial). English “neither” and “and not” in many contexts are synonymous, so it’s not clear to me what difference in nuance you’re getting at.
@Stephen: Thank you for responding. As you (2) my point would be that the English “does not” seems to suppose that Paul assumed “nature itself teaches you that…” but if we think of it as “neither” or “not even” it seems like Paul is negating that natures teaches this. Of course, this is assuming that there is no question mark half way through v. 15.
I should clarify that in this proposal I am wondering whether or not Paul is correcting the Corinthians for their practice of making a woman wear a head covering and for teaching that nature teaches a man should have short hair and a woman long hair.
OK, I see what you’re getting at with (2). I think your “neither” here is basically synonymous with “and not” (“And nature itself does not teach you that…”). This means the real issue is whether to punctuate as a question or statement.
Yes, that would be what I am trying to figure out. Any thoughts?
It seems to me that your proposal is a way of dealing with the well-known crux of 1 Cor 11:15b, but at the cost of making vv.13-14 contradict vv.3-8. If we didn’t have that prior context, I might agree! Maybe you have an alternate reading of vv.3-8?
There is an article by Alan Padgett that suggests something along those lines. There are definitely some things that make sense about this suggestion, even apart from the fact that Acts hints that Paul’s hair was growing long while he was at Corinth… 🙂
I know that some have said this epistle contains arguments given by the Corinthians to which Paul responds. I am entertaining the possibility that we find such an arrangement here. For instance, vv. 7-8 make an argument that seems to ignore Gen 1.26-27 (though with some faithfulness to Gen 2.15-24) when it says man is the “image and glory of God” and woman is the “glory of man”. This implies woman is not the image (or glory?) of God, if only indirectly through man. Yet in vv. 11-12 there seems to be a counter arguments: (1) “in the Lord” man and woman are independent (this rightly grasps Gen 1.26-27 as well as the fact that though Eve comes from Adam all subsequent male children are born from women) and (2) all things come from God (man and woman). So if vv. 3-8 or 9 are not Paul’s argument but the Corinthians we suddenly make sense of what he says in vv. 11-12 and we not longer need to make questions of vv. 13-14. Finally, when Paul says “we have no such (τοιαύτην) custom” (rather than “no other”) it would seem Paul is saying this of what he has refuted from vv. 3-8.
I don’t know if this works, but it is a possibility that I am entertaining.
@James: Awesome, thanks! I will read this.
In relation to Stephen’s point, Padgett suggests that part of the early section of Ch. 11 is Paul quoting the Corinthians (with him quoting their quotation of him to begin with, perhaps).
I have spent a surprisingly large amount of time on this passage, mainly because women covering their heads is still a live issue in Romania. My short answer was usually that the Romanian (like the English) makes the meaning clearer than the Greek actually is, and so basing a practice on it – never mind mandating observance of a particular understanding of it – is problematic.
@James: I have personal motivation as well since I was raised in a group (a form of Oneness Pentecostals associated with the United Pentecostal Church International) that teaches that women cannot cut their hair, at all, based on this passage. I have family that is still part of this group. What makes it even more problematic is that they interpret the ἐξουσίαν in v. 10 to be “power” in prayer that allows them to have more power with angels. I know people who think if a woman cuts her hair she will lose this power with the angels and her prayers will not be as effective. It is quite troubling.
Thanks for the cite to the article, James. He makes some interesting points, but I’m having a very difficult time believing that Paul is merely quoting a Corinthian belief in vv.3ff. by prefacing it with θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι ὅτι (“I want you to know that”). That’s swimming too hard against the grain of the text for my taste.
Here’s another issue that does not inspire confidence in the argument. At p. 79, he argues: “Paul no doubt affirmed these things in one sense, but he would not phrase them in this way. Paul’s typical phrase is not ’Christ is the head of every man’, but ’Christ is the head of the church’ (Col. 1.18; Eph. 1.22).” Well, the style of Colossians and Ephesians is so different from 1 Corinthians that many critics doubt that Paul even wrote them. However one comes down on the authorship question, these two prison letters are not to be the touchstone of Paul’s “typical” style, especially in relation to the Hauptbriefe.
@Stephen: That is the most problematic aspect of this argument. If only that sentence weren’t there we’d have it solved! All kidding aside, while it has some problems I don’t know if saying vv. 3-8 are original with Paul relieves the problem of some of the later arguments. Even if vv. 13-14 are rhetorical questions they leave it up in the air and vv. 11-12 almost make it seem like Paul is saying, “But all that aside, I guess we must be balanced in recognizing that women are necessary for men, and all does come from God, so temper the words I just wrote.” This whole passage makes me scratch my head (not to forget the angels thing)!
I don’t know if this works, but it is a possibility that I am entertaining.
You sure are entertaining!
On a more serious note, I don’t think I could say anything that Stephen hasn’t already said.
@Mike and @Stephen: Assuming the more traditional reading, what do we do with Paul’s seeming flip-flop between what he says in vv. 3-8 and vv. 13-14? It seems to contradict itself, no?
I think that in this section Paul is encouraging traditional roles & appearances, especially for the sake of the church’s reputation. Perhaps “messengers” (angelloi) had been communicating to the Jerusalem church, or to the Roman authorities, that women in the Corinthian association were baring their heads in a way that smacked of Dionysiac abandon, or “mystery” religiosity. So Paul wants them to know that men and women should not blur their “natural” and God-given distinctions – particularly for the sake of the angelloi.
At the same time, however, Paul characteristically wants to undermine their wrong-headed assumptions about self-ownership. In 3:21-22 Paul had subverted this sort of thinking by pulling the rug out from under their feet thusly:
“All things are yours (Corinthians: Amen!)
Whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or present or future,
All belong to you. (Corinthians: Amen!)
And you belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God. (Corinthians: gulp… oh yeah)”
He seems to be using a similar strategy here in ch11:
“Christ is the head of every man (Corinthians: Amen!)
And the husband is the head of his wife (Corinthians: Amen!)
And God is the head of Christ. (Corinthians: gulp… oh yeah)”
Thus, although Paul commends the observance of “natural” distinctions between the sexes, it is not for the sake of encouraging dominance, but of critiquing human autonomy. Both men and women in Corinth need to learn that “all things come from God” (v12).
Of course, how this might apply today is another issue again! Anyway, I’ve rambled enough…
@Matthew: That is a helpful set of observations. Would you see it as similar to other household codes in the Pauline corpus where it tells slaves to obey their masters, then reminds masters of their master in heaven or wives to submit to their husbands, but then tells husbands they must love their wives by the high standard of how Christ loves the church?
There is some similarity there – although I think one thing that might set 1 Cor 11 apart is that Paul is so cunning in his argumentation there! John Chrysostom points out the the “pulling the rug out” trick seems to be a feature of Paul’s pastoral approach in 1 Corinthians, and I think he’s onto something. So although, on the surface of things, Paul is simply reining in libertarianism, his more fundamental intention is to subvert the broad disaster of Corinthian autonomy.
@Matthew: You’ve given me a lot to ponder on this passage! Your reading has much merit to it. Have you put your thoughts on paper anywhere yet so that I can read it?
For an interesting article (whether right or wrong I have no idea) on this passage that has nothing to do with syntax see, Troy Martin, “Paul’s Argument from Nature for the Veil in 1 Corinthians 11:13-15: A Testicle Instead of a Head Covering,” JBL 123, no. 1 (2004), 75-84.
In summary, he argues from ancient medicine that long hair was connected with fertility (something about hair being hollow which creates a vacuum which “sucks up” the semen and thus increases the chances of pregnancy), so it’s not honorable for a woman to cut her hair because that decreases the changes of pregnancy. Something like that.
@Ryan: I think Mark Goodacre has responded to that article: http://www.markgoodacre.org/articles.htm
I haven’t read the original or the response though.
Thanks. I skimmed it and he thinks Martin overstates his case and lacks strong lexical support (specifically, the term he wants to translate as testicle). The original article is still interesting if for no other reason than really funny/interesting ancient medical theories. 🙂
@MRM Thank you! I have always had a problem with the “because of the angels clause.” It makes perfect sense that Paul would caution the Corinthian’s that while they were truly free in worship…they should not let their freedom be a stumbling block for others that may misconstrue their actions.
@Ryan: I’ll have to read it though intuition tells me Goodacre is probably right.
@Brian: Thanks… I don’t have anything on 1 Cor 11, but I have a chapter on John Chrysostom’s reading of 1 Corinthians, in the forthcoming book “Wisdom of the Cross: Exploring 1 Corinthians” (ed. Rosner, IVP)
@Nancy: Thanks 🙂 This sort of reading (in terms of translating angeloi as ‘messengers’) is suggested in Bruce Winter’s “After Paul Left Corinth,” chaper 6; and Murphy-O’Connor’s “Keys to First Corinthians,” p158.
@Matthew: Will that chapter take a look at Chrysostom’s understanding of Paul’s argumentation? It sounds like a good book. Do you know when it is going to release?
I spent a chapter of my PhD on Chrysostom’s understanding of Paul’s argumentation, and much of the fruit of that chapter ends up in my contribution to the “Wisdom of the Cross” book. I would think it should be out later this year – I know all the proofs have been checked & are complete, so shouldn’t be long. It should be a worthwhile read I think – it has quite a good set of contributors.
I often get IVP books for review. When this is released I may ask for a copy!
For what it is worth, Robert Allon responded to me and it his belief the syntax of the translators is inaccurate starting with the very beginning of 1 Cor 11. … that is starting with verse 3.
Meaning the syntax questions arising in later verses such as 13-16 fall in line with this initial error.
This is what he states:
Shaul did not stop being a Jewish Rabi and convert to Christianity, translators did that to him. Translators wanted women to be silent, they wanted them to be submissive and they didn’t mind changing the text and especially the grammar (which did not exist in the 1st century).
Shaul did not start his conversation off with, “I’ll have you know,” The text says, “You’ve come to believe.” This means that Shaul is responding to traditions and beliefs that have come into question.
Here’s what the Gentiles believed and did:
• Man is the head of woman
• Mashiakh is the head of man
• God is the head of Mashiakh
• Every man praying with his head covered dishonors his head
• Every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered dishonors her head
It is clear from verse six that the Corinthians are not sure about the last one. A woman praying or prophesying either had to be covered, or she had to be bald. However, this is not a custom that the Hebrews practiced. Women and men, alike, covered their heads when they prayed and prophesied. It was pagan religion that demanded their priestesses to shave their heads.
Here’s part of this passage taken from my translation of the apostolic letters which should be on the market in about two years.
14 Nature does not teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a shame to him.
15 Also, if a woman wears her hair long, it is not a glory to her since hair was given for a covering [to men & women].
16 If then, anyone seems to be contentious, we keep no such customs in the congregations of God.
In the end, Shaul taught us that:
Mashiakh is not the head of man; He is the head of the congregation. There is no male or female in Mashiakh. So if a man places himself over a woman, he then puts himself in the place of God. Men praying and prophesying with their heads uncovered was actually the opposite way Shaul, Yeshua and the other apostles prayed and prophesied. Shaul makes it clear that women praying or prophesying with their heads shaved or uncovered mattered only to the pagans when he states that his congregation and the congregations of God have no such customs. In the end, the only thing that nature teaches us about hair is that if you have it, it tends to grow.
Shaul was quite literally telling the Corinthians that they are wrong on every point. Women are not the glory of man, and man is not the glory of God. Man was made in the image of God and cannot see the glory of God and live. We bring God down to a level just a little higher than man if we make ourselves His glory. This teaching was pagan and has no place in the lives of believers today. Those who see this teaching in the Biblical text are simply reading their preconceived beliefs into the text.
—————————-
I’m not a language scholar but it is an interesting take.