Accomodationism and morality

[Reggie_O_Donoghue (RiderOnTheClouds)]

@Jonathan_Burke

@Reggie_O_Donoghue

It has been suggested by some scholars that Paul’s commandment for female head covering during prayer in 1 Corinthians 11 is derived from an incorrect scientific assertion found in classical medical texts that a woman’s hair was part of her reproductive system (therefore you would not show it in church for the same reason you wouldn’t turn up with no pants/trousers or underwear). I find this to be a near perfect explanation for an otherwise absurd, pointless rule.

This has long been debunked (this is one example). There is no evidence for this in Second Temple Period Judaism.

Troy Martin responded:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/23488022

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Reggie_O_Donoghue

Troy Martin responded:

I know he responded to Goodacre (I don’t know if he responded to all the other people who debunked him). Have you read his response to Goodacre? There’s a reason why he has failed to convince the majority of scholars, who still favor the traditional reading. Martin’s interpretation is completely idiosyncratic, and requires word meanings for which there is no lexical evidence.