I want to believe these passages can be salvaged but the skeptic in me is telling me we can make the Bible say whatever we need it to if are willing to prize some passages over others and make it fit in the direction we want. I think there is a solid mixture of misogyny, gender roles, egalitarianism and equality all in scripture.
1 Cor 11:3-16 is a problem. It makes a very clear and unambiguous claim that women are inferior to men. The comparison is men to Christ and women to men. Men are pretty darn inferior and subservient to Christ! We can argue the policy about head covering is a custom but the arguments before that about the nature of men and women seem tied into the very created order. At any rate, I feel strongly that section in Paul is an interpolation. Per Walker:
He puts forth a number of other arguments of various strengths and weaknesses. I find Walker and Trompfs articles are pretty convincing to me that this section of Paul is very problematic and likely not original. I think the early movement was egalitarian and the pseudo-Pauline texts and later communities may have felt the need to curb some of this new equality. I also think some textual critics have been grotesquely naive to the point of being laughed out of academia in thinking that changes generally need to show up in the manuscript tradition to be credible. At any rate, I think Walker’s book and Trompf’s articles are worth the read.
On Attitudes Toward Women in Paul and Paulinist Literature: 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 and Its Context: Trompf The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Vol. 42, No. 2 (April, 1980), pp. 196-215 (20 pages)
Interpolations in the Pauline Letters, William O Walker Jr, 2002, JSNT, 2001, 1 Cor 11:3-16 is specifically on pg 91-126.
That’s probably fair. It’s especially difficult because they mingle within the same passages. Even Genesis 2, one of the clearest expressions of the parity between man and woman, still privileges the male perspective.
I think it’s more than a simple interpolation – it’s two voices that disagree. I can’t see how one writer can be both saying “if a woman does not cover her head, have her also cut her hair off” (:6) and “her hair is given to her as a covering” (:15). And though one voice sees a clear hierarchy because “man does not originate from woman, but woman from man” (:8), the other voice undermines such rankings, pointing out the flip side that “man is born of woman, and all things are from God” (:12).*
Unfortunately, we have a long tradition of people flattening this text and showing how all the contradictory words can be pureed into Paul’s voice. We’ve already been told by Paul that he’s going to address “the matters about which you wrote” (7:1). We don’t have the Corinthians’ letter to Paul. We can’t see the quotation marks, and sometimes we won’t be able to tease it apart perfectly. But if we allow that Paul is arguing with their view (which I think is also quoted in 14:34–35), not only are the passages more coherent, they’re a lot less misogynist. Paul still writes from a man’s perspective and often with a male default, but he’s not a jerk.
See Lucy Peppiatt’s Unveiling Paul’s Women: Making Sense of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 for a strong attempt to tease apart the voices.
Have you guys seen stuff referencing that Troy Martin article about the medicine of the time that thought women’s hair was part of their genitalia? It’s pretty wild, but kind of fits.
Talk about Scripture accommodating ancient science. That’s next level.
Yes, I’ve read the 2004 Troy Martin paper about it. That would really change how we look at Mary anointing Jesus’ feet with her hair. Next level indeed! Dan Brown would love it.
Shockingly, there’s been some pushback to the suggestion. This is from Mark Goodacre’s 2011 article in JBL, dealing with how the translation is justified through seeing it in Euripides:
But what is most important for Martin’s case, “testicle” is an incorrect translation of περιβόλαιον. The relevant phrase is σαρκὸς περιβόλαι’ ἡβῶντα, where ἡβῶντα (present participle of ἡβάω, “to attain puberty, to be in the prime of youth”) is a transferred epithet agreeing with περιβόλαι(α), “that which is thrown around, covering, clothing” (plural). The phrase is naturally construed as “youthful clothes of flesh,” “youthful garb of flesh.” Martin is right that youth and adolescence are in view here, but his literalistic reading misses the point that Euripides is simply using a clothing metaphor. Heracles has come of age and has put on his young man’s flesh. It is not a reference to “a body part.”
(“Does περιβόλαιον Mean ‘Testicle’ in 1 Corinthians 11:15?” p. 393)
Anyway, Goodacre’s whole paper is good, and I think puts to rest that suggestion. If there’s no basis for this word carrying that meaning, then even if the cultural context is interesting, it’s probably not what is being said. (I can send you a copy, but I expect you have easy access.)
I thought the testicle translation idea was less interesting and compelling than just the potential cultural association of hair with reproductive anatomy, hence a different cultural expectation of modesty.
Yes, I think it does help to show why covering women’s hair was (sometimes) a big deal – perhaps especially in more Greek contexts. But because the translation of that one word isn’t likely, we’re left with 1 Corinthians 11 still saying two contradictory things about covering women’s heads. I think Lucy Peppiatt’s reading, seeing Paul’s response to the Corinthian position, is more helpful for that.