Theology for the Masses

Synopsis:

Paul did not write 1 Cor 11: 3-16.  Read on for my reasons why.  I’ll post who I think wrote it and what we should do with it later this week.  I know this is not a popular interpretation around these parts.  I resisted it at first, thinking it was a cop out.  But it is the best conclusion I have come up with, given the data available.  I’d love to get your thoughts, especially on the manuscript and rhetoric sections.

Recap:

So far in our examining of 1 Corinthians 11, we have discussed the problems with standard interpretations, the bizarre appeal to angels, ideological considerations, the general purpose of the letter, and the body in antiquity. Now, I am going to set the stage for working towards a newer interpretation of the chapter, one that will seem deconstructionist at first, but I promise I’ll put things back together by the end of the series.

The Hypothesis:

It is quite possible to consider verses 3-16 of 1 Corinthians 11 as an interpolation. Under this view, someone in the later Pauline community inserted verses 3-16 that crystallized their solution to problems of public worship. There are several arguments supporting such a view. First, the theological content and word use in 3-16 is unique in all of genuine Paul. Secondly, the removal of the verses recovers the tight argumentative style typical of Paul. Thirdly, the proposed interpolation hooks show signs of textual smoothing. Lastly and most importantly, removal of the section will restore the unity of Paul’s philosophical underpinnings of the body and Parousa of Christ.

Unique Among Paul:

1 Corinthians 11:3-16 contains several unique ideas to Paul. First is the ideological subordination of women under men. Occasional theology aside, in real life Paul worked closely with and offers praises to women leaders in the local assemblies. [1] Nowhere else does Paul advocate“any form of male priority and female subordination” [2] As mentioned several times above, this is a far cry from the clear subordinate relationship between men and women that is outlined throughout the section. Even in 1 Corinthians this is the case; in chapter 7 Paul acknowledges explicit authority of married partners over each other in relation to conjugal rights. Additionally, Paul sees baptism as the means by which “the removal of the body of flesh” occurs. [3] Additionally, when Paul concerns himself with specific practices, he always elevates the practical over the theological. [4] The sentiments expressed in 11:3-16 are much more at home in the deutero-Pauline letters and the Pastorals such as Col 3:18-19 and Eph 5:22-33 than in the genuine Pauline Corpus.

Several key words are used uniquely in the passage. When Paul speaks of the “δοξα” of god elsewhere, it is never framed in terms of man in his present existence. [5] In fact, glory in places such as Romans appears as a concept lost to the whole of humankind until the Parousa. Additionally, the use of κεφαλὴ, or head, is odd. In the deuteron-Pauline Ephesians and Colossians, the writer twice uses κεφαλὴ the same way as in 1 Corinthians 11:3 and 5. In Col 1:18, 2:10 and in Eph 1:22, 4:15 and 5:23 κεφελὴ is used to refer to hierarchically based authority claims. This is not so in the genuine Paul. The only time it shows up in genuine Paul is 1 Cor 12:21 and the context here is hardly hierarchical; head here is placed on equal footing with the other organs of the social body of the community.

Restoring the Rhetoric:

Second, when 3-16 are removed, verses 2 and 17 suddenly leap out as a continuous thought. Under the unified view, Paul begins chapter 11 with a command to imitate him and sets the stage for a light admonishment by means of praise followed quickly by rebuke. However, he quickly abandons this line of reasoning for the moment in favor of a theoretical discussion about the ordering of creation. Given the use of rhetorical forms that Paul employs through his writings, this is out of character for Paul. However, if we connect verse 1 and 2 with verse 17, then we see the return of highly structured rhetoric parallel praise and rebuke:

1) μιμηταί μου γίνεσθε καθώς καγὼ Χριστοῦ. 2) Ἐπαινῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς ὅτι πάντα μου μέμνησθε καί, καθὼς παρέδωκα ὑμῖν, τὰς παραδόσεις κατέχετε. 17) τοῦτο δὲ παραγγέλλων οὐκ ἐπαινῶ ὅτι οὐκ εἰς τὸ κρεῖσσον ἀλλὰ εἰς τὸ ἧσσον συνέρχεσθε.

Become imitators of me just as I am of Christ. I praise you all because you all have remembered all of my things and just as you all hold fast to the traditions I have handed to you. But in this instruction I do not praise you because you all come together not for the greater, but for the worse. [6]

This restores the elements of paraenetic and admonishment letters that are lost in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. Paul uses the example of his modeling of Christ’s behavior and then mildly rebukes them for the purpose of correcting their behavior. He approaches them as a father would his children, establishing a firm, but positive relationship. Paul attempts to “expose and constructively criticize” the behavior of the Corinthian assembly so that they can amend their behavior. [7] The mere presence of paraenetic features is by no means evidence of genuine or pseudo-Pauline authorship as the Pastoral Epistles contain elements of paraenesis. [8] However, when one inserts verses 3-16, the tight admonishment of Paul vanishes. Two verses separated by a self contained unit, the removal of which leaves a smooth connection between the two verses, is often evidence that there has been an editor at work. [9] As such, the unity in thought between verse 2 and verse 17 in light of the self contained rhetoric of 3-16 is evidence for the insertion of verses 3-16.

Hook!  Hook!  Hook!

Third, Walker proposes that there is strong manuscript evidence for such an insertion, saying:

Furthermore, there is strong manuscript evidence suggesting that some alteration of the text has occurred. Vs. 2 reads: ἐπαινῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς ὅτι πάντα μου μέμνησθε καὶ καθὼς παρέδωκα ὑμῖν τὰς ταραδόσεις κατέχετε, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.” Vs. 17, according to the RSV, begins But in the following instructions I do not commend you because…” (τοῦτο δὲ παραγγέλλων οὐκ ἐπαινῶ ὅτι…). This reading follows ﬡ, G and a the majority of MSS, but A, C*, and the Latin and Syriac versions have τοῦτο δὲ παραγγέλλω οὐκ ἐπαινῶν ὄτι…, while B has τοῦτο δὲ παραγγέλλων οὐκ ἐπαινῶν ὅτι…, D* and a minuscule have τοῦτο δὲ παραγγέλλω οὐκ ἐπαινῶ ὅτι…. [10]

He says that the proposed “hooks” for the interpolation show signs of smoothing in the manuscript record. [11] The alterations he lists in the blockquote strongly indicate that later editors and copyists were attempting to smooth out the rough transition from verse 16 to 17. [12]

Conclusion:

Given the above, we have strong reasons to suspect the work of an editor in the text. If we separate this 1 Corinthians 3-16 from the rest of the text we find two separate and, most importantly, consistent arguments for gender relations. Genuine Paul no longer has any place where there is an ontological priority assigned to either male or female which blatantly contradicts the fundamental ontological equality peppered all throughout his letters. In addition to this, we rescue the logic of 1 Cor 11:3-16 from its blatant contradiction of the rest of Paul. By removing and setting it aside (for now) we allow for the passage to stand out for its internal logic and to be heard, instead of being swept under the rug and only allowed to speak when it agrees with the interpreter’s views.

If verses 3-16 are an interpolation, then most of our problems with the passage fall away, because Paul no longer has to live up to them. Under this view, the problems that arise only do so because they are the thoughts of someone else. However, from whence did interpolation come? We will address this question in the next post, though we have alluded to the answer earlier.

1. See Margaret Y. MacDonald, “Reading Real Women Through the Undisputed Letters of Paul.” [↩]
2. Wm. O. Walker, “1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and Paul’s Views regarding Women,” Journal of Biblical Literature 94, no. 1 (March 1975): 104. [↩]
3. Wayne A Meeks, The First Urban Christians (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2003), 155. [↩]
4. Walker, “1 Corinthians 11,” 106. [↩]
5. Ibid. [↩]
6. – 1st Corinthians 11:1-2;17. [↩]
7. Stanley Kent Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Westminster John Knox Press, 1988), 127. [↩]
8. Ibid., 97. [↩]
9. Wayne A. Meeks, Writings of St. Paul (W. W. Norton & Company, 1972), 41. [↩]
10. Walker, “1 Corinthians 11,” 98. [↩]
11. Ibid. [↩]
12. Ibid. [↩]

So I was going to post on Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15. Before I begon to think about Matthew’s use I wanted to compare the Hebrew and LXX of Hosea 11, trying to see how similar the two are and which one Matthew was using. When I get to that post I will try to argue for which one I think Matthew is using but what caught my eye is how little of the Hebrew I see in the LXX of Hosea 11. Here is my rendering of Hosea 11:1-11 LXX and tell me if that seems like what you read in the Hebrew (English translations follow the Hebrew so I am not going to reproduce a Hebrew translation this post)?

1 Since Israel was an infant and I loved him and out of Egypt I recalled his children. 2 Just as I recalled them so they left me. They sacrificed to the Baalim and offered incense to the carved idols. 3 I bound the feet of Ephraim and took him upon my arm and they didn’t know that I had healed them. 4 In the destruction of people I strecthed them in the bonds of my love and I will be to them as a person who strikes his cheeks and I will watch over him closely and I will be capable with him. 5 Ephraim settled in Egypt and Assour himself was his king because he didn’t want to return. 6 The sword was weak in his cities and put to rest in his hand. They will eat the fruit of their schemes. 7 The people hang in his residence and God will be angered at his precious possessions and will not raise him up. 8 “Ephraim, what will I do you? Will I shield you? Will I do with you like I did with Adama and Seboim? My heart was changed and my sense of regret was disturbed. 9 I will not do according to the wrath of my anger. I will not leave Ephraim to be wiped away because I am deity and not a man, holy among you. I will not go into a city.” 10 I will go after the Lord; as the lion roars he will roar and even the children of the waters will stand still. 11 They will stand like a bird from Egypt and as a dove from the land of Assyria. I will make them stand in their homes, says the Lord.

It starts out okay but man it kinda goes a weird direction for a little while until the very end when it comes back to more of what the Hebrew says. Ya know, there are dynamic translations and man then there is the LXX, sometimes. The general point is there but I have a hard time figuring out what they were doing with the Hebrew here.

Here is an interesting article about gendered language and its use to describe God at Ancient Hebrew Poetry. The blogger asks this question in relationship to a work entitled “On Beyond Gender: Representation of God in the Torah and in Three Recent Renditions into English” by David E. S. Stein, “Is the biblical God a persona beyond gender?” While the blogger and Stein would both answer “no,” the two would differ on the nuance of their answer. The post is an attempt to critique Stein’s nuance and lay out the blogger’s own nuances. I really enjoyed reading it and was enlightened by it. I’ll post the concluding paragraph to the whole post but do take the time to read the whole post.

Is the biblical God a persona beyond gender? No, but gender insofar as it is ascribed to God by the biblical authors cannot be taken to imply that God is an inherently male or female deity. The biblical authors thought of their God in all of the following categories: gender-specific, personal, and a-personal. Specific truths are conveyed in each case. We do well, should we choose to situate ourselves in the slipstream created by biblical tradition, to emulate in our own God language the range and variety of categories and social constructs through which God is described in the Bible.

Ancient Hebrew Poetry: Is the biblical God a persona beyond gender?

I thought this post series would be interesting considering Tom’s earlier post on Genesis 1:26-27. While the post did not address the issue of Egalitarianism vs Complementarianism, the issue of the date of the text is very interesting considering previous conversations here at MassTheo. The balshanut blog has been summarizing some interesting articles on linguistic studies and how they impact dating the OT, specifically דמות found in Genesis 1:26-27 speaking of humanity being made in “God’s image/likeness.” The blogger has really put into practice what he has been posting on for sometime recently and I really appreicate that. It helps me see how it works. The post series takes the reader on a journey to see if the Hebrew term דמות is an Aramaic loanword or an Aramaism (the Aramaic word being צלם). The point of this is to see if the presence of this Aramaic rooted word points to a late date or to an early date. The conclusion that is reached is that the evidence leans to a pre-exillic date but not in a conclusive and definitive manner. There just isn’t enough evidence to really come down hard either way and when the periscope was written. I just found these posts interesting and hope you do too. Here they are.

In his דמות and צלם, Part 1.

In his דמות and צלם, Part 2.

In his דמות and צלם, Part 3.

With the new style we somehow lost the ability to comment on pages. The following was a conversation I have consequently moved from our Greek New Testament Page.

Nice. I was just browsing for Luke 11:2. It is too bad that you can’t copy and paste from here. Since I’m here – how is it that we translate hmwn as “our father”? was is there in the sentence that makes us “our father” instead of just “abba” or pater? Is the “our” just part of the context? The Vulgate translation doesn’t say “nostro” or anything that looks like “our father”… Thanks in advance, and remember I don’t know greek so I”m just wondering.

E. I. Sanchez

EI,
I am a novice, but this is how I would translate this verse on its own:
And [Jesus] said to them: “Every time you [all] pray, say: ”Father, may the name of yours [your name] be holy; may the kingdom of yours [your kingdom] appear;’”
When it comes to the word pater (πάτερ) , or father, it is in the vocative, indicating that it is the thing being addressed. The feeling is that if you are addressing someone as father, it is perfectly fine to say “our father.” The NLT, ESV, and NRSV all leave out the word “our.”
For our resident Greek experts, Cheapham and Hank, if I am wrong about any of this, please let me know.

Honzo

I would agree that saying “Our Father” even though is not in the text because this is a model prayer and we can adapt it for a community setting. I am wondering if the imperative mood could come out more in the translation than what Honzo suggested. I’m not sure. When I pray, I also address Him as “My Father” or even “my Daddy.”

Hank

Hank, Which imperative? Aren’t there three imperatives here: say, be holy, and arrive? The last two are third person singular imperatives – I know to translate those as “lets” or “mays”.
How else can you do them? With that 2 person plural imperative “say” I thought about saying “[you all are to] say…” to capture the imperative flavor a little more. However, Jesus telling us to say something is technically just as imperative.

Honzo