Theology for the Masses

The following is written by Jon Zens, a prolific Reformed writer and authority on New Covenant Theology:

First, 1 Cor.7:1-5 is the only place in the NT where the word “authority” (Greek, exousia) is used with reference to marriage. But it is not the authority of the husband over the wife, or vice versa, that is in view, but rather a mutual authority over each other’s body. 1 Corinthians 7:4 states that the wife has authority over her husband’s body. One would think that this would be a hard pill to swallow for those who see “authority” as resting only in the husband’s headship.

Second, Paul states that a couple cannot separate from one another physically unless there is mutual consent (Greek, symphonou). Both parties must agree to the separation or it doesn’t happen. The husband cannot override the wife’s differing viewpoint.

John Piper suggests that “mature masculinity accepts the burden of the final say in disagreements between husband and wife, but does not presume to use it in every instance” (p.32). The problem with a dogmatic statement like this is that it will allow for no exceptions. But 1 Corinthians 7:5 contradicts Piper’s maxim. If the wife disagrees with a physical separation, the husband cannot overrule his wife with the “final choice” (p.33). Such separation can occur only if both husband and wife are in “symphony” (unity) about such an action.

Now if mutual consent applies in an important issue like physical separation from one another for a period of time, wouldn’t it seem proper that coming to one-mindedness would be the broad model for decision-making in a healthy marriage? Piper feels that “in a good marriage decision-making is focused on the husband, but is not unilateral” (p.32). In light of 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 I would suggest that decision-making should focus on finding the Lord’s mind together. Over the years the good ideas, solutions to problems and answers to dilemmas will flow from both husband and the wife as they seek the Lord as a couple for “symphony.”

1 Corinthians 7:5 throws a wrench into the works for those who would include the husband’s “final say” in male headship. Paul teaches that unless the couple can agree on a course of action, it cannot be executed. I suggest that this revelation invites us to re-examine what the husband’s headship really entails (cf. Gordon D. Fee, “1 Corinthians 7:1-7 Revisited,” Paul & the Corinthians: Studies On A Community in Conflict, Trevor J. Burke/J. Keith Elliott, eds., Brill, 2003, pp.197-213).

Patriarchal Early Church Fathers

There is definitely a record of activity and leadership within (though veiled) our canon and in the witness of the early Christians. Despite this strong egalitarian strain, there was a fierce patriarchal strain as well. We see this in the canon in places (mainly the later letters) and in the writings of some of the so-called church fathers.

Of particular note is Tertullian. Now, perhaps he is a bit too late for what we are talking about this week, but he was an early leader who helped shape later (and current) discussions on the role of women in ministry.

In On the Perscription against Heretics 41, he writes:"The very women of these heretics, how wanton they are! For the are bold enough to teach, to dispute, to enact exorcisms, to undertake cures – it may be even be to baptize." While I don’t know to which supposed heretics he was referring, his attitudes what women should not do are clear. Elsewhere in On the Veiling of Virgins 9, he writes:

It is not permitted for a woman to speak in church; but neither to teach, nor to baptize, nor to offer, nor to claim herself in any manly function, not to say in any sacerdotal office. Let us inquire whether any of these be lawful to a virgin … nothing in the way of public honour is permitted to a virgin.

Furthermore, he was very incensed at the Thecla tradition, for it authorized women to baptize. He writes in On Baptism 17:

But if those women who read falsely named writings about Paul adduce the example of Thecla as a license for women to teach and to baptize, let [those women] know that the presbyter who produced this text, as though adding something of his reputation to Paul’s, resigned his position, having been discovered, and having confessed that he did so out of love for Paul.

There is so much importance packed into this last quote. Not only do we see the attitudes at play in the practice of writing in someone else’s name (a very common practice in antiquity and not necessary a bad one), but we see what was at stake for people in the canonical and extra-canonical writings. We also see why the Thecla tradition was actively suppressed and why despite of that, her cult became so attractive. And who knows about that bit about the confession – Tertullian might have made it up, or it might have just been what he had heard. What is important is how he used the story to delegitimize the Thecla tradition that was legitimizing female autonomy at the end of the 2nd century.

Evidence for Women Elders and Bishops

There are some inscriptions (though they are late) that hold up women as Elders and Bishops. Two of them are listed below:

1) Elder Kale, Centuripae, Sicily, 4th-5th Century CE

Here lies Kale the Elder. She lived 50 years blamelessly.

2) Elder Ammion, Ucak, Phrygia, 3rd Century CE

Diogas, the bishop, for Ammion [f.], the elder, in memory.

Now, these are much later than the time period that we are talking about, but I thought they were worth mentioning.

Additionally, we see later in Christian history, people arguing against women as bishops and presbyters. Epiphanius, in his Medicine Box 40, attacks the followers of Quintilla and Priscilla and says that among their followers there are women bishops, presbyters, and prophetesses. He says that they believe there is no difference between men and women’s natures. He closes his attack with references from the pastorals that seem to indicate there is a difference between women and men’s natures.

Shelving the issue of whether or not he is correct in his interpretation of the Pastorals, his writings are another evidence for women bishops and presbyters in the 300’s.

This is my second post on early Christian sources for women’s leadership.  Today we are going to look at inscriptions.  They are a great source for attitudes in Antiquity.  Today I want to look at some epitaphs, or burial inscriptions. [1]

A note about sources: If you notice, most of these are from later antiquity [2] .  I am sure that for some of you, this delegitimizes the validity of the claims.  You need to realize the nature of our sources.  Any physical sources for Christianity before the 3rd century are almost non-existent.  This is because of two interrelated factors.  First, Christians are persecuted both by the state intermittently and by the Roman “pagan” populace for being a supertitio.  Secondly, there just aren’t that many Christians in the empire up until this point.  I’d be like looking for female Mormon headstones in the late 19th century compared to today.

What we see is that during the 3-6th centuries, there were definitely women elders and deacons in various locations within the Roman Empire.  Women are in positions of leadership in the early church, both as elders and deacons, as bishops and presbyters.

Secondly, we also see a variation of gendering of the term deacon.  Sometimes it is used in the feminine and sometimes it is used with females in the masculine.  What is uncertain about the terms deacon and deaconess is the responsibilities that each conveyed.  There is abundant literary and physical evidence for deaconesses who’s job it was to minister to women to avoid suspicions of lewdness.  Male deacons were charged with men; women deacons were charged with women.  However, the pairing of deacon in the masculine with a female creates some confusion.  Is this just a regional naming practice or does it denote something deeper?  Were there deacons who were charged with the ministering to the entire congregation?  Given the evidence of Pliny’s letter to Trajan, this seems to be the case.  However, it is still uncertain as to which is the case.

1) Elder Kale, Centuripae, Sicily, 4th-5th Century CE

Here lies Kale the Elder.  She lived 50 years blamelessly.

2) Elder Ammion, Ucak, Phrygia, 3rd Century CE

Diogas, the bishop, for Ammion [f.], the elder, in memory

3) Sophia the Deacon, the Second Phoebe, Mount of Olives, Jerusalem, late 4th Cent. CE

Here lies the servant and bride of Christ
Sophia the deacon, the second Phoebe,
Falling asleep on the 21st of the month of March
In the 11th indiction
…Lord God…

4) Deaconess Athanasia, Delphi, Greece, 5th Cent. CE

The most pious deaconess Athanasia,
having lived a blameless life modestly,
having been ordained a deaconess by the most holy bishop Pantamianos,
made this monument: in it lie her remains.
Anyone who dares to open this monument,
in which the deaconess has been deposited,
will have the portion of Judas,
the betrayer of our Lord, Jesus Christ…

5) Deacon Maria, Archelais, Cappodocia, Turkey, 6th Century CE

Here lies Maria the deacon, of pious and blessed memory,
who in accordance with the speech of the apostle [3] reared children,
practiced hospitality, washed the feet of the saints, shared her bread with the afflicted.
Remember her, Lord, when you come into your kingdom.

6) Monument erected by Domna, the Deacon, Bulduk, Turkey, unknown date

Domna the deacon, daughter of Theophilos the elder, set up [the monument] to her father-in-law, Miros, and to her husband, Patroklos, in memory.

7) A Vow fulfilled by the Deacon Agrippiane, Patrae, Greece, unknown date

The Deacon Agrippiane, most beloved of God, made the mosaic because of her vow.

8) A Vow Fulfilled by a Deaconess, Stobi, Macedonia, 4th or 5th Century CE

Because of her vow, Mat(rona?) [or “of the vow of the maton], the most pious deaconess, paved the exedra with mosaic.

1. Source: Ross Shepard Kraemer, Women’s Religions in the Greco-Roman World: A Sourcebook (Oxford University Press, USA, 2004). [↩]
2. to use Peter Brown’s conception of the ages [↩]
3. 1st Tim 4:10 [↩]

Such a reading as proposed in my post series presents challenges to modern interpreters of the text. Those wishing to do a historical study of Paul and early Christian movements are need not be troubled by this. We see a Paul that is consistently egalitarian in the sense that women were on par with men from an ontological and practical standpoint. His statements on gender in Galatians and his mention of women co-workers and patrons in Romans and elsewhere no longer are besieged by the contradictions found in 1 Corinthians 11.

However, one needs to be careful that Paul is made into a modern day feminist. Paul lived in a different world from us and practical matters still trumped idealistic concerns. [1] If we construct a reading of Paul that is too clean, too idealized, then we are in danger of allowing our ideologies to overshadow the text. I do not thing this is the case in my reading, but is a very real possibility. Further exploration of the topic is needed to protect against this. I have only been able to flesh out the beginnings of my hypothesis.

Another issue of importance is that if my hypothesis is correct, then the interpolation was canonized was canonized along with the rest of the letter. This has serious implications for modern interpreters that seek a unified interpretation in the modern New Testament canon. Diametrically opposed views on gender are canonized. If the textual hypothesis is correct, then 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 stands firmly against what the historical Paul thought and taught about gender and Church practice. However, there is another voice which was canonized – a voice that showed up very early and intensified quickly as evidenced in the Pastorals and the Early Church Fathers. Therefore, interpreters must not strip out the interpolations, but to craft interpretations that are able to adequately deal with separate and distinct authors, traditions, and interpretations with the text itself.

Then the question becomes, what do we do with multiple and opposed voices within our text?  How do we, as removed interpreters, hold them in tandem, one along side with the other, without quelling either?

1. See 1 Corinthians 14 and the silencing of women, see Paul’s views on eating meat sacrificed to idols, etc. [↩]

One of the topics that is very dear to me is the role and function of women in early Christianity (both canon and post-canon).  A few days ago, I came across a post by the warm and fussy Jim West who linked to Gary Macy’s podcast on women being ordained until the 12th Century.  Edgar asked me why none of this shows up anywhere.

In this series, I’d like to highlight some of the primary sources for women being ordained in the early church.  I’ll cover official church documents, Roman sources, and unofficial church documents.  Today I am going to look at a letter dated in the early second century concerning a Roman governor’s report of Christian activity to the Emperor.

Source one: Pliny the Younger’s Letter to Trajan.

If there was one thing the Roman’s did not get, it was supertitio such as Christianity.   Christianity befuddled the Romans.  Why should a group Jews [1] revere a executed Roman criminal as a God?   Furthermore, why would people show such an excessive devotion to this person.  As weird as the Jews were to the Romans, these Christians  were even more excessive.

Viewing Christians through the eyes of the Romans helps us negate a certain bias inherent in any internal Christian writing.  Quite naturally, Christians writers were/are heavily invested in painting their brand of Christianity as the correct one over and against all other brands of Christianity, including internal dissenters within their own community (Think about a Cowboys or Boston fan writing about the NFL or the NBA).  Roman sources, while handicapped as mentioned above, bypass this bias.

In this letter from a Roman governor to the Emperor, Pliny asks Trajan what he should do with these darn Christians that have been rounded up.  There are a couple of telling passages in this letter, both about early Christian practice and for our immediate purposes, women’s roles in the early Church:

…They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food–but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it…

(it is worth mentioning that this is the earliest non-christian course for christian practice)

What do we see here?  We see, around 110CE, a local assembly of Christians in the Bithynia-Pontus province that consisted of the complete strata of Roman society.  Slaves, freed persons, rich, poor, young and old.  Pliny, in his quest to find something prosecutable among their deeds, tortures two of the leaders of the community.  Horrifyingly enough (for an elite Roman) the leaders of this community were two slave women.

Thus, we see in unbiased Roman sources that historically women served as deacons in the early Church and, at least in Bithynia-Pontus, they were the leaders of the community, as least as it related to outsiders.

Now, there are some things that need to be held in tension here.  First, is this representative of Christianity of this period?  It is only one source, after all.  Secondly, how do we know that these were the leaders.  All Pliny really mentions is that they are deaconesses (the female form of deacon).  To be minimal in our interpretation of the letter, perhaps that there were women deacons is all we can say.  But, we can say that.  Additionally, it is these two and only these two that Pliny plucked out and tortured.  He would have gone right to the top of the community’s hierarchy to do this.  So, assuming these were the only leaders is a bit of a stretch, but, as stretching goes.  It is about two miles short of the gymnastics Christian historians go through when they try to make the whole of the Bible historically accurate and consistent.  So, as leaps go, it is pretty small.

1. Romans saw them all as Jews [↩]

Question: If we are to accept the insertion of 1st Corinthians 11:3-16, then who did the inserting?

Hypothesis: It was most likely the Weak faction in the Corinthian Church because it most closely identifies with their worldview, both metaphysical and ideological.

Reasoning: If we are to accept the interpolation of 1st Corinthians 11:3-16; then who were these redactors? The answer lies within Martin’s argument: it most likely was the Weak at Corinth who interjected their own solutions to questions they were having at Corinth. We know from an analysis of Paul’s letters to Corinth that the community was in upheaval and the divisions among members were threatening the very existence of the assembly there. [1] While many have tried to reconstruct the various factions, I follow Martin in imaging the conflict in terms of the Strong and Weak, as detailed above. Under my hypothesis, Martin is correct in his interpretation of verses 3-16, but he is incorrect as to who is writing.

The Corinthian correspondence is not a naked reproduction of Paul’s letters, but the end result of a publication process which represents final editing and processing of Paul’s correspondence with the Corinthians. Adopting such a view of 1st and 2nd Corinthians detracts from pristine Pauline authorship, correcting an idealistic view of the texts. The voice of the Corinthian community resides in the two letters as we have them today, if only by virtue of the letter’s existence.

We have to remember that the “Publisher” of these letters was the Assembly at Corinth, not the Apostle Paul

If this is correct, then the lack of direct manuscript evidence of the insertion of verses 3-16 actually bolsters this view. The manuscripts must have been edited very early and very completely because there are no surviving manuscripts that are absent 11:3-16. [2] If the Corinthian community itself did the editing, then we would expect this to be the case. By reading the surviving pieces of the letters that comprise 2nd Corinthians, which were also edited together very early, we can tell that the situation improved. However, not all of the differences between the Weak and the Strong were negotiated by Paul; as such we can expect that they did some negotiating on their own. One could not hope to have a single man smooth out and declare the synthesis of the two opposing views. One can see that Paul acted as a mediator, but not dictator in dialogue between the two groups.

I want to suggest that what one finds in verses 3-16 is another piece of that negotiation apart from Paul, one that happened under the guidance of, but not directed by Paul. Thus, the Weak’s views on the body, angels, and ontological views of gender show up in the interpolation. We should expect the Weak’s views on these matters so shine through this section of text, for they were the more numerous group in Corinth. Throughout the letter, Paul philosophically agrees with the Strong, but advocated the Weak’s position. Here, however, the opposite happens. The philosophical positions of the Weak are assumed, but the hierarchical positions common to the Strong are aspired to. This hypothesis can only be sketched out here, but needs more careful consideration.

Up next: If someone else, who was in opposition to Paul, wrote this section, what do we, as Canonical Christians, do with the text?

1. Calvin J Roetzel, The Letters of Paul: Conversations in Context, 4th ed (Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 83-95. [↩]
2. Walker, “1 Corinthians 11,” 98. [↩]

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. [↩]

A few days ago, we looked briefly at some characteristics of Paul’s Jewish/Christian appocalypticism. Today we will turn to an in-depth analysis of how the Strong in Corinth would have constructed their genders and bodies. This will be of great importance for our understanding of 1 Cor 11. We are still exploring Martin’s reading of Paul.

In addition to the invocation of Jewish Apocalypticism, Marin’s reading of 1 Corinthians 11 relies heavily on ancient constructions of gender and the body. It is the principle strength of his reading. Masculinity and Femininity were two poles on a spectrum that could be traversed. On one end, you have the masculine, rational, self-mastery, the hot, the active, the powerful; on the other you have the feminine, the erotic, the erratic, the cool, the passive, the weak. One was not granted a spot on the line by their genitalia; rather, it was their role and actions within the social body that determined how masculine or feminine a person was. Granted, males were much more likely to be on the hot, powerful, active side of the scale, but women could gain masculinity in rare cases if they broke out of their stereotypical societal roles and men could lose masculinity in the same manner. It was very rare, but it did happen on occasion.

The figure below represents the poles that one could traverse in Roman antiquity. It is ironic to note how much this schema has influenced and lingers within the evangelical body of Christ! How often have you heard quips giving life to the below?

For Martin, one’s physiology determines one’s initial location on this scale. Animals, females, males, and the supernatural beings all have different grades of bodies. Humans stand at the junction of the heavenly and the earthly. Human forms are composed of three substances, σάρξ (sarx), ψυχή/, (psyche), and πνεῦμα (pneuma). Sarx refers to the fleshy component of a human, psyche to the corruptible mind, and pneuma to the incorruptible spirit. For Paul, σῶμα refers not to a physical body, but to the forms that the various substances take; thus, there is the fleshy form (sarx sōma), the mental form (psyche sōma), and the spiritual form (pneuma sōma). The sarx sōma of male and females are composed a differing degrees of stuff, with the male being comprised of the higher quality of the two. Due to these physiological differences, women and feminized men “are at greater risk from a variety of threats, of pollution, invasion, and corruption.” [1]

The picture below is how the Strong in Corinth, and presumably Paul, constructed and arranged the various bodies and substances of which things were made. Those on the bottom are of higher quality “stuff,” whether it be of better flesh, better mind, or better spirits.

For Martin, despite all of these reversals, Paul’s physiology still circumscribes his theology. Since the Parousia had not come yet; his readers were still stuck in their sarx sōmas until the Resurrection. Paul, in his discussion on the resurrected bodies in 1 Cor 15, sought to convince the Strong of a bodily resurrection while dispelling fears of a zombie resurrection. He did this by delineating the three substances of the current body, sarx, psyche, and pneuma. Paul says the resurrected form will not consist of the sarx sōma (cf. 1 Cor 15:50) nor the psyche sōma (cf. 1 Cor 15:46) in 15:52 but will consist of the pneuma sōma (cf. 1 Cor 15:46). [2]

The sarx and psyche sōma of women originates from and therefore is lower than those of males. As beings constructed out of lesser stuff, they are more susceptible to invasions from outside forces. For this reason, women must be veiled in public worship. One of the most worrisome and threatening forces were spiritual beings who could invade the forms of lesser beings. For Paul, even angels were considered dangerous. Angels were considered dangerous and lusted after women. This understanding originates from Genesis 6:4, where the sons of God have sexual relations with women. Accordingly, the negation of gender by Paul through the destruction of the poles (see above) is real only real in the eschatological sense for the effects of the sarx sōma cannot be escaped whilst we are trapped in these bodies. The sarx sōma that women are trapped in render them susceptible to pollution by outside forces. The issue of veiling demonstrates this intersection of hierarchy and physiology for Paul. He appeals to the physiology of gender to establish the hierarchy of gender. Paul does claim that one day this distinction will disappear (cf. Gal 3:28) but for now it remains because of nature of our sarx sōma.

With these views of the body and gender in hand, 11:2-16 begins to make sense. Because of the nature of their sarx and psyche forms, women are more susceptible to pollution by outside forces, such as angels. The only way to protect them was to veil them with a symbol of authority. Men could neither wear long hair nor prophesy with a covered head for this would feminize them and unbalance the community. All members of the assembly were humors of the body of Christ and need to be kept either in balance or safe from pollution. This would ensure the health of the assembly, which is consistent with Paul’s overarching purpose in this letter. This view makes sense of the reference to angels and is able to harmonize the contradictions between Paul’s statements on gender here with those elsewhere in the Pauline corpus.

This reading makes great internal sense and bypasses the problems we listed earlier.  However, it is not without its own set of problems.  First, reading the angels as malevolent forces does not seem in step with Paul, who generally does not buy into the activity of malevolent spirits outside of God’s control. Paul usually does not ascribe worth to the activities of spirits outside of God’s control; he has no problem with eating meat sacrificed to idols aside from practical image implications. Additionally, there is still the problem with Paul’s activities, if women are as ontologically inferior as this reading suggests   Next, I will explore another reading of this text, one that hopefully will retain the strengths of Martin’s reading while solving the remaining problems.

1. Martin, The Corinthian Body, p. 199 [↩]
2. See Martin, The Corinthian Body, 123-129 for a detailed discussion of this. [↩]

In the last post in this series we were introduced to Dale Martin’s interpretation of 1 Corinthians. He thinks there are two keys to understanding the letter, the differing constructions of the body in antiquity, and the parousia of Christ. We took a few paragraphs to familiarize ourselves with the first key, though we will be returning to it in depth later, and now, let us do the same with the second key.

General Characteristics of Apocalyptic Gospels

We could spend much time on this topic, but a few introductory comments will have to suffice in the interests of time and attention spans. Apocalyptic gospels are quite popular in times of oppression. They tend to imagine or construct mirror worlds to expose the instability of the values of the cultures they are opposed to, in this case, the Greco-Roman culture. [1] For a really interesting discussion of the issues surrounding apocalypticism, see “Apocalyptic AI: Religion and the Promise of Artificial Intelligence (PDF)” by Robert Geraci.

Paul’s Parousia

Our particular apocalyptic gospel, Paul’s, presupposes a “now, but not yet” inverted vision of reality. The structures of the world are contrasted with the structures of the Kingdom of God, which is found restored in the Church, but not fully realized within the rest of the world. There will come a time when the Kingdom of God will be fully ushered in, but that will not happen until the Parousia of Christ.

Currently, there are slaves and freepersons, but in the kingdom of God, there are no such distinctions. To underscore this point, Paul inverts the current model – the slaves are free in Christ and the free are slaves to Christ. [2] Paul does not directly argue for equality, abstract nor realized, but for inversions of current social hierarchies. Paul identifies with the Strong in Corinth on a philosophical level, but subverts their culturally engrained hierarchies by appealing to Parousia of Christ for the purpose of unifying the assembly there. [3] Paul inverts all manners of social society in 1 Corinthians, from socioeconomic status, educational privilege, freedom, and slavery. [4] Paul uses this series of reversals as a rhetorical tool to correct the Strong on matters of wisdom, philosophy, and rhetoric, the Lord’s Supper, non-Christian courts, sacrificial meat, speaking in tongues, and the nature of the resurrection.

Thus, Martin’s Paul sees the Parousia of Christ at the 2nd key to understanding 1 Corinthians. All of the categories of exploitation are reversed through the Parousia; gender is the only non-reversed category, for reasons we will explore next.

1. Martin, The Corinthian Body, 60. [↩]
2. 1 Corinthians 7:21-24 [↩]
3. Martin, The Corinthian Body, 68. [↩]
4. Martin, The Corinthian Body, 199. [↩]

The first few posts in this series laid the groundwork for exploring the problems surrounding interpreting 1 Corinthians 11.  We dealt with both textual and ideological problems that one must be aware of when giving a reading of the text.  Today I will move on to building some background to the Corinthian church which will illuminated the issues raised in the text.

Body Image(s)

Dale Martin, in The Corinthian Body, does not set out to solve the great quandary of 1 Corinthians 11; instead, he reads the letter in light of Greco-Roman bodily constructions instead of Cartesian constructions of the body. Whether or not you buy Martin’s interpretation of 1 Corinthians, the book is an absolute goldmine for understanding the various constructions of the Body in antiquity.  You will not believe the disconnect between how we see the body and how ancients saw the body; there is almost no comparison – something that colors our interpretations of ancient texts!

(This was not how the ancients constructed their bodies.)

Martin assumes that 1 Corinthians is a unified letter and does not address the possibility of insertions, redactions, etcetera.  Martin views Paul’s primarily goal in 1 Corinthians as the unification of two classes of assembly members, “the Weak” and “the Strong,” which differ wildly in terms of economic status and worldview. [1]   Martin thinks that this is the interpretive key which unlocks the text.

An Aside on Class in Antiquity

Class often refers to divisions of people according to their economic level. While this works well for more contemporary analysis, it has often been criticized because contemporary levels of analysis do not reflect the social setting of Antiquity. However, it can be helpful to use class if you look at the exploited and the exploiters. This looks at economic relationship rather than wealth. The four classes in Antiquity were the ordines, humiliores, the poor, and finally the destitute. While the upper class technically is constituted by the first two groups, when I refer to the upper class, I follow Martin in referring to the humiliores, or the ordines and humiliores, unless specifically noted. [2]

Back to Bodies

The Strong consisted of the upper classes of society who lived off of the production of the Weak. The Strong envisioned the body as a collection of humors; health consisted of maintenance of balance among the humors. On the other hand, while the Weak saw the body in similar terms as the Strong, health consisted of protection, not from imbalance, but from invasion of outside forces, such as disease daimons.

It is much harder to construct a clear view of the body by the Weak because almost all of the extant literature in Antiquity comes from the upper classes – the voices of Weak are all but lost in the wind of history. Martin uses material from the magical papyri and glimmers of the Weak’s ideology in the writings of the Strong to grasp at the Weak’s view of the body. [3]

For both the body was a microcosm of society and, as Christians, a microcosm of the body of Christ, the Church. Paul evokes Jewish Apocalyptic thought which inverts status markers to move the Strong’s conception of the body of Christ, which whom he identifies, to unify with the Weak’s.  We will explore these themes in the next few posts.

1. Dale B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (Yale University Press, 1999), 68. [↩]
2. See Dale B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (Yale University Press, 1999), xvi for more on this subject. [↩]
3. “The ideology of the mean, inscribed upon and within the human body, was one of many techniques that enabled the Greco-Roman upper class to maintain its power and hierarchical structure of society. Then, as now and often throughout history, emphasis on the moderation and middle functioned conservatively to solidify the status quo as defined by the upper class. By retaining the power to define beauty, status, and nature, the upper class maintained its position as the creator of the Greco-Roman body” Dale B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (Yale University Press, 1999), 36 [↩]

A while ago Tom wrote about the connection between the bizarre dictums [1] found within the Pauline letter to the Ephesians and the Artemis cult in Ephesos.  While I remain unconvinced about the genuine Pauline authorship of the letter [2] and therefore am more open to early Christian patriarchal forms seeping into the canon than Tom is, his posts on the topic are very good and the counter-point I hold when thinking through issues of authorship and gender relations in the Pauline corpus. [3]

ProTip: Read his posts on the topic!

Part of a frieze from the temple of Artemis, Ephesos.  Greeks under Herakles (marked by his club and lion’s cape) scare off hour Amazons, who seek Sanctuary with Artemis (on block to right, not preserved). Found inn and described by Price in Religions of the Ancient Greeks. 

With that said, I came across an interesting passage in Religions of the Ancient Greeks by Simon Price on this very topic.  After discussing the merits of talking about Panhellenism [4] , Price opens a discussion concerning local versions of myths.  In doing so, he contrasts the Athenian myths of Theseus fighting the Amazons [5] with the Ephesian myth of the town harboring Amazons. 

Not only was Ephesos guardian of a unique image of Artemis, which has supposedly fallen from heaven, but Ephesos also claimed that Artemis had been born there (and not as it was often claimed on the Aegean island of Delos).  The Ephesians also sometimes claimed that her cult had been established by the Amazons, who thus sometimes had a much more positive significance at Ephesos than at Athens.  The benevolence of Artemis towards the Amazons is also illustrated in the local story of how the Amazons successfully sought the sanctuary of Artemis, both from Herakles and from Dionysos.  Artemis remained the protector of both the Amazons and the city right through antiquity.

The city’s connection with something as repulsive to the average Greek [6] as the Amazons, one of the ultimate threats to the Greek way of life, can only lend further support to Tom’s thesis. [7]   It further demonstrates the pull that Artemis had in the city and demonstrates that there was a substantial mythic will in the city to invert the male/female domination scheme, which was a product of the fall.

1. saved through childbirth??? [↩]
2. I am textually liberal, theologically conservative, politically indifferent, and socially… something [↩]
3. could that be a longer sentence? [↩]
4. it is a problematic, but useful term [↩]
5. the fabled feminist threat to the male/Greek way of life [↩]
6. well, often this hypothetical “Average Greek” is constructed from the particular Greek of Athens and then abstracted over all of the Greek cities, a topic for another post [↩]
7. Even though it is circumstantial evidence at best, which I might add, is the best kind of evidence you are going to get either way here.  We simply don’t have the sources to demonstratively demonstrate anything on this topic! [↩]

My last post in this series added to the problem that modern interpreters encounter whenever they seek to interpret 1 Corinthians 11.  This one will briefly address ideological considerations and the salvation of Paul.

This undertaking has both current and historical value. A great many people, for better or worse, appeal to Paul to justify their stance on gender issues; in protestant circles alone, the Pauline tradition is appealed to in the internal debate between complementarianism [1] and egalitarianism. Such a study has historical value for a variety of reasons. It helps us determine how ancient religious groups used and modified texts, and helps us build a composite picture of how the early Christians saw themselves and the world around them.

Interpreters must be weary of trying to “save Paul” from any particular ideological interpretation. A principle concern here is the danger of allowing one’s ideology to color one’s reading of the text. Each reader has some form of vested interest that he cannot fully separate from himself. Because of a mix of background factors, I want Paul to be an idealistic egalitarian; I want him to affirm the basic ontological equality of men and women and to justify the use of women for any task with the body of Christ. My sister, on the other hand, wants Paul to be a modern complementarian because it helps her unify the entire Pauline corpus and will save her collection of sacred texts from the taint of theological error.  No reader brings a tabula rasa to Paul; every interpretation is filtered through his ideology.

The same is true for any reading of texts – both the Arminian and Calvinist alike lie to themselves and each other when they claim a pristine reading of a given text.  Each really puts on their polarizing spectacles prior to reading the text – and is surprised when they find exactly what they were looking for in the text – such is the danger of ideology.  The system becomes an idol – a god that cannot be challenged, a holy writ that cannot be changed.  When your theological system allows no room for movement or questioning it is usually in need of both.  The biblical books are often too wild for such ridgid systems.

It is with this in mind that I am writing this series.  I am trying to make every attempt to allow Paul to speak for himself.  Protection from both modern and ancient interpreters will be attempted even though this cannot fully be accomplished. One may appropriate Paul for her ends, but one should be mindful of what she is doing and not delude herself that she is giving and unbiased reading of the “historical Paul.”  Such a thing is nigh impossible – but is a noble task indeed.  Humility in interpretation is needed.

1. This is the stance on gender issues that proposes that males and females have the same ontological worth, but different designated roles. [↩]

In the first post in this series, I started to talk about the problems that modern day interpreters have no matter how they approach the 11th chapter of 1st Corinthians.  Today, I want to highlight another few problems and start talking about the characteristics of a satisfactory interpretation. 

In addition to my earlier points, Paul makes a seemingly bizarre reference to the necessity of veiled women “διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους” or “due to the angels” in verse 10. Paul does find angels to be seemingly wild beings; in Romans 8:38, angels are listed among the things that cannot separate the readers from the love of god – however, this does not tell us much about how Paul sees them operating in the world. The closest Pauline reference to dangerous angels is in 2 Corinthians where Paul says an “ἄγγελος σατανᾶ,” or angel of Satan was sent to torment him. See Because of the Angels: Unveiling Paul’s Anthropology in 1 Corinthians 11 by Jason BeDuhn for an excellent discussion on the topic.  BeDuhn says that:

It is essential that we note Paul’s tight construction here using δια,  and how that makes διὰ τοὺς αγγέλους an integral  part of his argument, because all alternative interpretations of 1 Corinthians 11 assume that Paul provides no clue  in the passage as  to what  he means by διὰ τοὺς ἀγγὲλους, and  that  we must provide meaning for this phrase from outside of the passage.  In fact, most attempts to explain the "angels" treat  them as only loosely connected to Paul’s main argument. This assumption has provided a license for speculation in support of the tendency of interpreters to gloss the text. In some way or other,  the angels are  seen to be a  threat  to the women that must  be guarded  against  by the "authority"  on a woman’s head. [1]

Thus, no matter what, an interpretation of the text must explain this curious insertion by the author.  There have been a myriad of suggestions put forth as to what Paul is talking about here.  Some have tied it to a specific cultic practice.  Others have suggested that “on account of the angels” referred to the prophetic process since it was was thought that angels delivered the oracles of God.  Still others thought that Paul was advising women in Corinth to protect themselves from the sexual advances of angels, ala Genesis 6:2.

The rest of the section does not fair any better. Paul finds it necessary to bolster the reasoning of verses 7-9, which argue from veiling upon hierarchical grounds, to appeal to nature in verse13-15. It is odd that Paul would reason directly from Genesis and then follow his conclusion up with an appeal to cultural norms. All of this is culminates in verse 16 which backs away from the force of the proceeding section as if Paul is throwing up his hands and saying “Look, this is the only way we have ever done things here.” Paul, throughout his letters, never resorts to such weak argumentation. [2]

A satisfactory interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 must harmonize the uniquely Pauline concepts concerning gender and worship issues, maintain a tight rhetorical form which matches Paul elsewhere, and explain διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους.

My next post will outline the ideological considerations that any interpreter must consider when approaching any text.  Then we will begin exploring what I consider to be the best way to read the text.

1. Because of the Angels: Unveiling Paul’s Anthropology in 1 Corinthians 11 by Jason BeDuhn. p. 304 [↩]
2. See chapter 1 of Stanley K. Stowers, A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles (Yale University Press, 1997) for a discussion of the rhetorical skill of Paul. [↩]

I’d like to direct you all to this article from the New York Times Magazine about Mark Driscoll and the “new Calvinism.” It’s really interesting, and definitely highlights some important issues surrounding both Driscoll and the (relatively) recent Calvinism resurgence.

I find this quote, from the final page of the article, especially interesting:

Nowhere is the connection between Driscoll’s hypermasculinity and his Calvinist theology clearer than in his refusal to tolerate opposition at Mars Hill. The Reformed tradition’s resistance to compromise and emphasis on the purity of the worshipping community has always contained the seeds of authoritarianism: John Calvin had heretics burned at the stake and made a man who casually criticized him at a dinner party march through the streets of Geneva, kneeling at every intersection to beg forgiveness. Mars Hill is not 16th-century Geneva, but Driscoll has little patience for dissent. In 2007, two elders protested a plan to reorganize the church that, according to critics, consolidated power in the hands of Driscoll and his closest aides. Driscoll told the congregation that he asked advice on how to handle stubborn subordinates from a “mixed martial artist and Ultimate Fighter, good guy” who attends Mars Hill. “His answer was brilliant,” Driscoll reported. “He said, ‘I break their nose.’ ” When one of the renegade elders refused to repent, the church leadership ordered members to shun him. One member complained on an online message board and instantly found his membership privileges suspended. “They are sinning through questioning,” Driscoll preached. John Calvin couldn’t have said it better himself.

I’m personally not a very big fan of Driscoll. I think what he’s done on the cultural front is important and interesting…but this article highlights the exact reasons why his hyper-authoritarian militaristic brand of Christianity (and the Calvinist roots behind it) scares me. Any thoughts, comments, reflections?

Paul of Tarsus vexes his interpreters with respect to women. At times he is the champion of modern feminist, at others he locks women back into their cages from which they had been liberated by Jesus. [1]   On the whole, his genuine letters appear to be radically egalitarian compared to the temporally and geographically adjacent cultures and it is clear that he worked closely with women leaders in the Church. [2]   However, his most influential early interpreters, the writers of the Pauline letters [3] and early Church fathers, are progressively patriarchal compared to the same cultures. The easiest and most commonly appealed to explanation of this shift is enculturation. The pressure of Greco-Roman culture which was steeped in patriarchal logic was so great that it was impossible for the egalitarian bubble erected by Jesus and maintained by Paul to be free from pagan diffusion of gender roles. As such, we have the adoption of Roman household codes in the Pastorals [4] and persecution of egalitarian Pauline traditions by the Church fathers. [5]

This neat divide between the egalitarian Paul and patriarchal later interpreters breaks down towards the end of 1 Corinthians. In chapter eleven of this letter to the Christian assembly in Corinth, Paul advises the Christians on matters of public worship, including matters of women prophesying. During this discussion, Paul makes series of clear statements concerning ontological priority of the genders, [6] the epitome of which is “And I want you to know that Christ is the head of all men, and man is the head of woman, and God is the head of Christ.” [7]   This statement is in stark contrast with the baptismal formula quoted by Paul in his letter to the assembly in Galatia: “Neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female is among [you all], for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” [8] It is however, much more in line with statements made in the Pastorals, such as 1 Timothy 2:12-14: “But I neither permit a woman to teach nor have authority over a man, but to be in stillness.” [9]   Prima facie, Paul is being blatantly inconsistent here.

In the next post, I will further explore problems with this text, including the bizarre reference to “διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους” or “due to the angels” in verse 10, and offer up my hypothesis for setting the problems.

1. For a discussion of Jesus’ treatment of women, see Elisabeth Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 10th (Herder & Herder, 1994), Part II. [↩]
2. The term Church will refer to what Paul calls the “body of Christ” and local Churches will be referred to as assemblies. For a discussion on real women in the genuine Pauline letters, see Margaret Y. MacDonald, “Reading Real Women Through the Undisputed Letters of Paul,” in Women and Christian Origins, ed. Ross Shepard Kraemer and Mary Rose D’Angelo (Oxford University Press, USA, 1999), 199-220. [↩]
3. This list includes both the deuteropauline and pastoral letters [↩]
4. Dennis Ronald MacDonald, The Legend and the Apostle: The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon, 1st ed (Westminster John Knox Press, 1983), 78-80. [↩]
5. Tertullian, On Baptism. in Ross Shepard Kraemer, Women’s Religions in the Greco-Roman World: A Sourcebook (Oxford University Press, USA, 2004), 261 [↩]
6. While Paul is describing sex here not gender, this helpful modern distinction is not directly applicable to Greco-Roman discourse. This will be addressed in detail later in the paper. [↩]
7. “Θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς εἶδέναι῾ὅτι παντὸς ἀνδρὸς ἡ κεφαλὴ ὁ Χριστός ἐστιν, κεφαλὴ δὲ γυναικὸς ὁ ἀνὴρ, κεφαλὴ δὲ ψοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ θεὸς” – 1 Corinthians 11:3. [↩]
8. “ οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲ Ἑλλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ε}λευθεροη, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν δαὶ θῆλυ· πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἶς ἐσιε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ” – Galatians 3:28. [↩]
9. “διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρόσ, ἀνδρός, ἀλλʼ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ.” -1 Timothy 2:12-14 . [↩]