Johnny Skeptic

I look forward to reading comments from readers.

DCHindley

Um, yes.

If anywhere in that letter, it is here:

RSV 1 Cor 11:4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head -- it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) 10 That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels.

I take this to be occasioned by the visit to Jerusalem by Queen Helena of Adiabene (a convert to Judaism, by the way) in order to fulfill a Nazirite vow, which entails the shaving of her head. Her visit (although not, apparently, the actual shaving, which was delayed due to a technicality) is generally dated to about 50-52 CE. I also think that some of this and the following verses (11-15) belong to an interpolator.

While Paul seems to be criticizing Helena's visit for reasons related to her personal practices (that is, not wearing a veil and perhaps traveling without her husband) and not the act of shaving her head, as there is nothing in Jewish law that prohibits women from fulfilling this vow, I think he was just pissed that her sons had gone the full conversion route rather than the "God-fearing" gentile angle he preferred, and latched onto this as a way to insult her.

Queen Helena (Izates' mother), who was interested in Judaism, was said to have kept a 7 year nazirite vow after her son returned safely from a war. When she came to Jerusalem to have her head shorn, the "school of Hillel" (Mishna Nazir 3.6) convinced her to "again fulfil her vow as from the beginning" in the holy land (presumably because other lands are perceived as "unclean" due to corpse impurity). Supposedly she again contracted uncleanness at the end of that and did it all over again, although this third fulfillment is possibly apocryphal.

We know she was active in relief work in the period of the famine (circa 46 CE or the couple years following since 47/48 CE was a sabbatical year). Also, kinsmen of Izates were active in the war against Rome. Helena is also known for donating (among other things) a golden tablet to the temple inscribed with the passage from the Pentateuch about the suspected adulteress (Mishna Yoma 3.10; Num 5:11-31). Helena had a palace built in Jerusalem, and she and her sons were buried in royal tombs they had built in the city, all of which must have taken many years to build.

Seven years after the famine would put us about 53 CE, and is it more than coincidental that about this period Paul is supposed to have written 1 Corinthians 11:4-16, which is about women having a covering on her head when she prays. Vs 5 & 6 say: "but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head -- it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil."

R. Eisenman speculates about this all quite a bit in James the Brother of Jesus. He thinks Helena was suspected of infidelity, and hence the donation of the tablet. While Eisenman does not make the connection between Helena and 1 Cor 11, I personally wonder whether the passage is in essence a (veiled <no pun intended> or redacted?) commentary by Paul concerning Helena about to fulfil a vow even though she is suspected of adultery (and thus having had contracted impurity). The time (50-52 CE) and subjects (shearing of hair and shaming her husband) are in parallel.

Coupling these accounts together, it could be reconstructed as follows: Helena and her sons are converted in the late 30's CE. As Helena feared, some of Izates' subjects rebelled upon his conversion, and he must go to war to put it down. She makes her vow and her son returns victorious, about 38 to 40 CE. Later, between about 45 to 47 she comes to Jerusalem to offer her hair and is convinced to start the vow afresh. During this period she arranges famine relief. I think the dates I have seen for her death range between 50 and 52 CE. This whole scenario may be pushed back to start 7 years earlier if the three 7 year periods mentioned in the Mishna are historical, although the events would probably mean a conversion in the late 20's to early 30's, her son defeats the rebellion in 31 CE, and she would have gone to Jerusalem about 38 CE only to start her vow again. This would explain her residence in Jerusalem about 46-48 CE to organize famine relief.

DCH

jakejonesiv

Hi Johnny,

I have suggested that 1 Corinthians was written in the early second century in response to the Cerinthians. See the post here. After posting this on JM, Dr. Detering contacted me and agreed with the premise. Indeed, he had done quite a bit of research in this area, and shared his research with me. I have been slow to use many of his points in the hope he will recover sufficiently to publish a scholarly study.

Robert Price, in The Pre-Nicene New Testament also mentions the Cerinthians (pages 330-331). He suggests that the destination Corinth is fictive, and more likely dealt with the Cerinthian heretics. Thus, according to Price, the letter is fictively addressed to the Corinthians as a pun for those whose doctrines it seeks to refute.

Jake Jones IV

P.S. I am currently reading Not the Impossible Faith: Why Christianity Didn't Need a Miracle to Succeed by Richard Carrrier. This is a terrific book! Thanks for being the benefactor.

Johnny Skeptic

Thanks, Jake. Even though I am not nearly a Bible scholar, I suspected that First Corinthians was written well after the Gospels were written, although fundies claim otherwise.

You are quite welcome. I have received many more thank yous. I commissioned Richard Carrier to write the original essay because "The Impossible Faith" is James Holding's admittedly flagship essay, and because Holding has a fairly large following.

Holding claims that he contacted Rodney Stark and asked Stark what he thought of the essay, and that Stark basically told him that the essay was pretty good, but that Stark disagreed with one of the chapters.

andrewcriddle

Hi Jake

One problem with your interesting post on Cerinthus is that it depends very heavily on the late account by Epiphanius in the Panarion.

This may be unreliable as evidence about the historical Cerinthus.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

Hi Johnny

1 Corinthians was known to the author of 1 Clement, which is usually dated c 100 CE.

IF you accept this dating then 1 Corinthians must be a 1st century work.

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle

The shaving head story makes Paul a proselytiser for a Judaism lite, a clearly Greek influenced variant I have been discussing elsewhere.

So we may again be looking at different Paul's, an original Greek diaspora Jew criticising an example of a conversion to the then fundies, and a later 2nd century xian Paul.