zaitzeff

After reading that I Cor 15:3-11 may be an interpolation, I wonder about two other problematic passages: I Cor 11:2-16 and I Cor 14:34,35.

I Cor 11:2-16 and I Cor 14:34,35 are two passages dealing with
women in the church, and which modern Christians have sometimes found objectionable or at least difficult. The general movement have been to tolerate women doing various things, even preaching and pastoring, while miniminizing these verses and their extent. Some say that these verses apply only to the time of Paul; some say that women can do anything in the church other than to be the single chief leader. Recently there has been controversy and upset about one of Billy Graham's daughters who is a preacher, and various other Southern Baptists who turn their backs or leave if she were to speak.

see for example,

http://www.biblebb.com/files/tonyqa/tc01-108.htm

Question

Could you elaborate on the ministry of "women evangelists." I'm thinking now of Billy Graham's second daughter, Anne Graham Lotz (AGL). She actually is not preaching in a "church" or "worship" setting, so many say it's okay for her to go out and preach to large crowds (usually made up of "Believers," men and women), because this is not a "church" setting. I'm really having a hard time justifying this in my mind. I see it as usurping the male authority. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd like your thoughts (and scripture) on this matter. I do know that AGL purports to be a "preacher." I don't know if she's been ordained. Thanks for any insight you may be able to give me.

Answer

Let me say that I believe that Anne Graham Lotz is very wrong in what she is doing and is going against the principles outlined in the Word of God. . .

meanwhile, various nonfundamentalist churches increasingly allow women preachers.

Do we have any evidence for I Cor 11:2-16 being an interpolation? I believe we do. I don't know Greek well enough to comment on certain linguistic arguments for or against this passage being genuinely of Paul. Perhaps someone else does.

However, the passage starts out:

2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you.

Actually, nearly the whole letter of I Cor is Paul being upset with the Corinthians for not "remembering [Paul] in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as [he, Paul] passed them on to [them]." Had Paul forgotten everything he had just written and everything he was about to write? Did thinking about women's hair cause Paul temporary amnesia?? Was Paul high?

In fact, in the very next section after this Paul says
17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good.
18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

Paul says it's great that the Corinthians remember and heed the teachings of Paul exactly as he delivered them, v. 2, and continues to tell them why he is unhappy with them, v 17, 18! And, this is after chapters 1-10 of Paul not very happy! Did the same Paul write both?

Paul is normally clear and understandable. Here is what one Christian commentator, who believes the passage is authentic, says about this passage:

"Some . . . of I Cor 11:2-16 are beyond our ability to interpret confidently. . . No explanation from contemporary scholarly writers is clearly helpful as to why the man's head is uncovered and the woman's head is covered. . . There is a question about the meaning of the word exousia in verse 10. . . we are unable to determine with finality the custom to which Paul refers . . ."

see the footnotes for chapter 7 of
Man and Woman in Christ
by Stephen B. Clark

One example of . a scornful approach is in R.C. Devor, "When We're 'Blindsided' by the Gospel," Encounter, (Autumn, 1974), p. 376, as he says of verse 14: "This is not only laughable but questionable. Convention may have dictated short haired men and long haired women. It may have been a part of Paul's religious tradition. [Probably not if Paul was a Jew.] But it can hardly be claimed that this is the way 'nature' ordered it . . . as we can see everywhere today, long haired men abound. I would hesitate to suggest to most of them that their appearance is degrading."

Among those [commentators] who state that Paul makes no sense, or that he presents a string of poor arguments, realizes their weakness, and appeals to authority, are R.C. Devor, "When We're 'Blindsided' by the Gospel," pp. 360-381; Scroggs, "Paul and the Eschatological Woman," p. 297; and Walker, p. 97.

In fact, no passage in all of Paul's genuine letters seems to create as many problems and leave as many unanswered questions as this one, on an apparently simple and mundane topic of appropriate dress for women while
in church! The only other so serious problematic passage in Paul is the single verse I cor 15:29, on which there is no agreement, among Christian commentators, as to who is being baptized for the dead and why.

"Paul" states that women need to wear a head-covering. "Paul" gives 5 reasons for this:
1) not wearing a head-covering would shame their husbands, v. 5;
2) horny angels, like those of Genesis 6, would lust after them if
they did not wear a head-covering, v. 10
3) "judge for yourselves," and you'll know I am right v 13.
4a) it is only natural that men have short hair and
4b) it is only natural that women have long hair and having
long hair was meant to cover them and, presumably, since long hair was meant by God for a covering, women need to go one better and add a veil
5) if the arguments 1-4 do not convince you, know this. A women wearing a veil is the only right way because it is the way the churches--that is, except for you troublemakers in Corinth--do things.

This has got to be the worst argument "Paul" ever made and he makes it without citing a single scripture! Note the similarities, by the way to
I Cor 14:34,35. "Paul" again appeals to the authority of "all the churches."
(see argument 5 above) "Paul" says it is disgraceful for women to speak in church. (see argument 4 above) "Paul" misquotes the Old Testament as claiming that women are obliged to obey, but this is not even a quotation, because "Paul" does not repeat the passage to which he refers.

Compare this with Paul's pattern in Romans 3, in which he repeats in Greek a number of Old Testament passages. Or, compare with I Cor 10:7
"as it is written, 'The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.'"
Or, see I Cor 1:19
"For it is written, 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.'"

Paul, the genuine Paul, is certainly able to quote scripture for his purpose. Even when Paul feels compelled to make what we now regard as a poor argument, Paul cites the applicable scripture. See Galatians 3:16
"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."

anyway, if anyone has any further reasons for doubting that Paul wrote I Cor 11:2-16, I'd enjoy reading them. By the way, there is another peculiarity in this passage. In the genuine letters of Paul, he does not speak of Christ as head of the church, an idea which appears first in Col 1, and is a development upon the references to the church as the body of Christ. However, in I Cor 11:3, "Paul" speaks of Christ as the head of every man.
















The claim of I Cor 11 is that women are obliged to wear a head-covering
(perhaps and probably a veil)

Javaman

If you haven't read it already, you may want to check out Apocryphal Apparitions:
1 Corinthians 15:3-11 as a Post-Pauline Interpolation by Robert Price. I'm not knowledgeable enough to provide any of my own insight (yet).

Crazy Liz

The first half of 1 Corinthians 11 is not an interpolation, but a Pauline parody. It has been misinterpreted for hundreds of years because churches have broken up Paul's letters into little pieces considered to be of appropriate length for public reading. But Paul didn't write his letters in little blocks of half-chapters suitable for a lectionary.

Your reading of 1 Corinthians as a whole is quite good. The problem is that the first half of 1 Corinthians 11 was never meant to stand alone. It was meant as a parody. Paul "praises" the Corinthians for figuring out al kinds of arcane theological details about hairstyles just to contrast with not praising them for neglecting the important matters in the second half of chapter 11.

Toto

Crazy Liz - what is the basis for calling this a parody? What is it parodying?

William O. Walker, Jr., in Interpolations in the Pauline Letters, devotes an entire chapter to arguing that 1 Cor 11.3-16 is an interpolation. He points out that verse 2 flows easily into verse 17. Verse 18 says "In the first place. . ." which seems out of place if verses 3-16 had originally been part of the text. Walker also finds the language of that section typical of post-Pauline and pseudo-Pauline writings (namely, the Pastorals, Colossians, and Ephesians).

Walker points out that only this passage in the "genuine" Pauline letters advocated male priority and female subordination, but those themes are common in the post and pseudo-Pauline letters. In other passages, Paul makes positive references to female coworkers, and shows no interest in details of dress or propriety. Walker lists other technical reasons for seeing this passage as a later interpolation.

zaitzeff

does Walker believe that I Cor 14:34,35 are interpolations also?

Toto

He appears to. There are about 20 references to that passage in the index. On p 80-81 he says:

Walker is not passing judgment on various passages - he discusses in depth the factors that might lead one to decide that certain passages are or are not interpolated. His conclusion is almost muted - there is a lot of evidence for interpolations, but he does not call for removing them, just recognizing the probability that they are interpolated.

I recommend reading the book if you are interested in the question.

Crazy Liz

I'll take a look at Walker when I have time. As far as the first half of 1 Corinthians 11 being a parody, that is my working hypothesis at this time, and I hope you will feel free to provide intelligent critique.

First of all, 1 Corinthians demonstrates several kinds of reasoning processes and methods of argumentation. A common one is diatribe. I think the first half of 1 Cor. 11 is a parody of a diatribe, which represents arguments among the Corinthians themselves about the "deep theological significance" of women's hairstyles. None of the arguments really make sense. Some are total nonsense. The author begins by setting out a God -> man -> woman hierarchy, but states it out of order. Each subsequent argument is arcane, and not supported anywhere else in scripture. They contradict each other.

Apparently, the purpose of the first half of the chapter is to sarcastically "praise" the Corinthian Christians for paying such close attention to each and every ordinance and tradition delivered to them by Paul, taking care to develop a deep and intricate theology about women's hairstyles.

All of this is a rhetorical set-up for the second half of the chapter, where he "does not praise" them for neglecting the poor in their common meal, one of the most important ordinances, which Paul "received from the Lord" and delivered to the Corinthians exactly as received. Yet they were making a mockery of this in practice, just as they were making a mockery of theology by arguing and forming elaborate theologies about women's hairstyles. It is a rhetorical set-up comparing their great attention to something trivial with their lack of attention to something important.

Toto

I am a little put off at this style of argument. You stated with assurance that the first half of 1 Cor 11 was a parody, as if you knew of learned critics who had demonstrated that after peer reviewed studies. But now it's just a working hypothesis.

You realize that there is a passage of 1 Cor that is sort of stand up comedy, where Paul calls himself a "fool" and takes on every different persona of the fool of Greco-Roman comedy. Runaway Paul: Paul's Appropriation of the Role of the Fool in 1 Corinthians 1–4 by Laurence L. Welborn Reference here - the full article is no longer online for free. This argument was based on extensive reading of classical material as well as textual analysis. But I don't see the same sort of argument here. Do you have other examples of this sort of parody from contemporary literature?

This seems rather ad hoc. From your modern point of view, the idea of women's hairstyles having theological significance seems like nonsense, but you can see many examples even today in Islam, Orthodox Judaism, and some Christians, where women's fashion statements are considered to be significant, enforced by special police or social sanctions. (Islamic women must cover their hair, sometimes their faces and every part of their bodies. Orthodox Jewish women must dress modestly, with long sleeves, and after marriage cut off their hair and wear wigs. Some conservative Christian cults have women dress in long skirts, as if the fashion of the early 19th century is sacred.) This is not "nonsense" - it is the social control of women's sexuality and a common practice of religions. It may not make sense to a modern person, but that does not mean that Paul or early Christians thought that it was nonsensical.

And Christians seem to have taken these passages seriously for most of the last two thousand years.

This section might be a diatribe, although it does not seem to fit this definition - who is the imaginary partner?

You would need to investigate the use of diatribe in Greco-Roman rhetoric of the time before you can decide that this is either a diatribe or a parody of a diatribe. Scholars do seem to have identified "diatribes" in Paul's letters, but I have not seen this identified as one.

The only problem with this is that there is no indication that Paul is praising the Corinthians for their attention to women's hair. Paul is just stating the rules for women, without noting whether the Corinthian women follow them or not.

It makes much more sense to see this passage as a blatant interpolation, with no relation to the passages before or after it.

See how much more sense this passage makes with the interpolation removed:

2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings,[a] just as I passed them on to you.

{omit the fashion advice}

17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good.

Isn't this how everyone is advised to admonish students. First of all, say something positive - they have held to the teachings. Then let them know what they have done wrong.

All that said, this chapter appears to be a series of passages that were cut and pasted together, as if the scribe lost his place when copying it.

manimal2878

So from what I'm reading of your arguements,
If I don't agree with it or it seems insane to try and follow in our modern society I can just assume it's an interpolation by somebody and ignore it?

I mean it was all created by men through there beliefs at one time, when do we get the point where we can say this is real and this is not?

I assume ALL of it is an interpolation of men and NONE is the word of god is that going to far, where do we draw the line if we are to see this as a moral guide and christians not just being wherever they want along a spectrum of interpretation.

Toto

No, that's not going too far at all. But the arguments for the anti-women parts of Paul's letters being interpolated seem fairly good.

ETA: your friends on CF probably don't like to look at things this way, and may invent fancy ways of reinterpreting the plain language to make it more acceptable.