because of the angels- presentation paper 6dec10-hmecaskey.docx

8/8/2019 Because of the Angels- Presentation Paper 6Dec10-HMecaskey.docx

1/8

H.Mecaskey Presentation Paper 1

Hannah M. Mecaskey

STSP 4242: WSR SeminarDr. Darleen Pryds

Presentation Paper version6 December 2010

Because of the Angels: A Historiographical Exegesis of 1 Cor 11.2-16

I. Intro: Pauls perplexing text of 1 Cor 11.2-16 has been the source of much contention between

scholars:

Are women inferior to men, and must demonstrate thus by covering their heads?Are head-coverings only for married women to demonstrate a sign of submission to their husbands as

to God?Did Paul actually write this passage or was it inserted by another author?

If women have long hair, do they still need to cover their heads?Are head-coverings merely a sign that female origin according to the Genesis narrative in chptr 2 that

women were created out of man, and thus do not share equally in Gods image?

In my theological examination of this text through a brief segment of its interpretive history, I find

scholars arguing for the equalization of man and woman despite the apparent inequality of Paul. Yet for a

contemporary Christian, the issue of gender equality in Christian churches has risen to a level ofcomplexity beyond the distinctions of man and woman, but must also decide how to ethically address

conceptions of gender identity which vary beyond these binary identities: queer gender identities. Uponexamining a historiographical exegesis of the text of 1 Cor 11.2-16, I will attempt to offer some

considerations for the reconstruction of an exegesis which innovates room for the entire spectrum ofgender identities.

Thesis/Argument:

Examining how the term kephal has been understood in scholarship of this pericope, I will argue that

Pauls teaching that women should cover their heads while praying and prophesying because of theangels does not establish a religious gender hierarchy, but rather presents an exegetical opportunity for

interpreters to equalize heterosexual gender biases. Since scholars have been able to find bases for gendersocial equality in 1 Cor 11.2-16, I believe there may also be grounds for addressing Christian ethical bias

against homosexual gender identities in this pericope.

Text, English Standard Version: 1 Corinthians 11.2-16

2Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as

I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a

wife[1] is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his

head covered dishonors his head, 5but every wife[2] who prays or prophesies with her head uncovereddishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a wife will not cover her head,

then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her

head, let her cover her head. 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. 9Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a

symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.[3]11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not


2/8


independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of

woman. And all things are from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with

her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for

him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 If

anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

Footnotes

[1]11:3 Greekgun. This term may refer to a woman or a wife, depending on the context

[2]11:5 In verses 5-13, the Greek wordgunis translated wife in verses that deal with wearing a veil, a

sign of being married in first-century culture

[3]11:10 Ormessengers, that is, people sent to observe and report

II. Body, thesis/arguments of each of my 10 academic journals:

A. Modern Scholarship, 1962-1993:Section A Intro:

Analyzing scholarship from the modern period, roughly 1960s-1990s, I analyze articles

presenting varying opinions of the interpretation and implications ofkephal, mostly demonstrating an

assumption of some kind of hierarchical inference in Pauls use of the word kephal, though each differ intheir theological application of this passage. While many explain the understanding of Pauls originalaudience to understand 1 Cor 11.2-16 as creating a religious equality of men and women while

maintaining the social hierarchy of Hellenistic Corinth, each explains in a different way why Paul reasons

for womans head-covering the way he does. Each of these articles represents a piece of the exegeticalpuzzle I am constructing to demonstrate my thesis that Pauls construction of a gender hierarchy need not

be read as a timeless apostolic decree. Using a Christian feminist lens from Grudems wording, myagenda moves beyond the social equalization of women and men, as it seems the liberalizing positions ofthese modern scholars attempt, to ethical liberation of queer gender identities in Christian communities, a

more post-modern or contemporary social issue in Christian churches.

1. Boucherspiece in my interpretivepuzzle: Boucher readily identifies that in the Corinthiancontext, Pauls instruction about head-covering may give women a religious equality with

men while maintaining their social subordination to male authority. In spite of this, Bouchers

theological reading of 1 Cor 11.2-16 within the whole of the Christian canon allows moderninterpreters to voice through Pauls own text a social implementation of Pauline religious

equality.

2. Meierspiece in my puzzle: While for Meier Pauls instruction for women to cover their headin the Corinthian community is a socially conditioned rule, Meier reads Paul as instituting

hierarchical gender definitions within the Corinthian church from a theological position

which differs from modern Catholic theology. If the dictate is merely a socially conditionedone, does it bear at all in contemporary theological construal of gender distinctions? Thepractice of the Catholic Church has been to disregard all of Pauls teaching on this issue

except for firm, heterosexist gender distinctions. Can there be more flexibility than even thisuse of 1 Cor 11.2-16?

3. Grudemspiece in my puzzle: Grudem contributes to my understanding ofkephalthat it isnearly impossible for this word to be interpreted source, even in a metaphorical sense,

though Christian feminists have a tendency to read 1 Cor 11.2-16 in this light. From


3/8


Grudem, I derive a sense that a social gender hierarchy which should be maintained today

because it was ordained by God at creation, and those who balk at this are merely presentingan illegitimate reading of scripture. While arguing from fact, Grudem denies interpretive

imagination in practical application of a text.

4. Corringtons Piece in my puzzle: Corrington shifts the typical understanding of hierarchy in 1Cor 11.2-16 as God-created order to a polemic of control: For Corrington, Paul is ardentlyconcerned about the overthrow of social order, and thus re-established gender barriers tominimize the freedom of woman because she is too vulnerable and powerful if not reigned in

by man. I ponder in response what the root of this male fear would bein enticing spirits,

subverting male authority, what would be a decidedly female contribution to the socio-

religious fear of Christianity?

5. Jervispiece in my puzzle: While a gender hierarchy in 1 Cor 11.2-16 can be interpreted fromthe language of Pauls constraint, Jervis narrative analysis suggests that it is merely an

ordering without polemical connotations. From such a reading, order of generation givesparticular identity, thus if one part of the order attempts to mimic or replace another, both

parts suffer. Seeing Paul as a midrashic scholar offers opportunity to other Christian scholars

who must reinterpret their holy texts to make sense of contemporary issues.

Section A Conclusion:

The continuity between these journals can be seen in the focus on the religious equalizing of women withmen in the Pauline text of 1 Cor 11.2-16. However, these journals seem to emphasize eithera egalitarian

religious perspective, or a hierarchical ordering of genders in this pericope, rather than a both/andapproach which is more prevalent in contemporary scholarship. From modern scholarship, we have

gained insights from literary criticism, textual criticism, and historical-critical methodology, indicatingthat Pauls argument is aimed at correcting a prior teaching given to the Corinthians, which they

misunderstood on the basis of their reading of Genesis, preferencing Gen 1 over Gen 2. Thus, we see

from modern scholarship a general trend towards interpreting Paul as instituting religious differentiationbetween men and women through gender distinctions, which may be egalitarian or hierarchical in nature,

and do not effect the socio-political gender constructions of the Greco-Roman world.

B. Post-modern or Contemporary Scholarship, Journals 2000-2009:Section B Intro:

Turning to more contemporary exegetical perspectives of 1 Cor 11.2-16, these five articles by

Watson, Hjort, Belleville, Martin and Calef demonstrate attempts at understanding Pauls message whichchallenge the majority of prior interpretations assumption of any kind of hierarchy within this pericope.

My selection of authors between 1962 and 1993 explicitly assume Pauls usage ofkephalconnotes a

gender inequality at some leveleither social, religious, or bothwhile more contemporary authors,beginning with Francis Watson, demonstrate a shift in thinking. Through rhetorical analysis, socio-political analysis, literary analysis and theological analysis, contemporary scholarship on 1 Cor 11.2-16

generally suggests that Pauls instruction that women cover their heads during public worship was a kind

of social liberation, though it did not erase Greco-Roman gender identities. Contemporary scholars tend towidely use the interpretation ofkephal as source rather than authority over, though they tend to try

to harmonize these two understandings of the term. It seems that contemporary scholars are able to accept

this pericope as more authentically Pauline, making sense of a discussion of head-coverings in the contextof general admonitions against idolatry (1 Cor 8-11). Deeper analysis of this pericope through Greco-Roman honor/shame categories of gender distinction evidence the possibility that Paul assumed a

monogenetic theology emphasizing male primacy as sole progenitor, forcing female dependency upon

males as imagers of the divine.


4/8


1. Watsons Piece in my puzzle: Watson manages to demonstrate interdependence ofheterosexist gender identities by harmonizing Pauls use of hierarchical and egalitarianlanguage. If Pauls intent was to liberate womens voices from male erotic fascination by

veiling her so as to distract from her figure, Watson has done a fantastic job of making head-coverings positive, though still archaic. Can a more contemporary application of this text

extrapolate that any space designated as in the Lord should not objectify any who exercises

their voice, regardless of heterosexual or homosexual gender identity?

2. Hjortspiece in my puzzle: Hjort presents a Paul in 1 Cor 11.2-16 who is concerned with theCorinthian spiritually mature taking up pagan practices in their self-assuredness, such as

transvestism, hair length neutralization of gender, and other androgynous ways of expression.

To Paul according to Hjort, these practices undermine the freedom the Corinthians have inChrist, and in the created order of two distinct genders which Paul has instructed them in

from Genesis. So if Paul would have seen gender emancipation from a dualistic genderstructure as a rejection of Gods created nature and consequently a rejection of salvation in

Christ, how can heterosexism be overturned in Christianity? One might have to appeal to theCorinthians conclusion of what freedom in Christ meant, encompassing a continuum of

gender-identities.

3. Belvillespiece in my puzzle: Belville suggests that a womans head-covering in 1 Cor 11.2-16 denoted that she did not have her own source, but was born out of man, as it were. This

head-covering is a theological symbol, which Belville does not think constructs a hierarchy ofgender, since these distinctions do not appear functional in nature for her. Belville seems to

be hinting that Paul is self-consciously instituting gender roles as mere social constructions toemphasize a complimentary difference. If this is so, distinctions can readily be made as

personal identity, and need not be according to heterosexual standards.

4. Martinspiece in my puzzle: Martin greatly contributes to a sociological understanding ofPauls message in 1 Cor 11.2-16, viewing female hair as genitalia which ought to be coveredin public, especially in the public presence of God. If Pauls theology is entirely construed

upon an archaic sense of biology, corrections to this biology according to modern science canelucidate new theological conclusions. For example, if the male and female bodies are very

different in genetically minute ways, I can infer that any theological differentiation should beminute as well.

5. Calefspiece in my puzzle: Though noting that Paul allows men and women to practicereligion equally, Calef reads the theological connotations of 1 Cor 11.2-16 as pointing to a

monogenetic theory of procreation rooted in male potency. This social construction affects

the religious construction in that women must continue to demonstrate their unstable,vulnerable conditions without men by a head-covering. Benefitting from Calefs analysis ofthe logic of honor and shame systems, I question what position of honor rests dependently

upon a relationship of shame in the Christian West. Perhaps such a codependent existence can

be seen between hetero-normative gender identities and homosexual gender identities.

Section BConclusion: Increased tendency to read the Pauline pericope of 1 Cor 11.2-16 as a product ofits time vs. an absolute theological dictate separates these pieces of scholarship from the modern journals,allowing more ambiguity in theological interpretation of what Paul was arguing. Is sexual differentiation

between man and woman determined by God or merely a product of Pauls Hellenistic setting? If this

truly is the case, is there anything more we can abstract from the text as a timeless meaning than simplycover your genitals during public worship? Contemporary scholars give more room for questioning thanthey do answers to the questions.


5/8


III. Conclusion:As hopefully this historiographical exegesis of 1 Corinthian 11.2-16 has exemplified, within the

boundaries of legitimate interpretations, there is a wide range of possible meanings for a certain textwithin a scholarly framework. The ever-increasing scholarship on problematic passages like the selected

pericope only broadens the possibility for theological interpretation of the text. My understanding of

theological interpretation of scripture is that new generations will always be encountering problems theprevious generation did not face, socially, politically, and religiously, and theological interpretationshould allow each generation to address its issues through possible meanings afforded by the text ofscripture. Since I have not included an article from the current year, 2010, I will address an issue of

interpretation which the scholars included in this historiography have not analyzed: is there room within

the exegetical possibilities of 1 Cor 11.2-16 to legitimize a non-heterosexist understanding of gender?In vs. 2, we find Paul commending the Corinthian community for maintaining all the teachings he

has given to them, which Boucher has suggested may be an understanding of freedom in Christ withoutgender distinction. Now, Paul has decided to alter that perspective to one of gender differentiation (vs. 3)

because he may be concerned that prior teaching may have led spiritual members of the Corinthiancommunity to adopt androgynous practices which are syncretistic with pagan religions, such as the

Dionysius cult as Calef suggests. In vs. 4-6, Paul describes this lack of gender differentiation in terms of

honor/shame which may result from his emphasis of the Gen 2 creation narrative over Gen 1, asCorrington and Jervis suggest, or may be because due to the Greco-Roman conception of physiology,

Paul considers female hair to be a genital organ (Martin, Calef). Whatever the basis of Pauls decision, his

system of womans need to cover lest she shame her head (her own or that of the man whom she belongsto) is qualified in vs. 7-10 by a description of un-equal image bearing: man has a special image of God

that woman does not because of the angels (v.10). For Grudem, this demonstrates a mans authorityover woman, which Belville suggests this is merely due to the fact that woman was created out of man. It

is an irreconcilable inequality, however, which Paul seems hesitant to enforce, because in vs. 11-12, here-emphasizes the interdependence of man and woman (Watson). In conclusion of this instruction (vs. 13-

16), however, Paul gives the Corinthians the final decision in either an ironical tone (Meier) or sincere

(Hjort).If sincere, the Christian is free to adopt a literal interpretation from either Paul or the Corinthians,

that head-covering of women in worship is necessary or unnecessary respectively. Serious application ofa historical-critical method analyzing the context in which Paul delivers this message finds it

unequivocally given in from a patriarchal/monogenetic perspective, in which woman is not equal to manfor reasons of creation and physiology. However, if these are only based out of the second creationaccount in Genesis, what is to prevent one from preferencing the first creation account other than Paul

prefers the second? From a logical standpoint, contemporary ethics no longer judges male and femaleequality on the basis of physiology, thus Pauls reasoning for gender distinction no longer seems

applicable. In this way, it may be possible to argue that 1 Cor 11.2-16 can be used to support a non-

heterosexist standard of gender identity definition. If redemption ultimately makes us like God and God isgenderless (excepting the figure of the Son) and by faith we are to build heaven on earth now, what is tostop us from transgressing traditional gender barriers and becoming like the angels?

Conclusion:Paul does not seem to be breaking new ground for social equality of men and women, though he

does introduce Christ as grounds for religious equality. Since contemporary ethics no longer accepts thephysiology of the Greco-Roman Era, modern interpreters have used Paul's religious statements as groundsfor both social and religious equality of genders according to heterosexist societal distinctions. But what

about the contemporary existence of gender identities which transgress the very issue which Paul seems

to be arguing against, the blurring of distinctions between woman and man? What grounds can be foundin 1 Cor 11.2-16 to address this issue? This seems to be a question of socio-religious gender equalitywhich contemporary scholars have not yet addressed in this passage.


6/8


Writing in an academic context where faith and reason still seem as divorced from one another as

faith and praxis, I look to the authority of one who practices what he preaches, transgressing the boundsof Christian social-acceptability to love at a great cost. In the words of Derek Webb from his latest album

Stockhold Syndrome, I close with What Matters More to You? as a way of interpreting Paulstimeless message to the Corinthians:

You say you always treat people like you like to be

I guess you love being hated for your sexuality

You love when people put words in your mouth

'Bout what you believe, make you sound like a freak

'Cause if you really believe what you say you believe

You wouldn't be so damn reckless with the words you speak

Wouldn't silently consent when the liars speak

Denyin' all the dyin' of the remedy

Tell me, brother, what matters more to you?

Tell me, sister, what matters more to you?

If I can tell what's in your heart by what comes out of your mouth

Then it sure looks to me like being straight is all it's about

It looks like being hated for all the wrong things

Like chasin' the wind while the pendulum swings

'Cause we can talk and debate until we're blue in the face

About the language and tradition that he's comin' to save

Meanwhile we sit just like we don't give a sh**

About 50,000 people who are dyin' today

Tell me, brother, what matters more to you?

Tell me, sister, what matters more to you?


7/8


Bibliography:

Belville, Linda. Kephaland the Issue of Headcovering in 1 Cor 11:2-16.PaulandtheCorinthians:

Studies on aCommunity in Conflict. Novum Testamentum, Vol CIX. Burke, Trevor and J. Keith

Elliot, ed. Boston: Brill, 2003. 215-231.

Boucher, Madeleine. "Some unexplored parallels to 1 Cor 11:11-12 and Gal 3:28 : the NT on the role ofwomen." CatholicBiblicalQuarterly 31, no. 1 (January 1, 1969): 50-58.ATLASerials, ReligionCollection, EBSCOhost(accessed November 24, 2010).

Cadbury, Henry Joel. "A Qumran parallel to Paul (1 Cor 11:2-16)." Harvard TheologicalReview 51, no.1 (January 1, 1958): 1-2.ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost(accessed November 24,

2010).

Calef, Susan. Kephal, Coverings, and Cosmology: The Impenetrable Logic of 1 Corinthians 11.2-16.JournalofSociety and Religion, Series 5: Women, Gender & Religion (2009):21-44.

Cope, Lamar. "1 Cor 11:2-16 : one step further." JournalofBiblicalLiterature 97, no. 3 (September 1,1978): 435-436.ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost(accessed November 24, 2010).

Corrington, Gail Paterson. "The "headless woman" : Paul and the language of the body in 1 Cor 11:2-16."Perspectives in ReligiousStudies 18, no. 3 (September 1, 1991): 223-231.ATLASerials,

Religion Collection, EBSCOhost(accessed November 24, 2010).

Grudem, Wayne A. "Does kephal ("head") mean "source" or "authority over" in Greek literature : a

survey of 2,336 examples." Trinity Journal6, no. 1 (March 1, 1985): 38-59.ATLASerials,Religion Collection, EBSCOhost(accessed November 24, 2010).

Hjort, Brigitte. Gender Hierarchy or Religious Androgyny? Male-Female Interaction in the CorinthianCommunity- a Reading of 1 Cor 11, 2-16. Studia Theologica- NordicJournalof Theology, 55:1

(2001), 58-80.

Hurley, James B. "Did Paul require veils or the silence of women : A consideration of 1 Cor 11:2-16 and14:33b-36."WestminsterTheologicalJournal35, no. 2 (December 1, 1973): 190-

220.ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost(accessed November 24, 2010).

Jervis, L Ann. "But I Want You to Know . . ." : Paul's Midrashic Intertextual Response to the Corinthian

Worshipers (1 Cor 11:2-16)." JournalofBiblicalLiterature 112, no. 2 (June 1, 1993): 231-246.ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost(accessed November 24, 2010).

Judge, Edwin A. "Cultural conformity and innovation in Paul : some clues from contemporarydocuments." TyndaleBulletin 35, (January 1, 1984): 3-24.ATLASerials, Religion Collection,EBSCOhost(accessed November 24, 2010).

Knight, George W. "New Testament teaching on the role relationship of male and female with specialreference to the teaching/ruling functions in the church." Journalofthe EvangelicalTheologicalSociety18, no. 2 (March 1, 1975): 81-91.ATLASerials, Religion Collection,

EBSCOhost(accessed November 24, 2010).

Lowery, David K. "The head covering and Lord's Supper in 1 Cor 11:2-34." Bibliothecasacra 143, no.

570 (April 1, 1986): 155-163.ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost(accessedNovember 24, 2010).


8/8


Martin, Troy. Pauls Argument from Nature for the Veil in 1 Corinthians 11.13-15: A Testicle Instead of

a Head-covering. JournalofBiblicalLiterature 123, no. 1 (March 1, 2004): 75-84.

Meier, John P. "On the veiling of hermeneutics (1 Cor 11:2-16)." CatholicBiblicalQuarterly 40, no. 2

(April 1, 1978): 212-226.ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost(accessed November 24,2010).

Murphy-O'Connor, Jerome. "Non-Pauline character of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16." JournalofBiblical

Literature95, no. 4 (December 1, 1976): 615-621.ATLASerials, Religion Collection,EBSCOhost(accessed November 24, 2010).

Roberts, J W. "The veils in 1 Cor 11:2-16."Restoration Quarterly 3, no. 4 (January 1, 1959): 183-198.ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost(accessed November 24, 2010).

Trompf, Garry W. "On attitudes toward women in Paul and Paulinist literature : 1 Corinthians 11:3-16and its context." CatholicBiblicalQuarterly 42, no. 2 (April 1, 1980): 196-215.ATLASerials,


Walker, William O. "1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and Paul's views regarding women." JournalofBiblical

Literature 94, no. 1 (March 1, 1975): 94-110.ATLASerials, Religion Collection,EBSCOhost(accessed November 24, 2010).

Watson, Francis. The Authority of the Voice: A Theological Reading of 1 Cor 11.2-16, New TestamentStudies 46 (2000):520-536.

Weber-Han, Cindy. "Sexual equality according to Paul : an exegetical study of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 and

Ephesians 5:21-33." Brethren Lifeand Thought22, no. 3 (June 1, 1977): 167-170.ATLASerials,


because of the angels- presentation paper 6dec10-hmecaskey.docx

Documents