# Schirrmacher's alternate interpretation of 1. Cor 11,2-16



## Zimon (Dec 22, 2010)

Hello!
I somehow got to read an alternate translation and interpretation of 1. Corinthians 11,2-6 by Thomas Schirrmacher who (as far as I know) also published a book on this issue.
I wanted to ask you..
..if you know his argumentation?
..if so, if you think it is a possible reading or heretical?
And if you never heard of this, please let me know, I could try to translate a tract on it into English language so that we can discuss this issue here. I did not do so yet, because I thought it might be already well known here, but I will if this should not be the case.
The main result of his exegitical work is the following:
In 1.Cor 11,2-6 Paul does not promote, but _fight_ against the "pagan", (and already existing) practice of covering the head with a veil in church (for women).
I would really like to discuss this here for I think it is an interesting topic.
Thanks
Simon

Edit: I posted this in the Lifestyle forum because I thought the reading has consequences for Christian lifestyle, if some moderator think this fits better to exegetical things, just move it if you like


----------



## au5t1n (Dec 22, 2010)

Zimon said:


> The main result of his exegitical work is the following:
> In 1.Cor 11,2-6 Paul does not promote, but _fight_ against the "pagan", (and already existing) practice of covering the head with a veil in church (for women).


 
This strikes against the perspicuity of Scripture.


----------



## Zimon (Dec 22, 2010)

Well it does strike against the perspicuity of the common used translations indeed, thats why Schirrmacher did a new translation from the Greek original text of this passage, contained in the tract I mentioned.

If the alternate translation is not known here (which is my first impression), I will begin to translate the tract this evening, so that we can discuss the consistency of its argumentation together.

Edit: Okay, I finally translated a part of the tract... It wasnt that easy so please honor my work and at least read it  I know it might sound very strange in some passages but i did my best. So please let me know what you think about it and do not only say "well this is the first time I hear something like this so it has to be wrong" (This was the reaction I sometimes got in former discussions)



*Introduction*
Theses extracted from the book Thomas Schirrmacher; Paulus im Kampf gegen den Schleier: Eine alternative Sicht von 1. Korinther 11,2-6; Biblia et symbiotica 4. Verlag für Kultur und Wissenschaft: Bonn 1993

The main thesis of this article is, that the Corinthians misinterpretated the biblical (and so true) teaching that the man is the head of the woman (1.Cor 11,3) and thought that the woman has to cover her head with a veil while praying (1.Cor 11,4-6), that it was forbidden for a man to cover his head during prayer (1. Cor 11,7) and that the wife was created for her husband, but the husband was not created for his wife (1. Kor 11,8-9). According to this thesis, Paul first presents the position of the Corinthians, then shows how absurd it is (1. Cor 11,4-9), rejects it (1. Cor 11,10-15) and finally explains why the headcovering does not belong to the necessary practices of the churches of God. Whoever teaches the (biblical) differences between the duties and tasks between men and women (1. Cor 11,3) must not forget how important women are for men and that the „man without woman“ (1. Cor 11,11) is as as little as the other way round.

*Alternate translation of the Greek text:*
2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you
3 Now I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 

(But now you thought: ) 

_4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head.
5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head - it is just as though her head were shaved.
6 If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.
7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man._

10 For this reason, and because of the angels,(you shall know that) the woman ought to have power of attorney on her head.
11 Because in the Lord, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.
12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
13 Judge for yourselves! It is proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered.
14 The very nature of things teach you not that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,
15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory. Long hair is given to her instead of a veil.
16 If anyone wants to argue about this: we do not have this practice - nor do the churches of God.

*Theses*
1. The whole text does not really mention what this „practice“ really is. Only in V15 something concrete is mentioned, namely „a veil“. The modern headscarf did not exist in this form at this time. If it is really about a piece of clothing, than it cannot be a headscarf but a veil or some kind of a wrap. This gets even more possible if the word in V4 is literally translated with „something hanging down from the head“. This could refer to the practice of wearing a veil in the jewish-oriental culture. The text does not say clearly what is exactly covered with this „veil“ but it can be guessed that it covered more than just the top of the head.

2. Relating the mentioned veil to the european headscarf means to rip something out of the cultural context, for it properly means something very different which cannot be compared with modern head-coverings.

3. Some people argue that short hair was a sign of a whore at these times but there is no evidence for this in Corinthian culture. Likewise, there are many sources that show that long hair was very common for men in those days: Roman, Greek and Jewish men sometimes had very long hair and it was not a sign of disgrace or poverty.

4. No matter if Paul argues against a veil in V2-14 or not, V15c seems to be a very strong argument against a veil. If he should indeed argue for a veil in V2-14, this could be read as „but she already has a covering“, otherwise it would be just another of his arguments against it.

5. The last verse supports this interpretation: „we do not have this practice“. Paul surely did not mean the arguing when talking about a „practice“, for arguing was firstly surely common in Corinth, secondly Paul teaches in the same letter that arguing is not just „uncommon“, but sinful. So, we can guess that the „practice“ refers to the headcovering.

6. V13-14 are usually translated as rhetorical questions, but because there are no „?“ in the Greek language they can also be translated as statements as shown above.

7. V11-12 is a contradiction to V7-8, while V11-12 match to the Creation story, V7-8 contraticts the Creation Story, because the woman was as well created in the image of God. This problem can be solved if V4-10 is interpretated as the position of the Corinthians Paul first presents to refute it afterwards. This is a very common stylistic method of Paul, especially in the epistles to the Corinthians: 1. Cor 6,12-13; 1. Cor 7,1+5; 1. Cor 8,4-7+10,14-22 and 2. Cor 12,11-15). With „for this reason“ Paul starty with his refutation.

8. The word commonly translated with „sign of authority“ (exousia epi) in V10 is never translated this way in the whole New Testament. It always has the meaning of „power of attorney“, for example in the context of having power of attorney over demons and evil spirits.

9. The Old Testament supports the alternative translation that Paul is not for veils for women and against long hair for men. In the OT, we find many honorable men with long hair (for example the priests, nasirs, Simson and many more). And the wearing of a veil in the OT cannot necessarily be interpretated as a sign of honor: Tamar was identified as a whore because she was wearing a veil (1. Mose 38,14-15). It is also very interesting to consider that Paul, during his stay in Corinth, was under a vow and had long hair, because we know he did cut it off after hid departure because he was a nasir at that time (Acts 18,18)

10. All of these interpretations (theses 1-6 and 9-10) stay valid even if one does not agree with the „quotation interpretation“ (theses 7 and 8)

11. We can conclude that this text is still valid for us today, even if the practice is not explicitly described. In Pauls teachings he often makes very clear that he is against any kind of „outside practices“ (like circumcision), and even more if they are not clearly mentioned in God‘s Word. He so stands in harmony with Jesus' words in Mark 7,1-23. The practice of wearing a headcovering was never explicitly mentioned in the OT or NT and the jewish practice of wearing a veil was therefore a „commandement made by men“. The idea that Paul introduces new "outside" practices into early Christianity seems absurd considering the rest of his theology and teachings.

12. All this does however NOT mean that Paul abolish what he said about the different duties and tasks of men and women. The Corinthians only had a wrong understanding of his teachings (like they are mentioned in 1. Cor 11,3) and came to a wrong conclusion, therefore Paul wants to correct them and show them their misinterpretations. That would also fit to the other arguments he had with the Corinthians were they also misunderstood something he taught (1. Cor 5,9-13 => 1. Cor 5,10+12-13 or 1. Cor 8,4-11 => 1. Cor 10,14-22)

Another point I came up with by my own:

13. Headcoverings during prayer were very common (and sometimes also a commandement) in jewish culture and when reading in the Torah in the synagogue on Sabbath day, jewish men cover their head with some scarf. V4 would not make much sense, interpretated the common way, if you consider this cultural context.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 22, 2010)

It's certainly a very novel approach to the passage. That wouldn't make it automatically wrong, but would mean that Mr Schirrmacher would have a great onus on him to show he really has discovered new and important light on this passage that many have been missing.

The usual approaches to this passage are 

(a) That Paul, under divine inspiration and apostolic authority, wants women to wear some kind of head covering in worship/church and that that *is not* culturally bound and that women should continue this practice, and men shouldn't wear hats.

(b) That Paul, under divine inspiration and apostolic authority, wants women to wear some kind of head covering in worship/church and that *is * culturally bound re first century Corinth, society at that time, etc, and that women don't need to wear a head covering in worship/church. 

Presumably these last also believe that men can wear whatever headgear they want in church/worship, although it usually seems to be a get out clause for the women who obviously feel that wearing a hat is a terrible sign of oppression. The pressure for a cultural interpretation of this passage has all come from the female side rather than the male side. You don't tend to get men saying, "That means I won't be able to wear a hat in church!" You get women saying "I don't want to wear a hat/scarf in church!" Some women also want to wear their hair short.

You do get some men who want to wear their hair long like women. Some of the Puritans and others were prone to this fashion, if not long wigs, although there must have been a sizeable number who believed men should have short hair, for they and their army to be called "Roundheads".

It would be interesting to know how the Puritans that had long hair, or long wigs, approached this passage.



> (But now you thought: )



This sounds like reading something into the passage that isn't there - eisegesis.



> Another point I came up with by my own:
> 
> 13. Headcoverings during prayer were very common (and sometimes also a commandement) in jewish culture and when reading in the Torah in the synagogue on Sabbath day, jewish men cover their head with some scarf. V4 would not make much sense, interpretated the common way, if you consider this cultural context.



As far as we are aware this is a Judaistic addition, which has no basis in the Torah or the rest of Scripture. Judaism isn't a very good guide to interpreting Scripture. They've added so much junk and twisted so many passages. It's often a good guide on how not to interpret Scripture.


----------



## MW (Dec 22, 2010)

Zimon said:


> (But now you thought: )


 
The crux of his interpetation comes down to this assertion, that Paul is clarifying what the Corinthians thought and then undertaking to correct it. It is consistent with Paul's manner in other parts of Corinthians. For example, on the questions of food sacrificed to idols and the charismata. He clearly uses catchphrases the Corinthians were using and qualifies them. The problem here, however, is that he has praised them for keeping the ordinances. He is not technically correcting the Corinthians, so it will be difficult to prove that he is setting up an interlocutor in his discussion. Further, there is no turning point in the use of a catchphrase. E.g., the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof means an idol is nothing to the Corinthians, but then Paul can use it again to show that it also means we are to care for the conscience of a brother. No such turning point is used here. In fact, if John Murray's careful exgesis is noted, it is clear that the latter part of the section fully harmonises with the earlier assertions. It is only on the acceptance of two coverings -- a natural and an artificial -- that the teaching about hair being the woman's glory makes any sense. This likewise argues against any idea that Paul is urging the use of the natural covering at the expense of the artificial covering. It is because the woman's hair is her glory that it itself should be covered in the combined assembly of men and women.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 22, 2010)

> 9. The Old Testament supports the alternative translation that Paul is not for veils for women and against long hair for men. In the OT, we find many honorable men with long hair (for example the priests, nasirs, Simson and many more). And the wearing of a veil in the OT cannot necessarily be interpretated as a sign of honor: Tamar was identified as a whore because she was wearing a veil (1. Mose 38,14-15). It is also very interesting to consider that Paul, during his stay in Corinth, was under a vow and had long hair, because we know he did cut it off after hid departure because he was a nasir at that time (Acts 18,18)



But a Nazirite for life was recognised by his long hair, which wouldn't be the case if it was also a common fashiion among Jewish men.

Some had vows and Nazirite vows for shorter periods of time, like Paul in Acts 18. Paul seems to have started his period under the vow by having his head shaved.



> their hair like women's hair, and their teeth like lions' teeth;(Rev 9:8, ESV)



This indicates a difference between men's hair and women's hair. Interestingly - and ironically - the Apostle John is often depicted with long hair, as is Christ.

If a partial historical preterist interpretation of this Revelation passage is followed, this may indicate that the Roman army sent by God to judge Jerusalem in 70 A.D. was set apart in a symbolical sense like the Nazirites. Josephus also has interesting things to say about belligerents in this war dressing like women. Take this with a pinch of salt as Revelation isn't the easiest book.


----------



## Zimon (Dec 23, 2010)

> It would be interesting to know how the Puritans that had long hair, or long wigs, approached this passage



Thats something that made me curious, too. But they must have had other reasons to do so, for they had headcoverings for women, so they propably read this passage the common way and hat no alternate translation. But I think Puritans were very deep into the OT as well, and Absalom, who had long hair is well, is described to be the most handsome man in whole Israel, so they might have justified their hair with passages from the OT. 



> This sounds like reading something into the passage that isn't there - eisegesis.



It was not included in the tract, its an addition of me to show were the quotation begins.
What made me embrace this interpretation is, that I always found that 4-9 and 10-16 sounded a bit contradictory. It doesnt read like a "flow of argumentation", Paul seems to somehow change his opinion while writing, and although there does not stand: "But you thought" there seems to be a break in argumentation at a certain point.
As for the "sign of authority": I dont know if you have footnotes in your Bible but this is a very strange passage, as well. As I've said, there is no "sign of authority" in the original text. In the German translation the verse reads like this: "Therefore, a woman ought to have _a power_ on her head". Then there is a footnote, reading "power probably seems to mean veil in this context". Now this seems to me like reading something in the passage that is not there, as well 



> As far as we are aware this is a Judaistic addition, which has no basis in the Torah or the rest of Scripture. Judaism isn't a very good guide to interpreting Scripture. They've added so much junk and twisted so many passages. It's often a good guide on how not to interpret Scripture.



Thats absolutely right. I only wanted to say that even in that time, they had binding headcoverings for Jewish men during prayer so I thought it would be a bit strange if Paul now says that a headcovering dishonors the man.



> The problem here, however, is that he has praised them for keeping the ordinances



Some take the first sentence as an ironic statement. Another way of interpreting it would be to assume that he was indeed prasing them for their "all-in-all" behaviour but then goes on into detail to show them where they are still wrong.



> But a Nazirite for life was recognised by his long hair, which wouldn't be the case if it was also a common fashiion among Jewish men.



Cutting the hair not at all (like a Nazirite did) does not equal having long hair, I think. By the way, isn't Leviticus 19,27 a commandement for all Jews and not just the priests and Nazirites?


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 23, 2010)

*Quote from Simon*


> But I think Puritans were very deep into the OT as well, and Absalom, who had long hair is well, is described to be the most handsome man in whole Israel, so they might have justified their hair with passages from the OT.



Absalom wouldn't be the best precedent in arguing that long hair was OK for men. It would be interesting to know what e.g. John Owen or Samuel Rutherford thought about this. Maybe they thought what our Apostle was saying about men's hair was just cultural (?)



> Thats absolutely right. I only wanted to say that even in that time, they had binding headcoverings for Jewish men during prayer so I thought it would be a bit strange if Paul now says that a headcovering dishonors the man.



I'm not an expert on how Jewish traditions developed but I got the impression from a book by a Jewish Christian who would know, that the kippah and prayer shawl developed after the First Century, for reasons unknown and that they contradict I Corinthians 11.

The phylactery - the box of Scripture text and bindings, was around in Jesus' day and is only mentioned negatively by Him (Matt 23:5) - and was based on 

_And these words that I command you today shall be on your heaart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates. (Deut 6:6-9, ESV)_

It's doubtful if any of the above was meant to be taken literally or literalistically as subsequent Jews did. So if prayer shawls and kippahs only developed after Paul anyway, and phylacteries were an erroneous use of an OT verse - and might not qualify as a head-covering anyway - it wouldn't be strange of our Apostle, the Apostle to the Gentiles, saying that a headcovering in worship dishonours the man.



> Cutting the hair not at all (like a Nazirite did) does not equal having long hair, I think. By the way, isn't Leviticus 19,27 a commandement for all Jews and not just the priests and Nazirites?



Well it's a moot point how long is long hair. Once it starts falling on the shoulders like a lady it's pretty long. If you're interested in this passage and subject I would search the Puritan Board. It's no doubt been discussed before. Find out what Mr Schirrmacher's hair is like. If it's long he's manipulating the passage for his own nef - hair -ious purposes. 

_You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard.(Leviticus 19:27) _

This passage reminded the Jews of their holiness, as a Kingdom of Priests. It doesn't apply literally to Christians and it didn't even apply to Jews before the time of Moses e.g. Joseph shaved before he went to see the king. It doesn't really tell us whether it is ordinarily acceptable for men to have very long hair or not. The passage doesn't address the subject of long hair being appropriate for women or not.

Whatever the length of hair clearly it is important that clear distinctions between men and women be maintained since God made Man both male and female and we don't want to mar or rebel against that distinction.


----------



## Zimon (Jan 11, 2011)

Richard Tallach said:


> Find out what Mr Schirrmacher's hair is like. If it's long he's manipulating the passage for his own nef - hair -ious purposes.


 
Although I did not knew him before, I found out that he actually seems to be very influential and famous:

Thomas Schirrmacher - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And as you can see, he is almost bald, so it could hardly be for his own purposes  
And for German standards he even seems to be a very conservative scholar, at least if you compare him with all those liberals around here...


----------

