sophiaserpentia (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sophiaserpentia) wrote2005-03-04 01:09 pm
sophiaserpentia) wrote2005-03-04 01:09 pm
Veiled men and unveiled women in Corinth
An essay in Karen L. King's (ed.) book, Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism has me thinking about this passage in I Corinthians:
[I Corinthians 11:3] Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
[4] Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head.
[5] And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors 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, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
[11] In the Lord, however, 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: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
[14] Does not the very nature of things teach you 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? For long hair is given to her as a covering.
[16] If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice–nor do the churches of God.
It's been argued that the proper way to read this, is that Paul was rebuking the Corinthian congregation for practices and theology which he felt was inappropriate. But what was it that the Corinthians were doing and teaching?
Well, it seems that some of the men were growing their hair long and/or covering their heads for worship, while some of the women were cutting their hair short and/or uncovering their heads for worship.
The argument of Dennis MacDonald is that the Corinthians had instituted a practice, in reflection of neo-platonic or Gnostic teaching, which involved denying or transcending one's gender and working to become an embodiment of the primal androgyne. The primal androgyne, in his understanding of neo-platonic myth, is fundamentally masculine, and so therefore women are still being denegrated in concept, even though the practice of removing their veils ostensibly makes them more free.
Such a practice might explain why women would remove the veil which marks their gender socially. However, he ignores and cannot explain why certain Corinthian Christian men would have veiled themselves, which they seem to have been doing. He also doesn't present any evidence that ritual androgynous dress was employed in ritual by any Gnostic or neo-platonic group at any time. He seems driven to devise an argument designed to make Paul look more like a feminist than the Corinthians or the Gnostics. (Edit: some of this is addressed in the rebuttal by Bernadette Brooten.)
The popular theory (such as that espoused by Elisabeth Shussler Fiorenza) is that the Corinthians were employing ritual transvestism as a way of incorporating Pagan ecstatic practices into their worship. If so, then Paul's main goal is to "de-ecstasize" Corinthian worship -- which idea is further supported by the fact that Paul follows this discussion with a chapter delimiting the idea of "gifts of the spirit."
[I Corinthians 11:3] Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
[4] Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head.
[5] And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors 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, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
[11] In the Lord, however, 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: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
[14] Does not the very nature of things teach you 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? For long hair is given to her as a covering.
[16] If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice–nor do the churches of God.
It's been argued that the proper way to read this, is that Paul was rebuking the Corinthian congregation for practices and theology which he felt was inappropriate. But what was it that the Corinthians were doing and teaching?
Well, it seems that some of the men were growing their hair long and/or covering their heads for worship, while some of the women were cutting their hair short and/or uncovering their heads for worship.
The argument of Dennis MacDonald is that the Corinthians had instituted a practice, in reflection of neo-platonic or Gnostic teaching, which involved denying or transcending one's gender and working to become an embodiment of the primal androgyne. The primal androgyne, in his understanding of neo-platonic myth, is fundamentally masculine, and so therefore women are still being denegrated in concept, even though the practice of removing their veils ostensibly makes them more free.
Such a practice might explain why women would remove the veil which marks their gender socially. However, he ignores and cannot explain why certain Corinthian Christian men would have veiled themselves, which they seem to have been doing. He also doesn't present any evidence that ritual androgynous dress was employed in ritual by any Gnostic or neo-platonic group at any time. He seems driven to devise an argument designed to make Paul look more like a feminist than the Corinthians or the Gnostics. (Edit: some of this is addressed in the rebuttal by Bernadette Brooten.)
The popular theory (such as that espoused by Elisabeth Shussler Fiorenza) is that the Corinthians were employing ritual transvestism as a way of incorporating Pagan ecstatic practices into their worship. If so, then Paul's main goal is to "de-ecstasize" Corinthian worship -- which idea is further supported by the fact that Paul follows this discussion with a chapter delimiting the idea of "gifts of the spirit."
no subject
1 Paul is very clear that men should look like men and women like women. This is necessary, he says, because of a created order which goes roughly God (the Father) -> Christ -> man -> woman.
2 in their particular context this issue is manifesting itself in head coverings (and the jury is still somewhat out on what they exactly are).
The popular theory (such as that espoused by Elisabeth Shussler Fiorenza) is that the Corinthians were employing ritual transvestism as a way of incorporating Pagan ecstatic practices into their worship. If so, then Paul's main goal is to "de-ecstasize" Corinthian worship -- which idea is further supported by the fact that Paul follows this discussion with a chapter delimiting the idea of "gifts of the spirit."
Yeah, I'm not at all convinced on this one. THere's no mention of clothing by Paul nor anything else that would point that way.
There is an element of "de-ecstasizing" in the whole of the letter, because of Paul's observation that the Corinthians let the world tell them how to run things (and the contemporary climate was to look for the impressive and "ecstatic") but it's certainly right to notice that Paul is delimiting the general scope of gifts. He is certainly of the opinion that all are gifted, in one way or another.
But, again, there's no suggesting that these gifts are anything other than those laid out in the text. Is there a sub-text that we're meant to see somewhere?
no subject
Whether the Corinthians were employing ritual transvestism is a conjecture, but an interesting one. The worship of Cybele and Dionysos certainly involved, on occasion, ritual transvestism. The Montanists edged into the arena of androgyny too. Whatever the case, the Corinthians must have been doing something in their worship that distressed Paul so that he felt he had to admonish them to ensure that men looked like men and women like women.
My instinct is that Paul's instruction about gifts of the spirit was meant to steer the Corinthians away from ecstatic practices associated with paganism and instead channel their charisma into something that suited his Christian sensibilities. But I haven't examined the matter very closely, yet.