1 Corinthians 11:10 "subjection" is not in the Greek

[tmakarios]

I think the relevant Greek word is "ἐξουσίαν", which, according to Strong's, means "(a) power, authority, weight, especially: moral authority, influence, (b) in a quasi-personal sense, derived from later Judaism, of a spiritual power, and hence of an earthly power."

Disturbingly, when I tap on the word "subjection" in this verse in AndBible's OEBCW on my phone, it takes me to "ὑποτάσσω", which does not appear in the verse at all. I hope it was merely an automated process that invented the connection between this verse and that word, but regardless of that, it's extremely misleading.

[Coburn]

I think you are saying "extremely misleading" because this is a hot-button issue right now. People in the world at large are trying to get their lives in order, but with one underlying rule. We cannot talk about God. And so the idea that a woman would be in "subjection" to a man is horrifying to them, and causes conflict. The Bible has some things to say in other verses about that issue that are not ambiguous, and they are hard to explain away.

At the same time, they are somewhat hard to understand and apply. There is a kind of subjection that is negative and toxic. We have to allow God to work in our lives through Christ, or we end up in the same kind of problem. We solve our problems in a religious way, but still without his explanations and without modeling his love. So you are right, that subjection is a subject that we have to "handle with care."

As a spoken-language interpreter, let me just say that the words in one language that refer to a certain thing usually name one part of that thing that stands out. Often, the name of a thing will explain what it is or how it is done. But the word will name one part of the process of creating that thing, not all the steps. And so in another language, the common word for that thing may name another step, or another important characteristic of that thing. It's confusing, because you want to look for the word that sounds alike, or names the same part. It's especially misleading in cognate languages like English and Spanish, the pair I work in.

For example, take the word "arraignment." In Spanish, we want to say lectura de cargos, which is "reading the charges," basically naming the same step in the process. But that's not the most-often-used phrase in Spanish. More often, we hear declaración inicial, which is the "initial response," where the accused "enters a plea," usually not guilty. It's part of the same hearing--events that happen one right after another--but it's seen from the defendant's side, not the prosecution's.

In the same way, "authority" and "subjection" are two sides of the same coin. Our translators are struggling to put a difficult concept into words. I agree that we can do better, and this is a delicate issue. We do owe it to people to try to find a better way to say it. But I would disagree that it's a big deal in this verse. This is a situation where we simply have to take the Word as it is, and let it explain us to ourselves, instead of trying to mold it into man's image. Best of luck!

Thanks, Coby

On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 11:03 PM tmakarios @.***> wrote:

I think the relevant Greek word is "ἐξουσίαν", which, according to Strong's, means "(a) power, authority, weight, especially: moral authority, influence, (b) in a quasi-personal sense, derived from later Judaism, of a spiritual power, and hence of an earthly power."

Disturbingly, when I tap on the word "subjection" in this verse in AndBible's OEBCW on my phone, it takes me to "ὑποτάσσω", which does not appear in the verse at all. I hope it was merely an automated process that invented the connection between this verse and that word, but regardless of that, it's extremely misleading.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openenglishbible/Open-English-Bible/issues/356, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAUI6S55M6NTAJ5MWDXM4HDYRSFTLAVCNFSM6AAAAABCWFY2QGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSGEYTIMRUHE4DQNY . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>

[tmakarios]

I'm saying "extremely misleading" because AndBible strongly implies that "subjection" is in the OEBCW text of this verse because "ὑποτάσσω" is in the Greek text. But in fact, "ὑποτάσσω" is not in the Greek text.

And the reason I'm bringing this up now is because that passage came up recently in this reading plan that I'm using: http://www.wall.org/~gloria/lect/cur/wide/html/weeks/WK2024-2-4.html

What is there in the Greek text of this passage to indicate that the "ἐξουσίαν" — authority — belongs to anyone other than the woman herself?

You're right that word-for-word translations can be tempting but misleading, and we need to pay attention to the meaning that will be taken by the readers or hearers of the target language. In English, "subjection", in the sense I understand from the current OEBCW text of this verse, means, according to Wiktionary, "The state of being subjected", with the verb "subject" meaning "To make subordinate or subservient; to subdue or enslave". And if the translation implies to English speakers that Christian women are meant to be subservient slaves, then yes, I do think that's a big deal, and unsupported by any part of the Bible.

[Coburn]

My original comment was that we could consider "subjection" as a legitimate translation, because authority implies subjection. It's just looking at the situation from a different point of view. But I agree with you. We don't want to create misunderstanding. Using "subjection" causes two problems. It opens the door to a wrong understanding of marriage in the church, and it opens us up to criticism from the world. And so I was wrong about that. Technically, you could make an excuse for using that word as a translation. But it's not a good idea.

One thing I noticed was that "authority" is not necessarily a negative concept. Don't we have authority in Christ? Don't we pray in Jesus's name? I think the context makes it pretty clear that this is not talking about being subject to authority, but about an axis of authority. It implies having delegated authority as well as submitting to a higher authority. One example is the Mosaic covenant. "You shall have no other gods before me," but also "To your descendants I will give this land."

When I paraphrase verse 15, I get something like, "A woman should display a recognition of this authority, even to the point of wearing a head covering." As I think about it that way, it makes me realize two things. One, this passage is blatantly what we call "time-bound." Paul is saying, "You Greeks have a cultural practice of wearing head coverings. That is good, and we should continue to do it, because not to do it is like dressing immodestly in church. It shows proper respect for the line of authority God has established. It protects the institution of marriage in a godless culture."

In our culture, we have different symbols, like dresses and wedding rings. If a woman stripped off her wedding ring on the way to the front of the church to make an announcement, we would call that improper. But we don't wear head coverings any more, and so if a woman put a doily on her head before she read Scripture from the pulpit, we would call that legalistic and weird.

The second thing is to remember that the fact we don't wear head coverings is probably for one reason, and one reason only. The world read this verse, and said, "Well. If the church wants to force us to do that, we're not going to do it. We're going to undermine their authority over us!" It's a cultural rebellion against Christianity. I can't cite facts and figures, but that's my instinct. And so we have to see this rant against "subjection" in that context. We do need to stand up for modesty and proper authority, and we need to do it in a way that reflects the character of Christ.

I recommend finding an idiomatic way to use the word "authority" in the translation of this verse, Otherwise, I have no further comment.

Thanks,

Coby

Message ID: <openenglishbible/Open-English-Bible/issues/356/1925586231@ github.com>

[openenglishbible]

Hi - to be clear, any Greek or mapping from OEB to Greek in the AndBible is done by them (presumably automatically). We don't maintain strongs numbers or similar for OEB.

Looking at the translation of the verse, I'm not amazingly happy with the OEB's existing wording, but not clear on a better wording. I'm a bit doubtful that swapping 'authority' for 'subjection' makes much difference.

Other translations don't give much help, ranging from (in my view) misleading CEV "And so, because of this, and also because of the angels, a woman ought to wear something on her head, as a sign of her authority." to the generally incomprehensible ESV "That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels."

[vonlein]

From the work of Orthodox theologian and translator David Bentley Hart, PhD:

“Therefore a woman ought to keep ward upon her head on account of the angels.” (1 Cor. 11:10)

TRANSLATION NOTE: No one knows what this verse means. The phrase ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς (exousian echein epi tēs kephalēs) can be translated as “have authority upon the head” or “have power . . .”; and this may be taken as meaning simply that she should exercise control over her head (some have taken it as meaning that she should “have a [symbol of her husband’s] authority upon her head,” but that is almost surely wrong, since the formula ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν, which is frequently used in the New Testament, has such a meaning nowhere else in the text). But the matter is complicated by the reference to the angels. Most interpreters think Paul’s meaning is that the angels are present when Christians worship and that a woman should not offend against decency in their august presence; but a few think he is referring to fallible angels, “powers” looking down from on high, who (as in the story of the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:4) are susceptible to the beauty of the “daughters of men.” In the latter case, the phrase ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν refers to a woman covering her head as an apotropaic “power” for warding off the lustful gaze of the “gods.” This reading seems implausible, because Paul only rarely uses the word “angel” of these defectible celestial governors (he does so, if at all, only in Galatians). My translation attempts to split the difference. On Feb 5, 2024 at 8:53 PM -0500, Open English Bible @.***>, wrote:

Hi - to be clear, any Greek or mapping from OEB to Greek in the AndBible is done by them (presumably automatically). We don't maintain strongs numbers or similar for OEB. Looking at the translation of the verse, I'm not amazingly happy with the OEB's existing wording, but not clear on a better wording. I'm a bit doubtful that swapping 'authority' for 'subjection' makes much difference. Other translations don't give much help, ranging from (in my view) misleading CEV "And so, because of this, and also because of the angels, a woman ought to wear something on her head, as a sign of her authority." to the generally incomprehensible ESV "That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels." — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>

[tmakarios]

"No one knows what this verse means." That's probably true, and could be a large part of why it's so difficult to be confident about any translation.

I had a look for other instances of the words "ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ" (or other forms of them). I may have missed some, but here's what I found:

Luke 5:24, Revelation 11:6, Revelation 14:18, and Revelation 16:9 each have all three words, and in every case, the person who has the ἐξουσία has actual authority (or "power" or "control"), not merely a symbol of it (English translations of 1 Corinthians 11:10 that talk about a "sign" or "symbol" of authority are inferring that word, as there is no corresponding word in the Greek). And in all of these passages, the phrase introduced by ἐπί indicates the domain of the authority (i.e., what the person has authority over). In the case of Luke 5:24, it's rendered "power on earth to forgive sins", so ἐπί can in such a case be translated as "on", rather than "over", but it's still about the domain of the authority, not a place where a symbol of the authority is displayed.

Luke 19:17 is also about having authority over something (again, actual authority, not merely a symbol of it), but the word "ἐπάνω" is used instead of ἐπί. Likewise, 1 Corinthians 7:37 is glossed here https://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/7-37.htm as being about "authority" "over" something, but with "περὶ" instead of ἐπί. 1 Corinthians 7:37 is perhaps a good example to show the breadth of possible meanings of "ἐξουσίαν": in the OEBCW, the verse is rendered as "On the other hand, a father, who has definitely made up his mind, and is under no compulsion, but is free to carry out his own wishes, and who has come to the decision, in his own mind, to keep his unmarried daughter at home will be doing right."

I also found a few verses about giving (δίδωμι), rather than having (ἔχω) authority over something: Luke 9:1, Revelation 2:26, Revelation 6:8, and Revelation 13:7. Again, it's always actual authority, not a symbol, and ἐπί always introduces its domain.

Revelation 22:14 is about an "authority" (or "right") existing ("ἔσται"), rather than someone having (ἔχω) or giving (δίδωμι) it (in the Greek, at least, though most English translations quite sensibly use a form of the word "have"). Again, I'm pretty sure this is about an actual right, not a symbol of it (though I did wonder for a while whether the washed robes might metaphorically be that right in the Greek, but although my Greek isn't good enough to judge that question for myself, this https://biblehub.com/greek/2443.htm seems to indicate "ἵνα" is the wrong kind of "that" to read it that way). And again, "ἐπὶ" introduces the domain of the right or authority.

So from the above, it seemed to me that a reasonable translation of 1 Corinthians 11:10 might say "... a woman ought to have authority over her own head ...". Considering this in conjunction with verses 5, 6, and 13 made me wonder: Were there people trying to prevent Christian women from covering their heads? Was Paul giving them permission to cover their heads, following the cultural custom for all married women, so that they wouldn't look like prostitutes and thus lose moral authority in the sight of the world around them?

But https://theancientbridge.com/2015/07/unravelling-headcoverings-the-historical-context-of-first-century-roman-wives-pt-1/ indicates that in fact, it was becoming fashionable for women to look like prostitutes, so the supposition is that Christian women were following this fashion, and Paul was instructing them not to.

So I don't consider myself to be an exception to the statement that no one knows what this verse means. And I haven't even begun to try to figure out what the casual reference to angels is there for.