1Corinthians 11

PSacramento

This is the chapter that is used to "justify" women covering their heads:

From the ESV:

Head Coverings

2 Now I commend you a because you remember me in everything and b maintain the traditions c even as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that d the head of every man is Christ, e the head of a wife 1 is her husband, and f the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife 2 who prays or g prophesies h with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same i 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 j he is the image and glory of God, but k woman is the glory of man. 8 For l man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but m 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, n in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And o 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 p If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do q the churches of God.

Now, there are 13 translations of this, plus the NWT of course, but I wanna focus on the last part, where Paul says that," If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of GOd.

The NWT translates it thusly:

16 However, if any man seems to dispute for some other custom, we have no other, neither do the congregations of God.

PSacramento

Now, here is that part in Greek:

But	g 1161	δ? de
if any man	g 1536	ε? τις ei tis
seem	g 1380	δοκ?ω dokeo
to be	g 1511	ε?ναι einai
contentious,	g 5380	φιλ?νεικος philoneikos
we	g 2249	?με?ς hemeis
have	g 2192	?χω echo
no	g 3756	ο? ou
such	g 5108	τοιο?τος toioutos
custom,	g 4914	συν?θεια synetheia
neither	g 3761	ο?δ? oude
the churches	g 1577	?κκλησ?α ekklesia
of God.	g 2316	θε?ς theos

PSacramento

You will notice that, the NWT version adds the following words:

" for some other custom"

"no other"

This, basically, turns what Paul wrote originally, on its head.

While Paul wrote that if any man(person) be contentious ( in disagreement or strife) with what is said above, that we ( Christians) have no such custom (practice) and neither do the churches of God.

Now, reading what the NWT says and what Paul originally says, does the NWT seem accurate to you?

While Paul seems to be making clear that this custom is NOT used by christians or the churchs, the NWT seems to be making tha case that NO OTHER custom than the ones stated, are used.

PSacramento

Now, to be honest and in all fairness, the NWT is NOT the only translation to give this impression:

NLT: But if anyone wants to argue about this, all I can say is that we have no other custom than this, and all the churches of God feel the same way about it.

NIV: If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice–nor do the churches of God.

NASB: But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.

RSV: If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God.

Now, I am not sure why THESE translations translated the greek this way.

I know that the NRSV has revised the RSV to read:

16 But if anyone is disposed to be contentious—we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

isaacaustin

The NWT loves to add the word other.

This whole book is about Paul addressing questions in a letter written to him. In this account he is quoting what they beleived, and correcting them. The WT misuses this account to denigrate woman, as well as say long hair for men is wrong...(and of course they go even further and define anything out of the ordinary as worldly).

snowbird

1 Corinthians 11:10 -12 Don't, by the way, read too much into the differences here between men and women. Neither man nor woman can go it alone or claim priority. Man was created first, as a beautiful shining reflection of God—that is true. But the head on a woman's body clearly outshines in beauty the head of her "head," her husband. The first woman came from man, true—but ever since then, every man comes from a woman! And since virtually everything comes from God anyway, let's quit going through these "who's first" routines.

13 -16 Don't you agree there is something naturally powerful in the symbolism—a woman, her beautiful hair reminiscent of angels, praying in adoration; a man, his head bared in reverence, praying in submission? I hope you're not going to be argumentative about this. All God's churches see it this way; I don't want you standing out as an exception. MSG

Looks like somebody on the NWT "translation committee" wanted to be sure women remembered their place.

Sylvia

PSacramento

Issac,

I agree, Paul says here:

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

He seems to be stating that her long hair IS her covering already.

PSacramento

Sylvia,

Indeed it seems that way.

Even in their own interlinear, the greek is clear and when viewing the translation next to it, you can see the obivous changes.

isaacaustin

1 Cor 7:1 Now in regard to the matters about which you wrote:

Paul is still in 1 Cor 11 correcting the Corinthians on matters they wrote him about. Sometimes it is hard to follow since he mentions what they teach and then corrects it.

PSacramento

I haven't read many commentaries on this, but the two I have read, Matthew Hery and AR faucett, agree that Paul was saying that women SHOULD have their heads covered and that the "no such custom" Paul mentions is no such custom of having their head UNcoverd, ie: their heads are covered in the Churchs of God.

It doesn't seem like a natural reading of the text though.

1Corinthians 11

Share this