Photius as a parallel to 1Kor 11,10

Photius as a parallel to 1Kor 11,10

Postby Peter Streitenberger » February 7th, 2014, 10:33 am

Dear friends,

right now I'm trying to figure out how 1Kor 11,10 is to understand (διὰ τοῦτο ὀφείλει ἡ γυνὴ ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους) and found a parallel passage at Photius:

"Ὅτι ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς, φησίν, ἔφερεν ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς τιάραν, διότι τὸν προχειριζόμενον ἁπάντων κεφαλὴν κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχειν τὴν ἐξουσίαν ἔδει, καὶ εἰδέναι ὅτι κεφαλὴ τῶν ἄλλων προβαλλόμενος καὶ αὐτὸς ὑπὸ κεφαλήν ἐστιν τὸν κοινὸν ἁπάντων δεσπότην καὶ ἐξουσιαστήν·" (Photius Theol., Scr. Eccl. et Lexicogr., Epistulae et Amphilochia.165).

I have some problems with this sentece. My first guess is (sorry it doesn't make sense): "Because the High Priest had a crown on his head, it states, that he must have the Authority to give the one appointed as head by all something over the head "

Could someone check my poor try - I want to have that clear as I see parallels to the ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς in 1Kor 11,10.
Yours
Peter Streitenberger
Peter Streitenberger
 
Posts: 123
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:45 am

Re: Photius as a parallel to 1Kor 11,10

Postby Stephen Hughes » February 7th, 2014, 10:09 pm

Photius Theol., Scr. Eccl. et Lexicogr., Epistulae et Amphilochia.165 wrote:"Ὅτι ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς, φησίν, ἔφερεν ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς τιάραν, διότι τὸν προχειριζόμενον ἁπάντων κεφαλὴν κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχειν τὴν ἐξουσίαν ἔδει, καὶ εἰδέναι ὅτι κεφαλὴ τῶν ἄλλων προβαλλόμενος καὶ αὐτὸς ὑπὸ κεφαλήν ἐστιν τὸν κοινὸν ἁπάντων δεσπότην καὶ ἐξουσιαστήν·"

Peter Streitenberger wrote:"Because the High Priest had a crown on his head, it states, that he must have the Authority to give the one appointed as head by all something over the head "


Ha ha, guessed translations!?!?! Well, I suppose that all translations are more or less informed guesses, so my "guess" might be:
    "Because, (as) it says, The high priest wore a head-dress upon his head, and the reason for that was that it was necessary for the person who was appointed as leader (head) of everyone to have his head covered with a symbol of authority, and (that was because it was necessary for him) - the one standing before the people (designated as their leader or spokesman) - to know that the (one designated) leader (head) of the others was (lit. is) himself under a leader (head), viz. (under) the one and the same Master and Holder of authority (ie. God / Christ etc)"

My paraphrase might be:
A crown (or any other title or position) appears to other to be a symbol of authority 8-) :D , but it is actually a reminder to the one whose head it is on that they are actually under authority :| .

While there are some similar words and concepts in this passage from Photius, you will have to make a descision for yourself as to whether this is a parallel enough to the passage in Corinthians to be relevent.
[I think that in addition to διάδημα being made of cloth (as Trench mentions), μίτρα, τιάρα were too. ]
Stephen Hughes
"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."
(Attributed to Albert Einstein)
Stephen Hughes
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
Location: China

Re: Photius as a parallel to 1Kor 11,10

Postby Peter Streitenberger » February 8th, 2014, 7:07 am

Dear Stephen,

your translation makes much more sense and I thank you so much so it. If you interpret τὴν ἐξουσίαν als symbol of authority, can't we see parallels to the Pauline usage in 1Kor 11, where he sees the covered head (by hair or a extra covering) as a symbol of the authority of the man under which the woman is? I always had some difficulties to see here a symbol in the text of 1Kor 11,10, but Photius makes it possible to verify this rendering, does he? Some German translations have "a symbol of" introduced in the text of 1Kor 11,10 before "authority".
Any further thoughts are very welcome !
Yours
Peter, Germany
Peter Streitenberger
 
Posts: 123
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:45 am

Re: Photius as a parallel to 1Kor 11,10

Postby Stephen Hughes » February 8th, 2014, 9:59 am

Peter Streitenberger wrote: If you interpret τὴν ἐξουσίαν als symbol of authority, can't we see parallels to the Pauline usage in 1Kor 11, where he sees the covered head (by hair or a extra covering) as a symbol of the authority of the man under which the woman is?

We can see some parallels to some extent yes, in the language, but perhaps not so clearly in the logic.

The logic in Photius seems to be, a leader wears a (felt) "crown" on his head to show others that he is a leader, but a symbol of authority according to Photius is to remind him that he is under authority too. If you apply all of that logic to the verse in Corinthians the results would be surprising.

The main problem is that Photius is talking about the head covering as being the symbol of both having authority AND of being under authority. That may or may not be what you want the covering in 1 Corinthians to connotate. That is why I suggested that you extricate the language from the logic.

If we ignore the side of Photius logic that reminds us that people see a crown and that the king has and exercises authority, you could use the remainder of the logic to support your view.

Peter Streitenberger wrote:I always had some difficulties to see here a symbol in the text of 1Kor 11,10, but Photius makes it possible to verify this rendering, does he? Some German translations have "a symbol of" introduced in the text of 1Kor 11,10 before "authority".

A crown (as with any head-coveing) is the symbol of authority - it is a material object. If you or I put on a crown, we wouldn't have a king's authority. The outward adornment is very important, but it is not the authority in itself. For another example, a wedding ring is a symbol of marriage.

Before you jump to any conclusions about Potius verifying that reading of the passage, what you my like to consider is whether ἐξουσία "symbol of authority" means a symbol of having authority, or a symbol of being under authority.
Stephen Hughes
"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."
(Attributed to Albert Einstein)
Stephen Hughes
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
Location: China

Re: Photius as a parallel to 1Kor 11,10

Postby Peter Streitenberger » February 8th, 2014, 10:30 am

Dear Stephen,
again, thank you for your insightful comment ! I can agree with it completely. The difference between Photius and Paul is that the former sees the covering in a twofold meaning: having authority over others and being under authority itself. If I read Paul correctly then he sees the covering of a woman as sign, or symbol of being under authority of someone else as he states that the man is in a higher rank (alluding to the Genesis report). So he wants the women to show her state of being under the authority of the man through her being covered.
Can we agree ?
Yours
Peter, Germany
Peter Streitenberger
 
Posts: 123
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:45 am

Re: Photius as a parallel to 1Kor 11,10

Postby Stephen Hughes » February 8th, 2014, 6:01 pm

Peter Streitenberger wrote:The difference between Photius and Paul is that the former sees the covering in a twofold meaning: having authority over others and being under authority itself. If I read Paul correctly then he sees the covering of a woman as sign, or symbol of being under authority of someone else as he states that the man is in a higher rank (alluding to the Genesis report). So he wants the women to show her state of being under the authority of the man through her being covered.
Can we agree ?

We may or may not agree on these points, and if we did or didn't agree, our agreement or lack of agreement would be based on some factors besides the Greek of this text.

Actually, we could do more in the way of anaysing Photius, and more in looking at the Greek of First Corinthians. Let's do one now.

If you re-read the Photius passage, the overall effect of the passage is equality between between a leader / representative and those whom they lead / represent. Yoou may be making a quick assumption in your reasoning about which "head" the head-covering represents. That is to say, is it Christ, God, or man (man = opp. to woman). To apply the passage of Photius, would suggest that the head-covering represents the head which is Christ or God (ὑπὸ κεφαλήν ἐστιν τὸν κοινὸν ἁπάντων δεσπότην καὶ ἐξουσιαστήν "(the head covering shows that both high-priest and all the people) are under a head which is the common their shared Master and Holder of authority over both). That is to say you might like to consider whose authority the woman is under that is represented by the head-covering.

Another thing to consider is that we may be able to consider who? is the "symbol" of authority being a symbol for? Who should see the "symbol" an what effect is intended? And to what end? For tht you would need to consider external factors such as the Genitis story that you mentioned. What you are currently doing is reasoning in a single line. Another way you could do that is applying the idea from Photius that even though there are different social functions now, a head-covering reminds us that we are equal under God / Christ. Or, of course, you may not want to do that. "A woman is under man, for reasons you have stated, and the head-covering reminds her of that, OR it reminds her she is under Christ.
So he wants the women to show her state of being under the authority of the man through her being covered.

I am hesitant to jump so quickly to a conclusion. We could ak questions first.Show what to whom, for what purpose? Analysing the Greek, and parallel passages like Photius may or may no lead you to hold the same conclusions that you expect. Ultimately, you will have some of your reading which is from the passage and some which is from interpretation. That is not a bad thing, it is a necessary subjectivity, I think.

Whether you and I agree with each other or with anybody else is a good question, Im sure, but that would be a third step in the process : Read - Interpret - Agree / Disagree. Let's keep our discussion mostly at the first of those three steps, and occasionally touch on the second, while avoiding the third of them. ;)
Stephen Hughes
"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."
(Attributed to Albert Einstein)
Stephen Hughes
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
Location: China

Re: Photius as a parallel to 1Kor 11,10

Postby Peter Streitenberger » February 9th, 2014, 11:16 am

Dear Stephen,

ok, thanks again for your thoughts ! In 1Kor 11,3 Paul states: παντὸς ἀνδρὸς ἡ κεφαλὴ ὁ χριστός ἐστιν· κεφαλὴ δὲ γυναικός, ὁ ἀνήρ· κεφαλὴ δὲ χριστοῦ, ὁ θεός.
Interestingly enough, Paul is playing with the Head concept, as Photius does. The man is the head (leader) of the woman, so the woman has to cover her head as sign of her submission under his leader- or headship. I think, if I interpret Paul correctly, then the issue at stake is the connection between man and women, not that both are in a equal hierarchy before God. So what Paul discusses is the relationship between both genders and how the different authorites are to be shown publicly.

So we can draw connections between Photius and Paul (e.g. the play of words with the term κεφαλὴ, the sing of submission under a authority), but have to keep the differences in mind.

Yours
Peter, Germany
Peter Streitenberger
 
Posts: 123
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:45 am

Re: Photius as a parallel to 1Kor 11,10

Postby Stephen Hughes » February 10th, 2014, 2:49 am

1 Corinthians has thoughts that come before it about authority, and thoughts that come after it about equality, and the head-covering is between those two. It would be a matter of interpretation as to whether you took the verse you are looking at more clearly with either what is before or after, or as a transitional verse.

I'm not sure how to take it, but you could look at what was Photius' expectation about how his readers would understand head covers from the context of 1 Corinthians was, and how he might be applying those expectations to what he was saying about the person who was wearing the crown. That would be something about the intertextuality of the two passages.

To develop your thoughts further, you may also want to look at whether ὁ ἀνήρ is just the ἀνήρ of a specific γυναικός, ie a husband, or whether it is all women. That aspect doesn't seem to be developed in your argument. The use or absence of a definite article here might have some relevance to that.
Stephen Hughes
"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."
(Attributed to Albert Einstein)
Stephen Hughes
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
Location: China

Re: Photius as a parallel to 1Kor 11,10

Postby Peter Streitenberger » February 11th, 2014, 7:08 am

Dear Stephen,

thank you !
>1 Corinthians has thoughts that come before it about authority, and thoughts that come after it about equality, and the head-covering is between those two
I'd guess that V. 10 provides a conclusion from the things said before: διὰ τοῦτο (that's why) draws a conlcusion and belongs to the previous verses.

Then in V. 11 a limitation sets in, introduced by Πλὴν (however). Pauls wants to limit his argumentation in a way, that that what he wrote before does not mean that man and women are completely independet from another.

But the allusion to the Genesis account and the man being the head of the woman culminates in the request of showing her submission with a sign on her head.

Paul again comes back to the hair dressing in V.13 where he places the long hair as answer of not being covered and he names the long hair as veil. That's why tend some exegets to see the coverd head as being covered by long hair and claim that there isn't anything written of a veil as head covering. And if so, the long hair replaces the demanded veil.

Even Theorodet writes: Ἀποχρώντως ἔδειξεν ἀπὸ τῆς κόμης ἁρμόττον τῇ γυναικὶ τὸ καλύπτεσθαι. (Theodoretus Theol. et Scr. Eccl., Interpretatio in xiv epistulas sancti Pauli.)
That means: Pauls indicates the long hair as fitting for her covering.
Agreed?
Yours
Peter


σθαι.
Peter Streitenberger
 
Posts: 123
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:45 am

Re: Photius as a parallel to 1Kor 11,10

Postby Stephen Hughes » February 11th, 2014, 6:31 pm

The conclusions that you are drawing were probably formed independently of the reference in Photius. The meaning of ἐξουσία is no clearer by referencing itself by itself another time.

The Greek still seems open to a number of interpretations. It is possible that ἐξουσία and κεφαλὴ refer to the same relationship (as your arguments have inferred), and possible that they refer to different relationships (woman to Christ is suggested by paralleling Photius).

We have moved, to a large degree into interpretation, but to answer that, you may like to explore whether ἐξουσία is used of the husband / wife relationship, or of men and women in general. That could be a way that a knowledge of Greek could give more understanding of this passage to see behind the translations, so to speak.
Stephen Hughes
"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."
(Attributed to Albert Einstein)
Stephen Hughes
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
Location: China

Next

Return to Church Fathers and Patristic Greek Texts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest