Tiberius schreef:Bloempje28 schreef:Maar ik zou zo geen titel en bladzijde kunnen geven... wil het wel eens navragen aan onze dominee!
Graag. Misschien kan hij een titel van een boek noemen of een verwijzing.
Ik ben wel benieuwd, ja.
Ik ben benieuwd. Ik heb er even wat commentaren (alle grote hedendaagse commentaren) en naslagwerken op nageslagen, maar ik kan niets vinden wat er op wijst dat hoeren in de context van Korinthe altijd kaalgeschoren waren.
Wel las ik, dat je in Korinthe vele afgodencultussen had. Binnen die cultus doorbrak men zedelijke gewoonten, en hield men man en vrouw gelijk. Als teken van die gelijkheid, van het niet-vrouw zijn, (soms ook in het kader van homoseksualiteit) schoren vrouwen zich kaal. Mogelijk was het voor de christengemeente in Korinthe een verleiding om die cultus-gebruiken over te nemen. Persoonlijk is mij deze visie trouwens te speculatief.
Ik hou het daarom maar bij de simpele visie: Kaal zijn was voor een vrouw een schande, omdat haar haar een teken van vrouwelijkheid is. Net zoals wij nu nog steeds een kale vrouw maar raar vinden.
Een commentaar wat m.i. kort en krachtig de belangrijke zaken in 1 Kor 11:1-16 noemt (voor degenen die Engels kunnen):
Women’s Head Coverings
Paul returns to the topic of food in 11:17–34 (cf. chaps. 8–10), but here he digresses briefly to address another issue in the Corinthian church that involves those who are free surrendering their rights (11:10). Digressions were standard in ancient literature.
Women’s hair was a common object of lust in antiquity, and in much of the eastern Mediterranean women were expected to cover their hair. To fail to cover their hair was thought to provoke male lust as a bathing suit is thought to provoke it in some cultures today. Head covering prevailed in Jewish Palestine (where it extended even to a face veil) and elsewhere, but upper-class women eager to show off their fashionable hairstyles did not practice it. Thus Paul must address a clash of culture in the church between upper-class fashion and lower-class concern that sexual propriety is being violated. (That Greeks bared their heads for worship and Romans covered them might also be significant, given the dual affiliation of Corinth as a Greek and Roman city. But because this custom was not divided along gender lines, it is probably irrelevant here.)
Thus Paul provides a series of brief arguments, each of which relates directly to the culture he addresses. His arguments do not work well in every culture (he is not completely satisfied with all of them himself—11:11–12), but it is the Corinthian women, not modern women, whom he wishes to persuade to cover their heads.
11:2. Letters were often written to “praise” or “blame” the recipients; sometimes these points characterized the entire letter in which they occurred. “Traditions” (NASB, NRSV) were accounts or regulations passed on orally; for instance, Pharisees in Palestine transmitted their special traditions in this way.
11:3–4. Ancient writers often based arguments on wordplays, as Paul does here. He uses “head” literally (for that which is to be covered) and figuratively (for the authority figure in the ancient household). (Some commentators have argued, perhaps rightly, that “head” means not “authority” but “source”—see 11:12—but the matter is vigorously debated and cannot be decided here.) On head coverings for women, see the introduction to this section. Women did not lead prayers in most synagogues, and Jewish tradition tended to play down Old Testament prophetesses; Paul’s churches allow considerably more freedom for women’s ministry.
11:5–6. Paul uses the ancient debate principle of reductio ad absurdum: If they are so concerned to bare their heads, why not also remove the natural covering, their hair? Paul thereby reduces their insistence to the absurd: the greatest physical shame for a woman was to be shaved or have her hair cut like a man’s.
11:7. Paul here begins an argument from the order of creation. He cannot be denying that women are also the image of God (Gen 1:27 plainly states that both male and female were created in God’s image). Perhaps he means that women’s uncovered heads are drawing men’s attention to humanity instead of to God; as one would say today, they were turning men’s heads.
11:8–9. According to Genesis 2:18 God created woman distinct from man partly so that man would no longer be alone; the phrase there translated “helper suitable” praises woman’s strength rather than subordinates her. (“Helper” is used more often of God than of anyone else in the Old Testament; “suitable” means “corresponding” or “appropriate to,” as an equal in contrast to the animals.) Woman was thus created because man needed her strength, not (as some have wrongly interpreted this verse) to be his servant.
11:10. Here Paul says literally, “she ought to have authority over her own head because of the angels”; Paul means that she should exercise wisely her right to decide whether to cover her head in a way that will honor her husband (11:8–9), given the situation with “the angels.” The “angels” have been interpreted as (1) the angels who (according to ancient Jewish interpretations of Gen 6:1–3) lusted after women and so fell; (2) the angels present in divine worship, who would be offended by a breach of propriety or affront to the husbands (cf. the Dead Sea Scrolls); and (3) the angels who rule the nations but who will ultimately be subordinate to all believers, including these women (6:3; i.e., as a future ruler a Christian woman or man should exercise wise choices in the present, even regarding apparel).
11:11–12. Paul qualifies his preceding argument from creation (11:7–10); he wants to prove his case about head coverings, but nothing more. Women and men are mutually interdependent (cf. also 7:2–5).
11:13–15. Ancient writers, especially Stoic philosophers, liked to make arguments from nature. Nature taught them, they said, that only men could grow beards; women’s hair naturally seemed to grow longer than men’s. Like all urban dwellers, Paul is well aware of exceptions to the rule (barbarians, philosophers and heroes of the epic past, as well as biblical Nazirites); but the “nature” argument could appeal to the general order of creation as it was experienced by his readers.
11:16. Paul reserves one final argument for those unpersuaded by his former points. One philosophical group called the Skeptics rejected all arguments except an almost universally accepted one: the argument from custom—”that’s just not the way it’s done.”
Keener, C. S., & InterVarsity Press. (1993).
The IVP Bible background commentary : New Testament (1 Co 11:1–16). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.
