chiscotheque wrote: ↑04 Jan 2020, 18:55
i personally wouldn't be so sure about the importance of the Paul quote, however, any more than head coverings were de rigor for nuns and women generally in some sects. but putting aside my own opinions, first corinthians is generally accepted as being by Paul, as well as his secretary Sosthenes. also putting aside questions of Paul's presumed authority, there are parts of first corinthians which we know have been edited and added to for specific "political" one might say reasons - the famous case being the declaration that women should be silent in church. one can tell by the text that it's been added and paul elsewhere is clear that women's participation in church is crucial. my point is one of the most unreliable things going is scripture. that said, if we want to understand how believers thought of the passage, there has been some debate on the matter. some think it means men should have short hair and women long hair. some think women should always have their head covered, like Mennonites. there are even some - Lightfoot and Bushnell - who interpret the passage to mean women should have their heads
uncovered.
Yes there is of course that more mundane side which is just a mumble jumble of the previous traditions with a new twist. All this business about hair and veils and uncovering and covering and what to cover and what not to cover has been going on since forever. And still going on. In North America and other continents, you probably have less of this, but here in Europe at least, there's a huge hullabaloo about the Muslim veil - there's been a whole new lot of polemic about this in France - for about the millionth time.
The Austrians were the laughing stock of social media when, after introducing a law banning facial coverings in public,the Austrian police fined a man 150 Euros dressed as a shark who was promoting the opening of a new electronics shop in Vienna. He was dressed in a pink and grey shark suit with a head covering.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 92116.html
I read later that it was a stunt - to prove the absurdity of the new law.
Anyway, back to the topic on hand. I was very interested to read what you said about how things have been so obviously added later on by other hands for their own purposes in Corinthians. Reading Corinthians is a bit like watching a movie. I can almost see them - how they were dressed and seated in their place of worship - and all the sounds and the smells. And I like the writing style. I find it very elegant.
Sosthenes - I'd never heard of him. I read that he was seized and beaten by the mob in the presence of Gallio, the Roman governor. Some people must have been mightily angry with him.
That being said, "head" and "hair" and "veils", beyond their literal interpretation, have other hidden dark meanings. So beyond the seeming mundane and nonsensical things we seem to be reading, and I am now also taking into account that there are things that were not of Paul (and his authority that can at times be questioned), it's still a very curious passage.
what is meant specifically by "because of the angels?" debatable. some say it means a woman's head would be a distraction for the angels. it's not hard to extarct from this that it's really a distraction for the men in church. re: the interpretation that stresses that Eve was created because man cannot exist alone, the headdress is a sign to the angels of woman's authority.
again, i personally consider it a straight-forward misogynist convention. looked at closely, the suggestion is a woman has no soul, properly speaking, in communion with god except through the authoritative mediation of her husband. further, only a woman with a husband is considered here at all. as in islam, the male perspective here may be in part that men are trying to protect the woman, which in a certain psychological sense may be true, keeping them innocent, mysterious, and hooded as the virgin mary often is seen (thereby keeping them man's patrimony). further, allegorically, we may see this hooded quality an inversion of male circumcision, and so an enshrinement of sorts of the hymen. even further, we may be reminded of the moment christ died, and the veil of the temple was rent in twain.
.
Yes, it's very mysognistic. That's undebatable. The same misogyny found in so many religions still today.
I've always had this feeling - but I've never found it validated or even supported anywhere - that maybe she must cover her hair because otherwise she won't for some reason be able to HEAR the angels. I've can't shake this notion that springs from seemingly nowhere.
Thanks for the other musings and ideas. Every bit helps to untangle the mystery of life.
), so he changes water into wine of superior quality. Most Christians, because the majority of Christian churches and denominations have denied Jeshua's voice (they've gone further than other traditions who "just" deny the woman her voice - it's quite astonishing how they don't listen to a single thing he said), believe that story only in the literal meaning. And they go all woo and wow about it - this great magician who pulled a rabbit out of a hat (but they don't call him a magician - that would be satanistic for them). But as the Bible is allegorical, one must take this into account!! It's a 
