Exploring the biblical theology of Christian egalitarianism

“Covering” or “Testicle” in 1 Cor. 11:15? (Part 2)

Introduction

In part 1, I looked at what peribolaion typically means in circa first-century Greek texts. I also looked at ancient Greek ideas about semen, testicles, and hair, and at circa first-century literary and archaeological evidence for socially acceptable Roman hairstyles.

In the second and last part of this article, I continue my critique of Dr Troy Martin’s thesis that the Greek word peribolaion means “testicle” rather than “covering” in 1 Corinthians 11:15. There are several points in Martin’s arguments that I see differently from him. I’ve chosen to mention only a few of them, and I’ve kept my responses brief and as untechnical as possible.

Here is 1 Corinthians 11:13-15 again.

Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head exposed? Does not even nature (physis) itself teach (didaskō) you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory (doxa)? For her hair is given to her for/ instead of/ in place of (anti) a peribolaion.

Nature as “Teacher” in 1 Corinthians 11:14

As mentioned in part 1, Troy Martin has written two papers where he argues that peribolaion means “testicle” in 1 Corinthians 11:15. He states at the beginning of his first paper thatthe argument from nature in verses 13 to 15 is particularly problematic.”[1] It is this difficulty that has led Martin to the “testicle” idea.

1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is a puzzling passage and it is difficult to make coherent sense of every phrase, but the concept of “nature” is not particularly obscure. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor observes, “All modern commentators recognize that ‘nature teaches’ (v. 14) does not refer to natural law in any technical sense but to what Paul’s generation accepted as conventional.”[2]

“Nature” is instinctive or self-evident knowledge of what is culturally appropriate. Paul took the matter of different hair lengths for men and women in Corinth as instinctively understood: different hairstyles are ordinary and customary because men and women are different (male and female). (I have a discussion on “nature” in 1 Cor. 11:14 here.)

Did Paul Think Women were Lacking a Body Part?

In his second paper, Martin writes, “Paul’s statement that long hair is given by nature to a woman instead of a περιβόλαιον requires a translation of περιβόλαιον that refers to a male body part lacking in a woman but having a function corresponding to her long hair.”[3]

In response to this statement, let me point out first that Paul was a smart man. I’m certain he was aware that some men’s hair could grow long if left untrimmed. And Paul speaks about “nature” primarily as a teacher here, not as a giver of long hair.

Second, the assumption that Paul is somehow implying that women are lacking a body part, let alone a male body part, is an astonishing claim. Martin understands the Greek word anti in 1 Corinthians 11:15 as meaning “instead of” or “in place of,” but I see no evidence that Paul thought women were lacking testicles. I suggest Paul was simply saying that a woman’s long hair is fine as a covering. A woman praying among those “who are in the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:11), that is, among those who are fellow siblings in Christ, doesn’t need to cover her hair with a cloth covering, a peribolaion, “for her long hair is given for/in place (anti) of a covering.”

I’ve tried, but I can’t see that Paul thought women were lacking something and that this was an issue for only some of the women in Corinth, those who were praying and prophesying (cf. 1 Cor. 11:5).

Furthermore, if we’re going to rely on the ideas of ancient Greek physicians as Martin does (see part 1), we need to remember that in Paul’s day, many of the ideas of Aristotle and Hippocrates had been disproven. Since the third-century BCE, Greek physicians believed women did have testicles. They regarded ovaries as testicles.[4] I strongly doubt that Paul thought women “in the Lord” were lacking any body part.

Let me say here that I take the two halves of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 to be referring to two different settings and two different social concerns. I take the first half to be about reputations (doxa) in broader Corinthian society and the second half, 1 Corinthians 11:11-16, to be about mutual relationships among Christ-followers.

I’ve written an overview of these two different concerns here: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, in a Nutshell
A longer look at reputations here: Man and Woman as the Image and Glory of God
And a look at Paul’s use of creation in the two halves of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 here: Judith Gundry on the Two Social Contexts of 1 Cor. 11:2-16

“Testicles” in Euripides’ Play Hercules Furens?

Troy Martin quotes two texts in his first paper where he believes peribolaion means “testicles.” The first is from Euripides’ play Hercules Furens.

“After I received [my] bags (peribolaia) of flesh, which are the outward signs of puberty, [I received] labours…” (Euripides, Herc. Fer. 1260).

Martin states, “In this text from Euripides, the term peribolaion refers to a testicle.”[5] But this isn’t exactly right. Hercules is speaking about his testicles here, but the word peribolaion on its own doesn’t mean “testicle.” Rather, it is the two-word expression sarkos peribolaia (peribolaia “of flesh”) that are the testicles. That these “bags of flesh” are testicles is clarified in the next phrase (“outward signs of puberty”) for those who may be unsure what Hercules is referring to with his unusual expression.[6]

In his response to Troy Martin’s first paper, Mark Goodacre argues that Euripides is using a clothing metaphor here. Goodacre explains that the phrase “σαρκὸς περιβόλαι’ ἡβῶντα, with “ἡβῶντα (present participle of ἡβάω, ‘to attain puberty, to be in the prime of youth’) is a transferred epithet agreeing with περιβόλαι(α), ‘that which is thrown around, covering, clothing’ (plural). … Heracles has come of age and has put on his young man’s flesh.”[7]

Both Martin and Goodacre note that peribolaia in this phrase in Euripides’s play has been translated with clothing words, such as “vesture,” “garb,” and “cloak,” but Martin points out that these predate his “testicle” papers.[8] The common understanding was, and for most people still is, that peribolaion is used in a clothing metaphor here.

“Testicles” in Achilles Tatius’ Novel Clitophon and Leucippe?

In the second example, Martin quotes from the second-century CE novel Clitophon and Leucippe by Achilles Tatius. Here is an extended excerpt so we can see the context.

When the entombment was over, I hurried to my sweetheart, who was in the garden of our house. This garden was a meadow, a very object of beauty to the eyes; round it ran a wall of sufficient height, and each of the four sides of the wall formed a portico standing on pillars, within which was a close plantation of trees. Their branches, which were in full foliage, intertwined with one another; their neighbouring flowers mingled with each other, their leaves overlapped (tōn phyllōn peribolai), their fruits joined. Such was the way in which the trees grew together; to some of the larger of them were ivy and smilax attached, the smilax hanging from planes and filling all the interstices between the boughs with its soft foliage, the ivy twisting up the pines and embracing the trunks, so that the tree formed a support for the ivy, and the ivy a garland for the tree (Achilles Tatius, Leuc. Clit. 1.15.1–2).[9] (Read more, beginning at p. 45, here.)

Martin explains that Tatius “portrays this erotic garden by allusions to male and female sexual organs.” Nevertheless, the word peribolai does not mean “testicles” here. The word refers to a canopy, coverings, of intertwining leaves. Peribolaion retains its sense of “covering,” just as the words for “house,” “garden,” “trees,” “branches,” “leaves,” “flowers,” “fruit,” etc, retain their usual meanings even if we can then ascribe to them allegorical or sexual connotations.

Furthermore, it is unclear why Martin has chosen the coverings of leaves as alluding to testicles and not other objects in the garden. And to translate tōn phyllōn peribolai as “their leaves testicles,” or something similar, doesn’t make sense.

Note also that in the two texts, the plural of peribolaion is used, but the singular occurs in 1 Corinthians 11:5. I agree with Goodacre’s comment on this.

If Paul had wished to contrast women’s hair with male testicles in 1 Cor 11:15, we would have expected him to use a plural noun, and the noun of choice would probably have been ὄρχις [which does mean “testicle”]. There are no known uses of περιβόλαιον to mean “testicle.” The two examples provided by Martin do not make the case.[10]

In his second paper, a response to Goodacre, Troy Martin argues technicalities but provides no new examples from Greek literature where peribolaion might mean “testicle.” And he emphasises that his idea of “testicle” does not rest on the two texts he cited in his first paper but on what he sees as the context of 1 Corinthians 11:15.[11]

In other words, there is no Greek text where peribolaion simply means “testicle.”

The Angels, or Watchers, in Tertullian and Early Jewish Literature

Michael S. Heiser has applied Martin’s thesis to 1 Corinthians 11:10: “the woman ought to have authority on her head on account of the angels.” Heiser believes the angels are the same or similar beings as the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1-4 who married human women and had giant children.[12]

In the early 200s CE, Tertullian also connected these “sons of God” with the “angels” in 1 Corinthians 11:10.

For if (it is) on account of the angels— those, to wit, whom we read of as having fallen from God and heaven on account of concupiscence [strong sexual desire] after females— who can presume that it was bodies already defiled, and relics of human lust, which such angels yearned after, so as not rather to have been inflamed for virgins, whose bloom pleads an excuse for human lust likewise? For thus does Scripture withal suggest: And it came to pass, it says, when men had begun to grow more numerous upon the earth, there were withal daughters born them; but the sons of God, having described the daughters of men, that they were fair (pulchrae), took to themselves wives of all whom they elected.  (Tertullian, On the Veiling of Virgins 7; cf. Gen. 6:1–4).[13]

If I’m understanding him correctly, Tertullian attributes the “bloom” (flos) of beautiful young women as the cause of the angels’ lust. He doesn’t mention hair.

A few early Jewish works also mention these “angels” or Watchers.

The Book of Enoch (written 300–200 BCE) refers to the Genesis 6 women and describes them as “pretty and beautiful daughters” (thygateres hōraia kai kalai cf. kalai in Gen. 6:2 LXX) but it says nothing about their hair (1 Enoch 6–7). I found only one reference to hair in the book of Enoch and this was about Lamech’s son’s unnaturally white hair (1 Enoch 106). And hair is not mentioned at all in Genesis 6.

Hair is not mentioned either in the surviving fragments of the Book of Giants (written in the 200s BCE) which says of the Watchers (Egrēgoroi) that “They chose beautiful [women], and demanded [. . .] them in marriage” (Book of Giants, Fragment i).

The Watchers appear again in the Testament of Reuben (written sometime in the first or second centuries CE). In chapter 5, women are described as evil and as seducing the Watchers simply because they didn’t cover their heads and their faces. Hair is not explicitly mentioned here.

To be clear, neither Genesis 6, 1 Enoch 6–7, the Book of Giants, or the Testament of Reuben states that exposed hair was what the angels found alluring. The issue of women’s hair is not raised at all. And only the Testament of Reuben mentions covering heads, but it also mentions covering faces. Furthermore, none of these texts hints in any way that women’s hair was thought of as genitals. In all these texts, it simply states (or implies, in the case of the Testament of Reuben) that the women were beautiful.

There are several different interpretations of who the aggeloi are in 1 Corinthians 11:10. I do not believe they are the Genesis 6 “sons of God” or Watchers. (See linked articles below.)

Women’s Hair in the New Testament

In other New Testament letters, Paul and Peter are concerned with women’s hairstyles but they don’t mention veils and they don’t tell women to cover their heads (1 Tim. 2:9; 1 Pet. 3:3). If the women’s hair had been completely covered by a veil, the problem of extravagant hairstyles would have been solved, however, neither apostle offers this solution. (I’ve written about these hairstyles here.)

When Mary of Bethany anointed Jesus, she wiped his feet with her hair. Judas Iscariot was offended about the cost of the perfume but not, it seems, that Mary’s hair was loosened, exposed, and touching Jesus’s feet (John 12:3)![14] In another anointing story, onlookers are disturbed that Jesus allowed a sinful woman to touch him. It is not mentioned that they were disturbed by her loosened hair that she used to wipe the perfume and her tears from Jesus’s feet (Luke 7:38).

Objections to Troy Martin’s “Testicle” Thesis

I’ve read both of Dr Martin’s papers carefully and I don’t buy his definition or translation of peribolaion as “testicle. Most scholars, but not all, have similarly rejected this idea.

Lucy Peppiatt, for example, quotes some of Troy Martin’s paper (the bit about long feminine hair assisting the uterus in drawing semen upward and inward) and then makes the comment, “That this argument is even considered seriously enough to warrant refutation is bemusing to say the least.”[15] And in a footnote, Cynthia Long Westfall refers to Martin’s first paper and states, “The nature of the sexual attraction of women’s hair and the fact that an uncovered hair was indecent are overplayed by Martin …”[16]

Jerome Murphy-O’Connor regards Martin’s idea as a “bizarre interpretation.”[17]  And he summarises his major objections.

“A dreadful warning of what can happen when the interpretation of 11:3-16 is made to turn on a single word is provided by T.W. Martin. He argues that peribolaion (v. 15b) means testicle, whose place in a woman is taken by her hair, which obviously should be covered because it is part of the female genitalia. Martin quotes only two texts to support his interpretation of peribolaion, namely Euripides, Hercules Furens 1260, and Achilles Tatius, Leucippe and Clitophon, 1.15.2. Neither is unambiguous, and they are separated by seven hundred years. Not only does Martin not provide evidence for a well-known first-century AD meaning [such evidence is in part 1 here], but ‘testicle’ is not documented in LSJ.[18] As regards the physiological relationship of hair to the sex act, Martin draws on texts ranging from the fifth century BC to the second century AD, thereby creating an entirely artificial synthesis that never existed in the mind of any single ancient. Moreover, he furnished no reason to think that anyone at Corinth thought that way.”[19]

A Woman’s Hair is Her Glory

When it’s all said and done, the idea that peribolaion means “testicle” makes 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 sound like nonsense.

“Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory (doxa)? For her hair is given to her instead of a testicle (peribolaion).”

How can a woman’s hair be her glory (doxaand function as a testicle? The word doxa usually refers to something that is seen or heard, and admired and praised.[20] It often has a sense of renown or repute. How can this apply to a respectable woman’s genitals? (I’ve written about doxa in 1 Cor. 11:7 and 14 here.)

Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 11:15 suggests that at the very least some of the women’s hair in Corinth was visible. Preston Massey states,

“Since Paul mentions that a woman’s hair is her ‘glory,’ it must be assumed that some part of it is visible, either the front bangs or the ends falling down over the shoulders. This would conform to the image of modesty as developed by Philostratus [Imagines 2.9].”[21]

I agree, however, with Judith Gundry’s understanding of Roman hairstyles and 1 Corinthians 11:14–15.

In the light of Paul’s statements in 11:14–15 that the woman’s long hair is her glory and that it is given to her “for a covering” and that the man’s long hair is his shame, and in 11:4–5 that the Corinthian women and men “shame their head” by the practices here criticized, it is probably best to assume that covering the head here refers to hairstyles, since in a first-century Roman context there was no social shame associated with women’s not veiling or with men’s wearing a himation over the head.[22]

Conclusion

In part 1 we saw that the word peribolaion typically refers to a cloth covering and that there is literary and archaeological evidence of respectable first-century Roman women with their hair fully uncovered, which they couldn’t do if hair was thought of as a testicle. And as I’ve said above, how could Paul say that a woman’s hair is her glory (doxa) if he regarded hair as genitals?

In part 1 we also saw that because of advances in scientific knowledge, most physicians in Paul’s day did not agree with many of Aristotle’s and Hippocrates’ speculative assumptions on human physiology. Following discoveries by Herophilus and others, it was understood that women did have “testicles” (ovaries). Moreover, first-century authors writing about hair say nothing about semen or testicles. And hair is not mentioned in any of the texts that refer to the beautiful women who were taken in marriage by the “sons of God” or Watchers.

Troy Martin admits that the textual evidence for peribolaion meaning “testicle” is flimsy. Rather, 1 Corinthians 11:13–15 makes better sense to him contextually, with “nature” in mind, when peribolaion is translated as “testicle.” Rather than Martin’s complicated view of “nature,” however, “nature” can simply refer to ordinary cultural conventions.

1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is a difficult passage to understand, and it makes sense to try to work out the backstory or the scenario that Paul is addressing. We only have one side of the conversation here. But I strongly doubt Paul had in mind ideas that were hundreds of years out of date and thought that the hair of the ministering women in Corinth were genitals that needed to be covered.


Footnotes

[1] Martin, “Paul’s Argument from Nature,” 76. (PDF) In footnote 1 on page 75, Martin explains that his “article interprets Paul’s argument from nature in 1 Cor. 11:13–15 against the backdrop of ancient physiology.

[2] Murphy-O’Connor, Keys to First Corinthians: Revisiting the Major Issues (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 173 footnote 69.

[3] Martin, “Περιβόλαιον as Testicle,” 456. (PDF)

[4] Herophilus of Alexandria, an anatomist who lived 335-280 BCE, is praised by Galen as the first to discover that women had testicles. Galen quotes from Herophilus’s third book of anatomy: “Testicles also grow on the sides of the uterus, one from each part, differing little from the testicles of the male. … Testicles in females grow at each shoulder of the uterus, one from the right, one from the left, the two of them not in a single scrotum, but each apart by itself … easily damaged flesh, as are also the testicles of males.” (Quoted in Galen, On Semen 2.1.15-16)
Galen himself noted earlier in his essay, “The testicles (orchai) lie alongside the uterus, one on each side, and receive a convolution of vessels like the convolutions in males; but (the convolution) does not go the same place, since the female had to discharge semen not externally, like a male, but into her own uterus. (On Semen 2.1.2) Galen does not associate hair with semen or with sexual organs.
Quotations from Galen’s On Semen are from the translation by Phillip De Lacy (Corpus Medicorum Graecorum; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1992). This can be accessed online here.

[5] Martin, “Paul’s Argument from Nature,” 77.

[6] Strictly speaking, peribolaia seems to refer to the scrotum here. Martin anticipates this thought and states, “Some may interpret Euripides’ statement as referring to the scrotum, but the plural peribolaia more likely refers to the testicles rather than the scrotum (oschē), which is singular. Furthermore, the scrotum is visible from birth, whereas the testicles enlarge and become pronounced at puberty.” Martin, “Paul’s Argument from Nature,” 77 fn 7. (I’m unconvinced by his explanation.)

[7] Goodacre, “Does περιβόλαιον Mean ‘Testicle’ in 1 Corinthians 11:15?” Journal for Biblical Literature 130.2 (2011): 391–396, 393. (PDF)

[8] Goodacre, “Does περιβόλαιον Mean ‘Testicle,’” 393–394; Martin, “Περιβόλαιον as ‘Testicle,’” 459–460.

[9] English translation by Stephen Gaselee, Loeb Classical Library, 1917.

[10] Goodacre, “Does περιβόλαιον Mean ‘Testicle,’” 395–396.

[11] Martin, “Περιβόλαιον as ‘Testicle,’” 458.

[12] You can listen to Michael Heiser’s podcast on “Naked Bible Podcast 086 — The Head Covering of 1 Corinthians 11:13–15” on YouTube. A transcript is here.

[13] Troy Martin also refers to Tertullian’s treatise On the Veiling of Virgins. This treatise, which dates to around 200–220 CE, has relevance to 1 Corinthians 11 and so I’ve provided a few notes on it here.

[14] The Hebrew word רֶגֶל-regel (“foot, leg”) is sometimes used as a euphemism for genitals in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Deut. 28:57 NKJV; 1 Sam. 24:3 KJV) and in narratives where there is sexual inuendo (e.g., Judg. 5:27; Ruth 3:4-8). But sometimes it just means “feet.”

[15] Peppiatt, Women and Worship at Corinth: Paul’s Rhetorical Arguments in 1 Corinthians (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2015), 58.

[16] Westfall, Paul and Gender: Reclaiming the Apostle’s Vision for Men and Women in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016), 30 footnote 91.

[17] Murphy-O’Connor, Keys to First Corinthians (in particular his chapter “1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Once Again”), 173 footnote 69.

[18] LSJ cites Euripides, Hercules Furens 1260 and translates peribolai here as “encasements,” not “testicles.”

[19] Murphy-O’Connor, Keys to First Corinthians, 180. My use of bold!
What evidence is there that people in Corinth or in other first-century Roman colonies thought about hair as hollow conduits of semen that linked the brain with genitals? Martin has not provided this kind of evidence.

[20] In the Testament of Naphtali 5.8, a Jewish work written in the first or second century CE, it says that God made hair for beauty and for glory.

[21] Massey, “Dress Codes at Roman Corinth and Two Hellenic Sites: What Do the Inscriptions at Andania and Lycosura Tell Us About 1 Corinthians 11.2-16? Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 11 (2015): 51–81, 78. (PDF)
Here is a quotation from the work Massey mentions about the beautiful and dignified Pantheia”: “[she] keeps her beauty unadorned and just as it was while Abradates was alive, and takes it thus away with her, letting her thick black hair fall unrestrained over her shoulders and neck, yet just showing her white throat …” (From Imagines 2:9)

[22] Gundry, Judith M. Gundry-Volf, “Gender and Creation in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16: A Study in Paul’s Theological Method” in Evangelium, Schriftauslegung, Kirche: Festschrift für Peter Stuhlmacher zum 65. Geburtstag, Jostein Ädna, Scott J. Hafemann and Otfried Hofius (eds.) (Gӧttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 151-171, 151 footnote 1.

© Margaret Mowczko 2022
All Rights Reserved

Thank you to those who support my work. It is greatly appreciated!
You can support my work for as little as $3 USD a month at Patreon.
Become a Patron!

Explore more

“Covering” or “Testicle” in 1 Corinthians 11:15? (Part 1)
A Note on “Nature” and Hairstyles in 1 Corinthians 11:14–15
Judith Gundry on the Two Social Contexts of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 (with a note on different understandings of the “angels” in 1 Cor. 11:10)
1 Corinthians 11:2-16, in a Nutshell (with an explanation of my understanding of the “angels.”)
Authority or Subordination in 1 Corinthians 11:10?
All my articles on 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 are here.
Women’s Hair in Corinth and in Sydney
Hair Lengths and Hairstyles in the Bible
A List of the Beautiful People in the Bible

Further Reading

Who are the sons of God in Genesis 6? Sethians, Rulers, or Fallen Angels? by B.J. Oropeza.

16 thoughts on ““Covering” or “Testicle” in 1 Cor. 11:15? (Part 2)

  1. Is it possible that Troy Martin gets his jollies from putting out something this ridiculous so that he can tie very smart people up in knots trying to refute these outrageous ideas??
    But, my thanks to you, Marg, for doing your usual thorough research so that common sense might prevail in the face of this utter nonsense!

    1. Dr Martin is known for his expertise on Greco-Roman medical texts and I fully believe his thesis is sincere, but reading his second paper, in particular, was a bit hard because of the numerous references to genitals. I’m glad I’ve finished this article and can move on to something entirely different.

    2. Good Response, Ms. Schaafsma

  2. Your analysis seems right on, Marg, little as I know about such things. (I did read Troy’s paper linked elsewhere and was not particularly made wiser by it.)

    The thing I don’t understand, though, is this. Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, Troy is absolutely right and Paul was being coy or discreet or even maybe just making a pun.

    How does this revision of meaning help women, or even men, understand what Paul is trying to say? If Paul was simply making a pun, then doesn’t that put the passage even more firmly into first century Roman culture and farther from us?

    What am I missing in understanding the point he’s trying to make?

    1. Hi Jo, The point of Dr Martin’s article is to help us understand Paul’s actual words. It’s always good to understand the Bible better, except that I think Martin got it wrong here.

      I’m not sure that Martin thinks Paul was being discreet or making a pun, as such. Rather, he argues that Paul actually believed that hair functioned as genitals and, because of this, women who were praying and prophesying needed to cover their hair.

      I believe Paul’s concerns in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 were about hair lengths and/ or hairstyles worn by some ministering men and women that were socially unacceptable in first-century Roman Corinth. We need to understand this cultural context before we can then apply any principles in our own situation and culture.

      1. Thanks for the quick reply! I’m sorry I wasn’t clearer in asking what his purpose was. I fully agree with understanding Scripture as the original hearers and readers would have understood it. Definitely good there.

        Thinking that word means a woman’s hair is some kind of testicle doesn’t seem to make an already difficult passage easier. (Well, for us reading two thousand years later. Paul and the Corinthians almost certainly understood what he meant.)

        I guess what’s even harder to understand is why someone would think that God would allow Paul to perpetuate an idea that is not true, that hair carries semen or is an anyway related to reproduction. That’s just…odd. I think that that idea is really the source of my head scratching!

        1. In my article, I’ve only responded to a few aspects of his argument, but I do see Martin’s overall picture, even if I disagree with it. One of Martin’s main objectives was to explain what Paul meant by “nature.” He thinks the testicle idea explains this.

          I’m not sure if it would bother me if Paul had made an unscientific statement. I do see him as first-century person even though I consider his writings as inspired. But it’s an interesting point that you raise.

  3. “if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him…”

    James, the brother of Jesus, was a Nazirite from birth. This would mean that James’ hair was never cut during his lifetime. The Nazirite vow was also taken by others in Jerusalem among the followers of Jesus. Possibly, Jesus took this vow himself and grew his hair long. The Nazirite vow also prohibits wine.

    I consider this verse to be one of many examples of the antagonism that existed between Paul and James, the “so-called pillar.” The Jerusalem Decree prohibits Paul from teaching “blood” and specifically the blood Paul taught was the blood of James’ brother, Jesus.

    Why would Paul say long hair is a disgrace for men when he knew that Jesus’ brother, James, had never cut his hair due to a vow he was under from birth?

    1. Hi Russell, I discuss the hair lengths of various people in the Bible, and I mention Nazirites, in this article. https://margmowczko.com/hairstyles-long-hair-men-bible/

      I doubt there were many, if any, life-long Nazirites living in Corinth. However, Paul made some kind of vow that included cutting hair when he was in Cenchrea, a port of Corinth (Acts 18:18).

      Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 reflect Roman customs of hair lengths. Corinth was a Roman colony in Paul’s day. Customs about hairstyles in Judea may have been different.
      ________

      The decree of the Jerusalem council was to help Gentiles and Jews fellowship together. It prohibits certain practices to do with idolatry, sexual immorality, and diet, but it doesn’t prohibit teaching.

      After the council had listened to the report of Barnabas and Paul, about their ministry among the Gentiles (Acts 15:12 cf Acts 15:4), James said,
      “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood” (Acts 15:19-20 cf. Acts 15:28-29 NIV).

      Or if you prefer,
      “For which cause I judge that they, who from among the Gentiles are converted to God, are not to be disquieted. But that we write unto them, that they refrain themselves from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood” (Acts 15:19-20 DR).

      There’s no antagonism between Paul and James in Acts 15, and Paul himself is not given any instruction or command from either James or Peter.

      There’s also no antagonism in Paul’s words in Galatians 2:9-10:
      “When James, Cephas, and John—those recognized as pillars—acknowledged the grace that had been given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to me and Barnabas, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They asked only that we would remember the poor, which I had made every effort to do.

      1. Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to have his teaching vetted by the leaders there:

        Gal 2:2 “I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.”

        Paul was present in Jerusalem when the Jerusalem Decree was issued. It certainly seems like it could have been a response to Paul’s teaching. That’s why Paul went there. Blood is prohibited by the Jerusalem Decree but is included in Paul’s version of the Eucharist. That is a conflict. And it is the blood of James’ brother. James did not even drink wine.

        Also in 1 Cor 8, Paul teaches a rationale that allows his hearers to eat meat sacrificed to idols as long as their doing so does not pose a stumbling block to others without ‘knowledge’. This teaching of Paul also violates the Jerusalem Decree.

        “Christian apologetically” there is no conflict between Paul and James, but looking objectively at details it seems that there was.

        Do you think the Pauline Eucharist was practiced in Jerusalem by the leaders there who forbade blood and did not drink wine?

        1. I agree that Paul went to Jerusalem to have his ministry vetted, and of course Paul was there when the Jerusalem Decree was issued. The decree was a direct response to Barnabas and Paul’s report. And the council at Jerusalem were happy with their report.

          I have no interest in discussing whether James drank wine or not. However, since the Jerusalem Decree was all about helping Jewish Christians in general (not James in particular) fellowship with Gentile Christians, it makes no sense that wine would be banned.

          Diluted wine was “the” common drink in ancient times when water could be easily contaminated and milk couldn’t be refrigerated. (If they really did want to ban wine, they would have said so explicitly in their letter which was sent to the churches, so that there would be no confusion.)

          There were different expressions of the Eucharist or Lord’s Supper in the first and second centuries. I have no idea how they did it in each of the house churches in Jerusalem.

          I’ve written about the development of the Passover to the Seder and Eucharist here: https://margmowczko.com/the-passover-meal-the-seder-and-the-eucharist/

          1. Blood was banned. Perhaps you have written something about how the wine is transubstantiated?

          2. Russell, The blood ban in Acts had to do with how meat was prepared and it was based on the “Law of Moses.” Jewish people did not eat meat with blood still in it. This is why the council in Jerusalem stated that the Gentile Christians also were to abstain (literally) “from strangled [animals] and from blood” (Acts 15:20).

            Here are James’s words in the NIV translation:
            “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath” (Acts 15:19-21 NIV).

            James is speaking about actual meat of animals and actual blood of animals. He is not speaking metaphorically.

            And here’s the “Law of Moses” being referred to:
            “For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life. Therefore I say to the Israelites, “None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner residing among you eat blood.”
            “‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing among you who hunts any animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it with earth, because the life of every creature is its blood. That is why I have said to the Israelites, “You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off” (Leviticus 17:11-14).

            Paul did not teach that the wine in the Lord’s Supper was actually blood or that it magically became blood. In fact, he indicates that some Corinthians were being selfish, overdoing it, and getting drunk instead of observing the Lord’s Supper with a true spirit of fellowship and with decorum.

            For Paul, the bread and cup of wine were important symbols in the reenactment and remembrance of the Last Supper, and Jesus did not drink his own blood. Jesus acknowledges that what they drank at the Last Supper was (literally) “the product of the vine” (Matthew 26:27-29; Mark 14:24-25).

            Paul never states that the cup of the new testament/ covenant contains blood. He quotes Jesus as saying, “This cup/ chalice is the new covenant/ testament in my blood.” In this statement it is the covenant which is about Jesus’s spilt blood, and this is visually symbolised by the cup of wine which is the same colour as blood.

            Paul never tells anyone to drink blood. And none of this has anything to do with the topic of this page. Believe what you want, Russell, but if you leave any further comments, please keep it on the topic of this article.

  4. Marg,
    I value your critique of Martin’s strange view. Excellent points. I’ve been reading Heiser and find many of his other views compelling. Some I’m not so sure. However, his acceptance and promoting of Martin’s “hair/testicle/semen” view is irresponsible. I wish he didn’t do that. Thank you for tackling this strange view. I look forward to considering all you have to say on this broader subject of 1 Cor/hair/head coverings/role of women in the church. One of the most enigmatic parts of the NT, for sure. I’ll be following all the links you provided. Thanks again.
    Mark

  5. As usual you argue well, Marg, and you quite convince me that Martin’s idea is nonsense.

    I wanted to comment on the phrase «sarkos peribolaia» though. I am not convinced that it means testicles either, because testicles isn’t something one gets when reaching puberty. At most one can say that the testicles grow larger then. However, a baby boy is born with testicles. Admittedly, they reside in a cavity at the time of birth, but shortly afterwards they normally fall down from that cavity and into the scrotum.

    I don’t know greek like you do, but I would suggest that body hair is a more likely meaning. Reaching puberty is certainly associated with growing markedly more body hair than before, for both women and men. And body hair is a very natural understanding of «covering of the flesh/body».

    Also, I don’t agree with you that Paul’s concern in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is about hair, but I guess I won’t be able to convince you there.

    My best wishes for you and your family in the new year!

    1. Hello Knut.

      1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is tricky and I’m open to the idea that the first part of the passage is about head coverings for women, or perhaps head coverings for women who have cut their hair short, but the second part does seem to be about hairstyles (1 Cor. 11:15). Having said that, I’m happy to be proven wrong. I wish we had more insight into the situation Paul was addressing.

      Best wishes and happy new year to you too!
      Thank you for your continued support!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to Marg's Blog

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Loading

Join Marg's Patreon

Would you like to support my ministry of encouraging mutuality and equality between men and women in the church and in marriage?

Archives