\jfSNT 35 (1989) 75-88]

THE VOCABULARY OF 1 CORINTHIANS 11.3-16 PAULINE OR NON-PAULINE? William O. Walker, Jr

Department of Religion, Trinity University 715 Stadium Drive, San Antonio, TX 78284, USA

Introduction Some years ago, I suggested that 1 Cor. 11.2-16 is a non-Pauline interpolation1 (subsequently, I was persuaded that the interpolation begins with v. 3, not with v. 2).2 My arguments involved considerations of literary history, text, context, content, vocabulary, and style. Responses to this suggestion have been mixed.3 Even scholars who agree that the passage is non-Pauline, however, have noted the need for additional argumentation.4 It appears, for example, that adequate attention has not yet been devoted to the question of vocabulary.5 The use of vocabulary as a criterion for determining authorship is, of course, always problematic. The peculiar subject matter of a passage or even the vocabulary of the intended readers may dictate a distinctive terminology; moreover, peculiarities of language may indicate simply the author's use of traditional material. Thus, as G.W. Trompf notes, 'By itself an appeal to linguistic idiosyncrasy in this or that passage attributed to Paul does not yield positive conclusions'.6 Nevertheless, with specific reference to 1 Cor. 11.3-16, Trompf offers the following suggestion: 'if the language of 11.3-16 could be reckoned characteristically Pauline, the case for excursus as against interpolation could be strongly upheld'; if, on the other hand, the language should turn out to be characteristically non-Pauline, the evidence could be 'slightly tipped in favor of deutero-Pauline authorship'.7 Such a conclusion may be somewhat premature, however, because of the ambiguity of the term 'characteristically Pauline' and the implication that vocabulary in a suspected interpolation will always be either 'characteristically Pauline' or 'character-

76

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 35 (1989)

istically non-Pauline'. As a matter of fact, 'characteristically Pauline' vocabulary may be of two different types: (1) distinctively Pauline (vocabulary that is characteristic of the authentic Pauline letters but not of other early Christian literature) and (2) characteristically but not distinctively Pauline (vocabulary that is characteristic both of the authentic Pauline letters and of other early Christian literature). Moreover, the importance of a third type of vocabulary for determining authorship of suspected non-Pauline interpolations must not be overlooked, namely, (3) distinctively post-Pauline (vocabulary that is characteristic of the early post-Pauline Christian writings, including particularly the pseudo-Pauline literature,8 but not of the authentic letters of Paul).9 Finally, a suspected interpolation may include vocabulary that is (4) otherwise non-Pauline but not identifiably post-Pauline (vocabulary that appears neither elsewhere in the authentic letters of Paul nor in the extant early post-Pauline Christian literature). The identification of these four types of vocabulary suggests the following principles to be applied in the use of vocabulary as a criterion for determining authorship of suspected interpolations in the letters of Paul: 1. The appearance in such passages of distinctively Pauline vocabulary strengthens the case for Pauline authorship of the passage.10 2. The appearance in such passages of characteristically but not distinctively Pauline vocabulary provides no positive help in determining whether the passage is or is not Pauline but, all other things being equal, may lend some support to Pauline authorship. 3. The appearance in such passages of distinctively post-Pauline vocabulary (particularly pseudo-Pauline vocabulary) strengthens the case against Pauline authorship of the passage; in addition, it strengthens the case against Pauline use of traditional materials in the passage.11 4. The appearance in such passages of otherwise nonPauline but not identifiably post-Pauline vocabulary provides no positive help in determining whether the passage is or is not Pauline, but, all other things being equal, may lend some support to nonPauline authorship. In each case, to be sure, the weight of the evidence depends, at least in part, upon the relative numbers of each type of vocabulary and upon the extent to which the vocabulary might have been dictated by the specific subject matter of the passage. The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to classify the various elements in the vocabulary of 1 Cor. 11.3-16 as either (1) distinctively

WALKER The Vocabulary of 1 Corinthians 11.3-16

77

Pauline, (2) characteristically but not distinctively Pauline, (3) otherwise non-Pauline but not identifiably post-Pauline, or (4) distinctively post-Pauline (particularly pseudo-Pauline); and second, by applying the four principles stated above, to determine whether and to what extent the vocabulary of 1 Cor. 11.3-16 either strengthens or weakens the case for Pauline authorship of the passage. 1. Distinctively Pauline Vocabulary Very little, if any, of the vocabulary of 1 Cor. 11.3-16 can be regarded as 'distinctively Pauline' in the sense defined above: that is, characteristic of the authentic Pauline letters but not of other early Christian literature. Possible exceptions are kataischunein ('to dishonor') in w . 4 and 5, atimia ('disgrace') in v. 14, and syntheia ('practice' or 'custom') in v. 16. Kataischunein appears eight times elsewhere in the authentic letters of Paul12 and otherwise only four times in early Christian literature (nowhere in the pseudo-Pauline writings).13 Atimia appears five times elsewhere in the authentic letters of Paul14 and otherwise only twice in early Christian literature (including once in the pseudo-Pauline writings);15 it is perhaps significant, too, that atimia and doxa ('glory') appear as opposites in 2 Cor. 6.8, just as they do in 1 Cor. 11.14-15. Syntheia probably appears at one other place in the authentic letters of Paul,16 and otherwise it is found four times in early Christian literature (nowhere in the pseudo-Pauline writings and only once in the NT). 17 It is doubtful that any of these three features of vocabulary is really 'distinctively Pauline'; even if they are, they are insufficiently numerous or striking to serve as a positive argument for Pauline authorship of 1 Cor. 11.3-16. 2. Characteristically But Not Distinctively Pauline Vocabulary Much of the vocabulary of 1 Cor. 11.3-16 is 'characteristically but not distinctively Pauline' in the sense defined above: that is, characteristic both of the authentic Pauline letters and of other early Christian writings. Such vocabulary provides no positive help in determining whether 1 Cor. 11.3-16 is a non-Pauline interpolation

78

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 35 (1989)

but, all other things being equal, may lend some support to Pauline authorship. Included here are such words as 'to wish' (thelein), 'to know' (eidenai), 'every' (pas), 'man' (anr), 'to be' (einai), 'Christ' (Christos), 'woman' (gyne), 'God' (Theos), 'to pray' (proseuchesthai), 'to prophesy' (prophteuein), 'to have' (echein), 'to owe' (opheilein), 'image' (eikn), 'glory' (doxa), 'to be' (huparchein), 'angel' (aggelos), 'to judge' (krinein), 'to teach' (didaskein), 'to give' (didonai), and various pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, articles, and the like. All of this language is common in early Christian literature and thus in no way 'distinctively Pauline'. Particular attention should be called to the phrase en kyri ('in the Lord') in v. 11. This phrase occurs thirty-three times elsewhere in the authentic letters of Paul,18 but it also appears thirteen times in the pseudo-Pauline writings19 and once in Revelation.20 Thus, it cannot be regarded as a 'distinctively Pauline' phrase; within the NT, however, it is limited almost exclusively to the Pauline and pseudoPauline writings.21 The phrase provides no positive help in determining whether 1 Cor. 11.3-16 is a non-Pauline interpolation, perhaps even lending some support to Pauline authorship; it does suggest, however, that if the pasage is an interpolation, its linguistic affinities are to be found, at least in part, in Ephesians and Colossians. 3. Otherwise Non-Pauline But Not Identifiably Post-Pauline Vocabulary Some of the vocabulary of 1 Cor. 11.3-16 cannot be identified as either characteristically Pauline or characteristically post-Pauline. Such is the case, for example, with the phrase 'praying or prophesying' (proseuchomenos prophteun; proseuchomen prophteuousa) in w . 4 and 5, which appears nowhere else in the Pauline corpus or, indeed, in the entire NT. 22 The same is true of the verb katakalyptesthai (vv. 6, 7), the cognate adjective akatakalyptos (w. 5, 13), the noun home ('hair') in v. 15, and the cognate verb koman ('to have long hair') in w . 14-15, all of which occur nowhere else in early Christian literature and whose use here appears to be dictated by the distinctive subject matter of the passage.23 Similarly, xyran or xurein ('to shave') in w . 5 and 6 and keirein ('to shear') in v. 6 appear nowhere else in the Pauline corpus (including the pseudo-Pauline writings) and elsewhere only rarely in early Christian literature,24

WALKER The Vocabulary of 1 Corinthians 11.3-16

79

and peribolaion occurs elsewhere in early Christian literature only once, in Hebrews;25 moreover, once again, the use of these terms in 1 Cor. 11.3-16 apparently stems from the subject matter of the passage. Finally, phoneikos ('contentious') in v. 16 appears elsewhere in early Christian literature only at 1 Clem. 45.1, where it is used in a positive, not a negative, sense.26 The appearance of these unusual terms provides no positive help in determining the authorship of 1 Cor. 11.3-16, but, all other things being equal, their very number perhaps lends some support to non-Pauline authorship. A further example of vocabulary in 1 Cor. 11.3-16 that is neither characteristically Pauline nor characteristically post-Pauline is the juxtaposition of eikn ('image') and doxa ('glory') in the phrase eikn kai doxa Theou ('image and glory of God') in v. 7. Although each of the two terms is fairly common, both in the Pauline letters27 and elsewhere in early Christian literature,28 nowhere except in this passage are they juxtaposed as apparent synonyms.29 A final example of vocabulary in 1 Cor. 11.3-16 that is neither characteristically Pauline nor characteristically post-Pauline is the reference to 'nature' (physis) in v. 14. To be sure, Paul uses the term nine times outside this passage,30 and it appears occasionally in other early Christian writings,31 but never in the 'hypostasized' or even 'personified' sense found here, which is reminiscent of contemporary Stoic and some rabbinic Jewish notions.32 Thus, the usage appears to be characteristic neither of the Pauline nor of the early post-Pauline Christian writings. 4. Distinctively Post-Pauline Vocabulary Significant features of the vocabulary of 1 Cor. 11.3-16 appear to be 'distinctively post-Pauline' in the sense defined above: that is, characteristic of the early post-Pauline Christian writings but not of the authentic letters of Paul. Indeed, what is most striking about these features is that they appear to be distinctively pseudo-Paxx\int. The first such feature is the opening clause in v. 3 (thel de hymas eidenai). Although each word in the clause, taken individually, is characteristic (but not distinctive) of the authentic Pauline letters,33 the clause as a whole is not. Paul regularly uses a negative clause to express essentially the same idea: ou thel (or thelomen)... hymas agnoein, followed in every case except one by adelphor,*4 indeed, this

80

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 35 (1989)

negative formulation occurs twice in 1 Corinthians itself (shortly before 1 Cor. 11.3-16 at 10.1 and shortly after at 12.1) and once in 2 Corinthians (1.8). In the one instance where Paul expresses the idea with a positive formulation (Phil. 1.12), he employs words that are distinctively different from those found in 1 Cor. 11.3 (ginskein de hymas boulomai) and, as in all but one of the negative formulations, concludes the clause with adelphoi. The words of 1 Cor. 11.3, however, appear almost verbatim in the pseudo-Pauline Col. 2.1 (thel gar hymas eidenai), their only other occurrence in the entire NT. Thus, the opening clause of 1 Cor. 11.3-16 is non-Pauline and, indeed, most likely pseudo-Pauline in character. A second feature of the vocabulary of 1 Cor. 11.3-16 that is atypical of the authentic Pauline letters and at least similar to pseudo-Pauline usage is the word kephal ('head'), which appears nine times in the passage.35 At least the three references in v. 3 are metaphorical, not literal, in their meaning, and the same may well be true of the second reference in both v. 4 and v. 5 and the reference in v. 10; thus, at least three and perhaps as many as six of the nine references to kephal in 1 Cor. 11.3-16 are metaphorical.36 Elsewhere in the authentic writings of Paul, the word occurs only twice, and, in both instances, it carries its literal meaning: 'head' of the human body.37 Kephal is more frequent, however, in the pseudo-Pauline writings, where it appears six times,38 always with a metaphorical rather than a literal meaning: Christ is the kephal of his body, the church; the kephal from whom the body grows; the kephal over all things for the church, which is his body; and the kephal of all rule and authority. Thus, regardless of how kephal is to be interpreted in 1 Cor. 11.3-16, it is clear that the usage is much closer to that of the pseudo-Pauline writings than to that of Paul himself.39 A third feature of the vocabulary of 1 Cor. 11.3-16 that is nonPauline but 'reminiscent of deutero-Pauline terminology' consists of 'words chosen to stress shameful actions or encourage propriety'.40 Such is not the case, to be sure, of kataischunein (w. 4, 5) and atimia (v. 14),41 nor is it the case with opheilein (w. 7, 10).42 Aischros ('disgraceful', v. 6), however, occurs nowhere else in the authentic writings of Paul and is found elsewhere in the NT only twice in the pseudo-Pauline writings43 and once in a passage regarded by many as another non-Pauline interpolation dealing with women (1 Cor. 14.35).44 Similarly, prepon ('proper', v. 13) appears nowhere else in

WALKER The Vocabulary of 1 Corinthians 11.3-16

81

the authentic letters of Paul,45 but the cognate verb, prepein, occurs three times with the same meaning in the pseudo-Pauline writings46 and only twice more in the entire NT. 47 Thus, it appears that the words aischros and prepon represent features of non-Pauline and, indeed, pseudo-Pauline vocabulary. A fourth example of pseudo-Pauline vocabulary in 1 Cor. 11.3-16 is perhaps to be found in the use of the verb ktizein for 'create' (v. 9). Elsewhere in the authentic Pauline letters, the verb appears only at Rom. 1.25 in participial form as a circumlocution for 'God';48 it is found seven times in the pseudo-Pauline writings,49 however, and in six of the seven, as in 1 Cor. 11.9, it refers to the act of creating rather than to the creator.50 A fifth example of apparently non-Pauline and perhaps pseudoPauline vocabulary in 1 Cor. 11.3-16 is the phrase hat ekklsiai tou Theou ('the churches of God') in v. 16. This phrase appears also at 1 Thess. 2.14 and 2 Thess. 1.4 but nowhere else in the NT; only in 2 Thess. 1.4, however, does the phrase occur absolutely, as in 1 Cor. 11.16, and 2 Thessalonians should probably be regarded as pseudoPauline.51 In 1 Thess. 2.14, by way of contrast, the full phrase is tn ekklsin tou Theou tn ousn en t Ioudai en Christou Isou ('the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea'). Furthermore, as Trompf notes, 1 Corinthians is elsewhere 'noted for the consistent use of the phrase "church of God" in the singular, and of all places just before and after the controversial passage'.52 'Apart from plural references to the churches of G alati a and Asia in 16.1,19, the appeal to authority with the plural ekklsiai of 11.16b links with the comparable appeal in 14.34 (a better substantiated interpolation) to "the churches of the saints", and thus the usage is more likely to be deutero-Pauline than not'.53 Thus, hai ekklsiai tou Theou, used absolutely, may well represent a distinctively non-Pauline and, indeed, pseudo-Pauline feature of vocabulary. Finally, although the exact meaning of the phrase is problematic, the use of exousian echein ('to have authority') in v. 10 also appears to be non-Pauline and perhaps even pseudo-Pauline in character. Paul normally uses exousia in a non-personalized way to mean 'authority' in the sense of'power', 'right', or 'freedom',54 and the phrase exousian echein apparently has a quite different meaning elsewhere in 1 Corinthians.55 In 1 Cor. 15.24, however, exousia is juxtaposed with arche and dynamis, and in Rom. 13.1-2 (in the plural) it is juxtaposed

82

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 35 (1989)

with archontes in such a way as to suggest a personified reference to 'rulers' or 'governing authorities'.56 Then, in the pseudo-Pauline Colossians and Ephesians, exousia is consistently used in a personalized manner to speak of (supernatural and evil) powers and rulers.57 Which, if any, of these meanings is intended for exousia in 1 Cor. 11.10 is far from certain; indeed, the entire phrase, exousian echein epi tes kephals ('to have authority over' or 'upon the head'), is filled with difficulties.58 Nevertheless, the association exousian echein epi tes kephals with dia tous aggelous ('because of the angels'), itself highly problematic,59 at least raises the possibility of a meaning for exousia similar to that found in Colossians and Ephesians: if the angels are to be regarded as evil powers, then the meaning may be that women must have a ruler (and a sign of this ruler on their heads) in order not to come under the domination of the angels. If so, then the use of exousia in 1 Cor. 11.10 is yet another indication that the entire passage may have more affinities with the pseudo-Pauline than with the authentically Pauline writings.

Conclusion This examination of the vocabulary of 1 Cor. 11.3-16 has shown: (1) that very little, if any, of the vocabulary is 'distinctively Pauline'; (2) that much of the vocabulary is 'characteristically but not distinctively Pauline'; (3) that some of the vocabulary is 'otherwise non-Pauline but not identifiably post-Pauline'; and (4) that significant features of the vocabulary appear to be 'distinctively post-Pauline' and, in fact, pseudo-Pauline. Thus, following the principles set forth in the 'Introduction' to this paper, I conclude that the evidence provided by the vocabulary of 1 Cor. 11.3-16 strengthens the case against Pauline authorship of the passage. Indeed, all other things being equal, this evidence would, in my judgment, be sufficient to 'tip the scales' toward viewing the passage as a non-Pauline interpolation.

NOTES 1. W.O. Walker, Jr, Corinthians 11.2-16 and Paul's Views Regarding Women', JBL 94 (1975), pp. 94-110; cf. also W.O. Walker, Jr, The "Theology of Woman's Place" and the "Paulinist" Tradition', Semeia 28 (1983), pp. 101-12.

WALKER

The Vocabulary of 1 Corinthians 11.3-16

83

2. L. Cope, Cor 11.2-16: One Step Further', JBL 97 (1978), pp. 43536. 3. J. Murphy-O'Connor ('The Non-Pauline Character of 1 Corinthians 11.2-16?', JBL 95 [1976], pp. 615-21), while recognizing the difficulties involved in the passage, nevertheless asserts that my arguments 'are highly questionable on both factual and methodological grounds' and that my hypothesis must be rejected. In a later article ('Sex and Logic in 1 Corinthians 11.2-16', CBQ 42 [1980], pp. 482-500), he attempts to clarify the situation in Corinth and Paul's response to it in such a way as to demonstrate the internal coherence of the passage in question and thus to refute my claim that it is non-Pauline; cf. also 'Interpolations in 1 Corinthians', CBQ 48 (1986), pp. 81-94 and esp. 87-90. Others who have rejected my arguments include: J.P. Meier, 'On the Veiling of Hermeneutics (1 Cor 11.2-16)', CBQ 40 (1978), p. 218 n. 12; A.C. Thiselton, 'Realized Eschatology at Corinth', NTS 24 (1978), pp. 520-21; W.F. Orr and J.W. Walther, / Corinthians: A New Translation: Introduction with a Study of the Life of Paul, Notes, and Commentary (AB 32; Garden City: Doubleday, 1976), pp. 259, 261, 262; and apparently E. Schssler Fiorenza, 'The Study of Women in Early Christianity: Some Methodological Considerations', Critical History and Biblical Faith: New Testament Perspectives (ed. TJ. Ryan; Annual Publication of the College Theology Society; Villanova: College Theology Society/Horizons, 1979), esp. pp. 36-37, 47, 54 n. 17, 58 n. 43. Schssler Fiorenza treats my hypothesis as an example of the type of 'revisionist apologetics' that seeks to formulate a 'canon within the canon' by declaring 'one string of the tradition as unauthentic and therefore not normative' (I must note, however, that I have not entered at all into the question of the canon nor have I dealt in any way whatsoever with the question of what is or is not normative); cf. also her In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad, 1983), pp. 227-30. On the other hand, long before the publication of my initial article on the subject and completely unknown to me at the time, A.F. Loisy had suggested that the passage in question was of non-Pauline origin; see his Remarques sur la littrature pistolaire du Nouveau Testament (Paris: Nourry, 1935), pp. 60-62. More recently (but still prior to the publication of my article and unknown to me), J. Piccard had apparently suggested some tampering with the text of 1 Cor. 11.2-16, and W. Munro had concluded that the passage is one among a rather large number of non-Pauline interpolations in the Pauline corpus, a view she continues to maintain; see her 'Two Strata in 1 Cor 10 and 1 (unpublished paper, Society of Biblical Literature meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, 1971); 'Authority and Subjection in Early Christian Paideia' (Ph.D. dissertation: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1974); 'Patriarchy and Charismatic Community in "Paul"', Women and Religion: Papers of the Working Group on Women and Religion 1972-73 (ed.

84

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 35 (1989)

J. Plaskow and J.A. Romero; rev. edn; Missoula: American Academy of Religion/Scholars Press, 1974), esp. pp. 191-92; 'Post-Pauline Material in 1 Cor 10, 11, and 14 with Confirmation from 2 Cor 6.14-7. (unpublished paper, 1977); and Authority in Paul and Peter: The Identification of a Pastoral Stratum in the Pauline Corpus and I Peter (SNTSMS, 45; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), esp. pp. 69-75. After the appearance of my initial article and Murphy O'Connor's response, L. Cope published an article ( Cor 11.2-16') supporting the non-Pauline character of the passage in question, suggesting only that the interpolation consists of 1 Cor. 11.3-16, not 11.2-16, a suggestion that I have now accepted. In my judgment, however, the most significant and impressive arguments for the non-Pauline character of 1 Cor. 11.3-16 have come from G.W. Trompf ('On Attitudes Toward Women in Paul and Paulinist Literature: 1 Corinthians 11.3-16 and its Context', CBQ 42 [1980], pp. 196-215). Cf. also E.E. Ellis, 'Traditions in 1 Corinthians: For Martin Hengel on His Sixtieth Birthday', NTS 32 (1986), pp. 481-502 and esp. 492-94; Ellis agrees that 1 Cor. 11.2-16 (he sees the passage as beginning with v. 2 rather than v. 3) is a non-Pauline interpolation (it is a 'tradition' already 'formed and in oral or written usage'), but he believes it to have been inserted by Paul himself (or upon his instructions) 'into an initial secretarial draft or into the completed roll or codex before the letter was sent to Corinth'. For a similar argument regarding 1 Cor. 14.34-35, cf. his 'The Silenced Wives of Corinth (1 Cor. 14.34-5)', in New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis: Essays in Honour of Bruce M. Metzger (ed. E J . Epp and G.D. Fee; Oxford: Clarendon, 1981), pp. 213-20. 4. Munro, Authority in Paul and Peter p. 198 n. 159: ' . . . arguments concerning content and vocabulary require stronger confirmation than that which Walker furnishes'; Trompf, 'On Attitudes Toward Women in Paul and Paulinist Literature, pp. 197-98: 'his moderate claimthat the whole passage sits ill at ease in the context of 1 Cor. 10.1-11.34could have had its plausibility enhanced by more careful argumentation'. 5. 'Vocabulary' here includes both the words and phrases that actually appear in the passage and the way in which these words and phrases are used (i.e., whether they are used in a typically 'Pauline' or 'non-Pauline' sense). 6. Tromp 'On Attitudes Toward Women in Paul and Paulinist literature', p. 202; cf. Munro, Authority in Paul and Peter, pp. 22-23. 7. Trompf, 'On Attitudes Toward Women in Paul and Paulinist literature', pp. 202-203. 8. I am here assuming that the Pastoral Letters (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus), Ephesians, Colossians, and probably 2 Thessalonians are pseudo-Pauline. 9. Inasmuch as Paul's letters represent the earliest extant Christian

WALKER The Vocabulary of 1 Corinthians 11.3-16

85

literature, 'early post-Puline Christian writings' includes everything else in the NT as well as the Apostolic Fathers. 10. This is not conclusive, however, because it is to be expected that the author of an interpolation might make use of some 'characteristically' and perhaps even 'distinctively Pauline' vocabulary, unless, of course, the passage was inserted into the letter by someone other than its author, in which case the author may not have been familiar with any of the Pauline letters. 11. This third principle, however, must be used with caution. Particularly in the Gospels and Acts (here assumed to be post-Pauline in their canonical form), the presence of traditional materials raises the possibility that prePauline language appearing in post-Pauline writings might also have been incorporated by Paul in his own letters. Thus, in the Gospels and Acts, language that is clearly redactional rather than traditional is by far the strongest indication that passages in Paul's letters also containing this language may be interpolations. 12. 1 Cor. 1.27(te); 11.22; 2 Cor. 7.14; 9.4; Rom. 5.5; 9.33; 10.11. 13. Lk. 13.17; 1 Pet. 2.6; 3.16; Herrn. Man. 15.5.2. 14. 1 Cor. 15.43; 2 Cor. 6.8; 11.21; Rom. 1.26; 9.21. 15. 2 Tim. 2.20; Diogn. 5.14. Trompf ('On Attitudes Toward Women in Paul and Paulinist Literature', p. 204 n. 23) suggests, however, that the usage of both kataischunein and atimia in 1 Cor. 11.3-16 is 'distinctly narrow in application' as compared with the other NT usages. 16. It is in the best attested reading for 1 Cor. 8.7; many manuscripts, however, have syneidsis ('consciousness' or 'conscience'). 17. Jn 18.39; Ign. Eph. 5.1; Herrn. Man. 5.2.6; Diogn. 2.1. 18. 1 Thess. 3.8; 4.1; 5.12; Gal. 5.10; 1 Cor. 1.31; 4.17; 7.22, 39; 9.1, 2; 15.58; 16.19; 2 Cor. 2.12; 10.17; Rom. 14.14; 16.2, 8,11,12(te) 13,22; Phil. 1.14; 2.19, 24, 29; 3.1; 4.1, 2, 4, 10; Phlm 16, 20. 19. 2 Thess. 3.4,12; Col. 3.18,20; 4.7,17; Eph. 2.21; 4.1,17; 5.8; 6.1,10, 21. 20. Rev. 14.13. 21. This is an indication that pseudo-Pauline writers made use of otherwise 'distinctively Pauline' vocabulary; see n. 10 above. 22. See e.g. Trompf, 'On Attitudes Toward Women in Paul and Paulinist Literature', pp. 203-204 and esp. n. 22. 23. For discussion of some of the questions raised by these terms including how they are to be translated, see D.R. MacDonald, There is No Male and Female: The Fate of a Dominical Saying in Paul and Gnosticism (Harvard Dissertations in Religion, 20; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), pp. 73-80 and the literature cited there. 24. Xyrasthai at Acts 21.24 and keirein at Acts 8.32; 18.18; 1 Clem. 16.2; Barn. 5.2 (all except Acts 18.18 are quotations from Isa. 53.7).

86

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 35 (1989)

25. Heb. 1.12 (a quotation of Ps. 101.27 LXX). 26. But cf. philoneikia in Lk. 22.24; Mart. Pol. 18.1. 27. Outside 1 Cor. 11.3-16, eikn appears six times in the authentic letters of Paul (1 Cor. 15.49[t], 2 Cor. 3.18; 4.4; Rom. 1.23; 8.29;), and doxa is found fifty-four times (1 Thess. 2.6, 12, 20; Gal. 1.5; 1 Cor. 2.7, 8; 10.31; 15.40,41 [four times], 43; 2 Cor. 1.20; 3.7[>s], 8,9[tj, 10, 11 [te], 18 [three times]; 4.4, 6,15,17; 6.8; 8.19,23; Rom. 1.23; 2.7,10; 3.7,23; 4.20; 5.2; 6.4; 8.18, 21; 9.4, 23[te]; 11.36; 15.7; 16.27; Phil. 1.11; 2.11; 3.19, 21; 4.19, 20). 28. Eikn appears twice in the pseudo-Pauline Colossians (1.15; 3.10) and fourteen times elsewhere in the NT (Mt. 22.20; Mk 12.16; Lk. 20.24; Heb. 10.1; Rev. 13.14,15 (three times); 14.9,11; 15.2; 16.2; 19.20; 20.4) and doxa twenty times in the pseudo-Pauline writings (2 Thess. 1.9; 2.14; Col. 1.11,27 [b\, 3.4; Eph. 1.6,12,14,17,18; 3.13,16, 21; 1 Tim. 1.11,17; 3.16; 2 Tim. 2.10; 4.18; Tit. 2.13) and some ninety-one times elsewhere in the NT (Mt. 4.8, 6.13, 29; 16.27; 19.28; 24.30; 25.31[t$]: Mk 8.38; 10.37; 13.26; Lk. 2.9, 14, 32; 4.6; 9.26, 31, 32,12.27; 14.10; 17.18; 19.38; 21.27; 24.26; Jn 1.14[te]: 2.11; 5.41, 44[t]; 7.18[te]; 8.50, 54; 9.24; 11.4, 40; 12.41, 43[t]; 17.5, 22, 24; Acts 7.2, 55; 12.23; 22.11; Heb. 1.3; 2.7, 9, 10; 3.3; 9.5; 13.21; Jas 2.1; 1 Pet. 1.7,11,21,24; 4.11,13,14; 5.1,4,10,11; 2 Pet. 1.3,17[t]; 2.10; 3.18; Jude 8, 24, 25; Rev. 1.6; 4.9,11; 5.12,13; 7.12; 11.13; 14.7; 15.8; 16.9; 18.1; 19.1, 7; 21.11, 23, 24, 26). 29. The two terms do, however, sometimes appear in the same context in the authentic Pauline letters: 2 Cor. 3.18; 4.4; Rom. 1.23. 30. Gal. 2.15; 4.8; Rom. 1.26 (where the cognate adjective physikos also appears, as it does in v. 27); 2.14, 27; 11.21, 24 (three times). 31. Eph. 2.3; Jas 3.7(b); 2 Pet. 1.4; Ign. Eph. 1.1; Ign. Trail. 1.1; Barn. 10.7; Diogn. 9.6. 32. Rom. 1.26-27; 2.14 are not really parallels, for they do not represent a 'hypostasizing' or 'personification' of 'nature' as a 'quasi-divine' reality or power such as is found in Stoicism and in 1 Cor. 11.14. In Romans, the adjective physikos, the prepositional phrase paraphysin, and the noun physis as an adverbial dative should properly be translated, respectively, simply as 'natural', 'unnatural', and 'naturally'. A similar interpretation should be applied to the references to physis in Gal. 2.15; 4.8; Rom. 2.27; 11.21, 24. C.K. Barrett (A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (HNTC; New York and Evanston: Harper & Row, 1968], p. 256), among others, maintains that physis in 1 Cor. 11.14 refers to 'the natural world as God made it, rather than (in the Stoic manner) [to] Nature as a quasi-divine hypostasis'. This is far from evident in the passage itself, however, and apparently derives from Barrett's assumption that the author of 1 Cor. 11.316 must be the same as the author of Romans. For a highly illuminating

WALKER The Vocabulary of 1 Corinthians 11.3-16

87

treatment of the topic, see Helmut Koester, 'Physis, Physikos, Physikos1, TDNT, IX (1974), pp. 251-77 and esp. 271-75 (on Paul). 33. Thelein occurs some fifty-three times outside this passage in the authentically Pauline writings (1 Thess. 2.18; 4.13; Gal. 1.7; 3.2; 4.9,17, 20, 21; 5.17; 6.12,13; 1 Cor. 4.19,21; 7.7, 32, 36, 39; 10.1,20,27; 12.1,18; 14.5, 19, 35; 15.38; 16.7; 2 Cor. 1.8; 5.4; 8.10, 11; 11.12, 32; 12.6, 20[te]; Rom. 1.13; 7.15, 16, 18, 19[t], 20, 21; 9.16, 18[t], 22; 11.25; 13.3; 16.19; Phil. 2.13; Phlm 14). The infinitive form, eidenai, is found four times in the authentic Pauline writings (1 Thess. 4.4; 5.12; 1 Cor. 2.2; 8.2); it also appears four times, however, in the pseudo-Pauline writings: Col. 2.1; 4.6; Eph. 1.18; Tit. 1.16; otherwise, it appears only twice in the entire NT, in Lk. 20.7; 22.34); de and hymas are, of course, frequent. 34. 1 Thess. 4.13; 1 Cor. 10.1; 12.1; 2 Cor. 1.8; Rom. 1.13; 11.15. 35. Three times in v. 3, twice each in w. 4 and 5, and once each in w. 7 and 10. On kephal, see e.g. H. Schlier, 'kephal, anakephalaiooma?, TDNT, III (1966), pp. 673-82. 36. R. Scroggs ('Paul and the Eschatological Woman', JAAR 40 [1972], pp. 297-302 and esp. pp. 298-99 n. 41) and others have argued that the meaning of kephal here is 'source', not 'head' in the sense of 'leader' or 'ruler', and that the point being made has to do with the order of creation rather than with importance, authority, or preeminence; cf. S. Bedale, 'The Meaning of kephal in the Pauline Epistles', JTS 5 (1954), pp. 211-15. Although I am not persuaded at this point, the fact remains that, however kephal is to be interpreted in 1 Cor. 11.3-16, the reference is metaphorical, not literal. 37. Rom. 12.20 is a quotation of Prov. 25.21-22, and 1 Cor. 12.21 is a part of Paul's analogy between the human body and the church as the 'body of Christ' (1 Cor. 12.12-27). 38. Col. 1.18; 2.10, 19; Eph. 1.22; 4.15; 5.23. 39. It is true that Paul perhaps hints at such a metaphorical use okephal in 1 Cor. 12.12-17, where he speaks of the church as the 'body of Christ' (cf. 1 Cor. 6.15a; 10.16b-17; Rom. 12.4-5), and in 2 Cor. 11.2, where he refers to Christ as the 'husband' (anr) of the church (cf. Rom. 7.1-6, esp. v. 4), but it is only in the later pseudo-Pauline writings that the metaphor of Christ as kephal is actually employed. Thus, the idea of man as the kephal of woman as Christ is the kephal of man and God of Christ, like that of Christ as the kephal of the church or of all creation, appears to be pseudo-Pauline, rather than authentically Pauline. 40. Trompf, 'On Attitudes Toward Women in Paul and Paulinist literature', p. 204. 41. On these words, see above under 'Distinctively Pauline Vocabulary'. 42. See above under 'Characteristically But Not Distinctively Pauline Vocabulary'.

88

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 35 (1989)

43. Eph. 5.12; Tit. 1.11. 44. On 1 Cor. 14.34-35 as a non-Pauline interpolation, see Walker, Corinthians 11.2-16 and Paul's Views Regarding Women', p. 95 n. 6, and the literature there cited; cf., however, Ellis, 'The Silenced Wives of Corinth', for an opposing view. 45. Elsewhere in the NT it appears only in Mt. 3.15. 46. Eph. 5.3; 1 Tim. 2.10; Tit. 2.1. 47. Heb. 2.10; 7.26. 48. The noun ktisis, however, is rather frequent in Paul (Gal. 6.15; 2 Cor. 5.17; Rom. 1.20, 25, 8.19, 20, 21, 22, 39), but infrequent in the pseudoPauline writings (Col. 1.15, 23). 49. Col. 1.16; 3.10; Eph. 2.10, 15; 3.9; 4.24; 1 Tim. 4.3. 50. The one exception is Col. 3.10. 51. See n. 8 above. 52. 1 Cor. 10.32; 11.22; cf. also 1.2; 15.9. 53. Trompf, 'On Attitudes Toward Women in Paul and Paulinist literature', p. 203 n. 18. On 1 Cor. 14.34-35 as an interpolation, see n. 44 above. 54. See 1 Cor. 7.37; 8.9; 9.4, 5, 6,12, 18; 2 Cor. 10.8; 13.10; Rom. 9.21. 55. 1 Cor. 7.37; 9.4; cf. Rom 9.11; see Trompf, 'On Attitudes Toward Women in Paul and Paulinist Literature', p. 204 and esp. n. 24. 56. Cf. also Tit. 3.1. For the view that Rom. 13.1-7 is a non-Pauline interpolation, see e.g. J. Kallas, 'Romans XIII.1-7: An Interpolation', NTS 11 (1965), pp. 365-74. 57. Col. 1.13, 16; 2.10, 15; Eph. 1.21; 2.2; 3.10; 6.12. 58. For a discussion of the problems, with references to the relevant literature, see MacDonald, There Is No Male and Female, pp. 76-79. 59. See MacDonald, There Is No Male and Female, pp. 76-79 and the literature there cited.

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.