An Atheist Explores the Bible Part 219: Women: Know Your Place. Plus why Speaking in Tongues makes you look stupid (1 Corinthians 11-16)

1 Corinthians 11-16
Women: Know Your Place. Plus why Speaking in Tongues makes you look stupid.

Welcome to another instalment of An Atheist Explores Sacred Texts (Bible version).

In this series I work my way chapter-by-chapter through the King James Bible, commenting on it from the point of view of the text as literature and mythology.

For more detail, see the introductory post http://bit.ly/2F8f9JT

For the online KJV I use, see here http://bit.ly/2m0zVUP

And now:

1 Corinthians 11

“For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”

There’s a lot of blethering in this chapter concerning women being less than men (being made for man, whereas man is not made for woman, for example), and God is above Christ who I above men who are above women (“that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God”). This seems in contrast to Romans where Phoebe is a trusted member of the church carrying Paul’s letter and sent to lead the church there. So what happened to change this?

Anyway, there’s a lot about men should not have their heads covered when they pray, but women should, which seems at first as if it’s to do with hats and headscarves, but then Paul goes on to say that “if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering” whereas “if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him” (this last, apparently, is taught “by nature”). So, is it really that women should keep their hair long and men their hair short? (If “nature” had meant for men to have short hair, why would it grow? Paul is usually represented as balding – is this some kind of revenge on his part? And where does that leave Nazarites like Samson?

In the end, none of this seems to matter anyway – “But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God”.

Paul then goes on to address the sacrament, restating Jesus’ words from the Last Supper about bread and wine being his flesh and blood, and warns that a person needs to take the sacrament honestly. There’s something about eating first, or not eating together because if its unequal it’s not fair, but I couldn’t work this out.

1 Corinthians 12

“Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit”

Paul discusses the Holy Spirit, and the bestowal of various magic powers – “To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues”. He uses a metaphor of the various organs of the body all having a different purpose but all belonging to the same body and all needing all the other parts to survive. Thus, also, all Christians partake of the same Holy Spirit and are all part of the body of Christianity even if they are different – this possibly applies to differences in doctrine as well as the magic powers, it’s alluded to if not outright stated.

1 Corinthians 13

“When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things”

This is a short chapter but chock full of well-known phrases, including the one quoted above. Paul talks of “faith, hope and charity”, of which, he claims, charity is the greatest. A person can prophesy, or speak in tongues, or have great faith, but without charity they are nothing, and only charity lasts after all else fails (not sure about that last one). That’s it, really.

The other phrase is to “see through a glass, darkly”, but I can’t for the life of me parse the rest of the sentence – “now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known”. Going to a modern version doesn’t help. New American Standard version says “now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known”. What?

1 Corinthians 14

“He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.”

The bulk of this chapter is about Paul stating his opinion that, if you want some kind of supernatural gift, the gift of prophecy is much more useful than speaking in tongues. Speaking in tongues is just a meaningless babble and does nothing useful. In fact, says Paul, it’s more likely to turn away a non-believer than convert them because if “the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?”.

Yes, it looks crazy to see a whole congregation speaking in tongues, but an unbeliever who is given a true prophecy will be amazed and will, apparently, be converted. Paul suggests that if worshippers are going to speak in tongues its best if only a couple of people do it and someone interprets for them, so you don’t get a church full of babbling lunatics.

Some of what Paul suggests towards the end of the chapter sounds a little like a Society of Friends (Quakers) meeting, where people sit in quiet contemplation and speak about something if they feel inspired to.

However, there’s this insert “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak”. Now, I’ve been down on Paul for being a grouchy old misogynist, but this, to be honest, feels like an insertion. It is utterly irrelevant to the rest of the chapter which is focussed and discusses a particular point, and it seems counter to the deference shown to Phebe in Romans. I’m guessing that the epistles are not in chronological order, so I wonder that either some later scribe inserted these verses (which it reads like), or something happens to Paul to turn him against women in the church. Like reading the stories of Philip K Dick, you can tell which ones were written after his divorce because suddenly all female characters are spiteful grasping harridans.

1 Corinthians 15

“O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?”

The core of this chapter is the fear of death. Paul assures the Corinthians that a celestial life awaits them after their terrestrial life, if they are good believers. And to do so, he engages in a bit of circular logic and appeal to emotion. Wouldn’t it be terrible, he says, if when we die there is nothing. It’s unthinkable, therefore there must be something when we die, therefore Jesus and the resurrection is true. And because the resurrection is true, because I heard that people saw it, the rest must be true.

Note that Paul accounts himself amongst those witnesses to Jesus rising from the dead, but he doesn’t see anything physical, merely a vision he has on the road. He claims that five hundred other people witnessed Jesus alive after death (but not any actual resurrection), but the testimonials of these five hundred people seem to be lost. Handy ,that.

Anyway, this is another core belief in Christianity, one that personally I’ve never seen the appeal of; I’d prefer to live the life I have at this very moment rather than worry about what hopefully is a long way off. And if it isn’t a long way off, at least I did what I could whilst I could.

1 Corinthians 16

“If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.”

This is the sign-off chapter and, as with Romans, is mostly concerned with sending greetings to and from various people. I had to look up “anathema maranatha”, thinking it to be some specific kind of anathema. However, it looks like the KJV translator committed the same error as me. “Maranatha” translates roughly as “The Lord is Come”, and so is probably meant to be a separate word. Paul is actually saying “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ let him be anathema. The Lord is come.”

Some interesting points picked out – the letter is signed as being “from Philippi by Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus and Timotheus”, so these four composed it, not Paul. Or, as with Romans, was it dictated by Paul? Or PP’ed?

Timotheus (who I’m guessing is the same person as Timothy) gets a mention that if he visits Corinth that the Corinthians be nice to him – “Let no man therefore despise him: but conduct him forth in peace, that he may come unto me: for I look for him with the brethren”. Why would they despise him? Is he a bit too close to Paul for the liking of some Christians?

Multiple authors would explain the unusual intrusion of the injunction against women speaking, especially as this chapter then mentions “Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.” How could Priscilla have a church in her house and get a mention of saluting someone in Christ, if all she does is sit silently? Very suspicious.

And that was 1 Corinthians. It was a bit more focussed than the jumble of ideas put forth in Romans, with some core Christian beliefs laid out quite clearly – resurrection after death, acting with charity etc., sprinkled with some less fortunate and laudable ideas, such as subjection of women and the avoidance of wisdom. I’m still, I must confess, not entirely sure what Christianity is all about.