1 Corinthians 11:13

1 Corinthians 11:13-15: Interrogative or Declarative? An Exegetical Examination of Paul’s Rhetorical Strategy

This exegetical study of 1 Corinthians 11:13-15: Interrogative or Declarative? An Exegetical Examination of Paul’s Rhetorical Strategy is based on a b-greek discussion from March 17th, 2017. The initial query concerned the grammatical categorization of 1 Corinthians 11:13-14, specifically whether these verses should be interpreted as interrogative rhetorical questions, as is traditionally understood, or as declarative statements, an alternative proposition that suggests a different understanding of Paul’s instructions regarding women praying unveiled and men with long hair.

The core exegetical issue at hand revolves around the punctuation and rhetorical function of Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 11:13-15. Interpreting these verses as rhetorical questions significantly impacts the implied communal judgment and the appeal to natural order, reinforcing Paul’s argument against women praying unveiled in public worship. Conversely, a declarative reading would radically alter the meaning, potentially suggesting that it is proper for a woman to pray unveiled and that nature does not teach that long hair is a dishonor for a man, thereby undermining the subsequent argument. This grammatical distinction is crucial for discerning Paul’s intent and the practical implications for the Corinthian community.

ἐν ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς κρίνατε· πρέπον ἐστὶν γυναῖκα ἀκατακάλυπτον τῷ θεῷ προσεύχεσθαι;
ἢ οὐδὲ αὐτὴ ἡ φύσις διδάσκει ὑμᾶς ὅτι ἀνὴρ μὲν ἐὰν κομᾷ ἀτιμία αὐτῷ ἐστιν,
γυνὴ δὲ ἐὰν κομᾷ δόξα αὐτῇ ἐστιν; ὅτι ἡ κόμη ἀντὶ περιβολαίου δέδοται.

Greek text (Nestle 1904)

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

In verse 13, both Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT 2010 include a semicolon after κρίνατε and a question mark at the end of the verse (προσεύχεσθαι;), indicating an interrogative sentence. The alternative interpretation discussed in the original post disregards this punctuation.
In verse 14, both editions present ἢ at the beginning, an interrogative particle, and conclude the clause with a comma (ἐστιν,). The original post’s alternative reading would imply treating this as a declarative statement despite the initial ἢ.
In verse 15, both editions conclude the main clause with a question mark (ἐστιν;) before introducing the causal clause with ὅτι, signifying a rhetorical question. The alternative reading would remove this interrogative force.

Textual Criticism (NA28): A review of the critical apparatus for 1 Corinthians 11:13-15 in the Novum Testamentum Graece (NA28) reveals no significant textual variants that would alter the grammatical structure or challenge the traditional interrogative punctuation adopted by most critical editions, including Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT. The primary interpretive decision rests on rhetorical analysis rather than variant readings, as punctuation is a modern editorial addition reflecting scholarly understanding of ancient Greek syntax and rhetoric.

Lexical Notes:

κρίνατε (krinate): The aorist active imperative of κρίνω, meaning ‘to judge’ or ‘to decide’. BDAG defines it as “to make a judgment, decide, resolve, come to a conclusion.” In this context, it is an appeal to the Corinthians’ own judgment.
πρέπον (prepon): A neuter present active participle functioning as an adjective, meaning ‘fitting’, ‘proper’, or ‘appropriate’. BDAG indicates “what is suitable, fitting, proper, becoming.”
ἀκατακάλυπτον (akatalypton): An adjective meaning ‘uncovered’ or ‘unveiled’. BDAG glosses it as “uncovered, unveiled,” referring to the absence of a head covering.
προσεύχεσθαι (proseuchesthai): The present middle infinitive of προσεύχομαι, ‘to pray’. BDAG: “to pray, offer prayer, pray for.”
φύσις (physis): A noun meaning ‘nature’ or ‘natural order’. BDAG defines it as “the natural order of things, nature.” Its use here points to an innate sense of propriety.
κομᾷ (koma): The present active subjunctive of κομάω, ‘to wear long hair’ or ‘to grow hair long’. BDAG: “to have long hair, to wear long hair.”
ἀτιμία (atimia): A noun meaning ‘dishonor’, ‘disgrace’, or ‘shame’. BDAG: “the state of being dishonored, disgrace, shame.”
δόξα (doxa): A noun meaning ‘glory’, ‘honor’, or ‘splendor’. BDAG: “honor, renown, glory.”
περιβολαιου (peribolaiou): The genitive singular of περιβόλαιον, meaning ‘a covering’, ‘a wrap’, or ‘a cloak’. BDAG: “a covering, cloak, mantle.”

Translation Variants

The grammatical and rhetorical analysis of 1 Corinthians 11:13-15 strongly supports the traditional interpretation of these verses as rhetorical questions rather than declarative statements. The presence of κρίνατε (“judge!”) in verse 13 serves as an imperative inviting the Corinthians to make a judgment, which is immediately followed by a question that guides their conclusion: “Is it proper for a woman to pray to God unveiled?” The particle ἢ (“or”) at the beginning of verse 14 further reinforces the interrogative nature, introducing another rhetorical question: “Or does not even nature itself teach you…?”

Rhetorically, Paul frequently employs such questions to engage his audience and lead them to an obvious conclusion, making his argument more persuasive. If these were declarative statements, the flow of argument would be disjointed and contradictory to Paul’s overall point in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. For example, if v. 13 were declarative (“It is proper for a woman to pray to God unveiled”), it would contradict the preceding verses concerning head coverings. Similarly, if v. 14 were declarative (“Neither does nature itself teach you that if a man grows his hair long it’s a dishonor to him”), it would undermine Paul’s appeal to nature in establishing a norm for male appearance. The phrase ἡ φύσις αὐτὴ (“nature itself”) functions as a powerful, self-evident appeal that anticipates agreement from the audience, typical of a rhetorical question.

The absence of explicit question marks in the earliest Greek manuscripts is a non-issue, as ancient Greek texts did not use such punctuation. Modern critical editions, including Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT, insert punctuation based on careful linguistic and rhetorical analysis of the text. Their consistent rendering of these verses as questions reflects a consensus among scholars regarding Paul’s intended meaning and rhetorical strategy. The proposed declarative reading, while grammatically possible in isolation, significantly struggles against the immediate literary context and the broader Pauline theology.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

Based on the grammatical analysis, rhetorical patterns, and scholarly consensus reflected in critical editions, the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:13-15 as rhetorical questions is overwhelmingly robust. Paul employs these questions to draw the Corinthian believers into his argument, guiding them to affirm the cultural norms and the “natural” order he presents regarding appropriate appearances in worship.

“Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God unveiled? Or does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her as a covering.”
This translation clearly renders all verses as rhetorical questions, emphasizing the appeal to the Corinthians’ own judgment and to nature.
“Decide for yourselves: Is it seemly for a woman to pray to God without a head covering? Does not nature itself instruct you that long hair is a disgrace for a man, but for a woman, long hair is her splendor? Because her hair has been given to her instead of a veil.”
This version uses slightly different vocabulary but maintains the interrogative structure, highlighting the rhetorical force of Paul’s argument.
“You yourselves decide: Is it appropriate for an uncovered woman to pray to God? Or is it not true that nature itself teaches you that if a man wears long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman wears long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her as a natural covering.”
This rendering explicitly uses “is it not true that” to underscore the expected affirmative answer to the rhetorical questions, further clarifying Paul’s persuasive technique.