Talk:1 Corinthians 11

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

NPOV[edit]

I wrote mostly on the Bushnell view because that's what I know best. Please balance the views! --JBJ830726 22:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Info on the Bushnell view taken straight from her book here. A summary of the issue is here. --JBJ 04:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straight from her book? Please read Wikipedia:Copyright Clinkophonist

I mean the info has been summarized straight from her book, not copied. I was only citing my sources. Only her translation is a quote (with some parantheticals removed). FYI the book is public domain anyway. I would have appreciated more discussion before slapping up a copyright violation template. --JBJ 15:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV-check[edit]

I requested a POV-check because "This is the most difficult verse" doesn't look like neutral wording, and it hasn't been attributed. We can't insert our own opinions; everything must have an attribution. Similarly other parts of the text look like speculation of the author, are unattributed, and state things that are opinions as if they are universally agreed upon facts. Clinkophonist 11:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other reason I requested a POV-check is because this article seems to mostly be expounding the views of a single modern individual. I have never heard the name of that individual before, I suspect she is not very notable, and certainly not notable when compared to the 1900 years of Christian theology. Compared to Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas I suspect she really doesn't count as significant enough to comment, let alone have her own, huge, section. Clinkophonist 11:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved most of the Bushnell stuff to Bushnell view of 1 Corinthians 11 so the views are about even lengthwise. I also removed the POV and cleanup tags as that seemed to be the reason they were added.

Merging to Feminist Christianity[edit]

I disagree with the merge because

There is already precedent for books of the Bible has individual pages, including 1 Cor
All the reasons for merging on Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages do not apply here (it seems).
Someone clicking a link to 1 cor 11 wants to read about 1 Cor 11, not neccessarily Christian feminism. Your thoughts? --Ephilei 22:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 Corinthians is a book, this is merely a chapter. All scholars of the bible reject dividing it by chapter, since the chapter divisions are mediaeval not original to the book; no major encyclopedia divides the bible into chapters, and covers episodes and books instead. Christian feminism is where the content that was in this article went, the GFDL requires its edit history to be preserved and thus the redirect needs to initially point there (and that is the only reason the redirect is heading there); the redirect doesn't need to continue pointing there, but the initial redirect must. Clinkophonist 11:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woman's headcovering extra view[edit]

Found this alternative view for 1 Cor 11 https://www.jstor.org/stable/3268550?seq=1 The article(s) are summarized by this scholar in this video: https://youtube.com/YrdC6D-tmos?t=3825 Maybe someone would be generous enough to check over these and potentially write on the main. tl;dr - head covering - hair could be seen as a sex organ because of how the word in NT text is also used in Greek medical texts. --79.116.103.76 (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was quoted by Andrei Tarkovsky in his monumental film Andrei Rublev at 1:18:45 (3 hour ver) can be seen on YouTube. It is the only piece of scripture regarding head-covering of women in the Abrahamic religions? Islam has no scripture (neither in the Quran or the 'Tradition' Hadith) on the topic of veiling or head-covering of women! Wool Bridge (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]