- 3Now I want you to realize that Christ is the head of every man, and man is the head of the woman, and God is the head of Christ. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head dishonors his head, 5and every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, which is the same as having her head shaved. 6So if a woman does not cover her head, she should cut off her hair. If it is a disgrace for a woman to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her own head.
- 7A man should not cover his own head, because he exists as God's image and glory. But the woman is man's glory. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9and man was not created for woman, but woman for man. 10This is why a woman should have authority over her own head: because of the angels.
11In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man of woman. 12For as woman came from man, so man comes through woman. But everything comes from God. 13Decide for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?a 14Nature itself teaches you neither that it is disgraceful for a man to have longb hair 15nor that hair is a woman's glory, for hair is given as a substitute for coverings. 16But if anyone wants to argue about this, we do not have any custom like this, nor do any of God's churches.13(a11:13 Or It is proper . . . uncovered, isn't it? b11:14 The Gk. lacks long)
Ruud has mentioned a post on Metacrock's blog which explains in detail how this translation was arrived at. It also refers to the article which I linked to recently by William Welty, Rethinking the veil. William Welty is the editor of this Bible.
I have gone to the ISV site and downloaded a copy of the New Testament. This is also available in hardback or paperback. However, the OT is not yet finished.
I have been on a quest for a 'neutral' Bible translation this year. I have been looking for a Bible whose use of gender langauge would not offend by drawing attention to itself, a Bible which carries on the best of the old traditions.
This Bible uses 'children' instead of 'sons', a well established tradition from the King James and Luther Bibles. It uses 'brothers', instead of 'brothers and sisters', avoiding the awkwardness of the latter, it uses the generic 'he' pronoun, which will not in itself offend, as long as it doesn't come with the instruction to picture a "man in your head". (No offense intended to my friends who visit me here.)
Anthropos is well-translated, that is paramount for me, that the language referring to Christ's humanity be clear. There are naturally a few trade-offs here and there. So I won't say that it is 'exactly' what I would like to see in every case, but my personal opinion has only tangential relevance to my quest.
It is, however, this very passage 1 Cor. 11 that varies the most from the other translations, especially verses 14 and 15.
Food for thought. I would very much appreciate hearing from people what they think of this translation and if they have heard of it before.