14 May. 2024 |

The Cultural Context for the Hair Length/Style vs. Head-coverings Debate in 1 Cor 11: The Meaning of Kephalē part 12

Preston Sprinkle

In my previous post, I analyzed the linguistic arguments concerning whether Paul is talking about hair style/length or head-coverings in 1 Cor 11:2-16. While both views have merit, I argued that based on Paul’s language alone, the head-covering view is more probable.

However, I invite the curious reader to check out the comments by Andrew Bartlett and Phil Payne, who both argue for the hair length/style view and, especially in the case of Phil, offer extensive reasons why.

In this post, I want to look at arguments based on history and culture for these two views. I’ll start by summarizing evidence for the hair style/length view.

Hair Styles and Hair Length in Paul’s Cultural Context

As far as men are concerned, we have much evidence from Greek, Roman, and Jewish sources that it is disgraceful for men to have long hair, since it made men look effeminate and open to the charge of being a passive partner in same-sex sexual relationship. Philo rages against same-sex sexual behavior by criticizing “the provocative way they curl and dress their hair.” In the same passage, he says they go against “the stamp of nature” and are “a disgrace to himself.”¹ Another Jewish writer says that “Long hair is not fit for men, but for voluptuous women” and his reasoning is that “many rage for intercourse with a man.”² The Stoic Musonius Rufus devoted an entire treatise to hair-cutting, since hair is given as “a covering by nature.” According to Jerome Murphy O’Connor, “He particularly objected to the practice of ‘cutting the hair on the front of the head differently form that on the back of the head’ because this is ‘to appear as women and to be seen as womanish, something that should be avoided at all cost, if indeed they were men’.”³ Rufus goes on to critique (via his student Epictetus) men who give too much time to their appearance, especially their hair.⁴

Many other examples can be cited to show that the general consensus was that it was shameful for men to have long hair.⁵ I say generally, because there were notable exceptions. For instance, Dio Chrysostom mentions philosophers, priest, peasants, and barbarians as exceptions to rule that men should have short hair.⁶ It also appears acceptable for men to have long hair in ancient Greece, as evidenced in Homer’s writings, statues from this time period, and indeed certain Greek gods like Zeus, Dionysus, and Apollo, all who had long hair.⁷ Perhaps the most challenging exception to the no-long-hair norm is that Paul himself grew his hair out during his original 18 month stay in Corinth! Luke tells us that he cut his hair after leaving Corinth (Acts 18:18). This, of course, presents a challenge to the long-hair view, since it has Paul telling the Corinthian men not to have long hair when he himself had long hair during his time at Corinth.

As far as women go, respectable married women would wear their hair bound up above their heads. (Short hair on a woman was also viewed as a sign of masculinity and same-sex sexuality.)⁸ If a woman wore her hair down in public, it was a sign that she was immodest, if not a sexually promiscuous or a prostitute.⁹ This doesn’t necessarily mean women didn’t also wear some kind of covering. But we do have archaeological evidence portraying women with their hair done up above their head without any sort of covering. Cynthia Thompson, for instance, examined 16 different artifacts unearthed from Corinth depicting women. Only two of them had some kind of covering, while all of them had bound up hair on top of their heads.¹⁰ She concludes that “bareheadedness in itself was not a sign of a socially disapproved lifestyle” since these “women certainly wished to be seen as respectable.”¹¹ According to Phil Payne, in “Hellenistic and Roman cultures for centuries preceding and following the time of Paul, virtually all of the portraiture, sculpture, and other graphic evidence depicts respectable women’s hair done up, not let down loose.”¹²

A notable exception, and one that was frowned upon by the broader culture, is the cult of Dionysius, where women wore their hair loose and disheveled, which may have signaled the “wild sexual freedom inspired by Dionysus.”¹³ Regarding these women, Euripides says, “They shook their long hair out over their shoulders.” Nonnus says, “Many a maiden driven crazy shook her hair loose.” Lucian writes: “They toss their hair in the wind.” Livy describes women who engaged in cultic practices “with disheveled hair.”¹⁴ And Stobaeus warns husbands that “the best way to preserve their wives’ chastity was to keep them away from the worship of Dionysus and the Great Mother.” David W. J. Gill, a scholar of archaeology and Roman history, says: “It is perhaps this type of mystery religion which attempted to go outside the norms of society which Paul wanted to avoid.”¹⁵ This suggestion is strengthened by the fact that the cult of Dionysius was popular in ancient Corinth.¹⁶

This all helps make sense of Paul’s concerns in 1 Cor 11:2-16. Some men may have had long hair, which signaled effeminacy and same-sex sexuality, and some women were letting their hair down instead of binding it up on their heads, which signaled sexual promiscuity and lewd behavior. It would make sense that Paul would would want to discourage both.

In short, there are good cultural reasons for the view that Paul is addressing hair length/style in 11:2-16. However, there are also good reasons that he was addressing head coverings and not hair length/style, at least in vv. 4-10.

Head Coverings in Paul’s Cultural Context

There is much evidence for both male and female head coverings in the Greco-Roman world. In ancient Greece, it was very common for women to cover their heads in public.¹⁷ Loyld Llewellyn-Jones, in his groundbreaking work on veiling in ancient Greece, says: “Evidence for the use of the veil in Greek society is undeniable.”¹⁸ Literary sources in particular show that “women in various ancient Greek societies were veiled daily and routinely, at least in public or in font of non-related men, as a consequence of a male ideology that required women to appear subservient in all walks of life.”¹⁹ Corinth, though a Greek city, was a Roman colony and was dominated by a more Roman culture.²⁰ In any case, it was common for married Roman women to cover their heads in public, as Plutarch notes: “it is more usual for women to go out in public with their heads veiled, and for men to go out with their head uncovered” (Moralia, Roman Questions, 267B). Again: “When someone inquired why they took their girls into public places unveiled, but their married women veiled, he said, ‘Because the girls have to find husbands, and the married women have to keep to those who have them’!” (Plutarch, Moralia 232c).²¹ If a married woman was unveiled in public, it could suggest that they were throwing of their marriage vows and were seeking a sexual liaison. It’s no wonder, then, that the Roman consul, Sulpicius Gallus (166 B.C.) divorced his wife because she left the house unveiled.²² Dio Chrysostom says that customary for women in Tarsus—Paul’s home town—to cover their faces so that “nobody could see any part of them, neither of the face nor of the rest of the body.”²³ In some romance tales, a man would be the first one to gaze upon the face of his virgin bride (Chariton, Chaer. 1.1.4-6; cf. Jos. Asen. 15.1-2; 18.6).

On the flipside, unveiled women are described as being masculine (Lucian, Fug. 27; Apuleius, Met. 6), adulterous (Dio Chrysostom, Or. 64.3), prostitutes (Dio Chrysostom, Or. 64.3; Philo, Spec. 3.51),²⁴ lesbians (Lucian, Dial. Meretr. 290-91), or simply sexually available—if not promiscuous. Again, married women typically veiled in public while unmarried women typically did not. Ramsay MacMullen, whom the American Historical Association once called “the greatest historian of the ancient Roman Empire”²⁵ says “we have the many testimonies to women in the eastern provinces going about veiled, and the implication therein, that they were to avoid notice by all means possible.”²⁶

At least part of the reason for women veiling was to reserve their beauty for their husband. In Paul’s world, a woman’s hair was believed to be beautiful, seductive, and the source of male lust.²⁷ In the apocryphal book Susanna, Susanna is forced to remove her veil:

Now Susanna was a woman of great refinement and beautiful in appearance. As she was veiled, the scoundrels ordered her to be unveiled, so that they might feast their eyes on her beauty. Those who were with her and all who saw her were weeping” (Sus 1:31-33 NRSV).

Philo says that “if a woman keeps even her hair uncovered, it is a sign that she is not modest.”²⁸ Later rabbis “warned that a woman uncovering her head could lead to a man’s seduction and that a priest must be cautious when loosening the hair of a suspected adulteress.”²⁹

It’s important to note that Rome cared a lot about people adhering to proper attire, especially women. Bruce Winter has compiled much historical data showing that according to Roman law, if a woman was not dressed in the attire that signaled her marriage (that is, with a head covering) and a man had sex with her, she would be found guilty, not him, since her uncovered head signaled that she was not married. For instance:

If anyone accosts…women [who] are dressed like prostitutes, and not as mothers of families…if a woman is not dressed as a matron [veiled] and someone calls out to her or entices away her attendant, he will not be liable to action for injury. (Ulpian, The Digest 47.10.15.15)³⁰

Rome even enforced government surveillance on the dress of women through the so-called gynaikonomoi, or “supervisors of women.” This was an official office of men who would make sure women were dressed according to their social and marital status and to ensure that “wild and willfully disorderly behaviour” was reprimanded.³¹

In light of all this, it is difficult to see how Richard Hays can say: “It was not the normal custom for women in Greek and Roman cultures to be veiled; thus, it is hard to see how their being unveiled in worship could be regarded as controversial or shameful.”³²

As far as men go, while they didn’t typically cover their heads in public, there is much literary, archaeological, and numismatic (coins) evidence that high status men covered their heads during pagan worship.³³ Commonly referred to as the capite velato, it was very common for social elites to pull their togas over the back side of their heads while leading in worship.

A Roman relief called the Ara Pacis (dating from 13 to 9 BC) is particularly illuminating. This relief shows elites (priests, flamines, the attendant lictor, leading women [possibly vestal virgins], the magistrate Agrippa, Augustus and his wife) taking a leading role in the sacrificial service, while other friezes show a number of men and women without head coverings. Mark Finney points out: “In this context it may be reasonable to conclude that the capite velato is specific to those taking a central and active role in the service and, as such, stands as an unmistakable sign of status and honor.”³⁴

In Corinth, we have a well preserved statue of Augustus as well as one of Nero with their heads covered (capite velato) while performing liturgical rituals to the gods.³⁵ Evidence of this is found throughout the empire and was designed to be a piece of propaganda, since it even appeared on coins.³⁶ In fact, most Roman emperors from the late Republic to the early Empire are depicted covering their heads during worship. (Richard Oster lists: Mark Antony, Julius Caesar, Caligula, Domitian, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, Commodus, Pertinax, and Septimius Severus.)³⁷

There is much literary attestation to the practice as well. Dionysius of Halicarnassus says that a head covering was the custom “on the occasion of every prayer.”³⁸ Livy says: “The augur seated himself on his left hand, with his head covered, and holding in his right hand a curved staff without any knots.”³⁹ Virgil writes: “Moreover, when the ships have crossed the seas and anchored, and when now thou raisest altars and payest vows on the shore, veil thy hair with coverings of purple robe, that in the worship of the gods no hostile face may intrude amid the holy fires and mar the omens. This mode of sacrifice do thou keep, thou and thy company; by this observance let thy children’s children in purity stand fast.”⁴⁰ Plutarch even gives an extended explanation of why Roman male elites covered their heads during worship:

Why is it that when they [Romans] worship the gods, they cover their heads, but when they meet any of their fellow-men worthy of honour, if they happen to have the toga over the head, they uncover?…For they uncover their heads in the presence of men more influential than they: it is not to invest these men with additional honour, but rather to avert from them the jealousy of the gods, that these men may not seem to demand the same honour as the gods, nor to tolerate an attention like that bestowed on the gods, nor to rejoice therein. But they thus worshipped the gods, either humbling themselves by concealing the head, or rather by pulling the toga over their ears as a precaution lest any ill-omened and baleful sound from without should reach them while they were praying. (Plutarch, Mor. 266C)

It is important to stress again that head coverings were common among elite or high-status men (and sometimes women) who were taking a leading role in pagan worship. We also have some references to men covering their heads (and sometimes faces as well) in times of grief or to conceal their identity.⁴¹

It’s difficult to understand how Gordon Fee can say that there is “almost no evidence (paintings, reliefs, statuary, etc.) that men in any of the cultures (Greek, Roman, Jew) covered their heads.”⁴²

Hair Styles/Length or Head Coverings? Summary and Analysis

As I sort through all the data, I’m more persuaded that when Paul tells men not to cover their heads while praying and prophesying, he’s referring to head coverings not long hair. Not only does this better fit the actual wording in 11:4 and 7, but it makes good sense in light of the cultural context. Throughout the letter, Paul has been addressing problems related to social status, an issue he will focus on again in the very next section (11:17-34). And he just got done addressing several issues related to the Corinthians’ pagan past (8:1-11:1). Giving the fact that we have much evidence (from the city of Corinth itself) for high status men covering their heads during pagan worship, it makes good sense that Paul would want to distance men in the Corinthian church from this practice. By telling the men not to cover their heads while leading in worship, Paul would be preventing elite men from showing off their status.⁴³ This may explain Paul’s reasoning in v. 7a, where he says: “A man ought not to cover his head, since he is in the image and glory of God.” There’s no need to signal your social status, since every man is created in God’s image and reflects his glory—even men who don’t possess an elite status in Roman eyes. Every man has image-of-God status.⁴⁴

Even if it was shameful for men to wear long hair in Corinth, warning men against the appearance or practice of “homosexuality” doesn’t seem to be the point of Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 11. He’s already addressed matters of sexuality in chapters 5-7, and even mentioned same-sex sexual behavior in 6:9. Addressing it here seems out of place. Phil Payne, who argues extensively for the hair style/length view, surely can’t be correct when he says that Paul avoids writing explicitly about homosexuality “in order to avoid speaking directly of such disgraceful things.”⁴⁵ On the contrary, Paul speaks explicitly about same-sex sexual behavior in 1 Cor 6:9 and even more clearly and extensively in Rom 1:26-27. Not only did Paul know exactly how to talk about same-sex sexual relationships, he has no problem writing about them explicitly.

As far as women go, the historical evidence seems to also favor the head coverings view. But, there does seem to be a discrepancy between some of the sources. While we have much literary attestation that married women wore head coverings in public, the evidence is a bit mixed when it comes to artistic portraits of women on statues, reliefs, paintings, and coins. As cited above, most of the portraits found at Corinth are of women depicted without head coverings.

Advocates of the hair style/length view take this as evidence that it wasn’t the norm for respectable women to cover their heads in first century Corinth. However, historians offer other reasons for the discrepancy between literary and artistic sources.

Ramsay MacCullun, for instance, points out that unlike the literary sources, “[w]oman in mosaics, without exception” are depicted “with their faces and generally with their heads, too, quite uncovered—perhaps the better to display the modish arrangement of their hair.”⁴⁶ He goes on to say that the difference (between covered and uncovered heads) may have been one of class distinctions:

women who imitated the changes in style that went on at the imperial court, changes depicted in the provinces by portraits of the ladies of the imperial house, were the richer ones, the more open to the new ways, and the more likely to belong to families on the rise. Women of humbler class went veiled, but these others behaved exactly like their counterparts observed in Italy, fully visible, indeed making their existence felt very fully in public.⁴⁷

If this is true, this would fit very well with Paul’s concerns about classism in Corinth, an issue that he’ll address head on in 1 Cor 11:17ff.

Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones provides a different angle to the same kind of disparity between artistic and literary depictions of women in ancient Greece. He says that

artistic evidence offers up its own particular problems, and we must be aware that iconographic representation does not always reflect daily reality….it must be recognized that artistic evidence twists and corrupts ‘reality’ for its own ends. Representations of female dress (and its male analogue, nudity), and female veiling in particular, are especially prone to artistic contortions.⁴⁸

He goes on to point out that “[t]he veil is, admittedly, often absent from the iconography of Greek women,” but then claims—and provides much evidence to support his claim—“that the veil actually appeared in daily life far more than it is ever found depicted in art. There is a huge dichotomy between artistic representation of womanhood (which is a kind of fantasy) and the daily reality suggested by the literary sources.”⁴⁹ Similarly, we see a lot of nude women and men in ancient Greco-Roman sculptures, but this doesn’t mean everyone walked around naked in daily life.⁵⁰ “The paucity of images of veiled women in Greek art” and, I would add, Roman art, “can be explained by a desire to reveal what is usually hidden.”⁵¹

Llewellyn-Jones’ point is not a novel one. It’s something historians often note.⁵² If, then, we rely more heavily on literary source for windows into daily life, then we can say, with a good degree of confidence, that it was very important for married women to cover their heads in public settings.

Excursus: Is Paul Actually Talking about a Veil and not a Head Covering?

In my previous post, I wrote:

We shouldn’t think of “veil” as something different from “head covering.” In ancient times, “veil” simply meant “with face or head covered,” and it usually referred to pulling the back of your garment over your head. In some cases, this covering could be pulled across the face as well. I’ll use the terms “veil” and “head-covering” synonymously throughout.

I wrote this current blog post (which I finished over 3 weeks ago) with this understanding in view, but I’ve recently been in contact with Dr. David Warren who has argued that Paul is talking about an actual face veil and not a head covering, and that this difference is important. In a recent paper presented at SBL (Nov 2023), Warren argues that Paul is in fact talking about full face veils for women and not simply head coverings.⁵³ Warren suggests that the women in the congregation were removing their face veils when they were praying and prophesying, since this would have made it easier to speak. But this would have been viewed as shameful in light of the cultural meaning suggested by an unveiled face of a married woman. (A woman’s face was considered sensual and reserved only for her husband to see.) Warren writes:

When a woman drops the veil from before her face, her mouth, in order to speak, she is doing something that is considered “shameful,” for it was “shameful” for a woman to show her face to other men who were outside her immediate family.⁵⁴

Warren presents much evidence to support this view and I find it quite compelling.⁵⁵ I do, however, have three questions about this interpretation.

First, while face veils might have been a cultural norm for women, they weren’t for men. But Paul uses the same language of covering, katakaluptein, for both men and women (vv. 6-7). Women are to katakaluptein (v. 6) while men are not to katakaluptein (v.7). I find it unlikely that men were actually wearing face veils during worship in Corinth.⁵⁶ I find it more likely that men of high status were pulling their togas over the backs of their heads during worship, since we have historical precedence for this.

Second, Paul does talk about face veils in 2 Corinthians 3, but there, he uses the typical word for veil—kalumma. If Paul wanted to discuss face veils and not head coverings, then why does he use language fairly typical of head coverings and avoid language typical of face veils—language that Paul has used elsewhere.

I need to keep thinking through and considering Warren’s position. I’ve only recently come across it and need to give it time to soak in and evaluate. I do think he provides some compelling evidence to support his view, and I hope Dave and I will continue to dialogue about this.

A Plausible Scenario in Corinth

Based on both Paul’s language and cultural context, I think it’s more likely that he’s referring to head coverings in 1 Cor 11:2-12. (He obviously does talk about long hair in vv. 14-15, which the head-covering view must address.) If this is the case, then here’s a plausible reconstruction of what’s going on in 1 Cor 11.

Paul prohibits men from covering their heads in order confront the classism so pervasive in the Corinthian church, and also possibly to distance them from pagan practice.⁵⁷

As for the women, it’s possible that classism was the issue as well.⁵⁸ But head coverings for women were primarily about marital status. Married women who didn’t cover their head (or wear a veil over their face) sent a message that they were sexually available (or promiscuous). Similarly, as Francis Watson and others point out, it would have been a sign of modesty in a culture where unveiled women elicited the lustful gaze of men—something that would be good to avoid while you’re praying or prophesying in front of men.⁵⁹ Bruce Winter’s summary offers what I think is the best reconstruction of the situation:

The married woman by deliberately removing her veil to pray and to prophesy was also making a statement. It did not mean that she was simply reacting against the actions of the Christian man who was imitating the custom of the imperial and elite in a religious context by pulling the toga over his head, so that by contrast she removed hers. It was not that the Christian women had entered a home and were simply removing the veil because they were no longer in public…By deliberately removing her veil while playing a significant role of praying and prophesying in the activities of Christian worship, the Christian wife was knowingly flouting the Roman legal convention that epitomized marriage. It would have been self-evident to the Corinthians that in so doing she was sending a particular signal to those gathered (11:13).⁶⁰

The fact that we have historical evidence suggesting that not all married women went out publicly with their heads covered does not negate the fact that we also have much evidence that some (perhaps many) believed they should. It doesn’t seem to be such a stretch that such a viewpoint might have been prevalent enough at Corinth to warrant Paul’s concern that all women praying or prophesying should cover their heads.

The head covering view still faces two challenges in the text. First, there’s the problem of the explicit mention of women being shaved and shorn if they are “uncovered” (vv. 5-6). Some take this as evidence that Paul has been talking about hair all along.⁶¹ However, it actually makes perfect sense if Paul is talking about head coverings for women. It was well-known that women who committed adultery could have their head shaved as a sign of shame and humiliation.⁶² In fact, Meander (ca. 341-290 B.C.) once wrote a play set in the scene of Corinth, where a wife was suspected of having an affair, so her husband has her hair shaved off as punishment.⁶³ According to the historical reconstruction above, a married woman who prayed or prophesied with her head uncovered could be viewed as sexually available, promiscuous, or an adulterer. Paul’s logic, then, would be that if a married woman uncovers her head, it’s the same as if she had her head shaved. In both cases, she’d be presenting as an unfaithful wife.⁶⁴

The explicit reference to male and female hair length in vv. 14-15 is a bit tougher. It is, to my mind, the strongest piece of textual evidence in favor of the hair style/length view, especially since these verses are correlated with the reference to being “uncovered” in v. 13 (cf. v. 5). I think the best argument from a head covering perspective is Francis Watson’s view that Paul is simply giving an analogy of male/female differences that have to do with their heads (namely, hair length). Aside from the cultural currency that head coverings had in that culture, Paul is also concerned with maintaining sex differences. And hair differences in male/female biology offers an apt illustration that women should be “covered” (long hair) while men should not (short hair). In and of itself, I think vv. 13-15 offers strong support for the hair style/length view. But in light of all the evidence cited above and in the previous POST, I think it’s the weaker view. Therefore, the head covering view has to offer the best plausible explanation of vv. 13-15, and I think seeing this section as Paul offering an analogy is the best attempt.

Does it Matter?

One might say—and one might be right—that I’ve spent all this energy analyzing a debate that doesn’t ultimately matter for understanding male/female relations in the church and in the home. Head coverings. Hair style/length. Who cares? Either way, women are prophesying in a mixed public setting, so this adds support for an egalitarian (or at least “soft complementarian”) position, where Paul had no problem with women communicating God’s word to men in the congregation.

This might be right; maybe it doesn’t matter for our question at hand. But is there any possible connection between the head covering vs. hair length/style views that speak into the egalitarian/complementarian debates?

From my vantage point, I could see an argument from the head covering view that could lend support for a complementarian position, according to some interpretations. If a head covering was a symbol of a husband’s authority over his wife, as 11:10 (cf. 11:3) could be taken to say, then complementarians might draw upon the head covering interpretation, rooting in a head = authority understanding of 11:3, as support for their view. (The “symbol of authority” interpretation of 11:10 is, of course, a torturous reading of the Greek.)

But if Paul is talking about hair length, then perhaps he’s not talking about male authority at all. Rather, he’s talking about male/female sex differences and sexual ethics (i.e. forbidding men from engaging in same-sex sexual practices, or at least the appearance of them, and guarding women from the perception that they imitating the sexual libertine practices of the Dionysiastic cult). The language of “headship” from 11:3 could then refer to the man as the “source” of the first woman, as per the creation account, which Paul alludes to in 11:7-9.

But these aren’t the only two interpretive outcomes of the head covering vs. hair length/style views. So I do wonder: how much does it matter whether we interpret Paul as talking about head coverings or hair length/style for the complementarian vs. egalitarian discussion?

1
Philo, Sepc. Leg. 3:36.
2
Ps. Phocylides, 210-214 (30 B.C. – A.D. 40).
3
(JMO, “Sex and Logic, 487, citing Rufus, Diss. 31, 1).
4
Epictetus, Diss. 3.1, 30-31.
5
See e.g. Juvenal, Satire 2.96; Horace, Epodes 11:28; see Payne, Man and Woman, 142-144; Murphy-O’Connor, “Sex and Logic,” ???).
6
The Thirty-fifth Discourse, Delivered in Celaenae in Phrygia (Cohoon and Crosby, 1961, p. 401)
7
See Thompson, “Hairstyle, Head-coverings, and St. Paul,” 104.
8
“A woman with her hair closely clipped in the Spartan manner, boyish-looking and wholly masculine” (Lucian of Samosata, Fugitive 27). “[Megilla’s head] shaved close, just like the manliest of athletes” (Lucian of Samosata, Dialogi meretrici 5.3).
9
This is especially true in later Judaism. For instance, a man could divorce his wife if she went out in public “with her hair unbound” (m. Ketub. 7:6; b. Gitt. 90b; see Payne, Man and Woman, 162).
10
Thompson, “Hairstyle, Head-coverings, and St. Paul,” 107-112.
11
Ibid., 112.
12
Man and Woman, 159.
13
Payne, Man and Woman, 163.
14
Euripides, Bacch. 695; Nonnus, Dion. 45.47-48; Lucian, Dionysus 2; Livy 39.13.12; all cited in Payne, Man and Woman, 162-163.
15
Gill, “Roman Portraiture,” 255-56.
16
Payne, Man and Woman, 164; Richard Kroeger and Catherine Clark Kroeger, “Pandemonium and Silence at Corinth,” The Reformed Journal (1978) https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/pandemonium-and-silence-corinth/
17
For head coverings in ancient Greek culture, see the seminal work by Lloyd Lewellyn-Jones, Aphrodite’s Tortoise. See also Finney, “Honour,” 35-41 (Greco-Roman context), 41-44 (Jewish context).
18
Aphrodite’s Tortoise, 7; contra Phil Payne, who says “Greek women did not customarily wear a garment over their heads” (Man and Woman, 152; cf. also Keener, Paul, 27).
19
Aphrodite’s Tortoise, 14. “In Homeric. Epic” veils are worn by “Helen, Hekabe, Andromakhe, Penelope, Nausikaa, Thetis, Hera, Ino, Kirke and Kalypso daughters, wives and mothers of kings and princes, or else divine women” (Aphrodite’s Tortoise, 124). See, e.g. Iliad 3.141; 22.466-472; Odyssey 1.330-335; 4.623. In the Iliad 22.405-406, a mother throws off her veil in mourning over the death of her son (cf. Iliad 22.466-472). In Odyssey 6.100, unmarried women are veiled, but this may be to ward off potential suitors. For a discussion of veiling in Homer, see also Preston Massey, “Long Hair as a Glory and as a Covering,” 52-72.
20
Gill, 245; Winter, After Paul, 1-28; Murphy-O’Connor, “Once Again,” 267; Oster, 1988, 489-493, who has extensive documentation to prove this.
21
See Plutarch, Moralia 142d, where veiled women compared to a tortoise; that is, traveling about within its protective shell, is like the woman in ancient Greece, who always goes about the streets dressed in her veil. For married women veiling, see also Chariton, Chaer. 1.13.11; Petronius, Sat. 14, 16; Lucian, Imag., cited in Finney, “Honour,” 35.
22
Valerius Maximus, Memorable Deeds and Sayings, 6.3.10. On the supposed contradiction between Valerius and Plutarch (Roman Questions, 267B-C), see Hilton, “Veiled or Unveiled?” 336-342; cf. Ramsay MacCullun, “Woman in Public,” 208-209.
23
Or. 33.48-49, on which see Finney, “Honour,” 35; Chadwick, 7.
24
Keener notes that the evidence for this is slender and a bit dated (see Keener, Paul, Women, 24-25).
25
https://www.historians.org/research-and-publications/perspectives-on-history/march-2001/115th-annual-meeting-awards-and-honors
26
“Woman in Public,” 218.
27
See Keener, 28-31; Watson, “The Authority,”
28
See Keener, 29 for more sources.
29
Finney, “Honour,” 44, citing Abot R. Nath. 14.35; cf. Num. Rab. 18.20; Sifre Num. 11.2.1-3; y. Sanh. 6.4.1.
30
Cited in Winter, 83; also, Westfall, 30).
31
Plutarch, Solon, 21, cf. 84, 361; Milet., no. 264; ICret., iv. 252; Illion, 10; cf. Ogden, “Controlling Women’s Dress,” 216-19; Winter, Woman Wives, 85-87.
32
1 Corinthians, 185–186; cf. Phil Payne, Man and Woman, 154, who cites Hays’ comment approvingly. Mark Finney rightly, in my opinion, says: “All of the available evidence runs against Hays’s claim” (Finney, “Honour,” 41 n. 39
33
See especially Richard Oster (“When Men Wore Veils to Worship,” NTS [1988], 481-505; idem., “Use, Misuse, and Neglect of Archaeological Evidence in Some Modern Works on 1 Corinthians, ZNW [1992], 52-73), Catherine Thompson (“Hairstyles, Head-coverings, and St Paul: Portraits from Roman Corinth,” BA 51 [1988], 99-115), David Gill, “Roman Portraiture”; Winter, After Paul Left Corinth, 122-23; Preston Massey, “Veiling among Men in Roman Corinth,” 501-517.
34
Finney, “Honour,” 37; cf. Gill, 247
35
See Gill, 246-47.
36
Finney notes that about 20 similar statues are found throughout the empire (Finney, “Honour,” 37; cf. Winter, After Paul, 122.
37
Oster, 498.
38
Ant. Rom. 12.16.3; 15.9.2.
39
Livy, Ad Urbe Condita 1.18; cf. 10.7.10.
40
Aen. 3.403-409; cf. 3.543-7; 1.385; cf. Lucretius, De Rerum Natura 5.1198-1200.
41
Dio Cassius tells us that Nero tried to flee on horseback and with his head covered (and possibly his face as well) in order to conceal his identity (Roman History 63.27.3; LCL pp. 186-87). Plutarch tells a story about a Roman politician named Scipio (2^nd cent. B.C.) who entered Alexandria with his head and face covered, since he was well known in the city and wanted to conceal his identity (Moralia, 200). See Warren, “The Veiled Meaning,” 17-18 for a discussion of these texts.
42
Fee, 1 Corinthians, 505.
43
David Gill says: “The issue which Paul is dealing with here seems to be that members of the social elite within the church-the dunatoi and the eugeneis (1:26)—were adopting a form of dress during worship which drew attention to their status in society. The dress was a result of these individuals being contentious…(v. 16). This is a concept familiar from other parts of ancient literature, such as Plato where it is frequently linked with the love of honour. The picture is one of rival groups, perhaps from different families, within the church who are using their dress to further their ambition to dominate and thus to be honoured by those present.” (Gill, “Roman Portraiture,” 250, followed by Winter, After Paul, 122; cf. Finney, “Honour,” 36).
44
Cf. Andrew Clarke: “The use of head covering, thus, denoted status or seniority at a public function. In Paul’s view, with this cultural background, it is inappropriate for men to have their heads covered, because the chief official in their community and at their community functions is Christ. If a man were to wear head covering it would be a statement that he viewed himself as the chief official” (Clarke, 2000, 184).
45
Payne, Man and Woman, 145.
46
“Woman in Public,” 217.
47
“Woman in Public,” 217-18.
48
Aphrodite’s Tortoise, 10).
49
Aphrodite’s Tortoise, 10; cf. the thorough discussion in chapter 4.
50
Warren, “The Veiled Meaning,” 9.
51
Aphrodite’s Tortoise, 88.
52
See e.g. Lewis, The Athenian Woman: An Iconographic Handbook; Blundell, “Clutching at Clothes” in Women’s Dress in the Ancient Greek World, 143-69; Caroline M. Galt, “Veiled Ladies,” American Journal of Archaeology 35 (1931): 377 n. 3 and the discussion in Warren, “The Veiled Meaning,” 5.
53
David H. Warren, “The Veiled Meaning of Katakalupto (1 Cor 11:6-7),” paper presented at the annual SBL conference, Nov 2023. Many thanks to David for sending me a copy of his paper and for the ongoing dialogue.
54
Warren, “The Veiled Meaning,” 23.
55
For instance, the verb katakaluptō occurs in Gen 38:15 where Tamar “covered (katekalupsato) her face” (see also Josephus, Ant. 7.254). I think the most significant reference in support of Warren’s view is Plutarch, Moralia 200f, which says: “When he [the Younger Scipio] arrived at Alexandria and, after disembarking, was walking with his toga covering his head (kata tēs kephalēs echōn to himation), the Alexandrians quickly surrounded him, and insisted that he uncover and show his face (apokalupsashai…deixai pothousin autois to prosopōn) to their yearning eyes. And so he uncovered amid shouting and applause.” Here, the language of covering one’s head with a garment is later understood as covering one’s face as well. Also important is Dio Chrysostom’s description of the good old days—he was writing at the end of the first century A.D.—when women would go out in public with “their faces covered as they walk” and “nobody could see any part of them, neither of the face nor of the rest of the body” (Dio Chrysostom, First Tarsic Discourse, 48–49).
56
Men did cover their faces in times of mourning (e.g. Plutarch, Moralia, 267C; 2 Kgdms 19:5-6), but that doesn’t seem to fit the context of 1 Cor 11.
57
See Preston Massey, “Veiling Among Men in Roman Corinth,” 501-517, for the argument that men veiled out of a sense of shame.
58
Even Payne acknowledges that married women of higher social status would cover their heads during religious activity as a sign of their status: “Women of the Hellenistic royal families (such as Arsinoe II, wife of Ptolemy II) are portrayed on coins with the himation draped over their heads, probably as a symbol of status or authority. This parallels the Roman convention of draping a toga over one’s head as a sign of social status, particularly while leading worship in the Roman cult” (Payne, Man and Woman, 155).
59
Later Rabbis “warned that a woman uncovering her head could lead to a man’s seduction and that a priest must be cautious when loosening the hair of a suspected adulteress” (Finney, “Honour,” 44, citing Abot R. Nath. 14.35; cf. Num. Rab. 18.20; Sifre Num. 11.2.1-3; y. Sanh. 6.4.1)
60
Winter, 96. Craig Keener comes to a similar conclusion: “It is probable that some well-to-do women thought such restrictions on their public apparel ridiculous, especially if they were from parts of the Mediterranean world where head coverings were not considered necessary. But to other observers, these women’s uncovered heads connoted an invitation to lust. The issue in the Corinthian church may thus have been a clash of cultural values concerning modesty, and Paul wants the more liberated elements within the church to care enough about their more conservative colleagues not to offend them in this dramatic way” (Paul, 30).
61
CITE
62
In Cyprus law, “a woman guilty of adultery shall have her hair cut off (eporneueto) and be a prostitute” (Dio Chrystostom, Or. 64.3 (cf. Tacitus, Germania, 19); see McGinn, Prostitution, Sexuality and the Law in Ancient Rome, 147; Winter, After Paul, 128.
63
P. Oxy. 211; Peter Brown, Meander: The Plays and Fragments (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). The play itself is even titled perikeiromenē, which is a compound of the same word Paul uses in 1 Cor 11:6 (see Warren, “The Veiled Meaning,” 20).
64
Cf. Winter: “Therefore, Paul equated not wearing a veil with the social stigma of a publicly exposed and punished adulteress reduced to the status of a prostitute” (Winter, After Paul, 128). Debates about whether the phrase “dishonors her head” (11:5) refers to the woman’s literal head (Watson, “The Authority of the Voice,” 529) or to her husband, her metaphorical “head” (Gill, “Roman Portraiture,” 256; Finney, “Honour,” 51 n. 80), aren’t very important for the current point. A woman who was viewed as an adulterous would certainly bring shame upon herself and her husband.

2 comments on “The Cultural Context for the Hair Length/Style vs. Head-coverings Debate in 1 Cor 11: The Meaning of Kephalē part 12”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Philip B. Payne on May 20th, 2024 - 5:27pm

Preston is to be commended for acknowledging “much evidence from Greek, Roman, and Jewish sources that it is disgraceful for men to have long hair, since it made men look effeminate and open to the charge of being a passive partner in same-sex sexual relationship.” It would have been helpful if Preston had referred to H. Herter’s article, “Effeminatus,” RAC 2:620–650 to show how widespread this attitude was in Paul’s day. Herter documents the moral indignation against men with effeminate hairstyles, citing over one hundred references to effeminate hair in Greek literature, the greatest number coming from around Paul’s time. This is important because it fits Paul’s language in 11:4, “Every may who prays or prophesies having down from the head disgraces his head” and because it was not disgraceful for a man to cover his head with his garment. Quite the opposite, the capite velato symbolized humility, piety and devotion. Its iconography was the opposite of disgrace. Furthermore, Paul explains in verse 14, “Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory, because long is given to her as a covering.”

Preston: “Cynthia Thompson, for instance, examined 16 different artifacts unearthed from Corinth depicting women. Only two of them had some kind of covering, while all of them had bound up hair on top of their heads.”

PBP: Her observation that makes it highly unlikely that Paul regarded it “disgraceful for “every woman” in Corinth to pray without a head-covering garment.”

Preston: “This [Paul’s long hair due to his Nazarite vow], of course, presents a challenge to the long-hair view, since it has Paul telling the Corinthian men not to have long hair when he himself had long hair during his time at Corinth.”

PBP: First of all, Acts 18:18 states that Paul cut his hair at Cenchreae, which is the eastern port of Corinth (F. F. Bruce, Acts, 349). This could only have happened before Paul sailed to Syria. Consequently, Preston is incorrect to emphasize that “Luke tells us that he cut his hair after leaving Corinth.” More important, however, is that Luke’s description of the believers in Corinth make it clear that they would have understood that Paul let his hair grow to symbolize his dedication to the Lord. They would have understood that the disgraceful long hair Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians 11 could not be long hair that symbolized dedication to the Lord. Acts 18:4–5 states that Paul “argued in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded Jews and Greeks. … Paul was occupied with preaching, testifying to the Jew that the Christ was Jesus.” Believers then met in a house “next door to the synagogue. Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with all his household” (18:7–8). Jews, therefore, were at the core of the church in Corinth where Paul “stayed a hear and six months” (Acts 18:11). Num 6:1–21 describes “the vow of dedication to the Lord as a Nazarite” (6:3) when “They must be holy until the period of their dedication to the Lord is over; they must let their hair glow long” (6:5). When the period of their dedication is over, “the Nazirite must shave off the hair that symbolized their dedication” (6:18). In the LXX, what is on the Nazirite’s head is described as “the vow of God” (εὐχὴ Θεοῦ 6:7), and what is shaved off is “his vow” (τὴν εὐχὴν αὐτοῦ 6:18, 20). The entire Mishna tractate Nazir describes this custom. Believers in Corinth would have understood that Paul’s long Nazirite hair symbolized his dedication to the Lord. It is not reasonable that they would have thought that hair symbolizing dedication to the Lord was the long hair that Paul calls “disgraceful” in 1 Corinthians 11:14. Consequently, Paul’s Nazirite vow does not present a challenge to the long hair view. If anyone had suggested that he was prohibiting Nazarite vows, Paul would surely have retorted something like, “You know what I mean!”
Preston is also to be commended for acknowledging that “respectable married women would wear their hair bound up above their heads. … If a woman wore her hair down in public, it was a sign that she was immodest, if not a sexually promiscuous or a prostitute.”

Preston writes, “According to Phil Payne, in “Hellenistic and Roman cultures for centuries preceding and following the time of Paul, virtually all of the portraiture, sculpture, and other graphic evidence depicts respectable women’s hair done up, not let down loose.” A notable exception, and one that was frowned upon by the broader culture, is the cult of Dionysius [sic], where women wore their hair loose and disheveled, which may have signaled the “wild sexual freedom inspired by Dionysus.”

PBP: The cult of Dionysus is not an exception, let alone a notable exception, because depictions of maenads with loosened hair in the Dionysiac cult are not depictions of “respectable women.” Furthermore, it was not all women in the Dionysiac cult, but a particular subset of women known as “maenads” who let their hair loose when they uttered ecstatic speech “prophesies” and then engaged in orgies. It was this association of hair let down with both prophesy and orgies that made it important for Paul to prohibit women letting their hair down specifically in the context of prophesy, which is the theme of 1 Corinthians 11–14. Both male effeminacy and maenads letting their hair down were major characteristics of the Dionysiac cult. Both fit perfectly with and explain Paul’s wording in 1 Corinthians in a way that interpreting the “coverings” for men and women as garment coverings does not.

Preston: “In ancient Greece, it was very common for women to cover their heads in public,” citing Loyld [sic] Llewellyn-Jones, “women in various ancient Greek societies were veiled daily and routinely, at least in public or in font of non-related men, as a consequence of a male ideology that required women to appear subservient in all walks of life.”

PBP: Aphrodite’s Tortoise is the most detailed defense of the thesis that it was customary in the Greco-Roman world for women to be veiled. Having spent an entire day reading it, however, I found its logic tortured and strained and its thesis unconvincing. Llewellyn-Jones freely acknowledges, and laments, that his view is a minority opinion among classical scholars. In fact, his view flies in the face of the vast majority of depictions of women in Greek art. Furthermore, references to women being veiled are rare in Greek literature compared to the literature of cultures where veiling is common. Most of the relatively few instances when veiling is mentioned refer to specific occasional circumstances when women were veiled, such as marriage ceremonies and the “mantle dance.”

In September of 1991, Professor Edwin A. Judge showed me the vast collection of plaster cast copies of Greek and Roman portrait statuary in the Cambridge University Department of Classics. Invariably, respectable women had their hair done up. Women with any garment covering were a tiny minority. I don’t recall any with facial veiling.

Concerning Greek customs, A. Oepke in TDNT 3:562 observes: It used to be asserted by theologians that Paul was simply endorsing the unwritten law of Hellenic and Hellenistic feeling for what was proper. But this view is untenable.… It is quite wrong that Greek women were under some kind of compulsion to wear a veil in public.… Passages to the contrary are so numerous and unequivocal that they cannot be offset.… Empresses and goddesses, even those who maintain their dignity, like Hera and Demeter, are portrayed without veils.”

James Hurley (“Man and Woman in 1 Corinthians,” 4) notes that “Grecian pottery provides abundant information concerning elegant hair styles and an absence of head-coverings among the Greeks from a very early period.” Hurley concludes that “Graeco-Roman practice of the day, as evidenced by art and literature, did not include mandatory veiling of any sort.… Whether or not women pulled their garments [palla, Latin; himation or peribolaion, Greek] over their heads was a matter of indifference.” (Biblical Perspective, 269, cf. 67, 257) See, for example, E. Pottier, M. Albert, and E. Saglio, “Coma,” in Dictionnaire des antiquités greques et romaines (ed. Ch. Daremburg and Edm. Saglio; Paris: Librairie Hachette et Cie, 1887): 1, 2:1367–71. Jews referred to Gentile women as though they typically wore no veil. (Num. Rab. 9 on 5:18; Str-B 3:429; Oepke, “κατακαλύπτω,” 3:562). Roland DeVaux says that “feminine costume in Greek antiquity could include a veil on the head, but it seems to have been rarely worn.” (“Sur le voile des femmes dans l’orient ancien,” RB 44 (1935): 398.

Preston: “In any case, it was common for married Roman women to cover their heads in public, as Plutarch notes: “it is more usual for women to go out in public with their heads veiled, and for men to go out with their head uncovered” (Moralia, Roman Questions, 267B).

PBP: The translation Preston gives here conceals that Plutarch in Roman Questions 267A-B is asking a question regarding several possible answers to the question, “Why do sons cover their heads [συγκεκαλυμμένοι] when they escort their parents to the grave, while daughters go with uncovered [γυμναῖς] heads and hair unbound [κόμαις λελυμέναις]?” Regarding several possible answers, Plutarch raised the following question, “Or is it that the unusual is proper in mourning, and it is more usual for women to go forth in public with their heads covered [ἐγκεκαλυμμέναις] and men with their heads uncovered [ἀκαλύπτοις]? … But formerly women were not allowed to cover [ἐπικαλύπτεσθαι] the head at all.… Sulpicius Galus [divorced his wife] because he saw his wife pull her cloak [τὸ ἱμάτιον] over her head [κατὰ κεφαλῆς].” (Loeb Classical Library translation by Babbitt in Plutarch, Moralia 4:26–27). First of all, note that Plutarch was not asserting, as Preston’s quotation implies, “it is more usual for women to go out in public with their heads veiled” but rather asking a question whether that might help answer another question. The fact that Plutarch follows his question with, “But formerly women were not allowed to cover [ἐπικαλύπτεσθαι] the head at all.… Sulpicius Galus [divorced his wife] because he saw his wife pull her cloak [τὸ ἱμάτιον] over her head [κατὰ κεφαλῆς]” indicates not only that he is not confident that this generalization is true but actually cites an instance that contradicts it. Winter, Roman Wives, 43 and 82, notes that Valerius Maximus, writing in the time of Tiberius, in Memorable Deeds and Sayings, 6.3.10, “saw this as ‘frightful marital severity’ on the part of Sulpicius Gallus.”

Several things should be noted about Plutarch’s question before one concludes that it contradicts all of the portraiture evidence of dignified women without a garment covering their heads. Plutarch explicitly states that at a parent’s funeral “daughters go bareheaded.” So at least in this setting it was customary for daughters to be bareheaded in public. Plutarch also notes that “formerly women were not allowed to cover the head at all,” implying such head covering to be a recent permission that was formerly prohibited. Since Plutarch lived from approximately AD 47–120, he wrote at least a generation after Paul. Furthermore, it is as part of his question, not as a separate assertion, that Plutarch asks if the reason might be that “it is more usual for women to go forth in public with their heads covered and men with their heads uncovered?” Thompson stresses that this was a speculative suggestion.

Plutarch’s question addresses both the head covering of women and of men. Extensive evidence supports the second half of his explanation, that Roman men in public normally did not cover their heads. One reason Plutarch phrased this question tentatively may be that he was doubtful whether women covered their heads commonly enough to warrant this half of his generalization. In any event, Plutarch speaks only of what “is more usual,” not of any requirement for women. Nor does he draw from this that it would be disgraceful for Roman women to go out in public without a head covering. There is a big difference between what is “more usual” and asserting, as Paul does (if interpreted as referring to veiling), that “Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head.” Furthermore, Paul is addressing worship in a home.

Cynthia Thompson, “Hairstyles, Head-coverings, and St Paul: Portraits from Roman Corinth,” BA 51 (1988), 99–115 at 104 states regarding Plutarch’s question in Moralia, Roman Questions, 267B, “This is the only significant literary evidence for a general custom of women’s wearing head-coverings in Greece in the first century CE.” To be more precise, Plutarch saying is not about Greek, but Roman customs.

Plutarch also asked, “Why is it that when they [the Romans] worship the gods, they cover their heads?” (Quaest. rom. 266C LCL) This implies that Greeks did not follow this custom of worshiping the gods with covered heads. And in any event some regulations prohibited slave women from wearing a matron’s head-covering. Many slaves attended the churches, so it is doubtful Paul would have intended 11:5 to refer to a garment covering required of “every woman.”

In Hellenistic and Roman cultures for centuries preceding and following the time of Paul, virtually all of the portraiture, sculpture, and other graphic evidence depicts respectable women’s hair done up, not let down loose. Not only formal portraits and busts, but also vase paintings and other depictions of daily life confirm this. For examples, see Douglas R. Edwards, “Dress and Ornamentation” ABD 2:237. The one exception mentioned by Fee, First Corinthians, 510 n. 76, depicted in Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, XI, figure 99, is not really an exception because their hair is neatly curled over their entire head, so that even the ringlets that fall behind their necks are not “hanging loose.” Furthermore, Sharon Kelley Heyob, The Cult of Isis among Women in the Greco-Roman World (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 60, and Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 227, note that this was a distinctive hairstyle of devotees of Isis, “with a band around the forehead and curls falling on the shoulder.”

Roman customs for at least the socially prominent women’s hairstyles in Corinth are exhibited in numerous marble busts and coins from Corinth. In these, the woman’s hair is almost always done up neatly over her head, typically twisted or braided and tied up with a cord or hairnet and without any head-covering garment. Thompson, “Hairstyles,” 106–11, gives sixteen photographs of portraits of women. Only two have any garment draped over the head. One of these is a coin, probably of Augustus’s wife Livia wearing a crown with a veil covering the back half of the head but none of the face or frontal hair. Another coin depicting Livia has no veil. The only other figure with a head covering is flat-chested and appears to have a mustache and Arab-style chin beard but is described on p. 111 as follows, “The cap on the present figurine associates her with a conventional type of a female household servant or ‘nurse.’ ” See also F. P. Johnson, Sculpture 1896–1923 (Corinth 9) (Cambridge: Harvard, 1931), 86–87, items 160–64.

The famous portrait from the middle of the first century AD of a man and wife found in Pompeii in the part of a house used to display ancestral portraits depicts the wife without any head covering and holding a writing tablet. (color plate 23 of J. Ward-Perkins and A. Claridge, Pompeii AD 79 (London: Royal Academy of Arts, 1976), 20). A pair of bronze busts of a husband and his wife and another marble portrait of the same woman from Pompeii have no head covering (Gill, “Head-Coverings,” 252, 247). Similarly, most of the women in the frieze of the Ara Pacis Augustae in Rome, dating from 13 to 9 BC have no covering on their heads (Gill, “Head-Coverings,” 252, 247). Since friezes, busts, and coins were made for public display of prominent persons, this probably implies that it was socially acceptable for women in Corinth to be in public without a head covering.

There is abundant evidence that it was customary for women to wear their long hair up neatly on their heads in Corinth as throughout the ancient Roman and Hellenistic world of that time.
• Invariably, respectable women had their hair done up (Thompson, “Hairstyles,” 112). It only makes sense that the women being portrayed wanted their statues to depict them in a respectable light.
• Gill (“Head-Coverings,” 251, 258) notes that such portraits suggest “it was socially acceptable in a Roman colony for women to be seen bare-headed in public.… It is this long hair [done up properly] that is seen as a head covering which is worn instead of a veil.… Long hair … was a symbol in Roman society of a wife’s relationship to her husband.”
• Thompson (“Hairstyles,” 112) understood Paul to be suggesting “that women’s long hair be a ‘wrapping’ … that is, fastened up, as contrasted to being allowed to flow unimpeded around the shoulders.”
• Balsdon (Roman Women, 252) notes that “in the republic, younger women dressed their hair in simple style, drawing it to the back of the head to form a simple knot, which was thrust through with a pin,” but that gradually they adopted more ornamentation. Older women, too, wore their hair up in standard conventions. Gradually “the simple strips of rough wool, emblem of chastity and symbol of the honour due to a married woman, which originally enclosed the mass of the tutulus [the mass of hair drawn together on the head], changed to linen or silk ribbons in bright colours” (ibid., 255–56).

Tertullian (AD 160–240) confirms this convention in On the Veiling of Virgins 7: “Hair serves for a covering … for their very adornment properly consists in this, that, by being massed together upon the crown, it wholly covers the very citadel of the head with an encirclement of hair” (ANF 4:32). The typical way for a Roman, Greek, or Jewish woman to put up her hair was with a strip of cloth or a hairnet (Edwards, “Dress,” 237). This widespread convention that women should wear their hair done up as a modest covering makes perfect sense of Paul’s statement in 1 Cor 11:15 that long hair is given to women “as a covering.” It also provides the perfect background for the kind of covering he required women to have on their heads while praying or prophesying in 11:5–6, 10, 13. Since having hair done up properly typically involved something to bind the hair up, such as a ribbon, hairnet, or cloth strip, references to a head covering may include the binding material as well as the woman’s hair itself properly done up.

Preston: “Llewellyn-Jones’ point is not a novel one. It’s something historians often note,” citing Caroline M. Galt, “Veiled Ladies,” American Journal of Archaeology 35 (1931): 377 n. 3.

PBP: Galt’s study of evidence for veiling demonstrates that some Greek women, particularly in the Hellenic period (late eighth century BC to 323 BC), are depicted as veiling their faces. She has not, however, made a solid case either that Greek society at large viewed it as shameful for a woman not to be veiled in public or that the predominant Greek custom for adult women in the Hellenistic age was to wear a head covering. Galt acknowledges that “in no handbook, so far examined, does there seem to be the statement that when married women appeared in public their faces were veiled up to the eyes” (373–74). She cites major studies by Bieber (370) and Heuzey (380) that give no evidence for veiling. Galt herself admits, “One looks in vain for confirmation of this theory in sculpture in the round” (377); “there are no sculptures in the round representing women with their faces partly covered” (380); “many stelae and other reliefs show … a woman putting on or otherwise adjusting her mantle over her shoulders only” (386); “there are relatively few examples of veiling of the face to be found among published vases” (388). She also acknowledges that many or most of the examples of veiling she has found depict particular settings where veiling has long been regarded as an exceptional feature such as brides at their wedding (378, 388), the mantle dance where swaying draperies add an air of coquetterie (375–77), special religious acts (380), funerals (380, 387), and mourning (386). The vast majority of the evidence she does cite depicts women with their faces uncovered. For example, Galt’s figure 10 (p. 385 of “Veiled Ladies”), depicting the Lansdowne Stele in the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art, shows a typical lady with hair done up modestly over her head with her entire face unobstructed.

T. W. Davies, “Veil,” in A Dictionary of the Bible 4:848 concludes that “the ancient Egyptians were as much strangers to the face-veils as Europeans are, for on their paintings and sculptures such veils never appear. Nor were such veils worn by the ancient Ethiopians, Greeks, or the primitive inhabitants of Asia Minor.”

Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians, 185–86, summarizes the crucial point: “It was not the normal custom for women in Greek and Roman cultures to be veiled; thus, it is hard to see how their being unveiled in worship could be regarded as controversial or shameful. For women to have loose hair in public, however, was conventionally seen as shameful, a sign associated either with prostitutes or—perhaps worse from Paul’s point of view—with women caught up in the ecstatic worship practices of the cults associated with Dionysius, Cybele, and Isis.”

Tertullian (AD 160–240) indicates that Jewesses stood out in the streets of North Africa because they wore veils (De Corona 4; De Oratione 22). This implies that Gentile women ordinarily did not wear a veil. Written between AD 200 and 220, Tertullian’s On the Veiling of Virgins 1 insists that it is “not custom … even ancient custom” that is the basis for his argument for veiling virgins. He tries to defuse the obvious objection to veiling by arguing that the custom “is not ‘strange’ since it is not among ‘strangers’ that we find it but among … the brotherhood.” (ANF 4:28).

Preston: “If a married woman was unveiled in public, it could suggest that they were throwing of their marriage vows and were seeking a sexual liaison. It’s no wonder, then, that the Roman consul, Sulpicius Gallus (166 B.C.) divorced his wife because she left the house unveiled.”

PBP: Plutarch, quoted above, states to the contrary, “Sulpicius Galus [divorced his wife] because he saw his wife pull her cloak [τὸ ἱμάτιον] over her head [κατὰ κεφαλῆς].” (Loeb Classical Library translation by Babbitt in Plutarch, Moralia 4:26–27). Winter, Roman Wives, 82, notes that Valerius Maximus, writing in the time of Tiberius, in Memorable Deeds and Sayings, 6.3.10, “saw this as ‘frightful marital severity’ on the part of Sulpicius Gallus.”

Preston: Dio Chrysostom says that customary for women in Tarsus—Paul’s home town—to cover their faces so that “nobody could see any part of them, neither of the face nor of the rest of the body.”

PBP: Cohoon and Crosby, Dio Chrysostom, 3:319 (LCL) note 2 states, “This prescription may have been due to the oriental element at Tarsus,” indicating that this was an unusual custom.

Preston: “married women typically veiled in public while unmarried women typically did not.”

PBP: If 1 Corinthians 11 is about garment coverings, and what Preston states were true, why does Paul write in 11:5 that “every woman” who does not cover her head disgraces her head?

Preston: cites “many testimonies to women in the eastern provinces going about veiled”

PBP: But Paul is not writing to the eastern provinces, but to Corinth.

Preston cites Susanna regarding traditions regarding veiling, but Susanna is about events in Babylon. Paul is not writing to Babylon or an eastern Jewish audience, but to Corinth.

Preston: “At least part of the reason for women veiling was to reserve their beauty for their husband.”

PBP: Any serious look at Greco-Roman sculpture, painting (include vase painting), and other art forms makes it obvious that women wanted to be seen as beautiful, and not just to their husbands.

Preston acknowledges that “friezes show a number of men and women without head coverings.”

PBP: Since friezes are public displays intended to portray civic honor, this indicates that omission of a head-covering garment was not disgraceful for “every woman.” This is part of the voluminous evidence that Paul was probably not talking about garment head coverings. Winter on p. 84 cites T. A. J. McGinn, Prostitution, Sexuality, and the Law (Oxford: OUP, 1998), 162, “Matrons were not compelled by law to wear the stola and the other ‘matronal’ articles of clothing.”

Preston: “Dionysius of Halicarnassus says that a head covering was the custom “on the occasion of every prayer.”

PBP: If praying with one’s head covered with a garment was such a widespread custom and if a garment covering is what 1 Cor 11:4 refers to, why would Paul say that it is disgraceful for “every man” to pray with his head covered?

Preston cites Plutarch’s reference to people praying capite velato as “humbling themselves by concealing the head.”

PBP: Why would Paul call something symbolizing humility (praying capite velato) “disgraceful”?

Preston: “when Paul tells men not to cover their heads while praying and prophesying, he’s referring to head coverings not long hair. Not only does this better fit the actual wording in 11:4 and 7, but it makes good sense in light of the cultural context.”

PBP: It is a false dichotomy to depict the choice as between “head coverings” and “long hair” since long hair is a head covering. In fact, the only place in this passage where Paul used a word for a garment covering is in verse 15, where he states, “if a woman has long hair, it is her glory, for long hair has been given to her as a covering.” Paul never in this passage uses a Greek word for a veil, whether κάλυμμα or προκάλυμμα, or a verb for veil, whether καλύπτω or ἐγκαλύπτω. Throughout this passage uses “having down from the head” (11:3), the generic verb for cover, κατακαλύπτω (11:6, 7), or the generic adjective for “uncovered,” ἀκατακαλύπτῳ (11:5, 13). All of these are appropriate for hair. In contrast to the absence of terminology in this passages that mandates a head-covering garment, Paul explicitly implies hair by “the shorn woman” in 11:5 and by “shorn or shaven” in 11:6, and “long hair” is identified three times in 11:15. In fact the adjective ἀκατακαλύπτῳ is used in the LXX only for hair, never for a garment covering.

Preston: “And he just got done addressing several issues related to the Corinthians’ pagan past (8:1-11:1).”

PBP: It is precisely the Corinthians’ pagan past, and specifically hair display in the Dionysiac cult that best explains Paul’s wording throughout this passage as regarding men’s display of effeminate hair and women prophesying with loosened hair.

Preston: “warning men against the appearance or practice of “homosexuality” doesn’t seem to be the point of Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 11. He’s already addressed matters of sexuality in chapters 5-7, and even mentioned same-sex sexual behavior in 6:9.”

PBP: Paul’s wording and argument regarding men in this passage does in fact fit effeminate hairstyles that were used to solicit homosexual hookups in the Dionysiac cult: 11:4 “Every man who prays or prophesies having [hair hanging] down from his head disgraces his head.” 11:7 “Man ought not cover his head since he is the image and glory of God—woman is the glory of man.” 11:9 “woman was created for man.” 11:14–15 “Doesn’t nature itself teach you that long hair is degrading for a man, but long hair is the glory of a woman?” The two words in 6:9 identifying the passive and active participants in homosexual acts are in a long list of those who will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Neither 1 Cor 6:9 nor any part of chapters 5–7 is a passage about homosexuality where any of the issues addressed in 1 Cor 11:2–16 would fit naturally.

Preston: “Phil Payne, who argues extensively for the hair style/length view, surely can’t be correct when he says that Paul avoids writing explicitly about homosexuality “in order to avoid speaking directly of such disgraceful things.”

PBP: Preston ignores that this passage is not discussing sexual acts, but hairstyles for both men and women that in their culture were used to solicit illicit sexual hookups. Consequently, the subject matter does not make it natural for Paul to “write explicitly about homosexuality.” Preston apparently did not consider the logic my following explanation, “as Eph 5:12 explains, “It is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret.” Surely Preston would agree that when Paul does identify men’s long hair as disgraceful in 1 Cor 11:14, he avoids mentioning the shameful thing it solicited, namely, effeminate homosexual relations. The Corinthians knew the homosexual associations of men wearing long effeminate hair and would understand Paul’s euphemisms in 11:4 and 14, like those in 1 Cor 5:1 (“to have his father’s wife” for sexual intercourse) and 7:1 (“to touch a woman” for sexual intercourse), as in Plutarch, Pompey 2.3; Aristotle, Pol. 7.14.12; Josephus, Ant. 1.163. Anyone having seen men in the Corinthian church pray or prophesy with effeminate hairstyles would immediately understand this euphemism.

Even if Paul had wanted to explain his reasoning explicitly, it would not have been easy to do so concisely since, although Greek had lots of words for specific homosexual relations and roles, it did not have a generally recognized generic word for homosexual acts. As Greenberg, Homosexuality, 212–14 explains, the idea of homosexuality as a sexual orientation was exceedingly rarely, if ever, expressed in Greek. Verse 4’s clever wordplay joins two senses of κατά with the genitive and two senses of “head”: “to pray or prophesy with [long effeminate hair] down from [your] head, is having [something] against [Christ your] Head. It disgraces both your head and your Head.” See BDAG 511 senses A.1.a and A.2; e.g. Matt 5:23; Mark 11:25; Herm. Sim. 9, 24, 2.

Several early church fathers explain Paul’s concern regarding men in 1 Cor 11:2–16 as being about hair. John Chrysostom (ca. AD 344–407) Hom. in ep. 1 ad Cor. 26.4 (PG 61:219.3), states:
But with regard to the man, it is no longer about covering but about wearing long hair, that he so forms his discourse … signifying that even though he pray with the head bared, yet if he have long hair, he is like to one covered. “For the hair,” said he, “is given for a covering.” Similarly, Ambrose, a Latin father (ca. AD 339–397), commented on Paul’s reference to men with long hair, “How unsightly it is for a man to act like a woman.” (FC 26:436, translation from Bray, 1–2 Corinthians, 109)
Pelagius too recognized that Paul was talking about the hair of both men and woman being displayed erotically: “Paul was complaining because men were fussing about their hair and women were flaunting their locks in church. Not only was this dishonoring to them, but it was also an incitement to fornication.” (PL 30:749D, translation from Bray, 1–2 Corinthians, 106)
Preston: “While we have much literary attestation that married women wore head coverings in public, the evidence is a bit mixed when it comes to artistic portraits of women on statues, reliefs, paintings, and coins.

PBP: In fact, the literary attestation that married women wore head coverings in public is far less extensive than the vastly greater evidence of women depicted without a head-covering garment. Furthermore, the comparatively few literary references to women with a head-covering garment do not imply that it was disgraceful for “every woman” to pray or prophesy without a head-covering garment. Bruce Winter’s case is based almost entirely on surviving records of Roman law or specific cases. He highlights the case of Sulpicius Galus divorcing his wife for not pulling her cloak over her head, but Valerius Maximus described “this as ‘frightful marital severity’ on the part of Sulpicius Gallus.”

Scholars doubt that many Roman laws were always in fact, if even usually obeyed. This also applies to laws specifically regarding marriage. Some Roman laws prohibited slaves and other classes of people from wearing a matron’s head-covering garment. Based on slave names, Edwin Judge concludes that slaves constitutes a significant proportion of church members. Would Paul have demanded that they break the law? What about widows?

Preston is correct to state, “most of the portraits found at Corinth are of women depicted without head coverings.”

PBP: Would Paul call it disgraceful for “every woman” to pray unless her head was covered with a garment in a culture where the vast majority of graphic representations of women have no head-covering garment? It does not make sense that Paul would call it disgraceful for a woman not to cover her head with a garment when praying in a Hellenistic culture, as Corinth was, where it was conventional for men and women alike to pray uncovered.

Preston refers to “The fact that we have historical evidence suggesting that not all married women went out publicly with their heads covered.”

PBP: In fact, we have abundant historical evidence proving that not all women went out publicly with their heads covered. Ovid (Ars am. 3:135–68) illustrates “that the different ways of dressing the hair in Rome were equal in number to the acorns of a many-branched oak, to the bees of the Hybla … every new day adding to the number.” Juvenal (Sat. 6.501–503) confirms, “So important is the business of beautifications; so numerous are the tiers and storeys piled one upon another on her head!” It does not make sense that art depicted women with elaborate hairstyles in such a profusion of variations but that those women never or rarely showed their hair in public.

Preston: “The explicit reference to male and female hair length in vv. 14-15 is … the strongest piece of textual evidence in favor of the hair style/length view, especially since these verses are correlated with the reference to being “uncovered” in v. 13 (cf. v. 5). … the head covering view has to offer the best plausible explanation of vv. 13-15, and I think seeing this section as Paul offering an analogy is the best attempt.”

PBP: Nothing in the text of vv. 13–15 expresses that Paul is using long hair as an analogy. Immediately after writing, “Judge for yourselves, is it proper for a woman to pray to God uncovered?” Paul states verses 14–15 in the form of a direct answer: “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory, because she has been given long hair for a covering.” Not only is Paul directly addressing the issue of proper “covering” in 14–15, he writes in v. 15 that “she has been given long hair for a covering.” Interpreting 11:14–15 as simply an analogy is not convincing.

Preston: “the sexual libertine practices of the Dionysiastic cult”
PBP: “Dionysiac” is the correct word here.

Preston: note 33 “Catherine Thompson”

PBP: This should be Cynthia Thompson.

Preston: “The head covering view still faces two challenges in the text.”

PBP: In response to Preston’s last post (#11) I identified beyond these two, fourteen key statements in the text of 1 Cor 11:2–16 or its cultural context that support interpreting the “uncovered head” of women in this passage as referring to hair hanging loosely and the “covering” Paul requires as hair done up. Preston has not responded adequately to any of these:

1. Paul writes that a woman’s long hair is given to her “as a covering” in 11:15.
2. It was contrary to Hellenistic custom to pray in public with a garment over one’s head
3. Women loosening their hair when “prophesying” fits the cultural influence and specific practice of the Dionysiac cult, which was popular in Corinth. This explains why women in the church in Corinth might have let their hair down as a sign of their freedom.
4. Women letting their hair down fits the warped Corinthian ideas about marriage and sex (cf. 1 Corinthians 5–7) and their overly realized eschatology.
5. Because wild hair was a peculiar and apparently new Corinthian church aberration, it is compatible with Paul’s praise in 11:2 followed by “but I want you to know” in 11:3. This suggests that Paul here addresses a novel issue in Corinth.
6. Hair that was let down ties in more directly with Paul’s introduction in 11:3. His introduction lays a foundation for respect to one’s source. Cultural evidence confirms that hair let down signaled disrespect.
7. The only occurrence in the text Paul cited the most, the LXX, of “uncovered” (11:5; ἀκατακάλυπτος, in Lev 13:45) translates [“Wrp;, from [rp. Hebrew scholars agree that this means “to let the hair on the head hang loosely” (HALOT 970; cf. KBL 779; BDB 828). This is the earliest instance of the word “cover” (κατακαλύπτω) occurring with “head” in the TLG database. Its phrase, “his head uncovered” (καὶ ἡ κεφαλὴ αὐτοῦ ἀκατακάλυπτος), parallels 1 Cor 11:5, “her head uncovered” (ἀκατακαλύπτῳ τῇ κεφαλῇ).
8. “Uncovered” (ἀκατακάλυπτος) is explained twice in verses 5–6, using “for” (γάρ). Both reasons explain the uncovering as equivalent to hair being clipped or shaved. This associates the covering as hair and fits most naturally if “uncovered” refers to a woman with her hair let down. In Greek literature, the word for “hair” was typically omitted in contexts involving the verb “shave” or “cut.” Furthermore, “head” often implied “hair.” For instance, using this same verb, Num 6:9 states (with omitted words in brackets), “But if a man dies very suddenly beside him and he defiles his dedicated head [of hair], then he shall shave his head [of hair] on the day when he becomes clean.” In this case, it is clear that “head” substitutes for “hair” because it is followed by “shave his head.” Numbers 6:18–19 states, “The Nazirite shall then shave his dedicated head [of hair] … and shall take the dedicated hair of his head and put it on the fire … after he has shaved his dedicated [hair].” Both the LXX and MT omit the word “hair” twice. “Hair” is also omitted as the object of the verb for “to cut” in LXX Jer 7:28–29, “This is the nation that has not obeyed the Lord its God or responded to correction. Truth has perished; it has vanished from their lips. Cut off [the hair of] your head and throw it away; take up a lament.” MT Jer 7:29 has a feminine imperative and suffix, “cut off her hair.” Callimachus, Hymn. Cer. 6.125 uses “head” to convey “hair”: ὣς πόδας, ὣς κεφαλὰς παναπηρέας (“unsandaled with head = hair unbound”).
9. In Paul’s day, an accused adulteress had her hair let down, and shaving was the penalty of a convicted adulteress. I document this in Man and Woman, One in Christ pages 171–173. This explains why an uncovered woman is the same as a woman with shorn hair (11:5). This explanation is transparent only if “uncovered” refers to hair let down.
10. This interpretation consistently identifies the head covering for both men and women as referring to hair, as one would expect from their parallel terminology to convey opposites: women’s heads should be covered (11:5–6, 14), but men’s should not (11:7, 14).
11. It makes sense of verse 13, “Judge for yourselves.” The vast majority of the Corinthian believers would agree that loosed hair is shameful for every woman (11:5), but it is almost certain that they would not agree that “every woman” (which includes slaves, widows, and unmarried women) whose head is not covered with a garment disgraces her head.
12. Hair as the covering is perfectly consistent with Paul’s statements that a woman’s long hair is her “glory because long hair is given to her as a covering” (v. 15), and “We, the churches of God, have no such custom” (v. 16). But these statements are incongruous if Paul was imposing a garment custom:
13. It avoids the inconsistency of Paul demanding that women follow a Jewish head-covering custom, but prohibiting men from following a Jewish head-covering custom.
14. It avoids making irrelevant both Paul’s and Peter’s prohibition of women wearing braided hair interwoven with gold, since hair would not be visible if covered by a garment.

Not surprisingly, many scholars interpret the “covering” in 1 Cor 11:2–16 as hair. Among the many advocates of this interpretation, detailed argumentation is given by:

David E. Blattenberger III, Rethinking 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 through Archaeological and Moral-Rhetorical Analysis (Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1997).

Craig L. Blomberg, “Neither Hierarchicalist nor Egalitarian: Gender Roles in Paul,” pages 329–372 in James R. Beck and Craig L. Blomberg, eds., Two Views on Women in Ministry (Counterpoints Series; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), especially 344.

Martina Böhm, “1 Kor 11,2–16. – Beobachtungen zur paulinischen Schriftrezeption und Schriftargumentation im 1. Korintherbrief,” ZNW 97 (2006): 207–234.

Raymond F. Collins, First Corinthians (SP 7. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999), 396–405.

Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad, 1983), 227–230.

Marlis Gielen, “Beten und Prophezeien mit unverhülltem Kopf? Die Kontroverse zwischen Paulus und der korinthischen Gemeinde um die Wahrung der Geschlechtsrollensymbolik in 1Kor 11,2–16,” ZNW 90 (1999): 220–49, especially 231–233.

Judith M. Gundry-Volf, “Gender and Creation in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16: A Study in Paul’s Theological Method,” in Evangelium, Schriftauslegung, Kirche (eds. J. Ådna, S. J. Hafemann, and O. Hofius; FS P. Stuhlmacher; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 151–171.

Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians (IBC; Louisville, Ky.: John Knox, 1997), especially 244–248.

Richard A. Horsley, 1 Corinthians (Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), 153–154.

James Bassett Hurley, “Man and Woman in 1 Corinthians: Some Exegetical Studies in Pauline Theology and Ethics” (Unpublished Cambridge Ph.D. Dissertation, 1973), especially 43–56.

James B. Hurley, “Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence of Women? A Consideration of 1 Cor. 11:2–16 and l Cor. 14:33b–36.” Westminster Theological Journal 35 (Winter, 1973): 190–220.

James B. Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press and Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), especially 66–68, 162–194, and 254–271.

Abel Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry in the Temple: A Study with Special Reference to Mt. 19:3-12 and 1 Cor. 11:3-16 (ASNU 24; trans. N. Tomkinson et al.; Lund, Sweden: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1965), 165–186, especially 173.

Torsten Jantsch, “Die Frau soll Kontrolle über ihren Kopf ausüben (1Kor 11,10). Zum historischen, kulturellen und religiösen Hintergrund von 1Kor 11,2–16,” in Frauen, Männer, Engel: Perspektiven zu 1Kor 11,2–16 (ed. Torsten Jantsch; Biblisch-Theologische Studien 152; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2015), 97–144.

Andreas Lindemann, Der Erste Korintherbrief (HNT 9/1; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 240.

Stephan Lösch, “Christliche Frauen in Corinth (I Cor. 11,2–16),” TQ 127 (1947) 216–261.

W. J. Martin, “1 Corinthians 11.2-16: An Interpretation,” pages 231–241 in Apostolic History and the Gospel: Biblical and Historical Essays presented to F. F. Bruce (ed. W. W. Gasque and R. P. Martin; Exeter: Paternoster, 1970), 233.

Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 279.

Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “Sex and Logic in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.” CBQ 42 (1980): 482–500, especially 485-487.

Jerome H. Neyrey, Paul, in Other Words: A Cultural Reading of His Letters (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1990), 131.

David W. Odell-Scott, A Post-Patriarchal Christology (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 178.

Alan G. Padgett, “Paul on Women in the Church: The Contradictions of Coiffure in 1 Corinthians 11.2-16,” JSNT 20 (1984): 69-86.

Alan G. Padgett, As Christ Submits to the Church: a Biblical Understanding of Leadership and Mutual Submission (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011).

Alan G. Padgett, “The Significance of ἀντί in 1 Corinthians 11:15,” TynBul 45 (1994): 181–187.

Wolfgang Schrage, Der erste Brief an Die Korinther: 1 Kor 6,12-11,16 (EKKNT 7/2; Zürich: Benziger, 1995), 2:487–533, especially 491–494 and specifically 492 n. 20.

To summarize, contextual and cultural factors overwhelmingly favor that the head coverings Paul prohibits in 1 Cor 11:2–16 are hair, not a garment. Men are not to depict themselves as women by wearing long effeminate hair, and women are not to symbolize sexual looseness by letting their hair down so it hangs loosely over their shoulders. Paul prohibits these acts because in the Corinthian culture context at that time, the symbolism of these practices undermined Christian marriage and morality.

Preston does not adequately distinguish between head coverings by class, including slaves, widows, and the unmarried. Nor does he explain why it would be disgraceful for “every woman” not to have a garment cover.

Reply
Neil Kearns on September 30th, 2024 - 10:10pm

Reconstructions and interpretations from the perceived culture do lead to many varying understandings of the text.
Paul implies that headcovering is a “tradition” that he gave to the corinthian church v2 and to all the churches v16.
In his discussion the practice is grounded in creation theology v7-9 and summarised in the interaction of creation theology applied and creator theology explicated “the head of Christ is God”.
It is assumed by many that it is the incarnate Christ who is on view.
However, v12c “and all things out of God” is the same phrase in 1 Cor 8:6 where is Paul details both God the Father and the Lord Jesus CHRIST. 1 This raises the possibility that 1 Cor 11:2-16 is an explication and application of 8:6. And not just in theology, but that head covering itself is a tradition Paul “invented” for the church as a visible expression of the theology of 1 Cor 8:6 and chapter 11. That is, it’s meaning has no connection to the cultures practice, for it has been introduced to display the theology underlying both the created relationships of man and woman, and also the parallel eternal relationship between God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
In addition to “and all things out of God” from 8:6 in v12c, there is the mention in v11 “in the Lord”. I propose that this is best placed in the v12 sentence so that it reads “for, in the Lord, just as woman out of man, so also man through woman”. That is , it is not a statement about our redeemed status in the Lord, but, rather, is about the Lord Christ as creator as per 8:6 “all things through Him. and we through Him”.
So. we now have a double reference back to 8:6 to God the Fathet and to the Lord Jesus Christ.
This strongly points to 11:3 as not being a reference to the incarnate Christ. but, rather, to the one through whom all things were created.
If this is so, then we must also read the 11:3 reference to God in terms of 8:6.
The point of headcovering thus becomes a theological one illustrating the eternal relationship between God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Cultural habits and customs have nothing to do with the tradition Paul imposed on all the churches.

Reply