***Need Paleo Bora / Hebrew & Greek fonts to view parts of this text***

Notes on my notes: I've made some assumptions in the material. God (THEOS) is a unspecified deity. I assumed hwhy, YHWH for the authors use of 'GOD'. Changed the use of THE CHRIST / MESSIAH / LORD to [vwhy, Yahshuah. Replaced the word CHURCH with assembly, body or believers. Replaced New Testament with Greek Scriptures. Some of the writings I was unable to sum up so I wrote verbatim in " ". With BIG words I put the definition in italicized. I did my best to duplicate the Greek words used in the book. Some of the character may not be correctly duplicated. I have titled each chapter before the notes should you want to reference.

Notes on:

Rethinking 1 Corinthians 11:2-16

through archaeological and moral-rhetorical analysis

by David. E Blattenberger III

The Traditions

Paul begins with a word of praise to the body for holding to tradition, at least limited in keeping, by finding a place of common agreement and using it to soften them for a exhortation to keep tradition; to which they do not currently adhere. He develops a new, or is refining an old, teaching that is not being recognized. It’s unclear whether this tradition came from an earlier ethical teaching of [vwhy or is Paul’s own contribution, or, it could be a response to the miss application of a tradition reminiscent of a similar issue in Galatians 3:28,. if judging by the corrective language of verse 3. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in The Master

In Verse 3 Paul begins to draw attention to a tradition that is being rejected. In following one teaching imperfectly, some are neglecting other principles. Paul is introducing a point that requires the Corinthians have the correct understanding of headship, i.e. ‘authority over’.

Paul protects the women from abuse by forcing on the man and women absolute symbiotic, (the living together in more or less intimate association, dependence on one another).

Neither the woman nor the men are truly independent of one another in [vwhy. The man’s authority is both assumed and limited by the use of the word however in verse 11, and a woman who is in the proper relationship to both hwhy and man has her own means of authority in verse 10.

The focus on the woman’s authority is needed for the very reason that the man might be tempted to misapply hierarchical theology. (the study of religious faith, practice, and experience of a religious leader in a position of authority).

The head covering, whether a veil or hairstyle, is meant to reinforce the sexual distinctiveness between the man and woman, which ultimately derives from creation. The distinctiveness is being challenged at Corinth and requires further argumentation (the act or process of forming reasons and of drawing conclusions and applying them to a case in discussion), then Paul had previously given.

Shame:

Paul uses the honor & shame motif to encourage specific behavior, (11: 2,4,5,6,14) to appeal to the core value of the assembly. Else where in this letter he attaches shame to his corrective advice in ‘admonishing them as beloved children’ 14:11 and to his disappointment in the assembly’s lack of wisdom in making judgment (6:5). In chapter 11 the focus is on ‘disgrace and dishonor’.

If one is honored or shamed by a practice it’s because there exists a standard judgment or evaluation of that practice in the assembly. Paul’s tradition is something the entire community is expected to already understand and be in agreement with. Whatever practice he is advocating is not something new to there understand.

Decide for yourself:

The need for reasoning of different levels indicates Paul’s dealing with an undisciplined bunch. Fearing the theology and shame argument may not be enough to garner adherence to the tradition, he piles up evidence to reach every conceivable mind.

Judge for yourselves

The conclusion in 11:16 KJV 1 Corinthians 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God speaks to those who still remain contentious after all the arguments and theological developments have been offered. Judge for yourselves is an extension of the shame argument, "in that it assumes putative standards that Paul and his readers share". Since he has already told them they are capable of judging matters of this life (6:3) the text becomes an application of the previous exhortation to "judge all things". The language Paul uses invokes both social and religious morals that could be understood by both believers and nonbelievers. The appeal to shame and honor in the letter is meant to pressure the religious community as a place where the best social morals are upheld. The egregious (tending to associate with others of one's kind) problem with Corinthian morality is that even unbelievers know it’s shameful. (5:1, 6:6, 10:32, 11:21)

Just Like the Other Churches

In Paul’s mind the practice of common tradition in the body is basic. The same Ruach (spirit or wind) baptized all believers into one body (12:13) and the same Ruach directed each assembly to imitate the assembly in Judea (1 Thess 2:14). Paul’s mission instituted these practices in other assembly’s that became examples for additional communities of faith. The letter to Corinthians assumes and carries on these practices.

It’s evident Paul thinks every assembly in his experience should be able to support the theology behind the head covering practice being advocated in Crointh.

Since Paul is purposely and determinedly invoking common understanding, a sense of propriety, the language of shame, and practice in his other assembly’s, than any interpreter of that advice must look to the world of Corinth and it’s neighbors for an answer.

Linguistic Considerations

What ever the idiom (the language peculiar to a people or to a district, community, or class) kata / covered in 11:4 (KJV 1 Corinthians 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.) may mean, Paul considers it as a general negative practice for men, and by being in direct opposition to being equal, a necessary customary practice for women.

Due to thematic (being the last part of a word stem before an inflectional ending) consideration and the absence of clear veiling terminology a recent and growing number of interpreters have though that ‘long hair’ is what hangs down from the head instead of a veil.

Semantic Fields, Veils and 2 Corinthians

The reason for the idiom may be that it serves as a creative way to represent the hair hanging down from the head, like, the common covering would hang down from the head. Hair is the main topic in 11:14-15, at the conclusion of the pericope [pe-RICK-o-pee] (Any selection extracted from a larger text for special consideration) and at least, or part, of the argument in 11:5-6 (head shaved and hair cut off). Since there is no clear reference to ‘veil’ in the passage, hair must not be excluded.

After speaking of cultural norms and an argument from nature (V14) the conclusion is the woman’s hair is given for, or possible instead of, a covering (V15). The peribo,laion, (covering) is an article of clothing that may serve as a covering , wrap, cloak or robe.

The difficulty of a text like this is that more than one strand of thought is possible. Here the word means a covering like the partial veiling that would be familiar to his readers, but it’s clear that covering it’s self is the hair not a veil.

"Having Down the Head….What?"

The author shows Greek literature from different centuries where he did and did not find kata

("DOWN FROM" defined as covered) kefalh, (head) ecwn (I am unsure) and how it was used.

If you don’t presuppose by reading veil into the text you would question the information the writer supplies latter on. Then you would ask "having down the head…..What?" The writer provides the only answer found in the passage, hair, for the hair is given for a covering.

Paul develops contextually 1 Corinthians 11: 2-16 if nothing else. A concession should be made that veil is only a possible reading and that hair cannot be excluded.

What does Nature Teach

If fu,sij (nature) means "custom" it does not strengthen the argument, but repeats the earlier clause making the new point meaning less.

How can Paul’s use of fu,sij be understood as only reflecting common custom when he has already assumed that in 11:13. His barbs about shameful practices in V6 and references to propriety in V13 are appeals to custom. With the ‘nature’ idea Paul is attempting to fortify his position.

All the arguments from rhetorical structure, when taken together indicate with significant force that the writer intends to cite change in a body that has defiant members. He uses every vantage point possible, traditions, theological reasoning, custom, nature, and the norms of other assembles. Paul does not lack conviction about the matter.

It has been shown that the only clear object of shame and practice against nature has to do with the manner of arranging the hair, veil does not enter into the picture. Since a veil never appears in the later section of the discourse, hair must not be discounted as the one issue on his mind.

Paul as a Jew in a Greco-Roman World; Does the Old Testament Matter?

In his two letters to the Corinthians Paul sites 28 Hebrew Scripture sources. His extensive familiarity with and dependence on the Hebrew Scriptures leads to question about the implications of this for 1 Corinthians 11.

There is no material anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures to urge women to be veiled. Paul did not offer support from the Hebrew Scriptures for the necessity of female veiling practices. Tho, various social practices of veiling were common throughout all periods of the Hebrew Scriptures history. The origin and exact meaning of those practices is uncertain.

"There is no disgrace for men wearing head coverings. Turbans were part of the required headgear for the Aaronic priesthood and were designed for glory and beauty (Ex 28:2,4,37). The turban on a priest was considered to be a holy garment (Lev.16:4) and included other elaborate headgear just as hwhy commanded Moses (Ex 39:28-31). In the account of Job no shame is present when a man wears a turban (29:14). Zechariah has a vision of Joshua, the high priest, wearing a head covering (Zec 3:5). Removal of the turban from a priest’s head would have been a sign of mourning (Ez 24:16-17, 23). And was known to be a result of wickedness (Ez 21:24-26). The priest was commanded not to uncover his head (Lev 21:10) and the penalty for one who did so was death (Lev 10:6). These are in direct opposition to 1 Corinthian’s 11:4 if veil reading is assumed. Paul, who was quite familiar with these texts, would not have found any precedent in them for a moral requirement of uncovered men. Rather, veiled men or women as New Covenant priests are not likely to have had any stigma placed on them from the perspective of the Hebrew Scriptures. Some other source for shame and disgrace over veiled men must be found in Paul’s thinking which overcomes the Hebrew Scriptures evidence."

"The Hebrew Scriptures regulations regarding hair styles are instructive in shedding light on Paul’s concerns. The hair or head of an individual was understood to represent the whole person (Gen 42:38, Sam 14:11, 1Kings 2:6,9). The symbolic significance of hair is well illustrated by its use in vows (Num 6:5,18-19) and mourning practices (Ez 9:3, Job1: 20, Isa22:12). The hair also served religious functions with moral connotations. The Israelites were not to imitate the cultic hair patterns of pagan nations (lev 19:27,21:5, Jer 9:26). In the case of a leper or an adulteress the hair was dishelved (Lev 13:45, Num 5:18). Finely, Levitical priests when approaching the sanctuary were required to wear the headcovering and neither shave their heads nor let the hair grow long (Eze 44:18-20). In all of these examples it is important to note the primary role that hair plays as a symbolic actor in the shaming process. There is no inconsistency with the Hebrew Scriptures in suggesting that, for Paul, hair style could be the focus of attention in shameful behavior."

"Tho veiling practices were known in the Hebrew Scriptures, shame and disgrace were not consistently attached to the symbolism. Most importantly, it does not seem possible to find any stigma associated with men having their heads covered. Contrary to this, the priests in the very act of worship were commanded to have the heads covered. Women, thought known to be covered at varying times, were never enjoined to do so by way of command. From what source(s) then does Paul derive his strong words of shame and disgrace for veiling practices? Or is it more plausible that the issue had been hairstyle all along?"

Veils, Hair, and Literary Evidence

Rabbinical sources show men, as an optional custom, were allowed to cover the head (contrary to Paul’s advice if ‘veil’ is chosen in 1 Cor. 11). Other Jewish scholars have pointed out that covering the head at prayer or religious worship "is not based on any law in the Bible or Talmud, but appears for the first time as a injunction in the Medieval Jewish Codes".

"Accounts from the Jewish apocryphal and pseudepigraphal literature provides a picture of some level of practice. Susanna is said to have been ‘closely veiled’ (Sus 32). Veiling of brides was common (3 Macc 4:6-7). Aseneth is unveiled in private worship and mourning but veils when a strange man appears (Joseph and Aseneth 14:17-15:2). Greek Scripture Apocrypha shows later evidence of brides being veiled and veiling for modesty (Acts of Thomas 13:56). Other early Christian literature also confirms the veiling of brides (Hem. Vis. 4.2.1)."

Author sites classical literature from Plutarch, Posidonius, Dio Chrysostom, Philo, Dionysius of Halicarnassus referencing the uses of head coverings making it clear veiling practices were not few in the periods in which the Greek Scriptures was written. From these sources we must take into account the writers were limited by the time and geography in which they wrote and there experiences limited the possible range of discourse (formal and orderly and usually extended expression of thought on a subject).

A survey of hairstyles is also necessary. In the Greek Scriptures it’s assumed there were distinctions in hairstyles between men and women (1Cor 11:14-15; 1 Tim 2:9; 1Pet 3:3; Rev 9:8). At the end of the 1st century A.D. Plutarch speaks of the usual custom for "men to have their hair cut and for women to let it grow". Several decades earlier, Philo condemns men "who braid and adorn the hair of their heads, since it was associated with homosexuality". Tho long hair on a man is not specifically forbidden in this text, it’s assumed that many homosexuals had such in order to braid. The psedpigraphal work of Pseudo-Phocylides says long hair is forbidden on boys since it’s a mark of a woman. The writer also associates long hair on boys with the active desires of homosexuals. There are many examples in classical literature that presents a picture of shame for an inappropriate hairstyle.

It can be said with complete confidence Roman men kept their hair short and the women wore their hair long (for at least 2-3 centuries before Paul). By the time of Paul the practice of Greeks and most likely Jews, was in agreement with Romans. Social practice contributes greatly to the interpretation of 1 Cor 11:2-16.

It may be Paul was reflecting a general concern that long hair on men was associated with homosexuality. Whatever the reasons, the shame and reproach of the matter is connected directly to "what everyone ought to know".

While veiling practices were common, significant doubt has been raised whether any obvious uniformity existed. Contrary to this, hair length practices in regard to male and female distinctiveness was unexpectedly uniform.

Veils and Hair as Cultural Artifacts:

What Does the Archaeological Record Say?

Remains found provide first hand evidence for veiling and hairstyle customs, at least for the individuals and their classes being represented. Standard catalogues of sculptures for the Classical and Hellenistic periods show veils on women were known. Veils on men are not represented in the sculptures that have been examined for this study. In this early period of Greek life there are many women who are not veiled. The majority of women shown in sculpture are not veiled and apparently there existed no stigma for these women to be represented in such a manner. It is possible the veil was removed for the sitting. There are few examples of face veils on terracotta figurines from Corinth. The examples are very early and the style of the figures is most unusual and is very difficult to find it’s equal elsewhere. No examples of face veiling can be found apart from these few early figures.

If monolithic veiling customs existed in first-century Corinth, then they must have developed after the Hellenistic period. In every work cited, women had long hair and men after the 6th century had shorter hair than the women.

Evidence from the Graeco-Roman period indicates variable veiling practices and increasingly uniform hairstyles just as Greece did. In Asia Minor (where Paul wrote his letter) one finds both men and women are veiled, and unveiled. Palmyra found 2 in 27 women are unveiled. From Macedonia grave relief’s (etching) dates to the imperial period show the majority of women unveiled. It is generally accepted that conservative customs are followed in grave relief’s. The scenes from mosaics in Roman art depict male priests commonly veiled in the 1st century A.D.. Portraiture (portraits) limited to Rome reveals many veiled males (whether all were priests is unknown) from the same time period. Funerary relief’s from the city of Rome prove to be invaluable since they can all be dated from the late Republican to the Augustan periods. After the death of Augustus these family portraits became extremely rare. The subjects were Roman freedmen of Greek origin and the portraits are remarkable considering that ‘features of aristocratic iconography are notably absent’. 97 women are pictured, of that 52 are unveiled (54%). The portraits are mostly dated (85%) from 30 B.C to A.D. 5. With confidence it can be stated that this was similar to the practice several decades later when Paul wrote to believers in Rome. All the evidence points to a custom of preference with no conforming by force.

Digs from Corinthians’ own city have uncovered examples of unveiled women and veiled men. Two veiled men were placed prominently in the Julian Basilica in Corinth because they were sculptures of emperors Augustus and Nero. The sculpture of Augustus was probably displayed when Paul wrote his letter to Corinth. During this time a depiction of the emperor was in the same city, on display and with his head covered.

Corinth was resettled as a Roman colony with Latin customs having considerable impact. The Roman customs are clearly at variance with a ‘veil reading’ in 1 Cor 11:2-16, and Roman customs were well entrenched in Corinth.

Over 300 years before 1 Corinthians was penned, hair length distinctions between men and women were adopted widely. Roman custom was normative, and Greek custom nearly so, in advocating that men had shorter hair than women. The use of veiling was not uncommon, but practiced only out of convenience and by personal choice. The veil was worn by men in religious contexts and thus was not a sign of feminine distinctiveness. In patriarchal Graeco-Roman culture, neither the emperors nor other men could have considered use of the veil as a relinquishment of authoritative position in their families. Paul is arguing for male/female distinctiveness, but the veil does not accomplish his purpose. Hair length differings, however, satisfy his appeal to shame and disgrace as well as the rather standard concept of nature.


Conclusion

The purpose of this thesis has not been to deny that veils had a function (some times important) in the 1st century. Rather it has been to argue that this article of clothing was not Paul's primary concern in 1 Cor 11:2-16. Veils symbolized more than one aspect of human behavior and can not be equated with "submission to authority". The practice of veiling was more or less a matter of personal preference for women. The entire passage is concerned with sexual dysfunction between men and woman that is critical for proper worship of the creator.

The author shows that the veil in 1st Corinth was incapable of marking the sexual boundaries between men & women.

Paul reveals his real subject matter after theological appeals for certain creation order distinctive between men & women. The length of hair was the distinction that Paul, the assembles, nature, and society understood. Therefor it is the hair which is given for covering (V15).

The specific disgrace for a man is having long hair hanging down from the head (V4). More difficult is the meaning of the woman who is 'uncovered" (V5). Is the term akatakaluttw referring to a woman's shorter hair or "loosed and untended hair"? The former reading is preferable if the specific relationship between kata kefalh, ecwn (V4) and akatakaluttw (V5) is a firm antithetic (being in direct and unequivocal opposition) parallelism (the quality or state of being parallel). With that reading, the woman who has shorter hair like the man should really go the whole way and look as manly as possible. She should go ahead and disgrace herself completely (V6) by cropping the hair very close (keira,sqw) or shave it with a razor (xura/sqai). In favor of the 2nd position, the "loosed hair" interpretation has precedent in the LXX and could symbolize one who was ritually unclean. While this construal is possible it does weaken the parallelism of V4-5. Whichever reading is preferable, the concern of Paul throughout the passage is the distinction of the sexes by means of properly kept hair.

"What could have been so important about hairstyle differentiation in Corinth? Theissen appropriately describes Paul's fears about shameful hairstyle exchanges:

Relativzing the symbolism of sex roles

released such a 'panic' reaction in Paul,

because he believed that it threatened the whole order

in the sexual realm. His overreaction is possibly a

defense against homosexual tendencies.

Many writers, whether they prefer a 'veil' or a 'hairstyle' interpretation, have begun to accept the probability of homosexual concerns on Paul's part. An 'over-realized' eschatology at Corinth had led to a rejection of sexual differentiation since some Corinthians felt those distinctions were done away with in [vwhy Another possible source of the blurring of sexual roles may have come from various cultic practices indigenous to the area. In the cult of Isis and Cybele, woman shaved their heads and dedicated the hair to the goddess. At Dionysiac festivals, "there was considerable clothing exchanged and a strutting about as a person of the opposite sex." "

To Greek male homosexuals, carefully tended long hair was an enticement. Most cultural anthropologists find that hair rituals carry sexual associations and appear to have some universal symbolic value. A change in hair many times reveals a change in social or sexual status".

Retaining manhood and womanhood was a vital concern that was grounded in the creation order and patterned after the economic relationship of the Father and Son (11:3). The female/male symbiosis was never meant to eradicate all distinctions.

In the end, a fair reading of Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 sends one in the direction of theological and moral motifs. The Corinthians have a moral responsibility to maintain creation order distinctive between men and women by means that even pagans understand. The rhetorical (asked merely for effect with no answer expected) denouement (the final outcome of the main dramatic complication in a literary work) (vv13-15) centers on the menas of accomplishing this task. What does nature teach? What is the only covering mentioned in the passage? What brings honor to the woman and dishonor to the man? In each case the focus is on the hair rather than a veil.

05/26/03