The Apostle Paul’s language in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 regarding head coverings has vexed scholars for centuries. Several questions still remain with regard to the interpretation of Paul’s passage, especially in light of the ancient situational context. Without a proper understanding of the passage’s historical background, the interpreter risks missing the author’s intended meaning. Importantly, the following research is not an exegetical analysis and is considered quite controversial, but the point of the examination is to show how an understanding of ancient thought may provide a backdrop to clarify a text’s meaning. Specifically, a proper understanding of the backdrop of ancient physiology as found in medical texts may assist in resolving certain interpretive conundrums of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. To pursue the argument, the research begins by summarizing the primary issues surrounding the meaning of the passage and then focuses on the concept of nature (φύσις) as a potential key to unlocking the meaning of the passage. The remainder of the research applies the physiological solution of the term nature to three other interpretive challenges: the reference to honor and dishonor, the definition of the term head (κεφαλή), and the meaning of the reference to angels.
Understanding the Argument from Nature
The Primary Issues
Scholars have often accused the apostle Paul of conveying a convoluted and obscure argument in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 regarding head coverings.[1] Several specific phrases and references within the passage vex interpreters. However, at the center of the debate is the distinction between the way Paul addresses males versus females, “Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head” (1 Cor 11:4-5, English Standard Version). Some of the unanswered questions include why a contrast exists between the head coverings of men and women, why the Corinthian women apparently abandoned the head covering, whether Paul is referring to material head coverings, biological hair, or hairstyles, what the word “head” (κεφαλή) means within the context of Paul’s letter, how nature (φύσις) explains the situation, and what angels have to do with women covering their heads.
One concept that all scholars appear to agree upon is that the Greco-Roman cultural milieu informs the interpretation of the passage. Anthony Thiselton stresses the importance of Roman cultural and social norms in the first century while recognizing the potential of Greek overtones throughout Paul’s lifetime.[2] Gordon Fee also highlights the critical nature of integrating the prevailing customs into the analysis while also distinguishing between the Greek, Roman, and Jewish perspectives within the geographical locales.[3]
1 Corinthians: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
Finally, David Garland agrees with Thiselton and Fee, but focuses much of his attention on the culture of honor and shame as it relates to head coverings.[4] Accordingly, the focus of the remainder of the analysis attempts to address the contentious scholarly issues by exploring the historical background of the passage to provide clarity regarding the passage’s meaning.
The Issue of Nature
The argument from nature (φύσις) in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 is particularly challenging but may be key to unlocking much of the interpretive difficulties surrounding the passage. Garland recognizes that the reference to nature engages the key issue of the passage, which is whether it is proper for women to pray with an uncovered head (1 Cor 11:13). Garland suggests that the word nature must, in some way, reference the societal conventions since it causes shame within the cultural environment.[5] More specifically, since long hair on a man was not always culturally disgraceful, Thiselton asserts that “Paul simply appeals to ‘how things are’ or ‘how things are ordered’ in the period and context for which he is writing.”[6] Thiselton summarizes four primary interpretive views of ἡ φύσις as follows: (1) an inborn sense of what is right, (2) the way humans are created, (3) the physical world order, or (4) societal customs.[7]
Ancient Greek thinkers provide additional insight into the potential meaning of φύσις. Aristotle assumes that the notion of nature is the essence of something and that which is “by nature can never be anything disorderly” (Aristotle, Physics 8.1).[8] Regarding hair, Epictetus, the Greek Stoic philosopher, supports the Aristotelian thought by stating that a man “by nature” has bodily hair, and, if he removes the hair, then it is a scandal because it is against the man’s nature.[9] It is not unreasonable to assume that Paul would have been aware of the contemporary perspectives of the term nature. Accordingly, Dale Martin narrows down the cultural context by suggesting that Paul is likely talking about the ordered state of how things are physiologically: “The ‘stuff’ of female nature [that] is differently constituted from that of male nature.”[10] Thus, within an ancient Greco-Roman context, an investigation of how individuals historically viewed the nature of the male anatomy versus the female anatomy may provide insight into understanding why it was a disgrace for a woman to uncover her head.
The Solution for Nature
The ancient perspective of physiology may provide a historical backdrop to illuminate Paul’s meaning. The analysis specifically focuses on 1 Corinthians 11:15b, “For long hair is given to her as a covering (περιβόλαιον).” Troy Martin acknowledges that scholars have identified the dominant semantic range of περιβόλαιον in verse 15 as a form of covering, but he contends that the semantic range is much broader, as supported by ancient thinkers and medical texts.[11] First, Euripides uses a form of περιβόλαιον in the Athenian Tragedy, Herakles when stating: “ἐπεὶ δὲ σαρκὸς περιβόλαιʼ ἐκτησάμην ἡβῶντα, μόχθους οὓς ἔτλην τί δεῖ λέγειν” (Herc fur 1269-1270, italics mine).[12] The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek (BrillDAG) recognizes the physiological nuance of the περιβόλαιον by suggesting it can mean a wrapping of the “flesh about the body.”[13] Accordingly, Martin translates Euripides as follows: “After I received [my] bags of flesh, which are the outward signs of puberty, [I received] labors about which I [shall] undertake to say what is necessary.”[14] The idea is that the outward signs of puberty were testicles wrapped in flesh. Thus, Euripides uses the term περιβόλαιον to mean a wrapped sexual organ. Other ancient writers also support the sexual connotations of the term περιβόλαιον linguistically. Achilles Tatius uses the term when describing an erotic garden in The Adventures of Leucippe and Clitophon: “τῶν πετάλων περιπλοκαί, τῶν φύλλων περιβολαί, τῶν καρπῶν συμπλοκαί” (Ach. Tat., Luec. Clit., 1.15.2, italics mine).[15] According to BrillDAG, the term περιπλοκή has the connotation of “twining oneself around, clasping around.”[16] The context of The Adventures of Leucippe and Clitophon is an erotic story of two lovers. Thus, according to Martin, Tatius is referring to sexual organs where περιπλοκαί refers to female hair entangling the lover and περιβολαί refers to male testicles.[17] The important aspect of Tatius’s language is the association of male sex organs with female hair. Although Tatius’s writing would not been available to Paul, the concepts would likely have been pervasive during Paul’s lifetime.
Hippocrates, the Greek physician, provides the foundation for the ancient perspective of physiology in ancient medical texts. Martin explains that Hippocratic authors assume that hair is like a hollow vacuum that attracts semen; thus, hair grows mostly on the head because semen is stored in the brain (Hippocrates, Genit. 1).[18] Accordingly, during intercourse the man’s semen has to move from the brain to the genitals (Aristotle, Probl. 893b.10-17); thus, it is a shame for a man to have long hair since it is man’s nature (φύσις) to eject not retain the semen.[19] Alternatively, a woman’s long hair sucks or draws up the semen from her hollow uterus (Aristotle, Gen an. 739a.37-739b.20) “by nature” (φύσις) and congeals it to the fetus (Hippocrates, Genit. 5; Nat. puer. 12).[20] In 1 Corinthians 11:13-15, Paul contrasts the female’s long hair with the male’s sex organ by explaining that physiologically (φύσις) long hair is a disgrace to a man, but long hair is “given to her as a testicle (περιβόλαιον),” certainly not an external testicle, but instead, a wrapped, sex organ on the top of her brain.[21] When Paul rhetorically asks the Corinthians whether it is proper for a woman to pray with her head uncovered, could the answer not only be that Jewish tradition encourages modesty, but accordingly, that Paul would be forbidding the exposure of genitalia when engaging in services for God (see Isa. 6:2; Exod 20:26)? With the historical backdrop of ancient physiology potentially established, several of the interpretive conundrums may begin to resolve.
Ramifications of the Argument from Nature
The Shame
The ancient historical understanding of physiology and medical concepts may clarify the meaning of certain aspects of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. For example, Paul explains that it is dishonoring for a man to pray with his head covered, but alternatively, also dishonoring for a woman to pray with her head uncovered. The ramifications are significant within the ancient cultural context of honor and shame. Garland suggests that many scholars assume that unbinding or uncovering hair in public was shameful because it was associated with prostitution or women caught up in the worship of cults such as Dionysius, Cybele, and Isis.[22] As opposed to contradicting the ancient medical texts, the assumptions may be supportive. In other words, if hair was considered a type of sexual organ, then it is possible that uncovered hair was a provocative act represented by prostitutes. Likewise, it is also possible that women caught up in the worship of cults that advanced sexual liaisons would also uncover their sexual organs (hair) to elicit a response from the gods.
Jewish literature of the Second Temple period also addressed the issue of a covered head. Garland notes that it was considered a disgrace for a Hebrew woman to leave the house with her head uncovered (3 Macc 4:6).[23] Similarly, the Testament of Job tells a story of a woman not having enough money for three loaves of bread, so the seller asks the woman to pay with her hair: “He arose and cut my hair disgracefully in the market, while the crowd stood by and marveled” (T. Job 24:9-10).[24] Finally, Philo also refers to the potential sexual implications of uncovering the head when suggesting that taking away the head covering deprives a woman of the “symbol of modesty” (Philo, Spec. Laws 3:10).[25] It is evident that uncovering a woman’s head was disgraceful in light of Second Temple literature, but the reason for the shame in an honor and shame culture is not as obvious. Modesty is often a reason given, but exactly why uncovered hair was immodest is less obvious unless an understanding of ancient physiology is understood whereby an uncovered head represented the exposing of a type of sexual organ.
The Head
Another challenging issue the interpreter faces when addressing 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is the definition of the term head (κεφαλή). The key verse for the analysis is 1 Corinthians 11:3, which states, “But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” Thiselton has a protracted analysis of the potential meanings of the term head, which include (1) authority or supremacy, (2) source or origin, and (3) a metaphor drawn from the physiological head.[26] However, Thiselton admits that Paul is using wordplay in his uses of the term for a physiological head.[27] Fee seems to understand Paul’s overall theoretical point. Paul appears to be referring to a shift from a woman’s individual freedom to uncover her hair to one of relational responsibility that, in some way, affects the relationship between woman and man as well as potentially between woman and Christ.[28] Regarding the relationship between the woman and man, the potential rift seems obvious if the ancient man understood his wife’s uncovering to be associated with exposing sexual organs. Furthermore, in light of the creation language in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 and the new creation language in Paul’s follow up letter (See 2 Cor 5:17), Paul may be reminding the reader that it is Christ who is ultimately in charge of all creative activity, and both men and women must submit to His authority regarding procreative activity.
The Angels
Another issue that has vexed many scholars is Paul’s unanticipated and somewhat shocking reference to the angels when stating, “It is for this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have authority over her head” (1 Cor 11:10; italics mine). After spoiling both the Sethite and divinized human ruler interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4, Michael Heiser espouses a supernatural view of the passage where angels perpetuated sexual sin against human women.[29] Jude 6 also appears to allude to the event when stating, “And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains” (See also 2 Peter 2:1-10). Second Temple literature also addresses the situation, which not only retells the Genesis 6 episode, but also informs the New Testament writers’ intellectual worldview. In the retelling, 1 Enoch 6:2 explains that the angels desired human women when stating, “Come, let us choose wives for ourselves from among the daughters of man and beget us children.”[30] The connection between angels and sexual sin is unmistakable.
Most scholars dismiss the connection between Genesis 6:1-6, Jude 6, 2 Peter 2:1-10, and 1 Enoch 6-8 either by denying the possibility of a supernatural worldview or, as Fee does, scoffs at the possibility that women would be in jeopardy due to a lack of evidence.[31] However, the reality of potential risk to women misses the point of the intellectual worldview of the ancient writers. Similar to Troy Martin, Loren Stuckenbruck references the Hippocratic and Aristotelian schools when suggesting that the ancient physiological perspective assumed that a woman’s “nature with wetness and porousness was thought to make her especially vulnerable to disease, sexual appetite, irrationality, and pollution.”[32] Accordingly, Stuckenbruck asserts that angels have the capacity to violate the cosmic order and, in some way, blur the lines of distinctiveness, and thus, in ancient thought the head covering protects the order, draws boundaries, and decreases the risk of physiological contamination.[33] Although flexibility of interpretation is necessary when evidence is lacking, to suggest that Paul was absolutely not thinking about Genesis 6 and 1 Enoch when writing the angelic phrase appears to move beyond the evidence.
Conclusion
Within an ancient Greco-Roman context, understanding how individuals historically viewed anatomy, and, specifically, how they viewed the male anatomy distinct from the female anatomy may assist in solving why uncovering a woman’s head was disgraceful. Furthermore, ancient texts by Euripides, Achilles Tatius, and the medical texts of Hippocratic authors support the potential anatomical solution, which may unlock meaning related to three difficult interpretive issues within the passage: the issue of honor, the definition of head, and the reference to angels. Accordingly, it appears that a proper understanding of the historical background, specifically of ancient physiology, assists in potentially resolving the interpretive conundrums of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. Although the conclusion is admittedly controversial and certainly not determinative, this research highlights the importance of expanding the breadth of study beyond the traditional historical background information such as Jewish literature of the Second Temple period or Josephus’s historical writings and into other domains such as ancient physiological, sociological, and scientific thought, which may enhance understanding.
____________________________
[1] See Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad, 1983), 227–228; Victor Paul Furnish, The Theology of the First Letter to the Corinthians (New York: Cambridge University, 1999), 77.
[2] Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000), 801.
[3] Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Revised., The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 561.
[4] David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 520–521.
[5] Garland, 1 Corinthians, 509.
[6] Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 844.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Aristotle, “Physica,” in The Works of Aristotle, ed. W. D. Ross, R. P. Hardie, and R. K. Gaye, vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930).
[9] Epictetus, The Works Of Epictetus: Consisting of His Discourses, In Four Books, the Enchiridion, and Fragments., ed. Thomas Wentworth Higginson (Medford, MA: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1890), 2006–2007.
[10] Dale B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University, 1999), 248.
[11] Troy W Martin, “Paul’s Argument from Nature for the Veil in 1 Corinthians 11:13-15: A Testicle Instead of a Head Covering,” Journal of Biblical Literature 123, no. 1 (2004): 76–77.
[12] Euripides, Euripidis Fabulae, ed. Gilbert Murray (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913).
[13] Franco Montanari, “Περιβόλαιον,” ed. Madeleine Goh and Chad Schroeder, The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek (Boston: Brill, 2015).
[14] Martin, “Paul’s Argument from Nature for the Veil in 1 Corinthians 11:13-15: A Testicle Instead of a Head Covering,” 77.
[15] Achilles Tatius, Leucippe and Clitophon (Philadelphia: George Barrie & Son, 1902), 82.
[16] Franco Montanari, “Περιπλοκή,” ed. Madeleine Goh and Chad Schroeder, The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek (Boston: Brill, 2015).
[17] Martin, “Paul’s Argument from Nature for the Veil in 1 Corinthians 11:13-15: A Testicle Instead of a Head Covering,” 77.
[18] Ibid., 78.
[19] Martin, “Paul’s Argument from Nature,” 78.
[20] Ibid., 78–79.
[21] See Mark S. Goodacre, “Does Περιβόλαιον Mean ‘Testicle’ in 1 Corinthians 11:15?,” Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 2 (2011): 391–396 for a critique of Troy Martin’s semantic analysis where Goodacre asserts no lexical basis for translating περιβόλαιον as testicle. Also, see Troy W Martin, “Περιβόλαιον as ‘Testicle’ in 1 Corinthians 11:15: A Response to Mark Goodacre,” Journal of Biblical Literature 132, no. 2 (2013): 453–465 where Martin responds to Goodcare and asserts that the necessary lexical basis for any term is its context, which Goodacre completely ignores.
[22] Garland, 1 Corinthians, 519.
[23] Ibid., 520.
[24] James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1 (New York: Yale University, 1983), 849.
[25] Philo, Philo, trans. F. H. Colson, G. H. Whitaker, and J. W. Earp, vol. 7, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929), 511.
[26] Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 12–18.
[27] Ibid., 18.
[28] Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 553–554.
[29] Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 92–100.
[30] James H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1:15.
[31] Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 576, fn 123.
[32] Loren T Stuckenbruck, “Why Should Women Cover Their Heads Because of Angels? (1 Corinthians 11:10),” Stone-Campbell Journal 4, no. 2 (2001): 229.
[33] Ibid., 231.
Bibliography
- Aristotle. “Physica.” In The Works of Aristotle, edited by W. D. Ross, R. P. Hardie, and R. K. Gaye. Vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930.
- Epictetus. The Works Of Epictetus: Consisting of His Discourses, In Four Books, the Enchiridion, and Fragments. Edited by Thomas Wentworth Higginson. Medford, MA: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1890.
- Euripides. Euripidis Fabulae. Edited by Gilbert Murray. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913.
- Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Revised. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014.
- Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schussler. In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins. New York: Crossroad, 1983.
- Furnish, Victor Paul. The Theology of the First Letter to the Corinthians. New York: Cambridge University, 1999.
- Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003.
- Goodcare, Mark S. “Does Περιβόλαιον Mean ‘Testicle’ in 1 Corinthians 11:15?” Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 2 (2011): 391–396.
- Heiser, Michael S. The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015.
- James H. Charlesworth, ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 1. New York: Yale University, 1983.
- Martin, Dale B. The Corinthian Body. New Haven: Yale University, 1999.
- Martin, Troy W. “Paul’s Argument from Nature for the Veil in 1 Corinthians 11:13-15: A Testicle Instead of a Head Covering.” Journal of Biblical Literature 123, no. 1 (2004): 75–84.
- ———. “Περιβόλαιον as ‘Testicle’ in 1 Corinthians 11:15: A Response to Mark Goodacre.” Journal of Biblical Literature 132, no. 2 (2013): 453–465.
- Montanari, Franco. “Περιβόλαιον.” Edited by Madeleine Goh and Chad Schroeder. The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek. Boston: Brill, 2015.
- ———. “Περιπλοκή.” Edited by Madeleine Goh and Chad Schroeder. The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek. Boston: Brill, 2015.
- Philo. Philo. Translated by F. H. Colson, G. H. Whitaker, and J. W. Earp. Vol. 7. The Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929.
- Stuckenbruck, Loren T. “Why Should Women Cover Their Heads Because of Angels? (1 Corinthians 11:10).” Stone-Campbell Journal 4, no. 2 (2001): 205–234.
- Tatius, Achilles. Leucippe and Clitophon. Philadelphia: George Barrie & Son, 1902.
- Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000.
