Authority Over Whose Head? Did Paul Instruct Wives or All Women to Cover Their Heads (1 Corinthians 11:2–16)?

Abstract

There is no scholarly consensus on whether Paul’s mandates on head coverings were directed solely to married women or to all women in the Corinthian community. I suggest the discussion can be tentatively advanced by considering two factors that have not received the attention they warrant in conjunction with this passage: first, the presence of slaves in the community, and second, that the Genesis material which Paul alludes to in these verses was understood in some ancient thought as addressing the institution of marriage rather than creation. I propose that, in view of these considerations, it is more likely that Paul directed his exhortations towards free(d) married women.

Introduction

Among the many disputed aspects of Paul’s arguments in 1 Cor 11:2–16, the issue of whether Paul’s instructions on head coverings were directed at married women exclusively or all women in the congregation still lacks scholarly consensus. The Greek term that Paul employs, γυνή, can of course mean either a married or single woman or even both. Many scholars observe the difficulty of the term indicating one of these options consistently throughout the passages. Most often this translation choice is predicated on interpreting Paul’s allusions to the Genesis material as an appeal to creation accounts and thus applicable to all women regardless of marital status.¹ I propose that the discussion can be tentatively advanced by addressing two considerations that have not received the attention they warrant in conjunction with this passage. The first consideration is the presence of slaves in the Corinthian community (1 Cor 7:21–22). Not only were slaves unable to preserve the sexual modesty that a woman’s covered head was thought to convey in antiquity, but even Paul’s supporting analogy of hair length (1 Cor 11:14–15) could not universally be assumed to be applicable for them. The second consideration is noting that the Genesis material to which Paul alludes was perceived by some in antiquity to be speaking of the institution of marriage rather than creation. I propose that introducing these points into the discussion indicates that Paul’s head covering mandates were likely directed specifically towards free or freed wives.² I then turn to the passage in its entirety to test my hypothesis that the reading of “wives”—and, by correlation, the reading of ἀνήρ as predominantly meaning “husband”—as whom Paul consistently refers to throughout 1 Cor 11:2–16 is indeed a viable interpretation.

Brief Overview of Pertinent Literature

1 Corinthians 11:2–6 is often considered to be one of the most difficult passages in the New Testament.³ Thus, it is unsurprising that several aspects of Paul’s statements in this relatively brief passage have been the subject of a multitude of varying interpretations. Given the enormous volume of scholarship discussing different aspects of this passage, it is not possible to address them all here. Rather, I will only address scholarship which has direct implications for the present argument: namely, some conclusions from other scholarship which my own argument takes as a presupposition and scholars who address the issue of whether specifically wives or all women are being instructed to cover their heads. One aspect that, to the best of my knowledge, is not disputed regarding this passage is that the intended function of the female head covering was to indicate the wearer’s sexual modesty.⁴ As Cynthia Long Westfall observes, covered hair for women in the public sphere indicated “modesty, honor, status, and protection for a woman,” while uncovered hair was thought to disgrace a woman and render her sexually vulnerable.⁵

This covering was most likely the palla, a shawl-like garment that could be draped over the head and the equivalent to the Greek himation that served a similar function.⁶ Kelly Olson suggests that it was the palla which was the most important component of a matron’s dress in terms of signifying social status: “The enveloping cloak served to mark the woman as one who does not engage in manual labor, and also as one who is sexually upright, both characteristics that freedwomen might be especially anxious to display. Intriguingly, it is the palla rather than the stola which is described as the ‘costume’ of a Roman wife in ca. 200 BCE by Plautus . . . and, much later, by Nonius who names the palla in addition to the tunic as the distinguishing costume of the honest woman.”⁷ Consequently, the palla as the key component of dress for the free(d) married woman is attested for a time frame of several hundred years before and after Paul’s letter to the Corinthian community.

However, because of the interpretive possibilities of γυνή, there is still no consensus regarding whom Paul is instructing to cover their heads. Some maintain that Paul’s exhortations pertain only to married women (with v. 12 often being viewed as an exception) or that Paul ultimately means all women regardless of social class should cover their heads, despite observing that, in several verses, the material applies more logically to married women. Preston T. Massey has advanced several compelling reasons why these verses should be understood as directed solely towards wives.⁸ He argues that, although the meaning “wife” cannot be applicable to v. 12,⁹ elsewhere in the passage it seems unlikely that Paul is addressing both wives and women in general simultaneously. It is more probable to suppose that Paul is addressing one group rather than both.¹⁰ He rightly notes that v. 5 is probably not applicable to all women, as it seems unlikely that “any woman in general can shame any man in general.”¹¹ Moreover, he demonstrates that, in 1 Cor 7:1–39, Paul is careful with his language, using ἄνθρωπος in 7:1 where the sense indicates it must pertain to unmarried men, followed by several instructions using ἀνήρ/γυνή which could only be applicable to spouses given the context.¹² Indeed, had Paul been concerned with issues of gender and gender roles, he could have used ἄρσεν and θῆλυ in this passage as he does in Gal 3:28.¹³ Bruce Winter also maintains that all of the material, with the exception of v. 12, pertains solely to married women, as the practice of covering the head in public with a palla or similar garment was “the symbol of the modesty and chastity expected of a married woman.”¹⁴

Other scholars opt for mixed recipients of the commands, with some verses only being logically applicable to wives but the instructions to veil meant for all women. For most, the main interpretive crux leaning towards all women is Paul’s references to the Genesis material and the perceived concern with creation. Despite observing that some verses seem to be more naturally applicable to married women, David E. Garland ultimately concludes that the broader translation of γυνή as women is to be preferred, and his position is influenced in part by Paul’s use of Genesis.¹⁵ He argues that Paul interprets the “image” reference in Gen 1:27 “through the creation account in Gen 2. He makes his points based on priority in creation: the man was created first (Gen 2:7), then the woman ‘out of him’ (Gen 2:21–23); the man was not created for the woman, but the woman was created for man (Gen 2:22).”¹⁶ B. J. Oropeza also views Paul as conflating these two accounts, and also with regards to creation and thus speaking of women and men generally: “Paul alludes to the story of Adam and Eve . . . to show gender distinction as part of the created order . . . Paul seems to adopt ‘the image of God’ from this passage [Gen 1:27] and then reads into it the meaning of Adam being created first and then Eve afterward from Adam’s rib (Gen 2:7; 18–23). He apparently interpreted Gen 2 as further explication of Gen 1.”¹⁷

Similarly, Anthony Thiselton identifies a marriage context as being the primary concern for Paul but nonetheless remarks that “it does not justify restricting the translation of γυνή to wife rather than woman.”¹⁸ He too views the Genesis allusions as pertaining to creation, speaking of gender differences rather than the context of marriage.¹⁹ Thomas R. Schreiner also maintains that certain verses are likely meant to pertain solely to wives (noting v. 3 and v. 7) but holds that there are strong reasons for supposing that Paul had women in general in view.²⁰ In addition to other concerns,²¹ he also cites Paul’s reference to Gen 2 as why women in general were likely meant. He also views Paul’s use of Gen 2 as referring primarily to the act of creation, although he does observe that there are marital connotations in the text: “One might say, ‘Well, Adam and Eve were married.’ But then Paul proceeds to say that all men come from women, which moves outside the bounds of marriage.”²² Jason BeDuhn argues that Paul begins addressing wives—noting in particular that 1 Cor 11:5–6 would not be applicable to young unmarried girls who were not required to cover their heads—but commencing in v. 7, Paul means the term to apply to all women, again predicated on the Genesis material: “Paul has moved his argument from specific men and women, husbands and wives, to the original ‘man’ and ‘woman,’ because obviously since that time ‘man’ does come from ‘woman’ in ordinary birth, a fact Paul brings into his argument in vv. 11–12.”²³ I propose that it is these and other similar perceptions of the Genesis material as pertaining to creation—and thus, by extension, encapsulating all women—that has prevented several scholars from exploring the possibility that the passage as a whole is referring to free(d) married women.²⁴

Finally, Cynthia Long Westfall, while to the best of my knowledge, being the only scholar to address these passages explicitly in conjunction with the presence of slaves in the community, still maintains that Paul’s veiling instructions are meant to be observed by all women. Despite being cognizant of the sexual exploitation frequently experienced by slaves—and indeed the challenges for female slaves to cover their heads in particular—she nonetheless proposes that Paul includes them in his instructions: “Paul’s support of all women veiling equalized the social relationships in the community; inasmuch as such veiling was in his control, he secured the respect, honor, and sexual purity for women in the church who were denied that status in the culture.”²⁵ However, this perspective is not easily reconcilable with other instances where Paul utilizes very tentative language when (potentially) seeking to interfere between a master and his slaves, discussed below. As such, the presence of slaves in the community in conjunction with the issue of head coverings warrants further consideration.

The Presence of Slaves in the Corinthian Community: The Lack of Autonomy Regarding Sexuality and Hair Length

Despite the potential significance that the presence of slaves in the Corinthian community could have in understanding Paul’s head covering mandates, few scholars have addressed these passages with this consideration as a focal point. Slaves’ lack of corporal autonomy, particularly as it pertains to their sexually vulnerable status and its implications for chastity, however, have been discussed in scholarship addressing broader issues pertaining to early Christianity and Paul’s communities in particular.²⁶ Jennifer A. Glancy has amply demonstrated the lack of autonomy slaves had in respect to their own bodies, including sexual exploitation by their masters and the moral grey zone that this was considered to occupy in antiquity: “Male slaves were considered to be without honor, and female slaves without shame.”²⁷ She observes that Paul does not expressly condemn the sexual use of slaves.²⁸ Carolyn Osiek makes a similar point, suggesting that this exploitation was not addressed this early in the church’s history as it was a component of the culture that had not yet been determined to be something that should be explicitly rejected.²⁹ Elsewhere, she and Margaret MacDonald state that “. . .to the female slave therefore, honor, whether of character or behavior, cannot be ascribed. The female slave can lay no claim to chastity or shame, both of which have no meaning. In the official view, she cannot have sensitivity to her chastity.”³⁰ And more recently, in response to an article by Kyle Harper, Glancy has demonstrated that this sexual use of slaves was also commonplace and evidently also considered morally ambiguous in some Second Temple and early Rabbinic Jewish thought. Here, she reiterates conclusions from her previous work that “we have no evidence that Paul challenged that sexual norm.”³¹

While K. C. Richardson has argued that, in 1 Thess 4:1–8, Paul is addressing the sexual use of slaves, he also notes that Paul’s “ambiguity in this text . . . results from his effort to tread carefully when dealing with a very sensitive topic.”³² In challenging what would have been widely sanctioned sexual activity, Paul “seeks to persuade, not command.”³³ Not only is this tentative approach described by Richardson at odds with Paul’s express imperative for a γυνή to cover herself (κατακαλυπτέσθω [1 Cor 11:6]), but so too is there a difference in the status of the recipients of the mandates. If Richardson’s argument is correct, Paul is addressing slave owners themselves to enact his request, not slaves who lacked the ability to refuse sexual exploitation.

Indeed, expecting female slaves to adhere to the same sexual mandates as married women is quite the opposite of what (admittedly little) we find in contemporaneous material pertaining to voluntary associations. The inscription SIG 3.985 contains behavioral guidelines for a house-based religious association in Philadelphia and likely dates from the second century BCE.³⁴ The sexual regulations that were imposed upon group members is of note: a man is not supposed to have intercourse with another’s wife, slave or free (γυναῖκα ὰλλοτρίαν ἤ [ἐλευθέραν ἤ] δούλην).³⁵ A free woman is to be chaste and not to have intercourse with anyone other than her own husband. What is pertinent to the present discussion is that there is no corresponding injunction prohibiting a non-married female slave from engaging in sexual activity. It seems likely that here caveats have been implicitly made so that female slaves are not held to a sexual standard that they may have been unable to keep in daily life.³⁶ I propose that likely the same can be said for Paul regarding the symbol of sexual chastity indicated by a woman’s covered head. If Paul is limiting his mandates solely to free(d) married women, then he too is implicitly making exemptions in view of the lived experience of slaves.

Yet, even beyond the issue of maintaining sexual chastity, Paul’s analogy of hair length (1 Cor 11:14–15) and the autonomy required to control it likewise would not have been universally applicable for slaves. Several scholars have correctly noted that Paul’s so-called argument from nature must be restricted to “nature” as one which was socially construed: “When Paul speaks of nature, he means what his society understands to be natural. Since male hair grows the same as female, he must be referring to hair that conforms to societal expectation concerning male and female hairdos.”³⁷ While it is recognized that Paul’s appeal to nature is one that is predicated on culturally constructed norms, what has not been discussed is that there is evidence that at least some slaves were excluded from participating in these norms.

Paul uses this analogy to support his argument regarding head coverings, so it is presumably one that Paul seems to think his audience will find persuasive, at least to some degree. It is also, I suggest, one that could only be universally applicable to free(d) persons, and thus rendering γυνή as “wife” in these verses is a more appropriate understanding.³⁸ While I do not wish to claim the following discussion applies to all slaves within the ancient Mediterranean, there is some evidence which indicates that slaves had no control over the length of their own hair, and there are a few references where female slaves are depicted as having shorn or short hair and male slaves as having long hair which are pertinent to the present discussion. In this context, it is not difficult to see how it might be perceived as shameful for free women to have short hair and disgraceful for free men to have long hair.

Some scholars have observed that the shaved head of a slave served as an indication of his or her servitude. In referring to Paul’s reference to a woman shaving her head in v. 5, Thiselton notes that the references for this could vary depending on the context, with one possibility being “someone who has borne the shame of being a menial slave,” although he does not connect this observation to vv. 14–15.³⁹ Glancy includes a shaved head as one of the ways slavery marked the body in antiquity,⁴⁰ and so too does Keith Bradley, citing Apuleius’s The Golden Ass, where slaves in the mill have partially shaved heads (capillum semirasi) (9.12).⁴¹ Robert Knapp speaks of the difficulty there would have been in distinguishing between free and enslaved persons in antiquity but cites as exceptions “branded slaves, or those with a ‘slave cut’ – closely cropped hair.”⁴² Further evidence is provided by Petronius’s Satyricon 103, in which Encolpius and Giton seek to escape their current predicament by disguising themselves as slaves who had been punished, shaving their heads and writing on their foreheads to simulate branding.⁴³

There is additional evidence pertaining to female slaves in particular with short or shorn hair. Frank W. Nicolson observes that a σκάφιον, a form of close-cropped hairstyle, is mentioned in ancient sources as the form of haircut “common to slaves,” and for female slaves in particular he cites Thesm. 838: σκάφιον· εἶδος κουρᾶς δουλικῆς.⁴⁴ Similarly, in Tatius’s Leucippe and Clitophon, the heroine of the novel has been kidnapped and enslaved, and when the protagonist encounters her in her new servile role, he fails to recognize her, describing her as dirty, poorly clothed, in chains, and also with a shorn head (8.5.4). Lucian also describes a wife on the run in the company of three slaves, who has evidently tried to disguise herself as a slave, as “a woman with her hair closely clipped in the Spartan style, boyish looking and quite masculine” (Fug. 27). Electra is mistaken for a slave in Euripides’s play of the same name, as she is dressed in ragged and dirty clothes, is overly thin, and has her head shaved.⁴⁵ In discussing hair styles of free women, Sarah Pomeroy also observes that, by contrast, slaves’ hair was usually cropped.⁴⁶ And although visual material is problematic in that it often reflects ideals rather than actual lived experience, it is perhaps nonetheless noteworthy that, in artistic expression, slave women are generally recognized as such in modern scholarship by their relatively short hair worn in a simple style: as Peter Hunt terms it, “the slave bob.”⁴⁷ Moreover, masks meant to portray young female slaves in Greco-Roman comedy are predominantly featured with short hair.⁴⁸

Alexandra Croom further posits that all adult women would have had long hair, the exceptions being women who wore wigs and “slaves who had their own hair cut off to provide the hair for such wigs.”⁴⁹ Martial (14.26) and Ovid (Am. 1.14.45) both make a reference to “captured hair,” referring to people, presumably women, recently conquered by the Romans who had their heads shaved to make wigs.⁵⁰ Tertullian, I suggest, also potentially alludes to this practice.⁵¹ In his admonishments against what he deems to be excessive female attention to hairstyle, he includes the use of wigs and their potential for pollution: “banish quite away from your ‘free’ head all of this slavery of ornamentation [omnem hanc ornatus seruitutem a libero capite propellite]” (Cult. fem. 2.7).⁵²

Conversely, there is evidence that some male slaves were likewise unable to exercise autonomy over the length of their hair and, likely as a consequence of this, sported purportedly “effeminate” long hair. Kelly Olson observes that long hair or long and curly hair was “a sign of desirability and sexual availability and is mentioned most often in reference to delicati, slave boys kept for visual and sexual pleasure.”⁵³ That hair length was dictated by their masters is evidenced, or at least logically inferred, in several passages in Martial, Juvenal, and Seneca. Citing Epigr. 12.18, Gavin Kelly argues that previous debates in scholarship regarding whose hair the slave was asking his master to cut was predominantly motivated by “prudishness” and that the best reading of the text is that it is the slave’s own hair that he is asking permission to cut.⁵⁴ He states, “There are a number of similar passages in Martial in which masters choose to grant the request of their young slaves to cut their long hair: a painful choice but also an exercise of the master’s sexual authority.”⁵⁵ Polloni cites Martial’s reference in Epigr. 3.58.30–31 to a lasciui capillati as referring to a “wanton, long-haired” slave.⁵⁶ In boasting of his own simple tastes, Juvenal refers to his own slaves: “Their hair is cut short and straight, and it’s only been combed today because of the party.”⁵⁷ This likely indicates that it was Juvenal’s own choice to have the slaves’ hair short, in contrast to the more widespread long-haired style sported by young male slaves serving at meals. And Seneca, with a certain degree of distaste, speaks of a slave who serves wine who “must dress like a woman [muliebrem modum ornatus] and wrestle with his advancing years; he cannot get away from his boyhood; he is dragged back to it; and though he has already acquired a soldier’s figure, he is kept beardless by having his hair smoothed away . . . he must divide his time between his master’s drunkenness and his lust.”⁵⁸ Also citing this passage, Polloni notes that, while the phrase “adorned in a womanly manner” does not specifically refer to hairstyle, the verb ornare is commonly used to refer to both hairdos and make up.⁵⁹ Here then is evidence not only that masters dictated a male slave’s hair length, but also that such a practice could be applicable to adult male slaves. Indeed, that this may have been a more widespread practice is allowed for in the vocabulary commonly used for male slaves regardless of age: puer in Latin and παῖς in Greek.⁶⁰ Polloni has identified at least one instance of this in a documentary source: a bust of a male slave of about twenty years old,⁶¹ whose “rugged unhandsome face is enframed by a row of distinctive sickle-shaped hair locks, while long, thick wavy locks, covering the entire back of his head and concealing both ears, undulate down onto his now missing shoulders.”⁶²

While I am certainly not suggesting that all male slaves had long hair or that all female slaves had short hair, the evidence nonetheless strongly implies that slaves did not have the autonomy to dictate their own hair length. I suggest this further complicates the understanding Paul’s veiling instructions as addressed to all women regardless of status. It seems unlikely that Paul would mandate a practice for all women and then support it with an analogy that could likely only be applicable to some.

Genesis 1:27 and 2:18–25 Interpreted as Pertaining Primarily to Marriage Rather Than to Creation in Some Ancient Thought

As discussed, the majority of scholars view Paul’s allusion to Genesis as being primarily an appeal to creation, thus referring to all women. One notable exception is Paul Gardner, who rightly understands Paul’s use of Gen 2 as a reference to marriage: “It is noted that the reference is to the first married couple. In light of this the view adopted here is that Paul probably had married women and their husbands in mind.”⁶³ However, given that he is in the minority, this warrants further discussion.

Angelo Tosato has persuasively argued that Gen 2:24 is a gloss added in the late Persian period as an etiology concerning matrimonial legislation adopted at that time.⁶⁴ On this view, it had a prescriptive function to justify the new normative marriage paradigm that had been introduced.⁶⁵ As such, it is not surprising that it was interpreted in this way by several authors in antiquity. Michael L. Satlow observes that understanding this passage as pertaining to marriage is relatively well-attested among Judean authors of the Second Temple period, appearing in Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew sources.⁶⁶ He cites Tobit as the clearest and perhaps the earliest extra- biblical text that links contemporaneous marriage practice with what was perceived to be the marriage of Adam and Eve in Gen 2.⁶⁷ In this narrative, portions of Gen 2:18–23 are prayed by Tobiah and Sarah as a form of protection on their wedding night. Gordon P. Hugenberger argues that Malachi 2:15 is similarly drawing on this material as a paradigm for marriage.⁶⁸ William Loader identifies what is probably an echo of Gen 2:24 in the account of Joseph and Aseneth’s wedding, as well as in 1 Esdras where it speaks of creating a permanent relationship.⁶⁹ Regarding the “one bone” phrase in 4QMMT where the author is warning Israelites against taking foreign wives, he also notes that the bone reference is conflated from Gen 2:23 and “one” from Gen 2:24.⁷⁰ In discussing Jesus’s use of Genesis material to support an ideal of contemporaneous marriage, Rick Talbott also identifies Tobit, 4QMMT, and includes Sir 36:24 and Eph 5:31 as interpreting Gen 2 as pertaining to marriage.⁷¹ Hugenberger also cites 1 Tim 2:13 as drawing on Gen 2 material to speak to what the author perceives to be the proper marital relations of authority and subordination.⁷²

And although of a later date, some Rabbinic interpretation also views the material in Gen 2 as addressing marriage. Gary Anderson notes that Gen 2:24 is understood as the first marriage ceremony in Genesis Rabbah: “The act of ‘building’ is understood as God’s adornment of the bride (Gen. Rab. 18:1), and the act of leading is understood as God’s acting as Adam’s groomsman . . . the precious stones of Eden [Ezek 28:13) are described as the extraordinary huppa under which Adam and Eve were married.”⁷³ Paul Heger observes that b. Ber. 61a also interprets v. 22b as God acting as Adam’s best man at the wedding.⁷⁴

Even more pertinent for present considerations are interpretations where Gen 1 and Gen 2 are conflated and used in a context which clearly pertains to marriage.⁷⁵ Ruzner notes that “it can be stated that while halakhic and non-halakhic decisions derived from discussions of the marriage-divorce issue might have differed from tradition to tradition, the appeal to Genesis 1 and 2 and, even more specifically, to Genesis 1:27 is attested in at least some of those discussions, including the Qumranic, New Testament and later tannaitic evidence.”⁷⁶ Regarding the Damascus Document, Loader observes that the “male and female” reference in Gen 1:27 is cited as rationale against polygamy “but almost certainly presupposes the connection with Gen 2:24 about the two becoming one, because its focus is marriage and its permanence.”⁷⁷

In speaking of Matt 19:4–6, Ruzner posits that “the argument here is presented as a midrashic combination of Genesis 1:27 and 2:24.”⁷⁸ The context here clearly pertains to marriage, as the question posed by the Pharisees is regarding divorce. The same can be said for the parallel found in Mark 10:6–9. The Sibylline Oracles also attest to a conflation of Gen 1 and 2 to speak of marriage, although I cite them here tentatively given their relatively late date.⁷⁹ Loader notes that, in the rewriting of the Genesis narratives, the Sibylline Oracles merge the two accounts into one.⁸⁰ It retains the allusion to the image of God from Gen 1:27 but omits the reference to both male and female being created simultaneously.⁸¹ Instead, it draws on the tradition of Eve formed from Adam’s rib but is unambiguous in stating that the primary reason for and end result of this is marriage: “and made Eve, a wonderful maidenly spouse (ἐποιήσατο Eὔαν ἀγητὴν κουριδίην ἄλοχον [1:29–30]).”⁸²

Here then is evidence that, in some ancient thought, aspects of Gen 1:27 were conflated with aspects of Gen 2 to speak to the issue of marriage rather than creation. Thus, if as I suggest, in 1 Cor 11:7–9 Paul does indeed conflate the “image” reference of Gen 1:27 with material from Gen 2 to speak of spouses, this is an interpretation and exegesis which is attested elsewhere, most notably within the early Jesus movement. Moreover, the idea that marriage is what Paul had in mind strongly aligns with his language in v. 9. Here he states that “neither was man/ husband [ἀνὴρ] created for woman/wife [διὰ τὴν γυναῖκα], but a woman/wife [ἀλλὰ γυνὴ] for [διὰ τὸν ἄνδρα] man/husband.” If we understand Paul here as referring to a husband and wife pairing in these verses, this then becomes intelligible as an apt description or summary of Gen 2:18–24, where God creates the γυνή [wife] for the very reason of providing Adam with a partner. However, this of course leaves v. 12b, which does pertain to birthing offspring (not a husband) and thus seems to naturally apply to all women biologically speaking. I propose that this can be partially ameliorated in comparison with the similarly strange language used in Gen 4:1. The Septuagint utilizes ἄνθρωπος for both the husband who leaves his family to cleave to his wife in Gen 2:24 as well as for the figure Eve gives birth to in Gen 4:1. Thus there is a scriptural precedent for the linguistic pattern of retaining the same word to indicate both husband and offspring that Paul may have in mind, although he himself uses ἀνήρ throughout. Offering potential support of Paul imitating the Greek (although not directly citing it) is the fact that Paul, too, uses the construction ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρός in v.12a as does Gen 2:23. Moreover, referring to childbirth does not necessarily disrupt (what I have argued are) Paul’s references to marriage throughout the passage; procreation was thought by several ancient authors to be the sole, appropriate reason for marriage itself.⁸³

However, a potential objection to this understanding is Paul’s more explicit use of “one flesh [σάρκα μίαν]” in 1 Cor 6:16 where he uses it in the context of joining [κολλώμενος] with a prostitute, rather than marriage.⁸⁴ Here I follow and offer additional support to Garland’s understanding:

It is a bold move to apply the one-flesh union created by marriage to the seemingly casual sexual union with a prostitute . . . The assumption is that every sexual act between a man and woman, whether licit or not, fuses the partners together into one flesh. There is no such thing as casual sex that has no enduring consequences, even when partners have no intention of forming a mutual attachment.⁸⁵

Loader too views Paul’s use of the Genesis material here as indicating that, for him, it created a more permanent sort of joining.⁸⁶ I agree that Paul is making an allusion to the biblical paradigm of marriage in order to underscore the gravity with which he sees this action. Moreover, there is some evidence that intercourse in and of itself was considered to be a means of marrying a woman in some ancient thought.⁸⁷ Citing m. Qidd. 1.1,⁸⁸ Tal Ilan observes, “This text posits intercourse as a valid marriage form – equivalent in all aspects to the writ – which may be interpreted as the wedding contract.”⁸⁹ Of particular relevance here is that, in explicating Gen 2:24, Gen. Rab. 18.5 views marriage produced through sexual union as applicable to a non-Jewish man visiting a prostitute: “Rabbi Yonah in the name of Rabbi Shmuel said: if a whore is in the marketplace, and two men come to her, the first is exempt and the second is liable, because he was sleeping with a married woman. Did the first one intend to acquire her [as a wife]?! It is said: intercourse at the time of the children of Noah acquires, even not in the way of [later] Judaism.”⁹⁰ Here, intercourse is tantamount to marriage in creating a lasting bond, even amongst something as seemingly transitory as intercourse with a prostitute. That Paul is drawing a similar conclusion regarding joining with a prostitute does not negate the potential that he has marriage in mind in 1 Cor 11:2–16 when alluding to Genesis material.

Testing the Theory that Paul Refers Specifically to Wives

I turn now to other material in these verses that has not yet been addressed to see if my proposal that Paul directed his head covering exhortations solely to free(d) married women is a viable position. I propose that it is and that the rendering of ἀνήρ/γυνή as “husband” and “wife” accords well with previous scholarship that leaned towards viewing wives as the recipients but saw the Genesis material with its traditional understanding as pertaining to creation as a hindrance to this interpretation.

1 Corinthians 11:3: There has been some discussion of how best to interpret Paul’s use of κεφαλή in this verse, which can mean “source,” “chief,” or “ruler” in addition to “head.” David Garland rightly counters the arguments of some who wish to translate κεφαλή in v. 3 as meaning “source,” “chief,” or “ruler” and instead views the ἀνήρ as the metaphorical head of the γυνή: “The point seems to be . . . that the behaviour of women reflects upon the man who as her head is representative of her.”⁹¹ While such a view does not align terribly well with modern egalitarian ideals, it does cohere well with first century conceptions of honor and shame, where a woman’s honor or status was thought to be less of her own and instead accrued to her husband or nearest male member of kin. As discussed, it is unlikely that Paul includes slaves who formed an informal, marriage-like alliance. Slaves’ kinship ties were legally nonexistent.⁹² Consequently, there would be no father or other male kin to speak of. Here, I would note that the κεφαλή language in Eph 5:23 refers specifically to the wife-husband relationship as well as to Christ as the head of the church.⁹³

1 Corinthians 11:4: Paul’s reference to an ἀνήρ who does not cover his head in a worship context has also posed problems for interpretation, especially in view of ancient representations of men doing precisely that.⁹⁴ Preston Massey has offered a plausible solution, with one component of his argument addressing the issue as specifically pertaining to married men. He posits that veiling for married men carried an additional shameful component as it indicated a willingness to be subjugated by his wife.⁹⁵ He argues that voluntarily wearing a head covering for a married man indicated the intention to conceal feelings of shame and embarrassment, and thus for Paul was inappropriate in a worship setting.⁹⁶

1 Corinthians 11:5–6: Here, and particularly in view of the translation of κεφαλή as metaphorical “head” discussed above, wife is the preferable translation of γυνή. The definite article limits the application to her own head, metaphorically designating her husband; it is unlikely that any woman in general could shame any man in general.⁹⁷ Paul’s analogy of a lack of head covering as being as shameful as a shaved head for the γυνή again indicates that likely free(d) married women are meant here. In saying that it is disgraceful for a wife to have her hair cut or shaved, Paul is appealing to the sensibilities of free(d) married women, and thus slaves are not included in this potential disgrace.

1 Corinthians 11:7: Collins correctly observes that a wife in particular is meant here. In support of this he cites an epitaph on a Jewish tombstone which refers to “Lucilla, the blessed glory of Sophronius” and y. Ketub. 11:3 which relates that a man was being advised to divorce his wife as she was not “his glory.”⁹⁸ Similar to Massey’s point regarding v. 5, it is difficult to see how any woman could be the glory of any man let alone a female slave being the “glory” of her master given her status as owned property.⁹⁹

1 Corinthians 11:8–9: As argued above, the reading of “husband was not made from wife, but wife from husband” is a suitable translation, as is “neither was husband created for the sake of wife, but wife for the sake of husband.”

1 Corinthians 11:10: I hold that the translation of “authority over her [own] head” is the best reading of this passage, although it has implications for the “social head” of her husband. Here I would again stress that slaves had no authority over any part of their bodies in antiquity. Indeed, in addition to sexual exploitation, the head in particular seems to be a vulnerable spot on which a master could demarcate his or her control.¹⁰⁰ Commands to take control of this or any other body part are at odds with the realities of slavery and would undermine her owner’s authority over her body. As noted, when Paul does seek to interfere between a master and his slave, he makes appeals rather than issuing commands.

This verse also contains the infamous rationale of “because of the angels.” It is beyond the present scope to weigh in on whether human messengers or divine beings are intended by Paul in this verse.¹⁰¹ If human messengers, meaning visitors from other congregations, are whom Paul refers to out of concern for how the community will be perceived by outsiders, then his concern for head covering is likely not meant for all women. In view of broader and more typical social concerns for female chastity and matronly status, it would be unlikely to reflect badly on the community if slaves were not dressed this way.¹⁰² If angelic beings are meant, particularly those who are present to safeguard orderliness in worship,¹⁰³ it again seems likely that wives in particular are meant, given that other women were not expected to cover their heads in antiquity.

1 Corinthians 11:11: This again seems most likely to pertain to spouses – it is likely that there were indeed some women who are not mentioned as wives who were independent of men that Paul was familiar with: most certainly Chloe (1 Cor 1:11)¹⁰⁴ and Phoebe (Rom 16:1–2),¹⁰⁵ and perhaps also Mary (Rom 16:6) and Persis (Rom 16:12).¹⁰⁶

1 Corinthians 11:12: Similar to vv. 8–9, and as argued above, again “wife” is a suitable translation.

1 Corinthians 11:13: Paul, in appealing to his audience to judge for themselves whether or not it is appropriate for a γυνή to pray with her head uncovered, expects his audience to readily agree with his own position.¹⁰⁷ In view of the head covering as indicating chastity and the conventional wisdom which seemed to link lack of chastity with enslaved persons, it seems unlikely that Paul could expect agreement with his position if slaves were understood to be included among the γυνή he references. Rather, in positing something that was at odds with broader convention, we would expect much more tentative language rather than an expectation that his mandates were self-evident.

1 Corinthians 11:14–15: The degradation of a male slave having long hair and its connotations of sexual exploitation have been discussed. Here, “husband” as denoting a free man who had autonomy over his hair length seems to be a better translation. Regarding female hair, Thiselton observes that κόμη often denotes hair perceived as an ornament, while θρίξ usually means hair in the more anatomical sense.¹⁰⁸ While anatomical hair is of course universal, decorative hair seems to have been primarily the prerogative of free(d) married women as a way of showcasing their status.¹⁰⁹ The reference to long hair as a glory for the γυνή creates a verbal parallel with the γυνή as the glory of the ἀνήρ in 11:7, which supports reading this as wife.

1 Corinthians 11:16: Although this verse does not contain references to a γυνή, I address it here as it forms the conclusion to Paul’s previous remarks on this topic. Here Paul directs those who would be “contentious,” or disagree with his position, to consider the practices observed in other congregations.¹¹⁰ This implies that other communities were undertaking the same veiling activities that Paul himself argues for. In view of the discussion of how a head covering for a slave woman would be discordant with broader perceptions of female sexual chastity, I suggest that this again suggests that Paul is limiting his instructions to wives.

Conclusions

The current work has proposed that Paul’s mandates on head coverings were directed solely at free(d) married women. Such a reading accords well with the realities of slavery and the sexual exploitation of slaves in antiquity of which Paul was doubtless cognizant. In discussing other ancient thought where aspects of Gen 1:27 were conflated with material from Gen 2 to address the situation of marriage, it also potentially removes what may be considered a hinderance by some scholars in interpreting the intended recipients of Paul’s veiling instructions as solely wives. If this reading is correct, then it perhaps lays some tentative groundwork for re- evaluating Paul’s somewhat related injunctions regarding sexuality and/or πορνεία: perhaps in directing his exhortations only towards free(d) persons as he does here, Paul does not hold those who lacked bodily autonomy to the same sexual standards.