# The ESV and head coverings



## Skyler (Feb 13, 2011)

The ESV translates γυνή as "wife" in 1 Corinthians 11 "in verses that deal with wearing a veil, a sign of being married in first-century culture".

What is it referring to by "first-century culture"? Sources, anyone?


----------



## TaylorOtwell (Feb 13, 2011)

In Tactius' Annals 11.27, he mentions that the bride "assumed the veil" during a marriage. Plutarch also makes mention of "veiling the bride".


----------



## Skyler (Feb 13, 2011)

Thanks Taylor. The translations of Tacitus I'm seeing don't reference a veil, though. See here:

Cornelius Tacitus, The Annals, Book XI, chapter 27

Where does Plutarch's reference come from?


----------



## jason d (Feb 14, 2011)

This may help too:

Reasons Why a Wife


----------



## TheElk (Feb 14, 2011)

Here is an answer I've heard before: Should Christian women wear head coverings?

*Excerpt from the link:*
But why is hair an issue in this passage? The Apostle Paul is addressing something in the Corinthian culture that was being allowed to disrupt the church. Women in service in the pagan temples had their heads shaved. It marked them as pagan temple prostitutes. Paul says in this passage that a woman who is shorn or shaved should be covered (1 Corinthians 11:6), for a woman shorn or shaved of her hair had lost her "glory," and she was not under the protection of a husband. A shorn head without a covering was equivalent to saying, "I refuse to submit to God's order." Therefore, the Apostle Paul is teaching the Corinthians that hair length or the wearing of a "covering" by the woman was an outward indication of a heart attitude of submission to God and to His established authority. This was important because the Corinthian church was to be separate from the corrupt pagan culture of Corinth (2 Corinthians 6:17).

God's order is that the husband is the head of the wife as God is the head of Christ, but there is no inequality or inferiority implied. God and Christ are equal and united, just as the husband and the wife are one. This is not a passage that teaches the woman is inferior to man or that she should be submissive to every man. It is teaching God's order and spiritual headship in the marriage relationship. In the Corinthian culture, a woman who covered her head during worship or when she was in public displayed her submission to authority.


----------



## Skyler (Feb 14, 2011)

Brent: I've heard that the pagan temple in question had been destroyed by the Roman invaders some 200 years prior. That's why I'm looking for original sources--people have a tendency to come up with historical explanations to suit their exegetical interpretations. The "Eye of the Needle" gate at Jerusalem is another such example.


----------



## TimV (Feb 14, 2011)

There are probably 10,000 pictures of one sort or another of women in the Greco-Roman world from the 1st century. A google image search would show whether or not those women commonly covered their faces after marriage.


----------



## Phil D. (Feb 14, 2011)

Here's some interesting information on the subject


----------



## lynnie (Feb 14, 2011)

"First century culture" is a convienient term to avoid discussing the topic of angels, and what it means that the bible says headcoverings are a sign to the angels, and does it mean fallen angels or good angels or both, and do the angels today still recognize them. 

(Unless you go to the local quasi Christian college in which case "first century culture" means that today it is fine to sleep with your girlfriend so long as you are committed. Strict sexual morality, headcoverings, 1 Corinthians gifts...it was all first century culture.)


----------



## Skyler (Feb 14, 2011)

lynnie said:


> "First century culture" is a convienient term to avoid discussing the topic of angels, and what it means that the bible says headcoverings are a sign to the angels, and does it mean fallen angels or good angels or both, and do the angels today still recognize them.



Be that as it may, I don't plan to grab onto the "angels" verse and ignore the rest of the passage.


----------



## TheElk (Feb 14, 2011)

Skyler said:


> Brent: I've heard that the pagan temple in question had been destroyed by the Roman invaders some 200 years prior. That's why I'm looking for original sources--people have a tendency to come up with historical explanations to suit their exegetical interpretations. The "Eye of the Needle" gate at Jerusalem is another such example.


 
Interesting, thank you for that. I'll have to look into it.

Is it possible that a head covering was a "conservative" sign that a woman was married? Kind of like wedding rings are thought of as today? I'm just thinking out loud.


----------



## Skyler (Feb 14, 2011)

TheElk said:


> Is it possible that a head covering was a "conservative" sign that a woman was married? Kind of like wedding rings are thought of as today? I'm just thinking out loud.



Well, two things here.

First off, veilings are mentioned in connection with women (not necessarily wives) throughout the Old Testament, from Rebekah to Song of Solomon to Ezekiel. It seems to be used symbolically in the Old Testament for subjection or submission (see Ezekiel 13, Isaiah 25:7)

Secondly, wedding rings are a bad comparison because both men and women wear them.


----------



## Skyler (Feb 14, 2011)

Okay, checking Bruce Winter's references (thanks Phil):

Plutarch refers to a bridal veiling in "Advice to the Bride and Groom", 138D; Tacitus, in his Annals, XV.37. 

I don't see a bridal veiling in the other references (_Annals_ XI.27 and Juvenal's Satires 2.119ff & 10.333ff). That may be a translation difference, I don't know.


----------



## TheElk (Feb 14, 2011)

Skyler said:


> Brent: I've heard that the pagan temple in question had been destroyed by the Roman invaders some 200 years prior. That's why I'm looking for original sources--people have a tendency to come up with historical explanations to suit their exegetical interpretations. The "Eye of the Needle" gate at Jerusalem is another such example.



After some more digging it looks like Julius Caesar rebuilt Corinth in 44 B.C. He restored the temples and added many other buildings. It became the capital in the area and had as many as 700,000 residents. It was mostly destroyed in 77 A.D. by an earthquake.


----------



## sdesocio (Feb 14, 2011)

I'd recommend Thiselton's commentary on 1 Cor. He has over 50 pages on 11:2-17

---------- Post added at 04:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:59 PM ----------

I'd recommend Thiselton's commentary on 1 Cor. He has over 50 pages on 11:2-17


----------



## Skyler (Feb 14, 2011)

I'm afraid I don't have $50 to shell out on a commentary. Thanks though. =)


----------



## Mushroom (Feb 14, 2011)

John Gill has some interesting comments on the subject of the angels spoken of in this passage.


----------



## Moireach (Mar 9, 2011)

I don't think it was merely a sign of being married at all, nor do I think it was specific to the Corinthians situation, but think these verses are as relevant today as they were then.


----------



## Peairtach (Mar 9, 2011)

*Jonathan*


> Secondly, wedding rings are a bad comparison because both men and women wear them.



Husbands - whether Christian or not - don't always have a wedding ring.

I think this passage has been subject to reinterpretation since the rise of the feminist movement. Men don't tend to complain that they can't wear a hat in church and shouldn't have long hair.


----------



## Skyler (Mar 9, 2011)

Richard Tallach said:


> Husbands - whether Christian or not - don't always have a wedding ring.



Neither do wives.

But if you want wedding rings to be the symbol in question, you'd have to say men are forbidden from wearing them.



Richard Tallach said:


> I think this passage has been subject to reinterpretation since the rise of the feminist movement. Men don't tend to complain that they can't wear a hat in church and shouldn't have long hair.



I think that should tell us something.


----------

