Paul’s Language of Hairstyles or Head-coverings in 1 Cor 11: The Meaning of Kephalē Part 11 - Theology in the raw (2024)

Introduction

1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is an exegetical minefield. Almost every line is subject to debate. Some even seem downright heretical, like when Paul seems to say that women aren’t created in God’s image (11:8). Fortunately, not every question is relevant for addressing the main questions we’re wrestling with: what Paul means when he says that “the man/husband is the head of woman/wife” (11:3) and whether Paul believes that men should be in authority over women in the church. Over the next few pots, I’m going to wrestle with a few of the more important exegetical questions in this passage before we come back to the meaning ofkephalēin 1 Cor 11:3 and what this passage as a whole says about men and women in the church. After I come to a somewhat satisfactory reading of the passage, I will then put this reading in conversation with the complementarian reading of this passage, which I laid out in the previous post.

Head-coverings or Hairstyles?

One of the most perennial debates is whether Paul is talking about head-coverings or hairstyles (or hair length) in this passage. Most readers simply assume that Paul is addressing head-coverings, but the scholarly work on the passage is a bit mixed. While most scholars do think head-coverings are in view¹Just a small sampling includes: Thistleton,1 Corinthians, 823-26; Winter,Roman Wives, 77-96; idem.,After Paul Left Corinth, 121-42; Westfall,Paul and Gender; Watson, “Authority of the Voice;” Keener,Paul, Women & Wives; Preston Massey, in several articles; Thiessenn 1987; Engberg-Pedersen 1991; Dunn 1995; Martin 1995; Witehrington 1995; Horrell 1996.(a view held “almost unanimously” by the early church Fathers)²See Finney, “Honour,” 31, who cites Irenaeus,Haer. 1.8.2; Clement of Alexandria,Paed. 3.11; Tertullian,Cor.ch. 14;Or. Chs. 21-22;Marc. 5.9;Cult. Fem.2.7;Virg.; Augustine,Ep.CCXLV; Jerome,Ep.CXL VII.5. But see Chrysostom,In Ep. 1 ad Cor., Hom. 26.1, who understood Paul to be referring to hair not head coverings (according to BeDuhn, “‘Because of the Angels’,” 297 n. 7.) A. PhillipBrown points out that both Chrysostom and Epiphanius understood 1 Cor 11 to be talking about hair length (Brown,“Chrysostom and Epiphanius”). Phil Payne also cites Macarius Aegyptius (d. circa AD 390) and Ambrose (AD 354-407) as evidence for the hair style/length view (Man and Woman, 150-51)., a decent number of scholars have argued that Paul is talking about hair length and style, not head coverings.³See Payne,Man and Woman, 141-73; Hurley, “Man and Woman in 1 Corinthians,” 43-56; Murphy-O’Connor, “Sex and Logic,” 488-500; Gundry-Volk, “Gender and Creation,” 151-171; Horsley,1 Corinthians, 153-54; Hays,1 Corinthians, 185.

Let’s first understand what these two views are arguing for, keeping in mind there are variations within each view:

The “hairstyle/hair length” view says that Paul was telling men not to wear long hair, since long hair on men blurred gender distinctions and was commonly associated with effeminacy and hom*osexuality.⁵It’s usually described this way, but calling it “hom*osexuality” is way too broad and anachronistic. The specific cultural taboo would have been for men of status to play the passive role in male same-sex sexual relationships. Many Romans would not have a problem with a Roman male of status playing the active role in such sexual liaisons. What would have been taboo is a man of status playing the passive role. Using the world “hom*osexuality” or “hom*osexual” to express this—so common among modern scholars—is unfortunate, since it’s too modern and way too broad. It basically refers to any person who experiences same sex attraction, which wasn’t a defined category in the ancient world and certainly wasn’t Paul’s concern here.As for the women, respectable married women would wear their hair bound up above their head. Only sexually promiscuous women—or women who belonged to the cult of Dionysius—would wear their hair unbound and disheveled. Paul therefore is concerned that women honor the cultural codes of modesty and respectability, and that men would follow God’s design for their masculinity.

To analyze these two views, I’ll first look at Paul’s language in this post to see which view is better supported by the actual words he uses. In the next post, I’ll examine the cultural context of first-century Corinth to see whether hair style/length or head-covers makes the most sense.

Paul’s Language

Paul uses three different words or phrases to describe “coverings” in this passage, and each one is subject to debate. The first phrase iskata kephalēs echōn, which occurs in 11:4. The NIV reads: “Every man who prays or prophecies with his head covered dishonors his head…” The NIV’s “with his head covered” iskata kephalēs echōn, which literally means something like “having down from the head.” Paul doesn’t specify what kind of object is “down from the head.” He could have in mind either a material covering or hair.

Unfortunately, the exact phrasekata kephalēs echōnwithout an explicit object occurs nowhere else in the Bible. In fact, it occurs nowhere in Greek literature, except, of course, in places where the early church fathers were quoting Paul.⁶See A. Philip Brown II, “Chrysostom and Epiphanius,” 366-67.We do see the phrasewithan explicit object, however, in several Greek authors.⁷All of the following quotations are from the LCL translation as cited by A. Philip Brown II, “Chrysostom and Epiphanius.”Plutarch provides us with what is probably the closest parallel to 1 Cor 11:4, when he writes:

after disembarking, he was walking with his toga covering his head (kata tēs kephalēs echōnto himation). (Moralia, “Sayings of the Romans,” 200F)

Here, the phrasekata tēs kephalēs echōnis used, but unlike Paul, Plutarch provides us with an explicit object,himation(“toga, garment”), so it’s clear that a head covering is in view. There are three other places in Plutarch where similar phrases occur:

that fellow [Demetrius] would be already reclining at table in great state,having the hood of his toga drawn downbehind his ears (echōn…kata tēs kephalēs to himation). (Lives, Pompey640C)

but when he [Caesar] saw Brutus with his sword drawn in his hand, thenhe pulled his garment over his head(epheilkusatokata tēs kephalēs to himation), and made no more resistance. (Lives,Caesar739D)

the second [divorce] was Sulpicius Gallus, because he saw his wifepull her cloak over her head(ephelkusamenen idōn kata kephalēs to himation). (Roman Questions, 267C)

The first two references have the verbechō(“have”) with the phrasekata kephalēs(“according to the head”). The second two have a different verb connect tokata kephalēs. All four refer to head coverings, but all four provide an explicit object,to himation, whereas Paul does not.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus (circa 60 B.C. – 7 B.C.) also uses phrases similar to Paul’skata kephalēs echōnon three occasions, but like Plutarch, he supplies an explicit object in every case:

shorter than a man of average stature,having a mantle over the head(echousa kata tēs kephalēs). (Roman Antiquities3.71.5)

Camillos…since he had prayed andhad drawn his garment over his head(kata tēs kephalēs heilkuse to himation), desired to turn… (Roman Antiquities12.16.4)

When he was about to depart,he both drew his garment over his head(peribolen kata kephalēs heilkuse) and held up his hands to the sky, as the custom is, and made prayer to the gods. (Roman Antiquities, 15.9.7)

There’s one more reference in the LXX that’s significant, sincekata kephalēs(withoutechō) is used to refer to a covered head:

Afterward Mordecai returned to the king’s gate. But Haman rushed home, with his head covered(kata kephalēs)in grief. (Esth. 6:12)

See Also

5 Year Old Boy Haircuts: Top 10 IdeasI Asked a Top Hairstylist Which Bob Hairstyle Would Suit My Round Face Shape BestStruggling With Bald Spots? Stylists Share 7 Low-Maintenance Hairstyles To Cover Thinning Hair

Here, the translator usedkata kephalēsto translatehapori rōsh, which means “head being covered.” Whilekata kephalēsby itself can refer to a wide variety of things that don’t involve head coverings,⁸A. Phillip Brown lists the following places wherekata kephalēsoccurs where it’s not referring to head coverings:Dionysius, Roman Antiquities,6.3.3; 11.26.4, line 6; 19.8.3, line 6; Plutarch, Vitae Decern Oratorae842B; Pyrrhus399B; Les Papyrus Fouad129.11;P.Oxy.33.2672dupl, lines 15-18;Josephus, Ant,1.50.4; 2.252.2; 13.117.5 (Brown,“Chrysostom and Epiphanius,” 371).at least in this one case, it does refer to a head covering without an explicit object (e.g.himation, peribolen) in view. Interestingly, a later editor substitutedkata kephalēswithkatakekalummenos—the same verb that Paul uses 3x in 1 Cor 11:5-7.⁹Both Watson (“The Authority,” 529) and Massey (“The Meaning,” 512) see this as evidence for the head covering view, while A. Phillip Brown (“Chrysostom and Epiphanius,” 371) says that this editorial correction “suggests that at least one Greek scribe felt thatkata kephalēswas too ambiguous a rendering and changed it to a more explicit construction.” I think Massey is probably correct when he says “the fact thatkata kephalēsnot only points in the direction of meaningkatakaluptein, but these equivalents convey the sense of ‘to cover the head with a garment’” (“The Meaning,” 512).

The evidence above can be interpreted in different ways. On the one hand, sincekata kephalēs echōnalways occurs with an explicit object when coverings are in view, one could argue that these parallels are irrelevant for understanding Paul’s phrase, since he doesn’t mention an object (i.e. garment, toga). If Paul was talking about head coverings, he would have mentioned the garment covering the head (e.g.himation), but he does not.¹⁰It also should be noted that John Chrysostom (A.D. 347-407) and Epiphanius of Salamis (ca. A.D. 315-403) interpreted Paul to be referring to long hair on men (see Brown, “Chrysostom and Epiphanius”).On the other hand, one could argue that all the parallels above, especially LXX Esther 6:12, are close enough to suggest that Paul doesn’t need to specify the garment; it’s implied in the phrasekata kephalēs echōn. Perhaps Paul’s other words in this passage that refer to some kind of covering,akatakaluptō(“uncovered”) andkatakaluptein(“to cover”), can help supply the meaning ofkata kephalēs echōn.

Unfortunately, those words too are fraught with ambiguity. In v. 5, Paul contrasts men who pray and prophesykata kephalēs echōnwith women who are “uncovered,” orakatakaluptō, a word he uses again in v. 13. Figuring out the meaning ofakatakaluptosshould help us understandkata kephalēs echōn

Advocates of the head covering view point out thatakatakaluptosis used in Philo to refer to a head covering (that is, a headwithouta covering) and not a certain hairstyle or hair length.¹¹Spec.Laws, 3.60 uses the same words Paul does,akatakalyptōte kephalē, the context “is clear that Philo is speaking of a head covering” (Schreiner, “Head Coverings,” 126). See also Philo,Allegorical Interpretation2.29 and in Polybius 15.27.2 (Schreiner, “Head Coverings,” 126).In commenting on Numb 5:18, Philo writes:

When these preliminaries are completed, the woman is to come forwardwith her head uncovered(akatakalyptōte kephalē), bringing the barley-meal, as has been said, and the priest holding the earthen vessel with the earth and water in it stands fronting her and pronounces as follows… (Philo,Spec. Laws, 3.60)

Philo’s phraseakatakalyptōte kephalēis the exact some phrase Paul uses in 1 Cor 11:5 and it can only mean “with her head uncovered.”¹²Massey, “The Meaning,” 519. Massey points out that Josephus also comments on Numb 5:18 and interprets the passage the same way (i.e. the woman’s head covering being removed) (Ant. 3.270).Another text from Lucian (ca. A.D. 125-180) hasakatakaluptosin connection withkephalē, which is similar to Paul’s use in 1 Cor 11:7.

Sosandra and Calamis shall adorn her with modesty and her smile shall be noble and slight like that of the original, from whom shall come also the simplicity and decency of her drapery, except thatshe shall have her head uncovered(akatakaluptos autēestai tēn kephalēn). (Portraiture, 6)

Interestingly, Lucian latter admits that the statue of the woman will be modest in every way, except for one thing—she’ll be unveiled. This suggests two things which will be relevant when we discuss the cultural background of head coverings and hair styles/length. First, the veil was considered to be a sign of modesty. Second, artists took some liberties to portray women unveiled, even though this was contrary to custom.¹³See Massey, “The Meaning,” 518, who also cites G. Ferrari,Figures of Speech, 17-25 (esp. 19); L. Llewellyn-Jones, “A Woman’s View? Dress, Eroticism, and the Ideal Female Body in Athenian Art,” in L. Llewellyn-Jones (ed.)Women’s Dress in the Ancient World(Swansea: Duckworth, 2002), 171.

There’s an important and much debated reference toakatakluptosin LXX Lev 13:45. The CSB and NASB interpret the Hebrew text as:

The person who has a case of serious skin disease is to have his clothes tornandhis hair hanging loose(tiprāʿû), and he must cover his mouthand cry out, “Unclean, unclean!”(Lev. 13:45 CSB)

As for the person who has the leprous infection, his clothes shall be torn andthe hair ofhis headshall be uncovered(tiprāʿû) and he shallcover his mustache and call out, “Unclean! Unclean!”(Lev. 13:45 NASB)

The difference in translations are due to the different meanings of the Hebrew wordpāraʿ.According to Jacob Milgrom, “The rootprʿhas something to do with the hair of the head.”¹⁴Milgrom, J. (2008).Leviticus 1–16: a new translation with introduction and commentary(Vol. 3, p. 608). Yale University Press.It can mean “untrimmed, uncovered,” or “disheveled.” Milgrom opts for “disheveled” hair for Lev 13:45, but says that the LXX (whereakatakluptostranslatespāraʿ) and some later rabbis interpret the word to mean an “uncovered” head; that is, the removal of a head covering.

It’s worthy to note that Num 5:18 uses the same phrase “uncovered head” (pāraʿrōsh) and the LXX translates this phrase with “will uncover the woman’s head” (apokalupsei tēn kephalēn tēs gunaikos). BothPhilo and Josephus interpret Numb 5:18 to mean “uncovered head.”¹⁵Josephus,Ant. 3.270; Philo,Spec. Laws,3.60, who uses the phraseatakapluptōte kephalēto describe the woman’s head, the same phrase Paul uses in 1 Cor 11:5; see Massey, “The Meaning,” 519, contra Padgett, “Paul on Women,” 70, who says that Philo interprets Numb 5:18 to mean “with unbound or loosened hair.”So when Phil Payne and others say that the only timeakatakaluptōis used in the LXX is in Lev 13:45, where it means “to let the hair on the head hang loosely,”¹⁶PayneMan and Woman, 167; Murphy O’Connor, “Sex and Logic,” 488 (cf. Num 5:18 where the cognate verb is used to mean “loosen the hair of the woman;” see Fee,1 Corinthians, 562). The Hebrew phrase in Lev 13:45 here isrōsh porua. Thistleton points out, however, thatakatakaluptoscan mean loose hair or head covering and it really depends on the context (Corinthians, 831).I think they’re being overly confident in this translation. This might be an accurate translation of the Hebrew, but it goes against the LXX, Josephus, and Philo, who all use a Greek phrase that means “uncovered head” not “disheveled hair.”

A third word Paul uses to refer to “covering” iskatakaluptein, which occurs three times in vv. 6-7:

For if a woman does notcover(katakaluptetai)she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she shouldcover(katakaluptesthō).⁷A man ought notto cover his head(katakaluptesthai tēn kephalēn),since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.

This same verb is used in several places in the LXX to refer to a head covering or veil. For instance, in the book of Susana, it clearly refers to a veil, not hair:

They…ordered that she beunveiled(apokaluphthenai), forshe was veiled(katakekalummene), in order that they might be filled with her beauty (Sus 32)

The same goes for Genesis 38 and the reference to Tamar veiling her face:

when Judah saw her, he thought that she was a harlotfor her face was veiled(katekalupsatōgar to prosopōn) (Gen 38:15)

And although it’s not technically about a head covering, Isaiah 6 is relevant:

Above him were seraphim,each with six wings: With two wingsthey covered their faces(katekalupton to prosōpon)with two they covered their feet,and with two they were flying. (Isa 6:2)

In extra biblical Greek literature,katakalupteinis used in context where a head covering or veil is in view. Most important are instances where there is no stated direct or indirect object; the veil/head covering is simply assumed. For instance, Plutarch writes:

In Boeotia,after veiling the bride(tēn numphen katakalupsantes), they crown her with asparagus (Advice to the Bride and Groom, 138D)

Here, the verbkatakalupteinclearly refers veiling the bride, even though no material object (veil, covering) is specified. This is similar to Paul who also uses the verb without mentioning the kind of material that one is being covered with.

There are other uses ofkatakalupteinin Plutarch, where people “cover” statues and it’s implied that some kind of fabric is used, without the fabric being named (Alcibiades, 34.1;Mulierum virtutes253E; see also Dio Chrysostom,Roman Antiquities, 60.13.3; 63.27.3). Preston Massey boldly concludes: “The verbkatakaluptō, from Homer to Athenaeus (a period stretching approximately 1000 years), means ‘to veil’ or ‘cover the head’ in texts describing dress and physical appearance.”¹⁷Massey, “The Meaning,” 523.Paul’s phrasekatakaluptesthai tēn kephalēn(“to cover the head”) in 1 Cor 11:7, then, “is not idiosyncratic; it conforms to conventional usage. No first-century Greek would find the phrase puzzling.”¹⁸Massey, “The Meaning,” 517.

Plus,katakalupteinis applied equally to both men and women. Womenaretokatakaluptein(v. 6) while men are not tokatakaluptein(v.7); that is, to not do what the womenaresupposed to do. If Paul is telling women to put up their hair when they pray and prophesy, it’s unlikely that Paul telling the men to do the opposite, tonotput up their hair, since this was not a practice among men.¹⁹Rightly Fee,1 Corinthians, on 11:7.

The linguistic data so far seems to heavily support the head covering view. But the hair style/length view is not without evidence. To my mind, one of the strongest arguments for this view comes in 1 Cor 11:13-15, where Paul not only explicitly talks about hair length, but does soas further proofthat a woman should not pray with her head “uncovered” (akataklupton, v. 13).

Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her headuncovered(akataklupton)?Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man haslong hair(koma), it is a disgrace to him,¹⁵but that if a woman haslong hair(koma), it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.(1 Cor 11:14-15)

Paul’s statements about hair length are correlated with the wordakataklupton, which is the same word used in 11:5 to refer to “uncovered” (akatakaluptō) women. This suggests that Paul might have been talking about hair all along. The lexical data surveyed above heavily supports the head covering view, to my mind, but this view will have to address Paul’s language in vv. 13-15, which seems to support the head style/length view. We’ll return to this point below.

Further support for the hair style/length view comes in vv. 5-6, where Paul talks about women being shaved or shorn as a logical corollary to being “uncovered” (akatakaluptō). After all, shaved and shorn heads are abouthair.Therefore, it makes more logical sense that Paul is talking about hairstyle/length, especially since, as we just saw,akatakaluptōis correlated with hair length in vv. 14-15. According to this interpretation, Paul explains himself clearly in v. 15b, where he says that a woman’s long hair has been given to her as, or instead of (anti) a “covering” (peribolaiou). “This implies that Paul did not require women to wear any item of clothing on top of their modestly-done-up hair,” says Phil Payne. “After all, why would Paul end his argument by stating that a woman has been given long hair as a covering if his point all along was to require a garment head covering?”²⁰Man and Woman, 206

Francis Watson, who finds the hairstyle/length view to be “awkward and improbable,” raises a good point about what Paul says in vv. 14-15. “If his [Paul] problem were with loosed hair, one would not expect him to speak so positively about long hair (v. 15).”²¹Watson, “Authority,” 534.In other words, if long hair is a woman’s glory, shouldn’t she let her glory shine instead of covering it up on her head? Watson goes on to argue that Paul’s discusses hair length in vv. 14-15 as ananalogyto head coverings, notasthe covering:

Nature provides a covering for woman, in the form of her long hair, and this natural “covering” is said to confirm the appropriateness of the head-covering that Paul seeks to impose…The covered female head is equivalent to long hair, the garment that nature itself has provided for women (v. 15).²²Watson, “Authority,” 533.

While I think both views have merit based on Paul’s language and argument, I do think the head covering view makes better sense of Paul’s actual wording. The words Paul uses most naturally refer to head coverings not hair styles/length. As far as women being shaved or shorn in vv. 5-6, this actually makes good sense if head coverings are in view, once we understand the cultural significance of head coverings (see my next post). In short, if married women uncovered their heads in public, this would be a sign of sexual availability, if not infidelity. The penalty for such an act would be to shave the woman’s head. Paul’s logic in 11:5-6, then, would fall right in light with cultural custom.

As for the explicit reference to hair length in vv. 14-15, this could go both ways. Not only is it an odd way to encourage women to wear their long hair bound up on their head, as Watson points out, but it also shows that Paul knows very well how to talk about hair length. Why, then, would Paul opt for words that most naturally refer to head coverings in vv. 4-7, when he could have just said “long hair” (koma) all along?

Conclusion

In light of Paul’s wording throughout 1 Cor 11:2-16, I think the head covering view makes the most sense. In any case, I don’t think the issue can be solved by looking at Paul’s language alone. Paul’s cultural context is just as important. Both head coverings and hair styles/length carried much currency in Paul’s first-century culture. And I think it’s rather clear that Paul is assuming and interacting with certain cultural taboos that would have been familiar to his audience. We’ll explore what those may be in the next post.

• 1

  Just a small sampling includes: Thistleton,1 Corinthians, 823-26; Winter,Roman Wives, 77-96; idem.,After Paul Left Corinth, 121-42; Westfall,Paul and Gender; Watson, “Authority of the Voice;” Keener,Paul, Women & Wives; Preston Massey, in several articles; Thiessenn 1987; Engberg-Pedersen 1991; Dunn 1995; Martin 1995; Witehrington 1995; Horrell 1996.

• 2

  See Finney, “Honour,” 31, who cites Irenaeus,Haer. 1.8.2; Clement of Alexandria,Paed. 3.11; Tertullian,Cor.ch. 14;Or. Chs. 21-22;Marc. 5.9;Cult. Fem.2.7;Virg.; Augustine,Ep.CCXLV; Jerome,Ep.CXL VII.5. But see Chrysostom,In Ep. 1 ad Cor., Hom. 26.1, who understood Paul to be referring to hair not head coverings (according to BeDuhn, “‘Because of the Angels’,” 297 n. 7.) A. PhillipBrown points out that both Chrysostom and Epiphanius understood 1 Cor 11 to be talking about hair length (Brown,“Chrysostom and Epiphanius”). Phil Payne also cites Macarius Aegyptius (d. circa AD 390) and Ambrose (AD 354-407) as evidence for the hair style/length view (Man and Woman, 150-51).

• 3

  See Payne,Man and Woman, 141-73; Hurley, “Man and Woman in 1 Corinthians,” 43-56; Murphy-O’Connor, “Sex and Logic,” 488-500; Gundry-Volk, “Gender and Creation,” 151-171; Horsley,1 Corinthians, 153-54; Hays,1 Corinthians, 185.

• 4

  See Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones,Aphrodite’s Tortoise, 9; MacMullen, “Women in Public,” 210.

• 5

  It’s usually described this way, but calling it “hom*osexuality” is way too broad and anachronistic. The specific cultural taboo would have been for men of status to play the passive role in male same-sex sexual relationships. Many Romans would not have a problem with a Roman male of status playing the active role in such sexual liaisons. What would have been taboo is a man of status playing the passive role. Using the world “hom*osexuality” or “hom*osexual” to express this—so common among modern scholars—is unfortunate, since it’s too modern and way too broad. It basically refers to any person who experiences same sex attraction, which wasn’t a defined category in the ancient world and certainly wasn’t Paul’s concern here.

• 6

  See A. Philip Brown II, “Chrysostom and Epiphanius,” 366-67.

• 7

  All of the following quotations are from the LCL translation as cited by A. Philip Brown II, “Chrysostom and Epiphanius.”

• 8

  A. Phillip Brown lists the following places wherekata kephalēsoccurs where it’s not referring to head coverings:Dionysius, Roman Antiquities,6.3.3; 11.26.4, line 6; 19.8.3, line 6; Plutarch, Vitae Decern Oratorae842B; Pyrrhus399B; Les Papyrus Fouad129.11;P.Oxy.33.2672dupl, lines 15-18;Josephus, Ant,1.50.4; 2.252.2; 13.117.5 (Brown,“Chrysostom and Epiphanius,” 371).

• 9

  Both Watson (“The Authority,” 529) and Massey (“The Meaning,” 512) see this as evidence for the head covering view, while A. Phillip Brown (“Chrysostom and Epiphanius,” 371) says that this editorial correction “suggests that at least one Greek scribe felt thatkata kephalēswas too ambiguous a rendering and changed it to a more explicit construction.” I think Massey is probably correct when he says “the fact thatkata kephalēsnot only points in the direction of meaningkatakaluptein, but these equivalents convey the sense of ‘to cover the head with a garment’” (“The Meaning,” 512).

• 10

  It also should be noted that John Chrysostom (A.D. 347-407) and Epiphanius of Salamis (ca. A.D. 315-403) interpreted Paul to be referring to long hair on men (see Brown, “Chrysostom and Epiphanius”).

• 11

  Spec.Laws, 3.60 uses the same words Paul does,akatakalyptōte kephalē, the context “is clear that Philo is speaking of a head covering” (Schreiner, “Head Coverings,” 126). See also Philo,Allegorical Interpretation2.29 and in Polybius 15.27.2 (Schreiner, “Head Coverings,” 126).

• 12

  Massey, “The Meaning,” 519. Massey points out that Josephus also comments on Numb 5:18 and interprets the passage the same way (i.e. the woman’s head covering being removed) (Ant. 3.270).

• 13

  See Massey, “The Meaning,” 518, who also cites G. Ferrari,Figures of Speech, 17-25 (esp. 19); L. Llewellyn-Jones, “A Woman’s View? Dress, Eroticism, and the Ideal Female Body in Athenian Art,” in L. Llewellyn-Jones (ed.)Women’s Dress in the Ancient World(Swansea: Duckworth, 2002), 171.

• 14

  Milgrom, J. (2008).Leviticus 1–16: a new translation with introduction and commentary(Vol. 3, p. 608). Yale University Press.

• 15

  Josephus,Ant. 3.270; Philo,Spec. Laws,3.60, who uses the phraseatakapluptōte kephalēto describe the woman’s head, the same phrase Paul uses in 1 Cor 11:5; see Massey, “The Meaning,” 519, contra Padgett, “Paul on Women,” 70, who says that Philo interprets Numb 5:18 to mean “with unbound or loosened hair.”

• 16

  PayneMan and Woman, 167; Murphy O’Connor, “Sex and Logic,” 488 (cf. Num 5:18 where the cognate verb is used to mean “loosen the hair of the woman;” see Fee,1 Corinthians, 562). The Hebrew phrase in Lev 13:45 here isrōsh porua. Thistleton points out, however, thatakatakaluptoscan mean loose hair or head covering and it really depends on the context (Corinthians, 831).

• 17

  Massey, “The Meaning,” 523.

• 18

  Massey, “The Meaning,” 517.

• 19

  Rightly Fee,1 Corinthians, on 11:7.

• 20

  Man and Woman, 206

• 21

  Watson, “Authority,” 534.

• 22

  Watson, “Authority,” 533.