The Angels of Her Nature

by Doctor Science

A few weeks ago, Slacktivist called my attention to some current discussion about the meaning of 1 Corinthians 11:10:

"For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels."

I invite you to read this verse in context at BibleGateway, switching around translations to see if they make sense. Spoilers: they won't.

But it turns out that there's a translation and analysis of these passages that *does* make sense, and which makes Paul sound both more coherent and much more feminist than the traditional readings. Yet it comes from William Welty, a mainstream (i.e. conservative) Evangelical Protestant, and is based on century-old work by Katherine Bushnell, an Evangelical pioneer of feminist theology.

In the current discussion, theologian Reta Halteman Finger said, of her work on 1 Corinthians with co-author George McClain:

we concluded that this is the most confusing passage in all of Paul's letters.

As Slacktivist said,

Did that make sense to the Christians in Corinth? Did they read that and think, "Ah, yes, of course. Because of the angels. It's all so clear now ..."?

If so, what did they seem to know about angels and headgear that none of us knows now? What did it mean to them?

I'm sure it meant ... something. But now it just seems absurdly impenetrable — a biblical madlib in which any other noun could be substituted for "angels" with no loss or addition of meaning as far as we're concerned. "A woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the otters." Just as clear.

Mark M. Mattison argues that Paul is referring back to a point he made earlier in his letter (1 Cor. 6: 3), that in the world to come Christians will sit in judgment over the angels themselves.

Having mentioned that argument in 1 Corinthians 6:3, a shorthand reference to the same argument in 1 Corinthians 11:10 is at least plausible. Paul's point would then be, if women are destined to judge angels in the age to come, aren't they able to judge for themselves what to do with their own heads?

James F. McGrath contributes a useful image:

and argues

in the first half [of the passage], Paul is at times quoting the Corinthians, much as he does elsewhere in the letter, perhaps also quoting them quoting his own words, as well as quoting what they said. And as in other such passages, Paul offers some initial agreement, only to then challenge their application of his words or other shared principles.

By the end of the passage, Paul says that women should have authority over their heads.

In my youthful Catholic education, I was taught that 1 Cor 11:10 meant that women should wear head-coverings in church lest the angels be tempted by their beauty. This argument comes from Tertullian, who was misogynist even by the standards of Early Church Fathers. It made no sense to my youthful mind, because one of the high points of dressing for Mass in those pre-Vatican II days was choosing which pretty veil I would wear.

Role model: Jackie Kennedy going to Mass in Palm Beach, 1963. This is what we were trying to look like, in those pre-Vatican-II days. Cropped from an image in the JFK Library.

It wasn't just about women, either. Verse 14 says:

Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him?

Everyone who grew up in the 60s heard this quoted a *lot*, by people who truly believed it was shameful for men to have long hair. It doesn't take much thinking, though, to see that the argument is patently bogus. If "nature" teaches anything, it's that human beings (especially men) have varying amounts of hair, which naturally grows to varying lengths.

Nonetheless, the traditional Christian interpretation is that long hair in a man is bad, while for a woman it is a "glory" -- though a glory that should be covered in Church. I myself always thought that this passage reflects Paul's messed-up-ness about sex: long hair is intrinsically (one might even say "naturally") sexy, and for a man to deliberately try to look sexy is bad, while for a woman it is good.

But a few years ago I stumbled upon a discussion of 1 Cor 11 which cited a novel interpretation. Evangelical scholar William Welty, following the turn-of-the-previous-century work of Katharine Bushnell, has done a word-by-word analysis of the "hair" passages and argues that Paul's intended meaning is almost the opposite of the traditional interpretation.

So in Welty's translation v. 10 becomes:

The woman ought to have authority over her own head because of her [guardian] angels

-- that is, the woman's own conscience should be her guide.

This is a pretty feminist conclusion, especially given that Welty doesn't seem to call himself a feminist, and he's certainly no leftist. But he is part of the non-fundamentalist Evangelical tradition, and I am not surprised to see that he got his M.Div. at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, also the alma mater of Mark Noll, perhaps the leading intellectual among American Evangelicals right now.

Welty reads verses 13-15 as statements, not rhetorical questions:

13 It is proper for a woman to pray to God without head coverings.
14 Nature in no way teaches on the one hand that if a man has hair it puts him to shame
15 nor does it teach on the other that a woman's hair is her glory. All of this is true because hair is given as a substitute for man-made coverings.

The people at bibletexts.com asked linguist Alexander Lehrman for his opinion of Welty's translation, and he says:

As far as I can tell, Welty is quite correct in treating verse 13 as an assertion, not a question (although that is not at all necessary: it may well be a rhetorical question). He is absolutely correct in interpreting verse 14 to mean "Nature itself does not teach you...," etc. The Greek verb komao does not mean "to have LONG hair," it means merely "to have hair (on one's head)." So the King James version represents a great distortion of the original, as does Waltke's interpretation. Most importantly, Welty's (i.e., Bushnell's) interpretation of verse 10 as something like "woman must have authority over her (own) head" is perfectly correct.

Welty argues that verses 5-6, normally translated:

But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, 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 should cover her head.

really mean something like:

• custom holds it a public disgrace to the "head" (pun intended) of her family for a woman to go around with her head uncovered, it's considered admission of adultery or prostitution
• shaving of the woman's head is the customary punishment for these sexual dishonors
• if this is the custom where you are, then women can cover their heads to avoid this kind of public shame

Welty further argues that in verses 7-13 Paul is saying:

• Christian men should have uncovered heads (in church), because they share God's glory -- in contrast to Jewish men, who must always have their heads covered for worship, to show humility
• As the head of a woman's household has an uncovered head, so it is appropriate for her physical head be uncovered in church
• But the decision is really up to each woman, depending on what she thinks is right
• In conclusion: stop bugging me about this stuff, sheesh. (verse 16)

Although Welty is one of the translators of the International Standard Version of the New Testament, the ISV translation of these passages still doesn't make the intended meaning completely clear. This may be because Welty was part of a committee and didn't always get his way, or it may be that they were trying to be as concise as the original, but without the context.

Either way, I've been convinced by Welty's (and Bushnell's) reading of the text, because it lets Paul make *sense* in a way that more traditional, sexist readings don't. The fact that Paul's attitude -- that women ought to be spiritually self-determining -- is closer to Jesus' attitude than he's usually painted is a heartening bonus. Even more heartening, for our real life in America, is to see devout Evangelical scholars doing good intellectual work, reading the Bible with respect for its subtlety and complexity. The Evangelical mind doesn't *have* to be a scandal.

I've got more to say about this, but not tonight. Among other things, I'll be getting up at 4:15 AM to work the polls all day. Vote if you know what's good for you! -- I did it weeks ago, of course.

It's not just in the 20th century that Christian women have used veils more to accentuate the hair than to conceal it. This is Goya's portrait of the Duchess of Alba dressed for mourning -- and it's hard to conceive of anything less retiring, humble, or shamed.

---

As an aside, while looking for the Goya painting I came across this:

Goya's Portrait of Count Fernand Núnez VII. What the actual frak is he *wearing* -- or not? If those are breeches, they are by far the tightest I've seen for the period, and no seam is visible. This painting is dated 1803, which would make Núnez one of the earliest and most extreme followers of Beau Brummell in Spain.

Comments

[Hartmut]

The main 'problem' with this passage (from the reactionary POV) is that it in essence contradicts THE favorite Paulian command: Women be silent in church!
Theological commentaries available to me interprete it as Paul giving recommendations for the proper attire of women when conducting official church business later declared to be Man's domain exclusively like preaching.
---
How times change. In Germanic dominated Europe long hair was the sign of the free Man, thralls had to wear their hair short. And even much later (Baroque era and later) big wigs and (short) pigtails were part of the male fashion, although artificial hair there replaced the natural. And isn't Jesus traditionally depicted with long hair like a hippie?

[russell]

thanks for this Doc Science. lots here to explore and digest.

probably not of great interest to everyone, but very interesting to me, anyway.

[Barry]

"If those are breeches, they are by far the tightest I've seen for the period, and no seam is visible. "

They can paint it anyway that they like. There are medieval paintings showing chain mail leggings looking like spandex, showing off every muscle in the leg.

[Doctor Science]

Barry:

LOL yes, that's true. In this case, I'm sure he was actually wearing some very high-fashion breeches.

What I don't know is how this looked to viewers at the time. For the early 21st century, this is "very gay and flirty", but I don't know how it came across to his contemporaries.

[Countme-In]

'"A woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the otters." Just as clear.'

Otters just won't do:

http://www.omgfacts.com/lists/11810/Sea-otters-rape-and-drown-baby-seals

Very interesting topic and links. Among the early Church fathers, I must say that Origen took his misogyny a painful step over the line.

And all of this talk about the water content of women --- what the heck?

Otherwise, these opinions about the nefarious ways of women live on. All you have to do is overhear guys (recently divorced ones, or those whose girlfriends have recently bolted) in bars shooting the breeze.

The difference of course from the early Church fathers (I presume, though Origen certainly closed that deal) is that many men who hold these opinions don't mind getting laid as well.

Now, Count Fernand Nunez VII's sartorial choices remind me of what we might get a peek of if Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia decided to take a stroll along the reflecting pond on a breezy day in his robes, not that there would be anything wrong with that.

Maybe the Count, not to be confused with THE Count, harbored enthusiasms similar to the ones discussed by the folks on this forum:

http://www.zity.biz/index.php?mx=forum;ox=display;topic=72646;start=30

No Church Fathers sighted, but one guy wrote that his Unitarian Church accepted his cross-dressing, which is good.

Insert Garrison Keillor observation regarding Unitarians.