Alternative translations

1 Corinthians 11:13-15 can be translated as follows:

Judge for yourselves. It is proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered, and nature itself does not teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair it is her glory, for hair is given [to men and women] instead of a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no such practice [as headcovering] – nor do the churches of God.                                                                                                       (1 Corinthians 11:13-15)

If these verses existed on their own, this is how they would be translated. But because of verses 2-12, translators assume that we have here two rhetorical questions (questions put to the readers for them to produce their own answers). The usual translation, as in RSV, is:

Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride? For her hair is given to her for a covering. If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God.                                                                (1 Corinthians 11:13-15, RSV)

The original Greek texts have no punctuation marks, so where question marks should be inserted is a matter of judgment.

Paul asks rhetorical questions regularly, but nearly always he shows this by an introductory question word.[1] In this passage, there are no question words. Verse 14 begins with the word “oude”, which regularly means “and not”, and is not used elsewhere by Paul to introduce a rhetorical question, though there are three occurrences in the gospels (Mark 12:10, Luke 6:3, & 23:40).

There is a grammatical reason, therefore, to wonder whether it is correct to translate verses 13 and 14 as questions.

We have already observed another reason, that Paul himself wore his hair long for a time – or perhaps it was Aquila (Acts 18:18) – but with no hint of this practice being regarded as a disgrace; and by nature men’s hair does grow long.

And although we have given a few passages on pages 37-38 which suggest that some people found long hair on men objectionable, more passages can be produced which say the opposite.

Approval of Long Hair in the Bible

From the Bible there is the Nazirite vow:

And the LORD said to Moses,

“Say to the people of Israel, When either a man or a woman makes a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to separate himself to the LORD, he shall separate himself from wine and strong drink; he shall drink no vinegar made from wine or strong drink, and shall not drink any juice of grapes or eat grapes, fresh or dried. All the days of his separation he shall eat nothing that is produced by the grapevine, not even the seeds or the skins. All the days of his vow of separation no razor shall come upon his head; until the time is completed for which he separates himself to the LORD, he shall be holy; he shall let the locks of hair of his head grow long.”  (Number 6:1-5)

Both men and women could take this vow, and after their hair had grown long, it was shaved off.

And the Nazirite shall shave his consecrated head at the door of the tent of meeting, and shall take the hair from his consecrated head and put it on the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offering. (Numbers 6:18)

Samson said to Delilah:

“A razor has never come upon my head; for I have been a Nazirite to God from my mother’s womb. If I be shaved, then my strength will leave me, and I shall become weak, and be like any other man.”

(Judges 16:17)

Samuel’s mother prayed:

And she vowed a vow and said, “O LORD of hosts, if thou wilt indeed look on the affliction of thy maidservant, and remember me, and not forget thy maidservant, but wilt give to thy maidservant a son, then I will give him to the LORD all the days of his life, and no razor shall touch his head.”

(1 Samuel 1:11)

Absalom was greatly admired for his hair:

Now in all Israel there was no one so much to be praised for his beauty as Absalom; from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him. And when he cut the hair of his head (for at the end of every year he used to cut it; when it was heavy on him, he cut it), he weighed the hair of his head, two hundred shekels by the king’s weight. There were born to Absalom three sons, and one daughter whose name was Tamar; she was a beautiful woman.                                    (2 Samuel 14:25-27)

Paul or Aquila “cut his hair, for he had a vow” (Acts 18:18). In Jerusalem, James and the elders of the church asked Paul to take part in a ceremony, presumably the Nazirite vow again:

“We have four men who are under a vow; take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads.”                                                                        (Acts 21:23-24)

Since the above people are noted for growing their hair long, the majority of people most of the time presumably cut their hair shorter. But there is no suggestion (apart from in 1 Corinthians 11) in Old or New Testaments that in itself long hair was a disgrace or a dishonour.

Approval of Long Hair in the Greek World

In Greek history the famous Greek army which destroyed Troy consisted largely of the Achaeans. They are proudly described as “long-haired Achaeans” (Homer c. 800 BC, e.g. Iliad II:51). In New Testament times Corinth was the capital city of Achaea.

Not far from Corinth is Sparta. The Spartan soldiers were known for their long hair. Before the battle of Thermopylae and expecting an imminent death, they calmly combed their hair. Plutarch writing about 75 AD comments that at Delphi there is a statue of the Spartan general Lysander “representing him with his hair at full length, after the old fashion, and with an ample beard.” He comments that the reason Spartans wear long hair is because it is

one of the ordinances of Lycurgus, who, as it is reported, was used to say, that long hair made good-looking men more beautiful, and ill-looking men more terrible.                                                          (Plutarch, Life of Lysander) [2]

There was also a practical reason. By braiding their long hair tightly they could protect their heads better from sword blows.

At Athens, down to the Persian wars, the hair was worn long…. … a free Athenian citizen did not wear his hair very short, or he would have been mistaken for a slave, who would be obliged to do so.

(Oskar Seyffert, A Dictionary of Classical Antiquities, page 296)

Portraits of Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) show him with longish hair, but he is said to have instructed his soldiers to wear their hair short so that they could not be grabbed so easily in battle. Alexander’s invasion of the east resulted in the spread of the Greek language and the consequent writing of the New Testament in Greek.

Epictetus, c. 100 AD, commented, that people see a man with long hair and conclude that he is a philosopher[3] – which could mean that he was dressing differently to show his disdain for conventional customs.

The above comments suggest that men generally cut their hair, but it was not thought in any way a disgrace or degrading for men to have long hair.

Romans and Long Hair

As with the Greeks and Jews, Roman practice varied.

In early times the Romans wore their hair long, as was represented in the oldest statues in the age of Varro (De Re Rust. II.11 §10), and hence the Romans of the Augustan age designated their ancestors intonsi [“uncut”] (Ov. Fast. II.30) and capillati [“longhaired”] (Juv. VI.30). But after the introduction of barbers into Italy about B.C. 300, it became the practice to wear their hair short.

(William Smith, A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, John Murray, pages 328-330) [4]

The only quotations we have found which suggest any disapproval of long hair are those already quoted on pages 37-38. Two of these are from Jewish sources, so it may be that Jewish believers at Corinth questioned whether it was appropriate or not for men to have long hair. And in view of the prevailing view among the Greeks, Romans and Jews, and in the light of Paul’s advising, “Give no offence to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God,” (1 Corinthians 10:32), it would fit better than the usual translation if Paul says “And nature itself does not teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him”.

If, however, we translate the passage as statements, like this, the difficulty is that to do so seems to say the reverse of the usual understanding of verses 2-9.

So, can it be done?

Quotations within Paul’s Letters to the Corinthians

In several places in this letter Paul refers to matters which have been reported to him:

... it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarrelling among you, my brethren.                                           (1 Corinthians 1:11)

It is actually reported that there is immorality among you.

(1 Corinthians 5:1)

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote...  (1 Corinthians 7:1)

Sometimes he responds to information received, sometimes he responds to written questions. Paul’s method seems to be to paraphrase or quote the words or terminology of his critics or his correspondents at Corinth, and then either partly agree and give the argument a twist, or directly contradict what has been said by them. In the following passage Paul is thought to be quoting or echoing terminology used by those with whom he disagrees, using words such as “rich”, “kings”, “reign”.

Already you are filled! Already you have become rich! Without us you have become kings! And would that you did reign, so that we might share the rule with you! ... We are weak, but you are strong. You are held in honour, but we in disrepute.                                                       (1 Corinthians 4:8-10)

Opinions differ on how much he quotes, but it can be more than a single word or sentence. For example, the following words in italics have been suggested as quotations in 1 Corinthians 6, followed by Paul’s response.

“All things are lawful for me” – but not all things are helpful.

“All things are lawful for me” – but I will not be enslaved by anything.

“Food is meant for the stomach, and the stomach for food, and God will destroy both one and the other” – but the body is not meant for immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body, and God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power.                   (1 Corinthians 6:12-16)

“Every sin which a man may commit is outside his body” – but the immoral man sins against his own body.      (1 Corinthians 6:18)

Likewise 1 Corinthians 8 is generally agreed to contain quotations, though it is not possible to be sure how long or short. Again, the sections in italics may be quotations of things written or spoken by people at Corinth:

Now concerning food offered to idols: “We know that all of us possess knowledge”. “Knowledge” puffs up, but love builds up. If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if one loves God, one is known by him.

Concerning, therefore, the eating of food offered to idols, “We know that an idol has no real existence and that there is no God but one. For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth – as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’ – yet there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” – but not all possess this knowledge. Some, through being hitherto accustomed to idols, eat food as really offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. “Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do.” – but take care less this liberty of yours somehow becomes a stumbling block to the weak....

(1 Corinthians 8:1-9)

Verses 5 and 6 are usually attributed directly to Paul, but they could as reasonably be part of the letter or comments presented to him as backing for the position taken by the believers in Corinth who laid claim to special Christian “knowledge”.

We have quoted from chapters 4, 6 and 8 of 1 Corinthians firstly to illustrate the possibility of quotations which Paul then rebuts, and secondly because these sections are not controversial. Some quotation or paraphrase is definitely there, and the apostle is clearly disagreeing with views emanating from Corinth or modifying them. Paul’s correspondence with Corinth, more than any of his other letters, seems to contain a continual “to and fro” between himself and the Corinthians.

Quotations or Echoes in 1 Corinthians 11

It is suggested, therefore, that the same can reasonably be done in 1 Corinthians 11 in a manner which resolves some of the problems. Further, it would be surprising if there is not some echo or quotation in this section as there is in so many others. If some of the verses are questions to Paul, or Paul’s paraphrasing of “the matters about which you wrote”, this would present the whole picture in a different light.

Paul commends the Corinthians (verse 2), which implies he is pleased with their response. It is only when he gets to verse 17 that he says “I do not commend you”. It would make a better reading, therefore, of 1 Corinthians 11 if verses 2-16 are expressing approval, rather than the strong disapproval which comes across in the conventional reading.

Those who questioned Paul would recognise their questions and the answers given. We can pick out some possible questions (e.g. “If a woman will not veil herself, should she cut off her hair?”) but the difficulty is to know what might be the original question, what might be a paraphrase of comments made, what might be expansion on the comments, and at what point Paul gives his answers.

Suggested alternative translations of 1 Corinthians 11

The words in italics and surrounded by quotation marks, it is suggested, are either echoes or quotations from what has been written to Paul, or a paraphrase of them, or actual questions.

Explanatory comments are inserted in small capitals within squared brackets, explaining how we think Paul would have explained if Paul later had been questioned on this passage and asked to expand on his meaning. In Alternative Translation (1) we are putting verse 3 as a question.

Alternative Translation (1)

So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offence to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please all men in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved. Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. I commend you because you “remember me in everything” and “maintain the traditions” even as I have delivered them to you. But do I want you to understand that “the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God”?

[I TAUGHT YOU, (AS I TEACH IN MY LETTER TO THE EPHESIANS, CHAPTER 5) THAT THE HUSBAND IS HEAD OF THE WIFE JUST AS CHRIST IS HEAD OF THE CHURCH. CHRIST IS THEREFORE THE HEAD OF BOTH HUSBAND AND WIFE, NOT JUST OF THE HUSBAND, AS SOME OF YOU ARE SAYING. FURTHER, SINCE CONTROVERSY HAS ARISEN ABOUT HEADCOVERING PRACTICES, YOU ASK:] “Does every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonour his head? And does every woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonour her head? Is it the same as if her head were shaven? For [AS SOME PEOPLE SAY] if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair, but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil”. [HERE IS MY ANSWER:] Indeed[5] a man ought not to cover his head, since [AS YOU SAY] he is the image and glory of God; but a wife is a husband’s glory. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. [SINCE A WOMAN IS THE GLORY OF HER HUSBAND, SHE SHOULD NOT COVER HER HEAD EITHER. THERE IS NO TEACHING IN THE BIBLE THAT RESPECT FOR ANOTHER IS SHOWN BY COVERING ONE’S HEAD.]

Here is why a woman ought to have control over her head [TO DECIDE WHETHER TO WEAR A HEADCOVERING OR NOT, RATHER THAN BEING PUSHED INTO IT BY THOSE WHO FAVOUR RITUAL DRESS CODES]: because of the angels. [THE ANGELS WERE PRESENT AT THE CREATION OF HUMAN BEINGS WHEN GOD SAID, “LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE”, AND THEY KNOW WELL WHAT GOD INTENDED.] The point is,[6] in the Lord woman is not apart from the man [AS REGARDS HEADCOVERING] nor man apart from the woman [AS REGARDS HEADCOVERING]; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. [THIS, THEN IS WHAT I ACTUALLY WANT YOU TO KNOW.]

Judge for yourselves. It is proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered, and nature itself does not teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair it is her glory, for hair is given [TO MEN AND WOMEN] instead of a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we [PAUL AND SOSTHENES[7]] have no such practice [AS HEADCOVERING OR RULES ABOUT HAIR LENGTH] – nor do the churches of God.

Comments on suggested Alternative Translation (1)

(1) This resolves the apparent inconsistency in the usual translations that Paul seems very keen to stress a hierarchy in verse 3, but then presents a non-hierarchical view in verses 11 and 12. To say – “in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God” – fits better if Paul has not appeared to teach the opposite of this a few verses earlier.

(2) In Ephesians 5:23, Paul teaches that the husband is head of the wife, as Christ is head of the church. This is a slightly different hierarchy from that expressed in 1 Corinthians 11:3. Because Christ is head of the church which consists of both men and women, Christ is the head of the husband and head of the wife directly. This translation suggests that the Corinthians had misunderstood his teaching that the husband is head of the wife and were suggesting that Christ is not her head directly but only through her husband (as Augustine took it[8]).

(3) It seems more compatible with Paul’s teaching about equality in Galatians 3:28.

(4) It responds to the claim that Paul is misusing Genesis or that he considers woman is not in the image of God. He is responding to others who use such arguments.

(5) It resolves the seemingly rather weak claim that nature itself teaches it is a disgrace for a man to have long hair.

(6) It fits well with Paul’s usual attitude to ritual practices, whether circumcision, or keeping of special days. He regards these as no longer applicable now that the Messiah has come and has established spiritual worship.

(7) It does not force oude (“and not”) in verse 14 to introduce a rhetorical question.

(8) The text literally says: “we have no such practice” – which fits better if the practice of headcovering (rather than the non-practice) was the subject of discussion.

(9) It is interesting that the Vulgate, the Latin translated from the Greek in the late 4^th century AD, likewise does not insert any interrogative phrases in verses 13 and 14,[9] although Latin would normally use interrogative words.

(10) Some of the comments about the consequences of not veiling sound harsh, and surprising in the context, since Paul is commending the Corinthians for following his teaching. If they are questions from Corinth, or a paraphrase of what has been said in Corinth, the harshness is on the Corinthians side, not Paul’s. And here we have Paul’s answer: “It is proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered”.

(11) It may seem surprising to quote from a Corinthian correspondent at such length, but ancient writers can quote extensively.[10] One further possibility is that a later hand with access to the original letter to Paul could have inserted the questions beside his reply, and they could subsequently have been incorporated in the text.

This is not the only alternative way the passage can be translated and understood. It is worth offering a second, partly because further alternatives can be presented, and partly because we do not to wish to give the impression that we regard this as the definitive answer!

Second suggested alternative translation of 1 Corinthians 11

The words in italics and surrounded by quotation marks, it is suggested, are either echoes or quotations from what has been written to Paul, or a paraphrase of them, or actual questions.

Explanatory comments are inserted in small capitals within squared brackets, explaining how we think Paul would have explained if Paul later had been questioned on this passage and asked to expand on his meaning. In Alternative Translation (2) we are putting verse 3 as a statement by Paul.

Alternative Translation (2)

So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offence to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please all men in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved. Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. I commend you because you “remember me in everything” and “maintain the traditions” even as I have delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

[I TAUGHT YOU, (AS I TEACH IN MY LETTER TO THE EPHESIANS, CHAPTER 5) THAT THE HUSBAND IS HEAD OF THE WIFE JUST AS CHRIST IS HEAD OF THE CHURCH. A HUSBAND MUST THEREFORE HONOUR CHRIST IN THE WAY HE BEHAVES TOWARDS HIS WIFE, JUST AS A WIFE MUST HONOUR HER HUSBAND IN HER BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS HIM, AND CHRIST GIVES US THE EXAMPLE HIMSELF IN HOW HE HONOURS GOD. IN THIS CONTEXT YOU RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT HEADCOVERINGS:]

“Does every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonour his head? And does every woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonour her head?

 Is it the same as if her head were shaven? For [AS SOME PEOPLE SAY] if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair, but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil”.

[HERE IS MY ANSWER:] Indeed[11] a man does not have to cover his head,[12] since [AS YOU SAY] he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. [SINCE WOMAN IS THE GLORY OF HER HUSBAND, SHE SHOULD NOT COVER HER HEAD EITHER. RESPECT FOR ANOTHER IS NOT SHOWN UNDER THE NEW COVENANT BY EXTERNAL PRACTICES LIKE COVERING ONE’S HEAD.]

For this reason a woman ought to have control over her head [TO DECIDE WHETHER TO WEAR A HEADCOVERING OR NOT, RATHER THAN BEING PUSHED INTO IT BY THOSE WHO FAVOUR JEWISH DRESS CODES]: because of the angels. ANGELS VIEW THE FACE OF GOD DIRECTLY (JESUS – MATTHEW 18:10). THEY DO NOT VEIL IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD, NEITHER SHOULD WE.] The point is,[13] in the Lord woman is not apart from the man [AS REGARDS HEADCOVERING] nor man apart from the woman [AS REGARDS HEADCOVERING]; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.

Judge for yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Nature itself does not teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair it is her glory, for hair is given [TO MEN AND WOMEN] in place of a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we [PAUL AND THE OTHER APOSTLES] have no such practice [AS HEADCOVERING OR RULES ABOUT HAIR LENGTH] – nor do the churches of God.

The above translations are drawn from the various suggestions we have read, along with a careful reading of the Greek text. In presenting these two suggested translations, we are not making any dogmatic claim that these are “the correct translations.” If any reader considers we have misused the Greek language or made serious mistakes of logic, we would be pleased to have these pointed out to us with a specific explanation based on the Greek text.

“Entirely different, even opposite things”

Norman E. Anderson commented that 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 “is one of the most difficult passages in the Bible to interpret, not the least because at each of several points it can mean entirely different, even opposite things.” [14]

 Verse 10 is a good example:

That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels.

(1 Corinthians 11:10, RSV)

The RSV footnote says: “Greek authority (the veil being a symbol of this)”. Traditionally this has been understood to mean her husband’s authority over her.

The realisation, however, that “have authority” in the New Testament only ever means “have authority or right to do something” has caused a rephrasing in translations. Hence TNIV reads:

It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head

(1 Corinthians 11:10, TNIV)

This is understood to mean that she should be able to decide for herself whether to wear a veil or not. Or, since verse 2 says that her head is her husband, does it mean: “It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her husband”?

Surely Paul can’t mean that! Or can he? What does he say in 1 Corinthians 7?

… the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does.

(1 Corinthians 7:4)

Having given an equality to both husband and wife in 1 Corinthians 7:4 (see the whole verse), we can presume that this is the kind of thing Paul taught and which he considered as amongst “the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Corinthians 11:2). And this fits well with his teaching in verse 11: “… in the Lord, woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.”

This “answering questions” approach would resolve some of the difficulties, but it brings problems of its own like each interpretation offered.

By reading the Greek text we first observed the possibility of translating verses 14 and 15 as statements rather than questions about 1989. We subsequently found that several writers had suggested the same: John Lightfoot (1602-1675), then Katharine Bushnell (1856-1946) in her book God’s Word to Women (1923)[15]. More recently, several others have produced versions of it.[16]

This explanation would provide a solution, but there is no conclusive evidence. The alternative translations cannot merely be dismissed, but nor can they be advocated as definite. Accordingly, we have sought in our expanded version on pages 33-35 to explain the passage as a unified whole.

The difficulty of being in any degree certain as to the meaning forces us back to the conclusion that first century custom lies behind this passage. We cannot apply the practice literally today, even if we wish to, because we do not know what it was.

There are nevertheless very many clear principles which can be can be understood and put into practice (see Section 12, pages 55-60), and we should not allow the uncertainties in this passage to obscure those. 

An alternative interpretation of “We have no such custom” is: “We have no such custom as being contentious on this issue. We don’t lay down rules on it.”