KEAAH AND THE THORNY ISSUE OF HEAD COVERING IN 1 CORINTHIANS 11:2-16

Linda L. Belleville

Whi1e a fair amount of effort has been spent on determining the sense of KE(!laAT] M yuVatKOe; 6 aVrlP (1 Cor 11 :3) and 010 'tOU'to OEtAE1 i] YUVT] E~OUcrtOV EXEtV E1tt 'tlle; KEOAlle; Ola 'toue; aYYEAOUe; (1 Cor 11: 10), far too 1ittle attention has been given to how these two clauses fit into the broader context and argument of 1 Corinthians 11 :2- 16. This is because Pau1's overriding concern quite often has been reduced to that of flaunting socia1 conventions thought to be unre­ coverable due to ignorance of loca1 Greco-Roman customs.! Yet, current socio-historical data indicate that a breach of social etiquette is not really the core issue. Paul's line of argument suggests instead that the concern is theological and that gender based forms of worship are what is in question. If this is so, then it is actually 06~o, and not KEOArl, that provides the key to understanding Paul's train of thought. The exegetical issues in I Corinthians 11:2-16 are many. None­ theless, the clear features of the passage are not to be overlooked. Paul's matter-of-fact mention of the prophetic and intercessory ac­ tivity of women and men at Corinth points to mutual gender roles: 1tae; aVT]p 1tpocrEuXOj.lEVOe; ll1tpoll'tEurov ... 1tacro M YUVT] 1tPOcrEUXO­ j.lEVll ll1tpoll'tEuoucro (1 Cor. 11 :4-5). This accords with Greco­ Roman religious practice. Intercession and prophecy were primary activities of cult priests and priestesses. Prayers and invocation were daily rituals. Prophecy, though common, was more localized. Two of the most prestigious cult sites were the oracular shrine at Delphi

* The translation throughout is the author's. I See, for exarnple, R. Williarns, who talks of Corinthian worship leaders be­ ing perceived by outsiders and unbelievers as sharneless wornen ("Lifting the Veil: A Social-Science Interpretation of 1 Corinthians II :2-16," Consensus 23 [1997] 53- 60); Richard Hays, who evokes "social deacorurn" and "a particular cultural code" to explain Paul's teaching in this pericope (First Corinthians [Louisville, Kentucky: John Knox Press, 1997] pp. 188-189), and Gail Paterson Corrington, who speaks of subversion ofthe social order ("The 'Headless Wornan': Paul and the Language ofthe Body in 1 Cor 11:2-16," Perspectives in Religious Studies 18 [1991] 224. 216 LINDA L. BELLEVILLE and the Olympia Dodona.2 More, women are affirmed by Paul as equal to the task as liturgicalleaders: E1talvro OE u,.!(l~ ön 1tav'w JlOU JlEJlvllcr8E ... Ka8ol~ 1tapEoroKa UJltv, 'ta~ 1tapaoocrEt~ Ka'tEXE'tE; 1 Cor 11:2). This too corresponds with Greco-Roman practice. For example, during the time of Paul's correspondence with the Corin­ thian church, Iuliane served as high priestess of the imperial cult in Magnesia (I.Magn. 158) and Menodora as priestess of Sillyon (JGR III, 800-902). 3 There is also every evidence that men and women served as liturgical co-ministers. Although women tended to offici­ ate the cults of female deities and men the cults of male deities, by the second century B.C. there was a growing number of priests and priestesses who served side-by-side. This was especially the case for imported cults such as Isis. 4 The language throughout I Corinthians 11:3-16 evidences gen­ der parity and mutuality.5 Both male and female bear the image of God-the former explicitly, the latter implicitly: Avi]p JlEV yap ... dKolV Kat 06~a 8EOU U1tapxrov' iJ yuvi] OE oo~a avop6~ Ecrnv (v. 7).6

2 Priests and priestesses generally served a partieular sanetuary with a com­ plex of buildings, They were responsible for its maintenance, its rituals and cer­ emonies, and the protection of its treasures and gifts. Liturgical functions of officially reeognized priests and priestesses included ritual sacrifice, pronouncing the prayer or invocation, and presiding at the festivals of the deity. Prophecy was obtained from oraeular shrines such as Apollo's at Delphi and the Olympia Dodona, See Ross Kraemer, Her Share of the Blessings (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992) and The Oiford History of the Classical World, edited by J Boardman, J Griffin, 0, Murray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986) 266-267. 3 Inscriptions dating from the first century to the mid-third eentury place a female high priestess in Ephesus, Cyzicus, Thyatira, Aphrodisias, Magnesia and e1sewhere, See RA, Kearsley, "Asiarchs, Archiereis, and the Archiereiai of Asia," Creek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 27 (1986) 183-192. 4 The Egyptian goddess, Isis, is credited with putting women on the same plain as men: "I invoke thee, who , , , didst make the power of women equal to that of men; . , ." (P Oxy, 1380 C, A.D. 100). Six of twenty-six cultie inscriptions name women as priests of the highest rank, See S.K. Heyob, The Cult of Isis Among Women in the Creco-Roman World, (Leiden: BrilI, 1973) 81-86. 5 This is over against those who claim that a patriarch al viewpoint is undeni­ able. See, for example, JB. Hurley, "Did Paul Require Veils or the Silenee of Women? A Consideration of I Cor. II :2-16 and 1 Cor. 14:33b-36," Wl] 35 (1973) 190-220; Bruce Waltke, "I Corinthians II :2-16: An Interpretation," BibSac 135 (1978) 46-57; John P. Meier, "On the Veiling ofHermeneutics (I Cor 11:2-26)," CBQ 40 (1978) 217-219 and, more recently, Hays, 1 Corinthians, 184. 6 Moma Hooker is surely correct in saying that Paul makes no explicit men­ tion of woman in the image of God not because it is unaceeptable to hirn but because it is irrelevant to his purpose ("Authority on Her Head: An Examination