Greek
If we consider the Greek words Paul uses in each part, it helps us greatly in understanding this passage.

In vss. 4-13, the words rendered as ‘covered’ and ‘uncovered’ are variations on the Greek word ‘kata’, which is defined as follows:

Liddell and Scott - “denoting motion from above, down from;”[1]
Abbott-Smith - “down, down from;”[2]
Thayer – “1. properly, a. down from, down”[3]
Arndt and Gingrich as “have something on one’s head (lit. hanging down fr. the head, as a veil…).”[4]

In vs. 15, the word rendered as ‘covering’ is the Greek word ‘peribolaion’, defined by Thayer as “properly, a covering thrown around, a wrapper…2. a veil (A. V. a covering): 1 Cor 11:15.”[5]

Starting with vs. 4, Coffman states it well, ““Having his head covered…” Here is where the misunderstanding of this passage begins. This clause, as rendered in the popular versions, is commentary, not Bible. As Echols noted:

“Having his head covered” is a commentary, not a translation. Lenski translated the sense correctly: “having something down from his head.” What the “something” is is neither stated nor implied in vs. 4.””[6]

Paul is speaking about a condition of having something hang down from the head. This also shows that even though a man with short hair literally has hair covering his head (by virtue of the fact that it is covering the skin), this is not what is meant; Paul is speaking of something beyond this, “something down from” (It is the same as the difference between a placemat and a tablecloth; the tablecloth hangs down from the table, while the placemat rests upon it. Only one fulfills the condition of “down from.”). What that “something” is, has not yet been supplied.

In vs. 5-7 & 13, the words translated “uncovered” and “covered”, variations of “akatakaluptos” & “katakalupto,” respectively, only refer to a condition, not an object. Again, the “something” has not yet been stated.

In vs. 15, the word “peribolaion”, universally translated as “covering” (with the notable exception of Marshall’s interlinear translation, where he rendered it “veil” [7]), has reference to an actual object. A literal translation of this verse reveals what the “something” is, “for the long hair instead of a covering is given to her” (or, as in Marshall’s, “because the long hair instead of a veil has been given to her”[8]). Instead of having to wear a separate veil, her long hair has been given to her by God to fulfill his requirement that she be covered during prayer. What again is interesting regarding Thayer and the ASV is that in his lexicon for this passage he gives it as “a veil”,[9] yet in the ASV it is rendered as “a covering,” the very opposite situation of earlier in the passage (where they bypassed “covered” in favor of “veiled”, etc. This has the effect of obscuring the connection with vs. 4-7, lessening the force of Paul’s argument). Again, the literal rendering of the verse is “for the long hair instead of a covering is given to her,” in context meaning, “She must be covered, but a (literal, or cloth) veil is not necessary; God has given her long hair for this purpose.” The problem with Corinth was not that the women didn’t wear veils, it was that some wore their hair short enough so that it no longer answered to “something down from.” Therefore, the gist of the passage is, “If she wears her hair short, shave her head. But if this is shameful (which it is, but by nature, not by culture), let her have long hair, for this is it’s purpose, that she may be covered as God requires. If any wish to argue, this is how it is, and that’s that (and a man may not have long hair, as God requires that he be uncovered).”

Note: In 2 Cor 3:13ff, the one place in the New Testament where Paul is indisputably speaking of a veil (the veil Moses wore to hide the fading glory), he uses a different Greek word, “kalumma”.

Veils
1. In preparation for this section, I consulted over 30 commentaries, word studies, and lectures, in addition to Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias; 2 different editions of the Encyclopædia Britannica, and 2 different editions of the Encarta encyclopedia, as well as books on Greek and Roman art, and the culture of Bible times. Coming away from this, one thing is clear: they do not speak with one voice, either to the usage or non-usage of veils, or to what it meant to wear or not to wear one (if, in fact, they were veiled as a matter of daily life). There is general agreement among commentators that Greek women wore veils (with the notable exceptions of Vincent, Robertson, McGarvey, and Coffman), yet few are those who offer proof as to the practice; the proof offered by those who do, is by no means concrete (see #2 & #3 below). History does not bear out the universality of the practice, and depictions in art (of what I have seen) show perhaps one in fifty women veiled (this would be the equivalent of a future historian looking back at us, seeing a picture of a nun, and determining that all of the women of our day were veiled). And, as stated before, there is no agreement as to what it meant to be unveiled. Some of the views advanced as to what it meant are, 1) she was a woman who usurped the authority of her husband, 2) she was a prostitute, 3) she was a woman of loose morality, or 4) she was imitating the heathen priestesses, by worshipping with disheveled hair (having just taken off the veil she usually wore).

In the encyclopedias mentioned, and the books on Bible times, there are no mentions of veils. T. G. Tucker, in his work “Life in Ancient Athens” (subtitled “The Social and Public Life of a Classical Athenian From Day to Day”) gives us what is probably a fair representation (though this book treats of the period from c. 440 B.C. to c. 330 B.C., it was all I found that referenced veils at all), from the following excerpts, “As with the men, the female attire consisted ordinarily of two chief portions, the light under-dress and the heavier mantle or shawl;”[10] “(f)or out-of-doors and visiting the upper garment was put on and carefully draped round the body, sometimes even being drawn over the head, if a separate headcover or veil was not employed. For be it remembered that the women, like the men, wore no hat, except in the country, when a large sun-hat was allowed;”[11] the following is from a narrative, “Bring me my shawl, and put my sun-hat on properly…;”[12] “(t)he hair of Grecian women was generally long and rich, and infinite pains were spent on dressing it with taste and elegance. According to the Athenian ideal it should be wavy, display not too much forehead…(w)hen the hair had been drawn in graceful curves into a knot or ball at the back of the head, it was sometimes kept in place by a net of threadwork…on less showy occasions it is to be seen depicted as enclosed in a complete bag or bladder.”[13] By these, we may see that sometimes they wore the veil, sometimes they didn’t.

2. The earliest mention in the church outside of the New Testament is from Tertullian, who wrote a treatise entitled “On the Veiling of Virgins”[14] around the turn of the 3rd century. This he wrote in response to some who claimed that virgins were not considered in Paul’s instructions, only married women. This would at first blush appear to have quite some force on the matter; until we consider that by this time apostasy was hitting it’s stride, with many practices in place that were contrary to the Scriptures – Tertullian was not sound by a long shot. His treatise has force as to the practice of his day, but not as to the correctness of that practice (we don’t know if the wearing of veils preceded Paul’s letter, or if it began as a result of it). Remember, the spirit of antichrist already was, even in the time of the apostles; Scripture was already being wrested. We have an example of misinterpretation in the Bible itself, regarding Jesus’ statement to Peter about John; the disciples took it to mean that John wouldn’t die.[15]

3. A passage from Virgil’s “Æneid” is sometimes referred to (regarding the inauguration of the practice of wearing the veil during the offering of sacrifices); yet even if this were not a work of fiction, it regards Roman history, not Greek.

4. When one considers the examples of the English Revised Version (ERV), the American Standard Version (ASV), the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), and the New English Bible (NEB), in rendering “katakalupto” as “veiled”, and “akatakaluptos” as “unveiled”, it might appear that without doubt Paul is speaking of veils. After all, most commentaries state that Greek women were veiled, and here we have the Bible itself stating the same. But in truth, the rendering of “veiled” and “unveiled” is unjustified; it is an unwarranted inference on the part of the translators. I do not say this lightly; it is acknowledged that the scholarship of those who translated the ERV was of the highest, and beyond reproach.

As far as major, mainstream English translations go, the ERV really stands alone as to the rendering of “veiled” and “unveiled” (the ERV of 1881 and the ASV of 1901 are essentially the same translation; the RSV is the child of the ASV, being a revision of it, and the NRSV is a revision of that; in essence, therefore, as it regards our question, they are essentially one stream, and may be considered as only one example, not four). When the NEB underwent revision (the Revised English Bible), the words were changed to “covered” and “uncovered”. As to other translations, Tyndale’s, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the Bishop’s Bible render them as “covered” and “bare-headed”; Rheims as “covered” and “not covered”; the KJV, NKJV, NIV, and NASB (as well as Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta) all translate them as “covered” and “uncovered”. This is the first line of testimony against “veiled” (you might almost say that the ERV, et. al., are the ‘exception that proves the rule’). It is quite interesting to note that Joseph Henry Thayer, who was secretary of the New Testament Company of the ASV translation effort (he had a hand in the translation), in the fourth edition of his lexicon, published in 1901, the same year the ASV came out, gives the meaning of “katakalupto” as “to cover up; to veil or cover one’s self”.[16] Notice, and this is important, that he does not say that it means a veil, a literal cloth veil. He instead gives it as the condition of being covered, or veiled; what the cover or veil is, is not inherent in the word, it must be supplied from the context (which Paul gives in vs. 15, namely, “her hair is given her for a covering”). It is the same situation as with the question of instrumental music and the word “psallo”, which means “to pluck”; what the object being plucked is does not inhere in the word, it must be supplied from the context. To render “katakalupto” as “veiled”, and “akatakaluptos” as “unveiled”, is to imply what simply isn’t there.

5. Vs. 5, “But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if she were shaved.”

If Paul means a literal veil in this verse, it would mean that even if she has long hair, if she isn’t wearing a veil while in prayer, it is equivalent to being shaved. Yet this plainly is the opposite of vs. 15, “for her hair is given to her for a covering.” Therefore, if Paul means a literal veil, it would be the case that he is saying long hair is equivalent to a shaved head in vs. 5, and that it is a cover in vs. 15! This is an inescapable conclusion, and it would be a plain contradiction.

[Return to "On 1Corinthians 11:2-16"]

Endnotes
[1] Liddell and Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: at the Clarendon Press, 1975), p. 402
[2] G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973), p. 231
[3] Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995), p. 326. This edition was prepared using the fourth edition published by T. and T. Clark in 1901.
[4] Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1996), p. 405, translated by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, revised and augmented by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker.
[5] Thayer, p. 502
[6] James Burton Coffman, Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Abilene: ACU Press, 1984), p. 167
[7] Alfred Marshall, The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1979), p. 507
[8] Ibid., p. 507
[9] Thayer, p. 502
[10] T. G. Tucker, Life In Ancient Athens (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1908), p. 168
[11] Ibid., p. 169
[12] Ibid., p. 171
[13] Ibid., p. 172
[14] Tertullian, “On The Veiling Of Virgins”, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4 (Albany: Ages Software, no date), pp. 52-77
[15] John 21:20-23
[16] Thayer, p. 331