I should have read this book much sooner. It provides crucial background information on the life of women in the first century. In doing this, it illuminates several difficult and controversial passages in the New Testament. I am referring to Bruce Winter’s Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of New Women and the Pauline Communities, which was published in 2003.
You can also watch this content as a VIDEO PODCAST or listen to it as an AUDIO PODCAST
Bruce Winter’s lifelong passion has been to build a bridge between the study of classical antiquity, that is the world of ancient Greece and Rome, and the study of the New Testament. One would think that this is an obvious connection to make, seeing that the Graeco-Roman world forms the setting and background of the NT. But Winter noticed that biblical scholars are often ignorant of developments and discoveries made by their colleagues in institutes and departments of classical studies. In his writings, he therefore presents relevant information and applies it to the field of biblical studies.
What moved me to finally read his book is that I taught 1 Corinthians last November and therefore – once again – had to face the issue of head covering in 1 Corinthians 11. This includes questions about what would have been considered normal or proper as well as questions about what the Corinthians (or at least some of their women) were doing differently and why.
But first things first. Who were these ‘New Women’ referred to in the subtitle of Winter’s book, what was ‘new’ about them, and how did they depart from what was considered normal or proper in Roman society? And how did the Roman authorities react?
Respectable Roman Women
We are on relatively firm ground when it comes to the norm. In public, Roman women of sufficient status who were married would normally wear a head covering that covered most of their hair but not their face. To speak of a veil may, therefore, leave us with the wrong impression. They would also, especially if they were upper class, wear a stola, an elaborate garment that prostitutes and adulterous women were forbidden to wear (Winter 2003: 84).
Official Roman statues of Empress Livia, the wife of Emperor Augustus, clearly reflect this standard of modesty in dress (see illustration). The head covering was meant to express this value. As Bruce Winter (2003: 80) puts it: “The veiled head was the symbol of the modesty and chastity expected of a married woman“.
Defining female virtues this way goes a long way back. It hardly differs from what the ancient Greeks expected of their women. Much of it could be summed up in one word: sophrosyne. “[S]ophrosyne has been translated as ‘temperance,’ but it also connotes chastity and self-restraint. Sophrosyne was the preeminent virtue of Greek women; it is mentioned more frequently than any other quality on women’s tombstones” (Pomeroy 1990: 70, quoted in Winter 2003: 73).
Hetairai and Pornai
There was, then, a “dress code of respectable married women” just as there was one “of high-class prostitutes and others. Roman jurisprudence distinguished between them by means of their appearance which was defined in terms of apparel and adornment” (Winter 2003: 4). People could be recognized and categorized by what they wore. “In classical antiquity, you were what you wore” (McGinn 2003: 162, quoted in Winter 2003: 4f).
Prostitutes came in two kinds. Pornai were ordinary prostitutes who worked on the streets or in brothels and who might serve many clients. Hetairai were expensive, upper-class prostitutes or courtesans. They were often well educated and provided companionship as well as sexual pleasure. They would typically be invited to and participate in upper-class dinner parties.
Neither hetairai nor pornai would wear a head covering or a stola. They would also stand out, especially the hetairai, by the sumptuous use of jewellery, gold, pearls, and cosmetics, as well as by elaborate hairstyles. Again, you were what you wore, and this would be obvious at first sight.
New Women
Already in the first century before Christ things had begun to change. Especially upper-class women and those with financial means enjoyed a new measure of opportunity and some of them began to take more freedoms. This included sexual freedom. Some cast aside all restraints and embraced a lifestyle of promiscuity, even if they were married. They were “a new breed of wives whose lifestyle differed considerably from that of the traditional image of the modest wife” (Winter 2003: 4). Their example proved enticing to some women in the provinces who followed in their footsteps.
We should not think of the New Women as a form or a forerunner of modern-day feminism. It was not about rights or a more equitable treatment of women. Its idea of liberation was the total rejection of all restraints, including those most people would consider reasonable and beneficial. It did not promote emancipation but excessive and often sexual hedonism.
Parallel to this, young upper-class men (consisting of patricians and equites or knights) were increasingly postponing marriage and having children, in some cases indefinitely. Rome depended on this class for military and other leadership. Their reluctance to produce offspring therefore posed a long-term threat to the stability of the empire; their birth rate was too low. The availability of women apart from marriage did not help.
As we will see in the next section, Emperor Augustus responded with new legislation.
Roman Law
As early as 17 BC Augustus introduced extensive legislation against licentiousness and in favour of marriage. In it, he “prescribed moral conduct, financial disadvantages in remaining single, the procreation of children with resulting career advantages, and dress codes for wives; it proscribed marriage between certain classes, and punished inactivity on the part of husbands who ignored their wive’s extramarital liaisons” (Winter 2003: 39).
Punishments were stiff. People could lose half their property and suffer banishment. Adulterous wives were not allowed to wear the marital head covering. A husband had to initiate proceedings against his unfaithful wife within 60 days; condoning adultery was also a crime (ibid.: 42).
The dress code, by the way, was strongly anchored in Roman law. If a woman did not wear the marital head covering and therefore looked like a prostitute, the man who unwittingly committing adultery with her was not liable (ibid.: 83). You were what you wore…
Upper-class males without children faced consequences in inheritance law and in career chances. Those with children were promoted faster (ibid.: 48f). However, it proved hard to pressure young men into marrying (ibid.: 53f).
Amendments were introduced in AD 9. The maximum time period to be engaged was limited to two years. Girls could only get engaged starting at 10 years of age. They could marry starting at 12 years. This was to prevent young men from getting engaged to very young girls and remain engaged for many years to avoid marriage and having children, so they could enjoy their freedom (ibid.: 54).
Statues of Livia, the wife of Augustus, displaying her as the ideal wife and mother, as shown above, were likewise intended to counter this development. To little avail, it appears, because their own daughter, Julia, was a prime example of a New Woman. In 2 BC she was banished for her rampant adultery and sexual license. A number of her lovers were banished as well.
Head Covering in 1 Corinthians 11
Back to 1 Corinthians 11. We should be aware that Corinth at this time was a Roman city. After its destruction in 146 BC, it had been rebuilt by Julius Caesar in 44 BC as a Roman colony and as a location to settle his veterans on their retirement from the army. Although by Paul’s time many of its inhabitants would have been Greek, it followed to a significant extent Roman customs and Roman law. Interestingly, whereas the language on the street no doubt was mostly Greek, the vast majority of inscriptions that have been found in Corinth are in Latin.
Bruce Winter concludes that the existence of a New Women movement “supports the interpretation that the wives praying and prophesying with their heads uncovered in the Christian gathering were replicating the attitude and actions of ‘new’ wives. As Christians, they defied a traditional imperial and Corinthian norm for wives engaging in what their compatriots would have judged to be a religious activity” (Winter 2003: 77).
Based on the legal dress code, removal of the head covering in public made a woman look “like the promiscuous married woman, for the absence of the veil sent an unmistakable signal. It was not proper by first-century standards to do this“ (ibid.: 93). Worse: “The way that wives dressed in public sent clear signals to men, thereby presenting themselves as either immodest or promiscuous women” (ibid.: 108). In other words, whether it was their intent or not, they signalled they were (sexually) available. They were what they wore.
1 Timothy 2
The background information presented in Winter’s book also illuminates 1 Timothy 2. For one, the women causing trouble in the Ephesian church at that time took their inspiration from the New Women and dressed (and some perhaps behaved) like hetairai:
I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarrelling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control [sophrosyne], not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. (1 Tim. 2:8-10 ESV)
By implication, Paul is not pronouncing a ban on all jewellery and the use of cosmetics in moderation, but he is speaking out against dressing like a prostitute (or an adulterous wife).
I guess that part, different from wearing a head covering, is not culturally relative but still applies today!
Appendix: 1 Corinthians 11:10
It is a bit of a digression, but the issue is of such importance that I do not want to pass it by. Right in the middle of Paul’s argument on head covering in 1 Corinthians 11 stands his conclusion, the application he draws. It states the very thing he wants the Corinthians to do. However, it is not at all what we would expect Paul to say at this point; it is also difficult to understand. What makes it worse: the verse is usually translated wrongly.
What we would expect Paul to say, based on his argument in the rest of this passage, is: “That is why a woman (or wife) ought to wear a head covering” (I am leaving out the additional puzzle of “because of the angels”).
What we get, in the ESV translation, is: “That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head”. This introduces such heavy interpretation into the translation as to completely disfigure what Paul really said.
First, throughout 1 Corinthians 11, Paul uses the Greek word for woman, which can mean wife depending on context. The ESV moves back and forth between woman and wife as translation. Each choice may or may not be correct, but we should realise that choosing between woman and wife is a matter of interpretation, not translation.
More seriously, there is no word for symbol in the Greek original; it only refers to authority. This comes as a surprise since Paul has obviously been speaking of a visible head covering of some sort. The ESV and numerous other translations therefore interpret authority here as a metonymy, a term that stands for and interprets a different term, in this case, the head covering. The latter is then understood as a sign that a wife is under her husband’s authority: therefore, she ought to have such a sign (that is, a head covering) on her head.
What speaks against this interpretation is not only the absence of any word meaning symbol. We have already posited that the head covering signifies a wife’s modesty. Besides, the word authority is always used in an active sense. It is something one has and may exercise. In addition, the Greek is quite clear: she does not have this authority on her head but over her head.
The woman is in charge of her head. Surprising as this may be, this is what Paul actually says.
A better translation would therefore be: “That is why a woman ought to have authority over her head”.
It may be that Paul is conceding a Corinthian argument at this point, in the sense that “yes, a woman has authority over her head, but…” More likely, in my view, Paul is telling the women to take and exercise authority over their heads, but to do so the right way, not in independence, but in consideration of others, especially their husbands.
The astounding fact remains that Paul does not deny their authority but acknowledges it; he merely wants them to use it responsibly, but the responsibility – and the authority – are theirs.
Attribution (in Order)
Mortel, Richard. 2016. “Livia Drusilla, wife of Augustus and mother of Tiberius, d. 19 CE, National Archeological Museum, Madrid (1) (29074219390).jpg” <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Livia_Drusilla,_wife_of_Augustus_and_mother_of_Tiberius,_d._19_CE,_National_Archeological_Museum,_Madrid_(1)_(29074219390).jpg> [Accessed 8 January 2020] CC BY 2.0
Garcia, Luis. 2006. “Livia Drusila – Paestum (M.A.N. Madrid) 01.jpg” <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Livia_Drusila_-_Paestum_(M.A.N._Madrid)_01.jpg> [Accessed 7 January 2020] Public Domain
GulArt. N.d. <https://pixabay.com/photos/statue-caesar-augustus-gaius-2309663/> [Accessed 8 January 2020] CC0
Tetraktys. N.d. “Matronalivia2.jpg” <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Matronalivia2.jpg> [Accessed 8 January 2020] CC BY-SA 3.0
References
All Bible quotations from: The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles)
McGinn, Thomas A. J. 2003. Prostitution, Sexuality, and the Law in Ancient Rome (Oxford University Press)
Pomeroy, Sarah B. 1990. Women in Hellenistic Egypt: From Alexander to Cleopatra (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press)
Winter, Bruce W. 2003. Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of New Women and the Pauline Communities (Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans)
Disclosure of Material Connection: Some of the links in the post above are “affiliate links.” This means if you click on the link and purchase the item, I will receive an affiliate commission. If you purchase anything through such a link, you help me cover the cost of Create a Learning Site.