The first time I heard Bruce Winter speak on the background of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, my gut feeling was that he was wrong. So I looked for an opposing view.
There is virtually no one opposing his view.
In fact, there is very little engagement with his work beyond the world of conservative evangelical Christians, and, for the most part, they have embraced Winter’s conclusions so whole-heartedly that the ESV seems to have changed its translation to line up with his work! (At the very least, the notes in the ESV Study Bible follow his line).
This is disconcerting for me. If there is going to be a change to the reading of a passage in the Bible, I would have hoped that there would be a bit more discussion involved!
In the absence of more qualified people cross-examining Winter (Proverbs 18:17) – though I have found at least one since – I have tried to test his thesis by tracking down the sources he cites, reading wider and more recent historical work, and weighing the reasonableness of his arguments. I am not a scholar in either biblical studies or history, but I can follow footnotes back to their sources and follow an argument. And when it comes to 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and head coverings, I have serious questions about the validity of Bruce Winter’s conclusions.
WHO AM I TO CRITIQUE WINTER’S WORK?
Let’s begin by bringing a dose of realism to what I’m doing here.
Nobody in the upper echelons is going to take this critique seriously. Who am I, after all?
I am merely a guy who attends a Presbyterian Church in Queensland, whereas Bruce Winter is the past principal of the Queensland Theological College where Presbyterian Ministers are trained.
I am someone who has a Bachelors Degree in Theology, whereas Bruce Winter is has a Doctorate and teaches people gaining far higher qualifications than myself.
I am a guy who writes (sporadically) on a blog; Bruce Winter is a guy who writes journal articles, academic papers, and books.
So what on earth am I doing?
Well, I just couldn’t let it go. I assumed that Bruce Winter put footnotes in his books for a reason, so I checked them out. And, as I checked them out, my gut feeling has grown into a conviction that Bruce Winter’s sources do not back up his ideas. At best, his readings of primary evidence could be read in a way favourable to his line of argument, but, considering other primary evidence, more than likely does not. That doesn’t mean that I have read everything accurately myself, but the gaps between argument and sources were so frequent that I have no hesitation in saying Bruce Winter is wrong. And in being wrong, he has given a whole new generation of Christian leaders and ministers a reason to ignore a passage on gender that is sorely needed in this day and age.
GENERAL PROBLEMS WITH THE EVIDENCE CITED.
Bruce Winter's two books that have information relating to 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 are After Paul Left Corinth (APLC) and Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of New Women and the Pauline Communities (RWRW).
If you wish to listen to an outline of his ideas, you can listen to a talk he gave here:
https://foclonline.org/talk/you-were-what-you-wore.
I have looked quite extensively at his sources, but here I'll just outline some general problems I have with his evidence.
1. Winter draws on material sometimes dating hundreds of years before and after Paul wrote to the Corinthian Church.
For example, he cites the story of a divorce granted on the basis of the wife going out in public without a veil from 166 BC on p82 of RWRW, though the quote itself is from Valerius Maximus who wrote about it in the early years of the first century AD (Memorable Deeds and Sayings, 6.3.10). That's 100 years before Paul wrote his letter to the Corinthian Church!
Winter also quotes a line from The Digest 47.10.15.15 (p83 n31, RWRW). The Digest was a compilation of Roman Law through to 529 AD (one scholar thinks no earlier than the 2nd Century), a compilation that was adjusted to get rid of inconsistencies and contradictions. There is no context that suggests the line Winter quotes was in force in Corinth at the time Paul was writing.
It is difficult to accept that such a large period of time from which sources have been gathered can tell us what the situation was in Corinth in AD50 or so. In fact, Winter himself rejects the evidence of statues dating from a later period because it does not show the same style of clothing as the period he is discussing (n9, p79 RWRW).
2. The evidence Winter uses is specifically Roman, which relates to the Roman colony of Corinth at the time Paul visited it, but he does not address the wider conglomeration of cultures within the Roman Empire at large. In After Paul Left Corinth Winter himself discusses the contrast between Roman Corinth and other Greek cities:
“These Christians had lived, possibly from childhood, in a Roman colony which was proud of its customs, and its inhabitants considered themselves to be culturally superior to those in Greek cities in Achaea.” p4.
Later on in chapter one, Winter gives an example of a petition that compared the Roman-ness of Corinth with the Greek-ness of Argos (pp19-22, APLC).
Dio Chrysostom also mentions the presence of many foreigners in [what appears to be] Rome around AD 100.
It is again difficult to believe that the Church in Corinth was given teaching which applied to all the Churches of God if it was based solely on Roman Law and culture.
3. Winter relies on very recent research. In RWRW he cites T.A.J. McGinn saying in 1999 that “Roman women have become the subject of renewed discussion by ancient historians in recent literature” (p9, RWRW). Winter then states:
But for that sea change, the research for this book would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible. p9 RWRW.
This is significant, and implies that, for the last 20 centuries, the Church was not in a position to correctly interpret New Testament teaching on gender. Can this be true?
4. Ironically, research has continued apace since Winter’s books have been published, little directly referring to Winter’s work, but some of it undermining his proposals. It is in the nature of historical research that theories are presented and then refuted as new evidence and new interpretations of evidence arises. To base the interpretation of biblical passages so strongly on our historical knowledge seems to indicate that we consider our historical knowledge to be essentially static. Clearly that is not the case.
5. Perhaps my biggest concern is the assumption that the cultural values and laws of the time hold the key to the interpretation of New Testament passages. Nowhere is there a consideration that Christian traditions or values may exist alongside the values of the pagan societies in which they lived. That there were influences, yes, but that Christian teaching was based on what the surrounding society upheld seems contrary to the emphasis throughout the whole Bible in which God seems supremely concerned to have a people of his very own, involved in but separate from the world.
But let us assume that the correct interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 requires the amount of cultural knowledge that Winter asserts. What are we to do with people of the time who had greater knowledge of their own customs and laws than we do today, and who came to differing conclusions than those of Bruce Winter? I’m thinking specifically of Tertullian (approx. 160-225 AD), who is used by historians as a source of information on Roman Law from the first century up to his time. He does not interpret 1 Cor 11 the same way Bruce Winter does despite living in a society and time from which Winter takes evidence for his own interpretation!
Not looking to start another headcovering debate, but neither is there any merit in the perpetuation of misconceptions regarding original intent, regardless of whether one still considers the practice of headship coverings to be relevant or not...