^{page 48 note 1} Allo, E. B., Saint paul, Premiere Épître aux Corinthiens (Paris: Gabalda, 1956), p. 258; see also p. 263.Google Scholar The chief source of rvidence for Greek women taking part in a religious ceremony uncovered head is the Andania Mysteries inscription. See Dittenberger, W., Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarwn (Leipzig: S. Hirzel), II (1917), no. 736, iv:Google Scholar Έυ δΈ Τāι ποµπέι αι µΈιεραι γυναīκες νποδ´τα και ειµ´ου γυναικīον οūλον, οαµεīα ΈΧου µν πλατα νµΙδακτυλιου αİ δΈ παĪδες καπ´ανριυ και ειµ´τιου µν διαρøαυΈς. µν ΈΧέτοΗ σν µνδεµια Χφυοια µνδέ ø˜κος µνσΈ ψιµøιου µνδέ Τ´ς ΤριΧας ´νπεπλεγµΈυας µνδΈ ˜ποδνµαΤα µν πιλιυα ν δερµ´τιυα ιερóτιυα ιερóøυΤα. Also important is the Lycosurae lex sacra (ibid.III (1920), no 999);Google Scholar µησΈ τας τριΧ αµπεπλεγµΈυας. For the bearing of these inscriptions (and others) on I Cor. xi. 10, see Lösch, S., ‘Christliche Frauen in Corinth (I Cor. xi. 2–16), Em neuer Lösungsversuch’, Theologische Quartalschrift, cxxvii (1947), 230–51.Google Scholar Though many details about the wearing of the veil in antiquity, both by Jewish and Greek women, have been preserved for us, none of them bears directly on the problem of the Church in Corinth. We do not know the exact nature nor the origin of the abuse that Paul was trying to handle. Was it a reaction against a custom that he was trying to introduce? Delling, G., Paulus' Stellung zur Frau und Ehe (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1931), p. 98,Google Scholar seems to think so; likewise Schlatter, A., Die korinthieche Theologie (Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie, 18/2;Google Scholar G¨tcrsloh: Bertelsmann, C., 1914), pp. 23, 54.Google Scholar On the use of the veil in antiquity see de Vaux, R., ‘Sur Ie voile des femmes dans l'Orient ancien’, R.B. XLIV (1936), 397–412;Google ScholarJeremias, A., Der Schleier von Sumer bis heute (Der Alte Orient 31/1–2; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1931).Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 2} Lösch, S. (op. cit. pp. 225–30) rightly rejects the idea that there was a movement in Corinth in favour of the emancipation of women, which Paul was trying to combat.Google Scholar

^{page 49 note 1} Paul is obviously speaking in vv. 3–9 of the order of creation, as he does in I Tim. ii 13. Further on, however, in v. II he introduces another point of view, namely, έυ Κυριψ. Under this aspect Paul says, in Gal. iii. 28, οũκ έυι άραευ και. θñλυ.Google Scholar

^{page 49 note 2} So Bachmann, P., Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (4. Aufl., Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1936), p. 356;Google ScholarSickenberger, J., Die Briefe des hi. Paulus an die Korinther und Röner (Bonner Bibel, 6; Bonn: P. Hanstein, 1932), p. 51;Google ScholarHéring, J., La premiére épître de Saint Paul aux Corinthiens (Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1949), p. 94.Google Scholar

^{page 49 note 3} In Smith, J. M. P. (ed.), The Complete Bible, an American Translation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951), New Testament section, p. 162.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 1} Holsten, C., Des Evangelium des Paulus (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1880), pp. 472–4,Google Scholar eliminates the whole verse. Baljon, J. M. S., Novum Testamentum Graece (Groningen: Wolters, 1898), p. 525;Google ScholarJirku, A., ‘Die “Macht’ auf dem Haupte (I. Kor. xi. 10)’, Neue kirkliche Zeitschrjj?, XXXII (1921), 711, consider διά τούς άγγέλους a gloss.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 2} First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians (International Critical Commentary; Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1911), p. 233.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 3} See Perdelwitz, R., ‘Die έξουσια auf dem Haupt der Frau’, Theologische Studien und Kritiken, LXXXVI (1913), 611–13;Google ScholarStanley, A. P., Epistles of St Paul to the Corinthians (3rd ed., London: John Murray, 1865), p. 186.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 4} See Bauer, W., Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schnften des Neuen Testaments (4. Aufi.; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1952), p. 502;Google ScholarLiddell-Scott-Jones, , A Greek—English Lexicon (9th ed.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1925–1940), 1, 599;Google ScholarSpicq, C., ‘Encore la “Puissance sur la tête” (I Cor. xi. 10)“, R.B. XLVIII (1939), 557–62. Fr. Spicq has studied the uses of έξουσια a especially in Ben Sira and the Greek papyri and has shown that the word was used specifically of the authority of a husband over his wife or of a father over his children.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 5} Expos. in Ep. I ad Cor. (P.G. CXXIV, 697 c); the symbolical meaning has been proposed by Theodoretus (P.G. LXXXII, 312 D); Chrysostom (P.G. LXI, 218);Google ScholarLemonnyer, A., Épîtres de saint Paul, premiere partie (Paris: Bloud, 1908), p. 145;Google ScholarComely, R., Commentarius in S. Pauli apostoli epistolas, II: Prior epistola ad Corinthios (Paris: Lethidlleux, 1909), p. 319;Google ScholarBachmann, P., op. cit. p. 356;Google ScholarBillerbeck, Strack, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (München: C. H. Beck), III (1926), p. 436;Google ScholarHuby, J., Saint Paul, Premiere épîire aux Corinthiens (Paris: Beauchesne, 1946), pp. 248–9;Google ScholarSpicq, C., op. cit. p. 558;Google ScholarKürzinger, J., Die Briefe des Apostels Paulus, die Briefe an die Korinther und Galate, (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1954), p. 28; et at.Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 1} The cities of St Paul. Theirinfluence on his Iife and thought (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1907), 203.Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 2} This is the weak point, in our opinion, in Spicq's study of (see p. 50, n. 4). Granted that metonymy is a legitimate way to interpret the word, and granted that does mean in the papyri and Ben Sira the authority of the husband over his wife or of the father over his children, the fact remains that έξουσια in the New Testament is used in an active sense of a power which one exercises. Even in the examples from the papyri which Spicq cites the word ∥χειυ έξουσιαυ seems to us to have this meaning; thus έξουσια means to transfer the authority to another so that he can exercise it.Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 2} Allo (op. cit. pp. 266–7)Google Scholar cites the use of a similar expression in Diodorus Siculus (1, 47, 5), who reports that the statue of an ancient Egyptian goddess bears τρεις βαδιγειας έπι τή κεφαγής ‘c’est-à-dire trois diadémes, signes d'une triple royauté’. But there is an important difference to be noted: ‘ici ii s’agit de la puissance de son porteur et non pas de la puissance d'une autre personne’ (Héring, J., op. cit. p. 95);Google Scholar see also Weiss, J., Der erste Korintherbrief (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1910, p. 274.)Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 4} Die Briefe an die Korinther (Das Neue Testament Deutsch 7; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1954), p. 83.Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 5} Ramsay, W. M., op. cit. p. 203.Google ScholarAllo, E. B., op. cit. p. 267,Google Scholar combines this interpretation with the first one: Paul is stressing not only the subordination of the woman, but also strives to bring out her dignity. See Delling, op. cit. p. 99 n. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 6} Robertson and Plummer, op. cit. p. 232.Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 7} Huby, J., op. cit. p. 248.Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 1} Thus Everling, O., Die paulinieche Angelologia uhd Dämonologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1888), p. 37;Google ScholarDibelius, M., Die Ceisterwelt im Clauben des Paulus (Göttingen: Vandenlioeck und Ruprecht, 1909), pp. 13–23;Google ScholarWeiss, J., op. cit. p. 274;Google ScholarLietzmann, H., An die Korinther I–II (4. Aufl.; T¨bingen: Mohr, 1949), p. 55;Google ScholarReitzenstein, R., Poiznandres (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1904), p. 230 n. 1;Google ScholarHiring, J., op. cit. pp. 90, 94–5;Google ScholarFehrle, E., Die Kcu1tisch Keuschheit im Altertum (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 6; Giessen: Töpelmann, 1910), p. 39; et at.Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 2} Op. cit. p. 55. W. G. Kümmel's added note on p. 184 is scarcely pertinent.Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 3} Sabbath vi. 8 b, commenting on Isa. iii. 18: hs˘bysym: s˘ltwnyh kink d's lsquo;mr s˘bys sbrave;l sbkh. ‘Was die s˘bisim anlangt, so sind damit gemeint die s˘altonayya, wie du sagst: der ˘abis des Kopfnetzes.’ ‘Die “Macht” auf dem Haupt (I Cor. xi. 10)’, Rabbinica (Arbeiten zur Vorgeschichte des Christentums, 1/3; Leipzig: J. Hinrichs, 1920), p. 20.Google Scholar Though this opinion is usually ascribed to G. Kittel, he was actually anticipated by Herklotz, J., ‘Zu I Kor. xi. 10’, BibUsehe Zeisschnft, X(1912), 154.Google Scholar See Levy, Wörterbuch öber die Talmudim unt Midraschim, IV, 562 a.Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 4} Treated as a variant by Nestle, Merk. But is it certain that the txt of Irenaeus offers nothing more than a paraphrase of our verse?Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 5} See Héring, J., op. cit. p. 95.Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 1} Foerster proposes it only as a conjecture in T. W.N. T. II, 571. Ginsburger's discussion (‘La “gloire” et 1’ “autorité’ de la femme dans I Cor. xi. 1–10’, R.H.P.R. XII (1932), 248)Google Scholar was apparently written independently of Kittel's study. Delling, C. (op. cit. p. 105 n. 68) regards this interpretation as ‘die annehmbarste Losung’.Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 2} Thus Strack-Billerbeck, op. cit. III, Allo, op. cit. p. 264.Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 3} According to Acts xviii. 1–5 Paul on his first arrival in Corinth was given hospitality by ‘a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla … Every Sabbath he would preach in the synagogue, and try to convince both Jews and Greeks.' When he turned in anger from thejews to preach to the heathen,’ he moved to the house of a worshipper of God named TitusJustus, which was next door to the synagogue. But Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord and so did all his household … ’ See Allo, op. cit. pp. 12–13;Google ScholarHolzner, J., Paulus (Freiburg im B.: Herder, 1937), p. 206.Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 4} Commentarii in EpistulasD. Pauli, nuncprimum ex Armenia in Latinum sermonem transkti (Venice, 1893), p. 70. This was likewise the opinion of Pelagius (P.L. XXX, 781 B) and of Primasuus of Adrumetum (P.L. CXVIII, 532D).Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 5} P.L. XVII, 253. Bornhäuser, Similafly D., “Urn der Engel willen”, I Kor. xi. 10‘, Neue kirkliche Zeitschrift, XLI (1930), 475–88;Google ScholarRose, P., ‘Power on the head’, Expository Times, XXIII (1911–1912), 183–4.Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 6} Meyer, W., I. Korinther 11–16 Leib Christi (Zurich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1945), p. 26.Google ScholarRocach, Similarly K., ‘“Um der Engel willen” (I Kor. xi. 10)’, Theologie md Glaube, xxiv (1932), 363–5;Google ScholarRobertson and Plurnmer, op. cit. pp. 233–4 (as a suggestion ‘worth considering’);Google ScholarMezzacasa, J., ‘Propter angeles (I Cor. xi. 10)’ V.D. XI (1931), 39–42;Google ScholarLösch, S. (op. cit. p. 255 n. 80) labels K. Roesch's exposé as ‘die einzig richtige, von den Kirchenvatern ubereinstimmend vertretene Deutung”.Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 7} Op. Cit. p. 251.Google Scholar

^{page 54 note 1} P.L. II, 947 A cf. Contra Marcionem, v, 8 (C.S.E.L. XLVII, 597); De cultu feminarwn, 2, 10 (C.S.E.L. LXX, 88).

^{page 54 note 2} Op. cit. p. 55.Google Scholar He refers to Bousset, W., Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (Berlin: Reuther und Reichard, 1906), p. 382.Google Scholar See also Jung, L., Fallen Angels in Jewish, Christian and Mohammedan Literature (Philadelphia: Dropsie College, 1926), pp. 97ff.;Google ScholarWeber, W., ‘Die paulinische Vorschrift über die Kopfbedeckung der Christen’, Zeitschnft fisr wi.ssen.schafthiche Theologie, XLVI (1903), 487–99. See n. I, p. 52 above for others who hold this opinion.Google Scholar

^{page 54 note 3} Compare Enoch vi (Charles, , Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, II, 191); xix. I (II, 200);Google ScholarJubilees iv. 22 (II, 19);Google ScholarApocalypse of Baruch, lvi. 12 (II, 513);Google ScholarTobit vi. 14; viii. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 54 note 4} Op. cit. p. 94Google Scholarcf. Dibelius, M., Die Geisterwelt, pp. 18ff.Google Scholar

^{page 54 note 5} Compare I Cor. xiii. I; Matt. xiii. 49; xxv. 31; Luke xvi. 22; Heb. i. 4, 5. See Bachmann, op. cit. p. 357.Google Scholar

^{page 54 note 6} See Allo, op. cit. p. 266.Google ScholarHéring, J. (op. cit. p. 95) thinks that he can weaken this point made by Aflo by pointing out that the angels of Gen. vi were also good, avant do so laisser séeduire. This is hardly ad rem.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 1} P.G. LXXXII, 312D–313A. So too Zolli, E., Christus (Rorna: Casa Editrice A.V.E., 1946), p. 88;Google ScholarStrack-Billerbeck, op. cit. iii, 437;Google ScholarKittel, op. cit. p. 26, regards the angels rather as guardians of the woman's chastity.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 2} The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1947), p. 152.Google Scholar See also Brun, L., ‘“Um der Engel willen” I Kor. xi. 10’, Z.N.W. XIV (1913), 298–308.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 3} See Kurze, G., Der Engels- und Teufelsglaube des AposteLi Paulus (Freiburg im B.: Herder, 1915), p. 12.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 4} See further Tobit xii. 12; I Cor. iv. 9; Eph. iii. 10; 1 Tim. v.. 21; Heb. i. 14 for functions of the angels that are similar.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 5} 'Ôsar hamm'gillôt hagg'nûzôt (Jerusalem: Bialik Foundation and Hebrew University, 1954), Milbemet…lûah 22.Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 1} Barthélemy, D., Milik, J. T., Discoveries in the Juduean Desert—I, Qumrân Cave I (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955), p. 110.Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 2} This is the common interpretation of the situation in this passage; see Allo's remarb (op. cit. p. 257) against Bachmann's understanding of the context.Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 3} On qhl and έκκγηδια, see Kittel's T.W.N.T. III, 350ff.Google Scholar

^{page 57 note 1} In the same vein writes Lyonnet, S. (‘L'étude du milieu littéraire et l'exegèse du Nouveau Testament’, Bibika, XXXVII, (1956), 1–3), apropos of the results of J. Dupont's researches into Pauline Gnosis.Google Scholar

^{page 57 note 2} ‘Les documents du Désert de Juda et les origines du Christianisme’, Analecta Lovaniensia Biblica et Orientalia, ser. 2, no. 41 (1953), 26.Google Scholar