This is the second in a five-part series on head coverings. See the index here.
In Part 1, we discussed John Chrysostom’s and Tertullian’s views on veiling. Now, let’s briefly discuss other patristic writers who also mentioned veiling, or closely related topics. We’ll consider why Tennant didn’t cite them.
The detailed list is here. See here and here also.
Irenaeus (c.130-202 AD)
In Against Heresies, Book I, Chapter 8.2, Irenaeus mentions, in passing, a Valentinian reference to 1 Corinthians 11:10 that uses the word for ‘veil’ in place of the word for ‘authority’. The reason the Valentinians gave for veiling was modesty.
Given Irenaeus’ statement about the Valentinians that…
…it’s not clear whether he approves or disapproves of the way they put a spin on scripture.
Although this is the earliest quotation of this verse, it is a misquotation. No extant Greek manuscript renders the passage as “veil.” This may further indicate that scripture was altered or miscopied, perhaps in order to promote physical veiling (whether by Irenaeus and/or the Valentinians is not clear).
We can see that despite the numerous warnings,[1] mistranslations and misquotations—leading to influential doctrinal developments—are not simply a modern problem in the church. This was, in fact, a dubious ancient practice. In Part 3, we’ll see too that John Chrysostom misquoted 1 Corinthians 11:10, which may have led to his novel doctrinal viewpoint in favor of veiling.[2]
In any case, Tennant’s reason for veiling has to do with his complex cosmic theology, not with modesty as such. In addition to the variant rendering, this is likely why he did not cite this reference.
Clement of Alexandria (c.150-215 AD)
In Paedagogus, Book III, Chapter 11, Clement mentions veiling. He says that a woman (wife?) is to be entirely covered, including her face. She may unveil only at home. Clement notes that…
…indicating that veiling for prayer is the only reason that the Word of God gives. Clement notes that the reason for veiling all the time is so that people will not look at her immodestly and thus fall into sin, not because Paul demanded that a woman veil outside of prayer.
This is, incidentally, why the Anabaptists call it the “prayer veil.”
This is different from Tennant’s teaching that Paul was referring to the entirety of worship, not just prayer.
In Chapter 2, Clement forbid dying the hair yellow (or blond), considering such things to be scandalous and destructive to the family. This too is different from Tennant’s teaching.
Hippolytus of Rome (c.170-235AD)
In Apostolic Tradition, 18.5, Hippolytus wrote:
He gives no additional rationale.
As with Clement, this is only in the context of prayers. Also, as with Clement, this is different from what Tennant teaches: that Paul was referring to the entirety of worship, not just prayer.
Origen of Alexandria (c.184-253 AD)
I’ve found the following reference online attributed to Origen:
This quote is purported to come from Origen’s Homily 23 on Luke, but I did not confirm this. If it is real, it conforms with the above references that veiling was only required for prayer.
Cyprian (c.200-258 AD)
Cyprian did not mention head coverings specifically, but he did discuss women’s attire in On the Dress of Virgins. Like the early writers, he too was concerned with modesty, comparing the alternative with prostitution.
It is apparently quite strange that he was not interested in head covering specifically, given his central topical focus. But, this makes sense given that he was primarily talking about virgins and not married women. Virgins did not have to cover at this time in history (as we noted in our discussion on Tertullian, who lived from c.155AD to c.220 AD), so we wouldn’t expect him to discuss head coverings when discussing the modesty of virgins.
Somewhat amusingly, Cyprian also said that wives are not even permitted to dress to please even their husbands. Cyprian is presumed to have been unmarried.
Epiphanius (c.315-403 AD)
In the Panarian (per A. Philip Brown II, here), Ephiphanius cites 1 Corinthians 11:7 five different times in order to show that men are forbidden to have long hair, quoting it each time as:
Similar to the Valentinians’ quotation in Irenaeus, there are no extant Greek manuscripts with this rendering.
Ephiphanius understood word “to be covered” (katakaluptó; κατακαλύπτεσθαι) to refer to “having long hair” (komáō; κομᾶν), clearly interpreting it in terms of 1 Corinthians 11:14 (We will discuss this chiastic relationship with verse 7 more in later parts of the series). Epiphanius also mentions the Old Testament Nazarite practice as the only proper instance of a man having long hair (accounting for Paul’s long hair in Corinth described in Acts 18).
Reasoning thus, Epiphanius must have read 1 Corinthians 11:6 in the same way as he did one verse later.
Epiphanius’ understanding is very important because it reveals the ambiguity and lack of clarity with Paul’s Greek. This native Greek-speaking writer did not think the covering had to (or did) refer to a cloth covering, he understood it to be referring to long vs. short hair. Similarly, while his view was not universally held by all writers, it nonetheless shows that it was not a modern doctrinal innovation.
Epiphanius’ view apparently most closely matches my own (though I had not known this prior to writing this section).
Basil the Great (c.330-379 AD)
Basil understood that no man could cover their head with any material while they were praying or prophesying, but also notes that women must have long hair and men must have short hair in order to pray. If they do not, their good deeds—prayers—will be rejected.
This contradicts Tennant’s stated view of interdenominational conciliation.
Ambrosiaster (c. 350-400 AD)
Ambrosiaster taught that women must be veiled while praying or prophesying (purportedly in “Commentaries on Romans and 1-2 Corinthians” and in “Letter 147. To Sabinianus” in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series 2, vol. 6, p. 292). He noted that virgins wearing veils was indicative of dedication to monastic service, indicating that virgins were otherwise unveiled. He also makes references to veils as face coverings, rather than merely head (or hair) coverings.
Explanation
I reject the teachings of the early writers. They don’t represent a universally consistent apostolic teaching. The teachings are, in fact, wildly inconsistent. The only teaching that appears to be… mostly… consistent is that it only applies to women while they are praying.
But, Tennant doesn’t see veiling as only required for prayer, despite this being the overwhelming position of the early writers. When you listen to his candid advice for how to actually practice veiling, it diverges dramatically from the early practice! So why should I take his views on veiling seriously when they do not conform to the early witness?
Similarly, none of the early writers on veiling mention Heiser’s cosmic divine council theory. This theory is central to Tennant’s entire premise, but none of the early writers agree with him. In fact, the Old Testament’s views on head coverings are almost completely absent from the early writers’ views on head covering. Tennant’s view is creatively modern, which is precisely the criticism he levels at those who reject head covering. This is quite ironic.
Tennant’s anachronistic view of headship is also missing from the early writings. In its place is a focus on modesty and honor.
These kinds of explanations are precisely why I said at the onset of this discussion in part 1:
Tennant’s view is based on his pet cosmic theory, not based on scripture, and so it diverges from what you would expect.
The fact of the matter is the early writers are flailing about. They seem to all—except Epiphanius—agree that women should veil when praying. But, they don’t agree on much else. They especially don’t agree on why women should veil, except perhaps that modesty is the most common reason given.
For something that is supposed to be obvious (according to the words of Paul), nobody can agree on what that obvious thing is!
Ironically, the Anabaptist view that the covering is a “prayer veil” is probably the only thing that is even remotely defensible.
In Part 3, we will look at 1 Corinthians 11 directly.
Postscript
Regarding Epiphanius:
Given the broad consensus of the history of interpretation on this passage, how does one justify the assertion that κόμη is the covering at issue? This is certainly a fair question, and one that should be addressed directly.
First, it is important to realize that the “κόμη-only” position is not an abandonment of the church’s historic understanding of this passage. The church fathers and early commentators consistently understood that Paul, and thus God, forbade men to have κόμη and expected it of women. The position espoused here stands in continuity with this aspect of church’s historic position, while dissenting from the common understanding that an additional covering (the veil) is also in view.
Second, several factors provide a plausible explanation for what I regard as a misunderstanding of Paul’s language regarding a covering:
(1) the ambiguity of Paul’s language,
(2) the Mediterranean cultural ethos,
(3) early glosses in Greek manuscripts and early translations of the passage in Latin and Coptic,
(4) the influence of Irenaeus and Tertullian
(5) inattention to Paul’s theological argumentation in 1 Cor. 11:7.
I highly recommend you read the Appendix of Brown’s paper, as he discusses these topics in a way that I do not in this series. Here is Brown’s conclusion:
This footnote is also highly relevant to this series:
(1) a veil symbolizes a woman is married,
(2) a veil maintains a woman’s modesty,
(3) a veil communicates marital fidelity,
(4) a veil protects a woman from undesired gazes,
(5) a veil may be used to show respect to a man,
(6) a veil functioned as a gender-distinguishing piece of clothing, and
(7) a veil may be used to adorn or beautify.
The non-use of the veil could signal grief at a death, disrespect to a man, or promiscuous availability and was considered shameful.
“The Veil and the Voice,” pp. 252-80.
Footnotes
[1] Here are some of the warnings in the New Testament:
I know that after my departure grievous wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock, and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking twisted things to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore watch, remembering that for three years I did not cease to admonish everyone night and day with tears.
I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ, and are turning to a different “good news,” (which is really not another). But there are some who are confusing you, and who want to change the good news of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should proclaim to you a good news contrary to the good news we proclaimed to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I now say again, if anyone proclaims to you a good news that is contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
For the time will come when they will not tolerate sound doctrine; but having itching ears, they will pile up teachers for themselves, to suit their own desires, and will turn away from listening to the truth and turn aside to myths.
Beloved, while being very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you urging you to contend earnestly for the faith that was delivered to the holy ones once for all time. For certain people have crept in unnoticed, those who were written about long ago for this condemnation; they are ungodly, perverting the grace of our God into immoral indulgence and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
But false prophets also arose among the People, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their unrestrained behavior, and because of them the way of truth will be defamed, and in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation, pronounced long ago, is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.
False teachers have taught that head covering is essential for women to enter the presence of God, perverting the very gospel itself: what it means to for a Christian to be able to approach God through Christ. It’s an implicit repudiation of the power of faith.
They have altered the very words of scripture, twisting them to say something that Paul himself did not say. In the process they’ve created new doctrines where none were previously.
They have followed after the practice of of the Pharisees in raising barriers (or veils) to separate the bride from the bridegroom. Because unlike the Ancient Near East wedding where the bride was veiled, the bride of Christ is never described as being veiled, but is in fact already unveiled:
Therefore, having such a hope, we use great boldness of speech, and are not like Moses, who put a veil on his face so that the sons of Israel could not look steadfastly on the end of that which was passing away. But their minds were hardened. For until this very day at the reading of the Old Covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because only in Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day, whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart.
But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom! And we all, with unveiled faces reflecting as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same appearance, from glory into glory, just as one would expect—from the Lord who is the Spirit.
This is the only passage in the entire New Testament that explicitly mentions veiling. Whether or not you take this literally or figuratively, it goes further than merely saying that we do not have to veil, but rather says that our veil was taken away completely. Veiling is not even possible!
If taken figuratively, it means that a material head covering could not figuratively represent—be a symbol of—a spiritual veil. Since we are all spiritually unveiled in order to reflect God’s glory, a material head covering cannot be a symbol of a spiritual veil for it would hide God’s glory. And, as we’ll see in Part 3, Paul never said that a veil was “a symbol of” authority.
If taken literally, it means you can’t have a material veil before Christ.
Either way, Paul cannot be talking about material veils in 1 Corinthians 11, unless he is contradicting himself.
[2] At least three early writers—Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and John Chrysostom—swapped out Paul’s words for other words in order for those commentators to make the case for their preferred doctrines. The words that Paul had chosen were not sufficiently clear to establish those doctrines.