John Chrysostom (347 – 407 AD) sometimes features in discussions of 1 Cor 11:2-16 because he comments on this passage in his Homilies but again we need to be circumspect in our use of this material. For example Chrysostom says:

“(B)ut the men went so far as to wear long hair as having spent their time in philosophy, and covered their heads when praying and prophesying, each of which was a Grecian custom" (Homily 26 On the Veiling of Virgins).

However the evidence suggests that it was not a “Grecian custom“ for males (or females) to cover their heads in worship (See Custom and Worship). Moreover if this claim was correct it would further weaken the custom position because it would supply further evidence that Paul’s instruction concerning male worshippers was at odds with a cultural practice.

Other examples could be cited but hopefully the point has been made. Some who advocate the custom position unwittingly draw unwarranted conclusions from the words of early writers and often mistaken claims are repeated uncritically by those who follow.

Wrong Customs and Wrong Locations

"We must remember the place of the veil in the east. To this day the Eastern women wear the yashmak which is a long veil leaving the forehead and the eyes open but reaching down almost to the feet. In Paul’s time the Eastern veil was even more concealing. It came right over the head with only an opening for the eyes and reached right down to the feet. A respectable eastern woman would never have dreamed of appearing without it ...” (p. 97).

So Barclay speaks of a covering which was “even more concealing” than the yashmak and was associated with the East.  The yashmak is “a veil concealing all of the face except the eyes, worn by some Muslim women in public” (Oxford Dictionary).

Dio Chrysostom (c.40-120 AD) also makes reference to veiling customs in Tarsus and his comments are often found in discussions of 1 Cor 11:2-16. Chrysostom is critical of the inhabitants of the city saying "In days gone by therefore your city was renowned for orderliness and sobriety...but I fear that it may be rated just the opposite."  He adds:

"And yet many of the customs still in force reveal in one way or another sobriety and severity of the deportment of those earlier days. Among these is the convention regarding feminine attire, a convention which prescribes that women should be so arrayed and should so deport themselves when in the street that nobody could see any part of them, neither of the face nor of the rest of the body, and that they themselves might not see anything off the road... Therefore, while they have their faces covered as they walk, they have their soul uncovered...For that reason they, like surveyors, can see more keenly with but one of their eyes" (Orations 33.48511).

Clearly this is a description, not of a simple head covering typical of those worn in first century Roman Greek cities like Corinth, but rather of a garment similar to the yashmak.  Oepke refers to this passage and says:

"In general one may say that etiquette as regards the veil becomes stricter the more one moves East" adding that "Tarsus is the frontier” (TDNT vol. 3 p. 562).

The editors of the The Loeb Classical Library explain that "This prescription may have been due to the oriental element at Tarsus."  Significantly Dio Chrysostom, a Greek, regards it as a noteworthy custom, details of which need explaining. It is an example of a “custom still in force” from “earlier days” and he explains this convention. Commenting on this passage in his The Cities of St. Paul William M. Ramsay points out that Dio Chrysostom praises only one Tarsian characteristic unreservedly, and that this custom was, “utterly different from the Hellenic (i.e. Greek) custom.” Utterly different.

Tertullian (c 160 AD. to 220 AD) has quite a lot to say about women's apparel and his writings are frequently cited by those who take the custom position. Keep in mind that Tertullian was from Carthage, North Africa.  It is clear that Tertullian is urging Christian sisters to wear a yashmak-type garment, and that a garment which would have met the requirements of 1 Cor 11:2-16 would have been completely unacceptable to him. Consider the following quotes from On the Veiling of Virgins:

"Arabia's heathen females will be your judges, who cover not only the head, but the face also, so entirely that they are content with one eye free to enjoy rather half the light than to prostitute the entire face" ...

“So perilous a face then, ought to be shaded which has cast a stumbling block even as far as heaven" (p. 166).

“For who will have the audacity to intrude with his eyes upon a shrouded face?" (p. 177).

“All ages are periled in your person...rear a rampart for your sex, which must neither allow your own eyes egress nor ingress to other people’s” (p. 178).

Clearly Tertullian's advice to women reflects certain North African and Arabian customs, and he is speaking, not simply of the head coverings typical of Roman Greek cities like Corinth, but rather of garments which cover the face.

"Women and men are to go to church decently. Let her be entirely covered unless she happen to be at home ... And she will never fall, who puts before her eyes modesty and her shawl; nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face...” (Clement Bk 3 p. 290).

Keep in mind that Alexandria is in North Africa. Clement commands the woman to put her shawl before her eyes and speaks of the need to cover the face. He is speaking of a yashmak-type covering, but a woman attired in Roman-Greek headdress typical of Corinth would not have met Clement’s requirements. It is also possible to see the oriental influence in Clement’s advice to men. He says:

"For an ample beard suffices for men. And if one too shaves a part of his beard, it must not be made entirely bare for this is a disgraceful sight. The shaving of the chin to the skin is reprehensible...” (Bk.3 p. 286).

Again:

"For it is not lawful to pluck out the beard, man’s natural and noble adornment" (ibid p. 277).

According to Keener "Beards were quite out of fashion in the Roman world of Paul’s day...” ( p. 43). This reinforces the point about dislocation. We certainly do not take Clement's  views on beards and shaving to represent those in the West, and his comments about burka type garments in North Africa  tell us nothing about head covering customs in a  Roman Greek city located in Europe.

In passing it is interesting to note that, according to Hurley “evidence from the Talmud indicates that by somewhere between the third and the sixth century it had become the practice of Jewish piety for women to go outside with a shawl drawn over their heads. Full facial veiling was not the practice of the Tamudic Jews” ( p. 67). He adds: 

“By the time of the Pesikta Rabbati (homilies dating from the 9th century AD - Rex) the Jews of Palestine understood veiling according to the Islamic practice of full facial veiling and projected this practice backwards as they read the older history and as they made illustrations from it.”

The Roman catacombs are located about 5 k from the city centre and date from about the middle of the second century AD to the fourth century AD. A significant symbol found in the catacombs is the Orante or Orans, which is typically a female figure praying with uplifted hands. Left is a picture taken from the Catacomb of Priscilla in Rome,(c 220). The female figure with uplifted hands has an artificial covering on her head. It is not the face veil discussed in connection with Tarsus and North Africa.

Unfortunately many brethren have been influenced by a widely read book by brother C. R. Nichol. In his God's Woman brother Nichol wrote in 1938:

“Years before and years subsequent to the time this letter was written to the Corinthians at Corinth, it was the custom of women in Corinth, and in some other places, never to appear in public with their heads 'uncovered' or faces 'unveiled'” (p. 120).

Unfortunately this widely read book has had an impact upon many in the brotherhood but we now know that the assertion that women of Corinth never appeared in public with “faces unveiled” is incorrect.  Brother Coffman makes equally unhelpful comments. For example:

 “What was the veil, actually, that was worn in those days? It was a large loose mantle which the woman wrapped around her head and face, leaving only the eyes visible, and sometimes only one eye” (Commentary on the Whole Bible 1st Corinthians).

On this basis Coffman, (who insists that Paul is not discussing an artificial covering) says Paul    "simply COULD NOT have referred to any man's wrapping himself up in the type of mantle that was called a veil in those days. That type of veil (or mantle), as far as history reveals, was never worn by men in any circumstance."

This is a most unhelpful comment.

·         When we look at the text we will see that nothing Paul says hints at a face covering.

·         As we have seen the yashmak- style garment described by Coffman was not associated with Corinth 

·         Roman male (and female) worshippers did indeed cover their heads (not their faces) with an artificial garment (see below).

We need to be careful in our use of Tertullian, Clement and others in our treatment of 1 Cor 11:2-16. North Africa is not Corinth and the yashmak type garment did not serve the purpose outlined by Paul. He discusses head covering in terms of theology. He is not discussing a face covering which was designed to ensure that the woman did not “invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face”

The Problem of Historical Dislocation

Let’s say a word about the use of materials which relate to situations remote in time from first century Corinth. Clearly we cannot always find examples from the precise time period under consideration, but it is equally clear that societies do change over long periods of time. By way of illustrating this point considers another Plutarch passage which occurs in his Moralia and which is sometimes cited in connection with 1 Cor 11:

"Charillus, (King of Sparta [Rex]) being asked why Lycurgus made so few laws, said, ‘Because those who use few words have need of but few laws.’

When someone inquired why they took their girls into public places unveiled, but their married women veiled, he said, ‘Because the girls have to find husbands, and the married women have to keep to those who have them.’"

Let's note at the outset that whatever this Spartan custom was, it involves unmarried women not wearing a covering just as surely as it involves married women wearing a covering. Therefore this passage really does not help the custom position. But my main point here is that the appeal to this passage provides a good illustration of historical dislocation.

Concerning the time period involved, a footnote to the Plutarch passage (Loeb Classical Library) tells us that Charillus was “an early king of Sparta; traditionally a contemporary of Lycurgus" (footnote d). Just when these two Spartan leaders lived is not known, but tradition has it that if Lycurgus was a real figure, he dates from about 900 years before Christ. Thus Plutarch is speaking of figures that are as distant from his own day as the battle of Hastings (1066) is from our day. This is an enormous period of time, and the fact is that experts in the history of costume point out that Greek custom changed greatly due to Ionic, Doric, Asian and other influences over this time. To drive home the point, Lycurgus may even have been a contemporary of Homer.  Plutarch himself emphasizes that the Sparta of which he wrote was very different from the Sparta of his own day (and of Paul’s day). He concludes his section on Spartan custom as follows:

"As long as the Spartan state adhered to the laws of Lycurgus and remained true to its oaths, it held the first place in Greece for good government and good repute over a period of five hundred years...

(After) the victory of Philip of Macedonia at Chearoneia (335 B.C) (the Spartans were) ...still keeping alive some feeble sparks of the laws of Lycurgus...

So it was until they ceased altogether to observe the laws of Lycurgus...so that they became much like the rest, and put from them their former glory and freedom of speech, and were reduced to a state of subjection; and now they, like the rest of the Greeks, have come under Roman sway."

Clearly appeals to a practice dating from about 900 years before Paul carry no weight, especially in light of the fact that Spartan society at the time of Lycurgus differed markedly from that of the first century period. As Thompson pointed out, what we need to be looking at is not evidence from 900 years before Paul, but first century custom. Oepke says concerning the Plutarch passage that it “reflects special Laconic (i.e Spartan) customs” and that there are “numerous and unequivocal” passages “to the contrary ..." (TDNT vol 3. p. 562).

Prostitutes

As a new Christian I regularly consulted The Expositors Greek Testament and A. T. Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament. Writing in the former G. G. Findlay says:

"Amongst Greeks only the hetaerae, so numerous in Corinth, went about unveiled; slave women wore the shaven head – also a punishment of the adulteress" (vol. II, p. 872).

Robertson includes this quote in his comments upon 1Cor 11:5. Burton Coffman who believes that Paul is discussing hair rather than an artificial covering says on this verse:

"'Not completely covered' would then refer to the disgraceful conduct of the Corinthian women in cropping their hair, after the manner of the notorious Corinthian prostitutes; which, if they did it, was exactly the same kind of disgrace as if they had shaved their heads.”

Findlay, Robertson and Coffman do not identify their sources of information and I have been unable to locate any substantiating evidence for their claims about Corinthian prostitutes. S. M. Baugh associate professor of New Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary says:

“The source most often used to substantiate Greek cult prostitution in the NT era is a statement in the Greek travel-write Strabo (ca. 64 BC-AD 21), regarding ancient Corinth. He writes: “And the temple of Aphrodite [in Corinth] was so rich that it owned more than a thousand temple-slaves, courtesans (hetairai ), whom both women and men had dedicated to the goddess. And therefore it was also on account of these women that the city was crowded with people and grew rich” (8.6.20; LCL trans.) (Cult Prostitution In New Testament Ephesus: A Reappraisal Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42.3, 1999, p. 445).

Strabo makes no mention of the head covering. Moreover Baugh adds:

"Strabo in the passage in question (8.6.20) was reporting on ‘cult prostitution’ in the distant past in Corinth, namely in the reign of the tyrant Cypselus (657–25 BC; 8.6.20, see line 23 in the Loeb ed.). Note that in Strabo’s statement, he refers to the phenomenon as something in the past: ‘The temple of Aphrodite was so wealthy that it owned more than a thousand slaves as prostitutes who had been devoted…’  Strabo obviously did not intend to present the practice as one still in existence in the Augustan era, particularly since he observed a few paragraphs later that Corinth possessed only a “small shrine of Aphrodite” in his day, rather than the wealthy and powerful temple of earlier centuries (8.6.21; cf. Pausanias 2.4.7)” (p. 446).

David W Gill, one time professor of Christian ethics at New College Berkeley makes this interesting comment:

“Some have taken the urge for women to wear veils as Paul ensuring that they were not mistaken for prostitutes or hetairai . Part of the reason for this view lies in the interpretation of Corinth as a ‘sex-obsessed’ city with prostitutes freely roaming the streets. The 1000 hetairai linked to the cult of Aphrodite, and the corresponding notoriety of Corinth, belong to the hellenistic city swept away by Mummius in 146 BC. (See About Corinth – Rex) In contrast the Roman shrine was far more modest …” (The Importance Of Roman Portraiture For Head-Coverings In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Tyndale Bulletin 41:2 NA 1990).

As we have seen (About Corinth) “Greek Corinth,” destroyed in 146 BC must be distinguished from “Roman Corinth” which was occupied from about 44 BC. Classicist Dr Kelly Olson, who specialises in Greek and Roman society and culture makes the following comments:

“In Roman antiquity adulteresses and prostitutes too were presumably immediately identifiable by their clothing: both wore the toga” (Matrona and Whore: Clothing and Definition in Roman Antiquity Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World edited by Christopher A. Faraone, Laura K. McClure p. 192).

The toga was an item of male clothing. After commenting upon the available evidence Olson cautions:

“Unfortunately there is to my knowledge no visual evidence for the dress of the Roman prostitute, but literary sources present us with a range of clothing (from rich accoutrements all the way down to nothing) which seem to have varied according to the woman’s station within a hierarchy of prostitutes. None of these sources mentions the toga” (p. 195).

“But the sources demonstrate that there was a range of prostitute clothing, and although several ancient sources mention the toga as the distinctive garment of the whore, there is sufficient evidence to state that this was only one garment that whores could adopt” (p. 196).

Interestingly “Some prostitutes would wear foreign headgear such as turbans to make themselves stand out and thus attract a customer’s interest” (p. 195).

Unfortunately unsupported claims about bareheaded prostitutes feature in many commentaries. Equally unfortunate is the fact that some are now using similar arguments in an attempt to explain Paul’s instructions concerning the silence of women as a reflection of culture. For example in an article entitled A Tale Of Two Cultures: Understanding The Historical And Cultural Context Of The NT Epistles James R Payton professor of history at Redeemer University College, Ancaster, ON, Canada has the following:

“The only women who openly interacted with men in public were either prostitutes or, at a higher social level, hetairai— … (T)he way a hetaira could originally be recognized was by whether a woman appeared and spoke openly among men in public. … (T)o do so declared her status as a hetaira—and, with that, her availability for sexual favors….”

He concludes:

“In North America, we live in a culture where women can be, and speak, in public without staining their reputation. Christian women can do so in church without culturally impugning the reputation of the church …To use the apostle’s words, the church must embrace them as “co-workers in the gospel,” in the fullest and freest sense possible.” (A Tale of Two Cultures: Understanding The Historical And Cultural Context Of The NT Epistles Priscilla Papers16:1 Winter 2002).

I believe that Payton ignores Paul's own argument for the silence of women and that Findlay, Robertson, Coffman and others fall into the same trap in 1 Cor 11.

Moreover, Paul says not one word to indicate that he is concerned about lewd behaviour. He does not instruct men to remain bareheaded because the covered male head was considered sexually provocative and he does not command women to cover their heads on the grounds of modesty. If we let him make his own case we see that his instructions are grounded in theology.

“In 1 Cor 11:2-16 he gives reason for it (the covering of women in worship – Rex). It has nothing to do with propriety before the public or general custom or even equality, but involves propriety or proper modesty before God in front of whom Christian women but not men should cover up. It rests on his reading of genesis (Joan E Taylor The Woman Ought to have Control over her Head Because of the Angels Gospel and Gender: A Trintarian Engagement with Being Male and Female in Christ pp 53, 54 edited by Douglas Atchison Campbell, Alan J. Torrance).

As Sproul expresses it, we do not want to be guilty of “putting words into the apostle’s mouth … (and) ignoring words that are there.” Paul grounds his instructions in theology and we need to let him make his own case.

Jewish Writings and Hellenistic Jews

Because Corinth was a Roman-Greek city with a minority of Jews (along with other minorities) it is doubtful that Jewish custom is relevant to our discussion. However  because the Jewish writings are often cited in connection with 1 Cor 11:2-16  I will make a few comments.

First, if the Jewish writings are relevant they can be cited to show that Paul's instructions concerning male worshipers are in conflict with Jewish practice. Paul instructs Christian males to remain uncovered in worship, but here's what we read in the Jewish Encyclopaedia (online at http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/): 

"The Midrash contrasts the attitude of Moses in hiding his face before the Shekinah at the burning bush (Ex. iii. 6) with that of Nadab and Abihu, who looked on with uncovered heads (Ex. xxiv. 9, 10): the one showing reverence and awe; the other, insolence (Ex. R. 3).  The proper attitude, therefore, of one called upon to pronounce the name of God in prayer, the "Sheliaḥ Ẓibbur," is to be wrapped in the mantle or ṭallit (R. H. 17b; Ber. 51a; Yer. Ber. vii. 11d; compare the dictionaries, s.v. V02p531001.jpg). Accordingly, a man with uncovered head is, like one in rags and half-covered, forbidden to recite the Shema'—or, at least, to officiate as Reader or to read aloud from the Torah or to recite the priestly benediction—he not being in a position to pronounce the name of God with proper dignity (Mas. Soferim xiv. 15; compare ed. Joel Müller, p. 199; Azulai, Responsa "Ḥayyim Sha'al," ii. 35).

Of course this weakens the custom position and most commentators agree with Fee that the "evidence for the use of the tallith in prayer is much too late to be helpful for Jewish customs in the time of Paul" (p. 507). This may be correct and for this reason I do not appeal to these writings to show that the apostle was ignoring Jewish practice when he commanded men to worship bareheaded. (Of course proof that this is the case would support my position). But the important point is this: having acknowledged that the Jewish writings are "too late" to provide evidence of head covering practices of Jewish men in the first century, those who take the custom position cannot then argue that those same writings provide an insight into first century head covering practices of Jewish women. We cannot have it both ways. If the writings are too late for men they are too late for women.  Hurley says:

"Evidence taken from first-century and rabbinic sources must be carefully weighed before being accepted as reflective of general Palestinian practice in the first century. A study of the seclusion of women shows that, in an effort to promote their cause, first century writers sometimes presented practices of the wealthy or pious ideals such as seclusion of women as though they were the common practice. The Talmudic writers likewise sought to promote their ideals. This sometimes led them to overstate their case or to read the pious practices of the day anachronistically back into the past. It is therefore possible that veiling evidence from the Talmud or even first century writers may overstate its case by making a pious view appear to be general practice" (p. 66).

Moreover  "the common people...possessed neither the time nor the inclination to regulate their conduct by Pharisaic standards (William L. Lane The Gospel According to Mark New International Commentary   p. 203)  Keener points out in discussing the head covering:

"We need not suppose that all Palestinian women cared to be modest by these Pharisaic standards” (p. 27).

The endless rules and regulations of the Jewish writings do not reflect the realities of the life of ordinary Jews even within Palestine.  Keep in mind that to the Pharisees, (whose teachings the Mishna allegedly preserve) the "sinner is “one who does not subject himself to the Pharisaic ordinances...” and “more or less the whole people is to be numbered among ... (them)"  (Rengstorf TDNT vol. 1 p. 328).  Again this is evident from the Gospel accounts. Under the heading Women in Public Tal Ilan  says:

"But the rabbis picture is once again idealized and does not necessarily represent historical reality (Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine p. 186).

 Tal Ilan points out that women did indeed engage in “income-producing” activities adding that "a woman’s engaging in business contradicts the rabbinical world view, for she would necessarily have come into contact with her customers " (p 186). She asks concerning the situation in Palestine:

"But the question remains: was it the accepted custom for women to cover their hair?" (p. 13).

But the most telling evidence is found in the Gospels. In light of the fact that the picture of the lifestyles of ordinary women in the Gospels is so very different from the Pharisaic ideal, and in light of Jesus' treatment of women, its difficult to understand the appeal to the Jewish writings in discussion of 1 Cor 11:2-16.

By way of explanation let's look briefly at some commonly used passages. In the Mishna we read:

"These are divorced without receiving their Kethubah: A wife who transgresses the law of Moses or Jewish practice” (mKet.7.6). Then: 'And what (is a transgression of) Jewish practice? Going out with head uncovered' (mKet 7.6).The Talmud comments on this passage (e.g. bKet 72a,b)".

In his Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, Joachim Jeremias has:

"(Rules) of propriety forbade a man...to give (a married woman) a greeting (b.Kidd.70a-b)...It was disgraceful for a scholar to speak with a woman in the street (bBer. 43b Bar.)... (and) a woman who conversed with everyone in the street could, like the woman who worked at her spinning in the street, be divorced without the payment described in the marriage settlement" (p. 360).

Moreover to teach a woman the law was to teach her "lechery" (M.Sot.3:4). In her Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine, Tal Ilan says:

"By terms of this moral code then, a woman was expected to remain concealed inside her house. She was forbidden to walk in the market place and speak with strange men, and required to wear only clothes becoming her modesty, including a head-covering...

(Among women who are put away without their ketubbah is ) she who eats in public, drinks in public, nurses in public (bgitt 89a)" ( pp. 132, 129).

Now let’s compare the above rules with Jesus' treatment of women as recorded in the Gospel accounts.

·         From the gospel accounts we learn that Jesus engaged women in conversation   in public (e.g. Luke 11:27, 28) and in private, (e.g. Lk 10:38). 

·         Far from remaining concealed in the house some women accompanied Jesus and the twelve on preaching tours (Lk 8:1-3) with His approval and made up part of the crowds which followed Him (e.g. Matt 14:21).

·         Hurley points out that it is "clear the New Testament records that Palestinian women were not secluded" (p. 65).

·          Women were among His most faithful disciples. In His view it was not “lechery” for her to be instructed. Instead He commended women who sought instruction.

·         Jesus provided both women and men with food to eat in public (Matt14:21) and despite the Jewish writings evidently no one present considered this cause for divorce.

·         “In ancient Judaism, only the witness of two or more men was admissible evidence in court. Yet all four Gospels record that the first witnesses to the empty tomb were women (John 20:1-18).” (Jesus And Women: What Did Jesus Do? Joe E. Trull Priscilla Papers 14:2 Spring 2000 p. 11)

·         “This reference (Matt 12:42) to the Queen of Sheba was remarkable because at that time rabbis did not typically accept the legal testimony of a woman. Yet Jesus predicted that her word—against that of the male religious authorities—would be determinative in the final scheme of things” (Douglas Groothius What Jesus Thought About Women: His Regard For Them Was Unusual For His Time—Even Scandalous. Priscilla Papers 16:3 Summer 2002 p. 18).

 Thus it comes as no surprise that when Mary, in the presence of a whole houseful of men, used her hair to wipe His feet (see for example Jn 12) no one objected that this was a disgraceful act on that score and the Lord  commended her. Knowing her respect for Jesus it is inconceivable that Mary would have exposed her hair in His sight and the sight of the apostles if this had been offensive to these male guests.

The point is this: if the Jewish writings do in fact reflect the rules of the Jewish religious elite in the first century (which is open to question) Jesus completely disregarded  the practices of that group. This should caution us against appealing to head covering practices described in the Jewish writings, especially since Jews at Corinth would have been Hellenized.

Moreover, Paul’s attitude towards women also stands in marked contrast with that of the Jewish elite:

“(Paul) is presented as one who worked with, preached to, and accepted men and women on an equal plane. Examples of this abound: Phoebe carried important papers for Paul (Rom 16:1–2); the apostle sent equal greetings to men and women (Rom 16); ….  (1 Tim 3:11); he had a high regard for Priscilla and Aquila (Rom 16:3–4); and Paul regarded highly the information he received from Chloe’s household at Corinth (1 Cor 1:11).  Where did Paul receive this attitude? It came … from Paul’s interpretation of Christ’s message of equality” (Paul, Women, and Contemporary Evangelical Feminism H. Wayne House Bibliotheca Sacra  136:541 Jan 1979 p. 42).

Having said this it is important not to miss the main point:  Corinth was a Roman-Greek city with a minority of Jews.  If we cannot conclude that the “pious ideals” of the religious elite reflected the practices of the ordinary Palestinian Jew, we have even less reason to suppose that they reflected the reality of the lives of Jews of the Dispersion, including those Jews of Corinth. Gareth L. Reese reminds us that "the Hellenistic Jews had “to a greater or lesser degree...adopted more of the Greek ideals and customs...” (Commentary on Acts p. 247). True “the practices and observances of Diaspora Jews in their daily lives are ...hard to penetrate” (Tessa Rajak: The Jewish Community and its Boundaries [The Jews Among Pagans And Christians in the Roman empire Ed Judith Lieu, John North and Tessa Rajak] p. 11) but there are clues. These clues suggest that there is a big gap between the traditions preserved in the Jewish Writings and the everyday lives of Jewish women of the Dispersion.

"Strikingly different portraits both of Jewish women and women’s Judaism emerge from ancient rabbinic sources on the one hand and inscriptional, archaeological and neglected Greek literary sources from the Greco-Roman period on the other. Rabbinic writings have led many scholars to conclude that Jewish women led restricted, secluded lives and were excluded from much of the rich ritual lives of Jewish men, especially from the study of the Torah. Evidence from the Greco-Roman Diaspora suggests, however, that at least some Jewish women played active religious, social, economic, and even political roles in the public lives of Jewish communities..." From Diaspora communities comes the most important evidence for the participation of Jewish women in the public life of Jewish communities, including the synagogue" (Ross Shepherd Kraemer Her Share of the Blessings pp. 93, 116).

Conclusion