Changes

The foundation of this view is not of interpretation, but translation. Because [[Koine Greek]] has no puncuation it does not always clearly show quotations, the ending of sentences, and questions. All of these are put in place by the translator.

When using the traditional translation, the Bushnell view postulates that several problems and contradictions arise.

According to the Bushnell view, if a man dishonors his Head, Christ, by covering it, then woman, whose Head is Christ also, would dishonor her Head, Christ, by covering it. This implies women should uncover.

According to the Bushnell view, if a man should uncover because he is in the image of God, then woman, who is in the image of God, should uncover also. This implies women should uncover.

There is no clear consensus on the interpretation of "because of the angels".

Paul commands women to have authority on their head. What is the "authority?" By context, it can either be a head covering, or a lack of a head covering. According to the Bushnell view, by reasoning, a head covering is not a sign of authority; Paul forbids the men from covering because their covering a sign of sin, which makes slaves of its owners. Thus Paul must be ordering women to uncover as a sign of their authority.

These verses say that man and woman are together. As pointed out by the Bushnell view, why would Paul include this in a passage where he treats men and women differently? The verses are an arguement that the same rule applies to women as to men, implying that women should unveil as well.

Paul wrote the lengthy letter of [[1 Corinthians]] mostly to teach and correct. The Corinthian church appears to have been divisive, arrogant ([[1 Corinthians 4:18]]), housing a sexually immoral man (5:1). According to the Bushnell view, this is not a group that Paul would have trusted to make their own conclusions concerning women ("judge for yourselves"). Moreover, he would not write this passage instructing them on covering if he later told them to decide for themselves.

According to the Bushnell view, an honest attempt to answer Paul's question, "Does nature teach . . ." will yield an undeniable "No." It is not a shame for a man to have long hair; the Nazarite vow ([[Numbers 6:5]]) certainly seems to deny this. If anything, nature teaches that everyone should have long hair, because, left on its own, anyone's hair will grow long.

Paul denies that neither he nor other churches have "such custom." What custom is he refering to? According to the Bushnell view, it must be the custom of covering, for no other custom is mentioned.

Interpreting the passage as cultural and temporary brings the problemm that much of Paul's evidence is not cultural, but theological. According to the Bushnell view, things such as a man and woman being bound together, the woman being created for man, and nature itself, are not temporary but eternal things. And so, if Paul uses eternal arguements, his conclusion logically would be eternal.

Jewish tradition mandated that men cover their heads when praying to God as a reminder of their sin and shame. However, because "there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ," Paul commands the believers to uncover their heads.

Culturally relative, for a Jewess to uncover her hair to those outside the family was seen as sexually promiscuous (similarly in modern Muslim communities). This was considered grounds for divorce. Also, women accused of adultery could be punished by having their heads shaved, a grave dishonor to her husband.

The American Standard Version translates similarly to other well known translations. The following compares this with Bushnell's translation and explains her reasons:

Note that Bushnell's words within brackets '''[ ]''' are intended as aided interpretation. If a reader were comfortable with her translation and interpretation, these thoughts would occur mentally while reading. They are not intended as insertions to the text; that is, if it were published within a complete translation of the Bible, they would be removed or used only in footnotes. Note also that the many minor differences between the texts are simply the result of different paths of translation. Ideally, a comparison would be made between the Revised Standard Version which Bushnell usually used herself and probably used to aid her in this translation.

|}

As noted above, in the Jewish tradition it was suitable punishment to shave the head of a women accused of adultery, as would an uncovered women would likely be if she were married to a non-Jew. It was unusual for Paul to agree with any Jewish tradition, let alone not directly connected with the [[Messiah]]. It also strange that Paul would say "If it is a shame . . ." after mentioning why it would so shameful.

To harmonize with Paul's arguments against veiling, Bushnell interprets that Paul is referring to Jewish tradition, not his own ruling. A different translation could be to insert quotation marks beginning with verse 5 and ending after the first sentence of verse 6. Thus in the latter part of verse 6 Paul is not being redundant, he is responding to the Jewish tradition.

According to the Bushnell view, the correct translation is "her" and not "the". Thus Paul is saying that angels are inferior to humans (1 Corinthians 6:3) and Jesus says, "in heaven their [children's] angels do always behold the face of My Father" and so Paul's argument is that if angels are not veiled before God, neither should women who are above the angels.

In the original Greek the text sentences are not clearly demarcated and verses didn't exist. Both of these features were added later by scribes and translators interpreting the text. Thus the phrase "judge for yourselves" could belong and apply to verse 12 or verse 13. Bushnell believes that Paul would not trust the Corinthians to judge such a hard issue as covering, but he would trust them to judge a simple one like verse 12, Bushnell moves it to verse 12. Thus there is no colon but simply a period, completing the thought.

This is a difficult verse to translate. Because Koine Greek contained no marks ending a sentence, the question mark in traditional translations could also be a period or an exclamation mark. The first word of verse 13 is literally translated "it is". Where English reverses these words to form a question, Greek had no such method. Thus the only way to tell between a simple statement and question was context; if spoken, it could be known through inflection of voice, as in English. To harmonize with the rest of the passage, and because there is little sense in Paul asking about what he is teaching, Bushnell translates this as a statement: "It is proper for a woman to pray unto God unveiled."

For the reasons in verse 13 above, these verse may be translated "Not does even nature" instead of "Does not even nature." Also, because question marks did not exist, verse 14 and 15 can be joined into a single sentence. With this understanding both verses are in the negative and Paul was saying a woman's hair is ''not'' given as a covering.

With the completely reversal of one of two main points of a half chapter comes new conclusions.

According to Bushnell, Paul does ''allow'' women to veil, but only if it is shame for her to be shaven, which would only happen if her husband made her shave (perhaps by pressure of his family who are unhappy with her conversion from Judaism). However, Paul makes no allowances if she is not to be shaven. Veiling is the exception to rule.

According to Bushnell, for most women Paul insists that they unveil. This is then another great separation from traditional Judaism where many Christians are coming from, another emphasis that Jesus changes the lives of believers in a visible manner. It also treats men and women on the same scale. Women should unveil because she is in the image of God, because Christ is her head, because even the angels are uncovered before God, and because she should have a sign of authority. To non-Christians who say the Bible holds women back, this is another historical example that it actually made a great stride forward.

Many Christians fear reading and interpreting this passage for fear of confusion or a contradiction to their view that women need not veil. This interpretation invites readers to come marvel at and Jesus' great work again.