Changes

To harmonize with Paul's arguements arguments against veiling, Bushnell interprets that Paul is refering 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.

The According to the Bushnell view, the correct translation is "her," and not "the"." Thus Paul says 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 arguement argument is that if angels are not veiled before God, neither should women who are above the angels.

Koine In the original Greek does the text sentences are not separate words into sentences, much less into clearly demarcated and versesdidn'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. Because 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 the most a difficult verseto 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. Thus With this understanding both verses are in the negative; and Paul is was saying a woman's hair is ''not'' given as a covering.

Wth 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.

To 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 again and marvel at Paul's wisdom and Jesus' great workagain.

[http://williamwelty.com/docs/rethinking_the_veil.pdf Rethinking the Veil] - William Welty agrees with Bushnell; in pdf format.