In ancient Roman law a person was what he or she wore.

In the first century A.D., a new kind of wife emerged across the Roman empire – similar to the new woman of the U.S. 1960s after the poodle-skirted 1950s girl. The new Roman wife dressed provocatively and had the lifestyle to match, in stark contrast with the previously modest dress of a traditional married woman. What a woman wore identified her either as modest or “new,” says Bruce Winter in Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of New Women in the Pauline Communities. Winter is director of the Institute of Early Christianity in the Graeco-Roman World, at Tyndale House, Cambridge, and an expert on historical and literary backgrounds.

Apparently wanting to promote “family values,” Caesar Augustus legislated against the "new" woman. And an emperor could exercise way more force than any leader in a democracy, so think of it as family values on super-steroids. And, as Winter demonstrates, the infant Church felt the influence of the “new” wife/woman, her dress, and her conduct.

Winter shows how this shift among wives affected Paul’s established communities. And in doing so the author also offers new hints about how to understand biblical texts about women’s “coverings” and silence. Additionally, he sheds light on Titus 2 and Paul’s desire for the older women to bring the younger women to their senses.

Winter’s book is not about the complementarian/egalitarian debate. Indeed he seems rather uninterested in embroiling himself in that discussion. Rather, he presents an investigation of old but neglected literary sources combined with new archaeological findings. (And there have been a bunch in the past 20 years.)

A few of his observations were of special interest to me.

First is the evidence for government dress-code enforcers and the possibility of translating aggelos in 1 Corinthians 11 as “messengers” instead of “angels.” That is, basically, because of the messengers who will report you for violating civil dress codes, wear the covering.

Second is Winter's observation that the phrase “as the law also says” in 1 Corinthians 14 could be referring not to the Old Testament (folks for centuries have asked “where in the Law?”) but to the civil law set in place by Augustus. That explanation makes sense in light of Paul’s use of both civil law and OT law in the same context (Romans 7), and the fact that he basically tells the Galatians that Christ fulfilled the law so why go back under it?

Lots of interesting stuff to chew on.