In ancient Israel, both married women and men covered their heads in public as a sign that they were ‘holy’ to their spouses. From historical evidence, it was not the case that all the hair of either women or men had to be completely hidden; modesty and prudery are two different things, and should not be confused.
In Pharisaic Judaism, a woman showing her hair was turned into something sexual (it was classified as ervah: nakedness). This was based on an overactive men’s prudish imagination reading too much into Num 5:18, “and the priest shall make the woman stand before YHVH, and shall dishevel the woman’s head”. From this, the 1st century rabbis inferred that the normal practice should be to completely cover the hair of women, resulting in the instruction in Numbers to ‘dishevel it by uncovering it’.
However, in earlier Hebrew, that is not what was meant. That verb para’, at the time that the verse was originally written, meant ‘to uncover the head and let the hair hang loose’ (see also Lev 10:6 and 13:45). It does not imply that the hair was normally completely covered up; it implies at most that a woman’s hair was generally tied up in the woman’s head-coverings, according to the style of the times, but some hair was still visible.
Pharisaic law itself sexualised women’s hair
It was the Pharisees who made the appearance of hair sexual. I recall reading how in Victorian times, it was the custom for a woman to cover her ankles. This was socially enforced to such an extent, that the mere appearance of a woman’s naked ankle became sexually exciting to men. In fundamentalist Islam, the covering of a woman’s body is so complete, that showing any part of a woman’s body makes it sexual – by covering even the fingers, you make showing the fingers into something sexual. From Victorian and Islamic practice, psychologists have observed that the more you enforce covering up a perfectly innocent part of the body, so that it is never seen, the more you instantly sexualise it.
The covering of the hair completely is not found in Torah, or anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. By making the covering of the hair mandatory, the rabbis sexualised the hair – it was the overly prudish rabbis who made it into a sign of the female genitalia; showing the hair is nothing to do with uncovering the female genitalia.
What it actually means
At the time that Numbers 5 was written, having the head uncovered was understood as a sign of mourning (by custom, mourners uncover their heads, and let the hair hang loose). In the ordeal described in Numbers chapter 5, the uncovering of the hair is a sign of disgrace. Furthermore, the head of a leper, male or female, also had to be uncovered – which is part of the biblical allusion in this ordeal as well. In contrast, both married men and women had to cover their head; it was the custom for all married people to wear some kind of head covering in public, to show that you were holy to your spouse (i.e. that you were exclusively faithful to your spouse alone). Covering the head was not limited to women, and in practice, the complete covering of the hair was not required in women or men (see below).
In many ancient cultures, unbound hair symbolised distress, mourning, or dishonour. In the broader Semitic cultural context of the Middle East, baring the head in sacred areas was a symbol that you were being placed under the direct judgment of a deity – which helps to clarify the true original purpose of the act prescribed in Num 5:18.
In summary, it was the rabbis who sexualised the hair by ordering it to be completely covered; that rule is not found anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. In fact, archaeological evidence shows that, at the time of Yeshua, it was not the custom to completely cover the hair, merely to have some kind of covering on the head in public if you were married.
The ACTUAL custom in the time of Yeshua in reality
There is substantial historical evidence suggesting that the strict rabbinic rule requiring married women to cover all their hair was not universally practised in Galilee and Judea in the early 1st century CE, the period in which Yeshua lived. The evidence comes from archaeology, art, Greco-Roman descriptions, and the internal evidence of Jewish texts.
Below are the main lines of evidence.
1. Archaeological Evidence from Jewish Art
Surviving wall paintings and mosaics from late Second Temple and immediately post-Temple Jewish contexts show women with visible hair; underneath their head-coverings, the hair was plainly visible.
One well-known example is the synagogue at Dura-Europos Synagogue (3rd century CE). Although later than Yeshua’s lifetime, it does reflect earlier Jewish artistic traditions.
The paintings show:
- ancient Jewish women
- Israelite figures
- court scenes
In several cases, women’s hair is clearly visible rather than completely concealed.
This suggests that even in Yeshua’s time, total hair concealment was not yet a universally enforced norm.
2. Greco-Roman Jewish Cultural Context
Galilee in the 1st century was strongly influenced by surrounding Mediterranean culture.
Nearby cities included:
- Sepphoris
- Tiberias
In Greco-Roman society:
- women often wore head coverings or shawls
- but hair was frequently partially visible
Thus covering the head loosely was common, but total concealment of hair was not typical.
3. Rabbinic Texts Suggest the Rule Was Still Developing
Early rabbinic discussions themselves imply non-compliance was common.
In Babylonian Talmud Ketubot 72a, the rabbis debate:
- whether hair covering is biblical law at all
- or “dat Yehudit” (Jewish custom).
The very existence of this debate indicates the rule was still being defined and enforced, not universally settled.
4. Evidence from the Mishnah
The Mishnah, compiled around 200 CE but preserving earlier traditions, describes cases where even married women went out with uncovered heads.
For example, Ketubot 7:6 discusses a husband divorcing a wife if she:
“goes out with her head uncovered”
The need to legislate this behaviour suggests that some women actually did appear in public with uncovered hair.
If the rule had been universally observed, such legislation would not have been necessary.
5. Josephus and Social Descriptions
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (1st century CE) describes many aspects of Jewish daily life but never emphasises universal hair covering for married women.
Given his interest in Jewish customs, the silence is noteworthy.
6. Evidence from Early Christian Texts
The discussion of head coverings in First Epistle to the Corinthians 11:5–6 is particularly revealing.
The passage states:
“Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head…”
This text implies:
- some women were praying with uncovered heads
- the issue was still being actively debated
This again suggests no universal social consensus yet existed.
7. Social Reality: Partial Coverings
Most reliable historians conclude that in the 1st century Jewish world:
Women likely used loose coverings such as:
- shawls
- veils
- mantles
However these coverings often:
- slipped back
- revealed some hair
- were not tightly enforced
Thus the later strict rabbinic standard (to cover every strand of hair) probably developed gradually during the rabbinic period after the destruction of the Temple (70 CE).
8. Summary
The evidence suggests the following historical trajectory:
Biblical period
- No explicit command to cover women’s hair.
Second Temple period (time of Yeshua)
- Some head covering common, especially for married women and men.
- Full hair concealment not universally enforced.
Rabbinic period (2nd–6th centuries CE)
- Rabbis fix the interpretation of Numbers 5:18.
- Uncovered hair becomes classified as ʿervah (nakedness).
- the Rabbis ruled that married women were required to cover their hair fully.
Thus the strict rule that married women must conceal their hair entirely appears to be a much later rabbinic development rather than a universally observed practice in Yeshua’s lifetime.