Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Is 1 Cor 14:34-35 an Interpolation?

Is 1 Cor 14:34-35 an interpolation?

In a document that is now available for download among our TC Files (free downloads), Phil Payne responds to a series of questions on this blog concerning the passage in 1 Cor 14:34-35. Payne starts with a list of five hallmarks of interpolations in which he draws parallels between 1 Cor 14:34-35 and the PA in John 7:53–8:11:
1. In both, the doubtful verses occur at different locations in the text.
2. Manuscripts of both display a high concentration of textual variations.
3. Both contain word usage atypical of the book’s author.
4. In both, the doubtful verses disrupt the narrative or topic of the passage.
5. In both, marginal symbols or notes indicate scribal awareness of a textual problem. In particular, Vaticanus has a distigme at the beginning of both passages.

If you want to read more, just go to the right sidebar and download Payne on 1 Cor 14_34-35 or click here.

107 comments:

  1. This is not really an option for an evangelical, since every manuscript contains the verses.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous:
    Payne is an evangelical and espouses firm belief in inerrancy as defined by The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Not sure belief in interpolations and being evangelical are mutually exclusive.

    See Payne's introduction in his Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters

    ReplyDelete
  3. His view contradicts Article X:
    "the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts
    with great accuracy".
    Payne: in this case the autographic text cannot be ascertained from the manuscripts, it can only be ascertained by conjecturing a text which is not extant in any of the available manuscripts. Payne's appeal is to unavailable, non-existant manuscripts.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous,
    Alas, Articles of Faith, like a written Constitution, tend to become more and more of a burden over the years, until it becomes much more convenient just to re-interpret them rather than going to all the work of revising them yet again.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think evangelicals do tend to have aversions to conjectural emendation. But I wouldn't say that the possibility that a conjectural emendation could be correct is incompatible with evangelicalism, or the doctrine of inerrancy in general, or the specific description of the doctrine of inerrancy in the Chicago statement, including the part quoted by anonymous.

    If someone believes that out of all the Bible there are a few passages where the best text that can be ascertained from the data available in the extant manuscripts is a text that differs from that found in any one of those manuscripts, and if those few passages amount to a very small amount of the Bible, then it would still be the case that they believe that the autographic text can be ascertained from the extant manuscripts with great accuracy.

    Note that Article X does not assert either that the original text must at every point be contained in extant manuscripts, only that it can be ascertained from them. Nor does it assert that it can be ascertained with perfect accuracy, only with great accuracy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I would have thought that the evangelical instinct is actually to believe the Bible. Not to criticise this particular bit of it.
    Are there no constraints placed upon evangelical textual critics by their doctrine of Scripture?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous incorrectly attributes to me the view that “the autographic text can only be ascertained by conjecturing a text which is not extant in any of the available manuscripts. Payne's appeal is to unavailable, non-existant [sic] manuscripts.”
    If you had read my book, Man and Woman, One in Christ, pages 225-67, you would know that I regard my judgment that 1 Cor 14:34-35 is an interpolation on evidence from extant manuscripts. Furthermore, you would know that Codex Fuldensis does contain a text of 1 Corinthians 14 that goes from the end of 1 Cor 14:33 directly to 14:36-40 and that it is my judgment and the judgment of Bruce Metzger both that Bishop Victor of Capua had the original scribe of the Codex Fuldensis write this text in its bottom margin and that the most natural reading of this corrected text is that it was intended by Victor to replace 14:34-40 in the text above. I know based on personal examination that every other occurrence in Codex Fuldensis of the marks hd and hs, which direct the reader to corrected text rewritten in the bottom or top margins and then to continue the text where the marginal text concludes, supports a reading that can be confirmed in extant manuscripts. Furthermore, we know that ancient manuscripts were brought to Victor and that when he judged them important he preserved their text, for that is exactly what Codex Fuldensis does with the Diatessaron form of its gospels, a form that had been long suppressed but is preserved in Codex Fuldensis. Since it appears that every other change Victor made to the text of Fuldensis in the bottom or top margins was based on manuscript evidence, it is only reasonable that his having the text of the end of 1 Cor 14 rewritten without verses 34-35 was also based on manuscript evidence. I argue this in detail in Philip B. Payne, “Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1 Cor 14.34-5,” NTS 41 (1995) 240-50, 261. If the judgment of Metzger and myself is correct, a text without verses 34-35 is extant in Codex Fuldensis. Metzger’s judgments are cited on pages 242 and 245 of my NTS “Fuldensis” article. I also argue that the most natural reading of MS 88 is that it was copied from a manuscript without 1 Cor 14:34-35 in “MS. 88 as Evidence for a Text Without 1 Cor 14.34-5,” NTS 44 (1998) 152-58.
    Even before this evidence was discovered, Gordon Fee told me in personal conversation in his office at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary on May 15, 1986, “I am now 99% sure that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is an interpolation.” Thus, even if Prof. Metzger and I were wrong in our judgment that Codex Fuldensis preserves a text of 1 Corinthians without 14:34-35, the application of Bengel’s first principle could still lead to this same conclusion, as it did with Fee. Fee based his conclusion solidly on this: the form of the text that best explains the emergence of all other forms is most likely the original. There is a huge difference between the arbitrariness associated with the expression “conjecturing a text” and acknowledging overwhelming evidence that a text is an interpolation. I believe the five hallmarks of interpolations combined with the nine additional evidences for the interpolation of 1 Cor 14:34-35 I list in my downloadable post and argue in detail in my book, Man and Woman, One in Christ, constitutes just such overwhelming evidence and that this conclusion is completely congruent with affirming "the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts
with great accuracy."

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think the difficulty is more a practical one. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that it is possible for an inerrantist rationally to entertain the notion that a reading not attested in manuscripts is original. (1) Can the conjectured original text function as an authority over them and, if so, on what basis? How can a reading attested by no manuscript be received as coming by tradition from the apostles (&co.)? The question is not quite so sharp if the apostolic text has merely been interpolated, but is there nevertheless. (2) If one allows that one could reach the conclusion on the basis of such limited textual evidence that 2 verses (such as 1 Cor 14:34-35) certainly/probably are not original it would be hard rationally to combine that view with a high level of confidence with regard to our knowledge of the rest of the NT text. (3) If an individual scholar comes to a personal conviction that these two verses are not original, why should lay people in the church reach the same level of confidence in this conclusion as the scholar given that there are scholarly explanations (e.g. that of Jeffrey Kloha) which are more comprehensive in scope which suggest that the verses need not be an interpolation.

    ReplyDelete
  9. PhP: "Anonymous incorrectly attributes to me the view that..."

    Anonymous is correct in his attribution. The Paynian umlaut reconstruction and appeal to Fuldensis are not the equivalent to actual Greek manuscripts, although the umlauts and Fuldensis may be evidence non-the-less. In particular, both are reconstructions. The first is a codicological reconstruction, the second is translational.

    The use of the term "overwhelming" is extremely problematic, here. Such jargon ignores the minority status of the argument and trivializes alternative explanations. To whom is this overwhelming? To the majority of textual critics?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Christian Askeland commented, “Anonymous is correct in his attribution. The Paynian umlaut reconstruction and appeal to Fuldensis are not the equivalent to actual Greek manuscripts, although the umlauts and Fuldensis may be evidence non-the-less [sic]. In particular, both are reconstructions. The first is a codicological reconstruction, the second is translational.

    First, the proper term is distigme, not umlaut. New Testament textual critics David Parker, Hugh Houghton, Tommy Wasserman, Philip Payne, Michael Holmes, Paul Canart, Timothy Brown, and classicist Adrian Kelly, with advice from Bart Ehrman and codicologist Patrick Andrist, agreed to designate distigme (pl. distigmai) as the official name for these pairs of dots. This term is an ideal name since di is the standard Greek prefix meaning two, and the feminine noun stigme (pl. stigmai) is the standard Greek word for dots in manuscripts. The final “e” of distigme is pronounced “ei” since it represents a Greek eta. Traditionally words like distigme and distigmai are not italicized, capitalized (unless beginning a sentence), or put in quotes, and the final “e” of distigme should not have a macron or accent. It would be helpful to our discipline if we all followed this nomenclature.

    Second, I did not cite Codex Vaticanus as a manuscript containing this reading. I cited Codex Fuldensis and MS 88, both of which do include this reading, at least given the most natural reading of both texts, as I argued in my respective NTS articles. Bruce Metzeger and I agreed that this is the most natural reading of Fuldensis. You write that Fuldensis is a “reconstruction,” but I believe Metzger is correct that the text in the bottom margin of Fuldensis is the handwriting of the original scribe of Fuldensis and must have been done under the instructions of Bishop Victor of Capua. Not only is it actual manuscript evidence, it is far more important evidence than the originally written Fuldensis text above since it almost certainly records the judgment of Victor, who probably had as good access to ancient manuscripts as anyone in the sixth century. This is one instance where translation is irrelevant since the omission of such a large block of text is transparent in any translation.

    Christian Askeland asked, “To whom is this overwhelming? To the majority of textual critics?” It is overwhelming to me and to Gordon Fee, and, as evidenced in the list of textual critics who have published their conclusions regarding this question in my 11:33 AM, January 16, 2010
    comment to the Putting the Distigmai in Their Place: Payne Strikes Back pt. 1 post at http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2010/01/putting-distigmai-in-their-place-payne.html interpolation is also the conclusion of the vast majority of textual critics who have published their opinion on 1 Cor 14:34-35.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Do those of us who reject the interpolation hypothesis thus need to be polled in order to set forth their own array of scholarly opinion on the opposite side?

    Conjecture regarding the archetypal form of the Greek remains conjecture so long as no Greek MS can be cited to support a particular claim.

    ReplyDelete
  12. P. J. Williams wrote as though I “entertain the notion that a reading not attested in manuscripts is original,” but I have argued that interpolation is attested in Fuldensis (Merzger agreed) and probably MS 88.

    P. J. Williams asks, “Can the conjectured original text function as an authority over them and, if so, on what basis?” The original text based on my assessment of the entirety of the data is 1 Cor 14:1-33, 36-40. This text functions over me as authority in exactly the same way that all the rest of Holy Scripture functions as authority over me. I am bound to believe and obey it, properly understood in its context, as the Word of God. On what basis? Inspiration by the Holy Spirit.

    This question poses far greater problems for those who affirm that they are under the authority of 1 Cor 14:34-35 as God’s Word. Do they require that “women remain silent in the churches”? Do they believe that “women are not allowed to speak” in the churches? Do they affirm, “it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church”? Any attempt to escape the literal sense is conjectural.

    P. J. Williams writes, “If one allows that one could reach the conclusion on the basis of such limited textual evidence that 2 verses (such as 1 Cor 14:34-35) certainly/probably are not original it would be hard rationally to combine that view with a high level of confidence with regard to our knowledge of the rest of the NT text.”

    First, I would not characterize the external and internal textual evidence for interpolation I list on pages 227-65 of my book, briefly summarized in the post above, as “such limited textual evidence.”

    Second, I specifically argue from the uniqueness of 1 Cor 14:34-35 that it should be regarded as an interpolation. What other similarly large block of text in any manuscript of Paul’s letters has been transposed to a position that far away for no other reason than a scribe trying to improve Paul’s logic? See my post above. This judgment is unique to this text and does not imply or necessitate suspicion of any other text. Consequently, it does not follow that “it would be hard rationally to combine that view with a high level of confidence with regard to our knowledge of the rest of the NT text.”

    P. J. Williams writes, “there are scholarly explanations [that] are more comprehensive in scope which suggest that the verses need not be an interpolation.” Are any of these explanations more comprehensive in answering as well interpolation does each of the following questions:

    Why are there so many textual variants in 34-35?

    Why does the reference to “the law” in 34, unlike all Paul’s others, not correspond to any passage of Scripture?

    Why is this the only passage in Paul’s letters that appeals to what “the law says” to establish a rule for Christian worship?

    How can one reconcile 34-35 with 11:2-15 and the many references to “all” in ch. 14?

    Why does a distigme obelus, which in five of its six occurrences in the Vaticanus NT is at the right position to identify a widely recognized interpolation (see images at http://www.pbpayne.com/?p=303), occur here in the right position to identify a text without 34-35?

    Why do 34-35 occur in two locations?

    Why are 34-35 unrelated to the topic, namely prophecy and tongues, and break its chiastic structure?

    Why does 36 follow immediately after 33 in MS 88 even though its scribe leaves three markers showing that 34-35 should follow 33?

    Why does Clement of Alexandria in Paed. 3:11 write: “Woman and man are to go to church decently attired, with natural step, embracing silence … since it is becoming for her to pray veiled…” if his text included 34-35?

    Why do 34-35 appropriate words from the context but use them in ways alien to its context?

    Why does 35 conflict with the goal of instruction IN church?

    Why are these the only verses in 1 Cor that subordinate a weak social group?

    Why do the words of 34-35 appear to mimic 1 Tim 2:11-15?

    Why in a letter to one church do only these verses address women “in the churches”?

    ReplyDelete
  13. PhP: "You write that Fuldensis is a “reconstruction,” ..."

    Fuldensis is a Latin manuscript. If you are using it in Greek NTTC, you are reconstructing its Greek source text. My points, put more bluntly, are:

    1. You have no Greek manuscript evidence to back your argument. Fuldensis + Metzger Greek manuscript.

    2. Your arguments are "overwhelming" only to you and Gordon Fee. Instead of couching your argument as a no-brainer, you need to proceed with terminology consistent to your argument's minority status.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dear Philip,
    I'm delighted with your brief reply. It does seem that you have a wide range of arguments which you find convincing. If you were to pick the single strongest argument for your position, what would it be?

    ReplyDelete
  15. P. J. Williams asks, “If you were to pick the single strongest argument for your position, what would it be?”
    The single strongest argument for my position is that interpolation of 1 Cor 14:34-35 best explains the emergence of all other forms of the text.

    This, Bengel’s first principle, is the most important criterion for determining the original form of a text.

    Its application to the array of problems associated with 1 Cor 14:34-35 led me to conclude that only interpolation adequately explains the emergence of all other forms of the text. For example:

    It explains why this long passage 34-35 occurs in two locations this far apart.

    It explains why there are such an extraordinarily high number of textual variants in 34-35.

    It explains why there is a distigme obelus, which almost always in Codex Vaticanus identifies the location of a widely recognized interpolation, here in the right position to identify a text without 34-35. See images at http://www.pbpayne.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/1_Cor_14_Distigme_Obelos_images2.pdf and the full explanation in my Man and Woman, One in Christ.

    It explains why 36 follow immediately after 33 in MS 88 even though its scribe leaves three markers showing that 34-35 should follow 33.

    It explains why Clement of Alexandria in Paed. 3:11 writes: “Woman and man are to go to church decently attired, with natural step, embracing silence … since it is becoming for her to pray veiled…” if his text included 34-35. This is easily explained if his text did not include these verses.

    It explains why 34-35 appropriate words from the context but use them in ways alien to its context.

    It explains why the vocabulary of these verses appears to mimic 1 Tim 2:11-15.

    In addition to explaining the emergence of all other forms of the text, it also explains why the reference to “the law” in 34, unlike all other references to the law in Paul’s letters, does not correspond to any passage of Scripture.

    It explains why in a letter to one church why these and only these verses command women “in the churches”: “Let women in the churches be silent.”

    It explains why this is the only passage in Paul’s letters where he appeals to what “the law says” to establish a rule for Christian worship.

    It explains how can one reconcile this thrice-repeated prohibition of speech by women in church with 11:2-15 and the many references to “all” speaking in church throughout ch. 14.

    It explains why 34-35 interrupts the topic of this chapter, namely prophecy and tongues, and breaks its chiastic structure.

    It explains why 35 conflicts with the goal of instruction IN church.

    It explains why it is that only these verses in 1 Cor subordinate a weak social group.

    ReplyDelete
  16. In his response to Peter Williams, Philip Payne asks 14 questions. While I'd like to see interaction on all of them--especially the first one, I'll start by responding to the last one, since there's a text-critical question involved.

    Αἱ γυναῖκες ὑμῶν ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις is the reading of D F G K L Maj itd itg syrp syrh*. If this was the original reading, then hUMWN (your) may have been omitted in order to make the command sound wider in scope. That all of 1 Corinthians was written to a much wider audience than just the congregation(s) in Corinth is clear from 1:2b, whose wording is found in no other Epistle.

    Now, this brings up an important consideration: 88 falls on one side of this textual question, and the Western mss on another. Thus whatever changes exist were made to this passage before it was incorporated into any mss on the list.

    It would, therefore, be enlightening to see how Fuldensis reads. If it exhibits the Vulgate text, then Victor was probably not using an earlier Latin ms to correct it, but a translated Greek one.

    From what Philip has written, though, it appears that he considers 88*'s version of the passage to be the original one, and that of D F G to incorporate a later variant. Furthermore, he believes 88*'s source in 1 Corinthians to be a copy of Paul's epistle originating from before the Pauline corpus was even assembled.

    If this is true--that a minuscule could contain a text older than any existing uncial or papyrus--it severely undermines Hort's belief:

    "Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late manuscripts. It is a blessing there are such early ones."
    --letter to John Ellerton, Dec. 20, 1851
    ---------------------------------
    The 14 questions are:

    1. Why are there so many textual variants in 34-35?

    2. Why does the reference to “the law” in 34, unlike all Paul’s others, not correspond to any passage of Scripture?

    3. Why is this the only passage in Paul’s letters that appeals to what “the law says” to establish a rule for Christian worship?

    4. How can one reconcile 34-35 with 11:2-15 and the many references to “all” in ch. 14?

    5. Why does a distigme obelus, which in five of its six occurrences in the Vaticanus NT is at the right position to identify a widely recognized interpolation (see images at http://www.pbpayne.com/?p=303), occur here in the right position to identify a text without 34-35?

    6. Why do 34-35 occur in two locations?

    7. Why are 34-35 unrelated to the topic, namely prophecy and tongues, and break its chiastic structure?

    8. Why does 36 follow immediately after 33 in MS 88 even though its scribe leaves three markers showing that 34-35 should follow 33?

    9. Why does Clement of Alexandria in Paed. 3:11 write: “Woman and man are to go to church decently attired, with natural step, embracing silence … since it is becoming for her to pray veiled…” if his text included 34-35?

    10. Why do 34-35 appropriate words from the context but use them in ways alien to its context?

    11. Why does 35 conflict with the goal of instruction IN church?

    12. Why are these the only verses in 1 Cor that subordinate a weak social group?

    13. Why do the words of 34-35 appear to mimic 1 Tim 2:11-15?

    14. Why in a letter to one church do only these verses address women “in the churches”?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Christian Askeland writes, “You have no Greek manuscript evidence to back your argument.”

    I listed MS 88 as backing my argument in my response to your comment yesterday. MS 88 is a Greek manuscript. See my argument in “MS. 88 as Evidence for a Text without 1 Cor 14.34–35,” NTS 44 (1998): 152–58, which includes a full page photograph of this passage in MS 88 and a close-up photograph showing its details.

    Christian Askeland writes, “Fuldensis is a Latin manuscript. If you are using it in Greek NTTC, you are reconstructing its Greek source text.”

    Actually, I am not reconstructing its Greek source text, which is always speculative in translational material. I am correctly observing that there is manuscript evidence for the omission of 34-35 in this manuscript. Remember that on Oct. 16, 2009 you wrote in Evangelical Textual Criticism that in the case of textual omission “Versional support … would actually be reliable.” Since the Latin text was originally translated from the Greek text of the NT and since in the case of a large block of omitted text versional support is reliable, as it appears you also acknowledged, Codex Fuldensis does constitute legitimate textual evidence for the omission of 1 Cor 14:34-35 at some point in the history of the transmission of the Greek text of the NT.

    Christian Askeland writes, “Your arguments are ‘overwhelming’ only to you and Gordon Fee. Instead of couching your argument as a no-brainer, you need to proceed with terminology consistent to your argument's minority status.”

    I never said that the evidence for interpolation was overwhelming ONLY to Gordon Fee and me. If you were to ask the scholars who have published their conclusion based text critical reasons that 1 Cor 14:34-35 is an interpolation and whom I cited in my 11:49 AM, January 18, 2010 comment to the first part of my response to Head’s paper, I would not be surprised if many of them found the evidence for interpolation overwhelming. I have been studying this issue for over 36 years, and it is my judgment that the vast majority of text critical scholars who have published a text-critical analysis of 34-35 have concluded that it is an interpolation. Consequently, I would not be honest to portray my position as having a minority status among text critics who have published their conclusions on this passage.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Here, courtesy of Google Books, is the text of Fuldensis, edited by Ranke and transcribed by me:

    Mulieres in ecclesiis taceant non enim permittitur eis loqui

    As I suspected: the Vulgate reading --except for the rest of the verse:

    sed subditae esse sicut et lex dicit

    ReplyDelete
  19. Daniel Buck writes, “That all of 1 Corinthians was written to a much wider audience than just the congregation(s) in Corinth is clear from 1:2b.” This is not clear to me, nor does the content of the letter to Corinth appear to be addressed to the church at large, but rather to specific issues that the Corinthians and the House of Chloe have addressed to Paul. Fee, 1 Corinthians, p. 33 writes, “What can it mean in this case? Surely not … that the letter is addressed to all Christians everywhere. … [But] the Corinthians have a share with all the saints, fellow believers ‘in every place’ who also ‘call on the name of our lord Jesus Christ.’”

    Daniel Buck writes, “It would, therefore, be enlightening to see how Fuldensis reads. If it exhibits the Vulgate text, then Victor was probably not using an earlier Latin ms to correct it, but a translated Greek one.”

    Codex Fuldensis reads as the beginning of a new paragraph:
    “Mulieres in ecclesiis taceant ….” It does not include “your” women. Similarly, MS 88 does not include “your” women.” Similarly, the NA27, the UBS4 and Metzger’s Textual Commentary, p. 500, “The Committee regarded this [“your”] as probably a scribal addition, and preferred the shorter text, which is strongly supported by P46, Sinaiticus A B C P Psi 33…”

    I agree with the UBS, NA27 and Metzger that it is far more likely that “your” is a later addition. In particular, this addition harmonizes v. 34 with v. 35’s reference to asking husbands.

    Daniel Buck writes, “I'd like to see interaction on all of them--especially the first one [about textual variants in 34-35].”

    These two verses contain an unusually large number of textual variations, which is typical of interpolations (e.g., John 7:53–8:11). Wire notes that “14:34–35 shows about twice as many word reversals and other small variants as other verses in the context.” [Wire, Corinthian Women Prophets, 150, citing various examples, cf. 284 n. 16. Three variants in MS 88 are not noted in NA27. Cf. also Metzger, Textual Commentary1, 219–22; Textual Commentary2, 187–89.] The NA27 lists twelve sets of variant readings in 14:34–35. For example, “your” (ὑμῶν) is added after “women” in 14:34 in D F G Majority Text a b sy; Cyprian, Ambrosiaster, and “to their husbands” (τοῖς ἀνδράσιν), as in Col 3:18, is added in A after “must be in submission.” Both indicate apparent attempts to harmonize with verse 35 and to make the command less problematic by restricting it to wives.
    Tischendorf notes five more variants just in Codex Claromontanus. [Tischendorf, Codex Claromontanus, 558.] Codex Fuldensis has a variant from ordine to ordinem. The present author examined two unpublished manuscripts of 1 Corinthians at the VanKampen Scriptorium, which together contain four textual variants noted nowhere else. VK0908 substitutes ἐπιτετράπαι for ἐπιτρέπεται and ἐστι γυναιξὶν for ἐστιν γυναικὶ. VK0902 substitutes ἀλλ’ for ἀλλὰ and ἐστι γυναιξὶν ἐν ἐκκλησίαι λαλεῖν for ἐστιν γυναικὶ λαλεῖν ἐν ἐκκλησίαι.

    ReplyDelete
  20. You are correct that omissions are typically reliable for citation. Such evidence is not equivalent to a Greek manuscript. Incidentally, if one cites something in a critical apparatus, one does so with some sort of confidence about reconstructing the source text.

    To recap, the disagreement stems from a comment by ANON:
    "This is not really an option for an evangelical, since every manuscript contains the verses."

    Technically, you do have manuscripts, but they are not Greek. The 12th century minuscule 88 contains these verses (although they are transposed), and thus does not constitute evidence of omission. ANON is correct: Your argument is bereft of (Greek) manuscript evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  21. 9. Why does Clement of Alexandria in Paed. 3:11 write [the following] if his text included 34-35?

    "Woman and man are to go to church decently attired, with natural step, embracing silence, possessing unfeigned love, pure in body, pure in heart, fit to pray to God. Let the woman observe this, further. Let her be entirely covered, unless she happen to be at home. For that style of dress is grave, and protects from being gazed at. 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. For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled."

    Having read the entire context, I believe this to be a valid argument--the reference to just a few chapters earlier is explicit.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Payne: The present author examined two unpublished manuscripts of 1 Corinthians at the VanKampen Scriptorium, which together contain four textual variants noted nowhere else. VK0908 substitutes ἐπιτετράπαι for ἐπιτρέπεται and ἐστι γυναιξὶν for ἐστιν γυναικὶ. VK0902 substitutes ἀλλ’ for ἀλλὰ and ἐστι γυναιξὶν ἐν ἐκκλησίαι λαλεῖν for ἐστιν γυναικὶ λαλεῖν ἐν ἐκκλησίαι.

    On the contrary, these three variants are very well noted, since they all simply reflect the normal Byzantine Textform (also, MS VK0908 does not read ἐπιτετράπαι but the correct Byzantine ἐπιτετράπται).

    The MS pages in question can be seen at:

    http://images.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA_2892/GA_2892_0101a.jpg and

    http://images.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA_909/GA_909_0173a.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  23. Dear Philip,
    Thanks giving me lectio longior. Since your reply was in fact an overarching claim backed up by subsidiary points, I wonder whether you can tell me which of the subsidiary points you find the most persuasive to make you conclude that the interpolation theory best explains the other forms of the text. Do you judge any of these arguments to be compelling on its own, i.e. able alone to bear the weight of the conclusion, or is it that you believe that the arguments only gain sufficient strength when taken together?

    If you think that one argument can bear the weight alone, let's discuss that.

    If you believe that they only become weighty enough together then it is at least clear that none of them is on its own compelling.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Christian Askeland writes, “You are correct that omissions are typically reliable for citation. … Technically, you do have manuscripts.”

    Thank you for this acknowledgement.

    Christian Askeland writes, “The 12th century minuscule 88 contains these verses (although they are transposed), and thus does not constitute evidence of omission. ANON is correct: Your argument is bereft of (Greek) manuscript evidence.”

    To the contrary, the photographs of MS 88 in my “MS. 88 as Evidence for a Text without 1 Cor 14.34–35,” NTS 44 (1998): 152–58 show that 34-35 has not been transposed to follow verse 40 by the scribe of 88, nor does MS 88 merely reproduce such a transposition.

    As I argue in my NTS article, the most logical explanation of the features of MS 88 is that it was copied from a Greek manuscript without 1 Cor 14:34-35. In MS 88, verse 36 follows immediately after verse 33. The scribe of 88 realized that verses 34–35 were missing before starting to write chapter 15 and inserted them at the first logical break in the text, separating them from the last word of verse 40 by two slashes on the baseline followed by a period. Similar slashes are at the baseline level in the margin after verse 33 and over the last letter of verse 33, not on the baseline, since there is no room on the baseline. This makes it clear that the scribe intended the reader to insert verses 34–35 after verse 33. Therefore, verses 34–35 must not have followed verse 33 in the exemplar of 88. Since 88 is not a Western text-type manuscript, there are only two plausible possibilities: derivation from a non-Western manuscript with verses 34–35 displaced, or derivation from a non-Western manuscript without verses 34–35.

    NA27 does not list any non-Western Greek manuscript with 14:34–35 displaced. The only subsequent Greek text with vv. 34–35 following v. 40 is the thirteenth-century MS 915. Wire writes, “a review of the ms. 88 text of 1 Corinthians shows that it seldom parallels ‘Western’ readings except where they also appear in the eighth-to-ninth-century manuscript Ψ and go on to become the majority reading.” [Wire, Corinthian Women Prophets, 151.] Verses 34–35, however, do not follow verse 40 in the text stream from which MS 88 arose, represented by the closely related MS Ψ, nor does this become the majority reading. Quite the opposite, no non-Western Greek manuscript prior to MS 88 has verses 34–35 after verse 40. The last Western texts, F and G, were written in the ninth century, three hundred years before MS 88 [UBS4, 10*]. Consequently, MS 88’s text stream does not support the explanation that it was copied from a manuscript with verses 34–35 following verse 40.

    The inconsistent positions of the double slashes, however, fit perfectly if they were copied from a manuscript that omitted verses 34–35. The explanation that MS 88 was copied from a manuscript without verses 34–35 does not depend on its scribe having access either to a Western manuscript or a non-Western manuscript with a reading totally out of keeping with its textual tradition. On this explanation, the source from which the scribe of MS 88 copied verses 34–35 presents no difficulty, since the scribe could have copied just these two verses (vv. 34–35) from any other manuscript in the scriptorium. This evidence that MS 88 was copied from a text of 1 Cor 14 without verses 34–35 provides additional external support for the thesis that verses 34–35 were not in the original text. The most natural implication of Codex Fuldensis and MS 88 is that a manuscript that omitted 1 Cor 14:34–35 not only influenced and is reproduced in Victor’s editing of Fuldensis in AD 546–547 but was a Vorlage of MS 88 in the twelfth century, which also reproduces that reading.

    Consequently, it is not correct to allege that the omission of 34-35 “is bereft of (Greek) manuscript evidence.” MS 88 provides Greek manuscript evidence for a text of 1 Corinthians 14 without verses 34-35.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Thank you, Professor Robinson for these images and your corrections. Is GA 2892 a new designation for VK0908? Is GA 909 a new designation for VK0902? Which numbers are better to use in publications? How do you prefer references to your published Byzantine Textform 2005 be cited when brevity is demanded?

    You identify the “the correct Byzantine spelling as ἐπιτετράπται” but your published Byzantine Textform 2005 has ἐπιτέτραπται. Over which letter of this word should the accent be put in 14:34?

    You state, “these three variants all simply reflect the normal Byzantine Textform,” but these two manuscripts differ from your published Byzantine Textform 2005 as follows:
    At the end of 1 Cor 14:35 VK0908 has λαλεῖν ἐν ἐκκλησία whereas the Byzantine Textform 2005 has ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ λαλεῖν.
    In 1 Cor 14:35 both VK0902 and VK0908 have ἐστι instead of ἐστιν.
    Consequently, the VK0908 reading ἐστι γυναιξὶν λαλεῖν ἐν ἐκκλησία differs from all the other variants I listed and also from your published Byzantine Textform 2005.
    I believe the all four of the variants I listed in VK0902 and VK0908 are in addition to the other variants I listed above. Consequently, I believe my contention stands that there are far more textual variants than normal in 1 Cor 14:34-35.

    ReplyDelete
  26. You have acknowledged that minuscule 88 preserves these verses, and that your hypothetical construction of its exemplar is your only Greek witness to your theory aside from the likewise hypothetical reconstructions of Fuldensis and Vaticanus.

    I will not continue this discussion as I think that we both now understand each other's position. Best wishes as you continue in your work.
    Christian

    ReplyDelete
  27. I'm not sure I understand the argument about Clement. It looks like he is working primarily from 1 Cor 11 here; but "embracing silence" could suggest the influence of 1 Cor 14.34f - it certainly is not explained from 1 Cor 11.
    [I haven't checked the Greek of Clement on this.]

    ReplyDelete
  28. I would appreciate a little more discussion on Dr. Williams' second point:

    "(2) If one allows that one could reach the conclusion on the basis of such limited textual evidence that 2 verses (such as 1 Cor 14:34-35) certainly/probably are not original it would be hard rationally to combine that view with a high level of confidence with regard to our knowledge of the rest of the NT text."

    Jonathan C. Borland

    ReplyDelete
  29. Payne's statement on page two of the downloadable Word document states: "2. Prayer and prophecy by women as well as men are permitted in 11:5 and 13 as long as they have a proper head covering. This and the church setting of both chapters 11 and 14 make it natural that references to “all” people in the church engaging in verbal ministry, like prophesying, should include women. The thrice-repeated prohibition of 14:34–35, however, contradicts this."

    I understand the force of the internal consistency argument. Yet merely on generally established critical grounds, especially when dealing with minority variants, wouldn't removal of the passage perhaps suggest itself to some ancient critic to alleviate apparent contradiction with 11:5?

    ReplyDelete
  30. 1) Is GA 2892 a new designation for VK0908? Is GA 909 a new designation for VK0902? Which numbers are better to use in publications?

    GA = Gregory-Aland number, which obviously would be best to use rather than library or collection numbers.

    2) How do you prefer references to your published Byzantine Textform 2005 be cited when brevity is demanded?

    RP2005 would work well enough for me. I think Amy Anderson simply used RP.

    3) You identify the “the correct Byzantine spelling as ἐπιτετράπται” but your published Byzantine Textform 2005 has ἐπιτέτραπται. Over which letter of this word should the accent be put in 14:34?

    Cut and paste from your posted Greek as accented, followed by adding in an additional letter without bothering to check the accent can cause problems. :-)

    4) You state, “these three variants all simply reflect the normal Byzantine Textform,” but these two manuscripts differ from your published Byzantine Textform 2005 as follows:

    Since I was speaking only of the claim regarding those particular variants, the additional point was not in view.

    4a) At the end of 1 Cor 14:35 VK0908 has λαλεῖν ἐν ἐκκλησία whereas the Byzantine Textform 2005 has ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ λαλεῖν.

    I'll accept such, even though I can't check on that at present.

    4b) In 1 Cor 14:35 both VK0902 and VK0908 have ἐστι instead of ἐστιν.

    I hardly consider the case of movable Nu to be a "variant reading"; the same applies to the
    ἀλλὰ/ἀλλ’ elision issue.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I'm really appreciating this discussion, as it brings up so many angles that I rarely see discussed in detail.

    PH:
    It looks like he is working primarily from 1 Cor 11 here; but "embracing silence" could suggest the influence of 1 Cor 14.34f - it certainly is not explained from 1 Cor 11. [I haven't checked the Greek of Clement on this.]

    It would be good to see the Greek, as there are 2 different words translated "silence." And I said it was a valid argument; I didn't say it wasn't an argument from silence. Actually, SIGATW (let him/her be silent) is an underlying theme of the entire 14th chapter, even without the 2 verses.

    PP:
    On this explanation, the source from which the scribe of MS 88 copied verses 34–35 presents no difficulty, since the scribe could have copied just these two verses (vv. 34–35) from any other manuscript in the scriptorium.

    But if the practice of adding 34-35 to one manuscript only consisted of copying it from another manuscript, what would account for this reported "large (relative) number of variants?" The only answer I can think of is that 34-35 were independently translated 'back' from Latin for inclusion in Gk mss, which is clearly what happened with 1 John 5:7&8--which exhibits such textual fluidity in Gk that AFAIK no two mss with the Comma read the same, except as they are copied from the same printed text.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Jonathan C. Borland writes, “wouldn't removal of the passage perhaps suggest itself to some ancient critic to alleviate apparent contradiction with 11:5?’

    The remarks of some of the church fathers whose text(s) of 1 Corinthians 14 included verses 34-35 (unlike, apparently Clement, cf. Paed 3:11 and Strom. 4:19) indicate awareness of the apparent contradiction between 1 Cor 11:2-16 and 14:34-35. They come to different conclusions in order to resolve the conflict. But none of them apparently had textual grounds for questioning the originality of these verses like we have today. They were apparently unaware of the two alternative positions of these verses in different texts. They were before Victor, so they could not know of its absence from Victor’s having this passage rewritten in the margin of Fuldensis. Nor could they know of its absence from MS 88, except as an afterthought separated from the rest of the text, with double slashes clearly guiding readers to insert it after v. 33. In MS 88 verses 34-35 are not a continuation of 36-40. Consequently, the omission IS evidenced in MS 88 itself, not only in my “hypothetical construction of its exemplar”, pace Christian Askeland’s statement, “You have acknowledged that minuscule 88 preserves these verses, and that your hypothetical construction of its exemplar is your only Greek witness to your theory aside from the likewise hypothetical reconstructions of Fuldensis and Vaticanus.”

    Consequently, although they were aware of the conflict, their reverence for the text and assumption that it must have come with Paul’s apostolic authority forced them to whatever resolution they could contrive.

    For example, Tertullian (ca. AD 160–230), Marc. 5.8.11, interprets Paul as “enjoining on women silence in the church, that they speak not for the mere sake of learning (although that even they have the right of prophesying, he has already shown when he covers the woman that prophesies with a veil)” [ANF 3:446]. His resolution appears contrived since if “no speaking in public gatherings of the church” is the rule, the exception for prophesying (11:5, 13) is a huge exception. For Paul prophecy was the key gift that nourishes the church (1 Cor 14). As we say today, the exception is big enough to drive a truck through.

    Origen resolves the tension in the opposite manner, by using verses 34–35 as a basis for excluding women from prophesying in church. He states:
    “For you may all prophesy one by one.” There would have been an abundance of those speaking and giving instruction. Therefore the apostle permits all to speak in church; he all but goes on to permit women to speak, except he goes on to say, “Let women keep silent in the churches … [citing 14:34–35 in full].” For as all were speaking and were empowered to speak if revelation is given to them, it states, “Let women be silent in the churches.” Claude Jenkins, “Origen on 1 Corinthians IV,” JTS 10 (1909): 40–42. It is clear that Origen is aware of the conflict for he states, “the apostle permits all to speak in church; he all but goes on to permit women to speak, except he goes on to say, “Let women keep silent in the churches.” This, however, does not resolve the conflict between 1 Cor 11:2-16 and 14:34-35.

    The prominence of women in Christian circles affected by early forms of Gnosticism may have motivated this interpolation. In response to incipient Gnosticism, a polemic soon developed against women taking leadership positions in the church. This eventually resulted in the barring of women from offices over men in the church. It is precisely against the prominence of women in circles influenced by Marcion that Tertullian appealed to 1 Cor 14:34–35 [Marc. 5.8]. Every manuscript containing 1 Cor 14:34–35, or an allusion to it, comes from after the period of the church’s reaction against women in leadership in Gnostic circles.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Daniel Buck writes, “what would account for this reported "large (relative) number of variants?" The only answer I can think of is that 34-35 were independently translated 'back' from Latin for inclusion in Gk mss, which is clearly what happened with 1 John 5:7&8--which exhibits such textual fluidity in Gk that AFAIK no two mss with the Comma read the same, except as they are copied from the same printed text.”

    Can anyone think of a better explanation than Daniel Buck’s that the extraordinarily large number of variations in the Greek text of 1 Cor 14:34-35 are a result of translation from Latin (or some other language)?

    If the varying Greek texts of 1 Cor 14:34-35, which all must acknowledge do contain an abundance of textual variants, are the result of different translations of a text originally in Latin (or some other language), then 34-35 cannot be part of Paul’s original letter, for this letter was originally written in Greek, not Latin or some other language.

    Any scribe copying a text in Greek will copy that text. Only if the scribe believes that the Greek text omits something, is that scribe likely to look to another manuscript to complete the originally defective text. Only if that scribe has access to no other Greek text to fill in the defective text is that scribe at all likely to try to introduce into that text a correction based on a Latin text or a text in any language other than Greek. For this to be the case, however, there must have been a Greek text that omitted 1 Cor 14:34-35. Furthermore, not only must this scribe’s text not have contained 34-35, that scribe must not have had access to any text that contained 34-35.

    It appears the only way to avoid the conclusion that 1 Cor 14:34-35 was originally written in Latin is to postulate at least one and probably multiple scribes all changing the Greek of texts that already contain 14:34-35 in order to make the Greek of their texts conform to that text in another language. This seems highly unlikely for several reasons:
    1. This is an unlikely combination of contingencies.
    2. Whereas independent translations almost always differ, when there is already a translation, it is normally accepted as adequate. For example, one is not likely to change Greek word order to make it conform to Latin word order unless the Latin document is the original document and the scribe’s goal is to reproduce it exactly.
    3. Most of the textual variants in 1 Cor 14:34-35 are the sorts of relatively minor variations that even if compared to a text in another language, would not invite any correction.
    If, however a scribe’s Greek text omitted 34-35 completely and that scribe had a Latin text with these verses, then the addition of text of 34-35 translated into Greek follows the pattern Buck cites from 1 John 5:7-8.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Is interpolation of 1 Cor 14:34-35 a minority view? Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 530 writes, “the majority of commentators today” conclude that 1 Cor 14:34-35 is an interpolation. His long list includes five authors in addition to those scholars I listed in my 11:49 AM, January 18, 2010 comment to the first part of my response to Head’s paper as having published their conclusion based text critical reasons that 1 Cor 14:34-35 is an interpolation. The additional scholars he lists are: Cope, Delling, Fuller, Keck, and Roetzel.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I am trying to determine what constitutes Paul's answer to his question in 1 Cor 26, where he asks, "How is it then, brethren?" Doe it run to verse 33? Or verse 40? The pericope you are considering critically seems to be a factor in deciding. Also, I note that Paul often uses a question to introduce a new subject, and there is a new question right after the disputed text. The disputed text is a less tidy way to end the subject than is verse 33:

    26 ¶ How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. 27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. 29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. 30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. 31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
    34 ¶ Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
    36 ¶ What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. 38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. 39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. 40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

    ReplyDelete
  36. WoundedEgo wrote, “I am trying to determine what constitutes Paul's answer to his question in 1 Cor 26, where he asks, "How is it then, brethren?" Doe it run to verse 33? Or verse 40?”

    The literary structure of verses 26–40 9 (without 34-35) is chiastic. Lynn Fox, a bible teacher at Peninsula Bible Church in Palo Alto, California, pointed this out to the present author in the fall of 1995, although the following analysis is an independent development of that idea.

    A. Order everything to strengthen the church (v. 26).
    B. Tongues: two or at most three, one at a time, someone must interpret (v. 27).
    Be silent if there is no interpreter (v. 28).
    C. Prophets: two or three, others weigh it carefully (v. 29).
    Be silent if someone else has a prophecy (v. 30).
    Prophesy in turn (v. 31), prophets are not out of control (v. 32).
    D. God is a God of order in all the churches (v. 33).
    Did God’s word originate with you or reach only you? (v. 36).
    C'. Prophets: acknowledge what I write is the Lord’s command (v. 37).
    If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored (v. 38).
    Be eager to prophesy (v. 39a).
    B'.Tongues: do not forbid speaking in tongues (v. 39b).
    A'. Everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way (v. 40).

    As is standard in chiasm, the climax is at the center [E.g., Kenneth E. Bailey, Poet and Peasant and through Peasant Eyes: A Literary-Cultural Approach to the Parables of Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 50], “For God is not a God of disorder, but of peace, as in all the congregations of the saints.” The theme of the climax is order. The theme is closely related both to the beginning and the end of the literary structure. The symmetry of the structure is broken, however, if verses 34–35 are inserted. This introduction of unqualified silence for women in 14:34–35 is extraneous to the literary structure, introducing a new element after the climax instead of recapitulating the prior issue of prophecy, which 14:37–39a does so nicely. Verses 34–35 are not a climax and do not mention any issues that tie in with the introduction or conclusion of the literary structure (prophecy, tongues, interpretation, other spiritual gifts, edification, order), nor does it have any corresponding text within this passage’s chiastic structure. Thus, not only are verses 34–35 out of place in the logical development of this passage, they break its otherwise consistent literary structure.

    When Paul uses the word “church” referring to a church custom in 1 Corinthians, he typically follows it immediately with a criticism of the Corinthians’ rejection of customary church practice, as in 1 Cor 4:17–18; 6:4; 11:16–17, 18, 22; 14:19–20, 23, so the prohibition of disorder “in all the churches of the saints” leads directly to his rebuke of the Corinthians in 14:36–38. Paul’s use of ἤ to introduce his rebuke fits his unbroken pattern of using ἤ to introduce rhetorical questions in 1 Corinthians.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Thank you, I think you have resolved my question beautifully. It explains everything - the highpoint being in the middle, the out of place passage... I love it when it makes sense and feels right.

    >>>"2. Prayer and prophecy by women as well as men are permitted in 11:5 and 13 as long as they have a proper head covering. This and the church setting of both chapters 11 and 14 make it natural that references to “all” people in the church engaging in verbal ministry, like prophesying, should include women. The thrice-repeated prohibition of 14:34–35, however, contradicts this."

    I'd like to point out that, as I read it, the "headcovering" passage is not written to advocate headcoverings for women (because God gave them hair for that) but rather to refute headcovering for men (which shames his head, "the anointed one").

    He argues that it would be unnatural for a woman to be uncovered, which would involve her shaving (shearing?) her head, but it is equally perverse for a man to have long hair.

    His summary is not "so women should wear doilies" but rather "women need no covering except their hair, and men should not have any covering, including long hair." He is not making a command but rather refuting those who say that men should cover their head (or grow their hair long).

    ReplyDelete
  38. Wounded Ego wrote, “Thank you, I think you have resolved my question beautifully. It explains everything - the highpoint being in the middle, the out of place passage... I love it when it makes sense and feels right.… I'd like to point out that, as I read it, the "headcovering" passage is not written to advocate headcoverings for women (because God gave them hair for that) but rather to refute headcovering for men (which shames his head, "the anointed one").”

    I agree that in the case of both men and women (in that order in 1 Cor 11:2-16, first as regarding the identification of shameful behaviors, then the theological basis for Paul's concern), Paul is referring to hair as the covering. That is why Paul concludes, in vv. 14-15 “Does not nature herself teach you that, on the one hand, if a man wears his hair long it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman wears her hair long it is her glory, for her long hair has been given to her [to be used] as a covering.” Men wearing effeminate hair were making themselves into the image of woman, and women letting their hair down were symbolizing sexual freedom, and both undermined marriage as both of these practices did in the Dionysiac cult around Corinth. After affirming that woman ought to exercise authority over her own head (by doing her hair up modestly) because angels (are present in worship) in v. 10, Paul highlights his crucial concern, "Nevertheless, woman in not separate from man nor is man separate from woman in the Lord, for just as woman came out of man [cf. verses 3 and 8] so also man comes through woman and all of this is from God." These verses show that Paul did not intend this passage to teach a hierarchy of authority of man over woman, but instead their equal standing, both owing respect to the other as their source. You can download my summary of the argument, Philip B. Payne, “Wild Hair and Gender Equality in 1 Cor 11:2-16.” Priscilla Papers 20 number 3 (2006) 9-18, free at http://www.pbpayne.com/?page_id=11 or you can get the complete argument in my Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters, 113-210 (signed for 50% off, only $14.99 - retail is $29.99- if you note “Evangelical TC referral” in the special instructions window at the bottom of the order form at https://www.linguistsoftware.com/orders/pbpayne.com.html.

    ReplyDelete
  39. >>>...and women letting their hair down were symbolizing sexual freedom...

    I see consistent reference to hair length, but no reference to hair being "put up."

    >>>...After affirming that woman ought to exercise authority over her own head (by doing her hair up modestly) because angels (are present in worship)...

    "authority" signifies "the power of choice." I'm not aware of any command in scripture, nor any Jewish custom, involving women wearing the "Pentecostal bun."

    What, in your view, is the concern about "angels?" ISTM that we are to understand that, since there are no female angels, they might be tempted by looking down at a woman not covered with hair.

    The long hair is not something to hide, but rather for her to glory [shine publicly] in.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Wounded Ego wrote, “I'm not aware of any command in scripture, nor any Jewish custom, involving women wearing the "Pentecostal bun."

    In Hellenistic, Roman, and Jewish cultures for centuries preceding and following the time of Paul, virtually all of the portraiture, sculpture, and other graphic evidence depicts respectable women’s hair done up, not let down loose, e.g., Douglas R. Edwards, “Dress and Ornamentation,” ABD 2:237. In September 1991, Professor E. A. Judge showed me the huge collection of plaster cast copies of Greek and Roman portrait statuary in the Cambridge University Department of Classics. Except for agonized mourning and weddings, invariably respectable women had their hair done up. Most of the relatively few cases of hair let down loose depict disgraceful revelries.

    The crucial question is: What “uncovering” was disgraceful for every woman leading in worship? There are two basic alternatives. Most modern commentators have understood “with head uncovered” (ἀκατακαλύπτῳ τῇ κεφαλῇ) to refer to a woman not wearing a veil, shawl, or some other garment over her head (CEV). Many versions insert “veil” (ASV, Berkeley, Fenton, Goodspeed, JB, NAB, NEB, New Berkeley, NRSV, RSV, Way, Weymouth, Williams), even though it is not in our Greek text and seems to be repudiated by 11:15. The other alternative is that “uncovered” refers to hair let down loosely around the shoulders. “Covered” would then refer to a woman’s hair done up over her head, whether wound around and held in by itself or held up with a clasp, hairnet, headband, ribbon, or some other utensil. The reference to hair is supported by the four references implying hair in 11:5–6 and the statement in 11:15 that long hair is a woman’s glory “given to her as a covering.”

    Macarius Aegyptius (d. c. AD 390), Homiliae spirituales 12.18, explicitly identifies the covering: “Question: Why is it said, ‘a woman praying with uncovered head?’ Answer: Since in the present apostolic time they have been permitted hair instead of a covering.” He specifically interprets 1 Cor 11:5 as referring to hair, not to a veil. Cf. See H. Dörries, E. Klostermann, and M. Kroeger, Die 50 geistlichen Homilien des Makarius (PTS 4; Berlin: DeGruyter, 1964.

    Ambrose (c. AD 339–397), Duties of the Clergy 1.46.232, writes, “Is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered; doth not nature itself teach you that ‘If a woman have long hair, it is a glory unto her’? It is according to nature, since her hair is given her for a veil, for it is a natural veil.” NPNF2 10:37.

    Chrysostom (c. AD 354–407) quotes 1 Cor 11:6b followed by 11:14b–15. He notes in hom. 26.4, “he said not, ‘let her have long hair,’ but, ‘let her be covered,’ ordaining both these to be one … he both affirms the covering and the hair to be one.”

    Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 3.11, writes, “It is enough for women to protect their locks, and bind up their hair simply along the neck with a plain hair-pin, nourishing chaste locks with simple care to true beauty.” ANF 2:286.

    Man and Woman, One in Christ, pages 152-73 lays out evidence that neither Greek nor Roman women were required to wear a garment over their heads, that Dionysiac debauchery gave hair let down loose disgraceful association, and that Greek, Roman, and Jewish culture agreed that loosed hair disgraces a woman. I list fourteen reasons for understanding women’s “uncovered head” as referring to hair let down, including 11:15’s identification of a woman’s long hair as given to her to function “as a covering” and Lev 13:45’s use of “her head uncovered (LXX ἀκατακαλύπτῳ τῇ κεφαλῇ)” to translate the word Hebrew scholars agrees means “to let the hair on the head hang loosely.” In Paul’s day, an accused adulteress had her hair let down, and shaving was the penalty of a convicted adulteress. This explains why an uncovered woman is the same as a woman with shorn hair (11:5). This explanation works only if “uncovered” refers to hair let down.

    Man and Woman pages 181-87 summaries the issues regarding “because of the angels.”

    ReplyDelete
  41. So do you concur that there is no explicit command to wear a bun?

    Roman and Catholic customs are irrelevant, as is the command for a leper to veil his face. He didn't pile hair in front of his upper lip, did he? I mean, the Catholics had all kinds of goofy ideas, as did the Romans. And the Jews inferred that men should cover their heads in worship, which Paul explicitly says is dishonoring.

    As I read it, the only explicit (and therefore earn the name "scriptural") commands are:

    * let everything be done decently and in order during worship (so one can say the hair should not be a mess);
    * women should be modest, not focused on adornment;
    * women should have long hair, but men should not;

    http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=286&letter=B

    Can you summarize the matter of "angels?"

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Wounded Ego wrote, “As I read it, the only explicit (and therefore earn the name "scriptural") commands are…
    * women should have long hair, but men should not.”

    Even if you restrict what is “scriptural” to explicit commands, namely imperatives, you would still need to include Paul’s imperative in 11:6 “If a woman is not covered, let her be shorn.” Your own list, however, includes, “women should have long hair, but men should not.” This is not an imperative in Greek but rather an indicative statement in 11:14-15, “Does not even nature herself teach you that on the one hand if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair it is her glory.” As such, it is closely analogous to Paul’s indicative statements in 11:4-5, “Every man praying or prophesying having ‘down from the head’ disgraces his head, and every woman who prays or prophesies with uncovered head shames her head.” In each of these verses, Paul is making it clear that he does not want people leading in Christian worship to do these disgraceful actions.

    Consequently, it is important to understand in Paul’s original setting what he was referring to by men “having down from the head” and women being “uncovered.” I argue from the cultural data of Paul’s day (totally unrelated to whatever may be meant by “the Pentecostal bun”) that he was referring to men wearing effeminate hair and women letting their hair down, which symbolized sexual freedom.

    How do we apply this passage today? The reason Paul objects to men in church leadership wearing effeminate hairstyles is its association with homosexual relations and its repudiation of the biblical distinction between man and woman. Manly long hairstyles today do not carry that association and message, so this passage should not be used to object to manly long hair today. Similarly, the majority of women today wear their hair down—and this is not associated with repudiation of sexual fidelity in marriage—so it would be a misuse of this passage to object to women wearing their hair down today.
    This passage may be properly applied today, however, against leaders in worship who adopt hairstyles, dress, or demeanor that symbolizes homosexual relations or that undermines fidelity in marriage by being sexually suggestive. For instance, in any culture that regards men wearing their hair like a woman’s as advertising for homosexual liaisons, Paul’s restriction would still apply. The transcultural message is, “Don’t use your freedom in Christ as an excuse to dress in a way that is sexually suggestive or subversive. Keep it clean!” Paul’s words apply specifically to activities of leaders in church worship.

    It would be wrong, however, for the church to close its doors to sinners who need to hear the gospel. Paul’s rules should not be used to exclude people from church simply because they have hairstyles that symbolize some form of sexual immorality. Paul’s argumentation challenges each church to use its collective judgment to exclude only what in its culture is disgraceful and symbolizes a repudiation of Christian sexual morality and marriage. In contrast to the comparatively uniform cultural conventions of the Greco-Roman world, in western cultures today there is great cultural diversity. Rarely does a particular dress or hairstyle convey a uniform symbolism. Since conventions can change quickly, any such rules should be provisional, culturally sensitive, and restricted to unambiguous issues symbolizing immorality.

    The most important application of this passage today is what Paul stresses in the climax of the passage, that men and women should show respect to each other, honoring the opposite sex as their source. As Paul stresses in the climax of this passage, believers must affirm the equal rights and privileges of women and men in the Lord. Women as well as men may lead in public Christian worship. Since in the Lord woman and man are not separate, women who are gifted and called by God ought to be welcomed into ministry, just as men are.

    ReplyDelete
  43. As I read it, Paul is saying that if you want to uncover a woman, you have to cut off her hair because they are one and the same thing:

    5 and every woman praying or prophesying with the head uncovered, doth dishonour her own head, ***for it is one and the same thing with her being shaven***,

    >>>...The reason Paul objects to men in church leadership wearing effeminate hairstyles is its association with homosexual relations and its repudiation of the biblical distinction between man and woman....

    Where does Paul associate his repudiation of the customs of covered men/uncovered women with *sexual* anything? He associates it with headship/hierarchy:

    3 and I wish you to know that of every man the head is the Christ, and the head of a woman is the husband, and the head of Christ is God.

    He is *resisting* the custom some were pushing in Corinth that a man should be covered, and he says that do so would dishonor his head.

    4 Every man praying or prophesying, having the head covered, doth dishonour his head,

    Speculations about homosexuality signals are uncalled for.

    So, if you want an uncovered woman, then you must shave her head; Otherwise, she is still covered.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Wounded Ego wrote, “Can you summarize the matter of "angels?"

    “On account of the angels” almost certainly refers to good angels, not human messengers or bad angels. A few scholars interpret “angels” not as heavenly beings but rather as human messengers in the churches. While this is lexically possible, there is no other instance where Paul used ἄγγελος to mean “human messenger.” Nor are there any clear cases where Paul writes about evil angels. Paul’s use of the definite article “the angels” without any indication that a specifically bad group of angels is in view indicates that the group Paul usually refers to as angels, namely, the good angels, is in view here, too.

    There is hardly any similarity between 1 Cor 11:10 and the fallen Watchers described in 1 En. 6–19 as seducing women. That myth has no reference to the head, face, hair, or a head covering of any sort, nor does it have any association with a worship setting, prayer, or prophecy. Genesis 6 does not mention angels, nor is there any mention of angels in Gen 1–15 that might support such an allusion. To the contrary, Gen 6 gives several indications that it was man who sinned, e.g. Gen 6:3, 5. Nor is there any evidence that the Watchers myth was ever taken literally in Paul’s, namely that angels might actually violate women. Cf. especially Matt 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:34–35.

    The context of 1 Cor 11 is church worship. The presence of angels in worship is a recurring theme in Paul’s writings and the rest of the NT. Paul refers to angels more in 1 Corinthians than in any of his other epistles. It is hardly surprising that angels would be present where people speak with “tongues of angels” (1 Cor 13:1). 4:9 states, “God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like men condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to men.” 1 Tim 5:21, “I charge you in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels,” implies the angels’ ongoing observation of the church. Cf. Heb 1:14; “the angels of the seven churches” in Revelation; Psalm 138:1 (LXX 137:1); 1QSa 2:8–9; 4QDe 10:11; 1QM 7.6; 4QMa; b. Šabb. 119b; b. Ber. 60b.

    Not only is the presence of angels in worship Paul’s most prominent theme regarding angels, it perfectly fits as a reason why women should restrain themselves from impropriety in worship. Knowing God’s holy angels are watching, should be reason enough for even the most foolhardy woman to restrain her urge to let her hair down.

    Jesus’ saying that “angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven” (Matt 18:10) reinforces this reason. Cf. Philo, Dreams 1.140–41; Jubilees 4:6; First Enoch 99:3. Thus, if it were not sufficient embarrassment for angels to witness women letting their hair down in church, the belief that angels have audience with God and report what they see would be a decisive reason for any woman to avoid a hairstyle that symbolized infidelity to her husband.

    The NT theme, also in Qumran and Judaism, that Christian worship reflects the worship by angels before the throne of God, may explain his shift in focus in 11:11–12, which affirms the equality of women and men. In worship, the new age breaks into the present age (e.g., 1 Cor 14:25), the structures of privilege of this world are overcome in a oneness in Christ where all believers are leveled at the foot of the cross and are united in the body of Christ (e.g., 1 Cor 11:17–34). Jew and Greek, slave and free, and male and female (Gal 3:28) all join in the heavenly worship equally without division. The model of worship by angels who do not marry (Matt 22:30; Mark 12:25) implies that women should have authority to pray and prophesy. With that authority comes the obligation to exercise it responsibly, so Corinthian women had a moral obligation to exercise control over their heads by not letting their hair down, since that symbolized sexual looseness.

    ReplyDelete
  45. >>>...Genesis 6 does not mention angels, nor is there any mention of angels in Gen 1–15 that might support such an allusion....

    To what do you think it is that this refers?

    Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

    Note that if the *hair itself* is what needs to be covered, then it is meaningless to speak of it as a natural covering, or to speak of a man wearing long hair as thereby covering, and thus shaming, his head.

    Unless you can show that Paul had sex in mind, speculations (and recommendations) based on it are ill-advised.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Wounded Ego asks, “To what do you think it is that [Gen 6] refers?”

    Genesis 6 does not mention angels, nor is there any mention of angels in Gen 1–15 that might support such an allusion. To the contrary, Gen 6 gives several indications that it was man who sinned. God’s response was, “My Spirit will not contend with man forever” (Gen 6:3). God’s judgment was on man, and the passage is immediately followed with, “The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become” (6:5).

    Jewish and Christian tradition generally understood “sons of God” in Gen 6:2–4 not to refer to angels (e.g., John Skinner, Genesis [2nd ed.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1930], 139–47). Targum Onkelos and Jonathan, the Greek translation of the OT by Symmachus, Gen. Rab., and other early Jewish interpreters took “sons of god” as sons of aristocratic families. H. C. Leupold defends the traditional Christian interpretation, “pious sons of Seth,” in Exposition of Genesis (Columbus: Wartburg, 1942) 249–60. Meredith G. Kline argues that it refers to kings in “Divine Kingship and Genesis 6:1–4,” WTJ 24 (1963): 187–204.

    There is hardly any similarity between 1 Cor 11:10 and the fallen Watchers described in 1 En. 6–19 as seducing women. The Watchers myth has no reference to the head, face, hair, or a head covering of any sort, nor does it have any association with a worship setting, prayer, or prophecy. It is in the context of extended discussions of the Watchers that one finds these “sons of God” interpreted as “angels”: Josephus, Ant. 1, 73; T. Reub. 5:3; Jub. 5:1; 1QapGen 2; and 1 En. 6–19. “Sons of God” does refer to angels in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; and Dan 3:25, and the rescriptor of Codex Alexandrinus LXX Gen 6:2 used ἄγγελοι for “sons of God.” Tertullian (Virg. 7) is the one who seems to have introduced the seduction interpretation of 1 Cor 11:10.

    Larry Hurtado mentioned to me during discussions in a conference held May 24–28, 1993, in Cambridge, England that there is no evidence that the Watchers myth was ever taken literally around the time of Paul in the sense that angels might actually violate women. Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 mention evil angels already bound, so they posed no threat. Paul is particularly unlikely to have taken the Watcher myth literally in light of the prominence in the gospel tradition that Jesus taught that angels neither marry nor are given in marriage (Matt 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:34–35). For all of these reasons it is virtually certain that Paul did not intend “angels” in 11:10 to refer to evil angels.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Wounded Ego writes, “So, if you want an uncovered woman, then you must shave her head; Otherwise, she is still covered…. Note that if the *hair itself* is what needs to be covered, then it is meaningless to speak of it as a natural covering, or to speak of a man wearing long hair as thereby covering, and thus shaming, his head.”

    I am not sure if Wounded Ego has the impression that these statements reflect my interpretation, but they do not. Paul could not be more clear that he is talking about something covering the HEAD (not covering the hair). It is the woman who has her hair done up modestly that has her head properly covered.

    Paul’s explanation in 1 Cor 11:5b fits best with a shame related to hair. The conceptual contrast could hardly be stronger: long unbound hair and being shaved. How can these be one and the same? The article in “the shaved woman” may imply a recognized category of women. This allusion perfectly fits the Num 5 “bitter water” ordeal, when a priest lets down the hair of an accused adulteress. An entire tractate, Soṭah (“The Suspected Adulteress”), of the Tosefta, Mishnah, Babylonian Talmud, and Jerusalem Talmud, is devoted to this issue.

    The shorn adulteress is paralleled in non-Jewish customs. Tacitus (AD 98), in Germ. 19, records the German custom regarding adultery: “Punishment is prompt and is the husband’s prerogative: her hair close-cropped, stripped of her clothes, her husband drives her from his house in presence of his relatives and pursues her with blows through the length of the village.” Tacitus, Dialogus, Agricola, Germania, 290–91 (trans. William Peterson, LCL). Dio Chrysostom (AD 100) records in Discourse 64.2–3: “Demonassa, a woman gifted in both statesmanship and law-giving … gave the people of Cyprus” three laws, the first being, “A woman guilty of adultery shall have her hair cut off and be a harlot.” The woman who lets her hair down when praying or prophesying places on herself the accusation of adultery. In Paul’s day if a woman was convicted of adultery, the hair of her head was shamefully cut off as punishment. Cf. Hurley, Biblical Perspective, 169; “Man and Woman in 1 Corinthians,” 50; cf. Büchler, “Das Schneiden des Haares,” 91–138; Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish Social Life, 154. This explains why an uncovered woman is “one and the same as the shaved woman” (1 Cor 11:5). By letting her hair down in public a woman places on herself the accusation of adultery. This explanation works only if “uncovered” refers to hair let down. There is no such logical or moral relationship between the removal of a head-covering garment and being shorn.

    For a complete analysis of this passage and its historical setting, read pages 109-215 of Man and Woman, One in Christ, available for $17.75 at www.pbpayne.com. For an abbreviated summary of the issues and some of the background about men’s effeminate hair in Paul’s day and the implications of these in the text of 1 Cor 11:2-16, you may download free Philip B. Payne, “Wild Hair and Gender Equality in 1 Cor 11:2-16.” Priscilla Papers 20 number 3 (2006) 9-18 at http://www.pbpayne.com/?page_id=11.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Philip Payne said...

    To the contrary, Gen 6 gives several indications that it was man who sinned. God’s response was, “My Spirit will not contend with man forever” (Gen 6:3). God’s judgment was on man, and the passage is immediately followed with, “The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become” (6:5).

    -----

    Hello Philip Payne,

    It is interesting how while the Genesis 3 story is of fundamental important to Christianity, in that there would be need for a savior or a redeemer if it was not for the Genesis three event. I have talked to a number of Jews and find that the story has almost zero importance for them. Yet without this story, there would be no Christianity.

    My interest is the study of the first 200 years of Christianity. I have begun to work on an outline of the subject at http://webulite.com/node/72. Am always happy to meet others that are also interested. Feel free to stop by and chat or use the Google discussion group any time.

    Do you subscribe to either the NT Pod or the NY Blog of Mark Goodacre of Duke University? His podcasts are very enjoyable, while also be very educational.

    Cheers!
    Ricco @ webulite.com

    ReplyDelete
  49. >>>Genesis 6 does not mention angels,

    Nor does Psalm 8, yet the writer of To the Hebrews, citing the LXX, translates ELOHIM as "angels." The clear contrast is "angels" versus "men." Clearly, the plain meaning of language demands that these are not "men."

    >>>>nor is there any mention of angels in Gen 1–15 that might support such an allusion.

    Yet Job suggests that the sons of God were present at the beginning:

    Job 38:
    4 ¶ Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the **sons of God** shouted for joy?

    >>>To the contrary, Gen 6 gives several indications that it was man who sinned. God’s response was, “My Spirit will not contend with man forever” (Gen 6:3).

    What YHVH said was "my breath will not strive within man forever, for he also [like myself] is flesh." Remember, what God place into the clay statue of himself was "the breath of life" (which he "breathed into" him), not a "spirit" (which is a recent corruption, similar to "carnal nature" for SARX).

    >>>God’s judgment was on man, and the passage is immediately followed with, “The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become” (6:5).

    The "Satan" was one of the sons of God:

    Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the **sons of God** came to present themselves before the LORD, and **Satan came also among them**.

    >>>Jewish and Christian tradition generally understood “sons of God” in Gen 6:2–4 not to refer to angels (e.g., John Skinner, Genesis [2nd ed.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1930], 139–47). Targum Onkelos and Jonathan, the Greek translation of the OT by Symmachus, Gen. Rab., and other early Jewish interpreters took “sons of god” as sons of aristocratic families. H. C. Leupold defends the traditional Christian interpretation, “pious sons of Seth,” in Exposition of Genesis (Columbus: Wartburg, 1942) 249–60. Meredith G. Kline argues that it refers to kings in “Divine Kingship and Genesis 6:1–4,” WTJ 24 (1963): 187–204.

    But Jude clearly believes the legend of Enoch:

    "...the legends of Enoch are the following: (1) He went during his lifetime to heaven, "walked" with God's angels over all heaven (or heavens) and earth, came back to his family and told them what he had seen, and finally was again taken up to heaven. (2) During his journeys he saw the secrets of heaven and earth, that is, the natural phenomena. (3) He saw what had become of the angels, "sons of God," who, according to Gen. vi. 1-4, had come to earth and sinned with the daughters of men. (4) He interceded for these fallen angels..."
    Read more: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=384&letter=E&search=sons%20of%20god#ixzz0eYuKXvFs

    How do we know? He presumes it to be true here:

    Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

    So also here:

    Jude 9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

    These apocryphal texts are obviously his text. So it is no wonder that he accepts that "angels" lust after strange flesh, leaving their habitation.

    ReplyDelete
  50. >>>There is hardly any similarity between 1 Cor 11:10 and the fallen Watchers described in 1 En. 6–19 as seducing women. The Watchers myth has no reference to the head, face, hair, or a head covering of any sort, nor does it have any association with a worship setting, prayer, or prophecy.

    There is certainly no reference to homosexuals or other men. The reference is explicitly to *angels.* Women are to be covered for *their* sake. It is in 2 Cor that Paul refers to the "third heaven" which may well refer to apocryphal writings:

    2 Corinthians 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven

    >>>...Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 mention evil angels already bound, so they posed no threat.

    Indeed, so the ones he is concerned about are not those, but good angels, who might be tempted.

    >>>Paul is particularly unlikely to have taken the Watcher myth literally in light of the prominence in the gospel tradition that Jesus taught that angels neither marry nor are given in marriage (Matt 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:34–35).

    There is little to no evidence that Paul ever read any of the gospels.

    >>>For all of these reasons it is virtually certain that Paul did not intend “angels” in 11:10 to refer to evil angels.

    Right - NOT evil angels. Good angels, that might "leave their habitation" and "lust after foreign flesh."

    ReplyDelete
  51. >>>...This explanation works only if “uncovered” refers to hair let down...

    Which, of course, it does not! "Uncovered" refers to being "shorn." A woman's hair is her natural cover. To uncover her, one shears her.

    You are welcome to the last word on the subject... Have a great day.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Wounded Ego wrote, “Where does Paul associate his repudiation of the customs of covered men/uncovered women with *sexual* anything? He associates it with headship/hierarchy v. 3. Speculations about homosexuality signals are uncalled for. … Unless you can show that Paul had sex in mind, speculations (and recommendations) based on it are ill-advised.”

    This passage discusses disgraceful head-covering practices in prayer and prophecy, not hierarchical roles. Paul’s only reference to authority is the woman’s authority over her own head in v. 10. I lay out 14 reasons for understanding KEFALH in v. 3 to mean “source” not “authority” in Philip B. Payne, “Wild Hair and Gender Equality in 1 Cor 11:2-16.” Priscilla Papers 20 number 3 (2006) 10-11 available for free download from http://www.pbpayne.com/?page_id=11. For the full argument see my Man and Woman, One in Christ, 113-39, available at www.pbpayne.com.

    Paul addresses both man and woman in comparable detail and calls the behavior of both disgraceful. This implies that both men and woman were causing disgrace in the Corinthian church. The first class condition, one that is “real” or actually happening, confirms this regarding women in 11:6. The third class condition, expected from an existing general or concrete standpoint in the present combined with “does not even nature teach you,” suggests this regarding the hair of men and women in 11:14–15.

    What hanging down from a man’s head would be disgraceful for men leading worship in Corinth, a Greek city and a Roman colony? Many assume it is a toga (himation). It was not, however, disgraceful in the cultural context of Corinth or in Jewish culture for a man to drape a garment over his head. The capite velato custom of pulling a toga over one’s head in Roman religious contexts symbolized devotion and piety, not disgrace. Thankfully, Paul identifies in verse 15 what “hanging down from the head” causes disgrace: “If a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him.”

    Greek, Roman, and Jewish literature of Paul’s day frequently speaks of men wearing long effeminate hair as disgraceful, especially when done up like a woman’s hair. “Effeminate,” from Latin effeminatus, “made womanish” (ex- “out” + femina, “a woman”), entails a man presenting himself as a woman. Herter documents the moral indignation over effeminate hairstyles by men with over a hundred references to effeminate hair from classical antiquity, the greatest number coming from around Paul’s time. H. Herter, “Effeminatus,” RAC 2:620–50. My “Wild Hair,” 9 and 18 n. 15 cite many examples. For example, Pseudo-Phocylides (30 BC–AD 40) wrote, “Long hair is not fit for men … because many rage for intercourse with a man.” P. W. van der Horst, The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides with Introduction and Commentary (SVTP 4; Leiden: Brill, 1978), 81–83.

    Many desiring homosexual liaisons advertised their sexual availability through display of effeminate hair, particularly in the Dionysiac cult that was influential in Corinth. E.g., Pausanias, Corinth 7.5–6; Plutarch, Mor. 266C-E; Euripides, Bacch. 151, 353, 454–55, 695, 836, 852; Nonnus, Dion. 14.159–176; 45.47–48; Athenaeus, Deipn. 12.525; Lucian, Syr. d. 6; Livy 39.13.10–12; 39.15.9; 39.16.1; Aristophanes, Frogs 47–59; Philostratus, Life of Apollonius 4.21; Imag. 1.2; Aristides, Oration 41.4–5, 9; Rhet. 41.9; Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 3.4.3; Aeschylus, fr. 61. The extensive correspondence between statements in 1 Corinthians and Dionysiac practices makes it probable that Paul was aware of Dionysiac influence in the Corinthian church and was deliberately addressing it in this letter. Both male effeminacy and women letting their hair down were major characteristics of the Dionysiac cult. Men endorsing effeminism and women letting their hair down in ecstatic prophecy fit Paul’s arguments in 1 Cor 11 perfectly, whereas all other attempts at interpreting this passage simply have not fit the data of the text.

    I will follow up with 14 key factors supporting reference to effeminate hair.

    ReplyDelete
  53. 14 key factors in 1 Cor 11:2-16 support reference to male effeminate hair rather than a garment head covering.

    1. It flows naturally from the affirmation in 1 Cor 11:3 that Christ is every man’s source in creation. Men wearing effeminate hair present themselves as women and so shame Christ by not accepting how he created them. This symbolism undermines marriage as ordained by God and brings shame on the perpetrators and on Christ their head/source.

    2. It is “disgraceful” (11:4). Men’s long hair was disgraceful; a garment head covering was not.

    3. Verses 4 (καταισχύνει) and 14 (ἡ φύσις αὐτή, ἀτιμία) repudiate this practice, using expressions that closely parallel Paul’s denunciation of homosexual acts in Rom 1:26–27: “degrading” (ἀτιμίας), “against nature” (παρὰ φύσιν), and “shameful” (ἀσχημοσύνην). Two of these words are identical and the third shares the semantic domain, “shame.”

    4. This situation applies equally well to “every man” (11:4): Greek, Jewish, and Roman.

    5. “Shaved” or “shorn” imply hair and occur four times in 1 Cor 11:5–6, but the only mention of a garment covering, in verse 15, says that hair is given as or instead of a garment wrap.

    6. The offense is morally what one “ought not” do (11:7). This fits symbolizing homosexual relations far better than prohibition of a garment covering.

    7. This background makes the best sense of “woman [not man] is the glory of man” (11:7).

    8. This interpretation avoids the implication that woman is not in the image of God.

    9. Hair symbolizing homosexuality fits Paul’s argumentation in verses 7–9, where he advocates sexual differentiation and woman as man’s sexual partner, the one in whom he glories.

    10. First Corinthians 11:14 states, “Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is degrading to him?” This concluding argument for Paul’s prohibition explicitly denounces long hair and is irrelevant if he is prohibiting a garment head covering.

    11. Effeminate hair fits this cultural setting, being well documented in the Dionysiac cult that was influential in Corinth, and Dionysiac practices are reflected throughout 1 Corinthians.

    12. It does not require the assumption that Paul is reinterpreting standard iconography (of the capite velato or the tallith) in an atypical fashion without explaining it.

    13. It does not entail Paul contradicting the Torah, which would have undermined Paul’s access to synagogues and his principle of becoming all things to all people to advance the gospel.

    14. It does not undermine Paul’s principle of freedom in Christ regarding morally neutral issues.

    Paul probably used this vague expression in order to avoid speaking directly of such disgraceful things, as Eph 5:12 explains, “It is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret.” Even when Paul does identify men’s long hair as disgraceful in 1 Cor 11:14, he avoids mentioning the shameful thing it symbolized, namely, effeminate homosexual relations. The Corinthians knew the homosexual associations of men wearing long effeminate hair and would understand Paul’s euphemisms in 11:4 and 14, like those in 1 Cor 5:1 (“to have his father’s wife” for sexual intercourse) and 7:1 (“to touch a woman” for sexual intercourse).

    Several early church fathers explain Paul’s concern regarding men in 1 Cor 11:2–16 as being about hair. John Chrysostom (ca. AD 344–407) Hom. in ep. 1 ad Cor. 26.4 (PG 61:219.3), states, “if he have long hair, he is like to one covered. “For the hair,” said he, “is given for a covering.” Similarly, Ambrose, a Latin father (ca. AD 339–397), commented on Paul’s reference to men with long hair, “How unsightly it is for a man to act like a woman.” [FC 26:436, Bray, 1–2 Corinthians, 109] Pelagius, too, recognized Paul referred to erotic display of hair: “Paul was complaining because men were fussing about their hair and women were flaunting their locks in church. Not only was this dishonoring to them, but it was also an incitement to fornication.” [PL 30:749D, Bray, 1–2 Corinthians, 106.]

    ReplyDelete
  54. Long hair was very popular in the Roman world of the time of the write of the Paul documents. This long hair was also a sign of power and virility.

    If there were "long hair" discussions as the pauline group was deseminating their new religious ideas into the Roman world, and the pauline group wanted to discourage long hair, and have customs follow closer the jewish ones, you would expect very strange notes for use to understand in our times. Since the two societies both have very different hair ideas to us.

    The first thing you have to decided is; "is the text you are talking about actually about 'hair'"? Yes or no?

    Cheers!
    Ricco @ webulite.com

    ReplyDelete
  55. My impression is that someone was saying that men (and only men) ought to wear a head covering during worship. Jews do that; It is called a "yarmulke."

    Paul is not writing to establish a new custom. He praises the Corinthians for complying with all of the stated customs. He is writing to say "we have no such custom" and argues that:

    * if you cover your head, then symbolically you are humiliating "the anointed head" of the man;

    * the only way to enforce an unveiled woman is by cutting off her locks, which God gave her for her glory, and which provides a natural veil;

    * if it is a shame for a woman to be veiled (which is not Paul's position, but that of the "veil-party") then it would be necessary to cut her hair off, concerning which he asks, "Does that look attractive to you?"

    1Co 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely [pleasant for the eyes] that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

    A woman with a shaved head is *nasty* looking (though there was a bald woman who turned model, and looked surprisingly good, but would probably have been easier on the eyes if she worn a wig, IMHO).

    So, the subject of hair is, as I read it, coincidental to the subject of wearing head coverings, which is a custom of which Paul clearly disapproves.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Ricco the webulite wrote, "Long hair was very popular in the Roman world of the time of the write of the Paul documents. This long hair was also a sign of power and virility."

    What authorities on Roman hair styles of Paul's time support this allegation? To the contrary, it is generally agreed that Roman custom at the time of Paul was for men to have short hair. James B. Hurley, whose Cambridge PhD concerned hairstyles in Paul's day, concluded that "Roman custom gave men and boys relatively short hair." Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 257. For a similar conclusion regarding Roman customs see Cynthia L. Thompson, “Hairstyles, Head-Coverings, and St. Paul: Portraits from Roman Corinth,” BA 51, no. 2 (June 1988): 99–111.

    For Greek customs see Bremer, “Haartracht,” 2112; Pottier, “Coma,” 1355–60; Bulletin de correspondence hellénique 2 (1878): 626–32, pl. iv, vi. Spartan soldiers centuries before Paul wore long hair, but this was a matter of curiosity, not current custom. Dio Chrysostom (Discourse 35.11) criticizes philosophers for associating their long hair with moral superiority, pointing out that barbarians and farmers also have long hair, as do some people for religious reasons. Dio Chrysostom’s criticism of long-haired philosophers represents the conventional judgment that long hair is a disgrace to a man.

    There is evidence for this in Jewish culture as well. Ezekiel 44:20 mandates that priests “must not shave their heads or let their hair grow long, but they are to keep the hair of their heads trimmed.” Leviticus 10:6 commands priests, “do not let your hair become unkempt.” Leviticus 21:10 says the high priest “must not let his hair become unkempt.” B. Taʿan. 17b states, “The following [priests] incur the penalty of death, those who are intoxicated with wine and those whose hair has grown long.” J. Rabbinowitz, Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud: Taʿanit (I. Epstein, ed.; London: Soncino, 1984), 17b.

    ReplyDelete
  57. WoundedEgo wrote, 'My impression is that someone was saying that men (and only men) ought to wear a head covering during worship. Jews do that; It is called a "yarmulke."'



    Gordon Fee's 1 Corinthians commentary, p. 507 writes, "the evidence fot the use of the tallith [prayer shawl] in prayer is much too late to be helpful for Jewish customs in the time of Paul." Do you have any evidence of use of the "yarmulke" or tallith in the Judaism of Paul's day? I have not found any. Furthermore, to prohibit a garment head covering would have complicated Paul’s relationships with synagogues and contradicted not only the Torah, but also Paul’s missionary principle of becoming all things to all people and his principle of freedom in Christ. Thankfully, Paul identifies in verse 15 what “hanging down from the head” causes disgrace: “If a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him.”

    WoundedEgo wrote, "Paul is not writing to establish a new custom. He praises the Corinthians for complying with all of the stated customs. He is writing to say "we have no such custom."

    I agree with both of these points. That is precisely why the disgraceful acts of men and women that Paul describes must have been a novel "custom" introduced in the church in Corinth. Both men wearing effeminate hair and women letting their hair down while praying or prophesying are novel customs apparently introduced in the church in Corinth. These novel customs are directly challenged by Paul in 11:14-15, "Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering."

    WoundedEgo wrote, "the only way to enforce an unveiled woman is by cutting off her locks."

    First of all "unveiled" occurs nowhere in the text. Paul uses words for "uncovered" and "covered" and explains in v. 15 that woman has been given long hair to be used as a covering. We know from huge amounts of graphic evidence from Paul's day that women customarily wore their hair up as a covering. This was a sign of modesty, indeed a requirement of modesty for a woman in that day. Consequently, the way to keep a woman from being uncovered was to have her do her hair up. Paul mentions the cutting off of her locks as equivant to her having her hair let down since the priests would let the hair down of a woman accused of adultery and would shave her if she was convicted of adultery. By letting her hair down in church a woman brought on herself the accusation of adultery. This is why Paul says in vv. 5-6 "any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered [with her hair let down loose] disgraces her head; it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not cover her head [with her hair done up modestly] , then she should cut off her hair; bit if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered [with her hair done up modestly]."

    ReplyDelete
  58. WoundedEgo wrote, "for a woman to be veiled (which is not Paul's position, but that of the "veil-party")."

    Veiling is a later Arabic, not a common Palestinian, Jewish, Roman, or Hellenistic custom. Hurley notes, “Grecian pottery provides abundant information concerning elegant hair styles and an absence of head-coverings among the Greeks from a very early period.” [“Man and Woman in 1 Corinthians,” 44; cf. E. Pottier, M. Albert, and E. Saglio, “Coma,” in Dictionnaire des antiquités greques et romaines (ed. Ch. Daremburg and Edm. Saglio; Paris: Librairie Hachette et Cie, 1887): 1, 2:1367–71.] He concludes that “Graeco-Roman practice of the day, as evidenced by art and literature, did not include mandatory veiling of any sort.… Whether or not women pulled their garments [palla, Latin; himation or peribolaion, Greek] over their heads was a matter of indifference.” [Biblical Perspective, 269, cf. 67, 257] Roland DeVaux says that “feminine costume in Greek antiquity could include a veil on the head, but it seems to have been rarely worn. ” “Sur le voile des femmes dans l’orient ancien,” RB 44 (1935): 398, where he cites depictions of the himation draped over the back of a woman’s head, but not the face, in Tanagra, Myrina, and Alexandria, probably with religious significance.

    Consequently, appeal to a "veil party" is anachronistic.

    WoundedEgo wrote, "the subject of hair is, as I read it, coincidental to the subject of wearing head coverings, which is a custom of which Paul clearly disapproves."

    1 Cor 11:4 states that Paul disapproves of head coverings (literally "having down from the head" which in light of 11:14 is most naturally understood as referring to men wearing long effeminate hair) for men.

    1 Cor 11:5-6 states that Paul approves head coverings for women, indeed that "any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head."

    The structure of this passage makes it clear that there are two disgraceful activities in Corinth to which Paul objects. He states that men "having down from the head" is disgraceful in prayer and prophesy in 11:4. He gives theological reasons for why this is so in 11:7-9, namely that man is the image of God and should accept the way God made him, not to depict himself as the image of a woman; it is woman, not another man, who should be man's glory; and that woman was made to be the sexual counterpart for man, not another man. In 11:14 Paul adds the argument from nature that men should not wear long effeminate hair.

    Paul states in 11:5-6 that women "having an uncovered head" in prayer and prophesy is disgraceful. He gives theological reasons for why this is so in 11:10, namely that angels observe Christian worship. In 11:14-15 Paul adds the argument from nature that women should wear long hair "as a covering," namely done up so that their hair covers their hear.

    Paul concludes that the churches have no such custom as the Corinthians practiced in this regard.

    In the middle of the argument he emphasized that although he has given different instructions for men and women, "Nevertheless, neither is woman separate from man, nor is man separate from woman in the Lord, for as woman was made from man, so also man is born through woman, and all of this is from God." This makes it clear that he did not intend his earlier references to woman coming from man to establish a hierarchy of man over woman or to deny the woman's own authority, which he had just affirmed in v. 10. Thus, both woman and man owe respect to the other as their source, and in Christ they are equals, neither with separate status or privileges.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I think you are under the impression that this verse is saying that a woman's long hair is given to her in order to produce a cover, by piling it up on top of her head. But what Paul really says is that it is given to her *instead of* a PERIBOLAION, or "wrap-around":

    http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3Dperibo%2Flaion

    Note that the prefix "PERI" significes "around" not "upon."

    ReplyDelete
  60. You are under the mistaken impression that a veil is only worn on the face:

    "A veil is an article of clothing, worn almost exclusively by women, that is intended to cover some part of the head or face."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil

    The point is that the head is hid behind a "curtain":

    Mat 27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

    You also equate "cover" with "put on the top of" which is not germane to the word, which can include any kind of "obscuring," such as when Moses "covered his face with a veil" or a leper covering his upper lip with his hand.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Well, the discussion has moved entirely out of ch. 14 and into ch. 11, but I'd like to bring it back.

    Origen established a precedent for suspecting an interpolation even when there was no manuscript evidence for one: he wrote that “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” could not have been original to Matthew 19:19, on the grounds that it was absent in the other two Synoptic accounts.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Daniel Buck wrote, "Origen established a precedent for suspecting an interpolation even when there was no manuscript evidence for one: he wrote that “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” could not have been original to Matthew 19:19, on the grounds that it was absent in the other two Synoptic accounts."

    Thank you for this germane observation.

    What is the reference for this? Can you provide the actual text Origen used?

    ReplyDelete
  63. WoundedEgo wrote, “But what Paul really says is that it is given to her *instead of* a PERIBOLAION, or "wrap-around."

Note that the prefix "PERI" significes [sic] "around" not "upon."

    Although ἀντί can mean “instead of,” this meaning is not common in the NT and no instance of it is clear in any of Paul’s letters. By my analysis, Paul does use ἀντί for equivalence three times: Rom 12:17; 1 Cor 11:15; 1 Thess 5:15. He uses ἀντί to mean “for” one other time, Eph 5:31, and “for this reason” or “because” in 2 Thess 2:10.
    Consequently, based on typical Pauline usage, the most natural reading of 1 Cor 11:15 is that nature gave woman long hair “as equivalent to” (or “for”) a covering.

    The way in which women in the ancient world did their hair up (and, largely, in the modern world) as evident from the enormous amount of graphic evidence on pottery, frescos, friezes, portraits, coins, and busts, was for them to wrap their hair around the top of their head. They used various instruments or strips of cloth to keep it up. Tertullian (AD 160–240) confirms this convention in On the Veiling of Virgins 7: “Hair serves for a covering … for their very adornment properly consists in this, that, by being massed together upon the crown, it wholly covers the very citadel of the head with an encirclement of hair.” Consequently, περιβόλαιον, “wrap-around” is an ideal expression for Paul to express women’s hair done up.

    ReplyDelete
  64. WoundedEgo wrote, "You also equate "cover" with 'put on the top of' which is not germane to the word."

    I believe that the most common use of "cover" entails putting something over or on top of something else. When a woman does her hair up over her head, her hair constitutes a covering. This is why Tertullian (AD 160–240) writes in On the Veiling of Virgins 7: “Hair serves for a covering … for their very adornment properly consists in this, that, by being massed together upon the crown, it wholly covers the very citadel of the head with an encirclement of hair.”

    The same applies when a man does up his hair, or uses a hair wig to make it look like he has done up his hair like a woman's hairstyle. It is perfectly apprpopriate for Paul to refer to either as a "covering."

    ReplyDelete
  65. >>>...By my analysis...Consequently, based on typical Pauline usage, the most natural reading of 1 Cor 11:15 is that nature gave woman long hair “as equivalent to” (or “for”) a covering...

    I suggest you take your analysis to your favorite Greek teacher for a checkup.

    ReplyDelete
  66. >>>...I believe that the most common use of "cover" entails putting something over or on top of something else...

    "You believe?" Concerning an English word? Again, you are shooting from the hip.

    What is important is context, which refers to a PERIBOLAINON, which is a "wrap" rather than a "cap." We are talking about *long* hair, not *high* hair.

    You are hung up on the Romans (Catholic and not) rather than on the text. The Romans had many customs, but Paul said "we have NO SUCH custom."

    ReplyDelete
  67. Origen on Matt 19:19

    Comm. Matt. 15.14 (GCS Or 10:388):

    Probably the words, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, may be suspected not to have formed part of the Saviour‘s utterance at that time, but to have been added by someone who did not grasp the exact significance of the passage. Our suspicion that the words, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, are here an addition, is confirmed by the account of the incident in Mark and in Luke. Neither of these has added to the commandments mentioned in this place by Jesus the words, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. . . .
    Of course if there had not been in many other details diversity in our copies, so that the texts of Matthew do not all agree, and the other Gospels are in like case, a man would have appeared irreverent who suggested that the commandment, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, was in this passage an addition and was never really mentioned by the Saviour to the rich man. But it is a recognized fact that there is much diversity in our copies, whether by the carelessness of certain scribes, or by some culpable rashness in the correction of the text, or by some people making arbitrary additions or omissions in their corrections. . . .

    --Selections from the Commentaries and Homilies of Origen (trans. R. B. Tollinton; London: SPCK, 1929), 108-10.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Thank you, Daniel Buck, for this full citation from Origen. I find it fascinating that Origen regards "culpable rashness in the correction of the text" one reason for the "recognized fact that there is much diversity in our copies." This is exactly what I have concluded is the most likely explanation for the diversity of textual data, both external and internal, regarding 1 Cor 14:34-35. Apparently someone desiring to promote the conventional wisdom of the day regarding the silence of women in public meetings used vocabulary and conceptual patterns from 1 Tim 2:11-15 (as Man and Woman, One in Christ argues on pages 262-63) in constructing this note in the margin, lest someone misread Paul's many affirmations of "all" participating in prophecy, teaching, etc., to include women.

    ReplyDelete
  69. In response to my statement, “the most natural reading of 1 Cor 11:15 is that nature gave woman long hair “as equivalent to” (or “for”) a covering" WoundedEgo wrote, "

I suggest you take your analysis to your favorite Greek teacher for a checkup.”

    According to Moulton Geden, there are only five occurrences of the word ἀντί in Paul’s letters. All but the idioms for “because” (ἀνθ᾽ ὧν) in 2 Thess 2:10 and “for this reason” (ἀντί τούτου) in Eph 5:31 express “that one thing is equivalent to another, for, as, in place of” (BAG ἀντί 2, which lists all of them here) and can be properly translated “for.” None is properly translated “against”:

    Rom 12:17 “Repay no one evil for (ἀντί) evil.”
    1 Cor 11:15 “Long hair has been give her for (ἀντί) a covering”
    Eph 5:31 “For this reason (ἀντί τούτου) a man shall leave his father and mother…”
    1 Thess 5:15 “See that none of you repays evil for (ἀντί) evil.”
    2 Thess 2:10 “because (ἀνθ᾽ ὧν) they refused to love the truth and so be saved.”

    ReplyDelete
  70. In response to my statement, “I believe that the most common use of "cover" entails putting something over or on top of something else,” WoundedEgo wrote, “‘You believe?’ Concerning an English word? Again, you are shooting from the hip.”

    I was referring to Greek usage, though the same is true of English usage. For instance, LSJ 893 defines κατακαλύπτω “cover up” and referring to covering the head, “having covered his head.” This is the verb Paul uses twice regarding women in 1 Cor 11:6 and once regarding men in 1 Cor 11:7.

    Similarly, LSJ 47 defines ἀκατακάλυπτος “uncovered.” This is the adjective Paul uses to identify a woman’s head as uncovered in 1 Cor 11:5 and 13.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Maybe I misunderstand what you are trying to assert....

    I'm saying that the word suggests that her hair obviates the need for an [additional] veil.

    What I understood you to be asserting was that it meant that it was to be used "for making a cover." That is "for" as an indicator of "purpose."

    If I misunderstood you, and you rightly understand that if the woman has long hair then she is NOT unveiled and needs no additional veil, then pray forgive me.

    Here is my statement that you objected to:

    "WoundedEgo wrote, “But what Paul really says is that it is given to her *instead of* a PERIBOLAION, or "wrap-around."

    If you want to fine tune that and say "long hair is given to her as equivalent to a veil" then fine, we are saying the same thing.

    But if you are suggesting that long hair is given "so she may make a cover out of it" then we do not agree.

    Is long hair (not only when manipulated into a pile) a satisfactory veil? Or must it follow Roman custom, and be piled on the head? Where does Paul assert the latter?

    A "natural veil" is what God gave. He didn't give the raw materials for a constructed veil.

    ReplyDelete
  72. >>>In response to my statement, “I believe that the most common use of "cover" entails putting something over or on top of something else,” WoundedEgo wrote, “‘You believe?’ Concerning an English word? Again, you are shooting from the hip.”

    You have not show which usage is more common, have you?

    >>>I was referring to Greek usage, though the same is true of English usage.

    Are you sure of that?:

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cover

    >>>For instance, LSJ 893 defines κατακαλύπτω “cover up” and referring to covering the head, “having covered his head.” This is the verb Paul uses twice regarding women in 1 Cor 11:6 and once regarding men in 1 Cor 11:7.

    It is only your rash assumption that this refers only to the top of the head.

    >>>Similarly, LSJ 47 defines ἀκατακάλυπτος “uncovered.” This is the adjective Paul uses to identify a woman’s head as uncovered in 1 Cor 11:5 and 13.

    And again, to uncover her, you don't let her hair down, but rather shear her.

    You have married your interpretation of Paul to Roman custom, which Paul did not. He tied his view to nature, and disavowed any tie to *any* "such custom."

    ReplyDelete
  73. The expression "one and the same" that Paul uses, if, as I believe it is, it is the same as the English idiom that copied it, then it does not denote equivalence, but identity:

    http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/one+and+the+same

    In other words, Paul was not saying that if you unveil a woman it is "as if" you sheared her, but rather, "unveiling a woman and shearing her are the selfsame thing."

    You only unveil a woman by shearing her; These are the same act. There is no distinction.

    Paul did not say "Doth not Roman custom itself teach us that if a woman have lowered hair it is a disgrace?" His concern was "Do you think it looks good to see a shorn woman prophesying?"

    ReplyDelete
  74. WoundedEgo wrote, “Paul was not saying that if you unveil a woman it is "as if" you sheared her, but rather, ‘unveiling a woman and shearing her are the selfsame thing.’

You only unveil a woman by shearing her; These are the same act. There is no distinction.”

    In the verse WoundedEgo is citing 1 Cor 11:5, Paul is not speaking about someone else shearing a woman, but about the woman’s own acts being “the same as if her hair were shaven.”

    In the very next verse Paul makes it clear that the woman was not shorn at the time of prophesying while “uncovered”, for he writes: “If a woman will not cover herself, let her also (καί) be shorn; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” The “if … then” construction points to a consequence that follows the action, not something existing prior to the action. That Paul is referring to a separate and later event of being shorn is further confirmed by the καί in “let her also be shorn,” for it points to something separate that could happen if she does not cover her head. This conclusion is further confirmed by the following “but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” If the woman were already shorn and if her hair is her covering, it would not be possible at that time to “let her be covered [given WoundedEgo’s definition of ‘covered’]” since she would then have already been shorn.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Since this seems to be the place (at least for another week or so) to discuss 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, I'll address it myself.

    As I understand it, Dr. Payne is out to determine the meaning of Paul's doctrine of the woman's covering, using only Paul's words here in ch. 11 and extant documents and artwork of the Greek and Roman world of his day. And I think he has made his case as well as it can be made.

    The problem arises when we look to see how 1 Corinthians 11 was applied by those who read it in the following centuries. Early Christians commenting on this passage NEVER understood it to mean hair gathered up on top of the head.

    There was some discussion among early Christians as to how much of a woman's head should be covered, and with what, but never was there any doubt that 'the covering' consisted of something worn 'down over' a person's head. Even the Vulgate Bible itself uses the phrase "velato capite" in vv. 4-5. As we know from archaeology, 'velato capite' refers to a covering of cloth worn 'down over' the back of the head--with graphic evidence of the hair, whether long or short, being either bound or unbound beneath it.

    As for 'hair worn up' being a sign of modesty, there are plenty of images dating to that period of women wearing their hair up, and precious little else.

    If Dr. Payne is right about what Paul really meant, it appears that for some 1900 years the Church has been completely wrong in understanding and applying it.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Simply put, "hair worn up" does not appear in the text. The fallacious assumption is that a "cover" is a "pile on the head."

    ReplyDelete
  77. Daniel Buck wrote, "I think he [Dr. Payne] has made his case as well as it can be made. The problem arises when we look to see how 1 Corinthians 11 was applied by those who read it in the following centuries. Early Christians commenting on this passage NEVER understood it to mean hair gathered up on top of the head."

    Thank you, Daniel Buck, for your thoughtful comments. Surprising as it may seem (or not, if you think about it), many early Christians commenting on this passage did understand it to mean hair gathered on the top of the head." For example:

    Macarius Aegyptius (d. c. AD 390), Homiliae spirituales 12.18, explicitly identifies the covering: “Question: Why is it said, ‘a woman praying with uncovered head?’ Answer: Since in the present apostolic time they have been permitted hair instead of a covering.”
    τί ἐστι γυνὴ ἀκατακαλύπτῳ κεφαλῇ προσευχομένη; ἐπειδὴ ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἀφιεμένας εἶχον τὰς τρίχας ἀντὶ σκεπάσματος.” See H. Dörries, E. Klostermann, and M. Kroeger, Die 50 geistlichen Homilien des Makarius (PTS 4; Berlin: DeGruyter, 1964). C. Peter Williams (“Macarius of Egypt,” in The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, 616) notes, “It is possible these writings were by an anonymous writer who was called ‘blessed’ (makarios).” PGL xxxiv, assigns this work to the fifth or sixth century. Luci Berkowitz and Karl A. Squitter, Thesaurus Linguae Graecae Canon of Greek Authors and Works (2nd ed.; New York: Oxford, 1986), 210, lists it as from the fourth century AD. Macarius Aegyptius specifically interprets 1 Cor 11:5 as referring to hair, not to a veil.

    Ambrose (c. AD 339–397), Duties of the Clergy 1.46.232, writes, “Is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered; doth not nature itself teach you that ‘If a woman have long hair, it is a glory unto her’? It is according to nature, since her hair is given her for a veil, for it is a natural veil.” H. de Romesin, The Principal Works of St. Ambrose (NPNF2; ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 10:37.

    Chrysostom (c. AD 354–407) quotes 1 Cor 11:6b followed by 11:14b–15. Chrysostom, Hom. in ep. 1 ad Cor. 1–44), PG 61:219.3. He notes in hom. 26.4, “he said not, ‘let her have long hair,’ but, ‘let her be covered,’ ordaining both these to be one … he both affirms the covering and the hair to be one.”

    Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 3.11, writes, “It is enough for women to protect their locks, and bind up their hair simply along the neck with a plain hair-pin, nourishing chaste locks with simple care to true beauty.” ANF 2:286, but he also advocates veiling in Paed. 3.11 (ANF 2:290).

    Tertullian (AD 160–240) confirms this convention in On the Veiling of Virgins 7: “Hair serves for a covering … for their very adornment properly consists in this, that, by being massed together upon the crown, it wholly covers the very citadel of the head with an encirclement of hair.” ANF 4:32.

    Man and Woman, One in Christ, also lists church fathers who interpret the covering as a garment or who affirm both understandings and identifies fourteen key reasons to interpret the “uncovered head” of women in this passage as referring to hair hanging loosely and the “covering” Paul requires as hair done up. By noting "Evangelical Textual Criticism referral" in the order form you may get it at half price ($14.99), signed at www.pbpayne.com.

    ReplyDelete
  78. WoundedEgo wrote, "hair worn up" does not appear in the text."

    The most natural reading of 1 Cor 11:14-15 in Greek in light of its Hellenistic social conventions regarding modest hairstyles, does imply "hair worn up": "Does not nature itself teach you... that if a woman has long hair it is her glory, because she has been given long hair for a covering [literally 'for a wrap-around,' which is exactly how women wore their hair up modestly, namely by wrapping it around the top of their heads]."

    ReplyDelete
  79. >>>...Surprising as it may seem (or not, if you think about it), many early Christians commenting on this passage did understand it to mean hair gathered on the top of the head."

    They also understood scripture as advocating and infallible Poppa, a Sunday Sabbath, monastic priests, a "Triune" god, and a host of other foolishness.

    >>>For example:
    Macarius Aegyptius (d. c. AD 390), Homiliae spirituales 12.18, explicitly identifies the covering: “Question: Why is it said, ‘a woman praying with uncovered head?’ Answer: Since in the present apostolic time they have been permitted hair instead of a covering.”
    τί ἐστι γυνὴ ἀκατακαλύπτῳ κεφαλῇ προσευχομένη; ἐπειδὴ ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἀφιεμένας εἶχον τὰς τρίχας ἀντὶ σκεπάσματος.” ...PGL xxxiv, assigns this work to the fifth or sixth century....

    That does not serve your case of "hair formed into a covering." It serves mine: "hair *instead of* a covering."

    >>>Ambrose (c. AD 339–397), Duties of the Clergy 1.46.232, writes, “Is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered; doth not nature itself teach you that ‘If a woman have long hair, it is a glory unto her’? It is according to nature, since her hair is given her for a veil, for it is a natural veil.”...

    Again, my case, not yours. Long locks are glorious, not shameful on a woman. Paul thinks them "comely."

    >>>Chrysostom (c. AD 354–407) quotes 1 Cor 11:6b followed by 11:14b–15. Chrysostom, Hom. in ep. 1 ad Cor. 1–44), PG 61:219.3. He notes in hom. 26.4, “he said not, ‘let her have long hair,’ but, ‘let her be covered,’ ordaining both these to be one … he both affirms the covering and the hair to be one.”

    Again, this is my point, not yours. The hair *is* the covering.

    >>>Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 3.11, writes, “It is enough for women to protect their locks, and bind up their hair simply along the neck with a plain hair-pin, nourishing chaste locks with simple care to true beauty.” ANF 2:286, but he also advocates veiling in Paed. 3.11 (ANF 2:290).

    Again, *specifically* making my point, in *specific* opposition to your point (at least in what you actually cited).

    >>>Tertullian (AD 160–240) confirms this convention in On the Veiling of Virgins 7: “Hair serves for a covering … for their very adornment properly consists in this, that, by being massed together upon the crown, it wholly covers the very citadel of the head with an encirclement of hair.” ANF 4:32.

    I suggest looking at the whole context here:

    http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0403.htm

    Note that he says that the reason for the veil is because of the angels of Gen 6.

    Note that he says it *wholly covers* with an *encirclement* of hair!:

    "...it **wholly covers** the very citadel of the head **with an encirclement of hair**.

    To "encircle" is to "surround":

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/encirclement

    >>>Man and Woman, One in Christ, also lists church fathers who interpret the covering as a garment or who affirm both understandings and identifies fourteen key reasons to interpret the “uncovered head” of women in this passage as referring to hair hanging loosely and the “covering” Paul requires as hair done up. By noting "Evangelical Textual Criticism referral" in the order form you may get it at half price ($14.99), signed at www.pbpayne.com.

    I assume you have already set forth what you think to be the best arguments from your book? If so, I suggest a rewrite.

    ReplyDelete
  80. >>>The most natural reading of 1 Cor 11:14-15 in Greek in light of its Hellenistic social conventions regarding modest hairstyles, does imply "hair worn up": "Does not nature itself teach you... that if a woman has long hair it is her glory, because she has been given long hair for a covering [literally 'for a wrap-around,' which is exactly how women wore their hair up modestly, namely by wrapping it around the top of their heads]."

    To your mind, "wrapped around" is equivalent to "on top of, in a mass?"

    To my mind, hair *naturally* wraps around the head - it covers the whole head. In order for it to *not* cover the whole head, it needs to be gathered into a single bun.

    ReplyDelete
  81. PP:
    "Surprising as it may seem (or not, if you think about it), many early Christians commenting on this passage did understand it to mean hair gathered on the top of the head."

    I chose my words carefully to exclude casual references like Clement's--who, as noted, didn't hold your view anyway. And Tertullian, who also seems to advocate hair gathered together on the top of the head, goes on to say that a woman still has to wear a cloth covering over it. The only dispute among the patristic writers seems to have been whether Paul advocated one covering (long hair) or two (long hair covered by a hanging cloth).

    So, as Bill Ross has pointed out, none of these quotes support the idea that it is a GATHERING of hair on top of the head that constitutes the covering advocated for praying and prophesying women in 1 Cor 11.

    IMO, it was an unfortunate translation to begin with that even brought the word 'covering' into the discussion in the first place. Neither KATAKALUPTESQW and PERIBOLAIOU carry the meaning of 'a lid placed over the top' which we associate with the English word 'cover.' KATAKALUPTW refers to that which hangs down over the head--which long hair certainly does--and PERIBOLAIOU carries the idea of that which wraps around something (not itself!), which a woman's KOMH is specified as being designed to do.

    Furthermore, the use of KOMH, IMO, doesn't allow a reference to hair that is kept bound up at the top of the head; the word refers to hair which flows down from the head. It is not just long hair per se, but long, flowing hair.

    I don't have an expert scholar's opinion on my 'Furthermore', so I welcome correction based on Koine or even Classic usage. But my original point still stands regardless.

    The frescoes found at Pompeii show women in a variety of formal poses, among which is one of a woman wearing long hair under a long veil:

    http://arthistory.hit.bg/images/69%20-%20Rome_1%20-%20Phaedra.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  82. Daniel Buck wrote, “The only dispute among the patristic writers seems to have been whether Paul advocated one covering (long hair) or two (long hair covered by a hanging cloth).”

    Do you intend by the above to say that some patristic writers advocate a covering of long hair, and other patristic writers advocate a covering of both long and a handing cloth? If so, them one example of the former is
    Macarius Aegyptius (d. c. AD 390), Homiliae spirituales 12.18, explicitly identifies the covering: “Question: Why is it said, ‘a woman praying with uncovered head?’ Answer: Since in the present apostolic time they have been permitted hair instead of a covering.”

    Daniel Buck wrote, “Furthermore, the use of KOMH, IMO, doesn't allow a reference to hair that is kept bound up at the top of the head; the word refers to hair which flows down from the head. It is not just long hair per se, but long, flowing hair. I don't have an expert scholar's opinion on my 'Furthermore', so I welcome correction based on Koine or even Classic usage.”

    LSJ 975 defines κόμη as “hair of the head” and κόμην τρέφειν as “to let the hair grow long.” MM refers to the use of the verb κομάω in BGU I.16.11 in “a charge brought against a priest of “letting his hair grow too long” ὡς κομῶντος.

    When long standing authorities define a word to mean “hair of the head,” one must have evidence to assert that it “doesn’t allow a reference to hair that is kept bound up at the top of the head” or “the word refers to hair which flows down from the head” or “It is not just long hair per se, but long, flowing hair.”

    I don’t have access to the original sources now, but my recollection is that κόμη is used in discussions of women’s fancy hairdos. Such instances would disprove your suggestion that κόμη “doesn't allow a reference to hair that is kept bound up at the top of the head” since all the literary (e.g. Ovid) and graphic depictions of such fancy hairdos I have seen (which is many) are of hair done up.

    This very passage by Paul, 1 Cor 11:14-15 uses the word κόμη to argue from nature that women should wear long hair "as a wrap-around." This most naturally refers to women wrapping their hair around the top of their heads. If this is Paul’s intent, then he, at least, does not agree that κόμη “doesn't allow a reference to hair that is kept bound up at the top of the head.”

    ReplyDelete
  83. WoundedEgo asks, “To your mind, "wrapped around" is equivalent to "on top of, in a mass?"

    “Is given her for a wrap-around” implies that she is to use her hair to wrap around her head, which is exactly what women’s modest hairstyles of that day did. Women wrapped their hair around their heads, doing it up in what was regarded a modest way. The women who let their hair down, such as the Maenads of the Dionysiac Cult, symbolized sexual freedom and was associated with debauchery in the writings of the critics of the Dionysiac Cult. Such debauchery was the reason the Dionysiac Cult was banned from Rome.

    Paul’s argument against the symbolism of sexual freedom has the goal of preserving marriage. Whether one takes the ἀντί of 11:15 as meaning “for” (equivalence) or “against”/“instead or” does not matter for my view since both affirm that woman has been given hair to cover her head. The natural corollary to this is that women are under no obligation to wear a garment covering.

    There are two key reasons why I regard the “for” equivalence view as the more natural reading of this passage.

    The first is that, apart from two idiomatic uses, this is the way Paul uses ἀντί in every other occurrences in his letters (5 total), and we have no instances in his letters where he used it to mean “against” or “instead of.”

    James Hurley (who as a fellow NT Ph.D. student at Cambridge) convinced me that this passage is about women’s hair. This was his dissertation topic, and he delved deeply into the cultural backgrounds. He advocates the “instead of” interpretation in Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective, which he regards as Paul’s rebuttal of a second party in Corinth that advocated the veiling of women.

    The second reason I regard the “for” equivalence view as a more natural reading of this passage than the “instead of” interpretation is that if one translates ἀντί “instead of,” this raises a new and heretofore unmentioned issue in the conclusion to Paul’s argument. This translation implies that in addition to the “hair let down” issue Paul has been addressing all along, there was also a party advocating that women must wear a garment head covering, which he rejects simply by the use of ἀντί in his final argument against hair let down. To me this reads too much into ἀντί and raises a speculative new party into what is otherwise a coherent focused argument. In particular, the ambiguity of ἀντί, indeed the absence of such a use elsewhere in any of Paul’s letters, and Paul’s normal use of ἀντί for equivalence, does not provide an adequate basis for asserting a new party in Corinth. Even if there were such a party, the equivalence understanding of ἀντί would adequately answer it, for if a woman’s hair were her covering, why demand more?

    So in short, the “instead of” interpretation is perfectly compatible with my understanding that this passage argues against women letting their hair down while praying or prophesying (and by implication any other church leadership activity). It just seems unlikely in light of Paul’s usage of ἀντί elsewhere, and it detracts from the coherence of Paul’s argument.

    The reason that church fathers use “instead of” terminology is that by then a church custom of veiling had been introduced that they recognized was not Paul’s intention. Consequently, they advocated women’s long hair as their covering “instead of” a veil. It is highly unlikely, based on our knowledge of the symbolism of long flowing hair with unconstrained sexuality, that they were advocating hair let down loose, the sign of a loose woman. There was no need for them to specify that it should be done up since that was virtually universal social convention.

    ReplyDelete
  84. >>>...This very passage by Paul, 1 Cor 11:14-15 uses the word κόμη to argue from nature that women should wear long hair "as a wrap-around." This most naturally refers to women wrapping their hair around the top of their heads...

    Only if you are wearing bun-colored glasses. "Wrap around the head" does NOT, linguistically suggest "piling on top of the head".

    ReplyDelete
  85. Philip Payne asked:
    ”Do you intend . . . to say that some patristic writers advocate a covering of long hair, and other patristic writers advocate a covering of both long [hair] and a han[g]ing cloth?"

    Yes. Tertullian (III, African, Latin) and Chrysostom (IV, Byzantine, Greek) both advocated the latter. Tertullian was the most explicit about it, since he wrote an entire treatise devoted to the subject:

    The region of the veil is co-extensive with the space covered by the hair when unbound; in order that the necks too may be encircled.

    In fact, his complaint at the inadequacy of what some women were wearing on their heads strikes your theory a rather telling blow:

    “For some, with their turbans and woolen bands, do not veil their heads, but bind them up.”

    Philip Payne wrote,
    “LSJ 975 defines κόμη as “hair of the head” and κόμην τρέφειν as “to let the hair grow long.” . . . When long standing authorities define a word to mean “hair of the head,” one must have evidence to assert [otherwise].”

    My evidence that KOMH is only used of long, flowing hair is as follows:

    1) When hair is mentioned in the NT, even specifically female hair, the usual word is the plural form of QRIC. Thus in the first meaning above, KOMH is synonymous with QRIC. So why is KOMH used in 1 Cor 11 and nowhere else in the NT, unless its usage here denotes a meaning not simply synonymous with QRIC?

    2) The English word 'comet' comes from this Greek word, probably via the Latin word 'coma'. Regardless of its semantic range in Late Latin (both comam and capilli appear to be used in the Vulgate here), it was brought into English because of its distinct connotation of long, flowing hair, which other Latin or Greek words apparently did not carry.

    Therefore, unless someone points out to me an obvious exception in non-translation ancient Greek, such as one in which KOMH is spoken of as being tied up in a big bun, I will continue to interpret KOMH as long, flowing hair, regardless of what some expert's opinion is. Obviously we don't bow to every expert's opinion--no matter how long-standing--or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

    Philip Payne wrote:
    "all the literary (e.g. Ovid) and graphic depictions of such fancy hairdos I have seen (which is many) are of hair done up."

    I refer you again to the first-century depictions on the walls of Pompeii. You can't get any more contemporary with I Corinthians than that.

    Philip Payne wrote:
    "This very passage by Paul, 1 Cor 11:14-15 uses the word κόμη to argue from nature that women should wear long hair "as a wrap-around." This most naturally refers to women wrapping their hair around the top of their heads."

    Obviously Tertullian, reading from the Old Latin, didn't find that obvious. Nor did Archbishop Chrysostom, "the greatest preacher in the early church," who also wrote extensively on the subject in his expository coverage of the Corinthian epistles.

    Although he comments at v. 6:

    Having said, "but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven," he states in what follows his own conclusion, saying, "let her be covered." And he said not, "let her have long hair," but, "let her be covered," ordaining both these to be one, and establishing them both ways, from what was customary and from their contraries: in that he both affirms the covering and the hair to be one,"

    at v. 15 he clarifies what he means with:

    Here again, "if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him; but if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given her for a covering.

    "'And if it be given her for a covering'," say you, 'wherefore need she add another covering?' That not nature only, but also her own will may have part in her acknowledgment of subjection. For that you ought to be covered nature herself by anticipation enacted a law.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Daniel Buck writes, “Tertullian (III, African, Latin) … In fact, his complaint at the inadequacy of what some women were wearing on their heads strikes your theory a rather telling blow:
“For some, with their turbans and woolen bands, do not veil their heads, but bind them up.”

    My book documents Tertullian’s advocacy of veiling with a garment, just as you correctly state. The statement you quote shows quite clearly the divide among interpreters of his day, those who like him advocated a garment veil covering their heads, and others who with “woolen bands, do not veil their heads, but bind them up.” You asserted the same, “some patristic writers advocate a covering of long hair, and other patristic writers advocate a covering of both long hair and a hanging cloth.”

    Furthermore, your quote from Tertullian confirms the common custom James Hurley, my book, and many others have abundantly documented, namely that normally women at that time wore their hair up. It also confirms all the evidence I cite in my book that for a woman to let her hair down loosely was a sign of moral looseness.

    Tertullian De Corona 4 and De Oratione 22 indicate that Jewesses stood out in the streets of North Africa because they wore veils. Written between A.D. 200 and 220 [Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 2:833], Tertullian’s On the Veiling of Virgins 1 (ANF 4:28) insists that it is “not custom…even ancient custom” that is the basis for his argument for veiling virgins. He tries to defuse the obvious objection to veiling by arguing that the custom “is not ‘strange’ since it is not among ‘strangers’ that we find it but among…the brotherhood.”

    I do not see how a statement that confirms exactly what I have written, and, indeed, explains the early Christian divide on this issue, which you acknowledge, “strikes [my] theory a rather telling blow.”

    Daniel Buck writes, “Therefore, unless someone points out to me an obvious exception in non-translation ancient Greek, such as one in which KOMH is spoken of as being tied up in a big bun, I will continue to interpret KOMH as long, flowing hair.”

    According to C. D. Young’s English-Greek Lexicon, p. 268, Homer expressed “Wearing hair on the top of one’s head, ἀκπόκομος” and Lucian expressed “With hair on end through fright ἀνασεσοβημένος τὴν κόμην.” This establishes that it is not true that κόμη “is only used of long, flowing hair”. How often this word is used in the NT and what English words may be derived from a Greek word does not limit the meaning of that word in Greek.

    ReplyDelete
  87. PP:
    "I do not see how a statement that confirms exactly what I have written, and, indeed, explains the early Christian divide on this issue, which you acknowledge, 'strikes [my] theory a rather telling blow'."

    And I don't really expect you to. But it's clear to me from the entire context that Tertullian wasn't aware of any Christian women who considered just putting their hair up, without any accompanying "turbans, bands, fringes, tufts, or threads," to be fulfilling the requirement of 1 Cor 11 for praying or prophesying women.

    PP:
    "Lucian expressed “With hair on end through fright ἀνασεσοβημένος τὴν κόμην.” This establishes that it is not true that κόμη 'is only used of long, flowing hair'."

    Well, that strikes my theory a telling blow alright. But I'm trying to imagine why someone would use a word that specifically means 'long hair' in this context when a word for just 'hair' was already available. We, for instance, would never say, "He was so frightened that his long hair stood on end." Long hair doesn't stand on end from fright--it requires many thousands of volts of electricity.

    ReplyDelete
  88. PP:
    "It is highly unlikely, based on our knowledge of the symbolism of long flowing hair with unconstrained sexuality, that they were advocating hair let down loose, the sign of a loose woman."

    I'm not at all convinced that long flowing hair was a sign of unconstrained sexuality. Jesus made no objection to a woman wiping his feet with her long flowing hair, and his host's objection was clearly based on the woman's usual occupation, not her present state of grooming.

    Furthermore, Hippolytus, who wrote "And let all the women have their heads covered with an opaque cloth, not with a veil of thin linen, for this is not a true covering," a few lines down instructed women being baptized to remove all their clothing and jewelry, and to let down their hair.

    Lose flowing hair may well have represented a women being not modestly dressed, but there are reasons for not being modestly dressed that are clearly unrelated to unrestrained sexuality--even in the fulfillment of a sacrament.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Daniel Buck wrote, “it's clear to me from the entire context that Tertullian wasn't aware of any Christian women who considered just putting their hair up, without any accompanying "turbans, bands, fringes, tufts, or threads," to be fulfilling the requirement of 1 Cor 11 for praying or prophesying women.”

    Tertullian is writing this treatise in order to argue for a practice in the church that he believed Paul taught. If it were already the uniform practice in the church, there would have been no need for such a work. The way in which he argues indicates that he is trying to get the church to come to a consensus around his interpretation of 1 Cor 11:2-16 (in a way not unlike what I am doing). The very passage you cite demonstrates that Tertullian was specifically concerned because some Christian woman were not as strict in this as he wished:

    But we admonish you, too, women of the second (degree of) modesty, who have fallen into wedlock, not to outgrow so far the discipline of the veil, not even in a moment of an hour, as, because you cannot refuse it, to take some other means to nullify it, by going neither covered nor bare.

    For some, with their turbans and woolen bands, do not veil their head, but bind it up; protected, indeed, in front, but, where the head properly lies, bare. Others are to a certain extent covered over the region of the brain with linen coifs of small dimensions - suppose for fear of pressing the head - and not reaching quite to the ears. If they are so weak in their hearing as not to be able to hear through a covering, I pity them. Let them know that the whole head constitutes "the woman." Its limits and boundaries reach as far as the place where the robe begins.

    The region of the veil is co-extensive with the space covered by the hair when unbound, in order that the necks too may be encircled. For it is they that must be subjected, for the sake of which "power" ought to be "had on the head:" the veil is their yoke.

    Tertullian’s writings indicate that he does not regard veiling to be customary Gentile practice and writes as though some regarded his demands to be “strange.” He acknowledges that in common practice, “their very adornment properly consists in this, that, by being massed together upon the crown, it wholly covers the very citadel of the head with an encirclement of hair.”

    Tertullian indicates that Jewesses stood out in the streets of North Africa because they wore veils (De Corona 4; De Oratione 22), implying that Gentile women ordinarily did not wear a veil. Written between AD 200 and 220, Tertullian’s On the Veiling of Virgins 1 insists that it is “not custom … even ancient custom” that is the basis for his argument for veiling virgins. He tries to defuse the obvious objection to veiling by arguing that the custom “is not ‘strange’ since it is not among ‘strangers’ that we find it but among … the brotherhood” (ANF 4:28).

    ReplyDelete
  90. Daniel Buck writes, “But I'm trying to imagine why someone would use a word that specifically means 'long hair' in this context when a word for just 'hair' was already available.”

    Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the NT (enlarged from Grimm’s Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testamenti) defines κόμη “hair, head of hair” He writes “Acc. To Schmidt (21,2) it differs fr. θρίξ (the anatomical or physical term) by designating the hair as an ornament (the notion of length being only secondary and suggested). Cf. B.D. s. v. Hair.” If he is correct, Paul uses the term here because he is referring to women’s hair as a natural ornament, one that should be done up as virtually all depictions of women’s hair as an ornament are from this time.

    Daniel Buck writes, “I'm not at all convinced that long flowing hair was a sign of unconstrained sexuality.”

    Regarding the iconography of hair let down loose symbolizing. “undisciplined sexuality.” See C. R. Hallpike, “Social Hair,” Man n.s. 4 (1969): 256–64.
    For more data confirming this, see Man and Woman, One in Christ arguing that:
    Dionysiac debauchery gave hair let down loose disgraceful associations (162-64),
    It was disgraceful for Jewish woman to let their hair down (164-65),
    There was in Paul’s day a consensus in Greek, Roman, and Jewish cultures that women should have their hair done up (165-66).
    Note that in the very example you cite, it is after the woman “wiped Jesus’ feet with the hair of her head and kissed his feet” that the Pharisee said to himself “what sort of woman this is who is toughing him, for she is a sinner” Luke 7:38-39. This incident confirms the association, at least in the mind of the Pharisee, of hair let down with undisciplined sexuality. Note that here the word used is θρίξ, which Thayer’s sources associate with anatomical hair, for here it is not viewed as an ornament.

    I do not dispute that “there are reasons for not being modestly dressed that are clearly unrelated to unrestrained sexuality--even in the fulfillment of a sacrament.” Similarly, men, including Paul, could let their hair grow long in the fulfillment of a vow, but this was unusual and for a specific purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Here is a thorough investigation that might interest those who want to study the issue more:

    http://www.bible-researcher.com/headcovering.html

    ReplyDelete
  92. WoundedEgo recommends an interpretation of 1 Cor 11:2-16 that makes lexically implausible translations of words and phrases throughout the passage. The goal of exegesis is to let a passage convey its message by the most natural reading of its text. Eisegesis reads a meaning into the text even if the text is not compatible with that meaning. Examples of this treatment’s eisegesis in 1 Cor 11:2-16 are:

    11:2 It contradicts Paul’s praise of the Corinthians for upholding the traditions he had taught them, for it affirms that the Corinthians were breaking a universal church custom. Paul’s affirmation indicates that the disgraceful head coverings he rejects are novel acts performed in Corinth, hence v. 16, “we have no such custom.”

    11:3 It affirms this passage talks about authority structures, focusing on the authority of man over woman, even though the only other reference to authority in the passage is Paul’s affirmation in v. 10 that “a woman ought to have authority over her own head.”

    11:3 It asserts that references to “head” here refer to authority structures, focusing on the authority of man over woman, even though most Greek lexicons, including LSJ, do not even list this as a possible meaning for κεφαλή. It does not even mention the possibility that κεφαλή may refer to “source,” even though the majority view in recent scholarship has shifted to understand “head” (κεφαλή) in this passage to mean “source” rather than “authority.” Cf. pages 117-18 of Man and Woman, One in Christ.

    11:4 Although Paul describes a man’s head covering as disgracing (καταισχύνει) his head, this interpretation identifies the act as something that in that culture was not disgraceful, but symbolized piety (capite velato), even though Paul makes it clear that he believes the Corinthians will agree with his judgment in v. 13 that it is disgraceful (“Judge for yourselves”). Men wearing long effeminate hair was, however, disgraceful.

    11:5 Although Paul describes a woman’s head coving as disgracing (καταισχύνει) her head, this interpretation identifies the act as something that was not regarded as disgraceful, even though Paul makes it clear that he believes the Corinthians will agree with his judgment that it is “not proper” (v. 13) for a woman not to wear her long has “as a covering (literally wrap-around)” in v. 15.

    11:5 Paul says, “she is one and the same as the shorn woman” (11:5), but there is no convincing evidence that this was true of a woman not wearing a head-covering garment. In Paul’s day, if a woman was convicted of adultery, the hair of her head was shamefully cut off as punishment. This explains why an uncovered woman is “one and the same as the shaved woman” (1 Cor 11:5). By letting her hair down in public she places on herself the accusation of adultery. This explanation works only if “uncovered” refers to hair let down. There is no such logical or moral relationship between the removal of a head-covering garment and being shorn.

    11:10 It interprets “a woman ought to have authority (ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν) over her head” as though it means the opposite, that someone else ought to have authority over the woman, and that woman should symbolize this by wearing a veil, even though this is contradicted by ἀντί in 11:15, the only reference to a garment covering in this passage.

    11:11 It rejects the normal meaning of πλήν, “However,” both by rejecting its adversative function and its emphasis on “what is important” (BAG 675).

    11:11 It rejects the normal meaning of χωρίς that “woman is not separate from man.”

    11:12 It does not recognize the significance of v. 12 repudiating a hierarchy of man over woman based on source.

    11:15 Whether ἀντί means “as” or “instead of,” it views long hair as the covering. Standard Greek lexicons do not include “as well as” as a possible meaning of ἀντί.

    It is also in tension with 1 Cor 11:11-12’s affirmations of the equality of woman and man and Gen 1:26-30’s affirmations of male and female being in the image of God and both being given rule over the earth and other creatures.

    ReplyDelete
  93. I did not mean to recommend the view in that link I sent. I just thought it would be of interest to those who wanted to do research on the matter. I didn't even read much of it.

    ReplyDelete
  94. I'm pretty impressed with your comebacks, Dr. Payne. Does your book go into this much detail? If so I might just have to spare you the bother of rewriting it here and go get myself my own copy.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Daniel Buck kindly wrote, "I'm pretty impressed with your comebacks, Dr. Payne. Does your book go into this much detail? If so I might just have to spare you the bother of rewriting it here and go get myself my own copy."

    I, likewise, have learned much from your astute observations, especially bringing to my attention the distigmai in LXX G.

    Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul's Letters goes into far more detail than I have posted here. You (and anyone else who notes "Evangelical Textual Criticism referral" on the order form's special instructions window can purchase a signed copy for half price, $15 instead of $29.99, at www.pbpayne.com.

    There is also a web page dedicated to the book and ongoing interactions with it: www.pbpayne.com. It contains the complete 255 page bibliography for the book, supplemental studies, free downloads of various of my articles in NTS, NovT, etc., and endorsements, e.g.:

    Eldon J. Epp of Harvard Divinity School wrote, "Philip Payne's treatment of New Testament manuscripts and textual criticism, especially in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, is meticulously formulated, cogently argued, and of lasting significance."

    Prof. Scot McKnight of North Park University wrote that it is "technically the most proficient" study ever published on the topic.

    Prof. Ron Pierce, Biola University wrote, "Man and Woman, One in Christ is the most comprehensive and well-reasoned contribution by an individual evangelical scholar in the modern history of the debate."

    Ben Witherington of Asbury Theological Seminary wrote, "This book deserves the highest commendation."

    ReplyDelete
  96. Daniel Buck kindly wrote, “I'm pretty impressed with your comebacks, Dr. Payne. Does your book go into this much detail? If so I might just have to spare you the bother of rewriting it here and go get myself my own copy.”
    I have benefited from your insights as well, especially your observations regarding distigmai in the margin of the Hexaplar Codex Colberto-Sarravianus (LXX G), which may explain the origin of this shape and location as a derivation from Origen’s obelus.
    Yes, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters does go into greater depth than my comments. Much of what I have contributed here was excerpted from this book, often without the additional substantiation in the footnotes.
    You and anyone else reading these words is welcome to purchase a signed copy of the book at half price, US dollars 15.00 instead of 29.99, by mentioning “Evangelical Textual Criticism Referral” in the special instructions window near the bottom of the order form at www.pbpayne.com. Samplings of responses to the book follow:
    • “Philip Payne’s treatment of New Testament manuscripts and textual criticism, especially in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, is meticulously formulated, cogently argued, and of lasting significance.”
    —Eldon J. Epp, Harvard Divinity School
    • “Philip Payne is a very good NT scholar and this topic — exegesis of specific texts about women in the NT — has been his specialty. This book is a must-read for anyone doing serious study or preaching about these texts. Simply put, this is the most technically proficient study ever published on women in the Pauline texts.”
    — Scot McKnight, Jesus Creed
    • “The most comprehensive and well-reasoned contribution by an individual evangelical scholar in the modern history of the debate.”
    — Professor Ron Pierce, Biola University
    • “Philip Payne brings decades of meticulous research to its proper culmination in a compelling and thoroughly biblical demonstration that Paul the apostle to the Gentiles was a wholehearted supporter of women serving in any and all sorts of ministerial roles they are called and gifted to undertake. This book deserves the highest commendation.”
    —Ben Witherington III, Asbury Theological Seminary
    • “Man and Woman, One in Christ represents a massive amount of research and careful thinking! What an important contribution to the church! It should shape the discussion for some time to come. The book is very carefully researched and argued. Congratulations on a really significant piece of work.”
    —Harold Netland, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
    • “A long time adherent to CBMW’s Danver’s Statement, I had assumed the exegetical and theological issues to be well and truly settled by Wayne Grudem’s research and responses on kephalé, along with Schreiner, Köstenberger et al’s latest tome on 1 Timothy 2. However, from the purely exegetical perspective, I think your book is the best I have read to date. I thought your argument for interpolation (1 Cor 14:34-35) was very well argued and persuasive, and your refutation of Moo’s stance convincing. You have won me over with regards to ministry roles. I have set myself the task to re-read your book. Please accept this extended email as a sign of the fruitful and stimulating paradigm-changing challenge your book has proven to be for me.”
    —David R. Booth, Balcatta, Western Australia

    ReplyDelete
  97. Oops--too late. Didn't quite make it to 100 posts before comment moderation kicked in. And I really did want an answer to my last question!

    ReplyDelete
  98. I looked through the OT and was only able to find one use of KOMH. Interestingly enough, in many of the places where one might expect to find it for 'hair' (e.g. Absolam and Solomon's love), the word for 'head' is there instead.

    This is the verse (Brenton LXX), in Exekiel 44:20.

    KAI TAS KEFALAS AUTWN OU XURHSONTAI, KAI TAS KOMAS AUTWN OU YILWSOUSI, KALUPTONTES KALUYOUSI TAS KEFALAS AUTWN.

    So I accept the thesis that KOMA is more or less a synonym for QRIC.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Daniel, in regard to comment moderation this is coincidence. Sometimes comments get stuck for some reason and we as editors have to decide whether to publish and reject. In my estimation, half of them are comment spam, so the function is pretty good, but the other half are proper comments. I don't know what it is but probably some kind of filter sensitive to some words, or perhaps the server address from which the comment is sent. I have no idea.

    ReplyDelete
  100. I think comment moderation is time bound. The original post is now more than a month old.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Peter, now you got to post the 100th comment. I know you did that on purpose!

    ReplyDelete
  102. Peter, now you got to post the 100th comment. I know you did that on purpose!

    ReplyDelete
  103. Daniel Buck perceptively observed that, “in many of the places where one might expect to find it for 'hair', the word for 'head' is there instead.” This helps explain why in Greek, reference to head often implied hair. In 1 Cor 11:5-6 “uncovered” (ἀκατακάλυπτος) is explained twice using “for” (γάρ). Both reasons identify the uncovering as equivalent to hair being clipped or shaved. This helps the reader identify the covering as hair and the uncovered woman as one with her hair let down.
    The word for “hair” was typically omitted in contexts involving the verb “shave” or “cut.” For instance, using this same verb, Num 6:9 states [with omitted words in brackets], “But if a man dies very suddenly beside him and he defiles his dedicated head [of hair], then he shall shave his head [of hair] on the day when he becomes clean.” In this case it is clear that “head” substitutes for “hair” following the verb “defiled” because it is followed by “shave his head.” Num 6:18-19 states, “The Nazirite shall then shave his dedicated head [of hair]…and shall take the dedicated hair of his head and put it on the fire…after he has shaved his dedicated [hair]….” Both the Greek and Hebrew texts of these verses omit the word “hair” twice. “Hair” is also omitted as the object of the verb for “to cut” in Jer 7:28-29 LXX, “This is the nation that has not obeyed the Lord its God or responded to correction. Truth has perished; it has vanished from their lips. Cut off your [hair of your] head and throw it away; take up a lament.” Hair is omitted after κείρω in the Greek as also in the Hebrew of 2 Sam 14:26, “He cut [the hair of] his head…he used to cut [his hair]…he cut [his hair], and he would weigh the hair of his head.” In Mic 1:16 hair is also omitted after “shave” (ξυράω). In Paul’s day an accused adulteress had her hair let down, and shaving was the penalty of a convicted adulteress. This explains why an uncovered woman is the same as a woman with shorn hair. This explanation works only if “uncovered” refers to hair let down. In contrast, there is no such direct relationship between the removal of a head-covering garment and being shorn.
    Daniel Buck writes, “I looked through the OT and was only able to find one use of KOMH.” Hatch and Redpath list Lev 19:27; Num 6:5; Judg 13:7; Job 1:20; 16:13 (12); 38:32; Ezek 24:23; 44:20; Dan LXX Bel 35; Dan TH. Bel 36; III Macc 1:18; 4:6.
    The verse Buck cites, however, Ezek 44:20, expresses the rule that priests “shall carefully cover their heads,” καλύπτοντες καλύψουσιν τὰς κεφαλὰς αὐτῶν. This illuminates the meaning of 1 Cor 11:2-16’s references to the shame of a man’s head being “covered.” It is clear from this verse that a garment was not shameful for leaders in Jewish worship (priests). Indeed, they were commanded to cover their heads. This is one reason to understand Paul to be referring to men “having [hair, not a garment] down from their heads” in 11:4. To prohibit what the OT commanded (a garment head covering) would have put an unnecessary stumbling block in the way of the faith of Jews. This would have been contrary to Paul’s principle, indeed his command, “never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother” (Rom 14:13; cf. the same concern express shortly before this in 1 Cor 8:9).

    ReplyDelete
  104. Daniel Buck perceptively observed that, “in many of the places where one might expect to find it for 'hair', the word for 'head' is there instead.” This helps explain why in Greek, reference to head often implied hair. In 1 Cor 11:5-6 “uncovered” (ἀκατακάλυπτος) is explained twice using “for” (γάρ). Both reasons identify the uncovering as equivalent to hair being clipped or shaved. This helps the reader identify the covering as hair and the uncovered woman as one with her hair let down. The word for “hair” was typically omitted in contexts involving the verb “shave” or “cut.” For instance, using this same verb, Num 6:9 states [with omitted words in brackets], “But if a man dies very suddenly beside him and he defiles his dedicated head [of hair], then he shall shave his head [of hair] on the day when he becomes clean.” In this case it is clear that “head” substitutes for “hair” following the verb “defiled” because it is followed by “shave his head.” Num 6:18-19 states, “The Nazirite shall then shave his dedicated head [of hair]…and shall take the dedicated hair of his head and put it on the fire…after he has shaved his dedicated [hair]….” Both the Greek and Hebrew texts of these verses omit the word “hair” twice. “Hair” is also omitted as the object of the verb for “to cut” in Jer 7:28-29 LXX, “This is the nation that has not obeyed the Lord its God or responded to correction. Truth has perished; it has vanished from their lips. Cut off your [hair of your] head and throw it away; take up a lament.” Hair is omitted after κείρω in the Greek as also in the Hebrew of 2 Sam 14:26, “He cut [the hair of] his head…he used to cut [his hair]…he cut [his hair], and he would weigh the hair of his head.” In Mic 1:16 hair is also omitted after “shave” (ξυράω). In Paul’s day an accused adulteress had her hair let down, and shaving was the penalty of a convicted adulteress. This explains why an uncovered woman is the same as a woman with shorn hair. This explanation works only if “uncovered” refers to hair let down. In contrast, there is no such direct relationship between the removal of a head-covering garment and being shorn.
    Daniel Buck writes, “I looked through the OT and was only able to find one use of KOMH.” Hatch and Redpath list Lev 19:27; Num 6:5; Judg 13:7; Job 1:20; 16:13 (12); 38:32; Ezek 24:23; 44:20; Dan LXX Bel 35; Dan TH. Bel 36; III Macc 1:18; 4:6. The verse Buck cites, however, Ezek 44:20, expresses the rule that priests “shall carefully cover their heads,” καλύπτοντες καλύψουσιν τὰς κεφαλὰς αὐτῶν. This illuminates the meaning of 1 Cor 11:2-16’s references to the shame of a man’s head being “covered.” It is clear from this verse that a garment was not shameful for leaders in Jewish worship (priests). Indeed, they were commanded to cover their heads. This is one reason to understand Paul to be referring to men “having [hair, not a garment] down from their heads” in 11:4. To prohibit what the OT commanded (a garment head covering) would have put an unnecessary stumbling block in the way of the faith of Jews. This would have been contrary to Paul’s principle, indeed his command, “never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother” (Rom 14:13; cf. the same concern express shortly before this in 1 Cor 8:9).

    ReplyDelete
  105. English speakers routinely speak of "shaving their head" rather than "cutting off all of their hair," and I'm thinking that is what's going on in the Greek speaking world as well.

    ReplyDelete
  106. I am a layman in matters of textual criticism, but I don't think there is any denying that the egalitarian beliefs of these individuals is clouding their thinking.When Paul argues against the practices of the church of Corinth he uses a particular method. You can see it in 1 Cor.8. In verse 10 it seems to give liberty to be in the idol's temple but then he contadicts that in 1 Cor.10:20-22.This is exactly the same as 1 Cor.11:5 and 14:34-35. Maybe you'll also notice how he ends both passages concerning the women 11:16 and 14:37-38.He makes very clear that opposition to his teaching is heresy v.38. Apparantly egalitarianism was the problem Paul was opposing not misogyny.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Who knows when this will finally get through comment moderation, but I'll only post it once and hope for the best.

    I really enjoyed the repartee with Dr. Payne, and did in fact purchase a signed copy of his book, which I painstakingly reviewed for his publisher, finding a handful of unmistakeable errors as well as dozens of points of disagreement.

    But I'm coming back the the KOMA question because I found another GOT reference, in the Book of Judith, referring to Judith taking hold of the hair of Holofernes his head (τῆς κόμης τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ.) Clearly, he had hair long enough for her to get a good grip while she decapitated him. And I think this is telling: whenever KOMA is used, it indicates hair longer than it would grow if regularly kept trim.

    Whenever KOMA is mentioned as being cut, it seems to indicate a change in hairstyle rather than a periodic grooming. The KOMA is not trimmed, but removed. And there are multiple references in ancient Greek that bear this out, including the account of Berenice, the wife of Euergetes (Ptolemy III.), king of Egypt, who made a vow that, if her husband returned in safety from a dangerous expedition on which he had gone, she would consecrate her KOMA
    by excising it and presenting it in the temple of Venus. She did not cut off all her HAIR, just its LENGTH.

    Furthermore, it appears that more specific Gk terms are used to depict hair that is gathered at the top of the head, such as ἀκρόκομοι:
    http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plut.%20Lyc.%2016&lang=original

    So, I'm back to being unconvinced that KOMA can signify hair used as adornment without implicitly indicating that it is long hair--hair long enough by which to secure a grip on the head.

    ReplyDelete