tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post8939477086614188801..comments2024-03-28T00:45:18.442+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Is 1 Cor 14:34-35 an Interpolation?P.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger112125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-72160398316623890852021-08-11T06:50:34.783+01:002021-08-11T06:50:34.783+01:00Some, (including myself in print) have spent too m...Some, (including myself in print) have spent too much time picking fights with Payne on peripheral issues, instead of addressing the central issues:<br /><br />Firstly, a text could easily be added in the "wrong" place when it was copied into a manuscript that lacked it. Can anyone think of a transposition of a text (of a few words or more) that is unlikely to have been absent from an ancestor manuscript?<br /><br />Secondly, why does 1 Cor 14:34-35, like the Pericope Adulterae, have 2.5 times as many variant units (in NA28) than what we would expect for a passage of its size? In the case of 1 Cor 14:34-35 the probability of this happening by chance is only 3.4%. The endings of Mark and Rom 15-16 also have more than their share of variant units. Does this not mean that 1 Cor 14:34-35 picked up variants when sloppy people, lacking loyalty to the new text, copied it into manuscripts that lacked it? Or is there another explanation?<br /><br />Unless these points can be answered, it seems virtually certain that there were indeed early manuscripts that lacked the verses.Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-76113001537198014092021-08-11T06:48:19.343+01:002021-08-11T06:48:19.343+01:00Some, (including myself in print) have spent too m...Some, (including myself in print) have spent too much time picking fights with Payne on peripheral issues, instead of addressing the central issues:<br /><br />Firstly, a text could easily be added in the "wrong" place when it was copied into a manuscript that lacked it. Can anyone think of a transposition of a text (of a few words or more) that is unlikely to have been absent from an ancestor manuscript?<br /><br />Secondly, why does 1 Cor 14:34-35, like the Pericope Adulterae, have 2.5 times as many variant units (in NA28) than what we would expect for a passage of its size? In the case of 1 Cor 14:34-35 the probability of this happening by chance is only 3.4%. The endings of Mark and Rom 15-16 also have more than their share of variant units. Does this not mean that 1 Cor 14:34-35 picked up variants when sloppy people, lacking loyalty to the new text, copied it into manuscripts that lacked it? Or is there another explanation?<br /><br />Unless these points can be answered, it seems certain that there were indeed early manuscripts that lacked the verses.Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-74953596521073931272015-06-16T09:55:44.946+01:002015-06-16T09:55:44.946+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.WoundedEgohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10587474211232415755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-70001389401897775622015-06-03T12:43:22.607+01:002015-06-03T12:43:22.607+01:00With respect to Philip Payne's 'Responses ...With respect to Philip Payne's 'Responses to Questions' about his interpolation theory, I am puzzled by his employing the argument that Clement of Alexandria didn't know the verses. Is Payne suggesting that the verses were added some time late in the second century? I thought they would have to be added very early to get into all the manuscripts. Fee suggests before the end of the first century, and Daniel Wallace says it would have to have been even earlier. In his book (p.230), Payne suggests that it went into the margin 'early in the text transmission'. He then writes:<br /><br />'Scribes who copied the manuscript containing this marginal text would assume that their exemplar's scribe omitted this text inadvertently and someone wrote it in the only remaining space, the margin. Then, as was customary, the scribe copying this exemplar entered the text into the body of the letter, just like any secretary retyping an edited letter today will move marginal text into the body of a letter'.<br /><br />Payne doesn't say when he envisages this copy to be made, with the marginal text now in the main body of the manuscript, but presumably still 'early. But then in that case it should be in Clement's copy, I would have thought? <br /><br />AndrewAndrew Chapmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11682602818338988947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-77759589013511010322015-06-03T12:42:32.837+01:002015-06-03T12:42:32.837+01:00With respect to Philip Payne's 'Responses ...With respect to Philip Payne's 'Responses to Questions' about his interpolation theory, I am puzzled by his employing the argument that Clement of Alexandria didn't know the verses. Is Payne suggesting that the verses were added some time late in the second century? I thought they would have to be added very early to get into all the manuscripts. Fee suggests before the end of the first century, and Daniel Wallace says it would have to have been even earlier. In his book (p.230), Payne suggests that it went into the margin 'early in the text transmission'. He then writes:<br /><br />'Scribes who copied the manuscript containing this marginal text would assume that their exemplar's scribe omitted this text inadvertently and someone wrote it in the only remaining space, the margin. Then, as was customary, the scribe copying this exemplar entered the text into the body of the letter, just like any secretary retyping an edited letter today will move marginal text into the body of a letter'.<br /><br />Payne doesn't say when he envisages this copy to be made, with the marginal text now in the main body of the manuscript, but presumably still 'early. But then in that case it should be in Clement's copy, I would have thought? <br /><br />Andrew<br /><br /> Andrew Chapmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11682602818338988947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-13797034767416018252013-08-29T20:22:15.733+01:002013-08-29T20:22:15.733+01:00Who knows when this will finally get through comme...Who knows when this will finally get through comment moderation, but I'll only post it once and hope for the best.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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<br />by excising it and presenting it in the temple of Venus. She did not cut off all her HAIR, just its LENGTH. <br /><br />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:<br />http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plut.%20Lyc.%2016&lang=original<br /><br />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.Daniel Bucknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-53322571924480337932011-05-07T17:32:26.514+01:002011-05-07T17:32:26.514+01:00I am a layman in matters of textual criticism, but...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-47319382298950774752010-03-10T00:13:31.354+00:002010-03-10T00:13:31.354+00:00English speakers routinely speak of "shaving ...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.WoundedEgohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10587474211232415755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-34868119005647641302010-03-02T08:19:43.480+00:002010-03-02T08:19:43.480+00:00Daniel Buck perceptively observed that, “in many o...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.<br />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).Philip B. Paynehttp://www.linguistsoftware.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-10181938901614257282010-02-26T04:18:27.624+00:002010-02-26T04:18:27.624+00:00Daniel Buck perceptively observed that, “in many o...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. <br />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.<br />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. <br />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).Philip Paynehttp://www.pbpayne.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-90583472338807426422010-02-24T14:00:44.233+00:002010-02-24T14:00:44.233+00:00Peter, now you got to post the 100th comment. I kn...Peter, now you got to post the 100th comment. I know you did that on purpose!Tommy Wassermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10674769923361035721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-66617106692636615732010-02-24T14:00:43.577+00:002010-02-24T14:00:43.577+00:00Peter, now you got to post the 100th comment. I kn...Peter, now you got to post the 100th comment. I know you did that on purpose!Tommy Wassermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10674769923361035721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-61583841456635935552010-02-24T13:41:10.060+00:002010-02-24T13:41:10.060+00:00I think comment moderation is time bound. The orig...I think comment moderation is time bound. The original post is now more than a month old.Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-31988899250497416342010-02-24T08:54:31.017+00:002010-02-24T08:54:31.017+00:00Daniel, in regard to comment moderation this is co...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.Tommy Wassermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10674769923361035721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-11957251949834191832010-02-22T16:40:27.360+00:002010-02-22T16:40:27.360+00:00I looked through the OT and was only able to find ...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. <br /><br />This is the verse (Brenton LXX), in Exekiel 44:20.<br /><br />KAI TAS KEFALAS AUTWN OU XURHSONTAI, KAI TAS KOMAS AUTWN OU YILWSOUSI, KALUPTONTES KALUYOUSI TAS KEFALAS AUTWN.<br /><br />So I accept the thesis that KOMA is more or less a synonym for QRIC.Daniel Bucknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-4283470492523271862010-02-17T18:24:43.662+00:002010-02-17T18:24:43.662+00:00Oops--too late. Didn't quite make it to 100 po...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!Daniel Bucknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-26046883266382126992010-02-17T05:20:49.319+00:002010-02-17T05:20:49.319+00:00Daniel Buck kindly wrote, “I'm pretty impresse...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.”<br />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.<br />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.<br />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:<br />• “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.”<br />—Eldon J. Epp, Harvard Divinity School<br />• “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.”<br />— Scot McKnight, Jesus Creed<br />• “The most comprehensive and well-reasoned contribution by an individual evangelical scholar in the modern history of the debate.” <br />— Professor Ron Pierce, Biola University<br />• “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.”<br />—Ben Witherington III, Asbury Theological Seminary<br />• “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.”<br />—Harold Netland, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School<br />• “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.”<br />—David R. Booth, Balcatta, Western AustraliaPhilip Paynehttp://www.pbpayne.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-29073832457880428092010-02-16T17:46:49.733+00:002010-02-16T17:46:49.733+00:00Daniel Buck kindly wrote, "I'm pretty imp...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."<br /><br />I, likewise, have learned much from your astute observations, especially bringing to my attention the distigmai in LXX G.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.:<br /><br />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."<br /><br />Prof. Scot McKnight of North Park University wrote that it is "technically the most proficient" study ever published on the topic.<br /><br />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." <br /><br />Ben Witherington of Asbury Theological Seminary wrote, "This book deserves the highest commendation."Philip Paynehttp://www.pbpayne.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-38953172762669543302010-02-15T21:29:33.613+00:002010-02-15T21:29:33.613+00:00I'm pretty impressed with your comebacks, Dr. ...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.Daniel Bucknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-30039311019896840822010-02-15T02:21:51.849+00:002010-02-15T02:21:51.849+00:00I did not mean to recommend the view in that link ...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.WoundedEgohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10587474211232415755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-71417075062252068742010-02-15T01:41:57.545+00:002010-02-15T01:41:57.545+00:00WoundedEgo recommends an interpretation of 1 Cor 1...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:<br /><br />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.”<br /><br />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.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />11:11 It rejects the normal meaning of χωρίς that “woman is not separate from man.” <br /><br />11:12 It does not recognize the significance of v. 12 repudiating a hierarchy of man over woman based on source.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Philip Paynehttp://www.pbpayne.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-37129381976776203232010-02-13T19:45:18.665+00:002010-02-13T19:45:18.665+00:00Here is a thorough investigation that might intere...Here is a thorough investigation that might interest those who want to study the issue more:<br /><br />http://www.bible-researcher.com/headcovering.htmlWoundedEgohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10587474211232415755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-61863406409334392492010-02-13T19:08:02.507+00:002010-02-13T19:08:02.507+00:00Daniel Buck writes, “But I'm trying to imagine...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.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Daniel Buck writes, “I'm not at all convinced that long flowing hair was a sign of unconstrained sexuality.”<br /><br />Regarding the iconography of hair let down loose symbolizing. “undisciplined sexuality.” See C. R. Hallpike, “Social Hair,” Man n.s. 4 (1969): 256–64.<br />For more data confirming this, see Man and Woman, One in Christ arguing that:<br />Dionysiac debauchery gave hair let down loose disgraceful associations (162-64),<br />It was disgraceful for Jewish woman to let their hair down (164-65),<br />There was in Paul’s day a consensus in Greek, Roman, and Jewish cultures that women should have their hair done up (165-66).<br />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.<br /><br />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.Philip Paynehttp://www.pbpayne.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-12274498277673387572010-02-13T19:05:52.084+00:002010-02-13T19:05:52.084+00:00Daniel Buck wrote, “it's clear to me from the ...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.”<br /><br />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:<br /><br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br />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.<br /><br />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.”<br /><br />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).Philip Paynehttp://www.pbpayne.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-58134454103223882052010-02-12T15:47:27.204+00:002010-02-12T15:47:27.204+00:00PP:
"It is highly unlikely, based on our know...PP:<br />"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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Daniel Bucknoreply@blogger.com