Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women

[BuckeyeBukaroo]

Simplify
Woman (cut hair x 0 hair) = superficial head covering

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

So your saying the text is basically saying shorn and shaven are the same thing? Ok i have no problem with that but why would it use two words that mean the exact same thing at all? Of course would be the same as to be shaven if they are saying two different words that mean the exact same thing. The only question I have is why would he because that would be obvious? Who used the word the other 2 times it's used? Luke and Paul used it.

But it's used 3 times in the same verse 11:6 "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered." Ok so it would say "for it a woman be not covered, let shorn also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered?" Explain because the her being the same word is throwing me off.

Not exactly. They are closely related, but don't mean exactly the same thing. Shorn is cutting the hair very short. Shaving is completely removing the hair. Perhaps like the difference between a buzz cut and bald. Shaving is a more extreme form. The point is that either of these conditions would be shameful to a woman. It's easy to see how either would be shameful to a woman, but it's much harder to see how trimming or cutting her hair, in which the appearance of the hair is still long, would be shameful to a women. Many would say trimming and shaping it actually makes it even more beautiful--even more of a glory to her.

I understand Paul to be saying that if they are unwilling to abide by their society's custom of women appearing in public with their heads covered with some sort of cloth, they might as well remove their natural covering of hair as well. Since both are shameful, both should be avoided.

As far as the Greek word translated "shorn" being used, it only appears in this one passage in 1 Cor 11 and twice in Acts.

[Amanah]

My post didn’t make sense
Because I didn’t put it together with enough thought so I need to redo it

So to me this is saying to let the hair grow, for it is given instead of a veil.

1 Corinthians 11:15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

Long:

STRONGS NT 2863: κομάω
κομάω, κόμω; (κόμη); to let the hair grow, have long hair (cf. κόμη at the end): 1 Corinthians 11:14f (In Greek writings from Homer down.

Vs 15 with the Greek References:

g1135 n-nsfγυνη g1161 conjδε g1437 condεαν g2863 [g5725] v-pas-3sκομα g1391 n-nsfδοξα g846 p-dsfαυτη g2076 [g5748] v-pxi-3sεστιν g3754 conjοτι g3588 t-nsfη g2864 n-nsfκομη g473 prepαντι g4018 n-gsnπεριβολαιου g1325 [g5769] v-rpi-3sδεδοται g846 p-dsf| αυτη g846 p-dsf| " αυτη "

The greek reference definitions:

1135. gune goo-nay' probably from the base of 1096; a woman; specially, a wife:--wife, woman.
2863. komao kom-ah'-o from 2864; to wear tresses of hair:--have long hair.
1391. doxa dox'-ah from the base of 1380; glory (as very apparent), in a wide application (literal or figurative, objective or subjective):--dignity, glory(-ious), honour, praise, worship.
3754. hoti hot'-ee neuter of 3748 as conjunction; demonstrative, that (sometimes redundant); causative, because:--as concerning that, as though, because (that), for (that), how (that), (in) that, though, why.
2864. kome kom'-ay apparently from the same as 2865; the hair of the head (locks, as ornamental, and thus differing from 2359; which properly denotes merely the scalp):--hair.
473. anti an-tee' a primary particle; opposite, i.e. instead or because of (rarely in addition to):--for, in the room of. Often used in composition to denote contrast, requital, substitution, correspondence, etc.
4018. peribolaion per-ib-ol'-ah-yon neuter of a presumed derivative of 4016; something thrown around one, i.e. a mantle, veil:--covering, vesture.
1325. didomi did'-o-mee a prolonged form of a primary verb (which is used as an alternative in most of the tenses); to give (used in a very wide application, properly, or by implication, literally or figuratively; greatly modified by the connection):--adventure, bestow, bring forth, commit, deliver (up), give, grant, hinder, make, minister, number, offer, have power, put, receive, set, shew, smite (+ with the hand), strike (+ with the palm of the hand), suffer, take, utter, yield.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by rdp

[COLOR="Blue"][FONT="Georgia"]*On what exegetical basis would you reject all of these NT Koine' lexicographers in favor of L-S-J (which is not the same Greek as the biblical writers)? As the quote below demonstrates, L-S-J is a poor resource relative to the study of NT Greek (I have many more quotes if you would like to read them?):

The exegetical basis would be the Greek Bible itself.

As I showed in previous posts, the only other two places the word "shorn" appears in the NT involve entirely removing the hair not simply trimming it, one involving the shearing of sheep and one involving Paul cutting his hair off after completing a vow.

I thought it would be interesting to check the Septuagint for references to "shorn" and other places that involve cutting the hair. The examples support the reading "cut off" not simply a hair cut.

Jeremiah 31.36-39 says, "36 Therefore the heart of Moab shall sound as pipes, my heart shall sound as a pipe for the shorn men; forasmuch as what every man has gained has perished from him. 37 They shall all have their heads shaved in every place, and every beard shall be shaved; and all hands shall beat the breasts, and on all loins shall be sackcloth. 38 And on all the housetops of Moab, and in his streets shall be mourning: for I have broken him, saith the Lord, as a vessel, which is useless. 39 How has he changed! how has Moab turned his back! Moab is put to shame, and become a laughing-stock, and an object of anger to all that are round about him."

In v. 36, the men are described as "shorn," from the Greek keiradas. This is an adjective. Compare with 1 Cor 11.6, where regarding the woman, "let her be shorn." Here it is a 3rd person singular command keirastho. We can obviously see that the words are related.

In v. 37, it says "they shall all have their heads shaved," which is xurethesondai, a 3rd person singular future passive indicative verb. Compare with 1 Cor 11.7, where regarding the woman, it is said that it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved. Here "shorn" is a middle infinitive keirasthai and "shaved" is a middle infinitive xurasthai. Here again we can obviously see that the words are related to those in the Jeremiah passage.

Interestingly, in v. 39 it says that Moab "is put to shame," which translates the Greek 3rd person singular aorist passive verb eischunthe. In 1 Cor 11.6, Paul says it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaven. "Shameful" translates the adjective aischron. It is not as obvious that these are related because the "ai" in the verb as seen here is in the usual augmented form "ei" but they are definitely related.

So this passage has all the same major elements as 1 Cor 11.6-7 and points out, again, that 1 Cor 11 is not about a simple haircut, but removing the hair in a shameful way. It all shows what I had mentioned in a previous post that "shorn" and "shaven" are closely related ideas.

I figured Absalom cutting his hair would be interesting. 2 Sam 14.26 says, "And when he polled his head, (and it was at the beginning of every year that he polled it, because it grew, heavy upon him,) even when he polled it, he weighed the hair of his head, two hundred shekels according to the royal shekel." The verb "polled" translates the Greek present middle infinitive keiresthai, the same verb in 1 Cor 11.6. Absalom didn't just cut it a bit, but cut it off.

Job 1.20 says, "So Job arose, and rent his garments, and shaved the hair of his head, and fell on the earth, and worshipped." Interestingly here "shaved the hair of his head" translates the Greek 3rd person singular aorist middle verb ekeirato, in other words the same verb that is translated as "shorn" in 1 Cor 11.6 and the passage I had mentioned about Paul shaving his hair after completing his vow."

Micah 1.16 says, "Shave thine hair, and make thyself bald for thy delicate children." "Shave" is the same verb translated "shaved" in 1 Cor 11.7. "Make thyself bald" is from the verb translated "shorn" in 1 Cor 11.6. Specifically it is keirai, an aorist active infinitive.

Jeremiah 7.29 says, "Cut off thine hair, and cast it away." You guessed it, "cut off thine hair" is from the same verb translated "shorn" in 1 Cor 11.6.

There are some places where the verb involves shearing sheep, like one of the examples in Acts.

Song of Solomon 4.2 says, "Thy teeth are as flocks of shorn sheep." "Shorn" here is a perfect middle participle of the same verb as in 1 Cor 11.6.

Genesis 31.19 says, "And Laban went to shear his sheep." "Shear" translates the Greek active infinitive keirai.

I found one that you might say just involved cutting the hair, not cutting it completely off.

Jeremiah 30.10 says, "And their camels shall be a spoil, and the multitude of their cattle shall be destroyed: and I will scatter them as chaff with every wind, having their hair cut about their foreheads"

(Advances in the Study of NT Greek; Dr. Constantine Campbell): Regarding the standard lexicon for Ancient Greek — Liddell-Scott-Jones — Lee is unreserved: it (L-S-J) “has no coherent definition method, but relies on glosses; its basic material is derived from predecessors, in some cases descending from the ancient lexicographers; and the organization is chaotic as a result of piecemeal revisions." (c.f., John A. L. Lee, “The Present State of Lexicography of Ancient Greek,” in Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker [ed. Bernard A. Taylor et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004], 68.)

I'm not sure who Lee is but LSJ is without question the unrivaled lexicon in English for the study of Classical Greek in English-speaking colleges and universities. Of course it is not focused on Koine Greek but it does include evidence from the Koine period.

I listed LSJ because Koine of course was derived from Attic Greek, and it is useful to see how a word has been used throughout the history of Greek.

The fact is the verb translated "shorn" in 1 Cor 11.6 and various other forms of this verb in the classical period, in the Septuagint, and the NT itself involve cutting off the hair, not simply cutting it.

I have BDAG but it is boxed up because I'm moving so I can't read the entire entry. I would be interested in seeing all the evidence they include. Perhaps there are several instances in the Apocrypha and other texts from 2nd Temple Judaism where the verb just means to cut.

*Incidentally, regarding the preposition "anti," see here:

I was just showing the original poster that "anti" does not just have the one meaning he asserted.

*For those who teach a cloth veil as the supposed "covering of the head" - which does not actually cover the "head," but rather the "hair" ( these are 2 entirely diff. Greek nouns) - simply google "Weatherly/Hayes Debate Head Covering" on YouTube for a sound refutation.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Whatever covers the head would cover the hair and vice-versa.

I have provided, and Esaias has as well, many passages in the Hebrew OT and the Greek OT and secular Greek that use the same language that Paul does in 1 Cor 11 and without question they involve a cloth veil.

*Finally, if one - for whatever possible reason? - still somehow denies the grammatical expertise of professional Koine' linguists such as BDAG; UBS; ALGNT; L&N; Bauer; etc. & yet favors L-S-J (the only reason I can think of would be doctrinal bias), note that even L-S-J includes the definition "to clip" and simply "to cut" (for this verb).

Not doctrinal bias, but biblical bias. Regarding, "clipped" I have shown how this is not the common use in the Greek Bible.

*The Greek verb rendered "shorn" as used in I Corinthians 11.6 means simply "to have one's hair cut." So much more I could point out, but I rarely log on here for obvious reasons (just happened to see this).

I have shown you how this is simply not the case. The overwhelming evidence points to "cut off" as the correct meaning.

[rdp]

*Pressed for time for the next several days, but will respond categorically as time allots.

*For now, I will point out that you are simply wrong in your assertions about numerous grammatical claims and you’re running to other passages (primarily from the OT) for refuge from the clear statements of I Cor. 11. Indeed, the “Greek Bible itself” is the very agent that negates your claims (e.g., UBS).

*In fact, “the overwhelming evidence” plainly defines the Greek verb in I COR 11.6 as merely “to cut the hair.” Thus, your claim is honestly confusing.

*Neither have you dealt w. UBS, BDAG, ALGNT, etc. Nor have you dealt w. the preponderance of direct quotes from numerous professors (BTW, some of whom are Classical linguists) who openly stated in email that I Cor. 11.6 teaches the “no-cut-hair” doctrine. All of these authorities plainly state that this verb means simply “to cut of trim the hair.” Again, the only reason anyone would opt for LSJ (who even includes simply “to cut”) is doctrinal bias, while denying the same.

*BTW, just curious, how many years of Greek-proper (i.e., formal university Greek) have you had?

*God bless.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by rdp

*Pressed for time for the next several days, but will respond categorically as time allots.

*For now, I will point out that you are simply wrong in your assertions about numerous grammatical claims and you’re running to other passages (primarily from the OT) for refuge from the clear statements of I Cor. 11. Indeed, the “Greek Bible itself” is the very agent that negates your claims (e.g., UBS). Thus, your claim is honestly confusing.

*Neither have you dealt w. UBS, BDAG, ALGNT, etc. All of whom plainly state that this verb means simply “to cut of trim the hair.” BTW, just curious, how many years of Greek-proper (i.e., formal university Greek) have you had?

*God bless.

Since my UBS, BDAG, etc. are boxed up, please list all the verses that they mention that only mean to cut in the NT.

As you know, the meaning of a word is not simply derived from looking at a lexicon. The lexical range or meaning is only understood as you study how the word is used in various contexts.

Paul only uses the word in one passage. In that context alone, it is highly unlikely that he is contrasting trimming the hair slightly with shaving a head bald. Rather, he mentions two similar ideas, cutting off and shaving, both of which would unquestionably be shameful to a woman in that culture--and now. Since it is debatable what the meaning is in this one passage, it seems obvious that the next step would be to see how this verb is used in the rest of the NT.

As I've shown, and this is indisputable, in the only other places the verb appears in the NT, it involves entirely removing the hair.

So, thus far, it would seem that simply cutting the hair might not be in view here in 1 Cor 11.

And so, it seems reasonable to extend the context to include the Septuagint, the OT Paul and the rest of the apostles mostly quoted from and which is unquestionably important for the interpretation of the NT. I listed several examples of how this verb in various forms (indicatives, infinities, participles) is used. They support the idea of cutting off the hair.

What is so silly about all this going back and forth about the meaning of one word is that if uncut hair is so important why isn't there one simple unambiguous statement in the entire NT to the effect, "Women, do not cut your hair."

There is one, and only one, passage upon which the doctrine of uncut hair is based. That is unsound exegesis.

Regarding studying Greek, I took two years at a university and took a few exegesis classes at seminary.

[Costeon]

As I mentioned, rdp, I don't have BDAG, etc., with me; however, I do have Gordon Fee's commentary on 1 Corinthians, which is widely regarded as one of the best, if not the best, commentaries on this book.

He would disagree with your view.

"The common denominator of shame to which he appeals is that of a woman's having her hair cut short or her head shaved. Either of these apparently would constitute such shame that they would be unthinkable actions. . . . But if it is a disgrace for a woman either to have her hair cut short (v. 6a) or be shaved (v. 5b)--and it obviously was--then let her be covered (v. 5a). This final imperative, which ordinarily implies an external covering, creates special difficulties for the 'put-up hair' view."

In a footnote Fee observes, "Of the two verbs used in this argument (xuroo and keiro), this one would refer to the head being shaved, the other to the hair being cut short. For the differences see an aphorism from Tiberius, quoted in Dio Cassius's History of Rome: 'I want my sheep shorn (keiresthai), not shaven (apoxuresthai)' (15.10.5; Loeb, VII, 137). For xuroo in the NT see Acts 21.24; for keiro, Acts 18:18)."

Did Fee simply ignore BDAG and USB in his exegesis?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Since my UBS, BDAG, etc. are boxed up, please list all the verses that they mention that only mean to cut in the NT.

As you know, the meaning of a word is not simply derived from looking at a lexicon. The lexical range or meaning is only understood as you study how the word is used in various contexts.

Paul only uses the word in one passage. In that context alone, it is highly unlikely that he is contrasting trimming the hair slightly with shaving a head bald. Rather, he mentions two similar ideas, cutting off and shaving, both of which would unquestionably be shameful to a woman in that culture--and now. Since it is debatable what the meaning is in this one passage, it seems obvious that the next step would be to see how this verb is used in the rest of the NT.

As I've shown, and this is indisputable, in the only other places the verb appears in the NT, it involves entirely removing the hair.

So, thus far, it would seem that simply cutting the hair might not be in view here in 1 Cor 11.

And so, it seems reasonable to extend the context to include the Septuagint, the OT Paul and the rest of the apostles mostly quoted from and which is unquestionably important for the interpretation of the NT. I listed several examples of how this verb in various forms (indicatives, infinities, participles) is used. They support the idea of cutting off the hair.

What is so silly about all this going back and forth about the meaning of one word is that if uncut hair is so important why isn't there one simple unambiguous statement in the entire NT to the effect, "Women, do not cut your hair."

There is one, and only one, passage upon which the doctrine of uncut hair is based. That is unsound exegesis.

Regarding studying Greek, I took two years at a university and took a few exegesis classes at seminary.

*Church tonight, so have to brief. The lexical quotes and linguists quotes are on my blog (which you have already read) replete w. references galore. So no need to waste time reposting them all here: https://apostolicacademics.com/2016/...from-i-cor-11/

*Next, you're making an equivocation fallacy by appealing to - and subsequently applying - to a woman what is said of a man (e.g., Paul's vow). As you said above, context is the determiner of word meanings. Yet you abandon this principle in I Cor. 11.

*That is, one of your mistakes is that you're meshing contexts & gender - and then claiming that what is said of the man (Paul) automatically applies to a woman in I Cor. 11. This is known as an Illegitimate Totality Transfer (cf. D.A. Carson; Exegetical Fallacies). Simply, what can be applied to a man cannot automatically be applied to a woman - esp. when the very passages we're discussing make this clear, and the two opposing genders are in view.

*Further, while it is possible that we have a hendiadys in I Cor. 11.6 (κείρασθαι ἢ ξυρᾶσθαι), most often a hendiadys is cojoined w. the coordinating καὶ, not ἢ.

*Here you say: What is so silly about all this going back and forth about the meaning of one word is that if uncut hair is so important why isn't there one simple unambiguous statement in the entire NT to the effect, "Women, do not cut your hair."

*Ironically, it is "silly" to demand such a statement, yet the lexicographers & linguists do "unambiguously state" that this verb - as defined in the context of I Cor. 11.6 - means simply "to cut the hair" in the midd. voice (as it appears in this text).

BDAG: κείρω fut. 2 sg. κερεῖς Pr 27:25; 1 aor. ἔκειρα; aor. mid. ἐκειράμην. Pass.: 2 aor. inf. καρῆναι (TestJob 9:3); pf. ptc. κεκαρμένος LXX (Hom. et al.; ins, pap, LXX; Jos., Bell. 6, 5; SibOr 3, 359) shear a sheep (Artem. 4, 51 πρόβατον; Babrius 51, 3; Jos., Ant. 6, 297 after 1 Km 25:2; TestJud 12:1) ὁ κείρας (v.l. ὁ κείρων [Aesop, Fab. 212 P.=382 H.]) Ac 8:32; 1 Cl 16:7; B 5:2 (all three after Is 53:7, where both readings are found) the shearer. Mid. cut one’s hair or have one’s hair cut (B-D-F §317; Rob. 809.–X., Hell. 1, 7, 8.) τὴν κεφαλήν have one’s hair cut (as the result of a vow; s. εὐχή 2) Ac 18:18. Abs. (Quint. Smyrn. 3, 686 and 688) 1 Cor 11:6ab.–DELG. M-M.

UBS, A Handbook for Greek NT Translators: To be shorn, literally "cut-her-hair" in Greek, probably referred to a regular trimming of her hair.

*Much more info. on my blog. Be back soon.

[BuckeyeBukaroo]

Originally Posted by rdp

...

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Costeon

As I mentioned, rdp, I don't have BDAG, etc., with me; however, I do have Gordon Fee's commentary on 1 Corinthians, which is widely regarded as one of the best, if not the best, commentaries on this book.

He would disagree with your view.

"The common denominator of shame to which he appeals is that of a woman's having her hair cut short or her head shaved. Either of these apparently would constitute such shame that they would be unthinkable actions. . . . But if it is a disgrace for a woman either to have her hair cut short (v. 6a) or be shaved (v. 5b)--and it obviously was--then let her be covered (v. 5a). This final imperative, which ordinarily implies an external covering, creates special difficulties for the 'put-up hair' view."

In a footnote Fee observes, "Of the two verbs used in this argument (xuroo and keiro), this one would refer to the head being shaved, the other to the hair being cut short. For the differences see an aphorism from Tiberius, quoted in Dio Cassius's History of Rome: 'I want my sheep shorn (keiresthai), not shaven (apoxuresthai)' (15.10.5; Loeb, VII, 137). For xuroo in the NT see Acts 21.24; for keiro, Acts 18:18)."

Did Fee simply ignore BDAG and USB in his exegesis?

*Don't have the time right now, but neither of us would accept Fee's exegesis of many texts. I - and many-many others - am not a fan of Fee.

*I could easily turn the question around, does Fee disagree w. the volumes of professional Greek linguists whose direct statements militate against his view in this unit of passages (c.f., my blog above)? Hmmm, that would indeed be classical Fee.

*Back soon.