Hair and Nature?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

While some debate whether it was Paul or Aquila who had their head shorn and whether the vow was a Nazarite vow in Acts 18:18, I would wonder at the explanation in bold.

We have posted, in a different discussion, a reference to the Greek meaning for "uncut" found here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...tomos0#lexicon

What I would really wonder at is that Paul, while telling a man that it is a shame to have his hair long, would seemingly, and in effect, be forcing a Nazarite vow on every woman for all time. I have been of the understanding that a Nazarite vow was voluntary. So the definition in the Louw, J. P., & Nida is troubling.

And as Newman had mentioned on FCF, why would Paul need to reach outside the Greek when speaking to a Greek audience?

I don't understand the last part of reaching outside the Greek..

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I don't understand the last part of reaching outside the Greek..

Simply that you are reaching outside of the Greek language to interpret κομάω if you find that "In a number of languages it may be necessary to translate κομάω as ‘to let one’s hair grow long’ or ‘not to cut one’s hair.’"

Newman, was saying she didn't understand why that would be necessary.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Simply that you are reaching outside of the Greek language to interpret κομάω if you find that "In a number of languages it may be necessary to translate κομάω as ‘to let one’s hair grow long’ or ‘not to cut one’s hair.’"

Newman, was saying she didn't understand why that would be necessary.

No, Im not. I was quoting a Greek Lexicon...That was the words of Greek Authorities.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

No, Im not. I was quoting a Greek Lexicon...That was the words of Greek Authorities.

I wasn't speaking to you in general. I should have written that differently. My point was that it appears to reach outside of the Greek to define "long" in a number of other languages and I don't understand why it would be necessary to do that, which was also Newman's point.

They are also unsure as to whether the term is "letting the hair grow" or "not to cut the hair".

49.25 κομάω: to wear long hair as part of one’s attire—‘to have long hair, to appear with long hair, to wear long hair.’ γυνὴ δὲ ἐὰν κομᾷ δόξα αὐτῇ ἐστιν ‘if a women wears long hair, it is a pride for her’ 1 Cor 11:15. In a number of languages it may be necessary to translate κομάω as ‘to let one’s hair grow long’ or ‘not to cut one’s hair.’

Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Vol. 1: Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition.) (526). New York: United Bible Societies

With Paul being fully aware of the Nazarite Vow, I would wonder at his imposing a voluntary vow on all women for all time. Isn't that what that would teach if the "uncut" doctrine were being taught?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I wasn't speaking to you in general. I should have written that differently. My point was that it appears to reach outside of the Greek to define "long" in a number of other languages and I don't understand why it would be necessary to do that, which was also Newman's point.

They are also unsure as to whether the term is "letting the hair grow" or "not to cut the hair".



With Paul being fully aware of the Nazarite Vow, I would wonder at his imposing a voluntary vow on all women for all time. Isn't that what that would teach if the "uncut" doctrine were being taught?

Actually that does not seem the case to me. It seems that it defines the word then expresses the intent by saying in SOME languages it may need to be translated that way/

Remember this is a greek Lexicon. Greek lexicons try to tell us what a word should mean in OTHER languages (notably English)

Paul does not say he is imposing a vow. He never mentions the Hebrew scriptures.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Actually that does not seem the case to me. It seems that it defines the word then expresses the intent by saying in SOME languages it may need to be translated that way/

Remember this is a greek Lexicon. Greek lexicons try to tell us what a word should mean in OTHER languages (notably English)

Paul does not say he is imposing a vow. He never mentions the Hebrew scriptures.

If Paul is not imposing a view on the Nazarite vow, then how does a Greek lexicon get to impose the view with their definition of intent - "in some" languages it may need to be translated that way"? If not in all languages, how is that not confusing?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

If Paul is not imposing a view on the Nazarite vow, then how does a Greek lexicon get to impose the view with their definition of intent - "in some" languages it may need to be translated that way"? If not in all languages, how is that not confusing?

Paul does not MENTION that he is speaking of the Nazarite Vow. You are confusing imposing a theological view with an expert in languages addressing translation from one language to another.

Lexicons are dictionaries that inform us of what words mean.

Im not confused by it at all. I don't see the problem.