Uncut Hair

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by rdp

*First, UBS clearly stated that the verb "literally" means simply "to cut her hair." There was no "probably" in the actual meaning of the verb (only in their application).

That is interesting. When they "applied" the definition, they take the view as a "probably".

Regardless, one would have the burden of proving why this "literal" meaning would be deemed "improbable" exegetically.

*Second, as the article linked points out:

The Greek verb translated as “shorn” (κείρασθαι) appears in the middle voice indicating that the action is performed upon—or with reference to—the subject. Here’s what some of the most authoritative lexicographers in existence state about this specific term:

“Mid. [voice] cut one’s hair or have one’s hair cut…Abs(olute sense)…I Cor. 11:6a, b” (BDAG).

“To have one’s hair cut” (Dr. F.W. Gingrich’s, Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, p. 114).

*Analytical Greek NT Lexicon: “middle cut one’s hair, have one’s hair cut off (1 C 11.6).”

*Louw & Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon Based upon Semantic Domain: 19.23 “κείρω to cut the hair of a person or animal – to cut hair, to shear. εἰ γὰρ οὐ κατακαλύπτεται γυνήκαὶ κειράσθω if the woman does not cover her head, she might as well cut her hair 1CO. 11.6″

*For these grammatical reasons, many linguists have translated this verb as “cut off,” or simply “to cut” (e.g., RSV, NEB, Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts, NAB, NIV, Amplified Bible, James Moffatt).

Thank you for this. I don't believe anyone has disagreed that shorn or shaven means to cut or cut off. It's a no-brainer. Shaven = xurao; shorn = keiro and long, which doesn't mean any of those two things is - komao.

However, I can see how there are factions who believe that we still should wear veils. Never did see that as strongly before, not that I take that position.

Mainly, because it doesn't make sense to say, "If a woman has cut hair, she might has well be shorn or shaven." If her hair is already cut, that wouldn't make sense, so it must mean a veil.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

That is interesting. When they "applied" the definition, they take the view as a "probably".



Thank you for this. I don't believe anyone has disagreed that shorn or shaven means to cut or cut off. It's a no-brainer. Shaven = xurao; shorn = keiro and long, which doesn't mean any of those two things is - komao.

However, I can see how there are factions who believe that we still should wear veils. Never did see that as strongly before, not that I take that position.

Mainly, because it doesn't make sense to say, "If a woman has cut hair, she might has well be shorn or shaven." If her hair is already cut, that wouldn't make sense, so it must mean a veil.

Newman listed about 20 lexicons EVERYONE of them included cut or cut off. She and I had a “vigorous” discussion about cut off. In my simple Ky reasoning I asked her if a woman goes to the beauty shop and they cut it is the hair on the floor cut off?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Newman listed about 20 lexicons EVERYONE of them included cut or cut off. She and I had a “vigorous” discussion about cut off. In my simple Ky reasoning I asked her if a woman goes to the beauty shop and they cut it is the hair on the floor cut off?

It would have been awesome if someone had saved that conversation.

So, not remembering the details, are you saying that you place shave, shorn and long as defining "uncut"? I don't know why I am asking you that question. I already know your answer. Even though I am not arguing either way, RDP's post is defining I Cor 11:6 for shorn and shaven. We were actually talking about "long" in I Cor 11:15.

Anyway, aside from that, I was noticing in I Cor. 11:5 it begins by talking to a man about having his head "covered". I was surprised to see Aquila post the same view that I was seeing - "2. Men covering their head in worship dishonours their head. (because to wear a head covering is to pray like a Jew, one still under the Law)."

It has the sense of a cultural issue going on concerning the Law. Why would the passage begin with that idea if it wasn't about the Jewish faith under the Law?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

It would have been awesome if someone had saved that conversation.

So, not remembering the details, are you saying that you place shave, shorn and long as defining "uncut"? I don't know why I am asking you that question. I already know your answer. Even though I am not arguing either way, RDP's post is defining I Cor 11:6 for shorn and shaven. We were actually talking about "long" in I Cor 11:15.

Anyway, aside from that, I was noticing in I Cor. 11:5 it begins by talking to a man about having his head "covered". I was surprised to see Aquila post the same view that I was seeing - "2. Men covering their head in worship dishonours their head. (because to wear a head covering is to pray like a Jew, one still under the Law)."

It has the sense of a cultural issue going on concerning the Law. Why would the passage begin with that idea if it wasn't about the Jewish faith under the Law?

Jews did not start requiring head coverings for men until the early medieval period. I had a thread or a post awhile back with the documentation for that.

Scripturally, the priests had their heads covered when ministering (illustrating that under the old covenant God's image and glory was concealed) and thus, under the new, men are to be uncovered (illustrating that the image and glory of God - Christ - is no longer concealed).

Regardless, Paul's arguments are based in Scripture and nature. Those arguments are still valid today. Therefore his commands regarding head covering are still applicable today.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Jews did not start requiring head coverings for men until the early medieval period. I had a thread or a post awhile back with the documentation for that.

Scripturally, the priests had their heads covered when ministering (illustrating that under the old covenant God's image and glory was concealed) and thus, under the new, men are to be uncovered (illustrating that the image and glory of God - Christ - is no longer concealed).

Regardless, Paul's arguments are based in Scripture and nature. Those arguments are still valid today. Therefore his commands regarding head covering are still applicable today.

Can you post the scriptures Paul is referring to?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Can you post the scriptures Paul is referring to?

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
(1 Corinthians 11:7-12)

He is clearly referring to Genesis 1:26-27 and Genesis 2:7-8, Genesis 2:18-25, and Genesis 3:16 and Genesis 3:20.

Interesting note on the idea of "the woman is the glory of the man": A verse in Isaiah describes the crafting of idols thus:

The carpenter stretcheth out his rule; he marketh it out with a line; he fitteth it with planes, and he marketh it out with the compass, and maketh it after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man; that it may remain in the house.
(Isaiah 44:13)

The Targum on that verse renders the bolded portion as "according to the praise of a woman". Rabbi Solomon Jarchi (an 11th century commentator on the Targum) says of this portion "This is a woman, who is the glory of her husband." Thus, it was apparently a common idea in Judaism that the woman was understood to be "the glory of the man", that is to say, women were considered something that adorned their husbands with praise and beauty. Now, whether Jarchi got the idea from Paul and later Christians, or whether Jarchi's comment reflects an independent stream of thought, is hard to say. But in any case Paul certainly maintained that the woman is the glory of the man.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Esaias

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
(1 Corinthians 11:7-12)

He is clearly referring to Genesis 1:26-27 and Genesis 2:7-8, Genesis 2:18-25, and Genesis 3:16 and Genesis 3:20.

I have always agreed with this portion of the text referring to Genesis.

Interesting note on the idea of "the woman is the glory of the man": A verse in Isaiah describes the crafting of idols thus:

The carpenter stretcheth out his rule; he marketh it out with a line; he fitteth it with planes, and he marketh it out with the compass, and maketh it after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man; that it may remain in the house.
(Isaiah 44:13)

The Targum on that verse renders the bolded portion as "according to the praise of a woman". Rabbi Solomon Jarchi (an 11th century commentator on the Targum) says of this portion "This is a woman, who is the glory of her husband." Thus, it was apparently a common idea in Judaism that the woman was understood to be "the glory of the man", that is to say, women were considered something that adorned their husbands with praise and beauty. Now, whether Jarchi got the idea from Paul and later Christians, or whether Jarchi's comment reflects an independent stream of thought, is hard to say. But in any case Paul certainly maintained that the woman is the glory of the man.

That is something to put in the file as interesting.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Newman listed about 20 lexicons EVERYONE of them included cut or cut off. She and I had a “vigorous” discussion about cut off. In my simple Ky reasoning I asked her if a woman goes to the beauty shop and they cut it is the hair on the floor cut off?

1Cor.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

When I'm in Kentucky, this means that if a woman is not going to be covered, (referring to a second covering), let her also be shorn (let her also have her hair cut); but if it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. (IF it is shameful for her to have her hair cut or even shaven, which seems to be a given, let her also be covered, with a second covering).

It means the same when I'm in NYC.

Otherwise it would say that if a woman be not covered let her also have her hair cut. This does not make any sense. If her hair was cut, and the hair was her covering, then for her to be not covered and to have cut hair would mean the same thing, and it is obviously NOT used that way.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

That is interesting. When they "applied" the definition, they take the view as a "probably".

*However, these linguists stated that the "literal" meaning is simply "to cut the hair."

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Thank you for this. I don't believe anyone has disagreed that shorn or shaven means to cut or cut off. It's a no-brainer. Shaven = xurao; shorn = keiro and long, which doesn't mean any of those two things is - komao.

*God's word proclaims that it's a "disgrace" for a woman "to cut" her hair. V. 7 provides the principle meaning why (i.e., man = glory of God; woman = glory of man).

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

However, I can see how there are factions who believe that we still should wear veils. Never did see that as strongly before, not that I take that position.

*The preposition "anti" in v. 15 makes clear that a woman's uncut hair is the "veil" Paul is describing. Interestingly, there are 2 different Greek nouns for "hair" & "head" in this unit of passages. What does a veil cover - the hair or the head? Obviously the hair. But Paul is describing the covering of the "head," not the "hair."

*Further, we are not informed what the object of the covering is until v. 15 - "hair." We have verbal activity of "covering" & "uncovering" up until v. 15 - where the object-noun informs us what this "covering" is. Have tons of exegetical info. on this that I will try to look up later .

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Mainly, because it doesn't make sense to say, "If a woman has cut hair, she might has well be shorn or shaven." If her hair is already cut, that wouldn't make sense, so it must mean a veil.

*I understand, but most of this is addressed above. Again, the actual object noun is not identified until v. 15.

*Let me do some digging to further demonstrate what I'm saying (I have a sentence diagram that I can post if I can figure it out). God bless.

[TGBTG]

1 cor 11:5-6 (kjv)
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn:

Uncut hair translation
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with cut hair dishonoureth her head: for that is the same as if she cut her hair
6 For if the woman cut her hair, let her also cut her hair:

Veiled hair translation
5 But every woman that prays or prophesies with not using a veil dishonoureth her head: for that is the same as if she cut her hair
6 For if the woman is not using a veil, let her also cut her hair: