![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/55\/2023\/04\/81-R2y2LwJL-scaled.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nBen : Firstly, do you have or have you consulted the massive Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek?\u00a0 The entry on kephale is interesting.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
COM: I have consulted The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek by Montanari, but have not seen the K volume. If you are able to send me an image of the entry on \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u0301, that would be most welcome.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ben: Source is a small minority reading in those sources, but nevertheless I think you are right that kephale in 1 Cor. 11 likely means source.\u00a0 \u00a0I think you present a cogent argument that Paul is talking about hair, which connects all of the things he says in that passage, however, and it is a big however,\u00a0 you seem to overlook that Paul is dealing with a Roman colony city, and worship practices in that setting did involve head coverings.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
COM: In fact, I did not overlook that Corinth was a Roman colony. For example, on pp. 60\u201361, I wrote, \u201cit was customary for leaders in Roman worship (Corinth was a Roman city at this time) to drape a garment over their heads, the\u00a0capite velato<\/i>\u00a0custom. This was not disgraceful, but a sign of piety. However, it\u00a0was<\/i>\u00a0disgraceful for men to display long, effeminate hair. Paul opposed allowing men to lead worship with effeminate hair because those hairstyles were known to attract illicit sexual liaisons. First\u00a0Corinthians 11:4 addresses the shame a man brings on himself and on Christ, his creator\/source, when praying and prophesying with long, effeminate hair.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ben:\u00a0 You can see this in the statuary from the emperor on down,\u00a0 Not a veil, which you are right about, but a pulling of the toga over the head, or a headcovering of some other sort.\u00a0 And frankly the phrase \u2018something down from the head\u2019. is weird, when Paul could simply say hair in Greek.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
COM: Paul doesn\u2019t say \u201csomething\u201d down from the head, simply \u201cdown from the head\u201d. Simply saying \u201chair\u201d would not specify long effeminate hairstyles. I find it quite unlikely that Paul would say regarding a custom that was a sign of piety, the capite velato custom, \u201cEvery man who prays or prophesies capite velato \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u0301\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b7\u0300\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u0300\u03bd \u03b1\u03c5\u0313\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u0342. Nor do I think readers in a Roman city would agree with that statement, even Christian readers. I can\u2019t think of any other instance in Paul\u2019s writings when he calls something disgraceful that in Hellenistic or Roman culture was a sign of piety. Paul does write of the incompatibility of drinking the cup of the Lord and of demons (1 Cor 10:20\u201322, but even that is introduced in 10:19 \u201cWhat do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? ? No \u2026\u201d and Paul concludes in 10:28\u201333 \u00a0\u201cfor conscience sake\u2014I mean his conscience, not yours\u2014do not eat it. For why should my liberty be determined by another man\u2019s scruples? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?\u201d \u00a0Regarding sacrifices made to idols, Paul makes comments such as \u201can idol has no read existence\u201d (1 Cor 8:4), \u201cBut some, through being hitherto accustomed to idols, eat food as really offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do.\u00a0 Only take care that this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.\u2026 (1 Cor 8:8\u201313). Since Paul applies the principle of Christian liberty even to food offered to idols, I find it unlikely that he would attack as disgraceful a religious custom intended to convey piety. But if by \u201chaving down from the head\u201d he is referring to effeminate hairstyles that we know from the literature were associated with disgrace and soliciting homosexual hookups, Paul\u2019s words and the message they convey are in harmony with his other statements about homosexual acts. This also fits both the sentiment and wording of 11:14: \u201cDoes not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him.\u201d And regarding the wording, \u201csomething down from the head\u201d is weird. If Paul meant \u03ba\u03b1\u0301\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1, it would be weird for Paul to convey \u03ba\u03b1\u0301\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1 with this expression since he uses \u03ba\u03b1\u0301\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1 repeatedly in 2 Cor 3:13\u201316\u2014or for \u03b9\u0314\u03bc\u03b1\u0301\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, a common NT word. But if he is referring to something shameful reported to him in the church in Corinth, a man leading prayer or worship with long effeminate hair, it fits his comments elsewhere regarding things too disgraceful to name, for him to use this euphemism. If this was happening in Corinth, his readers would understand the reference. For it to be a moral issue for both men and women fits the language of 11:7, \u201cA man ought not cover his head\u2026\u201d and 11:10 \u201ca woman ought to exercise authority over her head [by doing her hair up].\u201d The Bible vs. Biblical Womanhood page 77, n. 29 cites Herter\u2019s RAC article that gives over 100 citations regarding men wearing effeminate styles, most citing it as disgraceful. The largest number are from Paul\u2019s day. It also cites two other works where I document these issues at far greater length.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ben:\u00a0 Then there is also the issue of the angels, which as you say are the participants or guardians of worship.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
COM: I do not recall saying that the angels \u201care the participants or guardians of worship\u201d What I do say o p.69 is:<\/p>\n
\u201cOn account of the angels<\/b>\u201d: The context here is worship, and Paul refers to angels in the context of worship elsewhere. Earlier in 1\u00a0Corinthians he wrote:<\/p>\n
We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to human beings. (1\u00a0Cor. 4:9)<\/p>\n
Paul implies that angels observe the church in 1\u00a0Timothy 5:21:<\/p>\n
I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.<\/p>\n
This fits the New Testament theme that Christian worship reflects the presence of angels before the throne of God (Matt. 18:10). If the symbolism of undisciplined sexuality and the shame it causes both a woman and her husband is not sufficient reason, \u201cbecause of the angels\u201d (who observe worship and report directly to God) gives one more reason why women should exercise control over their heads by not letting their hair hang loose.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ben:\u00a0 I agree with you that the reason for a woman to wear a headcovering has nothing to do with her submission to men.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
COM: According to Cynthia Westfall and Caryn Reeder (if I recall correctly), slave women were not permitted to wear head-covering garments. Would Paul command women to do something illegal?<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ben:\u00a0 \u00a0It has to do with the fact that only God\u2019s glory should be seen in worship,<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
COM: Can you cite a Scriptural statement of this? The OT temple vestments and the temple\u2019s ornate designs display God\u2019s glory because they reflect his glory. They were not covered.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ben:\u00a0 \u00a0a woman\u2019s hair is her glory, hence the need to cover it up.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
COM: 1 Cor 11:15 states, \u201cDoes not nature itself teach you that \u2026 if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her long hair is given as a covering.\u201d This identifies the long hair itself as the covering, not that long hair is something that should be covered. Throughout 1 Corinthians 11 it is the \u201chead\u201d that is to be covered, not \u201chair\u201d that is to be covered. Hair is identified, instead, as the covering in 11:15. I find that this understanding fits the entire passage, including the reference to the bitter water testing of the suspected adulteress in 11:5\u20136. In Paul\u2019s day, the punishment for a woman found guilty of adultery was that she was shorn.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ben:\u00a0 This is not said of men\u2019s hair.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
COM: The reason it is not said of men\u2019s hair that that long effeminately-styled hair was regarded as disgraceful, not man\u2019s glory, especially in Paul\u2019s day, as Herter\u2019s \u201cEffeminatus\u201d RAC article demonstrates.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ben:\u00a0 It seems to me that Paul is doing a delicate dance of on the one hand wanting to affirm women in ministry, but on the other hand recognizing that it was appropriate for men and women to be recognized as different while at the same time being equals.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
COM: \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u0301\u03bd in 11:11 does point not simply to Paul\u2019s central concern, but also to a contrast with what precedes. Paul has just given different instructions to men than the instructions he gives to women, so \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u0301\u03bd is particularly appropriate to introduce \u201cHowever, woman is not separate from man, nor is man separate from woman in the Lord.\u201d I do not, however, see the instructions of 11:4\u201310 as in any way contradicting the affirmation of gender equality in Christ in v. 11. I understand them both to be telling leaders in worship, whether men or women, not to wear their hair in ways that symbolize in that culture solicitation of homosexual hookups or uncontrolled sexuality. That Paul\u2019s restrictions are limited to people leading in worship, either its vertical dimension, prayer, or its horizontal dimension, prophesy, is fully compatible with a church welcoming prostitutes and men in drag into worship services.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ben:\u00a0 And I like Hooker\u2019s notion that the headcovering could be seen as rather like a clerical collar, it shows she was authorized to speak in worship as long as her \u2018glory\u2019 was not in evidence.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
COM: What about female slaves? Is Paul telling them to cover their hair, even if that was illegal for them? What in 1 Corinthians 11 says that a woman\u2019s glory should be hidden? What is 1 Corinthians 11 identifies a garment head-covering other than 11:15, where is long hair is said to be given to a woman \u03b1\u0313\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u0300 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u0301\u03bf\u03c5? What in 1 Corinthians 11 indicates that a headcovering is like a clerical collar?<\/p>\n
[Ben:\u00a0 First of all it was not illegal for slaves to cover their heads in a worship setting when an offering was made or other religious acts were performed.\u00a0 The prohibition doesn\u2019t have to do with what slaves did in a home but what they did in the public, for instance in the agora.]<\/p>\n
Ben: 1 Tim. 2 is dealing with a different issue, high status women with bling who want to teach before they learn and usurp the position of the already authorized teachers in\u00a0 Ephesus (have you seen Gary Hoge\u2019s important monograph on the latter?).<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
COM: I have not seen Gary Hogue\u2019s monograph. Is it or a summary or review of it online?<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ben:\u00a0 One side note\u2014 I don\u2019t think the material from the OT about priests and caps is of any relevance to this discussion.\u00a0 Paul\u2019s not drawing on Levitical practices for his largely Gentile audience.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
COM: I agree that Paul is not drawing on Levitical practices for his largely Gentile audience. But I do not see Paul anywhere else saying it is disgraceful to do anything demanded in the Torah or calling something disgraceful that in Roman custom was a sign of piety.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Ben : Firstly, do you have or have you consulted the massive Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek?\u00a0 The entry on kephale is interesting. \u00a0 COM: I have consulted The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek by Montanari, but have not seen the K volume. If you are able to send me an image of the entry […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":91,"featured_media":56649,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[13431],"class_list":["post-56661","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-let-the-women-speak"],"yoast_head":"\n