Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

Your totally disregarding verse 15 that translates it all though it says instead of in place of a peribolaion.

I disregard absolutely nothing, brother. Please read what I posted, I dealt with that verse multiple times. It is the lesson from nature.

I believe you are disregarding verses 5 and 6 which clearly show a distinction between being uncovered, and having the hair cut. One can be uncovered without having the hair cut. If the woman is uncovered, then she ought to ALSO have her hair cut.

ALSO ALSO ALSO ALSO ALSO

lol

TAMBIEN, "in addition". The uncovered woman is AS IF she had her hair cut. she is on the same level. It is just as disgraceful as having her hair cut. So she might as well cut her hair TAMBIEN, ALSO, IN ADDITION.

"Her hair is given her for a covering", "anti", as in "antitype", something that corresponds to something else. In nature, there is something that corresponds to a mantle. A peribolaion is an article of clothing. If what you are saying is correct, not only do women not need to cover their heads if they have long hair, but they don't even need to wear clothes!!! Which as we both know would be absurd. Therefore, her hair is given her - not in place of a peribolaion so she needs no peribolaion - but as something CORRESPONDING to a peribolaion. Further, the natural covering CORRESPONDS to and URGES the spiritual covering that Paul is commanding.

NOBODY EVER understood Paul as teaching anything OTHER than an actual head covering of some kind, until the late 1800s.

NO.BODY.

If you think anyone EVER got the idea that Paul was teaching ONLY that women ought not to cut their hair, I'd like to see a source for that prior to the late 1800s. Prior to that time, practically ALL professing Christians EVERYWHERE practiced the head covering for Christian women. Why? Where'd they get the idea? They always pointed to 1 Cor 11 as the reason, so how did they come to that conclusion? Especially when they all ALSO believed women ought not to cut their hair anyway?

The bible teaches women are to cover their heads when praying or prophesying, bro.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

One question at Creation did Eve have a peribolaion? Because the text shot us back here not me.

A peribolaion? Probably not, she was naked and unashamed.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

Look I will agree to a woman should cover her hair. Bur do you at least believe a woman shouldn't cut her hair? Because the text is plain on that.

Of course a woman shouldn't cut her hair. It would be a disgrace to her. The apostle plainly said it would be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaved. What I am saying is that the apostle isn't trying to make sure the women folk weren't cutting their hair, because they weren't. He was trying to get them to stop praying or prophesying uncovered.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Of course a woman shouldn't cut her hair. It would be a disgrace to her. The apostle plainly said it would be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaved. What I am saying is that the apostle isn't trying to make sure the women folk weren't cutting their hair, because they weren't. He was trying to get them to stop praying or prophesying uncovered.

Ok ill go with that then I can see that. Uncut hair and a head covering. But not either or would be fair. I believe you've presented a lot of evidence in support of it. I seen old pics women did always cover their head. The only reason I was saying anything is because I thought you were saying its ok to cut their hair, that's the only reason I was saying anything. Lol

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Costeon

This is untrue. I did not call you silly, and I have not questioned your motives or attacked you personally. Anybody following this thread can double check me on this.

I reread the thread. It was interesting because you basically questioned my motives, suggesting I was doctrinally biased, in your very first post. "The only reason I can think of would be doctrinal bias."

Your did this in your second post: "Again, the only reason anyone would opt for LSJ (who even includes simply “to cut”) is doctrinal bias, while denying the same." Here you say I'm doctrinally biased, while I deny I am.

*You really need to go back & reread what I said. I specifically said that you hurled words my way like "silly," "not how you do exegesis," etc. (post #76). I was very careful to be hospitable to you when I said, "The only reason I can think of" - that is not the same thing as an accusation (or should I equally claim that you were "attacking" me when you accuse me of "not doing exegesis" correctly?).

*I was just sincerely "thinking out loud" (well, on the computer). I absolutely do suspect a doctrinal bias in anyone who can be provided the mountains of lexical evidence that I have presented you (I have more below from "major" sources) - every one of which you merely deny.

Originally Posted by Costeon

Regarding me starting the nastiness with the word "silly," I said "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." Here I am obviously referring to the situation itself of two people bickering over a single word in an ambiguous passage, when if the doctrine is really so important we might expect one clear prohibition against cutting the hair. So I didn't say you personally are silly while excluding myself. I said the situation was. That is hardly being nasty.

To which, you said I was silly for even desiring such a prohibition: "It is "silly" to demand such a statement."

Here you say I am devious: "I do not have the time to just sit here & chase your smoke screens & diversionary tactics."

Here you suggest I can't read very well. I ask for UBS's support for their definition and you say I am deriding it. And I have consciously closed my mind to evidence: "As anyone can plainly read in the link below (& my blog), many translations do indeed render this verb as simply "to cut." I find it quite enlightening that you now have now resorted to deriding UBS (a highly reputable grammatical resource). You simply have your mind set against the grammatical evidence. Shall I post some diagrams?"

Again I am biased: "Once again your bias is demonstrated."

My logic is silly: "Silly. Using this logic . . . "

And the accusation of bias and the questioning of my motives that I finally called you on: "You simply have a religious preference to protect so you are desperately trying to spin away from their crystal-clear statements."

And this one was particularly nice. I apparently have no concern for or fear of God while seeking to understand the Bible: "one would think that you would form your conclusion in the safety and fear of God Almighty."

You began your latest post with this, that I am close minded and blindly believe while ignoring evidence: "As I have said over & over, "99% of people are going to believe what they want to believe no matter what the actual evidence itself says." This is a good case in point IMO."

So no, rdp, I didn't start any nastiness and I didn't dish out anything personal against you. Even in main quote at the top of the post, you say I am blind and you apparently have the (divine?) insight to know why. You continue in this tone in the rest of your post.

*Again, you repeatedly scolded me using terms like "silly," inferred I am "not doing exegesis" correctly, used phrases like "you can't provide any major sources (which, as anyone can scroll up & view, is patently false)," etc. Now you're attempting to turn the tables when the facts are that you have been rather testy yourself.

*But, I honestly do not care about all of the ad-hominem issues - I only care about the biblical data itself. Thus, I will simply apologize to you for my strident responses and sincerely ask your forgiveness (in all honesty).

Originally Posted by Costeon

I provided you two examples in Koine Greek from the writer Lucian in reference to women cutting off their hair short and the verb is in the middle voice. But here is an example from the Word of God. In Micah 1.16, the prophet is pronouncing judgement on the men and women of Jerusalem, and he says, "Make yourself bald and cut off your hair, because of your precious children." Why? Because they are going to into captivity.

*You mean this verse from the New English Translation of the Septuagint (Oxford Univ.)?:

Until I lead the heirs to you,
O inheritance inhabiting [Lachis],
the glory of daughter Israel
will come as far as Odollam.
Shave, and cut your hair
for your pampered children;

*As anyone can see, here Israel is being metaphorically depicted as a female (as was most often the case, viz., bride, daughter, etc.). Further, these LXX scholars actually translate the verb as this metaphorical woman to simply "cut [your] hair." That's my whole point.

But, here's the actual Hebrew text (this is a qal verb):

קָרְחִ֣י וָגֹ֔זִּי עַל־בְּנֵ֖י תַּעֲנוּגָ֑יִךְ הַרְחִ֤בִי קָרְחָתֵךְ֙ כַּנֶּ֔שֶׁר כִּ֥י גָל֖וּ מִמֵּֽךְ׃ ס

*Hebrew-Aramaic Lexicon of the OT (HALOT): גזז‎: MHb. Ug. JArm. Syr. Mnd. (CTA 86b), Arb. jazza, jad_a, Tigr. Wb. 596a gazza to divide Leslau 14, Soq. גזה‎, OSArb. gzz to destine, dedicate (CTA 75:307); Akk. gazāzu; →גדד‎, גזה‎.

qal: impf. תָּגֹז‎, וַיָּ֫גָז‎; impv. גָּזִּ֫י‎ (BL 429j), וָֽגֹזִּי‎; inf. לָגֹז‎, לִגְזֹז‎/בִּ‎; pt. גֹּזֵז‎, גֹּזְזִים‎, גֹּזְֽזֵי‎ (BL 208r) גֹּזְזָֽי‎: to shear (Ug. gzzm guild of shearers, CTA 2, p. 207); sheep (Dalman Arbeit 5:9 ff) Gn 3119 3812f Dt 1519 1S 252.4.7.11 2S 1323f Is 537, hair Jr 729 Mi 116 Jb 120

*Browns-Drivers-Briggs Hebrew-English Dictionary:

[גָּזַז] vb. shear (NH id., Aram. גֲּזָו ܓܰܙ Ar. جَزَّ As. deriv.)-Qal Impf. וַיָּ֫גָו Jb 1:20; 2 ms. תָּגֹו Dt 15:19; Imv. 2 fs. גָּוִּ֫י Je 7:29, גֹּ֫וִּי Mi 1:16; Inf. cstr. גְּזֹו Gn 31:19 (E) 1 S 25:2, גֹּו Gn 38:13 (J); Pt. גֹּזֵז 1 S 25:4; pl. גֹּזֲזִים 1 S 25:7 + 2 t.; cstr. גֹּזַוֵי Gn 38:13; sf. גֹּזְַזָי֑ 1 S 25:11, גֹּזְַוֶיהָ Is 53:7; -shear sheep (obj. צאֹן) Gn 31:19, 38:13, Dt 15:19, 1 S 25:2, 25:4; cf. Pt. shearer (c. צאו) Gn 38:12, also גֹּזְַוֶיהָ (i.e. רָחֵל) Is 53:7; abs. = sheep-shearer, 1 S 25:7, 25:11, 2 S 13:23, 13:24; obj. man's head (ראשׁוֹ) Jb 1:20; of a woman's (fig. of Israel) Mi 1:16 (no obj.; ‖קרחי‎), (fig. of Jerusalem) Je 7:29 (obj. נֵזֶר q.v.)

*My Gesenius Hebrew lexicon is also packed up since I just moved also, but I would be very interested to see what it says about this verse (as well as the other OT passages you referenced).

*More commentary? Benson Commentary on Micah 1.16 (I have even more on these OT passages if you really want them):

Make thee bald — O Judah and Israel, tear off thy hair; and poll thee — Shave what thou canst not tear off; for thy delicate children, &c. — For the loss of them, some being slain, others starved or swept away by pestilence, and the residue carried into captivity. Cutting the hair, or shaving it close, were expressions of mourning and lamentation anciently used among most nations.

*LXX Greek-English Dictionary on the aorist, midd. imperative, 2nd person, singular, aorist stem, 1st aorist active κεῖραι. Of course, this is not the same inflection as the simple aorist middle infinitive κείρασθαι in I Cor. 11.6 (unless you're going to commit the root fallacy?) - but here it is nontheless:

Middle Voice: to cut the hair (of one’s own head) [τι] 2 Sm 14,26; to shave oneself Mi 1,16; Cf. Walters 1973, 63.

*Of course, as I have embloded above these LXX lexicographers themselves do not translate Micah 1.16 as "to cut the hair," but they do demonstrate that the middle voice of this verb as used in the LXX equally defines as simply "to cut the hair."

Originally Posted by Costeon

Here the prophet is addressing the people as a whole. There is no distinction made between men and women. Men and women alike are to mourn for their children. Here we have an example where the verb we are disputing about is in the middle voice and it involves women. "Make yourself bald" translates an aorist middle imperative of the same verb that is translated as "shaved" in 1 Cor 11.6, and "cut off your hair" translates an aorist middle imperative of the same verb that is translated as "shorn" in 1 Cor 11.6, the verb you maintain can only mean "to cut" when it is in the middle voice and women are involved. Here we have two imperatives in the middle voice being used as synonyms for removing the hair and they are said to men and women collectively.

*I dealt w. the parsing above. And, I specifically pointed out that - "in this context (I Cor. 11)" - lexicographers translate this verb as simply "to trim or cut." You continue to fail to allow the natural gender separations to stand. Again, using your angle - men can equally have "long" hair and wear "skirts." This is honestly confusing to me why you seemingly cannot see this point. In fact, since you keep appealing to commentary, ask the orthodox Jews in Jerusalem if they would interpret any OT passage as not allowing for gender-separation-application....and Hebrew is their native tongue.

*Cont....

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Regarding commentaries, I'm referring to major commentaries that frequently show up in seminary classrooms, like the New International Commentary on the New Testament, Baker's Exegetical Commentary, Anchor Bible Commentary, The New International Greek Testament Commentary, et cetera. They are well aware of the lexical works that you keep pointing to. But they don't follow what you say.

*I could just as easily turn this around and say that these commentaries "do not follow your Oneness doctrine," or that these same commentaries do not heed the input of such standard lexicographers such as BDAG, UBS, Louw-Nida, Bauer, etc. ad nauseum (again, I have much-much more on this verb). What does any of this prove relative to the inspired text itself? This argument is easily turned around on you, esp. as a Oneness believer (obviously I agree w. you on the Godhead).

*But, here's just one of many more I have from one of the most reputable grammars available:

(New International Dictionary of NT Theology and Exegesis [NIDNTTE] on the adjective αἰσχρὸν in I Cor. 11.6):

The word group appears in the NT almost exclusively in the Pauline writings. The adj. is used 3x in the moral sense of “shameful, disgraceful” (1 Cor 11:6 [with ref. to cutting a woman’s hair]).

*The [bracketed] statement above is original in NIDNTTE.

Originally Posted by Costeon

Do you regard the CEV and the Good New Bible, aka, Today's English Version as major translations? They do read, "to cut" not "to cut off" or "cut short." I believe you mentioned some footnotes in I believe the NLT and NIV. Maybe earlier editions of these translations had footnotes that said "or, 'to cut'" but they don't appear in the latest editions. So what was relegated to a footnote as a possibility has been removed altogether. If there are others that I've overlooked you're welcome to list them. I'm referring to the major translations in use today like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NRSV, NAB, NJB, NEB, NLT. The KJV and NKJV and the RSV (few use the RSV) read "shorn." So the ones that read "to cut," who uses those for serious study or to establish doctrine on? I'm not aware of anyone who does, but perhaps you know.

*I will try to dig them up. I wrote the article a few years back, but I remember reading them when I posted it. They are specifically there.

Originally Posted by Costeon

And regarding your quotes from classical linguists, I did not address them because, (1) you attacked my use of LSJ which is a classical Greek resource--the one these classical linguists have spent their professional life using. So if that classical Greek work cannot be admitted to a discussion on Koine Greek, why do you get to use classical Greek resources? And (2) I didn't see them specifically discussing the verb we have been discussing translated "shorn."

*To specifically demonstrate to you the very point you're making above. To borrow from your own playbook, Classical scholars do not agree w. you on the issue of merely forbidding cutting short the hair in I Cor. 11. That's the exact point I was making.

Originally Posted by Costeon

But what are your thoughts on the points I made on the implications of you saying "long hair is untrimmed hair" in reference to the passage in Ezekiel and the Nazirite vow?

*I have already addressed this several times on here. Again, I simply don't have the time to continue this. As others have said on this thread, at this point I'm beating a dead horse. But, I have enjoyed the dialogue and it makes me think. I will definitely reread your points in the future.

Originally Posted by Costeon

Finally, where does the OT forbid women from cutting their hair? It doesn't. So all quotes from encyclopedias that you could cite that Israelite women did not cut their hair are, if true, merely reporting their custom but not a practice based on the Word of God. When there is a major change from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, Jesus or the apostles explicitly deal with it in multiple places. Jesus said several times, "You have heard that it was said, but I say to you . . . " We see the apostles discussing food laws, circumcision, justification, etc. (This happens to be one of the points I make with Trinitarians about the supposed new revelation about the Godhead in the NT.) But we don't see this regarding uncut hair.

Uncut hair was not an Old Covenant requirement. So if your view is true, then uncut hair is a New Covenant requirement. We would therefore expect it to be mentioned in several unambiguous passages. But we don't have that. We have one ambiguous passage. And it certainly is ambiguous, which is why we're arguing about it. The reason we're not going round and round about, say, the commandment "You shall not steal" is because it's not ambiguous, so we don't start threads on AFF about its true meaning.

*Since you keep appealing to commentaries:

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge; Vol. 5, p. 18, informs us: “Women never cut their hair (cf. Jer. vii. 29), and long hair was their greatest ornament (Cant. iv. 1; cf. I Cor. xi 15; Cant. vii. 5).”

*The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 6, p. 158, “Hair”: “A woman’s hair was never cut except as a sign of deep mourning or of degradation.”

*Remember, Jesus endorsed the Jewish concept(s) of God to the woman at the well (Jn. 4) and Paul affirmed that to the Jews were written, “the oracles of God” (Rom.). Here, these 2 "major" commentaries each (independently) state that an OT woman's hair was never cut. Are they just pulling this idea out of their hat? In fact, they even reference one of the OT verses that you have actually appealed to - and they state the polar opposite of what you claim. Now what?

*But here's another OT resource: The World of Ancient Israel, pg. 84, “When a woman was accused and found guilty of adultery, her hair was cut or her head shaved.”

*Finally, I do not see the merit in continuing this discussion (esp. since they are now attempting to dictate what font color I use ??), so if you must have the last word, have at it. I am fully convinced that no resource I provide you is going to persuade you otherwise.

*God bless.

[Evang.Benincasa]

This thread is awesome! I would like to thank Easias, rdp, and Costeon.

1ofthechosen please note that Esaias NEVER disregards anything. Just take your time in reading what everyone i posting.

The Lord bless you all for the time and study you are all putting into this.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by rdp

*Since you keep appealing to commentaries:

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge; Vol. 5, p. 18, informs us: “Women never cut their hair (cf. Jer. vii. 29), and long hair was their greatest ornament (Cant. iv. 1; cf. I Cor. xi 15; Cant. vii. 5).”

*The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 6, p. 158, “Hair”: “A woman’s hair was never cut except as a sign of deep mourning or of degradation.”

*Remember, Jesus endorsed the Jewish concept(s) of God to the woman at the well (Jn. 4) and Paul affirmed that to the Jews were written, “the oracles of God” (Rom.). Here, these 2 "major" commentaries each (independently) state that an OT woman's hair was never cut. Are they just pulling this idea out of their hat? In fact, they even reference one of the OT verses that you have actually appealed to - and they state the polar opposite of what you claim. Now what?

I don't believe this is an emphatic "NEVER" cut, when The Jewish Encyclopedia states that, indeed, a condition does exist when a women would cut her hair - in mourning.

*But here's another OT resource: The World of Ancient Israel, pg. 84, “When a woman was accused and found guilty of adultery, her hair was cut or her head shaved.”

*Finally, I do not see the merit in continuing this discussion (esp. since they are now attempting to dictate what font color I use ??), so if you must have the last word, have at it. I am fully convinced that no resource I provide you is going to persuade you otherwise.

*God bless.

When I read your reference in The World of Ancient Israel, I come away with the impression this is saying that the women's hair was cut short or her head shaved. That, to me, would be the shameful thing to look like a man. You would also, IMO, have to take the view that she could also be punished by having her hair trimmed 1/4 inch as a punishment to settle on "never" cut is shameful.

You've put out a lot of references, but you haven't quite shot down Costeon's point as yet.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Oh, I don't want to forget you PO and Sister Amanah.

Thank you as well.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

This thread is awesome! I would like to thank Easias, rdp, and Costeon.

1ofthechosen please note that Esaias NEVER disregards anything. Just take your time in reading what everyone i posting.

The Lord bless you all for the time and study you are all putting into this.

I second that - excellent and best thread we have ever had on this subject.