Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by rdp

*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.

You can't say that Classical Greek scholars support your interpretation of keiro to mean uncut, when you haven't even appealed to them regarding this verb. LSJ, their classical Greek lexicon, which I had quoted in an earlier post, renders this verb as "cut off." If I presented all the evidence from the NT and LXX and other Koine literature that support the reading "cut off" and then showed them how BDAG only lists one example as possible evidence for the meaning "to cut or trim" and then showed them how this evidence aligned with all the evidence given in LSJ, they would hardly scrap all that and say, "No, that one bit of evidence from 1 Cor 11.6 clearly overturns all this evidence and proves that all these translations and previous NT lexicons are clearly wrong."

*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.”

And as I mentioned regarding Jewish woman never cutting their hair, that was not a divine mandate but a cultural practice because they thought it was beautiful not because they thought it was godly.

*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.).

Jesus's endorsement of their fundamental confession of faith in no way is an endorsement of every Jewish practice. He actually had a lot to say against their practices that weren’t based on the explicit Word of God. And as far as Paul goes he was referring to specific events recorded in the OT. He is again not endorsing everything Jews might have practiced that was not based on explicit commands from God.

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?

They certainly don't base it on a clear command in the OT that women could never cut their hair. Now what? Quote the verse in the OT that forbids woman to cut their hair.

*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.”

I wonder why this one and the other reference works never address the Nazirite vow for women?

The bottom line there is no commandment in the OT that women must have uncut hair. And to bring this around to the original post, the Nazirite vow implies that it was not forbidden--even if in their later cultural practice, based on a desire to be beautiful not a desire to be godly--they generally did not cut their hair.

[Tithesmeister]

Just to make it simple, I would like a direct answer to this question only. It may have been covered and I overlooked it, but I don[t think that it has.

Concerning the Nazirite vow that the women would take: Would they shave their hair and burn it in the fire of the sacrifice at the end of their time of separation?

This is the verse that I am referring to.

Numbers 6

[18] And the Nazarite shall shave the head of his separation at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall take the hair of the head of his separation, and put it in the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offerings.

Both of you feel free to comment. Thanks.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Just to make it simple, I would like a direct answer to this question only. It may have been covered and I overlooked it, but I don[t think that it has.

Concerning the Nazirite vow that the women would take: Would they shave their hair and burn it in the fire of the sacrifice at the end of their time of separation?

This is the verse that I am referring to.

Numbers 6

[18] And the Nazarite shall shave the head of his separation at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall take the hair of the head of his separation, and put it in the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offerings.

Both of you feel free to comment. Thanks.

I would say yes because in the passage all the other requirements of the vow apply equally to both men and women.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Here is the first post (#87) on this thread where it begins the downhill insults and it came from you. You are speaking to Costeon. I would note that generally when a person is getting boxed in, they come out with insulting a person's intelligence. That seems to be your tactic.:

*Then you must feel "boxed in" since you just once again insulted me character - the very thing you keep whining to me about. I have (for the 2nd time now) pointed out to you that I specifically apologized to Costeon for harsh responses. But, he also hurled words my way such as "silly," etc. Pssst, guess what? Neither him nor you have apologized as I have done. To be expected, you continue down your path of "do as I say, not as I do" below. Fully expected from AFF. But, hey, if this helps you feign the high ground of victimization be my guest.

*Not quite sure how you would think I feel "boxed in" when I have tons of resources that back my position in I Cor. 11. Again, opinions are like noses - and you are welcome to yours.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

You still didn't address why your "strong source" in the Jewish Encyclopedia names two caveats. But, okay, we will move on from that.

*If specifically pointing out that the anomaly's mentioned in one source does not fit the context of I Cor. 11 several times now is not "addressing" your earth-shattering revelation I don't what else to say about it. You can keep asking to see the blue sky while standing on the beach until doomsday, but it will still be right in front of you despite how many times to thrown a tantrum otherwise.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

No, it wasn't that I didn't like them, it is just, even while you are studied in Greek or whatever, your information doesn't seem to flow in a pattern that is easy to follow or that feels easy to grasp for strength. I don't know how else to describe that. I think that Costeon makes a plausible case because it doesn't appear he is grasping for anything other than to makes sense of the verse in I Corinthians, leaning on the Bible to speak, while you want to reach more outside of it for help.

*Well, if direct quotes from BDAG, Bauer, L&N, UBS, LXX, papers, translations, etc. is "hard to follow," or somehow isn't "easy to grasp for strength" (whatever on earth that means) - then I don't know what else to tell you. The fact is that the verb in the middle voice means simply "to cut, trim, or cut off." But when used in the specific context of I Cor. 11 for women (e.g., "nature") it is defined be the most authoritative koine' linguists as "to cut or trim."

*Further, I have specifically appealed to the original languages of "the Bible" from linguists who have studied ancient "Bible" papyri, the context of "the Bible," etc. And you say I am reaching outside of the Bible for help? Costeon has run all the way back to Micah away from I Cor. 11 and appealed to sub-par resources - while denying the most authoritative lexicographers in existence. Hence, he opts for archaic sources and rejects the most up-to-date linguists (based upon ancient papyri). Good to see that no one has a theological preference - Gotcha' .

*Ironically, in your own words, "I don't know how else to describe" these issues to you.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Good job! Makes for a calm debate.

*My pleasure! Gotta' love your personal charges about me supposedly "thumbing my chest," having a "chip on my shoulder," and your numerous posts of ridicule toward me. Of course, to be fully expected, now you're whining when the favor is returned. Never ceases to amaze me .

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I believe there is some merit in Strong's. It isn't a dictionary, but it does include every word in the Bible for a quick reference. I do find merit in that.

*Well of course, but you were appealing to meanings, not his numbering system. Now you're attempting to relocate the goal posts when you're caught trying to sneak in the end zone .

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Always helpful.

*Yea', kinda' like your accusation that I have a chip on my shoulder & use bad font. Or, gotta' love your "Christ-like" barbs below. I know, I know, good for you, but bad for me .

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Of course, I normally read romance novels and eat bonbons, so what do I know?

*Not surprising. Gotta' love that wonderfully kind spirit that you keep whining about.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I was kinda having a good time following Costeon pulling out sources in other areas of the Bible, while you thumbed your chest over lexicographers.

*So good to see you holding to your own standards of congenial debate style . You mean lexicographers such as BDAG, UBS, Bauer, L&N, etc. - while Costeon appealed to the likes of LSJ & Thayer. Gotcha' .

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Thanks for the input!

*Yours too !

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Costeon

I would say yes because in the passage all the other requirements of the vow apply equally to both men and women.

I think so too. If this is true, it would be an instance of a God ordained hair cut for women in the OT.

If this is indeed the case, could it be that, yes it is a shame for a woman to have hair that is shorn (which I interpret as cut short) and yes it is a shame for a man’s hair to be long (which is what occurs when he takes the vow), and that this shame is in both cases considered humbling yourself before God. I think Esaias either said this, or came very close to saying it earlier in the thread. Maybe he should flesh out his earlier post.

Just in general, I must say that I find Esaias’ view of the second covering and the whole covering study in general to be the one most in harmony with the Bible.

Having said that, I still believe that establishing doctrine on such flimsy scriptural foundation is likely unwise.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Costeon

And I came back and openly agreed with you. You pointing this out actually helped me to see more clearly that this is a great example where this verb in the middle voice is being used only for a woman, here figuratively, and it occurs in a context where two of the three translations we've mentioned of the LXX translate it as shearing or cutting off the hair. Again this verb translated this way occurs together with another verb that clearly means to shave off. I know we disagree on this, but it seems clear to me that the context is pointing to them violently tearing out (your resource, Benson's, way of putting it) or cutting off their hair not ceremonially trimming it. All English translations of Micah 1.16 translate it as "cut off the hair," and two of the three translations of the LXX render it this way. One translation of the LXX renders it "to cut." Other readers of this thread will have to judge whether this evidence points to cutting off the hair or merely trimming it.

*I am not saying this is not the case, I am only saying there is once again a semantic range to this verb. Some linguists translate it as "cut off" (BTW, how much is "cut off" is never mentioned) or simply "to cut" (my view). Hence, this debate.

Originally Posted by Costeon

Yes I did, somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I could have used many others, like the NLT, but you had used these other two, so I thought I would use them here when they disagree with you.

*Problem is, they disagree w. you also .

Originally Posted by Costeon

Scripture interprets Scripture. 1 Cor 11.6 is one lone verse in one lone passage; the context is thus quite limited--and considering the fact that how we interpret this verse potentially places quite a burden on our sisters in the Lord (I assume it's not for all), I especially will not base my teaching on one ambiguous passage. (You may be inclined to say that this passage is unambiguous, but this long thread and debate would suggest otherwise.) :-) The only way, as you know, to interpret an ambiguous passage is to seek to find other passages in the Bible that may illuminate the ambiguity. That is why I have marshaled the evidence where this verb appears elsewhere in the NT and LXX (and some other Koine literature.) Micah 1.16 is particularly important because it brings together the same two imperatives that appear in 1 Cor 11.6.

*I would disagree that this unit of passages are "ambiguous" as it unambiguously teaches that a women should have long hair, a man should short hair, and appeals to "nature" as the reflection of pragmatics in this doctrine. I do agree that verse 6 can be difficult to ascertain (I have told my wife the same thing several times).

*Of course, we can get into the age-old query "how long is long" if there is no universal applicability. Going to be awful hard to teach a biblical doctrine of "long hair" at all in the churches. What one sister may deem as "long" another may deem not long. Again, He is not a God of confusion, nor do I believe He has left this all-important doctrine of that flows from "nature" unanswered.

Originally Posted by Costeon

I am certainly not cherry-picking resources. I chose those two as a joke, two out of many others--in fact all English translations.

*Gotcha', but, I am sure there are more translations that render the verb as simply "to cut." Just saying.

Originally Posted by Costeon

When the same resource mentions sheep, we don't wonder, "I wonder how much wool is being removed?" We know the wool is being cut off. Since the resource makes no distinction between wool and hair, the act of shearing is similar, hence all English translations rendering it "cut off." Other readers will have to judge if this is so or not.

* But, again, anything said of animals and men cannot be applied to women in I Cor. 11 - esp. since Paul makes "nature" his ultimate source of appeal. I have asked several times now if you would say that what is applied to men and animals can be automatically transferred onto women (?).

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Costeon

I knew you understood this, but in the event some of the readers of this thread might not, I thought it would be good to note what the actual significance is between a second-person and third-person imperative.

*Just to be clear, I do not claim to be a Greek scholar. Nor do I want to appear as communicating to know more than I actually do. In fact, you have had a little more Greek than I have. But I do keep a Greek professor on monthly pay, am on a phenomenal Greek forum, have an elder who is also a Greek professor and have an intense interest in ancient Greek. I'm currently taking classes in textual criticism from Daniel Wallace.

Originally Posted by Costeon

Readers of this thread will have noted that I never said they were cognates, in the sense that they were derived from the same root word. It's obvious they aren't. I never said they meant identically the same thing. In one post to someone else I explained this. They are synonyms that mean closely the same thing. Micah 1.16 and 1 Cor 11.6 show this.

*I am not convinced they are being used synonymously. It's certainly possible, but given the gender-distinction context, the appeal to "nature," and the fact that there are two completely different roots gives me great pause.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by rdp

* But, again, anything said of animals and men cannot be applied to women in I Cor. 11 - esp. since Paul makes "nature" his ultimate source of appeal. I have asked several times now if you would say that what is applied to men and animals can be automatically transferred onto women (?).

1 Corinthians 11:14-15
(14) Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
(15) But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

1Co 11:14 ἢ οὐδὲ αὐτὴ ἡ φύσις διδάσκει ὑμᾶς ὅτι ἀνὴρ μὲν ἐὰν κομᾷ, ἀτιμία αὐτῷ ἐστι,
1Co 11:15 γυνὴ δὲ ἐὰν κομᾷ, δόξα αὐτῇ ἐστιν; ὅτι ἡ κόμη ἀντὶ περιβολαίου δέδοται αὐτῇ.

If the same exact word is applied to both men and women, then would we not assume the exact same thing is being spoken of in regards to both men and women, resulting in a contrasting judgment? That is to say, if a man has X, it is bad, but if a woman has X, it is good, shouldn't we conclude that X is the same in both cases?

Or am I misunderstanding the point you are making, in the quote I have from you above?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Costeon

I just commended you for honestly handling the material.

*Thank you. Though we disagree I commend your honesty also. Indeed, it is refreshing to discuss these issues on a genuinely exegetical plane.

Originally Posted by Costeon

I don't think that is required. There are many words in English that are synonyms but aren't cognates. "Shut" and "closed," "cold" and "chilly," etc. Same for Greek and any language.

*Right, but, again context defines word meanings. The facts are that we have separate roots which clearly denote different meanings, in the context of "long" (komao) hair, different hair lengths for men and women, and "nature" as the reflection of these conclusions and how these words are handled. Obviously nature "allows the hair to grow" contra "cutting it short." Thus, our seeming impasse.

Originally Posted by Costeon

None of your lexical resources believe in Oneness. Is their work therefore suspect? Why do you use any of these lexical resources when they reject "Oneness doctrine, plan of salvation, glossolalia doctrine, etc."? And they certainly didn't embrace the doctrine of uncut hair!

*I did not appeal to their theological conclusions, you did. Now you're attempting to turn the tables on me, but it was your angle, not mine. You can say they didn't embrace the doctrine of uncut hair, but the most reputable linguists available relevant to Koine' plainly state otherwise. Again, BDAG, UBS, Bauer, L&N, etc. all say that this verb - us used in the context of I Cor. 11.6 for women - defines as simply "to cut or trim the hair."

Originally Posted by Costeon

Though I respect the way you have generally argued throughout this thread, to me you bringing up the rejection of Oneness, etc,. is just a red herring fallacy.

*Then you bringing up the theological conclusions of commentaries concerning the hair issue is equally "just a red herring fallacy." In fact, I would argue that you're committing the neglected aspect fallacy by neglecting to address this aspect of their theological conclusions. it was you who appealed to the theology of commentaries, not me.

Originally Posted by Costeon

We are not evaluating these commentaries regarding what they say about the Oneness of God, etc. If we were, we would evaluate all the evidence they provide and show how they have left out evidence or misread the evidence. We, of course, do agree with them on certain topics so they are not always wrong, and where we agree, we value the evidence they provide. Regarding the subject at hand, I have tried to look at all the evidence myself and have not relied on these commentaries. It so happens here that I agree with how these commentaries have interpreted the evidence.

*I would agree w. much of this, but will just point out that you have repeatedly asked for how the "major commentaries" believe on this particular issue. I am pointing out the difference between grammar and theology. The latter I could care less about, the former I am intensely interested in.

Originally Posted by Costeon

Yes, and I wouldn't rely on it alone. Abbott-Smith's is respected. Thayer here happens to agree with it and LSJ and dozens of translations and commentaries and specialized works on this passage. How did BDAG and the other lexical resources use Deismann's evidence to show how previous ways of understanding keiro in 1 Cor 11.6 were incorrect to understand it as "cut off" when it should only be understood as "to cut"?

*I do not see where BDAG used - nor even mentioned - Deismann's work:

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.

*I have B-D-F also, but it's currently boxed up.

Originally Posted by Costeon

"Several translations"? Two so far. One common thing throughout this thread is that the translations (besides two on this one verse) don't support your readings or interpretations of the verses mentioned, e.g. Micah 1.16.

*I could just as easily say that the translations you have marshaled do not support your interpretation of this verse, since they do not specify how much hair is "cut off." Could be 1/4 inch - or 3 feet. You are reading "short" into this meaning, but, again, the most reputable (and expensive) lexicons in existence simply say "to cut the hair."

Originally Posted by Costeon

Which commentaries and papers that say keiro means only to cut? I only recall you mentioning lexical resources and some reference works that assert Israelite women didn't cut their hair.

*UBS is a mix between lexicography and subsequent comments explicating why any selected verse should translated as such. I have already quoted several times now that they specifically state that this verb "literally" means "to cut or trim her hair." As already mentioned, I have access to others also, but need to dig a little more (there's a renown German scholar who also says this, but I need to relocate the quote).

*Also, as you know, lexicons such as BDAG offer lexicography then comment - oft-times at length (esp. BDAG). So, in toto I have offered Louw and Nida, UBS, BDAG, Bauer, LXX dictionary, Concise-Greek English lexicon, OT historical resources, etc. - all of which state that women never cut their hair (barring unrelated anomaly's) or were forbid to cut or trim their hair.

Originally Posted by Costeon

Yes the authors of these lexical works you rely on would most likely regard us as heretics and would absolutely repudiate your interpretation of 1 Cor 11 and your use of their works that lead to women being pressured today to never trim their hair.

*This is nothing more than your assumption regarding I Corinthians 11. The facts are that these lexical sources state the polar opposite of what you claim. On what grounds internal to these lexicons that I have specifically quoted are you claiming that they would "repudiate" their own selected words?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

I think so too. If this is true, it would be an instance of a God ordained hair cut for women in the OT.

If this is indeed the case, could it be that, yes it is a shame for a woman to have hair that is shorn (which I interpret as cut short) and yes it is a shame for a man’s hair to be long (which is what occurs when he takes the vow), and that this shame is in both cases considered humbling yourself before God. I think Esaias either said this, or came very close to saying it earlier in the thread. Maybe he should flesh out his earlier post.

Just in general, I must say that I find Esaias’ view of the second covering and the whole covering study in general to be the one most in harmony with the Bible.

Having said that, I still believe that establishing doctrine on such flimsy scriptural foundation is likely unwise.

What do you mean by the bolded part above? Paul was establishing doctrine. We do not need to take the apostles' teaching and "figure out doctrine from their statements", rather we should take their statements AS "doctrine" - because that is in fact what they are.

So could you explain what you mean by "establishing doctrine on such flimsy scriptural foundation is ... unwise"?