Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

This whole argument has become a virtual ecclesiastical hamster's wheel.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Costeon

I'm not meshing contexts. The examples are listed in BDAG. You are asserting that BDAG gives more than one meaning for this verb. Explain please, based on the foreword in BDAG, how BDAG presents the lexical data and, in light of this, explain how the entry in keiro gives more than one extended definition or one-word formal equivalent.

*I have already "explained" ad nauseum that any corpus of literature has a context to be interpreted in. But, since you won't believe me, perhaps you'll believe BDAG themselves. Below is their quote on the verb rendered "wear long hair" in 11.15. In this quote they equally cite extra-biblical literature just as they do w. "shorn/cut," take a peek at what they say (so you can explain away their assertions here also):

κόμη, ης, ἡ (s. prec. entry; Hom. et al.; WSchubart, Der Gnomon des Idios Logos 1919 [=BGU V], 71; 76 [II A.D.]: ἱερεῦσι οὐκ ἐξὸν κόμην φορεῖν; LXX; Philo, Sacr. Abel. 25; Jos., Bell. 4, 561, Ant. 14, 45; Tat. 25, 1; loanw. in rabb.) hair of a person’s head, (long) hair of women (Xenophon Eph. 1, 2, 6; Achilles Tat. 8, 6, 8; the contexts of these reff. suggest that the hair of the female characters was long) 1 Cor 11:15, of hair without spec. ref. to length, a matter that is treated in the clause that precedes. Well-bred women would wear their tresses gathered up on their heads. κ. οὔλη curly hair ApcPt 3:10.–DELG. M-M.

*To borrow from your own playbook, "BDAG does not agree w. you" that their explications "mean the same thing, regardless of context" (your own words). I am honestly surprised that you cannot seemingly grasp such an elementary concept of hermeneutics, since you seem to be an intelligent man. Of course, as a professor once told me, "There is nothing more dangerous than well-prepared error."

Originally Posted by Costeon

Regarding posting in all caps, I did that I believe once in 40+ pages. Again, one recurring theme in your style is exaggeration. It is true that I did fill my last post with emojis following your style. The video clip was a joke.

*Why of course, we would expect nothing else. Condemn in others what you excuse and trivialize in yourself - thus holding others to a standard that you yourself do not hold to. I could just as easily claim that I was "just joking" too - would you accept that? Again, welcome to AFF.

Originally Posted by Costeon

Obviously they didn't "add" to the Greek text. They simply understood this verb to mean cut short. They didn't then change their mind about this meaning in 6c and offer a totally different idea here. We are to read 6c in light of the plain meaning of 6b.

*Then perhaps you can show us all in the Greek text below where the adjective "all [her hair]" (pas) appears in 11.6b as reflected in the NLT? There can be no "plain meaning" where there is no words intruded into their translation - as well demonstrated below.

εἰ γὰρ οὐ κατακαλύπτεται γυνή, καὶ κειράσθω· εἰ δὲ αἰσχρὸν γυναικὶ τὸ κείρασθαι ἢ ξυρᾶσθαι, κατακαλυπτέσθω.

Originally Posted by Costeon

What word did they include between "in Greek," and "referred to" in the last sentence?

*Say what? This is non-sensical. I quoted the Greek text to you repeatedly, along w. translations, lexical data, etc. You simply refuse to accept that linguistic data.

Originally Posted by Costeon

If you go back and read all your posts you'll see that using words like "wishy washy" and "twist" and "pretend" and using a bunch of emojis are in the rdp style.

*Ahh, I see, it's all my fault once again. Man, I would sure hate to try to "pastor" you. The "rdp style" is to apologize, speak complimentary of your research skills, etc. Of course, as usual, folks can dish it out, but absolutely cannot take it...and then deflect responsibility when their clear double-standards are pointed out.

*Emoji's are on this forum for a reason - and I equally used complimentary/kind emoji's to you (but, of course, those don't count - so here's another one: ).

Originally Posted by Costeon

I would gladly ask them, "What do you mean by 'probably'?" To which they would reply, "Um . . . we meant probably. We were't certain but thought this was likely the case." "So, you're saying you weren't sure?" "Well, we said 'probably.'"

*Ahh yes, nothing like playing mind-reader for these Koine' linguists - who already stated that this verb "literally [means] to-cut-her-hair." Got it, what was I ever thinking ?

Originally Posted by Costeon

This is very much a part of your style. Hyperbole. And many people would still have to look up "CEV" and "GNT" to know what they referred to.

*Of course, my taking the time to post: academical articles touting the merits of the CEV (do you need me to post an article on the NLT also?), BDAG, UBS, LXX Dict., Louw-Nida, Drs. Campbell, Wallace, NIDNTTE, Classical linguists (that you also quoted - was that also just "hyperbole?"), etc. ad nauseum...all of which you dismiss - is merely my "style [of] hyperbole" .

Originally Posted by Costeon

What guide to exegesis recommends them as primary study Bibles or suggests using paraphrases or highly dynamic equivalent translations as the basis for doctrinal studies? But let us not forget the salient point: of the mountain of translations available, only two render this verb as only "to cut." Just two, both from the same organization.

*Here, let's all count shall we:

(1) But if she refuses to wear something on her head, let her cut off her hair. But since it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut or her head shaved, she should wear a covering. (NLT)

(2) Yes, if she refuses to wear a head covering, she should cut off all her hair! A woman should wear something on her head. It is a disgrace for a woman to shave her head or cut her hair. (CEV)

(3) If the woman does not cover her head, she might as well cut her hair. And since it is a shameful thing for a woman to shave her head or cut her hair, she should cover her head. (GNT)

*Further, in taking text-critic classes, Mounce et al. have pointed out that sometimes dynamic equivalences are ironically more literal than formal equivalences to the extent that they capture the original-intended meaning. You simply don't like that these linguists adopt renderings in good translations that militates against your view (not to even mention the "mountain of lexicographers" who state the polar opposite of what you assert they say).

*And, UBS (for translators!) defines "cut off" as "literally, cut-her-hair" and affirms that "trimming" is the most likely meaning. Of course, BDAG (you know, the most authoritative Koine' linguists on the market) is also offering their translation based upon the definition.

Originally Posted by Costeon

And, as I know it was obvious to readers of this tread, when I quoted the article from the Jewish writer on head coverings and from the other article, the obvious point was to show you that in reference to women's hair being cut, people can and do use only "cut her hair" when they mean "cut off" or "cut short."

*I know you think it's "obvious," but when I let my wife read your quote last night she said that it sure seems like he's endorsing this view since he marshaled it in defending his view. But, this is typical Costeon style thus far. Marshal quotes in defending your position, then attempt to back out of them when the obvious is pointed out.

*I am not doubting that you are sincere about what you say, I am only pointing out the "obvious." Back soon.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by berkeley

So, because the text does not specify a measurement you deduce that the correct interpretation is to “let the hair grow.”

The Greek says let it grow. The Latin says let it grow. I deduce that English is a language that no one ever dreamed it would be used to interpret an ancient document. Long can't be long without a short to gauge it by. There is no long without its opposite, therefore what on earth is long, if you have no baseline. Seriously, if a guy has hair to the middle of his back, and the woman has it to her waist he has short hair compared to her. That is the point, that is the logical outcome of shredding one chapter of the Bible. It all comes down to what on earth is long? Locust have teeth like lions? Well teeth of lions must be compared with other teeth. So, I don't argue for an hour how the lion's teeth are white. I cut to the skinny answer and say, the lions teeth are sharp fanged jaws. Now, the locust have hair like women. So, everyone stands up and shouts...long! Longer than what? Longer than the lion's hair? Hair like women denoted something particular to ONLY women. The Diaspora Judeans wore their hair like every other Roman. The Judean who lived in Jerusalem polled his hair. Which looked like a bowl cut. So, long would only be just a little lower than her neck? Just a wee bit ridiculous? I would say so.

Everything points to a female not cutting her hair. The guys wore it super short, and the women let their hair flow down their body to where (if it was black) looked like a flock of goats running down a hill side Song of Solomon 4:1

Females just allowed it to grow, whatever the length to finally came to for whatever reason it was considered long. Because the guys hair was super short.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by rdp

[COLOR="Blue"][FONT="Georgia"] take a peek at what they say (so you can explain away their assertions here also):

What is wrong with you?

I am honestly surprised that you cannot seemingly grasp such an elementary concept of hermeneutics, since you seem to be an intelligent man. Of course, as a professor once told me, "There is nothing more dangerous than well-prepared error.

What is wrong with you?

*Ahh, I see, it's all my fault once again. Man, I would sure hate to try to "pastor" you.

What is wrong with you?

The "rdp style" is to apologize, speak complimentary of your research skills, etc.

Yes, and frankly it is hard to accept them when they are overshadowed by the rest that you "compliment" me with, both what I've quoted here and throughout this thread. I thought from the beginning of this thread that no doubt you had good things to say but that it was hard to just calmly consider them because from the beginning you have made things personal--with a periodic apology and compliment.

You simply don't like that these linguists adopt renderings in good translations that militates against your view

What is wrong with you?

I am not doubting that you are sincere about what you say, I am only pointing out the "obvious."

What is wrong with you? You just told me that I simply don't like certain views and so reject them. That is not being sincere.

You must think that your abrasive style makes a bigger impression than if you just calmly tried to argue your points.

[houston]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

My point is this, you could look up linear B script Mycenaean Greek and the point is, what is the measurement? Long to be long must be compared to what is a baseline of short. This whole argument has become a virtual ecclesiastical hamster's wheel.

Originally Posted by berkeley

So, because the text does not specify a measurement you deduce that the correct interpretation is to “let the hair grow.”

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

The Greek says let it grow. The Latin says let it grow.

Today I changed my mind on this issue, but I will not create another thread.
Wow, what a week.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Costeon

What is wrong with you?

What is wrong with you?

What is wrong with you?

*Ummm, not a single thing. How weird.

Originally Posted by Costeon

Yes, and frankly it is hard to accept them when they are overshadowed by the rest that you "compliment" me with, both what I've quoted here and throughout this thread. I thought from the beginning of this thread that no doubt you had good things to say but that it was hard to just calmly consider them because from the beginning you have made things personal--with a periodic apology and compliment.

What is wrong with you?

*Umm, okay - still refuse to see the beam in your own eye. Why am I not surprised ?

Originally Posted by Costeon

What is wrong with you? You just told me that I simply don't like certain views and so reject them. That is not being sincere.

*It is the most obvious and logical conclusion - as others have also stated on this thread.

Originally Posted by Costeon

You must think that your abrasive style makes a bigger impression than if you just calmly tried to argue your points.

*Yes, abrasive styles such as your posting in all CAPS w. exclamation points, ridiculing YouTube clips - then silly attempts to paint me as the bad guy . Silly rabbit.

*Save your Freudian analyses for yourself.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

You haven't provided any of the Greek or Hebrew to support your view. We can express our views and feelings about issues all day long, however, the important thing is - what are the words in the text defined as?

*Well, umm, yes - that is kinda' the whole point now isn't it ?

[1ofthechosen]

Hey I don't know if anyone listened to this so let's let Elder Charles Mahaney tell us what long hair meant in Jewish culture. Watch between 13:00 and 24:05.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Ok, this past Sunday I asked the church family to give me their understanding of the words long and short. Standards of measurement is what I was given. In a dictionary the definition of long is a "measurement" of great distance. Short is "measuring" a small distance from end to end. The long and short of it is just that, measurements of length. Which this discussion really never figured out, and the only thing I was given is that it was natural for a man to have short hair? While I had very long hair (both on my head and chin) at one time. I never found that biologically my hair growth was hindered because of my gender. The natural or nature issue which Paul is talking about is Bible creationism. Adam, Eve, God. The whole submission and leadership issue. The hair on both was the same issue as Deuteronomy 22:5. Measurement had nothing to do with it because we are never given the baseline, in which we are able to determine measurement of length. We are given words that indicate a female was to allow the hair to grow. The Latin translation takes this into account by using the word which means to nourish the hair. The Spanish Bible doesn't use the word largo but the weird crecer. Which the latter means like to raise a child, or a plant.

The interpreters/translators of the KJV most likely never dreamed we would forget what long and short meant. But this is all religious acrobatics so cat, could be a dog, and Levites could of been smoking their anointing oil? Thank you Amanah for staying with logic, it is an awesome tool we are given if we use it.

*Exactly (as per BDAG's own words) .

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Amanah

The intention of the passage is definitely for a woman to let her hair grow. The best way to let your hair grow is not to cut it.

Teaching that you have "long" hair if you have it past your shoulders, or maybe mid way down your back, or if you only trim 1/4 and inch off twice a year, does not make good common sense.

What about women who can't grow long hair by any measurable length, how can they determine if they are meeting the requirement?

Seems like the people want to disprove the scripture, while pretending to obey it, which will likely result in total disregard of it.

*Incidentally Amanah, you posted some excellent data on the pants thread that I was not aware of - as did Evangelist Benincasa and 1ofthechosen !