Uncut Hair

[Evang.Benincasa]

the Louis Segond like the English has "de longs cheveux" Yet, the proceeding verse 6 has "car si une femme n'est pas voilée, qu'elle se coupe aussi les cheveux. Or, s'il est honteux pour une femme d'avoir les cheveux coupés ou d'être rasée, qu'elle se voile." So, like the English, the French (another Latin version) explains what kind of long the hair is supposed to be "uncut." Just like the coupe, which if your car is a coupe, it is the shortened version of the sedan which has four seats, and the coupe only having two.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by rdp

*Actually, Paul did use a Greek word meaning "not to cut" in I Corinthians 11.6. See this blog post on the grammar of this text - replete w. lexical quotations.

*{Note: Since writing this article a couple of years ago I have come across more information on this Greek text leading to the same conclusion.}

*One of many quotes from Greek grammarians:

*On p. 245 of the United Bible Societies A Translators Handbook on Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, we read: “To be shorn, literally ‘cut-her-hair’ in Greek, probably referred to a regular trimming of her hair.”

*This is the lexical definition of the verb translated “shorn/κείρασθαι” and hence is the very thing the Holy Spirit is prohibiting through the writings of the Apostle Paul.

https://apostolicacademics.com/2016/...from-i-cor-11/

Thank you. I am thinking that if I want a 100% from someone, I don't want them to answer me with "probably", because I would then say - It is either a yes or a no. Don't tell me "probably". Probably means you are "almost" certain. I really want a commitment from you.

If I want a contract signed, I wouldn't want a client to say, "I will probably sign it." You know what I mean? Just saying...

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I must of missed that post.

Anyway, to answer the question about Paul, the same reason they didn't write amplified. The Bible writers wrote to their audience, and audience who were familiar with their Roman Hellenized Judean world. They understood not only the definition of κομᾷ, but how the word was used in their culture. Hence looking at the Vulgate gives us insight on a more defining word "nutriat."

They lived in a Latin, Greek, Aramaic speaking world, where their cultural usages of words and phrases we need to discover for ourselves. The Bible deals with a huge amount of symbolism, and these symbols were as common as a red octagon with white letters. We know what that means, but we might be totally lost when we read thow they used their own words, which were crystal clear to them.

Thank you again. “Nutriat” is something that looks solid enough to study.

Let me further develop my thoughts on this.

When I brought up Peter in Acts 10 and the point on the relevance of antiquity, I was referring more to a reference in the OT Word than simply antiquity. Peter had a reference to bolster or prove that what he was doing was from God.

In I Corinthians 15:3-4 it says, “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:”

What scriptures is this talking about? Because I believe there are scriptures that intimate and are symbolic that Jesus would be crucified, buried for three days and rise on the third day. But, there isn’t one that actually says that. There are only references, types and shadows to show us or express that truth indirectly.

So, my question would be - Aside from antiquity (because, somehow, that doesn't seem as important to me), is there anything in the OT that expresses this truth on hair indirectly as I Cor. 15 does about Jesus Christ?

I could be wrong, but I would think that Paul would need that as he had amble proof of who God was and what He planned to do, i.e., pouring out His Spirit upon all flesh, reaching for the Gentiles, etc. Those things I see and can assuredly stand upon.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Thank you. I am thinking that if I want a 100% from someone, I don't want them to answer me with "probably", because I would then say - It is either a yes or a no. Don't tell me "probably". Probably means you are "almost" certain. I really want a commitment from you.

If I want a contract signed, I wouldn't want a client to say, "I will probably sign it." You know what I mean? Just saying...

*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). 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).

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Thank you again. “Nutriat” is something that looks solid enough to study.

Let me further develop my thoughts on this.

When I brought up Peter in Acts 10 and the point on the relevance of antiquity, I was referring more to a reference in the OT Word than simply antiquity. Peter had a reference to bolster or prove that what he was doing was from God.

In I Corinthians 15:3-4 it says, “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:”

What scriptures is this talking about? Because I believe there are scriptures that intimate and are symbolic that Jesus would be crucified, buried for three days and rise on the third day. But, there isn’t one that actually says that. There are only references, types and shadows to show us or express that truth indirectly.

So, my question would be - Aside from antiquity (because, somehow, that doesn't seem as important to me), is there anything in the OT that expresses this truth on hair indirectly as I Cor. 15 does about Jesus Christ?

I could be wrong, but I would think that Paul would need that as he had amble proof of who God was and what He planned to do, i.e., pouring out His Spirit upon all flesh, reaching for the Gentiles, etc. Those things I see and can assuredly stand upon.

A lot of people want to link the hair topic of 1 Corinthians 11 to the Nazarite Vow in Numbers, but I think that's a mistake. There, only a man is mentioned as someone eligible for the vow, it's also temporary and not a lifelong mandate, and the sacrifices involved when the vow ends are not part of the New Covenant.

Instead, I would look to the passage about the Law of Jealousy, also found in Numbers, right before the chapter about the Nazarite Vow (See Numbers 5:12-31).

Note the similarities:

- Both passages are about hair
- Both passages are about husbands and wives
- Both passages deal with submission and headship
- Both passages deal with the possibility of transgression being involved
- Both passages indicate the possibility of what it means to be shorn and the shame associated with it

So, if one were looking for OT clues, insights, correlations, and ways in which the 1 Corinthians verses were informed by the Holy Scriptures of old, I would say, look no further than Numbers 5.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

A lot of people want to link the hair topic of 1 Corinthians 11 to the Nazarite Vow in Numbers, but I think that's a mistake. There, only a man is mentioned as someone eligible for the vow, it's also temporary and not a lifelong mandate, and the sacrifices involved when the vow ends are not part of the New Covenant.

Instead, I would look to the passage about the Law of Jealousy, also found in Numbers, right before the chapter about the Nazarite Vow (See Numbers 5:12-31).

Note the similarities:

- Both passages are about hair
- Both passages are about husbands and wives
- Both passages deal with submission and headship
- Both passages deal with the possibility of transgression being involved
- Both passages indicate the possibility of what it means to be shorn and the shame associated with it

So, if one were looking for OT clues, insights, correlations, and ways in which the 1 Corinthians verses were informed by the Holy Scriptures of old, I would say, look no further than Numbers 5.

that seems to support a head covering rather than uncut hair.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Amanah

that seems to support a head covering rather than uncut hair.

You know what? Please disregard the post. I need to check my memory board, since I typed all of what you quoted, from memory, but now, checking into the verses more deeply, I see several places where I have erred or conflated two separate issues. My apologies to all.

If or when I can make better sense of what I was trying to communicate, I will report back.

[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?