The pigtail hangs behind him
In Wayne's inaugural post on the BBB last spring he mentioned the International Standard Version. I have been considering it as a relatively neutral and traditional version of the Bible. It is not perfect but I think we have discovered that no translation is. I don't even think that one translation has emerged above the others as exemplary.
In this translation 1 Cor. 11:14 varies from most other translations. When I first saw this, I reacted against it. But the more I read the more I thought that this might indeed make sense. Maybe it is not a shame for a man to have long hair.
I think that this is a very relevant issue for people who translate the Bible into other languages for other cultures. Didn't the founding fathers favour a ponytail? And Chinese men were once not allowed to cut their braid. Hudson Taylor grew his hair in order to travel in China. On the other hand there are people and cultures that do not favour long hair on either men or women. So does nature teach us that it is a shame for men to wear their hair long?
This also brings up the question which Jeremy has alluded to in recent comments. To what extent should a translator add and manipulate punctuation?
This post is dedicated to those young men who seem to want a little more activity on the BBB this weekend. I leave you to contemplate whether a Christian man may wear long hair?
Note: Thackeray's poem, from which the title is taken, is found on this page.
In this translation 1 Cor. 11:14 varies from most other translations. When I first saw this, I reacted against it. But the more I read the more I thought that this might indeed make sense. Maybe it is not a shame for a man to have long hair.
I think that this is a very relevant issue for people who translate the Bible into other languages for other cultures. Didn't the founding fathers favour a ponytail? And Chinese men were once not allowed to cut their braid. Hudson Taylor grew his hair in order to travel in China. On the other hand there are people and cultures that do not favour long hair on either men or women. So does nature teach us that it is a shame for men to wear their hair long?
- ἐν ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς κρίνατε πρέπον ἐστὶν γυναῖκα ἀκατακάλυπτον τῷ θεῷ προσεύχεσθαι 14 οὐδὲ ἡ φύσις αὐτὴ διδάσκει ὑμᾶς ὅτι ἀνὴρ μὲν ἐὰν κομᾷ ἀτιμία αὐτῷ ἐστιν 15 γυνὴ δὲ ἐὰν κομᾷ δόξα αὐτῇ ἐστιν ὅτι ἡ κόμη ἀντὶ περιβολαίου δέδοται αὐτῇ
- It is proper for a woman to pray to God without head coverings. Nature in no way teaches on the one hand that if a man has long hair it puts him to shame nor does it teach on the other that a woman's hair is her glory. All of this is true because hair is given as a substitute for man-made coverings. (1 Corinthians 11:13-15 ISV)
This also brings up the question which Jeremy has alluded to in recent comments. To what extent should a translator add and manipulate punctuation?
This post is dedicated to those young men who seem to want a little more activity on the BBB this weekend. I leave you to contemplate whether a Christian man may wear long hair?
Note: Thackeray's poem, from which the title is taken, is found on this page.
posted by Suzanne McCarthy at 10:39 PM
21 Comments:
Of course men may wear their hair long. Even Jesus had long hair. Haven't you seen the pictures? I tried to wear my hair long in college but it was so bushy that my friends nicknamed me "Big Bird." Now I see the bushy look is "in" and all the young guys are at some point submitting to curlers!
Proper practice for the Christian man:
1. Wear hair short.
2. Lift up holy hands in church.
3. Take a little wine for the sake of your stomach.
4. ... I've forgotten the rest.
all the young guys are at some point submitting to curlers
No way!
Thanks for the link. So kind of you.
I am preparing another post on the hair subject, so keep an eye on Suzanne's weblog.
Anyway, my hair length shouldn't be a problem :-)
I think it's worth pointing out that the traditional translation allows for several interpretations. One is that it's not a theology of hair but an application of a general principle that in Paul's setting manifested itself in terms of hair. You don't need to translate it differently to get that result.
Another is that the principle about long hair is absolute in the sense that it applies to every culture but relative in the sense that how long is too long would vary from culture to culture. It might then mean that it's unnatural for a man to have hair longer than what his culture considers normal for a man. In the ancient world, young men often had shoulder-length hair, but it was seen as improper to have hair halfway down their backs. Long hair for them, then, would be halfway down their backs but not shoulder-length. In our culture it's acceptable for men to have hair halfway down their backs, though it's less acceptable in certain settings if it's hanging loose and not tied back, particularly if it's not really washed well (or recently).
One thing I think we must consider that people who look at this text never consider is that people of mostly African descent have a very hard time growing hair in a way that looks anything like what long hair for other ethnic groups looks like. It grows out but not up. I find it very hard to believe that the image of long hair for people who are white, Asian, or Native American is normative for blacks, who simply cannot grow hair in that manner. I really doubt there's supposed to be a command here for black women to grow their hair in the way that white women do when they grow long hair. That's one reason I have to think that at least something in this text is going to have to apply differently in different cultures.
Son of Abraham commented concerning the ISV translation of vv.13-15 that "Actually, this does not make any sense." But nor do other translations, for it is not just nonsense but manifestly untrue that "the very nature of things teach[es] you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him..." (NIV). The real problem is that much of this passage (e.g. v.10 as well as vv.13-15) does not make sense to us today in any translation, because it doesn't make sense in the original.
So, Michael, if you want reject the ISV rendering as not making any sense, please can you present to us an alternative exegesis and translation of this passage which does make sense, as well as being true to the Greek text and the general context of Paul's theology. Such an explanation would of course have to include a convincing interpretation of "because of the angels" (v.10). After all, how can you expect the ISV editors to look at the passage again if you cannot even suggest to them a meaningful alternative?
Please direct Mr. Marlowe to my essay regarding this question at the following URL:
Rethinking the Veil
where his question was anticipated more than 25 years ago and answered thoroughly. The lack of "any logical connection" (his words, not mine) are found, not in the text of the ISV rendering of 1 Corinthians, but rather in the man's personal bias, specifically:
So I think the ISV editors wil have to look at it again. But the truth is, they are merely trying to get rid of the headcovering rule.
The ISV COT didn't try to get rid of anything, except the bias of previous translations. And, as my essay demonstrated more than 25 years ago, there is no head covering rule in 1 Corinthians 11 that needs to be gotten rid of, to use his words again. Well now, as Jesus said, "Wisdom is justified of her children." I'll leave Mr. Marlowe to look up how the ISV renders that particular KJV-ism....
Regards,
Dr. William P. Welty
Manager
The ISV Foundation
215 East Orangethorpe Avenue, Suite 300
Fullerton, CA 92832-3017 USA
Jeremy,
I have also thought of the Sikh tradition where men specifically do not either cut their hair or trim their beards, but the women do trim their hair. So the men probably have longer hair than the women, although I have never in real life seen a Sikh man with his hair uncovered. The beard also is parted and twisted back into the turban very neatly.
You seem to be suggesting that for Africans they may have shorter hair as long as the women have longer hair than the men, which may not be too difficult, but for the Sikhs, that the men must cut their hair to be shorter than the women's hair.
I wonder if you mean that the men must have shorter hair on average than women of the same culture, race, or community. Or should all men have hair shorter than all women i their community, or should a man simply have hair that is shorter than his wife.
And once this is decided how do we deduce this from nature? It makes more sense to say that given the cultural and racial differences, nature teaches us nothing of the kind.
Thank you, William and Michael, for your interesting articles.
William, it is unfortunate that the PDF version of your article was prepared without embedding the Greek fonts. I note also that you argue that in κεφαλὴ δὲ γυναικὸς ὁ ἀνήρ kefalē de gunaikos ho anēr, κεφαλή kefalē is indefinite, but surely this is uncertain because of Colwell's Rule which (if valid, which is debatable) implies that this word may well be definite. But, apart from this and from an admittedly rather quick read, this seems to be a good and clear explanation of what this passage very likely in fact means.
I shall now read Michael's article and comment separately.
Michael, I am now looking at your article The Woman's Headcovering. Thank you for presenting us with an alternative exegesis and translation as I requested. As for whether it makes sense, I don't have time to go into all of it, but will look at a couple of points.
The first and most serious problem I have here concerns your understanding of verse 10. You admit that Paul is speaking obscurely here, and (in footnote 8) quote with some approval Ramsey saying "[the idea] that the 'authority' which the woman wears on her head is the authority to which she is subject [is] a preposterous idea which a Greek scholar would laugh at anywhere except in the New Testament, where (as they seem to think) Greek words may mean anything that commentators choose." But then you seem to assume that the meaning of this passage is so strongly controlled by its preceding context, as you have interpreted it, that it must in fact mean not what the Greek text plainly states, that the woman ought to have her own authority over her head, but the "preposterous idea which a Greek scholar would laugh at". It seems to me that you should rather consider one of these alternatives: either that you have misunderstood the preceding context; or that Paul did in fact write two things which do not hold together logically in the way that you think that they should. I know you have elsewhere criticised others for taking Bible passages not in their plain sense but forcing them into unnatural meanings to fit their own human interpretation of how they fit the context. This is a case where you need to take this lesson yourself, and take the passage in its plain sense even if that does not seem to you to make sense in the context.
I accept that your explanation of "because of the angels" makes reasonable sense, although it does not explain why unveiled women are a problem but unveiled men are not. But your explanation of φύσις fusis "nature" in v.14 does not make sense, for (despite your concern for this very point in the footnote) it confuses "nature" and "custom" i.e. what is purely culture-bound. You don't even seem to have considered how to justify translating v.13b as a question rather than a statement.
Your explanation of why you prefer to understand ἀντί anti in v.15 as "for" rather than "instead of" is unconvincing. I note that Barclay Newman's Greek-English dictionary gives the meaning "for, as" as used in the NT only in this verse. This should be a warning sign that this sense should be considered unsafe if there is a meaningful alternative, as there certainly is in this case. Louw and Nida do not seem to allow any such sense. You quote Harris on the meaning of the preposition, but Harris seems to be arguing his own interpretation of the verse back into the lexicon. Again, you should follow the clear and simple meaning of the Greek text, that hair is a substitute for a covering, rather than insisting on an unnatural and otherwise unattested sense of the preposition to fit your own human understanding of the context.
Michael, I don't say that the passage is especially difficult in the original language. The actual Greek text is not too difficult at all. The problem is that it doesn't make a lot of sense to us today, because we don't know enough of the specific and cultural background. The result of this is that certain traditional interpretations have grown up, yours among them, which seem to be internally coherent but which do not correspond well with the natural understanding of the Greek text. Scholars like Ramsey and Welty have realised this and have looked again at what the text might mean, in the light of improved modern understandings of the original cultural situation. Their alternative interpretations may have their difficulties, but you should realise that yours also does.
As for ἀντί anti, I don't have Bauer's lexicon, and I don't consider it worth the cost because it rarely offers more than a distillation of the glosses offered by a series of literal translations. Of course it lists the meaning "for, as" (with an inanimate object) because it finds this gloss offered in this one verse. Does it offer any more evidence for this sense, inside or outside the NT?
But I can look at the entry for ἀντί anti in LSJ, at Perseus. And this is what I find, most citations and use in compounds omitted:
ἀντί , Prep. governing gen.:--orig. sense,
A. over against. (Cf. Skt. a/nti 'opposite', 'facing', Lat. ante, etc.)
A. USAGE:
I. of Place, opposite, over against, ...
II. of Time, ...
III. instead, in the place of, ...
2. in Hom. often to denote equivalence, ...
3. to denote exchange, at the price of, in return for, ...
4. for the sake of, ...
5. to mark comparison, ἓν ἀνθ' ἑνός one set against the other, compared with it, Pl.R.331b, Lg.705b; χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος, i.e. ever-increasing grace, Ev.Jo.1.16; in preference to, ἀφνεὸν βούλεται ἀντ' ἀγαθοῦ Thgn.188 ; ἀντὶ αὐλοῦ καὶ ἀντὶ κιθάρας ὁ ἦχος ἀκούεται Demetr.Eloc. 71 ; αἱρεῖσθαί τι ἀντί τινος Isoc.9.3 , D.1.1, cf. X.Lac.9.1: even after Comparatives, πλέον ἀντὶ σοῦ S.Tr.577 ; μείζον' ὅστις ἀντὶ τῆς αὑτοῦ πάτρας φίλον νομίζει Id.Ant.182 ; so (esp. after a neg.) ἄλλος ἀντ' ἐμοῦ A.Pr.467 , S.Aj.444, Ar.Nu.653; δόξαν ἀντὶ τοῦ ζῆν ἠγαπηκώς Plu.Alex.42 .
I don't see how any of these senses can possibly be understood as "for, as". The closest is the last one, and so I have given the citations. I accept that Paul may be comparing hair with a covering, but the comparison always seems to imply also a substitution.
Michael, you may think that the problems with your traditional interpretation are minor, but let me remind you what Ramsey had to say about one of them - quoted from your own web page!
"[the idea] that the 'authority' which the woman wears on her head is the authority to which she is subject [is] a preposterous idea which a Greek scholar would laugh at anywhere except in the New Testament, where (as they seem to think) Greek words may mean anything that commentators choose."
So it is not just me who finds serious problems with your interpretation.
Meanwhile we can agree that "Lexicons are only a starting-point for exegesis." So, how can we take our research into ἀντί anti beyond that starting point? If you wish to propose a sense for this word "for, as", you need to find and present some evidence for this sense, from any other Greek literature of any period. Well, I guess you can find some late evidence for this very passage being interpreted in your traditional way. But is there any evidence for it from before or contemporary with the New Testament?
As for the other examples you cite: Matthew 5:38 cites the lex talionis whose whole point was that an eye was gouged out in exchange for an eye being gouged out etc. Romans 12:17 is the prohibition of this. Ephesians 5:31 is an example of another usage usage which I recognise, according to Louw and Nida "a marker of result, with the implication of something being in return for something else - therefore, so then." And John 1:16 is difficult to understand; it might mean New Covenant grace replacing Old Covenant grace, or again something like grace given in response to grace received, but it can hardly mean "grace serving as grace" in parallel with your interpretation of the verse in question.
Michael, you write,
Though long hair on men is possible, and in some cultures it has been customary for men to have long hair, it is justly regarded as effeminate. It requires much grooming, it interferes with vigorous physical work, and a man with long hair is likely to be seized by it in a fight. It is therefore unmanly by nature.
Historically and globally speaking men with long hair cannot be 'justly' regarded as effeminate. They have not been less fit for work or war. We cannot allow our western prejudices to inform our reading of the scripture. A women would also find long hair left loose interferes with some of her vigourous physical work, child-rearing and the operation of a ringer washer, to start with. Do you intend to link the fact that you think that long hair would interfere with vigourous physical work, which may be true, with your claim that long hair is 'unmanly by nature.'
In which century and in which country do men engage in more vigourous physical work than women? There are a few women who might be interested in such a proposition, if it were available.
In the meantime men and women both have adopted a common response to long hair.
Can this man be justly regarded as effeminate to you?
It might be interesting for me to blog the hairstyles of the Mongolian and Sikh warriors sometime.
On another note, there was a 1000 word essay in the Vancouver Sun this morning explaining to Steve Nash why the women of his home town would like him to cut his hair. I kid you not.
Michael,
I also read your argument about the use of irony. I consider that such a thing cannot be defended or disputed absolutely since it cannot be demonstrated in the text. What you are saying is that Paul *must be* using the expression 'have power' to mean the opposite of what the words actually say.
This could possibly be true, but it cannot be logically proved, so I considered it futile to comment on this part of your article.
I am disturbed, however, by your lack of attention to logic in writing about men's hair length. That you do not admit perplexity, as I am willing to, is a weak point.
However, I suspect that you wish to avoid responding to me since I am a woman. Pax. You have this right.
I agree that "Philo shows pretty clearly what John meant by charin anti charitos". Thank you for this. But, at least from the barely understandable old English translation you posted (the Greek might have been easier), this does not seem to be a matter of "successive accumulation", but rather of something new being substituted for something old. In fact the translation of Philo specifically says "substituting new blessings for [anti] those of older date", and, to forestall any argument that I have misunderstood Philo, it also makes it clear that these blessings replace one another rather than accumulate, "for the creature ... is unable to endure an unlimited and measureless abundance of them". So, if Philo is to be a guide to John's meaning, the latter must be that one grace is taken away and replaced by another grace.
I take your point that you get around Ramsey's criticism by asserting that Paul is being ironical in v.10. Well, possibly. But irony is usually signalled clearly. What is the signal here of irony? It is certainly not clearly signalled by the impossibility of the non-ironic interpretation, for there is nothing impossible about the very straightforward interpretation that the woman ought to be in control of her own hair.
Michael,
Is this what you think it means?
"Does not nature itself teach you that if a man styles his hair it is a disgrace to him, but if a woman styles her hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her as an equivalent to a covering."
Or maybe this is what you think the verse intends.
"Does not nature itself teach you that if a man styles his hair like a woman of his culture, it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman styles her hair as a woman of her culture, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her as a 'covering."
That would be true, but hardly worth writing.
But what you have actually written is that the man's hair should be short so as not to intefere with vigourous physical work, and the woman's hair should be long as a reflection of her womanly virtue.
You insist that the nature of men and women teaches us that men should have short hair and women long. You imply this is because men are suited for vigourous work, and women somehow are not. Or that men's work is more vigourous than women's work so their hair should be shorter, relatively.
Which makes me wonder why childbirth is called labour. Is it not vigourous? And rearing the children, is that not vigourous?
How I used to fear the old wringer washer. And now it is the ski-lift I hear. women are equally exposed to machinery.
I can only wonder why Mongolian men favoured the ponytail.
You write,
I also think that the men who spent their days working under the sun would have had more reason to cut their hair short, and the women (who worked mostly under the roof of a house) would have had less reason.
I can see that God intended you as a missionary to Africa, to share this piece of good news. Many women wouldn't mind such an idealized lifestyle, but did God intend us for that. Do women on a global scale contribute less vigourously, and should they?
Can we ever escape the idealized stereotypes, and think of real women and real men, not some pretty picture of a woman sewing a fine seam.
Your conversation has prompted me to have my hair cut. Seriously! Not that it was long enough to be in danger of falling into all the heavy machinery I use (well, into my printer!), or of looking at all effeminate. In fact it was still quite short, not much longer than in the photo which will appear with this comment. But I remembered that I had intended a cut, so I went out and had one.
Interesting... I appreciate that post, and the punctuation question is extremely stimulating. Thank you.
Still, it seems like Paul's concluding statement pretty well clears things up, either way:
"But if anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no such custom, and nor do the churches of God."
I would just like to point out that, in Sikhism women dont cut their hair or shave, and same with men. And both men and women wear turbans to cover their hair. Generally, women wear smaller turbans. Some (especially nihangs) wear HUGE turbans. Some time the hair is tied in to the turban, this makes the turban more sterdy and immosible to take off without unwrapping. That type is called a dhumalla (thought hair is not always wrapped in the turban). Metal wires and chakars can be put on this turban. This is the type of turban Sikh warriors wore because it provided more defense.
thanks
Bhagat Singh
have a look at these two articles:
http://www.choisser.com/longhair/rajsingh.html
http://www.searchsikhism.com/hair.html
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home