Page 2 of 3

Re: κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων v. ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς

Posted: April 25th, 2014, 3:12 pm
by Stephen Carlson
Thanks for that, Jonathan. There are a lot of different interpretations and not a lot of evidence to really favor one over the others.

Re: κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων v. ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς

Posted: April 25th, 2014, 8:37 pm
by Jonathan Robie
Stephen Carlson wrote:Thanks for that, Jonathan. There are a lot of different interpretations and not a lot of evidence to really favor one over the others.
Yeah, I have to agree.

Re: κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων v. ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς

Posted: June 3rd, 2015, 5:42 am
by Andrew Chapman
Philip Brown points out - as evidence pointing in the other direction to his own thesis - that κατὰ κεφαλῆς occurs in Esther 6.12, where it refers to Haman having his head covered. It translates וַ·חֲפ֥וּי רֹֽאשׁ , which I think is unambiguous.

ἐπέστρεψεν δὲ ὁ μαρδοχαῖος εἰς τὴν αὐλήν αμαν δὲ ὑπέστρεψεν εἰς τὰ ἴδια λυπούμενος κατὰ κεφαλῆς.

Andrew

Re: κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων v. ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς

Posted: June 3rd, 2015, 6:17 am
by Stephen Carlson
There's a fairly recent article on the topic (and a couple of others) by Ben Edsall too at http://jgrchj.net/volume9/JGRChJ9-5_Edsall.pdf

Here's the conclusion:
Edsall 2013:138 wrote:Therefore, without any other modifying noun, the phrases κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων and ἀκατακαλύπτῃ τῇ κεφαλῇ most naturally refer to some object that covers the head, other than hair.

Re: κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων v. ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς

Posted: June 3rd, 2015, 11:21 am
by Andrew Chapman
Thanks a lot, Stephen, that's a useful article. His distinction between παράδοσις in verse 2 and συνήθεια in verse 16 was new to me: they kept the traditions, but they had a custom (of women praying with uncovered head (v.13)), of which Paul did not approve. The other two occurrences to συνήθεια in the NT refer to customs quite separate from the traditions of the church of Jesus Christ:

Ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐν πᾶσιν ἡ γνῶσις· τινὲς δὲ τῇ συνηθείᾳ ἕως ἄρτι τοῦ εἰδώλου ὡς εἰδωλόθυτον ἐσθίουσιν, καὶ ἡ συνείδησις αὐτῶν ἀσθενὴς οὖσα μολύνεται. [1 Cor 8.7]

ἔστιν δὲ συνήθεια ὑμῖν ἵνα ἕνα ἀπολύσω ὑμῖν ἐν τῷ πάσχα· βούλεσθε οὖν ἀπολύσω ὑμῖν τὸν βασιλέα τῶν Ἰουδαίων; [John 18.39]

Andrew

Re: κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων v. ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς

Posted: June 4th, 2015, 10:15 am
by Jonathan Robie
That article goes into some depth on lexicography and a particular way of identifying word meanings, and it does so at a tutorial level that's very useful for someone like me. Here's one interesting observation she makes:
In 2003, John Lee published a key work titled A History of New Testament Lexicography. After surveying the lexicons from 8 BCE to the Bauer series, Lee declares that, with the arrival of texts in electronic form, ‘All previous collections have been rendered obsolete’.
There have been gaps in the previous lexicons, but now a three minute search may yield what used to take three months—‘Gaps, if any in the existing collection are instantly revealed; so is the full and sometimes astonishing scope of the attestation of a given word… For advanced study of any Greek word it is now not only possible, but necessary to conduct a search and ensure that no useful evidence has been overlooked.’
He's not against lexicons - he's working on with G. H. R. Horsley on A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament with
Documentary Parallels
, designed to update and replace Moulton and Milligan’s Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. But it's now so easy to access all kinds of data that was hard to find, and some that wasn't available.

But how do you process all of that data in a systematic way that gets beyond subjectivity? She goes into a lot of detail on her approach ... worth reading just for that.

Re: Horsley and Lee

Posted: June 4th, 2015, 1:07 pm
by Andrew Chapman
I think that project is in abeyance at best, but I really like the approach they took, as described in their 1997 article: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3myvz ... sp=sharing I found their entries for διδάσκω and cognates particularly helpful. It shows what one could do with a digital or on-line lexicon with virtually no space limits. I don't see why it should be limited to documentary illustrations - it would be great to have biblical and literary examples of usage all in the same place.

Andrew

Re: κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων v. ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς

Posted: September 1st, 2020, 9:36 am
by Andrew Chapman
Πᾶς ἀνὴρ προσευχόμενος ἢ προφητεύων κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων καταισχύνει τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ. (11:4)

διὰ τοῦτο ὀφείλει ἡ γυνὴ ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους. (11:10)

Carl Conrad, 2014, this thread:
The more serious question for me is whether either of these expressions carries no implicit object of the verb ἔχειν. That's been argued, but I don't think it's been demonstrated.
Is there any question that ἐξουσίαν is the object in 11:10?

Has it been argued (by someone) that there is no implied object in 11:4?

Is there some theory on implied objects, and if so, where could I find it, please?

Stephen Carlson, 2014, this thread:
In my view, there is an implicit object with ἔχειν, and supplying that object, whether a coverning or hair, requires cultural knowledge we may not have access to.
There are I think several examples of ιματιον εχων κατα κεφαλης or other material covering as object, and none with τριχας as the object. Would it not be the case that if the object is implied, then the object that is to be supplied is one that is frequently used?

Re: κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων v. ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς

Posted: September 4th, 2020, 2:57 pm
by Andrew Chapman
Andrew Chapman wrote: September 1st, 2020, 9:36 amIs there some theory on implied objects, and if so, where could I find it, please?
Implied objects are treated as a form of ellipsis in some of the grammars. The most extensive discussion I have found is in Winer (tr. Moulton), in chapter 64 on 'Incomplete Structure'. The theory, such as it is, amounts to the single observation that:

'Such omission of words to be supplied by the mind (whether it be occasioned by convenience, or by a desire for conciseness) can take place only when the language contains a clear intimation of what has been suppressed (Hermann, Opusc. p. 218), - either by means of the build of the particular sentence, or in consequence of some conventional usage.'

which is nicely put. Godfried Hermann wrote a study: 'De ellipsi et pleonasmo', published in 1808.

Ἱμάτιον is listed as one of the substantives that is sometimes omitted, as for example in:

ἀλλὰ τί ἐξήλθατε ἰδεῖν; ἄνθρωπον ἐν [a]μαλακοῖς ἠμφιεσμένον; ἰδοὺ οἱ τὰ μαλακὰ φοροῦντες ἐν τοῖς οἴκοις τῶν βασιλέων εἰσίν· [Matthew 11:8]

but supplying it with an adjective - as we do also in English in 'he was wearing whites' - is obviously very different from the present case.

With regard to 1 Corinthians 11:4, Winer says that 'the context clearly shows' what object is to be supplied. He cites 2 Corinthians 5:12 for comparison, the verb being ἔχω:

Οὐ πάλιν ἑαυτοὺς συνιστάνομεν ὑμῖν, ἀλλὰ ἀφορμὴν διδόντες ὑμῖν καυχήματος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ἵνα ἔχητε πρὸς τοὺς ἐν προσώπῳ καυχωμένους καὶ μὴ ἐν καρδίᾳ.

where most translators supply 'answer' or 'reply'.

Re: κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων v. ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς

Posted: November 8th, 2020, 10:09 am
by iroza
I was googling the phrase and I get inside here and read your threat about this translation. I will make a try in new Greek with my perception and understanding without some evidence, just my language (I'm Greek).

κατά = down, α = without, επί = above, not many things change since then.
κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων = he has the head down
ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς = she has above her head.

free translation in new-greek, my try:
"θέλω να ξέρετε ότι η κεφαλή του κάθε άνδρα είναι ο Χριστός, η κεφαλή της γυναίκας ο άνδρας, και η κεφαλή του Χριστού ο Θεός. Οι άνδρες όταν προσεύχονται ή προφητεύουν με το κεφάλι κάτω, ντροπιάζουν την κεφαλή αυτών (το Χριστό). Από την άλλη η κάθε γυναίκα που προσεύχεται ή προφητεύει χωρίς κάλυμα κάτω από το καφέλι (γυμνή?) καταισχύνει την κεφαλή αυτής (τον άνδρα της). Είναι το ίδιο και το αυτό, με το να είναι ξυρισμένη(?). Αν μία γυναίκα δεν καλύπτεται (ντύνεται?), τότε ας κουρευτεί κιόλας. Αν όμως είναι αισχρό μία γυναίκα να κουρεύεται ή να ξυρίζεται, τότε ας καλυθφεί (ντυθεί?). Ο άνδρας δεν οφείλει (υποχρεούται) να κρύβει τη κεφαλή (το Χριστό), την εικόνα και την δόξα του Θεού του υπάρχοντος. Η γυναίκα απο την άλλη είναι η δόξα του άνδρα [όπως ο Χριστός είναι η δόξα στο Θεό]. Δεν δημιουργήθηκε ο άνδρας από τη γυναίκα, αλλά η γυναίκα απο τον άνδρα. Γι' αυτό οφείλει (θα πρέπει) η γυναίκα να έχει εξουσία επί της κεφαλής (τον άνδρα) μέσα από τους αγγέλους. Έτσι ώστε να μην υπάρχει άνδρας χωρίς γυναίκα και γυναίκα χωρίς άνδρα, μέσα (~στην πρόνοια?) του Κύριου. Έτσι όπως η γυναίκα προήλθε από τον άνδρα, έτσι και ο άνδρας προέρχεται από την γυναίκα, και οι πάντες (τα πάντα) από το Θεό. Κρίνετε απο μόνοι σας: Πρέπει μία γυναίκα να προσεύχεται ακάλυπτη στο Θεό; Η ίδια η φύση μας διδάσκει, ότι αν ο άνδρας καλωπίζεται, ατιμά τον ευατό του. Εάν η γυναίκα καλωπίζεται δοξάζει τον εαυτό της. Γιατί τα μαλλιά (ο στολισμός) της δόθηκαν αντί για τη περιβολή (στολή). Αν κάποιος νομίζει ότι αυτό είναι φιλονικό, εμείς τέτοια συνήθεια δεν έχουμε, ούτε η εκκλησία του Θεού. "

Ι did this try when I read the embarrassing new-greek translation in my bible, that includes sexism and subsequent cultural (ottoman?) interpretations.
I believe that the main suggestion of this section of the epistle (11) was a statement against the nude culture of idolaters, and the equality of both sexes against the Jewish culture of that time.
It was hard to translate it in new-Greek I couldn't afford to translate it in English.

Hope you find it interesting.