Skip to content

1 Corinthians 11:24

Tony Pope wrote:
November 29th, 2017, 5:14 am
But is there anyway a problem in the syntax of τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν κλώμενον? If the argument is simply that such a complex phrase never occurs elsewhere in Paul and therefore it is unPauline, that is surely a text-critical argument not an argument from what is proper in Greek syntax.
The text:
1Cor. 11:24 καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ εἶπεν· τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν [κλωμενον]· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.
The lack of a verb doesn't create a problem for Paul. The presence of a verb doesn't create a problem for Luke. Luke's syntax is not difficult, Paul omits what can be assumed or what he assumed could be assumed. One older commentator call it "harsh." Luke 22:19 καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων· τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. 20 καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ὡσαύτως μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων· τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον. Postscript: It's a really interesting exercise trying to track down the support for the shorter reading. Origen is cited in support of the shorter reading. I did not find it. The closest thing I found was from a comment on Jeremiah.
Origen In Jeremiam Homily 12, section 2, line 29«πίετε οἶνον ὃν ἐκέρασα ὑμῖν», ἴδε δέ μοι καὶ τὸν σωτῆρα πρὸς τὸ πάσχα ἀναβαίνοντα εἰς «ἀνάγαιον μέγα ἐστρωμένον καὶ κεκοσμημένον» καὶ ἑορτάζοντα μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν καὶ διδόντα αὐτοῖς ποτήριον, περὶ οὗ γέγραπται οὐχ ὅτι ἐκέρασεν· ὁ Ἰησοῦς γὰρ εὐφραίνων τοὺς μαθητὰς ἀκράτῳ εὐφραίνει καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· «λάβετε, πίετε, τοῦτό μού ἐστι τὸ αἷμα, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε, ὁσάκις ἐὰν πίνητε, εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν», καί· »ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, οὐ μὴ πίω αὐτὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν, ἕως αὐτὸ πίω μεθ' ὑμῶν καινὸν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ».
Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — December 1st, 2017, 12:40 pm
 
Tony Pope wrote:
November 29th, 2017, 5:14 am
But is there anyway a problem in the syntax of τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν κλώμενον? If the argument is simply that such a complex phrase never occurs elsewhere in Paul and therefore it is unPauline, that is surely a text-critical argument not an argument from what is proper in Greek syntax.
The text:
1Cor. 11:24 καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ εἶπεν· τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν [κλωμενον]· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.
The lack of a verb doesn't create a problem for Paul. The presence of a verb doesn't create a problem for Luke. Luke's syntax is not difficult, Paul omits what can be assumed or what he assumed could be assumed. One older commentator call it "harsh." Luke 22:19 καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων· τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. 20 καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ὡσαύτως μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων· τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον. Postscript: It's a really interesting exercise trying to track down the support for the shorter reading. Origen is cited in support of the shorter reading. I did not find it. The closest thing I found was from a comment on Jeremiah.
Origen In Jeremiam Homily 12, section 2, line 29«πίετε οἶνον ὃν ἐκέρασα ὑμῖν», ἴδε δέ μοι καὶ τὸν σωτῆρα πρὸς τὸ πάσχα ἀναβαίνοντα εἰς «ἀνάγαιον μέγα ἐστρωμένον καὶ κεκοσμημένον» καὶ ἑορτάζοντα μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν καὶ διδόντα αὐτοῖς ποτήριον, περὶ οὗ γέγραπται οὐχ ὅτι ἐκέρασεν· ὁ Ἰησοῦς γὰρ εὐφραίνων τοὺς μαθητὰς ἀκράτῳ εὐφραίνει καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· «λάβετε, πίετε, τοῦτό μού ἐστι τὸ αἷμα, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε, ὁσάκις ἐὰν πίνητε, εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν», καί· »ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, οὐ μὴ πίω αὐτὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν, ἕως αὐτὸ πίω μεθ' ὑμῶν καινὸν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ».
Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — December 1st, 2017, 12:40 pm
It turns out, dislocation is a problem with D 06. Portions of first Corinthians and several other books are dislocated, found in volume 2. 1Cor. 11:24 CSNTM Image Name: GA_06_Vol2_0010.JPG. That probably won't help you find it. D 06 http://www.csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA_06?filter=2 The passage search function doesn't seem to work at all. Jump to Hebrews, scroll past end of the book, past the blank pages and the covers to the second volume. Keep scrolling first Corinthians 11:23 will show up. You will see the first three letters of κλωμενον written between the lines. It is been my experience the trusting an apparatus is flying blind. All kinds of interesting things might crop up when you decide to run down a reading. It is not always worth the trouble, but you don't until you go and look. Used to do this at the Munster Institute site, haven't been there in a while. Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — November 29th, 2017, 12:30 pm
There are images on the Münster website http://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/manuscript-workspace but you would need to be registered in order to view Dabs1 (GA 0319). However, you could view the images of F (GA 010) and G (012) without registering. But is there anyway a problem in the syntax of τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν κλώμενον? If the argument is simply that such a complex phrase never occurs elsewhere in Paul and therefore it is unPauline, that is surely a text-critical argument not an argument from what is proper in Greek syntax. Such discussion would, of course, be inappropriate for this forum. Statistics: Posted by Tony Pope — November 29th, 2017, 5:14 am
Ultimately a question about Pauline syntax, which became sidetracked attempting to track down the critical textual variant. Investigating the often repeated claim that κλωμενον is obviously intrusive and un-Pauline. First of all it isn't easy to track down the uncial support for this reading. I looked at the Paris Codex Claromontanus D 06. It appears that this manuscript is defective between 1Cor 11:21-12:2x. I wasn't able to find images of Dabs1 Codex Sangermanensis. Waltzmn[1] doesn't mention this missing portion of D 06. UBSGNT3 marks the reading Db,c which should refer to correctors of D 06. Something is wrong here. Perhaps the corrections are dislocated but I also checked Wallace's site and he had no image for 1Cor 11:21ff. I don't absolutely need to see the manuscript but seeing the manuscript often clears up ambiguities in the apparatus.
NA27 1Cor. 11:24 καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ εἶπεν· τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. R-P 1Cor. 11:24 και ευχαριστησας εκλασεν και ειπεν λαβετε φαγετε τουτο μου εστιν το σωμα το υπερ υμων κλωμενον τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν
The following passages have certain similarities in syntax, not sure if that proves anything about the intrusiveness of κλωμενον.
NA27 2Cor. 7:12 ἄρα εἰ καὶ ἔγραψα ὑμῖν, οὐχ ἕνεκεν τοῦ ἀδικήσαντος οὐδὲ ἕνεκεν τοῦ ἀδικηθέντος ἀλλ᾿ ἕνεκεν τοῦ φανερωθῆναι τὴν σπουδὴν ὑμῶν τὴν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ. NA27 2Cor. 9:3 ἔπεμψα δὲ τοὺς ἀδελφούς, ἵνα μὴ τὸ καύχημα ἡμῶν τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν κενωθῇ ἐν τῷ μέρει τούτῳ, ἵνα καθὼς ἔλεγον παρεσκευασμένοι ἦτε,
[1] Waltzmn http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn ... html#uDabs Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — November 28th, 2017, 10:17 pm
Peter, if you want me to be explicit about it, "We agree to disagree on this matter." I had honestly thought that was obvious. Certainly we have an ἀπορία here, and can go no further along this route. Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — February 20th, 2014, 5:38 am
When I looked into this passage last year, I found a bewilderment of assorted interpretations. It does not help matters that there is a lot of word play going on. Generally, most attempts to make sense of the passage do so by reconstructing a historical occasion and reading the vague and indefinite statements in light of the supposed situation. I think that both Peter's and Carl's interpretations have been attested in antiquity, which is more than can be said than about other ideas. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — February 20th, 2014, 5:06 am
I respect your view, Carl. In case you're still intersting a quote: "καὶ γὰρ καὶ ὁ κομῶν κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχει τὴν κόμην δηλαδή" (because It's even obivious that the one with long hair has his long hair down his head" (Catena). A tradditional Kippa is something on the head, not something coming down from the head (KATA), I'd say. For me the whole passage in 1Cor doesn't make sense when the problem the forbidden hat/veil for a man and the missing of this feature at a woman is. There is no continuation of that theme and Paul is just discussing matters of long or short hair or that the head (not the hair) is covered or not. The correspondence or connection between hair and veil would not plausible. An the solution of not being covered (let's say by long hair) is not a veil but the long hair - in case of women. Then there is no second discursive unit: so far Paul made it clear that a man doens't have to have a hat and a woman should weare a veil (supposed), now I (Paul) speak on the long and short hair. I can't see a switch between two topics and the thoughts are throughgoing. When the missing veil is the problem, why sates Paul that the woman has this covering in form of her long hair? That means why doesn't he demand a veil? The same solution for ending her uncoveredness. So I think the problem is the short hair of women and the long hair of man. We could come to an end, by saying :" We agree to disagree". Yours Peter Statistics: Posted by Peter Streitenberger — February 20th, 2014, 4:54 am
Peter, I think it is quite clear that we are not in agreement with each other on this matter. A hat or cap covers the crown of the wearer's head, in whole or in part, extending from the highest point of one's head down over the brow and around the temples. That, I take it, is what is meant by ἔχων (τι) κατὰ τῆς κεφαλῆς. Whether Paul has in mind something comparable to the Talmudic kippah that was later also called in Yiddish a yarmulke, I don't know, but I do not believe he's talking about the hair that grows naturally on a man's head. My reference to the understanding of the text set forth in BDAG does not mean that I consider that indisputable evidence for my viewpoint -- but it means that I'm not alone in understanding this text as I do. Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — February 19th, 2014, 7:02 pm
Dear Carl, ok, but Paul speaks of a covering of the head and discusses the hair extra, that means the head is not necesserily seen with the hair. The head should be covered, not necessarily the hair, which would require an extra hat or a veil then. So the most natural thing what comes down from a head is hair, and Paul is not mentioning any extra covering. At one passage he sees the long hair of the woman as subsitution or means for her covering. The BDAG is a nice try to solve this riddle: "wears (a covering) on his head" -> I woulnd't expect "on" for KATA, the examples show that something is coming or growing down from the head, There is no hint for a extra covering and "wears" is too much in my view. Chrysostomos writes: Οὐκ εἶπε, Κεκαλυμμένος, ἀλλὰ, Κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων, δεικνὺς ὅτι κἂν γυμνῇ εὔχηται τῇ κεφαλῇ, κόμην δὲ ἔχῃ, ἴσος ἐστὶ τῷ κεκαλυμμένῳ. That means he would regard the long hair (later discussed by Paul) as something coming down (KATA) from the head, making the man's head "covered". Agreed? Yours Peter, Germany Statistics: Posted by Peter Streitenberger — February 19th, 2014, 5:59 pm
 
Peter Streitenberger wrote: Dear Carl, there is no object named at Paul in the beginning what exactly comes down from the head (KATA not EPI). ... Can we find common ground?
It would appear that we cannot. The texts that you cited with ἔχειν and κατὰ τῆς κομῆς, as I understand them, do not support the argument you are making. The text of 1 Cor 11:4 does not, as you have said, have an object, but I believe there's an implicit object, as BDAG s.v. ἔχω suggests:
4. to carry/bear as accessory or part of a whole, have on, wear, of clothing, weapons, etc. (Hom. et al.; LXX; TestAbr B p. 114, 22 [Stone p. 76]) τὸ ἔνδυμα Mt 3:4; 22:12 (cp. ἔνδυσιν TestJob 25:7). κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων w. τὶ to be supplied while he wears (a covering) on his head 1 Cor 11:4.
It may well be, as you note, that the passage in 1 Cor was later interpreted so that κατὰ τῆς κεφαλῆς ἔχειν is identical in meaning with κομᾶν. But I see no necessity at all to understand the Pauline text that way. I think rather that Paul here is referring to a cap or hat -- some sort of external covering over the head. Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — February 19th, 2014, 5:00 pm
Dear Carl, there is no object named at Paul in the beginning what exactly comes down from the head (KATA not EPI). But some verses later the "uncoverdness" of the women is placed against her having long hair. A man being covered is stated as shame and Paul writes that long hair is a shame for him. That's why some early christian writers regarded the cover of men as long hair and the uncoveredness of women as short hair. ἣν κόμην ὠνόμασεν, ἣν ὅταν μὴ ἔχῃ Καταισχύνει τὴν κεφαλὴν ἑαυτῆς, καθώς φησιν ὁ ἀπόστολος. Gregorius Nyssenus (In Canticum canticorum (homiliae 15), The Καταισχύνει of the head lays in having long (men) or short hair (woman). «Ἀνὴρ οὐκ ὀφείλει κομᾶν, δόξα καὶ εἰκὼν θεοῦ ὑπάρχων».Epiphanius Scr. Eccl sees the κατακαλύπτεσθαι (being covered) of the man as having long hair. I've found a passage in a ancient Greek commentary on the Odysse that Odysseus war boldheaded and thus having his head not covered with hair. We find that Pauls requests a suitable covering of the head, that would fit to hair, not to an extra covering, as that would be a covering of the hair (Paul distingues hair and head in this passage). At the end (V.15) Paul sees the long hair as suitable covering (Peribolaion) for the women. So the women has to be covered and the covering lays in her long hair. The man doesn't have to be covered and long hair is a shame for him. Can we find common ground? Yours Peter Statistics: Posted by Peter Streitenberger — February 19th, 2014, 3:22 pm
 
Peter Streitenberger wrote: Ok, thanks, Carl, please see the direct parallels, where KATA KEFALHS ECWN means that (long) hair grows from a head, an extra head covering is not mentioned at Paul. "wears (a covering) on his head" seems therefore not fitting. KATA KEFALHS ECWN is used as indicating that something comes/growes down the head. That would meet the later reference of the long hair, wich is shameful for a man.
 
Peter Streitenberger wrote: To the meaning of "something down from his head" a passage: ἐρυθρὸν αὐτῷ τὸ ῥάμφος ἐστί, καὶ κατὰ τῆς κεφαλῆς ὥσπερ τινὰ πῖλον ἔχει, ὁποίους οἱ τοξόται Πέρσαι φοροῦσιν· (Dionysius Perieg., Ixeuticon sive De aucupio (paraphrasis) (olim sub auctore Eutecnio). Here something from the head of a bird grows down. Then: αὐτὸς δὲ περιεβάλετο στολὴν ἱερὰν καὶ κίδαριν καὶ διάδημα κατὰ τῆς κεφαλῆς ἔχον κέρατα διάλιθα. προκαθίσας δὲ ἐπὶ θρόνου ὑψηλοῦ ἐκέλευσε τὸν Αἴσωπον εἰσελθεῖν (Vitae Aesopi, Vita W (vita Aesopi Westermanniana) (recensio 2).
I’m sorry, Peter. I still cannot see that the expression κατὰ τῆς κεφαλῆς ἔχειν means effectively the same thing as κομᾶν, “to let hair flow down over one’s head”. Rather, I think that BDAG is right, and that there is either an explicit or implicit object of ἔχειν κατὰ τῆς κεφαλῆς. In your first example above, I don’t have access to the whole passage in context, but it appears to be describing a bird known in my neighborhood as a “pileated woodpecker.” This long-bodied woodpecker has a bright red “cap” on its head (see the picture at http://birds.audubon.org/birds/pileated-woodpecker). The verb-phrase in question, κατὰ τῆς κεφαλῆς ὥσπερ τινὰ πῖλον ἔχει, does not show ἔχειν used absolutely but rather with an object, ὥσπερ τινὰ πῖλον, “a cap of sorts.” In the second example too the verb ἔχειν has a direct object, this time explicit. Here κατα τῆς κεφαλῆς is to be construed with περιεβάλετο (“he wore on his head”), while ἔχον, the neuter participle, agrees with διάδημα and has as its own object κέρατα διάλιθα, “horns set with precious stones.” Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — February 19th, 2014, 9:39 am
 
Peter Streitenberger wrote: Ok, thanks, Carl, please see the direct parallels, where KATA KEFALHS ECWN means that (long) hair grows from a head, an extra head covering is not mentioned at Paul. "wears (a covering) on his head" seems therefore not fitting. KATA KEFALHS ECWN is used as indicating that something comes/growes down the head. That would meet the later reference of the long hair, wich is shameful for a man.
 
Peter Streitenberger wrote: To the meaning of "something down from his head" a passage: ἐρυθρὸν αὐτῷ τὸ ῥάμφος ἐστί, καὶ κατὰ τῆς κεφαλῆς ὥσπερ τινὰ πῖλον ἔχει, ὁποίους οἱ τοξόται Πέρσαι φοροῦσιν· (Dionysius Perieg., Ixeuticon sive De aucupio (paraphrasis) (olim sub auctore Eutecnio). Here something from the head of a bird grows down. Then: αὐτὸς δὲ περιεβάλετο στολὴν ἱερὰν καὶ κίδαριν καὶ διάδημα κατὰ τῆς κεφαλῆς ἔχον κέρατα διάλιθα. προκαθίσας δὲ ἐπὶ θρόνου ὑψηλοῦ ἐκέλευσε τὸν Αἴσωπον εἰσελθεῖν (Vitae Aesopi, Vita W (vita Aesopi Westermanniana) (recensio 2).
I’m sorry, Peter. I still cannot see that the expression κατὰ τῆς κεφαλῆς ἔχειν means effectively the same thing as κομᾶν, “to let hair flow down over one’s head”. Rather, I think that BDAG is right, and that there is either an explicit or implicit object of ἔχειν κατὰ τῆς κεφαλῆς. In your first example above, I don’t have access to the whole passage in context, but it appears to be describing a bird known in my neighborhood as a “pileated woodpecker.” This long-bodied woodpecker has a bright red “cap” on its head (see the picture at http://birds.audubon.org/birds/pileated-woodpecker). The verb-phrase in question, κατὰ τῆς κεφαλῆς ὥσπερ τινὰ πῖλον ἔχει, does not show ἔχειν used absolutely but rather with an object, ὥσπερ τινὰ πῖλον, “a cap of sorts.” In the second example too the verb ἔχειν has a direct object, this time explicit. Here κατα τῆς κεφαλῆς is to be construed with περιεβάλετο (“he wore on his head”), while ἔχον, the neuter participle, agrees with διάδημα and has as its own object κέρατα διάλιθα, “horns set with precious stones.” Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — February 19th, 2014, 9:39 am
Ok, thanks, Carl, please see the direct parallels, where KATA KEFALHS ECWN means that (long) hair grows from a head, an extra head covering is not mentioned at Paul. "wears (a covering) on his head" seems therefore not fitting. KATA KEFALHS ECWN is used as indicating that something comes/growes down the head. That would meet the later reference of the long hair, wich is shameful for a man. Yours Peter Statistics: Posted by Peter Streitenberger — February 19th, 2014, 6:51 am
 
Peter Streitenberger wrote: Dear Carl, thank you ! If we equal the shamefulness with "ἀνὴρ μὲν ἐὰν κομᾷ, ἀτιμία αὐτῷ ἐστίν" (14), then that would be a general truth. And if praying and prophecying is occuring additionally that shamefulness gets especially obvious, but is not a necessary moment by itself. That means adverbial κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων alone meets the condition of bringing shame on his head (if...then). Maybe because his head is covered (by long hair let's say). To the meaning of "something down from his head" a passage: ἐρυθρὸν αὐτῷ τὸ ῥάμφος ἐστί, καὶ κατὰ τῆς κεφαλῆς ὥσπερ τινὰ πῖλον ἔχει, ὁποίους οἱ τοξόται Πέρσαι φοροῦσιν· (Dionysius Perieg., Ixeuticon sive De aucupio (paraphrasis) (olim sub auctore Eutecnio). Here something from the head of a bird grows down. Then: αὐτὸς δὲ περιεβάλετο στολὴν ἱερὰν καὶ κίδαριν καὶ διάδημα κατὰ τῆς κεφαλῆς ἔχον κέρατα διάλιθα. προκαθίσας δὲ ἐπὶ θρόνου ὑψηλοῦ ἐκέλευσε τὸν Αἴσωπον εἰσελθεῖν (Vitae Aesopi, Vita W (vita Aesopi Westermanniana) (recensio 2). Here it is probably the hair growing from the head.
I don't think we should suppose that κατὰ τῆς κεφαλῆς ἔχειν means the same thing as κομᾶν -- or that κομᾶν is an instance of κατὰ τῆς κεφαλῆς ἔχειν. Cf.BDAG, ἔχω
4. to carry/bear as accessory or part of a whole, have on, wear, of clothing, weapons, etc. (Hom. et al.; LXX; TestAbr B p. 114, 22 [Stone p. 76]) τὸ ἔνδυμα Mt 3:4; 22:12 (cp. ἔνδυσιν TestJob 25:7). κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων w. τὶ to be supplied while he wears (a covering) on his head 1 Cor 11:4. ἔ. θώρακας Rv 9:9, 17. ἔ. μάχαιραν wear a sword (Jos., Ant. 6, 190) J 18:10. Sim. of trees ἔ. φύλλα have leaves Mk 11:13 (ApcSed. 8:8).
Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — February 18th, 2014, 9:16 am
Dear Carl, thank you ! If we equal the shamefulness with "ἀνὴρ μὲν ἐὰν κομᾷ, ἀτιμία αὐτῷ ἐστίν" (14), then that would be a general truth. And if praying and prophecying is occuring additionally that shamefulness gets especially obvious, but is not a necessary moment by itself. That means adverbial κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων alone meets the condition of bringing shame on his head (if...then). Maybe because his head is covered (by long hair let's say). To the meaning of "something down from his head" a passage: ἐρυθρὸν αὐτῷ τὸ ῥάμφος ἐστί, καὶ κατὰ τῆς κεφαλῆς ὥσπερ τινὰ πῖλον ἔχει, ὁποίους οἱ τοξόται Πέρσαι φοροῦσιν· (Dionysius Perieg., Ixeuticon sive De aucupio (paraphrasis) (olim sub auctore Eutecnio). Here something from the head of a bird grows down. Then: αὐτὸς δὲ περιεβάλετο στολὴν ἱερὰν καὶ κίδαριν καὶ διάδημα κατὰ τῆς κεφαλῆς ἔχον κέρατα διάλιθα. προκαθίσας δὲ ἐπὶ θρόνου ὑψηλοῦ ἐκέλευσε τὸν Αἴσωπον εἰσελθεῖν (Vitae Aesopi, Vita W (vita Aesopi Westermanniana) (recensio 2). Here it is probably the hair growing from the head. Thank you for all further thoughts ! Peter, Germany Statistics: Posted by Peter Streitenberger — February 18th, 2014, 8:00 am
 
Peter Streitenberger wrote: Dear Friends, πᾶς ἀνὴρ προσευχόμενος ἢ προφητεύων κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων καταισχύνει τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ (1Cor 11,4) Are the first two participles adjectival or adverbial and are they necessary for the result of the verse: that means is the shame only and only if prayer and prophecy is occurring. I think the shamefulnes lies in the κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων (modifiying the main verb καταισχύνει) and praying and prophecying is not a necessary bypart that makes the idea of the main verb necessary (adjecitval). Am I right ? Thank you again !
I'll bite on this one; I think that these participles are adverbial-circumstantial here and I think that [πᾶς ἀνὴρ + participle] = [ὅστις ἂν ---ῃ]. Nor do I think that the verse is asserting that any male wearing a hat or head-covering at any time or on any occasion brings shame upon his head; rather it's specifically when he prefers either of these actions with his head covered. Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — February 18th, 2014, 7:14 am
Dear Friends, πᾶς ἀνὴρ προσευχόμενος ἢ προφητεύων κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων καταισχύνει τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ (1Cor 11,4) Are the first two participles adjectival or adverbial and are they necessary for the result of the verse: that means is the shame only and only if prayer and prophecy is occurring. I think the shamefulnes lies in the κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων (modifiying the main verb καταισχύνει) and praying and prophecying is not a necessary bypart that makes the idea of the main verb necessary (adjecitval). Am I right ? Thank you again ! Yours Peter, Germany Statistics: Posted by Peter Streitenberger — February 18th, 2014, 6:37 am

3 Comments