A good source for references is Kittel, v. III, pp. 676-678. Here is one sentence from that cite:

"The term kephalh took on a special sense in Hellenistic and Gnostic circles influenced by speculations concerning the aeon and the first man-redeemer. [A. Deiterich, Abraxis (1891) p. 195)"

The section continues, explaining the rather bizarre teachings which crept into Gnostic circles, influenced by Indian cosmogony. Makes for interesting reading.

Dave

Umm, this Greek-for-the-sake-of-Greek does not suit me. When I desire such I go to b-Greek. Moreover,

the format is too restrictive: my venue lies elsewhere.

Sorry,

2.20

Do you have an opinion about the meaning of "head" [Kephalee] as used in 1 Cor. 11: 3 and Eph. 5: 23?

At any rate, John, Kittel certainly addresses the significance of kephaln in the context of male and female, pointing out that Paul takes it back to Genesis, and stating in very stark terms the roles of man and woman. I was amazed, not having previously had the need to dig into the question at that level. I would expect that there would be a bit of a revolt in the 'PC' camp.

Dave

One of the best sources for information on the use and significance of kaphalee is found in Appendix 1 of the book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem, Crossway Books, (2006), pp. 425-468. It's about as exhaustive a study of it as I've seen anywhere.

All the articles and commentaries that claim kephalee can mean "source" depend on only two examples of kephalee in ancient literature: Herodotus 4.91 and Orphic Fragments 21a, both of which come from more than 400 years before the time of the New Testament.

Herodotus 4.91 simply shows that kephalee can refer to the "end points" of a river-- in this case, the sources of a river, but elsewhere, the mouth of a river-- and since "end point" is a commonly recognized and well-attested sense of kephalee, we don't have convincing evidence that "source" is the required sense here.

The other text, Orphic Fragments 21a, calls Zeus the "head" of all things but in a context where it is impossible to tell whether it means "first one, beginning" (an acknowledged meaning for kephalee) or "source" (a meaning not otherwise attested).

A new search of 2, 336 examples of kephalee from a wide range of ancient Greek literature produced no convincing examples where kaphalee meant "source."

On the other hand, the evidence to support the claim that kephalee can mean "authority over" is substantial, as shown by the following:

a) All the major lexicons that specialize in the New Testament period give this meaning, whereas none give the meaning "source."

b) The omission of the meaning "authority over" from the Liddell-Scott Lexicon is an oversight that should be corrected (but it should be noted that that lexicon does not specialize in the New Testament period).

c) The search of 2,336 examples turned up forty-nine texts where kephalee had the meaning "person of superior authority or rank, or 'ruler,' 'ruling part'"; therefore, this was an acceptable and understandable sense for kephalee at the time of the New Testament.

d) The meaning of "authority over" best suits many New Testament contexts.

Regards,
"John 3: 17"

Good enough . . . however, my concern would be if the authors have a particular viewpoint to present, then it wouldn't necessarily be a neutral source.



Is this your research, or can you provide a cite?



True enough, in reference to the NT applications. But have you had a chance to take a look at the Kittel cite I provided in my previous post?

Dave

I see there has been no response. Not sure of the reason for this. Generally speaking, however, I personally tend to shy away from books, etc., which seem to have an agenda or are out to attempt to prove a position. In so many cases, the evidence is interpreted, distorted or selected for the purpose of supporting the position statement, rather than the evidence as it appears being the basis of the position statement. They got it backward, what?

I apologize for not responding to this earlier. I just saw it today when checking the forums. I'll be answering fully, David, as soon as I have time, which I'm confident will be in the next day or so.

Grudem is a systematic theologian who co-edited the book I referred to above. He takes the position that the Bible is opposed to the making of women Elders or Pastors or Bishops in the church. The article on pages 425 to 468 is in part of the book's appendix. In it he is responds to criticisms of an article he had written earlier about the meaning of kaphalee. He does not pretend to be neutral on the issue. His writing is very well documented so that anyone who wants to may study the original sources for himself and make up his own mind as to the significance of the Bible evidence.





I verified the evidence that Grudem cited from A Greek-English Lexion by Liddell-Scott-Jones. It is found on page 945 of the edition published in 1958.

I did not myself personally verify the 2,336 examples of "a wide range of ancient Greek literature" which Grudem refers to. However, authors who favor women being made pastors have never disputed Grudem's conclusions about the meaning of those 2, 336 examples, except for the two examples found in Liddell-Scott-Jones' Lexicon.

In any case, I'm primarily interested in the apostle Paul's use of the word.






Thanks for referring me to that source. I don't own a set of Gerhard Kittel's Theological Dictionary, but plan on getting it as soon as I can afford it. Meantime I'll be going over to Loma Linda U library this coming Sunday and will follow-up on the very interesting information you've given.

I'll post again on this thread as soon as I've done that.

Thanks, David, for your good participation on this thread.

I'd like to see some additional ideas you have about the significance of what you found in Kittle regarding the word kaphalee.

There were Gnostic groups which had women priests, something that did not occur in either the Old or New Testaments.

We might not expect the Gnostics to take the OT much into account, however, as the Gnostics rejected the Old Testament because they did not believe it was a revelation from the true God. They believed the Old Testament God was actually evil.