From: Steven R. Lo Vullo (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Sep 06 2001 - 18:02:39 EDT
on 9/6/01 9:12 AM, George Athas at email@example.com wrote:
> I understand your point about the hair being given as a covering. However, I'm
> not sure the "by nature" argument precludes the idea of "hair-do" since it
> would imply that the hair must be "unstyled" or "unbrushed" and I don't think
> that is an aspect of Paul's argument.
The point was that "hair" (KOMH) was "given" (DEDOTAI) her "for a covering"
(ANTI PERIBOLAIOU). This no more necessarily precludes styling or brushing
the hair than women having been given ears for hearing necessarily precludes
them from wearing an earring! It's not entirely clear to me why, if my point
is valid, that would be a necessary (or even logical) inference to draw.
As always, glad to hear from you.
Steve Lo Vullo
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [firstname.lastname@example.org]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:06 EDT