Would you please clarify the translating of verse 10? Some common translations follow, that are in disagreement with the author's exegesis.
The NKJV renders verse 10, "For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
The NIV, "For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head."
KJV, "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels."
Thank you for the suggestin, Suzy. I'll get on it.
The paragraph she wrote is itself hard to follow. Topcat54 pointed out another such paragraph earlier.
I must point out that my greek is old and very, very rusty. CDL and Bib Chr have kept their greek more up-to-date than I have.
My sense was as I reread that passage that the author was simply making the point that covered or uncovered Paul was allowing the woman to pray in church. (Silent prayer or out-spoken prayer?? -- I don't know.)
All the stuff about the head covering has clearly been decided by most in our era as not applying to women today, but as being purely a cultural issue for that era. I hate to use that argument, btw, because it can be so abused when people try to apply it willy-nilly to every tough issue that arises in the New Testament. I hesitate even to use it here. Perhaps women should have their heads covered "because of angels."
The mennonite and amish women in my area here do not seem injured by the practice.
Ok, let's give it a shot. i'll first post the verse, and then give as Literal a rendering as i am capable of doing...it will not resemble an accurate translation.
10) dia; tou'to ojfeivlei hJ gunh'ejxousivan ecein ejpi; th'" kefalh'" dia; tou;" ajggevlou".
i don't know if you can read the Greek font i'm using, or it's coming out as gibberish, if you can't read it, go to here and download the fonts.
LITERAL RENDERING OF WORDS:
On account of this [she] is obligated the woman authourity to have upon the head [her head] on account of the angels.
Doesn't make much sense, does it? Ok, let's run it down:
The phrase On account of this dia; tou'to is a preposition and a pronoun that have as the anticedent something previous to the verse, probably the order of creation given in verse nine.
...the woman ought...ojfeivlei hJ gunh; Woman is the subject of the clause. It is definite as is demonstrated by the definite article hJ The main verb, ofeivlei is the third person singular form of ofeivlw, which is defined as to owe, to be indebted...to be bound or obligated. When combined with the infinitive e[cein, renders the Present indicative verb as having more of a potential mood (subjunctive). It is fairly common. The Translations you listed below, namely ought captures the force of the verb quite nicely. his structure, called the Potential indicative is fairly common in the NT.
The infinitive e[cein is a common infinitive, and literally translates as "to have". As you may know, and infinitive is a verbal noun. Just like a noun it can be used as any noun can, subject, object, ect.
Just like a verb, it can have a subject and object of it's own, and it defines some kind of action. Here in this structure, the infinitive functions as the object. So far our translation reads, On account of this, the woman ought to have...
. As mentioned above, the infinitive can take an object of it's own, and indeed, this is the case. The word exousivan is the accusative case of the word that we commonly translate 'authority'. Power is usually translated with dunamos, from which we get the English words dynamic, dynamite. Our Translation:
On account of this, the woman ought to have authority...
The prepositional phrase , literally translates 'upon the head', and modifies the word authority. Most tranlations, in concern for whose head, have rendered the clause 'upon her head'.
On account of this the woman ought to have authority upon her head
The last clause, also a prepositional phrase, dia; tou;" ajggevlou" literally translates as "on account of the angels". The word sign or symbol is not in the Greek text, and is supplied by the translators for clarity. Head covering is not literally authority.
Of the translations given, i have to go with the KJV as the most faithful to the text, and the best compromise between literal rendering and readability on this particular verse.
i also agree that the syntax of the passage does not allow the author of the commentary to make such a hash of the usage of the word authority. One simply cannot change the rules of a language to attempt to make a doctrinal point. Were that the case, why even have bibles? Let's just make it all up as we go. < /sarcasm>