Suzanne McCarthy has responded to CBE and CBMW blog exchanges on the meaning of Greek kephale:
CBE posted on kephale. After a long series of comments including a little nonsense, Gender blog responded. And this is my response to Gender Blog. I posted the following in two comments on cbe’s blog.Open letter to David Kotter of the Gender Blog,
Suzanne presents evidence from her knowledge of Classical Greek. She concludes:
The evidence is overwhelming against the notion that kephale means authority. It is used in reference to Zeus as the beginning, it is used to refer to a small and mobile raiding partly in the army, not the general, it is used to describe the first person in a clan, the progenitor, not the ruler. It is used in many other ways and I have no intention of recreating the various studies. Many people propose it is the source, or the visible or prominent representative. That is also possible. Kephale is not typically used to refer to the person at the top of an organization, as caput was in Latin.I see no decisive evidence that kephale must mean authority, and much against it.
I would appreciate the Gender Blog admitting that there is a variety of possible interpretations available. There is no need for the remark that those who have experienced a solid education in the Greek language are guilty of “wooden” interpretations, while those who have little education in classical Greek as a language are not. Such unfounded comments are surely counter-productive.
What “overwhelming evidence” is there for ‘kephale’(head) to not imply some sort of authority.
I have found the evidence to be overwhelmingly in favour of ‘kephale’ meaning/implying some sort of authority.
I refer you to the third instalment of the “The True meaning of Headship” on the Gender Blog.
So much for the reference/entry in “Liddell-Scott”.
You cannot possibly imagine that the gender blog is publishing accurate information.
Look at kephale, entry number #2. This is an example Grudem gives,
the king of Egypt is called “head” of the nation
But this is what he is quoting, presumably,
and, in a word, the whole family of the Ptolemies was exceedingly eminent and conspicuous above all other royal families, and among the Ptolemies, Philadelphus was the most illustrious; for all the rest put together scarcely did as many glorious and praiseworthy actions as this one king did by himself, being, as it were, the leader of the herd, and in a manner the head of all the kings. Philo Moses 2:30
Examine this closely and look at the relationship described. Philadelphus is the most illustrious of the kings. He is not the ruler of the nation. He is conspicuous and famous, not an authority. Authority is not part of the discussion in Greek. When it says “leader of the herd” remember that the text is saying that he is the leader in glorious deeds in relation to other kings past and future, in his family, not that he is the authority which other kings obey.
………..
Look at kephale, post #1,
Cephalus (Head) is supposedly a “religious authority” but in fact, Cephalus was a real person – that was his real name, and it was a common enough personal name in Greek. He was a retired arms manufacturer and an old man. He may have represented piety in the dialogue. He is most emphatically not a “religious authority” of any kind whatsoever.
I had a prolonged email conversation with the author of that post, and we do not disagree on this. He simply chooses to use the term “religious authority” for what I call “piety.” A pious old arms dealer. What does that prove?
…………………..
Now for the post you mention. Do you have a copy of Ev. Fem & Bib. Truth. Then go to page 590 and read the footnote. “Source” is included in the Greek lexicons in other languages. Authority is not included either in the LSJ or in other language lexicons of Greek for kephale. Grudem may have persuaded Glare but English is not the only language that has Greek lexicons.
In this post Grudem quotes Glare as saying,
kephalē is the word normally used to translate the Hebrew r’osh, and this does seem frequently to denote leader or chief without much reference to its original anatomical sense, and here it seems perverse to deny authority” (italics added).
Actually kephale is not the Greek word normally used to translate the Hebrew r’osh when it means authority, archon is, and other words.
In RBMW Grudem acknowledges this by saying,
In fact, the most common word for ruler, the one that literally meant ruler, was archon. It is not at all surprising that in contexts where the Hebrew word for head meant ruler, it was frequently translated by archon. All I have claimed is that kephale could also mean ruler or authority in a metaphorical sense of head.
In fact, in the LXX, r’osh was translated as kephale only 8 (or 9) times when it meant leader, out of a possible 180 times. So this makes one wonder whether Glare is proficient in Septuagint studies.
The fact that 8 or 9 times r’osh was translated as kephale is not surprising when we consider that sometimes the translation is quite literal or concrete.
I am sure that I have pointed out before that far from being the general in the army, kephale was a unit, the right hand phalanx, and in Job 1:17, the raiding party.
As I said before the overwhelming evidence is against kephale standing for authority. I am not saying that it never did, but for the most part, no, it did not. I think the Ptolemy example was Grudem’s best example and it turns out not to be about authority at all.
I have never heard anyone suggest that Glare is familiar with Hebrew. This letter that Grudem quotes is quite odd.
I always appreciate hearing Suzanne’s voice. Thanks for the work you do, Suzanne.
You cannot possibly imagine that I would think that your comment is an accurate interpretation of the available information.
You say ‘presumably’, well is it or not?
In the area of Greek I think that Glare can claim to have a better understanding of the language than your goodself, which is the main point concerning his statements regarding the use of ‘kephale’.
But of course I realise that all of this will make no difference at all to anything.
Glenn, I’ve seen your website, and its content indicates, among other things, your non-expertise in Greek. You can no more judge Suzanne’s knowledge of Greek than you can judge the motives of anyone but yourself, even though you think you can. You rant about this blog and its participants, complaining about personal attacks even though you have been the worst offender in that area.
And here you are again, blasting the person (Suzanne) instead of the argument. Fair enough, but if you expect to dish it out, you’d better work on your ability to take it.
And remember that such attacks are not tolerated here. If you want to rage, do it in your own blog. Only come here if you intend to deal with actual arguments instead of merely asserting your very biased opinions.
Only come here if you intend to deal with actual arguments instead of merely asserting your very biased opinions.
Paula, have you been made moderator?
And remember that such attacks…
There is more I could say, but this blog has an owner and moderator; I do not wish to step into a place where I am doing that job unasked. However, if Paula is making the statements that a moderator would make, Wayne, could there be a public statement that she has the authority to tell people not to come here? Thanks.
We are all biased here. That is why there are two sides to the discussion. But it is once again clear that it is becoming an unsafe place.
I was just going to say that in Suzanne’s original post she said that it would be nice (or something to that effect) if the Gender Blog would at least admit that there are other possible meanings (I think it would be nice if the egal side did as well)…and then quotes Grudem in her comment saying exactly that!
At any rate, Glen, if what you are trying to say is that we’re down to a battle of the lexicons, say that. I know that Suzanne has studied more Greek than many lay people. There is no reason to attack her knowledge (just her interpretation). Since it was suggested that each side monitor their own, I’m asking you to not question the training, intelligence or knowledge of Suzanne (or any other).
Paula, have you been made moderator?
Have you? Are you Wayne’s personal adviser?
However, if Paula is making the statements that a moderator would make, Wayne, could there be a…
See my response to your other personal rant for how you keep Wayne’s blog rules.
Can’t I remind people of blog rules without being accused of pretending I’m a moderator? What is it called when you do it?
We are all biased here. That is why there are two sides to the discussion. But it is once again clear that it is becoming an unsafe place.
I totally agree. I can’t open my mouth without you, gleensp, or anonymous attacking me personally or whining to Wayne about me. It is indeed unsafe here for me. Should I talk about hurt feelings and being made to feel unwelcome by comps, as you have about egals? Should people try to soothe my wounded ego if I say I don’t feel safe here anymore, as you have said?
You have a double standard for posting here, ellen. Your side is allowed to make personal attacks but not my side. That’s a source of contention.
What will it be, comps? Discussion of ideas or personal rage? Will you all say why someone’s argument is wrong or just tell them why they shouldn’t be allowed to say it?
There are two sides to every story, and so far it seems that you, ellen, are unwilling to hear mine. I’ve taken a lot of blame and accusation from you and haven’t tried to get Wayne to make you stop. I stayed away for a while, only coming back recently, and by some miracle there you were also, even though you say you’ve been busy and sick. If those are reasons you can’t post, then can I praise God that you appear to be well now?
It’s commendable that you have now tried to get one of your own to back down, but if you want this blog to be a safe place for both sides, you’ve got to stop this continual fixation on me. I’m not important; it’s the arguments that matter.
I only get personal when I’m first attacked personally. I won’t need to keep doing this if you stop attacking. Deal with arguments and not people; I shouldn’t have to keep saying that. But it will never be a safe place here for either side if you don’t do that.
Wow…a request to not use accusatory words is seen as a personal attack.
Wayne, this is why this is not a safe place for me (words like heresy, blasphemy and imaturity are used and any request to stop is perceived as a personal attack)
I feel no anger, only sadness at the words used (blasphemers will not enter into the kingdom of heaven).
I believe that on this issue the egal side is wrong, but heresy? No. Blasphemy? No. Immature? I know too many very mature egalitarians to think so.
Paula, you use authoritative words (DO NOT). I have done my best to use words that request.
I cannot post here…Paula you have won this part…and in doing so have convinced me that there is something about refusing authority structures that is basically harmful to human interaction.
if any would like email me, or if there is a place that IS truly safe, please let me know ( ellen (at) mzellen.com )
Dear Ellen and Paula,
I have appreciated both of your perspectives. I have learned from both of you. If I understand correctly, the purpose of this blog is not so much about agreement as it is about making peace. “Blessed are the peacemakers”
Neither of you will have any high ground unless you can reach peace between you. (which is not the same thing as agreeing on all the issues). Withdrawal from conflict does not resolve it. I’m not suggesting that you hash it out here in public… I am suggesting that the biblical course of action is:
“Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.” Matthew 5:23-24
Wow…a request to not use accusatory words is seen as a personal attack.
Ellen, that is a definition of personal attack, to accuse.
Paula, you use authoritative words (DO NOT).
DO NOT is an order; they are authoritative words.
I cannot post here…Paula you have won this part…and in doing so have convinced me that there is something about refusing authority structures that is basically harmful to human interaction.
I cannot post here either. I was not aware this was a contest to be won; I only defended myself when attacked. But Satan surely won, in making sure the egal voice is not heard in a very comp world.
This was never about “refusing authority structures” but about whether there are any such structures between men and women. We were here to try and explain our views on that. I tried.
Clay,
I have nothing against anyone here personally. But apparently others do have something against me. If I try to be impersonal and stick to logical fallacies, I’m told it’s personal. If I disagree with comp teachings I’m told it’s having a problem with authority. If I defend myself when attacked I’m told I’m to blame for the contention in this blog. I could fill a book with what I’m supposed to have done wrong.
I’ve tried to make peace with ellen, tried to stay away, tried to be impersonal. I don’t know what else to try, because it always is taken wrong. It’s been made very clear that my contributions here are the cause of all the contention. If this is the view of the majority, I’ll be happy to stay away.
Explanatory note:
———————–
Paula, you use authoritative words (DO NOT).
DO NOT is an order; they are authoritative words.
———————–
My response was understanding the words in CAPS as her order to me, so that she too was being “authoritative”.
But it could possibly be a case of trying to convey a quote. If so, then the problem is that she herself has given many orders, such as “do not call it heresy”. If she can give orders without being a moderator or having authority, then so can others.
Just thought I should try to clear that up.
Glenn
You say ‘presumably’, well is it or not?
I don’t think would be very fair to try to get Suzanne to give a definitive answer to that question – she has already done more than can be expected of her in finding the probable source herself, without being expected to guarantee that she has definitely found the right one. If you really want to know, the best thing to do would be to get in touch with Dr. Grudem and ask him. It is usual practice to attribute sources when quoting or refering to others works.
In the area of Greek I think that Glare can claim to have a better understanding of the language than your goodself…
What are you basing this belief on?
I have read a lot of what Suzanne has written, and I have yet to find anything that is linguistically inaccurate.
Paula (and Ellen),
Personally, I would prefer if both of you can stay. I think you both add a great deal of food for thought….
(and maybe e-mail communicate back and forth with each other to hash out the hurt feelings and misunderstandings. You are both precious sisters in Christ. HE loves you both. HIS will is “that they may be one as we are one” John 17:11)
I don’t have time to read all the comments but let me respond to two matters of substance. First,
Glenn,
You say ‘presumably’, well is it or not
I’ll double check tonight.
Second,
Ellen, I think you are dead on with this. If the Gender Blog is admits that there are other possible meanings, and I say IF, then isn’t that my objective.
If both “man is origin of woman” and “man is the authority over woman” are on an equal footing, then we can turn to non ambiguous scriptures to decide how to interpret this.
I think the evidence leans in one direction and Grudem in another.
Wayne is absent. Please let’s just say for now – “both interpretations are possible.” Which does God want for his children?
And I value all the commenters here.
Ellen,
You write,
I cannot post here…Paula you have won this part…and in doing so have convinced me that there is something about refusing authority structures that is basically harmful to human interaction.
But you must realise, Ellen, that it was comments by complememntarians which caused me to take my name off the blog, stop commenting for a few days, and even delete my comments. I was in considerable personal distress by comments made here. I am physically afraid of meeting some people in real life.
I have suffered much at the words of complementarians. In fact, many people who comment here are victims of violence, or related to those who are victims of violence. That is why this is so touchy.
Anyway, Glenn has his little blog where he tried to say not nice things about me, but he paid me the supreme compliment of saying he thought that my quotes were usually reliable.
Thanks, Glenn, I have always appreciated that. But I could be wrong this time about Grudem and the king of Egypt. He does refer to his other studies which I have read in part so I will check tonight and see if I have quoted Grudem correctly on the king of Egypt. Okay?
I think I got the citation on Egypt from one of his other books, but I did not cite my source for that, so I am guilty.
Paula I would just point out that what you accuse me of is wrong.
What I have complained about here are the comments left by the ‘egal’ side of things which at times have been derogatory, accusatory and pointedly personal. (ask Ellen, Wayne and others)
In regard to my most recent comment I merely copied the ‘tone’ of Suzanne’s comment. So if I am in the wrong, then by your standard so is Suzanne.
I refer you to Suzanne’s opening sentence which clearly implies that the Gender Blog lies as a matter of course. This passes without comment and yet I am pilloried for copying it.
Says it all really.
I found it.
Here is Grudem’s citation from an Open Letter to Egalitarians (revised 2003) on the CBMW website.
The King of Egypt is called “head” of the nation in Philo, Moses 2.30, “As the head is the ruling place in the living body, so Ptolemy became among kings.”
The problem here is that Grudem translates “as the head is the ruling place” but Grudem does not supply the Greek for this, he simply gives hiw own translation. We can see that this quote found when translated by someone else, which I gave above, does not contain the phrase, “the ruling place.”
Somehow this does not add up , and Grudem does not supply the Greek citation from Philo. Quite frankly all of Grudem’s evidence is like this and I believe that scholars do not find his work worth critiquing. In fact, I have been told that.
Here is a quote from an email which I received yesterday in response to my posts on this topic on my own blog,
Nice piece …. He can be taken to pieces, piece by piece, but who wants to spend years responding to his 800 page book.
This was from a respected well known theologian but I have not asked permission so I can’t cite his name.
Glenn,
I am with you to a certain extent. When it comes to the material, to being academic, we need to be hard hitting, and you can ask me to verify a citation any time you want.
You keep me honest.
On a personal note, we need to be kind to each other. We need to understand that this affects every minute of every day for some people and is a question of power, either having it or being under other people’s power.
But I am SO glad you DO spend the time to do it, Suzanne. I was completely completely completely fooled by the “Greek talk” when I first read the Handbook, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. I thought the egal’s didn’t have a leg to stand on, were just having to make up their silly kephale explanations out of thin air.
It’s people like you who benefit people like me, who can’t read Greek and therefore aren’t able to know there are *other* LEGITIMATE SCHOLARLY opinions about kephale (and other similar words/issues/passages). I am so grateful for people like you, who give of your time and energy to study and then to and spread the word. Without you and those like you, we would all be under the yoke of Grudem, simply for lack of knowledge.
This is not to say that Grudem *is* wrong (since I, personally, don’t have the chops to judge that—I can’t read Greek), or to slam on any comps who believe Grudem. It’s just to say that I appreciate having more than one scholarly voice in the mix. As a person beholden to the scholars, I want to hear all my options and the critiques of the respective positions so that I can make the best informed decisions possible.
Suzanne
I would like to add my thanks to those of Molly for all the work you put in, especially for taking the time to check sources, quote the actual Greek texts, etc. This is invaluable to me.
You cannot possibly imagine that the gender blog is publishing accurate information.
I am going to openly apologize for this statement (No one is prompting me on this, BTW) I do not feel it is in the spirit of this blog.
I would appreciate any suggestions about how I should handle what I see as the enormous discrepancies in publications regarding Greek citations.
I am really at a loss and feeling very discouraged about the whole thing.
‘I cannot post here…Paula you have won this part…and in doing so have convinced me that there is something about refusing authority structures that is basically harmful to human interaction.’
My experience has been the total opposite. Submitting to authority in my former church ruined my life emotionally and financially. Now, I will only ever trust Jesus Christ completely. He will never fail me, use me or mistreat me or lie to me.
I would appreciate any suggestions about how I should handle what I see as the enormous discrepancies in publications regarding Greek citations.
That’s a real problem. As long as there are scholars on both sides there will be people who line up behind them. Yet we’ve seen from your experiences with Grudem that all one really needs is not scholarship but influence. Good marketing wins over quality products. (I refer to Grudem’s flawed arguments, not all comps.)
If I may speak for egal. in general, we have always had an uphill battle before us. The world has always promoted male supremacy until recent years in the west, and now even the west is turning back to it. The churches, of all places, should be havens of unity and equality, but now have turned to male preeminence.
As long as comp. has the seminaries, the radio stations, and the force of momentum, the imbalance will continue. The counterbalance will only appear if we keep speaking out. If it’s true that people will believe a lie if it’s repeated often enough, then surely the repetition of truth will be accepted, but only if we are persistent.
Christianity had enormous odds against it, but it spread one person at a time. If we keep this issue in the public eye, and each one of us keeps working, eventually key people will finally see the discrepancies and change will come.
I truly believe the end of human history is near and that this may not matter. But God will not judge us on what we accomplish, but what we tried and why.
Press on.
Anon,
We have a point of total agreement there. Egals see human authority as flawed and dangerous, but more importantly, as unnecessary since Jesus rose. When we all strive for the betterment and support of others instead of our own positions, authority just isn’t in the picture any more, because it is replaced by love.
If Christians truly love according to 1 Cor. 13, we have no need of hierarchy among us. That’s all egals are saying, and what we understand the Bible to be saying.
Not all egals believe as I do that there is no difference between hierarchy in gender roles and hierarchy in the church. Many egals are striving for women to be ordained formally just like men, but personally I don’t think even men should be formally ordained, because I don’t see it in the NT. I believe, as you do, that this “churchianity” is the seedbed of class distinction and schism in the Body of Christ. (I have an online booklet about that at This Link.)
I really think that if we all read 1 Cor. 13 with questions of hierarchy in mind, we’ll all wonder what we were fighting about. And the church will return to being the organism, not the organization, that it was meant to be.
Now I don’t know what to think. On Jan. 16, 2008, Gender Bog published a post by Grudem with this inclusion,
the king of Egypt is called “head” of the nation
But when I continued to research this, I found that Grudem had already discussed this quote in the Appendix 1A to RBMW,
These are Grudem’s words,
19) Philo, Moses 2.30: “As the head is the ruling place in the living body, so Ptolemy [Ptolemy Philadelphos] became among kings.”
Cervin does not think that head means ruler here because Philo says that Philadelphos is the head of kings, not in the sense of ruling them, but as the preeminent king among the rest. Philadelphos is the top of the kings just as the head is the top of an animal’s body. . . . This example is therefore to be rejected (p. 100).
Actually, another translator thought that this quote meant, “as the leader of the herd” that is, the sense is to be a “leader” in the way one can be the leader of the class, as in “ahead” of the others. This is in the quote in one of my earlier comments.
It has nothing to do with authority. Grudem agreed that it should be rejected, but why did he then use it a few days ago on the gender blog.
I am beginning to feel really weird about this. Why would CBMW do these things? Why so unconnected and lacking in fidelity to what has already been published?
I would really appreciate it if someone else would email gender blog and ask about this quote from Jan. 16, 2008. Presumably, someone must care if CBMW is publishing factual material.
I didn’t realize that Grudem goes on to discuss this example in the first paragraph of appendix 1 B.
He states his disagreement with Cervin explaining that “preeminent” was not a definition in the LSJ. However, the LSJ lists some synonyms for preeminent in the entry for kephale. Unfortunately I don’t have access to an electronic LSj at the moment.
Grudem makes no attempt to explain how Philadelphus has “authority over” the other kings in his family.
I stand by my original assertion that the information published on gender blog is misleading.
I deeply regret that the studies by Cervin and others to refute Grudem are not better known. I believe this is what Michael Kruse has put considerable effort into.
Here is his series index. Scroll down the page for his entries on Head.
Here is his synopsis post. This accords well with the reading that I have done in the last few weeks.
Paula said,
“We have a point of total agreement there. Egals see human authority as flawed and dangerous, but more importantly, as unnecessary since Jesus rose. When we all strive for the betterment and support of others instead of our own positions, authority just isn’t in the picture any more, because it is replaced by love.”
I wanted to comment on this (though I usually agree with Paula) and clarify something (and maybe it’s just semantics, so help me if I’m wrong here, Paula, and misunderstanding you).
I am not sure that egals, as a whole, see authority as flawed and dangerous.
I don’t.
I see authority as a good thing, as somethnig supported by Scripture.
And I see submission to authority as a good thing, also something supported by Scripture.
Where I think we differ from comps is more on the idea that *males* have authority by right of their maleness, and females are to submit to it by right of their femaleness.
I think we disagree with comps on THAT point. On whether or not authority is a good or bad thing, I think we possibly ALL differ on all the different distinctives and nuances of such a statement/concept.
Many comps are opposed to papal authority. In denying papal authority, comps aren’t anti-authority, they are just opposed to that SORT of authority being said to be “of God.”
Pro-papal-authority folks say that the Scriptures support their position and that all comps should submit to it. But anti-papal-authority folks say that they see something altogether different in Scripute, and respectfully refuse to submit to an authority that they don’t see Scripture supporting.
In the same way, Egals are opposed to male-authority being said to be “of God.” They’ve heard the “Scriptural arguments” for male-rule, but when they read the Scripture, they don’t see it supporting male rule at all.
That doesn’t mean, however, that they are opposed to the concept of authority in general. They are just opposed to that particular sort being said to be “of God.”
Suzanne
Thanks for your latest two posts. I’ve been wading my way through those two appendices. Do you know why there is a break between A and B, mid-point? It makes it very confusing…
After reading several times, I now understand that Grudem did not in fact agree that the example should be rejected… but if you read on to appendix 1B, his reasoning would not appear to be flawless. Am I understanding correctly, here?
adventuresinmercy,
I should have been more precise. In another thread I said something about not all egals agreeing with my personal view that there is no difference between clergy/laity distinctions and male/female when it comes to authority, but I didn’t refer to that here, so I need to clarify here.
What I had in mind was specifically the kind of authority that puts a human between God and another human. That’s what I’ve been calling idolatry/blasphemy. I’m not saying there are no elders in the church, or leaders in the home, but only the standard egal view that such elders and leaders are not chosen by genetics nor necessarily in a permanent and involuntary situation.
Certainly egals agree on the need for civic authority and the clear Biblical injunctions for believers to submit to them as far as it does not violate our faith. And certainly we agree on the need for the less spiritually mature to submit to the teachings of the more mature, and each spouse to submit to the other. But the word “authority” typically carries the connotation of “rule over”, which is not the Biblical definition at all. We do “submit” to authority, but we do not “blindly obey” authority.
Hope I didn’t make it even more confusing!
I’ll do this in segments.
Here is part of the following argument from Appendix 1B,
While Cervin’s explanation at first seems plausible, it does not do justice to the actual words Philo uses. In fact Philo calls the head to hegemoneuon . . . tropon, the ruling place in the body-a phrase that Cervin simply skips over and fails to translate in his own rendering of the passage (p. 100). But the adjectival participle hegemoneuon here certainly has the sense of leading or ruling, since the verb hegemoneuo means lead the way, rule, command (Liddell-Scott, p. 762).
Now Grudem is showing the Greek “hegemoneuon . . . tropon” I don’t have a copy of the Greek but this is what was translated as ” the leader of the herd,” in the copy that I found on the internet.
So, Grudem is probably providing his own interpretation, influenced by his desire to show that the head is the ruling palce in the body. The translator I quoted does not see the signifiance of this text in gender politics. I will try to get a copy of the Greek.
In any case, we know the word hegeomai is used. Hegeomai means “lead the way, precede, go before, be an antecedent” It has as its second meaning “command, rule.”
So, right off, it could mean either “go before,” ” lead” or “rule.”
However, if you look back to the citation in my comment #2 Philadelphus is explicitly called the “most illustrious” among the Ptolemies, not the ruler of the other kings in his family.
——-
Next, Grudem goes on to say,
On the other hand, Cervin says that his suggestion that head here is used as a metaphor of preeminence is fully in keeping with the use of kephale as defined in [Liddell-Scott] (p. 99). However, one searches in vain for such a definition in Liddell-Scott-it simply is not there.
There are two issues here. First, Grudem’s favoured meaning of “authority” for kephale is also not in the Liddell Scott lexicon. So why does he have difficulty with “preeminence.”
However, what is in the LSJ is “as the noblest part” The word “noblest” is defined as “Possessing eminence, elevation, dignity” so I believe that the meaning preeminence is in the LSJ. One can simply say that Philadelphus as the “noblest” of the family of Ptolemies.
——-
What concerns me the most is the significant discrepancy between the way Grudem presents this information on the Gender Blog and the way it occurs in the text.
On Gender Blog, Jan. 19, 2008, he writes,
the king of Egypt is called “head” of the nation
but in reality, the text says,
Philadelphus, the head of all the kings, the most illustrious among the Ptolemies
I think that gender blog should be asked to post a correction. It is misleading the non-Greek reading public.
Thank you, Suzanne.
I think that gender blog should be asked to post a correction. It is misleading the non-Greek reading public.
This is certainly the impression I have come away with, with my limited and fairly rusty Greek-reading skills.