<< Charles, exactly, it does seem strange. So, instead of taking ECEIN
EXOUSIAN in an otherwise unattested sense, I follow Padgett in argiuing
that the Corinthians have built an argument based on Paul's teaching in
v. 2 that is not valid. Paul seeks from at least v. 10 -16 to say that
women and men are equal in the assemlby, that thee' sno logic to being
covered NOR does nature teach it is a shame for a man to have long hair
and the churches
teach no such thing as a veiling requirement.
>>
Let's see if I understand you here. are you aaying that 1 Cor 11:2-9 is the
Corinthian's argument and Paul is merly citing it? If so, it seems it would
be hard to defend from the way Paul opens the discussion with QELW DE UMAS
EIDENAI hOTI. This introductory phrase seems to introduce Paul's argument
which extends to v. 9, not the Corinthian's argument.
Charles Powell
DTS