CHAPTER 3:
BUT WHAT DO THE OTHER LITERAL BIBLE TRANSLATIONS SAY?
POCKETSERMONS.org
By Rick Cutter (contact)
As stated, although at the time I lived in the 1980’s—and several accurate, literal, language-updated versions existed—the tradition of my family/church was to keep using the 1769 version of the KJV Bible “till death do us part.” And back then I rarely read any other translation. All my reading and memorization was from the KJV, and I even had relatives who prayed in the Shakespearean English of the 1600’s. We felt (and some still do) that the KJV was an unsurpassed work (and it is indeed excellent), even though it was derived from a reconstructed Greek text that had not a single manuscript available for consultation dating earlier that the 8th or 9th centuries AD, and portions of the Book of Revelation had to be translated from the Latin Vulgate (no Greek manuscripts were available). This may sound alarming, but in the KJV’s defense, those manuscripts proved to be, though not perfect, outstanding, evidenced by comparisons to modern-day reconstructed texts based on the earliest reliable Greek manuscripts. But in my neat, “black and white,” righteously tidy world I did not know any of that. But I did know that everything, from translations to doctrines and practices, needed to be tested (1 Thessalonians 5:21).
So, over time—just as my knowledge of the Bible gradually grew—so also did my respect for the knowledge, integrity, and accuracy of our literal English Bible translators. And part of this process was triggered when my dear and now-deceased grandmother found a bargain on a used RSV Bible at a low-income swap meet and purchased it for my birthday (RSV stands for “Revised Standard Version,” the forerunner of the English Standard Version). So, I started reading my “new” RSV Bible predominantly, instead of my KJV. And I loved it! My understanding of the Bible flourished in ways I never could’ve imagined, and I would highly recommend that you consider purchasing a literal Bible translation that translates the Bible into the English that we actually speak today—versus how they spoke in 1769, or worse, 1611 (if you read the Preface of the original 1611 KJV you will probably see what I mean!).
So, armed with my preowned RSV Bible, you can probably guess what eventually happened: One day I found myself staring at 1 Corinthians 11, verses 14 & 15. And before revealing to you the startling information I was about to discover, please recall again how my King James Version Bible (my previous favorite Bible) had rendered these two verses:
1 Corinthians 11:14-15 KJV
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair (koma), it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair (koma), it is a glory to her: for her hair is given to her for a covering.
And—as mentioned—I originally thought that the KJV translators had “gotten it wrong” by translating koma as “have long hair” instead of “have continuously growing hair” (per Thayer’s lexicon), or, more simply, “have uncut hair.”
So, here I was, staring at my newly favorite RSV Bible. Would the RSV Bible translation scholars make the same mistake? I was about to find out…
1 Corinthians 11:14-15 RSV
Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair (koma) is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair (koma), it is her pride? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
I was astonished! Was the RSV also “wrong?” Apparently, the committee scholars of the RSV—just like the renowned KJV translation authorities—couldn’t manage to accurately translate a simple word like “koma” from Greek to English. Apparently they too had failed to consult Thayer’s definition for komao, which meant (or so I had thought), “to let the hair grow.” Was this a conspiracy? Or—did the RSV translators simply fail to do their homework, and lazily copy the “long hair” part from the KJV into their own translation?
Well, whatever the case was, my Uncut Hair position was now bugging me more than ever. But it didn’t take my mentally limited mind long to figure out what the next step should be:
I needed to fact-check all the other translations to see if they too had “blundered.”
Just to be clear, I felt that my church leaders certainly knew more about how to accurately translate the word koma than the real scholars themselves; in fact, I was told by a well-known, highly respected preacher that our church leaders knew more—that’s right—more than the actual scholars did about the meaning of komao/koma. Despite his and his peers’ almost total lack of knowledge of Koine Greek, he felt that he and the rest of our preachers had poured over the word koma so long that they apparently knew it better than anyone else—including the highly esteemed KJV translators, and other authorities as well, across the centuries. Regardless of my convictions, I found this claim highly improbable and in need of a heavy dose of the “521” treatment.
Although I certainly wasn’t ready to abandon my long-held Uncut Hair doctrine, it was definitely time to do some homework. Not the least of which was to find out what all the other reputable, literally-minded translations would say.
And what I was about to discover would shake the very foundation of my long-held and dearly cherished belief system.
How The Literal Greek Translations Rendered 1 Corinthians 11:14-15
HERE’S HOW THE MOST LITERAL TRANSLATIONS RENDERED 1 CORINTHIANS 11:14-15:
1 Corinthians 11:14-15 KJV
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair (koma), it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair (koma), it is a glory to her: for her hair is given to her for a covering.
1 Corinthians 11:14-15 NKJV
Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair (koma), it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair (koma), it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.
1 Corinthians 11:14-15 ESV
Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair (koma), it is a disgrace to him, but if a woman has long hair (koma), it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
1 Corinthians 11:14-15 NASB
Does even nature itself not teach you that if a man has long hair (koma), it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair (koma), it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her as a covering.
1 Corinthians 11:14-15 RSV
Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair (koma) is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair (koma), it is her pride? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
1 Corinthians 11:14-15 ASV
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man has long hair (koma), it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair (koma), it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
1 Corinthians 11:14-15 CSB (short for “Christian Standard Bible,” this version came along years later)
Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair (koma), it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair (koma), it is her glory? For her hair is given to her as a covering.
1 Corinthians 11:14-15 NIV
Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair (koma), it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair (koma), it is her glory? For long hair is given to her for a covering.
(Although the NIV is a “dynamic equivalent” translation, I thought I’d throw it in so you could see it also, since some in our churches use it too.)
So, to summarize, here’s how koma (in 1 Cor 11:14-15) was translated by the KJV, NKJV, ESV, RSV, NASB, ASV, CSB, and NIV:
KJV: have long hair / have long hair
NKJV: has long hair / has long hair
ESV: has long hair / has long hair
RSV: wear long hair / has long hair
NASB: has long hair / has long hair
ASV: have long hair / have long hair
CSB: has long hair / has long hair
NIV: has long hair / has long hair
To put it simply, I was astounded. Remember, I wasn’t used to my church’s doctrines not “fact-checking out.” I was used to being confident in my own righteousness about salvation, baptism, faith and works of obedience, the afterlife, etc.—and the Hair Question too. And, on all these doctrines I could confidently use “book, chapter, and verse” to prove my case on any of them—except the Uncut Hair doctrine. On that one, the scholars simply weren’t lining up with my beliefs.
And, yes, perhaps it was excusable that the KJV translation committee scholars could’ve overlooked something. Or even the KJV and RSV scholars together could’ve overlooked the same thing.
But when I discovered that every literally-minded translation that we used in the church also agreed with the “long hair” translation—to me, lightning was striking too many times in the same place. This was beyond coincidental. The 521 Rule (again, that’s the one that teaches us to “test everything” and “hold on to the good“) was throwing up red warning flags, and sirens were going off in my head that something wasn’t adding up here. Could it be that the church I grew up in, though right about so many things, was mistaken about the Uncut Hair doctrine? And since we expected people of other churches to change when they observed that the Bible wasn’t totally matching their beliefs, then why wouldn’t the same be required of us?
After all, a “literal” translation is required to translate literally—meaning that it should say exactly what God meant. Therefore, by translating koma as “has long hair”—this would exclude the possibility that it meant “has uncut hair” or “has growing hair” or “let’s hair grow” or “has long and growing hair” or any other kind of hair, except “long hair.” I was faced with the glaring realization that—not most—but all of these literally-minded translation committees agreed that “has long hair” was the literally accurate translation of koma.
For probably the first time in my life, I was coming to the unsettling realization that the “long hair” concept was agreed upon by every single reputable, literally-minded translation committee across the English-speaking world (whether commonly used in our churches or not). And we’re not just talking about modern scholars. These conclusions were held by Greek authorities across centuries as well (remember, the KJV was originally produced in 1611, and the ASV in the 1800s—but I could find no reference whatsoever to the Uncut Hair doctrine in early century writings; nor, for that matter, anywhere in history prior to around 1900).
Bible Translation Committees Not Afraid to Disagree
Now, before continuing, it should be understood that the many highly renowned scholars through time involved in Greek-English translating were certainly not timid about disagreeing with one another—if the situation warranted it.
In fact, some Greek words are difficult to translate into English, and—when this is the case—we can see a divergence of views reflected in the various literal English translations. One quick example is Galatians 3:24, which says:
Galatians 3:24-25 NKJV
Therefore the law [context: the Law of Moses, see 2:16] was our tutor (paidagogos) to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor (paidagogos).
Here we can see that the Greek “paidagogos”—while translated as “tutor” (by the NKJV)—is translated as “guardian” (by the ESV), “custodian” (by the RSV), and “schoolmaster” (by the KJV). The reason for the scholars’ divergence is clear: because there’s not an ideal English equivalent for “paidagogos” in the modern English language. The scholars just translated it the best they felt they could. So, in this case we see an example of one Greek word, paidagogos, translated four different ways by four different reputable, literally and independently minded English translation committees.
But when it came to translating the word koma (in 1 Cor 11:14-15), no such divergence among reputable literal scholars existed. The committees were unanimous in their final conclusions regarding how koma should be literally understood and translated.
And that was: “…have long hair/wear long hair.”
By contrast, none of them chose “have continuously growing hair” or “have uncut hair” or any variant of these.
Uncut Hair Doctrine on Life Support
In my now doctrinally wobbling world, where all of my beliefs weren’t matching the literal Bible, the Uncut Hair doctrine that I’d believed and even publicly taught for years was under extreme attack by the 521 Rule.
At this point—based on the 521 Rule (“test all things and hold on to the good”)—I found that the evidence in favor of it, to put it politely, was lacking.
I could only imagine what a woman who trimmed her hair (but kept it long) might say to me:
“So, you say that I am sinning—and will even go to hell—just because I trim my long hair (but keep it long)? If that is true, then why does every literal translation disagree with your ‘Uncut Hair’ doctrine? All these outstanding, literally-minded Bible translation committees concluded that ‘long hair’ (rather than ‘continually growing hair’) is an essential part of pleasing God (when praying/teaching). On the other hand, none of these committees ever mentioned ‘actively growing hair’—let alone ‘uncut hair.’ And, since it’s entirely possible for a woman to cut her hair and keep it long, how could your Uncut Hair doctrine possibly be correct? Anyone knows that a woman can certainly maintain long hair and trim it regularly (in fact, trimming split ends is said to make hair healthier and therefore potentially longer).”
I cringed at the thought of having to explain my way out of this—to anyone. At this point, although I still held out hope for my Uncut Hair doctrine, conscientiously teaching it from the pulpit was plainly “on hold until further notice.” My reason for still holding out hope for my Uncut Hair doctrine, and for being slow to admit my wrongness, was that I’d not yet checked the Greek-English lexicons (dictionaries)—nor the grammar (they are noticed next).
But the odds that this entire body of actual Greek scholars could be unanimously wrong about both the definition of koma and the grammar of this passage seemed unconscionable. In my mind, the burden of proof had definitely shifted to the Uncut Hair position.
Therefore, although I hadn’t abandoned my Uncut Hair viewpoint, I certainly didn’t feel confident about teaching it publicly in the church. Much less forcing it on others as a condition of fellowship or a requirement of salvation! That’s because if I taught that Uncut Hair was required for women—but ignored the concept of “having long hair”—and if the “long hair” doctrine turned out to be true (like all the literally translated Bibles were suggesting!)—I would almost certainly be encouraging women to sin. (And I would be accountable to God for that.) And I’d be encouraging sin not just because all the translations above said so, but also because in 1 Cor 11:5, these same literal Bibles also all agreed that shorn and shaven hair (v. 5), and “not long” hair (v. 14, implied)—are disgraceful states for a woman (whenever she prayed or prophesied). As you can hopefully see, these states are opposites of “long hair.”
Stated plainly:
Long hair is a glory for a woman to have (v. 15). But shorn, shaven (v. 5) and “not long” hair (v. 14) are shameful states for a woman to have (when praying/prophesying). Please see Chapter 7 for more details about this.
Copyright 2024-2025 (all versions)