Truthseeker

Don, thank you!  Here is the piece from the book in case I have mentioned anything incorrectly:  Let me know what else you ‘see’ in this that my untrained mind misses.  (From D.A. Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies):  (pg. 37-38)

“It follows, then, that we should be a trifle suspicious when any piece of exegesis tries to establish the meaning of a word by appealing first of all to its usage in classical Greek rather than to its usage in Hellenistic Greek.  In an article in Christianity Today, for instance, Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen argue that “head” in I Cor. 11:2-16 means “source” or “origin”, but their appeal is to the standard classical lexicon (LSJ-which does of course move forward to cover Hellenistic Greek lexicon (Bauer).  The latter lists no meaning of “source” or “origin” for kephale, head for the New Testament period.
     We may usefully continue with the previous example.  Not only do the Mickelsens appeal to LSJ, but they also fail to note the constraints that even LSJ imposes on the evidence.  The Mickelsens make much of the idea ‘head of a river’ as the river’s “source”; but in all such cases cited by LSJ, the word is plural, kephalai.  When the singular form kephale is applied to a river, it refers to a river’s mouth.  The only example listed by LSJ where kephale singular means “source” or “origin” is the document the Fragmenta Orphilcorum, from the fifth century B.C. or earlier, which is both textually uncertain and patient of more than one translation.  Although some of the New Testament metaphorical uses of kephale could be taken to mean “source”, all other factors being equal, in no case is that the required meaning; and in every instance the notion of “headship” implying authority fits equally well or better.  The relevant lexica are full of examples, all culled from the ancient texts, in which kephale connotes “authority.”  The Mickelsens’ argument, and that of many others who have joined the same refrain, probably depends on an article by S. Bedale; but the fact remains that whatever the dependencies, the Mickelsens are attempting to appeal to an unknown or unlikely meaning.  Certainly there are sound exegetical reasons why such a meaning will not fit the context of I Cor. 11:2-16.”

Truthseeker, again:  I disagree with the statement that authority fits equally well or better.  Carson doesn’t justify this statement.