Kephalē and

Kephalē and “Male Headship”

in Paul’s Letters

The Metaphorical Meaning of “Head” in Paul’s Letters: Part One

In Colossians 1:18, Paul writes:

[Christ] is the head (kephalē) of the church body of which he is the beginning (archē) the firstborn of the dead, so that he himself may be first [or supreme] in everything.

Paul’s main point in the passage where this verse comes from (Col 1:15-18), is to show that Jesus is the creator, source, origin and beginning of everything in the universe. This includes Jesus being the source and beginning of the Church. Importantly, Paul used the word kephalē (head) in this context – the context of source and origin.[1]

In English the word “head” has many meanings. One metaphorical meaning of head is “leader” or “chief person”. In English the “head” of an organisation is the leader, the top person. In Koinē Greek, the Greek of the New Testament, the word kephalē (head) also has metaphorical meanings; however “leader” or “chief person” is not one of them. Sadly, when Koine Greek stopped being used (around 300AD), the true meanings of kephalē became little known. Many Christian theologians have wrongly assumed that the Greek word kephalē, in the New Testament, commonly meant “leader” or “chief person”.[2]

One compelling bit of evidence that kephalē does not usually mean leader in Koine Greek is that the LSJ, one of the most exhaustive and respected lexicons of Ancient Greek, does not include any definition of kephalē that approximates “leader” or “authority”. [The entire LSJ entry on kephalē is here.]

Another bit of compelling evidence that kephalē does not usually mean leader in Koine Greek is found in the Septuagint, the 2BC Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. When the Hebrew word for “head” (rosh) meant a literal head, the translators translated rosh into kephalē. However in Hebrew, like in English, “head” can also mean a leader or ruler. In the instances where rosh meant a leader, in most cases, the translators did not use the word kephalē in their translation; instead they typically used the Greek word archōn (which does mean ruler or leader.) The translators of the Septuagint knew that kephalē does not usually mean leader, ruler or authority.[3]

Leadership or Loving Care?

Paul is the only Bible writer to say that the kephalē (head) of the woman is the man. He says this twice: once in 1 Corinthians 11:3 and once in Ephesians 5:23.

1 Corinthians 11:3 is not about the marriage relationship. English translations typically use the word “man” and “woman”, rather than “husband” and “wife”, to reflect this understanding.[4] Nor is 1 Corinthians 11:3 about some sort of chain of command.[5] The use of kephalē in this verse clearly has the meaning of “source”, a fact which several early church writers attest to.[6]

This leaves one verse. Ephesians 5:23 is about marriage. It amazes me that the Church has developed a strong and pervasive doctrine of ”male headship” based mainly on this one Bible verse! (Note that nowhere in Scripture does it teach that the man is the “head” of the house.[7])

In Ephesians 5:23a Paul writes:

For the husband is the head (kephalē) of the wife as Christ is the head (kephalē) of the church, his body . . .

In the passage where this verse occurs (Eph 5:21-33), Jesus Christ’s lordship and authority is not mentioned, nor is there a mention of any sort of “husbandly authority”. Paul does not tell the husbands to be leaders, or to be in authority; rather Paul urges husbands to sacrificially love and care for their wives. Love and care, and even nurture, is the context of Ephesians 5:25-33; not leadership. Husbands are to love and care for their wives as Jesus loves and cares for the church. It seems that just as Christ is the sustainer and source (kephalē) of nurture for the church, the husband is to be the sustainer and source (kephalē) of nurture for his wife.

Authority or Association?

The concept of kephalē carries the connotations of kinship, association and connection. A head is nothing without a body. Moreover, the head and body have an affinity and are part of the same unit. (Cf Colossians 2:19.) By way of illustration, Suzanne McCarthy points out that we can say that man is the ruler of dog, but we cannot say that man is the head of dog. Man is not of the same genus or species as dog. To say that man is the head of dog is just plain wrong, because man and dog are different. Husband and wife, however, are not only of the same species but they are essentially equal. This affinity and equality means that the husband can be the kephalē of the wife in the Greek metaphorical sense of the word. This sense would have been understood by Paul’s predominantly Greco-Roman audience in Corinth and Ephesus.

No Bible author, including Paul, has asserted that the husband is to be the ruler, leader or authority of the wife.[8] Rather than using any of the many Greek words which mean ruler, leader or authority[9], Paul used the word kephalē to highlight the connectedness of husband and wife.[10] Paul wanted husbands to be connected and allied with their wives. Likewise, Paul instructed the wives to be cooperative, supportive and loyal – that is, submissive – to their own husbands.[11] Paul wrote that husbands and wives should be joined, united, one flesh. Unity, affinity, fidelity and equality are the ideals in Christian marriage. These virtues were absent in many marriages in Greco-Roman society; so Paul found it necessary to write about the godly ideals of marriage in his letters.

Supremacy or Source?

Many Christians argue that men (and husbands) have primacy or supremacy over women because the first man was the kephalē, the source or beginning, of the first woman.[12] However it is important to remember that the first man was entirely passive when the first woman was made. In fact, the first man was in a deep sleep and probably had no inkling that God was removing a part out of him and forming the first woman from it.

We give Jesus the honour and the praise for being the creator, sustainer and source of the universe. Man, however, cannot take any credit for the creation of the woman. The first woman, as well as the first man was created and made by God, through Jesus. Moreover, both man and woman were made in God’s image and both were made to rule over God’s creation.

The Genesis 2 record does not reveal any hint of male privilege, primacy or authority by virtue of man being created first (despite what some Complementarians assert to the contrary.) Nevertheless, the man was created first and this fact needed to be explained to newly-converted Gentile Christians, many of whom may have held to pagan myths about the creation of various men and women. A faulty doctrine of the origins of mankind has the potential to lead to other faulty beliefs, practises and behaviours.[13] [My article on The Complementarian Concept of the Created Order here.]

Patriarchy or Mutuality?

Many Christians erroneously believe that the word kephalē conveys the meaning of authority; and they interpret Ephesians 5:23 and 1 Corinthians 11:3 to mean that husbands have authority over their wives. Some elaborate on their interpretation and understanding of kephalē even further and claim that husbands and fathers are the spiritual authorities in the home, and that wives and mothers do not have spiritual authority of their own. Paul never hints at such a doctrine. The only time the word for authority (exousia) is used in the New Testament in the context of marriage is in 1 Corinthians 7:4 where it says, “The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.” In the following verse Paul adds, “Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time . . .”

1 Corinthians 7:4-5 shows that, rather than the husband being the authority or decision maker, Paul expected husbands and wives to make decisions by mutual consent. The notion that the husband is the arbiter to make the final decision or have the final say on a matter is contrived and simply has no biblical basis.

I have never understood why Complementarians believe that in marriage, when there are only two people – husband and wife – there needs to be a leader. Yes, larger organizations need leaders to function effectively, but a couple – where the husband and wife are truly equal – does not need one person to always be the leader and the other person to always be the follower. Moreover, it seems ineffective (and unnecessary) to burden the husband/father with the primary responsibility of family life when he has a capable wife with whom he can jointly share the responsibility.

Culture and Conclusion

“Headship” is a term that does not appear in the Bible, yet the understanding of “male headship” (i.e. male authority) has been part of the Church’s dogma for centuries. This is because many have interpreted Scripture while being influenced by the prevailing patriarchal culture. God has tolerated patriarchy in the past, and he continues to tolerate it, but true equality and mutuality are the biblical ideals that Kingdom people should be aiming for. “Male headship” and male primacy does not reflect the Gospel message of freedom and equality for all people.

The concept of “male headship”, as many have understood it, is absent from Paul’s letters and absent from the New Testament. Instead, Paul and other New Testament authors sowed the seed ideas for a casteless Christianity where all people, regardless of ethnicity, gender or socio-economic status, are considered as completely equal; and no person, simply on the basis of race, gender or wealth, is either privileged or discriminated against (Gal 3:28). Tragically, the Church has been blinkered by the culture of patriarchy and male privilege, and have been appalling slow to realise the gospel ideal of true equality. It is time for the Church to take off their blinkers and take another look at what Jesus, Paul and others taught about men and women and marriage in the New Testament.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Endnotes

[1] Other verses which show that Jesus is the beginning, origin, source and instigator of creation:

All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being (John 1:3).

He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him (John 1:10).

In these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world (Hebrews 1:2).

[2] Our knowledge of Hellenistic Greek, which includes Koinē Greek, has improved dramatically with the discovery of large numbers of ancient papyri in the late 1800s and early 1900s. (And more continue to be discovered.) These papyri have helped us to better understand the meanings and uses of many ancient Greek words, including the word kephalē.

[3] Though rosh is used 155 times as “chief” of a tribe or class in the Hebrew Old Testament, whenever this usage is translated in the Septuagint (LXX) the Greek is archōn or archēgos (ruler) rather than kephalē (with only four exceptions). Since the overwhelming LXX usage is to translate rosh as “chief, ruler” with a word other than kephalē, and secular Greek usage lacks this meaning, it is likely that Paul’s use of kephalē carries another meaning than “chief, ruler.” Ralph F. Wilson

Andrew Perriman identifies 11 cases in the Septuagint where rosh, at first glance, may appear to mean leader or ruler, and is translated into kephalē. Michael Kruse summarises Perriman’s findings here and here.

[4] The Greek word aner means “man” or “husband”. Context determines whether aner should be translated as “man” or “husband”. Most English Bible translations use the word “man” in 1 Corinthians 11 because this passage is not speaking about marriage (but about appropriate behaviour in worship, which includes observing gender distinctions.) Most English translations use the word “husband” in Ephesians 5:22ff because Paul is clearly speaking about marriage here.

[5] 1 Corinthians 11:3 says:

But I want you to realize that the head [source] of every man is Christ, and the head [source] of the woman is man, and the head [source] of Christ [or Jesus’ Messiah-ship] is God [or the triune Godhead].

1 Corinthians 11:3-16 is a tricky passage to interpret. Both Complementarian and Egalitarian theologians agree that Paul’s intent here is difficult, if not impossible, to determine with any degree of certainty. The real issue that Paul is addressing here, however, is propriety in worship, and not the husband and wife relationship.

While we don’t know exactly what Paul was referring to in this passage, we do know some things about the Corinthian Christians. We know that the Corinthians were unruly in their worship services and that they were behaving in a way that could bring disrepute to Christianity. We also know that the Corinthians had an over-realised view of eschatology. It seems that they believed that the Kingdom age had fully arrived and that gender distinctions were no longer important. It appears that they likened themselves to the (genderless) angels. Moreover, it is very likely that the newly-converted Corinthian Christians may have had a view of the origin of mankind that was tainted with Greek mythology. In view of their particular problems, Paul instructed the Corinthian believers to behave in ways that were culturally appropriate. And he explained to them the true origin of humanity. Kephalē is used in 1 Corinthians 11:3 in the context of source or origin.

The word “authority” (exousia) is mentioned only once in this passage; in verse 10 where it says that the woman should have her own authority upon her own head. Moreover, in 1 Corinthians 11:11 Paul highlights the mutuality, interdependence and association of Christian men and women, “. . . in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.” Source and origin, and respectable behaviour, rather than authority, are the issues in this passage.

[6] Several prominent early church theologians, uncluding Athansius and Cyril of Alexandria clearly attest to “source” as Paul’s main meaning of kephalē in 1 Corinthians 11:3.

Athanasius (296-373) Bishop of Alexandria, stated in De Synodis Anathema:

“For the head (which is the source) of all things is the Son, but God is the head (which is the source) of Christ.”

Cyril (376-444) Archbishop of Alexandria, in De Recta Fide ad Pulcheriam et Eudociam wrote:

“Therefore of our race he [Adam] became first head, which is source, and was of the earth and earthy. Since Christ was named the second Adam, he has been placed as head, which is source, of those who through Him have been formed anew unto Him unto immortality through sanctification in the Spirit. Therefore he himself our source, which is head, has appeared as a human being. Yet he, though God by nature, has himself a generating head, the heavenly Father, and he himself, though God according to his nature, yet being the Word, was begotten of him. Because head means source, he establishes the truth for those who are wavering in their mind that man is the head of woman, for she was taken out of him. Therefore as God according to his nature, the one Christ and Son and Lord has as his head the heavenly Father, having himself become our head because he is of the same stock according to the flesh.”

Even Hierarchical Complementarian, Wayne Grudem – while continuing to argue that kephalē implies authority – concedes that:

“There are some texts which indicate that the physical head was thought of as the source of energy and life for the body, and therefore the possibility exists that the word kephale might have come to be used as a metaphor for ‘source’ or ‘source of life’. . .”

(Grudem, Wayne, “ The meaning of Kephalē (Head): A Response to Recent Studies” in Rediscovering Biblical Manhood and Woman hood: A Response to Biblical Feminism, Wheaton, Il: Crossways, 1994, p467.)

[7] In reality, even Complementarian men (who believe that God has ordained them to be the leaders of their homes and wives) rarely lead or run their house and family; they leave much of the running of the household to their wives. (See 1 Tim 5:14 where, in the Greek, Paul actually uses the word oikodespotein in reference to wives. Oikodespotein literally means “to be the master of the house”. The KJV translates this verse literally.)

[8] In Genesis 3:16 it says that one of the consequences of sin was that the husband would rule the wife, but this is far for God’s ideal. In Esther 1:20-22 the Persian king Xerxes decrees that husbands should rule their wives. Christians, however, should not take their cues for living from the curses and consequences of the Fall or from decrees of pagan kings.

[9] In I Believe in Male Headship, Gilbert Bilezikian writes:

“There are scores of references in the documents of the New Testament to leaders from all walks of life: religious leaders, community leaders, military leaders, governmental leaders, patriarchal leaders and church leaders. Never is anyone of them designated as head. A profusion of other titles is used, but head is conspicuously absent from the list. The obvious explanation for this singularity is that head did not mean “leader” in the language of the New Testament.”

[10] Paul also used the word kephalē (head) to show that the church, the body, was closely allied and had an affinity with Jesus Christ, the head. More on this in my next article which is about the Gnostic concept of kephalē in Paul’s letters, here.

[11] My article on Submission in Marriage here.

[12] Some argue that the man, or husband, may have more prominence than the woman because the source or beginning of something usually comes first and this position often has more prominence than other positions. However, it is difficult to see how ”prominence” fits with Christian ideals of humility, self-sacrifice and service.

[13] There were many myths circulating in the Greco-Roman world about the creation of particular men and women, and the creation of men and women in general. One heretical view, which was popular among the pagan population, was that the origin of women was independent of man. This view had implications for women’s continued independence, and thus, non-mutuality.

A very different Greek myth was that the goddess Athena was miraculously “born”, or generated, as a fully formed adult woman from the head (kephalē) of Zeus. This myth, and a few others like it, show that the Greeks saw the head (kephalē) as being some sort of a source of life.

A Gnostic myth, that seems to have been causing problems in the Ephesian church, was that Eve was created first and that Adam was the once deceived. [My articles on 1 Timothy 2:12 in Context here.]

Instead of a variety of pagan myths about different ways that different men were created or generated, Paul writes that the source of every man is Jesus Christ. And instead of a variety of pagan myths about the different ways that different women were created or generated, Paul points out that the source of the [first] woman was man (1 Cor 11:3). An implication of this is that all men and subsequent women have a profoundly close kinship.

Further Reading:

“Headship (kephalē) and Submission (hupotassomai) in Ephesians 5:21-33″ by Ralph F. Wilson here.

“The Meaning of Head in the Pauline Epistles” in Abusing Scripture: The Consequences of Misreading the Bible by Manfred T. Brauch here

Kephalē and “Proto-Gnosticism” in Paul’s Letters

The Metaphorical Meaning of “Head” in Paul’s Letters: Part Two.

The Greek word kephalē has meanings other than its literal meaning of ”head” and the metaphorical meanings of “source” and “beginning” given in Part One. Kephalē was also a Gnostic term. Paul used the word in this sense in his letters to the churches in Colossae and Ephesus where an early form of Christian Gnosticism was developing.

Proto-Gnostic Heresy in the Colossian and Ephesian Churches

Christian Gnosticism developed into a highly complex belief system in the 2nd century AD and was a serious threat to the Church at that time. But an “incipient Gnosticism”, as F.F. Bruce called it,[1] was already beginning to develop in some New Testament churches in the latter part of the 1st century, most notably in the church at Colossae.

Christian Gnosticism was a blend of Christian beliefs with Platonic philosophy, pagan beliefs and mysterious, esoteric knowledge. Paul described the heresy in Colossae as a “hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world” (Col 2:8 cf 2:4, 18).

Gnostics believed that they alone had wisdom (sophia) and knowledge (gnōsis). Paul stated, however, that wisdom and true knowledge are hidden in Christ (Col 2:3).

Paul also recognised the seeds of Gnosticism in the Ephesian church.[2] Paul addressed proto-Gnostic beliefs in his letters to Timothy, when Timothy was caring for the church at Ephesus; and in his letter to the Ephesian church.

In his letters, Paul addressed proto-Gnostic heresy using terms and concepts that the early Christian Gnostics would have understood.

In contrast to Gnostic teaching, Paul taught that Jesus is the fullness of deity in bodily form – emphasising Jesus’ divinity and humanity (Col 2:9). Paul emphasised Jesus’ divinity so that the Colossians and Ephesians would realise that Jesus was not just one of numerous angelic or celestial powers (or aeons) between mankind and God; but that Jesus Christ created all celestial powers and authorities (Col 1:16) and is seated in the heavenly realms supreme over all cosmic forces (Eph 1:20-23). Paul stressed Jesus’ humanity because of a Gnostic belief that Jesus only seemed to have had a human body (Col 2:9; 1 Tim 2:5).[3] Furthermore, Paul addressed ascetic practises that were a characteristic of some strains of Gnosticism (Col 2:22-23; 1 Tim 4:3).

Kephalē and Gnosticism

In the highly respected Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, H. Schlier gives an insight into the Gnostic concept of kephalē.

In Hellenistic and Gnostic circles the word [kephalē] acquires a special sense in connection with the aeon and primal man. The cosmic aeon embraces the totality of all things in its head and body. In Gnosticism the divine aeon becomes primal man embracing the substance of the cosmos, but also redeemer man embracing the remaining substance of the fallen world. Primal man, who bears the cosmos, recovers from the fall as redeemer man, who gathers the cosmos to himself. In this scheme the kephalē is both apart from (and superior to) the body but also in unity with it. Elements of this view may be seen in Philo’s commentary on Exodus where the logos is the kephalē which rules the cosmos and in which the cosmos finds its fullness. Gnostic texts are more complicated but in various combinations contain the idea of primal man and/or redeemer man as the kephalē (sometimes equated with Christ.)

H. Schlier, “Kephalē” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, eds Gerard Kittle and Gerard Friedrich, abridged by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985, p429.

Putting 1 Corinthians 11:3 aside, which was dealt with in the previous article, the only places where Jesus is referred to as kephalē are in a few verses contained in Paul’s letters to the Ephesians and the Colossians.

And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all (Eph 1: 22-23 NASB).

. . . but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love (Eph 4:16-17 NASB).

He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him (Col 1:18-19 NASB).

Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God (Col 2:18-19 NASB).

The last passage is clearly a warning against a type of proto-Gnostic heresy. (See Eph 4:14-16 and Col 2:18-23). In the other passages Paul uses the word kephalē to explain that Jesus is the creator and supreme fullness of the cosmos. (See Eph 1:19-23 and Col 1:15-19). Importantly, Paul used the word “fullness” (plērōma) which was an important word in the heresy of Christian Gnosticism (Eph 1:19; Col 1:19 ).

. . . [P]lērōma is a technical term for the totality of the 30 aeons. This totality is closest to God but is his product; he stands over it. The plērōma is the surpreme spiritual world from which Jesus comes and into which the spiritual enter. Implied in the term are the fullness and perfection of being.[4]

G. Dellingin, “Plērōma” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, eds Gerard Kittle and Gerard Friedrich, abridged by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985, 870.

Despite the enigmatic and negative association of kephalē with Gnosticism, Paul used this term to teach that the church as the ”body” on earth must hold on to Jesus Christ as the ”head” in the heavenly realms, and grow up into his fullness and perfection (Eph 4:13; 3:19).

Conclusion

Many English-speaking Christians believe that the meaning of “head” (kephalē) in the New Testament is perfectly plain and obvious. This is simply not true. Apart from the literal meaning, “head” had different metaphorical meanings which include “source” and “beginning” in Koine Greek. But it only rarely had the metaphorical meaning of “leader” or “authority”.[5]

In verses about Jesus Christ, it seems that Paul sometimes used kephalē in a Gnostic sense.[6] Admittedly, the Gnostic sense of the word is enigmatic and baffling for most of us who only have a slight knowledge of their complicated beliefs. Keeping in mind the different ways the word kephalē (head) was used in the Greek world, we need to be cautious about how we, today, interpret the use of kephalē in the New Testament.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Endnotes

[1] F.F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999, p261.

[2] In Against the Valentinians, chapter 3 , Tertullian identified the false teaching at Ephesus as an early form of Gnosticism. Tertullian described and denounced this heresy using Paul’s own expression of “myths and endless geneologies” (1 Tim 1:4), and he added “which the inspired apostle [Paul] by anticipation condemned, whilst the seeds of heresy were even then shooting forth.”

Ireneaus also identified the false teaching at Ephesus as Gnosticism. Irenaeus (c115-c202) wrote a five-volumed work (c 180AD) in which he identified and refuted several strains of Gnosticism. This work is commonly called Against Heresies; however its true title is: On the Detection and Overthrow of the Falsely-called Knowledge (gnōseōs). (My emphasis.) Irenaeus copied Paul’s expression from 1 Timothy 6:20 exactly, “falsely-called knowledge”, for the title. This work opens with Irenaus remarking on “endless geneologies”, a phrase copied from 1 Timothy 1:4.

[3] 1 Timothy 2:5 addresses a Gnostic belief termed Docetism, which is that Jesus Christ did not really come in a human body of flesh, but only seemed to be human.

[4] Most Christians believe that Jesus is God and equal with God. Paul described Jesus as the plērōma to distinguish Jesus from being considered as just another aeon or celestial power by the Proto-Gnostics.

[5] And these few times are in Koine Greek translations, such as the few instances in the Septuagint, rather than in original Greek literature.

[6] More about kephalē and Gnosticism in The Authenticity of Ephesians by A. van Roon, Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1976, p275ff.

LSJ Definitions of Kephalē

Here is the full entry of definitions of kephalē copied and pasted from Liddel, Scott and Jones’s Greek-English Lexicon (LSJ) without any editing or erasures. The LSJ is one of the most highly respected lexicons of ancient Greek words from numerous sources of Greek literature, including the New Testament. Also, the LSJ has not been influenced by later theological uses of kephalē. Note that the LSJ does not give “authority” or “leader” as a meanings of kephalē.

κεφα^λή , ἡ,

A. head of man or beast, Hom. (v.infr.), Alc.15, etc.; once in A., Th.525 (lyr.), once in S., Aj.238 (anap.), also in E., Fr.308 (anap.), Rh.226 (lyr.), al.;“ἄλλουοὐδενὸςἐμψύχουκ. γεύσεταιΑἰγυπτίωνοὐδείς” Hdt.2.39; κεφαλῇ . . μείζονες taller in stature, Il.3.168; so μείων . . κεφαλήν ib.193Aristarch.: freq. with Preps.,

a. κατὰκεφαλῆς, Ep. κὰκκεφαλῆς, down over the head, “κόνιν . . χεύατοκὰκκεφαλῆς” Il.18.24, cf. Od.8.85, etc.

b. κατὰκεφαλήν, Ep. κὰκκεφαλήνon the head, “Ἐρύλαον . . βάλεπέτρῳμέσσηνκὰκκεφαλήν” Il.16.412, cf. 20.387, 475: in Prose, from above, X.HG7.2.8: c.gen., above, κ. κ. τινῶνγενέσθαι ib.7.2.11; τὸκ. κ. ὕδωρ, of rain water, Thphr. HP4.10.7 (-ὴν codd.), CP6.18.10 (-ῆς): in Archit., upright,IG22.463.42;

also, per head, each person (cf. infr. 1.2), Arist.Pol.1272a14, LXX Ex.16.16; “κατὰκεφαλὴντῶνκωμητῶν” PPetr.2p.17 (iii B. C.).

c. ἐςπόδαςἐκκεφαλῆς from head to foot, Il.23.169; “τὰπράγματαἐκτῶνποδῶνἐςτὴνκ. σοιπάντ᾽ἐρῶ” Ar.Pl.650.

d. ἐπὶκεφαλήνhead foremost, ἐπὶκ. κατορύξαι to bury head downwards, Hdt.3.35; ἐπὶκ. ὠθέεσθαι to be thrust headlong, Id.7.136, cf. Hyp.Fr.251;

“ἐπὶκ. ὠθεῖντιναἐκτοῦθρόνου” Pl.R.553b; “ἐπὶτὴνκ. εἰςκόρακαςὦσον” Men.Sam. 138; “εὐθὺςἐπὶκ. εἰςτὸδικαστήριονβαδίζειν” D.42.12; οὐβουλόμενοςπολίταςἄνδραςἐπὶκ. εἰσπράττειντὸνμισθόνrecklessly, Hyp.Lyc.17; ἐπὶταῖςκεφαλαῖςπεριφέρειν carry on high, in token of admiration, Pl. R.600d.

2. as the noblest part, periphr. for the whole person, “πολλὰςἰφθίμουςκ.” Il.11.55, cf. Od.1.343, etc.; ἶσονἐμῇκ. no less than myself, Il.18.82; “ἑᾷκ.” Pi.O.7.67; esp. in salutation, “φίληκ.” Il.8.281, cf. 18.114; “ἠθείηκ.” 23.94; “Ἄπολλον, ὦδίακ.” E.Rh.226 (lyr.): in Prose, “Φαῖδρε, φίληκ.” Pl.Phdr.264a; “τῆςθείαςκ.” Jul.Or. 7.212a: in bad sense, “ὦκακαὶκεφαλαί” Hdt.3.29; “ὦμιαρὰκ.” Ar.Ach. 285: periphr. in Prose, “πεντακοσίαςκεφαλὰςτῶνΞέρξεωπολεμίων” Hdt.9.99: in bad sense, “ἡμιαρὰκαὶἀναιδὴςαὕτηκ.” D.21.117, cf. 18.153; “ἡκ. τῶναὐτοῦ” PRein.57.8 (iv A.D.); μεγάληκ. a great personage, Vett. Val.74.7; cf. supr. 1 b fin.

3. life, “ἐμῇκ. περιδείδια” Il.17.242; “σύντεμεγάλῳἀπέτεισαν, σὺνσφῇσινκεφαλῇσι” 4.162; παρθέμενοικεφαλάς staking their heads on the cast, Od.2.237; τὴνκ.“ἀποβαλέεις” Hdt.8.65.

4. in imprecations, ἐςκεφαλὴντράποιτ᾽ἐμοί on my head be it! Ar.Ach.833; “ἐςτὴνκ. ἅπαντατὴνσὴντρέψεται” Id.Nu.40; “ἃσοὶκαὶτοῖςσοῖςοἱθεοὶτρέψειανεἰςκ.” D.18.290; ἐςκ. σοί (sc. τράποιτο) Ar.Pax1063, Pl.526; “σοὶεἰςκ.” Pl.Euthd.283e; “τὰμὲνπρότερον . . ἐγὼκεφαλῇἀναμάξαςφέρω” Hdt.1.155; “οἷςἂν . . τὴναἰτίανἐπὶτὴνκ. ἀναθεῖεν” D.18.294; “τὸαἷμαὑμῶνἐπὶτὴνκ. ὑμῶν” Act.Ap. 18.6.

II. of things, extremity,

a. in Botany, κ. σκορόδουhead ( = inflorescence) of garlic, Ar.Pl.718, cf. Plb.12.6.4; “κ. μήκωνος” hphr.HP9.8.2; ῥίζακ. ἔχουσαπλείοναςtubers, Dsc.3.120.

b. in Anatomy, κεφαλαὶτῆςκάτωγνάθου, prob. the condyloid and coronoid processes, Hp.Art.30; ἡκ. τοῦὄρχεως, = ἐπιδιδυμίς, Arist.HA510a14, cf. Gal.4.565; μηροῦ, κνήμηςκ., Poll.2.186, 188; of the base of the heart, Gal.UP6.16; but, apex, Hp.Cord.7; of the sac in poulps, Arist.PA654a23, 685a5; of muscles, origin, Gal.UP7.14.

c. generally, top, brim of a vessel, Theoc.8.87; coping of a wall, X.Cyr.3.3.68; capital of a column, CIG2782.31 (Aphrodisias), LXX 3 Ki.7.16, Poll.7.121.

d. in pl., source of a river, Hdt.4.91 (butsg., mouth, “οἶδαΓέλαποταμοῦκεφαλῇἐπικείμενονἄστυ” Call.Aet.Oxy.2080.48): generally, source, origin, Ζεὺςκ. (v.l. ἀρχή）, Ζεὺςμέσσα, Διὸςδ᾽ἒκπάντατελεῖται῾τέτυκται codd.) Orph.Fr.21a; starting-point, “κ. χρόνου” Placit. 2.32.2 (κρόνου codd.), Lyd.Mens.3.4;

κ. μηνός ib.12.

e. extremity of a plot of land, PPetr.3p.72 (iii B.C.), PFlor.50.83 (iii A.D.).

III. Ὁμηρείηκ. bust of Homer, IG14.1183.10.

IV. κ. περίθετοςwig, head-dress, Ar.Th.258.

V. metaph., κ. δείπνουpièce de résistance, Alex. 172.15.

2. crown, completion, “κεφαλὴνἐπιθεῖναι” Pl.Ti.69b; “ὥσπερκ. ἀποδοῦναιτοῖςεἰρημένοις” Id.Phlb.66d, cf. Grg.505d; “ὥσπερκεφαλὴνἔχουσαἐπιστήμη” Arist.EN1141a19; consummation, “σχεῖνκ.” Pl.Ti.39d.

3. sum, total, “πάσαςἐρρηγείας” Tab.Heracl.1.36; of money, IG12(9).7 (Carystus, iv B. C.), SIG245ii 36 (Delph., iv B. C.).

4. band of men, LXX Jb.1.17; right-hand half of a phalanx (opp. οὐρά), Arr.Tact.8.3, Ael.Tact.7.3.

5. Astron., κ. τοῦκόσμου, of Aries, Heph.Astr.1.1. (ghebh-, cf. κεβλή and Engl. gable.）

Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, revised and augmented throughout by Sir Henry Stuart Jones, with the assistance of Roderick McKenzie, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dkefalh%2F