I sometimes have students who have been taught in church that when Paul uses the image of “headship” in the New Testament he must mean some concept other than “authority.” These students have heard from their pastor that “head” never means “authority” in literature prior to the New Testament. Instead, it means something like “source.” The idea of “authority” came to the text when bad folk who wished to marginalize women read it into a text where Greek normal word usage (or metaphor) would not suggest it.
I am sure this is not the product of sophisticated theological reasoning, but it still is worth pointing out that this Christian “textual legend” is false.
Whatever, Paul meant by “head” in the New Testament (and I am not trying to settle this issue here!), no less a writer than Plato used the image of “head” or “headship” to refer to traditional, patriarchal, religious leadership in the Athenian community.
I can find no source in Plato where “head” (used metaphorically) can mean “source.” Plato describes the “head” as the “ . . . divinest part of us which controls all the rest . . . ”
Plainly the “head” for Plato was the source of all legitimate human authority!
As a result any claims that the ancient Greeks prior to Paul did not understand “head” as a seat of authority, especially religious authority, are false. Even more importantly, this concept (head as authority) would have been widely known. Since Plato was a widely influential author, especially amongst educated Jewish thinkers and in the formation of such pre-Christian works as the Septuagint translation, his understanding of the term is relevant to understanding any potential meaning in the New Testament.
I should make one comment about the general discussion in popular circles about the status of the Greek word for “head.” Too often arguments have turned on meanings found in a wooden manner by looking in lexicons.
A lexicon is a useful tool, but it cannot substitute for examining the particular figurative usage of a term in its literary context. Context can give definite clues to the author’s intent in using a particular word.
This is particularly true of non-literal, or literary uses, of terms like “head.” Such interpretation of a Greek verbal image requires context not available in a quotation pulled out of the source document. Terms can take on meanings in the context of a particular literary use that can only be seen by looking at the full context of that use.
In an artistically sophisticated writer in the ancient world such as Plato, words become images that convey meaning to the reader. This meaning may be best understood in the context of the story or argument.
This is most evident in dialogues like Republic with their overt use of story telling and other devices to convey philosophical truth to the reader. Plato viewed words as images, as seen in dialogues like the Cratylus.
In Republic (I) he is using “head” as an image of religious authority. The father (the Head) must leave the discussion or pious young men will not be free to engage in the intellectual discussion they need. Socrates must become their new head.
Any claim that “head” did not refer to “an authority” prior to the Christian era should be abandoned.