Paul's Gender
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Jul 31 12:55:52 EDT 2002
At 12:22 PM -0400 7/31/02, Donovan W. Hannis wrote:
>Howdy.
>
>
>This discussion on gender in language has again raised
>a question in my mind that seems to surface frequently
>while I am reading this list. Do we know how well Paul
>spoke and wrote Greek? I presume Greek was not Paul's
>first language, and even if it were, we know it was not
>his only language.
I rather believe that Paul spoke Greek as a native of Tarsus; certainly the
Greek he writes in all of the undisputed letters (and I wouldn't want to
argue that the loose syntax of some of Ephesians is any indication that its
author, whether or not Paul, was writing standard Hellenistic Greek) is
standard Hellenistic Greek of his days; I'm not saying that Paul didn't
know Hebrew and/or Aramaic, but that I think he was indeed fully competent
in Greek.
>In this discussion, Daniel Christiansen made the following
>point:
>
>> Grammatical gender is certainly part of the word--sex, on the other
>>hand, is not.
>> In this passage, would you argue that only men and boys are being
>>referenced? The
>> choice of PANTAS is due to an implied ANQRWPOI (human beings) or even
>>LAOI, not to
>> the biological characteristics of the referent.
>
>
>I won't disagree with anything Mr. Christiansen has to
>say. It certainly is my understanding of Greek (and
>every other language I have studied) that a masculine
>plural noun, such as ANQRWPOI, can refer to a group of
>people of both sexes. It seems natural and logical to
>me... but did it seem so to Paul? Are we certain, based
>on the way Paul uses Greek throughout the New Testament
>(as opposed to our understanding of proper Greek) that
>this particular construction was natural and logical to
>him, too? Do we have reason to suspect that Paul may
>have been referencing only males in this passage?
This has been discussed in this forum and others. I don't think I'm going
out on a limb to assert that the burden of proof is upon those who do NOT
think that Paul's use of ANQRWPOI was generic but specifically male.
>I raise this issue not because of any disagreement I have
>with the general consensus on gender, but in an effort to
>explain what I so often see as missing in some of these
>arguments: Our appreciation of Paul's understanding of
>Greek.
Again, and speaking only for myself, it's difficult to speak of "proper"
Greek. Paul wasn't writing classical Attic but Koine, but very few of
Paul's contemporaries (if any) were writing classical Attic, and it's
late-first-century and second-century that the Atticist impetus of
grammatical teachers pushed formal writers to a more rigorous observance of
older Attic standards. One can see a considerable difference between the
Greek of Paul and that of his contemporary Philo of Alexandria: Philo may
have spent longer in the gymnasium learning rhetorical Greek, but Paul
shows in 1 Cor 1-4 and elsewhere that he can write rhetorical Greek quite
eloquently. Wherefore I repeat: I think the burden of proof rests upon
those who would argue that Paul WASN'T writing standard Hellenistic Greek
prose.
--
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list