Paul's Gender
Polycarp66 at aol.com
Polycarp66 at aol.com
Wed Jul 31 13:19:24 EDT 2002
In a message dated 7/31/2002 12:42:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
donovan at comply1.com writes:
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.
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?
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.
_______________________________________________________________
Paul himself tells us that he was from Tarsus. This was a center of
hellenism so it would be strange if he did not speak Greek reasonably well
though in Acts 21.37 the tribune seems surprised that he speaks Greek. From
his epistles and from the accounts in Acts we also know that he began with
the Jews but usually ended up turning to the gentiles (or "Greeks") who spoke
. . . (what else?). Robertson in his grammar notes
________________
In the first century a.d. the vernacular Greek was in common use all over the
world, the character of which we can now accurately set forth. But this
non-literary language was not necessarily the speech of the illiterate.
Mahaffy is very positive on this point. "I said just now that the
Hellenistic world was more cultivated in argument than we are nowadays. And
if you think this is a strange assertion, examine, I pray you, the
intellectual aspects of the Epistles of St. Paul, the first Christian writer
whom we know to have been thoroughly educated in this training. Remember
that he was a practical teacher, not likely to commit the fault of speaking
over the heads of his audience, as the phrase is." [p. 35]
________________
and
________________
It is to be remembered also that great diversity of culture existed among the
writers of the N. T. Besides, the educated men used much the same vernacular
all over the Roman world and a grade of speech that approached the literary
standard as in English to-day. One is not to stress Paul's language in 1
Cor. 2:1-4 into a denial that he could use the literary style. It is rather
a rejection of the bombastic rhetoric that the Corinthians liked and the
rhetorical art that was so common from Thucydides to Chrysostom. [p. 85]
________________
also he states
________________
That Paul could use the more literary style is apparent from the address on
Mars Hill, the speech before Agrippa, and Ephesians and Romans. Paul quotes
Aratus, Menander and Epimenides and may have been acquainted with other Greek
authors. He seems also to have understood Stoic philosophy. [p. 86]
________________
and again
________________
Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, p. 64) holds that Paul's "Greek never
becomes literary." "It is never disciplined, say, by the canon of the
Atticists, never tuned to the Asian rhythm: it remains non-literary." But
has not Deissmann given a too special sense to "literary"? If 1 Cor. 13 and
15, Ro. 8 and Eph. 3 do not rise to literary flavour and nobility of thought
and expression, I confess my ignorance of what literature is. Harnack (Das
hohe Lied des Apostels Paulus von der Liebe und seine religionsgeschichtliche
Bedeutung, 1911) speaks of the rhythm, the poetic form, the real oratory, the
literary grace of 1 Cor. 13. [pp. 87, 88]
________________
I doubt that anyone at the time would have found particular fault with Paul's
Greek.
gfsomsel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/attachments/20020731/e8735472/attachment.html
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list