[B-Greek] MONOUS in 14:36: Is this right?
moon at sogang.ac.kr
moon at sogang.ac.kr
Tue Jun 14 12:59:45 EDT 2005
Hi,
Is the following observation right?
Let me quote from:
Talbert, Charles H. Reading Corinthians: A Literary and Theological Commentary on 1 & 2 Corinthians. New York: Crossroad, 1987. p. 92-93:
1 COr 14:36:
H EF hUMWN hO LOGOS TOU QEOU EXHLQHN, H EIS hUMAS MONOUS
KATHNTHSEN;
BOQ
(In Cor 1 14:36), the second question of v. 36 "( or are you the ony ones it reached?")
uses a masculine plural (MONOUS) for the term translated "only ones." THis masculine plural
can be understood to refer either to multiple male persons or people in
in general in a gender-inclusive sense, BUT IT CANNOT ADDRESS ONLY FEMAILE PERSONS
(emphasis mine).
EOQ
I would have agreed. But I am asking the question because I read
Wire, Antoinette Clark. The Corinthian Women Prophets. A Reconstruction through
Paul¡¯s Rhetoric (Fortress Press, 1990), p. 154:
He concludes with two other kinds of argument and a threat. The rhetorical
questions addresss the WOMEN JUST SILENCED (in 14:34-45) - "Or
did God's world originate from you? Or did it reach you people only?" -
ridiculing any claims to essential speaking roles on their part.
......
The closing phrase in the last question, "Or did it reach you people only?" is
written in an INCLUSIVE MASCULINE form because "reach" is a territorial
concept in Paul's mission thinking (2 Cor 10.3-14; Acts 13:51; 16:1).
--------------------------
Question 1: It seems that Wire thinks even the inclusive masculine hUMAS MONOUS
can refer to a group that consists of only women. Is she right?
Question 2: What do you think the follwing mean?
The closing phrase in the last question, "Or did it reach you people only?" is
written in an INCLUSIVE MASCULINE form because "reach" is a territorial
concept in Paul's mission thinking (2 Cor 10.3-14; Acts 13:51; 16:1).
I have no idea. It seems to indicate a reason that even though hUMAS MONOUS
is inclusive masculine, it can refer to a women-only group. But I do not follow
her logic here.
Question 3: Is MONOUS really an adjective that modifies hUMAS ?
Isn't used as an "adverbial" that modifies the phrase EIS hUMAS as a whole?
Is it a fixed rule that "adverbials" do not change endings at all?
Or in particular, can't MONOUS be used as an adverbial or at least
something between adjective and adverbial?
NOTE: I noticed that both works quoted above are often cited
as references to "Paul and Women".
Sincerely yours
Moon R. JUng
Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list