[B-Greek] MONOUS in 14:36: Is this right?
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at ioa.com
Tue Jun 14 13:27:17 EDT 2005
On Jun 14, 2005, at 12:59 PM, moon at sogang.ac.kr wrote:
> 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
It took me a while, dense as I am, but I guess that these cryptic
signs mean "beginning of quotation" and "end of quotation"?
> 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?
For my part, I can see no justification for such a notion. But then,
I find the notion that these rhetorical questions are addressed to
the "silenced" women questionable in itself.
> Question 2: What do you think the following means?
>
> 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.
I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. And unless she explained
it in the course
of that argument, it's anything but self-explanatory.
> 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?
I would indeed say that MONOUS is an adjective modifying hUMAS. If an
adverb modifying the whole prepositional phrase were intended
I would have expected it to be MONON: e.g. EIS hUMAS MONON. I don't
see that the meaning would be significantly different. Either mode of
articulation would yield the sense, "Or are you the only people it
reached?" = "Or did it only reach you people?" But I can't see how
MONOUS can be said to indicate, as a modifier of hUMAS, a group that
is feminine only rather than generic.
> NOTE: I noticed that both works quoted above are often cited
> as references to "Paul and Women".
I suppose you mean that they're commonly referred to in Pauline
bibliographies in the same category of works dealing with feminist
questions.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad2 at mac.com
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list