[B-Greek] 1 Pet 2:17: Knowing when a noun is Gender-inclusive

Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Sat Apr 19 05:47:45 EDT 2008


On Apr 19, 2008, at 12:18 AM, Kenneth Litwak wrote:

>
>> In short as far as Greek is concerned such terms are
>> inclusive - the
>> question is context, since both men and women are
>> the receivers of the
>> letter it suggests the brotherhood includes both mem
>> and women. Those
>> who would use brotherhood just to mean men would not
>> according to
>> rabbinacal tradition "waste their time" by talking
>> to addressing women.
>>
>> From memory the book of Aboth starts with "Rabbi so
>> and so told Rabbi
>> so and so ... not to waste time talking with women"
>> The commentator
>> the adds "If that was what was said about talking to
>> ones wife, then
>> talking to women in gemeral is even more of a waste
>> of time.
>>
>> Regards
>> John Knightley
>
> John,
>
>  While there are instructions to wives in six verses
> (3:1-6), that does not seem like sufficient data to
> show that Peter was addressing both men and women
> throughout and it does not really tell us what a
> first-century reader/hearer would think when he OR she
> encountered "brothers," e.g., James 1:2, or
> "brotherhood," 1 Pet 2:17.  We need something more to
> know what people would have thought sucha  masculine
> noun could have meant, I would think.


The abstract noun is formed from the adjective ADELFOS/H/ON. Why is it  
to be supposed that it is "such a masculine noun"?


Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)






More information about the B-Greek mailing list