From: James H. Vellenga (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Jun 24 1997 - 15:43:00 EDT
I'm a little reluctant to continue this on the list because we
seem to be verging on the tendentious, but you have raised a
point that is a legitimate Greek interpretation question.
A couple of your other points I will respond to off-line.
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Paul S. Dixon)
> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 14:53:38 EDT
> On Tue, 24 Jun 97 13:00:53 EDT "James H. Vellenga" <email@example.com>
> >> From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Paul S. Dixon)
> >> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 12:43:03 EDT
> >> It is entirely possible that ANQRWPOI and ADELPHOI (which often
> >> refer to men and brothers respectively and exclusively but never
> >> refer to women and sisters respectively and exclusively) are used
> >> as a way of viewing or addressing the general population through
> >> its male leadership. If men are the heads of their families, for
> >> example, then an address or reference to them is an address or
> >> reference to their bodies, their wives, and to their families.
> >> If so, then to translate ANQRWPOI and ADELPHOI as "mankind"
> >> and "brothers and sisters" respectively would miss the mark.
> >> It would ignore the male leadership motif.
> >Maybe, but in my attempts to translate systematically (or
> >as some would say "hyperliterally") I haven't found any cases
> >that seemed to require a specifically male sense to the word.
> >I would be interested to find a specific passage where it
> >made a real difference. I'm wondering if one doesn't have to
> >assume "the male leadership motif" in order to find it from
> >the texts.
> No, at least two passages come immediately to mind (Ro 5:12
> and 1 Cor 15:21-22) where ANQRWPOS relates specifically to
> men, Adam and Christ. Both are heads, Adam the head of the
> fallen human race and Christ, the Head of the redeemed
As it happens, both persons mentioned are male, and they
are heads, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the maleship
is connected with the headship. The emphasis in at least Rom
5.12 is on the personship rather than on the maleship:
"Because of this--just as through one person the sin entered
into the world system, and the death through the sin--so too
the death passed on through to all [kinds of] people, on
[the basis of] the [fact that] all [of them] sinned"
Here "one person" (hENOS ANQRWPOU) finds its mirror in "all
people" (PANTAS ANQRWPOUS), and so is most naturally taken
as representative of humans in general, and not as of males
And 1 Cor 15.21 can be read either way. Read generically,
it comes out as
"Because since through a human being, death, also through a
human being, a resurrection of dead [people]."
"Because since through a male human, death, also through a
male human, a resurrection of dead [people]."
Both of these "make sense," so it seems to me that this passage
cannot be used to choose between the senses of ANQRWPOS. Rather,
it illustrates that if you assume a particular sense of ANQRWPOS
you come to different conclusions as to the significance of the
Clearly, the male-specific interpretation is possible in 1 Cor.
15.21, but it is not the only possible interpretation. To decide
on the real sense or meaning of ANQRWPOS requires us to scan
a wider variety of contexts.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:19 EDT