From: Paul S. Dixon (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Jun 24 1997 - 20:36:02 EDT
James et al:
On Tue, 24 Jun 97 15:43:00 EDT "James H. Vellenga" <email@example.com>
>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.
Though we both may appear to have an ax to grind, or as you
suggest may be bringing certain presuppostions to the table, I
am greatly encouraged by your spirit, tact, and intelligence to
pursue on. Actually, this could be a very profitable venture.
>> 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"
>> >> From: email@example.com (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.
Even if one does assume "the male leadership motif" here, it does
not follow that such is wrong, especially if scripture elsewhere
endorses male leadership.
>> 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:
No, it may not mean that the maleship is necessarily connected to
the headship here.. But, the fact that scripture prescribes male
headship only (Eph 5:22ff, 1 Cor 11:2ff) lends support to a likely
> "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.
In summary, if we assume a male leadership motif in scripture, then
it at least opens the door for a possible explanation for the use of what
many deem a male oriented terminology. If ANQRWPOS is not
necessarily male-ish, certainly ADELFOI is.
On the other hand, if we reject a male leadership motif in scripture,
it is hightly unlikely that this possibility would even be considered.
Paul S. DIxon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:19 EDT