anhr vs. anqrwpos

From: Theresa J List, Dcs (
Date: Tue Jun 24 1997 - 14:24:13 EDT

It is simplistic to insist that either "anhr" or "anqrwpos" have only one
meaning respectively. Each word can take on a specific meaning of "a
male" or a generic meaning of "a person." An example of each case is
cited below. (Many, many, many more examples could be found in big
Kittel if anyone cares to look them up.)

James 1:20 orgh gar _andros_ dikaiosunhn qeou ouk ergazetai "For the
wrath of a _human_ does not accomplish the righteousness of God."

 2 Thessalonians 2:3 "kai apokalufqh o _anqrwpos_ ths anomias o uios ths
apwleias" "and the man (as in, male) of lawlessness, the son of
perdition, is revealed."

Each of these words is contextually defined, and therefore, no amount of
lexicon thumping, or no amount of systematic theology textbook thumping,
can change that. The meaning of either of these words depends on the
context of usage. Are we talking about 1Co 11? 1 Ti. 2? Romans 5? In
any given passage, we can discuss the referent of the noun; we can
discuss the logic (mh gnoito!) of the passage; we can even discuss the
theology implied by the logic and the grammar (albeit we cannot discuss
it here!) But we simply cannot assert in a vacuum that either of these
words has an end-all, be-all meaning no matter and no matter where they
appear in Scripture. I think our individual theological biases are
making us ignore the necessary linguistic perimeters within which we can,
and cannot, draw conclusions.

Theresa List

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:20 EDT