From: Paul S. Dixon (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jun 26 1997 - 00:49:15 EDT
On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 21:40:49 -0400 "Mary A. Moody" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>A lurker brought up in a private email, but intended for the entire
>>list, the issue of rendering ANQRWPOS in Jn2:25 --
>>KAI OTI OU CREIAN EICEN hINA TIS MARTURHSH PERI TOU ANQRWPOU
>>AUTOS GAR EGINWSKEN TI HN EN TWi ANQRWPWi.
>I wonder if the intended word play isn't lost if we translate using
>non-offensive language and drop "man" - yes, human nature surely is
>intended. But what about the tying of the "man" of the Pharisees to
>the man of those to whem Jesus did not trust himself and the man whom
> he knew. Person would work in each place, but sounds terribly strained
> in, "Now there was a person of the Pharisees"
>KAI OTI OU CREIAN EICEN hINA TIS MARTURHSH PERI TOU ANQRWPOU
>AUTOS GAR EGINWSKEN TI HN EN TWi ANQRWPWi.
>HN DE ANQRWPOS EK TWN FARISAIWN NIKODHMOS
This, of course, is another example of where ANQRWPOS unequivocally
refers not to a person or mankind, but to a man. It is the only
that will do. Somone earlier on the list made such a statement, i.e.,
ANQRWPOS never refers only to a man, and that ANQRWPOI never refers
to men only. There are plenty of examples to the contrary. This is just
On the other hand, are there any examples of ANQRWPOS referring to
only a woman? Hmm. If not, then why not? Is it possible that women
were (are) viewed as ANQRWPOI only through their male leadership.
That, then, would amply explain the use of ANQRWPOI and would in no
way demean womanhood. Furthermore, if we then translate ANQRWPOI
as "persons" or "mankind," then we would lose the significance of the
male leadership motif.
Paul S. DIxon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:20 EDT