From: Paul S. Dixon (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jun 26 1997 - 12:19:32 EDT
On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 06:57:21 -0400 "Carl W. Conrad"
>At 12:49 AM -0400 6/26/97, Paul S. Dixon wrote:
>>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 translation that will do. Somone earlier on the list
>> made such a statement, i.e., that 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 one.
>>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
>> Furthermore, if we then translate ANQRWPOI as "persons" or
>> "mankind," then we would lose the significance of the male
>> leadership motif.
>This appears to be a curious instance of assuming the conclusion
> in the premiss.
Carl, if it is so that ANQWPOS is often used only of males, and never
only of females, and if it is often used generically for both males and
females, and if male leadership is biblical, then does it not follow that
this may be a possible explanation (i.e., ANQRWPOS being used to
denote both males and females generically through the male
leadership motif) for the use of ANQRWPOS?
>>On the other hand, are there any examples of ANQRWPOS referring to
>>only a woman? Hmm. If not, then why not?
>I cite from the older (Victorian edition, the only one I have handy
>here, but the one at the Perseus web site can be checked) of LS s.v.
>ANQRWPOS: II. as fem. (as [Latin] <italic>homo</italic> also is fem.)
><italic>a woman</italic>, first in Herodotus 1.60, cf. Isocrates 381B,
>Aristotle, Nic. Ethics 7.5.2;--contemptuously, of female slaves,
>Antiphon 113.16, etc.; with a sense o pity, Demosthenes 402.25: -- in
>Lacon. [i.e. Spartan dialect] ANQRWPW hH, Hesychius ...
I'm not sure I followed all this, but I would like to. Do I gather from
this that there are occurrences of the use of ANQRWPOS where
it refers only to a woman or women? That would indeed be
interesting to check out. I do not believe, however, that there are any
examples in scripture.
>I frankly don't understand what it means to say that women might
>conceivably be viewed as human beings only through their male
>leadership. I say I don't understand it, although I recognize it as a
>cultural assumption of long standing that is now being and (in my
>opinion) should be challenged.
Be careful not to assume the conclusion here, Carl :). I did not say,
that women might be conceived as human beings only through
their male leadership. I did say, that women might be conceived as
ANQRWPOI through their male leadership.
Paul S. Dixon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:20 EDT