From: Paul S. Dixon (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jun 26 1997 - 15:38:49 EDT
On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 13:10:12 -0400 Jonathan Robie
>At 12:19 PM 6/26/97 EDT, Paul S. Dixon wrote:
>> 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
>I think you are asking too much of a grammatical argument here, Paul.
>all, in the day of Mary, Queen of Scots, the English language used
>refer to groups of men and women, "men" to refer to groups of men, and
>or "men" to refer to mankind, but a queen could rule the country
>male leadership above her.
Jonathon, the existence of queens in England does not prove that
ANQRWPOI in scripture could not be used to refer to mankind in general
through its male leadership.
>> Is it possible that women were (are) viewed as ANQRWPOI only
>> through their male leadership?
>Doesn't ANQROPOI in this sense mean the same as "humans"? What kind of
>leadership do males need if they are to be humans? Where is the
>support for this principle? I really think this kind of speculation
>the gender of nouns is fairly ridiculous in light of the arbitrary
>Greek gender. Since hH ALHQEIA is feminine, does this mean that men
>access to truth through women?
ANQRWPOI may have the sense of "humans," but that does not mean
it cannot first have the sense of "men," and then by implication (from
male leadership motif) the sense of "persons" or "humans" in general.
If so, then why not keep the traditional "men" translation which would at
least would not automatically dismiss the male leadership motif.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:20 EDT