Re: ANQRWPOS in Jn2:25-3:1

From: Jonathan Robie (
Date: Thu Jun 26 1997 - 16:10:19 EDT

At 03:38 PM 6/26/97 EDT, Paul S. Dixon wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 13:10:12 -0400 Jonathan Robie
><> writes:
>>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

>Jonathan, 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.

No, but it shows that even though the society used such terms, female
leadership could be well established in that society. What proves that
ANQRWPOS *does* refer to mankind in general through its male leadership? Is
the fact that ANQRWPOS is masculine the basis for your argument? PROBATON is
neuter; does that mean that male and female sheep are viewed as sheep only
through the leadership of castrated sheep?
>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
>the 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.

I'm not sure how you get from the speculation in the first sentence to the
"if so" in the second sentence. To me, there seem to be a few sentences
missing, the sentences which explain why you think it *is* so.


Jonathan Robie
POET Software, 3207 Gibson Road, Durham, N.C., 27703

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