Re: ANQRWPOS in Jn2:25-3:1

From: Carl W. Conrad (
Date: Fri Jun 27 1997 - 16:22:04 EDT

At 2:02 PM -0400 6/27/97, Paul S. Dixon wrote:
>Carl, Jonathan:
>First of all, let's set this straight. I am not arguing for the maleness
>of ANQRWPOS on the basis of the masculine gender, nor more
>than I would argue for the maleness of hO LOGOS because of the
>masculine gender. If I am arguing for maleness here it is because
>of the male leadership motif prevalent in scripture. You say that is
>importing something into the text not found there. Yes and no.
>No, because ANQRWPOS can refer to males only. It does not
>always refer generically to mankind. [snip]
>I would like to argue that ANQPRWPOS can carry the meaning of
>a man, but by metonymy refer to the human race. E.W. Bullinger,
>"Figures of Speech Used in the Bible," cites metonymies where
>1) princes are put for the thousands whom they led (Mt 2:6, cf.
>Micah 5:2; 1 Sam 10:19), 2) Christ is put for His people (Acts 9:4,
>1 Cor 12:12; Col 1:24). Furthermore, in Rev 2-3 the messenger
>(TW AGGELW) appears to be put for the church related to him.
>My point is simply this: it may be that ANQRWPOS should be
>taken singularly, referring immediately to a man, but by
>metonymy be extended to include all of humanity.
>If so, then we may be remiss in translating "mankind" or

I think Jonathan is quite right and that there's no further for this thread
to go. There's a tenuous premiss (just possibly ANQRWPOS in the singular
may mean "male" rather than "human being") upon which a momentous
conclusion is being drawn. I've tried to show that the premiss cannot be
demonstrated: it simply has not been shown that ANQRWPOS in the singular
bears the essential meaning of "male" rather than "human person." If it CAN
be demonstrated, I'd be willing to entertain the argument you propose. But
it has NOT been demonstrated and I seriously doubt that it CAN be
demonstrated. Moreover, it has never been shown that the existence of a
theme of male authority in the NT (and I grant that there is one in the
pastoral epistles especially, but I think it stands in tension with other
important NT evidence) has any bearing on the lexical substance of the word

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(704) 675-4243 OR

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