Re: John 6:10

Date: Thu Feb 04 1999 - 16:40:45 EST


May I chime in to support Carl's "hesitant suggestion" about ANHR in the
Feeding of the 5000 accounts, that ANHR can be used in a non-gender-
specific sense.

There are passages where it is awkward to suppose that the term in the
plural is meant to exclude women. E.g., in Acts 2: Verse 5 says that
there were devout ANDRES, Jews, from every nation -- does he mean no women?
Then Peter addresses them (when they have heard the glossolalia) as
"ANDRES Judeans" (14) and later (22, 29) as "ANDRES Israelites". Did he
address no women in the audience? Or were there no women? In view of
Luke's strong support for women, it seems unlikely that he was saying
that MALES (but no women) heard the 120 speaking in tongues, or that Peter
was addressing only MALES and not any women.

Of course, Luke COULD have meant to include only males, but that seems
quite odd.

In light of that, I concur also with Carl's suggestion that Matthew has
taken advantage of Mark's use of ANDRES to increase the size of the crowd
significantly. (This of course hinges on agreeing with the great majority
of scholars that Mark was used by Matthew. Farmer's disciples would
explain it some other way.)

Sorry to write a ME TOO message, but I thought Acts 2 might give a little

Edward Hobbs

--------------Carl wrote--------->>>>>>>>..

I'm just a bit hesitant to make this suggestion, and I certainly wouldn't
if I didn't think that it may very well be true: that ANHR as used here
really means "person" rather than "person of male gender." It's true that
one is not likely to see it ever used with feminine adjectives (as
ANQRWPOS, on the other hand, is not infrequently used with feminine
adjectives), and certainly there are plenty of instances the context makes
it quite clear that ANDRES does mean males as distinguished from GUNAIKES.
And yet, although I find no real support in either LSJ-Glare or BAGD
(although BAGD s.v.4 really seems to indicate usages of ANHR in a
non-gender sense, hAMARTWLOS ANHR = "sinner," ANHR AGAQOS, ANHR FRONIMOS
vs. MWROS; such usage is rather like our "reasonable man"--a phrase
wherein, if "man" were to be taken in a strictly male-gender sense, would
have to imply that males by and large are not reasonable although women
just might be! LSJ suggest that a primary sense of ANHR is to refer to the
human being as distinct from QEOI. Morever, despite Hesiod's story of
Pandora and its implication of a separate creation of womankind, there's no
reason to think that the Homeric phrase PATHR ANDRWN TE QEWN TE is meant to
refer to Zeus as "father" only of male gods and male humanity. So for my
part I am very strongly inclined to think that ANDRES here is not really

Curious. One may raise the question of the relationship of Mk 6:44 KAI HSAN
know that there are those who want to believe that Mark abbreviates the
Matthaean narratives, but it does seem (to me at least) like CWRIS GUNAIKWN
KAI PAIDIWN is a gloss ADDED in Mt for the precise purpose of indicating
that ANDRES should NOT be understood in a NON-gender-specific sense, as it
might have been understood without that gloss.

Carl W. Conrad

B-Greek home page:
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: []
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
To subscribe, send a message to

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:15 EDT