[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #696
b-greek-digest Saturday, 6 May 1995 Volume 01 : Number 696
In this issue:
Translation - NRSV "inclusive"
Re: Gender [was Translations]
Re: Translation - NRSV "inclusive"
Re: Translation - NRSV "inclusive"
Re: Gender [was Translations]
Re: Translation - NRSV "inclusive"
unsubscribe please 3rd X
Re: Learning Greek "Solo"
unsubcribe
man/sackcloth & ashes
Re: Translations
How to unsubscribe
Historical Present
Secret Mark, Neusner, Smith, etc.
Re: Translations
Re: Translations (fwd)
Re: Translations sexist terms
Re: Gender [was Translations]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: WHEIDLER@trevecca.edu
Date: Fri, 05 May 1995 14:36:56 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Translation - NRSV "inclusive"
On this line of thought, I have a question.
In studing John's Gospel, he mentions the Woman at the Well in Samaria.
In part of the story the woman goes back to the village and tells
the people(NRSV)"Come and see....."
They translate the ANTHRWPON as people. My question is, In a patriarchal(?)
system would she really have told the 'people' or would she have told
the men of the city (the elders)? My Prof. says that it would have been the
elders of the city and not everyone (at least not now).
Is this to inclusive?
Wayne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*|*
Trevecca Nazarene College *--|--* WHeidler@Trevecca.edu
333 Murfreesboro Road *|* Phone: (615)248-1236
Nashville, TN 37210 *|* FAX: (615)248-7728
D. Wayne Heidler Pastoral Major
CIS (extensive) Minor
Children's Pastor
Network Communications Specialist
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 14:45:44 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Gender [was Translations]
On Fri, 5 May 1995, Nichael Lynn Cramer wrote:
> At 10:50 AM 05/05/95 -0500, Carl W Conrad wrote:
> > ... I was quite surprised just a
> >couple years ago, upon looking up the etymology of the word, that "man"
> >derives from the Indo-European word for "hand." If Latin "manus" is any
> >guide, the word was FEMININE, of all things.
>
> If you'll forgive a amateur's linguistic but non-strictly-Greek question:
> Something I've often wondered, how universal (presumably among IE
> languages) is the practice of associating --at least at the level of
> terminology-- grammatical gender with sexual gender?
>
> That is to say, a language that had more than one gender, could quite
> validly call one "black" and one "white", or "up"/"down" or <insert your
> favorite contrasting pair here>. Do all languages follow this convention?
> Or is such "confusion" as in the example above (i.e. "man" ==> "feminine")
> peculiar to English and nearby languages?
I cannot and shall not try to answer for non-IE languages, although my
understanding is that linguists say "gender" has no necessary connection
to sex except in the case of words for creatures having sexual
distinctions--that there are American Indian languages with oodles of
"genders." On the other hand, all the Indo-European languages that I have
any knowledge of do show three genders, masculine, feminine, and neuter.
Of course I by no means was implying, by saying that the IE root word
underlying English "man" was apparently feminine, that there was any
implication of femininity in the usage of "man" in such phrases as "hired
man" any more than in "hired hand."
I want to reiterate yet once more (how redundant can one be?) that I have
no desire to reject inclusive language. I do think that we are in a still
somewhat awkward phase, however, in developing appropriate language. It
would appear that the use of "person" with adjectives and agent-nouns is
a 20th-century repetition of the linguistic process that centuries ago
created terms using "man" in the same way that we are now using "person"
to create gender-neutral nouns.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 14:58:09 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Translation - NRSV "inclusive"
On Fri, 5 May 1995 WHEIDLER@trevecca.edu wrote:
> On this line of thought, I have a question.
>
> In studing John's Gospel, he mentions the Woman at the Well in Samaria.
> In part of the story the woman goes back to the village and tells
> the people(NRSV)"Come and see....."
>
> They translate the ANTHRWPON as people. My question is, In a patriarchal(?)
> system would she really have told the 'people' or would she have told
> the men of the city (the elders)? My Prof. says that it would have been the
> elders of the city and not everyone (at least not now).
>
> Is this to inclusive?
I don't think this can be decided definitively; certainly the Greek is
masculine, TOIS ANQRWPOIS, but the masculine form would normally be used
if the persons referred to are of both genders. I think "people" is
appropriate here; remember that it is possible to SPECIFY that only males
are addressed by using TOIS ANDRASI.
Incidentally, although I don't know of any instance offhand in the NT,
classical Greek can and does use a feminine article with ANQRWPOS for a
woman. I suppose one could translate that "the female person," but that
seems pretty strained.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
From: WHEIDLER@trevecca.edu
Date: Fri, 05 May 1995 15:18:48 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Translation - NRSV "inclusive"
>I don't think this can be decided definitively; certainly the Greek is
>masculine, TOIS ANQRWPOIS, but the masculine form would normally be used
>if the persons referred to are of both genders. I think "people" is
>appropriate here; remember that it is possible to SPECIFY that only males
>are addressed by using TOIS ANDRASI.
I understand that Greek gender can not be decided by the article's gender
of the gender of the word. I was just wondering.
Thanks, for pointing out TOIS ANDRASI, I hadn't thought about that point.
Wayne,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*|*
Trevecca Nazarene College *--|--* WHeidler@Trevecca.edu
333 Murfreesboro Road *|* Phone: (615)248-1236
Nashville, TN 37210 *|* FAX: (615)248-7728
D. Wayne Heidler Pastoral Major
CIS (extensive) Minor
Children's Pastor
Network Communications Specialist
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
7 and counting...
------------------------------
From: Vincent Broman <broman@np.nosc.mil>
Date: Fri, 5 May 95 13:38:15 PDT
Subject: Re: Gender [was Translations]
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu wrote:
> all the Indo-European languages that I have
> any knowledge of do show three genders.
Except in the 3d person singular pronouns, Swedish distinguishes
only 2 genders: common or neuter, although this must be a modern
development. Russian has three genders but they depend on the
final letter/sound of the word instead of on its meaning.
Bantu has a large number of noun categories that cause "agreement",
like gender, but more distinctions are made than just M/F/N.
The agreement of grammatical gender and biological sex
generally has increased over time in Indo-European languages,
as a regularization trend.
Vincent Broman, code 572 Bayside Email: broman@nosc.mil
Naval Command Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Div.
San Diego, CA 92152-6147, USA Phone: +1 619 553 1641
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 16:03:35 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Translation - NRSV "inclusive"
On Fri, 5 May 1995 WHEIDLER@trevecca.edu wrote:
> >I don't think this can be decided definitively; certainly the Greek is
> >masculine, TOIS ANQRWPOIS, but the masculine form would normally be used
> >if the persons referred to are of both genders. I think "people" is
> >appropriate here; remember that it is possible to SPECIFY that only males
> >are addressed by using TOIS ANDRASI.
>
> I understand that Greek gender can not be decided by the article's gender
> of the gender of the word. I was just wondering.
>
> Thanks, for pointing out TOIS ANDRASI, I hadn't thought about that point.
I really should add, Wayne, that TOIS ANDRASI would not very likely be
used unless both men and women were present and the writer wanted to
specifically indicate which ones were being addressed. It's still a
judgment call on whether one thinks women would likely have been included
in the group addressed by the Samaritan woman. I'd opt for the inclusive
word, but I don't think it can be proven that only men were in fact told.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
From: Benita Suber-BEy <bmsuber@ilst.edu>
Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 16:52:33 -0500
Subject: unsubscribe please 3rd X
UNSUBSCRIBE BENITA SUBER-BEY
------------------------------
From: David Cashmore <atlantis.actrix.gen.nz@actrix.gen.nz>
Date: Sat, 6 May 1995 11:30:32 +0000
Subject: Re: Learning Greek "Solo"
Just a word of personal testimony on learning Greek by yourself.
I started learning Greek by myself last June using Wenham's book. I
was able to get to chapter 19 (out of 43 I think) on my own. My
target was to get this far so I could join a Greek 2 class at the
local Bible College night school. Some observations...
a. I was familiar with the Greek alphabet already (physics and
engineering tends to help here).
b. I has studied Latin at school - although this was 25 years ago!
Wenham's approach to teaching Greek is similar to how I was taught
Latin. Latin is also very similar to Greek.
c. I found at chapter 19 I was starting to get "full up". I was
starting to find it harder to remember things. Wenham gets to the
imperative, and imperfect tenses but has not yet covered 3rd
declension. I think one major reason is that Wenham does not get you
to translate the NT. You have to translate his made up sentences.
d. I started at the Bible College and discovered that we had changed
to Mounce's textbook. But still at chapter 19 :-) Hearing other
people pronounce Greek words was absolutely wonderful. I also
started picking up the Greek NT and reading Mark and 1 John. This
got me excited as I could see the objective in sight.
Conclusions from my experience:
1. Wenham was probably not the best book to start on! Mounce would
have been a better choice from the start.
2. You will probably only get so far by yourself. Motivation is one
issue, but having feedback on pronunciation and getting questions
answered in real time is important.
3. Make sure you read the Greek NT as soon as possible.
David
David Cashmore cashmore@actrix.gen.nz
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND
------------------------------
From: GLLang@aol.com
Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 19:51:55 -0400
Subject: unsubcribe
unsubscribe b-greek
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 19:34:41 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: man/sackcloth & ashes
Date: 05 May 95 17:03:00 EDT
From: "Lindsay J. Whaley" <Lindsay.J.Whaley@Dartmouth.EDU>
Subject: man
> --- You wrote:
> I was quite surprised just a
> couple years ago, upon looking up the etymology of the word, that "man"
> derives from the Indo-European word for "hand." If Latin "manus" is any
> guide, the word was FEMININE, of all things.
> --- end of quoted material ---
> Are you sure about this? Since "man" has so many cognates
> in IE languages (Old High German, Sanskrit, Gothic, Old
> Norse?), all of which mean "man, human being", it surprises
> me that it could derive from a PIE word meaning "hand". Do
> you remember your source? I may need to go educate myself.
It is sackcloth and ashes time. Lindsay Whaley had the courtesy to
send me this note off-list; it has sent me scurrying to etymological
resources available at home: Webster's Collegiate (10th ed.);
Webster's 3rd International; and the OED (the microtext edition that
must be read with a not-really-adequate magnifying glass. Whatever the
source I checked upon first being told about MAN < IE root for "hand,"
it was not one of these but one I had at my office, an older Webster's
Collegiate and an old unabridged Funk & Wagnall's. I do know that I
checked it because it sounded unlikely.
At any rate, the upshot is, according to these two Webster and one OED
dictionaries: as far back as the noun "man" has been used in ENGLISH,
it's fundamental sense has been adult male human being. The OED cites
what it says is a no-longer-accepted hypothesis that the root is
cognate with a zero-grade form of the same root *MN meaning "mind."
Webster's 3rd International references that theory but nevertheless
confirms that the oldest English sense is adult male human being.
Maybe it's that fellow who came out of the flying saucer that gave me
this little tidbit. Just wait 'till I see him again. ; - ) Folks, I
have to admit it, I'm not even a native of Missouri: I just live here,
and I'm apparently as gullible as anyone, more so than most.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
From: GGoolde@aol.com
Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 21:11:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Translations
A little knowledge of Greek clears up a lot also. In the Greek New Testament
there are two words for man.
anthropos = man as in human being, homo sapien
aner = male or husband
There is a corresponding word, gunee, which means wife or female.
Does this help?
George
------------------------------
From: "James D. Ernest" <ernest@mv.mv.com>
Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 21:18:19 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: How to unsubscribe
Send your message to:
MAJORDOMO@VIRGINIA.EDU
- --not to B-GREEK@VIRGINIA EDU
The content of the message should be:
UNSUBSCRIBE B-GREEK
That's the concise version. Here's what it says in the
instructions that you received when you subscribed:
6. GETTING OFF OF THE LIST
If you wish to get off the list follow these instructions:
(You don't need to send both the B-GREEK and the B-GREEK-DIGEST
versions unless you are subscribed to both.)
Try sending the following message to majordomo@virginia.edu
UNSUBSCRIBE B-GREEK
UNSUBSCRIBE B-GREEK-DIGEST
END
If this does not work, you are probably subscribed under
and address which is different than your return address.
send the following command to majordomo@virginia.edu
WHO B-GREEK
WHO B-GREEK-DIGEST
END
Find which address is yours, and then send the
following command to majordomo@virginia.edu
UNSUBSCRIBE B-GREEK <address>
UNSUBSCRIBE B-GREEK-DIGEST <address>
END
As a last resort, contact me at djm5g@virginia.edu, but
there isn't anything that I can do other than what is
listed here which you can do.
...
Questions about this conference may be directed to David John Marotta.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
| David John Marotta Internet: djm5g@virginia.edu |
| Adjunct Faculty Prodigy: KCMR45A |
| The Center for Christian Study IBM US Mail: USUVARG8 |
| 128 Chancellor Street voice: (804) 982-3718 |
| Charlottesville, VA 22903 messages: (804) 924-5261 |
| (804) 295-2471 fax: (804) 296-7209 |
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
James D. Ernest Joint Doctoral Program
Manchester, New Hampshire, USA Andover-Newton/Boston College
Internet: ernest@mv.mv.com Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts
------------------------------
From: craig@tmh.chattanooga.net
Date: Fri, 05 May 1995 08:51:33 EST4
Subject: Historical Present
On (Thu 04 Ma) pgraber@emory.edu wrote to All...
p > This is especially true of the "historical" present, because
p > most translators simply ignore it, since they don't know how it
p > functions.
Philip,
I noticed the importance of the H.P. in Mark in 1982. Other syntactical and
grammatical features led me to believe that Mark was influenced by his
Semitic background. The hist. present would be similar to the waw-consec.
in Hebrew (please note the abundant use of KAI as well).
My suspicions were later confirmed by a dissertation and book entitled
_Semitic Interference in the Gospel of Mark_. I do not have the author or
other bibl. data here at home.
Lee R. Martin
****************************************************************************
L. R. MARTIN E-Mail: LRMARTIN@TMH.CHATTANOOGA.NET
4038 John Court, NW Phone (voice): 615-559-2044
Cleveland, TN 37312 FAX: 615-478-7711
BR'SHYT BR' 'LHYM. . . . EN ARXH HN O LOGOS. . . .
****************************************************************************
--- PPoint 1.92
* Origin: (8:2077/6504)
SEEN-BY: 2077/0 10 6504
PATH: 2077/6504 0
- -----------------------------------------------------------
The Missions Helpline * Give glory to God! * Cleveland,TN
- -----------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: Greg Doudna <gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 19:34:55 -0700
Subject: Secret Mark, Neusner, Smith, etc.
Paul Moser wrote:
> . . . Neusner announces that Smith's proposed evidence for the
> so-called Secret Gospel of Mark "must now be declared the
> forgery of the century" (p. 28). Neusner suggests that Smith
> himself forged the Clement of Alexandria fragment that
> allegedly surfaced in a library in Sinai in 1958, giving
> evidence of the Secret Gospel. As one might have expected,
> Helmut Koester and J.D. Crossan regard canonical Mark as
> postdating Secret Mark . . .
I had not heard of Neusner's claim or this particular work of
Neusner's (_Are There Really Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels?_)
but I have studied this issue of Secret Mark and had become
convinced that Morton Smith perpetrated a fraud, also.
Not a single reference to or reaction against this alleged
Clement letter is known in history; and the book in which
Morton Smith found the letter at the Mar Saba monastery was
not listed in any previous catalogue of that monastery. Morton
Smith made no effort whatever toward conservation of the
manuscript, nor has the document apparently been seen or brought
to light for testing and analysis by anyone else. (I do not
doubt that a genuine 17th century book with a letter in the
back exists; but there is no evidence beyond M Smith's word
that he found it in the monastery.) The shocking contents of
the letter sound suspiciously like theories Morton Smith was
working on; and there is much more. I am unfamiliar with
Neusner's analysis, but in my own reading of Smith's account
of the discovery I have noted strange ways Smith puts things.
For example, he dedicated his book on the Secret Gospel,
cryptically, "To the one who knows"; and never disclosed
who this person was or what this person knew.
For articulation of suspicions of forgery before now Quentin
Quesnell in _Catholic Biblical Quarterly_ 37 (1975): 48-67 is
a classic, and see also M. Smith's reply and Quesnell's reply
to Smith's reply in the next issue, CBQ 38. There is a good
discussion of the forgery question in _Longer Mark: Forgery,
Interpolation, or Old Tradition?- ed. R. Fuller (Berkeley:
Center for Hermeneutical Studies, 1976). This list's very
own Edward Hobbs was at the Colloquium reported in this last
citation, where Smith was also present at the discussion of
whether his discovery was a forgery; perhaps Dr. Hobbs can
offer some illuminating firsthand anecdotal information of
that occasion!
Greg Doudna
West Linn, Oregon
- --
------------------------------
From: Micheal Palmer <mpalmes@email.unc.edu>
Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 22:57:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Translations
On Fri, 5 May 1995, Schumacher DW(Don) wrote:
>
> If "man" in English once had an inclusive sense (perhaps at the time of the
> translation of the RSV), it would be rather unfair to accuse it of being
> sexist, a loaded term which implies that "man" was used deliberately in
> place of "person" to exclude any reference to women.
Your point is well taken. I should have been more careful with my
wording. I do see the RSV as unecessarily sexist, but I should have
pointed out that I do not see the translators as sexist. When they
performed their work the term "man" was commonly used by both men and
women in an inclusive sense. The language (at least for many speakers)
has now changed in this regard, rendering the translation sexist. This is
not the fault of the translators, however, and I should have made that
clear in my original posting. Quite apart from what they may have
intended, the translation now has a voice of its own. It speaks to
readers, and does so in what is now a sexist voice.
Micheal W. Palmer
Mellon Research Fellow
Department of Linguistics
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
------------------------------
From: Micheal Palmer <mpalmes@email.unc.edu>
Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 23:12:45 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Translations (fwd)
On Fri, 5 May 1995, Rex A. Koivisto wrote:
> Micheal:
> While generally favorable to the NRSV's removal of unnecessarily
> sexist language, one place where it seems to me to be referring
> specifically to males and where it is wrongly neutralized is actually in
> the OT rather than the NT. I am referring to the use of "my child" in
> Proverbs rather than "my son." It certainly appears to me that the Wise
> Man is instructing his male child in wisdom rather than all of his children
> (male and female) in view of the warning about responding to sexually loose
> women in chapter 7. And, in a patriarchal society, I would expect that
> training one's male children in these things was the actual practice. Am I
> wrong here?
I would have to do some serious work on the passage you mention to give
my assessment of this argument, but it sounds like the kind of passage I
had in mind. I wonder if there are others. While my reaction to the NRSV
is generally possitive, it wouldn't surprise me greatly to find a few places
where the translators have rendered inclusive and expression which was
exclusive in the Greek texts.
Micheal W. Palmer
Mellon Research Fellow
Department of Linguistics
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
------------------------------
From: Micheal Palmer <mpalmes@email.unc.edu>
Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 23:23:23 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Translations sexist terms
On Fri, 5 May 1995 WINBROW@aol.com wrote:
> I have checked quite a few places where the NRSV might have used inclusive
> language when the original referred to only to males, but I have not yet
> found an instance of such use. They were evidently very careful in that
> regard.
This is good to hear. Have any of the rest of you tried to find such
passages? I would hope that the translators were careful to avoid such
problems, but even the most careful translators can sometimes make mistakes.
Micheal W. Palmer
Mellon Research Fellow
Department of Linguistics
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
------------------------------
From: Micheal Palmer <mpalmes@email.unc.edu>
Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 23:58:10 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Gender [was Translations]
On Fri, 5 May 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
> . . . On the other hand, all the Indo-European languages that I have
> any knowledge of do show three genders, masculine, feminine, and neuter.
It might be useful to note that the English gender system does not have a
nice three-way division. English has two genders which refer almost
exclusively to humans (he, him, his = masculine human; she, her =
feminine human), and a third gender (it) which refers to entities which
are non-human. This is quite different from the masculine/feminine/neuter
system used in languages such as Greek and Spanish (among many others).
In Greek, neuter pronouns may be used to refer to humans (a quick search
for AUTON will give you a few good examples). Masculine and feminine
pronouns may also be used to refer to non-humans.
There are a few contexts in English where "he" or "she" may be used in
reference to non-human entities:
I've lost my dog, Spot. Have you seen _him_.
Here the inclusion of the name "Spot" gives the dog a human quality and
makes the use of "him" acceptable. We also use feminine pronouns to refer
to certain modes of transportation--mainly ships, but sometimes even
cars. It is interesting to note that this is usually done in connection
with a vehicle which has been given a name.
In any event. The basic pattern in English is
Human | Non-human
=========|==========
Feminine |
---------| Neuter
Masculine|
While the system for Greek is
Masculine|Feminine|Neuter
for words referring to both human and non-human entities. That is, there
are neuter words (such as KORASION) which refer to humans, and masculine
and feminine words which refer to non-human entities.
Micheal W. Palmer
Mellon Research Fellow
Department of Linguistics
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #696
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu