[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #699
b-greek-digest Monday, 8 May 1995 Volume 01 : Number 699
In this issue:
Re: Translations/Inclusivity
Re: Translations sexist terms
NRSV and "ANHR"
Re: Translations sexist terms
Re: Textbooks on Paul
Re: Translations sexist terms
Re: Historical Present
Sexist language--one more time.
Re: Historical Present
Re: Translations/Inclusivity
Jesus meeting the disciples
Seminary Help
Re: PROTON, PROTOS or PROI
Re: Jesus meeting the disciples
Lexicon for Hellenistic Greek
"One more time"--again!
inclusivity test
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Mon, 8 May 1995 01:41:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Translations/Inclusivity
To: WINBROW@aol.com
cc: b-greek@virginia.edu
Carlton Winbery said on Sat 5/6/95...
>Perhaps there may be a few more places where
>the NRSV could improve even more in inclusive
>language. Matt. 7:24-26 perhaps could read
>that a person who builds upon the rock is a wise
>person (not man) or the one who builds on the
>sand a foolish person.
If you look at the Greek, it says ANDRI PHRONIMW and
ANDRI MWRW, which can only be translated as a male.
It is not ANQROPOS in this instance.
No doubt this verse could be and should be applied
hermeneuticallty to men and women, even though the
wise and foolish people in the text are male.
And, yes, Carton, I too have been watching with disbelief
at the folks at Louisville (which is only 1 1/2 hr from me).
At the same time I heard that a recent Baptist preaching
contest had three women who won the top awards.
As Bob Dylan used to sing, Oh, the times they are
a-changin'.
Peace,
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: Bill Mounce <billm@on-ramp.ior.com>
Date: Sun, 7 May 1995 22:45:46 -0700
Subject: Re: Translations sexist terms
>I would not expect Paul to have expected Timothy to have used only men.
> After all Paul included women in his own ministry. Poebe, a diaconess, had
>rendered long and significant service at Cenchraea, and there are others. If
>Paul did not write the Pastorals and they were written about the end of the
>century, Pliny mentions two deaconesses who were interogated about their
>faith. He is surely reflecting an actual situation that existed among early
>Christians. I don't think that all the instructions and qualifications
>listed in I Timothy necessarily exclude women.
>
>Carlton Winbery
>LA College Rel. Dept.
But in the historical Ephesian situation where women were a large part of
the problem, especially widows, despite what Paul did elsewhere I don't see
this as a possibility in Ephesus. There is no question that elsewhere women
played a role.
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Mon, 8 May 1995 01:43:47 -0400
Subject: NRSV and "ANHR"
TO: b-greek@virginia.edu
From: Timster132@aol.com
I couldn't help myself. I just had to find out for sure if the NRSV had
translated any exclusive Greek male references into a more inclusive reading.
Using the OLB GNT software I searched for forms of ANHR ("Man") and found
it is used 188 times. Then I cross referenced these occurances with the
NRSV. Here's what I found:
9 instances when ANHR was made to read inclusively (where there are no
footnotes in the translation to note this divergence):
Mt 12:41 ANDRES = "people"
Lk 11:31 ANDRWN = "people"
Lk 11:32 ANDRES = "people"
Ac 4:4 ANDRWN = "they"
Rm 4:8 ANHR = "one"
1 Cor 13:11 ANHR = "adult"
Jms 1:12 ANHR = "anyone"
Jms 1:23 ANDRI= "those"
Jms 2:2 ANHR = "person"
For those of you who are into statistics, this is 4.7% of all the NT
references of ANHR.
32 instances where ANHR was dropped from the translation (very possibly to
accomodate inclusivity), without it being noted in the footnotes. For
example, Acts 8:27 "Now there was [a man], an Ethopian...". I decided not to
list all these references, but if someone needs them, I will send a list of
these references to them. These make up 17% of the NT references of ANHR.
There are several times, especially in Acts, where the reading in the text
is inclusive, but the translators included a footnote to explain that the
Greek reads "Men". (Acts 1:16; 2:22; 2:29; 3:12; etc.) I did NOT count
these in the 32 above references, since the NRSV does help the reader to know
what the Greek actually says.
There you go folks.
Peace,
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: Mark W Lucas <markl@stpetes.win-uk.net>
Date: Mon, 08 May 1995 14:29:15
Subject: Re: Translations sexist terms
>Michael,
>
>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.
>
>Carlton Winbery
>LA College Rel. Dept.
>
Try Gal 3:26 PANTES GAR HUIOI QEOU ESTE - For you are all *sons* of
God. NRSV reads 'for ... you are all children of God'. Why did the
Apostle use HUIOI (sons) when he could have used TEKNOI (children)?
The answer is that the sons where the heirs to the father
inheritance. Since we are all heirs with Christ, we are all sons
(never daughters) of God, whether male or female.
My old doctrine lecturer used to say to female students 'If I can
be a bride of Christ, you can be a son of God'!!!
Mark Lucas (London, UK)
Feel free to mail me direct on
markl@stpetes.win-uk.net
or compuserve 100025,1511
------------------------------
From: Gregory Bloomquist <GBLOOMQUIST@spu.stpaul.uottawa.ca>
Date: Mon, 8 May 1995 10:12:09 EDT
Subject: Re: Textbooks on Paul
> I will return to my post as Assistant Professor of Religion (Greek, New
> Testament, and Philosophy) at Bluefield College, Virginia in August. In
> the Spring semester I will teach a course on the pauline literature. I am
> interested in corresponding with any of you who have recently offered a
> course on Paul. What text materials would you recommend? How did you
> organize the course? What worked and what didn't?
> Micheal W. Palmer
Wayne Meeks has been circulating a letter asking for feedback on
his 1972 _The Writings of St. Paul_. In light of feedback he
receives, he is evidently planning to revise the work with
John Fitzgerald. It may be valuable for you to be in touch with
him re. his findings in this area.
Wayne's email address is: wmeeks@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu
Perhaps you could ask Wayne to respond to your comments
electronically and you could post them to B-GREEK?
Greetings!
L. GREGORY BLOOMQUIST
Saint Paul University | Universite Saint-Paul
(University of Ottawa | Universite d'Ottawa)
223 Main, Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 1C4 CANADA
EMAIL: gbloomquist@spu.stpaul.uottawa.ca
gbloom@aix1.uottawa.ca
VOICE: 613-236-1393 (messages) / 613-782-3027 (direct)
FAX: 613-236-4108
------------------------------
From: Gary Meadors <gmeadors@epix.net>
Date: Mon, 8 May 1995 10:23:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Translations sexist terms
On Mon, 8 May 1995, Mark W Lucas wrote:
>
> >Michael,
> >
> >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.
> >
> >Carlton Winbery
> >LA College Rel. Dept.
> >
>
> Try Gal 3:26 PANTES GAR HUIOI QEOU ESTE - For you are all *sons* of
> God. NRSV reads 'for ... you are all children of God'. Why did the
> Apostle use HUIOI (sons) when he could have used TEKNOI (children)?
> The answer is that the sons where the heirs to the father
> inheritance. Since we are all heirs with Christ, we are all sons
> (never daughters) of God, whether male or female.
>
> My old doctrine lecturer used to say to female students 'If I can
> be a bride of Christ, you can be a son of God'!!!
>
>
> Mark Lucas (London, UK)
>
> Feel free to mail me direct on
> markl@stpetes.win-uk.net
> or compuserve 100025,1511
>
>
Thanks for a great illustration!
------------------------------
From: "Rex A. Koivisto" <rexk@teleport.com>
Date: Mon, 8 May 1995 08:25:25 -0700
Subject: Re: Historical Present
>On Fri, 5 May 1995 Lee R. Martin wrote:
>
>> 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).
>
>Does Semitic influence mean that the "historical" present verbs are
>scattered around indescriminately? Do they now function differently in
>Mark than in Greek writings without Semitic influence? Or do they
>function the same way that the waw-consecutive does in Hebrew? If the
>answer to any of these is positive, I (being negative) still think we do
>not have a clear idea of how these narrative present verbs function (I am
>no Hebrew scholar, but I have not seen an explanation of the
>"waw-consecutive" that is particularly satisfying either).
>
>Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
>Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
>pgraber@emory.edu Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
I would concur with Philip. Also, does one posit semitic influence in the
use of historical presents in Xenophon and Thucydides? [See Smyth sec.
1883]. There must be something else happening here, and I am especially
unsure whether the use of the English "historical present" does us right in
these instances. Rex K.
*********************************************
Rex A. Koivisto Email: rexk@teleport.com
Dept. of Bible and Theology Voice: 503/255-0332x415
Multnomah Bible College, Portland, OR FAX: 503/254-1268
*********************************************
------------------------------
From: TonyPr684@aol.com
Date: Mon, 8 May 1995 11:54:43 -0400
Subject: Sexist language--one more time.
I know that lots has been said recently on this topic. If I mY, I'd like to
add comments from someone who is neither a linguist nor a biblical scholar,
but has had an abiding interest in both fields for a number of years.Though
triggered by such specific comments as that "mankind" is an inclusive term
and no one understands it to refer just to males, and wonderings why a woman
would be offended by the creedal words "for us men and for our salvation," my
hope is to address the matter in broader terms that, perhaps, haven't been
specified so far. Or at least to pull together some of what's already been
said.
Two issues are at state here. The first is that the terminology doesn't just
communicate, it signifies. And what these male terms signify is
Christianity's denigration of women since the earliest days of the Church.
This denigration was there before the words that signify it; AN/QROPOS is not
a gender-specific word; translating it as "man" gives it a gender-specific
significance. So the problem is not with the terminology but with the
practice. English, unfortunately, has no equivalent of AN/THROPOS. "Man" is
as close as we can get if we limit ourselves to conventional English; we are
forced, then, (if we are to recognize the denigration of women over the
centuries) to use a less common word, such as humankind
As a professional editor, I have struggled with this issue for years. There
are no easy answers. Some of the hybrids (s/he, for example) I find
unacceptable because they are too jarring to the reader. Less jarring, and
quite acceptable in years past, is the use of the plural relative pronoun
with an indefinite single subject ("If anyone [sing] has finished their test,
pass it forward." is better than "...his or her test.."). Another is the use
of a non gender-specific plural for a gender-specific plural ("people"
instead of "men") when the context does not call for gender specificity.
The solutions to this problem are still evolving. But denying or ignoring the
problem--and here I'm talking about the language problem--will only
exacerbate it. A centuries-old wrong is starting to be righted; a few awkward
grammatical forms seem a small price to pay for this sea-change in the
primary symbols we use to explicate and communicate our thoughts..
The second issue has to do with denotation and connotation. Few would deny
that "mankind" and even "man," in current usage denote all persons. But for
many of those persons who are sensitive to the denigration of women, such
terms are a reinforcement and a reminder of this evil practice. The woman who
objected to "us men" in the creed knows that Christianity has been a religion
for and about males for most of its history. Its leaders--both ecclesiastical
and academic--have been males.
A Lutheran priest (who is a woman) once pointed out to me that the church
cannot claim to represent the sensus fidelium when it systematically excludes
the thinking--indeed, the very ability to think--of half the fidelium. Nor
can a church call itself catholic when it has refused to involve in its
reflections and deliberations at least half the universe of its members.
Words, however we may appeal to dictionary definitions, have deep and
distinct denotations: and that's what women are objecting to. For many of
them, "man" is not a gender term but a power term--is "defines" who calls the
shots.
Finally, this is more than just a women's issue or a linguistic issue. The
true issue is domination--or, more biblically, "lording it over others." The
church has a long history of dominating marginalized people--be they male or
female. Many church bodies have clerical structures that demean those whom
they are intended to serve. A patriarchy exists that is the antithesis (at
least in my opinion) of the Abba Jesus preached.
Though defined in gender terms, then, the issue goes beyond male and female;
it goes to power and powerless. If women are the most recent victims to
articulate this oppression, they deserve gratitude--even by those who don't
agree with their analysis or find flaws in their logic and scholarship. What
movement in biblical studies ever proceeded on a clear straight line with no
misinterpretations or mistakes? Just look at the divisions within and
between the various schools of interpretation--or even on this B-Greek forum
among those who disagree on the translation of a phrase or word (a process I
find enlightening and engaging). Surely women's biblical scholarship
deserves the same flexibility and margin for error.
This is my first post to B-Greek, after "lurking" for several months and
e-mailing to a few individual members.For those who are still reading, I
thank you for your endurance--especially if, like me, you happen to be a
male.
Tony Prete
Haddonfield, NJ
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 May 1995 11:17:10 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Historical Present
On Mon, 8 May 1995, Rex A. Koivisto wrote:
> >On Fri, 5 May 1995 Lee R. Martin wrote:
> >
> >> 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).
> >
> >Does Semitic influence mean that the "historical" present verbs are
> >scattered around indescriminately? Do they now function differently in
> >Mark than in Greek writings without Semitic influence? Or do they
> >function the same way that the waw-consecutive does in Hebrew? If the
> >answer to any of these is positive, I (being negative) still think we do
> >not have a clear idea of how these narrative present verbs function (I am
> >no Hebrew scholar, but I have not seen an explanation of the
> >"waw-consecutive" that is particularly satisfying either).
> >
> >Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
> >Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
> >pgraber@emory.edu Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
>
>
> I would concur with Philip. Also, does one posit semitic influence in the
> use of historical presents in Xenophon and Thucydides? [See Smyth sec.
> 1883]. There must be something else happening here, and I am especially
> unsure whether the use of the English "historical present" does us right in
> these instances. Rex K.
I really wonder about this. I'm sticking my neck out again to talk about
Hebrew, but what I was taught about WAW-consecutive was that it turned an
imperfect into a perfect and a perfect into an imperfect. Moreover it was
my understanding that the active participle functions idiomatically as a
present tense in Hebrew.
No, I really don't think that the NT present tenses in narrative are
explicable in terms of Semitism; and I AM inclined to think that the
evangelists and Luke shift into the present tense quite deliberately when
they use it--that the present tense is a narrative device. Certainly the
same thing happens in prose and verse narrative in Latin: the tense
shifts into the present when the action slows down and takes place before
the reader/listener's mind's eye. This is a matter that deserves, I
think, a much fuller study. Does anyone know of classic works on this
subject? I certainly don't offhand, but I can't believe that it hasn't
been dealt with by someone somewhere at some time.
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: GLENN WOODEN <glenn.wooden@acadiau.ca>
Date: Mon, 8 May 1995 13:21:56 ADT
Subject: Re: Translations/Inclusivity
Philip L. Graber wrote:
> What I was taking issue with is this definition of "inclusive". The
> inclusive masculine forms WERE inclusive (that's why they were called
> "inclusive masculine forms").
Were they psychologically inclusive? I agree that "man", "men" and
"mankind" were USED inclusively, i.e., they were MEANT to be
inclusive, but, I have a hard time believing that the intention was
perfectly understood by all concerned. As males, we have no real
trouble when we hear "man" used inclusively, because we are men and
it does include us. However, if we were women who used "man" and
"men", and who heard them used, on a daily basis for males, I
believe it would be different. I doubt that the inclusive use of
such terms in Scripture and sermons was psychologically "heard" in
the same way as for men. Each use of such terms would, knowingly or
unknowingly, involve the question "am I or am I not included in this
case?" Men do not have to ask that! Men, however, do have to ask
the question (again, knowingly or unknowingly), "is a woman included
or excluded in this case?" The affect of a partiarchal system on the
answers to these questions in the minds of men and women, are, I
think, generally clear.
> Take the now unacceptable term "mankind".
> Does anyone really think that the term refers only to males? But alas it
> has been replaced by "humankind". Does that really help?
Mankind, means man-like. No it does not mean males only, but it
defines all of humanity with reference to "man", on which see my
comments above.
> I object to the
> rhetoric that claims that translations have never been inclusive up till
> now. That is simply not true. The definitions of what counts (for some
> people) as inclusive have changed.
Again, I agree that translations were possibly MEANT to be inclusive,
but were they understood by the readers in this way?
> I accept that some people are offended by "non-inclusive" language,
but I
> cannot claim to understand that offense. I know a Roman Catholic woman
> who says she feels excluded every time she says the Nicene Creed phrase
> "for us men and for our salvation." I cannot help but think that if she
> feels excluded from salvation by this phrase, the problem is not
> language, but something else. I must say that it puzzles me greatly why
> the language is blamed. I know she is not happy that the RC Church
> refuses to ordain women. But that is another problem altogether, is it not?
I do not think the problems ARE unrelated. Remember, a word is not
an entity that stands by itself with a pure meaning and no
psychological baggage attached. We now live in a time when "men"
means "males", regardless of what it was supposed to have meant
before. In a system where men are the purveyors of grace and women
are officially told, "you cannot be a priest", a woman hearing the
phrase "for us men and our salvation" will doubtless experience
feelings of exclusion, even though intellectually the phrase might
be understood to mean "for us humans and our salvation".
Glenn Wooden
Acadia Divinity College
Wolfville N.S.
Canada
wooden@acadiau.ca
------------------------------
From: Yirah@aol.com
Date: Mon, 8 May 1995 12:22:59 -0400
Subject: Jesus meeting the disciples
Prof Conrad--
In your reply to my "proton, protos, proi" question you, in return, asked the
following:
>A secondary question that has always puzzled me is: how do those who hold
to an inerrancy position reconcile this account of Jesus' first encounter
with Peter and Andrew with the account in the Synoptics? If I had to put
down money on which has a better claim to historicity, I'd put it on
John's account (the Synoptic account appears to me on the very surface to
be a story constructed to provide a setting for the saying, "I will make
you fishers of men.").
Perhaps others would wish to chime in here. But it's my understanding that
what John records and what the synoptics record are two different events--the
synoptical one being subsequent to the Johannine. We're in the process of
moving so most of my books are in boxes--it's horrible!--but I would think
Harold Horner _Chronological Events in the Life of Christ_ would have a
discussion of the issue you raised.
William Brooks
Port Angeles, WA
Pastor In Waiting
------------------------------
From: Yirah@aol.com
Date: Mon, 8 May 1995 12:23:04 -0400
Subject: Seminary Help
Can anyone help me by knowing the address and phone numbers to the following
seminaries?
(1) TEDS in Deerfield, IL
(2) Denver Baptist Seminary (Conservative Baptist affiliation) in Denver, CO
(3) Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas (of all places)
Thanks in advance
William Brooks
Port Angeles, Wa
Pastor In Waiting
------------------------------
From: Yirah@aol.com
Date: Mon, 8 May 1995 12:25:11 -0400
Subject: Re: PROTON, PROTOS or PROI
Prof. Conrad--
Thank you for the reply to my question.
>I'm not a textual critic, but given your choices I'd go with PROTON,
preferably as an adverb, primarily on the basis of its position.
Yes, I agree. Proton as an adverb, as you mentioned, underscores the
importance that Andrew placed on finding Peter (Cephas).
>despite what you say about PRWI and time relationships in John
1-2, it seems to me that where the time of an event is emphasized,the
time is placed first or last in the sentence/clause.
In studying this passage I ran across a couple of fine commentators who
argued that prOi was the original word--the reasons being what I posted. In
the "7 days of John 1-2" is found tE hepaurion in the first position in 1:29,
35, 43 and tE hEmera tE tritE in the primary position in 2:1. If prOi were
the original reading then its position would not match the other time referenc
es. I suppose that means that the 5th and 6th days are "silent."
Again, thank you for the help,
William Brooks
Port Angeles, WA
Pastor In Waiting
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 May 1995 11:41:30 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Jesus meeting the disciples
On Mon, 8 May 1995 Yirah@aol.com wrote:
> Prof Conrad--
>
> In your reply to my "proton, protos, proi" question you, in return, asked the
> following:
>
> >A secondary question that has always puzzled me is: how do those who hold
> to an inerrancy position reconcile this account of Jesus' first encounter
> with Peter and Andrew with the account in the Synoptics? If I had to put
> down money on which has a better claim to historicity, I'd put it on
> John's account (the Synoptic account appears to me on the very surface to
> be a story constructed to provide a setting for the saying, "I will make
> you fishers of men.").
>
> Perhaps others would wish to chime in here. But it's my understanding that
> what John records and what the synoptics record are two different events--the
> synoptical one being subsequent to the Johannine. We're in the process of
> moving so most of my books are in boxes--it's horrible!--but I would think
> Harold Horner _Chronological Events in the Life of Christ_ would have a
> discussion of the issue you raised.
William: I thank you very much for your response. I shall try to check
the reference you offer here; I certainly am interested in any
possibility of reconciling the two accounts, although I must say I am
very skeptical of the historicity of the Synoptic account. I can prove
nothing about it, to be sure, but two things strike me as particularly
interesting about it.
(1) As I have already noted in my earlier posting, it certainly would
appear that the dominical saying, "Follow me and I shall make you fishers
of men." is the core of this tradition. This story could have served
Dibelius as an illustration of the opening proposition of _From Tradition
to Gospel_: "In the beginning was the sermon." This is the call of Christ
to anyone who would be a disciple/apostle; this is the part one remembers
distinctly; but to construct a sermon, one formulates a story for which
this saying is the punchline. For that matter, it is quite conceivable
that the evangelist composes the story as a link between the preceding
tradition and this dominical saying. Moreover, if one assumes Marcan
priority, as I am still inclined to do, it clearly would appear that Luke
builds upon Mark's account a more elaborate story that illustrates the
dominical saying all the more effectively. Although this may indeed be a
problem for those who want to read the synoptic narrative as pure
history, I don't see why the story loses its power as an illustration of
the dominical saying whether its historically true or not.
(2) Pure speculation: I have often wondered whether this form of the
dominical saying is likely to have antedated the use of the IXQUS
acrostic (IHSOUS XRISTOS QEOU YIOS SWTHR) and Greek-speaking
Christianity. On the other hand, unless one feels quite confident that
Jesus could not have spoken any Greek (and I'm really not so sure about
that being impossible), perhaps the saying may in fact go back to a
setting by the Sea of Galilee.
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: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Mon, 8 May 95 09:51:26 PDT
Subject: Lexicon for Hellenistic Greek
Hi all. After all the good suggestions I got before on vocabulary,
I thought I'd run something else by the group now that I know I need it.
What's the minimal lexicon I need to get for reading Josephys and Philo?
Little LIddell? Big LIddell? Great Scott? BAGD? Thanks in advance.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
From: TonyPr684@aol.com
Date: Mon, 8 May 1995 12:54:39 -0400
Subject: "One more time"--again!
Call it first time jitters. My previous post, "Sexist language--one more
time" had a few mistakes: "m Y" instead of "may" (I HATE that capsLock key!);
"state" instead of "stake"; and--most importantly-- "denotation" instead of
"connotation." They're fixed in the copy that follows.Sorry for the
inconvenience.
************************************************************
I know that lots has been said recently on this topic. If I may, I'd like to
add comments from someone who is neither a linguist nor a biblical scholar,
but has had an abiding interest in both fields for a number of years.Though
triggered by such specific comments as that "mankind" is an inclusive term
and no one understands it to refer just to males, and wonderings why a woman
would be offended by the creedal words "for us men and for our salvation," my
hope is to address the matter in broader terms that, perhaps, haven't been
specified so far. Or at least to pull together some of what's already been
said.
Two issues are at stake here. The first is that the terminology doesn't just
communicate, it signifies. And what these male terms signify is
Christianity's denigration of women since the earliest days of the Church.
This denigration was there before the words that signify it; AN/QROPOS is not
a gender-specific word; translating it as "man" gives it a gender-specific
significance. So the problem is not with the terminology but with the
practice. English, unfortunately, has no equivalent of AN/THROPOS. "Man" is
as close as we can get if we limit ourselves to conventional English; we are
forced, then, (if we are to recognize the denigration of women over the
centuries) to use a less common word, such as humankind
As a professional editor, I have struggled with this issue for years. There
are no easy answers. Some of the hybrids (s/he, for example) I find
unacceptable because they are too jarring to the reader. Less jarring, and
quite acceptable in years past, is the use of the plural relative pronoun
with an indefinite single subject ("If anyone [sing] has finished their test,
pass it forward." is better than "...his or her test.."). Another is the use
of a non gender-specific plural for a gender-specific plural ("people"
instead of "men") when the context does not call for gender specificity.
The solutions to this problem are still evolving. But denying or ignoring the
problem--and here I'm talking about the language problem--will only
exacerbate it. A centuries-old wrong is starting to be righted; a few awkward
grammatical forms seem a small price to pay for this sea-change in the
primary symbols we use to explicate and communicate our thoughts..
The second issue has to do with denotation and connotation. Few would deny
that "mankind" and even "man," in current usage denote all persons. But for
many of those persons who are sensitive to the denigration of women, such
terms are a reinforcement and a reminder of this evil practice. The woman who
objected to "us men" in the creed knows that Christianity has been a religion
for and about males for most of its history. Its leaders--both ecclesiastical
and academic--have been males.
A Lutheran priest (who is a woman) once pointed out to me that the church
cannot claim to represent the sensus fidelium when it systematically excludes
the thinking--indeed, the very ability to think--of half the fidelium. Nor
can a church call itself catholic when it has refused to involve in its
reflections and deliberations at least half the universe of its members.
Words, however we may appeal to dictionary definitions, have deep and
distinct connotations: and that's what women are objecting to. For many of
them, "man" is not a gender term but a power term--is "defines" who calls the
shots.
Finally, this is more than just a women's issue or a linguistic issue. The
true issue is domination--or, more biblically, "lording it over others." The
church has a long history of dominating marginalized people--be they male or
female. Many church bodies have clerical structures that demean those whom
they are intended to serve. A patriarchy exists that is the antithesis (at
least in my opinion) of the Abba Jesus preached.
Though defined in gender terms, then, the issue goes beyond male and female;
it goes to power and powerless. If women are the most recent victims to
articulate this oppression, they deserve gratitude--even by those who don't
agree with their analysis or find flaws in their logic and scholarship. What
movement in biblical studies ever proceeded on a clear straight line with no
misinterpretations or mistakes? Just look at the divisions within and
between the various schools of interpretation--or even on this B-Greek forum
among those who disagree on the translation of a phrase or word (a process I
find enlightening and engaging). Surely women's biblical scholarship
deserves the same flexibility and margin for error.
This is my first post to B-Greek, after "lurking" for several months and
e-mailing to a few individual members.For those who are still reading, I
thank you for your endurance--especially if, like me, you happen to be a
male.
Tony Prete
Haddonfield, NJ
------------------------------
From: Mari Olsen <molsen@astrid.ling.nwu.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 May 1995 12:12:13 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: inclusivity test
Man is the only animal that breastfeeds his young.
Does this jar? You're not alone. Similar studies of
children have shown them NOT to interpret man/kind etc. as inclusive.
In fact, I remember reading that the original inclusive usage had to
be legislated; that is, it was a rule in a grammar book (man stands
for man and woman).
Mari Broman Olsen
Northwestern University
Department of Linguistics
2016 Sheridan Road
Evanston, IL 60208
molsen@astrid.ling.nwu.edu
molsen@babel.ling.nwu.edu
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #699
*****************************
** 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