From: Micheal Palmer (mwpalmer@earthlink.net)
Date: Sun Jun 29 1997 - 10:32:56 EDT
At 12:49 AM -0400 6/26/97, Paul S. Dixon wrote in reference to John 2:25-31:
>This, of course, is another example of where ANQRWPOS unequivocally
>refers not to a person or mankind, but to a man. It is the only
>translation
>that will do. Somone earlier on the list made such a statement, i.e.,
>that
>ANQRWPOS never refers only to a man, and that ANQRWPOI never refers
>to men only. There are plenty of examples to the contrary. This is just
>one.
>
>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 womanhood. Furthermore, if we then translate ANQRWPOI
>as "persons" or "mankind," then we would lose the significance of the
>male leadership motif.
There are not any examples of ANQRWPOS (singular) referring to a woman in
the New Testament for one simple reason: it was not necessary to use
ANQRWPOS to refer to one woman or a group of only women since there was
another word available with exactly that meaning: GUNH. That is not to say
that ANQRWPOS was never used to refer to a woman, but only that it is
natural that such an unusual meaning does not appear in such a small corpus
as the New Testament.
The plural form ANQRWPOI *is* used for mixed groups, however, since there
was not another word for referring to groups which included both males and
females in the sense that we use 'people'.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Micheal W. Palmer mwpalmer@earthlink.net
Religion & Philosophy
Meredith College
Visit the Greek Language and Linguistics Gateway at
http://home.earthlink.net/~mwpalmer/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:20 EDT