From: Stevens, Charles C (Charles.Stevens@unisys.com)
Date: Tue Dec 02 1997 - 13:10:10 EST
> At 6:59PM on 12/1/1997, Paul S. Dixon comments:
>
> << ...Then there is Phoebe who was a DIAKONON of the church at
> Cenchrea (Rom 16:1). Of course, this is not conclusive either, as
> DIAKONON can be either deacon or servant. >>
>
> Hmmm. I take a different view of translation; DIAKONON means what it
> means, and the dichotomy in meaning between "servant" and "deacon" is
> an artifact of the English rather than of the Greek.
>
> The real question is: what underlying reasons are there for presuming
> that DIAKONOS is more appropriately translated "deacon" than "servant"
> (or vice versa) in a given context?
>
> The reason I bring that up is that it would be very easy to say
> "obviously Phoebe can't be a *deacon* because she's *female*, and thus
> the word in this context *must* be translated *servant*." I'm not
> very comfortable with such presuppositions influencing the
> translator's choices without concrete scriptural grounds. (I think
> similar presuppositions have been applied to Junia's position as
> described in Rom 16:7, which has been discussed at length -- as I
> recall inconclusively -- in this list before).
>
> -Chuck Stevens [SMTP: Charles.Stevens@unisys.com]
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:36 EDT