From: Jonathan Robie (jonathan@texcel.no)
Date: Fri Dec 12 1997 - 20:38:54 EST
At 05:15 PM 12/12/97 -0600, F. Holly Mitchell wrote:
>> You seem to be assuming that the subject of GAMEW is always a male; i.e.,
>> that the man marries, and the woman is either taken in marriage or given in
>> marriage. I don't think this is true. Consider, e.g. 1 Tm 5.14: BOULOMAI
>> OUN NEWTERAS GAMEIN: 'so I would prefer that the younger widows marry'.
>
>What an interesting exception to what seems to be a general rule; I'm
>glad you called my attention to it. In looking more closely at the text of
>1 Tm 5.14, I find that these women are marrying *not* in accordance with
>their own will (or QELHMA) necessarily, but because the author of the
>letter wills it. I had not realized how forceful a word BOULOMAI is.
>(*Why* he does so, is a whole 'nother question, and doesn't belong here!
>Though I'd gladly discuss it off-list.)
Why he does so is pretty clear if you look at the context - Paul is
discussing who should be enrolled as widows, and supported by the church.
Here is the answer he gives:
"Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old,
having been the wife of one man. Well reported of for good works; if she
have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed
the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have
diligently followed every good work. But the younger widows refuse: for
when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; Having
damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. And withal they
learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle,
but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.ÊI
will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the
house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. For some
are already turned aside after Satan. If any man or woman that believeth
have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that
it may relieve them that are widows indeed."
So when Paul says he would prefer that young women marry, that is in
opposition to being enrolled as widows. Those who are enrolled as widows
seem to be occupying an office similar to that of a nun or a deaconness,
and younger women, like younger men, are subject to certain temptations. So
why doesn't he tell the younger men to marry? Well, he does in another
context, but here he is discussing who should be enrolled as widows and
supported by the church, and this option was not available to men.
>What an interesting exception to what seems to be a general rule
Both Louw & Nida and BAGD state that either men or women can be the subject
of GAMEW. I haven't done anything beyond examine the definitions in these
two lexicons and look up a few passages, but neither of the lexicons say
that the subject is a man as a general rule.
>In the Mt and Lk texts mentioned above, however, I *am* understanding the
>subjects of GAMOUNTES and EGAMOUN to be male. Are you suggesting the
>opposite, Jonathan? In that case, what do you do with GAMIZONTES and
>EGAMIZONTO? Surely we don't have Jesus referring to young men being given
>in marriage by their mothers in the days of Noah. <g>
*Why* do you assume them to be male? *Why* do you assume that the subject
of GAMEW is male as a "general rule"?
It sounds like you may have been studying this, and you may certainly know
something here that I don't, but I don't see any reason to assume the
subject of GAMOUNTES to be male. People of both genders marry.
I do not know whether only fathers gave their daughters in marriage. Of
course, they do in many modern American weddings, but I do not know the
custom of their day. In modern America, if the father of the bride is dead
or not present at the wedding, the mother gives the daughter away. In the
quote, there is no clear indication of the gender of the person who is
doing this.
So I simply do not know the gender of the people involved. If you have
evidence, I'd be glad to hear it.
>Nontheless, I'm still puzzled regarding the difference in tenses used by
>the two writers. Any ideas?
The historical present is extremely similar to the imperfect, and the
difference between the two is probably not very significant. The shift from
"giving in marriage" to "being given in marriage" also does not strike me
as very significant - the point is that they were caught up with their own
lives, completely oblivious to the oncoming flood.
Jonathan
___________________________________________________________________________
Jonathan Robie jwrobie@mindspring.com
Little Greek Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koine
Little Greek 101: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koine/greek/lessons
B-Greek Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek
B-Greek Archives: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek/archives
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:38 EDT