From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Sat Dec 13 1997 - 17:33:16 EST
At 7:38 PM -0600 12/12/97, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>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.)
>>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 just wanted to add a little note here to this discussion. The interesting
thing is that classical Attic usage very definitely does use GAMEW of the
man taking a wife and GAMOUMAI of a woman entering into a marriage (I DO
think it is middle rather than passive, of course), but one of the things
that happens increasingly in the Hellenistic period and especially in the
Roman period is a growing tendency toward giving women the same formal
education as men (at least middle-class and upper-class women) and a
greater degree of equality of the sexes so that either party may take the
initiative in marriage and divorce. In fact, I think this is one reason why
NT discussions of the indissolubility of marriage are complicated--some
texts seem based on an assumption of equality and the legitimacy of
divorce, while some gospel texts do insist upon the indissolubility of
marriage. Personally the attitude toward gender roles in Ephesians is one
of the reasons (but by no means the only one) why I don't believe Ephesians
is an authentic Pauline letter--I think it is much more patriarchal in its
views than the unquestionable Pauline letters and that it reflects a church
organization that is much more concerned with authority structures and
doctrinal orthodoxy than the unquestionable Pauline letters are. But of
course this is a matter of much controversy and widely-disputed viewpoints
that range across a whole spectrum. I mention this only as my own view here
and not one that I want to discuss in this forum. At any rate, this whole
business of the usage of GAMEW is a matter on which social history has a
not irrelevant bearing.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:38 EDT