At 12:49 AM -0400 6/26/97, Paul S. Dixon wrote: >On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 21:40:49 -0400 "Mary A. Moody" < >writes: >>I wonder if the intended word play isn't lost if we translate using >>non-offensive language and drop "man" - yes, human nature surely is >>intended. But what about the tying of the "man" of the Pharisees to >>the man of those to whem Jesus did not trust himself and the man whom >> he knew. Person would work in each place, but sounds terribly strained >> in, "Now there was a person of the Pharisees" >> >>KAI OTI OU CREIAN EICEN hINA TIS MARTURHSH PERI TOU ANQRWPOU >>AUTOS GAR EGINWSKEN TI HN EN TWi ANQRWPWi. >>HN DE ANQRWPOS EK TWN FARISAIWN NIKODHMOS >> >>Any thoughts? > >Mary: > >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. This appears to be a curious instance of assuming the conclusion in the premiss. >On the other hand, are there any examples of ANQRWPOS referring to >only a woman? Hmm. If not, then why not? I cite from the older (Victorian edition, theonly one I have handy here, but the one at the Perseus web site can be checked) of LS s.v. ANQRWPOS: II. as fem. (as [Latin] homo also is fem.) a woman, first in Herodotus 1.60, cf. Isocrates 381B, Aristotle, Nic. Ethics 7.5.2;--contemptuously, of female slaves, Antiphon 113.16, etc.; with a sense o pity, Demosthenes 402.25: -- in Lacon. [i.e. Spartan dialect] ANQRWPW hH, Hesychius ... I frankly don't understand what it means to say that women might conceivably be viewed as human beings only through their male leadership. I say I don't understand it, although I recognize it as a cultural assumption of long standing that is now being and (in my opinion) should be challenged. Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics/Washington University One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018 Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(704) 675-4243 cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/