Feminine anthrōpos
I was surprised to discover that it is not well known that the Greek word ἄνθρωπος anthrōpos can be feminine as well as masculine. For example, in a recent comment on this blog Michael Marlowe, who has written an article about this word and others e.g. this one on related subjects, claimed to be unaware of this fact of Greek usage. But this usage is clearly listed in the entry for this word in the authoritative Liddell and Scott dictionary of classical Greek, i.e. in the online edition at Perseus which is in fact the 1940 revision by Jones, known as LSJ, but not the latest edition of LSJ.
Here is the relevant part of the entry, complete with links to the texts at Perseus:
Now I accept that these feminine occurrences are not in biblical texts, and at least many of them are from long before the New Testament period. But that does not make them entirely irrelevant, and certainly does not justify a writer on this subject denying their existence. But there is at least one case in biblical Greek of ἄνθρωπος anthrōpos in the plural, and without specified grammatical gender, referring to a group which is explicitly of women only: καὶ ψυχαὶ ἀνθρώπων ἀπὸ τῶν γυναικῶν..., Numbers 31:35 LXX.
I found this reference from a paper by David Clines, the well-respected editor of the authoritative work The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, concerning the Hebrew word אָדָם 'adam. (Thank you, David R, for drawing this paper to my attention.) This Hebrew word corresponds quite closely in meaning to Greek ἄνθρωπος anthrōpos, and they are often translational equivalents. I would recommend anyone interested in the meaning of ἄνθρωπος anthrōpos to read Clines' paper.
Here is the relevant part of the entry, complete with links to the texts at Perseus:
II. as fem., woman,Pi.P.4.98, Hdt.1.60, Isoc.18.52, Arist.EN1148b20; contemptuously, of female slaves, Antipho1.17, Is.6.20, etc.; with aIn the text from Isocrates for example, the words τὴν ἄνθρωπον show unambiguously that ἄνθρωπος anthrōpos is grammatically feminine. But, although Marlowe refers to the "Liddell & Scott Lexicon" entry for this word, he does not seem to be aware of this usage of the word as grammatically feminine.[p. 142] sense of pity, D.19.197.
Now I accept that these feminine occurrences are not in biblical texts, and at least many of them are from long before the New Testament period. But that does not make them entirely irrelevant, and certainly does not justify a writer on this subject denying their existence. But there is at least one case in biblical Greek of ἄνθρωπος anthrōpos in the plural, and without specified grammatical gender, referring to a group which is explicitly of women only: καὶ ψυχαὶ ἀνθρώπων ἀπὸ τῶν γυναικῶν..., Numbers 31:35 LXX.
I found this reference from a paper by David Clines, the well-respected editor of the authoritative work The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, concerning the Hebrew word אָדָם 'adam. (Thank you, David R, for drawing this paper to my attention.) This Hebrew word corresponds quite closely in meaning to Greek ἄνθρωπος anthrōpos, and they are often translational equivalents. I would recommend anyone interested in the meaning of ἄνθρωπος anthrōpos to read Clines' paper.
posted by Peter Kirk at 5:20 AM
12 Comments:
Peter, aren't nouns like this said to be in the common gender in Greek?
Michael, I accept that my statement "there is also a feminine form" is technically not quite correct, because the "form" is identical, as I made clear in my original comment; it is only the grammatical gender agreement which is feminine. Thank you for this correction. But let me quote you again: "This looks like a pretty desperate move, if you are really denying that anthropos is a grammatically masculine noun. I haven't heard anyone say this before." And in the context you certainly seemed to be denying any knowledge of the usage ἡ ἄνθρωπος hē anthrōpos which I had mentioned in my comment. My point was that ἄνθρωπος anthrōpos is not always a grammatically masculine noun; rather, it is one which can be either masculine or feminine depending on the context or the referent. If Wayne is correct, this is what is known as common gender. And when you state that "I haven't heard anyone say this before" you seem to be stating that you have not read or not understood the LSJ entry, because this entry makes it very clear that ἄνθρωπος anthrōpos is sometimes grammatically feminine. Perhaps your knowledge of this entry is partial and selective.
And you continue: "Lidell-Scott... indicates a usage of the masculine noun in reference to women, in some peculiar contexts." No, it does not, at least not in sense II which I am referring to. For in this sense ἄνθρωπος anthrōpos is not a masculine noun, but a feminine one as indicated by the feminine gender agreement i.e. ἡ ἄνθρωπος hē anthrōpos. In this sense ἄνθρωπος anthrōpos works similarly to παρθένος parthenos which is both masculine (Revelation 14:4) and feminine in the New Testament. This is not the same as the use of a masculine noun in reference to females, which doesn't seem to be attested at least for this particular noun. I accept that this feminine use of ἄνθρωπος anthrōpos is not common usage, but it does exist, and "contemptuously, of female slaves" refers only to two of the seven listed occurrences.
I haven't engaged in the discussion of anthropos much till now because I still find it incredible that this new masculine meaning has emerged.
As far as the juxtaposition of anthropos with gune it seems not unlike saying a Brit and his wife, (in the case of Dr. Packer), a Baptist and his wife, a Canadian and his wife, and so on. The referent every time for the first item is male, but the referent for the second item is generally of the same class of person as the referent in the first item. At least, the Brit may possibly be married to a Canadian, but in this case he is not, but can a Baptist be married to an Anglican?
I know for sure that a Brethren is always married to a Brethren, except when he isn't, in which case he is married to an atheist, poor man, there are no other categories. However, if his wife is not disobedient she is also a Brethren, very much so. I can't imagine the wife of a Brethren, being anything but Brethren. However, my husband is not Brethren, so I am off the hook here.
I hope this clarifes how one would think of anthropos in Greek.
I am thinking now of the places where anthropos is used opposite gune, where it clearly does not have a gender-inclusive sense, and I don't know how you can account for these if you refuse to acknowledge the masculine component of meaning in this word.
Michael, Are you really saying that a woman cannot be Brethren, or Baptist, of Anglican, just because one can use these terms opposite woman?
Michael, if you were to encounter the sentence "I thank you Lord that I was not born a Gentile or a woman.", as you (allegedly) would on the lips of many pious Jews, would you conclude that in the mind of the Jew the word "Gentile" is not quite gender neutral? Clearly not, for in this case the categories are in no way thought to be mutually exclusive.
And concerning feminine ἄνθρωπος anthrōpos you wrote "Of course you have fastened upon them because they are all you have to make your case". No, Michael, I have not. I repeat here some of what I wrote in a comment on the previous posting:
But even if we consider only the grammatically masculine form [I should have written "grammatically masculine usage"], grammatical gender is irrelevant to meaning. And, as I made clear in the rest of my sentence quoted here, I accepted that in certain contexts ἄνθρωπος anthrōpos acquires some kind of male meaning from its context e.g. in contrast to γυνή gunē... But my point was that except where this kind of contrast is signalled in the context the meaning of ἄνθρωπος anthrōpos is gender generic.
I mentioned feminine ἄνθρωπος anthrōpos only because I wanted to correct your false, or at least over-simplified, statement that ἄνθρωπος anthrōpos "is a masculine noun. It was never a major part of my argument.
You also wrote: "we see no use of the word in the singular to refer to an individual woman, though it is very commonly used in reference to individual men. All of this points to one conclusion: the word has a masculine component of meaning." No, Michael, it does not (even if it is true - it may be true of the Bible, but not of all Greek literature), if you avoid the linguistic error of confusing meaning with reference. You will find no examples of the English word "President" referring to an individual woman, at least in the USA. Does that imply that the word "President" has a masculine component of meaning? Clearly not, for the US constitution is clear, that the presidency is open equally to men and women. Or would you argue that the word "President" will suddenly change its meaning on the possible day when Hillary Clinton is inaugurated?
By the way, I started a new post simply because it was getting cumbersome to look through a set of 40 or so comments on a single post.
I am sorry, Michael, not to be interacting more with this novel idea of the man being the human and therefore the woman not being human. One does not debate such things in a classical Greek class, or any other Greek class that I have ever attended.
This kind of referent/meaning confusion happens all the time among elementary teachers - we assume that the teacher is a woman, even though the word teacher does not have a female semantic component. Even worse for nurses. I remember going to a missions meeting in Switzerland and I was told to talk to the head of the Sudan mission who was a nurse. It turned out he was a hefty man, about 6'4" with a bushy black beard. But with my North American bias, I just couldn't locate the nurse.
Then there was the time my maiden aunt got booked into a double room with another librarian at a conference and it turned out he was a man.
People have this kind of confusion all the time. But usually they do realize that 'librarian' does not actually mean 'woman', and then they rectify the booking problem. It would be a little ridiculous, don't you think, to argue that the poor man must have been a woman because he was a librarian, even if he was the first male librarian to attend a school librarians conference.
And you contend that anthropos (pl) is also 'men' and that God doesn't care whether women are saved? Or are women like the dog that eats the crumbs under the table? They can be saved once men have been offered salvation, fortunately God has a little love left over for the odd woman here and there.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
No, not at all. The first time I noticed that the ESV had differentially translated anthropos was in 1 Timothy 2:4 and 5. First it is 'people' and then it is 'men' but obviously there is the same referent. This was to maintain that Christ was a man, rather than a human, I assume. It is hard to fathom. In the hour that I had with Dr. Packer I could not cover all the ground I wanted.
But my point is that in 1 Tim. 2:4 God wants all anthropous to be saved, so I was quoting that. And then I was quoting the Canaanite woman in Matt. 15 who said, "yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table." It is a very legitimate comparison and I thought that you would recognize that.
I did not mean to be facetious.
Think of the men and women who threw away their time teaching me languages and the Bible, if 2 Timothy is written to men only.
Do you think that I was not taught to bake bread and make jam, to sew and knit, to stay at home with my babies. But they are grown now.
My mother was a godly woman who propped her book up on a metal stand and knit as she read so she could not be condemned, and she read to us children church history from King Alfred to Charles Wesley. It dishonours her if 2 Timothy was not written for women?
Great, same here. Good talking to you, Michael.
Suzanne wrote: "It dishonours her if 2 Timothy was not written for women?" Suzanne, I agree with and support almost all that you have written on this subject. But don't forget that 2 Timothy was in fact written to and "for" a man, a named individual. Now I believe that it is right that Christians today, men and women, apply the principles given here in their own lives - although not of course the personal details e.g. 4:13. So your mother is not dishonoured, any more than was Timothy's mother who is commended in this letter.
This is in fact the kind of principle which Grudem and Poythress claim as the basis of their "male representation" theological theory. They rightly make a distinction between the originally intended audience of a biblical passage and the wider secondary group of people to whom it applies today. And they rightly insist that the translation should correspond to what was written to the original audience and not to the secondary group. Thus it is correct and unobjectionable to use male-only pronouns in reference to Timothy himself, and it would be wrong to try to make him gender generic. Where this argument falls down is Grudem and Poythress' claim that the original audience for much of the Bible was a large group of men only, and that women are only in the secondary group. I see no evidence for that. There are a few Bible books written to named individual men, and parts of Proverbs seem to be addressed specifically to men but the great majority of the Bible is as far as we know written for a gender generic original audience.
The issue at 2 Timothy 2:2 is of course rather different, as the question is to whom should the teaching be entrusted, not who should do the entrusting.
I am hardly arguing that it was not written to Timothy, a man, but rather that the occurences of anthropos (pl) were for men only.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home