From: Paul S. Dixon (dixonps@juno.com)
Date: Fri Jun 27 1997 - 04:03:39 EDT
Jonathan, Carl:
It is late -12:22 am, but I hate going to bed with unanswered email.
I will delete everything in between and go to the end to discuss.
If I delete stuff you felt important, please re-send and I will address
it. I think, however, this will do.
snip
I said:
>>ANQRWPOI may have the sense of "humans," but that does not mean
>>it cannot first have the sense of "men," and then by implication
>(from
>>the male leadership motif) the sense of "persons" or "humans" in
>general.
>>If so, then why not keep the traditional "men" translation which
>would at
>>least would not automatically dismiss the male leadership motif.
You replied:
>I'm not sure how you get from the speculation in the first sentence to
>the
>"if so" in the second sentence. To me, there seems to be a few
>sentences
>missing, the sentences which explain why you think so.
Fair enough. I suppose we could check Bullinger on this, but there
are figures of speech in scripture, such as metonymies where one
thing is put for another thing necessarily related to it. Perhaps I
am being overly concise here (yawn), but so be it. If ANQRWPOS
can refer to man, as well as to humanity, and if there is a male
leadership motif in scripture, then it is possible that ANQRWPOS
can be taken as "man" and that it also be understood metonymically
as a figure put for the whole corpus over which he is the leader.
If this doesn't make sense, I 'll try to clarify later. Good night.
Paul Dixon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:20 EDT