Silly translation.

[Ziggy]

But as I have already shown, Romans 4.8 and James 1.20 are examples where the word is used for both male and female. If not then show otherwise

Grudem and Poythress, who are far more skilled on the issue than I, have already dealt with those passages in their "Gender-Neutral Controversy" book, pp. 306, 312, 314-15. Go argue with them...

 

[SavedByGrace]

Grudem and Poythress, who are far more skilled on the issue than I, have already dealt with those passages in their "Gender-Neutral Controversy" book, pp. 306, 312, 314-15. Go argue with them...

why? I know Greek, I know Greek grammar usage, I have said what I have, and don't need these guys to tell me something other than what I see that the Bible says! They have written with an angle, to try to prove something, like the Reformed in their understanding of certain passages that use words like, κοσμος and πας, where they force its meaning to suit their theological ideas! It is you who commented on what I said here, so it should be you that responds with your own evidence, instead of referring me to others books, like John of Japan did. He says that you are very capable in Greek grammar, as he has said for himself. Then you should have no problem in presenting your own, not Grudem and Poythress, on the usage of ανηρ, in the 2 example passage that I have given. People like John blame me for being rude to him and even yourself, but, it is people like you and John who comment on what I say, and then when it gets tough, the blame game starts!

 

[SavedByGrace]

Grudem and Poythress, who are far more skilled on the issue than I, have already dealt with those passages in their "Gender-Neutral Controversy" book, pp. 306, 312, 314-15. Go argue with them...

I have not got much time, but I will briefly respond to Grudem and Poythress here, and show their bias in the arguments. I quote from the work that you mention:

"Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 9.1, claim that
anēr has the meaning “person, human being, individual” in Matt. 14:35 and Romans 4:8 (they cite only
these two, but of course it is possible that they may have in mind a number of other cases). Yet it is not at
all clear that Louw and Nida’s evidence proves their claim – surely Matt. 14:35 does not provide sufficient
evidence, nor does the only other verse they cite in support, Rom. 4:8, for that is a quotation from Ps. 32:2,
a psalm in which David is speaking in the first instance about himself. That a man can be a representative
of a general truth appears from Psalm 1 and Psalm 32:2. But, as we have seen in discussing îsh and geber
(“man”), this observation does not eliminate the existence of a male semantic component in the
representative, the single person who embodies the general truth." (pages 305-306)

There is nothing in what Grudem and Poythress say here, that actually is a proper response to what Louw and Nida say in their lexicon, that "anēr has the meaning “person, human being, individual”". There is nothing in the Greek of Psalm 32:2, from where Paul is quoting, that dispoves what Louw and Nida say, nor prove the argument of Grudem and Poythress. I will add another verse from the LXX OT to show the weakness in what Grudem and Poythress are saying.

In Proverbs 6:12, it says, "A naughty person, a wicked man, walketh with a froward mouth" (KJV), for which the Greek is, "Ἀνὴρ ἄφρων καὶ παράνομος πορεύεται ὁδοὺς οὐκ ἀγαθάς", which literally is, "a foolish man and a lawbreaker shall go by ways not good".

This is a very interesting verse, which, for reasons of their bias in their one-sided arguments, Grudem and Poythress, don't include in their book, even though they do quote from elsewhere in Proverbs. Not only is "Ἀνὴρ" used here, which the KJV has rightly translated as "person" (as do most English versions); but, we also have the Greek adjactive, "παράνομος" (lawbreaker), in the nominative, singular, and either male of female, as it is in the masculine or feminine. Here is very clear evidence from Scripture, not ones bias, that proves beyond any doubt, and so rendered in almost every English version, where "Ἀνὴρ" is used, that it not exculsively "male". So, regardless of what people like Grudem and Poythress are arguing to push their "theology", the fact of usage as shown from the Bible itself, disproves their theory. I can give many more examples, but time prevents me.

I will give just one more example on gender use which is important. In 1 Corinthians 13:11, it says, "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things". Here Paul uses the Greek adjective "νηπιος", 4 times, which is in the masculine gender. We also have "ανηρ" used once, where it is rendered "man", and "νηπιου" (childish), once, which is also in the masculine. Is Paul here specifically speaking of only himself, or of all believers? The use of the verb "βλεπομεν" in the next verse, which is in the plural, "we see", shows that Paul was not only speaking of himself, but as being true of all believers, which the entire chapter is addressing. Can anyone in all honesty really say, that the use of "νηπιος", here refers to "boys" only, and does not also include "girls"? Or, that "ανηρ" does not also include "women"? Scripture should be our guide in what we believe, even though it may go against our personal "theology".

 

[Deacon]

Does anyone deny that the two word Greek phrase in Acts 1:16 includes women?
Does anyone take the position that the Greek phrase excludes women?

I've heard sermons where the preacher goes out of his way to say that women are included when the general term "men" is used,

So it is really not a matter of how to translate the phrase, it is literally translated as "men, brothers".
The problem lies in how we communicate the meaning.

If our culture endows the term "men" to mean purely those of the male gender then we need to go the further step and clarify the term using "brothers and sisters", "men and women", etc.

Treat the phrase like an idiom.
Perhaps a footnote identifying the problem would be wise.

Rob

 

[SavedByGrace]

Does anyone deny that the two word Greek phrase in Acts 1:16 includes women?

yes, there are some on here, who would have us believe that what the Greek usage actually says, in both the LXX and NT, is somehow wrong, and their position based on faulty understanding of the language, is actually the right one! I get hacked off by those who are supposed to know the finer workings of Greek grammar and usage, who yet will keep on the attack, because they are supposed to be right regardless! What I have posted here has not once been conclusively refuted, by either John of Japan, or anyone else. I never claim that I always get it right, as I cannot, but, don't like people arguing just for the sake of it!

 

[John of Japan]

yes, there are some on here, who would have us believe that what the Greek usage actually says, in both the LXX and NT, is somehow wrong, and their position based on faulty understanding of the language, is actually the right one! I get hacked off by those who are supposed to know the finer workings of Greek grammar and usage, who yet will keep on the attack, because they are supposed to be right regardless! What I have posted here has not once been conclusively refuted, by either John of Japan, or anyone else. I never claim that I always get it right, as I cannot, but, don't like people arguing just for the sake of it!

Okay, so according to you we shouldn't talk to each other any more, but you feel free to criticize me behind my back? What, you can't criticize me "face to face"? Maybe you think I'm not worthy to talk to? I don't reach the heights of your Greek scholarship??

1. I was clear in my position.
2. I believe I refuted you.
3. You did not interact with me at all on the linguistic concept of generic usage. You simply rejected it out of hand.
4. You kept asking me to re-answer what I already had, and refused to look back at my previous answers.
5. And you actually think you won the argument??? Whatever! Go ahead and answer this (I know you can't resist), but I'll simply ignore you.

 

[John of Japan]

Does anyone deny that the two word Greek phrase in Acts 1:16 includes women?
Does anyone take the position that the Greek phrase excludes women?

I've heard sermons where the preacher goes out of his way to say that women are included when the general term "men" is used,

So it is really not a matter of how to translate the phrase, it is literally translated as "men, brothers".
The problem lies in how we communicate the meaning.

If our culture endows the term "men" to mean purely those of the male gender then we need to go the further step and clarify the term using "brothers and sisters", "men and women", etc.

Treat the phrase like an idiom.
Perhaps a footnote identifying the problem would be wise.

Rob

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that the phrase occurs only in Acts (an historical book), and in recorded speaking, never as simple narrative. I believe that it can be said that in every one of the 11 usages, there were no women participating in the meeting. So, it was as set phrase used by men speaking to men in councils and other official meetings. It was a completely male-dominated society. After all, they didn't know anything about feminism then.

Here are the usages. See if you can find a woman clearly being directly addressed anywhere in these passages. (Granted, there were women present in Acts 2, but that doesn't prove that Peter addressed them directly.)

Ac 1:16 Men [and] brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
Ac 2:29 Men [and] brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. {let me: or, I may}
Ac 2:37 Now when they heard [this], they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men [and] brethren, what shall we do?
Ac 13:15 And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, [Ye] men [and] brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.
Ac 13:26 Men [and] brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.
Ac 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men [and] brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
Ac 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
Ac 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men [and] brethren, hearken unto me:
Ac 23:1 And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men [and] brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.
Ac 23:6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men [and] brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.
Ac 28:17 And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men [and] brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.

 

[John of Japan]

Here is a commentary indicating that "Men, brothers" is a set phrase used by Jewish men to other Jewish men: "...always in the context of a gathering of Jews--we may assume that it represents a type of formal address found within first-century synagogues (cf. 13:15, 26, 38) and among Jewish congregations" (Richard Longenecker, Acts, in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 9, p. 263)

Women never had an equal say with men in the synagogues in 1st century Jewry. They were second class humans. In the Roman world, women were mere slaves, chattel. Baby girls could be killed by simply leaving them out in the woods to be eaten by wild animals or starved to death. Women had no say in whom they married. They were no different than slaves.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Acts chapter 2 is another good example (for those who will only listen to what the Bible actually says!), of the use of "males" nouns and others words, where they are clearly used to included both male and female, which is known as "generic use", which some cannot grasp!

In verse 29 we have the same as 1:16, "“Men and brethren" (NKJV), which in the Greek is two masculine nouns "Ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί". One thing that I learned many years ago, when I first started with Greek, is that is it very important to read the words in their context, because this can change they way they are used, and therefore the meaning in the context, could be different from other places. Now, we have English translations like the Christian Standard Bible, that have translated the Greek, "Brothers and sisters", which has caused some (or many) to complain, as there are doing on this thread, but without any real justification. Granted, that in the "literal" sense, the nouns, being "masculine", does mean "Men and brothers", which is in its narrow uasge. There is though a however, as there are, in Greek usage, what is called "exceptions" to any standard "rule", where, as I have said, usage within the context is important to correctly undersatnd what is actually meant.

Firstly, we have to go back to verse 14, "But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words.". Peter here addresses “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem". "ἄνδρες" and "πάντες". Here also both the noun and adjective, are masculine words. Are we to say that the "all who dwell in Jerusalem", are "all males"? even the "Men of Judea" are not necessarily only "males", but can indeed include both male and female. Interesting that in Peter's sermon here, he quotes from the Prophet Joel, where we read, "Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy" (v17); and "And on My menservants and on My maidservants". In verse 21, Peter says, "whoever calls on the Name of the Lord shall be saved.’. The word "whoever" is from the Greek adjective "πᾶς", which is usually transleted "all", and is masculine. Are we to conclude from this, that Peter, even though he has just said "daughters...maidservents", which are clearly female, that when he uses "πᾶς", a masculine word in verse 21, that he means that only the "sons...menservents" who call upon the Lord, will be saved? This is ABSURD, and NOT in any way what Peter means here, or what Joel meant in the original Prophecy! The next verse, "Men of Israel" (Ἄνδρες Ἰσραηλῖται), again is not in the narrow sense, for only "males". In verse 36 Peter says, "“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” Here the words "πᾶς οἶκος Ἰσραὴλ" (all House of Israel), is the equivalent to "Ἄνδρες Ἰσραηλῖται", and refers to ALL present, both male and female. Otherwise we again have the absurdity that it is only the "males" that caused the death of the Lord Jesus Christ, and not ALL sinners! We then read, "For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call." (v.39). The promise of slavation is to "you and your children", both men and women, boys and girls. And verse 41, " Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them" Who can honestly argue, that "those who gladly received his word", and the 3000, are only "males"? In fact, if one wants to play games with masculine words, then here is one for them, the Greek noun ψυχαὶ (souls) is feminine, so, to argue with those who say that words like "ἄνδρες" must be restricted to only "males", then the 3000 souls that were saved, were ONLY FEMALES! Such is the nonsense that some would have us believe!

I believe that I have here presented a case, that proves beyond any doubt, that such translations like in the Christian Standard Bible, where they have rendered the Greek "Ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί", and others, even though masculine words, by "brothers and sisters", is perfectly within the scope of the context, and there is nothing in the Greek usage, that would disapprove of this. I await the experts on here to disprove what I have written, if they can.

 

[Deacon]

Here is a commentary indicating that "Men, brothers" is a set phrase used by Jewish men to other Jewish men: "...always in the context of a gathering of Jews--we may assume that it represents a type of formal address found within first-century synagogues (cf. 13:15, 26, 38) and among Jewish congregations" (Richard Longenecker, Acts, in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 9, p. 263)

Women never had an equal say with men in the synagogues in 1st century Jewry. They were second class humans. In the Roman world, women were mere slaves, chattel. Baby girls could be killed by simply leaving them out in the woods to be eaten by wild animals or starved to death. Women had no say in whom they married. They were no different than slaves.

John, the commentary correctly places Luke’s narrative within a gendered social and cultural framework. The culture of first century Mediterranean society was clearly displayed in the language’s masculine grammar usage.

Luke and the other Gospel writers lived within that culture (and spoke and wrote within that culture) yet clearly presented ideas outside of that culture norm. Christianity itself was so inclusive as to include outsiders (gentiles and women).
Women were written into the Gospel narratives. In almost every other passage written Luke included women. Women were recipients of God’s favor, widows were given a prophetic voice. Women came to Jesus in faith.

In Acts 1 and many other passages where Luke used that masculine phrase, it was designed to be inclusive (as can be particularly noted as the context includes women), Luke was speaking to a much broader community than the one before him at that one time. He recorded his message later in the Gospel, which was to a broad community and so should be clearly translated as being inclusive.

To literally translate the phrase “men, brothers” could be misleading, particularly in today’s overly literal, technical based culture.

Peace,
Rob

 

[Van]

As I said before...

It seems to me to be a formal or pro-forma way of addressing a group. Acts of the Apostles 13:26 points to the idea that "brothers" refers to those whose blood line goes back to Abraham, Jews rather than born anew believers. I do not see evidence that the term is necessarily limited to male members of the crowd, except in Acts 13:15 where in all likelihood only males "selected" the deacons. The females of course were free to voice their views to their male family members.

Clearly Acts 13:38 refers to both male and female Jews as salvation for all is in view. Therefore, I think the phrase "men brothers" could be translated "people, Israelites." And when the speaker wanted to limit the group being addressed or requested to take action, they could says "People, Israelites, fathers."

No amount of Paternalistic bias can be supported by prideful provincialism.

 

[Deacon]

No amount of Paternalistic bias can be supported by prideful provincialism.

Pouting probably potentiates paternalistic pride.

Rob

 

[John of Japan]

John, the commentary correctly places Luke’s narrative within a gendered social and cultural framework. The culture of first century Mediterranean society was clearly displayed in the language’s masculine grammar usage.

Luke and the other Gospel writers lived within that culture (and spoke and wrote within that culture) yet clearly presented ideas outside of that culture norm. Christianity itself was so inclusive as to include outsiders (gentiles and women).
Women were written into the Gospel narratives. In almost every other passage written Luke included women. Women were recipients of God’s favor, widows were given a prophetic voice. Women came to Jesus in faith.

In Acts 1 and many other passages where Luke used that masculine phrase, it was designed to be inclusive (as can be particularly noted as the context includes women), Luke was speaking to a much broader community than the one before him at that one time. He recorded his message later in the Gospel, which was to a broad community and so should be clearly translated as being inclusive.

To literally translate the phrase “men, brothers” could be misleading, particularly in today’s overly literal, technical based culture.

Peace,
Rob

I can see your point, but my method of translation is somewhat based on the "foreignization" concept of secular scholar Lawrence Venuti. In a foreignized translation, a good literary style is important, but what is more important is portraying the original author's intent correctly. This must take place even if the resulting rendering is a little awkward. IMO, this is a case where, as I have said, to translate any other way but "Men & brothers" (or something similar) is to do an injustice to the original text.

As you know, catering to the target audience instead of authorial intent is a feature of dynamic//functional equivalence, which (again as you know) I oppose strongly.

 

[John of Japan]

John, the commentary correctly places Luke’s narrative within a gendered social and cultural framework. The culture of first century Mediterranean society was clearly displayed in the language’s masculine grammar usage.

Luke and the other Gospel writers lived within that culture (and spoke and wrote within that culture) yet clearly presented ideas outside of that culture norm. Christianity itself was so inclusive as to include outsiders (gentiles and women).
Women were written into the Gospel narratives. In almost every other passage written Luke included women. Women were recipients of God’s favor, widows were given a prophetic voice. Women came to Jesus in faith.

In Acts 1 and many other passages where Luke used that masculine phrase, it was designed to be inclusive (as can be particularly noted as the context includes women), Luke was speaking to a much broader community than the one before him at that one time. He recorded his message later in the Gospel, which was to a broad community and so should be clearly translated as being inclusive.

To literally translate the phrase “men, brothers” could be misleading, particularly in today’s overly literal, technical based culture.

Peace,
Rob

I'll further say that I certainly agree that Christianity elevates womanhood; however there are several usages of the phrase in question in the book of Acts that were not said by Christians.

At any rate, a great example of how Christ elevates womanhood when presented to a society is how William Carey helped stop the practice of suttee (or sati) in India--wherein the wife is thrown alive onto the funeral pyre of her dead husband.

 

[Rippon2]

As you know, catering to the target audience instead of authorial intent is a feature of dynamic//functional equivalence, which (again as you know) I oppose strongly.

To the extreme extent that you think that translators using functional equivalence deny plenary inspiration.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Does anyone deny that the two word Greek phrase in Acts 1:16 includes women?
Does anyone take the position that the Greek phrase excludes women?

I've heard sermons where the preacher goes out of his way to say that women are included when the general term "men" is used,

So it is really not a matter of how to translate the phrase, it is literally translated as "men, brothers".
The problem lies in how we communicate the meaning.

If our culture endows the term "men" to mean purely those of the male gender then we need to go the further step and clarify the term using "brothers and sisters", "men and women", etc.

Treat the phrase like an idiom.
Perhaps a footnote identifying the problem would be wise.

Rob

May I ask you how you think Peter could possibly have addressed a wholly male audience? If 'andres kai adelphoi' won't do the trick, what would?
In passing, it should be noted that there is a Greek word 'adelphe' which means sister. No one would suggest that in Acts 16:1, Phoebe might be male! There are several places where 'adelpos' and 'adelphe' are placed together (Matthew 12:50; 19:29; Mark 3:35; 10:29, 30; Luke 14:26; James 2:15. If 'adelphos' means 'brother and/or sister,' why are the two words joined together in these verses?
Also, these is a word, 'anthropos,' which means 'man' in the sense of 'mankind.' Are you saying that there is no difference between 'anthropos' and 'aner'? That takes us back to my first question. What word could a Greek use to describe a male person?

 

[John of Japan]

I'm coming back to this thread briefly to make a point that I don't think has been made. To review: the phrase "men and brethren" occurs only in Acts, and only in narrative. It occurs 11 times, and of those 11, these cases are clearly, according to context, men:

Acts 13:15--The "rulers of the synagogue" ask visiting rabbi "Paul and his company" (v. 13) if he wishes to speak to the synagogue, clearly men only.
Acts 15:7--The audience is clearly "apostles and elders" in v. 6, men only.
Acts 23:1--Paul is talking to the Jewish "council," which was only men.
Acts 23:6--Paul is still talking to the council, only men.
Acts 28:17--Paul is speaking to "the chief (plural) of the Jews," clearly only men.

Furthermore, in Acts 13:26 & 38, Paul speaks back to the synagogue, arguable addressing only men, since in v. 16 he says "Men of Israel," and then "ye that fear God" (a masculine substantival participle), as the audience.

So, to sum up, 5 (almost half) of the 11 usages are clearly limited to men, and two more are arguable limited to men. If we agree that usage is important for meaning (if you don't agree, you know nothing about translation), then there is no reason to translate the other usages as anything but "men and brothers." I rest my case.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Some rather silly comments being made on here!