Reply cut for brevity/word limit per reply/post. PostHuman original linked here @
post #283
If I were one thinking to fake and present the image as one who is a "Greek scholar", I wouldn't post links to articles , and excerpt from said resource, materials that are credited to others that would appear to be quite knowledgeable about Greek language in Biblical times.
Pretending would entail copying and pasting from a Greek concordance, changing a few words around in that pasted copy, and omitting its source. So that when I posted it it would appear it is my personal knowledge sharing in a thread because I failed to credit the actual source of it.
And then if I really wanted to show out when wearing that plagiarist pretender hat, I'd dare criticize someone who responded to my post with cutting remarks about their understanding of the Greek. I may even pretend on a deeper level and claim I've studied Biblical Greek so as to know better than they do what I'm talking about. And then maybe as an added bit of icing to that huge slice of fake, criticize that person for resorting to a Greek concordance in order to rebut my prior post.
Thank God I am not like that.
And further, thank God when I post and credit resource links, I read them fully before thinking to share them so as to support whatever point I hope to make in any thread here.
From your link. Thank you so much for posting that by the way.
"....
Although it is easy to see that political correctness is behind all this, some academics who have made it their business to defend such translations have tried to justify them with sophisticated linguistic arguments that need to be taken seriously. Some have practically claimed that the original text itself does not use male-oriented language. In this article I will respond to them, and I will argue that there is no adequate justification for gender-neutral renderings of the word
adelphos.
Actually, there is no decent linguistic argument for "brother or sister" or "sibling" as a translation for the singular
adelphos. The word clearly means "brother," not "sibling," because there is no attestation for a gender-neutral usage of the word. An individual female is never referred to as an adelphos in Greek; she is referred to with the word adelphē "sister," and if a writer wishes to be inclusive he must use a compound expression such as adelphos kai adelphē "bother and sister" (see, for example, the usage of the singular forms in the Greek New Testament at
Matthew 12:50,
Mark 3:35,
1 Corinthians 7:15, and
James 2:15). So the rendering "brother or sister" for
adelphos in such places as
Matthew 18:15 is contrary to Greek usage, and linguistically unsound. When Bible versions like the
TNIV use such gender-inclusive expressions in place of "brother" for the masculine
adelphos they are simply covering up the male-oriented usage with a paraphrastic rendering."
[---]
Nevertheless, there is some evidence from ancient sources that the
masculine plural forms of the noun could in some contexts have a gender-neutral sense. In the Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich Lexicon (2nd ed., 1979) the evidence is stated thus:
The pl. can also mean brothers and sisters (Eur., El. 536; Andoc. 1, 47 η μητηρ η εκεινου κ. ο πατηρ ο εμος αδελφοι ; Anton. Diog. 3 [Erot. Gr. I 233, 23; 26 Hercher]; POxy. 713, 21 f [97 AD] αδελφοις μου Διοδωρω κ. Θαιδι ; schol. on Nicander, Ther. 11 [p. 5, 9] δυο εγενοντο αδελφοι, Φαλαγξ μεν αρσην, θηλεια δε Αραχνη τουνομα. The θεοι Αδελφοι, a married couple consisting of brother and sister on the throne of the Ptolemies: Dit., Or. 50, 2 [III BC ] and pap. [Wilcken, Grundz. 99, Chrest. nos. 103-7, III BC ]). In all these cases only one brother and one sister are involved. Yet there are also passages in which αδελφοι means brothers and sisters, and in whatever sequence the writer chooses (Polyb. 10, 18, 15 ποιησεσθαι προνοιαν ως ιδιων αδελφων και τεκνων ; Epict. 1, 12, 20 αδ. beside γονεις, τεκνα, γειτονες ; 1, 22, 10; 4, 1, 111; Artem. 3, 31; Ptolem., Apotel. 3, 6; Diog. L. 7, 108; 120; 10, 18. In PMich. 214, 12 [296 AD] οι αδελφοι σου seems to be even more general='your relatives'. So in Lk 21:16 there is no doubt that αδελφοι= brothers and sisters. There is more room for uncertainty in the case of the αδελφοι of Jesus in Mt 12:46 f ; Mk 3:31 ; J 2:12 ; 7:3, 5 ; Ac 1:14 .
".....
Now the question becomes, what sort of contextual clues are necessary for the gender-neutral sense? In particular, we want to know if the vocative
adelphoi (used for direct address) in the epistles of the New Testament would have been understood in this neutral sense. We may assume that women were present at the church meetings where these epistles were to be read, and we might naturally suppose that the writers meant to address the entire congregation, both men and women, when they wrote to the congregations. We also note that in some places women are directly addressed in the epistles. On this basis, some have argued that "brothers and sisters" is the ordinary meaning of
adelphoi in the epistles. Ian Howard Marshall, who was one of the translation committee members for the gender-inclusive TNIV Bible, has made an argument along these lines in a recent article:
What we are suggesting is that the usage is one in which sometimes the context may make it clear that the reference is exclusive and purely to males,
but that the letters are addressed directly to mixed audiences, and therefore generally adelphoi is used in a way that does not exclude women, even if it is probable that the author may have been thinking primarily of the men. [5]
For Reference:
The Book of 1st Corinthians chapter 7 (Excerpt)"...
[excerpt, yes, another one: "....Similarly, Mark Strauss writes, "In many contexts, however, the author is clearly addressing both men and women. An example of this is
Philippians 4:1-2 where Paul, after addressing the Philippian congregation as
adelphoi (v. 1), encourages two women to live in harmony with each other (v. 2)."
[6]
But there is a problem with this argument. The problem is, the writers of the epistles ordinarily seem to be "thinking primarily of the men," as Marshall allows, and so his statement that the epistles are "addressed directly to mixed audiences" is rather problematic. [7] If the writer is thinking primarily of the men when he addresses the congregation, then he is not really addressing the men and the women equally. Yet Marshall proceeds to build his argument concerning the meaning of
adelphoi squarely on the idea that men and women are addressed equally, as equals, in the epistles of the New Testament. It is largely on the basis of this idea that a gender-neutral sense for
adelphoi is posited by him and by Strauss. The whole argument collapses under the simple recognition that the apostles directed their attention primarily to the men, and used language which reflected this orientation. There is no intent to "exclude women," but the habits of speech reflect a male orientation.
Sometimes it is important to recognize that the writer is focusing on males when he addresses the congregation. For example, in
1 Corinthians 14:39 Paul says, "Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy," but in verses
34-35 he says "women should keep silent in the churches" and "it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." Clearly, the vocative
adelphoi in verse 39 must not be gender-inclusive. It makes no sense for Paul to be telling the sisters to "be eager to prophesy" in church after he has prohibited them from speaking. But if someone is reading a gender-neutralized Bible version which always gives an "inclusive" rendering for
adelphoi, he will certainly be thrown off track at this point, because the translation gives a false impression of the "inclusivity" of the discourse.
Due to post limits this reply is in two parts.
Reply part
two link post #297
1
