Monday, April 29, 2013

ANDRES in Acts 17:34

Wayne Grudem and Vern Poythress argue that ANDRES is not used generically in Acts 17:34. In part, they write:

"We could go on with further examples from the New Testament, but the analysis would be similar. There are many cases in which the context by itself would not require the meaning "man." But in all of these cases the meaning "man" makes sense and is not foreign to the context. Our approach here is just the same that Greek lexicographers regularly use in studying the meanings of word. We are not arguing that ANHR could never lose its male semantic component in specialized idioms, but only that the argument that it loses its male marking in any New Testament examples is based on very doubtful evidence, and is not sound lexicography."



aservantofJehovah said...

Acts17:34KJV"Howbeit certain men(aner) clave to him,and believed:among which was Dionysius the Areopagite,and a WOMAN(gune) named Damaris,and others with them."
Acts17:34NIV"Some of the people(Aner) became followers of Paul and believed.Among them was Dionysius,a member of the areopagus,also a WOMAN named Damaris,and a number of others"
So we have here a perfect example of why simply chery-picking our preferred references is a poor form of scholarship.Cntext rumps all.

Edgar Foster said...

Grudem and Poythress address this verse. Things are not as clear cut as they seem. At the link I provided, we read:

But does Acts 17:34 demonstrate that aner could equal anthropos in meaning and therefore could have little or no male marking at times, and be translated "person" rather than "man"? The verse says "But some men [andres, plural of aner] joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them" (NASB).
Is the "woman named Damaris" included among the "some men" in the first part of the verse? Probably not. F. F. Bruce's commentary on the Greek text says, "'including in particular Dionysius the Areopagite; and (in addition to the men) a woman named Damaris', etc. There is no need to suppose that kai gune [and a woman] is included in the tines andres ... en hois [some men ... among whom]." (7) The Greek text of the verse is: τινὲς δὲ ἄνδρες κολληθέντες αὐτῷ ἐπίστευσαν, ἐν οἷς καὶ Διονύσιος ὁ Ἀρεοπαγίτης καὶ γυνὴ ὀνόματι Δάμαρις καὶ ἕτεροι σὺν αὐτοῖς.
In fact, the forthcoming new edition of the BAGD Lexicon, scheduled for release in April, 2000, from the University of Chicago Press, seems to correct the earlier edition which had claimed that aner = anthropos in Acts 17:34. We had an opportunity to see the entry for aner in the proofs that were displayed at the University of Chicago Press booth at the Society of Biblical Literature convention in Boston Nov. 20-23, 1999. The new entry defines aner as "an adult human male, man, husband." It also says, "In Ac 17:34 ανηρ appears to = ανθρωπος, but the term was probably chosen in anticipation of the contrasting γυνη (is Damaris the wife of one of the men?)."

Edgar Foster said...

I'm done blogging for the day

aservantofJehovah said...

Context trumps all.One can find a reference that supports any position.So although 'aner' may mean man.As I have been saying the male can serve as generic.As plainly shown by the context here.

Edgar Foster said...

FF Bruce, Wayne Grudem and Vern Poythress are appealing to the context and Greek syntax when they reject the position you hold (along with many others). I have no strong feelings about this particular verse. It could go either way IMO. But I tend to believe that ANHR normally does refer to males and is probably not used generically for men and women. ANQRWPOS is the more generic word in Greek.