# Anthropos?



## Robert Truelove (May 30, 2015)

Rather than type out my thoughts on the proper way to translate "anthropose", I submit Michael Marlowe's article from 2003...

http://www.bible-researcher.com/anthropos.html

His conclusion stated again here...

"Now, in consideration of these examples the question which remains is, how can a competent scholar such as D.A. Carson honestly maintain in a published work that the word anthropos has no masculine connotations? We fail to see how this opinion can be maintained. Yet he not only does this, but he also condescendingly alleges that those who would disagree with him are in a "confusion over the elementary linguistic distinction between meaning and referent." ... But we will leave it to the reader now to discern which side of the gender-neutral Bible controversy is involved in error and confusion on this point.

The usage of words relating to gender and humanity in the Greek language are no less "sexist" than the ordinary English usages which feminists have been trying to abolish for 30 years now, and this may be seen clearly enough in the case of the word anthropos. It is also evident that Carson and others who have confused the issue with specious arguments about Greek words and linguistics are merely distracting us from the fact that the "inclusive language" debate has to do not with Greek but with our English words and their meaning, and the recent attempts to reform our English usage along politically correct lines. On this question of English usage the professors of Greek have no more authority than any layman who is acquainted with the English language."

In light of the data, I ask this same question? Besides the influence of feminism on the English language, what justification do we have for translating "anthropos" as "people", "others" or "humans" since it is obviously as "male" a word as "man" <-which can also be used in an inclusive way when not being emended by feminism.

Example: 

Matthew 6:14

For if you forgive others (anthropos) their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you - ESV (anthropos = others!?)

For if ye forgive men (anthropos) their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you -KJV

"anthropos" is translated in a gender-neutral way dozens and dozens of times in the ESV, as well as any new translation since the turn of the century. You can see each instance in the ESV here... http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G444&t=ESV

I suppose my problem is that I don't see that "Gender-Inclusive" in the case of "anthropos" therefore means "Gender-Neutral" because that word just doesn't seem to be a gender-neutral word. It's a masculine word that can be used in an inclusive way...just like "man". Thoughts?


----------



## JimmyH (May 31, 2015)

Robert Truelove said:


> I suppose my problem is that I don't see that "Gender-Inclusive" in the case of "anthropos" therefore means "Gender-Neutral" because that word just doesn't seem to be a gender-neutral word. It's a masculine word that can be used in an inclusive way...just like "man". Thoughts?



I'm struggling as a self taught student in Greek but ..... ανθροπος ...... is defined as man, _mankind or person_ in my flash cards by Mounce, or in the Flash Greek app by Zacharias. In my understanding mankind or person is inclusive of men and women. 

I don't know what the plural form for it would be, but 'other' is αλλος (allos) in Koine. 

This reminds me of my feeling when Michael Marlow knocked the NIV for translating αγαπητος (beloved) as 'dear children' in 1 John. Initially I was really turned off on the NIV. But in days of reflecting on the term, I realized that in the current English usage, beloved is antiquated for the most part. 

Dear children is equivalent in English, and I believer is an expression much more likely to be used by 'everyday people' today, and that is the whole point of the exercise in updating English translations. 

I've recently been reading a newly acquired copy of the NIV11 and I find man, men, him, and the like continues to be used when the Greek is specifically referring to the masculine.


----------



## Robert Truelove (May 31, 2015)

But what I'm saying is that anthropose is still a very "male" word even when it is being used in a gender-inclusive way. My question is, what besides feminism's effect on English would justify our change in the way we have historically handled translating this word into English?

OR

Is there anyone else out there well versed in Greek who would agree with me in saying this word should be translated as "man", "men", or "mankind" in English even when it is being used in an inclusive way (ignoring feminism's assault on modern English)?


----------



## TrustGzus (May 31, 2015)

I'm far from fluent in Greek. However, it's fairly clear that in some passages anthropos doesn't mean males only, but refers to humans or humanity. 

Marlowe doesn't quote Carson in any detail. Having looked at the pages in Carson's book myself, I don't know why Marlowe did this, but I think Marlowe did a very poor job representing Carson.


----------



## MW (May 31, 2015)

The question is whether anthropos can refer to a female only. If not, the term is masculine oriented and should be translated as such.


----------



## JimmyH (May 31, 2015)

I guess we should have never given them the right to vote ........


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 1, 2015)

MW said:


> The question is whether anthropos can refer to a female only. If not, the term is masculine oriented and should be translated as such.



So there are passages where it obviously refers to males. 

There are passages where it obviously applies to both males and females, or just the humanity of an individual, not the maleness of the individual. 

However, if a passage cannot be found where it exclusively refers to a female, then even passages where it's speaking of males and females, it should be translated masculine?


----------



## Robert Truelove (Jun 1, 2015)

Matthew,

I've been asking this question is various places over the last few days and I think you are the first person that's even indicated they've understood the basic nature of the question.


----------



## MW (Jun 1, 2015)

TrustGzus said:


> However, if a passage cannot be found where it exclusively refers to a female, then even passages where it's speaking of males and females, it should be translated masculine?



Since a masculine pronoun can be connected it would be hard to kick against the pricks and abandon the inspired manner of speaking.


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 1, 2015)

MW said:


> The question is whether anthropos can refer to a female only. If not, the term is masculine oriented and should be translated as such.



Matthew, I'd like to try to understand your position better. What do you mean when you say a term is "masculine oriented"? Can you give some examples other than ἄνθρωπος?


----------



## MW (Jun 1, 2015)

Robert Truelove said:


> Matthew,
> 
> I've been asking this question is various places over the last few days and I think you are the first person that's even indicated they've understood the basic nature of the question.



Robert, it is a complex issue, but the resources on the site you have referenced are helpful.

It is interesting to observe that the appointment of a female governor-general in Australia did not require the constitution to be rewritten wherever the word "he" is used. It was naturally understood that "she" was included.


----------



## MW (Jun 1, 2015)

TrustGzus said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> > The question is whether anthropos can refer to a female only. If not, the term is masculine oriented and should be translated as such.
> ...



Masculine oriented would mean that the word is gender inclusive with a dominantly male significance. "Man" is the English equivalent. Another word is "autos," he.

There are some fundamental theological reasons for retaining the masculine orientation of the Hebrew and Greek terms. Foremost among them is the fact that men and women are representatively constituted within the two men, Adam and Christ.


----------



## JimmyH (Jun 1, 2015)

MW said:


> TrustGzus said:
> 
> 
> > MW said:
> ...


Not to beat a dead horse, but ..... Mounce's 'Basics Of Biblical Greek Vocabulary (flash) Cards' defines αυτος (autos) as he, she, it : him, her, itself : same. 

Oxford English Dictionary ; 

Definition of mankind in English:
noun
1ˌmanˈkīnd Human beings considered collectively; the human race: 'research for the benefit of all mankind'


----------



## Robert Truelove (Jun 1, 2015)

JimmyH said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> > TrustGzus said:
> ...




Again, no one is debating that "anthropos" can refer to "human beings" and "people" in an inclusive sense. 

That matter before us is that the word itself is masculine...EVEN when being used in an inclusive manner.

For instance, if we looked up "man" on dictionary.com we read virtually the exact same definition and use as we see in the lexicons for "anthropos"...

man - 
1. an adult male person, as distinguished from a boy or a woman.
2.a member of the species Homo sapiens or all the members of this species collectively, without regard to sex:
prehistoric man.
3.the human individual as representing the species, without reference to sex; the human race; humankind: 

We have no problem understanding that when we read, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal", that the word "men" is being used in an inclusive manner.

If we changed the Declaration of Independence to say, "all people are created equal", a subtle nuance of the meaning would be lost. It is for this reason that feminists HATE this sort of language and have all but eradicated it from modern English.

I'm finding the success of feminism has been so profound on this issue that it is nearly impossible for me to even get this matter across to younger men who have grown up in the time since this change (hostile takeover) of the English language has occurred.

I write this knowing that some people will keep talking past the point being made, and simply look at a lexicon and say "it can mean people". *sigh*


----------



## JimmyH (Jun 1, 2015)

Robert Truelove said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> > MW said:
> ...


I'm 66 years old. I grew up in a male dominated society when 'sex was dirty and air was clean'. To be honest I regret that it is no longer a completely male dominated society, and unfortunately feminism reared its ugly head when I was in my late teens. It is, as the kids say, what it is though. 

Looking at it from the other side, I don't see the 'gender inclusive' translations as yielding to feminists. I see it as an attempt to present the Holy Bible in the every day language that English speakers use. At least in my neck of the woods.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Jun 1, 2015)

JimmyH said:


> Robert Truelove said:
> 
> 
> > JimmyH said:
> ...



I can totally appreciate that point of view. It IS where modern English has brought us. On my part, I refuse to drop masculine inclusive nouns and pronouns from my own writings.

My beef with it is that this hostile take-over of English (and it is, if you study the feminist literature of the last 40 years on this very subject), is brining forth less accurate translations because the modern "man"(see what i just did? ;-) ) is missing nuances like this in the Bible. For my part, I think it would be better to maintain the historic usage in Bible translations because it more accurately reflects what the Greek is actually communicating.

Even now, "man" is still understood as a gender inclusive word in the proper context. That is, it is not "archaic" usage, it's simply politically incorrect.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Jun 1, 2015)

If you simply want to run to lexicons and say "but it can mean 'people'", consider this...

man (dictionary.com) 
1. an adult male person, as distinguished from a boy or a woman.
2. a member of the species Homo sapiens or all the members of this species collectively, without regard to sex:
prehistoric man.
3. the human individual as representing the species, without reference to sex; the human race; humankind: 
[4. joined with other words, merchantman]

people (dictionary.com)
1. persons indefinitely or collectively; persons in general:
2. generically, to include all human individuals
3. persons, whether men, women, or children, considered as numerable individuals forming a group

ἄνθρωπος (anthropos - Greek Lexicon)
I. with reference to sex, a male
II. indefinitely, someone, a man, one [never 'a woman']
II. a human being, whether male or female [when referring to mankind..."anthropos shall not live by bread alone"]
III. in the plural, people
IV. joined with other words, merchantman

If we are going to go by the dictionary/lexical definition of words, which English word is the obvious choice, conveying virtually the full semantic range and nuance of the Greek word "ἄνθρωπος"?

It seems very obvious to me that the typical translation of ἄνθρωπος in our newer English Bible translations has more to do with cultural pressures than the desire to accurately convey the full scope and meaning of this particular word into English.


----------



## JimmyH (Jun 1, 2015)

Robert Truelove said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> > Robert Truelove said:
> ...


 I agree with that assessment. I'm not 'happy' that the English language has been 'dumbed down', and changed to the extent that is has. I don't like it either, but I accept it. 



Robert Truelove said:


> If you simply want to run to lexicons and say "but it can mean 'people'", consider this...
> 
> man (dictionary.com)
> 1. an adult male person, as distinguished from a boy or a woman.
> ...


In terms of the translations, wouldn't the 'full scope' of the meaning depend on the context ?


----------



## Robert Truelove (Jun 1, 2015)

JimmyH said:


> In terms of the translations, wouldn't the 'full scope' of the meaning depend on the context ?



Yes, but my point is, I can't see a single instance in the Greek New Testament where anthropos is used where the word "man", men" or "mankind" would not be the most accurate way to translate it. It MEANS something that this "male" word is used to refer to both men and women in places, just like it MEANS something that "man" can be used in the same way. This MEANING is why feminists hate it and have sought to eradicate it.

If translating it as "people" didn't actually have a different nuance to it, we wouldn't even be having this conversation and all of our new translations would continue to read as English translations once did (nigh universally).


----------



## Nicholas Perella (Jun 1, 2015)

Robert Truelove said:


> Yes, but my point is, I can't see a single instance in the Greek New Testament where anthropos is used where the word "man", men" or "mankind" would not be the most accurate way to translate it. It MEANS something that this "male" word is used to refer to both men and women in places, just like it MEANS something that "man" can be used in the same way. This MEANING is why feminists hate it and have sought to eradicate it.
> 
> If translating it as "people" didn't actually have a different nuance to it, we wouldn't even be having this conversation and all of our new translations would continue to read as English translations once did (nigh universally).



Mankind = male headship
People = egalitarian


----------



## Robert Truelove (Jun 1, 2015)

Nicholas Perella said:


> Robert Truelove said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, but my point is, I can't see a single instance in the Greek New Testament where anthropos is used where the word "man", men" or "mankind" would not be the most accurate way to translate it. It MEANS something that this "male" word is used to refer to both men and women in places, just like it MEANS something that "man" can be used in the same way. This MEANING is why feminists hate it and have sought to eradicate it.
> ...



EXACTLTY! And the Bible in neither Hebrew or Greek uses the sort of egalitarian language that we find in ultra-modern English.


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 1, 2015)

Nicholas Perella said:


> Robert Truelove said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, but my point is, I can't see a single instance in the Greek New Testament where anthropos is used where the word "man", men" or "mankind" would not be the most accurate way to translate it. It MEANS something that this "male" word is used to refer to both men and women in places, just like it MEANS something that "man" can be used in the same way. This MEANING is why feminists hate it and have sought to eradicate it.
> ...



How do you come to the conclusion in the formula offered? I am complementarian. So is Carson. JimmyH is if I'm understanding him correctly. So we all are on one side of the complementarian/egalitarian divide.

Grudem is heavily complementarian. He defines egalitarian in his _Systematic Theology_ as, "_The view that all functions and roles in the church are open to men and women alike._"

So, if I may modify the above formula by replacing the word _egalitarian_ with Grudem's definition of the word . . .

_Mankind = male headship
People = The view that all functions and roles in the church are open to men and women alike._

I just don't see how this follows.

The ESV translates the word _anthropos_ as people in 1 Timothy 2:1 & 2:4.

Anthropos is used four times in 1 Timothy 2:1-5. I will bold the four uses.

1 Timothy 2:1–5 (ESV)

_2*First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all *people*, 2*for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3*This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4*who desires all *people* to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5*For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and *men*, the *man* Christ Jesus,_

The only way translating _anthropos_ as _people_ in this passage is to be egalitarian in a soteriological sense. It doesn't make them egalitarian in any kind of sense regarding church authority or anything else.

In passages like this, I see no reason why people is an unreasonable translation in any way. God doesn't want us to pray only for males. He doesn't want to save only males. Nothing wrong with people in these examples linguistically or theologically.

If anything, I'd like to ask the ESV committee why they used people in the first two instances and not the third also. Jesus isn't only the mediator between God and males, but also between God and females!


----------



## Nicholas Perella (Jun 1, 2015)

Joe,

I think 'people' is a fine term to use. I think the following works:

people = male headship

I am not being exclusive. Context is key. What I am saying is by saying 'mankind' a certain emphasis of 'male headship' is explicitly noted. That does not mean 'people' excludes 'male headship'. It does not mean we are all feminists if we decide to say 'people' in a given conversation. I would not exaggerate the point, not saying you are.


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 1, 2015)

Nicholas, thanks for the reply. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you.

I do agree context is key. I think even your current equation . . . 

people = male headship

. . . depends on context. Headship isn't always in the context of discussion in a passage.

To use another example from the ESV . . . 

Matthew 5:13 (ESV)

Salt and Light
13*“You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under *people’s* feet.

I don't think headship had anything to do with the subject Jesus was getting at.


----------



## Nicholas Perella (Jun 1, 2015)

TrustGzus said:


> I don't think headship had anything to do with the subject Jesus was getting at.



I do not either.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Jun 1, 2015)

The point is not to say that all modern translators are feminists...it is to say that (ultra) modern English is becoming more and more egalitarian. As we adopt this ultra-modern English usage we are loosing something that is there in the original language. I'm not saying that the point of all of these texts is to teach complementarianism; rather the overall language of the Bible is complementarian linguistically. Feminists call it "sexist". 

For instance, using the example of 1 Timothy 2:1-5...

1 Timothy 2:1–5 

(NSRV) - The NSRV renders the meaning correctly BUT in egalitarian language.

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for *everyone*, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity. 3 This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires *everyone* to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and *humankind*, Christ Jesus, himself *human*, who gave himself a ransom for all

NKJV - The NKJV renders the meaning using masculine, gender inclusive forms (just like the underlying Greek)

Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all *men*, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all *men* to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and *men*, the *Man* Christ Jesus

Are they both saying the same thing? Yes. Are they both using a egalitarian approach to language? No. Does the Greek use an egalitarian approach to language? No.


----------



## Nicholas Perella (Jun 1, 2015)

Robert Truelove said:


> Are they both saying the same thing? Yes.



This is a case where in the ESV:
people = male headship

The NKJV is explicit in noting this, because obviously the use of 'men' is for both men and women in the NKJV.


----------



## MW (Jun 1, 2015)

TrustGzus said:


> In passages like this, I see no reason why people is an unreasonable translation in any way.



In trying to appear clever translators can make themselves look silly. "People" is simply incorrect and conveys the idea of a group. The Greek has "laos" to denote "people." It is not used in this place.


----------



## MW (Jun 1, 2015)

JimmyH said:


> Mounce's 'Basics Of Biblical Greek Vocabulary (flash) Cards' defines αυτος (autos) as he, she, it : him, her, itself : same.



Autos is masculine. The feminine and neuter are distinguishable. Mounce would have noted this somewhere.


----------



## Pantocrator (Jun 4, 2015)

Anthropos simply means "human." However, while translating the New Testament, "man" and "men" should be used because consistently translating anthropos as "human" sounds awkward in English.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 4, 2015)

Pantocrator said:


> Anthropos simply means "human."



It was pretty well settled above that it does not mean "human." (See posts 12 and 17 above).

Anthropos in Greek use is almost identical to "man" in English use (at least up until 1990 or so).

Go through a concordance and get a feel for how the word is used. You'd think that when they were developing English, they simply took the concept of "Anthropos" and said, "our word for that is 'man'". (I speak tongue in cheek) 

I think what really happens is that as language develops, certain concepts tend to find the same type of expression. I'm familiar with Arabic and Romance languages, too, and the exact same thing happens: A singular word for "man" can apply to all people collectively, depending on context. And nobody doubts that the main meaning of the word has a masculine sense.

I saw this little article that sets out more detail:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/anthropos.html


----------



## Robert Truelove (Jun 9, 2015)

Here is a good write up on this issue...

http://www.tmbible.com/forgay/notes on inclusive language - forgay.htm


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jun 9, 2015)

Thanks for that article, Robert -- edifying.


----------

