The Vocative Can Be Quite Provocative...

What, the meanings of "man" and "woman" are not different???

Point well taken.

Just trying to prove the term hadn't died out yet, so I could use it in my argument. :saint:

The feminist agenda is to force absolute equality in every way in every part of society. (This will extend to the church if they can make it do so.) I suggest you look for how this is being carried out in society. For example, there have been recent controversies about male and female use of the same rest rooms.

And I never said that this rendering "promotes" this agenda. I said it was influenced (perhaps unconsciously) by the philosophy of feminism. I try to be very precise in my word usage (though of course I sometimes fail). I don't really think the rendering does great harm in the sense of promoting false doctrine. I just don't think it's that accurate of a rendering.

 

We determine meaning by usage. Job 42:11 is a clear example of using adelphos and adelphe together. I deduce then that there is an argument for using both words when speaking of both men and women as opposed to adelphoi to mean both.

 

Um, so you are saying that every time Paul mentions women in connection with a church, that means they were church members? Sorry, that's a very unconvincing argument.

I have folk that come very faithfully to my church who are not on the membership roll. In some cases they never will be, if I can help it. But someone writing a letter to my church might say, "Treat Mr. and Mrs. K. nicely." That would hardly be proof that they were members in our church, though they've come to our evening service for years and years.

The truth is, there is very little Biblical or historical evidence of how the early church handled membership. Strangely, in spite of your efforts, Paul doesn't mention anything like a membership roll in the pastorals. I don't think we can prove that women were or were not members from the Bible or historical records. So I'm saying let's just translate adelphoi as is without supposing things.

 

Careful, there. I haven't agreed completely, though you have a good point. The argument might be made that the use of andres excludes women from adelphoi. Check out A. T. Robertson: "Literally, men, brethren or brother men. More dignified and respectful than just 'brethren.' Demosthenes sometimes said Andres Athênaioi. Cf. our 'gentlemen and fellow-citizens.' Women are included in this address though andres refers only to men."

Very interesting.

 

The ESV guys put the same explanatory footnote 151 times ! Brothers and sisters needs to be put in the text instead , it's silly not to .

 

Don't have time to answer all of your points today. I have to finish my monthly expense report, then go to meet other missionaries. It's been very interesting so far.

I will just point out that the roll of widows mentioned doesn't have to be the church roll. It could be just a list of widows eligible for church help. How that list was made we are not told.

Concerning Phoebe the servant of the church, having the church hire someone (entirely within the semantic range there) doesn't mean they have to have been a member.

 

Clearly women were members of the church. There were deaconesses, prophetesses, baptized, called believers, told how to wear their hair in worship, in one case causers of strife inside the church, and perhaps there was even a female apostle (Junia). That women were church members is a point that is painfully obvious.

 

From the Preface of the ESV:

Returning to the text of Deuteronomy:

If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you.
Deuteronomy 15:12 ESV

The Hebrew word underlined is masculine gender with a literal meaning of “brothers”.
The LXX translated it as “adelphos”, “brothers“.
Clearly in the context, it applies to men and women.
It’s apparent that in the time when the LXX was made, the term was understood in a broader sense.

I am well able to differentiate its full meaning.
I’d rather expand my understanding of lingustic history than insert my cultural norms upon the translation.
It's purely a preference.

I personally am most comfortable with the literal gloss of “brothers” or even the cognitive “kinsman“ or “countrymen“ (as in the NAS) with a footnote to expand and clarify it’s meaning to those who are thickheaded.

Rob

 

This is good research, Rob. It's about where I am, too.

 

For TC, cowboymatt, etc., you make some excellent arguments for women being church members in the first century, and for the generic use of adelphoi. I'll take it all under advisement and consider and research it carefully when I can. That's about all I have time for right now (almost bedtime in Japan), and I have a very busy day tomorrow and may not be able to post at all.

Oyasumi nasai. ("Sleep well") :sleeping_2: