Quote of the Day

I went back to re-read an article by Mark Strauss this evening and I came across a paragraph that I had forgotten about. This was pretty humorous and it made both my wife and I laugh (my emphasis):

Ironically, P&G [Poythress & Grudem] inadvertently demonstrate the potential confusion of using masculine terms when they themselves misunderstand masculine generic “man” to be gender specific (i.e., male). In their discussion of Greek aner, they argue that the Greek lexicons do not recognize the sense “human being.” To prove this they cite various lexicons, including the Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon. The first two entries for aner in Liddell-Scott are (1) man, opposed to woman, and (2) man, opposed to god. P&G use this data to deny that the term ever loses its distinctively male sense. But what is the sense of “man, opposed to god”? The first sense, “man, opposed to woman,” is clearly “male human being,” but the second is clearly “human being.” P&G have read the generic use of “man” in this second entry, and have misunderstood it to be gender specific (i.e., male). In this way they illustrate the potential for misunderstanding “man” for contemporary English readers!

Note: This is a separate issue from the comp/egal debate. The author of the article is a complementarian criticizing other complementarians.
Advertisements