What Do We Make of CWRIS and ANDRES?

D. Charles Pyle dcpyle at linkline.com
Sun Oct 21 02:30:05 EDT 2001


Haven't posted in a long time due to lack of time but thought I would take a
stab at it.

ANQROPOS is generally a more generic term, while ANHR or ANDROS tends to be
more gender specific, usually giving the implication of women and/or
children present within the context. In the passages in question, the
sentence structure and usage seem to fit this as well. In that light, I
would see CWRIS as meaning "apart from" or meaning that there were so many
husbands there but that there were more people there who were not counted,
namely the women and children. There miht be other cultural issues there
which we have not considered. For instance, were women counted in
census-type arrangements? I do not think that such was often the case,
especially in Israel. In the OT, we tend to find that the men were counted
in census activities, especially the fighting men. This could have been
another example of such a count--a census of attending devotees counted by
the men rather than including women and children in such a count. I suppose,
though, that this might be taken as interpretation as well, and that my
comments might be less than helpful. :-)
===============================================
D. Charles Pyle
--------------------------
GINWSKETE GAR THN CARIN TOU KURIOU hHMWN
IHSOU CRISTOU, hOTI DI' hUMAS EPTWCEUSEN,
PLOUSIOS WN, hINA hUMEIS TH(i) EKEINOU
PTWCEIA(i), PLOUTHSHTE. (PROS KORINQIOUS B 8.9)
===============================================


> But: does CWRIS here mean "in addition to" (i.e., there were women and
> children present, but not included in the count) or "in the absence of"
> (i.e., there were no women or children present at all). Is anyone pushing
> for the latter meaning? I got the impression that we were all agreed that
> such a crowd would not consist of adult males only.
>
> But: only the adult males were included in the count. There was a
> discussion on how this could be so. Iver focussed on the narrative
comments
> "by 100 and by 50", pointing out that this could mean there were 100
groups
> of 50 men, and then you would have the 5,000 of the first Miraculous
> Feeding story (and 80 groups of 50 for the second).
>
> As for the women and children not being counted: they could be clustered
in
> family groups around their men, which would still permit the counting and
> calculating of the number of men (Iver), or maybe, like in a synagogue,
the
> women (with their children) were seated apart (CWRIS) from the men because
> they had been receiving a teaching ministry from Jesus - and they were
> separate during this teaching, and that was when the men were counted
(Paul
> Schmehl) - even if they had subsequently joined their menfolk for the
> actual "eating a meal" part.
>
> Or "it could also be that Jesus said there were that many, and he should
> know" (Dennis Hukel).
>
> I gather, then, that the use of CWRIS does not really allow us to perceive
> just what is going on, and that there is no basis upon which we can work
> out exactly what is meant by the Gospel writers' descriptions of the
scene.
>
> Is that the conclusion to which we have now come?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ward





More information about the B-Greek mailing list