Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Junia: The First Woman Apostle

Expand Messages
  • Wieland Willker
    I received the following book: Junia: The First Woman Apostle by Eldon Jay Epp Paperback: 138 pages Publisher: Augsburg Fortress Publishers (October 2005)
    Message 1 of 14 , Aug 13, 2006
      I received the following book:

      Junia: The First Woman Apostle
      by Eldon Jay Epp
      Paperback: 138 pages
      Publisher: Augsburg Fortress Publishers (October 2005)
      ISBN: 0800637712

      It discusses the question, if the person mentioned in Romans 16:7 is male or
      female. I personally do not find this particularly interesting, but those
      who think this is an issue have here now the definitive work, which declares
      that there is absolutely no question that the person is female.

      This is not exactly a textcritical question, because the names, male and
      female are written alike. Even the accentuation is not clear.

      NA accentuates with an acute from its 1998 printing on.

      Best wishes
      Wieland
      <><
      ------------------------------------------------
      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
      Textcritical commentary:
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
    • Roe
      Thanks for pointing out this book, Wieland. Also available is Epp s 65-page article “Text-Critical, Exegetical, and Socio-Cultural Factors Affecting the
      Message 2 of 14 , Aug 13, 2006
        Thanks for pointing out this book, Wieland.

        Also available is Epp's 65-page article “Text-Critical, Exegetical, and
        Socio-Cultural Factors Affecting the Junia/Junias Variation in Romans
        16,7” in New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis, ed. A. Denaux,
        2002, pp. 227-91. This may be another source for some of the same
        information if one's library doesn't yet have the newer book.

        Regards,
        David

        David Roe
        Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany


        Wieland Willker wrote:
        > I received the following book:
        >
        > Junia: The First Woman Apostle
        > by Eldon Jay Epp
        > Paperback: 138 pages
        > Publisher: Augsburg Fortress Publishers (October 2005)
        > ISBN: 0800637712
        >
        > It discusses the question, if the person mentioned in Romans 16:7 is male or
        > female. I personally do not find this particularly interesting, but those
        > who think this is an issue have here now the definitive work, which declares
        > that there is absolutely no question that the person is female.
        >
        > This is not exactly a textcritical question, because the names, male and
        > female are written alike. Even the accentuation is not clear.
        >
        > NA accentuates with an acute from its 1998 printing on.
        >
        > Best wishes
        > Wieland
        > <><
        > ------------------------------------------------
        > Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
        > mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
        > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
        > Textcritical commentary:
        > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
        >
        >
        >
      • sarban
        There is a sort of textcritical issue given the reading IOULIAN by P46 et al in 16:7 and the (probably related) variant readings in 16:15 Andrew Criddle ...
        Message 3 of 14 , Aug 13, 2006
          There is a sort of textcritical issue given the reading IOULIAN by
          P46 et al in 16:7 and the (probably related) variant readings in 16:15
           
           
          Andrew Criddle
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 9:03 AM
          Subject: [textualcriticism] Junia: The First Woman Apostle

          I received the following book:

          Junia: The First Woman Apostle
          by Eldon Jay Epp
          Paperback: 138 pages
          Publisher: Augsburg Fortress Publishers (October 2005)
          ISBN: 0800637712

          It discusses the question, if the person mentioned in Romans 16:7 is male or
          female. I personally do not find this particularly interesting, but those
          who think this is an issue have here now the definitive work, which declares
          that there is absolutely no question that the person is female.

          This is not exactly a textcritical question, because the names, male and
          female are written alike. Even the accentuation is not clear.

          NA accentuates with an acute from its 1998 printing on.

          Best wishes
          Wieland
          <><
          ------------ --------- --------- --------- ---------
          Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
          mailto:willker@chemie. uni-bremen. de
          http://www.uni- bremen.de/ ~wie
          Textcritical commentary:
          http://www.uni- bremen.de/ ~wie/TCG/ index.html

        • Daniel Buck
          ... P46 et al in 16:7 and the (probably related) variant readings in 16:15 ... male and female are written alike. Even the accentuation is not clear. NA
          Message 4 of 14 , Aug 14, 2006
            Andrew Criddle, "sarban" <sarban@...> wrote:
            >> There is a sort of textcritical issue given the reading IOULIAN by
            P46 et al in 16:7 and the (probably related) variant readings in
            16:15>>

            Wieland had written:
            > This is not exactly a textcritical question, because the names,
            male and female are written alike. Even the accentuation is not clear.
            NA accentuates with an acute from its 1998 printing on. >

            This *is* a text-critical issue, as the Vulgate mss are split between
            the two feminine forms Iuniam and Iuliam. The Peshitta supports
            Iuniam, and P46 supports Iuliam.

            What exactly is the significance of the accentation? If I understand
            correctly, a circumflex accent on the penultimate 'a' indicates
            masculine (as in Nestle), and an acute accent on the 'i' indicates
            feminine (as in Westcott-Hort and Robinson-Pierpont). That being the
            case, the blurb for Epp's book has it exactly backwards; the earliest
            mss (Aleph A B C D F G) allow for the possibility that Junias was
            masculine, and only the latest mss specify Junia as feminine--not the
            other way around.

            The blurb at http://www.equalitydepot.com/browseproducts/JuniaThe-
            First-Woman-Apostleby-Eldon-Jay-Epp.html

            "The name "Junia" appears in Romans 16:7, and Paul identifies her
            (along with Andronicus) as "prominent among the apostles." In this
            important work, Epp investigates the mysterious disappearance of Junia
            from the traditions of the church. Because later theologians and
            scribes could not believe (or wanted to suppress) that Paul had
            numbered a woman among the earliest churches' apostles, Junia's name
            was changed in Romans to a masculine form."


            Daniel Buck
            Bucksburg, IN
          • Wieland Willker
            Regarding the accentuation: 1. In my understanding accentuation is no part of textual criticism, strictly speaking. The originals did not contain any
            Message 5 of 14 , Aug 14, 2006
              Regarding the accentuation:

              1. In my understanding accentuation is no part of textual criticism, strictly speaking. The "originals" did not contain any accents. All accentuation is our interpretation. The same is true for punctuation issues.

              2. Regarding Junia:
              From Epp's book I take it that the accentuation with a circumflex is definitely the male form. But according to Epp it is not clear that the acute is the female form. It could also be a male form. But it is MORE PROBABLY the female form.

              All of our earliest MSS do not have an accent here at all.

              From Epp it is also evident that it is not really true that
              "later theologians and scribes could not believe (or wanted to suppress) that Paul had numbered a woman among the earliest churches' apostles".
              More often it is just carelessness.


              Best wishes
              Wieland
              <><
              ------------------------------------------------
              Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
              mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
              http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
              Textcritical commentary:
              http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
            • Gie Vleugels
              The few remarks by Church fathers on the verse go definitely against Epp s suggestion that theologians and scribes could not believe or wanted to suppress the
              Message 6 of 14 , Aug 14, 2006
                The few remarks by Church fathers on the verse go definitely against Epp's suggestion that theologians and scribes could not believe or wanted to suppress the idea of a respected female apostle. Chrysostome in his commentary takes Paul's reference to a female apostle for granted and gives it a lot of emphasis.

                 
                On 8/15/06, Wieland Willker <willker@...-bremen.de> wrote:
                Regarding the accentuation:

                1. In my understanding accentuation is no part of textual criticism, strictly speaking. The "originals" did not contain any accents. All accentuation is our interpretation. The same is true for punctuation issues.

                2. Regarding Junia:
                From Epp's book I take it that the accentuation with a circumflex is definitely the male form. But according to Epp it is not clear that the acute is the female form. It could also be a male form. But it is MORE PROBABLY the female form.

                All of our earliest MSS do not have an accent here at all.

                From Epp it is also evident that it is not really true that
                "later theologians and scribes could not believe (or wanted to suppress) that Paul had numbered a woman among the earliest churches' apostles".
                More often it is just carelessness.


                Best wishes
                   Wieland
                      <><
                ------------------------------------------------
                Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
                mailto: willker@...-bremen.de
                http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
                Textcritical commentary:
                http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html







                Yahoo! Groups Links

                <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/

                <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                   textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                   http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/







                --
                Gie Vleugels

                            ><(((°>  +  <°)))><
              • Wieland Willker
                ... This is a known explanation, but according to Epp, who did study this carefully, it is not acceptable. Best wishes Wieland
                Message 7 of 14 , Aug 16, 2006
                  Malcolm wrote:
                  > The real interpretive hinge is how to understand EN TOIS
                  > APOSTOLOIS in vs 7. A simple translation would render "by
                  > the Apostles" or (in)"among the Apostles." Either way it does
                  > not mean that either ANDRONIKON or IOUNIA(N) are KLHTOS
                  > APOSTOLOS (cf 1:1) or APOSTOLHN (1:5).


                  This is a known explanation, but according to Epp, who did study this carefully, it is not acceptable.

                  Best wishes
                  Wieland
                  <><
                  ------------------------------------------------
                  Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
                  mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
                  http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
                  Textcritical commentary:
                  http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
                • Dr P.J. Williams
                  Wieland wrote: All accentuation is our interpretation. The same is true for punctuation issues. The originals/archetypes probably contained sporadic
                  Message 8 of 14 , Aug 17, 2006
                    Wieland wrote:

                    "All accentuation is our interpretation. The same is true for punctuation
                    issues."

                    The originals/archetypes probably contained sporadic punctuation, but this
                    has generally not been regarded as part of the text in the same way. One
                    may, however, argue that certain paragraph divisions, e.g. after John 1:5,
                    are as likely as not to go back to the archetypes of the textual
                    tradition. I shall argue this at a paper at the forthcoming British New
                    Testament Conference.

                    Best wishes,

                    Pete
                  • Daniel Buck
                    In post 2438 of August 2006, Daniel Buck wrote ... correctly, a circumflex accent on the a of the accusative form IUNIAN indicates
                    Message 9 of 14 , Dec 24, 2007
                      In post 2438 of August 2006, "Daniel Buck" <bucksburg@...> wrote
                      [edited for clarity]:

                      > What exactly is the significance of the accentation? If I understand
                      correctly, a circumflex accent on the 'a' of the accusative form IUNIAN
                      indicates masculine (as in Nestle), and an acute accent on the
                      immediately preceding 'i' indicates feminine (as in Westcott-Hort and
                      Robinson-Pierpont). That being the case, the blurb for Epp's book has
                      it exactly backwards; the earliest mss (Aleph A B C D F G) allow for
                      the possibility of IUNIAS (masculine), and only the latest mss specify
                      IUNIA (feminine)--not the other way around. [in other words, the change
                      in specificity in the mss was from neutral to feminine, not neutral to
                      masculine as indicated by the blurb for Epp's latest book]<

                      I'd like to revisit this issue, having just read Epp's treatise in the
                      Festschrift Joël Delobel, "New Testament Textual Criticism and
                      Exegesis" (1998) on Google Books. Epp goes down through Church
                      History, beginning with Iraneus, showing that the identification of
                      IOUNIAN as feminine was virtually universal for over a dozen centuries.
                      Martin Luther's near contemporaries (including Erasmus) had even made
                      this identification explicit in their commentaries. Luther, however, in
                      his ground-breaking translation of the NT into the German vernacular,
                      made IOUNIAS explicit by use of the masculine article. Such was the
                      weight of his opinion that IOUNIAN began to appear in Greek texts with
                      the circumflex accent indicating the masculine, beginning in the 19th
                      century and continuing all the way down to UBS4, which, in support of
                      its reading, cited a list of uncials that don't even have accents!

                      Well, my free time on this page of Google Books has run out, so I can't
                      write any further on Epp's treatise for now. But I will comment that
                      this example shows that exegetical considerations can affect not only
                      translations of a Greek text, but printed editions of that text as well.

                      Daniel Buck
                    • A. Dirkzwager
                      Daniel, I think you are right and I believe that we are discussing very important methodical issues now. Textual criticism cannot be considered as handling
                      Message 10 of 14 , Dec 26, 2007
                        Daniel,

                        I think you are right and I believe that we are discussing very
                        important methodical issues now.
                        Textual criticism cannot be considered as handling mechanically some
                        rules about preference of manuscripts, preference of families, of age
                        and numbers of manuscripts . In considering which text was the original
                        one we are all looking to the sense of the sentence. So we are using
                        exegetics. That is true for Biblical texual criticism and for editing
                        Greek or Latin pagan or ecclesiastical authors.

                        Some people are using other exegetical criteria too. If one believes
                        that the Bible cannot contradict itself, then his exegetical result can
                        be different from that of a person who accepts contradictions in the
                        Bible. This list does not exist in order to discuss the question if
                        contradictions can exist in the Bible. But we should be *aware* of the
                        fact that matters of faith can influence the results of exegesis *and*
                        of textual criticism.

                        I wrote about 'faith' and used the word 'believes'. The question, if
                        contradictions can be found in the Bible, is connected with one's
                        opinion about divine inspiration of the Bible. That opinion is a matter
                        of faith. Science cannot prove or exclude divine inspiration. So
                        scientifically seen accepting cortradictions *and* denying
                        contradictions are equal. Therefore we should accept the fact that
                        others are using other criteria on this point on this list.

                        Another question concerning the reading of Romans 16: 7 is the meaning
                        of EN TOIS APOSTOLOIS. The preposition EN can have various meanings
                        here. I understand that in the discussion you are reporting EN TOIS
                        APOSTOLOIS is understood as "being a member of the group of the
                        apostles". But one could understand "in the opinion of the apostles"
                        too. Bauer has this meaning s.v. EN, I 3. And then Iunias or Iunia is
                        not necessarily an apostle.

                        Arie

                        A. Dirkzwager
                        Hoeselt, Belgium




                        Daniel Buck schreef:

                        > But I will comment that
                        > this example shows that exegetical considerations can affect not only
                        > translations of a Greek text, but printed editions of that text as well.
                        >
                        >
                        > __
                      • Daniel Buck
                        ... the meaning of EN TOIS APOSTOLOIS. The preposition EN can have various meanings here. I understand that in the discussion you are reporting EN TOIS
                        Message 11 of 14 , Dec 26, 2007
                          "Arie Dirkzwager" <dirkzwager@...> wrote:
                          > . . . Another question concerning the reading of Romans 16: 7 is
                          the meaning of EN TOIS APOSTOLOIS. The preposition EN can have
                          various meanings here. I understand that in the discussion you are
                          reporting EN TOIS APOSTOLOIS is understood as "being a member of the
                          group of the
                          apostles". But one could understand "in the opinion of the apostles"
                          too. Bauer has this meaning s.v. EN, I 3. And then Iunias or Iunia is
                          not necessarily an apostle.<

                          There are two separate issues here.
                          1) Was IUNIAN an Apostle? This has serious theological implications.
                          2) Was IUNIAN a man or a woman? This is important only if #1 is 'yes'.

                          So scholars have approached this passage in different ways.
                          1) IUNIAN wasn't an Apostle so his/er gender doesn't matter
                          2) IUNIAN was an Apostle, and Apostles were male, therefore he was
                          too.
                          3) IUNIAN was a female Apostle, therefore women can lead the church

                          Unfortunately the evidence does not come down clearly on the side of
                          any of these conclusions. But the evidence IS important, and should
                          not be ignored. For example, Tucker and Liefeld wrote that "it was
                          not until the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century that a
                          commentator referred to her as a man." This is manifestly untrue;
                          Epiphanius (A.D. 315-403), bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, includes a
                          reference to Iounian in his Index of Disciples: "Junias, of whom Paul
                          makes mention, became bishop of Apameia of Syria." (Index
                          disciplulorum, 125.19-20.) The reference here is unmistakably
                          masculine, and it is the only patristic reference that gives
                          historical information on IUNIAN.

                          The question comes down to a matter of evidence. And of course, we
                          are talking here only of mss that contain accents that can
                          distinguish between the accusative cases of IUNIA and IUNIAS.

                          Scholars throw around accusations that scribes did this or that with
                          IUNIAN's gender, but are very scarce with their citations of actual
                          mss. Some say that the ms record is overwhelmingly in favor of
                          IUNIAS; if so, why are printed GNT's of the first few centuries
                          unanimously in favor of IUNIA? If the early accented mss have IUNIAS,
                          but the later ones have IUNIA, then the very opposite of what Tucker
                          alleges is true: IUNIAN's "sex-change" operation in the 13th/14th
                          centuries was not from female to male, but from male to female. And
                          there are no theological or exegetical reasons to account for such an
                          event at that juncture.

                          Please-- let someone with access to the mss settle this question once
                          and for all.

                          Daniel Buck
                        • George F Somsel
                          The section of Epiphanius is online. It is listed under Migne s Epiphanius: Index discipulorum. http://tinyurl.com/2vroct Here is the text. Note that as
                          Message 12 of 14 , Dec 27, 2007

                            The section of Epiphanius is online.  It is listed under Migne's "Epiphanius: Index discipulorum." 

                             

                            http://tinyurl.com/2vroct

                             

                            Here is the text.  Note that as stated the gender is masc as stated.

                             

                            ξδʹ

                            . Ἰουνίας, οὗ καὶ αὐτοῦ ὁ Παῦλος μέμνηται, ἐπίσκοπος Ἀπαμείας τῆς

                            Συρίας ἐγένετο

                            .
                             
                            george
                            gfsomsel
                             
                            Therefore, O faithful Christian, search for truth, hear truth,
                            learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
                            defend the truth till death.
                             
                            - Jan Hus
                            _________


                            ----- Original Message ----
                            From: Daniel Buck <bucksburg@...>
                            To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                            Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 5:36:16 PM
                            Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Junia: The First Woman Apostle

                            Unfortunately the evidence does not come down clearly on the side of
                            any of these conclusions. But the evidence IS important, and should
                            not be ignored. For example, Tucker and Liefeld wrote that "it was
                            not until the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century that a
                            commentator referred to her as a man." This is manifestly untrue;
                            Epiphanius (A.D. 315-403), bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, includes a
                            reference to Iounian in his Index of Disciples: "Junias, of whom Paul
                            makes mention, became bishop of Apameia of Syria." (Index
                            disciplulorum, 125.19-20.) The reference here is unmistakably
                            masculine, and it is the only patristic reference that gives
                            historical information on IUNIAN.


                            Please-- let someone with access to the mss settle this question once
                            and for all.

                            Daniel Buck

                            .




                            Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
                          • Daniel Buck
                            ... with IUNIAN s gender, but are very scarce with their citations of actual mss. Some say that the ms record is overwhelmingly in favor of IUNIAS; if so, why
                            Message 13 of 14 , Mar 26, 2008
                              On Dec 17, 2007 "Daniel Buck" <bucksburg@...> wrote:
                              >> Scholars throw around accusations that scribes did this or that
                              with IUNIAN's gender, but are very scarce with their citations of
                              actual mss. Some say that the ms record is overwhelmingly in favor of
                              IUNIAS; if so, why are printed GNT's of the first few centuries
                              unanimously in favor of IUNIA? If the early accented mss have IUNIAS,
                              but the later ones have IUNIA, then the very opposite of what Tucker
                              alleges is true: IUNIAN's "sex-change" operation in the 13th/14th
                              centuries was not from female to male, but from male to female. And
                              there are no theological or exegetical reasons to account for such an
                              event at that juncture.

                              Please-- let someone with access to the mss settle this question once
                              and for all.<<

                              No one has responded.

                              I'm going to direct this to Daniel Wallace, since he has
                              categorically stated what the minuscules contain:

                              http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1163
                              "First, we should consider the accents on the Greek manuscripts. . .
                              not added until the ninth century. . . . Nevertheless, they are
                              usually decent indicators as to the opinion in the ninth century. And
                              what they reveal is that Iounian was largely considered a man's name
                              (for **the bulk of the MSS** have the circumflex over the ultima)"
                            • feeite_christian
                              Perhaps it would be worth while to note that in his Junia book, Epp updates the discussion regarding the text critical problem of the Silenced Women of
                              Message 14 of 14 , Mar 29, 2008
                                Perhaps it would be worth while to note that in his Junia book, Epp
                                updates the discussion regarding the text critical problem of the
                                Silenced Women of Corinth, although perhaps another update might
                                already be needed. There is a considerable discussion of umlauts in
                                this section.
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.