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

Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Junia: NOT The First Woman Apostle

Expand Messages
  • Jovial
    This is very true and I have heard a lot of people misreport that the earlier manuscripts contain the feminine version. It may not matter that much because
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 26 1:56 PM
      This is very true and I have heard a lot of people misreport that the earlier manuscripts contain the feminine version.  It may not matter that much because Jonah is called "Yonah" (female dove) not "Yon" (male dove), and Junia may simply be the Greek transliteration of that.
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 3:47 PM
      Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Junia: The First Woman Apostle

      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

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.