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

Re: Junia: The First Woman Apostle

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 14 , Dec 26, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      "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 2 of 14 , Dec 27, 2007
      • 0 Attachment

        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 3 of 14 , Mar 26, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 14 , Mar 29, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            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.