tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post116296769829946027..comments2023-10-20T07:28:50.948-07:00Comments on Better Bibles Blog: Junia, the apostle: Part 10Wayne Lemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1163098722864873982006-11-09T10:58:00.000-08:002006-11-09T10:58:00.000-08:00In 1977 Brooten wrote "virtually all modern biblic...In 1977 Brooten wrote "<I>virtually all modern biblical translations have Junias (m.) rather than Junia (f.).</I>" I am glad to say that since then the position has more or less reversed.<BR/><BR/>Belleville notes more patristic evidence than Brooten does for a female Junia. I don't have time to copy all the details, but here are Belleville's Greek fathers: Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, John of Damascus, Oecumenius, Theophylact; also a 5th century <I>Catena</I> and the 7th century <I>Chronicon Paschale</I>. The Latins start with Ambrose and Jerome; the latter certainly knew Greek well. Belleville provides quotes from Chrysostom, Theodoret and John of Damascus stating that Junia was both a woman and called an apostle.<BR/><BR/>There is in fact one piece of 4th century evidence for a male Junias, from Epiphanius, but he also calls Priscilla a woman, Priskas, so his evidence cannot be relied on. That is the only evidence from the whole first millennium for a male Junias.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1163036670270144912006-11-08T17:44:00.000-08:002006-11-08T17:44:00.000-08:00Kenny,As far as the en ethnei line, if this was a ...Kenny,<BR/><BR/><I>As far as the en ethnei line, if this was a Jewish inscription I might be inclined to agree with W&B, since ethnoi normally means "Gentiles" in the Jewish subdialect, but since it doesn't appear to be a Jewish inscription (?) I would say you are almost certainly correct.</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>The main point is that <I>ethnos</I> means 'nation', and can be used for the Jewish nation. It is the plural that means the Gentiles! I don't quite know why Wallace assumed that 'the nation' meant outsiders. Possible because of <I>alla kai</I>? Not enough. <BR/><BR/>This is Acts 10:22<BR/><BR/>οι δε ειπαν κορνηλιος εκατονταρχης ανηρ δικαιος και φοβουμενος τον θεον μαρτυρουμενος τε υπο ολου του εθνους των ιουδαιων <BR/><BR/>"And they said, Cornelius, a centurion, an upright and God-fearing man, who is well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation..."<BR/><BR/>So here <I>ethnos</I> is the Jewish nation. And the expresssion for 'well spoken of by' another group of which one is not part, is expressed by υπο.<BR/><BR/>As for your initial proposal, you had me a little confused. I would have assumed by your sentence about Tacitus that he was a classicist, except that I know he isn't. It is a little awkward.<BR/><BR/>However, I am quite happy with the KJV for this verse. My main point is that the ESV and the NET have made a mistake in the interests of removing a woman from a prominent position. If they had done it honestly, that would be another matter. <BR/><BR/>The real problem here is that there is too much material to cover. Now that I am into the grammar, I think I will stick with it for a while yet. I am having too much fun discovering all the internet resources available these days. I am enjoying the process too much to worry about the outcome. <BR/><BR/>I will go back and add <A HREF="http://www.womenpriests.org/classic/brooten.asp" REL="nofollow">Brooten's article</A> to the bibliography. That gives evidence throughout church history.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1163019215228658422006-11-08T12:53:00.000-08:002006-11-08T12:53:00.000-08:00Suzanne, I haven't had time to follow this closely...Suzanne, I haven't had time to follow this closely (still swamped with school work and theater), but I just caught up on the posts so far. I haven't had time to read the article you are critiquing. I currently stand here:<BR/><BR/>(1) I still don't see why this can't be equivalent to the English sentence "Tacitus is a notable writer among classicists," which clearly doesn't imply that Tacitus is a classicist. If we say "Tacitus is notable among classicists" it sounds a little weirder (the first one was a bit unnatural to begin with, in my opinion), but it still doesn't imply that Tacitus was a classicist. The dispute seems to be over whether Greek ever does this. As far as the <I>en ethnei</I> line, if this was a Jewish inscription I might be inclined to agree with W&B, since <I>ethnoi</I> normally means "Gentiles" in the Jewish subdialect, but since it doesn't appear to be a Jewish inscription (?) I would say you are almost certainly correct. This means that the evidence for Greek doing this is rather flimsy (if it exists at all).<BR/><BR/>(2) General agreement among native speakers near the time that Junia being an apostle is implied by this verse would be, in my view, quite decisive, and you have rightly come back to this. However, as far as I can see you have only cited Chrysostom. You have been speaking as though there was agreement that Junia was a woman and an apostle up until the Reformation. Can you show any more evidence of this? I'm not sure what else would provide truly decisive evidence that <I>episemos</I> cannot have this kind of construction, but I am (as you seem to be) something of a reductionist about lexical categories - that is, I don't think we should postulate extra categories where we don't need them (as, for instance, some lexicons and most translations have <I>dia</I> + gen. meaning "among" or <I>katargeo</I> meaing "to abolish," but all of the passages cited work just fine with the normal sense of "through" or "to make idle," respectively). Koine is also almost always perfectly straightforward; it doesn't use unusual constructions like Attic often does. For these reasons, a 'normal' reading is preferable. However, the grammatical position of <I>en tois apostolois</I> still seems ambiguous to me.<BR/><BR/>If you can establish that Junia herself is <I>en tois apostolois</I>, and the sentence is not analogous to my example from (1) above, then I will be forced to reject one of three beliefs which I currently hold: (a) that Junia was a woman, (b) that the word apostle is here used as an ecclesiastic office, in the same sense as Paul uses it elsewhere, and (c) that Paul's instructions on gender and church government preclude female apostles. I do not find it easy to reject any of these, so I am still holding on to my previous interpretation at present, because I still don't think it's that implausible. I will try to keep up with your future posts as well, as I find this very interesting. (I assume you are not done yet?) Thanks for this fascinating series!Kenny Pearcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05561248709234656660noreply@blogger.com