Romans 16:7

Posted on March 6, 2018September 5, 2018 by ProBible

[] Junia Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Wed May 12 15:26:28 EDT 2004

[] re: mamonas [] re: mamonas-wilcox Dear ,Someone asked me a long time ago to post information about Dan Wallace’s paper on Junia (Rom 16:7). I’m fairly sure the information has already been posted, but I did not post it and so cannot be sure. The article is on-line at: http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/rom16.htmYours,Harold Holmyard

[] re: mamonas[] re: mamonas-wilcox

[] “episemoi en tois apostolois” CWestf5155 at aol.com CWestf5155 at aol.com
Sun Aug 29 03:40:05 EDT 2004

[] “episemoi en tois apostolois” [] “episemoi en tois apostolois” <<In a message dated 8/28/2004 8:35:10 PM Mountain Standard Time, AwenDawn at ap.net writes:Hello Cindy, Thank you for your reply. Now if we look at Matthew 20;26It shall not be so among (en) you; but who ever would be great among(en) you must be your servant. RSV interlinear greek english NT. TonyFisher online greek:ouc outwV estai (en) umin: all oV ean qelh (en) umin megaV genesqaiestai umwn diakonoV,Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D.http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/rom16.htmI am not sure when wallace wrote this but His idea that accent markersin the 13th and 14th century minuscule manuscripts are a reliablesource for the masculine rendering of Iouniandoes not work. According to Moo there is a 9th century manuscript thatactually represents an important exception to the contracted form andsupports the feminine form rather than the masculine.5 Actually thereis evidence that the early church fathers accepted the feminine formup until the time of Epiphanius who it seems had a hard time acceptingwomen in the church for he also Identified “Prisca” as male. He doesnot seem to be reliable source. It is not my Idea to be discussinggender here but I cannot help wonder if the reluctance to IdentifyAndronicus and Junia as apostles has something to do with gender. Itseems as if someone has to go a longway out of the general scriptureto come up with “to” as the most likely correct rendering of thispassage. How one looks to what an apostle actually is might alsoinfluence translation but is sould not. AwenI am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk indarkness, but will have the light of life. John 8:12>>For example, Greek-speaking John Chrysostom explicitly identified Junia as a woman and an apostle. He appeared to regard her as an amazing example of counter-expectation. I agree with you that this verse does appear to evoke some interesting acrobatics, when someone tries to constrain the semantic range of EN + dative and tries to establish the masculine gender of Junia’s name at the same time.Cindy WestfallDenver Seminary

[] “episemoi en tois apostolois”[] “episemoi en tois apostolois”

[] “episemoi en tois apostolois” CWestf5155 at aol.com CWestf5155 at aol.com
Mon Aug 30 12:04:46 EDT 2004

[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 [] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 <<In a message dated 8/30/2004 7:39:42 AM Mountain Standard Time, kimmo.huovila at helsinki.fi writes:On Monday 30 August 2004 02:08, you wrote:> > Kimmo,> > Your asking if there could be a collocation of EPISOMOS + EN + genetive in > Greek that a native Hellenistic speaker would recognize and use to express > “prominent/outstanding among”. > > At least we can say that in Chysostom’s time, there must not have been. And > again, if memory serves, there were a couple of examples of EPISOMOS + EN + > dative in Hellenistic literature that meant “among”–but I don’t have the > search engine to confirm this today.I realized I misread your statement the first time. You said that in Chrysostom’s time there must NOT have been a construction EN + genitive…Did you mean EN+dative or just genitive? Was Chrysostom’s view of the passage the same as Wallace’s or the opposite?>>Kimmo,A collocation is a term for the relationship a lexical item has with other items that appear with greater than random probability–something like a idiom. It appears that the NET editors are arguing that there is a collocation of EPISEMOI + EN + genitive when the meaning is “outstanding among”, so that it can not mean that with the dative. I’m saying that according to my understanding, that the two constructions may overlap semantically, as happens to some extent with prepositions and cases.Now, I believe that there are other examples of this meaning with EPISEMOI + EN + dative, which I’ll either confirm or deny one way or the other in a couple of days. But also, it is clear that Greek-speaking Chysostom read EPISEMOI + EN + dative as “outstanding among” in the 4th century:”Indeed, to be an apostle at all is a great thing….But to be even amongst those of great note, just consider what an enconium this is!….Oh, how great is the devotion of this woman, that she whould be counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!” (NPNF 1st Series 11:555).Several things may be drawn from this quotation (sorry I don’t have it in Greek–maybe someone can supply it). First, a native Hellenistic Greek-speaker interpreted EN as “among” and further clarified that Junia was being called an apostle. Second, that a native Hellenistic Greek-speaker identified her as a woman. Third, particularly in the context of Chyrsostom’s other statements about women, it was counter-expectation that a woman should be called an apostle. This is vital, because it indicates that it isn’t a results-driven reading, but it is driven by the grammar and perhaps handed-down tradition.Cindy WestfallDenver Seminary

[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12

[] Junia: The First Woman Apostle Wieland Willker willker at chemie.uni-bremen.de
Sun Aug 13 04:03:55 EDT 2006

[] John 1:18 theos declared the Son [] Clarifying Iver’s John 1:18 position I received the following book: Junia: The First Woman Apostle by Eldon Jay EppPaperback: 138 pages Publisher: Augsburg Fortress Publishers (October 2005) ISBN: 0800637712 It discusses the question, if the person mentioned in Romans 16:7 is male orfemale. I personally do not find this particularly interesting, but thosewho think this is an issue have here now the definitive work, which declaresthat there is absolutely no question that the person is female. This is not exactly a textcritical question, because the names, male andfemale 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, Germanymailto:willker at chemie.uni-bremen.dehttp://www.uni-bremen.de/~wieTextcritical commentary: http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html

[] John 1:18 theos declared the Son[] Clarifying Iver’s John 1:18 position

[] Rom 1:16-17 & 1 Cor 1:17-18 David Bielby dbielby at bloomingtonvineyard.org
Wed Apr 9 15:38:50 EDT 2003

[] EPAISXUNOMAI TO EUANGELION [] John 1:12 It seems to me there are a couple of reasons to take the following approachto translating Romans 1:16 (amplifying Paul’s meaning of EUANGELION tospecifically mean here the STAUROS or the LOGOS GAR…TOU STAUROU… Soit could be translated “For I am not ashamed of the message of the Cross” or”For I am not ashamed of the gospel [specifically the stigma of Christ’scriminal style death penalty on a cross]” Often I hear gospel preachersinterchange the terms cross and gospel. Do you suppose this is what Paul isdoing here in Ro 1:16?? Both passages are discussing the power of God in relationship to salvation.Paul’s use of EPAISXUNOMAI in Ro 1:16 is in reference to an event orspecific activity?? Louw & Nida slot the word into that specific area intheir semantical domain…not defined as shame in general…but shame inreference to a specific event or activity……which I suppose thecrucifixion may likely have been the most ’embarrassing concept’ to thenatural mind? With these thoughts in mind, is there a tendency showing here in Paul tointerchange EUANGELION with LOGOS TOU STAUROU or EUANGELION with STAUROS ingeneral? What do you guys think? Am I just a loopy Pastor or is there something inthis of substance? 🙂 David Bielby Pastordbielby at bloomingtonvineyard.orgwww.bloomingtonvineyard.org

[] EPAISXUNOMAI TO EUANGELION[] John 1:12

[] Re; Rom 16:7 Jim West jwest at highland.net
Tue Dec 21 10:14:35 EST 2004

[] Pink [] Re; Rom 16:7 At 10:04 AM 12/21/2004, you wrote:>1. When accents were added to the Greek text in the ninth century the>circumflex was placed over the ultima indicating that our ninth century>brothers and sisters understood this to be a man’s name.> >HH: One of these two men are wrong if Crossan makes a sweeping claim, >which is what his words appear to do.When one does textual criticism one has to weigh evidence. What benefit is there to scribes, or interpreters, to change a masculine name to a feminine? None, in this instance. But what benefit is there in changing a woman’s name to a man’s (interpretatively speaking)? Much, if one is inclined to believe that women were never apostles or preachers or other leaders in the early church. Look, for example, at what has happened to poor old Phoebe the deacon.I am inclined to see Junian as a female’s name- contrary claims not withstanding. And I further suspect those who wish to make her male to be something akin to cryptognostics who believe God will change women into men so they can enter the kingdom of heaven (a la the ending of Thomas).BestJim++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDAdjunct Professor of Biblical StudiesQuartz Hill School of Theologyhttp://web.infoave.net/~jwest Biblical Studies Resourceshttp://biblical-studies.blogspot.com Biblical Theology Weblog

[] Pink[] Re; Rom 16:7

[] Re; Ro 16:7 Dan Starcevich dan.star at comcast.net
Tue Dec 21 13:02:17 EST 2004

[] Re; Ro 16:7 [] Re; Rom 16:7 Yes, I agree that Wallace is trying to deal evenhandedly with the data thatis available. Although there is plenty of preconceptions and bias aroundthis issue I don’t think it is on Wallace’s part.Dan Starcevich —–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org[mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of George F SomselSent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 1:00 PMTo: jwest at highland.netCc: at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: Re: [] Re; Ro 16:7On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 12:34:36 -0500 Jim West <jwest at highland.net> writes:> Sorry, but I forgot to include in my previous note as illustration of> > Wallace’s bias (which he is of course entitled to) this tidbit from> > footnote 8 of his article:> > “the evidence thus far adduced falls right in line with our working > hypothesis”> > In other words, we are finding exactly what we expected to find. > That> isn’t exegesis, it is eisegesis.> > Best> > Jim> > ++++++++++++++++++++> Jim West, ThD> Adjunct Professor of Biblical Studies> Quartz Hill School of Theology> > http://web.infoave.net/~jwest Biblical Studies Resources > http://biblical-studies.blogspot.com Biblical Theology Weblog___________________In fairness to Wallace with, whom I don’t always agree, this isn’t calledeisegesis but the scientific method. You start with a hypothesis and thenyou test it.georgegfsomsel___________— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] Re; Ro 16:7[] Re; Rom 16:7

[] Re; Rom 16:7 Jim West jwest at highland.net
Tue Dec 21 13:29:23 EST 2004

[] Updated interlinear Bibles? [] Re; Rom 16:7 Curiously, a new online edition of the GNT suggests that Junia is masculine accusative. http://www.zhubert.com/greek?start=061601&end=061699run your cursor over the word and the definition appears. As an aside, its a nice online version of the GNT, very user friendly, and if you don’t have Gramcord, a useful alternative.BestJim++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDAdjunct Professor of Biblical StudiesQuartz Hill School of Theologyhttp://web.infoave.net/~jwest Biblical Studies Resourceshttp://biblical-studies.blogspot.com Biblical Theology Weblog

[] Updated interlinear Bibles?[] Re; Rom 16:7

[] Dunn on Rom 16:7 Jim West jwest at highland.net
Tue Dec 21 13:47:23 EST 2004

[] Re; Rom 16:7 [] Re; Ro 16:7 Dunn remarks, “the assumption that it must be male [referring to the name Junia] is a striking indictment of male presumption regarding the character and structure of earliest Christianity” (Word Biblical Commentary, vol 38b, p. 894).BestJim++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDAdjunct Professor of Biblical StudiesQuartz Hill School of Theologyhttp://web.infoave.net/~jwest Biblical Studies Resourceshttp://biblical-studies.blogspot.com Biblical Theology Weblog

[] Re; Rom 16:7[] Re; Ro 16:7

[] Re; Ro 16:7 George F Somsel gfsomsel at juno.com
Tue Dec 21 13:59:31 EST 2004

[] Dunn on Rom 16:7 [] Re; Ro 16:7 On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 12:34:36 -0500 Jim West <jwest at highland.net> writes:> Sorry, but I forgot to include in my previous note as illustration of > > Wallace’s bias (which he is of course entitled to) this tidbit from > > footnote 8 of his article:> > “the evidence thus far adduced falls right in line with our working > hypothesis”> > In other words, we are finding exactly what we expected to find. > That > isn’t exegesis, it is eisegesis.> > Best> > Jim> > ++++++++++++++++++++> Jim West, ThD> Adjunct Professor of Biblical Studies> Quartz Hill School of Theology> > http://web.infoave.net/~jwest Biblical Studies Resources> http://biblical-studies.blogspot.com Biblical Theology Weblog___________________In fairness to Wallace with, whom I don’t always agree, this isn’t calledeisegesis but the scientific method. You start with a hypothesis andthen you test it.georgegfsomsel___________

[] Dunn on Rom 16:7[] Re; Ro 16:7

[] Re: Rom 16:7 Kenneth Litwak javajedi2 at yahoo.com
Wed Dec 22 12:35:04 EST 2004

[] Luke 2:2 Again [] Perfects in Rev. 3:8 > Message: 5> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 12:34:36 -0500> From: Jim West <jwest at highland.net>> Subject: [] Re; Ro 16:7> To: at lists.ibiblio.org> Message-ID:> <6.1.2.0.0.20041221123245.01b62738 at highland.net>> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed;> charset=us-ascii> > Sorry, but I forgot to include in my previous note> as illustration of > Wallace’s bias (which he is of course entitled to)> this tidbit from > footnote 8 of his article:> > “the evidence thus far adduced falls right in line> with our working hypothesis”> > In other words, we are finding exactly what we> expected to find. That > isn’t exegesis, it is eisegesis.> > Best> > Jim> On the whole, I agree with Jims analysis that thereason Ionian is taken as male or EN is taken as “to”is because of ideological concerns over whether such asituation would be acceptable (just like the choice totranslate DIAKONOS of Phoebe as “servant” rather than”deacon,” which it would surely be rendered if itreferred to a male), I do think that the footnote ofWallace does not show what Jim suggests. Anyone whomakes an argument for a biblical text and adducesevidence for it is going to adduce evidence that showsthat their argument is in line with the evidence. Iwould hope, in fact, that it is the evidence thatleads one to their conclusion. For example, I thinkthat the translation “fulfilled among us” in Luke 1:1is completely wrong, based on ideology. I researchedthis and found evidence to adduce that it should mean”accomplished among us.” Because I researched the useof PLHROFOREW outside Luke 1:1 does not mean that Iselected evidence only to support my view. It means,I hope, that the available data demonstrates my view,so that there’s a synergy between the data and myview. I haven’t read Wallaces’ presentation yet, andcannot make any statements about it, but as one with aconservative perspective theologically, I would stillwant, in any situation where I come up with ahypothesis about the biblical text, look to see ifthe data supports my theory and amend my theory asappropriate. I would want to extend the sameassumption to Wallace or West or other interpretersuntil I’m convinced otherwise (and certainly there arethose who do have such clear agendas that it is hardto see the data taken priority–Bultmann being aposter child for this, IMHO).Dr. Kenneth LitwakAdjunct Professor of New TestamentAsbury Theological SeminaryWilmore, KY __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail – now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

[] Luke 2:2 Again[] Perfects in Rev. 3:8

[] Re; Rom 16:7 Steven Lo Vullo themelios at charter.net
Fri Dec 24 15:19:55 EST 2004

[] Re; Rom 16:7 [] Re; Rom 16:7 On Dec 21, 2004, at 12:29 PM, Jim West wrote:> Curiously, a new online edition of the GNT suggests that Junia is > masculine accusative.It would be curious if it were parsed any other way, since in his text the ultima is accented with a circumflex. I’m not sure what text he is following, but both NA27 and UBS4 have IOUNIAN accented with a circumflex on the ultima. If one is using such a text, one will necessarily parse IOUNIAN as masculine accusative. This doesn’t mean that the masculine is right, only that this was what the tagger was working with from the text.============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI

[] Re; Rom 16:7[] Re; Rom 16:7

[] Re; Rom 16:7 Halt this string Clwinbery at aol.com Clwinbery at aol.com
Fri Dec 24 16:18:50 EST 2004

[] Luke 19.27a [] Mark 16… I tried to send a message the other day and had trouble with my mail processor. But, this string has not added any new data of analysis in some time. It has also developed some snide remarks and discussion about what editors do. So, Lets leave this subject. Those who want to hash over the same data have plenty in the archives to work on but please take any further discussion off line or to some other list.With that said, let me wish everyone a very merry Christmas, happy Hanukkah, warm Winter Solstice, or just plan season of the year. I feel that due to the dilligence of Carl Conrad and the generosity of Jonathan Robbie we have had a good year on as we have discussed important issues of the text with respect for one another and benefit for all.Carlton Winberynow retired fromLouisiana College

[] Luke 19.27a[] Mark 16…

[] Re; Rom 16:7 James Tauber jtauber at jtauber.com
Fri Dec 24 22:47:10 EST 2004

[] Re; Rom 16:7 [] Dunn on Rom 16:7 On 25/12/04 4:19 AM, “Steven Lo Vullo” <themelios at charter.net> wrote:> On Dec 21, 2004, at 12:29 PM, Jim West wrote:> >> Curiously, a new online edition of the GNT suggests that Junia is>> masculine accusative.The text and tagging is my MorphGNT[1] version 5 based on the CCAT taggedUBS3.> It would be curious if it were parsed any other way, since in his text> the ultima is accented with a circumflex. I’m not sure what text he is> following, but both NA27 and UBS4 have IOUNIAN accented with a> circumflex on the ultima.The original text is based on UBS3. Where errors/corrections have beensuggested I have always checked against my printed UBS4 and, more recentlyNA27.> If one is using such a text, one will> necessarily parse IOUNIAN as masculine accusative. This doesn’t mean> that the masculine is right, only that this was what the tagger was> working with from the text.Version 6 of the MorphGNT (when released) may allow for alternativeanalyses, in which case I could indicate alternative accentuation.But the bottom line, as Steve suggests, is that the tagging is based on thetext used and not a separate decision on my or the original tagger’s part.James TauberPerth, Australia[1] http://jtauber.com/morphgnt

[] Re; Rom 16:7[] Dunn on Rom 16:7

[] Rom. 16:7: Junia or Junias? Steve Hulme stevehulme at stevehulme.com
Mon Jul 24 07:44:30 EDT 2006

[] All beds are not created equal (was KLINE) [] Rom. 16:7: Junia or Junias? The text in my UBS (3rd edition) for this verse is: ASPASASQE ANDRONIKON KAI IOUNIAN TOUS SUGGENEIS MOU KAU SUNAICMALWTOUS MOU…My question is this: the nominative form of the second individual mentioned must be either IOUNIAS (masc) or IOUNIA (fem). But I can’t tell from the text which it is. Does the form IOUNIAN (with a circumflex accent on the final alpha) give us a hint somehow about the gender of the person referred to? Is there some modern scholarship that would be helpful on this point?thanksSteve HulmeRaleigh, NC

[] All beds are not created equal (was KLINE)[] Rom. 16:7: Junia or Junias?

[] Rom. 16:7: Junia or Junias? Kevin Barney klbarney at yahoo.com
Mon Jul 24 12:57:38 EDT 2006

[] Acts 5.16 NASB using “OR” for KAI [] () Two in one bed Steve, here is the beginning of a prior thread on thistopic from the archives (if you go to this message andclick “Sort by Thread” you will see the other messagesin the series):<http://www.ibiblio.org//test-archives/html4/1995-11/11460.html>> Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 07:44:30 -0400> From: Steve Hulme <stevehulme at stevehulme.com>> Subject: [] Rom. 16:7: Junia or Junias?> To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Message-ID: <44C4B29E.3080406 at stevehulme.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1;> format=flowed> > The text in my UBS (3rd edition) for this verse is:> ASPASASQE ANDRONIKON > KAI IOUNIAN TOUS SUGGENEIS MOU KAU SUNAICMALWTOUS> MOU…> > My question is this: the nominative form of the> second individual > mentioned must be either IOUNIAS (masc) or IOUNIA> (fem). But I can’t > tell from the text which it is. Does the form> IOUNIAN (with a > circumflex accent on the final alpha) give us a hint> somehow about the > gender of the person referred to? Is there some> modern scholarship that > would be helpful on this point?> > thanks> > Steve Hulme> Raleigh, NC> > Kevin L. BarneyHoffman Estates, Illinoisklbarney at yahoo.com__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

[] Acts 5.16 NASB using “OR” for KAI[] () Two in one bed

[] Rom. 16:7: Junia or Junias? Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Mon Jul 24 15:13:56 EDT 2006

[] Rom. 16:7: Junia or Junias? [] Rom. 16:7: Junia or Junias? On Jul 24, 2006, at 4:44 AM, Steve Hulme wrote:> The text in my UBS (3rd edition) for this verse is: ASPASASQE > ANDRONIKON> KAI IOUNIAN TOUS SUGGENEIS MOU KAU SUNAICMALWTOUS MOU…> > My question is this: the nominative form of the second individual> mentioned must be either IOUNIAS (masc) or IOUNIA (fem). But I can’t> tell from the text which it is. Does the form IOUNIAN (with a> circumflex accent on the final alpha) give us a hint somehow about the> gender of the person referred to? Is there some modern scholarship > that> would be helpful on this point?> > thanks> > Steve Hulme> Raleigh, NC> The circumflex accent in UBS3 reflects the editorial preference for a masculine referent.Note that Chrysostom thought the referent was a woman.BABAI, POSH THS GUNAIKOS TAUTHS hH FILOSOFIA, hWS KAI THS TWN APOSTOLWN AXIWQHNAI PROSHGORIAS.Note that FILOSOFIA here means something like “devotion to” see Lampe.Assuming Chrysostom is correct, the text hardly justifies the level of attention it has been givenand Chrysostom might be wrong.Elizabeth KlineHere is an article the text:http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/pdf_files/free_articles/ Romans167.pdfIt is not safe to assume that I agree with this article, just passing it along as something to read.

[] Rom. 16:7: Junia or Junias?[] Rom. 16:7: Junia or Junias?

[] Rom 16:7: Junia or Junias? CWestf5155 at aol.com CWestf5155 at aol.com
Mon Jul 24 15:23:31 EDT 2006

[] Deponents [] () Two in one bed Steve, you may also want to check out a book that just came out: Junia the First Woman Apostle by Eldon Jay Epp and Beverly Roberts Gaventa. Cindy WestfallAssistant ProfessorMcMaster Divinity College In a message dated 7/24/2006 9:57:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, klbarney at yahoo.com writes:Steve, here is the beginning of a prior thread on thistopic from the archives (if you go to this message andclick “Sort by Thread” you will see the other messagesin the series):<http://www.ibiblio.org//test-archives/html4/1995-11/11460.html>> Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 07:44:30 -0400> From: Steve Hulme <stevehulme at stevehulme.com>> Subject: [] Rom. 16:7: Junia or Junias?> To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Message-ID: <44C4B29E.3080406 at stevehulme.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1;> format=flowed> > The text in my UBS (3rd edition) for this verse is:> ASPASASQE ANDRONIKON > KAI IOUNIAN TOUS SUGGENEIS MOU KAU SUNAICMALWTOUS> MOU…> > My question is this: the nominative form of the> second individual > mentioned must be either IOUNIAS (masc) or IOUNIA> (fem). But I can’t > tell from the text which it is. Does the form> IOUNIAN (with a > circumflex accent on the final alpha) give us a hint> somehow about the > gender of the person referred to? Is there some> modern scholarship that > would be helpful on this point?> > thanks> > Steve Hulme> Raleigh, NC

[] Deponents[] () Two in one bed

[] Rom. 16:7: Junia or Junias? Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Mon Jul 24 15:20:59 EDT 2006

[] Rom. 16:7: Junia or Junias? [] Acts 5.16 NASB using “OR” for KAI On Jul 24, 2006, at 12:13 PM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:> http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/pdf_files/free_articles/> Romans167.pdfThat link does not work, you can goggle to it:Romans 16:7 – Resolving the Interpretive IssuesBy Dennis J. PreatoElizabeth Kline

[] Rom. 16:7: Junia or Junias?[] Acts 5.16 NASB using “OR” for KAI

[] “episemoi en tois apostolois” Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Aug 29 07:35:40 EDT 2004

[] “episemoi en tois apostolois” [] TR text? I don’t wish to get involved in this latest round of “Junia” discussion(currently I’m inclined to think it’s a matter of probabilities rather thansomething to be resolved clearly one way or the other), but I think itworth noting that one of the more significant threads (of quite a few) thatwe’ve had on Romans 16:7 and the meaning of the above-rubriced phrase hadthe subject-header, “Re: Junia an Apostle or Junia considered prominent bythe Apostles?”–it began on March 31, 2000 and continued through April 5,2000.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

[] “episemoi en tois apostolois”[] TR text?

[] Re; Ro 16:7 Jim West jwest at highland.net
Tue Dec 21 12:34:36 EST 2004

[] Romans 16:7 [] John 6:45 Sorry, but I forgot to include in my previous note as illustration of Wallace’s bias (which he is of course entitled to) this tidbit from footnote 8 of his article:”the evidence thus far adduced falls right in line with our working hypothesis”In other words, we are finding exactly what we expected to find. That isn’t exegesis, it is eisegesis.BestJim++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDAdjunct Professor of Biblical StudiesQuartz Hill School of Theologyhttp://web.infoave.net/~jwest Biblical Studies Resourceshttp://biblical-studies.blogspot.com Biblical Theology Weblog

[] Romans 16:7[] John 6:45

[] Re; Rom 16:7 Jim West jwest at highland.net
Tue Dec 21 14:34:36 EST 2004

[] Re; Ro 16:7 [] Romans 16:7 At 02:24 PM 12/21/2004, you wrote:>I’ve just visit this website and checked my verse (John 5: 28) and I’m>surprised by some of the translations, e.g. conjunction hOTI is: “any one>who, anything which”. Does anyone think this is correct? Similar thing with>KRINW. Definitely, the English definitions give you here only a more or less>idea of the Greek menaing.That, I think, is the major drawback of the site- though I do believe the site owner intends to include a fuller lexicon at some point. As to your verse and its use of oti, I take it as an untranslated “quotation mark”. In this case it simply shows that what follows is a citation from a known (at least to them) source. Hence the verse would read something like “Don’t be amazed about this, ‘an hour is coming’ , in which etc.And yeah, the way he has krinw translated is just odd.BestJim++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDAdjunct Professor of Biblical StudiesQuartz Hill School of Theologyhttp://web.infoave.net/~jwest Biblical Studies Resourceshttp://biblical-studies.blogspot.com Biblical Theology Weblog

[] Re; Ro 16:7[] Romans 16:7

[] Re; Rom 16:7 Hubert, Zack zhubert at amazon.com
Tue Dec 21 15:27:39 EST 2004

[] Romans 16:7 [] Pink An excellent opportunity to point out that my lexicon is actually a community lexicon which I moderate. I began with a seed lexicon referencing the Perseus site, but many corrections were made to it through people just like you. All you have to do is click on a word which is showing an incorrect lexical entry, click on the “fix” button, and submit a more proper entry (not just a gloss for that passage). It will be corrected and on the site promptly :)As for those particular words…I agree that they are _way_ off and would love them to be fixed. Perhaps you could log back in and contribute the new entry?For those interested, there are several new features on the site since it’s launch last week.Zack Hubert, MaT (Fuller Theological Seminary, ’04)mailto:zhubert at gmail.comWWW: http://www.zhubert.com — home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ —–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Jim WestSent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 11:35 AMTo: Beata UrbanekCc: at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: Re: [] Re; Rom 16:7At 02:24 PM 12/21/2004, you wrote:>I’ve just visit this website and checked my verse (John 5: 28) and I’m >surprised by some of the translations, e.g. conjunction hOTI is: “any >one who, anything which”. Does anyone think this is correct? Similar >thing with KRINW. Definitely, the English definitions give you here >only a more or less idea of the Greek menaing.That, I think, is the major drawback of the site- though I do believe the site owner intends to include a fuller lexicon at some point. As to your verse and its use of oti, I take it as an untranslated “quotation mark”. In this case it simply shows that what follows is a citation from a known (at least to them) source. Hence the verse would read something like “Don’t be amazed about this, ‘an hour is coming’ , in which etc.And yeah, the way he has krinw translated is just odd.BestJim++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDAdjunct Professor of Biblical StudiesQuartz Hill School of Theologyhttp://web.infoave.net/~jwest Biblical Studies Resources http://biblical-studies.blogspot.com Biblical Theology Weblog— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] Romans 16:7[] Pink

[] Re; Rom 16:7 Steven Lo Vullo themelios at charter.net
Fri Dec 24 15:06:47 EST 2004

[] Re; Rom 16:7 [] Romans 16:7 On Dec 21, 2004, at 9:14 AM, Jim West wrote:> And I further suspect those who wish to make her male to be something > akin to cryptognostics who believe God will change women into men so > they can enter the kingdom of heaven (a la the ending of Thomas).Nothing like a little suspicion, paranoia, and slander to throw some light on an issue of grammar and syntax. Thanks, Jim.============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI

[] Re; Rom 16:7[] Romans 16:7

[] Romans 16:7 Karen Beaulieu dkkc at comcast.net
Tue Dec 21 07:27:21 EST 2004

[] Pink [] Romans 16:7 Dear , I wonder if someone might point me to a place in the archives where the language in Romans 16:7 is discussed, primarily whether Junias is a man’s or woman’s name and whether he/she is named as an apostle. I know there is dissention here, and I don’t wish to stir up more–simply to see what is available for review. I also welcome new comments. Thank you. Karen Beaulieu

[] Pink[] Romans 16:7

[] Romans 16:7 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Dec 21 07:47:45 EST 2004

[] Romans 16:7 [] Romans 16:7 At 7:27 AM -0500 12/21/04, Karen Beaulieu wrote:>Dear ,> I wonder if someone might point me to a place in the archives where the>language in Romans 16:7 is discussed, primarily whether Junias is a man’s or>woman’s name and whether he/she is named as an apostle. I know there is>dissention here, and I don’t wish to stir up more–simply to see what is>available for review. I also welcome new comments. Thank you.> Karen BeaulieuNov 30-Dec 2, 1995 “Junia/Junias nochmals” and “Junias Redivivus!”Dec 5-6, 1995 “Junia endgueltig”July 10, 1996 “Junias in Romans 16.7″Jun 25-30, 1997 “Junia EN TOIS APOSTOLOIS (and Andronicus too)”March 31-April 5 “Junia an Apostle or Junia considered prominent by the Apostles?”June 3-4, 2002 “Epp on Junia / Junias (Rom 16:7)”August 29-30, 2004 “episemoi en tois apostolois”This is not an exhaustive list. I’ll just note that there are TWO questionsinvolved in this text: (1) whether the acc. form IOUNIAN in Rom 6:7 refersto a man named Junias or to a woman named Junia; (2) whether EN TOISAPOSTOLIS means “among the apostles” (she was one of them) or “in the viewof the apostles” (whether they considered her distinguished). The evidenceseems to point in the direction of (1) this was a woman; (2) she wasconsidered distinguished by the apostles–but this verse and itsimplications are likely to remain a bone of contention for some time tocome.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

[] Romans 16:7[] Romans 16:7

[] Romans 16:7 Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Tue Dec 21 08:28:02 EST 2004

[] Romans 16:7 [] Romans 16:7 Dear Karen,> I wonder if someone might point me to a place in the archives >where the language in Romans 16:7 is discussed, primarily whether >Junias is a man’s or woman’s name and whether he/she is named as an >apostle. I know there is dissention here, and I don’t wish to stir >up more–simply to see what is available for review. I also welcome >new comments. Thank you.HH: It seems that unless one already knows just where a discussion is in the archives, they are almost impossible to use for searching purposes without going through each month’s posts, looking for the material. What the archives need is a unified, searchable data base. Then you could type in Rom 16:7 and get the results. It seems that archives used to have this capability but for some reason I cannot access it any longer.HH: Here is a link for Junias in Rom 16:7 that is not :http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1163HH: Here are more references at that site:http://www.google.com/custom?q=Junias&sa=Google+Search&cof=S%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.bible.org%3BGL%3A0%3BAH%3Aleft%3BLH%3A80%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.bible.org%2Fimages%2Fpapyriheader.jpg%3BLW%3A513%3BAWFID%3Afdc1638b642fb3fe%3B&safe=vss&domains=bible.org&sitesearch=bible.orgYours,Harold Holmyard

[] Romans 16:7[] Romans 16:7

[] Romans 16:7 Dan Starcevich dan.star at comcast.net
Tue Dec 21 08:54:07 EST 2004

[] Romans 16:7 [] Romans 16:7 The grammatical form of the name is either masculine or feminine accusativesingular. Favoring a feminine interpretation of the name are the followingfacts:1. The masculine Junias is very rare. According to the NET Bible note onlyone instance of the masculine name is known in extant Greek literature.2. The feminine Junia is a common Latin name.3. According to Fitzmeyer the Church Fathers, primarily the Latin ones,understood this to be a woman’s name.4. Other apparent husband/wife pairs are mentioned in this list such asPriscilla/Aquila, Philologus/Julia so Andronicus/Junias may be another.Favoring the masculine interpretation are the following:1. When accents were added to the Greek text in the ninth century thecircumflex was placed over the ultima indicating that our ninth centurybrothers and sisters understood this to be a man’s name.2. The feminine name Junia is rare in Greek according to Moo it only ocurrs3 other times in Greek lit.3. Other women active in ministry are mentioned in this context such as vv.3, 12, 15. So, the data is not conclusive one way or the other on the question ofwhether Junias is a man or woman. In my opinion the feminine interpretationhas a slight advantage since the it is the more common name in Greek andLatin usage. Dan Starcevich—–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org[mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Carl W. ConradSent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 6:48 AMTo: Karen BeaulieuCc: Biblical GreekSubject: Re: [] Romans 16:7At 7:27 AM -0500 12/21/04, Karen Beaulieu wrote:>Dear ,> I wonder if someone might point me to a place in the archives where >the language in Romans 16:7 is discussed, primarily whether Junias is a >man’s or woman’s name and whether he/she is named as an apostle. I >know there is dissention here, and I don’t wish to stir up more–simply >to see what is available for review. I also welcome new comments. Thankyou.> Karen BeaulieuNov 30-Dec 2, 1995 “Junia/Junias nochmals” and “Junias Redivivus!”Dec 5-6, 1995 “Junia endgueltig”July 10, 1996 “Junias in Romans 16.7″Jun 25-30, 1997 “Junia EN TOIS APOSTOLOIS (and Andronicus too)”March 31-April 5 “Junia an Apostle or Junia considered prominent by theApostles?”June 3-4, 2002 “Epp on Junia / Junias (Rom 16:7)”August 29-30, 2004 “episemoi en tois apostolois”This is not an exhaustive list. I’ll just note that there are TWO questionsinvolved in this text: (1) whether the acc. form IOUNIAN in Rom 6:7 refersto a man named Junias or to a woman named Junia; (2) whether EN TOISAPOSTOLIS means “among the apostles” (she was one of them) or “in the viewof the apostles” (whether they considered her distinguished). The evidenceseems to point in the direction of (1) this was a woman; (2) she wasconsidered distinguished by the apostles–but this verse and itsimplications are likely to remain a bone of contention for some time tocome.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] Romans 16:7[] Romans 16:7

[] Romans 16:7 Jim West jwest at highland.net
Tue Dec 21 08:59:24 EST 2004

[] Romans 16:7 [] Romans 16:7 At 07:27 AM 12/21/2004, you wrote:>Dear ,> I wonder if someone might point me to a place in the archives where the > language in Romans 16:7 is discussed, primarily whether Junias is a man’s > or woman’s name and whether he/she is named as an apostle. I know there > is dissention here, and I don’t wish to stir up more–simply to see what > is available for review. I also welcome new comments. Thank you.> Karen Beaulieu>—It is a woman’s name. There simply is no question about this. See, John Dominic Crossan’s new book, In Search of Paul, p. 115. I quote: “Finally, there is Junia, a case that would be funny to ridiculous if it were not so tragic. For the first twelve hundred years of Christianity, commentators had no trouble identifying her name as female…. In Greek, by the way, her name appears in the accusative case as Junian. Then thename started to be identified as male – Junian was alleged to be the accusative case of the male name Junia(nu)s. Unfortunately, however, there are over 250 known cases of a female Junia in antiquity and not a single one ever discovered for the male abbreviation of Junianus to Junias. … The only reason for suggesting a masculine meaning is to avoid a major female apostle.”Crossan is 1000% correct.Jim++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDAdjunct Professor of Biblical StudiesQuartz Hill School of Theologyhttp://web.infoave.net/~jwest Biblical Studies Resourceshttp://biblical-studies.blogspot.com Biblical Theology Weblog

[] Romans 16:7[] Romans 16:7

[] Romans 16:7 Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Tue Dec 21 10:04:49 EST 2004

[] Romans 16:7 [] Romans 16:7 Dear Jim,>See, John Dominic Crossan’s new book, In Search of Paul, p. 115. I >quote: “Finally, there is Junia, a case that would be funny to >ridiculous if it were not so tragic. For the first twelve hundred >years of Christianity, commentators had no trouble identifying her >name as female….But Dan Starcevich just wrote:1. When accents were added to the Greek text in the ninth century thecircumflex was placed over the ultima indicating that our ninth centurybrothers and sisters understood this to be a man’s name.HH: One of these two men are wrong if Crossan makes a sweeping claim, which is what his words appear to do.Yours,Harold Holmyard

[] Romans 16:7[] Romans 16:7

[] Romans 16:7 Dan Starcevich dan.star at comcast.net
Tue Dec 21 10:41:46 EST 2004

[] Romans 16:7 [] Updated interlinear Bibles? My guess is that Crossan is only considering, and somewhat exaggerating,the Church Fathers and ignoring the other evidence since it doesn’t fit hisargument. My view is that he tends to be more polemical in his argumentsthan exegetical. I don’t have access to his book so maybe Jim can post anyfootnotes Crossan includes to indicate exactly what he is referring to inhis claim. I am familiar with text critical issues and the need to weigh evidences.However I think that when we get to things like the assumed motive of thescribe we are getting into second or third order (at best) evidences. As forthe motive of the scribes or interpreters, I would be more cautious than Dr.West in assuming that they were dealing with the same ecclesiastical issuesthen that we are today. Certainly the Latin Church Fathers didn’t have aproblem with Junia being a woman. Rather than posit a political motivedriving the scribes interpretation I suggest that what we see then is thesame situation we see today, namely a lack of clear compelling data foreither view and a resultant difference of interpretation.Dan Starcevich—–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org[mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Harold R. HolmyardIIISent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 9:05 AMTo: at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: Re: [] Romans 16:7Dear Jim,>See, John Dominic Crossan’s new book, In Search of Paul, p. 115. I>quote: “Finally, there is Junia, a case that would be funny to >ridiculous if it were not so tragic. For the first twelve hundred >years of Christianity, commentators had no trouble identifying her name >as female….But Dan Starcevich just wrote:1. When accents were added to the Greek text in the ninth century thecircumflex was placed over the ultima indicating that our ninth centurybrothers and sisters understood this to be a man’s name.HH: One of these two men are wrong if Crossan makes a sweeping claim, whichis what his words appear to do.Yours,Harold Holmyard— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] Romans 16:7[] Updated interlinear Bibles?

[] Romans 16:7 Remington186 at aol.com Remington186 at aol.com
Tue Dec 21 11:03:03 EST 2004

[] Re; Rom 16:7 [] Romans 16:7 Dear ers, Dear Harold,I went to http://www/google.com/search, typed in Romans 16:7 and got 134.000 hits in .39 seconds. The first was Dan Wallace’s, Junia Among the Apostles: The Double Identification.www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1163 – 21k – [Oops; didn’t work for me; only got home page for bible.org] The google search can also be narrowed to BGreek at http://www.ibiblio.org//archives/ I was told this would only search”old archives” but Google pulled up 4-95, 12-95, 6-96, 7-96, 4-97, 6-97, 8-98, 3-99, 4-00, etc. And many digests. Warmest regardsRemington MandelHemet CA USA

[] Re; Rom 16:7[] Romans 16:7

[] Romans 16:7 Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Tue Dec 21 11:30:35 EST 2004

[] Romans 16:7 [] Romans 16:7 Dear Jim,>>1. When accents were added to the Greek text in the ninth century the>>circumflex was placed over the ultima indicating that our ninth century>>brothers and sisters understood this to be a man’s name.>> >>HH: One of these two men are wrong if Crossan makes a sweeping >>claim, which is what his words appear to do.> >When one does textual criticism one has to weigh evidence. What >benefit is there to scribes, or interpreters, to change a masculine >name to a feminine? None, in this instance. But what benefit is >there in changing a woman’s name to a man’s (interpretatively >speaking)? Much, if one is inclined to believe that women were >never apostles or preachers or other leaders in the early church. >Look, for example, at what has happened to poor old Phoebe the >deacon.HH: The assumption you’re making is that there has been a name change. But this issue is not about a name change, is it, but about whether IOUNIAN is a masculine or feminine name. There is a name change variant in Rom 16:7, that of IOULIAN, a feminine name, but are you referring to it? The addition of circumflex accent to IOUNIAN may indicate what had previously been understood; it is not necessarily a change at all. The name IOUNIAN can be a feminine or a masculine name, depending on the accenting.Yours,Harold Holmyard

[] Romans 16:7[] Romans 16:7

[] Romans 16:7 Patrick Narkinsky patrick at narkinsky.com
Tue Dec 21 11:46:11 EST 2004

[] Romans 16:7 [] Romans 16:7 There is another issue here that I would be interested in hearing folks’ opinions on. Namely, how do we interpret the phrase “hOITINES EISIN EPISHMOI EN TOIS APOSTOLOIS”? There’s significant diversity in how this is translated among translations across ideological lines. For example:ESV – “They are well known *TO* the apostles,* and they were in Christ before me.”NRSV – “they are prominent *AMONG* the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.” [Emphasis mine in both cases.]It seems that the majority of translations are sticking to translating EN as “among”, but that newer conservative translations are choosing to translate it as “to”. Personally, I think that this is a far more significant question that the gender of IOUNIAN.FWIW, I tend to favor the NRSV’s translation because it seems to me to fall much more in the usual sense of “EN” than the ESV’s. However, I would be very interested in hearing comment from others on this list.Patrick–Patrick Narkinsky – patrick at narkinsky.com”Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.” – Senator Daniel Patrick MoynihanOn Dec 21, 2004, at 11:30 AM, Harold R. Holmyard III wrote:> HH: The assumption you’re making is that there has been a name change. > But this issue is not about a name change, is it, but about whether > IOUNIAN is a masculine or feminine name. There is a name change > variant in Rom 16:7, that of IOULIAN, a feminine name, but are you > referring to it? The addition of circumflex accent to IOUNIAN may > indicate what had previously been understood; it is not necessarily a > change at all. The name IOUNIAN can be a feminine or a masculine name, > depending on the accenting.

[] Romans 16:7[] Romans 16:7

[] Romans 16:7 William Zeitler william at faithfulbible.com
Tue Dec 21 11:56:21 EST 2004

[] Romans 16:7 [] Romans 16:7 Dan Wallace’ article “Junia Among the Apostles: The Double Identification.”www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1163 goes into both the ‘Junia’ question andthe one you state below in great deal.—–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org[mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org]On Behalf Of Patrick NarkinskySent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 8:46 AMTo: Harold R. Holmyard IIICc: at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: Re: [] Romans 16:7There is another issue here that I would be interested in hearingfolks’ opinions on. Namely, how do we interpret the phrase “hOITINESEISIN EPISHMOI EN TOIS APOSTOLOIS”? There’s significant diversity inhow this is translated among translations across ideological lines.For example:ESV – “They are well known *TO* the apostles,* and they were in Christbefore me.”NRSV – “they are prominent *AMONG* the apostles, and they were inChrist before I was.” [Emphasis mine in both cases.]It seems that the majority of translations are sticking to translatingEN as “among”, but that newer conservative translations are choosing totranslate it as “to”. Personally, I think that this is a far moresignificant question that the gender of IOUNIAN.FWIW, I tend to favor the NRSV’s translation because it seems to me tofall much more in the usual sense of “EN” than the ESV’s. However, Iwould be very interested in hearing comment from others on this list.Patrick–Patrick Narkinsky – patrick at narkinsky.com”Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.”- Senator Daniel Patrick MoynihanOn Dec 21, 2004, at 11:30 AM, Harold R. Holmyard III wrote:> HH: The assumption you’re making is that there has been a name change.> But this issue is not about a name change, is it, but about whether> IOUNIAN is a masculine or feminine name. There is a name change> variant in Rom 16:7, that of IOULIAN, a feminine name, but are you> referring to it? The addition of circumflex accent to IOUNIAN may> indicate what had previously been understood; it is not necessarily a> change at all. The name IOUNIAN can be a feminine or a masculine name,> depending on the accenting.— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] Romans 16:7[] Romans 16:7

[] Romans 16:7 Jim West jwest at highland.net
Tue Dec 21 12:03:56 EST 2004

[] Romans 16:7 [] Romans 16:7 At 11:46 AM 12/21/2004, you wrote:>There is another issue here that I would be interested in hearing folks’ >opinions on. Namely, how do we interpret the phrase “hOITINES EISIN >EPISHMOI EN TOIS APOSTOLOIS”? There’s significant diversity in how this >is translated among translations across ideological lines.I agree that the discussion falls along ideology.>For example:> >ESV – “They are well known *TO* the apostles,* and they were in Christ >before me.”BDF discuss “en” in secs. 218-220. There is nothing in that discussion that persuades me that “to” is a proper use of the preposition in the case under discussion.>NRSV – “they are prominent *AMONG* the apostles, and they were in Christ >before I was.” [Emphasis mine in both cases.]> >It seems that the majority of translations are sticking to translating EN >as “among”, but that newer conservative translations are choosing to >translate it as “to”. Personally, I think that this is a far more >significant question that the gender of IOUNIAN.> >FWIW, I tend to favor the NRSV’s translation because it seems to me to >fall much more in the usual sense of “EN” than the ESV’s. However, I >would be very interested in hearing comment from others on this list.The ESV (and its kindreds) simply idiosyncratically translates the preposition- in harmony with its ideological presupposition. Ideology is often more informative in the work of translators than linguistics. And this verse is a classic example of that.Best,Jim++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDAdjunct Professor of Biblical StudiesQuartz Hill School of Theologyhttp://web.infoave.net/~jwest Biblical Studies Resourceshttp://biblical-studies.blogspot.com Biblical Theology Weblog

[] Romans 16:7[] Romans 16:7

[] Romans 16:7 Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Tue Dec 21 12:08:01 EST 2004

[] Romans 16:7 [] Romans 16:7 Dear ers,I’m sorry. When I spoke of the archives, I was using this link:http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/The page was titled “The Archives,” so I assumed that was it. It lists the posts in monthly containers.But Remington has pointed out this link:>http://www.ibiblio.org//archives/It gives more unified searchable data bases as I had had hoped and thought I remembered.Yours,Harold Holmyard> I was told this would only search”old archives” but>Google pulled up 4-95, 12-95, 6-96, 7-96, 4-97, 6-97, 8-98, 3-99, >4-00, etc. And>many digests.> >Warmest regards>Remington Mandel>Hemet CA USA>—> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] Romans 16:7[] Romans 16:7

[] Romans 16:7 Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Tue Dec 21 12:18:06 EST 2004

[] Romans 16:7 [] Romans 16:7 Dear Patrick,>There is another issue here that I would be interested in hearing >folks’ opinions on. Namely, how do we interpret the phrase “hOITINES >EISIN EPISHMOI EN TOIS APOSTOLOIS”? There’s significant diversity >in how this is translated among translations across ideological >lines. For example:> >ESV – “They are well known *TO* the apostles,* and they were in >Christ before me.”> >NRSV – “they are prominent *AMONG* the apostles, and they were in >Christ before I was.” [Emphasis mine in both cases.]HH: This issue is also addressed in the following link, and it is treated there at more length than the gender of the name:http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1163Yours,Harold Holmyard

[] Romans 16:7[] Romans 16:7

[] Romans 16:7 Jim West jwest at highland.net
Tue Dec 21 12:31:07 EST 2004

[] Romans 16:7 [] Romans 16:7 At 12:18 PM 12/21/2004, you wrote:>HH: This issue is also addressed in the following link, and it is treated >there at more length than the gender of the name:And that too from a decidedly ideological viewpoint. Would one really expect Wallace, a well respected, very conservative scholar to say that Junia was a woman or an apostle? Hardly. Predisposition in finding what one believes should be there is a significant hindrance in authentic and unbiased exegesis. To be sure, no matter which “side” one is on in the matter, the other will accuse one of being biased. I would think, though, that by the cusp of the 21st century we would be beyond that sort of thing in biblical studies. Clearly we are not yet- but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be.Finally, is it even possible for students of the Greek language to set aside their preconceptions about what the Bible “should say” to what it actually does say? If, for example, any of us read the name under discussion in a non biblical text in a context just as clear as the present, would we honestly assert that it is a male name? The answer is, I think, no.BestJim++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDAdjunct Professor of Biblical StudiesQuartz Hill School of Theologyhttp://web.infoave.net/~jwest Biblical Studies Resourceshttp://biblical-studies.blogspot.com Biblical Theology Weblog

[] Romans 16:7[] Romans 16:7

[] Romans 16:7 Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Tue Dec 21 12:51:10 EST 2004

[] Romans 16:7 [] Re; Ro 16:7 Dear Jim,>>HH: This issue is also addressed in the following link, and it is >>treated there at more length than the gender of the name:> >And that too from a decidedly ideological viewpoint. Would one >really expect Wallace, a well respected, very conservative scholar >to say that Junia was a woman or an apostle? Hardly. >Predisposition in finding what one believes should be there is a >significant hindrance in authentic and unbiased exegesis. To be >sure, no matter which “side” one is on in the matter, the other will >accuse one of being biased. I would think, though, that by the cusp >of the 21st century we would be beyond that sort of thing in >biblical studies. Clearly we are not yet- but that doesn’t mean we >shouldn’t be.> >Finally, is it even possible for students of the Greek language to >set aside their preconceptions about what the Bible “should say” to >what it actually does say? If, for example, any of us read the name >under discussion in a non biblical text in a context just as clear >as the present, would we honestly assert that it is a male name? >The answer is, I think, no.HH: Actually, Dan Wallace seems to come down on the side of IOUNIAN being a woman’s name. See how he concludes:http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1163In the least, the data on whether jIounian is feminine or masculine are simply inadequate to make a decisive judgment, though what minimal data we do have suggests a feminine name. Although most modern translations regard the name as masculine, the data simply do not yield themselves in this direction. And although we are dealing with scanty material, it is always safest to base one’s views on actual evidence rather than mere opinion.3Yours,Harold Holmyard

[] Romans 16:7[] Re; Ro 16:7

[] Romans 16:7 Timrake at aol.com Timrake at aol.com
Tue Dec 21 15:14:26 EST 2004

[] Re; Rom 16:7 [] Re; Rom 16:7 In a message dated 12/21/04 10:39:42 AM, dan.star at comcast.net writes:> My guess is that Crossan is only considering, and somewhat exaggerating,> the Church Fathers and ignoring the other evidence since it doesn’t fit his> argument. My view is that he tends to be more polemical in his arguments> than exegetical. I don’t have access to his book so maybe Jim can post any> footnotes Crossan includes to indicate exactly what he is referring to in> his claim.> I am not confident in Crossan’s objectivity, to be frank. While he is a resourceful scholar and has a fertile imagination, in my opinion he is neither careful nor thorough. He is a religious rationalist who strikes me as too reactionary and as being too affected by what I see as a revisionist tendency.Pr. Tim RakePraise Lutheran ChurchMaryville, TN

[] Re; Rom 16:7[] Re; Rom 16:7

[] “episemoi en tois apostolois” AwenDawn AwenDawn at ap.net
Sat Aug 28 07:34:53 EDT 2004

[] Dead Sea Scrolls and Influence on Understanding the NTtext [] “episemoi en tois apostolois” Hello I am new here, please excuse any inappropriate discussion on my part and kindly let me know.I do not understand understand how the NET Bible ‘s first choice of translation of “en” is to rather than among? Romans 16:7. Sincerely, Awen Aida Besancon Spencer, makes the grammatical point that “the Greek preposition en which is used here always has the idea of ‘within.'”(1) Greek text books point out that en followed by the dative normally means “in, on or among.” For example, en tois is translated as “among those” (1 Cor 2:6), and en tois ethnesin as “among the Gentiles” (Acts 15:12, 1 Cor 5:1, Gal 2:2, Col 1:27, 1 Pet 2:12). Where en tois is followed by a plural noun referring to a group of people, the word en is translated as “among.” Liddel-Scott defines the Greek word episemoi as “having a mark on” it.(2) meaning they were not just notable but that they were outstanding among the apostles.(1) Aida Besancon Spencer, Beyond the Curse, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985), 104. (2) Liddel-Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, 7th ed. (Hiawatha, Iowa: Parsons Technology, Inc., 1997), electronic edition. I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life. John 8:12

[] Dead Sea Scrolls and Influence on Understanding the NTtext[] “episemoi en tois apostolois”

[] “episemoi en tois apostolois” George F. Somsel gfsomsel at juno.com
Sat Aug 28 08:49:39 EDT 2004

[] “episemoi en tois apostolois” [] “episemoi en tois apostolois” On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 04:34:53 -0700 “AwenDawn” <AwenDawn at ap.net> writes:> Hello I am new here, please excuse any inappropriate discussion on my > part and kindly let me know.> I do not understand understand how the NET Bible ‘s first choice of > translation of “en” is to rather than among? Romans 16:7. Sincerely, > Awen> > Aida Besancon Spencer, makes the grammatical point that “the Greek > preposition en which is used here always has the idea of > ‘within.'”(1) Greek text books point out that en followed by the > dative normally means “in, on or among.” For example, en tois is > translated as “among those” (1 Cor 2:6), and en tois ethnesin as > “among the Gentiles” (Acts 15:12, 1 Cor 5:1, Gal 2:2, Col 1:27, 1 > Pet 2:12). Where en tois is followed by a plural noun referring to a > group of people, the word en is translated as “among.” Liddel-Scott > defines the Greek word episemoi as “having a mark on” it.(2) meaning > they were not just notable but that they were outstanding among the > apostles.>………… > (1) Aida Besancon Spencer, Beyond the Curse, (Nashville: Thomas > Nelson, 1985), 104. > > (2) Liddel-Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, 7th ed. > (Hiawatha, Iowa: Parsons Technology, Inc., 1997), electronic > edition. > _____________One of the most valuable features of the NET Bible are the notes. Youshould read them. They note the reason there. Cf. 2 Macc 6.1ELEAZAROS DE TIS ANHR EPISHMOS TWN APO THS XWRAS hIERWNwhere the genitive rather than the preposition EN is used and the meaningis that he was “prominent *** among *** the priests of the country” with Ps Sol 2.6 where the preposition EN + the pl dat appears and the sense is”to” or “in the presence of” (see BGAD or BDAG s.v. EN for this usage)hOI hUIOI KAI hAI QUGATERES EN AIXMALWSIAi PONHRAi, EN SFRAGIDI hOTRAXHLOS AUTWN, *** EN EPISHMWi EN TOIS EQNESIN***.georgegfsomsel

[] “episemoi en tois apostolois”[] “episemoi en tois apostolois”

[] “episemoi en tois apostolois” CWestf5155 at aol.com CWestf5155 at aol.com
Sat Aug 28 12:15:55 EDT 2004

[] “episemoi en tois apostolois” [] “episemoi en tois apostolois” <<In a message dated 8/28/2004 6:41:43 AM Mountain Standard Time, gfsomsel at juno.com writes:On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 04:34:53 -0700 “AwenDawn” <AwenDawn at ap.net> writes:> Hello I am new here, please excuse any inappropriate discussion on my > part and kindly let me know.> I do not understand understand how the NET Bible ‘s first choice of > translation of “en” is to rather than among? Romans 16:7. Sincerely, > Awen> > Aida Besancon Spencer, makes the grammatical point that “the Greek > preposition en which is used here always has the idea of > ‘within.'”(1) Greek text books point out that en followed by the > dative normally means “in, on or among.” For example, en tois is > translated as “among those” (1 Cor 2:6), and en tois ethnesin as > “among the Gentiles” (Acts 15:12, 1 Cor 5:1, Gal 2:2, Col 1:27, 1 > Pet 2:12). Where en tois is followed by a plural noun referring to a > group of people, the word en is translated as “among.” Liddel-Scott > defines the Greek word episemoi as “having a mark on” it.(2) meaning > they were not just notable but that they were outstanding among the > apostles.>………… > (1) Aida Besancon Spencer, Beyond the Curse, (Nashville: Thomas > Nelson, 1985), 104. > > (2) Liddel-Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, 7th ed. > (Hiawatha, Iowa: Parsons Technology, Inc., 1997), electronic > edition. > _____________One of the most valuable features of the NET Bible are the notes. Youshould read them. They note the reason there. Cf. 2 Macc 6.1ELEAZAROS DE TIS ANHR EPISHMOS TWN APO THS XWRAS hIERWNwhere the genitive rather than the preposition EN is used and the meaningis that he was “prominent *** among *** the priests of the country” with Ps Sol 2.6 where the preposition EN + the pl dat appears and the sense is”to” or “in the presence of” (see BGAD or BDAG s.v. EN for this usage)hOI hUIOI KAI hAI QUGATERES EN AIXMALWSIAi PONHRAi, EN SFRAGIDI hOTRAXHLOS AUTWN, *** EN EPISHMWi EN TOIS EQNESIN***.>> George,Yes, I heard a paper given at ETS supporting this reading, where Wallace was one of the co-authors (but not the reader). I did’t find it convincing, since in Bencancon-Spencer’s paper it was shown with repeated citations that occurrences of EN + dative do support “among” rather than “in the presence of, particularly when the research included Hellenistic literature beyond the NT and LXX. There were at least several clear examples of the same construction that meant “among”. This must be the basis of any decision rather concluding than EN + genetive meaning “among” in one occurence precludes the possibility of EN + dative meaning “among” in any occurrence.I’d like to have both papers in my hands, but when the reader was questioned, the position seemed more based on how the naked dative functions than how EN + dative functioned.The distinct impression left was that the research and the call in the Net Bible was results-driven. I’d like to see that further tested.Cindy WestfallDenver Seminary

[] “episemoi en tois apostolois”[] “episemoi en tois apostolois”
Romans 16:7/Jonathan’s Post Theodore H. Mann thmann at juno.com
Sun Aug 9 21:52:33 EDT 1998

Romans 16:7 1 Corinthians 7:27,28 On Sun, 09 Aug 1998 19:39:31 -0400 Jonathan Robie <jonathan at texcel.no>writes:> But it requires nowhere near the stretching done by those who construeJunia as male.>Have I misread your post, or are you saying that Junia (female) was anapostle? Best in Christ,Theodore “Ted” H. MannOrchard Lake, Michiganthmann at juno.com_____________________________________________________________________You don’t need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.comOr call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Romans 16:71 Corinthians 7:27,28

Romans 16:7/Jonathan’s Post Jonathan Robie jonathan at texcel.no
Sun Aug 9 22:08:14 EDT 1998

Mark 6:2 POQEN TOUTWi TAUTA 1 Corinthians 7:27,28 At 09:52 PM 8/9/98 -0400, Theodore H. Mann wrote:>On Sun, 09 Aug 1998 19:39:31 -0400 Jonathan Robie <jonathan at texcel.no>writes:Is your mailer using the historical present?>> But it requires nowhere near the stretching done by those who construe>>Junia as male.> >Have I misread your post, or are you saying that Junia (female) was an>apostle? This is the way I read it. Of course, “apostle” does not mean one of the 12apostles in this passage.Jonathan___________________________________________________________________________Jonathan Robiejwrobie at mindspring.comLittle Greek Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koineLittle Greek 101: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koine/greek/lessons Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/ Archives: http://sunsite.unc.edu//archives

Mark 6:2 POQEN TOUTWi TAUTA1 Corinthians 7:27,28

Romans 16:7/Jonathan’s Post Jonathan Robie jonathan at texcel.no
Sun Aug 9 22:08:14 EDT 1998

Mark 6:2 POQEN TOUTWi TAUTA1 Corinthians 7:27,28

Romans 16:7/Jonathan’s Post Theodore H. Mann thmann at juno.com
Sun Aug 9 21:52:33 EDT 1998

Romans 16:71 Corinthians 7:27,28

Romans 16:7/Jonathan’s Post Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Aug 10 08:09:10 EDT 1998

Romans 16:7 T.C. question/Occupational confession At 10:08 PM -0400 8/09/98, Jonathan Robie wrote:>At 09:52 PM 8/9/98 -0400, Theodore H. Mann wrote:>>On Sun, 09 Aug 1998 19:39:31 -0400 Jonathan Robie <jonathan at texcel.no>>writes:> >Is your mailer using the historical present?> >>> But it requires nowhere near the stretching done by those who construe>>>Junia as male.>> >>Have I misread your post, or are you saying that Junia (female) was an>>apostle?> >This is the way I read it. Of course, “apostle” does not mean one of the 12>apostles in this passage.I just want to add a note here that there has been much discussion of thissubject before, much of it focused on the long-standing effort to readIOUNIAN as some sort of acc. sg. m. shortened form of a Latin nameJUNIANUS, which in fact is unattested. There’s no doubt that it’s a womanand that her name is JUNIA, a very common Latin nomen gentile. The textsays she is “distinguished among the apostles”; one can play with what EN +dative means here and imagine that it means something like “The apostleshold her in high regard,” but that does seem a rather strained view.I don’t think this is the proper forum for a discussion of APOSTOLOS,inasmuch as historical-critical assumptions are involved as well astext-critical perspectives on the gospels and Acts, but my own OPINION isthat APOSTOLOS is a word that doesn’t really become current until thechurch becomes a missionary enterprise, that it’s questionable whetherJesus used the word for a body of disciples appointed by him. Paul seems tospeak of “the 12” hOI DWDEKA without the term APOSTOLOI appended. I don’tdoubt that there’s a considerable bibliography on this matter with which Iam personally unfamiliar.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

Romans 16:7T.C. question/Occupational confession

Romans 16:7 Larry Swain swainl at calcite.rocky.edu
Sun Aug 9 23:43:58 EDT 1998

1 Corinthians 7:27,28 Romans 16:7/Jonathan’s Post On Sun, 9 Aug 1998, Jonathan Robie wrote:> Here’s Robertson’s comments from Word Pictures:> > “Among the apostles (en tois apostolois). Naturally this means that they are> counted among the apostles in the general sense true of Barnabas, James,> the brother of Christ, Silas, and others. But it can mean simply that they> were famous in the circle of the apostles in the technical sense.”> > I agree with both the substance and the tone of this – to me, the most> natural reading is that they were among the apostles in the same way that> these others were. You have to stretch it a little to read it the second> way.I’m curious Jonathan, why you would make such a remark? Is theresomething grammatically that leads you to say this that I’ve missed? Itseems to me that the two constructions one would expect would be this oneor a partitive genitive, but my impression (which I do reserve the rightto be wrong-Carl? Edward? Mary?) is that in Koine EN + Dative is ascommon. So I’m curious.Larry Swain

1 Corinthians 7:27,28Romans 16:7/Jonathan’s Post

Romans 16:7/Jonathan’s Post Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Aug 10 08:09:10 EDT 1998

Romans 16:7T.C. question/Occupational confession

Romans 16:7 Larry Swain swainl at calcite.rocky.edu
Sun Aug 9 23:43:58 EDT 1998

1 Corinthians 7:27,28Romans 16:7/Jonathan’s Post

Romans 16:7 Jonathan Robie jonathan at texcel.no
Mon Aug 10 10:32:36 EDT 1998

John 17:17 Fonts for the web: the real scoop At 09:43 PM 8/9/98 -0600, Larry Swain wrote:>On Sun, 9 Aug 1998, Jonathan Robie wrote:> >> Here’s Robertson’s comments from Word Pictures:>> >> “Among the apostles (en tois apostolois). Naturally this means that theyare>> counted among the apostles in the general sense true of Barnabas, James,>> the brother of Christ, Silas, and others. But it can mean simply that they>> were famous in the circle of the apostles in the technical sense.”>> >> I agree with both the substance and the tone of this – to me, the most>> natural reading is that they were among the apostles in the same way that>> these others were. You have to stretch it a little to read it the second>> way.> >I’m curious Jonathan, why you would make such a remark? Is there>something grammatically that leads you to say this that I’ve missed? It>seems to me that the two constructions one would expect would be this one>or a partitive genitive, but my impression (which I do reserve the right>to be wrong-Carl? Edward? Mary?) is that in Koine EN + Dative is as>common. So I’m curious. First off, I can only grant you non-exclusive rights to be wrong, since Iintend to be wrong in my own posts as well. Perhaps we could grant rightsto the list as a whole, and not on an individual basis. The secondquestion, of course, is whether I was exercising those rights in myprevious post (grin!).I said that based on my subjective reading of the passage, nothing morethan that, and it would take long, careful study to buttress my statementor find the evidence needed to abandon it. I do note that A.T. Robertsonfelt the same way, which is reassuring, since his Greek is much better thanmine ever will be.One thing I find frustrating: in any language, a correct reading oftenrequires a good feel for the language, and it is hard to prove the correctreading objectively. The fact that a construction might technically carry aparticular meaning does not mean that this is the intended meaning.Consider the following famous examples:I knew a man with a wooden leg named Sam.Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.These two sentences have an intended meaning that is obvious to a nativespeaker of English, and an intentionally perverse second meaning which anative speaker will grasp and smile at *precisely* because it is clearlynot what the intended meaning should be. Sentences like these raisequestions best answered by asking a native speaker. I do not qualify assuch, and I’ve only been working with Greek for a few years (maybe 4 atthis point?). We don’t have any native speakers here, but we do have somepeople with lots more experience than me. Should we take a straw poll? Jonathan___________________________________________________________________________Jonathan Robiejwrobie at mindspring.comLittle Greek Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koineLittle Greek 101: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koine/greek/lessons Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/ Archives: http://sunsite.unc.edu//archives

John 17:17Fonts for the web: the real scoop

Romans 16:7 Jonathan Robie jonathan at texcel.no
Mon Aug 10 10:32:36 EDT 1998

John 17:17Fonts for the web: the real scoop

Romans 16:7 Mary L B Pendergraft pender at wfu.edu
Mon Aug 10 11:19:22 EDT 1998

John 17:17 Romans 16:7/Junias At 09:43 PM 8/9/98 -0600, Larry Swain wrote:>On Sun, 9 Aug 1998, Jonathan Robie wrote:> >> Here’s Robertson’s comments from Word Pictures:>> >> “Among the apostles (en tois apostolois). Naturally this means that theyare>> counted among the apostles in the general sense true of Barnabas, James,>> the brother of Christ, Silas, and others. But it can mean simply that they>> were famous in the circle of the apostles in the technical sense.”>> >> I agree with both the substance and the tone of this – to me, the most>> natural reading is that they were among the apostles in the same way that>> these others were. You have to stretch it a little to read it the second>> way.> >I’m curious Jonathan, why you would make such a remark? Is there>something grammatically that leads you to say this that I’ve missed? It>seems to me that the two constructions one would expect would be this one>or a partitive genitive, but my impression (which I do reserve the right>to be wrong-Carl? Edward? Mary?) is that in Koine EN + Dative is as>common. So I’m curious.> >Larry Swain> > The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that EN + dative ispretty much as hard to pin down as “among” in English–either, “in thenumber of” or “in the presence/view of.” I checked the exx. in LSJ, bothbecause it covers so much ground chronologically and because it’s what Ihave with me at home; some exx are pretty clear: a hero fights among thebest warriors: he’s one of them–but an orator delivers a speech in thepresence of the jury: they’re his audience. As far as I can tell, thisex. isn’t unambiguously either one. If we had had a superlative adjectiveand then a partitive genitive, we could say that they were the most notableof the apostles. MaryMary PendergraftAssociate Professor of Classical LanguagesWake Forest UniversityWinston-Salem NC 27109-7343336-758-5331 (NOTE: this is a new number) pender at wfu.edu

John 17:17Romans 16:7/Junias

Romans 16:7 Mary L B Pendergraft pender at wfu.edu
Mon Aug 10 11:19:22 EDT 1998

John 17:17Romans 16:7/Junias

Romans 16:7/Junias Theodore H. Mann thmann at juno.com
Mon Aug 10 12:38:09 EDT 1998

Romans 16:7 Romans 16:7/Junias I believe that Jonathan, in a recent post, indicated that the rationaleis weak for sustaining the view that hIOUNIAS is a masculine name. Ideleted his message, so I hope my memory is accurate. I apologize if itisn’t. 1. Both the GNT and GTR have hIOUNIAN, and my parsing guide indicatesmasculine/accusative.2. Some translations use Junias, and some have Junia (which I assume isfeminine).3. Vincent, Thayer, Robertson and BAGD indicate that it could go eitherway. BAGD says that ancient commentators viewed Andronicus and Junia as husband and wife.4. My commentaries indicate masculine.Judging from my limited resources, it sounds as if the evidence is prettyevenly divided. But what is the evidence? Does the evidence favor oneview over the other?Many thanks.Best in Christ,Theodore “Ted” H. MannOrchard Lake, Michiganthmann at juno.com_____________________________________________________________________You don’t need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.comOr call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Romans 16:7Romans 16:7/Junias

Romans 16:7/Junias Theodore H. Mann thmann at juno.com
Mon Aug 10 12:38:09 EDT 1998

Romans 16:7Romans 16:7/Junias

Romans 16:7/Junias Michael Holmes holmic at bethel.edu
Mon Aug 10 13:14:48 EDT 1998

Romans 16:7/Junias Romans 16:7/Jonathan’s Post At 12:38 PM 8/10/98 -0400, Ted Mann wrote:>I believe that Jonathan, in a recent post, indicated that the rationale>is weak for sustaining the view that hIOUNIAS is a masculine name. I>deleted his message, so I hope my memory is accurate. I apologize if it>isn’t. > >1. Both the GNT and GTR have hIOUNIAN, and my parsing guide indicates>masculine/accusative.>2. Some translations use Junias, and some have Junia (which I assume is>feminine).>3. Vincent, Thayer, Robertson and BAGD indicate that it could go either>way. BAGD says that ancient commentators viewed Andronicus and Junia as > husband and wife.>4. My commentaries indicate masculine.> >Judging from my limited resources, it sounds as if the evidence is pretty>evenly divided. But what is the evidence? Does the evidence favor one>view over the other?This same question came up two years ago; forgive me the liberty ofrepeating what I said at that time:>At 02:45 PM 7/10/96 EDT, Jonathan wrote:>>While we’re on the subject of Phoebe, how about Junias, as in, “GreetAndronicus>>and Junias…they are outstanding among the apostles…”>> >>This verse raises two significant questions:>> >>1. Is Junias male or female? I have seen both assertions, as well as an>>assertion that it could be either. BAGD says that a female Junias is “alexical>>possibility”, Robertson’s Word Pictures says that Junias could be eithermale or>>female. Is anybody familiar with the arguments here? What does BAGD mean by “a>>lexical possibility”?>> >>2. How are we to interpret “outstanding among the apostles”?>> >> >>Jonathan>> >> >Richard Cervin (“A Note Regarding the Name ‘Junia(s)’ in Romans 16:7,” NewTest. Studies 40 [1994] 464-470) concludes: “A proper examination of thelinguistic evidence regarding the name _Iunia_ shows that the name isfeminine, not masculine. The masculine form of the name is _Iunius_ in Latinand IOUNIOS in Greek (accusative forms: _Iunium_ and IOUNION respectively).There is thus no ambiguity in the morphology of the masculine and feminineforms of this name in either language. The theory that the name is_Iunias_, and may be a shortened form of the masculine name _Iunianus_, isgroundless because there is so far no empirical evidence to support such atheory.” (p. 470).> >As for the second question, Lightfoot understood them to be apostles;“Except to escape the difficulty involved in such an extension of theapostolate [i.e., beyond the number 12], I do not think the words OITINESEISIN EPISHMOI EN TOIS APOSTOLOIS would have been rendered ‘who are highlyesteemed by the Apostles.’ The Greek fathers took the more naturalinterpretation” [i.e., ‘among the apostles’] (Lightfoot, _Galatians_, 96).The issue in his day [an argument about the meaning of apostle–just twelve,or a larger group] was different than our argument [is the woman Junia anapostle or not], but his observation–“except to escape”–may yet be to thepoint?> >Mike Holmes>Bethel CollegeMike Holmes

Romans 16:7/JuniasRomans 16:7/Jonathan’s Post

Romans 16:7/Jonathan’s Post Edward Hobbs EHOBBS at WELLESLEY.EDU
Mon Aug 10 15:15:27 EDT 1998

Romans 16:7/Junias Interactive Ancient Mediterranean Colleagues:Since I was one of those to whom Larry Swain appealed, I’ll respond.A short comment on each of the issues Ted Mann ended up raising:First, as both Carl Conrad and Mike Holmes wrote, all of this was discussedat great length a couple of years or so ago– see the archives. Weneed not re-invent the wheel.Second, as (again) Carl and Mike pointed out, the masculine name JUNIASis bogus; it is purely a mdoern invention, with no evidence for it in antiquity whatever. The reasons for its invention are obvious; this is one of those cases where the King James translators were correct and the RSV, NIV, and NASB are victims of the invention. NRSV and NAB are more sensibleand perform no sex-change on the language.Third, Paul calls himself an “Apostle”, or rather he says God called himthat, and he insists on his right to the term. Only later do Matthew and Luke move toward calling no one but the Twelve by that term. Paul and Markknow only “the Twelve,” not “the Twelve Apostles.” James, apparently incharge in Jerusalem, would not be an “Apostle” if only the Twelve qualify.Finally, I have to agree with Carl and Jonathan, that taking the expression”among the apostles” to mean “the apostles as a group hold these two non-apostles in high regard” is “rather strained” (Carl) and “stretching it”(Jonathan), though the Greek could bear such a meaning (but see Jonathan’slovely English examples for the absurdity involved, to a native-speaker or fluent-reader).PLEASE look in the archives; this had some lengthy discussion, and it all needn’t be repeated.Edward Hobbs

Romans 16:7/JuniasInteractive Ancient Mediterranean
Romans 16:7/Jonathan’s Post Edward Hobbs EHOBBS at WELLESLEY.EDU
Mon Aug 10 15:15:27 EDT 1998

Romans 16:7/JuniasInteractive Ancient Mediterranean

Romans 16:7/Junias Michael Holmes holmic at bethel.edu
Mon Aug 10 13:14:48 EDT 1998

Romans 16:7/JuniasRomans 16:7/Jonathan’s Post

Romans 16:7 Alexander Kyrychenko Kyrychenko at compuserve.com
Mon Aug 10 15:57:42 EDT 1998

Romans 16:7/Jonathan’s Post Romans 16:7 Dear ers,”A Lexical-Syntactical Analysis of Romans 16:7″ article by David Jones youmay find at http://www.cbmw.org.Sincerely,Alex.

Romans 16:7/Jonathan’s PostRomans 16:7

Romans 16:7/Jonathan’s Post Theodore H. Mann thmann at juno.com
Mon Aug 10 15:41:13 EDT 1998

Making of Canon Romans 16:7 Thanks to all. I will indeed check the archives, which I should havedone to begin with.Best in Christ,Theodore “Ted” H. MannOrchard Lake, Michiganthmann at juno.comOn Mon, 10 Aug 1998 15:15:27 -0400 (EDT) Edward Hobbs<EHOBBS at WELLESLEY.EDU> writes:>Colleagues:> >Since I was one of those to whom Larry Swain appealed, I’ll respond.>A short comment on each of the issues Ted Mann ended up raising:> >First, as both Carl Conrad and Mike Holmes wrote, all of this was >discussed>at great length a couple of years or so ago– see the archives. We>need not re-invent the wheel.> >Second, as (again) Carl and Mike pointed out, the masculine name >JUNIAS>is bogus; it is purely a mdoern invention, with no evidence for it in >antiquity whatever. The reasons for its invention are obvious; this >is one >of those cases where the King James translators were correct and the >RSV, >NIV, and NASB are victims of the invention. NRSV and NAB are more >sensible>and perform no sex-change on the language.> >Third, Paul calls himself an “Apostle”, or rather he says God called >him>that, and he insists on his right to the term. Only later do Matthew >and >Luke move toward calling no one but the Twelve by that term. Paul and >Mark>know only “the Twelve,” not “the Twelve Apostles.” James, apparently >in>charge in Jerusalem, would not be an “Apostle” if only the Twelve >qualify.> >Finally, I have to agree with Carl and Jonathan, that taking the >expression>“among the apostles” to mean “the apostles as a group hold these two >non->apostles in high regard” is “rather strained” (Carl) and “stretching >it”>(Jonathan), though the Greek could bear such a meaning (but see >Jonathan’s>lovely English examples for the absurdity involved, to a >native-speaker or >fluent-reader).> >PLEASE look in the archives; this had some lengthy discussion, and it >all >needn’t be repeated.> > >Edward Hobbs> > >—> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/>You are currently subscribed to as: $subst(‘PurgeID’)>To unsubscribe, forward this message to >$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)>To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > > _____________________________________________________________________You don’t need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.comOr call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Making of CanonRomans 16:7
Romans 16:7 Alexander Kyrychenko Kyrychenko at compuserve.com
Mon Aug 10 15:57:42 EDT 1998

Romans 16:7/Jonathan’s Post Romans 16:7 Dear ers,”A Lexical-Syntactical Analysis of Romans 16:7″ article by David Jones youmay find at http://www.cbmw.org.Sincerely,Alex.

Romans 16:7/Jonathan’s PostRomans 16:7

Romans 16:7/Jonathan’s Post Theodore H. Mann thmann at juno.com
Mon Aug 10 15:41:13 EDT 1998

Making of CanonRomans 16:7

Romans 16:7 Jonathan Robie jonathan at texcel.no
Mon Aug 10 16:42:03 EDT 1998

Romans 16:7 OFF-TOPIC Help with paper At 03:57 PM 8/10/98 -0400, Alexander Kyrychenko wrote:>Dear ers,> >“A Lexical-Syntactical Analysis of Romans 16:7” article by David Jones you>may find at http://www.cbmw.org.CBMW is “The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood”, one of twoorganizations devoted to gender issues in interpreting the Bible. Theyoppose the inclusive language NIV, women teaching men, etc.The other organization devoted to gender issues in interpreting the Bibleis “Christians for Biblical Equality”, which can be found at “http://www.chrbibeq.org/”. It takes the opposite stance – in favor of theinclusive language NIV, women teaching men, etc.Both of these are advocacy groups, and neither is composed primarily ofbiblical scholars, but there is good material on each site, alwaysbuttressing their particular view.But as Edward Hobbs points out, this has been discussed at great length -and with some very high-quality posts – right here on , and all thatis waiting for you in the archives.Jonathan___________________________________________________________________________Jonathan Robiejwrobie at mindspring.comLittle Greek Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koineLittle Greek 101: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koine/greek/lessons Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/ Archives: http://sunsite.unc.edu//archives

Romans 16:7OFF-TOPIC Help with paper

Romans 16:7 Jonathan Robie jonathan at texcel.no
Mon Aug 10 16:42:03 EDT 1998

Romans 16:7OFF-TOPIC Help with paper

Romans 16:7/Jonathan’s Post Russell Van Zandt russvz at wwa.com
Fri Aug 14 22:52:54 EDT 1998

DANKER 3rd Edition Gal. 3:28 I try to keep my basic questions to myself but I can’t figure this oneout and it’s keeping me awake at night. (By the way I tried to lookat the archives but the search engine is down and after 20 minutes ofsearching archive by archive I gave up.)The footnote for Romans 16:7 in UBS GNT 4th edition revised seems tosay that IOUNIAN could be either male or female depending on how it isaccented. It says it is masculine if the accent is a circumflex abovethe alpha and it’s feminine if the accent is an acute over the secondiota.Is that somehow related to the (bogus) Iunias which has beenmentioned? What is the principle by which Greek words change gendersbased on their accents? Finally, if the earliest manuscripts don’thave accents and that’s the only way to tell masculine and feminineapart, then how can anyone know for sure which the original authorsintended?Russell Van ZandtBeginner

DANKER 3rd EditionGal. 3:28

Romans 16:7/Jonathan’s Post Russell Van Zandt russvz at wwa.com
Fri Aug 14 22:52:54 EDT 1998

DANKER 3rd EditionGal. 3:28

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

0 people found this article useful

29 thoughts on “Romans 16:7”

Troy Day says:

Link Hudson and it seems that most leading Greek scholars and professors in America agree A proper examination of thelinguistic evidence regarding the name _Iunia_ shows that the name isfeminine, not masculine. The masculine form of the name is _Iunius_ in Latinand IOUNIOS in Greek (accusative forms: _Iunium_ and IOUNION respectively).There is thus no ambiguity in the morphology of the masculine and feminineforms of this name in either language. The theory that the name is_Iunias_, and may be a shortened form of the masculine name _Iunianus_, isgroundless There is so far no empirical evidence to support such atheory.

Reply

September 7, 2018 at 5:11 am
1. Link Hudson says:
  
  Why did you address this to me? The ambiguity I address is whether they were held of note by the apostles or whether they were notable apostles, not the issue of whether Junia was a woman.
  
  Reply
  
  September 7, 2018 at 9:42 am
2. Troy Day says:
  
  You pointed to some article from Bible org which was not able to find Most of their articles are not mature anyway More of a sermon central type. The discussion linked to this post is done by the leading scholars and Biblical Greek professors in the nation Enjoy!
  
  Reply
  
  September 7, 2018 at 1:20 pm
Link Hudson says:

https://bible.org/article/junia-among-apostles-double-identification-problem-romans-167

Reply

September 7, 2018 at 5:30 pm
1. Troy Day says:
  
  why am I not one bit surprised that the only reference you have pointed out through the whole discussion is a DTS _baptist_ teacher Why am I not surprised one little bit?
  
  Reply
  
  September 8, 2018 at 2:07 pm
Troy Day says:

I already addressed the Link and Daniel B. Wallace is no authority on the issue. He also presents evidence from both camps and the only explanation he gives for the latter is that a nickname is used. No such other relative example could be found in the NT

Most if not all scholars in the field recognize that a proper examination of the linguistic evidence regarding the name _Iunia_ shows that the name is feminine, not masculine.

The masculine form of the name is _Iunius_ in Latinand IOUNIOS in Greek (accusative forms: _Iunium_ and IOUNION respectively).There is thus no ambiguity in the morphology of the masculine and feminineforms of this name in either language. The theory that the name is_Iunias_, and may be a shortened form of the masculine name _Iunianus_, isgroundless There is so far no empirical evidence to support such atheory.http://probible.net/romans-167/

Reply

September 7, 2018 at 6:03 pm
1. Link Hudson says:
  
  Irrelavent to the point I have been making about’of note among the apostles. ‘ Read the end of the article.
  
  Reply
  
  September 8, 2018 at 12:48 am
2. Troy Day says:
  
  Well if you think the Bible is irrelevant what else can convince you?
  
  Reply
  
  September 8, 2018 at 1:59 pm
3. Link Hudson says:
  
  Troy Day No, the Bible is relevant. The issue I have raised is not whether Junia was a woman, as I have pointed out a few times throughout our discussion. The issue is whether Andronichus and Junia were of note among the apostles or whether they were noted apostles. One could be of note among the apostles without being an apostle. The article presents evidence that they were considered notable by the apostles without being apostles.
  
  Thirty pages of argument that Junia was a woman does not prove that she and Andronichus were apostles. I suspect you know lots of women. If you can prove they are women by the original Greek, does that make them all apostles?
  
  Reply
  
  September 8, 2018 at 2:03 pm
4. Troy Day says:
  
  Well the discussion clearly shows that the Bible in Rom 16:7 refers to Unia as a leading female apostle. If you are failing to recognize that read the discussion again and ask questions on what you cant understand http://probible.net/romans-167/
  
  Reply
  
  September 8, 2018 at 2:05 pm
5. Link Hudson says:
  
  Troy Day Why don’t you deal with the meat of Wallace’s argument in relation to ‘of note among the apostles’, rather than merely trying to characterize him in a negative manner?
  
  Here is a quote from the article I linked above:
  “When, however, an elative notion is found, ἐν plus a personal plural dative is not uncommon. In Ps Sol 2:6, where the Jewish captives are in view, the writer indicates that “they were a spectacle among the gentiles” (ἐπισήμῳ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν). This construction comes as close to Rom 16:7 as any I have yet seen. The parallels include (a) people as the referent of the adjective ἐπίσημος, (b) followed by ἐν plus the dative plural, (c) the dative plural referring to people as well. All the key elements are here. Semantically, what is significant is that (a) the first group is not a part of the second—that is, the Jewish captives were not gentiles; and (b) what was ‘among’ the gentiles was the Jews’ notoriety. This is precisely how we are suggesting Rom 16:7 should be taken. That the parallels discovered so far8 conform to our working hypothesis at least gives warrant to seeing Andronicus’ and Junia’s fame as that which was among the apostles. Whether the alternative view has semantic plausibility remains to be seen.”
  
  Reply
  
  September 8, 2018 at 2:08 pm
6. Troy Day says:
  
  BEcause I’ve dealt with Dr Wallace for years on levels you may not be even aware The DTS dispensational theology he represents denies any apostles after the first 12 any gifts and so on
  
  Pls noe this example, Greek-speaking John Chrysostom explicitly identified Junia as a woman and an apostle. He appeared to regard her as an amazing example of counter-expectation. I agree with you that this verse does appear to evoke some interesting acrobatics, when someone tries to constrain the semantic range of EN + dative and tries to establish the masculine gender of Junia’s name at the same time
  
  It will do you well to chonsult some Pentecostal theologians in your own tradition – if you are really CoG as you’ve claimed you should be well aware of the writings of Dr C. Thomas on Unia as a leading female apostle in the early church
  
  Reply
  
  September 8, 2018 at 2:10 pm
Troy Day says:

Link Hudson bottom line – Walles is a baptist who does not believe in apostles or gifts of Spirit (or ordaining women) The Greek comes down to this is Junia feminine dative or masculine accusative ? – answer that and you will have an answer to your dilemma. One way or the other, “ev” + dative denotes the original group – prominent among; not a separate third group which seems to be artificially forced in the construction

Reply

September 8, 2018 at 2:22 pm
1. Link Hudson says:
  
  Does the en plus dative in Galatians 2:12 prove Paul was a Gentile?
  
  He preached among the Gentiles without being one–or is that not true because of the dative?
  
  If someone can preach among (en) the (dative) Gentiles without being one, then why can’t someone be of note among (en) the (dative) apostles without being one?
  
  Reply
  
  September 8, 2018 at 2:26 pm
2. Troy Day says:
  
  No – I answered that already You are comparing
  the verb TO BE + dative adjective PROMINENT + en
  vs
  the verb PROCLAIM + dative noun GOSPEL + en
  
  The adjective is the modifier in this case.
  If what you are saying was true we should translate that
  Paul was prominent among the Gentiles 🙂
  
  Reply
  
  September 8, 2018 at 2:31 pm
3. Link Hudson says:
  
  Troy Day Do you have any evidence that ‘en’ plus the dative after a verb means something substantially different from ‘en’ plus the dative after an adjective?
  
  Reply
  
  September 8, 2018 at 2:34 pm
4. Troy Day says:
  
  Yes Link I wrote to you about the modifier Anyone who has studied any Greek or any language with cases and inclinations knows that; I feel like I am trying to explain to you how to bench press 405lb but you aint gonna figure it out until you actually get to the point where you are able to bench press 405lb
  
  The difference is I dont need to search for an article to tell me what the Greek says – I see it for myself – it is clear
  
  Junua was a female – no way around that
  was notable as a female apostle
  
  It takes a LOT of grammar acrobatics to make Junia male from the way the greek text reads OR to make a just a messenger who carried Paul’s letters as you suggested some
  
  Sure, you can find some non-scholarly articles that go for male-only leadership and twist the text, but reading the Greek this point is just not there. All the translators in English who translated Junia as female apostles for many centuries were not wrong and knew better Greek than you and I ever will !
  
  Reply
  
  September 9, 2018 at 5:02 am
5. Link Hudson says:
  
  Troy Day I tire of the straw man. How many times do I have to say I am not arguing that Junia was a man. Again, again, again, I am saying that ‘of note among the apostles’ is ambiguous as to whether these individuals were notable apostles or simply considered to be of not by the apostles.
  
  Reply
  
  September 9, 2018 at 9:52 pm
6. Troy Day says:
  
  You keep on repeating the same thing and refuse evidence from the Bible – both most translations and the Greek It is called overwhelming evidence. Basically the Bible says what it says – sure you can try to twist Scriptures. That’s your thing 🙂 But you have to admit what you are tying to claim is just not in the Bible Not there – that simple
  
  Reply
  
  September 10, 2018 at 5:26 am
7. Link Hudson says:
  
  Troy Day scolars who write articles on it acknowledge the ambiguity. Not ‘getting it’ and strawmen seem to be your things.
  
  Reply
  
  September 10, 2018 at 7:59 am
8. Troy Day says:
  
  Link Hudson You cannot call the Bible ambiguity and expect to be taken seriously in this group Pls review Margaret Mowczko on JUNIA: THE JEWISH WOMAN WHO WAS IMPRISONED WITH PAUL https://margmowczko.com/junia-jewish-woman-imprisoned/
  
  Reply
  
  September 10, 2018 at 8:20 am
9. Link Hudson says:
  
  Troy Day Can you write stuff like “call the Bible ambiguity” and expect to be taken seriously?
  
  Do you seriously believe there are no ambiguities in any passages on scripture? Who did the LORD seek to kill over Gershom not being circumcised?
  
  Why do other Greek scholars acknowledge the ambiguity?
  
  Reply
  
  September 10, 2018 at 8:36 am
10. Troy Day says:
  
  naah … oh well … maybe another time
  
  Reply
  
  September 10, 2018 at 3:09 pm
Troy Day says:

essential truth for the ministry of the church today

Reply

January 24, 2019 at 10:22 am
Ârsiem Achep says:

God is not author of confusion. So why this writing is so confusing.??. If Junia was a woman apostle then Pricila and Aquila must also be apostle.

Reply

January 24, 2019 at 11:51 pm
Troy Day says:

you;ve got it

Reply

January 25, 2019 at 6:44 am
Fleeman Jeffreyw says:

Apostle is always in the masculine tense a woman can’t be a apostle

Reply

June 9, 2020 at 10:19 am
RichardAnna Boyce says:

Romans 16:5-7 Paul not only acknowledges their ethnicity as Israelites (i.e., countrymen with reference to racial kinship; cf. 9:3; 16:11,21) and bondage with him (cf. 2 Cor 11:23), but as being recognized among the apostles. This does not mean that Andronicus and Junia were apostles, but that the apostles recognized them, probably for their faithful service. Paul also states that these two were in Christ before me, indicating that they had become believers before Paul.

Reply

June 10, 2020 at 6:29 pm
Troy Day says:

I believe in WOMEN in ministry Jim Price

Reply

June 12, 2020 at 7:21 am

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

People who read this article also liked:

29 thoughts on “Romans 16:7”

Leave a Reply