 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 |
bonnie knox |
I hate to be redundant, but the point is Junia is just one of several examples of women in leadership in the New Testament which means women in leadership is scriptural!
But you should stop and ask yourself why, after the testimony of the early church fathers calling her an apostle, some of the translators decided to try to make her out to be a man.
As Craig Keener says,
It is also unnatural to read the text as merely claiming that they had a high reputation with "the apostles." Since they were imprisoned with him, Paul knows them well enough to recommend them without appealing to the other apostles, whose judgment he never cites on such matters. . . . Paul nowhere limits the apostolic company to the Twelve plus himself, as some have assumed (see especially 1 Cor. 15:5-11). Those who favor the view that Junia was not a female apostle do so because of their prior assumption that women could not be apostles, not because of any evidence in the text.
| Quote: | | But the point of all this is that you simply cannot make Junia an apostle with the scripture that you have offered. Was she an apostle? MAYBE! But the verse doesn't even seem to imply that! To "be of note" among the apostles is not necessarily (at all!) saying the same things as "a noted apostle." |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/28/17 7:27 am
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| (L) |
bonnie knox |
Link, at the risk of being redundant, I will try to explain this to you. Aaron was once again using circular reasoning to say that Junia couldn't be an apostle because if she were she would be the only apostle mentioned outside of the original 12 (plus Paul) which would not be right because she couldn't be an apostle. Rather than attack his circular reasoning, I merely pointed to the fact that several other people are referred to in the NT as apostles, which essentially means "one sent."
Do you have any reliable sources which speak to the alleged ambiguity?
NT Wright says that "...actually, it's been shown quite recently that it cannot mean that. Junia is a woman and she is an apostle."
http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/tom-wright-on-apostles-junia-and-mary.html
| Link wrote: | | bonnie knox wrote: | Aaron, this is what becomes redundant to me. You will make a claim. I will refute it with scripture, but the conclusion you have drawn from your initial claim remains unchanged.
You claim that Junia would be the only apostle mentioned outside of the 11. Then at my prompting to "read your Bible" you remember Barnabas, but still you are clinging to whatever relevance you feel there is that Junia would be unlucky 13. |
I didn't follow this one. But Paul or Barnabas or James the Lord's brother would have had to have dibs on 13, or Matthias if we still count Judas in the 12 and add Matthias on.
Paul implicitly accepts Matthias as the 12th apostle in I Corinthians 15.
The thing with Andronichus and Junia is that it is ambiguous as to whether they are apostles or highly regarded by the apostles without being apostles themselves. |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/28/17 10:00 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Bonnie... |
Aaron Scott |
| bonnie knox wrote: | I hate to be redundant, but the point is Junia is just one of several examples of women in leadership in the New Testament which means women in leadership is scriptural!
Bonnie, I am not at all arguing against women in, say, local leadership. Nor am I arguing against their merit as leaders. I am saying that, at least in the scriptures and traditions, we do not see women in leadership at the enterprise level. We know of no women, apostles or not, who governed the church-at-large. Certainly we can accept that women might have led a house church, etc.
Consider that if the early church truly knew/felt that some women were apostles, then why do we not read of any in a clear, unequivocal manner? Why didn't the Church adopt this as practice if it was accepted in the earliest times? Were the men back then just as "shortsighted" as you might deem the men of today? The case simply cannot be fully made that Junia was an apostle.
But you should stop and ask yourself why, after the testimony of the early church fathers calling her an apostle, some of the translators decided to try to make her out to be a man.
No, Bonnie, that is for YOU to explain. Why would men of God squelch what the must have KNOWN to be the truth, if Junia had indeed been an apostle?
Conspiracy? Misogyny? Or...or maybe while one person considered her to be an apostle, the rest were not at all convinced (like today)?
Are you implying that the translators PURPOSELY provided FALSE information in the formation of the scriptures? And why is it not a problem that your side seeks to make her out an apostle, when the text is, at best, ambiguous?
As Craig Keener says,
It is also unnatural to read the text as merely claiming that they had a high reputation with "the apostles." Since they were imprisoned with him, Paul knows them well enough to recommend them without appealing to the other apostles, whose judgment he never cites on such matters. . . . Paul nowhere limits the apostolic company to the Twelve plus himself, as some have assumed (see especially 1 Cor. 15:5-11). Those who favor the view that Junia was not a female apostle do so because of their prior assumption that women could not be apostles, not because of any evidence in the text.
For CENTURIES no one seemed to argue that Junia was a woman--at least with any effect. And certainly not that she was an apostle. Then--and oddly enough at a time in history when diversity is more important than just about anything else--Junia is held up to be a woman...and not just a woman, but an apostle? It seems clear to me that the whole Junia endeavor is not an attempt to find truth, but an attempt to "prove" that women ought to be in the highest ranks of leadership. In other words, an attempt to interpret the Bible in a way that works with our modern understandings of gender equality, etc.
But here's another thing.... Let's ASSUME that Junia is a female apostle. Why, of what we can safely assume to be a church with a very significant female percentage, we don't see any women mentioned--even some of the most notable in the NT--as being in leadership at the "denominational" level? Surely Junia was not alone? And this is another area where the argument breaks down. Not only do we NOT have any clear indication that Junia was an apostle, but we have zero basis for thinking that women were in the highest echelon of leadership.
Again, NOT because women aren't able to lead...but because, for whatever reason, God seemed to set it up that way, even way back in the OT. A woman in leadership was always (or virtually always) and EXCEPTION...NEVER, NEVER, NEVER the rule.
I don't begrudge women a role in the highest ranks of the church (even if I oppose it based on my understanding of scripture). I DO, however, grow weary of women (not you!) who I think are not pursuing this because they believe it is the truth of scripture...but because they feel it denigrates women, etc. In other words, it's more about some ideals of feminism than it is about allegiance to the scriptures. And that is exactly what worries many of us.... We know that if it is more about being in tune with current notions of equality, etc., then, one day, some other things will knock on the door of the church and ask not only for entrance, but for leadership roles. And the basis for doing so will have already been laid in the "battle" of the sexes. After all, if we are going to care more about cultural relevance than the testimony of scripture, we will have no good basis for saying no to others.
| Quote: | | But the point of all this is that you simply cannot make Junia an apostle with the scripture that you have offered. Was she an apostle? MAYBE! But the verse doesn't even seem to imply that! To "be of note" among the apostles is not necessarily (at all!) saying the same things as "a noted apostle." |
|
|
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
7/28/17 11:25 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
Aaron, you are not doing your due diligence about the history of Junia being an apostle.
You say that I have to make the case. I will, but I know how this will turn out. If you did the research yourself, you might possibly remember it. If I post the research myself, six months from now, you will not remember a thing I've posted, you will make the same claims again, I will make the same counter claims, and you will say I'm being redundant.
Yes, it was accepted by the early church fathers that she was an apostle. It was not until over a thousand years later that she was referred to as a man.
From an article by Nancy Vyhmeister
In his commentary on Romans, Joseph Fitzmyer listed 16 Christian Greek and Latin writers of the first millennium who understood Junia in Romans 16:7 to be a woman. Among these, the earliest is Origen (ca. 185�254), whose commentary on Romans was translated by Rufinus (ca. 345�410) into Latin, and quoted by Rabanus Maurus (ca. 776�856).10 In his Liber de Nominibus Hebraicis, Jerome (ca. 345�419) lists the name as Junia.11
From John Chrysostom (ca. 344�407) to Peter Abelard (1079�1142), Greek and Latin commentators on the Epistle to the Romans used the feminine name Junia. The only exceptions: Ambrosiaster (late fourth century) and Atto of Vercelli (925‒960) used Julia, a female.12
...
Aegidius of Rome (1245�1316) was the first church writer to make Andronicus and Junia �those honorable men.�14 Interestingly, this corresponds to the time when Pope Boniface VIII, well remembered for his difficulties with Dante, decreed in 1298 that all nuns were to be permanently cloistered.15
...
According to Epp�s table, 38 Greek New Testaments, beginning with Erasmus (1516) through Eberhard Nestle in 1920, use the name Ioun�an, indicating feminine gender for Junia. During those centuries, there is only one exception: Alford in the nineteenth century uses the masculine form but puts the feminine in the apparatus.20
From the Nestle version of 1927 through the UBS Greek New Testament of 1993, only the Hodges-Farstad New Testament of 1982 uses the feminine; the other 14 versions use the masculine, often without an alternate explanation in the apparatus. This trend is reversed with the 1994 Kurt Aland and the UBS 1998 versions, which return to the feminine with no alternate reading.21
Junia in modern language translations
The seven earliest English versions, from Tyndale (1525�1534) to the KJV (1611), all have Junia as a woman. From the Revised Version (1881) until the New Living Translation (1996), 21 English translations have the masculine, while 10 have the feminine.22 Of this tendency, Scot McKnight notes ruefully: Junia Is Not Alone; women, he says, have not taken or been allowed their proper place in ministry.23
Some recent English translations still have the masculine, no doubt because their parent translations did so, and the masculine form was in the Greek NT from which these versions were translated. Such are the French Louis Segond, the Spanish Biblia de las Am�ricas, the 1995 revision of the Spanish Reina-Valera, the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the Contemporary English Version (CEV), and The Message, among others.
In an 1895 commentary on Romans, William Sanday has this to say (you tell me what possible motive he could have for this sort of conclusion).
Junia is of course a common Roman name and in that case the two would probably be husband and wife; Junias on the other hand is less usual as a man’s name. . . . If, as is probable, Andronicus and Junias are included among the apostles . . . , then it is more probable that the name is masculine. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/28/17 11:54 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Aaron, this is just flat out wrong, mistaken, misguided, misinformed, untrue, and whatever other redundant sysnonym one |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | For CENTURIES no one seemed to argue that Junia was a woman--at least with any effect. And certainly not that she was an apostle. Then--and oddly enough at a time in history when diversity is more important than just about anything else--Junia is held up to be a woman...and not just a woman, but an apostle? It seems clear to me that the whole Junia endeavor is not an attempt to find truth, but an attempt to "prove" that women ought to be in the highest ranks of leadership. In other words, an attempt to interpret the Bible in a way that works with our modern understandings of gender equality, etc. |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/28/17 11:57 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Words like echelon, enterprise, denomination, etc. |
bonnie knox |
Aaron, when you look in scripture for the ministries that Christ gifted the church with, you will not see prohibitions for females. In the list of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, you do not see something saying those must be one gender or another. The Holy Spirit was poured out on all flesh, not just male flesh.
Paul certainly mentions women as his co-laborers in the gospel. The problem is that you are trying to make the church an institution rather than an organic body and you are trying to set up lords in it where Jesus said not to lord authority like the Gentiles, but rather serve.
Matthew 20:24-26King James Version (KJV)
24 And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation against the two brethren.
25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
| Quote: | | But here's another thing.... Let's ASSUME that Junia is a female apostle. Why, of what we can safely assume to be a church with a very significant female percentage, we don't see any women mentioned--even some of the most notable in the NT--as being in leadership at the "denominational" level? Surely Junia was not alone? And this is another area where the argument breaks down. Not only do we NOT have any clear indication that Junia was an apostle, but we have zero basis for thinking that women were in the highest echelon of leadership. |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/28/17 12:20 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Bonnie... |
Link |
| Quote: |
As Craig Keener says,
It is also unnatural to read the text as merely claiming that they had a high reputation with "the apostles." Since they were imprisoned with him, Paul knows them well enough to recommend them without appealing to the other apostles, whose judgment he never cites on such matters. . . . Paul nowhere limits the apostolic company to the Twelve plus himself, as some have assumed (see especially 1 Cor. 15:5-11). Those who favor the view that Junia was not a female apostle do so because of their prior assumption that women could not be apostles, not because of any evidence in the text. |
Let's imagine this scenario. Paul and Barnabas are sitting in the Upper Room in Jerusalem, waiting for the Council of Jerusalem to start. Thaddeus, Peter, and Philip get there a little early and ask Paul and Barnabas about their travels. They tell of a certain port city they went to, and Peter says, "Did you happen to meet Andronichus and Junia there? They spent at least a year there." Thaddeus says, "Oh yes, I know them. They are a very hard-working couple, always serving the church and proclaiming their faith in the Messiah." Philip chimes in and says, "I agree. You must meet them if you get the chance."
Paul, in his interactions with the other apostles, may have found out that they held this couple in high esteem. If that were the case, he would have a specific reason to mention the other apostle's opinion of them, even if he did not often refer to other apostles' doctrinal views in his epistles.
| Aaron Scott wrote: |
For CENTURIES no one seemed to argue that Junia was a woman--at least with any effect. And certainly not that she was an apostle. |
Bonnie mentioned those who are called 'early church fathers.' How many references are there to the two actually being apostles? Chrysostom makes the point that she is a woman given the appelation of apostle. He interpret the text the way you do, at least to the extent of seeing it as calling Junia an apostle. But Chrysostom was opposed to the idea of women in the priesthood. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/19223.htm So I suspect he would have interpreted this reference to 'apostles' differently than you might.
Are there actually have any references to early Christians who knew the couple or knew of a tradition about them reported from other people, that Junia was a woman or that they were considered to be apostles? Chrysostom might have been a bit late to be that kind of source. Origen pre-dated Chrysostom and referred to her as a man. The manuscript is late, but I wonder how late it is compared to other manuscripts by such authors.
| Quote: |
Then--and oddly enough at a time in history when diversity is more important than just about anything else--Junia is held up to be a woman...and not just a woman, but an apostle? |
I see your point. Since I don't have an agenda or worldview that makes it very important that women in the first century be apostles or bishops of the church, I am not inclined to argue in favor of such a doctrine based on an ambiguity, espcially if there is other scripture that leads in the opposite direction.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
7/28/17 12:54 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Well, I know you are skipping what I've posted |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | Origen pre-dated Chrysostom and referred to her as a man. The manuscript is late, but I wonder how late it is compared to other manuscripts by such authors. |
Two 12th century manuscripts of Origen's writings have variant readings which make Junia a man, but earlier manuscripts of Origen's writings such as the one I referenced above, have Junia a woman. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/28/17 1:17 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| So bizarre! |
bonnie knox |
Link, why would you come up with a hypothetical scenario, when people who are versed in the linguistics of Paul's writings are making commentary on this? Why on earth when I ask if you have a source for your claim that the phrase is ambiguous would you start making up scenarios rather than looking for research on the Greek phrase from which our English translation comes?
Do you dismiss NT Wright's scholarship on this?
| Quote: | Let's imagine this scenario. Paul and Barnabas are sitting in the Upper Room in Jerusalem, waiting for the Council of Jerusalem to start. Thaddeus, Peter, and Philip get there a little early and ask Paul and Barnabas about their travels. They tell of a certain port city they went to, and Peter says, "Did you happen to meet Andronichus and Junia there? They spent at least a year there." Thaddeus says, "Oh yes, I know them. They are a very hard-working couple, always serving the church and proclaiming their faith in the Messiah." Philip chimes in and says, "I agree. You must meet them if you get the chance."
Paul, in his interactions with the other apostles, may have found out that they held this couple in high esteem. If that were the case, he would have a specific reason to mention the other apostle's opinion of them, even if he did not often refer to other apostles' doctrinal views in his epistles. |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/28/17 1:23 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | Are there actually have any references to early Christians who knew the couple or knew of a tradition about them reported from other people, that Junia was a woman or that they were considered to be apostles? |
The Apostle Paul in Romans 16:7 (sorry to be redundant)
Other than that, no, and no one from that time period claiming that they weren't apostles and that Junia wasn't a woman. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/28/17 1:27 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | So I suspect he would have interpreted this reference to 'apostles' differently than you might. |
What are you suggesting by this? Are you saying all those people trying to make Junia into a man needn't have bothered because being an apostle isn't an authoritative position anyway? Or are you suggesting that if Chrysostom had believed that an apostle is actually an authoritative position, he might not have conceded that Junia was one (or maybe he would have just tried to change her into a man)? |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/28/17 1:37 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Bonnie, it's true... |
Aaron Scott |
I got lambasted the other day by Quiet Wyatt because I could not recall an argument he made from months before. It is indeed entirely likely that you might have to make the argument again and again to me. Sorry...I'm just at that age when things don't always stick (ask my wife!).
BUT...that being said, when I hear something that is convincing, my argument tends to change so that I would not be bringing up the past in the same way again.
Notice, that I did NOT say that no one claimed that Junia was an apostle for all those centuries, but rather "not with any effect." That is, it does not appear that the minds of the larger church were changed. There are always tempests in teapots, so to speak, but that doesn't mean they carry weight with the larger body.
Here is where it lies with me.... We have a vast tradition of male leadership. If anyone doesn't allow tradition to get in the way, I hope that is me. However, it also should not be slighted without good cause. There are reasons that we hold certain traditions. They can be wrong...but they are often right.
Again, no one is arguing about the spiritual equality between men and women. But we see in the scriptures the following:
1) No women in high leadership, except as an exception to the rule.
2) That men are considered the head of the wife.
3) That men are the only ones considered, it appears, for bishoprics or elderships.
4) That Paul has some resistance (perhaps based on unworthy Jewish traditions, but still) to women in leadership (based on key statements).
What we do NOT see is women in leadership in the NT (beyond the ambiguous statement made of Junia).
What we do NOT see is women as bishops, as best I can tell.
What we do NOT see is a woman being the head of man.
These are not meant to be arguments about the inferiority of women or their abilities. I hope you know me better than that! I abjectly surrender the fact that women are just as able as men in guiding massive corporation, running nations, etc.
And yet...the Bible gives us a different take.
A woman might argue that since God chooses the weaker things, and woman are the weaker vessels.... That would almost certainly touch the hearts of men who are opposed. But instead we seem to find (at least in my view) more of a CLAMORING for position, a demand for equal positioning, etc. And these things probably cause men to be more defensive than otherwise, perhaps refusing to even consider the possibilities....
I don't know why God didn't put women in charge. They tend to be so much nicer (except to each other, of course; it is "fact" that both men and women get along with MALE bosses better than female ones--go figure).
But for whatever reason, instead of having a Queenly line...God set up a Kingly one.
And as everyone knows, God is male. (SMILE) |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
7/28/17 2:59 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Aaron you say no women in leadership except the exceptions. So what about the exceptions, were they in leadership or not? |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/28/17 3:15 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | Notice, that I did NOT say that no one claimed that Junia was an apostle for all those centuries, but rather "not with any effect." That is, it does not appear that the minds of the larger church were changed. |
For a thousand years, the church saw Junia as a female and an apostle. The fact that they later tried to change her identity to a male seems to indicate some people were having an issue with a female being an apostle. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/28/17 3:17 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | 2) That men are considered the head of the wife. |
You get into trouble when you start trying to apply a husband/wife relationship to all men/women.
(Besides the issue of not having the husband/wife relationship correct with your interpretation of "head.") |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/28/17 3:19 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | What we do NOT see is women in leadership in the NT |
This is simply not true.
Phoebe, Syntyche, and Euodias are leaders in the NT. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/28/17 3:20 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | What we do NOT see is a woman being the head of man. |
But that doesn't mean that a woman cannot lead men or teach men or make decisions that affect men because we see all those things happening in scripture. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/28/17 3:21 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | 4) That Paul has some resistance (perhaps based on unworthy Jewish traditions, but still) to women in leadership (based on key statements). |
No, not overall. There are specific instances where he doesn't permit a specific woman or perhaps women in general in that particular time and location to spread false doctrine, but in other places he commends women who are leaders. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/28/17 3:24 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | A woman might argue that since God chooses the weaker things, and woman are the weaker vessels.... That would almost certainly touch the hearts of men who are opposed. |
Actually NT Wright said that. I hoped you listened to the video clip of his interview. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/28/17 3:25 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| No, I didn't. |
Aaron Scott |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | | A woman might argue that since God chooses the weaker things, and woman are the weaker vessels.... That would almost certainly touch the hearts of men who are opposed. |
Actually NT Wright said that. I hoped you listened to the video clip of his interview. |
| Quote: |
It was my own statement. But it does have some power.
|
|
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
7/28/17 5:34 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
