Junia-a female NT apostle

[debbym]

An awesome read, thank-you Tom.

no one is trying to take anything away from men, or from women, by honoring and being blessed by the gifts of the Holy Spirit working through women.

[ClubV12]

His/her gender has been debated for centuries. Correct interpretation of scripture will seek consistency among the writings, here a little, there a little. Taking one verse and interpreting it in a way that is not consistent with bulk of the biblical record is problematic. This concept of viewing the overall biblical record to establish truth has been a hall mark of Seventh-day Adventists. What is clear is that the biblical record supports men in leadership roles, always has, since the time of Adam. To make Junia a female is inconsistent with the record.

It reminds me of the apostles meeting on the first day of the week and then concluding the Sabbath was changed as a result. And many other doctrines established through the use of a single verse or incident.

Another view on Junia:

http://ordinationtruth.com/featured/junia-the-apostle-really/

"...it is impossible to tell from the Greek ending alone whether the person described by the apostle Paul is Junias (male) or Junia (female). The author (Ministry Magazine) recognizes this by accurately stating on p. 6 of the article, “In truth, the oldest manuscripts, the uncials, are written in capital letters, without accents. Hence both genders would be given IONIAN, leaving the reader to decide which gender Junia was.”

[Neil D]

"...it is impossible to tell from the Greek ending alone whether the person described by the apostle Paul is Junias (male) or Junia (female). The author (Ministry Magazine) recognizes this by accurately stating on p. 6 of the article, “In truth, the oldest manuscripts, the uncials, are written in capital letters, without accents. Hence both genders would be given IONIAN, leaving the reader to decide which gender Junia was.”

It has been said here before, and I will point to the evidence again...the only place where Junia is translated in male form is in the bible after the 1500....prior to that, she was translated as a female....All extra-biblical evidence of greek shows a female translation.....

can we say that there was bias in the biblical translation? I think that this is an overwhelming "yes"......

[ClubV12]

You call it bias, I call it "flipping a coin".

Regardless of when the verse was interpreted the same problem existed then as exists now, we cannot be sure about the gender of this person. At best we are left with speculation, dangerous ground to be on when interpreting any verse in the bible. Best to read it, interpret it, just as it reads. Which in this case is "somebody", we don't know who, but they were a Godly person.

[Tom Wetmore]

Why not just accept that the Biblical and ancient language scholars do in fact know what they are talking about, and know a whole lot more about it than you or I do. Among the majority of scholars today there really isn't any credible dispute on Junia. Or is it a real problem for you to accept that Junia was a woman and quite possibly considered by the NT Church as an apostle?

[ClubV12]

One doesn't have to believe everything scholars come up with. I don't believe in evolution either. The original wording, in any manuscript, leaves even the best ancient scholars with an opinion. A most likely, maybe, probably, evidence points to, most see it as, analysis at best. I accept their scholarly speculation as interesting. I wouldn't use the conclusions as a foundation for anything, like in support of a position for or against W.O. It does not add enough to the dialog to warrant the baggage of controversy and conflict that comes with it.

I understand others may see it differently.

[Neil D]

"Scholarly speculation"? You don't believe in Scholarly Analysis? .. you don't believe that other's KNOW what they are talking about....

These are scholars who want to know the truth..just like you do...They have the means and the education to determine what the truth is, unlike you....you have just the bible...they have the history, the meaning of the word, the context....you do not .....

If there were a sizeable scholarship that disagreed with me, yes, I withhold judgement as to who was correct....If that same sizeable scholarship addressed a subject that was NOT addressed by the majority, then again, I would hold judgement ....but the scholarship is rather over whelming and issues ARE addressed and counter auguments are offered which seem rather reasonable....Sure, there were some who are holding out, but the majority has addressed the issues and the conclusions are valid......

Jesus said that there was theology out there that CAN deceive "even the elect"....How do you know that you are not listening to that theology? How do you know that headship is the most loving relationship? How do you know that the way starts out with peace but will end in death?How come ordaining women is bad, when it is shown to be giving life to the church?

[Tom Wetmore]

Bump...

http://www.memorymeaningfaith.org/blog/2013/04/junia-the-apostle.html

For some who insist that Junia is translated as a male....not so, according to Nancy Vyhmeister from Andrews University

[ClubV12]

Nancys opinion is noted, not all biblical scholars agree with her suppositions. We will never be certain of the gender question on this earth for Junias.

There is one other troubling aspect of which we can never be certain. Was Junias actually an apostle himself, or was he only associated with the apostles in some way? The verse is not entirely clear on this, as well as gender. The conclusions have been argued both ways for centuries. Alas any new developments or modern methods on language translation have not shed any new light on the subject today more than it did a 2,000 years ago.

[Kevin H]

Actually the arguments for Junias possibly being male only appeared in the second millennium, somewhere around the 13th century. Until then there was no argument about her being female until then.

[Green Cochoa]

Why not just accept that the Biblical and ancient language scholars do in fact know what they are talking about, and know a whole lot more about it than you or I do. Among the majority of scholars today there really isn't any credible dispute on Junia. Or is it a real problem for you to accept that Junia was a woman and quite possibly considered by the NT Church as an apostle?

[Tom Wetmore]

Club, few reliable scholars today hold that Junia was a man. When you read an article off this kind, read and pay careful attention to the footnotes. Nancy V, is not just making this stuff up herself. While she is a respected and well qualified Biblical Language expert herself, she is standing on solid references of others as qualified or more so than herself.

You on the other hand seem to accept only that which confirms what you want to believe, even if absolutely the minority report, or from someone shooting from the hip with little or no expertise. It reminds me of my personal experience as a lawyer offering my professional opinion that is not what the client wants to hear. If his barber tells him something different, he accepts his "legal" advice as true, because it is what he wanted to hear. Happens more than you might think. Seems no way to fix that tendency.

Shall we talk about the woman in the NT identified as a disciple?

[ClubV12]

Nancy states clearly that it is in fact her opinion, based on the evidence as she see's it. There is little difference between that position and the positions other scholars have taken for 2,000 years. Nothing has changed because no new documents or scrolls have been found to base a solid conclusion on. She does not take an absolute position, and that is wise because it is impossible to know for sure one way or the other. As a scholar, she knows this.

A simple fact: The greek word does not have a definitive gender.

Another fact: The greek wording does not make a definitive statement about him/her actually BEING an apostle.

No one needs a PhD to understand what this means. No absolute gender can possibly be derived from the original text. Nor can it be determined from the original text the status of apostleship.

It is at best "circumstantial evidence". Is it strong enough for a jury to "convict", which CAN be possible with circumstantial evidence? Personally, I don't think so. I would move the case be dismissed due to lack of evidence.

Knowing Pauls position on women in authoritive roles, I submit the circumstantial evidence points to Junias being a man!

[Neil D]

Nancy states clearly that it is in fact her opinion, based on the evidence as she see's it. There is little difference between that position and the positions other scholars have taken for 2,000 years. Nothing has changed because no new documents or scrolls have been found to base a solid conclusion on. She does not take an absolute position, and that is wise because it is impossible to know for sure one way or the other. As a scholar, she knows this.

A simple fact: The greek word does not have a definitive gender.

Another fact: The greek wording does not make a definitive statement about him/her actually BEING an apostle.

No one needs a PhD to understand what this means. No absolute gender can possibly be derived from the original text. Nor can it be determined from the original text the status of apostleship.

It is at best "circumstantial evidence". Is it strong enough for a jury to "convict", which CAN be possible with circumstantial evidence? Personally, I don't think so. I would move the case be dismissed due to lack of evidence.

Knowing Pauls position on women in authoritive roles, I submit the circumstantial evidence points to Junias being a man!

You plead Junias is a MALE due to the LACK OF EVIDENCE?

Oh brother...sticking your head in the sand results in the same condition as being blindfolded...you just can't see...

The preponderance of evidence shows that the those of old ,who translated Greek to English, have gender bias. There are some old translators with strong gender bias who STILL allow that Junias is a "outstanding female apostle". And yet, the closer we come to the time of Christ, the more Junias is translated as female. It is only when the Catholic church is fearful for it's male dominate position, that the translations of Junias is translated as male.

And it is the bible only, when comparing the Greek of the bible to the Greek literature that the translation of Junias is male in the bible but translated as female in Greek literature...These are indisputable evidences.....

It is only in the last 20-40 years that the translators have been showing real evidence that they are gender neutral and have shown in the new testament, women were able to play important roles in the early church in a society that was male dominated....

It did not matter who did the work, as long as the Gospel was preached. And if a female was doing the work of an Apostle, the early church recognized her as such....

[olger]

This is another example of an obscure text being eagerly seized upon as an excuse to deconstruct an unchangeable Bible principle. The prowo crowd doesn't have anything to stand on so they leap on these abstract verses.

For instance, you don't see biblical Adventists making a fuss over Apollos being a man. There is no need to, because the Bible is already plain that leadership is male.

If the first child of Adam & Eve had been a daughter, you would see huge arguments today put forth claiming that as a justification for wo. These people are desperate to make the Scripture align with their culture, and it shows in the weakness of their argument.

Richard Davidson, for instance, takes passages in Genesis apart down to their molecular level, and then reassembles them in a way that totally changes their exegetical meaning. We are left thinking something fraudulent has happened.

Jacques Dhoukan claims that God clothing Adam and Eve with animal skins instead of fig leaves signifies that He designated both male and female as priests. Such torturous arguments are not uncommon among those who wish to rewrite Scripture and history to support WO.

g

[Neil D]

This is another example of an obscure text being eagerly seized upon as an excuse to deconstruct an unchangeable Bible principle. The prowo crowd doesn't have anything to stand on so they leap on these abstract verses.

For instance, you don't see biblical Adventists making a fuss over Apollos being a man. There is no need to, because the Bible is already plain that leadership is male.

[Tom Wetmore]

Both Ger and Club,

The fault with your dismissiveness of this example is that it is not even consistent with your own position and that of so many opposed to WO. Quite simply, you take the absolutist position that NO woman can occupy certain positions within the Church. Taking that as a universal principle for all time means simply that there can be no Biblical positive evidence of even a single woman that ever held such a position or role among God's people with God's blessing. Just one example creates an exception to the rule, meaning that it is not an absolute prohibition for all time for all people.

Now on the other hand, if you were arguing from a position that the Biblical evidence shows a very strong preference for patriarchy, male leadership in the church, one example of a woman in such a role does not defeat your position.

Because you must defend an absolute prohibition of women in certain roles and position, you must resort to tortured logic and minority "expert" opinions and denial or dismissive minimizing of contrary evidence, even in the face of strong and overwhelming evidence against your position. That is exactly the situation the male dominate Early Catholic Church faced when confronting the fact of one verse referring to a female apostle. When the male clergy system were dependent onthe idea of apostolic succession, a woman put an untenable glitch in the idea of the men only rule. So the historic evidence shows that the "solution" was to hide that inconvenient truth and perform the first sex change operation. If you control the evidence you can maintain a lie. But they simple could not contain and control all the manuscripts of the text to make that one editorial change stick for all time.

[Kevin H]

For instance, you don't see biblical Adventists making a fuss over Apollos being a man. There is no need to, because the Bible is already plain that leadership is male.

Don't forget who Apollos had to submit to and learn from... Oops, this goes against what you believe the Bible says, so forget what I just wrote since you have cut that text out of your Bible.

[ClubV12]

The thing about this is:

I don't know whether it is Junias or Junia. Based on the Greek, NOBODY knows for sure. And that is the point. We can surmise, we can consider the circumstantial evidence, we can speculate, we can make an educated guess.

The circumstantial evidence in my opinion points to Junias being a man based on the position of Paul concerning leadership and authority within the Church. Others suggest the evidence points another direction. OK, so there it is, it is impossible to know for sure.

I believe this IS an unbiased approach to the problem, I'm just looking at the verse in question and concluding, "can't be 100% sure". Fairly simple concept actually...

[Tom Wetmore]

No, emphatically no! It is not that "nobody" knows for sure just because it is Greek. It means that people such as you and me that are not trained and experienced in Ancient Greek can now for sure. We are ignorant of such things. But for you to impose your own ignorance of such things on the conclusions of those who are indeed experts in Ancient Greek language and culture is really quite incredible! When experts give us their conclusions and opinions after considering evidence that they understand and show they have consulted the research and findings of other experts, it obviously carries substantially greater weight than any lay opinion on the matter. "We" cannot make those educated guesses, since we are not educated. We can just guess. But for the experts, it is a bit more than that.

Listen to what you are saying. Basically you are saying that if 10 people agree and 2 people disagree with a conclusion that it is just too uncertain for anyone to know for sure. But more incredible than that you determine that it is not 100% certain that it is more probably that the 2 are right! Sounds a bit like the conclusions of the tobacco companies that smoking is not harmful to your health since their "studies" showed it was inconclusively harmful.

[ClubV12]

ALL scholars agree on this point Tom.

The Greek in this verse IS NOT CLEAR as it concerns gender. Even Nancy notes that! Now thats a fact and no amount of PhD's, no studies over the last two thousand years have changed that FACT.

Tom says,

"When experts give us their conclusions and opinions after considering evidence..."

And thats exactly what they have done, offered their opinion on this verse. IT REMAINS inconclusive as to gender AND as to apostleship and every scholar who has ever addressed this verse has said so.

[phkrause]

Do you feel the only "credible" answers are those that agree with your view?

That goes both ways!!

[Neil D]

ALL scholars agree on this point Tom.

The Greek in this verse IS NOT CLEAR as it concerns gender. Even Nancy notes that! Now thats a fact and no amount of PhD's, no studies over the last two thousand years have changed that FACT.

Tom says,

"When experts give us their conclusions and opinions after considering evidence..."

And thats exactly what they have done, offered their opinion on this verse. IT REMAINS inconclusive as to gender AND as to apostleship and every scholar who has ever addressed this verse has said so.

Ok, let's see what Nancy says again-

Conclusion

It is difficult to complete this study without concluding that Paul is referring to a woman named Junia, who, together with Andronicus (probably her husband), was part of the New Testament group of apostles. No information is given about her ordination. That was not the issue. Paul recognized her as one of the apostles, a woman who was willing to suffer for the gospel she was active in spreading!

She concludes that "Paul is referring to a woman named Junia" who "was a part of the NT group of apostles"...That is her conclusion...and that is something from an expert that is admission-able in court....I can take that....If God want to correct me, that's ok too...but He will have to do it thru the reasonable means available to me...I suspect that He would honor that...After all, God says "Come, let us reason together." And reasonably speaking, Nancy says that Junia is a woman who was an apostle, a notable apostle...

[ClubV12]

I understand that is her conclusion Neil, never said it wasn't. As she notes it is "difficult" for her to conclude otherwise, not "impossible". As a scholar she remains aware of the difficulty in stating her opinion as an absolute fact.

I STRONGLY take exception to her conclusion where she states:

"Paul recognized her as one of the apostles..." No positive conclusion can be made for that from the verse. It to remains a point of contention among scholars.

The suggestion that we need "learned men and women" skilled in the interpretation of scripture to understand the bible does not square with Ellen Whites counsel. She says the bible is BEST understood by someone who reads it just as it is written.

I read the verse in question just as it is written, I conclude, I don't know what gender Junias was. I also conclude I don't know if he/she was an apostle or well known TO the apostles. I DO know what Paul had to say about women and taking THAT into consideration, I cannot rule out that Junias was a man. I still don't know his relationship to the apostles. And we will never know for sure. That which is not specifically revealed, can't be that important!

Admissable in court as an expert opinion, which can easily be offset by another expert opinion stating the exact opposite! In the end, you got nothing of substance to present to the judge.

[Tom Wetmore]

https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2013/07/junia-the-apostle

The article as published in Minstry Magazine.

Read the whole article again, carefully. She is not saying what you claim she is. Read her conclusion. No equivocation. She says that after competing the study that she has done it is difficult to not conclude that Junia is a woman and an apostle.