Doug Batchelor Preaches Against Women Pastors

[Woody]

The questions remain:

Was this witnessed and verified? What church did she become a member of? Was he an ordained minister of the Seventh day Adventist Church at that point? Did he ever baptize again?

Do you have some documentation for this or is it just tradition?

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: As with so much else on this subject, it is inconclusive only if to draw a conclusion does not support your position.

It's inconclusive when you have many sources giving one view and many equally good sources giving the opposite view; and when you have 15 printed Greek texts giving different readings. Also when most of the translations give the name Junias, male, but quite a few others give the name Junia, female. And finally when scholars often publish articles which say it's inconclusive, as do Bible dictionaries. That's not to mention our own SDA Bible Commentary which says the same thing, that the name could be either Junia or Junias.

Then it should not be hard to figure out that it's inconclusive.

Here are more good indications that it's inconclusive:

The NIV, NEB, RSV and many others translate it as a man's name; whereas the NRSV and REB and others translate it as a woman's.

Notice that the New English Bible and Revised Standard Version both read "Junias," a man's name; but when those translations were revised, they were changed to "Junia," a female's name. Yet in the footnote of those translations, they read, "Or Junias," again indicating that the text could easily read either way. It reflects the indecision of the translators and Bible scholars regarding this issue.

Is WO relying on Romans 16: 1 and 7? If the Bible really supports it, there's no reason to rely on verses that are not any more clear than those two verses are. Proponents of Women's Ordination have to do better than that if they want to convince the majority of the church that the Bible supports it.

[John317]

Quote:

Woody: The questions remain:

Was this witnessed and verified? What church did she become a member of? Was he an ordained minister of the Seventh day Adventist Church at that point? Did he ever baptize again?

Do you have some documentation for this or is it just tradition?

Ellen White was baptized by Pastor James White. Read about it for yourself.

Here's the documentation:

Read Arthur White's multi-volume biography of his grandmother, vol. 1, page 121.

Read the book Life Incidents, page 273.

[John317]

Quote:

John317:

James White himself baptized the messenger of God soon after she accepted the Sabbath. And immediately after her baptism at his hands, Ellen White went off in vision.

Quote:

Woody: Was he an ordained minister of the Seventh day Adventist Church at that point?

Quote:

Neil D: Um...Concider this-

In the year 1840, Ellen, with her parents, attended a Methodist camp meeting at Buxton, Maine, and there, at the age of 12, she gave her heart to God.On June 26, 1842, at her request she was baptized by immersion in Casco Bay, Portland. That same day she was received as a member of the Methodist Church. Here is the source.

From what this says, she was about 14 when she was baptised. In Life Sketches, the book talks about her conversion and her baptism...See page 24-25...

Nothing noted about meeting James until she was 17.

Um...Concider this:

Keep studying, Neil D.

Read this:

Ellen White was baptized by Pastor James White. Read about it for yourself.

Here's the documentation:

Read Arthur White's multi-volume biography of his grandmother, vol. 1, page 121.

Read the book Life Incidents, page 273.

I'm about ready to give up on you guys. lol

[olger]

I have wondered for years what Paul meant when he said "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach.."

I looked at it from all directions, consulted the greek lexicon, etc.... Finally I decided that it meant...wait for it...

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach..."

oG

[Neil D]

This is one reason the SDA Bible Commentary says that the name could be either male or female. An examination of translations and other commentaries reveals that this is in harmony with most scholars and sources. See last part of this post.

[Neil D]

Read this:

Ellen White was baptized by Pastor James White. Read about it for yourself.

Here's the documentation:

Read Arthur White's multi-volume biography of his grandmother, vol. 1, page 121.

Read the book Life Incidents, page 273.

OOh, you mean her RE-baptism...[looking this way and that] of course I, ah, <ahem> knew about that....Why didn't you say RE-baptism....?

And of course, we all know that Elder White was a minister of the SDA church at the time in 1847....right?

.....I said, " right?".....[ya'll know that the church was organized in 1860, dontcha?]

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17:

Dr. Leonard Swindler doesn't have good knowledge, Neil. He didn't know about Epiphanius, a very early Christian bishop.

Quote:

Neil D: I would like that source where Epiphanius refers to this person as a male...

Concidering that many of the scholars state that the name in latin is Junia, and that it is a common FEMALE name, and that alone places Epiphanius' reference as suspect, and places some very strong doubts about the veracity of the gender. Also, most of the early fathers [and I have not come across a reference to Epiphanius...yet!]

Neil, you're just beginning to study this topic, apparently. You thought I was wrong about Ellen White being baptized, too. I don't write these things without having solid documentaiton.

I already gave you the source. He's a well-know 4th century Church Father. You'll find him by Googling and you can read about him on the wikipedia. If you go to a good University library, you can also read his books.

Epiphanius (A.D. 315-403), the bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, wrote an Index of Disciples, in which he includes this line: "Iounias, of whom Paul makes mention, became bishop of Apameia of Syria" (Index disciplulorum, 125.19-20). In Greek, the phrase "of whom" is a masculine relative pronoun (hou) and shows that Epiphanius thought Iounias was a man.

Origen (died 252 A.D), who lived about 100 years before Epiphanius, also believe that Junias was a man. Origen was one of the the greatest scholars of the early church. He wrote the earliest commentary on Romans and referred to Junias as a man.

If Leonard Swindler wasn't aware of these sources, one has to wonder what else he didn't know in regard to Junias. Swindler thought no one earlier than the Middle Ages believed Junias was a man. Swindler (what a name!) must be the one that Mike Tucker got his information from. That was his mistake.

How many Greek New Testiments do you have? If you have a few, you will see for yourself that they differ in the way they print the name of Junias. Among my 15+ printed texts of the Greek New Testament, 7 spell it with the circumflex over the last syllable. I see 5 that have the acute accent over the iota, which is next to the last syllable. This means that the majority of the Greek texts that I've looked at show Junias to be a man.

Let me give you two examples of why the Greek texts show that we cannot be certain whether it's the name of a female or a male. (1) The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament, United Bible Societies' Fourth, Corrected Edition, has a Greek text which gives the male name, yet the translation shows a female name, Junia, and then in the footnote, it gives the male name, Junias. This is one of the most recently published Greek texts, and it reflects the confusion that still exists in regard to the gender of Junias/Junia. (2) The Nestle-Aland Greek NT, 27th edition, reads the same as the United Bible Societies' 4th Revised Edition in almost every particular, yet when it comes to the accent of Junias/Junia, they are different.

The same is reflected in the Interlinear Greek-English Text of Jay P. Green, in which the KJV reads "Junia" but Green's Greek text and literal translation reads "Junias." I have several found Greek texts which show a female name but which are given a male name in the translation.

Every Bible dictionary and Bible commentary-- and virtually any article you read about Romans 16: 7-- will tell you that no one knows for sure whether the name is Junias (male) or Junia (female). It is not a secret. Virtually every study Bible will also tell you the same thing, that it could be either male or female.

The SDA Bible Dictionary is typical: "Junias, KJV Junia. [Gr. Iounias, if a masculine name; Iounia if a feminine name... The context suggests that he was a man, hence should be called by the masculine name Junias as in the RSV." Then it goes on to say that some commentators believe that the Christian referred to was the wife of Andronicus. Unger Bible Dictionary reads, "Junia or rather Junias," indicating its editors believes the individual was a male. The Davis Bible Dictionary gives the names as "Junias, in A.V. Junia." Nelson's Bible Dictionary does the same.

The notes in Alford's Greek Testament also show that it is indetermininate whether it is a male or a female name, although Alford favors the male name, Junias.

The standard Greek-English Lexicon, edited by Bauer Arndt Gingrich (p. 381), says, "Iounias... a Jewish convert to Christianity, who was imprisoned with Paul Ro 16: 7.... The possibility from a purely lexical point of view, that this is a woman's name... is probably ruled out by the context..."

Strongs# 2458 is given as a male, "Junias," not Junia.

[John317]

Quote:

Neil D: ....[ya'll know that the church was organized in 1860, dontcha?]

Pretty close-- 1863, to be exact.

The point is that James White conducted baptisms. Ellen White never did.

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: As with so much else on this subject, it is inconclusive only if to draw a conclusion does not support your position. Very consistently, regardless of the evidence, if two alternative conclusions or interpretations can be reached you always reach the one that keeps opposition to and doubt about WO alive.

Read carefully the information here and tell me if you still think you or anyone else can be absolutely certain that the individual in Romans 16: 7 was a woman.

First of all, how many Greek New Testiments do you have? If you have a few, you will see for yourself that they differ in the way they print the name of Junias. Among my 15+ printed texts of the Greek New Testament, 7 spell it with the circumflex over the last syllable. I see 5 that have the acute accent over the iota, which is next to the last syllable. This means that the majority of the Greek texts that I've looked at show Junias to be a man.

Let me give you two examples of why the Greek texts show that we cannot be certain whether it's the name of a female or a male. (1) The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament, United Bible Societies' Fourth, Corrected Edition, has a Greek text which gives the male name, yet the translation shows a female name, Junia, and then in the footnote, it gives the male name, Junias. This is one of the most recently published Greek texts, and it reflects the confusion that still exists in regard to the gender of Junias/Junia. (2) The Nestle-Aland Greek NT, 27th edition, reads the same as the United Bible Societies' 4th Revised Edition in almost every particular, yet when it comes to the accent of Junias/Junia, they are different.

The same is reflected in the Interlinear Greek-English Text of Jay P. Green, in which the KJV reads "Junia" but Green's Greek text and literal translation reads "Junias." I have several found Greek texts which show a female name but which are given a male name in the translation.

Every Bible dictionary and Bible commentary-- and virtually any article you read about Romans 16: 7-- will tell you that no one knows for sure whether the name is Junias (male) or Junia (female). It is not a secret. Virtually every study Bible will also tell you the same thing, that it could be either male or female.

The SDA Bible Dictionary is typical: "Junias, KJV Junia. [Gr. Iounias, if a masculine name; Iounia if a feminine name... The context suggests that he was a man, hence should be called by the masculine name Junias as in the RSV." Then it goes on to say that some commentators believe that the Christian referred to was the wife of Andronicus. Unger Bible Dictionary reads, "Junia or rather Junias," indicating its editors believes the individual was a male. The Davis Bible Dictionary gives the names as "Junias, in A.V. Junia." Nelson's Bible Dictionary does the same.

The notes in Alford's Greek Testament also show that it is indetermininate whether it is a male or a female name, although Alford favors the male name, Junias.

The standard Greek-English Lexicon, edited by Bauer Arndt Gingrich (p. 387), says, "Iounias... a Jewish convert to Christianity, who was imprisoned with Paul Ro 16: 7.... The possibility from a purely lexical point of view, that this is a woman's name... is probably ruled out by the context..."

Do you feel now that this verse is solid evidence for "Women's Ordination"? Do you have any better Bible evidence? If so, we better look at it, because it doesn't look like Romans 16: 7 is much help.

[John317]

Quote:

John317:

This is one reason the SDA Bible Commentary says that the name could be either male or female. An examination of translations and other commentaries reveals that this is in harmony with most scholars and sources. See last part of this post.

Quote:

Neil D: May I remind you, more than one scholarly source, that I have posted, favors the translation of the female gender of this person. And of the sources that I have quoted, 100% of them say that MOST SCHOLARS favor the female, based upon thier research. It's not male, John...They favor the female.

Neil, you have just barely scratched the surface of this issue. You're jumping to your conclusions prematurely.

For instance, how many sources have you really looked at closely?

Also, have you studied NT Greek? Somehow you don't give me the impression that you understand it. If I asked you to parse Romans 16: 7, would you be able to do it?

Can you explain in your own words why you believe the name is that of a female and not a male? What is the evidence and what is your reasoning?

Quote:

Neil D: And you wanted to tell me how long ago the SDA Commentary was upgraded??? The last one that I saw was a 1990 or so version...and it hadn't been upgraded since the 1950s....A lot of scholarly work has been done in 20 years...and it's NOT in the Commentary...

When it comes to most of the Bible text, it's not necessary to "upgrade" a good Bible commentary. Graham Maxwell wrote the commentary on the book of Romans.

All the scholarly work that has been done on Romans 16: 7 hasn't brought scholars any closer to knowing for sure whether it refers to a male or a female.

If they know more about it now than before, tell me what that knowledge is. What "scholarly work" has been done on Romans 16: 7 that you think should be in the SDA commentary? Please be as specific as possible.

And if they know so much more now, why do the majority of translations and Greek New Testaments read "Junias," and not 'Junia"?

Personally it doesn't matter to me, though, as I told you. I could go with either spelling.

I'm still amazed that this is such an important thing to you. It seems like if the Bible really supported women's ordination as church ministers and elders, you wouldn't need to try to make Romans 16: 7 say something it doesn't.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Notice "may have" and "has been attributed to a supposed bias." These do not lead to certainty.

Quote:

Neil D: Yeah, I noted it...But also noted that most of those gramatical genders that were added were NOT there in earlier manuscripts. Hence the leaning toward a female gender...

Could you give examples of this?

Quote:

JOHN3:17: In all of Greek literature from the time of Homer (9th century BC) to the 5th century AD, there are only 3 women with the name Junia. So it cannot have been a common name at that time in the Greek speaking world.

Quote:

Neil D: Source please.....

Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, ed. John Piper & Wayne Grudem, Crossway Books, 2006, page 79.

[John317]

Quote:

John317:

In the final analyssis, it doesn't really matter whether it's Junia or Junias. I can accept either name.

Quote:

Neil D: To you, it's a black or white issue. Either it is or it isn't...otherwise you don't care....

I'm saying it really does not matter whether it's Junia or Junias.

Quote:

Niel D: But the reality is that it's more like a varying shade of grey

No one knows for sure whether it's Junia or Junias. Only God really knows for sure.

Quote:

Neil D: ....And the scholars, that is, scholars who are in the majority, favor the female translation. If that is the case, it has major implications.

Truth isn't determined by a majority vote. If it was, Sunday would be proved to be the true day of worship. The majority is often wrong. Besides, I don't believe the majority of scholars favor the female translation. Look carefully at post #351200.

[Gregory Matthews]

John 317 said:

Quote:

The standard Greek-English Lexicon, edited by Bauer Arndt Gingrich (p. 387), says, "Iounias... a Jewish convert to Christianity, who was imprisoned with Paul Ro 16: 7.... The possibility from a purely lexical point of view, that this is a woman's name... is probably ruled out by the context..."

You and I seem to be reading from different editions of Arndt & Gingrich. In my edition, I am reading from page 381. On that page, it clearly states that ancient commentators understood them to be a married couple.

Yes, it goes on to state that the Biblical context rules this out by the context. The thinking is that a female would not have been imprisoned with Paul. However, in Romans 16: 3 Priscilla is mentioned as risking her life for Paul. That implies to me that a female could have been imprisoned with Paul. Perhaps not? They would not have to share the same cell.

[John317]

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN317: The standard Greek-English Lexicon, edited by Bauer Arndt Gingrich (p. 381), says, "Iounias... a Jewish convert to Christianity, who was imprisoned with Paul Ro 16: 7.... The possibility from a purely lexical point of view, that this is a woman's name... is probably ruled out by the context..."

Quote:

Gregory Matthews: You and I seem to be reading from different editions of Arndt & Gingrich. In my edition, I am reading from page 381. On that page, it clearly states that ancient commentators understood them to be a married couple.

Sure. It's the same. Some ancient commentators did; others did not. Origen did not and neither did Epiphanius. See below:

Epiphanius (A.D. 315-403), the bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, wrote an Index of Disciples, in which he includes this line: "Iounias, of whom Paul makes mention, became bishop of Apameia of Syria" (Index disciplulorum, 125.19-20). In Greek, the phrase "of whom" is a masculine relative pronoun (hou) and shows that Epiphanius thought Iounias was a man.

Origen (died 252 A.D), who lived about 100 years before Epiphanius, also believe that Junias was a man. Origen was one of the the greatest scholars of the early church. He wrote the earliest commentary on Romans and referred to Junias as a man.

Quote:

Yes, it goes on to state that the Biblical context rules this out by the context. The thinking is that a female would not have been imprisoned with Paul. However, in Romans 16: 3 Priscilla is mentioned as risking her life for Paul. That implies to me that a female could have been imprisoned with Paul. Perhaps not? They would not have to share the same cell.

How does "risking [jeopardizing] their own necks" show that Priscilla was imprisoned with Paul?

My only point in quoting Bauer/Arndt/Gingrich is that this highly respected Lexicon says Junias was a man.

[aldona]

Quote:

Woody:

Did James White perform the duties of a pastor? IOWs did he baptize and perform weddings etc?

James White himself baptized the messenger of God soon after she accepted the Sabbath. And immediately after her baptism at his hands, Ellen White went off in vision.

Ellen White never baptized anyone.

If we truly followed Christ's Great Commission, and genuinely did more than pay lip service to the "priesthood of all believers" doctrine which Protestantism is founded upon, then we would ALL be baptizing.

Just as Christ instructed his followers to go and make disciples of all nations, He commanded them to baptize. He did not say "only those of you who are ordained with the proper credentials may baptize the ones whom your brethren and sisters have helped to win."

Even Catholics believe that in an emergency, any professing Christian believer may baptize another.

If I was still working in a hospital, and a Catholic couple wanted their dying baby to be baptized, they are entitled to call on me (or any other Christian, male or female, of any denomination) to do this.

How about that...the Catholics understand "the priesthood of all believers" better than some of us Protestants.

(but this is not entirely on topic...sorry, please continue.)

aldona

[Neil D]

Quote:

Neil D: ....[ya'll know that the church was organized in 1860, dontcha?]

Pretty close-- 1863, to be exact.

The point is that James White conducted baptisms. Ellen White never did.

......and that he was NOT ordained.

What implications does this bring? John, this is important...

[John317]

Quote:

Neil D: Many times, we used to point to the bible and say that only the bible can interpret itself. But when we would get to these types of disputes, we would shrug our shoulders and say, well, it's not in the bible so we can't determine it. However, there is extra-biblical sources that use words, terms, certain phrases that have increased our awareness of biblical terms and give weight to the evidence.

Sure, the name "Pat" could be interpreted as a female name, the context can be confusing if there are male gender subtleties. And if extra curricular sources show that "Pat" is also a male name, those gender subtleties now clarify the origional usuage of the name. It then becomes context that determines gender....While scholars can favor one interpretation, it doesn't mean the evidence is conclusive.

Could you please give some examples from the NT of what you're talking about in the above?

Quote:

Neil D: .... Many mentally read this scripture and add several of their own words&#151;"They are (said to be) outstanding among (here they substitute "by") the apostles." Changing "among" and adding the other four words totally changes the meaning of this scripture! However, these four words&#151;said to be/by&#151;are not in the Greek text.

The preposition "en" may be translated as "by." In reference to position, it may be transalted as "in," "on," "at," "among," "within," and "by."

With locative, it means "in," "on."

With instrumental, it means "by."

Quote:

Neil D: In studying scriptures we cannot just randomly add words or change the words that are there!

Not radomly,you're right, for sure. Yet often it is necessary to add words in order to make it sensible to English readers.

Quote:

Neil D: For the meaning "by" Paul would have used one of two totally different Greek words&#151;para or pros&#151;rather than using en which implies selection from within a group.

Are you certain?

The prepostion "para" means "beside, by the side of, along, and near."

With ablative, it means "from."

With locative, it means "before," "by the side of," "beside."

With accusative, it means "beside," "beyond," "along."

The preposition "pros" basically means "towards."

With locative, it means "at." With accusative, it means "to," "toward," "with," and "at."

Is it grammatically possible for Ro. 16: 7 to read, "outstanding in the eyes of the apostles"? How about, "who are of excellent reputation among the apostles"? Or, "are held in high esteem by the Apostles"? Or "they are highly thought of by the Apostles"? Or: "among the missionaries"? Or: "are held in high esteem among the apostles"?

If you don't think these translations are correct or possible, please explain from a grammatical viewpoint why you believe they aren't.

[Woody]

Quote:

Neil D: ....[ya'll know that the church was organized in 1860, dontcha?]

Pretty close-- 1863, to be exact.

The point is that James White conducted baptisms. Ellen White never did.

Anyone can baptize in that kind of 'unauthorized' fashion. I could go out an baptize someone if I wanted. But it would not be recognized by the church. I hardly think that this supposed , undocumented, unwitnessed , unverified and unofficial RE-baptism ... proves anything. So, I am very thankful that our prophet didn't partake in this kind of activity.

[Neil D]

Quote:

John317:

This is one reason the SDA Bible Commentary says that the name could be either male or female. An examination of translations and other commentaries reveals that this is in harmony with most scholars and sources. See last part of this post.

Quote:

Neil D: May I remind you, more than one scholarly source, that I have posted, favors the translation of the female gender of this person. And of the sources that I have quoted, 100% of them say that MOST SCHOLARS favor the female, based upon thier research. It's not male, John...They favor the female.

Neil, you have just barely scratched the surface of this issue. You're jumping to your conclusions prematurely.

For instance, how many sources have you really looked at closely?

Also, have you studied NT Greek? Somehow you don't give me the impression that you understand it. If I asked you to parse Romans 16: 7, would you be able to do it?

Can you explain in your own words why you believe the name is that of a female and not a male? What is the evidence and what is your reasoning?

Ok, John, time for the "I'm not evaluating his evidence no matter how good it looks and I am not dazzling him with MY intelligence , so I will shoot the messenger" post.

You imply that I am not really looking at the evidence, and that my sources are contradicting each other. This is not the case, in that I have seen AND posted sources in favor of what you are proposing. Apparently you forgot that.

There are MUCH MORE INSISTENT sites that readily assume and deny even the hint of a possiblity that Junia is a male. Those are feminist sites. I have been avoiding posting them [ but if you wish, I can post them as well. Do you wish...?] And they have some very good arguments...Perhaps you would like to parse out the greek with them...? [i suspect that they will not be as nice with you as I have been...] ..Oh, and they also have little letters behind thier names, like PhD. ect. Maybe you understand those letters, 'cus it appears that I don't seem to in your estimation...

Just because you can find that stuff out EASIER doesn't mean that the information isn't out there.

Come on, John...admit that there is more than one way to get the information that one needs and still know what he is talking about. IOWs, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

So please, don't shoot the messenger....

[Woody]

Quote:

If we truly followed Christ's Great Commission, and genuinely did more than pay lip service to the "priesthood of all believers" doctrine which Protestantism is founded upon, then we would ALL be baptizing.

Just as Christ instructed his followers to go and make disciples of all nations, He commanded them to baptize. He did not say "only those of you who are ordained with the proper credentials may baptize the ones whom your brethren and sisters have helped to win."

Even Catholics believe that in an emergency, any professing Christian believer may baptize another.

If I was still working in a hospital, and a Catholic couple wanted their dying baby to be baptized, they are entitled to call on me (or any other Christian, male or female, of any denomination) to do this.

How about that...the Catholics understand "the priesthood of all believers" better than some of us Protestants.

(but this is not entirely on topic...sorry, please continue.)

aldona

This is a very valid and excellent side bar (to use an OJ era term) And besides ... I AGREE with you. Our church is really beind the times and Present Truth on this matter. The Great Gospel Commission certainly does call all of us to go forth and to baptize. But I would not want a leader or prophet to go forth contrary to the decision of our church and do this in a rebellious manner.

[Gregory Matthews]

John 317 said:

Quote:

My only point in quoting Bauer/Arndt/Gingrich is that this highly respected Lexicon says Junias was a man.

John, do you see a difference between stating that the lexicon says Junias was a man and in saying that the lexicon says that the context probably rules out the female gender?

Does it appear to you that you have overstated what it said? I think that you did. I think that this is not the first time you have done so.

You raise many points that must be considered. But, as I read you, you insert within your important point opinions that are confused with facts, over statements of facts, intrepretations of evidence that go beyond what the evidence suggests.

Then I get frustrated when you argue a pont with vigor and the in response to objections that are raised tell us that the point you made is really not of major importanace and you go off in another direction.

Oh, well, you are not the only one who does this.

Peace in teh Lord and have a good Sabbath.

[Neil D]

From a WEBSITE supporting idea that Junia was a female apostle. Please check the sources.

JUNIA, A FEMALE APOSTLE:

Resolving the Interpretive Issues of Romans 16:7

Dennis J. Preato

For Bio click HERE

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this paper is to solve two major interpretive problems in Romans 16.7. The first is concerned with resolving the gender of the person named Iounian. Was this person a woman? The Greek word Iounian has been translated as "Junias" (male) and as "Junia" (female). The second problem is concerned with the meaning of the phrase episemoi en tois apostolois. Andronicus and Junia were "either highly regarded by the early church leaders (the apostles) or they were regarded as apostles themselves."1 Resolution of these issues can have important ramifications for how the church should carry out her continual mandate. Reviewing Romans 16 will contribute to a better realization that both women and men were participants in all areas of ministry in the church. They were ministers, deacons, leaders and even apostles.

II. THE TWO VIEWS: MALE VS. FEMALE

Part of the interpretive problem is that the word Iounian, translated as Junia(s), appears only once in the Greek New Testament (GNT) and is shown in the accusative case with a certain accent mark. The use or absence of such mark is a significant factor accounting for the textual variations that appear in the GNT. The oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts contain no accents or punctuation marks. hey John, are you reading this...OLDEST AND MOST RELIABLE GREEK TEXTS support the use of the female! In addition, the GNT includes early support for a female named Ioulian, translated as "Junia." According to Douglas Moo, the problem with identifying this person "arises from the fact that the Greek form used here, Iounian, depending on how it is accented, could refer either (1) to a man with the name 'Junianus', found here in its contracted form, 'Junias' or (2) to a woman with the name of Junia."2 The use of such accents mark did not occur until the 9th or 10th century.Hey John...you noting this? Those accent marks come from the middle ages, when the idea of a woman apostle was unthinkable.

Additionally, there is limited external data specifically discussing the gender of the person Paul refers to as Iounian. Why is this? Probably because this issue was not a concern for those who lived in Paul's time. The first century and early Christian community would have certainly known the gender of the person in question. Therefore, a careful review of the evidence offered by manuscripts, writings from church leaders and scholarly research should shed more light on resolving theses issues.

Bible translators appear divided on the how they interpret Iounian. For example, the ASV, NASB, NIV, TEV, NAB prefer "Junias"Sigh, these are my favorite bibles too! while the KJV, NRSV, NKJV, NCV, REB prefer "Junia." Some bibles also footnote the name "Julia." This divergence in translations only serves to highlight the problem faced by modern readers of the text. The task is to synthesize the data and reach a conclusion on the basis of objective evidence.

1. Evidence for Male: Manuscripts

Bibles and commentators generally utilize Greek New Testaments in their translation and interpretive pursuit. Both the UBS4 and NA27 Greek New Testaments show Iounian accented with a circumflex accent over the alpha, which indicates "Junias" as being a contracted form of Junianus, a male name.3 Support for "Junias" is attested to by B2 , D2, Yvid., 33 and a number of minuscules dated from the 9th to 14th century. Chrysostom is also listed as lectionary support for this position.Hey, John, impressive evidence against women here.

a. Discussion. Some external evidence does exist supporting a reading of "Junias." However, this support is not among the oldest available witnesses. OOoops! The majority of support for Junias comes from numerous minuscule manuscripts from mostly the 13th-14th centuries. Ooooh, them sorry male chauvanistic men! These later minuscules contain accent marks reflecting the writer's interpretation that Iounian was a masculine name.4 Minuscule 33 is listed as support for Junias. However, according to Douglas Moo, this 9th century minuscule actually represents an important exception to the contracted form and supports the feminine form rather than the masculine. Hey, a male chauvanist with a conscious! 5 According to many scholars, including Bernadette Brooten, Peter Lampe, Leonard Swidler, Bruce Metzger and Dianne McDonnell, the male name "Junias" is unattested to in ancient writings.6 Additionally, the USB4 GNT may have incorrectly listed Chrysostom as support for a male "Junias." According to John Piper and many others, Chrysostom actually bears witness to a female Junia and not to a male Junias.7 Hey, John, Chrysostom doesn't support the male interpretation...

b. Assessment. The manuscripts and lectionary support cited provide little justification to support a male reading. Another serious blow in scholarly research for the male position.

2. Evidence for Male: Church Leader and Writings

John Piper and Wayne Grudem state that Epiphanius (315-403) wrote an Index of Disciples, in which he writes: "Iounias, of whom Paul makes mention, became bishop of Apameia of Syria." According to them, Epiphanuis wrote "of whom" as a masculine relative pronoun thereby indicating that he thought Iounias was a man.8 Piper and Grudem also presented the results of their computer search of ancient Greek writings looking for the name "Junia(s)." Based on their findings, they concluded that "no one should claim that Junia was a common woman's name in the Greek speaking world, since there are only three known examples in all of ancient Greek literature."9 Hey John, support for your views. My bad...

a. Discussion. Douglas Moo discusses Epiphanius and calls into question the reliability of this evidence because in the same passage, Epiphanius thought "Prisca" (Priscilla) was a man."10 This church father also wrote and believed that "the female sex is easily seduced, weak and without much understanding. The Devil seeks to vomit out this disorder through women... We wish to apply masculine reasoning and destroy the folly of these women" (Epiphanius, Adversus Collyridianos, Migne, Patrologia Graeca, Volume 42, Column 740 f).11Oooh, big blow in the credibility of Epiphanius department.

The computer search by Piper and Grudem is inconclusive regarding their statement that "Junia" was not a common name in ancient writings. Many scholars including Brooten, Lampe, Metzger, Moo, McDonnell and Osburn claim otherwise, and state that "Junia" was a common name. I'll give myself a half point here. However, the real significance of Piper and Grudem's search is the fact that they could not cite any example for a male named Junias. James Walters states: "Researchers have been unable to locate a single example of the male name Junias in ancient literature or inscriptions, either Latin or Greek." 12 Another major blow for the supporting views of John.

b. Assessment. The observation by Moo and the misogynist statements by Epiphanius about women casts strong doubt to the appropriateness of this person providing any objective evidence in support of a male reading. His beliefs toward women may have certainly colored his thinking and writings. Therefore, we cannot conclude that this church father is an unbiased and credible witness. another point for my views. The computer search performed by Piper and Grudem offers no evidence for a male reading.

3. Evidence for Female: Early Manuscripts

According to Douglas Moo, the UBS4 and NA27 Greek New Testatments cite "Junia" as a variant reading.13 This variant reading is attested to by Codexes Sinaiticus (a), A, B*,C, D*, F,G, P. The GNT also cites "Julia" as a variant reading. Support for this female name is evidenced by P46, 6, itar,b, vgmss, copbo, eth, and Church Father, Jerome. Again, the acient text readings show support for the female translation

According to many scholars, Junia was a common name that appeared in Greek and Latin inscriptions and literature. Brooten states, "the female Latin name Junia occurs over 250 times among inscriptions from ancient Rome alone."14 Peter Lampe has also discovered over 250 examples of the female name Junia.15 Bruce Metzer, editor of the GNT, likewise agrees that Junia is well attested to in ancient literature. Three scholars support that the name "Junia" is a common name in over 250 cases. I take 3 points on that one.

a. Discussion. Support for a female named Julia is evidenced by P46, a papyrus manuscript, dating from around a.d. 200. This papyrus represents the earliest known and most reliable testimony in support of Julia. The 3rd century Coptic, 4th century Vulgate, and fifth century Latin versions provide additional early support for this female name. These early manuscripts clearly support a female named "Julia." Junia, the other variant reading, is supported by the earliest known manuscripts available. Sinaiticus dates from the fourth century and is earliest surviving complete copy of the Greek New Testament.16 Codexes A, B, C, D date from the 4th to 5th century and represent a broad spectrum of "text types." These early witnesses, by themselves, do not clearly reveal how an unaccented Iounian should be translated. but yet, the oldest texts show an "unaccented" version of the name. The cumulative evidence provided by other ancient manuscripts, the existence of "Junia" as a common name in ancient times, and the lack of any evidence for "Junias" cannot be ignored. It is not unreasonable to state, as Moo does, that these early witnesses attest to "Junia." Bingo! another big jolt in support for a female person.

b. Assessment. The quality and age of the above manuscripts provide strong support for a female name whether it be rendered "Julia" or "Junia." The research from many different scholars clearly support that a female named Junia occurred frequently in ancient writings.Another point for support of the female

4. Evidence for Female: Church Leaders and Writings

In commenting on Romans 16:7, John Chrysostom (347-407) states:

"Greet Andronicus and Junia...who are outstanding among the apostles: To be an apostle is something great! But to be outstanding among the apostles - just think what a wonderful song of praise that is! They were outstanding on the basis of their works and virtuous actions. Indeed, how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle."17

Chrysostom was not alone in confirming the gender of Junia as female. Earlier commentator Origen of Alexander (185-253) understood the name to be feminine.18 Hey, John, you used this guy to state that he supported the male view. And yet, here he is supporting the female view. Which is it? Others included Jerome (340-419) who wrote that Junia was a female. (Liver Interpretationis Hebraicorum Nominum 72,15.), Hatto of Vercelli (924-961, Theophylack (1050-1108), and Peter Abelar (1079-1142).19

a. Discussion. External evidence from writings of early church leaders testify that Junias was a woman apostle. Point for women's apostleship. Current scholars provide additional insight. Commenting on the gender of Junia, Leonard Swidler states, "To the best of my knowledge, no commentator on the Text until Aegidus of Rome (1245-1316) took the name to be masculine."20 Douglas Moo agrees that commentators before that 13th century were unanimous in favor of a female rendering.21 Stanley Grenz maintains that "the gender of Junia was not an issue in the patristic era ... Origen assumed that Paul's friend was a women...Chrysostom, who was no supporter of women bishops, expressed high regard for Junia."22 Ray R. Schulz states the Church Fathers agreed that Junia was a female apostle.23Overwhelming evidence that credible sources [not that Epipidimus guy] support a female view. Even Swindler [yeah, what a name!] is not alone in his view.

From the very earliest times, the attitude of the "church fathers" toward women could be described as negative at best.24 Origen, Chrysostom and others were no exceptions to the prevailing attitudes. Yet despite their negative attitudes towards women they gave testimony that Junia was female. Oh, point for the female view.

b. Assessment. The testimony by church various leaders through the 12th century provide convincing support that Iounian was female.

III. One of the Apostles VS. Highly Regarded

The second issue under consideration is whether Andronicus and Junia where "among" as "one of" the apostles or were simply highly regarded "by" the apostles. Grammatically, some say both meanings are possible. It is interesting, however, to observe that while the ten Bible translations, mentioned earlier, are evenly divided on how they translated Iounian, they are unanimous on the meaning of episemoi en tois apostolois. For example, they are "outstanding apostles" (NAB), "outstanding among" (NASB, NIV), "prominent among" (NRSV), "eminent among" (REB), "of note among" (KJV, ASV, NJKV) and the NCV states "they are very important apostles." All these bibles translated episemoi en tois apostolois as meaning they were "one of" the apostles. James Walthers states "virtually all" English bibles interpret the phrase as meaning they were among the apostles.25 This kinda shoots down another of your viewpoints, John..

1. Evidence They Were Apostles: Natural Meaning

a. Discussion. Greek scholar, A.T. Robertson states that the phrase en tois apostolois "naturally means that they are counted among the apostles in the general sense 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."26 Moo also concludes that it is more natural to translate the phrase episemoi en tois apostolois as "esteemed among the apostles" and not "esteemed by the apostles." He also states that earlier interpreters would argue against Paul meaning a woman because they had difficulty in "imagining that a woman could hold such authority in the early church.27 In this sense, such a translation would also represent the harder or more difficult one. J.B. Lightfoot agrees that the only natural way to translate episemoi en tois apostolois is "regarded as apostles."28 Cranfield states it is "virtually certain" that the phrase means "outstanding among the apostles." Walkers, commenting on Cranfield's remarks said, "this is the way the phrase was understood by all of the patristic writers and by most all modern commentators.29 Bauer provides the normal meaning of episemoi en tois apostolois as "outstanding among the apostles."30 Here is a slew of scholars supporting the view that Junia is one of the apostles. Another point of support...

Aida Besancon Spencer, makes the grammatical point that "the Greek preposition en which is used here always has the idea of 'within.'"31 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." F.F. Bruce adds that not only were they "well known to the apostles" but they were "notable members of the apostolic circle."32 Liddel-Scott defines the Greek word episemoi as "having a mark on" it.33 James A. Witmer, explains that episemoi, literally means "having a mark [sema] on them," therefore they are "illustrious, notable, or outstanding" among the apostles.34 These defintions seem to describe them as one who "bears the mark" of an apostle. Not only esteemed among the Apostles, but bears the mark of an apostle. Can your exegesis compare to these scholars?

b. Assessment. Numerous contemporary and past scholarship, lexical definitions, and grammatical construction provide conclusive support that they were "regarded as apostles." Another point for

2. Evidence for a Women Apostle: Church Bishop

Fourth century bishop of Constantinople, John Chrysostom wrote a series of homilies. On Romans 16.7 he "noted: 'Oh how great is the devotion of this women that she should be counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!' (The Homiles of St. John Chrysostom, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series I, 11:555; Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1956)."35 Chrysostom praised Junia as an apostle. He also praised other women. It is significant to reflect on his following comment in reference to Paul's greeting of Mary in Romans 16:6:

How is this? A woman again is honored and proclaimed victorious! Again are we men put to shame. Or rather, we are not put to shame only, but have even an honor conferred upon us. For an honor we have, in that there are such women among us, but we are put to shame, in that we men are left so far behind by them . . . For the women of those days were more spirited than lions. (Migne, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 51, cols. 668f.)36 more support for the high praise of junia.

a. Discussion. Chrysostom's writings provide us with important insight into the ministry of women in the early church. Junia was an apostle and was not the only woman so honored by the early church. Chrysostom's statements about these women are particularly convincing especially in light of his misogynist views toward women.37 Not only a woman hater, but praises these women...even Junia.

b. Assessment. Chrysostom provides credible objective evidence that Junia was an apostle.

3. Evidence for Highly Regarded

Some interpreters, have taken the phrase episemoi en tois apostolois to mean that they were "held in high esteem" by those who were apostles. John Piper and Wayne Grudem simply say they may have been held in high regard or that they were "of note among the apostles" meaning they were well known before Paul was converted. Thomas Schreiner states that if Junias was a woman apostle, then tension would be created because "apostles were the most authoritative messenger of God." He implies that women could not serve God in this manner. He states Roman 16.7 is unclear, but does not attempt to explain why he says this. Oooh, an assertion without support! minus one point

a. Discussion. Piper and Grudem offer no exegetical evidence to support their opinions and conclude "we cannot be certain."38 Their remarks are only opinions and are not based on any objective evidence. Schreiner provides no objective evidence to support the claim that Junia(s) was only highly regarded other than his own subjective opinion.39 James Walters states: "It is highly unlikely that Paul would have recommended this pair to the Roman Christians by saying they were "outstanding in the eyes of the apostles." Paul's comments on one's reputation in Galatians 2:6-9 would seem to argue against him trying to bolster the Roman Christians' opinion of the couple.40 Craig Keener casts serious doubt upon any such interpretation, saying, "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, and the Greek is most naturally read as claiming that they were apostles."41

b. Assessment. There is no exegetical evidence offered or available that could substantially justify that "highly regarded" is the most probable and natural reading of this passage. No evidence available for the "highly regarded" view...just suppositions..

IV. PREFERRED VIEW

Junia was a female apostle. This is the preferred view. The evidence is authoritative, compelling, diverse, and objective. Junia has been demonstrated to be a woman based on the testimony of early manuscripts, recorded statements of various church leaders through the 12th century, and research performed by many other scholars attesting to the name Junia or Julia existing in ancient times. point again.

The evidence for a male reading was based on later manuscripts subject to the interpretations of scribes who thought Iounian was a male and to the statement by one early church leader who was also mistaken as to the correct gender of Prisca. Computer-generated searches could find no example of a male Junias in ancient times nor is there any evidence proving that Junias was ever a contracted form of a longer name.Swish! Computer-generated searches can find NO EXAMPLE for a male Junias, nor was it a contracted form of a longer name.

Junia and Andronicus were apostles. Numerous contemporary and past scholarship, lexical definitions, grammatical construction, and scriptural examples all provide the strongest support that episemoi en tois apostolois, naturally meant they were "outstanding among the apostles," just as Chrysostom so elegantly declared.

1. Meaning of Apostle

Andronicus and Junia were apostles. The only unresolved question is what did Paul mean by "apostles." James Walters offers four distinct ways "apostle" was used in the New Testament: 1) the Twelve original followers of Jesus, 2) persons who had seen the risen Lord and been commissioned by Him (1 Cor 9.1; 15:1-11); 3) a missionary successful in church planting, labor and suffering (which underlie Paul's arguments in 2 Cor); and 4) an emissary or missionary sent out by a particular church to perform specific tasks (2 Cor 8.23 and Phil 2.25).42 The first and fourth choice can be ruled out because they were not among the "twelve" nor was their apostleship specifically associated with a particular church or specific task. Selecting between the remaining choices 2 and 3 is more problematic. They certainly could have been among either or both of the remaining groups. We simply do not know. They may have ministered together as a married couple. An interesting parallel would then exist with Prisca and Aquila mentioned by Paul in Romans 16.3-5a. We do know, however, that Paul did not assign any gender-specific roles in his greeting to Andronicus and Junia, nor should the church today. They were both equally deemed outstanding apostles. Swish again...another point.

2. Concluding Comments

Andronicus and Junias were outstanding among the apostles probably by virtue of their apostolic sufferings, the numbers of years they had been in Christ, their labor, and their humble service for Christ. May the eyes of all those in the Church be opened to see this important truth and its significant implication in allowing women to minister equally as they are called by God. To do otherwise is to deny the full redemptive work of Christ.Are you listening, John? The work is here, and the conclusions are rather compelling. And granted, there is no DIRECT proof of the claim that Junia is a female. But extra biblical sources show otherwise. As to the apostleship of the woman, well, there is compelling evidence here as well...

NOTES_________________

1 Stanley Grenz, Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry, (Downers Grove: InterVaristy, 1995), 93. 2 Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 921; James Walters, "Phoebe and Junia(s)-Rom. 16:1-2,7," in Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity: Volume I, ed. Carroll Osburn (Joplin, Missouri: College Press, 1995), 186. 3 Douglas Moo, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, 922. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 6 James Walters, "Phoebe and Junia(s)-Rom. 16:1-2,7" in Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity: Volume I, ed. Carroll D. Osburn (Joplin, Missouri: College Press, 1995), 186. 7 John Piper and Wayne Grudem, "An Overview of Central Concerns: Questions and Answers," in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, eds. J. Piper and W. Grudem (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991), 80. 8 Ibid, 79. 9 Ibid, 80. 10 Moo, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, 922. 11 Ronald L. Dart, "The Christian Woman" [on-line article], available from http://www.abcog.org/woman.htm; accessed 9 October 2001. 12 James Walters, "Phoebe and Junia(s)," 186. 13 Moo, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, 922. 14 Bernadette Brooten, "Junia," Women in Scripture (2000):109; quoted by Dianne D. McDonnell, "Junia, A Woman Apostle" [on-line article]; available from http://www.churchofgoddfw.com./monthly/junia.html ; accessed 8 February 2002. 15 James Walters, "Phoebe and Junia(s)," 186. 16 David Alan Black, New Testament Textual Criticism, A Concise Guide, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), 19. 17 Bernadette Brooten, "Junia ... Outsanding among the Apostles (Romans 16.7)"[on-line article], available from http://www.womenpriests.org/classic/brooten.htm; accessed 2 February 2002. 18 Ibid. 19 Dianne D. McDonnell, "Junia, A Woman Apostle" [on-line article]; available from http://www.churchofgoddfw.com/monthly/junia.shtml; accessed 8 February 2002. This article includes discussion of how Junia become known as a male during the papal reign of Boniface VIII. 20 Ibid. 21 Moo, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, 922. 22 Stanley Grenz, Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology, 95. 23 Ibid. 24 Dart, "The Christian Woman", accessed 9 October 2001. 25 James Walters, "Phoebe and Junia(s)," 186. 26 Archibald Thomas Roberston, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. 4: Epistles of Paul, (Hiawatha, Iowa: Parsons Technology, Inc., 1997), electronic edition. 27 Moo, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, 923. 28 Walter Schmithals, The Office of Apostle In the Early Church, trans. John E. Steely, (New York: Abingdon Press, 1969), 62. 29 James Walters, "Phoebe and Junia(s)," 186. 30 Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed., trans. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 298. 31 Aida Besancon Spencer, Beyond the Curse, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985), 104. 32 F.F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 298, 388. 33 Liddel-Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, 7th ed. (Hiawatha, Iowa: Parsons Technology, Inc., 1997), electronic edition. 34 John A. Witmer, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminay Faculty: New Testatment, (Hiawatha, Iowa: Parson Technolgy, Inc., 1997), electronic editon. 35 Leonard Swidler, Biblical Affirmations of Woman, (Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 1979), 299. 36 Ibid, 295. 37 Ibid, 343. 38 John Piper and Wayne Grudem, "An Overview of Central Concerns: Questions and Answers," in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 80. 39 Thomas R. Schreiner, "The Valuable Ministries of Women in the Context of Male Leadership: A survey of Old and New Testament Examples and Teaching," in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, eds. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton: Crossway, 1991), 221. 40 James Walters, "Phoebe and Junia(s)," 187-188. 41 Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women and Wives, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1992), 242. 42 James Walters, 188.

Dennis J. Preato, Master of Divinity, magna cum laude is a graduate of Bethel Seminary, San Diego (June 2004). A condensed version of this paper was published in "Priscilla Papers" Volume 17, Issue 2, Spring 2003. So, you claim that my scholorship is not good enough to support the claims of a female Junia...Well, is this support enough for you? If you disagree with this, you will need to go point by point and give evidence supporting your views. Otherwise, I am done.

[Tom Wetmore]

Excellent work, Neil!

And with the Apostle Paul - Allow me to commend to you, Phoebe, a saint, minister, and leader of many...

A scholarly paper on Phoebe well worth being carefully read -

Phoebe a minister/leader of the early church appointed by Paul

Hint - It helps confirm what I have been saying all along about Phoebe...

[Woody]

Well done. Two thumbs up to both of you.