Doug Batchelor Preaches Against Women Pastors

[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...

Follow the above link to the whole article. But here is the summary of it:

Series - Women Deacons

Phoebe, Romans 16:1-2 - Summary

Revised May 23, 2005

Author

Carolyn Goodman Plampin

Summary

This study proposes to show that Phoebe can be said to be a servant (a minister or a woman deacon) and a president (or a proctectoress) and to justify the following translation:

"I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant (diakonon) of the church which is at Cenchrea; that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for indeed she herself was made (or became) (egenehtheh) a president (or protectress) (prostatis) of many, and of (or by) me (emou) myself (autou)." (Romans 16:1-2)

We have long been taught that the New Testament does not show women in the office of servant (woman deacon) and that therefore God does not want women to be servants (women deacons) of the church. However, this verse, which has either been poorly translated and interpreted, or ignored, lies like a little jewel in the Word of God and affirms women in their service to God. It says that Phoebe was a servant (woman deacon) of the church at Cenchrea.

I. - Servant (Diakonos). Following the same choices of the biblical translators we can say that Phoebe was a servant, a minister or a woman deacon. All of these words mean the very same thing. And don't forget that Phoebe was a servant (woman deacon) of the church at Cenchrea

II. - President or Protectress (Prostatis). As this is the only time that prostatis is used in the New Testament in the feminine noun form, we have to look at the verb proistemi, at a simular verb paristemi, and at the masculine noun form prostates, to shed light on its meaning.

(1) To Rule (Proistemi). In the six verses where the verb proistemi is used in the New Testament where men are concerned it is translated lead, have charge over, manage, and rule. On the other hand, where Phoebe is concerned, this first group of meanings has been passed over by modern translators for a second group of meanings such as succorer, staunch friend, assistant, helper, help, good friend, great assistance, looked after, good friend and great help with the exception of Helen Barrett Montgomery who uses "overseer."

(2) To Assist (Paristemi). Spencer explains the difference between proistemi, which means "to stand, place before or over," Phoebe is "a woman set over others" or "one who stands before," and paristemi used in this same verse which means "to stand, place, or set beside or near," the Romans are asked to place themselves at Phoebe's disposal and thus "help" her.

(3) Protector (Prostates). When studying the masculine noun prostates we should consider that Paul may have been using a legal term which suggests that Phoebe had wealth and access to political power. It would mean that she was able to give her fellow Christians protection of a very powerful political nature.

If you interpret prostatis to mean Phoebe's position in the church, and are going to choose "and was made a president of many," as it has already been said that she is a woman deacon of the church in Cencrea, you will choose from the first group of meanings mentioned in (1) above.

If you interpret prostatis to mean Phoebe's position in society, because you are convenced by Gilbert Bilezikian's reasoning that: In the Roman world, prostatis designated a legal person who spoke for the rights of aliens. There is no evidence to the effect that this word could constitute a title of leadership within the church, and are going to choose "and became a protectress of many," you will choose from the second group of meanings mentioned in (1) above. Either way it is a powerful statement about Phoebe.

III. - Became or Was Made (Egenehtheh). Egenehtheh comes from the verb ginomai which means (1) come to be, become, originate, (2) be made, created, (3) happen, take place, (4) become something.

Egenehtheh implies to change from one state to another. It is used over 600 times in the New Testament. It is most often translated "became," however, in the case of Paul, it is said that he "was made" a minister. If we choose "was made" this implies that Phoebe was made a president by some authority outside of herself. If we choose "became" this implies that Phoebe became a proctectress by her own merits.

Who made Phoebe a president? Was it Paul, the churches, or God? The same Paul who wrote about Phoebe's being made a president (prostatis) wrote about his being made a servant (diakonos). Paul said he was made a servant (diakonos) according to the gift of God's grace. Phoebe ultimately was made a president or received the grace to become a protectoress by God.

IV. - Of or By Me Myself" (Emou autou). Whether Paul wrote that Phoebe had been made a president "of me myself" or "by me myself" we will only know for sure when we ask Paul himself. Even women theologians can understand it either way.

Aida Besançon Spencer accepts of: Phoebe is an explicit, commendable example of a woman set in authority over a man, in this case, the great apostle Paul.

Lee Anna Star accepts by: Phoebe received her appointment from the hands of Paul himself; he recognized her authority and enjoined upon others to do the same.

It is just as significant to understanding the leadership of women either way. Either Paul recognized the leadership of women over himself or Paul made women leaders.

V. - References or Writings Relevant to Phoebe in Church History

A. "Sophia, the deaconess, the second Phoebe," Tombstone Inscription, Mount of Olives, Palestine, is important because it calls Sophia the "second" Phoebe and says she was a servant and a virgin and a deaconess. If it could be dated it would be a help. It might push back the date at which we have documented proof of the use of the word deaconess.

B. Justin Martyr, Rome, Italy, 110-165 C.E., wrote his "First Apology" to explain Christianity to the Romans. Of interest to us who are studying Phoebe is the use of the term president (proestohti). The president of the brethren [toh proestohti tohn adelphohn] may quite legitimately be translated, "to that one of the brethren who was presiding" the Eucharistia [Eucharist] [Note CGP-Thanksgiving]. The president is said to verbally instruct, and exhort to the imitation of good things. The deacons distribute the bread and wine and also take a portion to those who are absent. The money collected is deposited with the president who assists the needy.

C. Origen, Alexandria, Egypt and Caesaria, Palestine, 185-254 C.E. says: "And thus this text teaches at the same time two things: that there are, as we have already said, women deacons in the Church, and that women, who have given assistance to so many people and who by their good works deserve to be praised by the Apostle, ought to be accepted in the diaconate." While he said that Phoebe helped Paul with his apostolic work, he compared the action of Phoebe with the hospitality of Lot and Abraham whom he said deserved to receive angels and the Lord in their tents, so that Phoebe, because of her hospitality, deserved to serve Paul. This ignores the position that Phoebe served the church and God.

D. Ambrosiaster, Rome, Italy, Late Fourth Century. Since the early Middle Ages, the oldest Latin commentary on the Pauline letters (called "Ambrosiaster," a characterization also used for the author of the commentary ... ) was mistakenly attributed to Ambrose, until proven spurious by Erasmus of Rotterdam. The identity of Ambrosiaster is not yet clear in church history. What he wrote is of interest because his writings were long attribuited to Augustine and to Ambrose. Roger Gryson says that Ambrosiaster had an extremely poor knowledge of Eastern customs. For him, deaconesses were an invention of the Cataphrygians, i.e., of the Montanists, who inclined from their beginning to give women what he calls an inordinate place in their communities, and what we call an appropriate place. Ambrosiaster reasoned that the Apostles chose only men as deacons and that Paul imposed silence on women, not because of the reason given in I Cor. 14:34 which was "just as the Law also says," but because of their inferiority to man and because of the submission they own to man. For these reasons Ambrosiaster could not think of conferring the deaconate on women. Gryson thinks, that as it is a known fact that the dispute about the priesthood originated in the excessive pretensions of the Roman deacons, that Ambrosiaster thought that because the prestige and authority of the seven deacons was superior even to that of the presbyters, who were more numerous, in Rome therefore a woman could not accede to this function without giving up the submission to which her "inferior" condition bound her. The reason that Ambrosiaster did not have a problem with the text of Romans 16:1-2 about Phoebe was that where the Greek read diakonos, his Latin text read ministra, and he understood this term in a non-technical sense; this woman ministered to the church of Cenchreae by helping numerous people.

E. John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople, Greece, 347-408 C.E., is the only author that we have listed known to have worked with many deaconesses. In his "Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans" he simply says: "See how many ways he (Paul) takes to give her (Phoebe) dignity. For he has both mentioned her before all the rest, and called her sister. And it is no slight thing to be called the sister of Paul. Moreover he has added her rank, by mentioning her being 'deaconess'."

Number 3 of Emperor Justinian's Novellae, dated March 16, 535, legislated that in the Church of Constantinople there were to be no more than forty female deacons and that in the other churches no new ordinations could be made until the number of deacons, both male and female, was reduced to the number existing when these churches were founded. Possibly Justinian knew that forty was the original number of women deacons in the church in Constantinople but did not know the original number of the other churches.

F. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Asia Minor, was made bishop in 423 C.E. Theodoret says that the church at Cenchrea was already so considerable as to have a prominent and nobel woman deacon. He says she was so rich in good works as to have merited the praise of Paul.

[Neil D]

Quote:

Neil D: Since that information that I posted was compiled 2003 and hence, I would suggest strongly that we do know, John. The information that I posted meticulously shows that the evidence is overwhelming in favor of a female Junia....You need to assess that information and, if you are as honest as you say, either refute them or revise your conclusions.....if not, well, you have my permission to be stuck in your conclusions....

You posted this stuff "meticulously" perhaps but you didn't even understand it, apparently. At least you weren't able to tell whether it's true or not. There are some big mistakes in the stuff you meticulously posted, but you didn't pick up on it.

[John317]

Quote:

Neil D: Since that information that I posted was compiled 2003 and hence, I would suggest strongly that we do know, John. The information that I posted meticulously shows that the evidence is overwhelming in favor of a female Junia....You need to assess that information and, if you are as honest as you say, either refute them or revise your conclusions.....if not, well, you have my permission to be stuck in your conclusions....

Quote:

JOHN3:17: You posted this stuff "meticulously" perhaps but you didn't even understand it, apparently. At least you weren't able to tell whether it's true or not. There are some big mistakes in the stuff you meticulously posted, but you didn't pick up on it.

Quote:

NEIL D: Shooting the messenger again, I see. ...and misquoting me in the process. John, I thought better of you...I may have posted my "stuff" frequently, but it was the scholars who were meticulous. And as for those "big mistakes in the stuff that" I didn't pick up on, let's look at them....

Your sentence as it is written says that the posting was done meticulously.

How did I misquote you? I certainly didn't mean to. If I did, I apologize. Let me know exactly what I wrote that you believe was misquoting you.

And, no, Neil, I'm not shooting the messenger. I'm just expecting the messenger to understand what he's posting. How is that unreasonable? Isn't that pretty basic?

It seems to me that you like the conclusions but you're not understanding the evidence that the writers are using to come to their conclusions.

Here's the thing--- I'm not discussing this with the writers of the article you posted. I'm discussing this with you and with anyone else who wants to particupate in this exchange. If you don't know whether those writers are telling the truth or not, why are you using their essay as support for your position? I don't understand this kind of thinking.

I enjoy discussing this issue with you or with anyone else, no matter what their persuasion or position, but it's hard to talk about a language with someone who doesn't understand it or who must rely on other people's information or misinformation. It's kind of like trying to carry on a conversation with someone who's not there. If I ask you a question about what you posted, all you can say is that I need to direct my question to the person who wrote it. That may be true, but it's impractical. So I will keep writing responses to your posts, but it would be great if you could read and understand the texts we're talking about.

[Woody]

I would like to return to the idea that EGW was baptized by James White. John317 states:

Quote:

James White was an ordained minister of the gospel when he baptized Ellen White.

Since we are discussing what SDAs believe ... I hardly feel that what James White did with his wife or didn't do with his wife while he was not an SDA ... is hardly representitive of what our church now believes.

It may have been that they were just bathing.!!!

But if it is as you claim ... that she was baptized ...

Can you just tell us what church she was baptized into?

And can you provide any documentation as to the date and location of this baptism and joining of a church denomination. Surely there must be some record of this important event. I've provided the baptismal record of her 'original' baptism in the Casco Bay and membership into the Chestnut Street Methodist Church in Portland Maine. I'd like to see the same for her 'second' one.

Surely EGW would have referred to the denomination that she joined after marrying James. And can you provide proof or reference of her resigning from alleged membership of this church before starting the SDA church?

[John317]

Quote:

Woody: I would like to return to the idea that EGW was baptized by James White.

John317 states:

"James White was an ordained minister of the gospel when he baptized Ellen White. See Life Incidents, page 273, James White wrote that he baptized Ellen White.

On page 121 of The Early Years, Arthur White wrote that Ellen White was rebaptized soon after accepting the Sabbath truth.

In the SDA Encyclopedia, page 1420, it says that James White was "ordained to the ministry in the Christian denomination" in April of 1843."

Since we are discussing what SDAs believe ... I hardly feel that what James White did with his wife or didn't do with his wife while he was not an SDA ... is hardly representitive of what our church now believes.

It may have been that they were just bathing.!!!

But if it is as you claim ... that she was baptized ...

Can you just tell us what church she was baptized into?

And can you provide any documentation as to the date and location of this baptism and joining of a church denomination. Surely there must be some record of this important event. I've provided the baptismal record of her 'original' baptism in the Casco Bay and membership into the Chestnut Street Methodist Church in Portland Maine. I'd like to see the same for her 'second' one.

Surely EGW would have referred to the denomination that she joined after marrying James. And can you provide proof or reference of her resigning from alleged membership of this church before starting the SDA church?

I will leave you with the information and evidence, and you may do what you wish with it. If you don't believe it or if you feel that Ellen White was just bathing and James White did not really baptize her as he wrote, that's your choice.

With moderator's hat:

Any further posts from you on this subject will most likely be deleted.

[John317]

Quote:

Neil D: Douglas Moo, and Dennis J. Preato, [who has this Master of Divinity, magna cum laude is a graduate of Bethel Seminary San Diego (June 2004)] and THEY SAY THAT 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.

OK, Neil D, let's slow down the pace and carefully discuss your posts and the information they contain.

Please look at the phrase where it says, "Codexes Sinaiticus..."

Is this your writing and is this copied from the website? It seems to be from the web-site, but I want to be sure.

The reason I ask is that "Codexes" is non-existent. There's no such word, and anyone who knows what they're talking about in this subject would not use that word. "Codex" is singular, and the correct word for more than one codex is "Codices."

If you wrote "Codexes," that is one thing, but if the writer(s) of the article wrote it, that's a completely different ball-game. When you read that, your alarm should have gone off. The same when you read this:

Quote:

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.

For one thing, the latest edition of UBS4 has an accute accent over the iota. Previous editions of it were accented the same as NA27; that is, they show the circumflex over the last syllable, indicating that Iounian is male. So the UBS4 indicates that Iounian is a woman, Junia. The article you posted is wrong when it says B2, D2, Yvid., 33, 81, etc., support "Junias." Those texts support the reading of "Junia," NOT "Junias." And it lists Chrysostom as lectionary support for the female, NOT the male.

You will see this if you have either UBS4 or NA27. (In fact, you may be able to examine this evidence online, although I am not certain of this.)

This error in their article is signficant because it goes to the whole issue of trustworthiness and scholarship. I'm sure you can see this.

That doesn't mean they have nothing to say, and it doesn't mean I won't examine the rest of their article, but it does show that they don't appear to be all that they claim to be.

Or maybe they just had a really bad day or maybe a terrible editor.

Let's look closely at a few of the quotes:

Quote:

Neil D: (quoting): 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.

What is the significance of the asterik beside the letters B and D?

The UBS4 lists the codices referred to above as those which have no accents. But merely the fact that they lack an accent doesn't mean they support the reading of "Junia." Having no accent means they can't be used as evidence either for Junias or Junia. They are neutral witnesses as far as the placement of the accent, and therefore the gender of the name, is concerned.

Quote:

Neil D: (quoting): 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.

OK, sure, this part is legit. But the witnesses are in error. The original and correct reading is not "Julia."

It's really important to understand that ancient witnesses are often wrong, even some of the very best.

In the case of this variant reading, see the comment by the editors of UBS4 in their book, A Textual Commentary On the Greek New Testament.

Also consider the fact that not a single English translation reads "Julia" in the main body of the text at Romans 16: 7. In fact, it's very rare when Bibles will give "Julia" in the margin.

Quote:

Neil D: That's two people against you and one of them wrote reference books about this "stuff". Since you read this "stuff", you need to take it up with them...not with me...

But where does that leave you? It means all you can do is post stuff without knowing if it's true or not, and it means you're unable to discuss it, because you don't understand it.

What it comes down to is you can believe them if you want, or you can gain access to the Greek NT and learn to read the apparatus for yourself. That's the best way to go.

The next best thing is to print this out and take it to a professor of Koine Greek and see if he'll help you out.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Ancient Church Fathers were divided on whether Junias of Romans 16: 7 is a man or a woman. Epiphanius (315-403), bishop of Salamis, assumed the word was masculine; Chrysostom assumed it was feminine. Epiphanius said that Junias became bishop of Apameia, while Chrysostom (347-407) gave no more information than can be gleaned from Paul's epistle.

Quote:

Neil D: When you said "Chrysostom assumed it was feminine", my impression from your post origionally was that this church father didn't know what he was talking about. The paper that I posted states-

Additionally, the UBS4 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

If you look at UBS4, you will readily see that it lists Chrysostom as supporting a female Junia. I have UBS2, UBS3, and 2 editions of USB4, and none of them list Chrysostom as support for a male "Junias." Perhaps that is why the writer said "may have incorrectly listed Chrysostom." Why didn't they know whether he was listed or not? Were they writing someplace where they had no access to the information?

John Piper and Wayne Grudem were right when they wrote Chrysostom supported the female "Junia." That is exactly what UBS4 says. (See Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, ed. Piper and Grudem, page 80.)

Quote:

Neil D: ...and I posted this from another source-

John Chrysostrom (337-497) said, “Oh! How great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle! This is high praise coming from a man who is down on women in the bible.-nd

Yes, the quote from Chrysostom is also printed on page 80 of the book referred to earlier by Piper and Grudem.

Your sources can't even spell "Chrysostom" correctly? It would be different if it was an email or post on this forum or an informal letter, but it was misspelled in a book or Web-page, right? It may seem like a little thing, but when it comes to scholarship published on a web-site, particularly with respect to textual criticism, those kinds of things speak volumes.

Who said Chrysostom was "down on women in the Bible"? What's the evidence of that? Are you now judging those ancient people on the basis of our "modern" views and our American values? Some people might say the same thing about Moses and Jesus and Paul, I suppose.

Quote:

Neil D: I am coming to the conclusion that there is some definite male bias in your sources. I asked for a source from you, and you complied and gave it. It is a book, and is online, from which I gave a cursery look thru...You do realize that it IS HEAVILY BIASED toward the male headship model. It can not be considered as a reliable unbiased source.

Are you saying that any book that takes a position on these issues is unrelaible and should not be studied for the purpose of understanding the subject?

It sounds like you do not read widely from different points of view. Why would you reject a book simply because you don't agree with it? You should at least read it and see what it says. I read all kinds of books, and I especially enjoy reading books that express a view different-- even radically different-- from my own.

Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is a 500-page anthology of essays written by 22 men and women on various themes related to the roles of males and females in the church. The editors are John Piper, a paster at Bethlehem Baptist Church, and Wayne Grudem, research professor of Bible and theology at Phoenix Seminary. Grudem is a highly respected theologian and author. He wrote Systematic Theology, a book used in the seminaries of many different Christian denominations. I think Grudem is concerned about the same thing SDAs are concerned with-- basing his theology and practice as much on the Bible as he possibly can.

Speaking of sources that are unreliable and biased..... And here I thought you were open to at least exploring and considering different points of view. Where's the open-mindedness and willingness to listen and reason with those who think differently than you do?

Quote:

JOHN3:17: You will notice that the editors of the UBS4 say the reading is "Junia," whereas the editors of NA27 say the reading is "Junias." I have other editions of the UBS4 which agree with NA27.

Here's what the apparatus says, "Iounian [with accute accent, indicating a female] B2 D2 Yvid 0150 33 81 104..... Lect Chrysostom."

Therefore, whoever you copied your information from doesn't know what he's talking about. You would do them a big favor if you alerted them to the problem. I'm sure there are many people who are copying their material and are not aware it's false.

Quote:

NEIL D: I don't speak this "stuff" but you do. I think it is incumbant upon you, as one who does understand this, to bring it to thier attention....

I may do that, Neil, but it seems to me more incumbant on you to learn the truth about this and not just go by people who post things on the web-sites.

What I do in response to their website (which I haven't even studied), is really not revelant to what we're talking about. What's more important to me is exchanging posts with Adventists and others on this forum. Like I say, I'm talking to you, not to Dennis J. Preato or other writers of those web-sites. I can't spend my time looking into the web-sites that post inaccurate and false information in order to make sure they stop and correct it.

Quote:

But it is not just this ONE PERSON that is saying this. It is other scholars who gleaned this "stuff" from commonly accepted reliable/credible sources. I have posted from MORE THAN ONE source.

Please quote and give reference to a reliable source who says any of these things:

1) UBS4 GNT incorrectly listed Chrysostom as support for a male "Junias."

2) Support for "Junias" [a man's name] is attested to by B2 , D2, Yvid., 33 and a number of minuscules dated from the 9th to 14th century.

Quote:

Neil D: For you to accuse me of posting bias is a bit shakey at best.

I haven't accused you of posting bias. My complaint is that you are posting inaccurate information that you don't either understand or see. Even biased posts and websites ought at least to get their information right, wouldn't you agree? That's really all I'm asking for at this point.

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: Excellent work, Neil!

You wrote this in response to Neil's post #351249. Do you say that is "excellent work"? Would it be excellent work if I write similar posts to you or to Neil, things such as, "Hey Tom [or Neil] are you listening? You reading this, Tom Wetmore? Can you see how this proves you wrong, Tom?"

Is that OK for moderators or anyone else?

I wouldn't do that, but I am wondering why you thought that was "excellent work" and why Neil didn't know better than to do it. My fear is that visitors or other members will get the idea that it's perfectly fine to post that sort of thing. They would be wrong but when they see two moderators posting like that, who can blame them if they think it's all right for anyone else too?

Quote:

TOM Wetmore: 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...

Are you willing to discuss it in detail to see if it gives us the straight scoop or do you just want people to read it and take it on faith? If it's a good article, it will stand up under close scrutinity, right?

By the way, we still have yet to look together at John Brunt's article, "Ordination of Women: a Hermenautical Question." Hope you've read it lately. Can you see any weakness in it?

[Neil D]

Quote:

Neil D: Douglas Moo, and Dennis J. Preato, [who has this Master of Divinity, magna cum laude is a graduate of Bethel Seminary San Diego (June 2004)] and THEY SAY THAT 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.

OK, Neil D, let's slow down the pace and carefully discuss your posts and the information they contain.

Please look at the phrase where it says, "Codexes Sinaiticus..."

Is this your writing and is this copied from the website? It seems to be from the web-site, but I want to be sure.

The reason I ask is that "Codexes" is non-existent. There's no such word, and anyone who knows what they're talking about in this subject would not use that word. "Codex" is singular, and the correct word for more than one codex is "Codices."

If you wrote "Codexes," that is one thing, but if the writer(s) of the article wrote it, that's a completely different ball-game. When you read that, your alarm should have gone off.

I think I am done with this discussion.

What is Codex Sinaiticus?

Codex Sinaiticus, a manuscript of the Christian Bible written in the middle of the fourth century, contains the earliest complete copy of the Christian New Testament. The hand-written text is in Greek. The New Testament appears in the original vernacular language (koine) and the Old Testament in the version, known as the Septuagint, that was adopted by early Greek-speaking Christians. In the Codex, the text of both the Septuagint and the New Testament has been heavily annotated by a series of early correctors.

The significance of Codex Sinaiticus for the reconstruction of the Christian Bible's original text, the history of the Bible and the history of Western book-making is immense.

And you can find it HERE!

John, I don't want to sound inpertinate, but are you sure you understand this stuff....?

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore:

Series - Women Deacons

Phoebe, Romans 16:1-2 - Summary

Revised May 23, 2005

Author

Carolyn Goodman Plampin

Summary

This study proposes to show that Phoebe can be said to be a servant (a minister or a woman deacon) and a president (or a proctectoress) and to justify the following translation:

"I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant (diakonon) of the church which is at Cenchrea; that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for indeed she herself was made (or became) (egenehtheh) a president (or protectress) (prostatis) of many, and of (or by) me (emou) myself (autou)." (Romans 16:1-2)

We have long been taught that the New Testament does not show women in the office of servant (woman deacon) and that therefore God does not want women to be servants (women deacons) of the church. However, this verse, which has either been poorly translated and interpreted, or ignored, lies like a little jewel in the Word of God and affirms women in their service to God. It says that Phoebe was a servant (woman deacon) of the church at Cenchrea.......F. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Asia Minor, was made bishop in 423 C.E. Theodoret says that the church at Cenchrea was already so considerable as to have a prominent and nobel woman deacon. He says she was so rich in good works as to have merited the praise of Paul.

Could you summarize briefly what you believe this paper proves about Phoebe? It says many things-- such as that she was "made a president"-- but I am wondering what your conclusions are as a result of reading it.

Was she a deacon/deaconess? What do you believe this shows her position in the church to have been?

[John317]

Quote:

John317:

OK, Neil D, let's slow down the pace and carefully discuss your posts and the information they contain.

Please look at the phrase where it says, "Codexes Sinaiticus..."

Is this your writing and is this copied from the website? It seems to be from the web-site, but I want to be sure.

The reason I ask is that "Codexes" is non-existent. There's no such word, and anyone who knows what they're talking about in this subject would not use that word. "Codex" is singular, and the correct word for more than one codex is "Codices."

If you wrote "Codexes," that is one thing, but if the writer(s) of the article wrote it, that's a completely different ball-game. When you read that, your alarm should have gone off.

Quote:

Neil D: I think I am done with this discussion.

What is Codex Sinaiticus?

Neil, I didn't ask what the Codex Sinaiticus is. I know what it is. I have a printed copy of it in my bookcase. I am asking about the word "codexes".

THERE IS NO SUCH WORD AS "CODEXES." The correct word is "codices." It tends to show that the people who wrote the article you copied aren't reliable scholars. No competent textual scholar would use the word "codexes." I'm trying to point out that in light of this, we shouldn't be surprised they make all kinds of mistakes in regard to the Greek texts and the supporting manuscripts.

If you thought I asked you what the Codex Sinaiticus is, it can only be because you didn't read what I wrote.

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: 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...

Here's some of the first part of the paper, with which I wholeheartedly agree:

Quote:

The New American Standard version gives the following translation:

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant (diakonon) of the church which is at Cenchrea; that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been (egenehtheh) a helper (prostatis) of many, and of myself as well (emou autou). (Romans 16:1-2)

We have long been taught that the New Testament does not show women in the office of servant (woman deacon) and that therefore God does not want women to be servants (women deacons) of the church. However, this verse, which has either been poorly translated and interpreted, or ignored, lies like a little jewel in the Word of God and affirms women in their service to God. It says that Phoebe was a servant (woman deacon) of the church at Cenchrea.

In the above, the writer is saying that Phoebe was a deacon or deaconess in the church. Many Bible scholars don't believe that there were official postions in the church at that time, and therefore it would be more accurate to say that Phoebe was a helper in the church, someone who everyone looked to for assistence and protection, probably because she was a wealthy and respected businesswoman.

The writer gives the following Greek words and their translations, from Romans 16: 2:

kai (for) gar (indeed) auteh (she)

prostatis (president or proctress) pollohn (of many)

egenehtheh (was made or became) kai (and)

Some observations & questions:

Could you give the name of any standard Greek-English Lexicon which defines the feminine noun, prostatis, as "president"? Or any source in Greek literature outside the NT where the word refers to a female president?

The word "gar" means "for" and "kai" means "indeed." "Kai" usually means "and" or "also", so that here "kai gar" could be simply "for [she] also." However, it's most likely that taken together, these words should be translated "for indeed," "because indeed," or "for verily."

"... because she indeed became a protectress of many, even of myself."

Or: "... for she also became a defender of many, even of myself."

The literal meaning of the word prostatis is "before-stand" or "stand before," as in protection or defend. If we give prostatis the meaning of "leader" or "president," then the phrase means, "for she indeed became a leader, even [or: and] of myself."

I find it highly unlikely that Paul is saying that this individual became his leader or his president. He never talked that way about anyone except God and Christ. And I think that such an individual would have been mentioned somewhere else, either in the book of Acts or in the letters of Paul.

If the word means "president" or some such postiion, then the sentence would be, "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant (diakonon) of the church which is at Cenchrea; that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; because she indeed became a president of many, even of myself."

I Believe I see a problem with that reading. It doesn't fit.

It reads much better and is more consistent grammatically this way, "that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and may stand by her in whatever matter she may have need of you, because she indeed became a defender of many, and of myself as well."

Notice a similarity between the word parasthte and prostatis, both referring to "standing by" or "standing before" or "helping."

Paul then is appealing to the church to help her because she had been a help to many, including Paul. To me that makes better sense and sounds far better and more like Paul than saying that the people should help her because she was made Paul's leader and president.

Your thoughts?

[Gregory Matthews]

John: It is nto clear as to whether the responsibility for the misspelllings is with the author or with the publisher. Those can ocur in the printing process and also from poor editing.

IT shoud be noted that the estimed Samuele Bacchiocchi published some books that had many incorrect spellings.

One of the members of the SDA church that I attend is a contract "line editor" (That is what they call the editor who checks for such.) for the REVIEW. His job is exactly that of checking for that type of stuff. The errors that he checks for may stem from a different source than the author.

NOTE: A "copy editor" checks for different stuff.

[Tom Wetmore]

Quote:

Woody: I would like to return to the idea that EGW was baptized by James White.

John317 states:

"James White was an ordained minister of the gospel when he baptized Ellen White. See Life Incidents, page 273, James White wrote that he baptized Ellen White.

On page 121 of The Early Years, Arthur White wrote that Ellen White was rebaptized soon after accepting the Sabbath truth.

In the SDA Encyclopedia, page 1420, it says that James White was "ordained to the ministry in the Christian denomination" in April of 1843."

Since we are discussing what SDAs believe ... I hardly feel that what James White did with his wife or didn't do with his wife while he was not an SDA ... is hardly representitive of what our church now believes.

It may have been that they were just bathing.!!!

But if it is as you claim ... that she was baptized ...

Can you just tell us what church she was baptized into?

And can you provide any documentation as to the date and location of this baptism and joining of a church denomination. Surely there must be some record of this important event. I've provided the baptismal record of her 'original' baptism in the Casco Bay and membership into the Chestnut Street Methodist Church in Portland Maine. I'd like to see the same for her 'second' one.

Surely EGW would have referred to the denomination that she joined after marrying James. And can you provide proof or reference of her resigning from alleged membership of this church before starting the SDA church?

I will leave you with the information and evidence, and you may do what you wish with it. If you don't believe it or if you feel that Ellen White was just bathing and James White did not really baptize her as he wrote, that's your choice.

With moderator's hat:

Any further posts from you on this subject will most likely be deleted.

It would be nice if the rest of us could simply delete the posts we do not like in discussions we are actively participating in...

[Tom Wetmore]

My thoughts are that it would be well for you to read the article as a whole. As I said, it tends to confirm the validity of my own independent study of the texts.

When people with real, current and valid academic credentials confirm my lay understanding arrived at through prayerful sincere study, I must humbly take it seriously.

Neil's point is quite valid that if you disagree with the scholars writing these articles and the scholars and experts they cite, you should take it up with them. But be assured that if your academic credentials are not even close to being on a par with theirs, I doubt they will take you seriously. I would assume they subjected their writing and research to peer review already before they published it.

Relatively speaking, I believe we are all amateurs here...

[Neil D]

John

you didn't check the link that I gave you, did you?

If you did, you would have seen where I copied and answered your question. It started with the words-

What is Codex Sinaiticus? You will note that anything that I quote I change the color of it to show that it is NOT my wording...I always do that, John...

John, you are casting aspersions on what I have posted and on me.....that is just plain rude. If you can't refute the material that I gave in a legitimate debate, then what good are you to this forum? And what does it say about you, your dealings with others here?

If you can't loose a debate gracefully, then stop posting and making things worse...

[Woody]

John

you didn't check the link that I gave you, did you?

If you did, you would have seen where I copied and answered your question. It started with the words-

What is Codex Sinaiticus? You will note that anything that I quote I change the color of it to show that it is NOT my wording...I always do that, John...

John, you are casting aspersions on what I have posted and on me.....that is just plain rude. If you can't refute the material that I gave in a legitimate debate, then what good are you to this forum? And what does it say about you, your dealings with others here?

If you can't loose a debate gracefully, then stop posting and making things worse...

I agree with the sentiments of this post. But then ... I'm sure my opinion will be found not acceptable.

[John317]

Quote:

Gregory Matthews: It is nto clear as to whether the responsibility for the misspelllings is with the author or with the publisher. Those can ocur in the printing process and also from poor editing..... The errors that he checks for may stem from a different source than the author.

NOTE: A "copy editor" checks for different stuff.

All this is true, Greg. That's why I said it could be just that they had a poor editor.

You'll notice that I said if it happened on a post or in a private letter, etc., it would be different.

The problem is that the mistakes in the article are not simply the spelling of "codexes" instead of "codices," but that the article made very significant errors in regard to the Greek text itself and the evidence for "Junia" and "Junias." This kind of thing goes directly to the questions we're dealing with. Those errors are simply being ignored or swept under the carpet. Those errors are not because of bad editors but are major mistakes on the part of writers themselves.

[SivartM]

Not directed at anyone in particular:

I think we have problems when, after 2,000 years, we're still arguing over whose knowledge of Greek is more authoritative. The average scholar probably knows more Greek than an ancient Greek did, and yet has more trouble understanding the Bible than a Greek would.

[Tom Wetmore]

Again, you are wise beyond your years...

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: My thoughts are that it would be well for you to read the article as a whole. As I said, it tends to confirm the validity of my own independent study of the texts.

I'm reading the whole article and would like to discuss it.

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: When people with real, current and valid academic credentials confirm my lay understanding arrived at through prayerful sincere study, I must humbly take it seriously.

Even people with real, current and valid academic credentials make big mistakes, Tom. There are hundreds of thousands of them who make big mistakes about big issues in the Bible. Some of the best educated people are in the Catholic Church and agree with the papacy about Sunday and the immortality of the soul, etc.

It would be a mistake to accept people's views and interpretation simply because of their credentials or education. That's why it's important for everyone to study these things on their own and be willing to discuss them with others.

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: Neil's point is quite valid that if you disagree with the scholars writing these articles and the scholars and experts they cite, you should take it up with them.

But that is beside the point. The point is that we're discussing it here and it is evidence that is being used to support a particular viewpoint.

If we were talking about the law, and I used a source that is mistaken about the law, I'm sure you wouldn't accept the argument that you should deal directly with the authors of the mistake and not with those who are using the mistaken source.

I can't possibly do anything about people who are posting misinformation on websites, but I can talk about it with those who are posting this misinformation in a discussion on the Forum.

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: But be assured that if your academic credentials are not even close to being on a par with theirs, I doubt they will take you seriously. I would assume they subjected their writing and research to peer review already before they published it.

Yes, I would assume so, too. That is the normal procedure.

This isn't a discussion about who has more credentials. It's not a question of who has the highest education. If that was the case, we should just ask those who have the highest education to tell us what to think or what the truth is.

We're talking about the accuracy of information and research. When the evidence clearly shows that a mistake has been made, it should be acknowledged.

The point here is that anyone who has access to UBS4 and NA27 can readily see the mistakes that I'm referring to. It doesn't require a Ph.D. to verify this information.

Here's the issue again: the article that Neil posted claims that certain codices and manuscripts-- B2 D2 33, etc.-- support the masculine name Junias, but this is not true. Those sources support the femine name Junia. The article also stated that the UBS4 "may have" wrongly listed Chrysostom as a support of the male name Junias. But no edition of UBS4 lists Chrysostom as support of the name Junias. He is listed in UBS4 as a support of the female name, Junia.

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore:

It would be nice if the rest of us could simply delete the posts we do not like in discussions we are actively participating in...

Tom, we've discussed the question of moderators taking part in discussions. Moderators have a perfect right to take part in discussions and to delete or edit posts that they believe are not helpful to the discussion.

I don't delete any posts because I don't like them or because I disagree with them. Posts are deleted for being a violation of specific rules.

One of the rules is that posters cooperate with moderators and do not argue with moderators on the public threads. I don't argue with your decisions on the public threads that you moderate.

[SivartM]

The point here is that anyone who has access to UBS4 and NA27 can readily see the mistakes that I'm referring to. It doesn't require a Ph.D. to verify this information.

Oh, neurosurgery? Anyone who has access to medical journals can figure that out.

Whenever people start talking about things like codices they ought to automatically assume that they're about to lose 95% of the people listening.

Whatever UBS4 and NA27 are, I don't think they're relevant to the question of women's ordination. Which, I thought, was what this topic was about, but people feel more comfortable discussing safe, abstract things that don't have anything to do with the problem at all.

[John317]

Quote:

SIVARTM: Whatever UBS4 and NA27 are, I don't think they're relevant to the question of women's ordination. Which, I thought, was what this topic was about, but people feel more comfortable discussing safe, abstract things that don't have anything to do with the problem at all.

Are you following the discussion by reading the posts? If you don't know why these things have anything to do with Women's Ordination, you will find out if you read the posts. They have to do with the Bible evidence. It goes to the issue of what the correct reading of the translations is.

Tom and Neil are saying that the name in Romans 16: 7 should be a female name, Junia, whereas I am saying essentially that we cannot know whether it is a male (Junias) or female (Junia) name since the evidence is inconclusive. That is why almost all translations will tell you in the footnote that the name could be Junias or Junia. It is also why you can get good printed Greek texts that read "Junia" and others that read "Junias." This question requires the student to look at the ancient manuscripts and textual evidence, including the various editions of the Greek NT. That's why we're discussing the question.

My position is that it really doesn't matter if it's a female's name or a male's name. I'm OK with either. I have many translations that I like which have the name as a female.

It's Tom and Neil who are saying that they KNOW that it's a female's name, and this despite the fact that the Greek texts themselves, as well as the NT translations, show that the name could be either male or female.

I hope this helps. Let me know.

If you'd like to take part in the discussion, you are welcome.

[SivartM]

If all of you are at least willing to accept that it could a female name, then why are you arguing about it? And why does it have anything to do with women's ordination?

If Junia, then you still won't agree because anti-WO can use the texts to explain how Junia wasn't ordained. If Junias, then you still won't agree because there were plenty of men in the Bible (you might as well say that WO is wrong because Paul was a man). So Junia/s is not important to the topic of WO, and my contribution to this discussion is to say that we should focus on the topic and not go off on tangents about nit-picky textual differences. If the question of WO is so crucial, then the answer is not hidden among a pile of slightly different scrolls.