Mike Heiser and Junia

Mike Heiser has written an extensive post in which he discusses the arguments for women in ministry from several different angles. But I could not get past the first one. Mike brings up the topic of Junia and seems to conclude that the matter is sufficiently dealt with in a few articles. Mike writes,

An article by Burer and Wallace argued against “among the apostles” (some of that is summarized here); a response to that article by the egalitarian scholar Linda Belleville followed.¹

If you cannot obtain these articles, here’s a complemetarian analysis that interacts with Belleville.

C. Despite the text-critical evidence, Al Wolters has shown in considerable detail that the name may be male anyway.

I received the distinct impression that Mike was mentioning David Jones article as a trustworthy reference. I went to this article and it was not long before I read the following,

As mentioned above, the form Iounian is ambiguous and could be either masculine or feminine. The Greek text as found in NA26 has a circumflex accent over the alpha, denoting the accusative masculine singular of the masculine name, Junias.¹² It must be acknowledged, however, that the only thing distinguishing the NA26 form from the feminine form Junia is the accent itself, which was not part of the original text but something added centuries later.

It is possible that Mike Heiser is not aware that NA26 is not accurate in its reflection of the manuscript evidence for Junia. There are NO manuscripts which contain the circumflex. None, nada, zip. This is an urban legend which crept into the NA26 for some reason or other.

I hope that Mike Heiser is interested in discussing these details.

I would add that Wallace and Burer's article contains a significant error in its "closest parallel." There has been no academic defense since this has been demonstrated. Their thesis stands undefended at this time. I would invite Mike to engage with me on this topic.

I have commented on his blog but he has comment moderation and I am not sure whether he is willing to interact with me. I hope he will.

Mike also refers to an article written by Al Wolters. Before he had published his article, I had discussed Wolters' idea with Bruce Watlke. This is what Wolters then wrote to me,

I recently came across your comments on some of my work, and thought you might be interested in some clarifications. But first, allow me to express my appreciation for the fact that you apparently read my book on “The Song of the Valiant Woman”–and apparently liked it. It is delightful to discover that there are other people in the world who can get excited about whether an obscure Hebrew word really means “distaff” or not.

Now for the clarifications. I’m afraid that things got a little garbled in your understanding (via Prof. Waltke) of what my article on “Junia/s” was about. My argument is basically that the attested Hebrew name yHny (I’m using capital H to designate the eighth letter of the Hebrew alphabet) would have been pronounced yeHunni, and that this name would have been Hellenized as as Iounias (gen. Iouniou, acc. Iounian). It is therefore possible that Iounian in Rom 16:7 is a Greek version of that Hebrew name. I do not argue that it is the only possibility, or even the most plausible one. It is certainly true that the Latin feminine name Junia is much more common. My article on this is forthcoming in JBL.

My response to him included the following comment by way of explanation,

I had not heard of the name yHny and Dr. Waltke did not explain that part. Considering the overwhelming popularity of the names Junia and Johanna, it seems best to me to explain Junia as an evangelist or saint as any church which uses the KJV, or the Greek orthodox church, does.

And he answered,

I’m perfectly happy to have Junia be an apostle. In fact, I once wrote a popular piece defending that interpretation.

Although I am totally in love with the kind of philological work that Wolters engaged in and we emailed on the matter of the Pagnini Bible as well, so yes, I had so many interests in common with Al Wolters, but ultimately, I don't think that he actually demonstrated that there was any more than a remote technical possibility that Junia could have been the name of a man. I also could be a boy named Sue. I think Wolters engaged in a very interesting discussion of transliteration, just as Bauckham also did. Bauckham suggested that Junia was Johanna, and Wolters suggested that Junia was a Hebrew/Aramaic name yeHunni.

Both suggestions are highly speculative and interesting but have no relation to facts.

Literal Bibles: Junia

I am going to switch topics for a bit and reproduce here some comments from This Lamp, the blog of a friend, Rick. First read the post, HT BBB, and then the comments. Rather than comment there, I have decided to copy a few comments here and then respond. Rick writes,

Well, as they say, "Traduttore, Traditore!"

The reality is all translation is interpretive because translators have to make interpretive decisions in going from one language to another.

I'm not 100% certain that the decisions made in dynamic translations outweigh the fact that more literal translations are often less understandable. As I've said many times, literal does not mean more accurate, especially when the literal is unintelligible.

There are CERTAINLY interpretive decisions in the ESV such as the efforts to go out of the way to make sure Junia isn't considered an apostle in Rom 16:7 (personally, the idea that Junia, someone of whom we know almost nothing about, might be an apostle doesn't threaten this complementarian).

In fact, let's compare three versions on this verse.

Here is the traditional translation of Rom 16:7 among those that recognize the individual was Junia, not Junias.

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow countrymen and fellow prisoners. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were also in Christ before me (HCSB).

Now the ESV:

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me. (ESV)

And finally, the NLT:

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews, who were in prison with me. They are highly respected among the apostles and became followers of Christ before I did (NLT).

Let's be honest enough to say that the meaning of the Greek is very vague here, although there is historical tradition in the Orthodox Church regarding some kind of Apostolic role by Junia (although they don't know a whole lot about her either).

The HCSB reads as if Junia probably was an apostle (incidentally, the wording has been changed to closer match that of the ESV in the 2009 HCSB).

The ESV phrases the sentence so that Junia was merely well known to the apostles, but there's no hint she might have been an apostle.

Only the NLT keeps the vague aspect of the Greek in this sentence so that a person holding either position (that Junia was or was not an apostle) could support their perspective with this translation. The ESV is clearly being interpretive, backed of course by the fact that there are a handful of recently written articles to back up their position.

The NLT does not go the interpretive route in this passage at all. The reality is that as the NLT has now gone through two and a half editions, much of the overly interpretive aspects have been weeded out. An exception to this may be found in a passage like Gen 6:3, but I only have sour grapes because I take a different interpretation.

R. Mansfield | Homepage | 04.10.09 - 10:39 am | #

I appreciate Rick's suggestion here that the Greek phrase for Junia is ambiguous. She could be an apostle or she might not be. I had expressed this opinion myself at some point. However, subsequently, I have thought this over and I cannot think of any case where the Greek word episemos has been used to indicate that someone is known to a person or group of people, and does not stand out above them.

There is only one case in all of Greek literature which seems to suggest that episemos could mean known to, or highly respected. All others clearly mean that the person stands out above or from the others in the same group.

Here are two examples to illustrate this. I willcite the first from a source which has no bias in terms of the meaning in the Bible. From Euripides and the Poetics of Sorrow.

"Aphrodite has a temple at the city's summit and a statue before the house, in the presence of which she is declared 'conspicuous' (episemos) among mortals," (E. Hipp. 101-3).

This is the only citation which has ever been provided to indicate that episemos means "known to" or "highly respected among." However, the traditional translation indicates that it is better understood as "outstanding" or "conspicuous." Aphrodite "stood out above" mortals, as her statue showed her.

Here is another use of episemos,

3 Macc 6:1 “Eleazar, a man prominent among the priests of the country”

Clearly he was one of the priests and stood out among them.

There is no example in all of Greek literature for episemos being used to indicate that someone was only well-known to a group and not outstanding in comparison to members of the group. This misunderstanding comes about because most analysis of this issue is done with people reading the English translations for these examples. IMO.

From the Lidell Scott Jones lexicon,

ἐπί-σημος, Dor.ἐπί-σᾱμος, ον, (σῆμἀ serving to distinguish, τοῖς δ' ὄνομ' ἄνθρωποι κατέθεντ' ἐ. ἑκάστῳ Parm.19.3.

II. having a mark, inscription or device on it, esp. of money, stamped, coined, χρυσὸς ἐ., opp. ἄσημος, Hdt.9.41; ἀργύριον Th.2.13; χρυσίον X.Cyr.4.5.40, cf.IG12.301, al.; so ἀναθήματα οὐκ ἐ. offerings with no inscription on them, Hdt.1.51; ἀσπίδες ἐ., opp. λεῖαι, IG12.280, cf. Men.526.

2. of epileptic patients, bearing the marks of the disease, Hp.Morb.Sacr.8; of cattle, spotted or striped, LXX Ge.30.42.

3. notable, remarkable, μνῆμ' ἐ. a speaking remembrance, S.Ant.1258(anap.); ξυμφοραί E.Or.543; εὐνή, λέχος, Id.HF68, Or.21; τύχη Id.Med.544; χαρακτήρ Id.Hec.379; τάφος ἐπισημότατος Th.2.43; τιμωρία Lycurg.129; τόποι IG12(3).326.42 (Thera, Sup.); of garments, fine, SIG695.39 (Magn. Mae., ii B.C.); and of persons, ἐ. σοφίην notable for wisdom, Hdt.2.20; ἐ. ἐν βροτοῖς E.Hipp.103; ἐ. ξένοι Ar.Fr.543: in bad sense, conspicuous, notorious, ἐς τὸν ψόγον E.Or.249; δέσμιος ἐ. Ev.Matt.27.16; διὰ δημοκοπίαν Plu.Fab.14; ἐπὶ τῇ μοχθηρίᾳ Luc.Rh.Pr.25.

4. significant, οὐκ ἐ. Artem.1.59, 3.32.

It literally means "bearing a mark" so it is unlikely that is can be translated as "bearing a mark" to the apostles, but rather "bearing a mark" among the apostles. While some argue that the preposition en indicates "to," it can be easily demonstrated otherwise. This is not the case. En is often translated as "among" in the Greek NT. Here is an example,

ὁ δὲ μείζων ὑμῶν Matt. 23:11 (genitive)
the greatest among you

ὁ μείζων ἐν ὑμῖν Luke 22:26 (en plus dative)
the greatest among you

I will leave it at that. But if you see a Bible which has Junia as only well-known to the apostles, you know it is not a literal Bible, in spite of its introduction.

McCarthy vs Wallace 6

I have been thinking that this example given by Wallace and Burer from the epigraphy collection is a very close parallel to Romans 16:7. Here it is again.

οὐ μόνον ἐ]ν̣ τ̣ῇ [π]α̣τρίδι πρώτου,
ἀλ̣λὰ [καὶ ἐν τῷ ἔθ]νει ἐπισή̣μου *

Not only in the hometown first
But also in the nation prominent (My literal translation)

Now I want to look at some of the basic problems with how Wallace and Burer treated this citation.

They translated ἐ]ν̣ τ̣ῇ [π]α̣τρίδι as "in his own country," and not "in his hometown." By translating as "country" they set up a false contrast between the home country and the nation. I think that somehow there is an assumption that patris (patridos) means "homeland." Well, it sort of does, but in ancient literature this usually means "home town." I don't know on what basis they suggest that the nation is a population of outsiders but they do.

But we can see from New Testament usage what these two phrases mean. First, ἐ]ν̣ τ̣ῇ [π]α̣τρίδι, and then [καὶ ἐν τῷ ἔθ]νει ,

εἶπεν δέ· ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν
ὅτι οὐδεὶς προφήτης δεκτός ἐστιν
ἐν τῇ πατρίδι αὐτοῦ. Luke 4:24

And he added, “I tell you the truth,
no prophet is acceptable
in his hometown. NET Bible

τὴν μὲν οὖν βίωσίν μου [τὴν] ἐκ νεότητος τὴν ἀπ' ἀρχῆς γενομένην
ἐν τῷ ἔθνει μου ἔν τε Ἱεροσολύμοις
ἴσασιν / ἴσασι πάντες [οἱ] Ἰουδαῖοι Acts 26:4

Now all the Jews know the way I lived from my youth,
spending my life from the beginning among my own people
and in Jerusalem. NET Bible

In fact, we can see that en plus the dative does refer to being a member of the group, of one's own hometown, or one's own people. There is no justification for Wallace and Burer's translation which goes,

not only foremost in his own country,
but also well known to the outside population

In fact, it appears that the translation of patris as "own country" is not well-founded at all, and not a very good translation of the Greek. It seems to be a simple misunderstanding that patris means home country in Greek. This does not look like an error that someone who is familiar with Greek would make.

Further exploration has lead me to read an article by David Jones, posted on the CBMW site. He also might have hoped to prove that Junia was not an apostle, I don't know. However, he writes, about the construction en plus the dative,

Second, even though many of the 42 occurrences of this construction in Romans are instrumental uses of the dative (e.g., 1:9, 10, 27; 3:4; 5:9, 10; 10:9 [x2]; 13:9; 15:30), only two refer to persons rather than things (2:24; 16:7). In the former reference, Paul quotes Isa 52:5, ... Even if we were to take Rom 2:24 instrumentally to denote human agency, it still would not apply perfectly to Rom 16:7, where an adjective is used instead of a verb. Thus, Paul's use of this construction elsewhere in Romans suggests that the locative rendering, "among" is most likely correct in 16:7.

In fact, Jones could not find more than this one other occurrence of en plus dative where it might not have the meaning "among." Jones reviews the rest of the New Testament and then concludes his section on this topic, writing,

Thus, the locative understanding "among the apostles" is by far the best understanding of the construction en tois apostolois, whatever Paul might mean by the term "apostles." It is very unlikely that Paul expects us to read "by the apostles" or "in the eyes of the apostles" here, for he could have used hupo ton apostolon with much less ambiguity. Therefore, regardless of whether Iounian is a man or a woman, and apart from whatever Paul means by the term "apostles," Andronicus and his partner are envisioned as being prominent members of the group which Paul refers to as "the apostles."

It is interesting to note these authors do not refer to each other. But then what made Wallace and Burer suppose that en tois apostolois could mean "known to the apostles?" Here Wallace wrote, first that there was a consensus that Junia was female, and then explained,

There is an even stronger consensus that ejpivshmoi ejn toi'" ajpostovloi" means “outstanding among the apostles”—i.e., that Andronicus and Junia were apostles and were excellent examples of such. But the expression seemed odd: would we not expect ejpivshmoi tw'n ajpostovlwn if the meaning were “outstanding among the apostles”? On the hunch that that was the case, two of the editors did some research in extra-NT Greek on ejpivshmo" followed by (ejn +) dative and ejpivshmo" followed by the genitive.

But, the fact is that if you read Greek, then you would NOT expect to see twn apostolwn if it meant "outstanding among the apostles." You might see it, or you might see exactly what you read in Romans 16:7.

Among the many articles on Junia, posted on the CBMW site, there is one, by David Jones, that says Junia is possibly a woman, among the apostles, but without authority. There is another by Wallace and Burer that Junia was most likely a woman but not among the apostles. And Wolters writes that Junia was possibly not a woman after all.

The case of Junia raises some serious questions surrounding the validity of exegesis in general, in my view.

*TAM 2.905.1 west wall. coll. 2.5.18

Sorry to bore all you people. I know this should be in a journal, and I should move on. However, I needed to transfer this data from the BBB over here in an improved form, and now I have done it.

Index: CBMW, Grudem, kephale

Everything I have written on kephale has been in spontaneous posts in response to posts elsewhere in the blogosphere. I have never had any intention of examining this issue in depth and I deeply regret that I have not so far organized my material on this topic.

I have also written on several other aspects of the CBMW platform and Grudem's books. Let me summarize.

Anthropos

I first became aware that there was a belief among some in the Christian community that the Greek word anthropos meant "man" as in male, and this was one reason for why the TNIV was a "gender neutral" version. I found that the ESV had translated 2 Tim. 2:2 anthropos (pl) as "men" and in that way gave the impression that the scriptures did not give women the command to teach.

Dr. Packer and 2 Timothy

I was truly disturbed when I read this. It was one of the times Ifelt that the campaign against women was deliberate and involved waffling on the actual meanings of Greek words.

Adelphos

Around the same time, I read the TNIV and the Gender Neutral Bible Controversy. There, on page 426 I read that Grudem had drafted the guidelines for the TNIV without checking meanings in the Liddell-Scott Lexicon. He admitted that in May of 1997 he did not know that adelphos (pl) meant "brothers and sisters." I was stunned. How could a Bible translator not know the most basic meanings of very simple words?

Brothers and Sisters: Colorado Springs

Since then I have come to believe that each of the guidelines in the Colorado Springs guidelines is based on a faulty premise.

Colorado Springs Guidelines

I have summarized a few notes on the CSG here.

Summary of the Colorado Springs Guidelines

Creation

Another teaching of Grudem's has been the subordination of woman in creation. I have responded with some notes here.

What subordination in Creation
Subordination of Christ and Woman

Aner

The CBMW had criticized the TNIV translators for translating aner (man. citizen, person) as "person." In this case, I wrote a full article on the subject. It became evident to me as I wrote this article that Grudem has not followed up on all the examples of aner in the LSJ lexicon but had jumped to the conclusion that aner always referred to a male. That does seem obvious. It is, however, not factual.

The CBMW, Grudem and the TNIV: the lexicography of Aner

Junia

In the ESV and the NET Bible the reference to Junia in Romans 16:7 says that she is "well-known to the apostles."

I wrote 17 posts here and added more content in comments on other blogs. The best printed material on Junia to date is by Linda Belleville. See the bibliography in my post below.

Junia, the apostle: Index

After several exchanges with Grudem and Burer, I wrote,

Junia: A Reponse to Michael Burer

This is a highly technical argument, but the upshot is that neither Dan Wallace nor Michael Burer have responded to Linda Belleville's excellent critique of their work in attempting to prove that Junia was not an apostle. I reference the work done by Belleville, Epp and Bauckham. However, my writing benefited from what they wrote, and has additional content. The conclusion is that Chrysostom, a native speaker of Greek,recognized Junia as a female apostle and he was a native speaker of Greek.

Submission

Grudem claims on the CBMW website that submission is always submission to an authority, and therefore, wherever there is the word "submission" in Greek, we must assume that the other person has "authority over." In that case, there is no such thing as mutual submission. However, we do find that submission in Greek can be mutual. Here are some useful posts.

Grudem puts Foh before Calvin
Authority 7: One another
Authority 6: Trampling or loving one another
Mutual Submission in Clement

Ezer and Boethos

"Champion" and "Defender" in Clement


Kephale

Once again we are back to rough notes. To a certain extent, I am expressing some tentative opinions here. I have since come to the conclusion that while the head, in Greek, was sometimes but not always considered the ruling part of the person, the expression kephale (head) was not used to indicate the authority of one person over the other. The examples offered by Grudem to prove this case have not been accurate representations of the Greek.

Exchange with John Mark Reynolds
Grudem and kephale
Grudem and Ptolemy
Grudem and Glare
The Omitted Citations
Kephale in the Literature

I am unwilling to get into kephale any deeper than this. The foremost example which Grudem uses to prove that kephale means "authority over" is,

“the king of Egypt is called “head” of the nation”

Grudem used this quote on Jan. 19, 2008, on the Gender Blog. However, in Appendix 1A of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, he wrote,

19) Philo, Moses 2.30: As the head is the ruling place in the living body, so Ptolemy [Ptolemy Philadelphos] became among kings.

Cervin does not think that head means ruler here because Philo says that Philadelphos is the head of kings, not in the sense of ruling them, but as the preeminent king among the rest. Philadelphos is the top of the kings just as the head is the top of an animal’s body. . . . This example is therefore to be rejected (p. 100).”

Grudem continues in RBMW Appendix 1B to discuss this example. However, he fails to show that it means "authority over." This is Grudem's best piece of evidence and proves the opposite of his thesis, which is that kephale means authority. It obviously doesn't. The rest of Grudem's examples are similar. However, what is the point of quoting them if Grudem just recycles rejected evidence?

Authentew

Here are a few posts on the Greek word authentew - to usurp authority or dominate. This is the word commonly translated "to exercize authority" in 1 Tim. 2:12. However, the Latin Vulgate translated that word as dominare. The notion that this verse had "exercize authority" in it is relatively recent. What follows is a rather academic look at the lexical evidence for the meaning of authentew.

Authority:1
Authority:2
Authority:3
Authority:4
Authority:5
Authority:6


I will be adding material here from time to time as well as editing the post.

Did Scribes Edit Women Out of the Bible?

This excerpt from Bart Ehrman's recent book has been published as an article. I haven't read the book but it has been reviewed here.

Did Scribes Edit Women Out of the Bible? Early scribes altered certain New Testament texts to downplay women's role in the church. From Misquoting Jesus. By Bart D. Ehrman

We might consider briefly several other textual changes of a similar sort. One occurs in a passage I have already mentioned, Romans 16, in which Paul speaks of a woman, Junia, and a man who was presumably her husband, Andronicus, both of whom he calls "foremost among the apostles" (v. 7).

This is a significant verse, because it is the only place in the New Testament in which a woman is referred to as an apostle. Interpreters have been so impressed by the passage that a large number of them have insisted that it cannot mean what it says, and so have translated the verse as referring not to a woman named Junia but to a man named Junias, who along with his companion Andronicus is praised as an apostle.

The problem with this translation is that whereas Junia was a common name for a woman, there is no evidence in the ancient world for "Junias" as a man's name. Paul is referring to a woman named Junia, even though in some modern English Bibles (you may want to check your own!) translators continue to refer to this female apostle as if she were a man named Junias. Read in context on page 2

Now look at Romans 16:7 in the KJV and the ESV. Strange to say the least. In the ESV Junia is still a woman, but not an apostle.

Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. KJV

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me. ESV

There are only a few relatively minor reasons why I wouldn't want to use the ESV as a translation. This is one. 2 Tim. 2:2 is another. There the word in Greek is 'anthropos' in the plural, but the ESV insists it means 'men', because the context is about teaching, something women are not supposed to do. Then there are all those 'sons of God' instead of the 'children of God'. Brothers also seems odd to me, as a generic term. I did grow up Brethren, but I never once thought of myself as a 'brother'.

The TNIV on the other hand makes the mistake of saying "People of Athens" instead of "Men of Athens" in Acts 17:22. I am not quite sure what the theological significance of this is but it could be argued that in Greek it says men, although this word is sometimes used generically. However, it doesn't strictly speaking say 'people.' But just to be clear about this, the problem with the TNIV, according to Dr. Packer, is not that it is inaccurate, but rather that it is a concession to modern cultural demands.

Update: I have found a responding article to Bart Ehrman here. However, this does not explain the ESV translation. When I find an article that explains that I will add it here.

Junia and Michael Burer

The Better Bibles Blog has posted today on the NET Bible, and Michael Burer's three principles of Bible translation,

1. Just because something has always been translated a certain way does not mean that it is correct.
2. We should always value the light ancient documents shed on our understanding of the Scriptures, even for an issue as mundane as the meaning of a single, obscure word.
3. We should always use the most up to date, accurate tools available. (In this instance, HALOT has the more accurate information as opposed to the other well-known Hebrew lexicon BDB.)

Michael authored the article Was Junia Really an Apostle with Dan Wallace. Subsequent to this article the NET Bible, ESV and HSCB have all translated Romans 16:7 as "Junia ... well-known to the apostles." My detailed response is here, please read from the bottom up.

Two years ago, I wrote a post on the BBB, at length recounting the many grammatical difficulties in the article by Wallace and Burer.

Michael Burer emailed me two years ago saying that he had been asked to respond to the work of Linda Belleville and J. Epp with respect to Junia. His response is now posted on CBMW,

My schedule has not permitted me time to develop an in-depth response to any of these reviews. What I can say at this point is that I have not read anything in any of them that has dissuaded me from the viewpoint Wallace and I advanced in the original article. (In the next few years I hope to develop a suitable response to these critiques.)

Yes, you read it right. At least three reformed Bibles have removed evidence from the English Bible that a woman was "among the apostles" - whatever that means, and there is no reaction, just - "my schedule does not permit." This is the level of interest in defending women - yawn.

In the meantime, the Vamva version of the NT, a revision of the Greek NT done by an orthodox Greek bishop, says clearly μεταξὺ - "among." However, it appears that Americans think they know better than the 19th century clergy of Greece, they know better than the translators of the KJV, better than Luther, better than Calvin, better than Jerome, better than Chrysostom, better than ... Burer and Wallace have based their surmise, that Junia was not an apostle, on these three principles,

1. Just because something has always been translated a certain way does not mean that it is correct.
2. We should always value the light ancient documents shed on our understanding of the Scriptures, even for an issue as mundane as the meaning of a single, obscure word.
3. We should always use the most up to date, accurate tools available. (In this instance, HALOT has the more accurate information as opposed to the other well-known Hebrew lexicon BDB.)

Let me address them.

1) There is little regarding doctrine that has been hidden for 20 centuries and revealed in the last few years. The two big ones are that teshuqa means that it is the rebellion of women to want to control their husbands, and this is the main cause of divorce in our day. The second is that all the early church fathers, and native speakers of Greek were mistaken regarding Junia being an apostle. She was not. How convenient!

2) Wallace and Burer's argument from the Pss. of Solomon contains several serious errors.

a) They stated that Pss. 2:6 is a "close parallel" with Romans 16:7. They now admit that it is not.

b) They argued that en plus the dative is not usually inclusive, but that a genitive would be expected. In the NT these two structures are used synonymously and there are exact examples of this.

c) They say that when used "in collocation with words of perception" it means "to." However, there is NO word of perception in Romans 16:7.

Here is how they state their main argument,

When, however, an elative notion is found, evn plus a personal plural dative is not uncommon. In Pss. Sol. 2:6, where the Jewish captives are in view, the writer indicates that “they were a spectacle among the gentiles (ἐπισήμῳ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν)

Semantically, what is significant is that (a) the first group is not a part of the second—that is, the Jewish captives were not gentiles; and (b) what was ‘among’ the gentiles was the Jews’ notoriety.

Clearly, it says that the Jews were captives in a "place" that was among the Gentiles. It is inclusive. Episemos does not relate back to the Jews but to the place. Episemos with en plus the dative does have the meaning "among." Junia is episemos, that is, "among" the apostles.

3) When Burer and Wallace state that we should use the most up to date tools available, they may be referring to the use of a computer database search, in which snippets of lines of Greek are excerpted from the text and lined up in a list for analysis, without reference to the original context. Does this seem useful?

I posted a Response to Michael Burer on the BBB two years ago. In the comment section I posted this,

Suzanne McCarthy

Posted May 30, 2007 at 7:40 pm | Permalink

Mike Burer has written to say that he will eventually be preparing a response to Epp, Belleville, Bauckham, and myself.

I have no timeline. As he intends to publish this as a paper, I appreciate that this could take some time.

And then in the spring of 2008 he posts that his schedule "has not permitted" him to look at this. But, even more shocking is that this passes without comment. Nobody cares. Nobody holds his toes to the fire. Nobody will face up to Wallace and Burer and ask "What about Junia?"

Basically, as it only affects women - let's plaster over the disagreement and carry on.

Junia in manuscript GA 1424

The question of Junia has been brought up again on the Better Bibles Blog, where Iver wrote, in regard to the wikipedia article on Junia,

It is misleading to say that the accented form Ἰουνιᾶν has no support as such (?) in the ms. tradition, since the early mss did not have accents and the majority of those who do have accents, in fact do have the form. (Another move towards p/c is to change from Jewish to Judean, but that is a different topic.)

I am not sure what to make of this statement given that it makes no reference to any manuscript or source. I have never seen any manuscript mentioned as having the masculine accented form Ἰουνιᾶν. But that is just me. I have only looked at a facsimile of a few of the accented manuscripts, but that may be more than others have looked at.

I also have to ask myself if Iver is suggesting that there is some p/c reason why wikipedia says that the masculine form has no support. My understanding is that the reason why it says that the masculine form has no support in the manuscripts is because it doesn't. Iver attributes motive to wikipedia here, bringing in the suggestion that it is p/c. In the comment zone on the BBB, however, mentioning motives is not allowed for us commenters.

In spite of that, John Hobbins takes a broadside against me. While many other comments have been edited and deleted, this one was not. Perhaps it will be gone by now. Who knows.

Anyway, my major contribution in the comments on the BBB is that those manuscripts with accents, accented Junia as a feminine name. Above is GA 1424. Others are GA 676 and 909. There are only a few accented manuscripts online which contain Romans. Of the several which I have looked at, only the feminine accenting occurs. I have never been given the number of any manuscript which is supposed to contain the name accented as the masculine, and until then I see no reason to accept any exist. In spite of some weaknesses in the wikipedia article, I believe that it rightly indicates that Junia was a female, and an apostle. I leave the theological discussion of what an apostle is to others.

Rod Decker's review of the NIV 2011

Update: I said that I would comment on the treatment of Romans 16:7 in Decker's review. Above all, I felt that it lacked clarity. What he does not state clearly is that while early manuscripts lack accents, there is no manuscript with masculine accents for Junia and many with the feminine. All references to Junia in Greek from the early church to present day are feminine. Junia was a common Latin name for a woman, and Junius for a man. There is no instance of a masculine name Junias in Latin or Greek. The one exception is in a text attributed to Epiphanius, who also turned Prisca into Priscas. This is routinely discounted.

Decker also cites the NET Bible note on 'well-known to' without a critical assessment of this note. Since the note does not treat the citation from Pss. Sol. 2:6 consistent with its context, this note is invalid. Decker does not discuss this. He gives the impression that there is a reasonable chance that Junia was not a female apostle, but, in my opinion, the review does not offer adequate support for this. I appreciate that it is difficult to treat such a complex issue in a comprehensive review.

Rod Decker has just posted his review of the NIV 2011. Overall it is a favourable review. I notice that he has cited Calvin with regard to "assume authority" in 1 Tim. 2:12. The Committee on Bible Translation also cited Calvin on this point in their response to the CBMW on June 9, 2011. I have some reason to believe that it was my mention of Calvin's translation of 1 Tim. 2:12 that enabled this point to become widely known.

I have written about this here, here, here, here and here. I am not sure how it happened but somehow, by this June, Douglas Moo had become aware of Calvin's translation auctoritatem sumere and was able to encorporate this into his response.

Decker also comments on Romans 16:7. However, I am having some difficulty understanding his discussion of Junia, so I will work on it tomorrow.

What happened to Junia?

Mike Burer had commented about a year and a half ago that he would try to respond to my posts on Junia. He made an initial attempt here. However, it did not really do justice to the case as presented by myself, based on an article by Linda Belleville. He admitted as much and told me in an email that he would be working on a response.

Recently a short article by him was published in the JBMW journal on this topic. He writes,

Epp spends some space demonstrating that all of these issues—the gender of the name, the nature of "apostle," and the relationship of this person to the apostolic group—are intertwined in the history of interpretation and create something of a domino effect, depending upon the point of view of the interpreter. Then the majority of the chapter is spent in a refutation of the aforementioned article that I coauthored with Wallace, "Was Junia Really an Apostle?"

Important to mention are two other critiques of our work, which Epp refers to often: Richard Bauckham, Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 165-80; and Linda L. Belleville, " vIounian ... evpi,shmoi evn toi/j avposto,loij: A Re-Examination of Romans 16.7 in Light of Primary Source Materials," New Testament Studies 51, no. 2 (April 2005): 231-39.

My schedule has not permitted me time to develop an in-depth response to any of these reviews. What I can say at this point is that I have not read anything in any of them that has dissuaded me from the viewpoint Wallace and I advanced in the original article. (In the next few years I hope to develop a suitable response to these critiques.)

Clearly it is not worth my publishing any challenge to this kind of writing. There is no interest whatsoever in defending a thesis. Several Bibles translate Romans 16:7 to the effect that Junia is "well known to the apostles" and no one feels the need to defend this. Belleville and Bauckham defend the notion that the church fathers, Greek speakers themselves, considered Junia to be a woman apostle. The modern Greek Vamva version is also unequivocal.

When will the general public realize that much of the Bible scholarship on women in the Bible has little credibility?

Mike Bird on Junia

I think some people are still interested in Junia, especially now that Mike Burer has put her on the shelf for years, and the ESV and NET Bibles have just decided to leave her there. Here is a comment from Mike Bird made on July 30, 2008, on the Sola panel,

Thanks for a great post on Romans 16 and it certinly gives much pause for thought on women in church based service. Keep in mind that I’m not an egalitarian, but I have a few quibbles with your handling of Rom. 16.7:

1.There are over 200 inscriptions of Junia and in every single one it is feminine and in every single manuscript of Romans (except two) it is feminine as well. This is hardly ambiguous, it is overwhelming.

2. “Outstanding ... apostles” is certainly ambiguous in the Greek, but in most translations Andronicus and Junia are regarded as apostles. Chrysostom has an excellent comment about how great she must have been to have been counted worthy of the designation apostle. See also Linda Belleville’s article on this against Dan Wallace.

3. Apostle here could mean apostle in the sense of a delegate of a church, much like Epaphroditus from Philippi, but usually the name of the sending church is also given or some kind of qualifier (e.g. your apostle). I surmize that A & J were either the founders of the first Jewish Christian ekklesia in Rome, or else they were among the extended witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection.

An excellent read on this verse is the book by Eldon J. Epp.

My comments are motivated by the fact that I cannot believe the violence done to the text by the ESV translators. Junia is no longer a women and no longer an apostle. This is the clearest case of agenda-driven textual tinkering that I’ve ever seen.

What is really nice to know is that when it comes to caring about good scholarship many complementarians and egalitarians are on the same page.

Junia, the apostle: Index

I note that I remain the "go to" person for Junia, an apostle. Here is the index to my posts on the Better Bibles Blog. Here are some follow up posts on this blog. Somebody told me that I have written at least 37 posts on Junia altogether so searching both the BBB and here might produce more results.

In brief, Greek literature from the church fathers, to modern Greek Bibles, all reflect that Junia is an apostle. Information in the NET Bible note is inaccurate. Here is the short version,

When, however, an elative notion is found, ἐν (en) plus a personal plural dative is not uncommon (cf. Pss. Sol. 2:6).

In Pss. Sol. 2:6, the word episemos does not seem to mean "well-known to" but rather "with a mark." Here is the Greek with a literal translation,

οἱ υἱοὶ καὶ αἱ θυγατέρες ἐν αἰχμαλωσίᾳ πονηρᾷ, ἐν σφραγῖδι ὁ τράχηλος αὐτῶν, ἐν ἐπισήμῳ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν

The sons and daughters were in harsh captivity
their neck in a seal, with a mark among the nations
Psalm of Solomon 6:2 NETS

I am aware that there is a suggestion that this can be translated as "in a prominent [place]" among the Gentiles, but the result is the same - the suggested "place" is still among the Gentiles.

Although ἐν plus a personal dative does not indicate agency, in collocation with words of perception, (ἐν plus) dative personal nouns are often used to show the recipients.

There also does not seem to be any word of perception in the Greek. It would help if the word of perception could be pointed out.

Junia resurrected

Its long past bedtime, but this topic has gone sideways, so in order to pull together various strands, I will post a couple of links.

First, Mike Heiser has posted a brief paper that I put together on Junia's name. It is far too brief and only a summary of issues - nothing original. And in the end, I did not even mention that Junia was a common Greek name for a woman, but unknown for a man. Mike has also linked to articles by Belleville, Wolters and Wallace and Burer.

And now Richard Fellows has posted on Wolters' article as well. And Claude Mariottini also responded to Wolters' article here. I am a great admirer of Al Wolters; scholarship, and I note that he did not insist that Junia could not be a female apostle. His articles are basically morphological studies done for the sake of his interest in language.

Are complementarians biblical?

Mike Heiser and John Hobbins seem to concur on exegesis. But what exegesis do they agree on? John Hobbins says that he agrees with Mike. He writes,

"I concur with many of Mike Heiser’s exegetical observations."

But what are Mike's exegetical conclusions? He seems to suggest that all arguments are a stalemate at best. Mike cites Dan Wallace who argues that Junia was a woman, and was only known to the apostles, and not among them. However, Mike also cites David Jones, who says that Junia was most likely Junias, and was, in fact, among the apostles. Mike aligns himself with the text, but does not reveal what he believes that the text says. I would like to hear how his view accords with the text.

Mike writes,

I want something that clearly derives from the text and which cannot be coherently defeated on the basis of exegesis.

Having said this, he holds his cards tight to his chest and does not reveal his hand. Both John and Mike indicate that they want an understanding of the scripture which cannot be coherently defeated on the basis of exegesis, but they do not reveal what exactly that is. It is hard to defeat a position which is never stated in clear terms.

Regarding what Junia did, I have never actually discussed that. I think she did what women did in those days, a little of this and a little of that. I do think that she and her husband were partners in ministry and were among the 70 or so who knew Jesus and witnessed to him. I believe that their personal knowledge of Jesus provided them with influence and leadership opportunities. I have no interest in discussing what we do not know, whether Junia preached in front of men or not.

I get the feeling that Mike is saying that he wants a biblical answer, but all points lead to a stalemate.

For me, the different passages do not need to agree with each other. Some verses are not clear to me at all. I know what the words mean, but I can venture no further. However, with Mike, I am absolutely certain that Chloe and Nympha, and the elect lady, were leaders in the house churches. I am positive that Rahab was both protector and provider for her family, as was Lydia. I am absolutely convinced that it is appropriate and godly for a woman to provide and protect, as well as nurture, and it is also permissible for her to be cared for by others as they care for her, or in turn, according to who has resources and strength. I am convinced that women may both lead and follow, may be colleagues and partners without the necessary subordination. I have no doubt about these things.

Wolters on Junia

(Updated) I know it is still the last few moments of Septuagint Day and I am going to post on that soon. But more immediate things appear.

Al Wolters article on Junia which I blogged about earlier on the Better Bibles Blog, has appeared and was linked to by Mike. He writes,

It’s a model of careful scholarship, and argues quite forcefully that Iounian is a retroversion of a Hebrew or Aramaic MALE name.

But, in fact, Wolters conclusions are here,

Finally, although the Hebrew name yëhunnï is attested only for men, both it and the assumed longer form yëhunnïyàh(û) could in principle be women's names as well, since Hebrew sentence names are used indiscriminately for both genders.68 However, the case is different for Greek names like Νικίας. To the best of my knowledge, they are used exclusively of men, in both secular and biblical Greek.69 If the ΙΟΥΝΙΑΝ of Rom 16:7 belongs to this declensional type, then it is almost certainly a mans name.

This conclusion still leaves open the question whether it is more likely that the IOTNIAN of Rom 16:7 reflects a Hebrew masculine name or a Latin feminine one. The answer to that question depends largely on how one assesses the likelihood that Paul would have considered a woman to be "prominent among the apostles" (see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 475). To some, probability will still favor the quasi consensus of recent scholarship that IOTNIAN in Rom 16:7 refers to a woman. To others, the epigraphic and philological evidence for the existence of a Hebrew name Yëhunnï/Ίουνιας will tip the scales in favor of a male apostle. In my own opinion, a plausible (but not a decisive) case can be made for either position.

What this does is simply demonstrate that anyone can interpret this passage according to what they already believe. Its a nice piece of writing otherwise.

There are a few things that Wolters does not explain. In fact, he writes,

It is likely that this widespread interpretation of the name at least partially accounts for the fact that all accented manuscripts of Rom 16:7 have the reading Ίουνίαν (with acute accent)It would be a mistake to conclude from this that the scribes of these manuscripts all interpreted IOTNIAN as a feminine name

However, since the accents were added much later and by that time all the Greek commentators had already decided that she was a woman, this is hardly relevant. Chrysostom had written of her as a woman and there is no mention of Junias as a man until the 13th century. David Jones on the CBMW site writes,

Many patristic exegetes understood the second person mentioned in Rom 16:7 to be the wife of Andronicus, such as: Ambrosiaster (c. 339-97); Jerome (c. 342-420); John Chrysostom (c. 347- 407); Jerome; Theodoret of Cyrrhus (c.393-458); Ps.-Primasius (c. 6th cent.); John Damascene (c. 675-749); Haymo (d. 1244); Hatto (?); Oecumenius (c. 6th cent.); Lanfranc of Bec (c.1005-89); Bruno the Carthusian (c.1032-1101); Theophylact (c. 11th cent.); Peter Abelard (1079-1142); and Peter Lombard (c. 1100-1160).39.

In this case, one must assume that manuscript copiers all believed that Junia was a woman.

Another thing to note is that the variant Julia also existed in P46, so this manuscript copier also thought she was a woman. Once again there is no secondary evidence preceding the 13th century that Junia would be male. Therefore, I fail to see the relevancy of discussing the accents.

It is, on the other hand, interesting that there is a remote possibility that this could be the transliteration of a male Hebrew name. That appears to me to be technically possible although there is no contemporary evidence for a masculine Junias. It is an interesting article and I always enjoy Al Wolters' writing, but I do not feel that his argument is forceful.

I would comment on Mike's blog but I can't remember my wordpress password, so I will have to let it pass.

McCarthy vs Grudem (Wayne Grudem)

If you google my name, please note that I am not 59 years old, (although I will be some day) I do not write romance novels (although I would like to) I am not a commissioner of this or that.

However, I am the Suzanne McCarthy about whom Wayne Grudem writes,

From what she has written here, I would not be able to say that Suzanne McCarthy should be considered a reliable source of information for understanding Greek or for quoting other authors (like myself) fairly and with attention to context.

I think that is quite fair and I have never felt that there was any reason to argue with this. I perceive nothing negative in this at all. Dr. Grudem is perfectly welcome to this opinion. I have been called far worse. But some people want to know about this post and what my side is. Sigh. Here are Grudem's first two points and you can read the in between text on the original post. (Note: If you are bored already please scroll down to the second half of this post.)

1. The text in question mentioned in the Burer and Wallace article is not Psalms of Solomon 6:2 (as she says) but 2:6. It says:

True, I reversed the numbers.

2. Burer and Wallace do not misquote Psalms of Solomon 2:6 in their article which I cite (from New Testament Studies 47 (2001), pp. 86-87). Here is the evidence: interested readers can see the Greek text in Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschart, 1979), vol. 2, p. 472. People who have Bible Works software, for example, can find it by first going to Romans 16:7, then clicking on episemoi, then "search lemma" and the examples from the Apocrypha will come up on the list.

So here is what Burer and Wallace actually wrote. See what you think.

When, however, an elative notion is found, en plus a personal plural dative is not uncommon. In Pss. Sol. 2:6, where the Jewish captives are in view, the writer indicates that “they were a spectacle among the gentiles” ( ἐπισήμῳ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ). This construction comes as close to Rom. 16:7 as any we have yet seen. The parallels include (a) people as the referent of the adjective evpi,shmoj, (b) followed by evn plus the dative plural, (c) the dative plural referring to people as well. All the key elements are here.

However, this is not accurate. Pss. Sol. 2:6 actually says ἐν ἐπισήμῳ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. Let's look at the discrete points, a) people is NOT the referent of the adjective episemos, b) it is followed by en plus the dative c) the dative plural refers to people. Point A, which is by far the most significant, is not correct.

The translation, "a spectacle among the Gentiles" provided by Burer & Wallace is a loose approximation and not an actual translation. The Greek says either "in a bond among the Gentiles" or "in a prominent [place] among the Gentiles." Grudem concurs.

How does this compare with Burer and Wallace's main point. They say,

Semantically, what is significant is that (a) the first group is not a part of the second—that is, the Jewish captives were not gentiles; and (b) what was ‘among’ the gentiles was the Jews’ notoriety. This is precisely how we are suggesting that Rom. 16:7 should be taken.

But, in fact, either the Jews were actually in bonds among the Gentiles, or they were in a place which was among the Gentiles. In either case, the Jews were actually among the Gentiles and NOT in a place which was visible TO the Gentiles. This means that the first group is geographically in a place among the second group, it is inclusive. There is no question of episemos being an adjective referring to the Jews. That is impossible.

The example in Pss. 2:6 is not a parallel to Roamns 16:7 and it does not demonstrate the elative use of episemos, if, in fact, there is one. It does not show that Junia was conspicious to the apostles. If it means she was conspicuous, then it means that AMONG the apostles, she was conspicuous. She stood out.

Grudem then quoted what I had said in a comment on a previous thread,

"It is now well-known that Wallace and Burer misquoted Psalm of Solomon in their article. They actually mistook a noun for an adjective. In fact, Dr. Grudem's entire section on Junia is riddled with factual errors."

This is true. I said this. I regret the tone. This was only a comment on my part, not a published work, but I do believe that Wallace and Burer made a fundamental error in the way they cited Pss. 2:6 as ἐπισήμῳ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (visible among the Gentiles) instead of citing ἐν ἐπισήμῳ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (in [a place that is] prominent among the Gentiles.) They suggest that a verb of perception is involved but that is not the case. That is the first main point.

The second is this. Why did I say that Grudem's section on Junia was riddled with errors. Two reasons. If you open the pdf of Grudem's book Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth and use a search engine, you will find that he uses the term "riddled with ..." at least three times in that book. I thought it was a striking term and it stuck in my head. I regurgitated it. I am human.

INSCRIPT RE NEW HANDY DANDY FORMAT

In a case of serendipity, new today CBMW offers Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth in a new format. I had to try twice but then it downloaded in a trice. A quick search confirms that the expression "riddled with linguistic blunders" occurs three times in the text, and "riddled with methodological errors" occurs once. Grudem uses this term and his approach is "reasoned and comprehensive," but I use this term and my language is "intemperate." What a double standard! Oh, right, that is what complementarianism is.

And yes, Grudem made other implausible statements in discussing Junia, suggesting that there is evidence that it might be a man's name. There are two citations which all scholars agree are not valid, and then there is Wolters' recent work. Wolters does not offer evidence that Junia is a male name. He offers a plausible argument that there is an outside possibility that it could be a male name. This is not evidence. It is only logical argumentation that the evidence could exist.

Are you bored yet? I sure am. Please read the post on Adrian Warnock's blog and ask me specific questions.

Notification of new topic starting here.

Now for something that might be more interesting -

I was reminded very recently by a commenter called TUAD, that Dan Wallace once corrected my Latin, declaring that there is no such word as dominari in the Latin Vulgate. Here is the exchange regarding authentein in the Vulgate, with reference to 1 Tim. 2:12.

**************

Sue - I discovered that Jerome had already come to the conclusion that authentein meant dominari

Dan Wallace - Jerome did not use the word ‘dominari’ (no such word in Latin); he used ‘dominare.’ Look it up in the Oxford Latin Dictionary, definition 1.

Sue - On “dominare,” I would like to ask you what form that is. It does not show up in Lewis and Short on the Perseus site. I can only find “dominor” with the infinitive “dominari” as is found in the Vulgate.

Dan Wallace - Sue, I stand corrected; the form in 1 Tim 2.12 is ‘dominari.’ The spelling with the ‘e’ is an infinitive, however.

Sue - I do think that if you check you will find that dominare is not the infinitive. I don’t mean to be stubborn and obstinate about this, but I just think that it would benefit someone to know that dominari is the infinitive of dominor, since it is a vital part of this discussion. I think then next time you will know that dominari is the infiinitive form and this is what Jerome used.

Dan Wallace - Sue, please forgive me for not noticing where you mentioned your website. I still can’t find it as I go back through the thread. Can you please list it again? Of course, I am heavily sedated so I may not be seeing things right in front of my nose!

That may explain as well why I didn’t recognize dominari as an infinitive. My classical Latin texts (I have but one Latin grammar on the Vulgate, and it’s awfully brief) list all four conjugations of the present active infinitive as ending in -e. For example, the first conjugation of laudo has laudare as the infinitive. Now, I can’t explain why the form dominari would be used in 1 Tim 2.12, since the Vulgate clearly is using it as an infinitive (as it is dependent on permitto). But the form dominare occurs in Judges 8.22 and Ps 109.2. In Judges 8.22, it’s an imperative. Perhaps someone who is not on pain killers can solve this mystery for us.

***********

After this, several people asked me to discontinue the discussion out of respect for Dan Wallace. Eventually someone else did explain to Dr. Wallace that dominari is a deponent verb and the matter was settled. I was unable to ascertain his problem myself.

I cite this because it seems that some people think that Grudem is questioning my credibility when commenting on languages. I can only say that my Greek is much, much better than my Latin, but my Latin goes way beyond laudo, laudare. I think that it is very simple. Dan Wallace wrote the Junia article. He sometimes slips up on linguistic matters. So do I. We are all human.

There is no reason for any woman to pay any attention to any of this stuff. It is simply the scribbling of scholars and has no truck with God. Women, be free, from Wallace and Grudem. A good high school Greek and Latin teacher, such as I had, will do you much more good. Three cheers for Elizabeth Wilson.

Why not choose the ESV for your church

If someone were to ask me which translation to use in an evangelical church today, I would suggest either the NRSV or the NIV 2011. I am guessing that the latter version would have more appeal, as the NIV has been for some time a popular choice among evangelicals. However, recently there has been an upswing of interest in the ESV as the more accurate translation. In my view, this is not the case.

The way I see it is that the ESV, like the RSV and the NRSV, has maintained the general style of the King James Bible which is still familiar to and respected by many. Although the ESV has the style of the KJB, it does not communicate gender in an accurate manner. If someone truly wants a Bible in that tradition, I would heartily recommend the NRSV.

However, I am aware that many people would rather have a Bible that is more closely associated with the evangelical community than the NRSV, and the NIV certainly is. So the NIV 2011 is really a perfect choice at this time.

Here are some passages where there is a significant difference in the way gender is treated in the ESV and the NIV2011.

1 Tim. 2:12

I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. ESV

I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. NIV 2011

There are three different ways that this verse has been translated. First, it occurs as the Latin equivalent of "to be the lord of" in the Vulgate, then "usurp authority" in the KJV and now "exercise authority" in the ESV. There is no reason to think that the word had the positive connotation of "to exercise authority" and so the NIV 2011 is closer to the KJV and to the original meaning than the ESV. Women need to have whatever authority is commensurate with their responsibilities in exactly the same way that men do. Neither men nor women should use authority in a negative way, or domineer over the other.

2 Tim. 2:2

and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. ESV

And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others. NIV 2011

The Greek word in this verse translated as "men" is actually anthropos, which means, quite simply, "people" or "human beings." There is no justification at all for the ESV to use the word "men" in English here. This kind of pattern is repeated throughout the ESV, where a word that means "people" is translated as "men." The ESV hides from the reader that the word in Greek means "people."

1 Tim. 5:8

But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. ESV

Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. NIV 2011

The Greek word which is translated as "anyone" means what it says - anyone. It does not refer to a male only and in the Greek of this passage, there are no masculine pronouns or masculine indicators of any kind. This verse does not refer to men as the providers in the home, but assigns equal responsibility to both men and women. The NIV2011 avoids the misunderstanding often caused by the masculine pronouns of the ESV.

In addition to this, the Greek word adelphoi was translated in the King James Bible as "brethren." However, in Greek this word applied to the brothers and sisters in one family. In reality the word always has meant "brothers and sisters." This is a more accurate translation of the Greek.

Romans 16:7

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me. ESV

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was. NIV 2011

There is no evidence to suggest that Junia was not an apostle. It is better to stick with the historic understanding in both the Latin Vulgate and in the King James Bible, that Junia was an apostle.

May I commend to you the NIV 2011 or the NRSV, and gender inclusive Bibles in general, which do, in fact, reflect the Greek of the original in a better fashion than our traditional Bibles do.

McCarthy vs Wallace 3

I am continuing this series. I hope it will contain some new information. I also want to make it comprehensible to at least a few readers. In his post on Adrian's site on Wallace and Burer's article on Junia, Grudem wrote,

5. The Brenton English translation of the Septuagint from 1844/1851 (which comes up in Bible Works as LXE) translates as an adjective, saying the Jewish sons and daughters among the captives were "in (a place) visible among the gentiles." This supports Burer and Wallace's claim because the place was not a gentile, but it was "visible" or "well-known" to the gentiles. This is very similar to Romans 16:7, where Junia was "well known to the apostles" but was not herself an apostle. This again argues that McCarthy is wrong to say "they mistook a noun for an adjective." Did Lancelot Brenton also mistake a noun for an adjective? One begins to wonder who has made the mistake.

For the sake of argument, I will deal with episemos as an adjective for the remainder of this post, and demonstrate why this cannot relate to Junia in Romans 16:7. In order to do this I need to go back to Grudem's point #3, where he says,

(The construction is somewhat strange, but en does not decide the question of whether it should be taken as a noun or adjective in any case. For example, Psalms of Solomon 17:30 provides a close parallel where en episemo means "in (a place) visible ...")

Wallace and Burer did cite Pss. of Solomon 17:30 in their article. They wrote,

In Pss. Sol. 17:30 the idea is very clear that the Messiah would “glorify the Lord in a prominent [place] in relation to all the earth” (τὸν κύριον δοξάσει ἐν ἐπισήμῳ πάσης τῆς γῆς). The prominent place is a part of the earth, indicated by the genitive modifier.

By explanation the phrase πάσης τῆς γῆς - of all the earth - is in the genitive. And this is what they wrote about Pss. of Solomon 2:6,

When, however, an elative notion is found, evn plus a personal plural dative is not uncommon. In Pss. Sol. 2:6, where the Jewish captives are in view, the writer indicates that “they were a spectacle among the gentiles (ἐπισήμῳ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν)

Semantically, what is significant is that (a) the first group is not a part of the second—that is, the Jewish captives were not gentiles; and (b) what was ‘among’ the gentiles was the Jews’ notoriety.

What Wallace and Burer have hidden from the readers of the article - by removing the preposition en from their analysis - is that there is no Greek word episemos in Pss. of S. 2:6 which means "notoriety." There is only the expression en episemo, which must mean then "in a prominent place." The place itself was among the gentiles. To say that the "Jewish captives were not gentiles" does not relate in any way to the Greek being discussed.

P.Oxy. 1408 “the most important [places] of the nomes” τοῖς ἐπισημοτάτοις τῶν νομῶν
P. Oxy. 2108 “the most conspicuous places in the villages” τοῖς ἐπισημοτάτοις τόποις τ[ῶ]ν κωμ[ῶν]
P. Oxy. 2705 “the well-known places of the nome” τ[οῖς ἐπι]σήμοις τοῦ νομοῦ τόποις

In the latter two, the word topos, meaning "place," has not been elided. This now gives us four examples of the expression en episemo/ois [topo/topois] followed by the genitive case, which all mean "in a prominent place within a certain place or region." Term A is within term B.

We are left then with the single example of the Jewish captives which are en episemo en tois ethnesin and the idiom is followed by en plus the dative. The question is whether the place where the Jewish captives are, is within the gentile nations, or is only "in a place that is visible to" the gentile nations.

Wallace and Burer argue that because the previous four are followed by the genitive they support the meaning "among/within" and for the instance with en tois ethnesin which has en plus the dative following, the meaning must be "visible to the nations, but not in the nations."

However, logically, and by context, we must assume that the Jewish captives actually were in a place among/within the nations. The Pss. of Solomon says they were. In addition to this, there is not one occurence of en episemo in which topos (place) is unambiguously not a part of the place following.

Fortunately we can test from looking at examples from the New Testament to see if there is a significant difference between using the genitive case or en plus the dative case. Do these two make a difference of meaning, or not? Consider these instances.

ὁ δὲ μείζων ὑμῶν Matt. 23:11 (genitive)
the greatest among you

ὁ μείζων ἐν ὑμῖν Luke 22:26 (en plus dative)
the greatest among you

In view of these examples I cannot give credit to an argument which proposes a difference based on the fact that the adjective episemos is followed by ἐν plus dative rather than by the genitive. These two constructions can be used synonymously.

However, here Wallace asks,

would we not expect ἐπίσημοι τῶν ἀποστόλων if the meaning were “outstanding among the apostles”?

No. Here are a few examples of the comparative form of an adjective followed by ἐν plus dative, but there are more in the Greek NT.

καὶ σύ Βηθλέεμ γῆ Ἰούδα οὐδαμῶς
ἐλαχίστη εἶ ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν Ἰούδα Matt. 2:6

'And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; ESV

ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν οὐκ ἐγήγερται ἐν γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν μείζων Ἰωάννου τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ ὁ δὲ μικρότερος ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν μείζων αὐτοῦ ἐστιν Matt. 11:11

Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. ESV

Ἰούδαν τὸν καλούμενον Βαρσαββᾶν καὶ Σιλᾶν
ἄνδρας ἡγουμένους ἐν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς Acts 15:22

Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas,
leading men among the brothers ESV

The Greek of the New Testament indicates that using en plus the dative is very common for expressing when one person is among (and a member of) a group of other people, as Junia was.

There is every indication that ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις actually means "prominent among the apostles." She is a member of the group.

The Greek NT of the 19th century, the Vamva version, updated Romans 16:7 to say,

᾽Απάσθητε τὸν ᾽Ανδρόνικον καὶ ᾽Ιουνίαν τοὺς συγγενεῖς μου καὶ συναιχμαλώτους μου, οἵτνες εἴναι ἐπίσημοι μεταξὺ τῶν ἀποστόλων οἵτνες καὶ πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἦσαν εις τὸν Χριστόν

It is unequivocally "among the apostles." It stuns me that Wallace and Burer's article has influenced several Bible translations and its premise is used to inhibit Christian women in leadership.

This is a contination of my response to Grudem's post on Adrian's blog, which googles so highly to my name.

What does Burer say to all this?

Important to mention are two other critiques of our work, ..... My schedule has not permitted me time to develop an in-depth response to any of these reviews. What I can say at this point is that I have not read anything in any of them that has dissuaded me from the viewpoint Wallace and I advanced in the original article. (In the next few years I hope to develop a suitable response to these critiques.)

Once again, this is the level of scholarship used to keep Christian women out of leadership positions in the church.

McCarthy vs Wallace 2

I am continuing this series. I hope it will contain some new information. I also want to make it comprehensible to at least a few readers. In his post on Adrian's site on Wallace and Burer's article on Junia, Grudem wrote,

4. Bible Works parses episemos in Psalms of Solomon 2:6 as an adjective, which makes most sense in the context. This gives Burer and Wallace's meaning, that the Jewish captives were "a spectacle visible among the gentiles." This argues that McCarthy is wrong to say "they mistook a noun for an adjective." Did Bible Works also mistake a noun for an adjective?

Let me elaborate. There is no translation which says "a spectacle visible among the gentiles." This is a conglomeration of two other translations, which I will provide later.

I did say that Wallace and Burer "mistook a noun for an adjective." Episemos can be either a noun or an adjective. The form is identical, but it depends on the rest of the sentence. I did think that it was a noun.

However, even if episemos were an adjective - which is technically possible - in Pss. of Solomon 2:6, it is in the dative singular case and cannot possibly refer to the Jewish captives, which are in the nominative plural. The cases do not match.

What it says is that "The sons and daughters are in evil captivity, their necks in a seal, en episemo among the nations."

If episemos is an adjective then it qualifies a noun topos (meaning "place") which has been omitted. It would mean that they were in captivity in a prominent [place] among the nations.

And yet, when W & B, in their article, provided "a spectacle among the gentiles" giving no reference for this translation, I assumed that it was their own literal translation, and that they were indicating that "spectacle" was a literal translation for episemos.

In that case, from what Wallace and Burer said, it seems that they were describing it as an adjective in the dative singular refering to the Jewish captives, which are in the nominative plural. This is impossible. So, I thought, perhaps with the preposition en followed by the noun episemo one can loosely translate - they are "in view"among the nations. And, in that case, episemo is a noun. Oh, I thought, they have mistakenly said adjective, when they meant noun, that is "spectacle."

In fact, "spectacle" is an idiomatic translation for a Greek idiom en episemo (with topos elided). This translation was done by R. B. Wright, 1985, but this was not cited in W & B's original article. Also Wallace and Burer did not supply the preposition en in their article. They simply said epismo en tois ethnesin. Nor did they refer to the idiomatic nature of the translation they offered, since this would make it entirely obvious that there was no parallel with Junia in Romans 16:7. It is obvious that Romans 16:7 does not contain the Greek idiom en episemo.

So, of course, I should never have second-guessed what Wallace and Burer were thinking when they wrote their article on Junia. They provided no references for their translation of Pss. of Solomon. They did not mention the idiom en episemo. They did not give any valid explanation for finding Pss. of Solomon 2:6 to be a parallel to Romans 16:7. They made no grammatical connection between episemo and the captives.

I have no idea what they mistook for what. My apologies. I officially take back my statement that "they mistook a noun for an adjective."