Apostles and prophets

Addendum: John Hobbins has linked to this post. He then said something about me. He then said that if I rebutted his post, he would link to my rebuttal. I responded to his post but he now says that this is not a rebuttal so he won't link to it.

Mike Heiser has not attempted to argue that Junia was a man, or that she was not among the apostles. However, he sets up a dichotomy between an apostle, basically an itinerant missionary; and local church leadership. According to Mike, it is the local church leadership which has authority. Women can be apostles in the sense of being itinerant missionaries, but they cannot hold authority in the local church. Mike writes,

the ... definition of apostle would technically exclude a “stationary” (“normative” for today) pastorate — and create or allow for the sort of category, notorious among some egalitarians, of “woman missionary who isn’t actually a pastor.” But maybe that’s actually closer to the NT model than “non-missionary woman church pastor/leader staying put in a local church.” I’m fine with the former since it seems suspiciously like what the NT is describing for Junia. I’m not convinced the latter is consistent with that. I’d have no trouble getting over that hump if the NT didn’t seem to *distinguish* apostles from local church leaders.

So Mike argues that women can preach as long as they don't remain stationary. Women cannot remain in an established church. Women can travel overseas, and they can preach to the unchurched, and they can teach and translate the Bible. But once a congregation is established, a house is purchased,and a salary is in view, women have no right to any of this.

Right across the street from me here in Vancouver, lives a woman just my age, with the same job as me, and a husband and three children. She is conservative, generous, modest and ethical. She will never experience going to church. Her father, a farmer in the north of British Columbia, vowed many years ago, never to return to church after the woman missionary who established the church he attended, was replaced with a salaried male. He wanted none of it.

I am ashamed that in many churches today no progress has been made. There is no biblical justification for saying that a woman minister may not settle down. There is nothing which says that an apostle (other than the twelve) is without authority, and without the right to stay in one place.

If one holds the Bible as a standard and guide, there is no reason to say that a woman can have a gift as long as she is not paid for it, as long as she does not stay in one place. There is no passage which divides the gifts, on the one hand, into non-authoritative apostles, and prophets; and on the other hand, into authoritative pastors and teachers. On the contrary, Eph. 4:11 says,

So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers,

Junia, may she live forever

On Out of Ur, there is a series on women in ministry. There is also an extensive comment audience. I find for some commenters, the exegetical conclusions of Wallace and Burer are assumed to be accurate. One commenter writes to another,

You had (essentially) asked about the nature of the textual language in Roms 16:7. After much study and interaction with the text our leadership determined (and this will get technical) that the personal dative did not communicate agency but was elative in the sense that while Andronicus and Junia were not apostles in office they were well known amongst those few who were apostles. Their relationship to the apostles might be like Beth Moore's relationship with evangelical pasotrs. While she doesn't hold the office of pastor she is well known because of her teaching. The dative use of "en" is an important qualifying remark

I wonder if this commenter is aware that en plus the dative is normally inclusive and comparative rather than elative.

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

Also, there is no word of perception in this passage. There is no chance that the apostles were only those to whom Andronicus and Junia were well-known, because there is no word which is parallel to "well-known" in the Greek.

Ah well.

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.

Pink shirt day

Today is anti-bullying day here. No bullying schoolkids and calling them "gay." We have too many suicides, too many gang assaults. We don't need to bully anyone for being gay, or not, for being fundamentalist, or atheist, or complementarian or egalitarian or whatever.

Tear apart ideas which hurt people, we should do that, but people are off limits. Take statements from published books, and say what you think about that, but don't make personal comments. Treat each other with respect.

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.

Heiser and Hobbins

Mike Heiser and John Hobbins are engaged in a debate in which Hobbins defends the right of women to be ordained, and Heiser comments,

Actually, I’d describe myself “unconvinced of egalitarian views while being relatively unconcerned over complementarian fears.”But, because of the nature of the debate, I guess that makes me a complementarian, and I’m comfortable with that (since it is the traditional view, it’s also the default view).

Both these posts defy summarizing.

My position is that the different scripture passages do not present one unified view of the role of women in ministry. I do not suggest that these passages are egalitarian, but rather that contemporary categories are irrelevant. What we need to do is analyse whether complementarian arguments are truthful, and if they are not they must be rejected. That's about it for now.

I am waiting to see if Mike Heiser will interact with me.

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.

CBMW has not heard of the King James Version

So claims Marvin Olasky. I wasn't going to post on this topic again. But my wandering eye could not help but notice this complete nonsense. Really, at this point, I don't care any more to discuss what 1 Tim. 2:12 means. But I can't help but chuckle over all those who claim to be "biblical" and "traditional" and have no idea what a traditional Bible translation might contain. Marvin Olasky writes about the NIV 2011,

"Person," "ancestor," and "they" are three of the gap-fillers, but this translation sometimes maintains the role of the individual (Psalm 1 begins "Blessed is the one," not "Blessed are they") and sometimes doesn't (Psalm 146:5). The most-criticized retranslated verse is 1 Timothy 2:12. The CMBW notes that virtually every translation, whether traditional or modern, has Paul writing that in church a woman is not to "have" or "exercise authority" over a man—but the new NIV has "assume authority." Critics argue that readers may conclude women can be pastors as long as they don't engage in a power grab.

I think that "virtually" must signal "complete nonsense coming next." How could Olasky state that CBMW does not know what is in the King James Version, or the Calvin Translation, or the Vulgate, or Luther's Bible? How come they don't know, and don't care?

Because they have chosen to be ignorant of these things. Or because they actually think that no one else knows, and they can slip this one by. What is it - deceit or ignorance? They are deluded, I do believe, and they chose to bind women to their own personal delusion.

Am I being too kind?

The comments resonate for me. I do feel that the teaching that women submit to the decisions of their husband, whether at the end of the day, or in the moment, is categorically wrong. I have no doubt about that.

But the question is how this kind of teaching gains so much power. Why do we give this teaching power, and how do we strip it of power? Pain and anger are completely understandable responses. This is my response, as I have often made clear. But does this strip the teaching of the submission of women of power? Clearly, the answer to that is no.

I have to admit that my journey out of the darkness of submission into health and normalcy has been a long one. It started about 20 years ago. I hope that is not too discouraging - it's a long time.

I hope that by sharing my reverse testimony, that we will be able to share what is powerful and good about becoming adults, about not giving someone else's teaching control over our minds, not according power to an ideology or a doctrine, whether derived from the Bible or from somewhere else.

By reverse testimony, I don't mean that by leaving biblical womanhood and experiencing this as health and wellness, that I am providing evidence that biblical womanhood is wrong. I mean rather to demonstrate that a personal testimony is not evidence which proves an ideology. Biblical womanhood, or feminism or some other ideal may well improve the life of an individual. But this does not justify urging an ideology onto others. This is about freedom from such simplistic thinking altogether.

Those who escape abuse from non-Christian spouses and family members, may embrace the doctrine of biblical patriarchy. Those of us who have suffered from abuse within patriarchy are repelled by it. The testimony of the joiners of the teachings of patriarchy and the testimony of the leavers, demonstrates that the teaching itself has no value. Patriarchy has no divine power for good. We can discount that completely.

But this does not mean that the positive experiences of those who feel happier after accepting the teachings of patriarchy are all wrong. Biblical patriarchy may have enabled them to leave something that was worse. We don't know. But we do know, because of the experiences of those who leave, that it is wrong to teach patriarchy as a good. We know this for sure. So, I am interested in tearing down the power of a doctrine to hurt and do evil. I don't have an ideology to put in its place.

We do know that we are all of us called to be adult, to be responsible for our own actions, to do no harm. We must care for and nurture maturity in those who are dependent on us, and we must do no harm to others. This is what we are called to. This should be taken away from nobody.

The trial of John Piper

Without going into any more detail, we can agree that John Piper is aware of, and has publicly refered to three types of abuse which are more frequently experienced by women than by men. These consist of physical assault, alternative sexual practice under coercion, and restriction of movement.

In this video, which has been transcribed here, we can hear of his awareness of these issues. In this article Piper refers to the control and coercion which a woman might also experience. He is not unaware of these challenges to a woman's well-being.

I recognize that Piper has written much which makes it appear that he is sensitive to and concerned about the well-being of women. He does not condone any of the behaviours which I mention. He is horrified by them. I am also aware that men experience abuse, in ways which are both similar to, and different from that which is experienced by women.

So the issue is not about who abuses, and who experiences abuse. We can, everyone one of us, be on either side and on both sides of this equation. However, it is wrong to counsel the weaker, the one who is in danger, to submit in the long term to the aggressor. While one may submit in the short term, for safety sake, submission will encourage a continuation of the aggression. It is wrong to submit to, or be counseled to submit to any aggression and restriction of basic human rights.

We all agree that Piper knows that these restrictions against the human rights of women happen in Christian marriages. So now, we must observe with accuracy how he responds. I would like Piper to speak for himself. Here is a significant sermon, in which Piper addresses 6,000 women at one time.

Some of you God is going to touch so profoundly in these days. You won't want to go home, because he's letting you down so badly. So let's pray for each other. I would like to be speaking to 6,000 men. I would, and I would get in their face big time (a lot harder than I'm getting in your face). I would tell them, "You're the main problem in most of these situations. Your women would rise to this if you would do it like Jesus." ......

I'll say it again. Submission is the divine calling of a wife to honor and affirm her husband's leadership and help carry it through according to her gifts.

Now the point here is not to go into detail about how this gets worked out in every marriage, and every marriage looks a little different. The point is that these two, headship and submission, correspond to true manhood and true womanhood in marriage. They're not the same, and these differences are absolutely essential, by God's design, so that marriage will display more fully the glory of the sacrificial love of Christ for His bride and the beauty of the lavished reverence and admiration of the bride for her Husband.

I know that leaves 200-300 questions unanswered. What about unbelieving husbands? What about believing husbands who don't do this leadership, protection, provision? What about wives who resist leadership, don't like the idea of being led, think it's all 50/50 always? What about wives who do receive it but never express any appreciation for it?

There are hundreds of questions that we could take up now, and I apologize that I won't. But here's my comfort: If you could embrace this true, that as married women (and I'm turning to singles in one minute), if you as married women could embrace this magnificent truth, that your true womanhood ultimately means that your distinctive role in marriage is meant to magnify the glory of God's grace supremely expressed in the covenant-keeping love between Christ and His church, you would have a compass with which to navigate hundreds of questions. You have a lifetime to ferret them out.

Please read the rest of the sermon. Read John Piper's words. I am not trying to demonize him. But I do want to say that John Piper has nothing at all to offer women but a lifetime of misery. He has nothing to contribute to marriage counseling. It is negligent not to instruct anyone who is aware of violence to go to the police.

While it is true that many women do not want to go the police, a witness of violence is obligated to counsel this as a prefered response. Piper did not do that. He does not recognize the basic human rights that we all have under the law in our society, not to be violated. Paul himself appeals to Roman law, and insists on his right not to be assaulted. What business does Piper have diminishing the rights of women? Do the rights of women have less value than the rights of men? Than the rights of Paul? No, they don't. Piper should have preached Acts 22:25 to women.

But the important thing is not to belittle John Piper, or to demonize him. We must simply ask if what he says has value. Is his word good, and does it provide benefit to his hearers? If not, we have to move on. We simply need to testify to the positive value in our lives of moving past this kind of thinking and leaving it to the side where it belongs. We have to show other women that a true woman is not interested in the word of John Piper. Whatever intentions he has, whatever motives he has, these are irrelevant. His word is not healthy and life-giving.

Catherine Clark Kroeger

I have just read on Denny's blog that Catherine Kroeger has died. I feel shivers of sorrow and gratitude. She was one of the first women authors that I read who advocated for true equality for Christian women. Sometimes, I get taken back in my mind to that other place - before. I am so grateful to this woman for all she has written.

I confess ...

... that I won't be able to read all the comments. I'm chair of a district tech conference happening tomorrow. Thank goodness I don't have to wear a "submissive helper to all the males in the room" face when I am in that role. Thank goodness my tech support guy doesn't find working with me to be demeaning even though I don't defer to him. I make the technology support personnel defer to me, because I write the educational goals, I teach students and train other teachers. It works better that way.

Thank goodness it would be innapropriate to use the special Piper and Grudem tone of voice which expresses my awareness that "I am only a woman while he is the man" tone of voice. Cracks me up to think of it.

But .... how come my best black pants are at the cleaners? How come, even though a workshop filled up two weeks ago online, you can still register by word of mouth, if you are a friend of my friend? How come so many people don't know how to do online registration? How come it is freezing rain outside? How come our bandwidth is insufficient to download the software, so we have to download at home onto a flash drive and install at school?

I will try to post again next week something more focused. I am already finding the recent comment zones hard to load.

Christians and sexuality

The news is covering the trends among evangelical Christians more and more these days. And some are not impressed with what is being written by Christians about sexuality. From a recent article,

But behind it all, behind the outpouring of books celebrating the God-given gift of sex and offering tips on how to make it even better, there is a more pedestrian agenda: to prop up the institution of marriage by keeping husbands from straying. And here it is the wives who must do the heavy lifting. If only they would put out more, if only they would do a better job with their personal hygiene, their husbands would want to stay home at night and would be happier, more motivated breadwinners.

Can you save marriage by tarting it up? That is a question that conservative evangelicals must answer for themselves. But the historian in me has grave doubts. First food, then alcohol, now sex: America's evangelicals have compromised on so many core principles that one wonders which will be the next to go.

Americans dislike British Royalty ...

And egalitarian women dislike men.

Nuff said.

Response to a complementarian

Derek writes,

I'm referring to the way that dialogue is poisoned when you and some others on this blog/community imply or suggest that comps are subjugators or that they hate women or that, to use your terminology, that the demonize women.

I don't often mention "complementarians" but rather speak of "those who believe that men have authority over their wives." If a complementarian believes this, or teaches it, or practices this, then that is who I am referring to.

Those who demonize and subordinate women, those who put men in authority over women, are men like Bruce Ware, who writes,

the male was given the responsibility of loving authority over the female, and the female was to offer willing, glad-hearted and submissive assistance to the man.

Paul understands Eve's role as helper to require that woman ought to be under the rightful authority of man

Most complementarians understand the curse of the woman in 3:16 to mean that sin would bring about in Eve a wrongful desire to rule over her husband (contrary to God's created design), and that in response, Adam would have to assert his rule over her.

the female functioning in a submissive role under the leadership and authority of the male

the woman would have a desire to usurp the authority given to man in creation, leading to man, for his part, ruling over woman in what can be either rightfully-corrective or wrongfully-abusive ways.

Derek continues,

We should be able to share where we disagree without assuming the worst of each other's motives.

I am not sure where I have spoken of motives. Please let me know if I have ever commented on Bruce Ware's motives, or those of any other individual.

Derek continues,

If there are abuses that occur, then fine- point those abuses out, but don't libel the color of other people's skin on the basis of some bad apples, which can certainly be found in every bunch.

The bad apples that I am pointing out are the writings of major leaders in the conservative evangelical community. These men and women enjoy wide approval among other Christians.

I do find that many complementarians identify themselves with what I am writing. But the main thrust of my writing is against the functional subordination of women, it is not against those who label themselves with any particular word, "complementarian" or otherwise.

I thought ...

I thought at first, when I started writing about coming out of biblical womanhood, out of what was for me a sort of non-living, I thought that I could write through the pain. I thought that as that life became more distant, it would also become less painful. But the truth is rather the opposite.

As I leave behind, in my real life, both the demonization and subordination of femininity, I actually have times when I forget what it means to be hated for being female. Then, when I read again about biblical womanhood, it is like a flood of pain washing over me. It feels more painful all the time. The more I realize what it means to be alive as a normal person, living a normal life, the more I realize how terrible and dehumanizing it was to be subordinated by being told that this is what God wants for you.

I thought there would come a time when I could think about these things dispassionately. But the truth is that I realize more and more every day how much was taken from me as a woman, how much I was deprived of. Now it just hurts more when I expose myself in the slightest way to these beliefs, rather than less.

The Vamva Greek Bible

It is not very often that I find out about a completely new online Bible - at least, a Bible that is new to me. In May 2007, I wrote about the Vamva version of the Bible on the Better Bibles Blog.

This 19th century version of the Bible by Neofitos Vamvas, a distinguished linguist and noted Bible scholar, was published in 1850 with the collaboration of British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS). It was not accepted by the Greek Orthodox Church which continues to use a version of the original Greek New Testament and the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible.

When I wrote about this Bible three years ago, I had only the New Testament, a copy which I had owned since my university days. However, now a commenter on my BBB post has let me know of an online version to the entire Bible in the Vamva version. He wrote,

Dear Suzanne, readers,

Good posting. I am surprised too about how little is known about the exceptional Vamva translation outside Greece. Let me encourage you and say that by now the Vamva translation has taken root and it’s the standard translation used in prevalent Greek Evangelical and Pentecostal denominations including the no 2 most widespread Christian denomination (considering the state church as the no 1.) While we have found in it some translation issues when compared to the original Greek NT manuscripts, it is in our view free of denominational biases (how can you beat that in a translation); also by far, richer linguistically, more accurate and reliable than the Septuagint (treading carefully here) and especially the later Greek translations which carry denominational biases.

Here are the opening verses of Genesis in the Septuagint and the Vamva Version.

1. Εν αρχή εποίησεν ο Θεός τον ουρανόν και την γην.

2. Η δε γη ήτο άμορφος και έρημος· και σκότος επί του προσώπου της αβύσσου. Και πνεύμα Θεού εφέρετο επί της επιφανείας των υδάτων.

3. Και είπεν ο Θεός, Γενηθήτω φώς· και έγεινε φώς·

4. και είδεν ο Θεός το φως ότι ήτο καλόν· και διεχώρισεν ο Θεός το φως από του σκότους·

5. και εκάλεσεν ο Θεός το φως, Ημέραν· το δε σκότος εκάλεσε, Νύκτα. Και έγεινεν εσπέρα και έγεινε πρωΐ, ημέρα πρώτη.

ΕΝ ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν.
2 ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος, καὶ σκότος ἐπάνω τῆς ἀβύσσου, καὶ πνεῦμα Θεοῦ ἐπεφέρετο ἐπάνω τοῦ ὕδατος.
3 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεός· γενηθήτω φῶς· καὶ ἐγένετο φῶς.
4 καὶ εἶδεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸ φῶς, ὅτι καλόν· καὶ διεχώρισεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸ φῶς, ὅτι καλόν· καὶ διεχώρισεν ὁ Θεὸς ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ φωτὸς καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σκότους.
5 καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸ φῶς ἡμέραν καὶ τὸ σκότος ἐκάλεσε νύκτα. καὶ ἐγένετο ἑσπέρα καὶ ἐγένετο πρωΐ, ἡμέρα μία.

¹In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

²And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

³And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

⁴And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

⁵And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.