[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #31
b-greek-digest Tuesday, 5 December 1995 Volume 01 : Number 031
In this issue:
Re: Luke 4:4 "every word"
Re: Women, etc. (long)
FREE 1 jr Magazine etc etc
Re: Phone no. to order LS&J
Re: Junia endgueltig!
lots of mail (fwd)
RE: FONTS
Re: Women, etc. (long)
[none]
Re: FREE 1 jr Magazine etc etc
subscribe
Re: errors
Re: FREE 1 jr Magazine etc etc
Re: Women elders and apostles
Re: tag line
Re: Text of the Apostolic Fathers
Re: Junia endgueltig!
Re: Junia endgueltig!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 01:43:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Luke 4:4 "every word"
rlb4651@televar.com asked...
>Why are the Words "but by every word of God" omitted from the NIV version of
>Luke 4:4 in the New Testament?
>It is found in the King James,the Vulgate,and [(possibly) I cannot read
>greek yet] in the Byzantine texts
The phrase is omitted not only by the earlier Alexandrian witnesses (Alef
and B), but also by W, miniscule 1241, and is missing in the early syriac and
the coptic translations.
The additional words ALL EPI PANTI PHMATI QEOU ("but by every word of
God") appear in later mss (A, Theta, Psi, miniscule families f1 & f13, the
majority of Byzantine mss, and later syriac).
It is hard to explain why this phrase would have been omitted from the
earlier manuscripts if it were original. It is *more* likely that they were
added due to the influence of the Matthew temptation passage (Mt 4:4) and
Deut 8:3 (LXX).
Tim Staker
Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Mike Adams <mikadams@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 23:11:44 -0800
Subject: Re: Women, etc. (long)
Carl Conrad said: "One may perhaps discriminate on the basis of a
judgment of intelligence or character of suitable gifts to carry out a task,
but one may NOT discriminate on the basis of ethnic status, or on status in
the social hierarchy, or on gender."
I attest that in his case this is not empty rhetoric. Being both female and
"unlettered", I nonetheless post my comments in this forum. Carl (like a few
others here) assesses my work based entirely upon content, accepting or
disputing each point on its own merit. For this I am most grateful.
Personally, I believe that the truth concerning women in ministry lies in
the broad middle ground between Conrad's and McGuire's opposing stances.
The Bible, both O.T. & N.T. is decidedly partriarchical. Jesus, for example,
appointed 12 MEN (and no women) as apostles. But when he further commissioned
the 70, there is no clear indication whether women were numbered among them.
They could well have been. After all, a considerable number of women were
included in his entourage, and in Acts 2, women were among those filled with
the spirit and who the first proclaimed the gospel on the Day of Pentecost.
In John's gospel Mary was openly commended for choosing to sit at Jesus's
feet to receive teaching rather than taking part in the menial tasks that
Martha considered (woman's) duty.
Now, there is a clear order of headship taught in I Cor 11 and Eph 5:
God, Christ, man, woman. Phil 2:6-11 illustrates how this works. Note the word
harpagmon, over which there has been such debate. Does it mean seize or hold
onto? How about both? Christ recognized and accepted the Father's headship
over him. In his life on earth, particularly during his temptation in the
wilderness, he did not attempt to seize authority. Jesus rather yielded all
rights to himself to the Father, therefore the Father commended all authority
in his hand. Furthermore, Christ did not hang onto what was given him. In an
act beyond comprehension he shared that which was placed into his hand to
those willing to submit their lives to his authority. The relationship of
Father and Son serves as model for the relationship of Christ to the church,
and of husband to wife. The scriptural pattern for headship is an all for all
exchange.
We humans do not always follow this example. Women tend to try to "usurp
authority" over their husbands, therefore the repeated admonitions to submit.
(By the way, what exactly does authentew really mean? My meager resources tell
me diddly about this one.)
And if God has entrusted man with authority over the woman, is it not so they
can guide and equip them as fellow heirs and co-laborers? Men ought display
the same grace as God does toward Christ and Christ toward the church,
expending all for edification,
So what do we make of the passage in I Tim 2? If we take this as command
for total silence, what then is the purpose of the guidelines in I Cor 11
regarding women and public speaking? Moreover, if it's universally taboo for
any woman ever to teach a man, how do we view Priscilla, teacher of Apollos?
And dare we go so far as to say the power of Christ's blood only avails in
the redemption of man, that women have the added onus of bearing children in
order to attain salvation? These verses must be interpreted with utmost care.
May I suggest one more reason that so few women in ministry are mentioned in
scripture. Under proper headship, the ministry of most women would be
"hidden" under their husbands' covering, (just as my postings appear here in
my husband's account)? It's likely, for instance, that Peter's wife and the
other women alluded to in I Cor 9 were actively involved in their husbands'
ministries. Or are we believe these women who braved hardship and death were
traveling merely as tourists?
Most Bible chauvanists may dismiss all of the above examples as well Phoebe,
Junia, Priscilla, the daugthers of Phillip, and the unnamed lady in II John,
but what of Deborah the Judge? In my reckoning just one such example is
sufficient to prove that in the matter of women being given an authorotative
role, God (who in fact may do whatever he pleases) does.
I repeat that the cause of the gospel of Christ must be foremost in our minds.
Jesus begged us to pray that the Lord of the harvest to send forth laborers.
May God forgive those, who for pride or misconception, bind the hands of their
co-laborers, or much worse, forbid them to even enter the field.
Xaris,
Ellen
P.S. (Neat news about Danker!)
------------------------------
From: J.D.F.=van=Halsema%BW_KG%TheoFilos@esau.th.vu.nl
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 95 11:31:21 MET
Subject: FREE 1 jr Magazine etc etc
Re: repeated offers at B-Greek of cheap US magazines (VERY long messages)
Is it perhaps a good idea to refuse from now on publication of this kind of
advertisement at B-Greek? Imho, it doesn't belong at a scholarly discussion
group like B_Greek.
Hope David Marotta agrees,
Greetings, Erik van Halsema, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
------------------------------
From: Stephen Carlson <scc@ropes.reston.icl.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 95 10:14:50 EST
Subject: Re: Phone no. to order LS&J
James D. Ernest wrote:
> I have sent Stephen the information he needs.
I'd like to thank everyone who sent me information on how to order the
lexicon. I had no problem ordering it, and I should receive my copy
in April.
Stephen Carlson
- --
Stephen Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, : ICL, Inc.
scc@reston.icl.com : and songs chant the words. : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
(703) 648-3330 : Shujing 2:35 : Reston, VA 22091 USA
------------------------------
From: BibAnsMan@aol.com
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 10:46:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Junia endgueltig!
I may have missed it if you talked about it previously. But another
significant issue regarding Romans 16:7 is the phrase hOITINES EISIN EPISHMOI
EN TOIS APOSTOLOIS. What does this mean? Does it mean "outstanding _among_
the apostles" ? Does it necessarily imply that IOUNIA / IOUNIAN _is_ an
apostle or popular in the midst of the apostles in a different sense? This
needs to be discussed.
Jim McGuire
Professor of Greek at
Logos Bible Institute
13248 Roscoe Blvd.
Sun Valley, CA 91352
------------------------------
From: Travis Bauer <bauer@acc.jc.edu>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 09:56:08 -36000
Subject: lots of mail (fwd)
Hi all,
It appears that majordomo at virginia is sending my message out
multiple times. Can anyone fix this?
- -------------------------------------
Travis Bauer
bauer@acc.jc.edu
homepage: http://acc.jc.edu/~bauer/
Disclaimer: The above opinions
do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of my church, family,
co-workers, myself, or anyone else.
- -------------------------------------
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 95 20:32:52 +0100
From: Eric Guichard <guichard@ens.fr>
To: bauer@acc.jc.edu
Subject: lots of mail
It seems that you try to reach somebody by mail at elias.ens.fr
What 's the purpose?
(a hundred of your mails arrive on the machine: all the same:
___
Question:
I am wondering if there is a file on the TLG CD that lists all
of the authors. I am trying to help someone look up authors, but we
don't know all of the latin names and haven't been able to guess them.
The program we are using does not allow one to see a list of authors, at
least not as far as we know.
Thanks in advance.
- ------------------------------
Travis Bauer
bauer@acc.jc.edu
homepage: http://acc.jc.edu/~bauer/
Indifference will be the
downfall of America.
But then again, who cares?
- -----------------------------
___
Eric Guichard
guichard@ens.fr
------------------------------
From: perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 95 10:05:54 -0600
Subject: RE: FONTS
Re. the final sigma:
> If your word processor has SMART QUOTES turned on, then whenever you
> press
> " (straight quotes), it will shift it to OPTION-[ or OPTION-{ (on
> the Mac).
> Most word processors have a key combination so that you can turn
> smart
> quotes off for any one keystroke while leaving it on most of the
> time.
Or you can do what I did in WP6.1 WIN, which was write a macro (CTRL-SHFT-9)
which automatically dropped the final sigma from "Symbol" truetype font into
the document and switched back to my inflected font.
Grace and peace,
Perry L. Stepp, Baylor University
------------------------------
From: Bill Mounce <billm@teknia.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 09:20:31 -0700
Subject: Re: Women, etc. (long)
>I attest that in his case this is not empty rhetoric. Being both female and
>"unlettered", I nonetheless post my comments in this forum. Carl (like a few
>others here) assesses my work based entirely upon content, accepting or
>disputing each point on its own merit. For this I am most grateful.
I would submit that no one, neither Conrad or me or anyone, is able to
"assess work based entirely on content." No one is free from
presuppositional and theological conclusions and biases. No one.
>appointed 12 MEN (and no women) as apostles. But when he further commissioned
>the 70, there is no clear indication whether women were numbered among them.
>They could well have been. After all, a considerable number of women were
>included in his entourage, and in Acts 2, women were among those filled with
>the spirit and who the first proclaimed the gospel on the Day of Pentecost.
In fact, your assumption "they could well have been" is a good example of
biases in action. Whether they are true or not is not my issue, but rather
that biases are at work. As much as I dislike quoting Bultmann, his article
in the 40's has gone unquestioned and all people see through their own
colored presupositional glasses.
>(By the way, what exactly does authentew really mean? My meager resources tell
>me diddly about this one.)
You can compare Krogers work (I Suffer not a Woman) with Knights initial
essay. The new book from Baker on 1 Tim 2 has a hugh discussion of it.
>Most Bible chauvanists may dismiss all of the above examples as well Phoebe,
>Junia, Priscilla, the daugthers of Phillip, and the unnamed lady in II John,
>but what of Deborah the Judge? In my reckoning just one such example is
>sufficient to prove that in the matter of women being given an authorotative
>role, God (who in fact may do whatever he pleases) does.
I really don't think that using emotionally charged and incorrect language
like "chauvanist" is helpful or correct. The word means that decisions are
made solely on the basis of gender, and you don't know why I make my
decisions or why others make their decisions. I don't know why you make
your decisions. And in fact, it doesn't matter why I make my decisions. The
only thing we can deal with is the exegetical and theological decisions
themselves. This language condemns any traditional interpretation as being
due to gender bias and it avoids the actual discussion and argumentation
themselves. The literature is replete with solid, exegetical and
theological argumentation for why your examples do not apply to the
question at hand. You may not agree with them. Fine, but we all should at
least deal with them. I resent being called a chauvinist, and so does my
wife (who does know my motives). I know you didn't direct the language my
way, but when anybody uses emotinally-charged langauge that calls a
person's integrity into question, well, I am just tired of it.
Bil Mounce
------------------------------
From: shilton@cornerstone.edu
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 1995 12:34:34 EST
Subject: [none]
unsubscribe shilton@cornerstone.edu
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 1995 12:44:34 CST
Subject: Re: FREE 1 jr Magazine etc etc
On Tue, 5 Dec 95, Erik van Halsema wrote:
>Re: repeated offers at B-Greek of cheap US magazines (VERY long messages)
>
>Is it perhaps a good idea to refuse from now on publication of this kind of
>advertisement at B-Greek? Imho, it doesn't belong at a scholarly discussion
>group like B_Greek.
>
>Hope David Marotta agrees,
Right now the write security on majordomo for the b-greek list is set to
world, that is, anyone on the internet can post to b-greek. In order to keep
these advertisements off the list David John Marotta would have to have the
write permission restricted to the list members only. This would mean that
people who did not belong to the list could not post to it to ask questions.
Do we really want this?
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Scott Duvall <DUVALL@alpha.obu.edu>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 11:57:46 CST
Subject: subscribe
------------------------------
From: "Todd J. B. Blayone" <chorus@bud.peinet.pe.ca>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 14:37:56 +0000
Subject: Re: errors
Hi,
> I think it is an overstatement to view Mark's style as "so bad"
> (comparing it with substandard English) as to contain "ignorance or
> careless lapses." There is certainly a wide range of style in the
> NT. Hebrews is prob. on the "upper end" and Mark and John on the
> "lower end." Yet all the NT writers communicate in relatively clear,
> idiomatic Greek--not at all like some of the papyri. The Greek of
> the NT has been described as conversational Greek (in contrast to
> literary and vernacular Greek). I doubt very many on this list are
> qualified to judge much beyond that. What may appear to be poor
> Greek may as often as not be the judge's problem! (I note that my
> students find all sorts of "problems" with what they read--but those
> problems seem to disappear as their proficiency increases.)
Your careful warning reminded me of a a tidbit written by my former
mentor Schuyler Brown (See "Philology" in _The New Testament and Its
Modern Interpreters_ Atlanta: Scholars, 1989, p. 132).
"Just as stylistic analysis of the NT Greek is best done in terms of
individual authors, so too the comparision of these authors, whether
among themselves or with other Hellenisitic writers, should be
carried out on a one-to-one basis. *Since the nonliterary papyri
exhibit as much stylistic diversity as the books of the NT,* general
statements about the relationship of NT Greek to the rest of Koine
are suspect as long as they fail to provide the necessary
statistical data."
Best,
Todd
______________________________________________________________
Todd J. B. Blayone (chorus@peinet.pe.ca; MIME OK!)
Project Coordinator, Chorus / Ph.D. candidate, McGill
Address: 2480 Brock Rd. N., Pickering, ON, Canada, L1V 2P8
http://www.peinet.pe.ca:2080/Chorus/People/Todd_B/toddhome.html
________________________________________________________________
------------------------------
From: Vincent Broman <broman@np.nosc.mil>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 95 12:46:09 PST
Subject: Re: FREE 1 jr Magazine etc etc
j.d.f.=van=halsema%bw_kg%theofilos@esau.th.vu.nl asked:
> Is it perhaps a good idea to refuse from now on publication of this kind of
> advertisement at B-Greek?
This would require a moderator and b-greek has never had a moderator,
even a minimally intrusive one. If someone volunteered, it could happen.
Vincent Broman, code 786 Bayside Email: broman@nosc.mil
Naval Command Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Div.
San Diego, CA 92152-6147, USA Phone: +1 619 553 1641
=== PGP protected mail preferred. For public key finger broman@np.nosc.mil ===
------------------------------
From: Richard Lindeman <richlind@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 13:55:57 -0800
Subject: Re: Women elders and apostles
>>I believe that Paul has stated
>>the nature of redeemed humanity in fully egaliarian terms in full
>>accordance, so far as I can see, with the teaching and practice of Jesus,
>>in Galatians 3: OUK ENI IOUDAIOS OUDE hELLHN, OUK ENI DOULOS OUDE
>>ELEUQEROS, OUK ENI ARSEN KAI QHLU: PANTES GAR hUMEIS hEIS ESTE EN XRISTWi
>>IHSOU. I would hold this to be the canon of the canon when it comes to
>>questions of authority or competence to perform a function in the church.
>Unlike Carl, I do not see basic tension between the Timothy passage and the
>actions of Jesus. While I would agree that Jesus was nicer to women than
>his contemporary society might have allowed, I have not seen evidence of
>Jesus either establishing or condoning women in positions of authority. In
>fact, I have found no statements of Jesus on women in authority, and no
>action of Jesus which directly touches the subject.
Ah, but but I believe that Jesus does indeed say things that
directly relate to the subject of laws that are derived from
"orders of creation". Consider those NT passages in which Jesus
directly condemns the Scribes and Pharisees! "Woe to you scribes,
pharisees, and hypocrites..." Jesus condemns them because they are
elevating the Sabbath laws (which are based on the order of creation).
They are elevating these "orders of creation" laws over the moral
laws.
I believe that this then becomes the real issue that must be
addressed. What kind of law is it that says that a woman may
not serve in a position of leadership? Is it a moral law or a
ceremonial law or a civil law? Or are we creating another
category and calling it an "order of creation law"? And if
that is the case, then it is quite clear from many examples
in the gospels what Jesus' opinion is on this matter. The
moral law then absolutely transcends it! And if we don't
first ask the question of what is morally and ethically right
in this matter, then we run into the clear danger of falling
into the the same condemnation which Jesus spoke to the scribes
and pharisees.
Sorry, just had to add my 2 cents worth to this interesting
debate.
BTW. I saw an excellent example on the news the other day that
I wanted to share concerning the objective and subjective genitive:
The football coach had a very bad day. His team played terribly and
they lost the game. When the news announcer asked him, "So,
what do you think of the execution of your team today?" he
quiped back, "I'm all for it!"
It seems to me that objective and subjective are not so much
case uses as they are merely a reflection of the ambiguity of
language.
Rich Lindeman
- --
=======================================================================
International Society of Online Christians
"Meeting the future boldly with Christ!"
RichardLindeman@xc.org 2155 Northdale Blvd NW - Coon Rapids, MN 55433
=======================================================================
------------------------------
From: John Calvin Hall <johnhall@gulf.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 1995 17:50:18 -0400
Subject: Re: tag line
At 10:48 AM 12/4/95 CST, you wrote:
>>Original message sent on Sat, Dec 2 9:12 PM by johnhall@gulf.net (John
Calvin Hall) :
>>...Modern Textual Criticism and Biblical Textual Criticism are not the same.
>
>This is an interesting comment, and I'm wondering what you mean by it.
When I was a student, I ran across a problem that I was faced with
concerning Textual Criticism. I have always found the subject to be quite
interesting yet the basic philosophies of Modern Textual Criticism goes
against biblical dogmas. The Bible teaches that God has promised to
preserve His Word for all generations, while the basic purpose for Modern
Textual Criticism is to "recover" the original text.
Another thing I have noticed with Modern Textual Criticism is the emphasis
on Human Intellect. Many Bible Scholars believe that it is possible to
determine what God originally gave us(or get close enough to the original)
through the strength of reasoning and intellect. This also goes against
what God tells us in Isaiah that His ways are higher than our ways, and His
thoughts higher than our thoughts.
For me to accept the tenants of Modern Textual Criticism, I would have to
reject the teachings of Scripture. This would be out of the question.
Biblical Textual Criticism [BTC] and Modern Textual Criticism [MTC] are
different in their foundational authority and in their purpose. While MTC's
authority comes from human intellect and reasoning, BTC's authority is
Scripture. The purpose of MTC is to "recover" the original text of the NT,
the purpose for BTC is to "identify" the original text of the NT.
John Calvin Hall
Pensacola, Florida
johnhall@gulf.net
------------------------------
From: Michael Holmes <holmic@homer.acs.bethel.edu>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 95 20:54:31 CST
Subject: Re: Text of the Apostolic Fathers
Edgar Krentz's answers to Ken Litwak's questions about the Apostolic
Fathers and lunar sigma's were, as usual, very informative and
helpful. Perhaps I may be permitted to subjoin a few additional
remarks to what he has already said.
Re the lunar (or lunate) sigma: this form has been utilized for the new
editions of the papyri in the latest volume from the International Greek
New Testament Project, The Gospel According to St. John, vol. 1: The
Papyri, ed. by W. J. Elliott and D. C. Parker (Leiden: Brill, 1995).
Re the Apostolic Fathers:
1) the *text* of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp in Lightfoot's five-vol.
set and the text in the editio Minor, _Patrum Apostolicorum Opera_, ed. O.
v. Gebhardt, A. v. Harnack, and T. Zahn(Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1920) is,
as Edgar notes, out of date. But the textual apparatuses contain loads of
data not otherwise available, and remain (much like Tischendorf's NT) very
valuable resources. No one should avoid consulting them simply because the
text is dated.
2) For Barnabas and the Didache, the textual apparatus in the Sources
chretiennes edition of Prigent and Bob Kraft--Kraft did the the textual
work--is absolutely superb, and very full. For serious work on Barnabas,
especially, this should probably be the starting point.
3)
>The best criticial edition at present, in my opinion, of Clement, Ignatius,
>Polycarp, and Quadratus is _Die apostolischen Vaeter griechisch und
>deutsch_, edited by Joseph A. Fischer (Muenchen: Koesel, 1956; also
>Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft).
>The second volume is titled _Dicache (Apostellehre) Barnabasbrief Zweiter
>Klemensbrief Schrift an Diognet_, ed. Klaus Wengst Schriften des
>Urchristentums II. (Darmstadt: Wissenschkaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1984).
- --yes, certainly, to the extent that I'm not sure that the
Funk/Bihlmeyer/Schneelmecher edition should any longer be described as "the
standard critical edition." The Fischer and Wengst vols (+ Kraft for Barn
and Did) clearly supercede it, as Edgar indicates.
- --but do be aware that in some cases the presentation of evidence is
incomplete or very selective; e.g., in the case of the letter of Polycarp,
both F/B/S and Fischer present only one of the nine extant Greek MSS, thus
hiding completely some of the significant divergences within that MS
tradition (for exx., see the apparatus to the Letter of Polycarp in the
following edition).
4) re _The Apostolic Fathers. Greek Texts and English Translations of their
Writings_, by J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, 2nd edition edited and
revised by Michael W. Holmes (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), about
which Edgar said: "presents a text with a very slight critical apparatus":
- -- first, thanks for the mention (it's always nice to get noticed);
- --second, I might wish to describe it as "a revised and updated text with a
very selective critical apparatus." The text is a thoroughly
reconsidered and updated edition of Lightfoot (more up to date than
even Fischer, at some points), with a selective apparatus that attempts
(how successfully is for others to say) to present as many variants as
possible that might affect the interpretation of the document, without
cluttering up the apparatus with some of the textual trivia found in the
more extensive apparatuses of the Fischer/Wengst and F/B/S editions. Not
intended as a full critical apparatus, it is much more extensive than
anything in the Loeb volumes, which I hoped my volume might supercede.
[In this respect one may wish to consult the review in Journal of Early
Christian Studies 3 (1995) 81-83].
Mike Holmes
Bethel College
St. Paul, MN
------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 18:41:11 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Junia endgueltig!
On Tue, 5 Dec 1995 BibAnsMan@aol.com wrote:
> I may have missed it if you talked about it previously. But another
> significant issue regarding Romans 16:7 is the phrase hOITINES EISIN EPISHMOI
> EN TOIS APOSTOLOIS. What does this mean? Does it mean "outstanding _among_
> the apostles" ? Does it necessarily imply that IOUNIA / IOUNIAN _is_ an
> apostle or popular in the midst of the apostles in a different sense? This
> needs to be discussed.
It is my understanding, although I am willing to be corrected by those
worthies on this list who know more than I, that the ambiguity is as real
in Greek as in English. Although it should be pointed out historically
speaking that since Clement and Origen among others understand this as
referring to these two people as holders of the office of apostle, not as
merely well known by the 12. This leads us to: 1) Being native Greek
speakers and thus closer to the text than we, perhaps the ambiguity
present to us was not as present to them and 2) they may have also been
drawing on tradition In any case, I know of no patristic evidence for
the first 400 years to contradict the interpretation that Andronicus and
Junia are apostles and that the latter was a woman.
Larry Swain
Parmly Billings Library
lswain@wln.com
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 20:52:07 -0600
Subject: Re: Junia endgueltig!
At 9:46 AM 12/5/95, BibAnsMan@aol.com wrote:
>I may have missed it if you talked about it previously. But another
>significant issue regarding Romans 16:7 is the phrase hOITINES EISIN EPISHMOI
>EN TOIS APOSTOLOIS. What does this mean? Does it mean "outstanding _among_
>the apostles" ? Does it necessarily imply that IOUNIA / IOUNIAN _is_ an
>apostle or popular in the midst of the apostles in a different sense? This
>needs to be discussed.
I agree this needs to be discussed, although it appears there wasn't as
much interest in the question before the possibility that one of the
persons thus described is a woman came to be considered a bit more
seriously.
It would seem to me that the APOSTOLOI here are not likely to be equated
either with "the Twelve" nor with simple "messengers" or "envoys" entrusted
with a dispatch to deliver, such as, for instance, those sent with the
decree of the Apostolic Council described in Acts 15. Isn't it most likely
that the word means "missionaries?" Who are the "missionaries?"
There are numerous partial questions here, all of them, I think, previously
discussed many times in many a forum. I raise them only because they bear
on the question how we are to understand the term here, (And I will state
my OPINION on these questions and hope I will not find myself accused of
making some sort of dogmatic assertion of an objective fact. I have never
tried to disguise my opinion as something other than an opinion nor have I
argued that I or anyone else can express a judgment on a question in the
Greek text of the NT without having theological presuppositions. What I
HAVE argued is that directly posing questions or stating positions that are
theological and are not intimately linked to a question regarding the Greek
text is more likely to start flame-wars on the list, which is precisely
what seems to have happened when I did just that in my post on 1 Timothy
2).
(1) What happened to "the Twelve" and how much do we really know about
them? It has always struck me as curious that the lists presented in the
different gospels do not quite coincide; I know that there are
extra-canonical traditions regarding specific members of group of "twelve,"
but my impression is that the number itself is more solidly attested in the
gospel tradition than the names of persons constituting it. There are, of
course, the principals: the Marcan "group of four" comprising the sons of
Zebedee and and Peter and Andrew. It seems to me that there are 3 pretty
solid traditions about the 12: (a) they were from the outset
APOSTOLOI--evangelists (Mk 3:14 par; Mk also says they were to "be with
him"); (b) the "so-called" Q tradition that the twelve are to eat and drink
with Jesus and sit on thrones at the parousia of Jesus and judge the 12
tribes (Lk 22:30; Mt 19:28); (c) they were, as a group, a second tier of
witnesses to the resurrection, after Peter (1 Cor 15:5). I would assume
that the traditions of appearances on Easter evening are linked to this
last tradition.
What is much less clear to me is the relationship between the Twelve and
the Seven named in Acts 6. Although Luke's account indicates that the Seven
were chosen to look after distribution of supplies to widows and orphans in
the Jerusalem community, the activity in which he shows them, beginning
with Stephen, as actively engaged is evangelism, and specifically to
Greek-speaking Jews, apparently at the same time that the Twelve are
evangelizing Aramaic-speaking Jews. Then in Acts 8 it is said that there
was a great persecution following the stoning of Stephen, and that
consequently PANTES DIESPARHSAN KATA TAS XWRAS THS IOUDAIAS KAI SAMAREIAS
PLHN TWN APOSTOLWN. Presumably the APOSTOLOI of 8:1 refers to the Twelve.
But why were they allowed to stay in Jerusalem? Perhaps because the gospel
they were preaching was not so radical as the gospel that the
"Hellenists"--the Seven minus Stephen--were preaching, not so radical as to
suggest the supplanting of Israel by a new people of God. Well, all this is
speculation, of course; I'm just trying to paint the reasonable likelihood
that the Seven were perhaps categorized as APOSTOLOI.
(2) Who are the Seventy (or Seventy-two) of Luke's missionary expedition
(Lk 10)? Jesus APESTEILEN AUTOUS (10:1): were they called APOSTOLOI? And
what's the significance of the number 70 or 72? 6 elders from each of the
12 tribes of Israel, like the elders accompanying Moses up Sinai/Horeb?
(3) Is Apollos an APOSTOLOS? I would think so. What of those to whom Paul
refers in the later chapters of 2 Cor as "super-apostles" (hUPERLIAN
APOSTOLOI, 11:5, 12:11)? What of those to whom Paul refers in 2 Cor 8:23
APOSTOLOI EKKLHSIWN?
I'm sure all this must have been the subject of numerous monographs and
dissertations sitting around somewhere. I'm not suggesting, I think,
anything new: that the term APOSTOLOS in the earliest years of the church
had a much wider application than to the Twelve. It may well be that it
doesn't necessarily imply any kind of institutional ordination--or again,
it may. It looks to me like the evidence is lacking to say anything very
definitive about what sort of authority one of whom the term APOSTOLOS is
used may have actually held. Paul states his own claim to authority very
clearly in Galatians as based upon the direct revelation of Christ to
himself. Do we hear anything about institutional authority conferred upon
others holding the "title" of APOSTOLOS?
All of that comes to bear, for what it's worth, upon the question: what
does hOITINES EISIN EPISHMOI EN TOIS APOSTOLOIS mean? I think it most
likely means that Andronicus and Junia (Junias, if one still thinks this to
be masculine) are outstanding "apostles"--that there are several
"apostles," but these are extraordinary. Junia? Why not? As I say, we have
no evidence whatsoever for a mechanism by which these two, whether they are
a man and a woman or two men, derived their title and function. They were
missionaries, and outstanding ones, in Paul's estimation. And if it IS
Junia? a woman apostle? What then? Does this mean that a woman might ever
have been one of the Twelve? The question itself is just too speculative.
But there surely seems to be a STRONG LIKELIHOOD that a woman named Junia
was deemed by Paul to be an outstanding missionary.
And I am going to have to come back to Galatians 3:28. I still find that to
be in considerable tension with 1 Timothy 2, and I really don't understand
how the breaking down of distinctions of worth between slave and free man,
Jew and Greek, male and female is somehow altogether irrelevant to the
question of who is worthy to be appointed to an office in the church. Maybe
Junia never had any official institutional authorization; still, Paul
deemed her EPISHMOS EN TOIS APOSTOLOIS.
That, at any rate, is what I think the phrase in question means.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #31
****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu