From: BibAnsMan@aol.com
Date: Fri Dec 01 1995 - 10:50:31 EST
Just a note regarding this discussion of Junias in Romans 16:7. It was
mentioned previously that the accent is relatively recent (20th century). It
is my contention that the accent really doesn't have much impact one way OR
the other so it should be ignored (since it isn't from the early manuscripts
anyway).
Also, it was noted that the feminine Junias is very common and the masculine
form is not found. Let it also be known that a female apostle is also not
found in Scripture. Danker as noted takes the contextual interpretation of
masculine. Some have opposed this, but I don't see any argument against the
context. The form itself can clearly support a masculine.
Jim McGuire
Professor of Greek at
Logos Bible Institute
13248 Roscoe Blvd.
Sun Valley, CA 91352
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:33 EDT