From: David L. Moore (dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Thu Jul 18 1996 - 09:44:25 EDT
Stephen C Carlson wrote:
>
> KULIKOVSKY, Andrew wrote:
> >As Michael Holmes pointed out above, Junia(s) is a Latin name, which
> >means the Greek form should be Junios if it were maculine. He then
> >concludes that it must be feminine and therefore Junia.
>
> >But this is a little premature - the same argument can go the other
> >way. The spelling Junias has an A rating - this means that there is
> >overwhelming evidence that this spelling is original. But the feminine
> >form should be spelt Junia not Junias. Using the same logic as above,
> >it could be concluded that Junias is therefore masculine. Maybe, the
> >suggestion that Junias is a short form of Junianus is not such a bad
> >one. Surely, this can be counted as evidence.
>
> I'd like to clear up this treatment of the evidence. The actual
> spelling in Ro16:7 is IOUNIAN, in the accusative, which, if written
> without accents as the earliest manuscripts were, is lexically
> ambiguous as to the form Junia or Junias. What favors the feminine
> form is that it was very common female name while the masculine form is
> an unattested, conjectural form. Furthermore, the earliest manuscripts
> that do include accents uniformly accentuate it as a feminine form.
>
> A second point is that the A rating only extends to the unaccented
> letters over the variant reading IOULIAN in p46, etc. Although the
> UBS4 apparatus is misleading on that score (implying incorrectly that
> the masc. IOUNIA=N has the A rating), Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary,
> p.476 explains:
>
> The "A" decision of the Committee must be understood as
> applicable only as to the spelling of the IOUNIAN, not
> the masculine accentation.
>
> If that's what the Committee really meant, then the apparatus to Ro16:7
> should be corrected in the next edition. It is currently misleading
> because it cites manuscripts without accents as support for the masculine
> form.
Just an aside, but something worth pointing out in this discussion, is
that in the uncial lettering of the first centuries of the MS transmission,
lambda iota appears very similar in form to the letter nu. As Metzger has
noted in _A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament_ (p. 539), there is
some confusion between LI and N in both v. 7 and v. 15.
-- David L. Moore Director Miami, Florida, USA Department of Education dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com Southeastern Spanish District http://www.netcom.com/~dvdmoore of the Assemblies of God
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:46 EDT