Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Romans 16:7

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Richardson <prchrdsn AT chass.utoronto.ca>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Romans 16:7
  • Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 19:55:32 -0500

Like many others, I think there is little doubt that the preferred text is Junia, not Junias, and that the preferred translation of the resulting text is "noteworthy among the apostles," though this translation is perhaps not quite so certain as as the feminine form of the name. If one wanted to accept  that textual decision and that exegetical decision, implying that Junia was an apostle, but not accept that the role of apostle was similar, the burden of proof would then be on one to show grounds for such a distinction between male "apostles" and "female" apostles, not the other way around. The methodological issue that arises in such a case is an interesting and important one.

The note by John Burnett begs the question, since in the case of "deacon/deaconness" what happened was that both masculine and feminine forms began to be used alongside each other; it may be that they did eventually develop different functions. But in Rom 16:1-2, Phoebe is referred to as a diakonos, using the masculine form of the word, in almost precisely the same way as the word apostolos is used a few verses later of both Andronicus and Junia. In neither case is there any reason to imagine different functions. Certainly the text does not hint at any, and some methodological reason would have to be adduced for importing such a difference into the texts.
--
Peter Richardson
University College   Office (416) 978-7149; Fax 971-2027
University of Toronto   e-mail <prchrdsn AT chass.utoronto.ca>
Toronto M5S 3H7  http://www.chass.utoronto.ca:8080/~prchrdsn/
 



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page