"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

When Inerrantists Espouse the Bible Has Error: A Question for Southern Baptists About Junia in Romans 16:7

Dr. David Jones is a conservative Southern Baptist scholar who serves as a professor of ethics on the faculty at Southeastern Theological Seminary. The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has posted an article written by Dr. Jones entitled "A Female Apostle?" (Edit: It seems the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood misidentified the man who wrote the article they posted on their own website. I have no idea how CBMW can post an article and misidentify the author, but it seems, as has been pointed out by a couple of commentors in the comment section the CBMW has now corrected their mistake. The author of the article is David Jones, Professor at Moffat College of Bible).

Dr. Jones examines Romans 16:7 where the Apostle Paul names a female, Junia, as one "prominent among the apostles." Dr. Jones rightly frames the issue that arises from this verse when he writes, "A woman is called an apostle, and a prominent apostle no less, who may have planted churches throughout the Roman world and exercised governing authority over them. It challenges the traditional belief in an all-male apostolate, as well as the implication that complementarians have drawn from it."

For this reason, Dr. Jones sets out to prove that the woman named in Romans 16:7 is NOT actually a woman. The basic conclusion that Dr. Jones reaches follows:


(T)he important papyrus P46, along with several other less important manuscripts and versions, reads Ioulian. Ioulian is a feminine name, equivalent to our Julia. If this reading is to be preferred, then Paul is definitely referring here to a sister in Christ and not a brother. It is unlikely that this reading is original, however ... It is most likely that the scribe who copied P46 inadvertently transposed "Julia" from verse fifteen. (emphasis mine).


In essence, the oldest, and highly important Greek manuscript (according to Dr. Jones), Papyri 46 has a mistake. It contains a scribal "error."

Dr. Jones' article is worthy for you to read in its entirety. I understand his conclusion, and though I disagree it, I respect it. I write not to refute Dr. Jones scholarly conclusions, but to ask a sincere question of all my fellow conservative Southern Baptist.

What do we call it when a Southern Baptist inerrantist points out 'error' in the most ancient Greek text?


In His Grace,


Wade

143 comments:

Thy Peace said...

This is an important post in the current discussions. I will leave some links that are associated with Junia and P46 from Suzanne's Bookshelf [Suzanne McCarthy] ...

Wolters on Junia [FEBRUARY 08, 2009].

P 46 Index [JULY 23, 2007].

P46 and submit [APRIL 15, 2009].

Thy Peace said...

One more link where Suzanne discusses David Jones post on CBMW site ...

McCarthy vs Wallace 6 [APRIL 26, 2009].

Chris Ryan said...

This does smack of having an agenda. I will grant you that. And they accuse egalitarians of exercises in hermeneutical gymnastics...

But I also have to point out that in the most technical sense, this does not amount to denying inerrancy or saying the Bible has errors. Inerrancy, in its most technical and defendable forms, attests to the inerrancy of the original manuscripts that fell from the pens of the final author. Dr. Jones is not saying the Bible has error. He is saying that the copies and translations we have are not inerrant, something any Bible scholar of any stripe will tell you.

This does make you wonder, though, how useful the term inerrancy is when we have no originals and are at best translating from copies of copies of copies.

Bart Barber said...

Left out of the original post is the fact that Jones is not advancing some theory of his own that breaks with scholarly consensus. Rather, Jones is simply here echoing the reading in the Nestle-Aland critical text. If you have a Greek New Testament on your shelf, it agrees with Jones and not Burleson.

Indeed, is there any published critical edition of the Greek New Testament that sides with Burleson and P46 in adopting "Julia" as the original text?

CB Scott said...

Bart Barber's statement should be closely considered as one reads this post:

"....If you have a Greek New Testament on your shelf, it agrees with Jones and not Burleson.

Indeed, is there any published critical edition of the Greek New Testament that sides with Burleson and P46 in adopting "Julia" as the original text?"

Dr. David Jones is a scholar. Few young men that I know have given their lives to the seeking to know and understand the Word of God as has David.

I do not believe David Jones would search the Word of God with a preconceived "agenda."

Dr. David Jones is a professor of Ethics of the highest caliber who actually lives in his everyday life what he teaches in the classroom.

I fear that to suggest or create the impression that this man would have a questionable agenda in the research of Scripture other than to simply know what God's Word reveals is simply not a good thing to do.

That Jeremy Guy said...

Quote:
"What do we call it when a Southern Baptist inerrantist points out 'error' in the most ancient Greek text?"

As an inerrantist, I have no problem with an error being found in any ancient Greek text.

An inerrantist believes that the original manuscripts, penned by the original authors are without error.

Wade Burleson said...

Jeremy

I know the definition of inerrancy has to do with "the originals."

Wade Burleson said...

Bart,

Do you the believe Nestle-Aland Greek text to be inerrant?

What about those scholarly translations of the Greek text that are based upon other Greek texts NOT used by Nestle such as the NAS RSV NIV and a host of others?

Please note Dr. Jones scholarship is not being questioned in this post. It is his (and your) LOGIC.

What do we call an inerrantist who points out "error" in the Greek text?

A textual CRITIC!

When an inerrantist is making a MAJOR doctrine out of something he must criticize the most ancient, highly important Greek text (Papryi 46) the LOGIC tells us the doctrine MUST not be important to the essentials of the Christian faith.

I am asking Southern Baptist inerrantists (of which I am one) to be intellectually and logically honest and ADMIT that the basis for discounting the feminine gender in Romans 16:7 is the very same thing for which WE criticize "liberals.".
Could it be that we are making essential for our cooperation those things that are not biblical essentials? And, could the proof of that be having to call Greek texts in "error" to sustain our argument?

Wade Burleson said...

CB

No available Greek manuscript prior to the Middle Ages has a masculine ending in Romans 16:7. John Zens calls the sudden transformation from female to male "the world's first sex change."

Smile.

Thy Peace said...

Some of the links in the above comment are in transition and these below are fixed.

Suzanne's Bookshelf [Suzanne McCarthy] > Index: CBMW, Grudem, kephale.

Junia

In the ESV and the NET Bible the reference to Junia in Romans 16:7 says that she is "well-known to the apostles."

I wrote 17 posts here and added more content in comments on other blogs. The best printed material on Junia to date is by Linda Belleville. See the bibliography in my post below.

Junia, the apostle: Index.

After several exchanges with Grudem and Burer, I wrote,

Junia: A Reponse to Michael Burer.

This is a highly technical argument, but the upshot is that neither Dan Wallace nor Michael Burer have responded to Linda Belleville's excellent critique of their work in attempting to prove that Junia was not an apostle. I reference the work done by Belleville, Epp and Bauckham. However, my writing benefited from what they wrote, and has additional content. The conclusion is that Chrysostom, a native speaker of Greek,recognized Junia as a female apostle and he was a native speaker of Greek.

Thy Peace said...

I just wish that when people move their blogs, they update their links. It is so easy to do this with automated scripts.

And when it is not done, it is such a headache to manually update the links. I am afraid at some point Suzanne will have to update her links in the index blog posts she has authored.

Warning: BetterBibles blog has moved from here, so the links are in transition and need to be updated.

Wade Burleson said...

Thanks Thy Peace,

You are a trooper.

Bart Barber said...

Wade,

There are three things that I would like to correct in what you've asserted, but I would prefer to consider them in a serial fashion, only moving to the second after the first has been resolved, and so forth.

First, there seems to be a basic misunderstanding about what it means to be an inerrantist, particularly with the relationship between inerrancy and textual criticism. I can't think of any more helpful way to move forward than simply to ask:

When you, Wade, claim to be an inerrantist, what do you mean by that?

Wade Burleson said...

Bart,

Inerrancy means the original documents, which no man possesses, are without error.

Your comment "If you have a Greek New Testament on your shelf, it agrees with Jones and not Burleson" -- must be referring to the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, which is a compilation of Greek manuscripts that have gone through scholarly textual criticism.

My question, to you, is three-fold and simple:

(1). Are you claiming Nestle-Aland Greek text is infallible and inerrant?

To do so, you must claim that the oldest, most important Greek manuscript (Papryi 46) is in "error" on Romans 16:7. As pointed out earlier, most modern English translations of the New Testament ACCEPT Papry 46--as did all Greek students prior to the Middle Ages.

(2). Would you not agree with me that on important doctrines -- like the resurrection of Christ -- there is no need to defend one's position by asserting "the ancient Greek text is in error?"

(3). Why are we inerrantists, as Dr. Jones so eloquently writes in his paper on Junia, having to point out "error" in a Greek manuscript in order to sustain a prohibition against "women" ministering to men?

At times, it seems we inerrantists act like orthodox, classic liberals. We pick and choose what we wish the Bible to say, and remove it from the Bible if we don't like it.

Shane Lester said...

Wade, I'm a long-time reader and I appreciate you and your ministry in the SBC. You are in my prayers often.

Just a thought here about Romans 16:7... I have always taken the position that the "Junias" of v.7 goes along with the "Andronicus" of v.7. So it would be "Andronicus and Junias", sort-of like husband & wife. I don't know of any evidence that really backs that up, but it just seems to be the natural flow of the text.

Anyway, I just wanted to know your thoughts on that. I promise, whether you agree with me or not, I'll still read your blog and pray for you. (Just had to throw in a little humor) :)

Wade Burleson said...

Bart, this is now the second time I have asked you, "Do you believe the Nestle-Aland Greek text to be inerrant". I would ask before you query me again that you simply answer at least this question before you do.

Wade Burleson said...

Shane,

I think your question will be answered in not only a scholarly fashion, but in an eye-poppingly interesting way by following the links Thy Peace has provided.

Blessings,

Wade

P.S. Thanks for the kind words! You make me proud to be SBC. :)

Bart Barber said...

Wade,

My apologies. I thought it was a rhetorical question. I had no idea that you were seriously asking it.

No. I do not consider the Nestle-Aland text to be inerrant. However, you are incorrect in stating that I MUST be referring to the Nestle-Aland text when I speak of the Greek New Testament on one's bookshelf. To my knowledge, no critical edition of the Greek New Testament anywhere at any time in the past five centuries has ever sided with you and P46. Never.

Metzger's Textual Commentary indicates that the committee was UNANIMOUS in rejecting the reading in P46.

So, the point is not that the NA text is inerrant. Rather, the point is that you have alleged that an "agenda" is the most likely reason (perhaps going so far as to allege that it is the only plausible reason) for Jones to have concluded as he has with regard to the reading of Romans 16:7, when in point of fact, the scholarly world decisively—dare I say unanimously?—agrees with him and disagrees with you.

This, of course, does not mean necessarily that he is right and you are wrong. It does, however, mean that we ought to be looking for agendas not in Jones's decision about P46, but in Burleson's.

Bart Barber said...

Now, as to the second and third portions of your question:

2. This question is ill-formed, for there is no such thing as "THE ancient Greek text." With regard to Romans 16:7, the ancient Greek TEXTS are in conflict with one another. It is not a conflict difficult to resolve, as reflected by the classification of this textual variant as an A-class variant by Metzger et al. The text quite simply is "Iounian" rather than "Ioulian," and the cause for the error in P46 is easy to see, evidenced by the commensurate variant at verse 15 (also a class-A variant).

The status here is that "the ancient Greek text" contradicts itself with regard to whether "Ioulian" or "Iounian" is the correct reading, but both the external and the internal evidence overwhelmingly settles the matter in favor of "Iounian."

I would therefore reply that the foundational doctrines of Christianity rest upon texts in precisely the same category as this one—texts in which the reading of the original is so clear as to be free from any reasonable doubt.


3. There seems to be confusion both with regard to Jones's argument and with regard to the role of P46 in the debate over the gender of Junias in Romans 16:7.

Jones is absolutely correct in siding with the decisive settlement of scholarship against the validity of the errant reading in P46 and siding with the correct reading in some 30+ other ancient textual sources. This is simply a matter already decided for us.

This decision, however, does not settle the question of the gender of the person indicated by the noun "Iounian" in the verse. To put it simply:

1. Is the name in Romans 16:7 "Julia" or "Junia(s)"? The world is united in declaring that it is "Junia(s)" and not "Julia."

2. Is the "Junia(s)" in Romans 16:7 a man or a woman? The world is divided on this question and has been since the days of Chrysostom. Jones and others say "Junias" was a man. Zens and others say "Junia" was a woman.

You've made the mistake of jumping on Jones over his answer to question #1, when you really wanted to take issue with him over question #2.

Todd said...

Timidly he writes,

I have not explored Wade's contention, but since Protestant, and so Souther Baptist Scholarship, seems to dismiss a good portion of Christian history (i.e. no scholar in the past five centuries), one would wonder in what way Christian history has shaped out understand of the text rather than the text shaping our understanding of the story of God.

Now, this is not intended to be argumentative, but I personally wrestle with getting stuck in one era of Christian history. We who wish to take shots at a large portion of Christian history regularly point out the cultural influences on practices we deem unsupported by Scripture. I wonder, typing out loud as it were, if we are not often guilty of the same. And, by the way, that means both sides of the proverbial shouting match vying for dominance.

Bart Barber said...

Now, as I have given this already all of the time that I can allocate to it, I proceed with my two other corrections:

1. Your statement to CB that "No available Greek manuscript prior to the Middle Ages has a masculine ending in Romans 16:7" is in error and reflects a misunderstanding of the Greek language. The cause of the difficulty in Romans 16:7 is that "Iounian" is a form ambiguous with regard to gender. The "ending" here could be EITHER masculine OR feminine.

Thus, it is nonsensical to make the argument that you have made (which is not, by the way, the argument that Zens made). No Greek manuscript either before or after the middle ages has had either a masculine OR a feminine ending.

Textually, we know with great certainty that the original from Paul's hand was an unaccented "Iounian" in Romans 16:7.

Now, people have translated that into Latin, and in doing so they have made guesses as to whether the word should be read as masculine or feminine. Also, later readers have added accent marks that indicate whether those readers were guessing that the name was masculine or feminine. Thus, we do have some sort of a record of the opinions of various believers down through the ages as to whether this is a masculine or a feminine name.

But these various opinions have no bearing whatsoever upon the question of which is the reading of the original Greek text. On that question, everyone is in agreement that Paul wrote "Iounian" without accents.


3. Textual criticism is not and never has been the definition of "liberalism." Who are these bogeymen, these red herrings, who have attacked "liberals" for participating in textual criticism?

Indeed, as I have recently argued against a Southern Baptist who believes that the original text of the Bible was errant (see here), a belief in inerrancy inherently makes textual criticism more important, such that textual criticism has no greater supporters than inerrantists.

Bart Barber said...

Todd,

I mention the past five centuries not to limit us to the Protestant era, but to limit us to the era in which people have been producing critical editions of the Greek New Testament

Bart Barber said...

In other words, Todd, to be more specific, my starting point for my five centuries is not Luther's 95 Theses, but Erasmus's Greek New Testament.

Christiane said...

St. Junia is not the only controversy out there, of course. Many of you may not know the story of St. Brigid of Ireland, the
Abbess of Kildare (c. 450-525)

"Brigid became a nun and ultimately abbess of Kildare. Through her fame as a spiritual teacher the Abbey of Kildare became a center for pilgrims. So great was the authority of Brigid, it seems, that she even induced a bishop to join her community and to share her leadership.

(HERE'S THE GOOD PART):
"According to legend – which the church, for obvious reasons, has strenuously resisted – the bishop came to ordain Brigid as a fellow bishop.
Some chroniclers report the story while trying in some way to mitigate the scandal.
It is suggested, for instance, that the bishop was so “intoxicated with the grace of God” that he didn't know what he was doing."


All 'legend' of course, and shrouded in the mists of time, and yet . . . .
what a fuss to 'explain' the bishop's 'faux pas'. :)

"Intoxication with the grace of God" ???
Bring it on.

Peace of Christ,
L's

Wade Burleson said...

Bart,

You said: "The scholarly world decisively—dare I say unanimously?—agrees with Dr. Jones and disagrees with you."

Webster's defines unanimously as "complete agreement by everyone: without dissent."

Bart:

(1). You seem to need to include in your fellowship circle scholars outside your circle of scholarly friends.

(2). A suggestion would be any scholar on the translation committees of the HCSB, NASB, NIV, ISV, NRSV English versions of the Greek text.

But remember! I can see both sides of the argument and respect both sides--including those conservative, evangelical churches that see it differently.

I am only asking "Why disfellowship from someone who disagrees with your textual criticism?"

Christiane said...

I suppose the U.S Council of Catholic Bishops, as well as the Orthodox Church would not count as 'scholars' in this debate,
HOWEVER:

The USCCB New American Bible names "Junia" and the footnote states that Junia is the name of woman in the original text.
The footnote also honestly states that it has been 'editors' who have disagreed with the original text.

The Orthodox Church celebrates St. Junia as the wife of St. Andronicus. This is interesting because, in order for them to have accepted 'Junia' as a woman, it would have had to be believed also in the early centers of Christianity from which the Orthodox liturgy and traditions were nourished.

Interesting, if not 'scholarly'. :)

Pax Christi,
L's

Thy Peace said...

I updated the links for this post ...

Better Bibles Blog [Suzanne McCarthy] > Junia, the apostle: Index.

Junia, the apostle: Index

A discussion of how to translate episemoi en tois apostolois in Romans 16:7.

ἀσπάσασθε Ἀνδρόνικον καὶ Ἰουνιᾶν τοὺς συγγενεῖς μου καὶ συναιχμαλώτους μου οἵτινές εἰσιν ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις οἳ καὶ πρὸ ἐμοῦ γέγοναν ἐν Χριστῷ

Junia, the apostle: Part 1 –Various translations and patristics
Junia, the apostle: Part 2 –Junia’s name, Lampe and Brooten
Junia, the apostle: Part 3 –Junia’s name, Wallace and Burer
Junia, the apostle: Part 4 –Vamva version and Lorimer
Junia, the apostle: Part 5 –Nino, equal to the apostles
Junia, the apostle: Part 6 –Lexicon Entries for episemos
Junia, the apostle: Part 7 –Not a verb of perception
Junia, the apostle: Part 8 –Wallace’s hypothesis
Junia, the apostle: Part 9 –the close parallel?
Junia, the apostle: Part 10 –TAM II epigraphy
Junia, the apostle: Part 11 –Aphrodite famous to mortals
Junia, the apostle: Part 12 –falsifying the hypothesis
Junia, the apostle: Part 13 –examples from W & B
Junia, the apostle: Part 14 –more examples
Junia, the apostle: Part 15 –church fathers
Junia, the apostle: Part 16 –summary

Tom Parker said...

Wade:

You said to Bart:"I am only asking "Why disfellowship from someone who disagrees with your textual criticism?""

The truly sad part Wade is that inerrancy has been used as a test of fellowship and participation in the SBC over the last 30 years in a way that can surely be described as a takeover.

Are you able to see that Bart Barber?

Bart Barber said...

Wade,

The "disfellowshipping" question may be your fallback position, but this started with your allegation that Jones's scholarship on the P46 question was an example of "agenda" on his part.

But I'm ready to let that matter lie, seeing that you have conceded my point in your usual manner—by editing the "agenda" comment out of the original post rather than by daring to admit that you were wrong. And that's an agreeable resolution for me, since Dr. Jones's scholarly reputation is now unassailed by your post.

With regard to whether the Greek text should be "Iounian" or "Ioulian" there really is no "both sides" to consider. Please refer back to my "Question #1 / Question #2" explanation above. If you can direct me to a critical edition of the Greek New Testament that has sided with P46, then we have the grounds for a discussion of Question #1.

I bid you adieu.

Christiane said...

Another reference from what is in practical use among Christian people:

The Greek Orthodox Diocese of America has this for "Junia" in its Bible in the verse Romans 16:7

Ιουνίαν

The position of the accent in Ιουνίαν
indicates that the name is feminine.

(The Greek Orthodox Diocese, of course, may not be recognized by some Baptist scholars as 'scholarly', but there it is.)

Christiane said...

Additional info on the Orthodox version of Romans 16:7 is here:

The Greek New Testament displayed is the authorized 1904 text of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. The Patriarchal text has been made available courtesy of the Greek Bible society and was digitized in XML in cooperation with the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese Department of Internet Ministries, the Greek BIble Society and the American BIble Society IT Department's OSIS project.

The Open Scriptural Information Standard (OSIS) was developed by the Bible Technologies Group in co-sponsorship with the American Bible Society and the Society of Biblical Literature"

This may not be a 'scholarly' reference in some opinions.

Randy White said...

Does "Prominent among the apostles" mean she (and Andronicus) were apostles...or just that they were prominent among the company of the apostles. Doesn't Greek have a word for "as", and if so, wouldn't Paul have used it if he meant "as an apostle?"

Seems Wade is jumping through hoops to find hidden agendas. The fact is, many of us don't hide our agenda and are quick to hold forth the belief of a male pastorate, with plenty of scriptural basis.

Wade Burleson said...

Bart,

I thought the "agenda" wording distracting from the main point of the post, so if my usual custom is to correct a mistake by editing out a word that causes people to ignore the main point, then I plead guilty.

You thought "agenda" attacked Dr. Jone's scholarship, ignoring the statements in the main body of the post that voiced appreciation for his scholarship.

My intent for using the word agenda still stands. I intended it this way:

"Anytime a Christian disfellowships from a fellow believer, church or organization in ministry because they allow women to teach, minister to, or have authority over a man--and base the reasoning for their disfellowship on claiming "error" in Papryi 46--then there is an agenda of female subordination to the male.

I believe that agenda is anti-New Covenant, anti-logical, anti-productive and ultimately destined to fail.

In His Grace,

Wade

Tom Parker said...

Wade:

I wonder if Bart took his toys home and does not wish to play anymore with us here.

Bart Barber said...

Tom,

When playing croquet with the Queen of Hearts, leaving the game is the only good move.



Christiane,

I've already addressed the question of the accent marks in earlier comments. Nobody, the Diocese included, believes that the accent marks came from the hand of Paul.



Wade,

Can you produce for us an example of somebody who (a) endorses the P46 reading as the original reading of the text and (b) has been "disfellowshipped" by either Dr. Jones or myself for having done so? If not, then I can't see how this isn't just nonsense, to be grouped in with your "can't cooperate with anyone who doesn't agree with them on everything" nonsense and the ever expanding contents of that category.

Wade Burleson said...

Bart,

I shall gladly answer your question. The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 is one example. If, as Dr. Jones states, Junia is a female apostle , and "a prominent apostle no less, who may have planted churches throughout the Roman world and exercised governing authority over them" then the woman ministry prohibition clause in the BFM 2000, and any SBC institutional mandates that a woman cannot exercise authority over a man or face termination, as well as any and all attempts at disfellowshipping SBC churches who call female pastors(as in FBC, Decatur, Georgia) would be in contradiction to the affirmation of the Apostle Paul-- from an inerrant, conservative, evangelical perspective of ACCEPTING Papryi 46 as a FAITHFUL COPY of INERRANT SCRIPTURE.

As to who it is that feels disenfranchised or disfellowshipped from, I would open up to you my files and letters, but I'm afraid this little comment section is not substantial enough to contain them all. One small example, however, is the brilliant FEMALE SBC chaplain and pastor at West Point, whom I introduced you to a few months ago.

Chris Johnson said...

Brother Wade,

This is an interesting discussion. Is there any proof that this individual was an apostle? It seems that scripture has given us the only accounting of Apostles…and the final one called.

Acts 1:20-26 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be made desolate, And let no man dwell therein: and, His office let another take. (21) Of the men therefore that have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us, (22) beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from us, of these must one become a witness with us of his resurrection. (23) And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. (24) And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show of these two the one whom thou hast chosen, (25) to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas fell away, that he might go to his own place. (26) And they gave lots for them; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

It seems that Luke has confirmed that the Lord was the only one making Apostles, not the Apostle Paul or the Catholic Church, and surely not the Baptist’s. Why so much fuss over Junias?

Blessings,
Chris

Benji Ramsaur said...

Wade,

When it comes to "women being pastors", I do think there are some practical implications that seem to make it possibly difficult for folks on different sides to cooperate alongside of one another...

...when it comes to church planting and shepherding in a local church context.

If someone believes in "pre millennialism" and some who are being taught are "amillennial", then the amills might just walk away saying "he's wrong, but I love him anyway". In other words, there isn't anything/anyone necessarily tangible that might emerge when it comes to this disagreement.

However, when it comes to "women pastors", then we are talking about the possibility of the "pro" side actually allowing/supporting a women to be either an/the elder or a fellow elder. And if that happens, then I think that can easily become an issue of conscience. If the "anti" side holds with conviction that that is wrong, then I don't see how it will not be a matter of conscience.

Think about it this way. Both Jon Zens and John Reisinger are New Covenant Theology advocates. In fact, I think it is justifiable to call them "the fathers" of the NCT movement. Put those guys together and I think they would agree on a substantial amount of doctrine.

However, they do not agree concerning gender. So, I'm not sure if even they could minister alongside of one another in a local church context in the light of what I have said above. I certainly don't want to speak for both of them, but that is just my opinion.

Now, where I am ultimately taking this is to the practical issue of planting churches through an SBC agency. Don't you think that if there is a strong disagreement here, then that will result in practical problems concerning church planting?

Marvin Merriweather said...

Bart Barber won this debate hands down...and I commend him for leaving the game that only the Queen of Hearts could win.

Benji Ramsaur said...

Marvin,

I want to gently encourage you to please not make this a "win/lose" thing.

None of us wins apart from the finished work of Christ.

God Bless,

Benji

Christiane said...

Hi BART BARBER,

The reference is accurate in the placement of the accent in the Bible that is in current
PRACTICAL USAGE
among the Greek Orthodox of the Archdiocese.

The acceptance of St. Junia as a female in the tradition of the Orthodox faith is unbroken from the beginning of its traditions and liturgical practices.
I realize that that is may not a 'scholarly' factor. However, there it is.

How much or how little a practice of Christians consistently over time influences a scholarly evaluation, I do not know.
But, speaking as a Christian, I do like to know what Christians in past times honored in the practice of their faith as expressed in their traditions and their liturgies.
That 'practical' application of their faith is telling, in my opinion, and does bear some obligation for an examination to discover its sources and how widespread and consistently the tradition was upheld.
(My opinion only, Bart)

Pax Christi,
L's

Wade Burleson said...

Benji,

Both John Zens and John Reisinger are friends. John Zens told me yesterday he has been a close friend of John Reisinger's for decades. The issue of gender between John Reisinger and John Zens never came up in our two hour breakfast.

To me, this is precisely the way it should be. Christians should be friends even when disagreeing over this issue. It shouldn't be an issue over which Christians divide.

RM said...

Wade,

I'm not trying to start a fight but why are you always championing women's causes and then making fun of inerrantists and conservative Baptists?

Not mad, just would like to know.

Wade Burleson said...

Marvin,

To win a debate there must first be a debate.

:)

There hasn't been one. Just questions and answers.

Blessings,

Wade

Wade Burleson said...

RM,

Not making fun at all. Just pointing out logical fallacies to help keep those of us who are inerrantists humble enough to admit we could be wrong about issues.

:)

Benji Ramsaur said...

Wade,

I understand what you are saying concerning not breaking fellowship over this as friends. But what I am referring to is church planting.

Lydia said...

Bart Barber won this debate hands down...and I commend him for leaving the game that only the Queen of Hearts could win.

Wed Nov 11, 04:05:00 PM 2009

Marvin, It is not about win/lose as Benji stated. It is about a truth that affects every single sister in Christ personally. Over 50% of all professing Christians in the Body. So, the truth matters.

Marvin Merriweather said...

It's all a matter of semantics, and Bart pointed out that Wade falsely accused someone of having an "agenda" to push. It's always about some big shot having a "voice" of criticism instead of finding something about which to rejoice. How about a blog report about consistent giving during a shaky economy? Instead, the route of criticism is always taken. It's amazing to note that the men in influential SBC positions don't make a career out of criticizing people in the blogosphere. Perhaps Wade should try to publicly renounce his own shortcomings before exposing those of his neighbors.

Marvin Merriweather said...

And Lydia, I would listen to you except for the fact that you're female. Which means you really don't matter. ;-)

Aussie John said...

Wade,

I realize this is out of context regarding this particular article, but for a long while I have been puzzled by the attitudes of some for whom I have concern. May I suggest that all ought to consider the following:

1. I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for the author of, and those who comment on, this blog, even if I disagree, notwithstanding any disrespect shown to me, real or imagined(Romans 12:17-21).

2. When I disagree, I will express myself without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

3. I will be careful with my reading of the beliefs of others by not making unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will keep in mind my own weakness in knowledge and spirit and always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

Lydia said...

And Lydia, I would listen to you except for the fact that you're female. Which means you really don't matter. ;-)

Wed Nov 11, 04:53:00 PM 2009

Thanks for proving the point about agenda's, Marv, as there is always truth in even bad humor. :o)

Marvin Merriweather said...

Just following my Calvinist brethren in showing disrespect to as many people as possible. Wouldn't want to compromise TRUTH by showing love, would I?

For the record, Lydia, I am egalitarian.

Benji Ramsaur said...

Wade,

If you would not mind, please erase comment Wed Nov 11, 03:52:00 PM 2009.

It was my opinion, but I don't want my opinion to cause any problem between those two who have been friends for so long or between those who like their teaching.

Lydia said...

I am simply stunned we are actually having a conversation about whether or not Junia was a woman. Certainly, many early church fathers thought she was!

As do several scholars who have written on this...just to name a few:

Theodore J. Epp. Junia, The First Woman Apostle. (Fortress Press: 2005), pp. 72-79.

Richard Backham. Gospel Women’s Studies of the Named Women in the Bible. (Eerdmans: 2002).

Linda Belleville’. “A Re-examination of Romans 16:7 in Light of Primary Source Materials.” NTS (Vol. 51, 2003), pp.231-249.

F. F. Bruce. Romans. (Eerdmans: 2003), p. 258.

John A. Witner. The Bible Knowledge Commentary. (1997).

Todd said...

Bart,

Thanks for clarifying your particular vantage point. My comment was open rather than specific - no mention of "to" in my comment. Just simply interjecting my thoughts as though giving them out loud.

I have appreciated your comments along the way.

Most of us think logic pertains to our conclusions, when we would do well to notice what is being contended are the premises and that is the subject to which logic pertains.

Lydia said...

No problem, Marv. I was not exactly loving back to you now was I? (hanging head in shame)

BTW: If Joe and I can be disagreeing buddies, anything can happen. Right, Joe?

If Joe has not weighed in on the Junia has a sex change operation topic, he must be sick or doing an important audit somewhere. :o)

Lydia said...

http://godswordtowomen.org/juniapreato.htm

Article by Dennis Praedo on Junia

Note: Grudem and Piper quote Epiphanius to prove Junia is a man but:

Douglas Moo discusses Epiphanius and calls into question the reliability of this evidence because in the same passage, Epiphanius thought "Prisca" (Priscilla) was a man."10 This church father also wrote and believed that "the female sex is easily seduced, weak and without much understanding. The Devil seeks to vomit out this disorder through women... We wish to apply masculine reasoning and destroy the folly of these women" (Epiphanius, Adversus Collyridianos, Migne, Patrologia Graeca, Volume 42, Column 740 f).11

(There is a lot of silliness about Junia and the entire women in ministry position... and this is one reason I question most of the scholarship of Grudem and Piper)

They also say that Junia is a rare name. Not true...as I have read many scholars who have proven that position to be false.

Here is one example:

According to Douglas Moo, the UBS4 and NA27 Greek New Testatments cite "Junia" as a variant reading.13 This variant reading is attested to by Codexes Sinaiticus (a), A, B*,C, D*, F,G, P. The GNT also cites "Julia" as a variant reading. Support for this female name is evidenced by P46, 6, itar,b, vgmss, copbo, eth, and Church Father, Jerome.

According to many scholars, Junia was a common name that appeared in Greek and Latin inscriptions and literature. Brooten states, "the female Latin name Junia occurs over 250 times among inscriptions from ancient Rome alone."14 Peter Lampe has also discovered over 250 examples of the female name Junia.15 Bruce Metzer, editor of the GNT, likewise agrees that Junia is well attested to in ancient literature.


I have come to the conclusion that "higher education" or scholarship is missing in most of our SBC seminaries.

CB Scott said...

Wade and Bart,

The same necessity to minister due to our calling that constantly calls the both of you has also taken up the major part of my day and I have been away from my desk. Otherwise I would have liked to have been in on this comment thread.

I cut my "Greek teeth" on the Textus Receptus and for many years refused to use any other. I have become familiar with the Nestle-Aland text over the last several years and have been fascinated with the little feud between Maurice Robinson and Bruce Metzger relating to the two.

Frankly, it is just as well that I did not get back here earlier. Bart has argued the position I would have taken far better than I would have relating to the textual criticism issue of this post.

I am quite sure the argument about Romans 16:7 will go on for as long as Believers walk this earth in fleshly garments.

My main contention here was my understanding that Wade was seeming make the suggestion or impression that David Jones was structuring his position from a preconceived "agenda."

Granted, if someone were to say that cb, Wade or Bart had a preconceived agenda for saying some things a person might rightly be cautious in jumping quickly to our defense.

That is just not the case with David Jones. The only "agenda" I have ever witnessed to be apparent in David and Dawn Jones is to serve Jesus with all of their hearts, minds, souls, and bodies.

Dr David Jones is a hard working young ethics professor, who, in time, will be a leader among Christian scholars.

Wade,

If you are ever in Wake Forest along with your wife, invite David and Dawn out to dinner. It will not take you long to come to the conclusion that the only preconceived agenda David Jones has in his research and his writing is to glorify his Lord and teach future pastors and missionaries to live holy lives before a holy God.

cb

Michael Ruffin said...

Wade, the answer to your question is, "Ironic."

Kristen said...

*raising a diffident hand, not being Southern Baptist*

As to whether Matthias was the "last" apostle, and there couldn't be any more after him-- sorry, but Paul identifies both himself and Barnabas as apostles. The issue is really with what the word "among" means.

So I'm just wondering-- if the name "Junia" were clearly the masculine "Junias," would the issue still be raised as to whether "of note among the apostles" actually meant only "noted by the apostles?"

It seems to me that the reasoning is, "If the reference is to a woman, then it couldn't be to an apostle. If the reference is to an apostle, then it couldn't be to a woman."

Which seems pretty much like "it doesn't matter how we wriggle out of this, as long as we do."

It feels fishy. I'm not sure I can put it better than that-- and I'm not pointing fingers at anyone. It just feels fishy.

Thy Peace said...

It feels fishy. I'm not sure I can put it better than that-- and I'm not pointing fingers at anyone. It just feels fishy.

It is more like bias or a preconceived notion of the end results. It is fascinating as I read through Suzanne's links in the above comments how much of this takes place in certain translations.

That Jeremy Guy said...

Wade,

I am failing to see the point in this blog post.

Your original question was: “What do we call it when a Southern Baptist inerrantist points out 'error' in the most ancient Greek text?”

This question is a Non-Sequitur. As you have already pointed out, inerrancy deals with the original manuscripts. Therefore why would anyone raise a fuss over an inerrantist pointing out an error in a non-original manuscript,regardless of how ancient it may be?

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Wade,

Allow me to be the first to jump off the inerrantist train. For its track is heading to the Pharisee depot. You mention the word logic, and while your use you have to admit was somewhat condescending in that context, your ultimate point (possibly unbeknownst to you at the time) was spot on. It is not the pen and ink, nor the translation, nor the Scribe, nor the clay jars and papyri, nor even the Prophet and Apostle, nor even (you heard it first here) the autographs themselves that reveal the Word of God to man. The crux of the text is the crux of the Divine, the crux of the man sent as the vine. His voice is our guide, the logos He is He, the Spirit was sent for that purpose so we...
...could understand clearly a Spiritual message, revealed in a physical and glorious presage.

In the beginning was the logos. In the beginning was that which would be revealed. The Bible makes this very very clear--that is to say in the Bible we have the revelation of God. That is to say in the Bible we have no erroneous revelation. That is to say, the Bible alone (plus the Spirit who proceeded from the Father and the logos) is to be our guide.

God DOES have an opinion when it comes to female shepherds/elders/bishops. To assume we have one specific text "fixed" when ignoring many other texts which must be aligned according to the Spirit of logos is proof texting at best, and ignoring the revealed Christ at worst.

May we all be gracious and humble and not dogmatic when it comes to verse 7, lest we be forced to heed the exhortation of verse 17. Sin can fade, even alter the Bible--but it cannot touch the logos (that which is revealed to man by God).


K

Lydia said...

Sorry CB, But the fact this is posted on CBMW means there is an agenda. You just cannot see it.

At least Wade allows challenges to his posts. Thanks, Wade. Wish the genderblog did.

CB Scott said...

Lydia,

You are a free person. You have a right to believe what you wish.

I just know the guy. He is not like me. He is not like Wade. And, he is probably not like you.

I don't care if it was posted on the He-Man Cave Dwellers Blog. David Jones did not have the agenda suggested in this post nor on this comment thread.

cb

Lydia said...

CB, Is there some reason I should take your word for it? You most likely agree with him and CBMW. I am assuming he agrees with CBMW position or his article would not be there. CBMW has an agenda. Why drag Junia out once again for another sex change? It is old ground.

I have an agenda. Don't you?

CB Scott said...

Lydia,

You do not have to take my word for it. Like I said, he is not like us.

Hey, call SEBTS and ask him. He wrote it. Ask him if Wade is right about his motive.

Then you can believe him or not believe him. Like I said; you are a free person and can think what you like.

BTW, if you read my comment back up the thread that I directed to Wade and Bart, you will find my position.

Sidebar Lydia; As you probably know, the Healthcare Bill passed in Congress. Pray it is defeated in the Senate. I think we can agree on that can we not?

cb

Tom Parker said...

Lydia:

I also do not understand why the CBMW does not open its Blog to comments. I do believe they have an agenda and I'm confident they are picky about who they allow to post articles to their site--AGENDA!

Debbie Kaufman said...

John Chrysostrom, 4th century, (337-497) wrote, "Oh! How great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle! (Homily on the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Romans XXXI).

Jerome (340-419) wrote that Junia was a female. (Liver Interpretationis Hebraicorum Nominum 72, 15.) Also Hatto of Vercelli (924-961), Theophylack (1050-1108), and Peter Abelard (1079-1142) 6

Kristen said...

Personally, I did not read what Wade said as an accusation that Jones "has an agenda," or was saying he had improper motives for reaching his conclusions.

However, if Jones is a completely objective and unbiased individual, then he is something more than human. I think that's what Lydia was getting at-- and what Wade was implying. Jones' reading of the text is almost certainly colored by his prior complementarianism, just as my reading is certainly colored by my egalitarianism. To pretend otherwise would be dishonest.

The fact is that we all do lean towards interpretations of data that best suit our own paradigms. The best thing we can do is not to pretend that one side is completely unbiased and objective, while the other is rife with bias and ulterior motives-- and to seek the "humility of wisdom" according to James 3.

Christiane said...

Hi DEBBIE,

Here is something also from Chrysostom:

Chrysostom praised Junia as an apostle. He also praised other women. It is significant to reflect on his following comment in reference to Paul's greeting of Mary in Romans 16:6:

"How is this? A woman again is honored and proclaimed victorious! Again are we men put to shame. Or rather, we are not put to shame only, but have even an honor conferred upon us. For an honor we have, in that there are such women among us, but we are put to shame, in that we men are left so far behind by them . . . For the women of those days were more spirited than lions."
(Migne, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 51, cols. 668f.


I like that part about 'the women of those days were more spirited than lions'.

I wonder what Chrysostom would have said of SBC women like Christa Brown, and Lottie Moon, and Dr. Klouda?

Christa: wonderful work on behalf of victims of abuse, and yet, she herself is sometimes insulted by SBC leaders

Lottie: feeding her beloved Chinese people with her own food, and dying of the effects of prolonged starvation

Dr. Klouda: selling her own blood to get money for the care of her sick husband

Chrysostom might have said of these Christians, this:
"The great lions of the SBC aren't men, you know."
And somewhere off in the distance, C.S. Lewis fans would have clearly heard the mighty Aslan roaring in approval. :)

Pax Christi,
L's

Chris Johnson said...

Brother Wade,

You asked..."What do we call it when a Southern Baptist inerrantist points out 'error' in the most ancient Greek text?"

We call them wrong and investigative reporters. It is obvious that the Word of God is without error, so from that fact there always emanates postmodern historical revisionism to some degree. Some of it is just better than others, and used for the edification of the church.

We are commanded to study and teach the Word, not the perceived revisions,..so we must. Fussing over this gal, it appears to me in the larger analogy of scripture, is not what the Apostle Paul has intended in his closing remarks. The Apostle seemed pleased to work with her, so we should as well.

Blessings,
Chris

Chris Johnson said...

And then also, from what you seem to suggest in the article is that "we" Southern Baptist's should call them right and investigative reporters, but utlimately with conclusions that differ from other SB's.

Certainly the CBMW has an agenda and motive to teach what they believe. Even though you are not arguing for such, it appears that you want SB's to have the term apostles be whatever we would like it to be...being SB's....or at least not be so up tight teaching it one way or another.

Or maybe you are just not happy with Dr. Jones approach and assumed motives.

Maybe you could call him (Dr. Jones) and report back to us what he says his motive is.... That would be an interesting post, since so many people seem to have warmed up nicely to the mention of Junia in Paul's final remarks.

Blessings,
Chris

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Having just read the CBMW blog article by Dr. Jones, I am surprised by your summation of his intent Pastor Wade.

You have always seemed to in the past make it a habit of calling folks to get the full facts before blogging as to not appear hasty in your purports. It is clear to me that Dr. Jones has done everything academia would require of him (and more) to prove his thesis--even taking his scholarship to the table of the NRSV if that be where the facts lead--yet Dr. Jones seems to leave no table unturned as any good scholar would do and examine every angle to see that the full weight of the logos be revealed.

The purpose of The Council includes these four points:

•Building consensus among evangelicals
•Persuading the Christian leaders in the church and academy
•Contributing to knowledge and practice
•Partnering with like-minded ministries

The Council does exactly what it claims to do. While Dr. Jones is not on the Council, he certainly can be considered a partnering ministry. Three of the presidents of SBC seminaries as well as prominent PCA leaders and folks like Wayne Grudem and John Piper, and even J.I. Packer make up the Council, its membership and referenceers. You can disagree Pastor Wade, that is your right. But you are an SBC pastor without a seminary degree, and while your preaching can only be considered outstanding, your most deep exegetical work has been done by your hero John Gill (one might even say admittedly). I submit that where he is right, you are right, and where he is wrong, you are wrong.

These men you attack are primary scholars. You are not in their class and never will be. That does not mean they are better Christians, that does not mean you are not better suited and gifted to be a pastor. The gifts will fall where they may.

What it does mean is that 1. as a believer, and 2. as a Southern Baptist and Conservative Evangelical, they deserve a greater respect than you would be seeming to give them.

As a pastor, you are charged with upholding the great truths of Word of God. Please I emplore you not to ignore verse 17 because you have an ax to grind with 7.

You are still and will always be a pastoral hero of mine. But you treat my other heroes poorly. They are on Jesus' team to remember.

K

John Fariss said...

I have been saying for close to 30 years now that the entire debate over inerrancy was a tempest in a teapot, and for the very reasons that Wade and others have articulated here. We do not possess the original autographs, hence the argument is over what we ASSUME they say or do not say. Consequently, the word itself (inerrancy) has to be qualified so much in any scholarly debate that at least to my ears, it looses most of its meaning. But by using the word and not, in general conversations with folks in the pew, admitting the qualifications, it stil make for good sound bites and for rallying the most conservative base of the SBC. And, IMHO, that is exactly what constitutes an agenda.

Now I cannot specifically say who does and who does not have that agenda; some, I am sure, believe in what they are saying for reasons of logic which escape me, or which are overruled by other criteria which seem reasonable to them. But--again in my feeble way of thinking--the easiest way to discern who is likely to have that agenda is to simply ask, "If they took the opposite opinion, what would they loose?" And if the answer is a job they want to keep and might loose if they changed their opinion, influence they want to retain, or the "blessings" which can be bestowed by the power brokers of the CR, then it is possible they are operating with an agenda. Not guaranteed mind you, because I firmly believe that integrity exists on both side of the debate, just as duplicity does. However, the possibility is there, and in fact, it may be operative for some at an unarticulated level, just as most of us have unarticulated motivations we dare not admit even to ourselves.

John

Wade Burleson said...

John,

As clear, cogent comment.

Wade

Wade Burleson said...

C.B.

The conversation about "agendas" is an interesting one. You seem to think having an "agenda" is a sin (i.e. " I just know the guy (Dr. Jones). He is not like me. He is not like Wade. And, he is probably not like you.") I assume you mean Dr. Jones does not have an agenda.

I must disagree.

He voices his agenda IN THE ARTICLE WHICH IS THE POINT OF MY POST.

His agenda is ensure Southern Baptists understand "egalitarianism" is not Biblical-- for heaven's sake, he says it in his article.

But to prove his point HE HAS TO SAY THE TEXT HAS A SCRIBAL ERROR!

We inerrantists never cease to amaze me. INERRANCY is our battle cry and then when we come across a text that seems to contradict one of our pet (non-essential) ideologies we shout: THE TEXT HAS AN ERROR!

Sigh.

:)

Just tryin to keep us all humble.

Wade

P.S. By the way, I really admire Lydia. She has no problem admitting she has an agenda.

Christiane said...

'ONE EQUAL-TO-THE-APOSTLES'


Perhaps some light is shone on the position of Junia in the Church by examining the traditions of the Eastern Orthodox Christians.

The Orthodox celebrate a special title: ‘ an equal-to-the-Apostles’.
This title was given to those saints who were recognized for their outstanding service in the spreading of Christianity, comparable to that of the original Apostles.

Chrysostom, of the Eastern Orthodox tradition, valued Junia as ‘worthy of the appelation of an Apostle’ in his writings. Was he was referring to the title: ‘equal-to-the-Apostles’? It is very possible.

What is found in the traditions of all of the Eastern Rite Catholics (in communion with Rome) and the Eastern Orthodox Churches is the story of Andronicus and Junia who served in Pannonia, but also traveled far from the boundaries of that diocese.
It is recorded that “Through the efforts of Saint Andronicus and Saint Junia, the Church of Christ was strengthened, pagans were converted to the knowledge of God, many pagan temples closed, and in their place Christian churches were built”
So we hear that Junia, along with Andronicus, served the Church in extraordinary ways to spread the Gospel of Christ, thereby justifying the Orthodox title of ‘equals-to-the-Apostles’.

But what happened to Junia?

Again, we hear from the traditional Orthodox liturgical service in honor of Junia and Andronicus that they suffered martyrdom for Christ.
On the place where their relics were buried and later discovered, a beautiful Orthodox Christian Church was built for these martyrs of blessed memory and for their fellow martyrs who were buried together with them.

Wade Burleson said...

Lydia,

I always appreciate your insightful comments.

I, too, have an agenda. It is multiple-tiered.

(1). I wish Southern Baptists to be faithful to the text of Scriptures.
(2). I wish Southern Baptists to realize that all of us can make mistakes in interpreting the text.
(3). I wish Southern Baptists to be able to love and appreciate people who interpret the text differently--as well as cooperate with them in missions and evangelism.
(4). I wish Southern Baptists would never be afraid of what man can do in terms of reputation and career.
(5). I wish Southern Baptists would ultimately be known for what we do in terms of gospel ministry instead of what we are against culturally.

I could go on, but I wanted CB to recognize the afore going agenda is not sin.

Blessings,

Wade

Wade Burleson said...

Kevin,

Dr. Jones agenda is stated in the article. No need to call him. He says:

If it is indeed the proper understanding of this obscure verse (Romans 16:7), egalitarian scholars are provided with one instance in Scripture where a woman is called an apostle -- and a prominent apostle no less, who may have planted churches throughout the Roman world and exercised governing authority over them. It challenges the traditional belief in an all-male apostolate, as well as the implication that complementarians have drawn from it, namely, that women should not exercise pastoral authority over men.(emphasis mine).

To meet this "challenge," Dr. Jones points out the ancient, important GREEK TEXT, according to him, HAS A SCRIBAL ERROR.

When inerrantist start pointing to error as support for their interpretations of Scripture we should at least ask why? Shouldn't we Kevin?

Smile.

Chris Johnson said...

Brother Wade,

Your post to Lydia makes some sense to me…..

“(1). I wish Southern Baptists to be faithful to the text of Scriptures.
(2). I wish Southern Baptists to realize that all of us can make mistakes in interpreting the text.
(3). I wish Southern Baptists to be able to love and appreciate people who interpret the text differently--as well as cooperate with them in missions and evangelism.
(4). I wish Southern Baptists would never be afraid of what man can do in terms of reputation and career.
(5). I wish Southern Baptists would ultimately be known for what we do in terms of gospel ministry instead of what we are against culturally.”

So, how would your #3 be practically ordered in the Apostles exhortation to be of one mind…would not interpreting the text differently ultimately lead to division….. maybe I’m misunderstanding your agenda?

Blessings,
Chris

CB Scott said...

Wade,

I did not say David did not have an agenda. I said he did not have an agenda as suggested by your post. I believe his agenda is to be truthful with the text without regard as to his personal predisposition.

I did not say having an agenda is a sin. That should be obvious to you in me saying he is not like us.

I hope you don' take offense to me saying that.

Let me explain what I meant. David is not like us because he has not been involved in the political aspect of the SBC as you and I have. Wade, I know David. He is of the true profile of the seminary professor that we all wish they all were. He is simply not a political creature.

Again, Wade, I am in no way saying that having an agenda is sinful. Naturally, that would be dependent upon the specific agenda itself, would it not?

But to say having an agenda is sinful would be to say that you and I have lived in constant and willful sin all of our adult lives. :-) I don't think that to be the case. Although, we both have had "agenda problems" from time-to-time have we not? :-)

Wade, we both know that Romans 16:7 will always be an issue of conflict for many. David was just approaching the problem as the scholar he is. Bart has already pointed out the differences that you and I would have as to the issues of textual criticism involved with our differing positions. There is not much to be said of that than what has been said.

You first posted this post with the word "agenda" as a pivotal point. You have now removed the word "agenda" from the post. I appreciate that. That in itself seems to me that you realize my point of contention in the first place.

Wade, I have no argument as to the issue of textual criticism related to Romans 16:7. That is not new. It will continue long after us.

My goal was and is to say Dr. David Jones is not guilty of having a preconceived agenda in his conclusions about Romans 16:7. I have tried to state that as graciously as possible. I hope you will agree to that.

Also, if you remember. I suggested that if you and your wife are ever in Wake Forest that you should invite David and Dawn Jones out to dinner. Talk to him. It is my belief that your conclusion afterward will be as is mine:

The only preconceived agenda David Jones has in his research and his writing is to glorify his Lord and teach future pastors and missionaries to live holy lives before a holy God.

Wade, I wish you peace today. I am now going to leave for Atlanta. There is a conference there I plan to attend. All the speakers there have an "agenda" similar to mine:

The "agenda" is to spread a Positive Presentation of the PRE-MILLENNIAL RETURN OF CHRIST throughout all the Christian world. It is the ACTS 1:11 CONFERENCE. :-)

I don't imagine it is on your "agenda" to be in attendance. But, if you change your mind and come on down; lunch is on me.

cb

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Wade,

I was sitting here holding my hands out for the morning "blessing" and all I got was a "smile". How disappointing. :(

I still think a call to Dr. Jones might help you to better understand what he is NOT doing. Good scholars, including Dr. Jones understand the nature of scribal error and that even without the possession of the autographs we can still discern the complete intended revelation of the Divine logos. Dr. Jones has gone to length to prove that the gender of the "apostle" in question is not significant as it is clear that Paul's intent here is not to give a further listing of those who may occupy the office held by Paul and the first 12 "princes of the church." Regardless of the presuppositions one carries with them, the gender of Junia/Junias is not the only word study to be had. Dr. Jones makes this clear and provides a reading which works with the grammar and structure of the book, the rest of the NT, and other sources. What Dr. Jones is not doing is claiming the Bible is inerrant while pointing out its errors.

The Lord bless you and keep you,


Kevin

Wade Burleson said...

Chris Johnson,

You ask: "Would not interpreting the text differently ultimately lead to division?"

No, not necessarily. If our unity is built on CHRIST and not on our conformity of interpretations of Scriptures dealing with tertiery matters, it does NOT lead to disunity.

Our church is an example.

We have Arminians, Calvinists, complementarians, egalitarians, dispensationalists, preterists, etc ... on and on.

None of them have to sign a "confession" to teach Sunday School. They teach the Word as they interpret it. We ask all members to be Bereans and search the word out for themselves.

People at Emmanuel know that MY WORD IS NOT AUTHORITATIVE. My exposition of the text from the pulpit COULD BE WRONG.

I teach it as truth--as I see it, but admit that if someone can convince me of my error, I will change my mind. REGARDLESS, our fellowship does not hinge on anything save our common faith in Christ and our public affirmation of Him as our Lord and Saviour through believers' baptism.

Blessings,

wade

Chris Johnson said...

Brother Wade,

I don’t disagree that we (overseers) are given a tough task, and that we try to be as faithful as we possibly know how. So, I get your intent. We too, as a congregation, struggle with differing view points, translations, favorite commentaries, etc., yet it must be realized that “moving to maturity” as expressed in Ephesians 4:11-16, is something that is born in patience, not neo-tolerance. It is born in gentleness, although not post modernist ignorance. It is born in kindness, yet not impure greediness. There are subtle distinctions that lean toward maturity, or lean toward immaturity. There is enough evidence to move us to maturity though….so it is profitable to love each other to maturity. I conduct an hour long discussion and Q&A of the Sermon at the conclusion of each Sunday service…I get a kick out of how many different bibles with commentaries we have in the congregation. Yet,…being of the same mind should not be defined as tolerating everything religious….but those things that Philippians 2:2 “make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose.”


Maybe someday, some additional, earlier manuscripts will surface and help us determine the gender of this person that Paul has put forth as a true Saint and defender of the gospel. What should be noted though, is that the discovery of whether the person is male or female has absolutely nothing to do with God’s purpose in the overseeing of the church. Which both camps seem to be missing. The metanarrative of the entire opus of Holy writ along with the instruction of Paul and the letters circulated among the earliest of churches empowered by the Holy Spirit are overwhelming clear concerning the responsibility of man (not woman) to submit to shepherd and overseer of the church until Christ returns. Post modern thought and cultural bias will remain popular,….so I am confident that as we find more and earlier documents in the days ahead, that the metanarrative will become even better understood as it is already clear and profitable in its present form. If we ignore the metanarrative, it is easy to get whatever we want to get from scripture.

I am grateful for Phoebe, and other women of scripture (possibly even Junia, whether male or female) as they have obeyed their creator to bring him glory and to work alongside each other in the church. May God receive the glory!

Blessings,
Chris

Christiane said...

Hi Wade,

In your comment
"If our unity is built on CHRIST and not on our conformity of interpretations of Scriptures dealing with tertiery matters, it does NOT lead to disunity.";
I can hear the wisdom of another age: St.Augustine's advice
"to seek unity wherever necessary and liberty wherever possible."

People seem afraid to unify 'around Christ's wisdom' where some of the 'strangers among them' frighten them out of their comfort zone.
But where else can people gather, but around Christ to find unity?

It would be a strange 'unity' when like-minded Christian 'separate' into their little comfort zones and each group claims to be 'in Christ'. Problem is, there is only One Lord they can gather around Who will give them living water.

It's like that story by C.S. Lewis.
A little girl is very, very thirsty and she wishes to drink from a stream that belongs to Aslan. But she is very afraid of the lion. She says so. And she says she wishes to find 'another stream', because of her fear.
But the great lion Aslan replies:

'There is no other stream'.

Pax Christi,
L's

Kristen said...

To put it in a nutshell:

Complementarians and egalitarians alike use techniques of textual criticism to explain whatever passages are "problem passages" according to their paradigm.

The problem is that when egalitarians do it, many complementarians accuse them of violating the "plain sense" and "explaining away" the passage-- when egalitarians are using the same critical techniques as Dr. Jones is uwing here to explain this particular "problem passage" for complementarians.

It is not a problem for me that Dr. Jones does this. It is only a problem for me when complementarians claim that egalitarians do this, and that complementarians don't.

Isn't that what you're getting at, Wade?

Benji Ramsaur said...

Of course we could just throw out inerrancy and follow Jesus.

I'm sure he's out there somewhere.

We can't see those original autographs, but we could still follow that [unseen] Living Word.

Funny thing is, I don't think anyone who bypasses or rejects Scripture as the ultimate authority has ever pointed me to his revelation.

But it would be cool if they did. They could make a new Study Bible with his footnotes.

It could be called "The Living Word Study Bible: Help for Fundamentalist worms from the Enlightened."

It could even have chapters in the back to help Fundamentalists evolve into a better species:

Chapter 1: Have an experience

Chapter 2: Experience is important

Chapter 3: Barth had experience

Chapter 4: Kierkegaard did too

Chapter 5: Propositions are bad

Chapter 6: Living Word is good

Chapter 7: Have an experience

Chapter 8: Have an experience

Chapter 9: Have an exxxxperience

Chapter 10: Go to a Baptist college

Chapter 11: Attend a Divinity School

Chapter 12: You'll have an experience

Chapter 13: Have an experience

Wade Burleson said...

Kristen,

Couldn't have said it better.

Wade

Wade Burleson said...

Benji,

Point well taken. In SBC culture, however, there is little danger of your humorous fear ever taking root at this time. Let's pull a little back from the far right and I'll join you in your concern.

Not yet.

Joe Blackmon said...

Oh please, Wade,

No serious inerrantist says that we have inerrant manuscripts today. The Bible is inerrant in its original autographs. Textual variants that reflect scribal errors do not an errant Bible make. But I'm sure this post brought a smile to Rex Ray and Gene.

Robert Hutchinson said...

"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking." George S. Patton

Wade Burleson said...

Then, Joe, please tell how you know FOR CERTAIN that Junia is a male and NOT a female?

I wait with baited breath.

Smile.

Joe Blackmon said...

Perhaps you could help point out where I made that claim, Wade.

Jon L. Estes said...

The Expositors Bible Commentary makes these comments concerning the verse and people of which we discuss.

Andronicus and Junias (v. 7) are Latin and Greek names respectively. Three things out of the four said about them create difficulty for the interpreter. What is the meaning of "relatives"? The identical word (sungeneis) is found in 9:3, but there it is qualified by the addition, "according to the flesh," indicating that the meaning is fellow Israelite. Here in Romans 16 other Jewish people are named (e.g., Aquila and Mary) who are not described in this way. Yet even so this may be the best conclusion if one adds mentally—"who are also Christians." To take the word in the ordinary sense of "relative" is difficult, since Paul gives the impression that he suffered the loss of all things for Christ's sake (Philippians 3:7), which should embrace kindred. Added to this is the improbability of his having three kinfolk in Rome (cf. v. 11) and three more in Corinth (v. 21). Sir William Ramsay suggests that all these were fellow tribesmen in the sense that the Jews at Tarsus were organized into a "tribe" by the civil authorities, as in other leading communities where Jews were prominent (The Cities of St. Paul [New York: A.C. Armstrong and Son, 1908], pp. 175-178). A possible objection to this solution is that Greek has a word for fellow tribesmen—and it is not used here.
Paul adds that these have been in prison with him. Since such an experience befell him many times (2Cor 11:23), the expression in this case is doubtless intended to be taken literally, even though we are left uninformed as to the circumstances.
The pair are further described as "outstanding among the apostles." We cannot well reduce the word "apostle" to "messenger" in this instance, however suitable it may be in Philippians 2:25, and it goes without saying that Andronicus and Junias do not belong in the circle of the Twelve. What is let is the recognition that occasionally the word is used somewhat broadly to include leaders in Christian work (cf. 1 Thess 2:7). To interpret the statement as meaning that these men were outstanding in the estimation of the apostles scarcely does justice to the construction in the Greek. Evidently their conversion to the faith occurred in the early years of the history of the church, so they have had ample time to distinguish themselves as leaders.


I am intrigued by Gaebelein's comments.

linda said...

Pastor Wade, your description of your church is that of the kind of Southern Baptist church I became part of many years ago. The lack of that acceptance of soul competency is why I left.

Someone asked what women in ministry would do to church planting.

I believe it would do what it did here in the American west and overseas: facilitate more church plants.

Only now, when it isn't a thankless volunteer job in a remote, difficult location but rather a lucrative career are we seeing so much posturing to protect financial turf.

If I were not member of a different local body, I just might have to see if Pastor Wade's church allows for long distance membership.

Don said...

If one thinks that the record of other Scripture is that a woman cannot be an apostle, then one will find a way for Rom 16:7 to not deny your paradigm.

CBMW has papers denying Junian was Junia, has other papers denying "en" + dative should be within or among and yet other papers denying apostolos means apostle with authority. The interesting thing is one can selectively pick arguments from their papers that in turn endorse the egal reading, that Junia was among the apostles.

The point is that CBMW is not even consistent with itself, except it is consistent in denying a woman can be an apostle.

Wade Burleson said...

Don,

This post is about consistency.

If everybody could admit that we are ALL inconsistent, then we wouldn't be so rock ridged that everybody see it our way.

And we would cooperate around the ESSENTIALS.

:)

Wade Burleson said...

Linda,

Come on!! We would love to have you join us on Sunday's via long distance as a member!

Smile,

Wade

Wade Burleson said...

Joe,

You have to make that claim to maintain your rigid view against "women in ministry." That is what Dr. Jones' is saying in his article.

Blessings,

Wade

Wade Burleson said...

By the way, there are good people on both sides of the issue.

I ask myself just one question:

Which group will not cooperate with the other--and that's the group I challenge.

:)

Joe Blackmon said...

Ah, yes Wade because that is the ONLY piece of evidence there is for the complimentarian view. It stands or falls on that one textual variant.

Don said...

Until we have the unity of the faith, we are to endeavor to maintain the unity of the Spirit.

ml said...

Wade, I havent read all the posts but to answer your question inerrancy has nothing to do with the manuscripts any more than it does the modern versions. Inerrancy is a statement about the formulation of the original manuscripts themselves. P46 is an Early 200's mss which both of us would agree is not original. We do not have an original manuscript. Therefore, errors due to scribal practices or theological insertions have no bearing on the doctrine of inerrancy. BTW there is excellent mss evidence for the masculine reading in spite of an early reading for the feminine. Early does not always mean most weighty and accurate. See textual apparatus in the UBS Greek.

John said...

This has been an interesting debate/discussion. Was Junia a woman--yes; just as Phoebe as a woman. Does the text demand that we call Junia an apostle--no, not any more than it demands that we call Phoebe a deacon instead of a servant.
The text could mean Junia was well known among the apostles, it could mean that she was a missionary who was sent by the apostles, but there is absolutely no reason for us to say she had to be an apostle.

Joe Blackmon said...

John,

How can you possibly say that we don't have to call Phoebe a deacon or Junia an apostle? You need to repent of your narrow, fundamentalist attitude and accept the fact that everyone is going to heaven and you can believe what you want. Besides, parts of the Bile are true and part of the Bible are just man's opinions. It contains the word of God. It isn't actually the word of God.

This will all be straightened out by the Mainstream Resurrgence [(c)2008 Joe Blackmon] that will begin in Orland this fall.

Kerygma said...

They fall back on the "original manuscripts" cushion, which is the biggest intellectual copout in the history of the discipline.

Kristen said...

Um, it still seems to me like all this talk about what "inerrancy" means is missing the point of Wade's post. What I asked, and he confirmed, to be the gist of his post is this: if you're going to use techniques of textual criticism to explain why the plain sense of certain texts doesn't support your position-- you cannot then fault those holding another position for using the same techniques. You cannot claim you are an "inerrantist" and they are not (unless they themselves self-identify as non-inerrantists, which many egalitarians do not.)

Look at the "plain sense" of 1 Tim. 2:15. I know of no one, inerrantist or not, who supports the plain sense of that verse, which would be that women are saved by having children (as opposed to being saved by Christ's blood). And with regards to 1 Tim. 2:8, I don't know of anyone who actually insists on the plain sense of that passage-- that men are supposed to lift their hands whenever they pray. And yet the same people demand a "plain-sense" reading of the verse sandwiched in the middle-- 1 Tim 2:12-- to say that it means women can never be church leaders. Or they take the "plain sense" meaning even further and say no Christian woman can ever authoritatively teach a Christian man anything-- so if she even teaches Hebrew in a co-ed Christian school, she must be removed.

But if you're going to insist that Romans 16:7 is not to be read according to its plain sense-- that Junia was a female apostle, meaning she had a leadership position in the early chuch-- then you shouldn't fault people who take another position for using the same techniques you use. You can believe they're wrong, sure. You can critique their exegesis, sure-- as those on the other side of this issue critique Dr. Jones' exegesis and think he's wrong.

But what you can't do is say you've got some kind of "inerrantist" moral high ground in your reading, and the other side doesn't. It just doesn't work that way.

Wade Burleson said...

Kristen,

Good stuff.

You get it.

Chris Johnson said...

Kristen,

I think you have just illustrated that understanding scripture is not that difficult.

Thank goodness it is....so that we can understand sound doctrine.

Blessings,
Chris

Lydia said...

"Hey, call SEBTS and ask him. He wrote it. Ask him if Wade is right about his motive."

I don't do motives.

Motives have NOTHING to do with it. It is what it is. An article on CBMW. The content... I go from there.

"Then you can believe him or not believe him. Like I said; you are a free person and can think what you like."

And thanks to blogging, wear you out with it! :o)

"Sidebar Lydia; As you probably know, the Healthcare Bill passed in Congress. Pray it is defeated in the Senate. I think we can agree on that can we not?"

It is a done deal unless we have some Dems that will hold out. A senator told my brother months ago that the dems have had the "votes" since day one. So, why no bill passing? Hmm? Why is that? Some dems are wrangling...afraid of not being re-elected as they should be. Didn't it win by 5 votes in the house?

BTW: is the flu vaccine debacle giving you any insight into what total government health care will like? Scary.

Wade, PLEASE do another post on health care so CB, Joe, Darby, the other guys and I can agree on stuff. :o)

Lydia said...

I also do not understand why the CBMW does not open its Blog to comments. I do believe they have an agenda and I'm confident they are picky about who they allow to post articles to their site--AGENDA!

Thu Nov 12, 01:05:00 AM 2009

Tom, there was a great discussion on Burkes blog last year with over a 1000 comments. The egals made too much biblical sense. Last time I looked, Burke had hidden the comments.

wonder why? :o)

That gives you a hint why they would not dare take comments. They are the authorities and tell us what to believe.

Kristen said...

Wade-- as one who has been on the receiving end of "you're deliberately twisting the scriptures because you're rebellious and don't like what they say," or "you've got a problem with inerrancy because you just don't want to obey the Word" comments-- it was easy for me to "get it." *grin*

B Nettles said...

Wade,
Although some may think the point to be moot, the correct phrase is bated breath. It comes from the infinitive "to abate" by dropping the "a" sound, and means to lessen, reduce, nearly cease. Bated breath is like holding your breath. On the other hand, baited breath smells. Ask your wife which one you have.:)

I appreciate Kristen's thoughtful, non-facetious comment.

Rather than tossing off "Junia" to be a scribal error, it would have been more interesting to see an analysis of whether the name could possibly refer to a man rather than a women. While (as many Greek scholars have said) the name in P46 is feminine, it is quite common in languages with gendered names to have affectionate nicknames for men which have a feminine form. Two immediately come to mind in Russian, Alexander is commonly called Sasha and Mikhael is routinely called Misha. Sasha and Misha have feminine endings, but they're nicknames for men. When used in different cases, they are declined as feminine proper nouns. But pronouns referring to the person are always the proper gender. What happens in P46? Are there gendered pronouns?

In English, Claire used to be a man's name, but is now a girl's. My mother's name was Clyde, and she had an aunt Clyde. I think it's difficult to assign gender with 100% certainty based on a name OR want of an outcome.

Thy Peace said...

Denny Burk > Bruce Ware’s Complementarian Reading of Genesis.
The above post is supposed to have around 1000+ comments ... but they are being intentionally hidden. And only for this post by Denny Burk.

Here is Suzanne's comment about this post:
Tonight, in the fray over here at Denny Burk's blog, where the comments have gone over 900, and are heading for 1000, a group of women are staging an internet sit-in to protest the complementarian interpretation of Genesis. We defy categorization. We are women whose lives have been touched by complementarianism. We are not secular feminists infiltrating the bibliosphere. We are former/quasi complementarian women who protest our condition as "created for subordination."

Thank you, Bonnie, Molly, Corrie, Gem, Paula, Quixote, Madame, Kathy, Cheryl, Ellen, (on the other side, but also a friend of this blog) We want to buck and chafe against the teaching of eternal subordination. Wouldn't you?

Lydia said...

"Um, it still seems to me like all this talk about what "inerrancy" means is missing the point of Wade's post. What I asked, and he confirmed, to be the gist of his post is this: if you're going to use techniques of textual criticism to explain why the plain sense of certain texts doesn't support your position-- you cannot then fault those holding another position for using the same techniques. You cannot claim you are an "inerrantist" and they are not (unless they themselves self-identify as non-inerrantists, which many egalitarians do not.)"

Thanks, Kristen for refocusing the point. You have nailed it. I am bookmarking Dr. Jones' article on CBMW for the next occasion when I am told I am not an inerrantist because I believe women are spiritually and intellectually equal to men in the Body and marriage. Not perpetual children who must have a "daddy leader" as a husband. :o)

BTW: Has any comp ever told you at what age boys become men and cannot be taught scripture by women? I am still waiting.....

Joe Blackmon said...

Lydia,

I was born a man when my mama gave birth to me in the old log cabin I built with my own two hands. Haa

Tom Parker said...

Wow:

Hiding comments. Tells me a lot about the mind set.

Lydia said...

I was born a man when my mama gave birth to me in the old log cabin I built with my own two hands. Haa

Thu Nov 12, 06:12:00 PM 2009

That is why you are the 'daddy leader'. (wink)

Thy Peace said...

Hiding comments. Tells me a lot about the mind set.

It would have been better to just close the post for new comments, but Denny Burke went all the way to hide it.

believer333 said...

"Rather than tossing off "Junia" to be a scribal error, it would have been more interesting to see an analysis of whether the name could possibly refer to a man rather than a women. While (as many Greek scholars have said) the name in P46 is feminine, it is quite common in languages with gendered names to have affectionate nicknames for men which have a feminine form."

While this may happen today in the modern world, I don't believe it did happen 2000 years ago when this epistle was written. Neither do I know of any Hebrew men whose nick names were feminine at that time.

believer333 said...

"This has been an interesting debate/discussion. Was Junia a woman--yes; just as Phoebe as a woman. Does the text demand that we call Junia an apostle--no, not any more than it demands that we call Phoebe a deacon instead of a servant.
The text could mean Junia was well known among the apostles, it could mean that she was a missionary who was sent by the apostles, but there is absolutely no reason for us to say she had to be an apostle."


John, The question is not, what are our choice of words to interpret. The question is what did Paul mean when he wrote the epistle.

1. to my knowledge there is no other instance where Paul called someone a "*****" but he didn't really mean it.
2. If one does a careful reading of Roman's 16 one will find that every person listed was important in the community. IOW there were none in roles of lessor significance in the local society. (mentioning someone's mother might be the only place :) )
3. In the culture at that time those who were mentioned first in introductions were considered to be worthy of more honor than those mentioned later. In a list of individuals ALL of whom held important roles in the local community, those listed first had to have been worthy of great respect and honor.

Thus, Phoebe (the carrier of Romoans), Priscilla and Aquilla, Epaenetus, Mary, Adronicus and Junia, being among the first mentioned must have been absolutely incredibly devoted and productive ministers of the Lord. To deny them recognition for their devoted services to God (by claiming that Junia was just nicely thought of as one of the believers NOT serving in ministry) is unthinkable IMO.

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John said...

Believer 333,
"1. to my knowledge there is no other instance where Paul called someone a "*****" but he didn't really mean it."

What about Philippians 2:25? Are you going to make Epaphroditus an Aposte too or are you going to see him as a messenger? You can also find the word in 2 Cor 8:23 where the correct translation is messenger and not Apostle.

"2. If one does a careful reading of Roman's 16 one will find that every person listed was important in the community. IOW there were none in roles of lessor significance in the local society. (mentioning someone's mother might be the only place :) )"

This is not a question of importance...of course they were important to Paul--both men and women. The question is was Junia an apostle and should we say there was an error in the text. No there wasn't an error...Junia and her husband were well known to the apostles--that does not mean they were apostles.

"3. In the culture at that time those who were mentioned first in introductions were considered to be worthy of more honor than those mentioned later. In a list of individuals ALL of whom held important roles in the local community, those listed first had to have been worthy of great respect and honor.

Thus, Phoebe (the carrier of Romoans), Priscilla and Aquilla, Epaenetus, Mary, Adronicus and Junia, being among the first mentioned must have been absolutely incredibly devoted and productive ministers of the Lord. To deny them recognition for their devoted services to God (by claiming that Junia was just nicely thought of as one of the believers NOT serving in ministry) is unthinkable IMO."

No one, at least I'm not, denying their devotion, or their ministry. I'm just denying that the text demands you say Junia was an apostle or that there is an error in the text.

I think Junia was married to Andronicus and they were devoted followers of Christ who were helpful to Paul in the ministry and well known to the Apostles!

Thy Peace said...

I think Junia was married to Andronicus and they were devoted followers of Christ who were helpful to Paul in the ministry and well known to the Apostles!.

The above has been proven to be untrue. Please refer to these comments here, and here.

Rex Ray said...

Wade,
You said: “John Zens calls the sudden transformation from female to male "the world's first sex change. Smile.”

Who was the ONLY person to be resurrected from the dead TWICE?

Answer:
The ruler’s daughter by Jesus (Matthew 9:25) and by Holman (Mathew 9:18) Smile.

This agrees with you saying:

“At times, it seems we inerrantists act like orthodox, classic liberals. We pick and choose what we wish the Bible to say, and remove it from the Bible if we don’t like it. Wed. Nov 11, 11:34 AM”

Chris Ryan said: “Dr. Jones is…saying that the copies and translations we have are not inerrant, something any Bible scholar of any stripe will tell you.”

His thinking may be based on the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy that says:

“Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture…the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.”

Chris Ryan continues with an interesting point:
“This does make you wonder, though, how useful the term inerrancy is when we have no originals…”

Chris, the term ‘inerrancy’ has been VERY USEFUL as Tom Parker said, “Inerrancy has been used as a test of fellowship and participation in the SBC over the last 30 years in a way that can surely be described as a takeover.”

I agree with Kerygma saying: “They fall back on the “original manuscripts” cushion, which is the biggest intellectual copout in the history of the discipline.”

I’ll smile if Joe Blackmon replies to this question: “How close does ‘inerrancy’ get to Paul’s warning?

“Steer clear of foolish discussions which lead people into the sin of anger with each other. Again I say, don’t get involved in foolish arguments which only upset people and make them angry.” (2 Timothy 2:16 & 23)

Kevin M. Crowder said...

"The above has been proven to be untrue."

Proven???

It has also been proven that the universe is 4.6 billion years old. Remember that no one alive today, not even D.A. Carson, or Drs. Jones, Moo, et al have ever heard biblical Greek spoken in context. This is a "best guess" science. Especially when it comes to the uses of the dative case. Nothing has been proven. Only opinions drenched in dogmatics. Most folks outside theological academics are going to chosen to align themselves with the scholarship that most closely resembles their preconceptions (usually the "faith of their fathers")

May we each temper our views so that by the grace of the Lord Jesus we might not "deceive the hearts of the naive."

Benji Ramsaur said...

"They fall back on the 'original manuscripts' cushion, which is the biggest intellectual copout in the history of the discipline."

Of course the "Living Word" cushion is highly intellectual.

:)

John said...

Thy Peace,
Proven? Grudem I know, MacArthur I've heard of, but who are you? :)

Gene S said...

What do we call it when a professor at SEBTS writes there is an error in translation???

The TRUTH!!!

Anyone who can pick up the KJV and declare it "inerrant" is a bold-faced lyer--evidence???

I Cor. 13 does not say "love is not easily provoked," rather "love is not provoked" in the original Greek manuscript. "Easily" was added by the translators to soften it for King James who had a violent temper! Their heads could have rolled if they stuck with a 100% accurate English rendering!

Anyone who has used or studied the Nestle Greek Text knows how it lists variant readings for many NT transmissions. On some pages, the amount of variant readings exceeds the text scholars who composed this edition believed to be the most authentic.

The Inerrency statement has now been qualified with "in the original manuscripts." That is a clear admission that what we have after the original scripts has been subjected to corruption--usually unintentional--but CORRUPTION!

When the History Channel and Discovery Channel tell the public more about the truth of the Bible as a translation than the SBC SS literature, we are in trouble.

The Holman Bible "redacts" scripture to agree with the composers of the most current BF&M! Redact is a fancy word for "modifying the text" to conform with current pressure. It is exactly the same as the KJV translators inserting "easily" to not make the king mad.

Thanks, Wade, for making the initial point. Once the truth is told, perhaps we will have less "hot air discussion" about the nature of the Bible.

There are no "original manuscripts" yet to be had. If we did, I bet there would be some human error involved. Certainly the Gospels would still have a variance as to the nature of Christ's body between resurrection and ascension. One Gospel has him forbid followers to touch him "because I have not yet ascended," while another records physical touching.

Let's just be honest and a little bit intelligent as to the meaning of "inerrant" vs "inspired." If we are gonna fight, do it with less ignorance involved!!!

believer333 said...

From Better Bibles Blog
http://betterbibles.com/2007/05/29/junia-a-response-to-michael-burer/

”Here are a few examples of the comparative form of an adjective followed by ἐν plus dative, but there are more in the Greek NT.

καὶ σύ Βηθλέεμ γῆ Ἰούδα οὐδαμῶς
ἐλαχίστη εἶ ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν Ἰούδα
Matt. 2:6
‘
And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; ESV


ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν οὐκ ἐγήγερται ἐν γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν μείζων Ἰωάννου τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ ὁ δὲ μικρότερος ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν μείζων αὐτοῦ ἐστιν Matt. 11:11
Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. ESV


Ἰούδαν τὸν καλούμενον Βαρσαββᾶν καὶ Σιλᾶν
ἄνδρας ἡγουμένους ἐν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς Acts 15:22

Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas,
leading men among the brothers ESV

The Greek of the New Testament does not support the thesis that ἐν plus dative renders ἐπίσημος elative rather than comparative, and consequently, that Junia is not one of the apostles.”

Gene S said...

I wish I could make my computer do "holy cow, that's deep" to impress you.

I'm not impressed with such obteuse stuff on a blog of this sort.

How about keeping it simple and use this kind of stuff with the PhD's in the area of Greek!

believer333 said...

John wrote: “What about Philippians 2:25? Are you going to make Epaphroditus an Aposte too or are you going to see him as a messenger?”

humOn de apostolon kai leitourgon

The word apostolos is qualified in Phil 2:25 by humOn, of you, and leitourgeo which means to act for the people in a public capacity. Thus it is clear that Epaphroditus is a messenger in a public capacity for the believers in a particular area, rather than God’s messenger.

In 2 Cor. We have a similar situation where Paul says that Titus is an apostle of the churches. I’m not clear though that in that case it doesn’t mean that Titus is an apostle of Gods.


Regarding Junia, she is of note among THE apostles. Thus, her ministry and calling stand out among all the apostles. She was not only an apostle of God, but she was an outstanding apostle.

” I think Junia was married to Andronicus and they were devoted followers of Christ who were helpful to Paul in the ministry and well known to the Apostles!”

You may choose to believe that John, but Scripture doesn’t say that. We do not know if Andronicus and Junia were married or brother and sister. It doesn’t say. It also doesn't matter, because they are both said to be apostles. Also, we do know that Junia was not well known TO the apostles but outstanding AMONG the apostles.

believer333 said...

"I'm not impressed with such obteuse stuff on a blog of this sort.
How about keeping it simple and use this kind of stuff with the PhD's in the area of Greek!"


When people claim that the Greek doesn't say suchandsuch, then it behooves all to see that they are in error. And if it's too deep for them, then they shouldn't be trying to claim they know what they are talking about.

Gene S said...

333--I totally agree!

We have a lot of "ignerunce" these days.

It reminds me of the story of Dr. Witherspoon of Southern Seminary years ago. He was preaching a revival at a country church and using the Nestle Text to directly translate the scripture for the sermon.

At the back, an old country gentleman rose up and shouted, "My King James doesn't say that and I believe MY BIBLE from civer to civer!"

To which Dr. Weatherspoon responded, "Yes, my brother, and I believe my Bible from cover to cover!"

Pretty well said without a country Baptist church fist fight--of which more have been had than Baptist history divulges!

Don said...

Read Jone's paper, he AGREES that "among/within" is the best reading.

If Paul had wanted to say "messenger" there was a perfectly good Greek word to do so, aggelos, no one would mistake an aggelos for an apostlos.

believer333 said...

Oh good point, Don. I had forgotten about aggelos. :)

And thank you Gene S.

B Nettles said...

It has also been proven that the universe is 4.6 billion years old.

Kevin,
If you're going to try to be clever with a comparative argument, at least get your statement correct. I think you meant to say "Earth" instead of "universe." The proper number for the universe is 13.7 billion years (+/- 1%).

I agree with you that "proven" is not a good word to use for this. Lot's of physical evidence, yes.

Do you require "proof" to trust a conclusion, or just good evidence?

Martin_Luther said...

This issue as to whether there is an agenda, bias or a preconceived notion in someones writings

see what "happened" at BJU when a professor stepped out of line in his book concerning drinking

Dr. Jaeggli’s book has been pulled from distribution by BJU Press.

.

Suzanne McCarthy said...

Sorry I am a little late to this.

It should be noted that the tone and overall treatment of facts in David Jones article is very poor and I would never normally take the time to critique such a piece of writing.

Let's examine this statement,

"Second, Greek minuscule manuscripts, which began having accents in the 9th century, all accent the name as though it were masculine -- without exception.54 It is interesting that Cervin catalogs so many modern editions of the Greek text, including the modern Greek translation, and shows how most support the feminine reading, and yet fails to mention the accentuation found in the older Greek minuscules dating from the ninth and tenth centuries, which support unanimously the masculine reading.55 The latter are certainly closer to the source and thus constitute more weighty evidence than modern editions. The fact that all of the manuscripts accented it the same no matter what part of the world they were found in suggests that the gender issue had been settled some time before. Thus, Tucker's tongue-in-cheek statement about the gender of Iounian being held unanimously as feminine up until her "sex change" around the 14th century is thus made at the expense of this evidence, which suggests otherwise."

It appears from this statement that David Jones article predates the UBS 1998 text of the Greek New Testament. In this text it is finally made clear that there is NO Greek minuscule which accents the name as masculine. Not even one, ever!

I don't fault Jones for not knowing this, depending on the date of his article. I am severely disgusted at his mockery of Brooten, Tucker, Grenz, Cervin, etc. when it now turns out that they are 100% accurate and he is 100 % wrong, due to the fact that UBS had previously published that there were manuscripts which accented the word as masculine, when there were not.

I think that the CBMW would do David Jones a kindness by removing such an outdated article from the internet.

I don't think Jones motives or agenda are worth analysing. It seems that at the time, he did not have the evidence available to him. However, it is clear that Brooten, Grentz and Tucker, did have access to the accurate information.

It has now been 11 years since the truth has been published. There is no manuscript evidence for a masculine name Iounias. Let's give it a rest.

Ed Gravely said...

I didn't read the comments, so if this has already been said, forgive me.

The David Jones who wrote this article, however, is not the David W. Jones who teaches at Southeastern, as the PDF file linked to on the CBMW site clearly states. The David Jones in questions teaches (or taught) at "Moffat College of Bible." I just recently spoke with Dr. Jones (the one who actually teaches at SEBTS), and he confirms that he is not the author.

Thy Peace said...

Also, currently David Jones, the author of A Female Apostle?: A Lexical-Syntactical Analysis of Romans 16:7, is currently working as Director of Training at Harvest Bible Fellowship.

Widely Interested said...

THE JUNIA DEBATE!

It is obvious to all that the role of women and the relationship of women to men have changed considerably during the 20th century in the United States and much of the Western world. Some parts of Christianity are accepting these changes, are pointing out that the gospel supports the equality of men and women, and are welcoming women in roles previously filled only by men. Western society as a whole has led the way and parts of the church have followed.

I doubt that those who support the more traditional view would change their belief based upon whether or not there was a woman apostle named Junia during the life of the apostle Paul. Their perspective on this issue is supported by some parts of the Christian Scriptures written during the last part of the 1st century C.E. and has been the predominant perspective throughout most of Christian history. It puzzles me why those with a traditional view would even bother arguing over this meager textual evidence for a female apostle. Most of the Scriptures, most of church history, today’s Catholic Church, and many Protestant churches all support the traditional view. I am not enough of a student of the Orthodox Church to know what their official position is. Maybe some of you are aware. The argument over textual variants only seems to highlight how misleading the inerrantist position can be. Why argue over textual errors that only can serve to draw attention to the fact that no one has the original autographs and no one knows exactly what was written in them?

For those who support equality, why would you care that the other side excludes you from their fellowship? For the sake of Christian unity? From the earliest times of Christianity, there has been diversity of belief and since the Protestant Reformation diversity of belief has only increased and the number of separate institutional expressions of Christianity has grown rapidly. What unity exists that you are trying to preserve? Baptist unity? Baptists have spit into more separate groups just in the United States than anyone can accurately count.

For the sake of the gospel, I would suggest that the different expressions of Christianity complement God’s kingdom. I grew up in a church that taught the fundamentals of the faith. It was important to believe in certain ideas about God and Christ. While I no longer understand those ideas in the same way as when I was a child, I still have faith and trust in Jesus Christ. Even at the beginning of faith, I primarily was not believing in ideas about God, but was putting my trust in God and following a way of life exemplified by Jesus Christ. I would bet that this is true for people on both sides of the debate. So rather than “stay together” and fight or fight about “being excluded”, trust in God.

While I do not agree with the fundamentalists, I admire their clarity and passion. For some, their perspective has power to bring people to Christ. For my more progressive brothers and sisters, your openness and welcoming attitudes, your emphasis on equality, justice, and freedom…..all nourish my soul. So why worry about whether others accept you or not. Only worry about accepting all who will hear your word of faith. Be passionate and clear about what you believe. Do not water down your convictions by trying to stand alongside those who disagree. Stand in the only place that you can, where your faith as you see it is clearly explained and proclaimed. I am trusting God to bring about God’s Kingdom.