Epp on Junia / Junias (Rom 16:7)
James Ernest
jdelists at earthlink.net
Tue Jun 4 10:17:28 EDT 2002
Epp responds at length (pp. 284-89) to the argument offered by Michael Burer
and Daniel Wallace in "Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Reexamination of Rom
16.7, " NTS 47 (2001), 76-91. I'm sorry I don't have time to describe his
critique, but I think that those who are impressed by the contention that
"epishmoi en tois apostolois" means "well known to the apostles," or who
believe that this position has "some evidence" supporting it as opposed to
"none at all" on the other side will need to take it into account.
Of course, as I think both Clay and Iver have indicated, on either reading
Paul's "apostoloi" are not ranking members of a well-regulated ordained
clergy. I suspect Clay is right that the residual assumption that they are
fuels the gymnastics we see around the name Junia and the phrase "en tois
apostolois." But that question is not central to Epp's discussion, and it
may not even be topical for B-GREEK.
________________________________________________________
James D. Ernest, Ph.D.
Associate Editorial Director
Hendrickson Publishers
140 Summit Street
P. O. Box 3473
Peabody, MA 01961-3473 USA
978/573-2243 (phone and voicemail)
978/573-8243 (fax)
jernest at hendrickson.com
http://www.hendrickson.com/
________________________________________________________
> > At bible.org here is a part of Wallace's article
> > that I think Clay referenced:
> >
<snip>
> >
> > In sum, until further evidence is produced that counters the working
> > hypothesis, we must conclude that Andronicus and Junia were NOT
apostles,
> > but were known to the apostles. To be sure, our conclusion is
> > tentative. But
> > it is always safer to stand on the side of SOME evidence than on
> > the side of none at all.
> > ------
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list