Date: Thu Nov 30 1995 - 18:32:37 EST
Dr. Conrad and Dr. Hobbs,
I wasn't on board when you talked all this out before, so if you don't mind,
I'd like to comment and hear some discussion.
Dr. Conrad writes:
>Yes, the form IOUNIAS with circumflex on the "A" is a theoretically
>masculine form, but the problem is that it's a Latin name, and the Greek
>masculine equivalent of the Latin name would surely be IOUNIOS. I really
>think the proof must go the other way around: it needs to be shown why the
>form is NOT feminine, which is what it appears to be.
Both BDF (sec. 125 (2)) and Robertson (p. 172) say that IOUNIAS (if that is
the name here) would probably be the shortened form of the common name
IOUNIANOS (L. Junianus). Robertson notes that usually when a name is
shortened like that, it ends in -AS. For example SILOUANOS (1Th. 1:1)
shortens to SILAS (Acts 15:22,etc).
So then, if a shortened form of a Latin name is used, would the greek form
have the -OS ending then? Wouldn't it be -AS as usual?
Cranfield argues, similarly to Dr. Hobbs, that "Junias" can't be right
because we don't find that name anywhere else in the literature. Would the
fact that it is a shortened form not explain that? Junianus, I understand,
was a quite common name, like Junia was.
I agree that BAGD is out of line to say that the context demands taking the
word as masculine--that is, if they mean that the NT doctrine of the
apostolate necessarily precludes its having female members. On the other
hand, where else do we read about female apostles? We read several places
about female prophets, but never of female apostles. This would be the only
occurrence (just as, if "Junias" is correct, it would be the only occurence).
Maybe that's all they're saying.
Seems to me that the evidence is split about fifty-fifty. Nothing really
rules out "Junias", and nothing "Junia." And nothing really pushes us very
hard in one direction more than the other.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:33 EDT