Who is the 12th apostle?

===

And it is a decision often made too by some fairly competent folks.

There is Dan Wallace who teaches NT and Greek at Dallas Seminary who, apparently wrongly, you explain, claims that, "the bulk of the MSS have the circumflex over the ultima" and cites a PhD dissertation as support.

Then, Metzger who edits A Textual Commentary on the NT allows his committee to indicate the accent should be a circumflex over the ultima.

Also, The Nestle - Aland Novum Testamentum Graece has the circumflex over the ultima.

Then, the grammarian ,AT Robertson, and the lexicon BAG suggest the possibility that it is short for the masculine "Junianus."

On the other hand, Westcott and the text of the Eastern Orthodox Trinitarian Bible Society (compatible with the Byzantine, I think) has it as feminine.

 

I'm looking at the Nestle-Aland apparatus with the Gothic M (Byzantine/Majority Text) showing the accute over the penult. It is possible that this is an incorrect citation. Also, it says the following MSS have no accent at all: Aleph A B* C D* F G P pc

Those it lists with the accent over the penult are: B2 D2 Psi L 33. 1739. 1881 Gothic M (Byzantine/Majority Text).

I am interested in what the correct answer is. Tischendorf mentions absolutely nothing about even one MS with a circumflex over the ultima.

Yours, Bluefalcon

 

To help those unfamiliar with Jewish Synagogue worship, a "shamash" was a male/female "servant" or helper who worked in the synagogue.

Almost ALL of NT church pattern is copied from the synagogue. When the Greek word "deacon" is used (servant), the serving that they would do in a church would be parallel to a "shamash".

Don't know too many historians that refute that.

===


Thankyou for that explanation. I would certainly would never have understood without it.


1) One cause for my misunderstanding was that some resources fail to connect church deacons with any precedent in the synagogue (eg,Unger's B ib Dic). Amazingly DNTT can go for pages ( 3:544-549) as can ISBE without saying that the church follwed the synagogue in this regard.

2) Another cause for my misunderstanding was
that I supposed that The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, (1974 ed) vol 5, page 2878, is correct when it says that the servants of the synagogue were male AND were called ""hazzan" --not "shammash." In the Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, the servants also were called hazzan. Nothing in either source says a thing about "shammash." Imagine my surprise that they use a different word!!! I must get a letter off immediately to them saying that they need to correct their encyclopedias!

3) Another reason for my misunderstanding and not connecting Phoebe to any synagogue parallel is that some think that the origin of the church office of deacons is unknown (ISBE).

4) Then, of course, NONE of my dozen or so commentaries on Romans calls Phoebe a a "shammash."


===

And Junia? Nice lady, well known BY the apostles. [/qb][/QUOTE]

===

Of course you are right, and you need provide NO rationale either for your view.

We should just ignore the opinings of

1) one of the best grammarians around, AT Robertson,

2) AND the best lexicon in existence, the 10 vol TDNT,

3) AND those translations which have them as being AMONG the apostles,

4) AND the excellent exegetes on Romans as John Murray, Cranfield, Kasemann, and FF Bruce.

Right!

 

Words of wisdom.

 

===


AND John Calvin too who was no novice on Greek and who says, these WERE apostles (comm on Romans.) AND James Denny too who in the Expositor's Greek Testament says that "all the patristic commentators" took these as apostles , ALL wrong, these, sadly, were ALL wrong and you are right!

Understand, it matters not to me. I'm not taking any position on this except that saying something is so does NOT MAKE IT SO! We need to give evidence.

Certainly I have been often wrong and will be again many times over.

 

ATTN DR. BOB

You are right, and I am wrong apparently re shammash as a servant of first c. synagogue. Nothing in my lib verified what you said, so I just spent an hour or so on the web. Came across a good article or two on the subject which says just what you say on this matter.

So, I was wrong,I guess. Sorry.

Bill Grover

 

The UBS always accents the words in the apparatus as an editorial decision, and, as you say, how can the witnesses they list have accents if the accents weren't invented until later?

My Novum Testamentum, the 27th ed., says "sine acc." before the support for the reading of the text, meaning "without the accent." I interpret this to mean that all the MSS listed don't have an accent, but that the editors are making the decision for us. Maybe I'm wrong and "sine acc" means without the accusative or something else?

I'm not refuting that anyone's text doesn't have the masculine form. If someone can tell me what "sine acc" means, I'll be on my way to better understanding the passage. It does concern me that Tischendorf with still one of the largest apparatuses ever made doesn't even mention a MS with the circumflex accent over the ultima.

Sorry for those of you not concerned with this technicality.

Yours, Bluefalcon

 

For the article by Dan Wallace on this very subject, see Wallace's Junia Among the Apostles: The Double Identification Problem in Romans 16:7.

The PhD dissertation UZThD has mentioned Wallace citing doesn't have anything to do with the case of Rm. 16:7. Here is Wallace's note: "Although some might suspect a chauvinistic motive on the part of the scribes, this assumes that all scribes were men. A recent doctoral dissertation done at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, has demonstrated otherwise." That is, the dissertation demonstrated that not all ancient scribes were men.

Now a couple quotes from the above article by Wallace linked above, which shows Wallace's actual view on this subject:

"Although most modern translations regard the name as masculine, the data simply do not yield themselves in this direction. And although we are dealing with scanty material, it is always safest to base one’s views on actual evidence rather than mere opinion" (emphasis mine).

"The NET Bible regards this as a woman’s name because the data are sufficient to argue this way, while [the data] are insufficient to argue that it is a man’s name" (emphasis mine).

One more thing: Wallace's quote, "... (for the bulk of the MSS have the circumflex over the ultima)" is either wrong, or the Novum Testamentum is wrong that lists the Majority Text (i.e., the true bulk of the MSS) with the actual feminine gender name with the acute accent over the penult.

Lastly, not necessarily a critical text, but the The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text lists the Majority of MSS with the feminine name, the acute accent over the penult.

Yours, Bluefalcon

 

I'm actually wary of Wallace's ability to get the facts straight after reading this article by Maurice Robinson, Senior Professor of New Testament and Greek at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, NC: "Crossing Boundaries in New Testament Textual Criticism: Historical Revisionism and the Case of Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener".

I would suggest others also not take everything Wallace says at true face value.

Yours, Bluefalcon