The manusripts used for NWT Translation

by badboy 27 Replies latest jw friends

  • NeonMadman
    NeonMadman

    Leolaia, I don't see anything in your most recent comments to me that I would particularly disagree with, but let me take the opportunity to say how much I have enjoyed many of your previous posts, and have even printed them out in the past for reference (though I rarely comment on them). You should be publishing some of this stuff instead of posting it...

    And as to the question of Junia/Junias, the problem doesn't seem to me to revolve so much around whether the name was masculine or feminine as around the meaning of the phrase, "of note among the apostles" (KJV). Comparing a number of translations seems to demonstrate that the phrase does not mean that Junias was an apostle, but rather was well known to the apostles. I'm not qualified to analyze the Greek text to determine the meaning. But if we take the wording to mean that these two were apostles, then we are left with the quandary as to how we got apostles other than those who were selected by Jesus (which is the generally held criterion for an apostle).

  • ithinkisee
    ithinkisee
    What this person said that that they were deliberate alterations,eg one text had been altered so it read masculine, instead of feminine.

    Of course, the Society did this with their NWT in Proverbs Ch 8 because they wanted Jesus to be Wisdom ... but Proverbs 8 portrays Wisdom as female. Sneaky bastards. -ithinkisee

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    NeonMadman....I went into this a little bit on my other thread; here is the info for your convenience....

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Romans 16:7 says literally that Junia and Andronicus were "prominent in the apostles" (episémoi en tois apostolois); it uses an adjective, not a verb like "esteemed", and the en + DATIVE construction most often occurs to indicate location, i.e. Junia and Andronicus were located in the class of apostles. The alternative interpretation (that Junia and Andronicus were highly regarded by the apostles) assumes a form of agency that would instead be expressed with hupo + GENITIVE. When we look for examples of the adjective episémos "prominent, outstanding, notable, famous" with a locative preposition, we find that the entities modified by episémos are the distinguished members of a class, not distinguished in the estimation of members of a class external to them:

    "Then a certain Eleazar, prominent among the priests of the country (episémos apo tés khóras hiereón), who had attained a ripe old age and throughout his life had been adorned with every virtue, directed the elders around him to stop calling on the holy God" (3 Maccabees 6:1).
    "Having placed his hands behind him and having been bound, like a ram (krios) that is most prominent out of a great flock (episémos ek megalou poimniou) to be sacrificed, a burnt offering prepared and acceptable to God, he looked up to heaven" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 14:1; compare 19:1).
    "Although the Thracians, the Illyrians, and the other European nations were still inexperienced in monastic communities, yet they were not altogether lacking in men devoted to philosophy. Of these, Martin, the descendant of a noble family of Saboria in Pannonia, was the most eminent of the race (episémos en to genos)" (Salaminius Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 3.14.38).
    "And actually the native of Cyprus was someone most eminent among the lords (episémos en kurioi)" (Gelasius Cyzicenus, Ecclesiastical History, 2.10.1).
    "And all these are prominent stars in the zodiac signs (episémoi asteres en zóidión)" (John Camaterus, Introduction to Astronomy, 3076).

    In these next examples, the adjective occurs with en + DATIVE, and though the person or entity modified by the adjective is not a member of a class, the preposition is still locative (indicating where he was prominent):

    "A man who was living in Rome dreamt that he flew around the city near the rooftops and that he was elated by his adept flying. And all those who looked at him were struck with admiration. But as a result of a certain pain and palpitations of the heart, he stopped flying and hid in shame. An extraordinary man and an excellent prophet, he was eminent in the city" (episémos en téi polei)" (Artermidorus, Oneirocritica, 5.69).
    "They will give diseases to each other and suffer excruciating pain in the body in their first lifespan and not have a prominent life in the country (episémos en téi patridi)" (Vettius Valens, Anthologiarum, Appendix 1).
    "Her lips are pale and her neck thin and veins are prominent in it (episémoi en autói)" (Lucian, Dialogi Meretricii, 1.2).

    The only example I could find that comes close to the alternative interpretation is the following from the Psalms of Solomon, but upon closer examination I think it fits very well with the above pattern (episémói has more of the sense of "conspicuous" here):

    "The sons and daughters were in harsh captivity, their neck in a seal, a spectacle among the Gentiles (episémói en tois ethnesin)" (Psalms of Solomon 2:6).

    It is possible to say here that the exiled Jews are conspicious from the point of view of the Gentiles. But since these are Jews "in captivity", they are in fact "among the Gentiles" themselves, so the locative en + DAT works here too, I think.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia
    But if we take the wording to mean that these two were apostles, then we are left with the quandary as to how we got apostles other than those who were selected by Jesus (which is the generally held criterion for an apostle).

    The Twelve were not all those who had the title of "apostle". See, for instance, Philippians 2:25 which designates Epaphroditus as an "apostle", and 2 Corinthians 8:16-24 which refers to the two companions of Titus as "apostles of the churches", including one missionary who "is famous in all the churches for spreading the gospel ... who had been elected by the churches to be our companion". Another interesting early text on these apostle missionaries is Didache 11:3-6: "Now concerning the apostles and prophets, deal with them as follows in accordance with the rule of the gospel. Let every apostle who comes to you be welcomed as if he were the Lord. But he is not to stay for more than a day, unless there is need, in which case he may stay for another. But if he stays three days, he is a false prophet. And when the apostle leaves, he is to take nothing except bread until he finds his next night's lodging. But if he asks for money, he is a false prophet". Paul's rivals in Corinth also appear to have adopted the title of "apostle" (2 Corinthians 11:5, 12:11-12).

    The title does not refer to any Christian missionary but has special prestige. In particular, "all the apostles" had witnessed the risen Christ (1 Corinthians 15:7), so presumably one could not be an apostle without having had a personal revelation (and possibly commission) from Jesus, as did Paul on the road to Damascus.

  • Earnest
    Earnest


    Leolaia,

    Thank you for your comments on my post and the reference to your previous thread, The status of women in early Christianity, which I had somehow missed when you first posted it.

    Earnest : Whether Romans 16:7 reads Junia or Junias is not based on textual alteration. The Greek word is Jounian and could refer either (1) to a man with the name 'Junianus', found here in its contracted form, 'Junias' or (2) to a woman with the name of Junia.
    Leolaia : The evidence however is much more in the favor of Iounian being a female name than masculine.

    My earlier post was not intended to argue a matter of translation but to point out that the difference in translation of Junia/Junias is not due to textual alteration and that the NWT is a legitimate translation of this verse. While I do not disagree with your arguments in favour of Junias it is clear that a number of respected translators (ASV, NASB, NIV, TEV, NAB) consider Junias to be more likely. In addition, both the UBS 4 and NA 27 Greek New Testaments show Iounian accented with a circumflex accent over the alpha, which indicates "Junias" as being a contracted form of Junianus, a male name.

    Earnest

  • TheListener
    TheListener

    I just realized that the NWT says in Romans 16:7 "Greet An·dron´i·cus and Ju´ni·as my relatives and my fellow captives, who are men of note among the apostles and who have been in union with Christ longer than I haveet An·dron´i·cus and Ju´ni·as my relatives and my fellow captives, who are men of note among the apostles and who have been in union with Christ longer than I have."

    Here is what the Kingdom Interlinear says

    Greek: "Greet you Adronicus and Junias the relatives of me and fellow captives of me, who are notable(ones) in the apostles, who also before me have become in christ."

    English: "Greek Andronicus and Junias my relatives and my fellow captives, who are men of note among the apostles and who have been in union with Christ longer than I have."

    Here is what the Diaglot says:

    Greek : "Salute you Andronicus and Junias, the relatives of me and fellow-prisoners of me, who are noted among the apostles, who and before me have been in Anointed.

    English: "Salute Andronicus and Junias, my relatives and Fellow-prisoners, who are highly esteemed among the apostles, and who were in Christ before me."

    Unless I'm missing something I don't see other translations that add "...who are men of note..." to the text except the NWT. If there are others I would love to see them. It seems very self serving that from the Diaglot to the KIT they changed the english translation from NOTED ONES to MEN OF NOTE. Seems dishonest to me.

    But, can the term notable ones (Episemos (Strong's #1978) from the roots Epi (Strong's #1909 - preposition) and Semaino (Strong's #4591 - to make known) be translated "men of note"?

  • TheListener
    TheListener

    Interesting Article:

    “Junia . . . Outstanding among the Apostles” (Romans 16:7) (1)

    by Bernadette Brooten
    from Women Priests, Arlene Swidler & Leonard Swidler (eds.), Paulist Press 1977, pp. 141-144.
    Republished on our website with the necessary permissions

    Bernadette Brooten was at the time a Ph. D. candidate at Harvard University in the field of New Testament and was writing a dissertation on “Women in Early Church Office and Within the Organizational Structures of the Synagogue.” Ms. Brooten also studied theology for three years at the University of Tuebingen in West Germany.

    “Greet Andronicus and Junia . . . who are outstanding among the apostles” (Romans 16:7): To be an apostle is something great. But to be outstanding among the apostles—just think what a wonderful song of praise that is! They were outstanding on the basis of their works and virtuous actions. Indeed, how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle.

    John Chrysostom (344/54-407)(2)

    Also notable is the case of Junias or Junio, placed in the rank of the apostles (Rom. 16, 7), with regard to whom one or another [exegete] raises the question of whether it is a man.

    Pontifical Biblical Commission (1976)(3)

    What a striking contrast! The exegesis of Romans 16:7 has practically reversed. Whereas for John Chrysostom the apostle addressed by Paul is a woman by the name of Junia, for almost all modern scholars it is a man, Junias, whom Paul is greeting. The Biblical Commission is quite right in saying that only “one or another” exegete questions the prevailing view that the person named is a man. Most Romans commentators do not seem to be even aware of the possibility that the person could be a woman, and virtually all modern biblical translations have Junias (m.) rather than Junia (f.).

    It was not always this way. John Chrysostom was not alone in the ancient church in taking the name to be feminine. The earliest commentator on Romans 16:7, Origen of Alexandria (e. 185-253/54), took the name to be feminine (Junta or Julia, which is a textual variant),(4) as did Jerome (340/50-419/20),(5) Hatto of Vercelli (924-961),(6) Theophylact (c.1050-c.1108),(70 and Peter Abelard (1079-1142).(8) In fact, to the best of my knowledge, no commentator on the text until Aegidius of Rome (1245-1316) took the name to be masculine. Without commenting on his departure from previous commentators, Aegidius simply referred to the two persons mentioned in Romans 16:7 as “these honorable men” (viri).(9) Aegidius noted that there were two variant readings for the second name: Juniam and Juliam (accusative in the verse). He preferred the reading Juliam and took it to be masculine. Thus we see that even Juliam, which modern scholars would take to be clearly feminine, has been considered masculine in the context of the title “apostle.”

    If Aegidius started the ball rolling, it really picked up momentum in the Reformation period. The commentary which Martin Luther heavily relied upon, that by Father Stapulensis (Paris, 1512, p.99b), took the accusative ’IOUNIAN to be Junias (m.). Luther’s lecture on Romans (1515/1516: Weimarer Ausgabe 56, p. 150) followed Faber Stapulensis on this and other points. Through Luther the Junias interpretation was assured of a broad exposure for centuries to come. In each of the succeeding centuries the Junias hypothesis gained new adherents and the argument was expanded. To make the Junias interpretation more plausible, some commentators suggested that it was a “short form” of the Latin Junianus, Junianius, Junilius or even Junius. This “short form” hypothesis is the prevailing view in modern scholarship.

    The proponents of the new Junias hypothesis were, however, by no means left unchallenged. In 1698, for example, Johannes Drusius (in the Critici Sacri, Amsterdam, 1698, Vol. VII, p. 930) patiently tried to remind his colleagues that Junia was the feminine counterpart of Junius, just as Prisca was of Priscus, and Julia was of Julius. Christian Wilhelm Bose, in his doctoral dissertation Andronicum et Juniam (Leipzig, 1742, p. 5), questioned that Junia/s is a short form of anything. If that be true, he pondered, then one might just as easily argue that Andronicus is a short form of Andronicianus! In our century, the most notable protester against the Junias hypothesis has been M.-J. Lagrange (Paris, 1916; sixth ed. 1950, p. 366). His reason is a conservative one: because the abbreviation Junias is unattested, it is “more prudent” to stick to the feminine Junia. Unlike many of his Protestant colleagues, Lagrange was aware of the Patristic exegesis on this point. Precisely because the Church Fathers took the name to be feminine, Catholic exegetes of the past were generally slower to accept the innovation of Junias. But by now commentators of all confessions take ’IOUNIAN to be Junias.

    What reasons have commentators given for this change? The answer is simple: a woman could not have been an apostle. Because a woman could not have been an apostle, the woman who is here called apostle could not have been a woman

    What can a modern philologist say about Junias? Just this: it is unattested. To date not a single Latin or Greek inscription, not a single reference in ancient literature has been cited by any of the proponents of the Junias hypothesis. My own search for an attestation has also proved fruitless. This means that we do not have a single shred of evidence that the name Junias ever existed. Nor is it plausible to argue that it is just coincidental that Junias is unattested since the “long forms” Junianus. Junianius, Junilius, and Junius are common enough. It is true that Greek names could have abbreviated forms ending in -as (e.g., Artemas for Artemidoros); such names are called “hypocoristica” (terms of endearment or diminutives, e.g., Johnny for John, or Eddie for Edward). Latin hypocoristica, however, are usually formed by lengthening the name (e.g., Priscilla for Prisca) rather than by shortening it, as in Greek. The Junias hypothesis presupposes that Latin names were regularly abbreviated in the Greek fashion, which is not the case. The feminine Junia, by contrast, is a common name in both Greek and Latin inscriptions and literature. In short, literally all of the philological evidence points to the feminine Junia.

    What does it mean that Junia and Andronicus were apostles? Was the apostolic charge not limited to the Twelve? New Testament usage varies on this point. Luke, for example, placed great emphasis on “the twelve apostles.” In fact, with one exception (Acts 14:4, 14: both Paul and Barnabas are called “apostles”), Luke does not honor Paul with the title “apostle.” Paul on the other hand, never uses the term “the twelve apostles.” He himself claimed to be an apostle, though he was not one of the Twelve, and he also called others, such as James the brother of the Lord (Galatians 1:19, cf. 1Corinthians 15:7), “apostle.” This does not mean that Paul used “apostle” in an unrestricted, loose sense. Precisely because of the seriousness with which he defends his own claim to apostleship (he says that he received his call from Christ himself: Galatians 1:1, 11f.; 1Corinthians 9:1), we must assume that he recognized others as apostles only when he was convinced that their own apostolic charge had also come from the risen Lord (cf. 1Corinthians 15, 7 the risen Lord was seen by all the apostles). For Paul the category “apostle’; was perhaps of even greater import than for other New Testament writers because it concerned authority in the church of his own day and did not refer to a closed circle of persons from the past, i.e., a restricted number which could not be repeated.

    From this and from Paul’s description of his own apostolic work in his letters, we can assume that the apostles Junia and Andronicus were persons of great authority in the early Christian community, that they were probably missonaries and founders of churches, and that, just as with Paul, their apostleship had begun with a vision of the risen Lord and the charge to become apostles of Christ.

    In light of Romans 16:7 then, the assertion that “Jesus did not entrust the apostolic charge to women” must be revised. The implications for women priests should be self-evident. If the first century Junia could be an apostle, it is hard to see how her twentieth century counterpart should not be allowed to become even a priest.

    Notes

    1. The following comments summarize briefly the results of a comprehensive study of the history of interpretation of Romans 16:7 and of the inscriptional evidence for the name IOUNIAN. The reader interested in more complete documentation is referred to that study, which will be published in the near future.

    2. In Epistolam ad Romanos, Homilia 31, 2 (J.P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus, series Graeca [= PG] 60, 669f.).

    3. “Can Women Be Priests?” (Report of the Pontifical Biblical Commission), see below, p. 344.

    4. Commentaria in Epistolam ad Romanos 10, 26 (PG 14, 1281B); 10, 39 (PG 14, 1289A). Thc text printed in Migne has Junia emended to Junias, but the manuscripts have Junia or Julia.

    5. Liber Interpretationis Hebraicorum Nominum 72, 15 (J.P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus, series Latina [=PL] 23, 895).

    6. In Epistolam ad Romanos 16, 7 (PL 134, 282A).

    7. Expositio In Epistolam ad Romanos 114 (PG 124, 552D).

    8. Expositio in Epistolam ad Romanos 5 (PL 178, 973C).

    9. Opera Exegetica. Opuscula I (Facsimile reprint of the Rome, 1554/55 edition: Frankfurt, 1968), p. 97.

  • badboy
    badboy

    I am afraid I didn't take notes during the programme!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit