Talk:Junia (New Testament person)

Junias

I moved the content of the article Junias here because Junia is the female name and more accepted by NT scholars, such as the NRSV. --JBJ 20:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The article uses vague qualifiers like some, many, and most to describe scholarly consensus without citing any sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.167.119.100 (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Singer

Junia is also a singer. http://www.a-cd.de/detail.php?id=6741 --Easyas12c 16:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced "feminists" with "some Christians", which I feel is far more accurate. That "Junia" was a woman is generally accepted by most mainline Christians as well as mainstream Biblical scholars, and it's certainly not an interpretation limited to feminists.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.114.238.29 (talk)

It might be more accurate to say that most Christians understand (and have historically understood) the name to refer to a woman who was an apostle, but that egalitarian/feminist scholars have made a great deal of this in recent times.

With a cursory reading of this article I can see a number of minor errors and misunderstandings -- Unless anyone objects I'll attempt a major edit sometime soon (possibly early next week), as I've spent a good deal of time studying Romans 16.7, and I have a lot of the relevant books with me. 146.82.111.234 05:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC) (The above was posted by me before I signed in) Demmeis 05:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Icon of Junia

The icon illustrating Junia would be powerful evidence of her veneration as a woman, if it was made centuries ago. St. Junia has apparently been recognized by the Orthodox churches as a saint for many centuries. On the other hand, the icon could be a relatively recent piece, in which case it is no evidence at all to support the interpretation of Romans 16.7.

So when was it painted or created? The file info implies it was some decades ago, as it says the copyright expired after the death of the author plus 70 years i.e. at least 70 years ago. But there is no info about the author's identity, date of death, or indeed any info about the origins of the icon. The link to the Orthodox Church site where it appears yields no info about its origin either.

This photo appeared in the local newspaper on August 9th, 2007 (Toronto Star) in an article about St. Junia, but without attribution. Checking on the internet, I saw the icon is widely associated with discussions about her, but never attributed. (The above is an edited version of a comment I posted on the file image site on August 9th, 2007, but there were no responses. I hope re-posting it here with the article, in somewhat revised form, doesn't break any Wikipedia rules. If so, please accept my apologies.)Greg Dyer 02:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

@Greg Dyer: I noticed that that image is used in the Greek Wikipedia article el:Χριστιανούπολη Μεσσηνίας. This is a village inn Greece where there's a large and old church. I wonder whether the icon is in that church (the Wikipedia article doesn't say). There's also a Greek Wikipedia article about the church, but it doesn't mention Junia. It has a lot of links though. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Junia

Romans 16 begins with 16 verses of greeting to 26 people by name and others by association. 7)"Greet Andronicas and Junias, my kinsman and my fellow-prisoners, who are distinguished among the apostles, who were also in Christ before me." DR This is not an enumeration of apostles. Robert D. (69.153.169.63 07:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)).

But many commentators believe it is a mention of two apostles. Peter Ballard 08:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

In NetBible net.bible.org they translated it as "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my compatriots and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles,and they were in Christ before me."
And they add the next comment on the name

"The feminine name Junia, though common in Latin, is quite rare in Greek (apparently only three instances of it occur in Greek literature outside Rom 16:7, according to the data in the TLG [D. Moo, Romans [NICNT], 922]). The masculine Junias (as a contraction for Junianas), however, is rarer still: Only one instance of the masculine name is known in extant Greek literature (Epiphanius mentions Junias in his Index discipulorum 125). Further, since there are apparently other husband-wife teams mentioned in this salutation (Prisca and Aquila [v. 3], Philologus and Julia [v. 15]), it might be natural to think of Junia as a feminine name. (This ought not be pressed too far, however, for in v. 12 all three individuals are women [though the first two are linked together], and in vv. 9-11 all the individuals are men.) In Greek only a difference of accent distinguishes between Junias (male) and Junia (female). If it refers to a woman, it is possible (1) that she had the gift of apostleship (not the office), or (2) that she was not an apostle but along with Andronicus was esteemed by (or among) the apostles. As well, the term “prominent” probably means “well known,” suggesting that Andronicus and Junia(s) were well known to the apostles (see note on the phrase “well known” which follows)."

And the next comment on the translation of the words "known to"

"Or “prominent, outstanding, famous.” The term ἐπίσημος (epishmo") is used either in an implied comparative sense (“prominent, outstanding”) or in an elative sense (“famous, well known”). The key to determining the meaning of the term in any given passage is both the general context and the specific collocation of this word with its adjuncts. When a comparative notion is seen, that to which ἐπίσημος is compared is frequently, if not usually, put in the genitive case (cf., e.g., 3 Macc 6:1 [Ελεαζαρος δέ τις ἀνὴρ ἐπίσημος τῶν ἀπὸ τής χώρας ἱερέων “Eleazar, a man prominent among the priests of the country”]; cf. also Pss. Sol. 17:30). When, however, an elative notion is found, ἐν (en) plus a personal plural dative is not uncommon (cf. Pss. Sol. 2:6). Although ἐν plus a personal dative does not indicate agency, in collocation with words of perception, (ἐν plus) dative personal nouns are often used to show the recipients. In this instance, the idea would then be “well known to the apostles.” See M. H. Burer and D. B. Wallace, “Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Re-examination of Rom 16.7,” NTS 47 (2001): 76-91, who argue for the elative notion here." Solitary Copt (talk) 10:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm really interested in adding some new information on Junia from a peer reviewed journal article titled 'Wealthy Women and Female Apostles' which was recently published. The article discusses the nature of Junia's apostleship and her standing in the Roman community. It also discusses her relationship with Andronicus and her relationship with Saint Paul. CapHammer (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome, CapHammer. I encourage you to go ahead with it so we can take a look. Afaprof01 (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I just added some new information. I've done a lot of research in this area and I hope that my additions can generate further interest in such and interesting area. CapHammer (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Apostle or not

There is debate whether the mention of Junia(s) as being "prominent among the apostles" (NRSV) means Junia(s) was one of the apostles, or only well known to the apostles. A parallel to the second interpretation is found in the Psalms of Solomon 2:6, where the Jewish captives are spoken of as "a spectacle among the gentiles". The construction is exactly the same, and the word translated as "a spectacle" is exactly the same word that in Romans 16:7 is translated as "of note" or "prominent". But the phrase in the Psalms of Solomon clearly does not mean that the Jewish captives were Gentiles. Victor Alexander's translation from Aramaic states that they were "well-known by the apostles."[citation needed] (Was a section in the article, moved here and removed from the article by Nhoj (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

I moved this section to the Talk page, as it's main content is unfounded. Mainly, I'm wondering how a word "translated as a spectacle" in Romans, originally in Greek, can be the same as one from Song of Solomon, which was originally in Hebrew? Are you referring to the Septuagint - a famous Greek translation of the Old Testament? If so, fine, but I guarantee the original word in Romans is not the same as the original word in Song of Solomon, as they were written in different languages. Since 90% of this paragraph hinges on word studies, someone with more knowledge should rewrite it with facts - and maybe some citations as well? As a side note, the book of the Bible is entitled Song of Solomon or Song of Songs, not Psalms of Solomon. --Nhoj (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

| Years later, but I feel I should make the point that this example is not as clear cut as it looks; the term 'gentile' (and the Latin 'gentilis') is not exclusive to non-Jews. The King James Bible used it to mean 'nation' for more than half of its instances. It can be used to refer to the non-Jewish peoples, but this use (which originated in biblical translations) must be determined by context, and in 2:6 of the Psalm of Solomon either 'nations' or 'gentiles' would make sense.213.205.251.234 (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that the book being quoted is NOT Song of Solomon, also called Song of Songs. Chapter 2, verse 6 of that book reads, "Let his left hand be under my head And his right hand embrace me." This is a quotation from the apocryphal book, "Psalms of Solomon," which does contain the phrase, "ἐπισήμῳ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν." A Wikipedia article on this book can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalms_of_Solomon

Is there any particular reason that the Linda Belleville article is NOT actually quoted, as she completely refutes the claim that the construction ἐπισήμῳ ἐν is exclusive? She does an exhaustive search of all Greek manuscripts, inscriptions, etc. of that era, and she finds that, without exception, this construction is ALWAYS inclusive. In fact, the SOLE exception to this is the verse quoted by Wallace, which actually leads to the conclusion that it was used INCORRECTLY in that passage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.44.88 (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Linda Belleville has a crushing analysis refuting Burer and Wallace's conclusions. I'm happy to add some information. I have added information from Belleville about the prevalence of the name Junia. CapHammer (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to Linda Belleville's work but nothing I've read online has indicated that she clarified the semantic difference between these two locative usages.

"the Ritchies are still conspicuous among our landed gentry"

"The red convertible was conspicuous among the parked limousines".

In the former, the Ritchies are identifiable as landed gentry and are therefore among them in quality. In the latter, the convertible is not identifiable as a limousine and is therefore not among them in quality. As will be obvious to most English speakers, it is not the case that one of these two usages is wrong as they are both quite commonly used. The following two constructions would rarely be considered bad English.

"she is well-known among her colleagues for..." "She is well-known among her clients for..."

However, since when did linguists regard "sole exceptions" as conclusively indicating wrong usage?

Could anyone who does have access to Linda Belleville's work please indicate whether or not she has examined her linguistic examples to see if they discriminate in quality in this way? I would really like to know whether the Jewish captives, who were qualitatively different from and "conspicuous among" the Gentiles, are indeed a unique linguistic case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.226.195 (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I've just found a quotation of the Psalms of Solomon 2:6 at http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2009/04/mccarthy-vs-wallace.html

οἱ υἱοὶ καὶ αἱ θυγατέρες ἐν αἰχμαλωσίᾳ πονηρᾷ ἐν σφραγῖδι ὁ τράχηλος αὐτῶν ἐν ἐπισήμῳ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν

The dative singular phrase "εν επισήμω" (-in a mark- or just possibly -in a marked [place]-) clearly doesn't refer back to the nominative plural "υιοί και θυγατέρες" (-[Jewish] sons and daughters-), so the only issue that remains for me is the question of whether Linda Belleville has addressed the question of whether "εν" with the dative, when meaning "among", has ever been used with two substantives of different semantic quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.226.195 (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Could someone verify if the current UBS and NA27 do, in fact, use the male or female name? The article says "However, the masculine form is preferred in the UBS New Testament, 4th edition, which matches the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland text (the latest editions of each text)" but from what I can tell from searching Google, they use the female. I don't own copies to look it up personally. Jonathan Roy (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

From versions to "many" "in the same sense as"

re this edit

Based on the preponderance of translations having the feminine name Junia, it is widely presumed that Junia was a woman and that Andronicus of Pannonia (Greek: Ανδρόνικος) was her husband, since Paul describes them as a couple in those four different roles. The phrase translated "of note among the apostles" (KJV, Douay, Darby, ERV, YLT, KJ21, NKJV, AKJV) and "outstanding among the apostles" (NIV)with a footnote "or 'are esteemed by' " leads many to conclude that she indeed was an apostle in the same sense as Peter, James, Paul, and the others well known as apostles in the New Testament. This would mean she was the only woman apostle mentioned in the New Testament. Both her gender and her apostleship have been subjects of considerable debate. Understandably, this verse continues to draw a great deal of attention in scholarly literature, especially the matter of apostleship.

Hi, Afaprof01, I'm not sure that one can jump from "of note among the apostles" (KJV, Douay Bible, Darby Bible, Revised Version, Young's Literal Translation, KJ21, NKJV, AKJV) to say "leads many to conclude that she indeed was an apostle in the same sense as Peter, James, Paul, and the others well known as apostles..." ...who is the many? and why would it be "in the same sense as." Do you have a source which shows some notable, say 19thC since those are 19thC versions mainly, going from what KJV says to the "in the same sense as" conclusion? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm also wondering why this new unsourced section Apostle in the NT is needed. If any wants Apostle (which is a sourced article) they'll click through. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

And why is a large chunk on Junia being considered a female name by Chrysostom now heading the section about the issue which isn't about the name? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Afaprof01, seems you caught these comments on Talk and have adjusted. Still wondering however why we should be saying the preponderance of versions (?) means anything to anyone. People usually have only 1 version, and what matters to scholars is not the versions but (A) the textual transmission for masc/female name, (B) Greek grammar for the "noted among/by" issue. What's the purpose of putting all this up there in the lead? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Greetings In ictu oculi. I appreciate your careful reading and work on this article. Thanks, too, for approaching my edits with courtesy/respect.

1. "in the same sense as." Based on Bilezikian's 3-levels of NT time periods for apostles (pre-Resurrection, post-Resurrection and pre-Ascension, and post-Ascension), "in the same sense as" is technically incorrect. I have changed that and tightened up the Lede. I will welcome your eval of the changes.

2. Re: name. From my research, the gender ambiguity of the name, plus gender bias about apostleship, has accounted for centuries of intentional male bias in translations (e.g., Luther). Had the name been clearly masculine down through the ages, there would have been no need for so much research on the name. While today the name isn't as huge an issue as is apostleship, there remain those who would have us discount the name issue down through the ages. If the name is masculine, then there is no gender issue! Hence, IMO Chrysostom et al are relevant to the efforts in the Middle Ages (and later) to masculinize the name. If there are particular additions/changes I've made to the name issue that you consider irrelevant or redundant, please proceed with changes/deletions that reflect your wisdom. Or, if you will identify them to me, I'll be glad to make the edits you propose, or else will get back to you on any I'd like to negotiate with you. I sincerely respect your opinion and am grateful for your input. Afaprof01 (talk) 08:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I just read your 07:50 msg. It's 2 a.m. here so I'll address it later today please. Meanwhile, I still will welcome further input per your earlier Comments.

Thanks again. Afaprof01 (talk) 08:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, but we don't do our own research here. We also aren't here to right wrongs. What this article, like every article needs, is sourcing. As far as middle ages goes. Fine, a section on patristic reading of Junia from Chrysostom to Reformation is interesting, but it shouldn't be mixed in with modern sources. I'll reduce the lead, as per your invitation above, but leave the rest alone for now. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this is more straightforward: There are 2 problems - A, B - they're still under debate. - Finish.

The translation of the verse presents two problems:

• The majority of Greek New Testament manuscripts give a female name Junia; a minority give a masculine name Junias.
• The phrase translated "of note among the apostles" (KJV) can be read two ways, as illustrated by the two readings in the NIV; "outstanding among" (NIV main text) or "esteemed by" (NIV footnote).

These two questions are still under scholarly debate.

The detail is in the article (or should be). In ictu oculi (talk) 08:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Accents

@Eric Kvaalen: Hi. Just a question re these edits did written Greek have accents at this period? I thought accents were later? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: Well, supposedly Aristophanes of Byzantium invented accents in the 3rd century BC, but in practice they were not used until long after the New Testament was written (as mention'd in the Junia article). Eric Kvaalen (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Name change for article - Junia the Apostle

I sense that the weight of modern scholarship, and a proper understanding of the current systemic bias, means that we should be changing the name of this article to Junia the Apostle, whilst of course acknowledging the different views in the article. Currently, by our title, we take a view. But I am no expert on things: would a few editors comment please? Springnuts (talk) 10:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

This would be a violation of WP:NPOV, and it's totally unnecessary - since she is, of course, a New Testament person. StAnselm (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

My point is simply that the current title takes a view. The comes a time where the weight of academic consensus necessitates a change. My question is: Have we reached it? I don’t know your personal view any more than you know mine, and our views are not relevant. If the academic critical-theology consensus has changed - or there is no consensus, but the weight of argument is judged by the community to make it appropriate, then a change in title is necessary.

How on earth does the current title "take a view"? How could anyone possibly dispute the claim that she is a New Testament person? StAnselm (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

It takes the view that she/he is not an Apostle - as if we name changed “Paul the Apostle” to “Paul, New Testament Person”! “~ New Testament Person” is absolutely the right title here if the balance of scholarship takes the view that he/she is not an apostle. My question is, has the balance of scholarship tipped? But I will leave the conversation for some more views.

Well, Paul is often called "Paul the Apostle". Junia is sometimes "Junia the Apostle" - it gets about as many ghits at "Saint Junia". But the problem is neutrality - nobody disputes that Paul is an apostle (at least these days - they did in the first century!). There isn't a whole lot of consistency in disambiguating NT people here, "(biblical figure)" is the most common. But see also Fortunatus (New Testament person). StAnselm (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup

I'm currently engaged in a big cleanup process for this article. The article, when I started working on it, needed thorough revisions of clearness, appropriate use of the scholarly literature published on the topic, and quite frankly, the excision of a lot of redundant, badly cited, or plain unreliable material.Editshmedt (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I am going to remove the following section for misrepresenting its source:

"The Coptic Synaxarium reading for the twenty-third of Bashans identifies Junia the apostle as being a man of the tribe of Judah."

The archived PDF that this claim sources can be found here. In fact, the Synaxarium explicitly describes Junia as a female. On pg. 103;

"Atrasis thought always about the vanity of the world and the end of life. Day and night she asked for guidance towards the right way. In a vision at night, she saw a person who told her, "Bring Yoana (Junia), the virgin, the daughter of Philospheron, and she will teach you the way of the Lord." When Atrasis woke from her sleep, her soul rejoiced and she sent for Yoana, who came to her at once. Princess Atrasis met Yoana, bowed down before her and embraced her."

So the section is misleading.Editshmedt (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. But it seems less neutral now. It seems like you have turned it into an essay arguing that Junia was an apostle. StAnselm (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Removing Wolters was very sneaky - the article was certainly published in JBL. And removing it massively skews the neutrality of the article. I am going to put some work back into neutralising the article. StAnselm (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

StAnselm (talk · contribs) By referring to the edit as "sneaky", you are insinuating I was being dishonest when I removed the reference. That is simply incorrect. It was a simple mistake in reference checking. I double checked it now, and yes, the paper was published in JBL. Furthermore, I have not "turned it into an essay arguing that Junia is an apostle". That Junia is an apostle is the consensus of scholarship, as is even admitted by evangelical journals. There's one 2001 paper by Burer and Wallace at some seminary arguing that Junia was not an apostle, but within four years, three different scholars had written extensive critical responses to their claims. That's a form of pretty heavy scholarly rejection. Also notice that the only scholars that argue that Junia is a male, or that Junia is not an apostle, are the highly evangelical ones that teach at seminaries. That kind of suggests there's a bit of a bias going on. Perhaps they're not that comfortable with the idea of a female apostle. If you dispute the way I wrote some of the sections, we should discuss it here, exchange our viewpoints, and then determine what kind of changes need to be made. I don't want you removing or rewriting large chunks of what I wrote which took lots of time to research.Editshmedt (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry I used the word "sneaky". I should not have jumped to conclusions about your motives. I think Ng is saying there is a consensus for Junia being female, and I would agree. I don't think there is a consensus about Junia being an apostle: the ESV translation works against that. And I don't think you can present a neutral point of view being do dismissive of evangelical scholarship. StAnselm (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I just read Wolter's paper. Wolter himself writes, in the very final footnote, that even in his opinion, a plausible but not decisive case can be made for either a Semitic male name or a Latin female name. Thus, his paper is by no means an attempt to refute that Junia is a male name, or that it cannot be a female name. It simply asserts the possibility of a male name, not assessing the possibility of the other option. Therefore, I will ensure the article reflects that. Furthermore, the paper by Scaer should be removed entirely. It's not even a paper. It's just a 1 page note drawing attention to Wolters' paper and concluding that this paper can be used to fend off anyone claiming that females can become pastors in the churches that Scaer belongs to.Editshmedt (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

StAnselm (talk · contribs) Thank you, it is fine, I am not offended by the initial wording you gave. There are some more points to add. Firstly, make sure you have read my comments on Wolters paper earlier. Secondly, you say you do not think it is a "consensus" that Junia is an apostle, and then you say we must give weight to evangelical scholarship. However, these two lines can be shown to oppose each other. As I noted earlier, this 2020 evangelical paper on the topic of Junia published in JETS (the primary evangelical journal) says in its opening line that: "There are cogent reasons to challenge the current consensus that Junia(s) in Rom 16:7 was a female apostle." How do you address this? Assuming you will agree with me now that it is indeed the consensus, I think a balanced approach would be to say the following in the lead: the consensus of NT scholarship says that Junia is a female apostle, but some prominent evangelical voices have dissented from this view. How does this sound? Furthermore, Wolters paper can be kept inside the article, just like the paper by Wallace and Burer, however criticism of it must be noted. Thus, I added in a 2020 paper published by a Yale associate professor that aims to refute Wolters' paper. (IMO, it is pretty convincing.) Editshmedt (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, I see it now - I had been going by the opening sentence. But I think Ng is conceding too much and I would want some better sourcing for the claim that there is a consensus regarding apostleship. The thing is, Ng's article is really about gender, not apostleship. StAnselm (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

This article, for example, might not be a reliable source, but is from 2018 and from an egalitarian perspective: it sees a consensus on gender but not apostleship. StAnselm (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

StAnselm, it is not up to you to decide whether or not Ng is "conceding too much". Your comment that you only read the first line of Wolters' paper suggests you haven't read the literature on the Junia debate. On the one hand, you want to be inclusive of evangelical papers, on the other hand, when they say there's a consensus, you don't accept it. Secondly, you can't just rely on a random blogsite to determine what's consensus and what isn't ... in any case, let's do this instead. We will say in the lead that most scholars view Junia as an apostle. Does that work? Also, can we remove that "neutrality" header? Editshmedt (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I've certainly read Wolters - I'm pretty sure I added him to this article. I was referring to Ng, of course, which is a 2020 article. And I don't think the article I linked to is a "random blog post" - it has made it on to a Yale reading list. Look, I'm certainly happy with "most scholars" in the lead, but the neutrality tag should stay there until the section is, well, neutral. StAnselm (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

What Yale reading list? And that's not how Wikipedia evaluates reliable sources. WP:RS. When we're discussing a topic like this, we really should be working with peer-reviewed work written in respectable publications/presses by experts. I also seem to have misread your comment on Wolters. I also just removed about 1,600 characters of argument for the apostolic position in a process of summarizing. I think this should be sufficient for neutrality. If you do not view it as neutral, you should be more specific about why not, since I wrote it, and you are saying that I wrote a biased section. If this is the case, you should tell me what specifically comes off as biased and what you recommend we do about it, short of completely omitting any of the literature. Also, have you read Belleville, Bauckham, Epp, and Lin's work on the subject? I recommend you do if you have not.Editshmedt (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised you can't see how it's like an essay - the second and third sentences are groundwork for building an argument. I'm sure you've researched this - in fact, it looks like you've written a paper on the subject before. Also, if you remove a citation (you removed Wolters from the lead), be sure you add the bibliographic details if he's cited again (which he is). StAnselm (talk) 06:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The "Yale reading list" is here - Dr Lin's course, in fact. StAnselm (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that reading list. I didn't know Yale offered resources like that. Highly appreciated. I still don't think that qualifies it as a reliable source, but since we agreed on 'majority', it doesn't matter and we're on terms there. By the way, I've never written any essay on Junia before. I actually just read all the Junia scholarship in the last week. If you look at any of the articles I do significant editing on, it would seem as if I'd written an essay or two on them as well. As for argument structuring, are you referring to this?:

"Romans 16 is the final chapter of Paul's Letter to the Romans. In this chapter, Paul mentions his greetings to a number of other members of the Christian sect in his time, one third of them being women. More interestingly, of the twelve members that Paul describes in this chapter as having contributed the most to the church, seven were women whereas five were men.[2] Among those women were Junia."

My rational for including this was to provide a background for the Romans 16 context. This is, in fact, the same background information that Epp gives, and his treatment is considered the standard one. It also does not support either position, although it is true that Romans 16 is considered the most important text in the NT in terms of the role women played in the early church. You can't omit a background like that. In any case, I have rephrased this section to make it seem more like an introduction rather than outlining one side of an argument. What are your thoughts now?Editshmedt (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, that looks better. I have removed the tag. StAnselm (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Misleading

Reading the article at the time of writing, one would get the impression that there is no meaningful agreement in consensus scholarship that the New Testament refers to Junia as A) a woman; and B) an apostle. This misleads the reader and misrepresents the current state of the consensus. From Epp to Lin to Belleville to Bauckham to Gaventa to Barr, the academics agree that the New Testament depicts Junia as a woman apostle. The history of Christians reading the text otherwise and rendering it in translation otherwise is relevant to the reception history of the figure, but the current state of the article depicts this not as a reception history but instead as a contemporaneous academic disagreement, placing the outdated readings on a plane with the academic consensus and gives undue weight to describing and discussing relevant minority readings rather than, per guidelines on due inclusion, briefly mentioning relevant minority readings but emphasizing the prevailing academic interpretation. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

This is covered in this book (which was published last month!): it says there was a shift in NT scholarship to viewing Junia as an apostle, but then there has been a "growing response" to that and so there is an "ongoing discussion". I'm not sure we can say there is "meaningful agreement", at least on the second point. StAnselm (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The book you link is published by Baker Publishing, an Evangelical Christian publishing house. I think that an academically published author's personal religious life is irrelevant—if a legitimate scholarly press accepts the work, then that's the deciding factor—but this is a case in which the publisher itself has a particular religious outlook. If the rest of scholarship was silent on Junia's apostolic identity, then I think Baker Publishing's work would stand—if it's uncontested, then there isn't not a consensus—but in the current context this reads a lot more like Baker Publishing is digging in and trying to deflect what is a non-apologetic scholarly consensus on the topic. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

In fact, Baker is a legitimate scholarly press. But anyway, did you actually have a reliable source describing a consensus? StAnselm (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm aware of the Baker Academic division; that division is also still confessionally Christian. For a biblical topic, a Christian apologetic perspective is a noteworthy perspective, but it is not the same as the perspective secular scholarship.

As for reliable sources, see the following (emphasis added):

• Constantina A. Clark, "Exploring the True Identity of Junia: Prominent among the Apostles", Journal of Early Christian History 8, no. 3 (2018): 96–106 Unanimously, for the first one thousand years of church history, Junia was well known to be a woman, and most contemporary scholars today attest to this fact (98); and There was no question in the ancient church regarding Junia’s gender; she was regarded as obviously female and an apostle (98).
• Yi-jan Lin, "Junia: An Apostle before Paul", Journal of Biblical Literature 139, no. 1 (2020): 191–209: More than a decade has passed since Eldon Jay Epp's definitive monograph Junia: The First Woman Apostle. The few studies on Junia and Rom 16:7 published subsequently have cast little (if any) doubt on Epp's conclusions: Junia (not "Junias") was indeed an apostle and a prominent one at that (191).

Clark states that the majority of scholars attest to Junia having been known as a woman, and Lin states that virtually no doubt—"little (if any)"—has been cast on the conclusion that Junia was known as a woman apostle. This is an academic consensus. Lin identifies three legitimate scholars who disagree, and that minority viewpoint might be due to to briefly mention, but it would be undue to give a perspective whose published authors are countable in the single digits the same weight as the majority of scholars in the field. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 10:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no statement here about an academic consensus. I think the way Lin is phrasing it is that it's her opinion - an informed, scholarly opinion, but still her opinion. So we have "most contemporary scholars today" agreeing that Junia was a woman (assuming that's what Clark means by "this fact" - is she talking about Junia being a woman, or about church history unanimously regarding her as a woman?) but majority is not the same as consensus. And a consensus does not mean we can put it in WP voice. Your recent edit to the lead was way out of line considering we are still discussing this. StAnselm (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the way Lin is phrasing it is that it's her opinion: I disagree, and I find that quite a twist of the plain meaning of 'there's basically no reasonable doubt among the best scholars that Epp was right'.

Your recent edit to the lead was way out of line: I grant it was bold, but being bold isn't forbidden on Wikipedia. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's the plain meaning of the sentence, but I haven't read Lin's article and I can't access it. But as Cynthia Long Westfall points out, Lin's is not the last word: Esther Ng published an article responding to it. It's still a live debate. StAnselm (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Now, Ng styles her article has challenging the current consensus: "To many biblical scholars, there is a growing consensus" that Junia was a female apostle. But you probably don't accept JETS as a reliable source. StAnselm (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

So, following Westfall, if we use the word "consensus", we probably need to say it has been challenged. We certainly can't say in WP voice that Junia is a female apostle. StAnselm (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Whatever I think of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, if anything, Ng demonstrates that the consensus is a consensus—she calls it a consensus among many biblical scholars. Her minority position disagreeing with that consensus (which she herself calls a consensus) may be noteworthy, but it isn't equivalent to the consensus itself. We could say that a minority of published authors disagree with what is the current consensus, but when we say that about other topics—say, climate change, we don't also refrain from saying in wikivoice that climatic change is happening. We say stuff like "x is; the mainstream consensus of scholars say x is; a minority position say y instead". Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your tag, by the way, and I think we need to improve the lead to reflect the article. StAnselm (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

We need to improve both to reflect the best sources. Christian apologetics driven by complementarian ideological motives are noteworthy to the topic, but they don't represent the top-tier, neutral, academic point of view the way histoiographic statements in peer-reviewed articles do. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I want to work with you, but I fear we are at an impasse if you won't accept complementarian writers. Yes, I don't think we want sources "driven by ideological motives" - but that includes egalitarian motives as well. StAnselm (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I have nothing against a writer who personally holds complementarian views. Scholars all the time shelve their own personal opinions in order to draw conclusions based on the evidence. I have defended citing Muslim writers in articles about Islam, citing Christian writers in articles about Christianity, citing Objectivist writers in articles about Ayn Rand, etc.—when they are published by non-confessional journals and publishers, like university presses or other academic presses (Rowman & Littlefield, Bloomsbury, etc.)

What is at issue here is that the venue, the publisher, is confessional. That is something to notice. The publisher decides what manuscripts it accepts to publish, what authors it will publish. That the publisher is confessional indicates a confessional commitment to a certain interpretation of the Bible. This isn't about putting egalitarian interpretations ahead of complementarian interpretations; JBL can, has, and does publish articles that say that there are parts of the Bible characterize women in sexist, inferior ways. This is about putting the evidence in the text ahead of ideological impositions on the text.

This doesn't on its own make a source unciteable, but here, in context, when it's going against the grain of non-confessional academic publications, the Baker-published position a noteworthy minority position to briefly acknowledge, but it isn't equivalent to the non-confessional academic perspective. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I have just created an article on Eldon Epp. StAnselm (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)