Only one female speaker at General Conference this weekend

[_MsJack]

That is a very doubtful interpretation of scripture. Even if it were true, 7.4% is still better than 1.2%.

Which part is doubtful, and why?

Women were deacons, prophets, and other church leaders (of both men and women) throughout the Bible, and there is a female apostle. The Mormon church has 0% women serving in any of those positions, so no, Jesus is not to blame for the church's treatment of women in this regard.

[_zerinus]

That is a very doubtful interpretation of scripture. Even if it were true, 7.4% is still better than 1.2%.

Which part is doubtful, and why?

Women were deacons, prophets, and other church leaders (of both men and women) throughout the Bible, and there is a female apostle. The Mormon church has 0% women serving in any of those positions, so no, Jesus is not to blame for the church's treatment of women in this regard.

While there have been women prophetesses in the Bible, their numbers have been very small compared to men; and there were no female Apostles. As far as Romans 16:7 is concerned, there is no indication that Junia was either an Apostle or even a woman. And "of note among the apostles" simply means known among them, or have a reputation among them. For alternative translations of that verse, see here:

http://biblehub.com/romans/16-7.htm

[_Abaddon]

That was also the first and last conference I ever attended.

I was also 17.

I got to shake Oak's hand; I felt so proud, lol

[_MsJack]

While there have been women prophetesses in the Bible, their numbers have been very small compared to men;

You know how many biblical examples of female prophets we need to prove that God calls women as prophets? One. We have a lot more than one in the Bible, and the ones we do have were very prominent. Miriam was co-leading Israel with Moses and Aaron (Micah 6:4), Deborah was judging Israel (Judges 4:4), and Anna was the first Christ evangelist (Luke 2:36-38). All the more reason women should be prophets today and their voices should be heard---in more than just 7.4% numbers.

Junia's gender is not debatable. We have zero examples of men in antiquity named "Junias;" we have hundreds of examples of women named "Junia." People did not begin to seriously swap her gender until very late (something like 9th century). There was a guy in the 4th or 5th century who claimed she was a man, but he also said Priscilla (wife of Aquila) was a man, so his testimony is garbage.

The claim that ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις could be translated "esteemed by the apostles" (exclusive) rather than "outstanding among the apostles" (inclusive) is very modern one that is technically grammatically possible, but mostly garbage. All of the early church references to Romans 16:7 took the inclusive reading. The vast majority of examples from antiquity of ἐπίσημοι ἐν (+dative) are inclusive readings. The fact that people were so disturbed by this passage that they tried to swap Junia's gender shows that the inclusive reading was by far the more likely. Even the King James Version had Junia as both a woman and an apostle (at least, I believe "kinsmen" was gender-inclusive in King James English).

The Bibles that you see on Bible Hub pushing the exclusive reading are almost entirely newer translations by evangelical complementarians who have stuck their heads in the sand on the matter and are desperate to make Junia a non-apostle.

John Chrysostom, 4th century: “To be apostles is a great thing, but to be distinguished among them—consider what an extraordinary accolade that is! They were distinguished because of their works and because of their upright deeds. Indeed, how great was the wisdom of this woman that she was thought worthy of being called an apostle!” (In epistulam ad Romanos 31.2; PG:60.669-70, translation mine).

Theodoret of Cyrrhus, half a century after Chrysostom: “Then to be called 'of note' not only among the disciples but also among the teachers, and not just among the teachers but even among the apostles . . . ” (Interpretatio in quatuordecim epistolas S. Pauli 82.200, translated by Linda Belleville).

The church fathers aren't always right, but they knew what they were talking about on this one.

[_Chap]

The Bibles that you see on Bible Hub pushing the exclusive reading are almost entirely newer translations by evangelical complementarians who have stuck their heads in the sand on the matter and are desperate to make Junia a non-apostle.

John Chrysostom, 4th century: “To be apostles is a great thing, but to be distinguished among them—consider what an extraordinary accolade that is! They were distinguished because of their works and because of their upright deeds. Indeed, how great was the wisdom of this woman that she was thought worthy of being called an apostle!” (In epistulam ad Romanos 31.2; PG:60.669-70, translation mine).

Theodoret of Cyrrhus, half a century after Chrysostom: “Then to be called 'of note' not only among the disciples but also among the teachers, and not just among the teachers but even among the apostles . . . ” (Interpretatio in quatuordecim epistolas S. Pauli 82.200, translated by Linda Belleville).

The church fathers aren't always right, but they knew what they were talking about on this one.

The point of these early references is that they show us:

1.How the Greek text of Romans referring to Junia was interpreted by people who actually spoke in their everyday lives the Greek language in which Romans was written, and were much, much closer to the time it was written than we are.

2. What people in the early church thought of the idea of a woman being 'of note' or 'distinguished' amongst the apostles - which is that it was completely cool and unproblematic.

Compared to that, frankly, what some 20th or 21st century person thinks we should think about Junia is not worth a pitcher of warm spit.

[_MsJack]

. . . what some 20th or 21st century person thinks we should think about Junia is not worth a pitcher of warm spit.

I know, right? Almost like it was known that women were leaders in the early church and (even if it wasn't happening much by the 4th/5th centuries) really wasn't considered a big deal.

This is part of a 10th century letter from a Bishop Atto to a young priest named Ambrosius who had inquired about all of the evidence for women as deacons and elders in antiquity. Bowls me over.

Because your prudence has moved you to inquire how we should understand ‘female priest’ (presbyteram) or ‘female deacon’ (diaconam) in the canons: it seems to me that in the primitive church, according to the word of the Lord, ‘the harvest was great and the laborers few’; religious women (religiosae mulieres) used also to be ordained as caretakers (cultrices ordinabantur) in the holy church, as Blessed Paul shows in the Letter to the Romans, when he says, ‘I commend to you my sister Phoebe, who is in the ministry of the church at Cenchrea.’ Here it is understood that not only men but also women presided over the churches (sed etiam feminae praeerat ecclesiis) because of their great usefulness. For women, long accustomed to the rites of the pagan and instructed also in philosophical teachings, were, for these reasons, converted more easily and taught more liberally in the worship of religion. This the eleventh canon of the Council of Laodicea prohibits when it says it is not fitting for those women who are called female presbyters (presbyterae) or presiders (praesidentes) to be ordained in the churches. We believe female deacons truly to have been ministers of such things. For we say that a minister is a deacon (diaconum) from which we perceive female deacon (diaconam) to have been derived. Finally, we read in the fifteenth canon of the Council of Chalcedon that a female deacon is not to be ordained before her fortieth year—and this was the highest gravity. We believe women were enjoined to the office of baptizing so that the bodies of other women might be handled by them without any deeply felt sense of shame . . . just as those who were called female presbyters (presbyterae) assumed the office of preaching, leading, and teaching, so female deacons had taken up the office of ministry and of baptizing, a custom that is no longer expedient.

[Guest]

While there have been women prophetesses in the Bible, their numbers have been very small compared to men;

You know how many biblical examples of female prophets we need to prove that God calls women as prophets? One. We have a lot more than one in the Bible, and the ones we do have were very prominent. Miriam was co-leading Israel with Moses and Aaron (Micah 6:4), Deborah was judging Israel (Judges 4:4), and Anna was the first Christ evangelist (Luke 2:36-38). All the more reason women should be prophets today and their voices should be heard---in more than just 7.4% numbers.

Junia's gender is not debatable. We have zero examples of men in antiquity named "Junias;" we have hundreds of examples of women named "Junia." People did not begin to seriously swap her gender until very late (something like 9th century). There was a guy in the 4th or 5th century who claimed she was a man, but he also said Priscilla (wife of Aquila) was a man, so his testimony is garbage.

The claim that ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις could be translated "esteemed by the apostles" (exclusive) rather than "outstanding among the apostles" (inclusive) is very modern one that is technically grammatically possible, but mostly garbage. All of the early church references to Romans 16:7 took the inclusive reading. The vast majority of examples from antiquity of ἐπίσημοι ἐν (+dative) are inclusive readings. The fact that people were so disturbed by this passage that they tried to swap Junia's gender shows that the inclusive reading was by far the more likely. Even the King James Version had Junia as both a woman and an apostle (at least, I believe "kinsmen" was gender-inclusive in King James English).

The Bibles that you see on Bible Hub pushing the exclusive reading are almost entirely newer translations by evangelical complementarians who have stuck their heads in the sand on the matter and are desperate to make Junia a non-apostle.

John Chrysostom, 4th century: “To be apostles is a great thing, but to be distinguished among them—consider what an extraordinary accolade that is! They were distinguished because of their works and because of their upright deeds. Indeed, how great was the wisdom of this woman that she was thought worthy of being called an apostle!” (In epistulam ad Romanos 31.2; PG:60.669-70, translation mine).

Theodoret of Cyrrhus, half a century after Chrysostom: “Then to be called 'of note' not only among the disciples but also among the teachers, and not just among the teachers but even among the apostles . . . ” (Interpretatio in quatuordecim epistolas S. Pauli 82.200, translated by Linda Belleville).

The church fathers aren't always right, but they knew what they were talking about on this one.

From the article on CARM about Junia:

“The church father Chrysostom (died A.D. 407) referred to this person as a woman (Homily on Romans 31.7; NPNF 1, 11:555) but the church father Origen (died A.D. 252) referred to Junias as a man (MPG 14: 1289), and the early church historian Epiphanius (died A.D. 403) explicitly uses a masculine pronoun of Junias and seems to have specific information about him when he says that "Junias, of whom Paul makes mention, became bishop of Apameia of Syria” (Index disciplulorum 125.19- 20).

And from the Conclusion to the same article:

“The early church fathers are not in agreement about the gender of Junia. There even seems to be evidence that strongly suggests Junia was a male. Commentaries differ on the gender. Translations differ on how Romans 16:7 is to be rendered into English. There are different uses of the Greek word "apostello," and it cannot be conclusively demonstrated to which categorical use of the term Junia should fit into. Even if Junia were an apostle in the sense of having seen the risen Lord, it doesn't mean she was in authority in the Church. Therefore, for someone to conclude that Junia was a woman apostle in full authority in the Church cannot be maintained from the Scriptures.”

It is possible to form more than one option on the subject, which means that the evidence is not conclusive.

[_Chap]

. . . what some 20th or 21st century person thinks we should think about Junia is not worth a pitcher of warm spit.

I know, right? Almost like it was known that women were leaders in the early church and (even if it wasn't happening much by the 4th/5th centuries) really wasn't considered a big deal.

This is part of a 10th century letter from a Bishop Atto to a young priest named Ambrosius who had inquired about all of the evidence for women as deacons and elders in antiquity. Bowls me over.

Because your prudence has moved you to inquire how we should understand ‘female priest’ (presbyteram) or ‘female deacon’ (diaconam) in the canons: it seems to me that in the primitive church, according to the word of the Lord, ‘the harvest was great and the laborers few’; religious women (religiosae mulieres) used also to be ordained as caretakers (cultrices ordinabantur) in the holy church, as Blessed Paul shows in the Letter to the Romans, when he says, ‘I commend to you my sister Phoebe, who is in the ministry of the church at Cenchrea.’ Here it is understood that not only men but also women presided over the churches (sed etiam feminae praeerat ecclesiis) because of their great usefulness. For women, long accustomed to the rites of the pagan and instructed also in philosophical teachings, were, for these reasons, converted more easily and taught more liberally in the worship of religion. This the eleventh canon of the Council of Laodicea prohibits when it says it is not fitting for those women who are called female presbyters (presbyterae) or presiders (praesidentes) to be ordained in the churches. We believe female deacons truly to have been ministers of such things. For we say that a minister is a deacon (diaconum) from which we perceive female deacon (diaconam) to have been derived. Finally, we read in the fifteenth canon of the Council of Chalcedon that a female deacon is not to be ordained before her fortieth year—and this was the highest gravity. We believe women were enjoined to the office of baptizing so that the bodies of other women might be handled by them without any deeply felt sense of shame . . . just as those who were called female presbyters (presbyterae) assumed the office of preaching, leading, and teaching, so female deacons had taken up the office of ministry and of baptizing, a custom that is no longer expedient.

Nice! So he says that there once were women ministers, even if they aren't in favour any longer ...

[Guest]

“The church father Chrysostom (died A.D. 407) referred to this person as a woman (Homily on Romans 31.7; NPNF 1, 11:555) but the church father Origen (died A.D. 252) referred to Junias as a man (MPG 14: 1289), and the early church historian Epiphanius (died A.D. 403) explicitly uses a masculine pronoun of Junias and seems to have specific information about him when he says that "Junias, of whom Paul makes mention, became bishop of Apameia of Syria” (Index disciplulorum 125.19- 20).

CARM's information is wrong. All early references from Origen refer to Junia as female. It was only in a very late manuscript (12th century or so) that it was switched to male. Some complementarian scholar found the late Origen reference and began claiming that Origen said she was male, then everyone uncritically followed suit. I'll get my sources later.

Epiphanius of Salamis is the one who called Priscilla a man in the exact same passage, so his testimony is garbage. I'm not surprised CARM doesn't mention that.

EDIT: the Origen variant was even later than I thought, 12th century, not 9th.

[_MsJack]

Nice! So he says that there once were women ministers, even if they aren't in favour any longer ...

Exactly. And what's significant about Atto is that he predates modern feminism (and even protofeminism) and had no inclination towards ordaining women, yet he still came to the same conclusion from the evidence as modern-day Christian feminists have. Shows that it is a more than reasonable interpretation of the evidence in question.