Xenophon wrote:Jack, glad to see you posting, especially when feeding Zerinus his lunch. You will have to forgive him as he doesn't understand how far out of his depth he is.
He's obviously just now Googling the matter.
zerinus ~ From Eldon Jay Epp,
Junia: The First Woman Apostle, p. 33-34:
-----------------
Earlier I asserted and provided some evidence that Junias . . . cannot be documented in the Greco-Roman world, at least to date---a view shared by many other recent writers on the subject. This assertion is made in spite of two exceptions that have been alleged: (1) that Junias was mentioned by Origin according to Rufinus's Latin translation of his commentary on Romans, and (2) that Epiphanius (315-403) thought of a male figure. However, every time these are mentioned---even by those whose views would benefit from such an identification---the claims are either dismissed or reasons to be cautious are cited.
Fortunately, in the case of the alleged reference to Junias in Rufinus's Latin translation of Origen's commentary on Romans, we now have the complete critical edition (except for the Greek fragments) by the late Caroline Hammond Bammel, with Origen's comments on Romans 16:7 appearing in the volume published in 1998. This context contained three references to
Andronicus et Iunia in
In ep. ad Romanos 10.21, lines 1, 10, and 25; there are no manuscript variants in these cases other than the usual
Iulia ("Julia") in two different correctors' hands of a single manuscript. The accusative case appears in lines 1 and 10:
Andronicum et Iuniam, while the ablative occurred in line 25:
Andronico et Iunia. A fourth reference occurred in 10.39, line 45, this time in the nominative case:
Andronicus et Iunia, with the latter supported by two major manuscripts, W (eighth/ninth century) and R (ninth) and a member of a subgroup, E (twelfth); the variant
Iulia was read by the twelfth century manuscript c. It is in this passage where the variant
Iunias (nominative) occurred in two members of the subgroup of which E is a member, namely, f and e, both twelfth-century manuscripts. Hammond Bammel's critical text properly contains
Iunia in all four instances---and on good authority, while
Iunias is a variant in two out of three late manuscripts that belong to a single subgroup, grounds perhaps for asserting that this amounts really to one variant reading, not two.
In any event, this alleged exception can be dismissed as carrying little if any weight, and we can be confident that Origen read Rom 16:7 as "Junia." . . .
Finally, Rabanus Maurus ([c.] 776-856), quoting Origen, had "Junia" also and, in a section of Origen's commentary on Romans by Hraban of Fulda (780-856), which he took literally from Rufinus's Origen, the name Junia is to be read, not Junias.
. . . [Regarding the reference in Epiphanius,] Piper and Grudem themselves confess, in commendable candor, "We are perplexed about the fact that in the near context of the citation concerning Junias, Epiphanius also designates Prisca as a man mentioned in Romans 16:3, even though we know from the New Testament that she is a woman."
-----------
So no, Origen did not designate Junia as a man, and the reference from Epiphanius is highly unreliable. Outside of those instances, the earliest reference to man-Junia comes from the 13th century (!).
I find it kind of ironic that so many people who say they believe in gender essentialism and oppose the transgender movement are working so hard to give this poor woman a penis.
