My Egalitarian Odyssey

[_aussieguy55]

"who are outstanding among the apostles"

Hi, I had a Reformed friend who thinks this passage simply means she was known by the apostles. What alternatives have you read in interpretiting this passage?

[_MsJack]

The debate on Ἰουνιᾶν and Romans 16:7 pivots on three points:

• Whether Ἰουνιᾶν was male (Junias) or female (Junia)
• Whether ἀπόστολος means, in this case, a person in authority/leadership or a person of lesser status such as an evangelist or messenger
• Whether ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις should be translated "outstanding among the apostles" (i.e. Junia was a really awesome apostle) or "outstanding to the apostles" (i.e. the apostles thought highly of her, but she wasn't one of them)

Male headship advocates will usually allow for one or two of these points, but never all three. You can actually comb through the articles on the subject at CBMW and play them against each other to argue that Junia was female and indeed an apostle.

I don't know how much detail you're looking for; I know a ton about this debate and I could go on all day. in my opinion the "well-known to the apostles" translation is post hoc and desperate. Nobody had a problem regarding Ἰουνιᾶν as an apostle when they thought it was a man. Then we discovered a mountain of ancient evidence showing that the gender of Ἰουνιᾶν had been misidentified and suddenly everyone became very interested in alternative translations and definitions of words. It's just silly.

[_JohnStuartMill]

The debate on Ἰουνιᾶν and Romans 16:7 pivots on three points:

• Whether Ἰουνιᾶν was male (Junias) or female (Junia)
• Whether ἀπόστολος means, in this case, a person in authority/leadership or a person of lesser status such as an evangelist or messenger
• Whether ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις should be translated "outstanding among the apostles" (i.e. Junia was a really awesome apostle) or "outstanding to the apostles" (i.e. the apostles thought highly of her, but she wasn't one of them)

Male headship advocates will usually allow for one or two of these points, but never all three. You can actually comb through the articles on the subject at CBMW and play them against each other to argue that Junia was female and indeed an apostle.

I don't know how much detail you're looking for; I know a ton about this debate and I could go on all day. in my opinion the "well-known to the apostles" translation is post hoc and desperate. Nobody had a problem regarding Ἰουνιᾶν as an apostle when they thought it was a man. Then we discovered a mountain of ancient evidence showing that the gender of Ἰουνιᾶν had been misidentified and suddenly everyone became very interested in alternative translations and definitions of words. It's just silly.

This kind of thing happens all the time. No Mormon thought that Native Americans weren't the direct, undiluted descendants of Laman and Lemuel until anthropological evidence required serious damage control in the form of drastic reinterpretations of the Book of Mormon. No Protestant thought that God didn't create the Earth in seven 24-hour time periods until geology necessitated all the "day-age" and related malarkey. The shameless dodging you deplore is just an instance of a wider phenomenon: modern analysis makes people who don't know what they're talking about look bad.

[_EAllusion]

I think you are wrong in one of your examples JSM. What we think of as day-age creationism was a standard view of Christians well before the advent of modern geology. You see it all over theological writings. Indeed, at the outset of the 20th century what we think of as classic young earth creationism was mainly a 7th Day Adventist thing. The creationist movement of the 20's was driven primarily by day-agers. William Jennings Bryan famously expressed those views at the Scopes Monkey trial, if you are looking for a prominent example. YEC gradually became the prevailing force in American fundamentalism coming out of the Bible college movement in the latter part of the first half of the 20th century. Henry Morris's apologetics was enormously influential in mainstreaming it.

[_JohnStuartMill]

EA, geologists had already been believing in an old Earth for a hundred years before the Scopes trial. You may well be right that a "seven literal day creation" interpretation wasn't the norm before geology made the position look silly, but the evidence you've offered so far is also consistent with the opposite view.

[_EAllusion]

Well, it's true that scholars well before the geology of the 1800's also believed the earth older than 10,000 years. But day-age views were common if not predominate by the time modern geology rolled around. What I'm suggesting is that day-age creationism was not a reaction to modern geology to accommodate it. It also was not a movement away from YEC. YEC's strong influence in American protestantism came much later. Ironically, the same groups who were day-agers moved to YEC as modern geology permeated the public consciousness. I can't speak to day-age thought accommodating what scholars believed in 1450 ce or whatever. My knowledge doesn't go that far back.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Well, it's true that scholars well before the geology of the 1800's also believed the earth older than 10,000 years.

Yes, and this supports the view I initially gave.

But day-age views were common if not predominate by the time modern geology rolled around.

Wikipedia doesn't say that day-age views were predominate, but that's obviously a fallible source, so I'm interested in any evidence you can point me to here. Also, we need to find out how much, if any, influence pre-geology "natural philosophers" had on religious beliefs before the early 1800s.

What I'm suggesting is that day-age creationism was not a reaction to modern geology to accommodate it.

Maybe "geology" was the wrong word for me to use, since, as you note, scholars started believing in an old Earth before Lyell and the advent of truly modern geology. But the basic gist of my point would remain unchanged -- the most obvious interpretations of religious texts were substituted with strained readings because the original interpretations were contradicted by academic scholarship.

It also was not a movement away from YEC. YEC's strong influence in American protestantism came much later. Ironically, the same groups who were day-agers moved to YEC as modern geology permeated the public consciousness.

You're right that it's not the case that YEC started with a lot of support and then dwindled steadily from there without ever experiencing another upsurge in adherents. But I never said quite that. Yes, YEC (and fundamentalism more generally) gained traction at the end of the 19th and in the first half of the 20th century, but this only occurred after it had already been losing ground for a long while -- I'd say, because of advances in secular knowledge.

I can't speak to day-age thought accommodating what scholars believed in 1450 ce or whatever. My knowledge doesn't go that far back.

Nor does mine. Maybe one of the religious studies scholars here can help us out?

[_EAllusion]

I'm interested in any evidence you can point me to here.

I don't know of any online sources off the top of my head, so you'll have to give me a bit of time to break out some books I own. As to whether day-age thought at some level is a reaction to scholarly thought reinterpreting genesis text, I'm not sure. I do think that "ages of creation" thought is the best literary interpretation of the cosmology the text represents.

You're right that it's not the case that YEC started with a lot of support and then dwindled steadily from there without ever experiencing another upsurge in adherents. But I never said quite that. Yes, YEC (and fundamentalism more generally) gained traction at the end of the 19th and in the first half of the 20th century, but this only occurred after it had already been losing ground for a long while -- I'd say, because of advances in secular knowledge.

This is an area where I'm confident you are mistaken. There's a common misconception that you appear to share that as fundamentalism exploded at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, young earth creationism was part of the package. This is incorrect. The fundamentalist evangelicalism that grew out of the tent rival movement of the late 19th century, going on up in the 00's, 10's, 20's... did not experience corresponding growth in YEC. Those groups already were day-agers. It is not as though day-age creationism is all that much better than young earth, but there is a distinction. At that time, young earth creationism and its associated apologetics was confined primarily to 7th Day Adventists led by figures like George McCready Price. It's actually past the "first wave" fundamentalist movement that their views gained traction in fundamentalist Christianity at large in America. This simplifies things a bit, but that was a result of the influence of Adventist apologetics on Bible colleges and, in particular, Henry Morris and John Witcomb popularizing their arguments.

[_EAllusion]

Ron Numbers summarizes the timeline I'm trying to draw here:

http://www.counterbalance.org/history/f ... frame.html

During the first two thirds of the twentieth century, during which most Christian fundamentalists accepted the existence of long geological ages, the leading voice arguing for the recent creation of life on earth in six literal days was George McCready Price (1870-1963), a scientifically self-taught creationist and teacher. Born and reared in the Maritime Provinces of Canada, Price as a youth joined the Seventh-day Adventists, a small religious group founded and still led by a prophetess named Ellen G. White, whom Adventists regarded as being divinely inspired. Following one of her trance-like "visions" White claimed actually to have witnessed the Creation, which occurred in a literal week. She also taught that Noah’s flood had sculpted the surface of the earth, burying the plants and animals found in the fossil record, and that the Christian Sabbath should be celebrated on Saturday rather than Sunday, as a memorial of a six-day creation.

Shortly after the turn of the century Price dedicated his life to a scientific defense of White’s version of earth history: the creation of all life on earth no more than about 6,000 years ago and a global deluge over 2,000 years before the birth of Christ that had deposited most of the fossil-bearing rocks. Convinced that theories of organic evolution rested primarily on the notion of geological ages, Price aimed his strongest artillery at the geological foundation rather than at the biological superstructure. For a decade and a half Price’s writings circulated mainly among his coreligionists, but by the late 1910s he was increasingly reaching non-Adventist audiences. In 1926, at the height of the antievolution crusade, the journal Science described Price as "the principal scientific authority of the Fundamentalists. That he was, but with a twist. Although virtually all of the leading antievolutionists of the day, including William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes trial, lauded Price’s critique of evolution, none of them saw any biblical reason to abandon belief in the antiquity of life on earth for what Price called "flood geology." Not until the 1970s did Price’s views, rechristened "creation science," become fundamentalist orthodoxy.Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992), pp. 72-101. On Ellen G. White, see Ronald L. Numbers, Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen G. White (New York: Harper & Row,...

What we think of as the modern YEC movement starts out primarily as a defense of 7th Day Adventist beliefs. This becomes part of a broader creationist/anti-evolutionist movement that defines the early 20th century fundamentalism. Most of those fundamentalists were day-agers. As material produced by Adventist apologetics gets used by those advocating creationism, YEC arguments gain traction among antievolution cobelligerants. In the early 1960's, Henry Morris and John Witcomb publish one of the most influential creationist works ever: The Genesis Flood. It's deeply influenced by older YEC arguments. This proves to be enormously successful in mainstreaming YEC thought as the point arguments for "creation science". By the 1970's, this is the dominant fundamentalist view. Still is, disturbingly enough.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Interesting stuff, EA. Thanks for disabusing me of my erroneous timeline.

I'm still curious to know the truth status of my main point regarding pre-geology science and day-age creationism, though.