interesting take on women and priesthood

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

There is also a masculine name that Ehrman speculates was really a woman, started with a J I believe. Diakonon looks like a second or third declension masculine noun though.

I don't know about the Ehrman woman (I'll check when I get a minute). Diakonon is a masculine noun, but Phoebe is pretty clearly designated as a woman: τὴν ἀδελφὴν [sister]

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Solon

I don't know about the Ehrman woman (I'll check when I get a minute). Diakonon is a masculine noun, but Phoebe is pretty clearly designated as a woman: τὴν ἀδελφὴν [sister]

You're right. Even I can see that. Did you cite in accusative?

Is the Potomac River an Indian word or related the potomas the Greek word for river?

Is it second or third declension, phoebe that is?

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You're right. Even I can see that. Did you cite in accusative?

Is the Potomac River an Indian word or related the potomas the Greek word for river?

Is it second or third declension, phoebe that is?

Nice identification of the accusative.

Wikipedia says that Potomac is a corrupted Indian word, but what do they know? It's an amazing coincidence, although the Europeans who named the river must have made the connection.

Here's the phrase: Φοίβην τὴν ἀδελφὴν ἡμῶν. Our sister Phoebe. She looks like a 1st declension here, but the root (phoibos) is also an adjective and can take masculine, feminine, or neuter endings depending on what it modifies.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Solon

Nice identification of the accusative.

Wikipedia says that Potomac is a corrupted Indian word, but what do they know? It's an amazing coincidence, although the Europeans who named the river must have made the connection.

Here's the phrase: Φοίβην τὴν ἀδελφὴν ἡμῶν. Our sister Phoebe. She looks like a 1st declension here, but the root (phoibos) is also an adjective and can take masculine, feminine, or neuter endings depending on what it modifies.

It's Romans 16:7, with the quote for Junias.

ἀσπάσασθε Ἀνδρόνικον καὶ Ἰουνιᾶν τοὺς συγγενεῖς μου καὶ συναιχμαλώτους μου οἵτινές εἰσιν ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις οἳ καὶ πρὸ ἐμοῦ γέγοναν ἐν Χριστῷ

Iounian is said to be found nowhere else.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It's Romans 16:7, with the quote for Junias.

ἀσπάσασθε Ἀνδρόνικον καὶ Ἰουνιᾶν τοὺς συγγενεῖς μου καὶ συναιχμαλώτους μου οἵτινές εἰσιν ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις οἳ καὶ πρὸ ἐμοῦ γέγοναν ἐν Χριστῷ

Iounian is said to be found nowhere else.

Junia is not just an Ehrman hypothesis. For example, Ben Witherington III, a noted evangical scholar, takes the same position. Kevin Barney had a nice writeup of Witherington's article: “Joanna: Apostle of the Lord–or Jailbait?” Bible Review (Spring 2003): 12-14, 46.

http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/06/elder-joanna/

[Solon]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Junia is not just an Ehrman hypothesis. For example, Ben Witherington III, a noted evangical scholar, takes the same position. Kevin Barney had a nice writeup of Witherington's article: “Joanna: Apostle of the Lord–or Jailbait?” Bible Review (Spring 2003): 12-14, 46.

http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/06/elder-joanna/

I've read that Iounias is a version of Iulias (Julius), but this article makes some interesting points that it might refer to a female.

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by BlueK

At least I thought this was an interesting take. A good friend of mine, female, who is otherwise a little on the liberal side made an interesting observation to me recently about women and the priesthood. Her view is that women do so much of the service and work in the church anyway, that if they got the priesthood they'd eventually be doing everything. I can't say I really disagree. I think the feminist movement has now helped make men lazy as much as it's helped women progress. Everyone should have equal opportunity to accomplish things in society, but that doesn't mean some gender specific responsibilities within the church or family are always all bad.

I've heard this one quite a few times. It seems to suppose both that it would have to be one or the other in leadership positions. Or that men must be in leadership postions requiring the priesthood to be active members. Why would that be? Doesn't faithful participation exist outside of one's priesthood-holding capabilities. If not, what am I doing there?

[MikeWaters]

I don't think the church wants men and women working together closely in callings, for fear of adultery.

That's the number one reason you won't see it.

Whether it has any basis in fact (doesn't seem to be a big concern of mine at my job), is another question.

[RedHeadGal]

well, yeah, I get that one, too, but they do work together now. I mean I don't think it's unusual for a RS pres to go to PEC, and we have all-female primary presidencies and all male EQ presidencies, what if that were swapped out. What's the adultery fear then?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I don't think the church wants men and women working together closely in callings, for fear of adultery.

That's the number one reason you won't see it.

Whether it has any basis in fact (doesn't seem to be a big concern of mine at my job), is another question.

I agree that this is the unspoken reason.

Here is an evangelical link on the issue of Romans 16:7.

The logic of the last paragraph isn't compelling but it's interesting.
http://www.preceptaustin.org/romans_...(pt2).htm#16:7

MacArthur comments that...
The phrase outstanding among the apostles could have one of several meanings. It obviously does not refer to the office of apostle (apostolos). The term itself means simply “sent ones,” and in that sense refers to any believer whom the Lord sends forth in ministry. It seems likely that the meaning here is that Andronicus and Junias performed outstanding service in the Lord’s work while working among, and possibly under, some of the ordained apostles, such as Paul and Peter. That interpretation is supported by Paul’s remark that those two believers were in Christ before me, that is, were converted to Christ before he was. At the time of Paul’s conversion, most converts were still living in or near Jerusalem, where several of the Twelve were leaders in the church. If, therefore, Paul’s two kinsmen were converted before he was, it is likely that they lived in Jerusalem and performed their outstanding service among the apostles in that city. (MacArthur, J: Romans 9-16. Chicago: Moody Press or Logos)