Douglas Hofstadter did this with whites and blacks in a famous essay. The premise of the essay was a USA where white was a racial category and also the term for all people, while black was the term for blacks, but sometimes white was used. His essay was shocking and meant to increase awareness that just because something might not shock us because we are used to it, sometimes it SHOULD shock us and we have been numbed thru use.

We need to be aware that just because some idea might originate with someone we might consider an ideological opponent, does not mean it is not the truth, we need to evaluate each claim on its own merits.

I agree. The evidence is in about Junia and she is an apostle, see Epps. What might that mean to the non-egal reading of the few other verses? It means those are wrong.

This is why the non-egals have to deny the primary meaning on the Junia verse, even contra the ECF and EOC. They have no real answer, as there is no real answer, just that they do not believe what is says in the Greek.

If there had been a choice about how to interpret Junia then the Greek orthodox church would likely not consider her an apostle.

In the 19th century women could not take doctoral math classes, see Noether for an example of what she had to go thru. It was only with WWI and WWII that women came into the industrial workforce and discovered they COULD do what a man could do, at least a lot of it. And with income, their choices became greater.

The essence of the non-egal argument today is:
1. God can free and restrict as God wishes.
2. God clearly DID restrict women.
3. Therefore obey the clear commands of God.

The fact is that in step 2, the non-egals are making interpretive choices to come to their conclusions. Egals make different interpretive choices and come to egal conclusions. So there is this exegetical debate. However, notice that the very EXISTENCE of the debate denies the central non-egal claim, as their interpretive choices are just that, their choices that are not required to be made and in fact are not made by egals.

The “Junia among/within the apostles” is just one example. The non-egals CHOOSE to interpret this verse the way they do, but most do not even recognize there is a choice, the non-egal leaders tell them how to do it. This is why the ESV translates this verse as they do, with very little grammatical or lexical justification.

That was a great comment. “Few among the gentiles” “famous among the apostles.” For some reason the Greeks themselves have always honoured Junia as an apostle. I am not sure why in this century we have new light shed on this. It is the fact that complementarians claim the traditional ground that is so odd.

I have just been reading a biography of a Chinese woman missionary, preaching and teaching, founding a mission, and helping chapels to be built – without being submitted to male leadership. It is very sad that some American women are not encouraged to give God their best.

In some sense, any translation is imperfect.

According to Lucien Deiss (notes to the French
Bible, the TOB, Edition Intégrale, p. 646, note a), this
Greek phrase was used in Asia Minor, on both Jewish
and pagan gravestone inscriptions, to designate a woman
or a man, who was faithful to his or her spouse in a way
characterized by “a particularly fervent conjugal love.”

When I read Deiss’ comment about how this phrase
was used on ancient grave inscriptions in Turkey, where
Paul and Timothy ministered, I confirmed it with him
myself, reaching him by telephone in Vaucresson, France.
Some might find this insight into 1 Timothy 3:2
surprising because modern versions of the Bible
translate this Greek phrase as – “husband of one wife” –
making this qualification appear to be restricted to men
only! Instead, rightly understood, this qualification is
about faithfulness in marriage by a Christian spouse. It is
not saying that oversight is “for men only.”

Pages 87-88
Think Again about Church Leaders by Bruce C. E. Fleming

——–
This explains how Phoebe can be a diakonos (and also Junia an apostole) yet be female and is the best explanation I know. We need to understand the Greek as the original reader would have.

Paul was not qualified to be an elder? )

If you disagree on authenteo then you have a more consistent case. I understand.

However, my case is that I have put the two pieces of evidence that Dr. Kostenberger cites for authenteo on my blog, Philodemus fragment and BGU 1208, google them. I have looked at all the evidence and I cannot agree with “to have authority” as a translation, on a factual basis. Didaskein is also used negatively in Titus 1:11 so the evidence leans toward the negative, strongly.

My case accounts for all the facts.

What is important here is not that the two of us agree, but that complementarians understand that egalitarians have an understanding of this verse that accounts for all the facts. Egalitarians are not, by definition, heretics.

It explains perfectly the preoccupation with childbearing. I did not construct the circumstances, they are recorded in Acts.

I don’t want to write 1700 comments. However, egalitarians have a well informed approach to the Biblical text.