I think fruadulent is really too strong word, although I may have implied that. I believe that bias against women is so embedded in culture that people are not aware of their presuppositions.

Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich also listed the name Junias as masculine but remark that it was not attested elsewhere.

So at that time, throughout the last century the bias against women was so strong that the text editors and lexicon editors, believed that it could not be a woman.

This was in spitee of knowing that Junia was a very common female name and Junias as a male name was unattested.

The Textus Receptus and the King James version have Junia – female, but Luther was the first to make Junia masculine, however, without at text base.

Looking at my UBS Analytical Greek New Testament, copyright (1966, 1968, 1975); this one printed December 1995; edited by Aland, Black, Martini, Metzger, and Wikgren in cooperation with the Institute for New Testament Textual Research.

For Junias in Rom. 16.7 :
Noun/-/Accusative/Masculine/-/Singular

The Greek Text analysis was edited by Barbara & Timothy Friberg

Are you familiar with this resource? Are you saying, in your opinion, this also is fraudulent?

Thanks for the conversation.

Bryan L

I spoke out of turn because Denny does not hold to the idea that women should not have “teaching authority” or “teach with authority”. He believes it says that a woman should not teach “Christian doctrine”.

So I assume from this that Greek, Hebrew, church history and exegesis would all be fine for women to teach. Any other thing that a woman can do accurately she should do, English, essay writing, music, Hebrew, Latin, Greek, things like that.

I think that would go a long way to clearing up the disagreements. First men and women need to agree on what the text actually says. That would be the first step.

You would be right if that is what I was referring to.

I did not explain well. What I meant was, where does the scripture say that such a thing as “teacing authority” exists. I imply that there is no scripture for “teaching authority.” Either a person teaches the truth or they do not. This is irrespective of whether a person is male or female. A male is no more likely to be accurate than a female.

So I contend that aside from the fact that one must teach the true word, there is no such thing as teaching authority. I mean, it does not exist.

In 1 Tim. 2:12 the words ‘teaching’ and ‘authority’ are separated by the word ‘nor’ (oude).
“To teach a woman I do not allow NOR to have authority of (over) a man, but to be in silence.”
I know you know this. So why would you put them together as you did, “teaching authority” as if they were one concept together. Skillfulness is important, remember!
Could it be that you want the disputed meaning of authentin to some how cloud the rest of the verse as well? If only they were stuck together as one concept, then . . .
“Handling the word skillfully is important”.

No misquoted evidence here. Just the facts!

We’ll accept that Kostenberger, Moo, Baldwin and everyone else involved has misquoted evidence. Now we are supposed to agree that men have some kind of authority that is independent of whether or not they are accurate?

Quote any passage that says that “teaching authority” is something that a man has whether he is accurate or not, and a woman has not, whether or not she is accurate.

And tell me if you don’t think that handling the word skillfully is important.

Here is the evidence that Baldwin misquoted Hubbell. I quote Hubbell and you quote Kostenberger who quoted Baldwin who quoted Hubbell. Lots of room for error.

I have listed by number all the manuscripts with feminine accents and quoted Metzger. You quote Moo who quotes, I am not quite sure, tell me.

Ask Denny to look at the evidence.