Denny Burk’s Complementarian Cover-up
Denny Burk is happy to acknowledge that Junia is a woman. But he makes no progess whatsoever in resolving the fundamental controversy. It is simply this. Two pieces of information regarding Junia have been misrepresented to the reading public.There has been a cover-up.
First, the Nestle Aland 1927 text of the Greek New Testament accented the name Junia as if it were masculine when not even one manuscript had ever displayed this accent pattern. Not even one. The form of Junia in the NA 1927 text was a complete fabrication ex nihilo.
Second, the data used by Burer and Wallace to create what they called a “parallel” construction to Romans 16:7, never was parallel, never will be parallel. Here is the data as presented by Burer and Wallace,
In Pss. Sol. 2:6, where the Jewish captives are in view, the writer indicates that ‘they were a spectacle among the gentiles’ (ἐπισήμῳ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν). This construction comes as close to Rom 16:7 as any we have yet seen.
But this is the citation from Pss. of Sol. 2:6.
οἱ υἱοὶ καὶ αἱ θυγατέρες ἐν αἰχμαλωσίᾳ πονηρᾷ,
ἐν σφραγῖδι ὁ τράχηλος αὐτῶν, ἐν ἐπισήμῳ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν
The sons and daughters were in harsh captivity
their neck in a seal, with a mark among the nations
Psalm of Solomon 2:6 NETS
I hope that it is clear that in the phrase as presented by Burer and Wallace, episemos is treated as an adjective which modifies a personal noun. But in the original passage episemos is either a noun itself, or it is an adjective modifying an elided impersonal noun (At least this latter suggestion was made to me by Mike Burer.)
In Pss. of Solomon 2:6 episemos is contained within a prepositional phrase, forming an entirely different construction from that found in Romans 16:7. One has to ask why Dan Wallace did not disclose this fact in the article. I am disappointed that there has never been an adequate response from either Mike Burer or Dan Wallace and to this day the note for Romans 16:7 in the NET Bible, which provides Pss. of Solomon 2:6 as a parallel for Romans 16:7, stands uncorrected.
Denny Burk says,
There’s no Complementarian cover-up—just a difference over interpretation,
The error in the NA 1927 text has been corrected. The footnote for Romans 16:7 in the NET Bible has not been corrected. The translation of Romans 16:7 in the ESV (well known to the apostles) has not been corrected. Until this is done, there is most certainly a complementarian cover-up. This must be addressed and trust must be reestablished. At this point, I do not trust the NET Bible notes, or the ESV, since there has been no attempt to deal with the inaccurate information regarding Romans 16:7 .
It doesn’t much matter to me what the word apostle is supposed to mean in this passage. What matters to me is that the information regarding episemos is misrepresented. This is a cover-up.
In closing, let me note that Denny Burk often moderates me out of discussions on his blog. On Parchment and Pen, Mike Patton states clearly,
Do not call authors out for debate. You must count the cost (Lk. 14:31). You don’t want to get whipped up on anyway.
I seem to remember being moderated out of the discussion there after Dan Wallace called into question a perfectly accurate Latin citation that I provided. In any case, Patton never allowed the topic of Junia to be raised with Dan Wallace. It was never open for discussion. That’s a cover-up. There really is no way to engage these men on the basics of Greek grammar.