Junia was a female apostle and some of the early church fathers did not like this, so that added the "s" to the name to make it the male noun for the name Junias to cover it up. This is well known by biblical scholars that this cover up was done,
I've read about the name being changed to masculine in later manuscripts. But that doesn't prove that Junia was an apostle. The text could have been read to mean that she was. Maybe some people didn't like the idea of a female apostle. But that doesn't mean the text is conclusive that she was. It's not in English, and the expert in Greek that I asked said it was ambiguous in Greek, too. You can assert that Junia was an apostle, but you can't know any better than I can.
which is why some other books at the Nicene council were deemed not appropriate for the cannon that we now know as the bible. Because they clearly listed female apostles, leaders, and preachers in them, so does early church history documents.
So are you saying that you don't agree that the Bible we have is the right canon then?
Do you have good primary sources that show that the reason for not including these books was because of the female preachers, etc.? I'm not talking about some revisionist historical interpretation, but some primary evidence? Could a book having been written int he mid second century by a gnostic be a reason for not including a book instead of the reason you gave?
It is amazing with all the studying done now days this debate still takes place, but people twist even the standard straight forward scriptures so what can we expect out of this.
You seem to be implying that the canon isn't right, so what do you mean by straight forward standard?
Do you have any proof that the passage in question is not ambiguous as to whether these people were apostles who were of note among the apostles or nonapostles who were of note among the apostles?
