Articles
JUNIA, A FEMALE APOSTLE:
Resolving the Interpretive Issues of Romans 16:7
Dennis J. Preato
Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.
I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to solve two major interpretive problems in Romans 16.7. The first is concerned with resolving the gender of the person named Iounian. Was this person a woman? The Greek word Iounian has been translated as "Junias" (male) and as "Junia" (female). The second problem is concerned with the meaning of the phrase episemoi en tois apostolois. Andronicus and Junia were "either highly regarded by the early church leaders (the apostles) or they were regarded as apostles themselves."1 Resolution of these issues can have important ramifications for how the church should carry out her continual mandate. Reviewing Romans 16 will contribute to a better realization that both women and men were participants in all areas of ministry in the church. They were ministers, deacons, leaders and even apostles.
II. THE TWO VIEWS: MALE VS. FEMALE
Part of the interpretive problem is that the word Iounian, translated as Junia(s), appears only once in the Greek New Testament (GNT) and is shown in the accusative case with a certain accent mark. The use or absence of such mark is a significant factor accounting for the textual variations that appear in the GNT. The oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts contain no accents or punctuation marks. In addition, the GNT includes early support for a female named Ioulian, translated as "Junia." According to Douglas Moo, the problem with identifying this person "arises from the fact that the Greek form used here, Iounian, depending on how it is accented, could refer either (1) to a man with the name 'Junianus', found here in its contracted form, 'Junias' or (2) to a woman with the name of Junia."2 The use of such accents mark did not occur until the 9th or 10th century.
Additionally, there is limited external data specifically discussing the gender of the person Paul refers to as Iounian. Why is this? Probably because this issue was not a concern for those who lived in Paul's time. The first century and early Christian community would have certainly known the gender of the person in question. Therefore, a careful review of the evidence offered by manuscripts, writings from church leaders and scholarly research should shed more light on resolving theses issues.
Bible translators appear divided on the how they interpret Iounian. For example, the ASV, NASB, NIV, TEV, NAB prefer "Junias" while the KJV, NRSV, NKJV, NCV, REB prefer "Junia." Some bibles also footnote the name "Julia." This divergence in translations only serves to highlight the problem faced by modern readers of the text. The task is to synthesize the data and reach a conclusion on the basis of objective evidence.
1. Evidence for Male: Manuscripts
Bibles and commentators generally utilize Greek New Testaments in their translation and interpretive pursuit. Both the UBS4 and NA27 Greek New Testaments show Iounian accented with a circumflex accent over the alpha, which indicates "Junias" as being a contracted form of Junianus, a male name.3 Support for "Junias" is attested to by B2 , D2, Yvid., 33 and a number of minuscules dated from the 9th to 14th century. Chrysostom is also listed as lectionary support for this position.
a. Discussion. Some external evidence does exist supporting a reading of "Junias." However, this support is not among the oldest available witnesses. The majority of support for Junias comes from numerous minuscule manuscripts from mostly the 13th-14th centuries. These later minuscules contain accent marks reflecting the writer's interpretation that Iounian was a masculine name.4 Minuscule 33 is listed as support for Junias. However, according to Douglas Moo, this 9th century minuscule actually represents an important exception to the contracted form and supports the feminine form rather than the masculine.5 According to many scholars, including Bernadette Brooten, Peter Lampe, Leonard Swidler, Bruce Metzger and Dianne McDonnell, the male name "Junias" is unattested to in ancient writings.6 Additionally, the USB4 GNT may have incorrectly listed Chrysostom as support for a male "Junias." According to John Piper and many others, Chrysostom actually bears witness to a female Junia and not to a male Junias.7
b. Assessment. The manuscripts and lectionary support cited provide little justification to support a male reading.
2. Evidence for Male: Church Leader and Writings
John Piper and Wayne Grudem state that Epiphanius (315-403) wrote an Index of Disciples, in which he writes: "Iounias, of whom Paul makes mention, became bishop of Apameia of Syria." According to them, Epiphanuis wrote "of whom" as a masculine relative pronoun thereby indicating that he thought Iounias was a man.8 Piper and Grudem also presented the results of their computer search of ancient Greek writings looking for the name "Junia(s)." Based on their findings, they concluded that "no one should claim that Junia was a common woman's name in the Greek speaking world, since there are only three known examples in all of ancient Greek literature."9
a. Discussion. Douglas Moo discusses Epiphanius and calls into question the reliability of this evidence because in the same passage, Epiphanius thought "Prisca" (Priscilla) was a man."10 This church father also wrote and believed that "the female sex is easily seduced, weak and without much understanding. The Devil seeks to vomit out this disorder through women... We wish to apply masculine reasoning and destroy the folly of these women" (Epiphanius, Adversus Collyridianos, Migne, Patrologia Graeca, Volume 42, Column 740 f).11
The computer search by Piper and Grudem is inconclusive regarding their statement that "Junia" was not a common name in ancient writings. Many scholars including Brooten, Lampe, Metzger, Moo, McDonnell and Osburn claim otherwise, and state that "Junia" was a common name. However, the real significance of Piper and Grudem's search is the fact that they could not cite any example for a male named Junias. James Walters states: "Researchers have been unable to locate a single example of the male name Junias in ancient literature or inscriptions, either Latin or Greek." 12
b. Assessment. The observation by Moo and the misogynist statements by Epiphanius about women casts strong doubt to the appropriateness of this person providing any objective evidence in support of a male reading. His beliefs toward women may have certainly colored his thinking and writings. Therefore, we cannot conclude that this church father is an unbiased and credible witness.The computer search performed by Piper and Grudem offers no evidence for a male reading.
3. Evidence for Female: Early Manuscripts
According to Douglas Moo, the UBS4 and NA27 Greek New Testatments cite "Junia" as a variant reading.13 This variant reading is attested to by Codexes Sinaiticus (a), A, B*,C, D*, F,G, P. The GNT also cites "Julia" as a variant reading. Support for this female name is evidenced by P46, 6, itar,b, vgmss, copbo, eth, and Church Father, Jerome.
According to many scholars, Junia was a common name that appeared in Greek and Latin inscriptions and literature. Brooten states, "the female Latin name Junia occurs over 250 times among inscriptions from ancient Rome alone."14 Peter Lampe has also discovered over 250 examples of the female name Junia.15 Bruce Metzer, editor of the GNT, likewise agrees that Junia is well attested to in ancient literature.
a. Discussion. Support for a female named Julia is evidenced by P46, a papyrus manuscript, dating from around a.d. 200. This papyrus represents the earliest known and most reliable testimony in support of Julia. The 3rd century Coptic, 4th century Vulgate, and fifth century Latin versions provide additional early support for this female name. These early manuscripts clearly support a female named "Julia." Junia, the other variant reading, is supported by the earliest known manuscripts available. Sinaiticus dates from the fourth century and is earliest surviving complete copy of the Greek New Testament.16 Codexes A, B, C, D date from the 4th to 5th century and represent a broad spectrum of "text types." These early witnesses, by themselves, do not clearly reveal how an unaccented Iounian should be translated. The cumulative evidence provided by other ancient manuscripts, the existence of "Junia" as a common name in ancient times, and the lack of any evidence for "Junias" cannot be ignored. It is not unreasonable to state, as Moo does, that these early witnesses attest to "Junia."
b. Assessment. The quality and age of the above manuscripts provide strong support for a female name whether it be rendered "Julia" or "Junia." The research from many different scholars clearly support that a female named Junia occurred frequently in ancient writings.
4. Evidence for Female: Church Leaders and Writings
In commenting on Romans 16:7, John Chrysostom (347-407) states:
"Greet Andronicus and Junia...who are outstanding among the apostles: To be an apostle is something great! But to be outstanding among the apostles - just think what a wonderful song of praise that is! They were outstanding on the basis of their works and virtuous actions. Indeed, how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle."17
Chrysostom was not alone in confirming the gender of Junia as female. Earlier commentator Origen of Alexander (185-253) understood the name to be feminine.18 Others included Jerome (340-419) who wrote that Junia was a female. (Liver Interpretationis Hebraicorum Nominum 72,15.), Hatto of Vercelli (924-961, Theophylack (1050-1108), and Peter Abelar (1079-1142).19
a. Discussion. External evidence from writings of early church leaders testify that Junias was a woman apostle. Current scholars provide additional insight. Commenting on the gender of Junia, Leonard Swidler states, "To the best of my knowledge, no commentator on the Text until Aegidus of Rome (1245-1316) took the name to be masculine."20 Douglas Moo agrees that commentators before that 13th century were unanimous in favor of a female rendering.21 Stanley Grenz maintains that "the gender of Junia was not an issue in the patristic era ... Origen assumed that Paul's friend was a women...Chrysostom, who was no supporter of women bishops, expressed high regard for Junia."22 Ray R. Schulz states the Church Fathers agreed that Junia was a female apostle.23
From the very earliest times, the attitude of the "church fathers" toward women could be described as negative at best.24 Origen, Chrysostom and others were no exceptions to the prevailing attitudes. Yet despite their negative attitudes towards women they gave testimony that Junia was female.
b. Assessment. The testimony by church various leaders through the 12th century provide convincing support that Iounian was female.
III. One of the Apostles VS. Highly Regarded
The second issue under consideration is whether Andronicus and Junia where "among" as "one of" the apostles or were simply highly regarded "by" the apostles. Grammatically, some say both meanings are possible. It is interesting, however, to observe that while the ten Bible translations, mentioned earlier, are evenly divided on how they translated Iounian, they are unanimous on the meaning of episemoi en tois apostolois. For example, they are "outstanding apostles" (NAB), "outstanding among" (NASB, NIV), "prominent among" (NRSV), "eminent among" (REB), "of note among" (KJV, ASV, NJKV) and the NCV states "they are very important apostles." All these bibles translated episemoi en tois apostolois as meaning they were "one of" the apostles. James Walthers states "virtually all" English bibles interpret the phrase as meaning they were among the apostles.25
