We’ve been having a lot of great series going here.  One of the star series has been Suzanne’s series on Junia – may it never end, it just keeps getting better and better.

The problem is that when the series get up into the double digits, the cross-references tend overflow our “recent comments” widget.  But it is important that readers can read a series from beginning to end.

To address this, I’ve added some new categories.  I added a parent category “Series” and then sub-categories, currently:

• Series:  Candles
• Series:  Job translations
• Series:  Junia

for series of posts that are meant to be read in a particular order, from beginning to end.  This way, when new posts show up, they can simply link to the appropriate “Series” category (which also appears to the right).  If any of the bloggers wants to start a new series, she or he can simply create a new category with “Series” as its parent.

I guess we can have a long discussion about what constitutes a series, but to me, a “series” is “a sequence of posts that are both thematically linked and meant to be read in a particular order.”  I would not call “translation” a series, because all of us post on translation, and there is not necessarily any preferred order to reading the posts – translation is a category.  But, in my last post, for example, I started what I hope will be a long series working its way through multiple translations of the book of Job.  When I get to post 23 of that series, I won’t have to link back to posts 1, 2, 3, … well, you get the idea – instead, I can just link to the “Series: Job translation” category.

I hope that this makes it easier to navigate in our blog and to read and write posts.  Thanks!

Here is Al Wolters’ paper. He proposes that if Iounian (accusative case) is a transliteration of a masculine Hebrew name Yehunni, it would be first declension, having the accent over the iota, just as a feminine name would, and as is found in the miniscule manuscripts. It would be Hellenized as Iounían and still masculine. He writes,

The foregoing has argued that it is not unreasonable, from a philological point of view, to interpret IOUNIAN in Rom. 16:7 as the Greek form of a Hebrew name.

The difficulty is that by the time accents were introduced 10 centuries after the epistle was written, all icons and literary mention of Junia had already attested to her femininity. The accent over the “i” was a result of the assumption that she was feminine, it was not the cause of our assumption that she was feminine.

However, Wolters remarks that there are two attestations to a name Yehunni, which can be Hellenized as Iounias. This is in contrast to the fact that there are 250 occurrences of the Latin name Junia, which can be Hellenized as Iounia.

But up against this evidence, Wolters comments further in a footnote,

It is beyond the purview of my blogging to persuade those who consider it unlikely that Paul includes women in roles of leadership to think otherwise. I am content to present the scholarship as we know it, and to express my desire for a Bible translation based on scholarship.

However, this issue was taken up with Wolters on Richard Fellows’ blog. Wolters wrote, as his 6th point,

(6) It is my own view that the much higher incidence of Junia compared to Yehunni makes it more likely that IOYNIAN in Rom 16:7 is a woman’s name rather than a man’s. In my judgment, however, it is only marginally more likely. There are other factors (such as the preponderance of male leadership in Paul’s circle) which add weight to the other side. My article was meant to show that it is not unreasonable to defend the view that Junia/s was male. As is the case with so many exegetical questions, we need to be satisfied with degrees of probability.

And Richard responded,

(6) We do see female leaders in Paul’s circle (Prisca, Phoebe, and probably Lydia, Euodia and Syntyche). It is true that the traveling missionaries tended to be male, but we must ask why this was. I am willing to be corrected, but I suspect that it would have been hard for women to get the necessary permission from their husbands/fathers to embark on missionary journeys, and that it would have been dangerous for them to travel alone, and that they might have scandalized the very people whom they hoped to convert if they had travelled with male non-relatives. These restrictions would not have applied to Junia, who travelled with her husband (Andronicus), who was also an apostle. So the scarcity of female traveling missionaries is not necessarily an argument against Junia being one.

Even if we did not know that Junia was a female name, we would still suspect that Andronicus and Junia were husband and wife. They are greeted by Paul as a two-some and are given no separate designations. They seem to have had a long association with each other, since both were in prison with him, and both were in the faith before him. Paul greets and describes them as a two-person unit, in much the same way that he does Prisca and Aquila.

I leave the final word to Dr. Claude Mariottini who wrote,

Junia was the name of a Christian in Rome, a person whose name is mentioned in the letter to the Romans in connection with Andronicus, as being Paul’s relatives, who were in prison with him; they were prominent among the apostles and they were in Christ before he was (Romans 16:7).

However, the gender of the name is uncertain. Was Junia a man or a woman? If the name Junia is feminine, then she was probably the wife of Andronicus. However, even the various versions do not agree on how to translate the name.

Eldon Jay Epp, in his book Junia: The First Woman Apostle (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), said (p. 65) that “English versions move from a consistent feminine understanding of ‘Junia’ for the first three centuries (1526 to 1833, though the 1833 Dickinson version is an anomaly), then a second, fairly consistent masculine period of about a century (1870s to 1960s, with a few exceptions), followed by nearly three decades (1970 to 1996) of alternation between masculine and feminine, but with an increasing trend of returning to the feminine.”

According to Epp (p. 66), the following versions have adopted the feminine (Junia) reading:

Tyndale, Cranmer, Great Bible, Geneva Bible, Bishops Bible, Rheims (“Julia”), King James Version, Weymouth, Lamsa (NT), New American Bible, New King James Version, New Jerusalem Bible, New Century Bible, New American Bible, Revised English Bible, New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), Oxford Inclusive Version, New Living Translation.

In addition, other English versions not included by Epp which translate the name as feminine include the Bible in Basic English, the Holman Christian Standard Bible, Today’s New English Version, and the Webster Bible.

According to Epp (p. 66), the following versions have adopted the masculine (Junias) reading:

Dickinson, Emphasized Bible, Revised Version (1881), Rheims (American Edition), American Standard Version (ASV), Goodspeed, Complete Bible (1903), Modern Reader’s Bible, Moffatt,
Ronald Knox, Revised Standard Version (RSV), Phillips, Amplified New Testament, New English Bible, New American Standard Bible (NASB), Jerusalem Bible, Good News Bible,
Living Bible, New International Version (NIV), The Message, Contemporary English Version.

In addition, other English versions not included by Epp that translate the name as masculine include the Darby Bible, the English Standard Version, God’s Word to the Nation Version, New English Translation (NET), and the Young Literal Translation.

Bruce K. Waltke, in his book, An Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), p. 241 said: “Al Wolters of Redeemer College (Hamilton, Ontario) in personal communication makes a convincing philological argument that Junia (Gr. Iounia) in Rom. 16:7 is a Jewish name; Yehunniah (“Yah is gracious”). If so, the name is masculine, not feminine.”

The basis by which Wolters and Waltke claim that the Jewish name Junia is masculine is not made explicit. The implication of their statement is that since the Jewish name Yehunniah is a theophoric name, that is, a name that includes the name of a god, then, the bearer of the name must be a man.

Although masculine names bearing the name of Yah, such as Obadiah, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, were common in the Old Testament, a few names of women also include the name of YHWH, usually shortened to Yah.

The most prominent name of a woman bearing a theophoric name in the Old Testament was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri, king of Israel (2 Kings 8:26). Another woman with Yah in her name was Abijah, the wife of Hezron (1 Chronicles 2:24). Other women with theophoric names were Jecholiah, the mother of Azariah, king of Judah (2 Kings 15:1), Michaiah, the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah and the mother of Abijah, king of Judah, and Noadiah, the prophetess (Nehemiah 6:14).

Thus, if the argument that Junia is the name of a man because the name bears the name of YHWH, then the argument is not very strong. The fact is, that recent studies have revealed that Junia is a feminine name.

In his commentary on Romans (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1992), James E. Edwards wrote (p. 355):

“Andronicus and Junias (v. 7), both Greek names, were doubtlessly Jewish since Paul calls them my relatives (literally in Greek, “fellow-countrymen”). Depending on the Greek accenting of Iounian (a form of the name which unfortunately obscures its gender), the name could be either male (Junias) or female (Junia). The name is normally presumed male (so NIV), but a recent study reveals over 250 examples of it in Greek literature, not one of which is masculine! This seems to be early incontrovertible evidence that the name is feminine (Junia), which would make the pair husband and wife (or perhaps brother and sister). If the name is feminine, then Paul’s referring to Andronicus and Junia as outstanding among the apostles, who were in Christ before I was, is very significant. It would indicate that (1) apostles refers to a group larger than the original Twelve, (2) among whom was to be counted a woman, (3) and probably a wife, (4) who had been an apostle before Paul was (emphases his).”
So, the evidence points to the fact that Junia was a woman and that Paul called her an apostle. As Peter Lampe (Anchor Bible Dictionary 3:1127) wrote:

“Without exception, the Church Fathers in late antiquity identified Andronicus’ partner in Rom 16:7 as a woman, as did minuscule 33 in the 9th century which records iounia with an acute accent. Only later medieval copyists of Rom 16:7 could not imagine a woman being an apostle and wrote the masculine name “Junias.” This latter name did not exist in antiquity; its explanation as a Greek abbreviation of the Latin name “Junianus” is unlikely.”
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

The Junia Evidence: IX what the trial lawyer said

“Leadership is male; following is female.  It is argued that this is the way things were meant to be – the way things have been since the beginning.” Page 94.

That is the argument.  If God intended for women to be equal, why did Paul say such things? Why haven’t women stood up and spoken up? Why is it that in the 21^st century, women are still followers if God intended for women to be leaders?

In other words, I can justify how I think about  women by how women have always been treated.  I can’t believe that these pastors have ever read “The Lost Apostle: searching for the truth about Junia” by Rena Pederson, 2006.  This book deals with the inequality of women down through the ages, and the written sex-change that was made on the female Junia who became known as a male called Junius down through Biblical history.

They have never read “Equal: women reshape American Law” by Fred Strebeight, 2009. While this book is not religious in nature and does not support women in ministry, it deserves to be read by all who want to learn more about the inequality women have been subjected to in this country. This book portrays the dramatic story behind the movement toward legal recognition of sex discrimination in this country. This is not a book about abortion. It is about equality laws for women being hard fought in our Supreme Court. The church should be the first place a woman would look to for equality. Instead, it had to be fought out in court, and the church still has not caught on.

Which brings us back to the question: If God intended for women to be equal, why did He allow such mistreatment against women for all of history?  And why have women allowed it?

The answer is simple.  Complex.  Hard to understand.

God has allowed mankind freedom to do wrong. Individually and hopefully collectively, we will see that our hateful actions against any group is wrong.

This is what Ann Bayliss says about our conference in Houston:

Scriptures which form our theology tell us that when Jesus died, we weren’t just saved – we were changed into His likeness and His body. It tore the dividing wall of hostility when we became new creations in Christ. That is why slave and free, Jews and Greeks, Muslims and Christians, black and white, are not limited by ANYTHING when it comes to access to God. It isn’t just about salvation. It isn’t about gender. It isn’t about roles. It is mind-blowing transformation of EVERYTHING that we thought we knew. 

We are here to lay down tracks for what the scripture says (Dr. Philip Payne), how it adversely affects people when legalists try to make grace into law (Dr. Katie Hays), what it looks like when men and women are free to serve God in leadership via mutual submission and outward service (Dr. Todd Still), and how our culture is affected by wrong thinking, and how we can transform that thinking and influence culture (Dr. J. Kirk).

This is a paradigm change for men and women to be encouraged, for people of color, for all nations, and for gender.

Will you join me in getting the word out that a new day for women arrived with Jesus and we are reclaiming that freedom in Christ.

At Cognitive Discopants, the blogger asks,

What people really want is an approach to Scripture that makes the Bible seem like a puzzle book with “Jabez Prayer”-like secrets waiting to be unlocked by the newest hermeneutical Evel Knievel.

That’s the thing! Is the Bible just waiting for us to dig up new data on Junia two millenia later? Has the truth on women in the Bible been hidden for 2ooo years, just awaiting a Sherlock Holmes of the 21st century, or maybe just an Evel Knievel? Junia has tried the patience of some, and we are ready to return to the King James Version, the Vulgate, whatever would rescue us from the Swiss army knife of Bible translation. Let us read the Bible as it comes to us, and live with the contradictions we are presented with, rather than reconfiguring the Greek language to shoe horn in some favourite interpretation, like the ugly step sister cutting off her big toe.

Here is one blogger who has seen too many permutations on Junia,who feels perhaps that she has become a pereptual choose-your-own-ending drama,

The complementarians like to shift their footings when it comes to Junia. They want to find some argument on which they can stand to diminish the significance of the woman [Junia].

First, they argued she wasn’t a woman (Junia) but a man (Junias). The evidence disproved them so thoroughly even they gave in (or most of them gave in) and so they shifted to another footing to stand their argument on…

Second, they argued she wasn’t an apostle. Don’t forget this: The only reason males in the history of the church, and the motive seems to be to diminish women leaders in the church, changed the woman Junia to the man Junias was because whoever it was was an apostle. So the complementarians decided to show she wasn’t an apostle: she’s a woman alright, but only esteemed among the (male-only college of) apostles and not an apostle herself. Then that got disproven, and Eldon Epp’s long section in his book shows that this argument that Junia was only esteemed by the apostles but wasn’t an apostle herself can’t be relied on with rigor. So they shifted to another footing…

Third, they argued she was an apostle only in conjunction with her male (probably) husband. This one just didn’t work because she’s still called an “apostle” — a pair of apostles still makes her an apostle. So they shifted to another footing…

Fourth, they now are arguing that “apostle” really doesn’t mean “apostle” — it really means “missionary,” and we all know a “missionary” isn’t what an apostle is. So we don’t have to worry about women leaders, because Junia was just a missionary. To be sure, the word “apostle” undoubtedly has a narrow meaning (the twelve, Paul, etc) and it has a broader meaning (church-planting, founding, missionary). It still means “apostle” (one sent by Christ) and not only that — this term describes the highest office for the first century Christians. And Junia is in that small and highly esteemed circle.

Really, though, we are back to the major issue: she’s a woman; she’s an apostle; and she may have been a missionary kind of apostle .. but don’t forget what Paul says — she was a great apostle/missionary.

What’s next? Will “great” now be diminished too? Will this all be seen as tongue-in-cheek by the apostle?

This gets tiresome. Let the Bible say what it says. Junia was a woman; she was an apostle; she was a great apostle. Give the woman a break and give her a big clap! Saint Chrysostom surely did.

The question to ask when evaluating someone for leadership in the local church is not “Man or woman?” but “What has God gifted this person — man or woman — to do?”

Do I have a witness?

when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth

And here is its context, from The Sign of Four, chapter 6,  by Conan Doyle,

“How came he, then?” I reiterated. “The door is locked; the window is inaccessible. Was it through the chimney?”

“The grate is much too small,” he answered. “I had already considered that possibility.”

“How, then?” I persisted.

“You will not apply my precept,” he said, shaking his head. “How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? We know that he did not come through the door, the window, or the chimney. We also know that he could not have been concealed in the room, as there is no concealment possible. When, then, did he come?”

“He came through the hole in the roof!” I cried.

Is it possible that Junia was only well-known to the apostles, however improbable? I suppose one could say yes, it is possible. It is highly improbable given the evidence and the witness of Greek literature – but possible. The next question then is whether it is possible for a woman to be an apostle. If it is impossible for a woman to be an apostle, then the improbable must be the truth. I have found this to be a common theme. Some have tried to prove to me that within the cultural context of the Bible, an apostle has authority and it is impossible for a woman to have authority, therefore a woman cannot possibly be an apostle.

However, the tradition of the early church is that certain women were “equal to the apostles.”  So Mary Magdalene, the one woman who appears in every gospel to be sent by Jesus to announce his resurrection, is routinely called “equal to the apostles.”  She was “sent”  by Christ to witness his resurrection. Phoebe was sent by Paul to carry his letter. Although I am not claiming that she was an apostle, clearly she was only a deacon of her church, nonetheless, she was able to be the emissary of a man.

Perhaps the best example of how authority worked for women is in the story of Saint Nina (or Nino).

Nina was a relative of St. George the Great Martyr and Juvenal, the Patriarch of Jerusalem. Her parents belonged to the nobility in Cappadocia and since they both were tonsured in the monastic state, Nina was educated under the tutelage of Patriarch Juvenal. Hearing about the people of Georgia, the virgin Nina, from an early age, desired to go to Georgia and to baptize the Georgians. The All-Holy Mother of God appeared to Nina and promised to take her to this land. When our Lord opened the way, the young Nina, indeed, traveled to Georgia where, in a short period of time, she gained the love of the Georgian people. Nina succeeded in baptizing the Georgian Emperor Mirian, his wife Nana and their son Bakar, who, later on, zealously assisted in Nina’s missionary work. During her lifetime, Nina traveled throughout Georgia, mainly to convert the entire nation to the Faith of Christ, exactly at the time of the terrible persecution of the Christians at the hands of Emperor Diocletian. Having rested from her many labors, Nina died in the Lord in the year 335 A.D. Her body is entombed in the Cathedral Church in Mtzkheta. She worked many miracles during her life and after her death.

From another source we can learn that Nina was the daughter of the Roman General Zabulon, and we can read the words addressed to her by the Emperor Mirian, “O. my mother! teach me and make one worthy to invoke the name of your great God, my Saviour!”

Saint Nina, living in the 3rd and 4th century, derived her authority from the fact that she was the daughter of a general, the niece of a patriarch, the relative of a martyr, a virgin and had received a vision and message from the Mother of God. Her authority was expressed by her preaching, miracles of healing, teaching and baptising the emperor Mirian of Georgia and his family. In addition, she was addressed as mother by the emperor. While all narratives regarding Nina may be partly legendary, they do provide some insight into the extent to which it was considered acceptable for a women to bear authority and both teach and baptise men. Although these women bear the title “equal to the apostles”  rather than “apostles,” I do not see this as proof that a woman cannot be counted among the apostles. I do not think that Sherlock Holmes would consider it utterly impossible for a woman to be an apostle, and we are not left with only the improbable. We can accept that the linguistically probable solution, that Junia was among the apostles, is the real solution.

Of course, some will add that the scriptures themselves forbid a woman from bearing this authority. Later.

In this post, Dr. Grudem provides the Brenton translation of Pss. Sol. 2:6  (I include Pss.Sol. 17:30 as well),

οἱ υἱοὶ καὶ αἱ θυγατέρες ἐν αἰχμαλωσίᾳ πονηρᾷ ἐν σφραγῖδι ὁ τράχηλος αὐτῶν ἐν ἐπισήμῳ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν

the sons and the daughters in painful captivity, their neck in a seal, in (a place) visible among the gentiles.

καὶ τὸν κύριον δοξάσει ἐν ἐπισήμῳ πάσης τῆς γῆς

and he will glorify the Lord in [a place] visible [from] the whole earth

In this case, the word episemos would be an adjective modifying an elided (omitted) noun meaning “place” . (This was not proposed by Burer and Wallace, who claimed rather that episemos was an adjective modifying the Jewish captives, which is impossible.) I had not been able to find any evidence that there was an idiom in which topos “place” is elided after episemos, and I still can’t find that. However, I did find, in the footnotes of Burer and Wallace’s article, page 87, some other phrases which may have influenced Brenton’s translation.

καὶ τεθήτω ἐν τῷ ὄρει τῷ ἁγίῳ ἐν τόπῳ ἐπισήμῳ 1 Macc. 11:37

and set upon the holy mount in a conspicuous place.

καὶ στῆσαι αὐτὰς ἐν περιβόλῳ τῶν ἁγίων ἐν τόπῳ ἐπισήμῳ 1 Macc. 14:48

and that they should be set up within the compass of the sanctuary in a conspicuous place;

It seems likely that Brenton supplied the word “place” because of the seeming similarity of the phrases, although there is no known Greek idiom where “place” is elided. However, even if we consider this to be a possibility, it still does not provide evidence that Junia was not among the apostles. According to Brenton’s translation, it appears that each place modified by episemos is found within the place referred to by the object of the preposition en. For example, the Jewish captives were in a place that was among the Gentiles. The “conspicuous places” in Maccabees were on the holy mountain, and within the compass of the sanctuary. In each case, en plus the dative indicates an inclusive use. In the case of Pss. Sol. 17:30, using the genitive case, the place that was visible from the whole earth was most likely above the earth, in the heavens or on the clouds, clearly not inclusive.

So, episemos, as an adjective with en plus dative indicates inclusive use, and episemos with genitive indicates exclusive use – at least in these examples. This is the direct opposite of what is stated in Burer and Wallace,

In sum, our examination of episemos with both genitive modifiers and en plus dative adjuncts has revealed some surprising results – surprising, that is, from the perspective of the scholarly consensus. Repeatedly in biblical Greek, patristic Greek, papyri, inscriptions, classical and Hellenistic texts, our working hypothesis was borne out. The genitive personal modifier was consistently used for an inclusive idea, while the (en plus) dative personal adjunct was almost never so used. Yet to read the literature, one would get a decidedly different picture.

After reviewing all the data in this article, I agree with Bauckham, Belleville and Epp (Epp page 77) that except for one exception, all examples with en plus dative, whether impersonal or personal, found in Burer and Wallace’s article, are inclusive. The evidence is overwhelming that with en plus dative the use is either locative or partitive, that is, inclusive, in spite of Wallace and Burer claiming “almost never so used”. With the genitive, however, episemos was also usually inclusive and Pss. Sol. 17:30 seems to be an exception.

Therefore, if one considers episemos in Pss. Sol. 2:6 to be an adjective, this confirms that with en plus dative, episemos in inclusive and Junia is a member of the group of apostles.

But Pss. Sol 2:6 and 17:30 do not need to be interpreted in the way that Brenton has done. Kurk has provided a link to  Les Psaumes de Salomon, by François Martin, which seems to provide the base for the New English Translation of the Septuagint. Martin includes in the notes, the relevant Syriac translation.

Garçons et filles subisssent une captivité rigoureuse, leur cou porte un stigmate, une marque distinctive parmi les païens. (Martin, page 258)

et leur cou, le joug scellé des gentils a été placé sur lui (Syriac)

The sons and daughters were in harsh captivity, their neck in a seal, with a mark among the nations (NETS)

Il glorifiera le Seigneur a la vue de toute la terre (Martin, page 358)
with the note that this comes from the Hebrew nokah kol ha’eretz and could be similar to the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven.

Ils glorifieront le Seigneur ouvertement dans toute la terre. (Syriac)

And he shall glorify the Lord in the mark of all the earth. Note: perhaps sight (NETS)

In this case, the Greek is assumed to be episemon, a noun, and each verse is treated as if it were a translation of a Hebrew original. However, the Syriac translation is made from the Greek, and does not reflect a known Hebrew original. It should be treated as commentary on the text, and adds insight from the Aramaic (Syriac) tradition.

In any case, whether the word in Pss. Sol. is a noun, episemon, or an adjective, episemos, there seems to be no liklihood that these  examples from Maccabees or from Psalms of Solomon support the notion that Andronicus and Junia were only known to the apostles, but not among the apostles. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of Andronicus and Junia being members of the group of apostles, and that is how it has always been understood in Greek literature.

I do need to soften my previous approach with the understanding that Bible Works listed episemos as an adjective for the Brenton translation of Psalms of Solomon because that is how it is translated in that version. I hope that I have gained from this following up on this. I can only add that it is best not to lose touch with the wider and longer history of interpretation, including in our research works from French, German, Latin, Syriac and other relevant traditions. For me, these posts are not so much about Junia, as they are about what resources we can access when looking at a much debated exegetical point.

But regarding Junia, there does remain one single example, from classical Greek, which supports the notion that the referent of episemos may not be a member of the group. I will look at that one example next time.

Update:

I would like to add that in a recent exchange on this blog with a complementarian, he responded with this comment,

Suzanne, I hold a PhD in Greek, and I agree that the Wallace/Burer article is overreaching to try to make Pss. Solomonis 2:6 match Romans 16:7 in every respect. I agree with you that it is completely irrelevant because the word in the verse is probably the dative of the επισημον (as a Hebraic parallelism with εν σφραγιδι earlier in the verse). Thus, it is not even an instance of the construction in question.

I appreciate the fact that he was open enough to agree with me on this.

Matt continues to make a plea to reconsider Wallace and Burer’s point with different evidence, and you can follow this link. I have not cited the rest of his comment since it did not include evidence but lead to his blogging later here,

I give him full credit for this example,

Θέλω πρακτικὸς εἶναι καὶ ἐπίσημος ἐν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς ἢ παραβαίνειν ἐντολὰς καὶ εἶναι
αὐτοῖς βδελυκτός.

“I want to be ready for action, and ἐπίσημος among the brothers, rather than to transgress the commandments and be repugnant to them.”

with my own comment that surely the speaker is among his own brothers and this has to be inclusive. The long comment thread related mostly to our disagreement on this issue.

To summarize the preceding posts, the evidence that Junia is among the apostles is based on

1) the unbroken witness of Greek literature from the New Testament era up to the present
2) the unanimous tradition of translating Andronicus and his partner as “among the apostles” in all Bible translations until the 21st century
3) the near universal agreement that Junia was a woman (I will touch on this in a future post)
4) the overwhelming weight of grammatical evidence that the person in the grammatical construction. translated in the KJV as “noted among the apostles,” was a member of the group. There is one exception to this, which suggests to me that the dialogue on Junia could continue into the future.

What is striking about this case, is that the article on which the reading “Junia …. well-known to the apostles” is based, cannot be defended. Therefore, the reading “well-known to the apostles” has no published scholarly foundation.

I have thought a lot about how something like this could happen, and I think it would be worthwhile picking apart more of the argumentation on this issue. In 2006, Wayne Grudem wrote a response to a comment of mine on the Wallace and Burer article. I had written,

“It is now well-known that Wallace and Burer misquoted Psalm of Solomon in their article. They actually mistook a noun for an adjective. In fact, Dr. Grudem’s entire section on Junia is riddled with factual errors.”

(First, let me just say that when I used the phrase “riddled with errors” I was engaging in the time-honoured game of pingpong. I was returning Grudem’s serve. “Riddled with errors” was a phrase that Dr. Grudem used several times for the work of other respected scholars in his book Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth. I was just picking the phrase out of his book and offering it back to him, in, what seemed to me at the time to be allowable irony. I now regret responding to him in kind, but I admit that that is what I did.

But here is the point. Wallace and Burer did cite episemos as an adjective in their article. However, in the New English Translation of the Septuagint it is considered to be the noun episemon. I hold to that view. But this difference of opinion was not mentioned in the W & B article. And in Mike Burer’s discussion in this post, he fell short of providing adequate rationale for considering episemos an adjective. (See note below. ) So why did Dr. Grudem, and Wallace and Burer, consider episemos to be an adjective in Pss. Solomon 2:6? Here is a clue. Dr. Grudem put it like this,

4. Bible Works parses episemos in Psalms of Solomon 2:6 as an adjective, which makes most sense in the context. This gives Burer and Wallace’s meaning, that the Jewish captives were “a spectacle visible among the gentiles.” This argues that McCarthy is wrong to say “they mistook a noun for an adjective.” Did Bible Works also mistake a noun for an adjective?

Now it is five years later. I can only say that, on reflection, “Yes, I believe that Bible Works mistook a noun for an adjective.” That is my assessment. And there is a world of students out there using software – to learn Greek, to understand the Bible better, and to defend their choice of Bible Version. I mention this because, in my view, reliance on software needs to be rolled back. Who wrote the software? Think about it. That person is a fallible human being, just like anyone else. There is no Bible verse “Software who art in code, hallowed be thy text.”

I’ll demonstrate another case where software falls down. On this site, there is a clickable lexicon for each word. The meaning for diakonos, the word used for Phoebe in Romans 16:1, is listed in this way,

διάκονος,n  \{dee-ak’-on-os}
1) one who executes the commands of another, esp. of a master,  a servant, attendant, minister  1a) the servant of a king  1b) a deacon, one who, by virtue of the office assigned to him  by the church, cares for the poor and has charge of and  distributes the money collected for their use  1c) a waiter, one who serves food and drink

Nothing wrong with that. It is gender inclusive and concise. But at the side of this entry one can read “Case A, Number S, Gender F.” This means that the word is accusative case, singular and feminine. I have often seen the argument that since the word used for Phoebe’s office is feminine, that means that she was filling a feminine role.

I was puzzled about this for a long time because I was not aware that the word diakonos was feminine. Why not? Because I was more familiar with an entry like this, from Thayer’s Lexicon – “masculine/feminine noun.” The word is considered to be of common gender, and there is no lexical difference between the feminine and masculine forms of the word. There is only one form, which may be modified by a masculine or feminine adjective, depending on the gender of the person referred to. The entry on Greek Bible would not make that information available to the reader. Consequently, I have often read posts about women being “deaconesses”, that mention the fact that this word is feminine. I conjecture that this may be another software-derived misunderstanding. While you can parse the word diakonos as functioning grammatically like a feminine noun, the lexical entry ought to record that it is a noun of common gender.

Note:

For those who still wonder why I persist in claiming that episemos is a noun in Pss. of Solomon 2:6, let me offer Mike Burer’s explanation. He wrote about this citation (τοῖς ἐπισημοτάτοις τῶν νομῶν),

The phrase in P.Oxy. 1408 is governed by ἐν, and the word τόποις is not in the text of the papyrus (although the editors do suggest that its omission was a mistake on the part of the original author of the papyrus); this is a nice parallel to the text in Ps. Sol. 17:30. Thus there appeared to be an idiom in Hellenistic Greek which allowed the adjective ἐπίσημος when it referred to a place to stand alone, the noun τόπος being elided. This makes a great deal of sense when applied to Ps. Sol. 2:6: “their neck with a seal in a [place] well-known to the nations.” Understanding this idiom to be in play allows one with warrant to interpret ἐπισήμῳ in that text as an adjective, not as a noun, even though it is preceded by ἐν.

How can one possibly say that “thus there appeared to be an idiom” (which allowed the adjective episemos to stand alone, with the noun topos elided),  just after admitting that the editor of the text thinks that the word topos was elided as a mistake? This makes no sense to me. I don’t know how such an argument can be used in the undertaking of Bible translation. It just seems speculative and iffy. It feels as if one has wandered into an alternate reality.

Junia is not alone
Junia Is a Woman, and I Am a Complementarian
Denny Burk’s Complementarian Cover-up
The Junia Evidence: I
The Junia Evidence: II
The Junia Evidence: III
The Junia Evidence: IV
The Junia Evidence: V
Was Junia Really An Apostle by Burer and Wallace
Linda Belleville’s article
Michael Burer Enters the Junia Debate
Reassessing Junia: A Review of Eldon Epp’s Junia: The First Woman Apostle
Due Diligence on Junia and Apostleship
Matt Colvin on Junia and Apostleship
 Some Lengthy Thoughts on Women’s Leadership
A Closer Examination of Junia, The Female Apostle

# 7: The New New International Version (15 March 2011)

I now use three different translations on a regular basis. The NIV has never been one of them and still isn’t, but I did purchase a copy of the new edition of the NIV released this year.  I think it is significant for a number of reasons. I’ll give you two of the most important. First, it represents the adoption of some crucial changes made by the TNIV (discontinued with this edition of the NIV). The most significant of these changes is an attempt at gender neutrality in what is typically considered a translation for more conservative congregations. Now, the NIV does not do what the NRSV (and certainly not the CEB) does, but it attempts to forge a middle way. When possible (even at the expense of technical grammatical convention) it uses they and their as gender neutral pronouns. In other places it does not, but it’s a step. Second, I think this version of the NIV is significant because it forces the hand of several organizations, including congregations. Zondervan committed to quit publishing the 1984 version of the NIV and will be reproducing all of its study Bibles (and they are numerous, I own several from my days in the student ministry) in the new translation. It is no longer possible for the status quo to be maintained in congregations around the country in their translations. They have to commit to the changes that most modern translations have made or leave the NIV for an even more conservative translation. While there will be conflict, I think this shift makes people be more honest about what they think about not just translation but larger issues like gender equality. What would normally be a small issue has likely and will likely bring up larger, more fundamental issues.

#6 Common Prayer by Shane Claiborne, Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove, and Enuma Okoro (16 November 2010)

I’m breaking the rule because this came out in 2010. It was not until this year, however, that I began using it in my community with a degree of frequency. For those of you who don’t know, Common Prayer is an attempt at an ecumenical prayer liturgy born out of the new monastic traditions. I began using this prayer book as a daily devotional practice by myself over the summer, but when I returned to Birmingham in the fall we began using it as a group of friends. One of my close friends asked me during the summer if we should try and pray through it in the mornings, and his brainchild turned into a group endeavor. Around five of us met each morning in Reid Chapel on Samford University’s campus and participated in the morning office found in Common Prayer. It was one of the most beneficial parts of each day for me, and I’ll miss it greatly next semester when I’m away from Samford.

(Also, just a bonus plug, the audio version actually has Claiborne, Wilson-Hartgrove, Okoro and members from their communities participating in the liturgy. It’s really cool! I own this text in three formats (audio, digital, and print) so I can use it on any occasion, if that convinces you to consider it.)

#5 Scripture and the Authority of God by N. T. Wright (1 March 2011)

N. T. Wright is going to show up a lot on this list, fair warning. This text is a revised an expanded edition of his work The Last Word on biblical authority. He explains a theology of Scripture centered around Christ that transcends categories like “inerrant” or “infallible.” Clearly and succinctly, he describes a more appropriate theology of Scripture than I encounter on a regular basis.  He even takes the framework he develops and applies it to two test cases at the end. It’s a very valuable work well worth your time.

#4 The King Jesus Gospel by Scot McKnight (13 September 2011)

Dr. McKnight shows up almost as many times as Rev. Dr. Wright (who, along with Dr. Dallas Willard, wrote a forward to this book). McKnight sees the Church in North American approaching a critical juncture. There is an essential conflict, he says, over what the Gospel is. Largely a response to the differing emphases of the emergent movement and the so-called “Restless Reformed,” or the Neo-Calvinists, he outlines a kingdom-focused look at the Gospel. I don’t want to spoil for you what that looks like, because then the journey wouldn’t be worth it. I will say this: McKnight adds a sincere voice and keen eye to what is often a mockery of a conversation. Read it.

#3 The Kingdom New Testament translated by N. T. Wright (25 October 2011)

The second translation to make my list, this one is amazing. Wright in his “For Everyone” commentary series always did his own translation of the New Testament texts. He compiled and review all of these translations and put them together in a new, comprehensive translation of the entire New Testament. And it is fantastic. He brings fresh life to the biblical text in a way that I did not know was possible in the English language. Sure, it’s not a literal translation, but I find little non-academic use for a literal formal equivalence translation. Wright does a remarkable job in preserving the voice of the author of the original Greek text.  Mark sounds strikingly different than Luke in their respective Gospels. There is a dynamism and life in the translation that just can’t happen in a committee translation like #7. Yes, it has its flaws, but what translation doesn’t?  Anyway, pick up a copy and start reading the New Testament with new eyes. It’s well worth it.

#2 Love Wins by Rob Bell (15 March 2011)

You can say whatever you want about Bell, but you need to read this book. It is not Bell’s best work by any means (I really liked Jesus Wants to Save Christians), but you need to read this book. You may not like the emergent movement or anything but the current movements in Reformed theology, but you need to read this book. Why? Bell’s text identifies what will be the defining issues for the Church in the years to come, particularly the evangelical Church. No matter how much authority a Neo-Calvinist pastor might think he has (and I mean he, no “she”s allowed, which is one of the issues), evangelicals are restless for more than just Reformed theology. The question of hell, concepts of gender (and sexuality), and what we mean by “heaven” are going to be central. You may agree with Bell or adamantly disagree, but if you want to be prepared and aware of the conversations that will be coming up among Christians in the coming decades, Bell’s book is a good place to start.

(There is also a new study guide/companion media set out for it as of 15 November. I haven’t used it, but you can find it here.)

#1 Junia is Not Alone by Scot McKnight (1 December 2011)

OK, so this one isn’t actually a book. It’s more like an e-book essay. McKnight published it in Kindle format only, so you can’t run out to your local Borders (oh … wait) and buy it. However, if you don’t have a Kindle Device, the app for your smart phone or tablet is free. If you don’t have either of those, there is also a free Kindle App for your desktop. However you need to read this book, read it. McKnight tells the story of someone you have probably never heard of: Junia, the female apostle in Romans. Who? you ask. Consult Romans 16:7: “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives [or compatriots] who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.” McKnight tells the story of this female apostle’s name who appears and disappears in translation before finally making it back into your texts (and the compiled Greek editions of the text your translators work from) in the late twentieth century. It’s a harrowing tale (he can tell it like one, trust me!) and McKnight shows how the principle behind it is all too common. McKnight tells the stories of other women in the Scriptures that the Church has neglected (admittedly, I had not heard of most of them). He also outlines the stories we neglect of women in Church history. In all, McKnight unveils one of the great sins of the Church: its treatment of women. It’s a fantastic read you can finish in an hour or so, but it is well worth its $3 on Amazon. Be sure to check it out (click the book cover above!).

(New Year’s Resolution: Read more women.)

Anyway, those are my Top 7 of 2011 (it rhymes, too, but that’s also not why I did it), what about you?

What more should we say? Well, we should say that Paul is recognizing Andronicus and Junia as τοὺς συγγενεῖς μου. Should we then say that he’s writing that they are Jewish? The man Andronicus and the woman Junia are Jews, like Paul is a Jew?

And if it makes a difference that Paul has marked not only a man but also a woman as “among the apostles,” then what difference would his claim that they are born into the same race with him make?

To make things a little murky, as we ask the question, we know this much. We know that the name Andronicus is a Greek one and that Junia a Latin one. We also know that in 2 Maccabbees (which mentions Hannukah by the way) an Andronicus is there, and he causes tremendous unhappiness both to Jews and Gentiles (οὐ μόνον Ιουδαῖοι, πολλοὶ δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἐθνῶν) and is justly punished for his crimes (2Mace.4.35-38). What difference might it make if Paul claims to be a Jew and further marks Andronicus and Junia in Rome as his fellow Jews?

To help ponder the question, here are a few things that others are saying:

Against Christian feminists who see the apostle as sexist and placing restrictions on women as a result of his rabbinic training, Amy-Jill Levine (1956–) points out the anachronism of the charge: that Paul belonged to no rabbinic school, and that the rabbinic literature is of a much later date. She further suggests that Paul would have been familiar with women leaders in Diaspora synagogues, and thus recognized women leaders in his churches (e.g., Phoebe the deacon and Junia the apostle [Rom 16]). One might even begin to talk of a sort of Jewish reclamation of the Jewish Paul.   [page 551]

– Mark D. Nanos, “Paul in Jewish Thought,” The Jewish Annotated New Testament

and

In Acts, as in Romans, it is clear that Christianity – Gentile as well as Jewish – was well-established in Rome (soon to be the most important church of all) quite independently of Paul. Though Paul had worked with some of those Christians in Rome whom he especially mentions in Romans 16 (verses 3-4, 7, 13), it is notable that all these — Prsica and Aquila, Andronicus and Junia, Rufus and his mother (cf. Mark 15:21) — had been Christians before they met Paul. The two latter pairs must have been very early members of the Jerusalem church. [page 267]

In our list of New Testament Jews with Latin names, there are seven names which are probably to be understood as sound-equivalents

5. Iunia - Joanna?
6. Iustus - Joseph
7. Iustus - Jesus (Yeshu’a)
12. Paulus - Saul
14. Rufus - Reuben
15. Rufus - Reuben
16. Silvanus - Silas [page 375]

There is no longer any need to demonstrate that the name which appears in the accusative as Ἰουνίαν in Romans 16.7 is the Latin female name Junia, not the postulated but unrecorded male name Ἰουνιᾶς, which would be a Greek hypocoristic form of Julianus. This woman, probably the wife of her fellow-apostle Andronicus, is the only Jewish woman known to have borne the name Junia, which was the female version of the nomen of a prestigious Roman family. Freedmen and freedwomen often adopted the nomen gentilicium of their patron, and [Geoffrey W. H.] Lampe [in "Iunia / Iunias" and in Die Stadtrömischen] therefore argues that Jews used the names Julius and Julianus becuase they were sound equivalents of Judah. So there is no need to postulate any connexions of the Jewish Christian Junia with the gens Junia. What has not been suggested before is the possibility that Junia in this case was chosen because it could serve as a sound-equivalent for the Jewish name Joanna. [page 381]

She adopted a Latin name, in her case a close sound-equivalent to her Hebrew name Joanna, when she needed a more user-friendly name in the diaspora, in her case especially Rome. It becomes rather probable taht the Junia of Romans 16.7 is the same person as Luke’s Joanna (Lk. 8.3; 24.10; and cf. Acts 1.14), a wealthy woman disciple of Jesus and wife of Chuza, Herod Antipas’s ‘steward’ (meaning either manager of a royal estate or manager of the estates and finances of Antipas’s whole realm). Perhaps Chuza (a Nabatean name) adopted the Greek name Adnronicus for the same reason his wife adopted the name Junia, or perhaps Andronicus was her second husband. We should also note that in Palestine Chuza and Joanna were members of Herod’s court at Tiberias, the most romanized place in Jewish Palestine, where we have already located some of the rare Palestinian instances of Jews with Latin names. Joanna might have adopted the sound-equivalent and appropriately aristocratic name Junia already in Tiberias. When she and her husband decided to become Christian missionaries in Rome, she may already have had, not only the means to support herself and a degree of acculturation to Roman ways, but also even a Roman name. [page 387]

How many of these Jews with Latin names were Roman citizens? [E. A.] Judge [in "The Roman Base of Paul's Mission"] distinguishes the three kinds of Latin names in this respect. The Latin names that were widely adopted as Greek personal male names were the praenomina, and so persons bearing these names in the New Testament would normally not be Roman citizens. Judge therefore agrees with my statement that those Jews in the New Testament who bore these names — Marcus and Lucius — would almost certainly not be Roman citizens. The nomen, however, being the inherited family name, ‘clearly marks a person as a Roman citizen by birth.’ In the case of a woman, this would be her only name. So Judge says, of the three women ‘around Paul’ who bear a Roman nomen (Junia [Rom 16:7], Julia [Rom 16:15], Claudia [2 Tim 4:21]) that the ‘feminine form’ is ‘decisve’ for their identity as Roman citizens. However, as we have already noted, he does not seem to recognize that Junia is Jewish. We shall return to the significance of this sortly. [page 390]

In Acts 13:9 the reason [two different names for the same person are given] is that Luke is marking the point at which Saul, known by his Hebrew name in Palestine and Antioch, switched, as he embarked on his mission to Gentiles as well as Jews in the diasporea, to [Paul] his Roman name as his common usage.

In Romans 16 Paul evidently saw no need to refer to any of the persons he greets by two names, but this does not mean that none of them had an alternative name. In the case of Rufus, whom [E. A.] Judge [in "The Roman Base of Paul's Mission"] thinks must be a Roman citizen becuase he bears a Latin cognomen and no additional, non-Latin name, we are justified in suspecting that he was Jewish precisely because Rufus was a popular name among Jews, used because of [sic] it was heard as a sound-equivalent of Reuben. The Latin and Hebrew names would be considered alternative forms of the same name, and naturally, addressing him in Rome, Paul uses the Latin version. Thus, if he was Jewish, Rufus need not have been a Roman citizen, though, like Paul/Saul, he might have been.

Finally, we return to the case of Junia. Since only the female Latin names were nomina, a Jewish woman (or her parents) wanting to adopt a Latin name could only give her a nomen. Since Junia was undoubtedly Jewish and since Paul need not have called her by both her names, if she had an additional name, we cannot tell whether she was a Roman citizen or not. With the nomen of a Jewish woman, we are in the same position as with the ccognomen of a Jewish man: we cannot tell whetehr these people were Roman citizens or not. These cases introduce a further element of uncertainty as to the real significance of the large proportion of people ‘around Paul’ who bore Latin names.[page 390]

– Richard Bauckham, The Jewish World Around the New Testament

and

Romans 16 also confirms the existence of a Jewish Christian community in Rome. In v.7, Paul writes: “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow countrymen and my fellow prisoners; they are people of note among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.” Andronicus and Junia are thus linked with earliest Jewish Christianity. As “apostles,” they will therefore have shared in the Jewish church’s mission “to the circumcision” (cf. Gal. 2:7-9), for Paul knows of no apostle other than himself (and perhaps Barnabus) who is sent to the Genitles. For Paul, being an apostle implies, first, that one has seen the risen Lord, and second, that one has founded a congretation (cf. 1 Cor. 9:1-2), and it is therefore plausible that Paul regards Andronicus and Junia as founders of the original Jewish Christian congregation in Rome. Their status as apostles no doubt makes them the most imporant and influential members of the Jewish section of the Roman Christian community; Paul must gain their favor if his aim of uniting a currently divided community is to be achieved. [page 185]

– Francis Watson, Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles: Beyond the New Perspective

and

Junia

“a woman of the gens, or clan, Junius”; Latin
(Rom 16:7)

In Rom 16:7, Paul greets Andronius and Junia as “prominent among the apostles.” Paul describes them as relatives and states that they were in prison with him and had come to belief in Christ before he did. “Relatives” could mean fellow Jews or could denote actual blood relation, but according to either interpretation, Junia and Andronicus were Jews. We do not know their relationship to each other.

Since Junia fulfilled the Pauline criteria for apostleship (see 1 Cor 9:1), she must have claimed to have seen the risen Christ and have been engaged in missionary work. As a Jewish Christ-believer before Paul was converted, Junia may have lived in an eastern province of the Roman Empire and been among those who brought the message of Christ to the Roman Jewish community. Perhaps the Romans imprisoned Junia and Andronicus because of conflicts about this missionary work.

– Bernadette J. Brooten in Carol L. Meyers’s, Toni Craven’s, and Ross Shepard Kraemer’s Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, and the New Testament

and

Romans 16 has been cited by most interpreters as a decisive passage proving that a significant portion of the Roman congregations was Jewish. Paul’s Jewish co-workers Prisca and Aquila (Acts 18:2) are present. Further, Paul had referred to his fellow Jews as “compatriots” (συγγενής) in Rom 9:3 and employs the same word in Rom 16 for Andronicus, Junia (v.7), and Herodion (v.11)…. Interpreters have concluded that at least five of the people mentioned in Rom 16:1-16 must be Jewish: Prisca, Aquila, Andronicus, Junia, and Herodion. [pages 90-91]

Other evidence may suggest a Jewish identity for Andronicus, Junia, and Herodion. Paul describes Andronicus and Junia as “in Christ” prior to himself. The timing of their conversion during the early stages of the Christian mission increases the likelihood that they were Jewish. On the other hand, the possibility of a mission to the gentiles prior to Paul denies any firm conclusion. [page 100]

If Andronicus and Junia were apostles in the narrower sense of having seen and been commissioned by the Lord [Jesus Christ], they were likely Jewish. [page 98]
– A. Andrew Das, Solving the Romans Debate

and

Paul, like Walt Whitman, loved to contradict himself. In the same book of 1 Corinthians, he permits women to give sermons and prophesy in the church, provided they wear a veil. More telling, Paul speaks frequently of many women as his founding companions in the churches, his most trusted collaborators; he appoints women to keep new missions in order; and in Romans he notes that he has asked Phoebe (Rom. 16.1) a deacon (an ordained minister) in the church located in Cenchrea, an eastern port of Corinth, to carry his letter to the Romans to Rome. Deacon Priscilla (Rom. 16.3) is associated with the same [Corinthian, Cenchrean] church, and he promotes one of his colleagues to his own missionary status, saying about Junia, later Saint Junia, that she and her companion Andronikos are “outstanding among the messengers [apostles]“:

Greet Andronikos and Iounias [189],
Who were in prison with me, Oustanding
Among the messengers, even before me
They were working furiously for the Mashiah.
–ROM 16.7

From Paul’s time, and in large part because of Paul, women were ordained to preach and hold high administrative offices. Those were his [pro-woman Jewish] actions nearly two thousand years before anything like them was beginning to be permitted in Protestant churches, and more frequently in Jewish synagogues. But insofar as Paul contributed to silencing and separating women, he was following the practice of not only earlier Jewish temple customs but also Hindu, Buddhist, and later Muslim hierarchies. [page 628]

189. Junias from the Greek Ἰουνιᾶς (Iounias). Junias may be Junia or Julia, and the pair a couple. It is said the Junias was a Christian Jew and Andronikos a gentile, and both were imprisoned for their faith. [page 694]

–Willis Barnstone, The Restored New Testament: A New Translation with Commentary, Including the Gnostic Gospels Thomas, Mary, and Judas

And, so, if it makes a difference that Paul has marked not only a man but also a woman as “among the apostles,” then what difference would his claim that they are born into the same race with him make?

There is one exception, It is found in Euripides’ Hippolytus, 428 BC, and refers to Aphrodite,

σεμνή γε μέντοι κἀπίσημος ἐν βροτοῖς.
Yet she’s revered and famous among mortals.

This one example fits in with another case where laws are honoured among the people. In these examples, the referent of episemos cannot possibly be a member of the group, so there is no need to disambiguate by using another construction. I am, however, not convinced that the native Greek reader of Romans 16:7 would question whether Andronicus and Junia were members of the group. In fact, we know that they did not.

Here is what Chrysostom had to say about Junia,

“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 that she was even deemed worthy of the title apostle. (In ep. Ad Romanos 31.2).

There is not one mention in Greek literature of Andronicus and Junia not being among the apostles. There is, however, one reference to Junia being masculine. This was made by Epiphanius, a writer who also made Prisca masculine, so it is rightly disregarded. Although the Greek Orthodox Church does not ordain women, they do recognize Junia as a woman, and the co-worker of Apostle Andronicus.

What is important here is that Greeks thought that Romans 16:7 said that Andronicus and Junia were apostles. Their theology on women is not really an issue. We know that they don’t ordain women, but that did not affect the way they read the text. When the Archbishop Vamva came to revise the New Testament for a contemporary audience in the 19th century, he wrote unambiguously,

᾽Απάσθητε τὸν ᾽Ανδρόνικον καὶ ᾽Ιουνίαν τοὺς συγγενεῖς μου καὶ συναιχμαλώτους μου, οἵτνες εἴναι ἐπίσημοι μεταξὺ τῶν ἀποστόλων οἵτνες καὶ πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἦσαν εις τὸν Χριστόν

The witness of Greek literature is unequivocal. Romans 16:7 ought to be translated in such a way that we can understand that Andronicus and Junia were members of a group of apostles.

In addition to knowing that the Greek Orthodox Church honoured Junia as among the apostles in an unbroken tradition, we can also trace the history of the translation of Romans 16:7.

qui sunt nobiles in Apostolis Vulgate
noble among the apostles Wycliffe

insignes inter apostolis Erasmus Calvin
of note among the apostles KJV

If it is not clear how this was interpreted, we can read Calvin’s commentary on Erasmus Latin translation. He wrote,

In the third place, he calls them Apostles: he uses not this word in its proper and common meaning, but extends it wider, even to all those who not only teach in one Church, but also spend their labor in promulgating the gospel everywhere. He then, in a general way, calls those in this place Apostles, who planted Churches by carrying here and there the doctrine of salvation; for elsewhere he confines this title to that first order which Christ at the beginning established, when he appointed the twelve disciples. It would have been otherwise strange, that this dignity should be only ascribed to them, and to a few others. But as they had embraced the gospel by faith before Paul, he hesitates not to set them on this account before himself.

Luther fully accepted that the two people named in Romans 16:7 were apostles so he translates welche sind berühmte Apostel, “which are famous apostles.” However he changes Junia’s name to Junias, masculine. As far as I know there is no Bible translation predating this century which translates in the sense of “well-known to the apostles.”

The question ought not to be “Can a woman be an apostle?” but rather “On what basis do we abandon a long-standing interpretation in the Bible?”

Junia is not alone
Junia Is a Woman, and I Am a Complementarian
Denny Burk’s Complementarian Cover-up
The Junia Evidence: I
The Junia Evidence: II
The Junia Evidence: III
The Junia Evidence: IV
Was Junia Really An Apostle by Burer and Wallace
Linda Belleville’s article
Michael Burer Enters the Junia Debate
Reassessing Junia: A Review of Eldon Epp’s Junia: The First Woman Apostle
Due Diligence on Junia and Apostleship
Matt Colvin on Junia and Apostleship
 Some Lengthy Thoughts on Women’s Leadership
A Closer Examination of Junia, The Female Apostle

Junia is not alone
Junia Is a Woman, and I Am a Complementarian
Denny Burk’s Complementarian Cover-up
The Junia Evidence: I
The Junia Evidence: II
Was Junia Really An Apostle by Burer and Wallace
Due Diligence on Junia and Apostleship
Matt Colvin on Junia and Apostleship
 Some Lengthy Thoughts on Women’s Leadership
A Closer Examination of Junia, The Female Apostle

I perceive this issue to be important because it sheds light on how Bible translation decisions are made. I do not intend to discuss the ordination of women, or of anybody else in this series. But it is crucial for us to understand what information impacts on different Bible translations.

In brief, the NET, ESV, HCSB and CEV all interpret Romans 16:7 as if Junia was only well-known to the apostles on the basis of material presented in the article by Burer and Wallace. I have argued in my first two posts called The Junia Evidence, that the evidence does not fit the conclusions of the article. I shall continue to do this. Many other Bibles have reassigned Junia’s gender, without a text base for this, and only a very few list Junia as “among the apostles” – KJV, NIV 2011, and NRSV.

I continue to support the notion that there is a cover up on the issue of Junia and apostleship. Denny Burk, a spokesman for CBMW, reinforces the position that the Burer and Wallace article provide the scholarly basis for modern translations. He writes,

there are serious and weighty arguments in favor of the translation that Junia was not one of the apostles but that she was “well known to the apostles” (ESV, NET). In 2001, for example, Daniel Wallace and Mike Burer defended the translation “well known to the apostles,” and the results of their research were published in “Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Re-examination of Rom 16.7,” New Testament Studies 47 (2001): 76-91. McKnight relies on Epp’s response to the Wallace/Burer proposal, but Burer has recently responded to Epp’s book and has shown the continuing strength of his and Wallace’s original thesis that Junia was “well known to the apostles.” Wallace and Burer’s argument cannot be easily brushed aside.

I will argue further here that Burer and Wallace’s argument ought to be brushed aside, and ought not to form the basis of any Bible translation. In their article they write about evidence for ἐπίσημος,

The inscriptions can likewise be examined quickly. An idiom noticed in several inscriptions is even more relevant. In TAM 2.905.1 west wall. coll. 2.5.18 we read the description of a man who is “not only foremost in his own country, but also well known to the outside population” (οὐ μόνον ἐν̣ τ̣ῇ πα̣τρίδι πρώτου, ἀλ̣λὰ καὶ ἐν τῷ ἔθνει ἐπισή̣μου *).54 Here the person who is ἐπίσημος is called such only in relation to outsiders (πρῶτος is used in relation to his own countrymen). It is not insignificant that evn plus the dative personal noun is used: the man is well known to a group of which he is not a member.

I need to note first that this inscription was a reconstructed fragment and is found as the following,

οὐ μόνον ἐ]ν̣ τ̣ῇ [π]α̣τρίδι πρώτου,
ἀλ̣λὰ [καὶ ἐν τῷ ἔθ]νει ἐπισή̣μου

Burer and Wallace translate this as,

not only foremost in his own country,
but also well known to the outside population

But we can see from New Testament usage what these two phrases mean. First, ἐ]ν̣ τ̣ῇ [π]α̣τρίδι, and then [καὶ ἐν τῷ ἔθ]νει ,

εἶπεν δέ· ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν
ὅτι οὐδεὶς προφήτης δεκτός ἐστιν
ἐν τῇ πατρίδι αὐτοῦ. Luke 4:24

And he added, “I tell you the truth,
no prophet is acceptable
in his hometown. NET Bible

τὴν μὲν οὖν βίωσίν μου [τὴν] ἐκ νεότητος τὴν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς γενομένην
ἐν τῷ ἔθνει μου ἔν τε Ἱεροσολύμοις
ἴσασιν / ἴσασι πάντες [οἱ] Ἰουδαῖοι Acts 26:4

Now all the Jews know the way I lived from my youth,
spending my life from the beginning among my own people
and in Jerusalem. NET Bible

In fact, we can see that en plus the dative does refer to being a member of the group, of one’s own hometown, or one’s own people. There is no justification for Wallace and Burer’s translation which goes,

not only foremost in his own country,
but also well known to the outside population

A much better translation, supported by usage and translation found in the NET Bible, would be,

not only first in his hometown,
but also prominent among his own people

In fact, it appears that the translation of patris as “own country” is not well-founded at all, and not a very good translation of the Greek. It seems to be a simple misunderstanding that patris means home country in Greek instead of hometown. This does not look like an error that someone who is familiar with Greek would make.

In my view, anybody who has any level of competency in Greek, would recognize that this article ought not to influence a Bible translation. The fact that several Bibles still reference it for their translation of Romans 16:7 is highly irregular. I am not sure if this is really a cover up, or simply an indication of a massive failure of scholarship in evangelical circles, but it is clearly inappropriate. This calls into question the fidelity of the NET, ESV, HCSB and CEV.

For most of the Church’s history, in most Christian denominations and movements, women have been denied the privilege of serving as leaders. This prohibition is due to the understanding of just one or two verses in the New Testament which do not seem to allow women to have a ministry which involves public speaking (1 Cor 14:34), or which involves teaching a man (1 Tim 2:12).[1] There are however, several women mentioned in the New Testament who did function as church leaders. Even though these women are mentioned briefly, they do serve as valid Biblical precedents which call into question the widespread and persistent belief that the Bible teaches that church leaders can only be males.

In this article I will be using the Ephesians 4:11 leadership ministries as a starting point, and I will show from Scripture that for each of these important ministries there was at least one woman mentioned in the New Testament who effectively filled that leadership role.

In Ephesians 4:11, Paul lists the main leadership ministries which Jesus Christ has given to the church.[2] Paul writes:

It was he [Jesus] who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers to prepare God’s people for works of service so that the body of Christ may be built up. Ephesians 4:11-12 (NIV)

In the Greek, there is no hint in this verse, (or in any other verse which speaks of Spiritual gifts, including those of leadership and teaching), that it applies more to men than to women. On the contrary, every New Testament verse which speaks of Spiritual gifts, manifestations or ministries is completely free of any gender bias in the Greek.[3]

Apostles

Paul begins his list in Ephesians 4:11 with apostles. Apostles were people sent initially by Jesus (Mk 6:7; Gal 1:1), and later by the church (Ac 13:1-3), to pioneer a new work to facilitate the spread of the Gospel.[4]

In the New Testament, several people, apart from The Twelve, are mentioned as being apostles.[5] One of these is a woman – Junia. Junia and Andronicus (possibly her husband), were members of a church in Rome, perhaps even the founders of that church, and Paul sends greetings to them in Romans 16:7. He speaks warmly of them, mentioning that he is related to them, and that they had become Christians before he did. Junia and Andronicus had also suffered persecution because of their faith and had at some point been fellow prisoners with Paul. Paul states in Romans 16:7 that “they are outstanding among the apostles” – a wonderful commendation coming from someone who was himself an outstanding apostle.[6]

Unfortunately, Junia’s impact as a precedent for female church leadership is weak because many people fail to realise that she was a woman. This problem is further exacerbated by the fact that, in the 13th century, a New Testament copyist masculinised her name to (the equivalent of) Junias.[7] This alteration to Scripture has been adopted by many English translations. However, in all the Greek manuscripts before the 13th century, Junia’s name is feminine and several early church theologians, such as Chrysostom, Origen and Jerome, referred to her as being female.[8] [I have more information about Junia here.]

Prophets

Second on Paul’s list of leadership ministries,[9] is the role of the Prophet. With the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the function of prophecy became more widespread than previously.

On the day of Pentecost, Peter quoted from the prophet Joel and said:

“And it will be in the last days, says God, I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters will prophesy; your young men will see visions and your old men will dream dreams. Even on both my male servants (ministers) and female servants (ministers), in those days, I will pour out my Spirit and they will prophecy.” Acts 2:17-18 (my translation)

Prophets were people who spoke for God. Their speech was inspired by the Holy Spirit and it may or may not have included foretelling. In the early church, prophets provided guidance (Ac 13:3-4; 16:6), instruction (1 Cor 14:31), strengthening, encouragement and comfort (1 Cor 14:3). Paul considered prophecy to be the most desirable of the spiritual gifts (1 Cor 14:1).

In Acts 21:9 we are told that Philip had four unmarried daughters who prophesied. The fourth century church historian Eusebius described these women as “mighty luminaries” and ranked them “among the first stage in the apostolic succession.”[10] Eusebius also quoted Papias, an early church writer alive at the time of Philip’s daughters. Papias said that people travelled great distances to visit these prophetesses and listen to their accounts of the early church. (F.F. Bruce:1951:387)

Ben Witherington (1988:152), in writing about Philip’s daughters, quotes E. Earle Ellis as saying: ”Although prophecy is a possibility for any Christian, it is primarily identified with certain leaders who exercise it as a ministry.” By all accounts, Philip’s daughters were highly respected prophets and leaders in the early church.

Evangelists

Third on the Ephesians 4:11 list is the role of evangelist. Evangelists were men and women who preached the gospel of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.[12] Euodia and Syntyche were women who were warmly regarded and respected as fellow-workers by Paul. He said that they “contended at my side for the cause of the gospel.” (Php 4:2-3) [I have more information about Euodia and Syntyche here.]

Another female minister esteemed by Paul was Phoebe. Paul commends Phoebe to the church at Rome in Romans 16:1-2. [13] In these verses Paul described Phoebe as both a diakonos and a prostatis.[14]

Kevin Giles (1992:35) writes:

The meaning of the last term has been much debated. In either its masculine or feminine form it means literally ‘one who stands before.’ This meaning is never lost whether it be translated leader, president, protector or patron . . . Its verbal form is proistanai [15] (cf Ths 5:12; 1 Tim 5:17), a term used of male church leaders elsewhere in the New Testament.

The term diakonos is always used by Paul to refer to a minister, however in this one instance, where it is referring to a woman, the King James Version has unjustly translated the word as “servant.”[16] Phoebe was a minister and a leader in the church at Cenchrea. This fact is rarely acknowledged in most English translations of the Romans 16:1-2.

Catherine Booth[17] has quoted the historian Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-460 AD) as saying: “The fame of Phoebe was spoken of throughout the world. She was known not only to the Greeks and Romans, but also to the barbarians.” (Conner 1982:224)

Phoebe travelled widely and brought the gospel to foreign lands where she effectively and courageously ministered as an apostle-evangelist. Tradition holds that it was Phoebe who carried Paul’s letter that bears her name to Rome (Rom 16:1-2).

Pastor-teachers

Fourth on the list of the leadership ministries is the pastor-teacher. The terms “pastor” and “teacher”, joined together in this phrase in Ephesians 4:11, reflect two aspects of the one role. While the exact function of a pastor is not specified in the New Testament it certainly involved spiritual leadership. There are several women in the New Testament who functioned as pastor-teachers. Priscilla, another close friend and colleague of Paul was one of them. Together with her husband Aquila she taught the already learned and eloquent Apollos about Jesus more accurately (Ac 18:24-26).

In the more reliable, earlier Greek manuscripts, Priscilla’s name appears first in four of the six mentions of this couple.[18] This probably denotes that Priscilla’s ministry was more prominent than her husband’s.[19] Priscilla and Aquila were active in ministry and they hosted a church in their home at Ephesus (1 Cor 16:19) and later at Rome (Rom 16:5).[20] [I have information about Priscilla here.]

“It is well known that the early church attracted an unusual number of high status women . . . ” (Stark 1997:107), and sometimes these women, who would have lived in relatively spacious homes, hosted a congregation that met in their home. As a prominent member of the congregation, the host would have functioned as a leader employing a ministry gift – most probably the pastor-teacher gift. [21]

Kevin Giles (1992:34-35) writes:

Prisca [Priscilla] is not the only woman associated with house church leadership. A surprising number of women are mentioned in this role. . . In Acts we see Mark’s mother providing a home for the Christians to assemble (Acts 12:12) and at Philippi we hear of believers meeting in the home of Lydia (Acts 16:14-15,40).[22] Writing to the Colossians, Paul greets Nympha and the church in her house (Col 4:15).[23] Perhaps Chloe is also the host of a home-church (1 Cor 1:11), as may have been some of the other women Paul greets in the last chapter of Romans.

The “chosen lady”,[24] who John addresses in his 2nd letter, was a noble woman obviously functioning as a pastor. This becomes evident when you compare how John refers to his followers, and hers, similarly as “children” (2 Jn 1,4,13 cf 3 Jn 4). Clement of Alexandra identified the recipient of John’s second letter as a “Babylonian” woman[25] named Electa.[26] (Could this be the same “Babylonian” woman alluded to in 1 Peter 5:13?) [I have more information on the "chosen lady" here.]

Stanley J. Grentz (1995:78) notes that the New Testament Gospel: “. . . radically altered the position of women, elevating them to a partnership with men unparalleled in first-century society. Wherever the gospel went, women were among the first, foremost and most faithful converts.”

The following women are all church leaders mentioned in the New Testament: Philip’s daughters (Ac 21:9), Priscilla (Ac 18:26; Ro 16:3-5, etc), Phoebe (Ro 16:1-2), Junia (Ro 16:7), Chloe (1 Cor 1:11), Nympha (Col 4:15), Apphia (Phl 2), “the chosen lady” (2 Jn 1), “the chosen sister” (2 Jn 13), Euodia and Syntyche (Php 4:2-3), and perhaps Lydia (Ac 16:40), etc. Just as there have been good and bad male leaders, there were good and bad female leaders. Sadly, the church in Thyatira was being corrupted by the teachings and false prophecies of a wicked and immoral female leader (Rev 2:20-24), as was the church in Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3-4 cf 2:12.) [See my article on 1 Timothy 2:12 in Context.]

The church as a whole has been very slow to embrace the New Testament ideal of complete equality among people regardless of race and gender, etc. This can be seen in the fact that slavery[27] was only outlawed in the “Christian” nations of Great Britain and the United States of America in 1833 and 1865 respectively[29]; and that in these same nations, racial discrimination has only relatively recently been declared both illegal and immoral. I am convinced that discrimination against church leaders on the basis of gender will also become a thing of the past, and that future generations will look at our present difficulties and debate on this subject with incredulity.

It would be wonderful if the Church as a whole would recognise that, according to the New Testament, women did function as leaders: as apostles, prophets, evangelists and pastor-teachers; and that they were respected and valued in these roles by such people as the Apostle Paul. In short, it is not unscriptural for a woman to be a church leader!

The church’s mission can only be enhanced and made more effective when gifted and called men and women minister together with their complementary skills and abilities, and are accepted as equal partners in the church’s mission. Men and women should be united in the cause of the Gospel and in building up the body of Christ, as well as in equipping the people of God to reach the lost (Eph 4:11-12).

Endnotes

[1] 1 Timothy 2:12 is examined in another article here .

[2] cf 1 Cor 12:28-31

[3] Verses which mention Spiritual giftings: Ac 2:17-18; Rom 12:6-8; 1 Cor 12:7-11&27-28; 1 Cor 14:26-33; Eph 4:11-12; Heb 2:4; 1 Pe 4:9-11.

[While Romans 12:6-8 does contain masculine participles, so do many verses (including John 3:16) which speak about salvation and are generally taken as applying to both men and women. The grammatical masculine gender does not imply that it refers to only males. The “default” grammatical gender of many passages which apply equally to men and women is masculine.]

[4] In his thesis on the subject of apostolic ministry, Steve Addison (1995:37) comments that:

The Twelve were . . . pioneering leaders and models of apostolic ministry. . . they laid the foundations for the church in its (Jewish) infancy. . . Following the Twelve, came a wider group of itinerant missionaries and church planters, also known as ‘apostles.’ They shared the call to go into the world to make disciples.

[5] These apostles include: Paul, Barnabas (Acts 14:14), Silas, Apollos (1 Corinthians 1:12), Timothy, Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25), Andronicus and Junia (Romans 16:7). Jesus is also called an apostle in Hebrews 3:1.

[6] In his Homilies on the Book of Romans, fourth century church father, Chrysostom, preached favourably about Junia; and using Paul’s words, he acknowledged her as an outstanding female apostle.

[7] The fictitious, masculinised name “Junias” does not appear in any other Greek manuscript whatsoever – religious or otherwise. The feminine name “Junia” however is used about 250 times in various other Greek manuscripts.

James D.G. Dunn (1988:894) writes:

Lampe 139–40, 147 [in his Patristic Greek Lexicon] indicates over 250 examples of “Junia,” none of Junias, as was taken for granted by the patristic commentators, and indeed up to the Middle Ages. The assumption that it must be male is a striking indictment of male presumption regarding the character and structure of earliest Christianity. . . We may firmly conclude, however, that one of the foundation apostles of Christianity was a woman and wife.

A well-written, interesting and scholarly article which suggests that Junia may indeed be a masculine name is here.

[8] The earliest commentator on Romans 16:7 Origen of Alexandria (c.185-254/55) took the name Junia to be feminine, as did Jerome (340/50-419/20), Hatto of Vercelli (924-961), Theophylact (c.1050-c.1108), and Peter Abelard (1079-1142). In fact no commentator on the text until Aegidus of Rome (1245-1316) took the name to be masculine.Leonard Swidler (1979:299)

[9] The role of Prophets is second in both the Ephesians 4:11 and 1 Corinthians 12:28 list of ministries.

[10] Eusebius, History of the Church 3.37.1

[11] F.F. Bruce (1951:387)

[12] Based on how the word is used in the New Testament, C.H. Dodd (1964:261) defines preaching (kerugma) as “. . . the public proclamation of Christianity to the non-Christian world.”

[13] The CEV translates Romans 16:1-2: “I have good things to say about Phoebe, who is a leader in the church at Cenchreae . . . After all she has proved to be a respected leader for many others including me [Paul].”

[14] An excellent and scholarly article about Phoebe, and the English and Greek words used to describe her and and her ministry, is here.

[15] Robert Sungenis writes that cognates of this word are: “. . . used 8 times in the New Testament. Six references refer to “ruling,” (e.g., Rom 12:8; 1Tim 3:4, 5, 12; 5:17; 1Th 5:12), while two references express the idea of “perseverance” or “maintenance” (e.g., Tit 3:8, 14).”

[16] Rodney Stark (1997:109) writes:

All important modern translations of the Bible now restore the original language used by Paul…but somehow the illusions fostered by the King James falsifications remain common wisdom. Nevertheless, there is virtual consensus among historians of the early church as well as Biblical scholars that women held positions of honour and authority within early Christianity. . .

[17] Catherine co-founded The Salvation Army with her husband, William Booth. Christine Parkin (1990) writes that William Booth drafted the following Orders and Regulations to be observed by The Salvation Army:

• Women shall have the right to an equal share with men in the work of publishing salvation.
• A woman may hold any position of power and authority within the Army.
• A woman is not to be kept back from any position of power or influence on account of her sex.
• Women must be treated as equal with men in all intellectual and social relationships of life.

[18] Priscilla’s name appears first in Acts 18:18, 26; Romans 16:3 and 2 Timothy 4:19.

[19] Luke, the author of Acts, was very careful in which order he placed names. This is seen in the combined ministry of Paul and Barnabas; whoever of the two was the most prominent in ministry, or the most recognised in any given situation, his name appears first.

[20] Kevin Giles (1992:31) writes:

It is now accepted that most, if not all, of the early congregations were house churches. . . The ‘head’ of such a household would naturally be recognised as having oversight of the new church. His [or her] social standing would give him [or her] pre-eminence in the group; his [or her] close association with the apostle who founded the church . . . would add to this. And as time passed, the fact that he [or she] was the first (or one of the first) converts would further enhance his [or her] position in the group.

[21] It is currently estimated that there are approximately 50,000 house churches in China. 80% of these are run by women. (Cunningham 2000:26)

[22] Ben Witherington (1988:149) writes that Lydia’s home:

. . . became the home of the embryonic church in Philippi. This is intimated by the fact that when Paul and Silas emerge from prison they go to Lydia’s house to encourage the brethren (Ac 16:40) rather than to the Philippian jailor’s house where they had also been entertained (16:34).

[23] Some modern scholars, who try to lessen the significance Colossians 4:15, say that Nympha was just the hostess and not the pastor. Kathryn Riss asks “If that were so, who did pastor her house church, and why would Paul so rudely fail to greet the pastor as well as the hostess?”

Some later Greek texts have maculinised Nympha’s name (as well as the original feminine pronoun in this verse) to obscure her gender.

[24] The word “lady” (kuria) used in 2 John 1 & 5, is the female equivalent of “lord” (kurios). This lady was a woman of noble birth and/or elevated social position. Some people argue that the “chosen lady” represents a church and not a single person, however in the Greek of 2 John, it is clear that at times John is addressing a single person (the lady) and that at other times he is referring to plural persons (her followers/congregation). [More on the "chosen lady" here.]

[25] Christians sometimes figuratively referred to Rome as “Babylon”.

[26] Electa means “chosen” or “elect”, so ”To the chosen lady” in 2 John 1 could be translated as ”To Lady Electa”. Others have speculated that this lady’s name was “Kuria”, so that 2 John 1 could be translated as “To the chosen Kuria”.

[27] Advocates of slavery often used Scripture to support their position.

[28] Slavery was abolished throughout most of the British Empire when the Slavery Abolition Act came into force in 1833. The United States abolished slavery in 1865 with the 13^th Amendment to their Constitution.

>>> Bibliography

© 22nd of August, 2008; Margaret Mowczko

This is a continuation of the evidence that Junia was likely among the apostles. This is not intended to defend egalitarianism, but to promote the much broader goal of making us ask ourselves how grounded in scholarship modern Bibles really are. It is largely in response to the NET Bible note for Romans 16:7, rather than in response to any particular blogger. At this point, I have dialogued with few bloggers who defend the NET Bible note, but it remains immensely influential.

For example, Dan Wallace on the Bible.org writes the following about the development of the NET Bible note,

There are a few places in which the NET editors have disagreed with the present scholarly consensus on the meaning of a given text. This is never a cavalier decision, but always has some substance behind it. Take, for example, another passage from Romans. In the last chapter, the apostle almost sings a litany of greetings to several friends. In 16.7 he says, ajspavsasqe jAndrovnikon kaiV jIounivan…ejpivshmoi ejn toi’ ajpostovloi. There are two issues in this verse: (1) is jIounivan a man’s or a woman’s name? and (2) does ejpivshmoi ejn toi’ ajpostovloi mean “outstanding among the apostles” or “well known to the apostles”? There is a growing consensus on this first issue—viz., jIounivan is a feminine name. The NET Bible thus reflects this consensus and translates it as “Junia.”²⁰ There is an even stronger consensus that ejpivshmoi ejn toi’ ajpostovloi means “outstanding among the apostles”—i.e., that Andronicus and Junia were apostles and were excellent examples of such. But the expression seemed odd: …

…  two of the editors did some research in extra-NT Greek on ejpivshmo followed by (ejn +) dative and ejpivshmo followed by the genitive. Using TLG, the published volumes of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Tebtunis papyri, and the digitized collections of papyri from Duke University and the University of Michigan—a grand total of more than 60 million words of Greek literature from Homer to 1453 CE—an exhaustive examination of all such collocations was undertaken. And the results were startling: almost always, when ejpivshmo was followed by a personal noun in the genitive, the idea was a comparison from within (“outstanding among…”); but when ejpivshmo was followed by (ejn +) dative—as is the case in Rom 16.7, the idea was elative, with no internal comparison taking place (“well known to”).

In this case, the scholarly consensus was found to be due to an off-handed comment by J. B. Lightfoot in his commentary on Galatians (!) that was picked up by other scholars who then claimed that Lightfoot had proved the Greek idiom in Rom 16.7 to mean “outstanding among”! Because Lightfoot was a good grammatical exegete, no one questioned his opinion on that score, and no one did any research on the construction in any Greek literature, as far as we could tell. Thus, when we examined the data, we were surprised to find it so uniformly against Lightfoot’s supposition. (my emphasis)

So my examples now are simply to show that Lightfoot was well grounded in Greek and the data is not uniformly against his supposition. I would like to show that an adjective with en plus the dative typically means “among” so “among the apostles” should not seem odd.

Fortunately we can test from looking at examples from the New Testament to see if there is a significant difference between using the genitive case or en plus the dative case. Do these two make a difference of meaning, or not? Consider these instances.

ὁ δὲ μείζων ὑμῶν Matt. 23:11 (genitive)
the greatest among you

ὁ μείζων ἐν ὑμῖν Luke 22:26 (en plus dative)
the greatest among you

In view of these examples I cannot give credit to an argument which proposes a difference based on the fact that the adjective episemos is followed by ἐν plus dative rather than by the genitive. These two constructions can be used synonymously.

However, here Wallace asks,

would we not expect ἐπίσημοι τῶν ἀποστόλων if the meaning were “outstanding among the apostles”?

No. Here are a few examples of the comparative form of an adjective followed by ἐν plus dative.

καὶ σύ Βηθλέεμ γῆ Ἰούδα οὐδαμῶς
ἐλαχίστη εἶ ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν Ἰούδα Matt. 2:6

‘And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; ESV

ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν οὐκ ἐγήγερται ἐν γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν μείζων Ἰωάννου τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ ὁ δὲ μικρότερος ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν μείζων αὐτοῦ ἐστιν Matt. 11:11

Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. ESV

Ἰούδαν τὸν καλούμενον Βαρσαββᾶν καὶ Σιλᾶν
ἄνδρας ἡγουμένους ἐν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς Acts 15:22

Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas,
leading men among the brothers ESV

The Greek of the New Testament indicates that using an adjective with en plus the dative is very common for expressing when one person is among (and a member of) a group of other people, as Junia was.

There is every indication that ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις actually means “prominent among the apostles.” She is a member of the group. Here is the 19th century Greek Vamva version, also scholarly. Note the unambiguous use of metaxu. I would rather throw in with the Greeks than with a recent American interpretation.

᾽Απάσθητε τὸν ᾽Ανδρόνικον καὶ ᾽Ιουνίαν τοὺς συγγενεῖς μου καὶ συναιχμαλώτους μου, οἵτνες εἴναι ἐπίσημοι μεταξὺ τῶν ἀποστόλων οἵτνες καὶ πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἦσαν εις τὸν Χριστόν

I want to be clear that my interaction is with the Burer and Wallace article because it is the article which underlies the translation of Romans 16:7 in the ESV, CEV, and NET Bibles. It cannot stand up to scrutiny.

But what of other Bibles? The NIV 1984, RSV, NASB, all have Junias, masculine, instead of Junia. This is no longer accepted as scholarly either. Only the KJV, NRSV, NIV 2011, and HCSB have Junia among the apostles. The growing popularity of the ESV, and its endorsement in my congregation a few years ago, along with the distasteful criticism of the TNIV and NIV 2011, caused me to interact with these texts to find out which one had the most scholarly foundation. I could not agree with the ESV had used a literal or scholarly translation for Romans 16:7.

Good night – it’s my birthday! I will not be arguing the subordination of women with any of commenters on this post. I give myself the night off! Give me a present, don’t try to offer women restrictions tonight.

Thanks to Matt and Alistair for persisting in this discussion. This conversation began on Denny Burk’s blog.

Women at the tomb

The breadth of references to female leadership in the Old and New Testaments indicates that Bible history has been rewritten to support a patriarchal view of history.

This resource cites references from the Bible, early Christian writings, and archeology of women in leading positions. It was first published by Religious Tolerance and is also found at here on the Women’s Ministry Network site.

Topics Covered in this essay:

• Female leaders mentioned in the Bible
• Female leaders mentioned in early Christian writings
• Archeological evidence of female leaders
• Prohibition of women from positions of power by the early church

Female Prophets, Disciples, Ministers & Apostles Mentioned in the Bible

There were many women recorded in the Bible who exhibited religious leadership. Their stories appear in both the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and Christian Scriptures (New Testament):

• Exodus 15:24 Exodus 15:24
  English: World English Bible – WEB
  24 The people murmured against Moses, saying, “What shall we drink?”WP-Bible plugin:
  Miriam, the daughter of Aaron was a prophet and one of the triad of leaders of Israel during the Exodus from Egypt.
• Judges 4 & 5:
  Deborah, a prophet-judge, headed the army of ancient Israel.
• 2 Kings 22:142 Kings 22:14
  English: World English Bible – WEB
  14 So Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asaiah, went to Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe ; and they talked with her.WP-Bible plugin; 2 Chronicles 34:222 Chronicles 34:22
  English: World English Bible – WEB
  22 So Hilkiah, and they whom the king had commanded, went to Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tokhath, the son of Hasrah, keeper of the wardrobe; and they spoke to her to that effect.WP-Bible plugin
  Huldah, a prophet, verified the authenticity of the “Book of the Law of the Lord given through Moses” – the Book of Deuteronomy. She triggered a religious renewal.
• Acts 9:36 Acts 9:36
  English: World English Bible – WEB
  36 Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which when translated, means Dorcas. “Dorcas” is Greek for “Gazelle.” This woman was full of good works and acts of mercy which she did.WP-Bible plugin
  The author of Luke referred to a female disciple of Jesus by her Aramaic name Tabitha, who was also known by her Greek name Dorcas. She became sick and had died; St. Peter brought her back to life.
• Acts 21:8Acts 21:8
  English: World English Bible – WEB
  8 On the next day, we, who were Paul’s companions, departed, and came to Caesarea. We entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him.WP-Bible plugin:
  Philip the evangelist had four unmarried daughters who were prophets.
• Philippians 4:2Philippians 4:2
  English: World English Bible – WEB
  2 I exhort Euodia, and I exhort Syntyche, to think the same way in the Lord.WP-Bible plugin:
  Paul refers to two women, Euodia and Syntyche, as his co-workers who were active evangelicals, spreading the gospel.
• Romans 16:1Romans 16:1
  English: World English Bible – WEB
  16 ¹ I commend to you Phoebe, our sister, who is a deacon or, servant of the assembly that is at Cenchreae,WP-Bible plugin:
  Paul refers to Phoebe as a minister or deacon of the church at Cenchrea. The Greek word which describes her function is  “diakonos” which means literally “official servant.” She is the only deacon in the Bible to be identified by name. Some translations say deaconess; others try to obscure her position by mistranslating the Greek as a simple “servant” or “helper”. Paul later refers to Phoebe as a woman, calling her “our sister.” This prevented later church leaders from hiding her gender as they did with Junia in Romans 16:7Romans 16:7
  English: World English Bible – WEB
  7 Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives and my fellow prisoners, who are notable among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.WP-Bible plugin below – by changing her name and implying that she was a man.
• Romans 16:3Romans 16:3
  English: World English Bible – WEB
  3 Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus,WP-Bible plugin:
  Paul refers to Priscilla as another of his “fellow workers in Christ Jesus” (NIV) Other translations refer to her as a “co-worker”. But other translations attempt to downgrade her status by calling her a “helper”. The original Greek word is “synergoi”, which literally means “fellow worker” or “colleague.” (1) It is worth noting that Paul refers to Priscilla and her husband as “Priscilla and Aquila” in this passage and as “Aquila and Priscilla” in 1 Corinthians 16:191 Corinthians 16:19
  English: World English Bible – WEB
  19 The assemblies of Asia greet you. Aquila and Priscilla greet you much in the Lord, together with the assembly that is in their house.WP-Bible plugin. It would appear that the order is not important to Paul. As in Galatians 3:28Galatians 3:28
  English: World English Bible – WEB
  28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.WP-Bible plugin, he apparently believed that there is no distinction among those who have been baptized into Christ between male and female.
• Romans 16:7Romans 16:7
  English: World English Bible – WEB
  7 Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives and my fellow prisoners, who are notable among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.WP-Bible plugin:
  Paul refers to a male apostle, Andronicus, and a female apostle, Junia, as “outstanding among the apostles” (NIV) Every Greek and Latin church Father until Giles of Rome (circa 1000 CE) acknowledged  that Junia was a woman. (2,3) After that time, various writers and translators of the Bible resorted to deceptions in order to suppress her gender.
  For example:
  The Amplified Bible translates this passage as “They are men held in high esteem among the apostles” The Revised Standard Version shows it as “they are men of note among the apostles”. The reference to them both being men does not appear in the original Greek text. The word “men” was simply inserted by the translators, apparently because the translators’ minds recoiled from the concept of a female apostle.  Many translations, including the Amplified Bible, Rheims New Testament, New American Standard Bible, and the New International Version simply picked the letter “s” out of thin air, and converted the original “Junia” (a woman’s name) into “Junias” (a man’s). Again, it was probably inconceivable to the translators that Paul would recognize a woman as an apostle.

Female Leaders Mentioned in Early Christian Writings

There are many Gospels and other early Christian writings that never made it into the official canon. Some shed light of the role of women in various early Christian groups:

• The Christian Gnostic tradition represented one of the three main forms of early Christianity – the others being Jewish Christianity and Pauline Christianity. Gnostic texts show that women held senior roles as teachers, prophets and missionaries. They conducted rituals such as baptism and the Eucharist. They performed exorcisms. (4)
• The Gospel of Philip, was widely used among early Christian congregations. It portrayed Mary Magdalene as the companion of Jesus, in a position of very high authority within the early Christian movement.
• The Gospel of Mary described Mary Magdalene as a leader of Jesus’ disciples. She delivering a passionate sermon to the disciples after his resurrection. This raised their spirits and inspired them to evangelize the known world.

Philoumene, a woman, headed a Christian theological school in Rome during the second century CE.  (5)

Examples of Female Christian Leaders from the Archeological Record

Author Karen Jo Torjensen cites (6):

• An ancient mosaic which shows four female figures. One is identified as Bishop Theodora. The feminine form for bishop (episcopa) is used.
• A 3rd or 4th century burial site on the Greek island of Thera contains an epitaph referring to Epiktas, a “presbytis” (priest or presbyter). Epiktas is a woman’s name.
• A 2nd or 3rd century Christian inscription in Egypt for Artemidoras, whose mother is described as “Paniskianes, being an elder” (presbytera)
• A memorial from the 3rd century for Ammion the elder (presbytera)
• A 4th or 5th century Sicilian inscription referring to Kale the elder  (presbytis)

Prohibition of Women from Positions of Power by the Early Church

During the 4th and 5th century, the Christian church gradually extinguished women’s access to positions of power in the church:

• Council of Laodicea (352 CE):
  Women were forbidden from the priesthood. They also were prohibited from presiding over churches. They decided that “One ought not to establish in the church the women called overseers (presbutidas) … women must not approach the altar.“
• Fourth Synod of Carthage (398 CE):
  “A woman, however learned and holy, may not presume to teach men in an assembly… A woman may not baptize.“
• Council of Chalcedon (451 CE). Canon #15 of the Council states (7):
  “No woman under 40 years of age is to be ordained a deacon, and then only after close scrutiny.” Apparently, the council wanted to start restricting the ordination of deaconesses, which must have been a common practice at the time. And, of course, anyone ordained to the Holy Order of Deacon would be eligible for later ordination to the priesthood as well. (8)

References

1. Hans Kung, “Christianity: Essence, History and Future”, Continuum, New York NY, (1995), P. 121
2. J. Migne, “Patrologia Graeca” (Greek Fathers)
3. J. Migne, “Patrologia Latina” (Latin Fathers)
4. Kurt Rudolph, “Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism”, Harper, San Francisco, (1987), P. 211
5. Hans Kung, op cit., Page 156
6. K.J. Torjensen, “When Women Were Priests”, Harper, San Francisco (1995), P. 9
7. Article, “National Catholic Reporter”, 1996-NOV-15
8. Frank Daniels, “The Role of Woman in the Church.” part of the Religious Heresy Page at: http://www.scs.unr.edu/~fdaniels/rel/women.htm

Copied from
religioustolerance.org

Related articles

• Euodia and Syntyche: Women Church leaders at Philippi (katieandmartin.wordpress.com)

Prompted by all this, I’ve done a little research.

First, I’ve done a TLG search on “episem-” and “en”. The vast, vast majority of citations bear no resemblance to Romans 16:7 at all. The vast majority are simply locative in force: ἐν is usually followed by a dative of the city or region where something or someone is ἐπίσημος. Logically, there is little difference between this construction and the “elative” construal that Wallace and Burer would like to find in Romans 16:7. For instance:

Aelius Herodianus et Pseudo-Herodianus Gramm., Rhet., Περὶ σολοικισμοῦ καὶ βαρβαρισμοῦ (0087: 044) “Lexicon Vindobonense”, Ed. Nauck, A. St. Petersburg: Eggers, 1867, Repr. 1965.
Page 308, line 7

καὶ παρὰ Θουκυδίδῃ κεῖται· εἰς τὸ Ἡραῖον ἐκαθέζοντο, καὶ παρὰ Μενάνδρῳ· καθιζάνει μὲν ἐνίοτ’ εἰς τὰ σήσαμα, καὶ ἐν Ψοφοδεεῖ ἐπίσημον.
“And in Thucydides we find: ‘they encamped in the temple of Hera”, and in Menander, “he resides sometimes in the sesame (market), and notably in Psophodeis.” (Aelius is commenting on Greek verbs for “sit” or “reside”.)

There are also many passages where the construction is best translated with a partitive or comparative construal, as Suzanne suggests. That is to be expected, since even in English, we can say “He is the tallest man in the city”. Is this strictly comparative, with no locative force? A moment’s thought reveals that it is both. (We cannot reify these grammatical categories and expect language to neatly pigeonhole itself into them.)

The TLG results did cough up a few instances that refute Suzanne’s ostensible rule that “ἐν + dative” will ordinarily be partitive or comparative. Especially helpful is Ephraem Syrus Theol., Ad imitationem proverbiorum (4138: 006)
(“Ὁσίου Ἐφραίμ τοῦ Σύρου ἔργα, vol. 1”, Ed. Phrantzoles, Konstantinos G. Thessalonica: Το περιβόλι της Παναγίας, 1988, Repr. 1995. Page 187, line 6)

Θέλω πρακτικὸς εἶναι καὶ ἐπίσημος ἐν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς ἢ παραβαίνειν ἐντολὰς καὶ εἶναι
αὐτοῖς βδελυκτός.

“I want to be ready for action, and ἐπίσημος among the brothers, rather than to transgress the commandments and be repugnant to them.”

What is nice about this example is that the parallel construction of the sentence makes clear that there is not a comparison being made, nor any partitive construction, but that ἐν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς is parallel to αὐτοῖς in the second half, and that both indicate the subjective perceivers of the good qualities the author desires to have — precisely how Wallace and Burer think “among the apostles” should be taken in Romans 16:7.

In the course of the comment thread on Alastair’s blog, I remarked that it is a methodological mistake to think that the interpretation of Romans 16:7 will be determined by inductively concocted “rules” of Greek idiom. The idiom, rather, will be largely determined by context. As I put it in the comments: “The truth is that in Greek, as in English, it is context and common sense that determines whether Sweeney is a nightingale, or sheep are wolves, or the virgin Mary is a woman (“blessed art thou among…). It is not some special rule about ‘en + dative with verbs’ and ‘en + dative with adjectives.’ If Junia was an apostle, then we will take the construction in a partitive sense. If she was not, we will not.”

Accordingly, I suggested that if we want to know whether Junia was an apostle of Jesus Christ — and I specify “of Jesus Christ” because in NT Judaism, one could be an apostle of all sorts of things, not only Jesus — it would be good to look the Jewish background and see whether it was possible for Jesus to have appointed a female shaliach to represent him.

I have only done some rather cursory research concerning the Jewish halakah about agency. The relevant part of the Talmud Bavli is tractate Gittim (“Bills of Divorce”), where the Amoraim debate whether a husband may send his bill of divorce (“Get”) to his wife via a shaliach, and if so, whether that shaliach may be female, or must be male. Their interesting conclusion (Mas. Gittin 62b) is that the shaliach by whom the husband sends the bill must be male, but that the document may be received by a female shaliach appointed by the wife:

“It goes without saying that a man may be an agent for conveying the Get, seeing that a husband may himself convey a Get to his wife.12 A woman may [similarly] be an agent for receiving, seeing that a woman receives a Get from the hand of her husband. What of a man becoming agent for receiving and a woman agent for conveying? — Come and hear: IF A MAN SAYS, RECEIVE THIS GET ON BEHALF OF MY WIFE OR CONVEY THIS GET TO MY WIFE, IF HE DESIRES TO RETRACT HE MAY DO SO. IF A WOMAN SAYS, RECEIVE MY GET ON MY BEHALF, IF HE DESIRES TO RETRACT HE MAY NOT DO SO. (all caps = Mishnah) Does not this mean, where there is the same agent for both, which would show that the one who is qualified for conveying is also qualified for receiving? — No; we speak of two agents.” (Soncino translation, available in PDF online at http://www.halakah.com)

The rabbis continue, ultimately concluding that a wife may appoint a man as an agent to receive the bill of divorce, but a man may not appoint a woman as an agent to send or convey it. The reason is that the agent (shaliach) must himself be qualified to perform the mitzvot for which his principal is using him as a surrogate.

Whether this sort of consideration was operative in the time of Jesus and Paul, I have no way to know. The rabbis engaged in the debate are Amoraim, and thus of a later period. But there is also evidence that the Tannaim (the sages of the Mishnah) considered similar questions (Mas. Gittim 23b), ruling that Gentiles and slaves may not act as agents for Israelites because “Just as you are sons of the Covenant, so must your agents be sons of the Covenant.”

What, then, may we conclude about Junia? If we think that the Jewish institution of agency (apostleship) was already operative along Rabbinic lines, and that the Church and Jesus also followed such rules, then Junia cannot have been an apostle of Jesus. (Before saying that it is implausible that Jesus should have obeyed such rules, remember that the 12 apostles, as well as Paul and Matthias, were all men, not women; and all free men, not slaves; and all Jews, not Gentiles. It is a fact that egalitarians cannot easily dismiss.) If, on the other hand, the Mishnah’s and Talmud’s rules are only later developments, and especially if they were reactions against looser rules about apostleship among Christians, then our conclusion will be that nothing prevents Junia from having been an apostle of Jesus, just like Peter or John.

Scot McKnight’s ebook on Junia and the scandal of the attempted gender switch of this female apostle.

The Baptist theologian Steve Holmes’ 3 posts in positive response to McKnight – can’t say he’s sitting on the fence on this one.

(‘Balance? If we want real historical balance … we would be telling nothing but women’s stories for the next two millennia.’)

The always excellent Michael Bird stirring up the imagination about Phoebe’s ministry and responsibilities.

“I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me” (Rom 16:1-2 TNIV).

I love messing with my students. Yes, I know it catches them off guard, but exposing their assumptions and ignorance is both enjoyable and actually educational too. When I get to my Romans class, I ask the students four questions:

So who actually wrote Romans?

“Paul,” they immediately reply in chorus.

“No,” I retort, “Who physically sat down and penned the letter to Paul’s dictation?”

Blank faces, deep thoughts, then some bright spark will blurt out, “Oh, oh, that guy, what’s his name, um, Tertius.”

“Correct-a-mundo” comes the teacher’s approving reply who points students to Romans 16:22 which says, “I, Tertius, who wrote down this letter, greet you in the Lord” (Rom 16:22 TNIV).

Moving on…

So who delivered the letter to the Romans then? Who was Paul’s envoy?

Confused faces, odd looks: how can they be expected to know that?

“Turn with me to Romans 16 then” and together we read the text.

Then we have a cool discussion about the meaning of “deacon,” “benefactor,” and the role of letter carriers in antiquity. It gives a good starting point to talk about Christian ministry and patron-client relationships in the context of the Greco-Roman world.

“So then, if Phoebe is a deacon, Paul’s benefactor, and he trusted her to take this very important letter to the Romans, then Phoebe must have been a woman of great abilities and good character in Paul’s mind. Do you agree?”

Heads nod in agreement.

And if the Romans had any questions about the letter like ‘what is the righteousness of God?’ or ‘who is this wretched man about half-way through?’ who do you think would be the first person that they would ask?

Eyes wide opened, some mouths gaping, others looking a bit irritated.

Then I provocatively add: “Could it be that the first person to publicly read and teach about or from Romans was a woman? If so, what does that tell you about women and teaching roles in the early church?”

The end result is an “Aha” moment for some students, confusion and frustration for others.

Then comes the big question…

Think about it people. This is Romans—Paul’s letter to unify the Roman churches and to prevent a potentially fractious cluster of ethnically mixed house churches from ending up like Galatia where there were painful divisions over Law and Halakhah—the oral interpretation on how exactlyto obey the Law. This is Paul’s effort to return to Jerusalem with all of the Gentile churches behind him. This is Paul’s one chance to raise support from the Roman churches for a mission to Spain. This is Paul’s gambit to answer rumors about his ministry that he’s either anti-Law or anti-Israel. This is Romans, his greatest letter-essay, the most influential letter in the history of Western thought, and the singularly greatest piece of Christian theology. Now if Paul was so opposed to women teaching men anytime and anywhere, why on earth would he send a woman like Phoebe to deliver this vitally important letter and to be his personal representative in Rome? Why not Timothy, Titus, or any other dude? Why Phoebe?

Some students nod in agreement, others flick through to 1 Timothy 2:12, others sit back and just think.

I’m careful to make the point that this is not the be all and end all of debates about women in ministry. There are other texts, contexts, and interpretations that we have to deal with. This text won’t answer questions for us about who to ordain either, they have to be answered elsewhere. But I point out that taken at face value, Paul evidently had no problem with women having some kind of speaking and teaching role in the churches. I think Paul’s commendation of Phoebe and her role as letter-carrier to the Romans shows that much. What is more, we should also commend women like Phoebe today!

The name is followed by how many girls were given that name. Hope you enjoy them as much as I did

Noor (230)

Gretchen (225)

Vienna (223)

Temperance (211)

Aurelia (209)

Juniper (205)

Galilea (202)

Evangelina (188)

Lucinda (185)

Astrid (184)

Cordelia (178)

Mabel (176)

Magnolia (164)

Audra (160)

Faye (160)

Margot (155)

Hattie (153)

Beatriz (152)

Flor (143)

Clementine (132)

Ramona (126)

Poppy (118)

Viola (117)

Seraphina (107)

May (106)

Imogen (100)

Clover (99)

Petra (98)

Georgina (97)

Cecily (96)

Evelina (95)

Calliope (86)

Florence (75)

Coco (74)

Harriet (56)

Pandora (52)

Meg (51)

Lulu (50)

Theodora (47)

Gaia (42)

Wilhelmina (41)

Oona (40)

Hermione (37)

Polly (35)

Fern (32)

Letty (32)

Jemima (31)

Mimi (29)

True (29)

Olympia (28)

Tula (28)

Leonora (27)

Henrietta (26)

Lark (26)

Maple (26)

Philippa (25)

Nell (24)

Lavender (23)

Orla (22)

Artemis (21)

Pixie (21)

Winifred (21)

Aveline (20)

Tempest (20)

Winona (20)

Hera (19)

Saskia (19)

Clio (18)

Mathilde (17)

Pippa (16)

Elspeth (15)

Ginevra (15)

Isolde (14)

Lilu (14)

Valentine (14)

Bronte (13)

Cleopatra (13)

Marigold (13)

Sinead (13)

Junia (12)

Finola (11)

Lou (11)

Spring (11)

Amabel (10)

Clea (10)

Cosima (10)

Kaye (10)

Thora (10)

Amadea (9)

Eira (9)

Honora (9)

Isidora (9)

Nuala (9)

Tamsin (9)

Achaia (8)

Bruna (8)

Cassiopeia (8)

Eilidh (8)

Fleur (8)

Sebastiana (8)

Aretha (7)

Averil (7)

Briony (7)

Isabeau (7)

Nelle (7)

Rowena (7)

Sigourney (7)

Zala (7)

Astra (6)

Bette (6)

Catriona (6)

Coralina (6)

Henriette (6)

Iola (6)

Jessamine (6)

Lulamae (6)

Madelina (6)

Ruslana (6)

Tallulah (6)

Calle (5)

Dulcie (5)

Eula (5)

Ishbel (5)

Leone (5)

Paolina (5)

Rufina (5)

Saloma (5)

Xanthe (5)

]]> http://sisterabigail.com/?p=99 Tue, 24 May 2011 20:47:41 +0000 Sister Abigail http://sisterabigail.com/?p=99 Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

There are so many ways that I could go about answering this question. I could talk about the two basic views. I could present every case in the Bible where women were in authority or operating in the ministry. I could write a theological treaties refuting the common proof text used by those who oppose ordaining women or I could just present one example from the New Testament and open this post for discussion.

In the above verse we see “Junia” a female in the ministry. Note that Paul labels her along with Andronicus as apostles. This is the highest leadership in the church.

Blue Letter Bible one of my favorite Bible Study Resources states this concerning “Junia”:

Junia = “youthful”

1) a Christian woman at Rome, mentioned by Paul as one of his kinsfolk and fellow prisoners

The above being presented I now open the post for your comments and questions.

The term I was studying was the term apostle, which has a whole lot of confusion about it.  Some fellows think that the reason the church is struggling is because it is lacking an apostolic ministry, like in the New Testament.  Some people think that anyone who is a church planter is an apostle.  Some people think that they’re an apostle.  Some people think everyone is an apostle.

So, what is an apostle?

Here’s the fruits of my study for you:

-          Apostle = Messenger

• A term with two senses
  • Gal 1:1 – “Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father…”
    • The idea here is that there are apostles of regular men, but Paul is an apostle of Christ.
  • It can be used in the general sense of “messenger”.
    • In this sense, Barnabas is called an apostle (Acts 14:14)
    • In this sense, Titus and the other brothers are “apostles” of/to the various churches (2 Cor. 8:23)
    • In this sense, Jesus is called an apostle (Heb. 3:1)
  • It can also be a technical term that refers to only the 13.
    • Paul clearly doesn’t apply his apostolic title to anyone else in his epistolary openings;
      • 1 Cor. 1:1 – Paul the apostle, Sosthenes the brother.
      • 2 Cor. 1:1 – Paul the apostle, Timothy the brother.
      • Gal. 1:1 – “Paul, an apostle…and all the brothers who are with me…”
      • Phil 1:1 – Paul & Timothy are servants of Christ.
      • Col. 1:1 – Paul the apostle, Timothy the brother.
      • 1 & 2 Thess. 1:1 – Simply 3 names (Paul, Silvanus and Timothy).
      • Phil. 1 – Paul the apostle, Timothy the brother.
      • All other letters have Paul alone as an apostle.
• Criteria for apostleship:
  • 1. People who have witnessed the entire earthly ministry of Jesus.
  • 2. People who have witnessed the resurrection.
    • “So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” – Acts 1:21-22
  • 3. Miraculous verification.
    • “The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works.” – 2 Corinthians 12:12.
• Who were apostles:
  • There were 13 apostles; men commissioned directly by Jesus Christ as his messengers.
    • There were 12 that were sent to the 12 tribes of the Jews.
    • There was 1 that was sent to the Gentiles; Paul.
      • Paul was made an apostle to the Gentiles in Acts 9:15.
      • Galatians 2:7-9 comments on how Paul understood and supported that the 12 were sent to the Jews and the 12 understood and supported that Paul was sent to the Gentiles.
• Was Junia(s) an apostle in Romans 16:7?
  • No.  Junia was well known/famous “among the apostles”, meaning “in the sphere of the apostles” or ‘to the apostles”, not “as one of the apostles”.
  • For an exhaustive treatment of this issue, consult:
    • M. H. Burer and D. B. Wallace, “Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Re-examination of Rom 16.7,” NTS 47 (2001): 76-91.
    • Heath, Curtis R. “A Female Apostle?: A Note Re-examining the Work of Burer and Wallace Concerning epishmoV with en in the Dative,” Concordia Journal, (October 2002), 437-440
• Are there currently any apostles on the earth?
  • Not in the specific sense like Paul or the 12.  Once one is clear on the definition of “apostle”, one cannot call anyone an apostle in the same sense of Paul or the 12.
• Is there a difference between the office of apostle and the gift of apostle?
  • No.  Arguments that attempt to separate the office from the gift (arguing from Eph. 4:11) betray the clear definition of apostle in the NT and garner support from texts that use the term in the general sense of “messenger” (i.e. Acts 14:14 or 2 Cor. 8:23).
  • There is no compelling reason to doubt that the office was the gift; God gave the gift of the apostolic office (and the apostles that held that office) to the church for the purpose of founding the church (Eph. 2:20).
• What about what some call the 4-fold ministry in Ephesians 4:11?
  • Again, arguments that try to argue for modern apostles betray the definition of apostle in the NT.
  • If the apostles had to be witnesses of Jesus earthly ministry and resurrection, as well as be verified by miraculous signs and wonders, then the only way for someone to be an apostle (in the specific sense) is to be 2,000 years old.
    • There are apostles all over the place in the general sense of “messenger” (in that sense, I’m an apostle too), but nobody who calls themselves an “apostle” is using the term on the same level of authority as “mailman”.
    • As a general rule; “doctrines” that are built on a single verse of scripture are highly suspicious.
• Relation of prophets and apostles:
  • Jesus paralleled prophets and apostles in Luke 11:49, and they’re spoken of in parallel language in Eph. 2:20, 3:5; 2 Pet. 3:2; Rev. 18:20.
  • Both prophets and apostles speak for God, but only the apostles were messengers of Christ that were personally sent by him.
    • The big difference is Jesus.
    • In the NT, you have prophets who are not apostles (i.e. Agabus), but no apostles who are not prophets.

I hope that gives some food for thought and possibly clears up at least a little confusion.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “The Armchair Apostle, or is it apostle?” Unger

Calpurnia Pisonis; Image via Wikipedia

She’s an asteroid, a shrub, a minor literary figure, and an Ancient Roman matron.

Thanks to Paul for suggesting Calpurnia as our Baby Name of the Day.

Plenty of ancient appellations wear well in 2011.  Julia and Alexander are classic.  If Annia and Junia didn’t exist, chances are they would have been invented.

Calpurnia has equally ancient roots, but she is a rarity, all but extinct circa 2011.

The most famous bearer of the name was Calpurnia Pisonis, a well-born woman who married Julius Caesar when he was at the height of his power, and she was a mere teenager.  It’s said that Calpurnia had a vision of Caesar’s assassination on the Ides of March and warned her husband – but he wouldn’t listen.

Calpurnia came from a noble Roman family.  They first appear in the historical record in the third century BC.  A century later, the first Calpurnius became a consul.  Their accomplishments were many.

She’s a literary character, too.  The historical figure inspired William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar.

Then there’s the maid in To Kill a Mockingbird.  From Scout to Atticus, to author Harper Lee, the novel has inspired plenty of names for this generation of children.  But young Scout is at odds with Calpurnia in much of the novel, and she refers to her simply as Cal.  Calpurnia might be hired help, but her relationship with Scout and Jem is an important one.  Even if she’s not the most obvious choice from the book, Calpurnia might strike a familiar chord.

More recently, you can find Calpurnia in the young adult section of the bookstore.  The Evolution of Calpurnia Tate has garnered rave reviews.  The year is 1899, and young Calpurnia is growing up in an affluent Texas family.  She’s not succeeding at the domestic arts, but turns out to have quite a head for science.  Unfortunately, opportunities for a well-born Texas girl in the era are limited, and Callie struggles with the reality of her future.

There’s one more bearer of the name: Calpernia Addams.  She’s an activist for transgendered rights.  Her story of choosing a name is fascinating:  Addams was inspired by Shakespeare, but also the 1991 Addams Family movie.

Do you remember the scene?

Morticia is at a parent-teacher conference for young Wednesday.  Wednesday has brought in a photo of an ancestor: Calpurnia Addams.  Morticia explains that Calpurnia was Wednesday’s great-aunt, burned as  witch in 1706, after “she danced naked in the town square and enslaved the minister.”  The teacher appears both horrified and fascinated, and Morticia assures her: “Don’t worry.  We’ve told Wednesday college first.”

There’s also a flowering shrub native to South Africa and an asteroid discovered by an MIT/NASA/US Airforce research project that has identified more than 225,000 asteroids to date.

The references from the natural world reinforce Calpurnia’s image.  She’s distinctive and historic, but quirky and offbeat at the same time.  If there were a compromise between Tallulah and Charlotte, it might be Calpurnia.

With the easy nickname Callie, Calpurnia has the option of blending in to the crowd, while still retaining her unusual formal version.  It makes for an intriguing, distinctive choice.