Now the logic goes like this: consensus opinion has Junia not Junias; but women can’t be apostles so, therefore, Junia (woman) cannot be an apostle. And the translation becomes not “outstanding among the apostles” or “respected among the apostles” as in the examples in the post above, but to remove all ambiguity:
Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me. (ESV)

I am glad for this post. When I heard you tell this story at the NPC in San Diego, I came away wishing that I had the details of this story in print. Here it is!
Thanks.

I so much would like a catholic or an ortodox to comment on the Junia/s theme. I belong to the Lutheran Church in Denmark and am inspired by the carismatic movement but I myself am still not convinced of women as heads of churches as we are in the Danish model where the parish church is lead of one priest. I prefere team leadership in every local church and would like that it is formed with both men and women, but in Denmark the pristhood has developed into a female world with many parish churces dominated by female prists.
Please comment!!

Thank you for posting this. I found this out when I was doing research on my thesis, but it was only because I was digging for it. It’s nice to see what has happened to Junia in such accessible forums now.

Dorte K. Maddson, I am bothered by your comments. I think that it is sad that men have abandoned the parish. It is sad if spiritual leadership is dominated by only one gender. I wonder if such ministry positions become less status or even tainted when occupied by a woman. Men no longer want to share the priesthood. I don’t know… it is just speculation on my part and one possible reason.
But I am sadden by the story you tell. I wish for us to minister together as you suggest… side by side, including of ethnic diversity and sharing in perspectives.

Scot.
Stop muddying the waters with the truth.

Scot,
Could the dative preposition indicate that they were respected “among the apostles” in the sense that they were respected by the apostles?
Just curious.

Aaarrgh! First attempt got lost! I’ll try again.
I’ve read somewhere that it is posited that the name “Junia” might have been a latinized form of “Joanna”, and that this Junia was actually one of the women who followed Jesus and provided for him from their own resources, and who later ended up in Rome. Hence she was “in Christ” before Paul. Could be.
The Orthodox have no problem with women apostles. Many female saints are called “equal-to-the-apostles”, Mary Magdalen is known as “the apostle to the apostles”, and other female contemporaries of Jesus and Paul are also so recognized, as Chrysostom recognizes Junia. This does not make them the same as the Twelve, though.
DK Madsen, I am an Orthodox catechumen, and it would be best to find an Orthodox priest in your area for the most accurate information. From what I understand, the priest is not viewed as the leader of an organization or a “dispenser of religious services”. Priests are not power brokers; they are the worship leaders when the Church is assembled. In the Liturgy, the priest not only represents Christ to the Church, but also represents the Church to God -as a human being, not merely a male. (There is a lot of reciprocal “iconic” motion going on in the Liturgy.) The former has nothing to do with any notions about God somehow being “male” or “masculine”; it is simply that human beings exist as either male or female, and the Second Person of the Trinity became incarnate as a male in that moment in history, in order to do -in that moment in history- what needed to be done for the redemption of all human beings. Whatever “status” there may be in the priesthood is because of the liturgical task, not because priests are a different kind of human than the rest of the Body of Christ.
Males are priests in Orthodoxy because we believe that’s what Jesus wanted and taught the Twelve. I also believe this is one connection, among many I see in Orthodox worship, to Jewish worship transmuted and reinterpreted by the first Christians, who were all Jews for the first number of years. Why were there only priests leading Jewish worship, and not priestesses? I think the most important reason is that Judaism was not simply one among all the ancient near east fertility religions, which had priestesses as well as priests. Judaism was something pretty much entirely different- as was Christianity. In the very early years of its development, the “presider” at Christian worship was a male; see the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. But this did not reflect some supposed superiority of men; see the writings of Luke and Paul, esp. the Magnificat [hi Scot ]and Gal 3:28.
I had to work through this issue before I could even begin to approach becoming Orthodox, so I’ve thought about it a lot. Every Orthodox theologian I’ve encountered, both ancient and modern, is crystal clear that there is no ontologic difference between men and women. This is quite unlike what many non-liturgical churches in this country teach regarding gender essentialism, supposed “roles” based thereon, and the submission of *all* women to *all* men for *all* time, sincerely believing such teaching is “biblical”. The logical end of such teaching makes me shudder, because it makes women ontologically “other” than men, essentially sub-human/non-human. This is exceedingly hugely ginormously (current American slang) more problematic than an all-male priesthood.
I, too, believe that “church leadership” should be expressed as a team, and entail fair representation of all in a congregation. But for Orthodoxy, especially in the USA, that’s not being the priest; that’s the Parish Council.
Dana

Matt #7,
Scot will likely answer at some point – but as he’s on spring break, who knows when. I asked the same question awhile back, and I think that the short answer is that the Greek is ambiguous. Most English translations leave the ambiguity in the translation.

The complementarian argument against this verse referring to a woman and/or an apostle was made in a CBMW article by David Jones of Moffat College of Bible. See:
http://www.cbmw.org/images/articles_pdf/jones_david/femaleapostle.pdf
I have offered a brief egalitarian reaction to Moffat’s paper at:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/2606/Download/JuniaRep.htm
It seems to me that the complementarians dig themselves into a deep hole on this one.
Scot, thank you for pointing out the latest developments in textual scholarship on this point!

I’m glad for this post, Scot…even if you’re not paying attention to us in the comments! ;^)
My mentor, and the preacher at my ordination, taught much about Junia versus Junias — especially that there is no record in Roman history for any boys named Junias, but lots of little girls named Junia!
He also suggested that St. John C., who wasn’t keen on women leaders, would have gladly taken any way out of acknowledging Junia as one of the apostles, and the remarkable statement he makes about her is significant.
I believe that Paul’s use of “apostle” for Andronicus and Junia is similar to that which it is used today: missionary church planters.
Great “Women’s Day” post, brother!

It love hearing when truth is unveiled like this. but it also concerns me as I lose confidence when ministering with Muslims who argue that Christian scripture has been changed and corrupted. How do I respond to those arguments in light of this post?

The Wikipedia page on “Junia” does a good job of breaking down the issues of translation, church father pronouncements, and the issue of Junia “being” an apostle. I recommend you check it out.

David Leigh (#10),
Interesting links. On the surface Junia is a woman and an apostle – so the attack is on (1) Junia – can it be Junias? or (2) Among the apostles – can it mean to the apostles or by the apostles? or (3) apostles – is this merely an indication that she was a messenger?
The ESV has opted to reinterpret the word among. The article you link from CBMW ultimately rejects this as a valid option. Jones chooses instead to down play the word apostles – making Andronicus and Junia merely messengers among many messengers.

Matt, lots of things are possible. Exegesis only moves toward understanding by taking the most probable interpretation, regardless of what that means for what we already believe.
It is highly probable that this is a female: Junia. (It is not impossible that it is Junias.)
It is most probable that it means “among” as in the circle of apostles. (It is not impossible that it means given respect by.)
Add this up: the addition of very unlikelys together decreases probability; the addition of most probables gives a better chance.
The word ‘apostle’ here does not mean ‘one of the twelve.’ It refers to missionary, evangelist church planters, with the leadership and foundational things implicit.

Scot, what do you make Richard Bauckham’s chapter on Joanna in Gospel Women which makes a case that she is the Junia of Romans? It reads like great detective work, and made sense to me, but I’m no 1st century expert.

John C,
I read Bauckham carefully all the time. But on this one his imagination outran the probabilities.

Someone pointed this out to me about 10 years ago during a discussion about whether women could be elders and/or serve as Sr. Pastors. It opened up all kinds of new ways of thinking for me when it comes to women in leadership.

While I fully appreciate that Scot’s understanding might well be correct (wouldn’t bother me), we would be amiss to paint it as open and shut, even by probability. I love modern scholarship, and want all critical studies given a hearing among evangelicals (whom I call “the new Fundamentalists”). But in all honesty, is it not just a tad typical that modern scholarship would favor a view that has the potential to turn the traditional understanding of Christian gender roles on its ear?
Daniel Wallace, while acknowledging “Junia” as a feminine name, finds it not “unlikely” at all that “among the Apostles” may be elative in this case (“well known to”, “well regarded among”), finding a close parallel for the construction in question in Ps Sol 2:6. In fact, with the word translated “outstanding/well known” he found that the genitive is more commonly used for implied comparatives such as “outstanding [among]“. Far from close minded or dogmatic on this issue, Wallace encourages an exhaustive study of TLG, but notes that his preliminary research falls in line with the elative reading. Full disclosure of my ignorance: have there been any more exhaustive studies of the relevant corpus since Wallace wrote this?
Would it be a boon to egalitarianism for Scot’s POV to be accurate? Certainly! Can we be as confident that this is the right interpretation as the OP is? I’m not inclined to think so. Aren’t there enough other passages that are open and shut on this question that we wouldn’t need to manufacture one out of a still very debatable passage? Do egalitarian studies really need this “silver bullet”?

Stephen,
If we want to play the game of postmodern deconstruction, and suggest that the reading I gave above (which is a summary of Eldon Epp in part) is an “egalitarian” reading (by the way I call my view mutuality and not egalitarian), and then suggest that it is convenient for such a view to correspond with its egalitarian framework, we’ve got to play the game both ways:
Which is to say that it is convenient for the modern world to have found a view of Junia and “among the apostles” that corresponds with a hierarchical/complementarian framework. And to find that the only folks who advocate that view are complementarian sorts.
I’m suggesting friend, neither, and I’d prefer we not let the argument sink into accusation of imposing our wishes. This case is not simply deconstruction but some objective realities in the text.
The view I advocate is, in fact, pre-modern and early Church — St Chrysostom. It is rooted in the history of the ms and in probable readings of each expression. Epp’s book makes this clear when it comes to textual history. Junia was a woman.
We can debate “among the apostles” and come to differing views. What must be explained is the inexplicable disappearance of a woman from the text to the notes and then virtually nonexistent. That one, I think we can honestly say from both sides, is an unfortunate correlation to what male leaders in the church thought had to be true. It wasn’t.

I think the Orthodox take on this is that St Junia was female, an apostle, and one of the seventy.
Perhaps the problem is really created by the assumptiopn that there is only one ministry, “the ministry”, most commonly called “the priest” or “the pastor”, and that this is a one-man-band type of ministry, in spite of St Paul saying “are all apostles” (clearly expecting the answer “no”) most modern Western Christians take the opposite view, and opt for a single model of “ministry” or “leadership” — with the latter being more popular than the former these days, suggesting that for many it is a power trip.

Re: Stephen Douglas: Do egalitarians need this “silver bullet”?
Dr. Bilezikien has pointed out that the absence of Gentile apostles has not kept us from appointing Gentile leaders, pastors, elders, etc. So no, the absense of a female aspostle does not necessitate excluding women from their leadership callings.
But it’s nice to see evidence of this being modelled in the apostolic church. We might note that in the same chapter (Ro 16:1), Paul acknowledges one Phoebe as a “deacon,” using the masculine form of that word. She is not a “deaconess” but bears the same masculine form that Paul uses elsewhere when he gives the list of qualities a deacon should have. (He also uses the same word earlier in Romans to describe Christ as a “minister” or “servant” (Ro 15:8) and himself as a minister to the Gentiles (15:16).) Phoebe is also called a “prostatis” in 16:2, which literally means “protecter,” and is a term some identify as associated with patrons or presiding elders in the early house churches.
All this suggests that while the NT often uses masculine wording to describe leaders, in the early Christians’ minds this did not mean women were excluded. Rather, just as “if any man comes after me” was understood as inclusive of women, so also “if any man aspires to be an overseer” or “a deacon must be the husband of one wife” were meant to apply implicitly and conversely to women.

Scot,
I honestly intended no implication of what I called an “egalitarian” bias on your part. I was saying that what you call “the best scholarship” is likelier than conservative scholarship to allow this presup to tip the scales in its direction. Is it likely to go the other way with traditionalists? Absolutely! Which is why I was arguing for a little more balanced approach to contentious questions such as this (as opposed to “you’ll have to take my word for it” surety). I’m sure the reasons for your stance are justified and well balanced. But calling something I think is debatable based simply on the “objective realities in the text” as all but settled just seems a little premature. Perhaps I am wrong.
I agree that “Junia” (f.) was the original. But I wouldn’t expect that we must infer from this that the original corruption to “Junias” was because those responsible had an accurate bead on the “among” question. That the comparative meaning of the phrase was an early interpretation is not to be disputed, but that does not necessitate its validity. The fact is that a grammatical misunderstanding could have raised eyebrows about the femininity of Junia, causing the “correction” to preserve the long presumed understanding of apostleship inherited from days in which this construction was understood better.
Or not. I don’t know. But my point is, neither does anyone else beyond a reasonable doubt.
And as for egalitarian, I was groping for a much better word for “men and women have the same place in ministry” and came up empty handed. Sorry about that – my thesaurus was broken.

Briefly,
Our third daughter who is due to be born in May, will be named Junia because we want our girls to feel free in Christ “to do what women did” in the Bible. Any ideas for a middle name?

This isn’t spelled out in Scot’s text as much as it might be, but I find it VERY noteworthy that Chrysostom is the one cited as perhaps the earliest example of a scholar arguing for the female Junia. Chrysostom was extremely hostile to women in other ways. If he allowed his bias to influence him in this matter (and, let’s be honest, we all do in at least some matters), he wouldn’t have been defending the probability of Junia being female apostle….

David@24,
Junia Emily Johnson- has a pleasant sound, no weird initials
For St. Emilia, mother of St. Macrina, St. Basil the Great, and St. Gregory of Nyssa. She wasn’t simply defined by being a mother, though she did spectacularly with that aspect of her life. Look her up.
Mark@25,
I don’t find Chrysostom to be “hostile” to women- and I have sensitive antennae on this- esp if he is seen in his own context. For example, his was one of the few voices raised in favor of women being in church and receiving the Eucharist during their menses. I don’t listen to much Orthodox radio, but I really like Dr. Eugenia Constantinou’s podcasts on AFR. She quotes a lot of Chrysostom; he’s her favorite saint. She is a professor with three (?) advanced degrees who is publishing the first-ever translation from Greek -her PhD project- of an ancient commentary on Revelation, and has taught seminarians. I don’t think John C. would be her favorite saint if he were somehow anti-woman.
Dana

David @ 24,
no offense to Dana @26–but i think a “Emily” adds too many syllables to the name. It may be just me but I think a three syllable first name and a two syllable last name–yearns for a one syllable middle name.

No offense taken
D.

This is so encouraging! It introduces the idea of man’t laws verses God’s methods which don’t match up with what we THINK God is saying. Like so many other things, man can often regulate what God…put him in a box, change His word to meet Man’s regulations of religion. Based on Colossians 2, it is a scary thing to claim what we think God wants, without being connected to the “Head..” Christ, the deity himself. It is fearful to fall into the hands of an angry God when teaching or restructuring His Word.

Scot,
If Junia was a theologian she might have had two middle names.

David #24 “Our third daughter who is due to be born in May, will be named Junia because we want our girls to feel free in Christ “to do what women did” in the Bible. Any ideas for a middle name?”
Tamar

David #24 — My youngest is named Lydia for the same reason as you want to name yours Junia. Her middle name is Joy. “Junia Joy” would be too many J sounds for my taste. But, you could go with Grace or Faith, if you like the virtues route on a middle name.

David – #24 – Junia Rose sounds good, but I have no idea why. How about a one syllable family name to honor a woman in the family for Junia’s middle name? Congratulations on your daughter-to-be.
This post makes me smell the west winds of freedom…freedom in looking back to the early church to move forward in our Biblical study and practices today….freedom from acknowledging women had many (and varied) leadership roles in the Bible and may also lead today…freedom in admitting we made mistakes in our scholarship because of our presuppositions (which we all do in so many ways because we’re human). I’d love to smell spring in the air, but snow is coming in Minnesota, so I’ll revel in freedom.
Have a good spring break, Scot. Thanks for all your comments.

David #24
Junia Ruth Johnson has a nice ring to it…

#26 re: Chrysostom,
I’ll have to go back to my notes, rather than try to make my case off of memory. But he really was pretty bad….

Daniel Wallace, while acknowledging “Junia” as a feminine name, finds it not “unlikely” at all that “among the Apostles” may be elative in this case (“well known to”, “well regarded among”), finding a close parallel for the construction in question in Ps Sol 2:6. In fact, with the word translated “outstanding/well known” he found that the genitive is more commonly used for implied comparatives such as “outstanding [among]“. Far from close minded or dogmatic on this issue, Wallace encourages an exhaustive study of TLG, but notes that his preliminary research falls in line with the elative reading. Full disclosure of my ignorance: have there been any more exhaustive studies of the relevant corpus since Wallace wrote this?
Stephen,
First, Ps. of Solomon is not a close parallel. Mike Burer admitted this in a post on Adrian Warnock’s blog two years ago. In fact, en plus the dative is common for comparatives. There is no warrant for “well known to.”
Linda Belleville responded to Wallace and Burer’s article a few years ago. Mike Burer then communicated to me in an email that he had been asked by Wallace to write a response to Belleville’s article. Burer recently wrote a critical review of Epp’s book but he did not defend the hypothesis for “well known to.” He simply assumed it in my view.
However, Al Wolter and Bruce Waltke then let me know that it was possible that Junia was a man afterall. Wolters has recently written an article to this effect.
So wikipedia is one sex change out of date and overall not accurate.

Actually, information on wikipedia is somewhat out of date. Al Wolters has suggested that Junia is a man afterall. This is in consideration of how well Linda Belleville responded to Wallace and Burer’s article, proving that “well known to” is not supported by the evidence.

I would suggest that it is not reliable to base an hypothesis on whether a genitive or ?? plus dative is used. Consider these instances.
? d? ?e???? ???? Matt. 23:11 (genitive)
the greatest among you
? ?e???? ?? ???? 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 is followed by ?? plus dative rather than the genitive. These two constructions can be used synonymously.
However, here Wallace asks,
“would we not expect ?p?s???? t?? ?p?st???? if the meaning were ?outstanding among the apostles??”
The answer must be “not necessarily”. Here are a few examples of the comparative form of an adjective followed by ?? plus dative, but there are more in the Greek NT.
?a? s? ?????e? ?? ???da ??da???
??a??st? e? ?? t??? ??e??s?? ???da Matt. 2:6
‘And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; ESV
???? ???? ???? ??? ????e?ta? ?? ?e???t??? ???a???? ?e???? ??????? t?? ?apt?st?? ? d? ?????te??? ?? t? ?as??e?? t?? ???a??? ?e???? a?t?? ?st?? 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
???da? t?? ?a????e??? ?a?sa???? ?a? S????
??d?a? ?????????? ?? t??? ?de?f??? Acts 15:22
Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas,
leading men among the brothers ESV
The Greek of the New Testament does not support the thesis that ?? plus dative renders ?p?s???? elative rather than comparative, and consequently, that Junia is not one of the apostles.

Hey what about this, the idea that Junia was originally “Julia.”
Two Greek manuscripts have “Julia” (clearly a woman’s name) instead of “Junia(s)” in this verse. One is papyrus P46 of about the year 200. The other is the thirteenth-century minuscule manuscript catalogued as “6″. “Julia” is also the reading in some Latin manuscripts, in one tradition of Coptic manuscripts and in Ethiopic manuscripts. Three Greek uncial manuscripts have the inverse substitution, (“Junia(s)” in place of “Julia”) in verse 16:15. This raises the question whether the proximity of the two names, “Junia(s)” and “Julia”, on the same page is the reason why, in both cases, a few scribes replaced one name with the other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junia
If the name is truly “Julia” it’s a woman’s name. Go to the link and read the whole post.

Yes, it was Julia in P46. That is correct. It is odd that the discussion continues.

Daniel S said:
It love hearing when truth is unveiled like this. but it also concerns me as I lose confidence when ministering with Muslims who argue that Christian scripture has been changed and corrupted. How do I respond to those arguments in light of this post?
Believe me, it’s just not Muslims who are aware that Christians have corrupted scripture. We have to talk honestly about what happened in the Christian community such that scriptural translations have been corrupted to keep women in a certain place. Of course, a lot of people prefer the corrupted translations because it keeps women out of leadership positions. Its hard to talk about this issue with those people. But we must talk about it, because people in the non-Christian community are slowly becoming aware of it. They aren’t impressed when Christian witness to them of Christ, and later they find these same Christians are promoting corrupted scriptures on women.

I wish I had more than this un-verifiable comment to offer, but I think in an as-of-yet-unpublished article, Al Wolters of Redeemer University College (linguist, philosopher and biblical scholar) argues that Junia is actually best understood not as a Greek-based name but actually as a name deriving its origin from the Hebrew language. If his thesis is correct (and if I remember it correctly), then this would mean that Junia(s) is actually a male name. Interesting.
Scot, if you know Al then ask him for his article. It might be of interest, seeing as there is no shoddy scholarship coming from Dr. Wolters.

Update.
?IOYNIAN (Rom 16:7) and the Hebrew Name Yehunni.? Forthcoming in The Journal of Biblical Literature.

Here is Al Wolters concluding statement found in the footnotes, I believe,
“This conclusion still leaves open the question whether it is more likely that the IOTNIAN of Rom 16:7 reflects a Hebrew masculine name or a Latin feminine one. The answer to that question depends largely on how one assesses the likelihood that Paul would have considered a woman to be “prominent among the apostles” (see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 475).
To some, probability will still favor the quasi consensus of recent scholarship that IOTNIAN in Rom 16:7 refers to a woman. To others, the epigraphic and philological evidence for the existence of a Hebrew name Y?hunn?/?????a? will tip the scales in favor of a male apostle. In my own opinion, a plausible (but not a decisive) case can be made for either position.”

I am no where near a bible scholar, just a humble Catholic stubling on to this conversation on the gender of Junia, and her place among the apostles.
I, being thankful for the gift of faith, am confident that whatever the true identity and office of this character of Rom 16:7 doesn’t change or raise doubt on the order or role/responsibilty of men and women in the church. If Junia was a woman, she was not a “priest” – impersona christi. She is no less important because of this distinction. Women hold a higher place in the Church than men in their natural role. These statments do not change that men and women are equal in diginty, but different in roles and possibilties.

No disrespect intended (there are so many wonderful Catholic and Orthodox theologians) but I don’t quite get the “priest as impersona christi” thing. On the very few occasions the New Testament scriptures connect Christians to the “priest” word (I’ve only found 4… see below) it is ALWAYS plural, implying all believers are “priests” (able to minister to both God and others). A special class of “priests” doesn’t appear to exist in the New Testament… only the leadership of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (Ephesians 4:11) plus elders and deacons and overseers… but the “priest” class did not appear to exist in the New Testament era.
Why and when did a “priestly” class evolve? Seems very Old Testament to me.
1 Peter 2:9
But you (plural) are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.
Revelation 1:6
To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father?to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.
Revelation 5:10
You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth.”
Revelation 20:6
Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

Oh, and another thought… if the most conservative interpretation is right, and Junia has ONLY an outstanding reputation among the apostles (rather than recognised as an apostle) is that not still an absolutely remarkable commendation of the leadership of anyone?
It’s hardly an argument for women sitting around doing the knitting… to be so prominent in the church of God that the apostles esteem her as “outstanding”, and the Romans clap her in prison in an attempt to suppress her influence in the church.