A Woman in the Footnotes

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.

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.

Scot.

Stop muddying the waters with the truth.

;-)

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

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

No offense taken :)
D.

Scot,

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

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 Ruth Johnson has a nice ring to it...

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.

I would suggest that it is not reliable to base an hypothesis on whether a genitive or ἐν plus dative is used. 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 is followed by ἐν plus dative rather than 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”?"

The answer must be "not necessarily". Here are a few examples of the comparative form of an adjective followed by ἐν plus dative, but there are more in the Greek NT.

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 does not support the thesis that ἐν plus dative renders ἐπίσημος elative rather than comparative, and consequently, that Junia is not one of the apostles.

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

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.

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 Yëhunnï/Ίουνιας 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."

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.