Was Junia a Female Apostle?

[Benjamin Burch]

Could you expand a bit upon Paul's support for women leaders in the church please. I'm not aware that he ever supported this, I see his profound thanks for those women who labored to support the church and his ministry in particular. I haven't yet seen the case made that the women he supported were leaders. And lets remember that many scholars are all over the place on this issue. I find it quite difficult to believe that Paul would offer a universal reason such as Adam and Eve to address a specific problem. The text seems to strongly indicate that he was addressing a systemic issue.

It is actually the difference in attitudes toward women and women in Ministry which causes so many scholars to think 2 Timothy is not written by Paul. They're simply inconsistent in their views on this issue (2 Timothy and Paul).

Romans 16 would be where I'd start. Phoebe is clearly a "deacon" - someone with authority over many men, who teaches many men. Also, Junia is clearly both (a) female and (b) an apostle.

[Shea Zellweger]

It is actually the difference in attitudes toward women and women in Ministry which causes so many scholars to think 2 Timothy is not written by Paul. They're simply inconsistent in their views on this issue (2 Timothy and Paul).

Romans 16 would be where I'd start. Phoebe is clearly a "deacon" - someone with authority over many men, who teaches many men.

Or, alternatively, a "Deaconess," a position which has a longstanding tradition of being somehow "less than" and Overseer or Deacon. Not saying I agree with that tradition, but it is somewhat hard to ignore.

Also, Junia is clearly both (a) female and (b) an apostle.

Yup, missed that one. Gotta love the Nepotism.

[Jim Chabot]

It is actually the difference in attitudes toward women and women in Ministry which causes so many scholars to think 2 Timothy is not written by Paul. They're simply inconsistent in their views on this issue (2 Timothy and Paul).

Romans 16 would be where I'd start. Phoebe is clearly a "deacon" - someone with authority over many men, who teaches many men. Also, Junia is clearly both (a) female and (b) an apostle.

Yes I've read some who see this difference in attitude as pointing to the question of authorship. They generally use the same starting point that Shea has outlined. I raise the same objection, I believe that they read far more into the names and order of mention than the text indicates, while paying scant attention to the contextual clues in the text following or preceding the mentioning of names. I suppose we could flip a coin regarding which scholars should be trusted, but without disparaging those to whom you point, I don't trust them.

Yes Phebe was a deacon, no argument there. No leadership role is indicated in the sense that Paul uses the term in either verse that she is mentioned.

And sadly the mention of Junia ends this conversation for me. I love you Ben, I think that you are a real smart guy and a good person. But the mention of Junia as an apostle is beyond anywhere that I am willing to go. I have read accounts written by supposed scholars who contrive this and I cannot help but to hold them in utter contempt regarding this vain fabrication. I'll not go further, a few years back I went over 100 rounds with an individual over this, I'm not willing to do the work all over again. It just isn't so.

[Benjamin Burch]

Yes I've read some who see this difference in attitude as pointing to the question of authorship. They generally use the same starting point that Shea has outlined. I raise the same objection, I believe that they read far more into the names and order of mention than the text indicates, while paying scant attention to the contextual clues in the text following or preceding the mentioning of names. I suppose we could flip a coin regarding which scholars should be trusted, but without disparaging those to whom you point, I don't trust them.

Yes Phebe was a deacon, no argument there. No leadership role is indicated in the sense that Paul uses the term in either verse that she is mentioned.

And sadly the mention of Junia ends this conversation for me. I love you Ben, I think that you are a real smart guy and a good person. But the mention of Junia as an apostle is beyond anywhere that I am willing to go. I have read accounts written by supposed scholars who contrive this and I cannot help but to hold them in utter contempt regarding this vain fabrication. I'll not go further, a few years back I went over 100 rounds with an individual over this, I'm not willing to do the work all over again. It just isn't so.

I'm sorry, Jim. N.T. Wright - a very conservative scholar - is one of many who have argued that the Greek is beyond clear. It cannot mean that Junia is know "to" or "by" the Apostles. It clearly indicates that she is an apostle.

Also, I find it funny that you can say "it just isn't so" when John Chrysostom, an early church father and Native Greek Speaker/Reader read it to say that she was an apostle. Odd that it is so clear to you, yet to someone who actually read the language it was just as clear the other way.

I also find it funny that in many of the earliest manuscripts the name has been changed to "Junias" since the overwhelming reading was that this individual was in fact known to be an apostle and heaven knows a woman can't be that!

If it was so clear, Jim, then there would be no reason for such a reaction by the Earliest Greek readers of the text who almost unanimously recognize that it says she is an apostle. It's fine that you disagree - but to speak as though you'r so educated and so understanding that those who disagree are "contriving" and "fabricating" and that it clearly "just isn't so" is what seems to be utterly contemptible here.

It seems to become more and more clear, Jim, that you have no respect for the field of Biblical Scholarship unless it lines up with your beliefs. I fear we simply may not be able to discuss these issues any longer, as I become more and more offended each time that you insinuate I've wasted my time, money, and passion.

Sorry, Jim. You're way, way, way out of line here.

[Hans Deventer]

I'm sorry, Jim. N.T. Wright - a very conservative scholar - is one of many who have argued that the Greek is beyond clear. It cannot mean that Junia is know "to" or "by" the Apostles. It clearly indicates that she is an apostle.

Also, I find it funny that you can say "it just isn't so" when John Chrysostom, an early church father and Native Greek Speaker/Reader read it to say that she was an apostle. Odd that it is so clear to you, yet to someone who actually read the language it was just as clear the other way.

I also find it funny that in many of the earliest manuscripts the name has been changed to "Junias" since the overwhelming reading was that this individual was in fact known to be an apostle and heaven knows a woman can't be that!

If it was so clear, Jim, then there would be no reason for such a reaction by the Earliest Greek readers of the text who almost unanimously recognize that it says she is an apostle. It's fine that you disagree - but to speak as though you'r so educated and so understanding that those who disagree are "contriving" and "fabricating" and that it clearly "just isn't so" is what seems to be utterly contemptible here.

It seems to become more and more clear, Jim, that you have no respect for the field of Biblical Scholarship unless it lines up with your beliefs. I fear we simply may not be able to discuss these issues any longer, as I become more and more offended each time that you insinuate I've wasted my time, money, and passion.

Sorry, Jim. You're way, way, way out of line here.

I'd really like to hear from Jim why Ben is wrong here.

I get the impression we're really talking about presuppositions, or, what one can accept to be true.

[Jim Chabot]

I'm sorry, Jim. N.T. Wright - a very conservative scholar - is one of many who have argued that the Greek is beyond clear. It cannot mean that Junia is know "to" or "by" the Apostles. It clearly indicates that she is an apostle.

Also, I find it funny that you can say "it just isn't so" when John Chrysostom, an early church father and Native Greek Speaker/Reader read it to say that she was an apostle. Odd that it is so clear to you, yet to someone who actually read the language it was just as clear the other way.

I also find it funny that in many of the earliest manuscripts the name has been changed to "Junias" since the overwhelming reading was that this individual was in fact known to be an apostle and heaven knows a woman can't be that!

If it was so clear, Jim, then there would be no reason for such a reaction by the Earliest Greek readers of the text who almost unanimously recognize that it says she is an apostle. It's fine that you disagree - but to speak as though you'r so educated and so understanding that those who disagree are "contriving" and "fabricating" and that it clearly "just isn't so" is what seems to be utterly contemptible here.

It seems to become more and more clear, Jim, that you have no respect for the field of Biblical Scholarship unless it lines up with your beliefs. I fear we simply may not be able to discuss these issues any longer, as I become more and more offended each time that you insinuate I've wasted my time, money, and passion.

Sorry, Jim. You're way, way, way out of line here.

Well it appears that we are now mutually quite offended, which is sad. I really don't want to delve into the intricacies of this Junia issue again. I realize that it is the latest greatest craze, but remember I'm a product of the Hal Lindsay generation. I got fooled once, I'm not going so easy anymore, to put this plainly.

To say that the greek is beyond clear is irresponsible, the greek is no more clear than is the resulting english translated out of it. Was Junia considered someone part of the larger group of which she was outstanding, or was she an outstanding individual known by a group of which she was not a part of? Can you show me clearly which is the case, and can you do this without falling back upon elitism. Quoting someones work is ok, since we can examine the particular claims, however engaging in a battle over which scholars are credible is not going to get us anywhere is it?

So the question is what does "εισιν επισημοι εν" actually say? Is is clear? Really? What contemporary texts could we point to in order to gain some insight? Is it really clear that "επισημοι" is used here in an implied comparative sense or is it elative? I've read a bit on it here and there, and I don't find any more consensus than can be found in the english. It doesn't appear clear in this account:

As an aside, some commentators reject such an elative sense in this passage because of the collocation with the preposition ejn,5 but such a view is based on a misperception of the force of the whole construction. On the one hand, there is a legitimate complaint about seeing ejn with dative as indicating an agent , and to the extent that “well known by the apostles” implies an action on the apostles’ part (viz., that the apostles know) such an objection has merit.6 On the other hand, the idea of something being known by someone else does not necessarily imply agency. This is so for two reasons. First, the action implied may actually be the passive reception of some event or person (thus, texts such as 1 Tim 3:16, in which the line w[fqh ajggevloi" can be translated either as “was seen by angels” or “appeared to angels”; either way the “action” performed by angels is by its very nature relatively passive). Such an idea can be easily accommodated in Rom 16:7: “well known to/by the apostles” simply says that the apostles were recipients of information, not that they actively performed “knowing.” Thus, although ejn plus a personal dative does not indicate agency, in collocation with words of perception, (ejn plus) dative personal nouns are often used to show the recipients. In this instance, the idea would then be “well known to the apostles.” Second, even if ejn with the dative plural is used in the sense of “among” (so Moo here, et alii), this does not necessarily locate Andronicus and Junia within the band of apostles; rather, it is just as likely that knowledge of them existed among the apostles.

Also lets remember that Chrysostom's statement; "Oh! how great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!” was given in a sermon. Did they hold to complete accuracy in sermons back then? Origen didn't make that sort of a statement because he thought that Junias was a nickname for Junianus, a man's name. Who would you pick as the "earliest greek reader?" So many say Junia and others say Junias, it isn't all that clear here either. I haven't spent a whole lot of time reading on the intricacies of who used which name and why because I see this an an obfuscation of the real issue. Comparative or elative?

So my question is this. How far out of line am I here Ben? My intention wasn't to offend you, I made an assumption that you were aware that this line of scholarship was/is highly questionable.

Beyond the minute textual details, where a definitive answer is elusive at best, how do we deal with this on a macro level. How do we deal with the term "apostle" does it refer to a leader, do we interchange it with "bishop", or do we say that an apostle is merely a "sent one" carrying no connotation of authority unless we are aware of the "one" doing the sending? My take on the NT is that there were 12 "apostles of the lamb" this is a closed club and I believe that Paul was confident in his membership thereof. He makes this claim many times in his writings, I believe that it was always near the top of his thoughts, and I believe that he would not use this term lightly. I believe that Paul used this term "apostle" in this sense in the Romans passage, I see it as a clue as to how to interpret this text. I'm guessing that you may not agree, but I can assure you that there is plenty that can be written in this regard.

So how far out of line am I really Ben? You have established that you have spent money time and passion on this, an I am apparently an uneducated dolt with no appreciation of Biblical scholarship unless it lines up with my beliefs. How trite, that you would so easily level such an accusation when it suits your purpose. I really didn't want to talk about Junia(s), but if you insist, then roll up your sleeves and dig in.

[James Diggs]

So the question is what does "εισιν επισημοι εν" actually say? Is is clear? Really? What contemporary texts could we point to in order to gain some insight? Is it really clear that "επισημοι" is used here in an implied comparative sense or is it elative? I've read a bit on it here and there, and I don't find any more consensus than can be found in the english. It doesn't appear clear in this account...

I find it interesting that you are saying it isn't clear- yet you have such an absolute stance in the other direction as if it was clear.

So my question is this. How far out of line am I here Ben? My intention wasn't to offend you, I made an assumption that you were aware that this line of scholarship was/is highly questionable.

"Questionable" is a subjective position, but you actually said that it was more than questionable you said it was "contriving" and "fabricating" and that it clearly "just isn't so"

So how far out of line am I really Ben? You have established that you have spent money time and passion on this, an I am apparently an uneducated dolt with no appreciation of Biblical scholarship unless it lines up with my beliefs. How trite, that you would so easily level such an accusation when it suits your purpose. I really didn't want to talk about Junia(s), but if you insist, then roll up your sleeves and dig in.

Actually, Ben statement concerning your education was that you positioned yourself above scholarship on all sides to the point where you believed you were expert enough to determine that one scholarship was absolutely right and the other was not only mistaken but was contrived and fabricated.

Here is what he said:

but to speak as though you'r so educated and so understanding that those who disagree are "contriving" and "fabricating" and that it clearly "just isn't so" is what seems to be utterly contemptible here.

[I]It seems to become more and more clear, Jim, that you have no respect for the field of Biblical Scholarship unless it lines up with your beliefs.

This issue isn't that you are uneducated in the sense that you haven't done any homework or are stupid, but rather you feel you are expert enough to just outright dismiss the scholarly work of others you disagree with.

Despite our various levels of education, I don't think many of us here are scholars. I can understand being swayed by various arguments scholars may make and explaining why we are convinced more one way or the other based on how they present their work- but going beyond that without the necessary expertise simply takes a position as if knowing more than one actually does.

By the way- I am not taking a position in either direction regarding whether or not Junia or Junias was a Apostle- I haven't looked at it much myself, so I am interested hearing more from both sides.

[Shea Zellweger]

I find it interesting that you are saying it isn't clear- yet you have such an absolute stance in the other direction as if it was clear.



"Questionable" is a subjective position, but you actually said that it was more than questionable you said it was "contriving" and "fabricating" and that it clearly "just isn't so"




Actually, Ben statement concerning your education was that you positioned yourself above scholarship on all sides to the point where you believed you were expert enough to determine that one scholarship was absolutely right and the other was not only mistaken but was contrived and fabricated.

Here is what he said:



This issue isn't that you are uneducated in the sense that you haven't done any homework or are stupid, but rather you feel you are expert enough to just outright dismiss the scholarly work of others you disagree with.

Despite our various levels of education, I don't think many of us here are scholars. I can understand being swayed by various arguments scholars may make and explaining why we are convinced more one way or the other based on how they present their work- but going beyond that without the necessary expertise simply takes a position as if knowing more than one actually does.

By the way- I am not taking a position in either direction regarding whether or not Junia or Junias was a Apostle- I haven't looked at it much myself, so I am interested hearing more from both sides.

Beyond that, in this particular area it's not even a question of which scholarship one believes, but which mansucripts one believes to be more accurate. Some say Junia- clearly a female name- while others say Junias- a more gender-ambiguous term. From what I've read, many Greek speaking, 2nd century scholars thought Junias was a male apostle, while those who saw Junia also thought the person was an apostle, but were offended or confused by the presence of a female apostle. Yes, there is some tradition that suggests that Junia/s was not actually an apostle at all, but that is far from the majority thought among native Greek speakers who, as Ben has rightly pointed out, would have had a far better grasp on the nuances of Paul's language than we (or even modern Greek speakers) ever will. Having this debate on the grounds of whether Junia/s was or was not an apostle is attempting to create word ambiguities where such did not exist for the original readers. Debating whether the person in question was male or female is a valid debate, as even the earliest manuscripts disagree on which it was.

[Jim Chabot]

Actually, Ben statement concerning your education was that you positioned yourself above scholarship on all sides to the point where you believed you were expert enough to determine that one scholarship was absolutely right and the other was not only mistaken but was contrived and fabricated.

This issue isn't that you are uneducated in the sense that you haven't done any homework or are stupid, but rather you feel you are expert enough to just outright dismiss the scholarly work of others you disagree with.

Despite our various levels of education, I don't think many of us here are scholars. I can understand being swayed by various arguments scholars may make and explaining why we are convinced more one way or the other based on how they present their work- but going beyond that without the necessary expertise simply takes a position as if knowing more than one actually does.

Correct you are James, and I heard quite clearly what Ben said, he had no reason to say it other than to bolster an argument that he makes entirely based upon the names of others.

Let me say unequivocally that we all hold ourselves in judgment of the scholarship that we read. I have been witness to exactly that right here on naznet, when scholars are introduced that some here do not agree with. I maintain that in this regard we stand on a level playing field. We can play games with words as to how we dismiss certain scholarship, but their is no real difference, this is only perception.

So how about we hear more on Junia(s) then and dispense with the posturing.

[Jim Chabot]

Beyond that, in this particular area it's not even a question of which scholarship one believes, but which mansucripts one believes to be more accurate. Some say Junia- clearly a female name- while others say Junias- a more gender-ambiguous term. From what I've read, many Greek speaking, 2nd century scholars thought Junias was a male apostle, while those who saw Junia also thought the person was an apostle, but were offended or confused by the presence of a female apostle. Yes, there is some tradition that suggests that Junia/s was not actually an apostle at all, but that is far from the majority thought among native Greek speakers who, as Ben has rightly pointed out, would have had a far better grasp on the nuances of Paul's language than we (or even modern Greek speakers) ever will. Having this debate on the grounds of whether Junia/s was or was not an apostle is attempting to create word ambiguities where such did not exist for the original readers. Debating whether the person in question was male or female is a valid debate, as even the earliest manuscripts disagree on which it was.

Actually the gender is immaterial to the main point, it serves only to cloud the issue.

How about for the sake of the argument we simply agree that Junia was a female? From what I have read it is a toss up, but it really doesn't matter whether male or female. I say that she was not an apostle.

[James Diggs]

Correct you are James, and I heard quite clearly what Ben said, he had no reason to say it other than to bolster an argument that he makes entirely based upon the names of others.

Again Jim I think Ben took offense not to your disagreement but to your position that the scholarship you disagree with was somehow fabricated. There can be differing scholarly positions that we are more convinced by than others without the other being fabrications.

fab·ri·cate: To concoct in order to deceive or formed or conceived by the imagination

Let me say unequivocally that we all hold ourselves in judgment of the scholarship that we read. I have been witness to exactly that right here on naznet, when scholars are introduced that some here do not agree with.

I agree with this part Jim, I think we can judge and make discernment about scholarship.

I maintain that in this regard we stand on a level playing field.

I would disagree with this part, especially in situations like when I pit my one year of Greek in college against a Greek scholar. I can make some kind of discernment based on how convincing I think their argument is, but I am not on a level playing field with his or her knowledge of Greek. The same would be true in other forms of scholarship too.

So how about we hear more on Junia(s)...

I am all ears.

[James Diggs]

Actually the gender is immaterial to the main point, it serves only to cloud the issue.

How about for the sake of the argument we simply agree that Junia was a female? From what I have read it is a toss up, but it really doesn't matter whether male or female. I say that she was not an apostle.

So you are taking the position that Junia was not an Apostle so that his or her gender really isn't relevant?

[Benjamin Burch]

Well it appears that we are now mutually quite offended, which is sad. I really don't want to delve into the intricacies of this Junia issue again. I realize that it is the latest greatest craze, but remember I'm a product of the Hal Lindsay generation. I got fooled once, I'm not going so easy anymore, to put this plainly.

To say that the greek is beyond clear is irresponsible, the greek is no more clear than is the resulting english translated out of it. Was Junia considered someone part of the larger group of which she was outstanding, or was she an outstanding individual known by a group of which she was not a part of? Can you show me clearly which is the case, and can you do this without falling back upon elitism. Quoting someones work is ok, since we can examine the particular claims, however engaging in a battle over which scholars are credible is not going to get us anywhere is it?

So the question is what does "εισιν επισημοι εν" actually say? Is is clear? Really? What contemporary texts could we point to in order to gain some insight? Is it really clear that "επισημοι" is used here in an implied comparative sense or is it elative? I've read a bit on it here and there, and I don't find any more consensus than can be found in the english. It doesn't appear clear in this account:



Also lets remember that Chrysostom's statement; "Oh! how great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!” was given in a sermon. Did they hold to complete accuracy in sermons back then? Origen didn't make that sort of a statement because he thought that Junias was a nickname for Junianus, a man's name. Who would you pick as the "earliest greek reader?" So many say Junia and others say Junias, it isn't all that clear here either. I haven't spent a whole lot of time reading on the intricacies of who used which name and why because I see this an an obfuscation of the real issue. Comparative or elative?

So my question is this. How far out of line am I here Ben? My intention wasn't to offend you, I made an assumption that you were aware that this line of scholarship was/is highly questionable.

Beyond the minute textual details, where a definitive answer is elusive at best, how do we deal with this on a macro level. How do we deal with the term "apostle" does it refer to a leader, do we interchange it with "bishop", or do we say that an apostle is merely a "sent one" carrying no connotation of authority unless we are aware of the "one" doing the sending? My take on the NT is that there were 12 "apostles of the lamb" this is a closed club and I believe that Paul was confident in his membership thereof. He makes this claim many times in his writings, I believe that it was always near the top of his thoughts, and I believe that he would not use this term lightly. I believe that Paul used this term "apostle" in this sense in the Romans passage, I see it as a clue as to how to interpret this text. I'm guessing that you may not agree, but I can assure you that there is plenty that can be written in this regard.

So how far out of line am I really Ben? You have established that you have spent money time and passion on this, an I am apparently an uneducated dolt with no appreciation of Biblical scholarship unless it lines up with my beliefs. How trite, that you would so easily level such an accusation when it suits your purpose. I really didn't want to talk about Junia(s), but if you insist, then roll up your sleeves and dig in.

Actually, Jim, I was content with your disagreement. You were the one who said that those who disagree are "fabricating", "contriving", "beyond contempt", and that the issue was so clear that you could say "it just isn't so."

So, in response to your statement here,

To say that the greek is beyond clear is irresponsible, the greek is no more clear than is the resulting english translated out of it.

I would simply point you to your own post. You seemed to be the one who thought it was so clear that you could insult those who disagree. I'm sorry I didn't articulate myself well, but I wasn't trying to say that the Greek was clear. I was trying to say that there are those who know a lot more about the Greek than you or I - including native speakers - who read it as though it was clear the other direction. My point was that it couldn't be so clear as you wanted it to be if this is the case - despite what you so strongly claimed.

Also, to make such claims as "vain fabrication," "greatest craze," "contrive," etc, is nothing less than disrespect. You're making a claim there, Jim. I'd say that is very, very out of line.

Again, my point was not that you could not disagree on the issue.

My point was that your proud and insulting form of disagreement on the issue was completely unacceptable. I didn't say anything other than that. I also never said you were an uneducated dolt. What I claimed was that you seemed to know so much so as to be able to make these disrespectful and absurd claims about other people. No one here is that educated. So I was making no swipe at you, there. Just pointing out a universal reality and the fact that your language ran directly against it.

If you don't want to argue the issue, that's fine. I won't, and my intention was not to argue on the issue. Only to say that your language was completely unacceptable and out of line and to show that what you'd said was clearly not the case.

[Benjamin Burch]

Correct you are James, and I heard quite clearly what Ben said, he had no reason to say it other than to bolster an argument that he makes entirely based upon the names of others.

Let me say unequivocally that we all hold ourselves in judgment of the scholarship that we read. I have been witness to exactly that right here on naznet, when scholars are introduced that some here do not agree with. I maintain that in this regard we stand on a level playing field. We can play games with words as to how we dismiss certain scholarship, but their is no real difference, this is only perception.

So how about we hear more on Junia(s) then and dispense with the posturing.

Not at all, Jim. I did no bolstering. I made the point that James has said I did, and it was completely necessary.

[Jim Chabot]

Not at all, Jim. I did no bolstering. I made the point that James has said I did, and it was completely necessary.

No, I don't think that is the case. I can agree that maybe neither one of us has articulated ourselves particularly well.

Perhaps I interjected some inflammatory language in my initial response to you, and I should apologize for that.

I will probably not articulate very well but let me try again. What I meant to say is that on the subject of women leadership in the church, when someone mentions Junia as an apostle, it becomes an automatic conversation stopper for me. Perhaps you have found some who support this, who are otherwise of sound mind. But I can see a real strong resemblance here to the Hal Lindsay type theology that washed over most of us in the seventies. The scholarship that I have read in support of this position is notably missing evidence that does not support the position. I hope that you would agree that this style of work is highly suspect, a good work will show arguments and evidence counter to the ending conclusion.

(from a scriptural perspective only, I do accept that the CotN's polity is that they ordain women. I don't think that it aligns with scripture but it isn't an essential for me.)

I'm not trying to be combative here, but if your point was completely necessary, you will certainly be able to back it up with good solid evidence to show that Junia was an apostle. Otherwise I would hope that you could see that your point was not necessary.

And could you get us set up in a new thread as James has suggested. I think that we have completely hijacked this one.

[Ryan Scott]

Good gosh. Why the heck does this matter?

[Randy Wise]

Romans 16 would be where I'd start. Phoebe is clearly a "deacon" - someone with authority over many men, who teaches many men. Also, Junia is clearly both (a) female and (b) an apostle.

Clearly then why do we need this thread?

Does anyone see the Romans verse in question as pointing to two individuals who were held in high esteem by the Apostles rather then calling them Apostles?

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

[Jim Chabot]

Clearly then why do we need this thread?

Does anyone see the Romans verse in question as pointing to two individuals who were held in high esteem by the Apostles rather then calling them Apostles?

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Exactly. I see Paul referring to Junia and Andronicus as two individuals held in high esteem by the apostles, I do not see Paul calls either one of them apostles.

If we look at the language in the text of this verse, I think that we must conclude that we simply cannot tell with any certainty either way. Either the adjective used here "επισημοι" is not definitive, it can go either way. In other words the greek behind the english reveals no additional clarity as to intention. Scholars fall on both sides, some make claims of clarity within the text, but they frequently leave out arguments presented by the other side, the better authors I have read come down on both sides showing that the text is indeed ambiguous.

If we go beyond the immediate text, I think that a case for non inclusion among the apostles makes the most sense. If we conclude that these two are to be considered among the apostles, we then logically conclude that Paul is inconsistent or even that Pauline authorship is in doubt in other passages. All of this based upon a case that I don't think can be made. Andronicus was not an apostle and neither was Junia.

[Benjamin Burch]

Exactly. I see Paul referring to Junia and Andronicus as two individuals held in high esteem by the apostles, I do not see Paul calls either one of them apostles.

If we look at the language in the text of this verse, I think that we must conclude that we simply cannot tell with any certainty either way. Either the adjective used here "επισημοι" is not definitive, it can go either way. In other words the greek behind the english reveals no additional clarity as to intention. Scholars fall on both sides, some make claims of clarity within the text, but they frequently leave out arguments presented by the other side, the better authors I have read come down on both sides showing that the text is indeed ambiguous.

If we go beyond the immediate text, I think that a case for non inclusion among the apostles makes the most sense. If we conclude that these two are to be considered among the apostles, we then logically conclude that Paul is inconsistent or even that Pauline authorship is in doubt in other passages. All of this based upon a case that I don't think can be made. Andronicus was not an apostle and neither was Junia.

Thank you for this post, Jim. It is worlds removed from your previous statements:

But the mention of Junia as an apostle is beyond anywhere that I am willing to go. I have read accounts written by supposed scholars who contrive this and I cannot help but to hold them in utter contempt regarding this vain fabrication... It just isn't so.

Thanks, again.

[Benjamin Burch]

Exactly. I see Paul referring to Junia and Andronicus as two individuals held in high esteem by the apostles, I do not see Paul calls either one of them apostles.

If we look at the language in the text of this verse, I think that we must conclude that we simply cannot tell with any certainty either way. Either the adjective used here "επισημοι" is not definitive, it can go either way. In other words the greek behind the english reveals no additional clarity as to intention. Scholars fall on both sides, some make claims of clarity within the text, but they frequently leave out arguments presented by the other side, the better authors I have read come down on both sides showing that the text is indeed ambiguous.

If we go beyond the immediate text, I think that a case for non inclusion among the apostles makes the most sense. If we conclude that these two are to be considered among the apostles, we then logically conclude that Paul is inconsistent or even that Pauline authorship is in doubt in other passages. All of this based upon a case that I don't think can be made. Andronicus was not an apostle and neither was Junia.

I also should not have used the word "clear" in my initial post. I was not trying to say in my response post that it was in fact "clear." If it were "clear" there wouldn't need to be great works of scholarship written on the opinion. Clearly.

Now, that being as it is, I will say only a few things which I find most helpful when thinking about this issue, until I have time to go over Epp's work again. It has been 4 years and I've lost the paper.

(1) The phrase is almost unanimously read as inclusive by the Early Greek Fathers
(2) It was understood as inclusive throughout most Christian History
(3) There is a textual tradition which makes the name masculine
(4) With these last three points together, it makes the most logical sense to assume that the switch to a masculine name is to compensate for the fact that it was so widely recognize to be an inclusive statement.
(5) The "new" reading is not the one which says they are apostles, but the one which says they are not. I think that's rather important here. For the longest time it was accepted as an inclusive statement. That is why it became "Junias" and not "Junia." It was not until 1881 and 1927 that the masculine name began to appear in Greek New Testaments and English Translations. This was because the dominant reading was still thought to be that it was an inclusive statement.
(6) Once it was conceded that there is no such name as "Junias" anywhere in the Roman and classical world, and that the name must be "Junia" - and only once this was conceded - the debate switched to the ground of whether it is an exclusive or inclusive statement.
(7) Even many of the most Conservative, Reformed, Complementarian exegetes concede that it is an inclusive statement (e.g. Doug Moo).

Thus, it seems there is a lot of reason to think that it is in fact an inclusive phrase before we even get to the text. The only reasons we have not to read it as inclusive are certain commitments about the Bible, which may not be helpful.

However, I honestly had no intentions of arguing the point. My issue was not with your position, but with your language; which you have since both apologized for and modified - which I have since acknowledged.

Once I finish this current book and finish my review of it I'll get back into Epp's work.

[Jon Bemis]

Junia is clearly both (a) female and (b) an apostle.

As you have pointed out, clearer to some than to others perhaps.

[Shea Zellweger]

Actually the gender is immaterial to the main point, it serves only to cloud the issue.

I disagree. I'm with Ben in regard to the inclusive/exclusive discussion- For the first 2000 years of Christian tradition, Junia/s' apostleship was generally accepted, while it was the gender that was debated. The inclusive/exclusive debate is a new one, carried out almost entirely by non-native speakers of the language. Although I see the ambiguity as an outsider looking in, I think this is just one of many examples of clear language becoming unclear in translation, and the ambiguity of the translation has then caused us to insert ambiguity in the original text where previously there was none.

How about for the sake of the argument we simply agree that Junia was a female? From what I have read it is a toss up, but it really doesn't matter whether male or female. I say that she was not an apostle.

You're free to say that. Could you do a decent job of backing this up, preferably utilizing the work of those who would have been most familiar with the language? I'll agree that there are many things that can be gained from studying recent scholarship, but the nuances of ancient Greek is not one of those.

[Dennis Bratcher]

And sadly the mention of Junia ends this conversation for me. I love you Ben, I think that you are a real smart guy and a good person. But the mention of Junia as an apostle is beyond anywhere that I am willing to go. I have read accounts written by supposed scholars who contrive this and I cannot help but to hold them in utter contempt regarding this vain fabrication. I'll not go further, a few years back I went over 100 rounds with an individual over this, I'm not willing to do the work all over again. It just isn't so.

"supposed scholars" "contrive this" "utter contempt" "vain fabrication" And all that in one sentence!

No matter which side of the issue is taken, such language reveals prejudice and a closed mind not any kind of reasoned conclusion.

And the fact is that the Greek allows it, although does not prove it either way.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Benjamin Burch]

As you have pointed out, clearer to some than to others perhaps.

Which is why I readily admitted my ill-advised and unhelpful use of the word "clearly."

I also should not have used the word "clear" in my initial post.

[James Diggs]

(1) The phrase is almost unanimously read as inclusive by the Early Greek Fathers
(2) It was understood as inclusive throughout most Christian History
(3) There is a textual tradition which makes the name masculine
(4) With these last three points together, it makes the most logical sense to assume that the switch to a masculine name is to compensate for the fact that it was so widely recognize to be an inclusive statement.
(5) The "new" reading is not the one which says they are apostles, but the one which says they are not. I think that's rather important here. For the longest time it was accepted as an inclusive statement. That is why it became "Junias" and not "Junia." It was not until 1881 and 1927 that the masculine name began to appear in Greek New Testaments and English Translations. This was because the dominant reading was still thought to be that it was an inclusive statement.
(6) Once it was conceded that there is no such name as "Junias" anywhere in the Roman and classical world, and that the name must be "Junia" - and only once this was conceded - the debate switched to the ground of whether it is an exclusive or inclusive statement.
(7) Even many of the most Conservative, Reformed, Complementarian exegetes concede that it is an inclusive statement (e.g. Doug Moo).

Clear? perhaps not so cut and dry- still this makes for a VERY strong case.

[Shea Zellweger]

So the question is what does "εισιν επισημοι εν" actually say? Is is clear? Really? What contemporary texts could we point to in order to gain some insight? Is it really clear that "επισημοι" is used here in an implied comparative sense or is it elative? I've read a bit on it here and there, and I don't find any more consensus than can be found in the english. It doesn't appear clear in this account:

This post included the following quote at this point:

As an aside, some commentators reject such an elative sense in this passage because of the collocation with the preposition ejn,5 but such a view is based on a misperception of the force of the whole construction. On the one hand, there is a legitimate complaint about seeing ejn with dative as indicating an agent , and to the extent that “well known by the apostles” implies an action on the apostles’ part (viz., that the apostles know) such an objection has merit.6 On the other hand, the idea of something being known by someone else does not necessarily imply agency. This is so for two reasons. First, the action implied may actually be the passive reception of some event or person (thus, texts such as 1 Tim 3:16, in which the line w[fqh ajggevloi" can be translated either as “was seen by angels” or “appeared to angels”; either way the “action” performed by angels is by its very nature relatively passive). Such an idea can be easily accommodated in Rom 16:7: “well known to/by the apostles” simply says that the apostles were recipients of information, not that they actively performed “knowing.” Thus, although ejn plus a personal dative does not indicate agency, in collocation with words of perception, (ejn plus) dative personal nouns are often used to show the recipients. In this instance, the idea would then be “well known to the apostles.” Second, even if ejn with the dative plural is used in the sense of “among” (so Moo here, et alii), this does not necessarily locate Andronicus and Junia within the band of apostles; rather, it is just as likely that knowledge of them existed among the apostles.

The above quote comes from Daniel Wallace, while the name given (Ninguém) is Portuguese for "nobody." Did you get this from elsewhere that listed the author as such? If not, I am genuinely curious as to your reasoning for obscuring the identity of the author?

[Jim Chabot]

"supposed scholars" "contrive this" "utter contempt" "vain fabrication" And all that in one sentence!

No matter which side of the issue is taken, such language reveals prejudice and a closed mind not any kind of reasoned conclusion.

And the fact is that the Greek allows it, although does not prove it either way.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

Ha! Your a funny guy Dennis. I am shocked, appalled, mortified and singularly dismayed that you would find fault in such language. Why not so very long ago you displayed similar thoughts yourself directed towards Dale and Myself.

I suppose that I could have reacted in a much better manner and with Ben's help I have moderated my thoughts somewhat.

So how about you give us a better example to go by.

That aside I appreciate your input on the greek. My reading has brought me to the same conclusion.

[Jim Chabot]

This post included the following quote at this point:

The above quote comes from Daniel Wallace, while the name given (Ninguém) is Portuguese for "nobody." Did you get this from elsewhere that listed the author as such? If not, I am genuinely curious as to your reasoning for obscuring the identity of the author?

I hope that you realize that I generally cannot go very long without injecting a bit of humor into things. What seems to happen a lot around here is the name dropping of various scholars without showing their work. My take is that their names are relatively unimportant, rather what they have said could have merit. This practice of name dropping and then criticizing one who does not give proper respect is a good fit for elitism. So my reasoning was that the proper name to use when debating the merits should be Ninguém, or nobody.

We have a large Cape Verdian population at our church so I am familiar with the term. It is the name and title that I give myself at church.

[Shea Zellweger]

I hope that you realize that I generally cannot go very long without injecting a bit of humor into things. What seems to happen a lot around here is the name dropping of various scholars without showing their work. My take is that their names are relatively unimportant, rather what they have said could have merit. This practice of name dropping and then criticizing one who does not give proper respect is a good fit for elitism. So my reasoning was that the proper name to use when debating the merits should be Ninguém, or nobody.

We have a large Cape Verdian population at our church so I am familiar with the term. It is the name and title that I give myself at church.

thanks, I was a bit confused.

As for "name-dropping," I would suggest it is more significant than simple elitism. Who said something is nearly as important as what was said- if you presented a quote from "nobody" that turned out to be a portion of the writings of Joseph Smith, or Sabellius, or whomever, I'd most certainly take issue. However, when it comes to "orthodox" Christians, I am still interested in who said what, as it tells me what authority the individual has to make the claim. Some may be comfortable holding their own opinions as equal in validity to that of an expert in Koine Greek (not saying you do or don't Jim), But I'm pretty sure that someone who has studied something is better equipped to speak on it that someone who has not, and somebody who has studied extensively and gained expertise is better equipped than a neophyte or recreational scholar. I do not hold my friend's medical opinion as equal to my Doctor's, and neither do I hold the theological stance of the average Christian as holding the same weight as the theological expert. You can disagree with this, but I'm pretty sure you'll be taking issue with the apostle Paul on it as well, as he appears to be this very kind of elitist.

[Ryan Scott]

Good gosh. Why the heck does this matter?

I wasn't joking. Seriously, I've yet to see any reason in any of these posts why it matters one way or the other.

[Jim Chabot]

I disagree. I'm with Ben in regard to the inclusive/exclusive discussion- For the first 2000 years of Christian tradition, Junia/s' apostleship was generally accepted, while it was the gender that was debated. The inclusive/exclusive debate is a new one, carried out almost entirely by non-native speakers of the language. Although I see the ambiguity as an outsider looking in, I think this is just one of many examples of clear language becoming unclear in translation, and the ambiguity of the translation has then caused us to insert ambiguity in the original text where previously there was none.


You're free to say that. Could you do a decent job of backing this up, preferably utilizing the work of those who would have been most familiar with the language? I'll agree that there are many things that can be gained from studying recent scholarship, but the nuances of ancient Greek is not one of those.

OK, but regardless the greek is no more clear than the resulting english. While the "aha now I've got you, nobody argued this so long as Junias was male!!!" kind of argument is conspiracy theory stuff, it is not indicative. You say that this is an example of clear language becoming unclear in translation. That does not appear to be the case, the underlying language is every bit as unclear as the resulting translation.

From what I have read on this so far, it appears that language familiarity is not going to be helpful here. The gender issue is predicated upon a single accent mark, and on the inclusion issue the language is ambiguous.

[Jim Chabot]

thanks, I was a bit confused.

As for "name-dropping," I would suggest it is more significant than simple elitism. Who said something is nearly as important as what was said- if you presented a quote from "nobody" that turned out to be a portion of the writings of Joseph Smith, or Sabellius, or whomever, I'd most certainly take issue. However, when it comes to "orthodox" Christians, I am still interested in who said what, as it tells me what authority the individual has to make the claim. Some may be comfortable holding their own opinions as equal in validity to that of an expert in Koine Greek (not saying you do or don't Jim), But I'm pretty sure that someone who has studied something is better equipped to speak on it that someone who has not, and somebody who has studied extensively and gained expertise is better equipped than a neophyte or recreational scholar. I do not hold my friend's medical opinion as equal to my Doctor's, and neither do I hold the theological stance of the average Christian as holding the same weight as the theological expert. You can disagree with this, but I'm pretty sure you'll be taking issue with the apostle Paul on it as well, as he appears to be this very kind of elitist.

Good post Shea, I agree with most of it. Who said something can indeed matter, however when we only drop the name without any substance it becomes annoying. I can certainly see where you would take issue if I were to surreptitiously post the words of Joseph Smith.

I would certainly not hold my opinion equal to an expert in koine greek, however when there is no clear consensus we are required to decide which greek scholar is making sense, and which one is attempting to gore an ox.

[Shea Zellweger]

I wasn't joking. Seriously, I've yet to see any reason in any of these posts why it matters one way or the other.

few things:
-It stemmed from a discussion on whether there is biblical support for women in ministry, which I would imagine is worth discussing given our church's stance.
-I would think that if some discussion or another should not be head in the theology forum, this would not be the conversation to target as frivolous
-This certainly has more bearing on our church polity and faith practice than probably 50%+ of the conversations had on NN at any given time. I would place it above just about anything that goes on in the forum I host, for starters.

OK, but regardless the greek is no more clear than the resulting english. While the "aha now I've got you, nobody argued this so long as Junias was male!!!" kind of argument is conspiracy theory stuff, it is not indicative. You say that this is an example of clear language becoming unclear in translation. That does not appear to be the case, the underlying language is every bit as unclear as the resulting translation.

From what I have read on this so far, it appears that language familiarity is not going to be helpful here. The gender issue is predicated upon a single accent mark, and on the inclusion issue the language is ambiguous.

The inclusion language is only ambiguous when ripped from tradition. we have 200+ years of Christian tradition stating that Junia was an apostle prior to the book of Romans being canonized, and 1700 more beyond that. The "well-known to the apostles" and similar readings are modern/contemporary developments. I can imagine 2000 years from now people looking at our language, and finding various turns of phrase which are universally understood to mean one thing to be ambiguous because they're just not familiar with the meaning. I would think the consistency of the tradition speaks for itself. Call it "conspiracy theory" if you like, but the same people who "conspired" to make Junia an apostle also conspired to push the specific texts which became canonized- many of them even voted at the Nicene council.

As for the feminine/masculine, the masculine "Junias" is a supposed male name that "could" have existed at the time Paul wrote the letter. The search for "Junias" in other sources is still ongoing, but last I knew it had not been found outside of references to this very Scripture, and one single claim of a "Junias" who had been made the bishop of Apameia, which can be found to also relate to this same Scripture. On the other hand, "Junia" is a regularly occurring name, and always refers to females.

[Jim Chabot]

The inclusion language is only ambiguous when ripped from tradition. we have 200+ years of Christian tradition stating that Junia was an apostle prior to the book of Romans being canonized, and 1700 more beyond that. The "well-known to the apostles" and similar readings are modern/contemporary developments. I can imagine 2000 years from now people looking at our language, and finding various turns of phrase which are universally understood to mean one thing to be ambiguous because they're just not familiar with the meaning. I would think the consistency of the tradition speaks for itself. Call it "conspiracy theory" if you like, but the same people who "conspired" to make Junia an apostle also conspired to push the specific texts which became canonized- many of them even voted at the Nicene council.

As for the feminine/masculine, the masculine "Junias" is a supposed male name that "could" have existed at the time Paul wrote the letter. The search for "Junias" in other sources is still ongoing, but last I knew it had not been found outside of references to this very Scripture, and one single claim of a "Junias" who had been made the bishop of Apameia, which can be found to also relate to this same Scripture. On the other hand, "Junia" is a regularly occurring name, and always refers to females.

I'm going to bed, but just quickly. You do not have tradition on your side in the sense that you indicate. Tradition is that there were no female apostles, once you make Junias a female, you lose the voice of tradition.

[Shea Zellweger]

I'm going to bed, but just quickly. You do not have tradition on your side in the sense that you indicate. Tradition is that there were no female apostles, once you make Junias a female, you lose the voice of tradition.

First, that is not the "sense that [I] indicate." The sense that I indicate is that the apostleship of the individual in question was not debated. The gender most certainly was, but "tradition is that there were no female apostles" is not an accurate claim, as the gender of Junia was regularly debated, while the individual's apostleship was not. It was you who initially stated that you would rather debate apostleship than gender. I'm simply pointing out that until very recently, apostleship was practically settled, and those seeking to unsettle it do not have the linguistic advantage of their predecessors.

If you'd like to shift the debate to whether Junia was male or female, I think you'll find me much more receptive. I will gladly and heartily disagree, but at least you have a stronger leg to stand on when it comes to that side of things.

[Ryan Plott]

I wasn't joking. Seriously, I've yet to see any reason in any of these posts why it matters one way or the other.

In a very real sense, since what we will be judged by is our works does anything we simply talk about really matter? If that is valid, then what is the point of Naznet? Maybe that would be a good thread topic, idk. I don't think it would be a very popular one though. However, now that I think about it, the Concerned Nazarenes may have a different opinion.

I think it's fun to figure things out, or at least get all the info on a topic out on the table. As long as everyone on Naznet in this discussion can walk away from the discussion willing to forgive each other for any slights that may occur I'm looking forward to seeing where this ends up. It's been rough at times but I've enjoyed reading the points and counterpoints. In Galatians 5:12 Paul wishes that his theological opponents would emasculate themselves. I think we could say that nobody on this discussion has made a claim so bold or outrageous! Being better in our language than the Apostle Paul in our confrontations in people we disagree with is a pretty good place to land IMO.

Figuring out if the early church put their money where their mouth was and valued women as much as they did men seems like a worthy endeavor to me.

[Ryan Plott]

Sorry Ryan, just saw that Shea answered your question.

[Hans Deventer]

I'm going to bed, but just quickly. You do not have tradition on your side in the sense that you indicate. Tradition is that there were no female apostles, once you make Junias a female, you lose the voice of tradition.

That would not be a problem. Tradition has way too soon created a huge gap between laity and clergy, and between men and women. And was wrong, very wrong.

[James Diggs]

I wasn't joking. Seriously, I've yet to see any reason in any of these posts why it matters one way or the other.

Other people gave some very good reasons. The thread started out of a discussion about women in ministry to which I don't think the whole argument is dependent on just this one minor point.

But beyond that, can't we just talk about something because it is interesting????????? Why does there have to be something at stake in order to justify having a conversation about this?

[Hans Deventer]

But beyond that, can't we just talk about something because it is interesting????????? Why does there have to be something at stake in order to justify having a conversation about this?

I'm sorry James, but it has to be a matter of life and death. Otherwise we could just have a civil exchange of ideas