Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Rom.16:7

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Christopher R. Hutson" <crhutson AT salisbury.net>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Rom.16:7
  • Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:59:51 -0400


Stephen Carlson wrote:

> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 00:38:44 -0400
> Subject: [corpus-paul] Re: Rom.16:7
>
> At 10:26 PM 10/14/01 EDT, CMccain125 AT aol.com wrote:
>> My question has to do with the name "Junia," whether it is masculine or
>> feminine? Also could you cast some light on his/her apostleship, whether is
>> was authoritative or passive?
>
> A recent article, Burer, Michael H. and Wallace, Daniel B. "Was Junia
> really an apostle? A re-examination of Rom 16.7." New Testament Studies
> 47/1 (2001): 76-91, extensively surveyed Greek literature on TLG and
> came to the conclusion that the text does not assert that Junia was
> an apostle, only that she was well regarded by the apostles.


Yes, as Stephen says, Burer and Wallace argue that EPISHMOS EN TOIS
APOSTOLOIS means "noteworthy *to* the apostles" and not "noteworthy *among*
the apostles." That is, Paul is not saying that Andronicus and Junia were
themselves apostles (missionaries). They do not dispute that Junia was a
woman. They argue only that Paul does not call her an apostle.

I find their grammatical analysis persuasive, and yet this does not obviate
the need to consider two important questions:

(1) For what was Junia "noteworthy"? It still appears that we have another
husband-wife team here, like that of Prisca and Aquila, and so I have no
problem understanding them as teachers of some sort, whether or not Paul
specifically calls them "missionaries" (APOSTOLOI).

(2) How can we account for the subversion of the feminine name "Junia" into
a masculine name in textual and especially translation traditions? It does
appear that scribes and translators have felt a need to read Junia as a man.
I can only account for that by asking again what they thought Junia was
noteworthy for.

In any case, to answer the original question directly, Peter Lampe has laid
to rest any possibility that Junia could have been a man (Junias), since he
has shown that no such name existed in antiquity (see Donfried, _The Romans
Debate_, 2nd ed., p. 223, and bibliography cited there). And now, as Edgar
Krentz points out, even the new BDAG recognizes that the name is certainly
feminine.

XPIC
___________________________
Christopher R. Hutson
Hood Theological Seminary
800 West Thomas Street
Salisbury, NC 28144
(704) 216-6899
crhutson AT salisbury.net
___________________________





  • Re: Rom.16:7, CMccain125, 10/14/2001
    • <Possible follow-up(s)>
    • Re: Rom.16:7, Stephen C. Carlson, 10/16/2001
    • Re: Rom.16:7, Edgar Krentz, 10/16/2001
    • Re: Rom.16:7, Christopher R. Hutson, 10/16/2001

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page