Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Junia/s

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Frich107 AT aol.com
  • To: corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Junia/s
  • Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 11:42:36 EDT

Licia Kuenning asks:

>Has anyone any insight on Romans 16:7, where Paul greets Andronicus and
>Junia(s), as to whether the last named was male or female? And if female,
>was she Andronicus' wife? Chrysostom assumes this person was a woman; I
>am not aware of any earlier commentary on the question. I have seen it
argued
>that Chrysostom's view should be accepted as the earliest testimony on
>the subject; I've also seen it argued that a woman would not have been called
>an apostle.

To which Dave Hindley replies:

>It may depend on what you think the title "apostle" was supposed to signify.
><snip>Technically,
>Junias can be a male name even though the word itself takes the feminine
>form, so commentators have had the ability to get around the possibility
>of a female apostle if it bothered them.

My response:

First of all, I will address the gender issue. Although Dave is perfectly
correct to point out that technically IUNIAS could be either a male or female
form, it should also be noted that the male form (a shortened version of the
man's name Junianus) is unnatested in any literature. The female form is
relatively common with no plenty of attestations in literature. Crysostom's
relatively
early reference, along with many other later references up until the middle
ages (with one exception that I can't remember off the top of my head) all
refer
to Junia, a woman.

Licia says that she has seen it argued that women would not have been
apostles. This is a very interesting question, to which there are many
answers. My
own answer is that there appear to be such women in certain parts of the
early
Christ believing communities, as can be argued from varying sources. However,
I
do not believe that Junia was one of them. In fact, it is my opinion that
Paul does not believe women to be apostles, or even capable of becoming them.
The
Greek in Romans 16:7 is a little ambiguous, but as has been argued
brilliantly by Burer and Wallace in a relatively recent New Testament Studies
journal
article grammatically it seems more likely that Junia (and Andronicus) were
simply well known by the apostles, and not 'prominent amongst the apostles.
See
the article: (Burer, Michael H. & Wallace, Daniel B., 'Was Junia really an
Apostle? A Re-examination of Rom. 16.7' in New Testament Studies 47
(Cambridge;
Cambridge University Press, 2001; pp.76-91))

I am also interested in the thoughts that Dave has put together about the
role of an apostle, though ultimately I disagree with what he says when
applied
on such a universal level. I believe that his description is virtually spot
on
for what Paul refers to as 'apostles of the church(es)', who indeed had
emissary/financial collecting responsibilities. However, I believe that Paul
means
much more than this when he speaks of himself as an apostle of Christ Jesus,
as
he does on numerous occasions in his letters.

Regards,
Fred Rich.

Ph.D. Student,
Department of Biblical Studies,
University of Sheffield,
Sheffield,
South Yorkshire,
UK.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page