"... there was a woman apostle ..."

Epp, Eldon Jay, 2005, ‘Junia – The First Woman Apostle’, Fortress Press – A summary

My overall impression is that Epp makes pretty heavy going of an ‘open-&-shut’ case. Indeed at the end of it I was almost less certain than I was at the start! The basic facts are clear.

The only difference between Junia(f) and Junias(m) is the accenting. The earliest manuscripts were NOT accented ‘For the first seven centuries of the church’s life Greek manuscripts did not employ accents … [when they did] they uniformly identify the name as feminine.’(p.x-xi, BR Gaventa, from the ‘Forward’) so we have to use other means. Three lines present themselves:

1.       Archaeological: how common were the names Junia(f) & ‘Junias’(m) in the/around the time of Paul’s life?

2.       Transcription errors: did the scribes mis-transcribe the name as masculine or feminine?

3.       What did the early ‘commentaries’ written on this chapter in Romans say about the identity of Junia/Junais?

The answers are uniformly clear:

1.       Archaeological: There is simply not a single instance of the existence of a masculine name such as Junias.

a.       The ‘… male name is nowhere attested in the Greco-Roman world.’(p.43).

b.      The female name was, on the other hand, ‘… a common Roman name’ (p.23). Metzger (Textual Commentary, p.475) reported … that ‘the female Latin name Junia occurs more than 250 times in Greek and Latin inscriptions found in Rome alone.’ (Epp,p.92 n2.)

2.       Variants: the only textual variants we have is ‘Julia’. ‘At Rom 16:7 the same Greek word … occurs in all Greek manuscripts except for five that have … “Julia” … clearly a woman’s name … the variant’s significance is … that it supports the presence of a feminine name in the text …’ (p.31).

3.       ‘In his commentary on Romans, Joseph A. Fitzmyer listed some sixteen Greek and Latin commentators of the first Christian millennium who understood [the Greek] as “Junia,” feminine …’ (p.32,  JAF, 1993, ‘Romans’,  AB 33, p737-38).

Junia is NOT a name like Hilary or Leslie but one like Fiona or Margaret ie it is unambiguously feminine.

·         Junia undergoes a ‘gender transformation’

‘… the feminine understanding of [Junia] appears to have been dominant for at least the first millennium of Christianity, but then evolved, through what very much appears to have been an arbitrary change from “Junia” to “Junias” …’ (p.39).

Junia first becomes a man (vir NB Latin) in ca. late 1200’s - ‘… Aegidius {or Giles} of Rome is commonly credited as the first to identify Junia as a male …’ (p.35)! But the underlying Greek continued to be accented as feminine until late 19^th century, 1892 to be precise and then became standard from 1927 in the Nestle edition (p.47-8).

·          ‘Well known to the apostles’??

Lastly there is (‘was’ I hope!) a rather misguided effort to persuade everyone that though it is clear that Junia really was a woman, she was only ‘well known to the apostles’ or indeed that ‘apostle’ doesn’t mean ‘apostle’. Both can be easily dismissed by simply quoting Chrysostom:

“Then another praise besides. ”Who are of note among the Apostles." And indeed to be apostles at all is a great thing. But to be even among these of note, just consider what a great encomium this is! But they were of note owing to their works, to their achievements. Oh! How great is the [wisdom] (φιλοσοφία) of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!” (Chrysostom, Homily on Romans, 31.2)

And indeed ‘… the phrase was thus understood “apparently … by all patristic commentators”’ (Epp, ibid, p.69). ‘Again it is clear that Andronicus & Junia, in Paul’s description, were “outstanding apostles.” (Epp, ibid, p.78)

In conclusion ‘… it remains a fact that there was a woman apostle, explicitly so named, in the earliest generation of Christianity …’ (Epp, ibid, p.81).

May the LORD call whom HE will and may HE bless the ministry of all HIS people, men and women!