Romans 16 Women: Junia the Apostle

“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 devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle! But even here he does not stop, but adds another encomium besides, and says, ​”​Who were also in Christ before me.”

John Chrysostom ^[1]

In Romans 16, Paul greets many people that were his co-workers, friends, church leaders, and believers. The number of women mentioned is astonishing and probably the greatest support for the idea that women were very active in the early church. These women were likely quite outspoken, spreading the Gospel of Jesus across the Roman empire, sometimes resulting in their imprisonment. Indeed, for women to be put into prison, it would have likely meant they were responsible for a public disturbance^[2]. One of these women was Junia, along with her (perhaps) husband, Andronicus. They were in prison with Paul, likely meaning they were involved in the same kind of work that Paul was doing, spreading the Gospel. 

“Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.”

Romans 16:7, NIV

History has tried to erase this woman. She has been misgendered as a man, and some claim that she was never an apostle. Why? Because her existence is threatening to the ideology that only men should occupy leadership positions in the church. How can we say that women cannot be pastors if there was a woman apostle in the first century? The answer is we can’t. In fact, according to Paul, the greatest workers in the Lord were the Apostles, not the pastors: 

“And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? Now eagerly desire the greater gifts.”

(1 Corinthians 12:28, NIV)

“So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”

(Ephesians 4:11-13, NIV)

Being an apostle was considered greater than being a pastor in the first century, and rightfully so. Therefore, if Junia was a woman and an apostle, we would be hard-pressed to justify preventing women from being pastors. Many tried but ultimately failed to argue that Junia was actually a man or that she was not even an apostle. Let us examine the evidence.

Was Junia a woman?

You will find in some English translations the name Junias instead of Junia (ASV, AMP, CEV, MSG, NLV, RSV), suggesting that this person was not a woman but a man. If it is indeed a man, then we have no record of a female apostle in the Bible, and the case for female leadership inside the church is weakened. If, however, Junia was really a woman and an apostle, it would be hard to justify preventing women from being pastors or leaders in the church, even considering difficult passages such as 1 Timothy 2:12.

What is the evidence as to whether this was a man or a woman? The difference would be a single accent in the name indicating this person’s gender. Early manuscripts were written in majuscules and did not have accents. As reverend Ray R. Schulz wrote in 1987:

“Since accents were added only in approximately the 9th and 10th centuries the testimony of the Church Fathers is important. Those who wrote before these dates read an unaccented text and interpreted according to context and forms of the Greek. Their familiarity in reading unaccented Greek and in many cases speaking the language would surely mean their understanding of the words would be as certain if not more so than that of modern scholars. From all the Church Fathers up to about the 12th century this writer has found in Migne who quote this text or comment on it all give the name of either Junia or Julia (a minority). In one place Origen, according to Migne, has Junias (PG 14, col 1289). However, according to B. Brooten the manuscripts of Origen are feminine throughout.”

Ray R. Schulz ^[3]

Eldon J. Epp comments in his book Junia: The First Woman Apostle that 20^th century Greek critical editions (such as UBS^4(1993) and N-A^27(1993)) had the masculine name for Junias and provided only the majuscules as textual support with an A rating (strong evidence). But as noted above, the majuscules did not have accents and therefore cannot be used as support for the male Junias. More recent UBS and N-A editions have now changed back to the feminine Junia with strong manuscript support in the accented manuscripts. The reality is no manuscripts seem to have the masculine accent form of the name Junias^[4].

And this is without mentioning the more than 250 inscriptions that support the female Latin name Junia in Rome alone! On the other hand, not a single case of the male name Junias has been found yet^[5][6].

Also, Junia being a roman Latin name, its male counterpart would be Junius, not Junias (it would be Junios in Greek). Junius was indeed a common Latin name at that time. In this case, as different letters would have been used, Junia’s gender would be easy to identify^[7].

Michael Bird has commented:

“There is a tsunami of textual and patristic evidence for ‘Junia’ that proves overwhelming. Despite some naughty scribes, biased translators, lazy lexicographers and dogmatic commentators, the text speaks about a woman named ‘Junia.’ Jewett goes so far as to call the masculine ‘Junias’ a ‘figment of chauvinistic imagination.'”

Michael Bird ^[8]

Ouff! Harsh… 

People have been influenced by these older critical editions of the Greek New Testament since 1927, when the masculine Junias was introduced in the Nestle-Aland. Junias has even made it into our modern English translations (older translations such as the KJV had Junia). But the strong evidence for Junia prevailed, and more and more people recognized that Junia was indeed a woman.  Likewise, she is reappearing in our English texts. Hurray for textual criticism! What a roller coaster ride this woman has gone through.

Was Junia an apostle?

But when more and more people realized they could no longer hold to the male name Junias, they started questioning whether or not she was even an apostle. Because we couldn’t have that now could we! 

Why do some think that Junia could not be an apostle? They say that Junia and Andronicus were not “outstanding among the apostles” but were “well-known to the apostles.” According to them, the little Greek word ἐν, usually meaning “in” or “among,” would not actually mean that they were included in the group of apostles but only known to them (excluded). 

Examining the evidence for the translation “well-known to the apostles”

So why do some think this means “well-known to the apostles?” Michael Burer and Daniel B. Wallace are probably the ones making the most substantive case that it could be translated as “well-known to the apostles.” They wrote an article in 2001 entitled: “Was Junia Really an Apostle? Rom 16.7 Re-examined. ^[9]” This article was addressed in detail by Eldon Jay Epp’s 2005 book Junia: The First Woman Apostle. I highly recommend this book! Since his rebuttal to Burer’s and Wallace’s first article is extensive, I will not discuss the details here. 

But Michael Burer wrote a rebuttal to Epp and others that revendicated his earlier work.  In this article he gives more examples to support his claim that ἐπίσημος+ ἐν+dative (as found in Rom 16:7) is usually used in the exclusive sense^[10]. Contextualized in Rom 16:7, this would mean that Andronicus and Junia should be understood as outside the apostles’ group and therefore not of note among the apostles (inclusive), but well-known to the apostles (exclusive). 

However, I find his presentation of the evidence quite troublesome. At the end of his article, he lists the 36 passages that supposedly support his hypothesis that ἐπίσημος(+ἐν)+dative is exclusive. But one must note that is many of these examples ἐν is not even present and therefore cannot be used to support their claim or be used as examples of passages that can illuminate Rom 16:7 (that does have ἐν.)

I say this because the dative is often used to express “the person or thing that is indirectly affected by an action” and is translated by adding “to” or “for” before the noun^[11]. If in Rom 16:7 we did not have the ἐν (“in” or “among”), then we would probably translated it as “considered distinguished by the apostles” or possibly “well-known to the apostles.” I would have little to say to contradict this. But the ἐν changes everything because it adds the meaning of inclusion because it means “in” or “among.”

Additionally, many of his examples of ἐπίσημος+ ἐν+dative he does give are begging the question. He translated these passages in such a way so that it seems like they are exclusive (“well-known to”), assuming the very thing he is trying to prove. 

Take this one example from Eusebius Theol. et Scr. Eccl. (AD 4), Praeparatio evangelica. Bk. 10 chp. 14 sec. 11 line 1. He translated it as follows:

 “Now this man [Thales of Miletus] became most well known among the Greeks.” (ἐπίσημος+ ἐν+dative)

Burer qualifies this passage as exclusive to support his hypothesis, meaning that Thales of Miletus is excluded from the group consisting of the Greeks. Yet Thales of Miletus was a Greek philosopher^[12]. I searched for a different translation and found this within its larger context:

“In the time of Cyrus Solon of Athens was flourishing, and the so-called Seven Sages among the Greeks, than whom their records mention no more ancient philosopher.

Of these seven then Thales of Miletus, who was the first natural philosopher among the Greeks, discoursed concerning the solar tropics and eclipse, and the phases of the moon, and the equinox. This man became most distinguished among the Greeks.” 

Eusebius ^[13]

It is evident from the context that Thales of Miletus is included among the Greeks. This passage is therefore inclusive and goes against their hypothesis. Additionally, this translation by E. H. Gifford (1903) understood it to mean “distinguished among the Greeks,” not “well known among the Greeks,” as Burer claims it should be translated. 

Another example of a misleading translation is found in their analysis of an excerpt in Scholia in Euripidem. They translate it:

“And well known, that is to say distinguishable, to mortals (καὶ ἐπίσημος, ἤγουν διάδηλος, ἐν βροτοῖς), being clearly from those good and well-born.” ^[14]

Why does he translate ἐπίσημος as “well known” instead of “of note” or “outstanding,” when it is even specified that is what it means (“that is to say distinguishable”). Also, he translated it as “to mortals” instead of “among mortals.” Why? They are clearly part of the mortals and thus included in the group (not excluded, as Burer argues) since they are from those “well-born.” This, again, goes against his hypothesis and reinforces the idea that his analysis is doubtful; it reduces his credibility.

Burer often translates ἐπίσημος+ ἐν as “well-known to,” whereas “distinguishes among” or “of note among” is a more literal and lexically supported translation. “Well-known” is not a lexical definition of ἐπίσημος^[15]. I do not know what texts he uses to support their claim that ἐπίσημος means “well-known” as they do not address this. They only claim that ἐπίσημος+ ἐν+dative should be understood to be exclusive and therefore translated as “well known to,” which is the hypothesis they are trying to make (and fail to in my opinion). This is just not how Romans 16:7 was translated or understood until the late 20^th century. It seems to me that complementarians then scrambled to find other ways to continue to deny that there were ever any female apostles.

Burer therefore uses passages that are irrelevant (do not have ἐν) so that it seems that more passages support his claim and translates the other passages in such a way that assumes his conclusion, even going against other available translations. In so doing he is begging the question. It is therefore hard for me to take this article seriously.

Burer does argue that if we can find a single case of ἐπίσημος+ ἐν+dative that is exclusive, then we cannot rule out that Paul did not intend us to understand that Andronicus and Junia were apostles. I agree, and Burer does offer at least one such example as far as I can tell. However, the most likely understanding is that Andronicus and Junia were outstanding apostles.

Other reasons to reject the translation “well-known to the apostles”

There are also several other reasons to reject this novel interpretation. First, the patristic Fathers understood Andronicus and Junia to be apostles. Second, this simple word ἐν means “in” or “among,” not “to.” Third, Paul compares this couple to himself four times, making it likely they had equivalent ministries as apostles. 

First, our church Fathers, who were closer to the social context of the roman empire, and that often spoke Greek, understood Andronicus and Junia to be apostles. The most notable example is from Chrysostom:

“To be an apostle is something great. But to be outstanding among the apostles— just think what a wonderful song of praise that is! They were outstanding on the basis of their works and virtuous actions. Indeed, how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle.”

John Chrysostom ^[16]

Second, ἐν is usually translated as “in” or “among.” It is not usually used to exclude from a group as is proposed by those who suggest Junia was well known to the apostles (exclusive) as opposed to “outstanding among the apostle” (inclusive). To translate it as “in” or “among” the group of apostles is the most natural, literal translation. Even the KJV, written way before the women’s right’s movement, regarded Junia as an apostle:

“Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.”

(Rm 16:7, KJV)

Third, As Marg Mowscko points out, the four statements Paul makes about Andronicus and Junia compare them to himself. He says they are “my fellow Jews,” “in prison with me,” “outstanding among the apostles” (as he undoubtedly his), and that they “were in Christ before I was.”^[17]

Translating ἐν as “well known to the apostles” would make this statement an outlier in what Paul’s intentions seem to be, to compare this couple and their work to himself. This is a list of their characteristics and credentials. It is a list describing who they are or what they have done. What would be the point of saying that the disciples know this couple? Are we to believe that Paul greets them because they are like celebrities in the eyes of the apostles as opposed to him recognizing their significant ministry as apostles?

Has Paul ever relied on the opinion of the apostles to elevate someone? In Romans specifically, he focuses instead on their accomplishments or suffering for the Lord: being imprisoned (Rm 16:7), risking their lives (Rm 16:2), being his co-workers (Rm 16:2.9), being a benefactor (Rm 16:1), working hard (Rm 16:6.12), or because of their faith/being in Christ (Rm 16:5.7.10.11). All of the greetings in Rm 16 seem to be people recognized for something they did, not for being famous or known to other people of note. Saying that Andronicus and Junia are just well-known to the apostles would stand as an outlier.

There is no need to invent creative interpretations of this passage when the historical and literal understanding, supported by usage and lexicons, makes sense. The only reason people are starting to find creative ways to deny the title of apostle to Junia is that it does not fit with their preconceived idea that women must not teach men or have any kind of authority over men. It is hard to imagine an apostle that did not proclaim the truth of Jesus Christ or did not have influence or vested authority recognized in the Christian community. 

I highly doubt that if Paul had been speaking about two men, there would be any debate. If this had been two men (a now untenable position), no one would have questioned that these were two apostles.

“It is also unnatural to read the text as merely claiming that they had a high reputation with “the apostles.” Since they were imprisoned with him, Paul knows them well enough to recommend them without appealing to the other apostles, whose judgment he never cites on such matters, and the Greek is most naturally read as claiming that they were apostles […] Those who favor the view that Junia was not a female apostle do so because of their prior assumption that women could not be apostles, not because of any evidence in the text.” 

Craig S. Keener ^[18]

Is Junia Joanna?

How could Junia be an apostle? Paul often defended his own apostleship by saying that he saw the Lord (1 Co 9:1) and was commissioned by him to spread the Gospel. With Paul’s criteria in mind, Junia must have seen the risen Christ. Paul says that Andronicus and Junia were in Christ before he was, meaning they were in Christ very early and possibly from the very beginning. They could have even known Jesus before his crucifixion. 

Richard Bauckham proposed that Junia may be the same person as Joanna (Lk 8:3, 24:10). Joanna was a disciple of Jesus, was at the empty tomb, and was among the women who first told the 11 disciples and all the others that Jesus had risen. These women were the first believers in the resurrection; no one was in Christ before them. 

Junia, Bauckham claims, would be a likely roman (Latin) translation of the Jewish name Joanna as they are phonetically similar. This was how individuals chose Greek or Latin name equivalents. Junia indeed seems to be Jewish as Paul identifies Andronicus and Junia as his relatives, likely meaning Jewish. Therefore, it would be possible that she had a Hebrew name originally (Joanna) and adopted a Latin name when living in Rome or because she was among Herod’s entourage (she was the wife of Herod’s servant Chuza’s, Lk 8:3)^[19].

We can never be certain of this, but it is historically possible and could explain why Junia is called an apostle. Bauckman also writes that Andronicus could be Junia’s second husband if she were widowed from Chuza or if Chuza abandoned her because she became a Christian (1 Co 7:12-16).

Conclusion

Why is this one woman so important? Apostleship is undoubtedly the highest function anyone has had in the history of the Church since Jesus’s resurrection. If women were indeed considered apostles in the first century, it becomes unjustified to limit women in any way in the church. The apostles held the utmost authority in the early church and their teachings, in some instances, became Holy Scripture. That more men than women were apostles is natural considering the historical context but in no way removes the honor that is conferred onto this specific woman, Junia. If a woman can be an apostle, I see no justification to prevent women from being teachers or having a position of leadership or authority in the church. The fact that men have spent considerable energy to support the idea that Junia was a man or that she was not even among the apostles highlights how damaging this woman’s existence is to their complementarian or hierarchical position. I have no doubt that in a couple of years it will be untenable for anyone to continue to assert that Junia was not a woman or an apostle.

---

References

^[1] John Chrysostom. Homily 31 on Romans, Rom XVI ver. 7. in  Schaff, Phil. The Complete Works of the Church Fathers. Toronto, Canada. 2016. Kindle edition, loc 402133

^[2] Bailey, Kenneth E. Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes. IVP Academic. 2008. ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0830825681

ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0830825684

^[3] Ray R. Schulz. “Romans 16:7: Junia or Junias?” The Expository Times. Volume: 98 issue: 4, page(s): 108-110

Issue published: January 1, 1987

^[4] Epp, Eldon J., Junia: The First Woman Apostle. Augsburg Fortress Publishers. 22 September 2005. Kindle Edition Loc 593 of 1663.

^[5] Epp, Eldon J., Junia: The First Woman Apostle. Augsburg Fortress Publishers. 22 September 2005. Kindle Edition Loc 551, 581, 588, 696 of 1663.

^[6] Some suggest that Junias is a shortened version of the male name Junianus. But again, there is no textual support for the name Junias, if it really is a shortened version of that name and was used at the time of the New Testament, why is there no known instance of its use?

^[7] Cervin, Richard S. “A Note Regarding the Name ‘Junia(s)’ in Romans 16.7.” New

Testament Studies, 40, pp 464-470. 1994.  doi:10.1017/S0028688500012704

^[8] Bird, Romans. The Story of God Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 2016.

^[9] Burer, Michael H., Wallace, Daniel B., “Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Re-examination of Rom 16.7.” New Test. Stud. 47, pp. 76–91. 2001. Cambridge University Press

^[10] Burer, Michael. “ἘΠΙΣΗΜΟΙ ἘΝ ΤΟΙΣ ἈΠΟΣΤΟΛΟΙΣ In Rom 16:7 As “Well Known To The Apostles”: Further Defense And New Evidence.” JETS 58:4 (Dec 2015)

^[11] Wikipedia. “Ancient Greek nouns.” Accessed 2021-09-19. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_nouns

^[12] Wikipedia. “Thales of Miletus.” Accessed 2021-09-16. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales_of_Miletus

^[13] Flavius Josephus Hist. (AD 1), Antiquitates Eusebius of Caesarea Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel).Tr. by E. H. Gifford (1903) This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, Ipswich, UK, 2003.

All material on this page is in the public domain – copy freely. Available online https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0Bw9DD8Hgvs_HNDY0OTExM2UtZWU3Yy00MTg3LTg2NjYtNzZiNWMyMzhhNTIx&hl=en_GB

^[14] Scholia in Euripidis Hecubam. scholia vetera et scholia recentiora Thomae Magistri, Triclinii, Moschopuli et anonyma) (date varia). Sec. Sch hyp-scholion 379 line 30.

^[15] Thayer’s greek lexicon : 

ἐπίσημος, ἐπίσημον (σῆμα a sign, mark);

1. properly, having a mark on it, marked, stamped, coined: ἀργύριον, χρυσός (Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Polybius, Josephus).

2. tropically, marked (Latininsignis), both in a good and bad sense; in a good sense, of note, illustrious: Romans 16:7 (Herodotus and following); in a bad sense, notorious, infamous: Matthew 27:16 (Euripides, Or. 249; Josephus, Antiquities 5, 7, 1; Plutarch, Fab. Max. 14; others). https://biblehub.com/greek/1978.htm

LSJ:

ἐπί-σημος , Dor. ἐπί-σα_μος , ον, (σῆμα)

A.serving to distinguish, “τοῖς δ᾽ ὄνομ᾽ ἄνθρωποι κατέθεντ᾽ ἐ. ἑκάστῳ” Parm.19.3.

II.. having a mark, inscription or device on it, esp. of money, stamped, coined, χρυσὸς ἐ., opp. ἄσημος, Hdt.9.41; “ἀργύριον” Th.2.13; “χρυσίον” X.Cyr.4.5.40, cf.IG12.301, al.; so ἀναθήματα οὐκ ἐ. offerings with no inscription on them, Hdt.1.51; ἀσπίδες ἐ., opp. λεῖαι, IG12.280, cf. Men.526.

2.. of epileptic patients, bearing the marks of the disease, Hp.Morb.Sacr.8; of cattle, spotted or striped, LXX Ge.30.42.

3.. notable, remarkable, μνῆμ᾽ ἐ. a speaking remembrance, S.Ant.1258(anap.); “ξυμφοραί” E.Or.543; εὐνή, λέχος, Id.HF68, Or.21; “τύχη” Id.Med.544; “χαρακτήρ” Id.Hec.379; τάφος “ἐπισημότατος” Th.2.43; “τιμωρία” Lycurg.129; “τόποι” IG12(3).326.42 (Thera, Sup.); of garments, fine, SIG695.39 (Magn. Mae., ii B.C.); and of persons, ἐ. σοφίην notable for wisdom, Hdt.2.20; “ἐ. ἐν βροτοῖς” E.Hipp.103; “ἐ. ξένοι” Ar.Fr.543: in bad sense, conspicuous, notorious, “ἐς τὸν ψόγον” E.Or.249; δέσμιος ἐ. Ev.Matt.27.16; “διὰ δημοκοπίαν” Plu.Fab.14; “ἐπὶ τῇ μοχθηρίᾳ” Luc.Rh.Pr.25.

4.. significant, οὐκ ἐ. Artem.1.59, 3.32.

III.. Adv. “-μως” Plb.6.39.9, Sm.Ps.73(74).4, J.BJ6.1.8: Comp. “-ότερον” Gal.9.762; “-οτέρως” Artem.2.9: Sup. “-ότατα” Luc.Hist.Conscr.43.

Henry George Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. revised and augmented throughout by. Sir Henry Stuart Jones. with the assistance of. Roderick McKenzie. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1940. 

(emphasis in bold mine)

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3De)pi%2Fshmos

^[16] In Epistolanum ad Romanos 31.2; Patrologiae cursus completus, series Graeca [PG] 60.669-670 

^[17] Mowczko, Marg. “Was Junia well known ‘to’ the apostles?” November 29, 2019   https://margmowczko.com/is-junia-well-known-to-the-apostles/

^[18] Keener, Craig S. Paul, Women, and Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul. Baker publishing group. 2012. Scribd edition p.270

^[19] Bauckham, Richard. Gospel Women : Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels. Eerdsmans, 2002, pp. 172-80

Image Credit

Unknown author, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Andronicus,_Athanasius_of_Christianoupolis_and_Junia.jpg