The question of whether the name ΙΟΥΝΙΑΝ in ancient Greek manuscripts of Romans 16:7 is the masculine name Junias or the feminine name Junia came up again on Facebook, and I shared some information there that I’ve been sitting on for a while. I thought I should share it here too.
But first, here’s the NIV translation of Romans 16:7.
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.
The feminine names Junia and Julia in Romans 16:7
The following is a list of early and medieval Christian scholars who took the second name in Romans 16:7 to be the female name Junia or, occasionally, the female name Julia.[1]
- Origen (c. 185–254) Commentarius in epistolum ad Romanos, Book 10 (10.21 cf. 10:26) (PG 14.1280). (More on Origen below.)
- Chrysostom (c. 344/345–407), In epistolum ad Romanos 31.2 (PG 60.699-670)
- Jerome (c. 345-419), Liber interpretationis hebraicorum nominun 72.15 (CCLat 72.150) and Expositio ep. ad Romanos 16:7 (PL 30.744)
- Ambrosiaster (c. 379), Commentarius in epistolum ad Romanos (CSEL 81.480) “Julia”
- Theodoret of Cyrrhus (c. 393–c. 458), Interpretatio epistolum ad Romanos (PG 82.219-29)
- Ps. –Primasius (died c. 567), Commentarius in epistolum ad Romanos (PL 68.505)
- John Damascene (c. 675–c. 749), In epistolum ad Romanos (PG 95.565)
- Rabanus Maurus of Fulda (776–856), In epistolum ad Romanos (PL 111.1607D-1608B) (PDF)
- Haymo of Halberstadt (fl. 840–853), In epistolum ad Romanos (PL 117.505)
- Hatto of Vercelli (885–961), In epistolum ad Romanos 16: “Virum et uxorem intellegere debemus” (PL 134.282) “Julia”
- Lanfranc of Bec (c. 1005-1089), Commentarius in epistolum ad Romanos (PL 150.153-4) (PDF)
- Bruno the Carthusian (c. 1030-1101)
- Theophylact of Bulgaria (fl. 1070-1081) Commentarius in epistolum ad Romanos (PG 124.552)
- Peter Abelard (1079-1142)
- Peter Lombard (c. 1069-1169)
Furthermore, the Old Latin, early Syriac, and early Coptic translations have a feminine name. And the Greek Orthodox Church which uses the Greek New Testament and Septuagint as their primary texts— they know Greek!—has always regarded Junia as a woman.
On top of this, Bruce M. Metzger notes,
… (1) the female Latin name Junia occurs over 250 times in Greek and Latin inscriptions found in Rome alone, whereas the male name is unattested anywhere, and (2) when Greek manuscripts [containing Romans 16:7] began to be accented, scribes wrote the feminine Ἰουνίαν (“Junia”).”
Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (D-Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 475.
The masculine name Junias in Romans 16:7
By comparison, there are very few instances where the name ΙΟΥΝΙΑΝ is rendered as a masculine name in ancient texts or commentaries of Romans 16:7. It was thought that Minuscule 33, a Greek manuscript dating from the ninth century, had the name accented as a masculine name. But this idea has been disputed and overturned. Peter Lampe, for example, writes,
I am now convinced (Paris, Bib. Nation., Grec 14, p. 100 verso, 1. 1) Minuscule 33 from the ninth century places an acute accent and writes the feminine ïουνίαν, so that, contrary to Aland’s text-critical apparatus, we have a witness for the feminine variant.[2]
There is a bit of confusion over Origen (c. 185–254) and his mention of Junia(s) in his commentary on Romans. Origen’s commentary on Romans survives in Greek fragments and as an early Latin translation by Rufinus (345-410). The feminine name occurs in section 10.21 in Rufinus’ translation of Origen’s commentary, but on one occasion, in section 10.26, the name is the masculine “Junias.” Fitzmyer discusses the discrepancy in Rufinus’ translation and suggests the masculine name was not in Origin’s original Greek commentary on Romans. Most scholars acknowledge that the masculine name is an error. In the early 900s, Rabanus Maurus quoted from Origen’s commentary but only gave the feminine name Junia (PL 111.1607D-1608B) (PDF).
And finally, the Index Discipulorum, a list of apostles attributed to Epiphanius and dated to the 4th century, though it may be late as the 9th century, has the male names Junias and Priscas instead of the correct female names Junia and Prisca.
It was Giles (also known as Aegidius) of Rome (1247-1316) who seems to have been the first person who unambiguously understood Andronicus and his ministry partner to be both “worthy men.” Working from Latin texts that contained both names, Junia and Julia (Latin: Juniam and Juliam), Giles went with Juliam and assumed Andronicus’s partner was a man with a name equivalent to Julias. (See Aegidii Columnae Romani in epistolam Pauli ad Romanos commentaria, Lectio 52, 97, here.)
A few hundred years later, Martin Luther translated ΙΟΥΝΙΑΝ as the masculine name (with the masculine article) den Juniam in his 1552 German translation of the New Testament. A masculine reading slowly gained traction and was adopted by other translators including the English translators of the Revised Version in 1881. This was the first major, Protestant, English Bible to make Junia a man named Junias.[3]
Conclusion
On this topic, Michael Bird has observed,
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.’
Bird, Romans (The Story of God Bible Commentary) (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016)
And James D.G. Dunn has stated,
[The female name Junia] was taken for granted by the patristic commentators, and indeed up to the Middle Ages. The assumption that it must be male is a striking indictment of male presumption regarding the character and structure of earliest Christianity… We may firmly conclude, however, that one of the foundation apostles of Christianity was a woman and wife.
Dunn, Romans 9-16 (Word Biblical Commentary, Vol 38B) (Dallas, TX: Word, 1988), 894.
Footnotes
[1] Many of the names above are taken from Joseph A. Fitzmyer’s Romans: A New Translation and Commentary (The Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday, 1993), with additional information taken from, Eldon Jay Epp’s chapter, “Text-Critical, Exegetical and Socio-Cultural Factors Affecting the Junia/Junia Variation in Romans 16:7”, in New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis: Festschrift J. Delobel, A. Denaux (ed.) (Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 2002), 227-291.
[2] Peter Lampe, Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries: From Paul to Valentinus, trans. Michael Steinhauser (London: Continuum, 2003),166, fn 39. In the same footnote, Lampe goes on to say that the masculine name “Junias” is “an embarrassing solution fabricated by men.” (Google Books)
[3] See John Thorley, “Junia, a Woman Apostle”, in Novum Testamentum, Vol. 38 (January 1996), 18-29, 18.
Image
A second-century funerary relief of a Roman couple carved from marble. (Wikimedia)
Related Articles
Junia: The Jewish Woman Imprisoned with Paul
Junia in Romans 16:7
Is Junia well known “to” the apostles?
All articles on Junia here.
Junia, Nympha, Euodia, Stephana(s): Men or Women?
Paul’s Female Coworkers
A List of the 29 People in Romans 16:1-16
I seem to recall that I read someone claiming that if the name had really been «Junias», then the accusative case would have been «ΙΟΥΝΑΝ», dropping the second «Ι». I have since tried to find this again, but have not been able to. So maybe I just imagined it. But if this was right, it would really be decisive.
My understanding is that the Junias and Junia are identical in the accusative case: Iounian. The same goes for Nymphas/Nympha and Euodias/Euodia, etc. The only difference is accents in later Greek texts. Earlier texts were not accented.
I write about that here: https://margmowczko.com/stephanas-man-or-woman/
The actual masculine counterpart for Junia is Junius which is a real name. Junias was not a real name in the ancient world.
Thank you for this excellent compilation Marg. I liked Michael Bird’s remarks!
I like lots of Michael Bird’s remarks. 🙂
Is there much debate in regards to what ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις means? Could Junia be noted “among the apostles” without being an apostle herself?
Hi Alex,
Until the 2001 paper of Burer and Wallace, Romans 16:7 has been usually, but not always, understood as meaning that Andronicus and Junia were outstanding/notable among the apostles/missionaries, that the couple were apostles/missionaries. Native speakers of ancient Greek, such as Chrysostom, took it that way.
“And indeed to be apostles at all is a great thing. But to be even among these of note, just consider what a great tribute this is! But they were of note owing to their works, to their achievements. Oh! How great is the wisdom of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!” Chrysostom, Homily 31 on Romans.
And today, there are scholars at the top of their field in Greek and biblical studies who also say (despite the work of Brurer and Wallace) that the couple were notable among (Greek: ἐν) the apostles/missionaries. As one example, Peter Lampe, a foremost scholar of early Christianity, succinctly states, “The ἐν has to be translated as ‘among’ (the apostles) like in 1 Corinthians 15:12 and James 5:13-14, 19.”
Lampe, “The Roman Christians of Romans 16”, in The Writings of St. Paul, Wayne A. Meeks and John T. Fitzgerald (eds) (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2007), 665.
As with other verses in the Greek NT, there is potential for some ambiguity in understanding Romans 16:7 but, in all honesty, I can only see one reason to say that the couple were not among apostles/missionaries, that they were apostles, and it has little to do with the actual Greek.
I’ve read both papers (the 2001 paper and Brurer’s 2005 follow-up paper) and found that much of the actual information did not prove the proposed argument that ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις in Romans 16:7 may “almost certainly” be understood as saying that Andronicus and Junia were “well-known to the apostles” but not apostles themselves.
I agree with what Linda Belleville has said about the 2001 paper:
“Brurer and Wallace assume a conclusion not found in the evidence. Despite their assertions to the contrary, they fail to offer one clear biblical or extra-biblical Hellenistic example of an ‘exclusive’ sense of ἐπίσημοι ἐν and a plural noun to mean ‘well known to.’ Brurer and Wallace admit this early on, but then go on to conclude otherwise.”
Linda Belleville, “Ἰουνιαν … ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις: A Re-examination of Romans 16.7 in Light of Primary Source Materials,” in NTS 51 (2005): 231-49, 244-245.
David A. Shaw has written an excellent paper on Junia and, like Belleville, states that Brurer and Wallace “have not, however, been able to supply sufficient evidence to demonstrate their argument conclusively.” p.111, Shaw goes on to say, “This is not to say Rom 16:7 cannot mean ‘well-known to.’ Burer and Wallace helpfully put what evidence there is on the table but it does not support their conclusion that the phrase ‘almost certainly means ‘well known to the apostles.’’ What they have demonstrated is that both options are possible.” p.112-113
Shaw, “Is Junia also among the Apostles: Romans 16:7 and Recent Debates,” in Churchman 127.2 (2013): 105-118. (A pdf of this paper is here.)
Other scholars who refute Brurer and Wallace’s 2001 paper include Richard Baulkham who notes that “their evidence does not actually support [their] conclusion.” He further notes that the paper has “serious defects” and its conclusion is “highly tendentious, even misleading.”
Bauckham in Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 172-9, 174.
And Eldon Jay Epp has stated that “even a cursory examination of [the evidence] presented raised significant doubts about the authors’ stated thesis . . .”
Epp, Junia: The First Woman Apostle (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 73.
See also, Eldon Jay Epp in “Text-Critical, Exegetical, and Socio-Cultural Factors Affecting the Junia/Junias Variation in Romans 16,7,” in NT Textual Criticism and Exegesis: Festschrift J. Delobel (ed. A. Denaux; BETL 161; Leuven: Leuven University/Peeters, 2002), 227–91.
I’m not aware of rebuttals to Brurer’s 2005 paper.
But there’s more to it than just the grammar and vocabulary, we need to understand Paul’s intent. I’ll expand on this comment and turn it into a blog post.