Because the women leaders found in
the Bible challenge the dogma of the woman’s subordination, the women in
question have either been ignored – or transformed into men. Junia has become a
controversial biblical figure because Paul calls her an apostle (Rom. 16:7). A
footnote by the editors of the Early Church Writer’s collection provides us a
vivid picture of how scholars have dealt with Junia’s identity:
The more probable view is that
Andronicus and Junias [not Junia as Chrys., certainly not if his interpretation
is correct; that a woman should have been an apostle is out of the question]
are designated as distinguished, honorably known among (by) the apostles. (So
De Wette, Philippi, Holmann, Meyer).[1]
Schreiner
is candid in his essay The Ministries of Women in the Context of Male
Leadership [found in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, ed.
Piper and Grudem] about the problem Junia’s identity poses for complementarian
theology:
Of course, if Junias was a woman
apostle (Romans 16:7), then a tension is created between the apostleship of
Junias (if Junias was a woman) and the other arguments adduced in the chapter,
for apostles were certainly the most authoritative messengers of God in the New
Testament.[2]
He concludes that the passage is
unclear and therefore no decisive decision can be made based on the information
given in the Bible. Schreiner is not alone in his indecision for also Grudem
writes that we cannot know if Junia was a woman because “the evidence is
indecisive,” and therefore we cannot be dogmatic about the name.[3]
Although both Grudem and Schreiner wish to ignore Romans 16:7,[4]
Grudem does not consider it sound hermeneutic, “If someone says, ‘I am not
going to base my decision on these verses because nobody can figure out what
they mean anyway,’ then he has essentially said that those passages cannot play
a role in his decision about this question.”[5]
Grudem must remain indecisive, despite his own advice, for if he claims that
the name is ‘Junias,’ he must provide proof, which he cannot, for according to
Eldon Jay Epp, “After all, the masculine Junias was asserted (I would say
invented) when no evidence for such a masculine name could be found, a
circumstance still unchanged.”[6]
On the other hand, if he admits Junia was a woman, he must explain how she
could have been a bishop for he quotes Epiphanius, “Iounias, of whom [hou] Paul
makes mention, became bishop of Apameia of Syria.”[7]
Epiphanius used the masculine relative pronoun (hou), but in the
endnotes Grudem admits that he is perplexed that Epiphanius designates also
Priscilla as a man.[8]
Grudem
quotes also Rufinus’s Latin translation of Origen’s commentary on Romans which
has “Andronicus et Junias,” a Latin masculine, singular nominative. However,
Epp cites Caroline Hammond Bammel’s critical edition on Origen which explains
that Iunias (“Junias”) is a variant reading from a twelfth-century
manuscript subgroup E, which also includes Iulia (“Julia”) as a variant.[9]
Earlier manuscripts from the ninth century all have Iunia (“Junia”). In
addition, Hraban of Fulda (780-856) cited Rufinus’s translation of Origen
literally and the name we find in his text is Junia.
Both the
King James Version and New King James Version have Junia, as does Erasmus’s New
Testament (1516).[10]
The Greek manuscripts all have Junia, except for five that have the variant
Julia. In addition, some manuscripts have Junia in Romans 16:15 (where the name
Julia appears), a variant which can be explained only if both of the names were
feminine. Because of these variants, even Julia has become a male name in the
hands of translators and commentators. Aegidius (1243/47-1316) is usually
considered the first one to call Junia – and Julia - a man.[11]
However, by far the greatest influence over the identity of Junia has been
Luther who brought the male Junias to the masses through his German translation
of the New Testament (1522) and his Lectures on Romans.[12]
That Junia
was a woman is thus established, but was she was an apostle? Grudem attempts to
make Andronicus and Junia “messengers” in the broad sense and he provides two
examples: 1 Corinthians 8:23 and Philippians 2:25-6. But his case is weakened
by the fact that the “brother” mentioned in 2 Corinthians 8:23 was chosen by
the churches to join Titus as he traveled to Corinth to prepare the offering
gathered by the Corinthians. Andronicus and Junia were in Rome and no mention
is made of them traveling as representatives of the Roman church, or any other
church, to distribute offerings gathered. Similarly, Epaphroditus was sent to
Paul by the Philippian church to bring him their gift and to care for him in
prison (Phil. 2:25-26). Paul mentions that Andronicus and Junia were “in
Christ” before him, making it very possible that they had seen the risen
Christ, which was one of the qualifications for apostleship.
Epiphanius
writes that Junia whom Paul mentions became a bishop of Apameia, which further
strengthens the case that Junia was an apostle, for the offices of an apostle
and bishop were identical in the Early Church (1 Pet. 5:1; 2 John 1): “But
deacons ought to remember that the Lord chose apostles, that is, bishops and
overseers; while apostles appointed for themselves deacons after the ascent of
the Lord into heaven, as ministers of their episcopacy and of the Church.”[13]
An early
witness to Junia’s identity is Chrysostom who did not only call Junia a woman
–he also thought she was an apostle par excellence:
“Salute Andronicus and Junia my
kinsmen.” …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 amongst 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 (φιλοσοφια) 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.”[14]
Yet, for
some Junia cannot be an apostle and a woman at the same, regardless of the
evidence for “if the phrase means ‘distinguished apostles,’ ‘Iouninan is a
man…On the other hand, if the name is female, the phrase means ‘of note in the
eyes of the apostles.’”[15]
Grudem does not dare to call Junia a man for the lack of evidence, but neither
is he willing to call her a woman and give legitimacy to the existence of a
female apostle, and bishop. In a last effort to support his indecision, he
writes that Junia was not a common woman’s name in the Greek-speaking world,[16]
which is true since it was a Latin name.[17]
[4] Knight writes that
according to a hermeneutical principle, the section
which deals with the technical terms must be resolved first, after which a
historical statement, the actual lives of real people, can be evaluated. This
is a true principle, but if the lives of real people continuously conflict with
the resolution, one must examine the resolution itself, for it is not possible
that the real lives of the people found in the Bible are entirely out of
harmony with biblical truths, unless used as a negative example. The Bible
mentions women in various leadership roles: Miriam (leader), Deborah (judge),
Huldah (prophet), Phoebe (deacon), Priscilla (co-worker) and Junia (apostle).
These women have either been ignored or the legitimacy of the leadership has
been questioned by complementarists due to their commitment to the twofold
subjection of Thomas Aquinas. (Piper and Grduem, 354).
[17] Roman women were given their father’s name in the feminine
form, thus Julius became Julia, Junius became Junia, Claudius became Claudia,
Dianus became Diana etc. (Pomeroy, 165).
No comments:
Post a Comment