This article was downloaded by permission of the author from www.RethinkingFaith.com, where other free articles are available on similar subjects.
Junia
the Apostle
A
Response to CBMW's Treatment of Romans 16:7
by Dave Leigh
David Jones, of Moffat College of the Bible,
should be commended for his extensive research into the question of Junia, an
outstanding apostle of the early church. His essay, published by the
gender-hierarchist Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) touches on
a great many questions relevant to the debate over gender equality.
He should also be commended for stating his bias
from the start. It is clear from his introduction that he wants to discredit
the claim that Junia was a female apostle, because "if the early church had
at least one female apostle, as some argue, is there any reason why women
should not exercise spiritual authority over men today?" While it
certainly is true that the absence of a first-century female apostle would not
necessarily exclude this, the presence of Junia the apostle certainly
establishes a precedent in its favor.
As Jones states his intentions, it is clear his
purpose is not to discover the answer to his question,
but to prove his prior convictions. Quote:
I intend to prove
that, whether man or woman, the one whom Paul calls Iounian was not an
authoritative apostle, but rather, alongside Andronicus, a prominent messenger
entrusted to deliver letters to various churches, bringing back to Paul status
reports on each of the congregations they visited.
Already we get a sense of what Jones is going to
find. First, he will not be able to disprove that Junia was female. Second, he
will not be able to deny that Paul called her an apostle. What then to do?
Simply redefine what Paul meant by "the apostles" in this text, even
if that redefinition is novel and in conflict with the rest of the NT's usage.
It is interesting to see Jones use this approach
of stating his bias from the start and declaring what he wants the text to say.
Ironically, Thomas R. Schreiner claims it is egalitarians who begin from a
philosophical starting point outside the text and who import their desired
meanings into the text. Mr. Jones is letting us know the reverse is so. CBMW's
publication of Jones's view let's us know that they approve of this method when
it serves their conclusions.
Given Jones's bias, it is instructive to see
what he does with the remarkable evidence he unearths.
Female
First he tries to disprove Junia's gender from
the name's morphology. He cannot. Morphologically, the name can be either
masculine or feminine. So Jones looks for more evidence: textual variants.
Perhaps he can find support from some alternative manuscript source. But
surprise! Other Greek manuscripts "make reference to a decisively feminine
name"! Had he found otherwise, no doubt Jones would have built a case
here. Instead he concludes these variant readings are "dubious."
Though he leaves empty handed, he implies his case is strengthened.
What about other Greek literature? There he
finds a few references available, but in each case the subject was a woman!
Does he conclude then that the evidence points to a feminine name? No, for him
it is clear only that "neither the male nor the female versions of this
name were common in Greek literature"!
So let's try the Latin. Here the evidence is
even more supportive of Junia's femininity: "In Latin writings Junia
appears as a fairly common woman's name while Junias, the man's name, is
virtually non-existent." Does Jones now yield to the results of his own
research? No, he calls the evidence "lopsided" and comes up with a
theory that posits Junia as basically a freed male slave with a feminine
sounding nickname. It seems even Jones realizes this is a stretch. But he wants
to maintain this theory as a "possibility" to keep his bias secure.
He admits "the argument for understanding this to be a woman named Junia
certainly has weight and merit," but he still wants to see more evidence.
Fair enough. On to the Church Fathers.
What better place to find support for male
hierarchy than here among the forerunners of Roman Catholicism? Yet here he
finds "the strongest case for understanding Iounian to be a woman is found
in the comments made on Rom 16:7 by some of the early Church Fathers." He
notes that "many patristic exegetes understood the second person mentioned
in Rom 16:7 to be the wife of Andronicus." He names Ambrosiaster (c.
339-97); Jerome (c. 342-420); John Chrysostom (c. 347-407); Jerome; Theodoret
of Cyrrhus (c.393-458); Ps.-Primasius (c. 6th cent.); John Damascene (c.
675-749); Haymo (d. 1244); Hatto (?); Oecumenius (c. 6th cent.); Lanfranc of
Bec (c.1005-89); Bruno the Carthusian (c.1032-1101); Theophylact (c. 11th
cent.); Peter Abelard (1079-1142); and Peter Lombard (c. 1100-1160). He quotes
Chysostom as recognizing Junia to be a woman and an apostle:
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 is the wisdom of this woman that
she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle.
But Jones says Chrysostom regarded Junia as a
kind of apostle less in stature than the Twelve. Jones takes Chrysostom to mean
she had been sent with a specific task (like a postal carrier) and he cites
Acts 13:2-3;
Jones notes some patristic exegetes inferred
Junia to be part of a husband-wife team. But he rejects this because the text
does not explicitly say it. Besides, he says, we still "do not know for
sure whether this is even a feminine name!" (exclamation
point his). He goes on to maintain Junia and Andronicus still could have been
two men. He concludes that "while the clear majority of the Church Fathers
adopt a feminine reading of Rom 16:7, I remain unconvinced that the text should
be read that way." He chooses instead to side with a minority of ancient
writers by discrediting the witness of those whose words he would readily have
used, had they supported his suspicion. He notes that Epiphanius claimed a
certain bishop was the one Paul referred to in Romans 16:7, and therefore
chooses to believe this claim. (Perhaps he also believes the first Pope was
Peter. My point: there were many such claims to identity in ancient times).
Next Jones relies on accent marks in later
manuscripts and on an early translation to contradict all the evidence he has
brought forth, though thus far denied. His documentation of the accent mark in
the Greek miniscules does more to inform us about when Junia's gender became
lost than it does to help establish Jones's case. It is remarkable that even
after all this, Jones can only admit Junia's female gender is possible. He
still can't bring himself to see that his own research suggests it is more than
probable.
Among
the Apostles
Since Jones cannot reasonably deny the
probability and likelihood that Junia was female, he is left with two options:
redefine "among" or redefine "apostles."
Among
Jones reports that "most scholars
understand the text to say that Andronicus and Iounian were themselves
prominent 'apostles,' whatever that term might denote, and not just highly
esteemed by the Apostles." Much to our relief, Jones confirms this with
his own examination of the Greek. Junia was a prominent apostle, but what kind?
Apostle
Jones is quite upfront at this point in
acknowledging the stakes involved in defining this word. Acting (without
explanation) as though he has proven Junia to be a man, he asks "for the
sake of argument," if Junia was female, "must we assume that she was
an authoritative apostle within the early church, serving as a historical
precedent for the right of women to hold authoritative positions over men
within the church today?"
Jones wants us to conclude that she was not
really an apostle. She was among a group of "messengers" that
everyone reading Paul's letter should have known about. In fact, when readers
of the NT come across this phrase, "the apostles," we should not
automatically assume it refers to authoritative Christian workers of that time,
he says. Quote:
The term appears 80
times in the NT, and is used to denote at least three groups of people: (1)
Peter and the rest of the Twelve (e.g. Matt 10:2; Mar 3:14; Luke 6:13; Acts
1:26; 2:42; 4:33; 6:6; 15:2; 1 Cor 9:5; 1 Pet 1:1; 2 Pet 1:1; Rev 21:14, etc.);
(2) other authoritative church leaders who witnessed the resurrection of Christ
and were commissioned by him to preach the Gospel, such as Paul and Barnabas
(Acts 14:4, 14; Rom 1:1; 11:13; 1 Cor 1:1; 9:1; 2 Cor 1:1; 1 Tim 2:7; 2 Tim
1:11, etc.) and James (1 Cor 15:7; Gal 1:19); and (3) those who assisted the
apostles by serving as messengers to and from local churches, such as
Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25) and the two unnamed brothers (2 Cor 8:23; cp. John
13:16; 1 Cor 15:7; and Heb 3:1, where Jesus himself is called an apostle).
Jones's biggest mistake here is to ignore that
though the word for "apostles" occurs 80 times, the same is not the
case for when the word appears with a definite article. No one reading the NT
would expect the term "the apostles" to mean anything other than the
group of authoritative Christian workers to which both Peter and Paul belonged.
I think egalitarians will also find Jones's
selection of proof texts for his third group amusing. In Philippians 2:25, Paul
calls Epaphroditus "your apostle," meaning he had been sent to Paul
by the church as their representative, just as an apostle represents Christ.
Presumably as their apostle he possessed authority from them to communicate on
their behalf to Paul. In 2 Corinthians
The next proof text Jones uses is, strangely, 1
Corinthians 15:7, in which Paul refers to James and "all the
apostles." But this is apparently referring to the Twelve or at least to
people in Jones's second group. There is again no indication of a
non-authoritative body of messengers. And finally, Jones lists Hebrews 3:1,
which calls Jesus "the apostle and high priest whom we confess"
(NIV). What is Jones suggesting? That Jesus was in this third set of
"non-authoritative" apostles? (At least Junia is in good company,
then.) Surely, there is nothing here to suggest Jesus' apostleship was less
than authoritative.
It is hard to see from these references how
Jones can conceive of the phrase tois
apostolois (the apostles) to be on the same level as a general or
figurative reference to someone as in "your apostle." It is even
harder to see how he can separate the notion of authority from apostleship. And
I for one cannot see from these texts any proof that a third group of apostles
existed without apostolic authority but which would be readily recognized as
"the apostles." To place Junia among a questionable group of
figurative apostles contradicts how the phrase with its definite article was
used uniformly by Paul, the NT, and every Christian in church history.
Jones next goes on to argue from the placement
of Junia's name that she was not an authoritative apostle. He thinks the fact
that Junia appears lower on the list than Priscilla and Phoebe means that Junia
was of less authority and importance. Egalitarians may want to welcome this
hierarchic perspective and celebrate that according to Jones's standards
Priscilla and Phoebe have greater authority than all the men named in this
chapter, since they top the list. And if Andronicus and Junia were true
apostles, this would make Phoebe higher than that! But of course this kind of
speculation is silly, as there is no evidence Paul
listed people in order of their authority. Each person's importance to Paul is
expressed in how he describes them.
As to placement, Jones next contradicts his
claim that Junia was not the wife of Andronicus, by making an issue over
Junia's name appearing second. He claims this suggests subordination in their
relationship (but how then does one list equals?). Again there is no evidence
that Paul or the NT coupled people's names so as to signify subordination. If
so, is Mr. Jones prepared to say
Jones then wonders why Junia and Andronicus are
not mentioned elsewhere. "To state it more bluntly, is it possible to have
insignificant, nondescript, or otherwise unnoticed apostles from which
Andronicus and Iounian could stand out?" While this is a curious matter to
raise, the answer is obviously yes. After all, we
possess very little reliable information (and virtually none in the NT)
regarding what became of most of the twelve apostles once they left
Jones moves on now to "external
considerations." These amount to:
1. Speculation based again on Epiphanius's claim
that Iounain eventually became a bishop. The problem with Jones's reasoning
here is first that he too readily believes this is in fact Junia. And second,
he denies that a first- or second-order apostle would become a bishop. But this
is a better reason to doubt Epiphanius than it is to doubt Paul or any of the
other evidence we've discussed.
2. What Jones himself calls "an argument
from silence." Here he revisits and engages in
negative speculation based on his own inability to fathom that there may have
been obscure apostles of the second order whose names appear only once in the
NT, if recorded at all in history. This hardly seems to make his case.
3. Jones claims "The NT is completely
silent -- with the possible exception of this verse -- that a woman ever held
the office of apostle. In all of the writings of the NT, there is no clear
instance where a woman is numbered among the apostles or makes binding
decisions for the church." Since this is the very thing we are debating,
it hardly seems like an argument against our conclusion. But that is how Jones
wants to use it.
Conclusion
Has Jones made his case? Has he managed to
"prove that, whether man or woman, the one whom Paul calls Iounian was not
an authoritative apostle, but rather, alongside Andronicus, a prominent
messenger entrusted to deliver letters to various churches, bringing back to
Paul status reports on each of the congregations they visited"? Not in the
least. Yet he writes his conclusion as though he has proved both that Junia was
male and that she was not a true apostle in the conventional sense. For all his
research and data, all Jones has really proved to me is the closed-mindedness
of complementarianism and the undue influence it exerts on people's ability to
reason or to interpret either facts or scripture.
I am in fact grateful for Jones's effort because
it has filled in gaps for me and made me far more comfortable with the
egalitarian assertion that Junia was a female apostle. If this discussion has
done the same for you, we are left again with Jones's question:
If the early church had at least one female
apostle ... is there any reason why women should not exercise spiritual
authority over men today?
We will leave Mr. Jones's notions of authority
and ministry for a discussion of another time. (See my paper, "The Full
Stature of Women," at http://geocities.datacellar.net/Athens/Thebes/2606).
But if by this question he means, "Is there any reason why women should
not hold any position in the church that men have held," my answer is no.
We didn't need to know Junia was a female apostle to establish this. But Jones has inadvertently established the
precedent of Junia's apostleship and this is a great precedent to have.
(c) 1999 David R. Leigh. All rights
reserved. Used by permission.