In Rom. 16:7 Paul says, Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen
and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles who also were in
Christ before me NKJV). Although the NKJV above has translated the Greek Junian as “Junia,” which is a female name,
many today vehemently argue that the name should be “Junias,” which is male.
In fact, I recently received
an email in which I was accused of “misleading” people by telling
them that “Junia” is the correct reading of this passage and that she was a
female apostle. In my response, I sought to be gracious, but shared the
following information showing why “Junia” is the correct reading, and why she
should be given her due recognition by the modern church.
Number 1
The Manuscript Evidence
In this passage, Paul wrote
the Greek name Junian, ending with an
“n,” because the name is in the accusative sense, i.e., on the receiving end of Paul’s greeting. Because of that
ending, the name could be either male (Junias) or female (Junia), depending on
how it is accented. Accents, however, were not introduced until the seventh
century and so we are left, some think, with a textual conundrum.
The conundrum, however,
evaporates in the light of textual and historical evidence. For example, Dr.
Bruce Metzgar, one of the world’s leading New Testament textual scholars,
points out that in and around Rome over 250 Greek and Latin inscriptions have
been found with the feminine name “Junia.” The male name, “Junias,” on the
other hand, is unattested.
This is significant since
Paul’s letter is addressed to the believers who are in Rome; for while the
female name “Junia” is common there, the male name, “Junias,” is unknown.
“Junias,” therefore, is a hypothetical name invented, it would seem, by those who
cannot accept the possibility of a female apostle in the New Testament.
Metzgar also points out that
when accents were put in use, the scribes, without exception, made the name
feminine. This means that even though the earliest manuscripts of Paul’s letter
to the Romans had no accents and so were ambiguous on this point, when accents
were added, every extant witness construed the name as feminine. This is why
Dr. N. Clayton Croy says, “There is not a single ancient Greek manuscript that
accents the name as ‘Junias.’ In effect, then, the interpretation of the name
as that of a man is completely lacking in explicit textual support.”
Reason 2
The Historical Evidence
Early church fathers, even those who had a bias against women in
leadership, understood “Junia” to be a female apostle in the early church.
Origin (185-284), who is known as the church’s first systematic theologian,
understood the name to be feminine as did the famous church father, Jerome
(347-420), who produced the Latin Vulgate Bible.
There is also the testimony of John Chrysostom (349-407), Bishop of
Constantinople, who exclaimed, "O how great is the devotion of this woman, that she
should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle." (Hyatt, Paul, Women and Church, 25).
In her excellent book, In the Spirit We’re Equal, Dr. Sue Hyatt
points out, “The first known commentator to understand “Junia” as the male
name “Junias” was Aegidius of Rome (1245-1346).” She rightly notes that the
idea of the name being male is, therefore, a much later development and not
worthy of serious consideration.
Number 3
Evidence of Translations
Based, no doubt, on the overwhelming
textual and historical evidence, early English translations all opted for the
feminine name, “Junia.” These include Tyndale’s New Testament (1526), the
Coverdale Bible (1535), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), the
Bishop’s Bible (1568) and the King James Version (1611).
We only find the male name "Junias" appearing in modern
translations beginning with the Revised Version in 1881 and followed by the RSV,
the NASB, the TEV, the MSG and the 1984 NIV. Newer translations, such as the
NRSV, NLT and NKJV, have returned to the original understanding of the word as
“Junia.” Faced with the overwhelming evidence, the translators of the NIV
changed the name to “Junia” in their 2011 edition.
The Issue of Authority
The most common reason given
by those who oppose recognizing “Junia” as an apostle is that women cannot
function in what they would call “the apostolic teaching office.” The problem
with this reasoning is it has no basis in Scripture. Neither Jesus, the Twelve
or Paul established an “apostolic teaching office.”
Jesus made it clear that His
apostles would be characterized, not by authority, but by service. This
statement came when James and John requested the two most authoritative seats
in the kingdom. Jesus rebuked them and told them they were thinking like
Gentiles, that is, those who do not know God.
After pointing out how pagan
leaders lord it over those under them, Jesus said, Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great
among you shall be your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall
be slave of all (Mark 10:44-45).
Jesus’ statement must have
been shocking to those first apostles, for the word “servant” in this passage
is from the Greek word diakonos and
referred to a lowly household servant with no status or authority.
Nonetheless, they took His
words seriously and diakonos became a
common word for Christian leaders in the early church. Paul uses it of himself
and his coworkers. We miss the force of the word for early Christianity because
our modern translations often render it as “minister.”
John G. Lake, a true modern
apostle, got it right when he wrote, “The modern conception of an apostle is
usually that he is a big church boss, but that was not the conception Jesus
left. An apostle was not to be a big boss; he was to be like his Lord--a
servant of all.”
So, during the first century
while apostolic ministry was characterized by “service,” women freely
functioned in apostolic ministry. It was only after the church
institutionalized and began to think of the apostolic in terms of “authority,” “office”
and “power” that women began to be excluded from leadership and apostolic
ministry.
Where We Go from Here
Jesus left His church an
authoritative message. He did not leave her an authoritative office or structure.
Professor Burnett Streeter was correct when he wrote,
Whatever else is disputable, there is, I submit, one result from which
there is no escape. In the primitive church there was no single system of
church order laid down by the apostles. During the first hundred years of
Christianity, the Church was an organism alive and growing—changing its
organization to meet changing needs. Uniformity was a later development (Hyatt, Pursuing Power, 43).
We are to contend, not for
authority over others, but for the purity of the message that was entrusted to
us. This is what Jude was referring to when he wrote, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly
for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
In such a setting, there
are, I submit, a multitude of modern Junias who will hear the voice of the Holy
Spirit prompting them to go forth and proclaim the authoritative message that
has been entrusted to them and to the entire body of Christ.
This article is derived from Dr. Eddie Hyatt’s books, Paul, Women and Church and Pursuing Power: How the Historic Quest for Apostolic Authority and Control Has Divided and Damaged the Church. Both are available from Amazon and his website at
www.eddiehyatt.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment