Case closed

Did Paul greet a woman apostle named Junia in Romans 16:7? This book conclusively demonstrates that he did. Thus, there was at least one woman among the original apostles. What that means for the question of ordination of women in the modern church, you might as well guess.

"Junia" by Eldon Jay Epp is not an easy read. It looks like an extensive article of the kind usually published in scholarly journals with a very restricted circulation. Even I found it difficult to read, and I have studied church history on university level! Apparently, more popularized works on Junia also exist. Still, Epp's book may be worth a try if you are really interested in the subject.

The book is first and foremost a work of text criticism. Epp wants to prove that the person greeted by Paul in Romans really was named Junia (a female name) and really was an apostle. He mentions the broader issues of women in the early church, or gender bias among modern Bible translators, more in passing. Still, he is clearly sympathetic to those who feel that the role of women in the church should be expanded. Only scholarly decorum stops him from saying what he *really* thinks of those Bible translators that have turned Junia into a male! In my opinion, Epp succeeds in his (seemingly) limited task, and the case of Junia can now be considered closed. What remains is drawing the conclusions...

In his letter to the Romans, the apostle Paul writes the following: "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives and my fellow prisoners; they are prominent among the apostles and they were in Christ before me". In the original Greek, the name Junia is rendered "Iunian". Depending on how the name is accented, it could be either a male or a female name. However, the oldest extant manuscripts lack accents altogether, so no help there. Somewhat later manuscripts, with a few exceptions, accent the name as female. Sometimes, they give the variant reading "Julia", obviously a female name. Also, virtually all Christian writers until the 13th century explicitly regarded Junia as a woman. This is true even of Church fathers who opposed women ordination above the level of deaconess! Thus, John Chrysostom writes concerning Andronicus and Junia: "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". Other ancient commentators who regarded Junia as a woman include Origen, Ambrose, Ambrosiaster, Jerome, John Damascene, Oeconomius, Abelard and Peter Lombard. How's that for Church tradition? The only real exception seems to be Epiphanius, but he also regards Prisca as a man, despite the fact that the New Testament clearly indicates that she was, of course, a woman. (Paul greets Prisca in Romans 16:3. She is also mentioned in Acts.)

Despite all this, many modern translators of the Bible have turned Junia into a man, claiming that the name really should be "Junias". During most of the 20th century, this male version of the name was included in critical text editions of the New Testament, in other words the Greek text most translators use when rendering the NT into modern English. One such "critical" edition even claimed that all ancient manuscripts attest the male name, despite the fact that the name is unaccented in these manuscripts and clearly seen as female by the Church fathers! Since Epp is too kind-hearted to cry hoax and fraud, I will do it for him. We are dealing with an ideologically motivated cover up here, of truly major proportions. Epp also points out that the name "Junias" doesn't really exist in *any* ancient documents or inscriptions whatsoever. It only exists in very late, masculinized versions of the letter of Paul to the Romans!

The last line of defence of the androcentrists is to admit that Junia was indeed a woman, but that the rest of Paul's greeting doesn't mean that she was an apostle, but only well-known to the apostles. (The poor male Andronicus is automatically demoted, too. Collateral damage?) Epp therefore devotes a chapter to rejecting this possibility as well. Apart from various esoteric grammatical considerations, the main argument is once again ancient Church tradition. Chrysostom, who obviously understood Greek, assumed that Junia was titled apostle.

Will the patriarchalists accept the results of this research? My guess is that they will eventually split into two camps. One camp will argue that Junia, although a woman, wasn't an apostle. The other camp will adopt the position of Chrysostom, which is also that of Eastern Orthodoxy: Junia was greeted by Paul as an apostle, but the title was honorific, and therefore women can't be ordained priests and bishops anyway. Of course, there is no indication in Romans that Paul was using the term apostle as a honorific title. Epp discusses this too.

Conclusion: Junia was indeed the first woman apostle. QED.