A re-posting of the most recent thread on Junia

From: Edward Hobbs (EHOBBS@wellesley.edu)
Date: Wed Jul 10 1996 - 18:04:39 EDT


FOLLOWING IS THE MAIN THREAD ON THE TOPIC OF "JUNIA" IN 1995.

From: LUCY::EHOBBS "Edward Hobbs" 21-JUL-1995 17:24:15.66
To: IN%"b-greek@virginia.edu"
Subj: Junia, not Junias!

      This issue comes up every couple of years, but participants
change, so new discussion is needed. Several have responded
already, and rightly (Larry, Ken, and Carl), with Carl doing his
usual careful job on the language. I'm repeating a posting I did
a couple of years ago, herewith.

      Romans 16:7 Paul calls the woman JUNIA (not Junias, a man)
an "apostle," as well as his relative. Literally, the verse
says: "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives and my fellow
prisoners; they are notable among the apostles, and they were
Christians before me." "They are prominent among the apostles"
means that among the group of people titled "apostles," they were
prominent; it can hardly mean "In discussions held by the
apostles, these two figured prominently," an improbable
interpretation. In other words, they were themselves apostles.
The main problem is in the Greek name. "Junia" is a common name
in Latin, the feminine form of "Junius" (a Roman *gens*, whose
most famous member was Brutus). In 16:7 the name is in the
accusative case, "Junian". If there were a masculine name
"Junias" (note spelling--NOT "Junius" nor "Junios"), it would have this
same form in the accusative. But NO SUCH NAME HAS EVER BEEN FOUND in
ancient Greek, to the best of my knowledge. Nevertheless,
"Junias" is listed in Bauer's Greek Lexicon as the name found
here. Bauer says that "the context" rules out the possibility
that the name is Junia, a woman's name! (The "context" shows
that Junia is an apostle!) The RSV translators accepted this
absurd attitude, as did the NIV. Interestingly enough, the 1611
"King James" Version had it right, and the NRSV has corrected the
absurdly male-chauvinist reading of Bauer, RSV, and NIV.
(Obviously, Pope John Paul II was having influence decades before
his pontificate!)

Edward Hobbs

---------------------------------------------------------

From: IN%"nichael@sover.net" 22-JUL-1995 14:37:14.74
To: IN%"EHOBBS@WELLESLEY.EDU" "Edward Hobbs", IN%"b-greek@virginia.edu"
Subj: RE: Junia, not Junias!

At 5:24 PM 21/07/95, Edward Hobbs wrote:
> This issue comes up every couple of years, but participants
>change, so new discussion is needed. [...]

If I can be forgiven plugging a work by an old teacher, anyone interested
in a full --and perhaps timely-- reference on this topic might consider:

Bernadette Brooten, "Junia ... Oustanding among the Apostles" in L. and A.
Swidler, eds. _Women Priests: A Catholic Commentary on the Vatican
Declaration_ (Paulist Press, 1977), pp141-44.

Nichael - "...did I forget, forget to mention Memphis?
nichael@sover.net Home of Elvis, and the ancient Greeks."
-------------------------------------------------------------------

From: LUCY::EHOBBS "Edward Hobbs" 24-JUL-1995 14:05:56.95
To: IN%"b-greek@virginia.edu"
Subj: Junia again

Fellow-scholars:
          A couple of questioning responses to my posting on Junia/Junias
prod me to take the time to spell out what Patristics readers all know.

     Mark O'Brien of Dallas Theological Seminary asks if I can "cite any
ancient or patristic documents which point to any women being named as
apostles? (I can't, but I'm happy to be corrected.)"
     The shoe is on the other foot, I'm afraid. This conversion of the
lady Junia (whom Paul calls an apostle) into a man with the non-existent
name of Junias is a fairly modern invention. Peter Lampe (a better
Patristics scholar than I -- I have read only a few thousand pages of the
Greek and Latin Fathers in their own languages, and make no pretense of
scholarship at it, especially since I spread it over almost 50 years) says:
"Without exception, the Church Fathers in late antiquity identified
Andronicus' partner in Rom. 16:7 as a woman, as did minuscule 33 ["the
Queen of the cursives," textual critics named it] in the 9th century which
records iounia with an acute accent. Only later medieval copyists of Rom.
16:7 could not imagine a woman being an apostle and wrote the masculine
name `Junias.' This latter name did not exist in antiquity...." See his
"Iunia/Iunias: Sklavenherkunft im Kreise der vorpaulinischen Apostel (Rom
16,7)" in *ZNW* 1985 (76:132-134).
     Gerd Luedemann also has a good bibliography on this, in his *Das
Fruehe Christentum nach den *Traditionen der Apostelgeschichte* (1987).
     The question isn't whether there are ANY ancient writers who consider
Junia a woman; it is whether there are any who consider her a man, with a
man's name. The answer is, No.

     As for Roger Bailey's question, whether there has "ever been found, in
Patristic literature, an instance of the misconstruction of a text, even a
disastrous misconstruction?" -- For those who actually read the Fathers
(even if only in English translation), the question verges on the humorous.
(But of course I didn't say the Fathers had misconstrued--on the contrary!)
As for "political correctness," I've never been politically correct, to my
knowledge; but even the Pope issued a major document about a week ago which
in effect apologized for many centuries of male chauvinism in the church
(but still no ordination of women!). Or is the problem with the term "male
chauvinism"? The FACT of it is ancient, even though the term only appears
from the Napoleonic era onward (first in French). "Prejudiced belief in
the superiority of one's own gender, group, or kind."--so the American
Heritage Dictionary. "An attitude of superiority toward members of the
opposite sex."--so Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. Is there another
word I should have used?

     It wasn't the Fathers who performed this sex-change operation; it
happened late in the medieval period, and gradually penetrated translations
(but only at the end of the 19th century on).

--Edward Hobbs
     (Sometime professor at University of Chicago; University of
California: Berkeley, San Francisco, and Davis campuses; Graduate
Theological Union; University of Judaism; Harvard; and Wellesley;
still refusing to retire)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: IN%"cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu" "Carl W. Conrad" 30-NOV-1995 09:05:38.52
To: IN%"b-greek@virginia.edu"
Subj: Junia/Junias nochmals

Larry Swain, whose persistent rephrasing of critical challenges to views I
have sometimes expressed has been such a boon to my thinking that I miss
his presence on b-greek for some time now, has sent me a note on the
recurrence of the Junia/Junias problem on the ELENCHUS list. It has exposed
another level of my ignorance and occasions a general question that does
have a bearing on this one.

First the citation (I won't name the original sender):

>Is there any evidence whether the person Paul refers to in the accusative
>*IOUNIAN in Romans 16:7 was a man or a woman? Aland's NT edition prints
>*IOUNIA=N (with circumflex on the alpha), thereby implying he was a man
>named *IOUNIA=S (cf. *BARNABA=S). Of course, reading *IOUNI/AN (with acute
>on the second iota) would be possible in principle (and in this case she
>could, though need not, be a woman). - I was surprised by the statement
>that the Apostle is a woman named Junia and that the passage has been
>misread in the past.

My comment on the basic question:

Yes, the form IOUNIAS with circumflex on the "A" is a theoretically
masculine form, but the problem is that it's a Latin name, and the Greek
masculine equivalent of the Latin name would surely be IOUNIOS. I really
think the proof must go the other way around: it needs to be shown why the
form is NOT feminine, which is what it appears to be.

My query:

Do we really have any EARLY evidence for accentuation of such names in the
Greek MSS? I just don't know enough, but my impression is that the accents
are not present at all in the older uncial MSS and that their appearance in
the cursive MSS is not necessarily a reliable indication. So is there any
significant evidence that the accent on IOUNIAN actually WAS a circumflex
on the A? In other words, is that supposedly masculine ending on the name
really ancient or might it well be a product of copyists who make the
assumption that it was a masculine name?

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

----------------------------------------------------------------

From: LUCY::EHOBBS "Edward Hobbs" 30-NOV-1995 13:26:23.22
To: IN%"b-greek@virginia.edu"
Subj: Junias Redivivus!

Carl Conrad raises the question about the accentuation of Iounian in Rom.16:7
with a question about how far back these accents go.
        We went through all this a couple of years ago or so; we seem to
have to re-invent the wheel with regularity!
        The oldest uncials of course do not have accents. Was there a
(secret, never-revealed) quasi-Masoretic tradition among early Christian
copyists as to accentuation? To ask the question is to answer it.

        But the really more significant question is: What is the tradition
of accentuation of this name? And the fact is that the final circumflex is
VERY RECENT! (I.e., 20th century!). To my knowledge, NO MS. gives this accent!
Even Hort's 1881 text gives IouNIan, acute on penult, thus feminine. And
this accentuation is also found inserted by second corrector even in B and D.
        Weirdly enough, Metzger's note on this passage only discusses the
variant "Ioulian", saying not a word about changing a woman into a man and
moving + changing the accent from its universal form in the MS tradition!

        The feminine name "Iounia" is very common. The (imaginary, masculine)
name "Iounias" is non-existent. It was invented (clumsily, as Carl notes!)
to eliminate a female apostle. Bauer's largely-excellent Lexicon is marred
by this entry as one of his stupidest definitions (that it is the common
woman's name Iounia "is ruled out by the context"!). If Danker doesn't
change this in his latest revised translation, I will never drink Scotch
with him again.

        Heaven knows, we have enough problems with male chauvinism, without
having to INSERT them into the text!

--Edward C. Hobbs

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: IN%"cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu" "Carl W. Conrad" 30-NOV-1995 21:36:22.12
To: IN%"b-greek@virginia.edu"
CC: IN%"mizet@aol.com" "Tim Mize"
Subj: RE: Junia/Junias nochmals und weiter ... und weiter

I think this was meant for the list, so I am forwarding it and will
comment, ever so briefly.

---------------------------------
>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 18:32:37 -0500
>From: Akulas@aol.com
>To: cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu
>Subject: Re: Junia/Junias nochmals
>Status:
>
>Dr. Conrad and Dr. Hobbs,
>
>I wasn't on board when you talked all this out before, so if you don't mind,
>I'd like to comment and hear some discussion.
>
>Dr. Conrad writes:
>
>>Yes, the form IOUNIAS with circumflex on the "A" is a theoretically
>>masculine form, but the problem is that it's a Latin name, and the Greek
>>masculine equivalent of the Latin name would surely be IOUNIOS. I really
>>think the proof must go the other way around: it needs to be shown why the
>>form is NOT feminine, which is what it appears to be.
>
>Both BDF (sec. 125 (2)) and Robertson (p. 172) say that IOUNIAS (if that is
>the name here) would probably be the shortened form of the common name
>IOUNIANOS (L. Junianus). Robertson notes that usually when a name is
>shortened like that, it ends in -AS. For example SILOUANOS (1Th. 1:1)
>shortens to SILAS (Acts 15:22,etc).
>
>So then, if a shortened form of a Latin name is used, would the greek form
>have the -OS ending then? Wouldn't it be -AS as usual?
>
>Cranfield argues, similarly to Dr. Hobbs, that "Junias" can't be right
>because we don't find that name anywhere else in the literature. Would the
>fact that it is a shortened form not explain that? Junianus, I understand,
>was a quite common name, like Junia was.
>
>I agree that BAGD is out of line to say that the context demands taking the
>word as masculine--that is, if they mean that the NT doctrine of the
>apostolate necessarily precludes its having female members. On the other
>hand, where else do we read about female apostles? We read several places
>about female prophets, but never of female apostles. This would be the only
>occurrence (just as, if "Junias" is correct, it would be the only occurence).
> Maybe that's all they're saying.
>
>Seems to me that the evidence is split about fifty-fifty. Nothing really
>rules out "Junias", and nothing "Junia." And nothing really pushes us very
>hard in one direction more than the other.

(1) There is, in fact, no evidence that "Junias" IS a shortened form of
"Junianus." And, in fact, it looks suspiciously like the entire argument is
manufactured in order to make of the Greek IOUNIAN a masculine form. As I
argued at the outset of the current round of this thread, the form to be
explained is IOUNIAN. The explanation of it on the surface is that this is
a feminine acc. sg. That it is NOT fem. sg. is what has to be demonstrated,
and it really hasn't been demonstrated.

(2) What is printed in a reference work has no authority in and of itself;
we know far too many instances of errors in reference works. Much as I
esteem the big A.T.Robertson, I think the book is somewhat dated (albeit
worthy of being reprinted--and as we have noted frequently, the "little
Liddell" and the intermediate Liddell are both based on the L&S edition of
over 100 years ago). A revision of BDF has long been a desideratum; a
German revision of it is in print; a project for a new GNT Grammar to
replace BDF has been under way for some time now. Neither age nor novelty
is a guarantee of accuracy. Any assertion about such a matter as IOUNIAN
stands or falls ultimately on the basis of persuasive arguments that can be
made on its behalf.

(3) This appears to be an issue upon which the decision of any one person
evaluating the evidence is likely to be based upon assumptions one brings
to bear on the evidence. I think that a lot of what has been called
evidence has been speculated into existence based upon an assumption that
there just simply COULDN'T have been female church officers in the first
century. My own guess (only that) is that there are more likely to have
been female church officers in the first century than in the second, more
likely in the second than the third. What in the first century was a much
more egalitarian and revolutionary religious movement settled into
institutional patterns and increasingly adopted the standards and biases of
its secular milieu.

I apologize for my comment, which is anything but "ever so brief." I am
inclined to apologize also for bringing this subject back to the list so
soon after the last round of discussing it. I brought it up only because I
hadn't heard the new twist on the argument for a masculine Junias based
upon the Greek accents.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: LUCY::EHOBBS "Edward Hobbs" 1-DEC-1995 12:27:01.27
To: IN%"b-greek@virginia.edu"
Subj: "Viability" of Pseudo-Junias

I was glad that Carl Conrad reprinted the message from Tim Mize to him and
to me, for I never received the message. Carl has answered exceedingly well,
and I won't repeat his points. But I WILL make the point that "Junias"
as a Greek name is non-existent (a "phantom form," I think Stephen Carlson
called it!), and to treat Iounian as a possible accusative of that
paseudo-name is not a serious position if one is honest with the facts.

        The name DOES NOT EXIST IN ANY GREEK LITERATURE! To speak of
"the" literatue sounds as though the NT, or Christian, literature is meant.
But consider: All of Latin literature fits on one CD-ROM. All of Hebrew
and Aramaic literature fits on one CD-ROM. Greek literature already fills
FIVE CD-ROMs, and still counting. This is a vast literature. And yet,
for the first time,in the 20th century no less, after 19 centuries of no
one dreaming that such a name existed, someone decides that IF there WERE
such a name, it could be accented as no MS. in existence accents it, and
we would miraculously have eliminated the possibility of a female apostle!

        The formation is wrong, as Carl Conrad pointed out. And strong
as my admiration for A. T. Robertson is (some will recall a strong eulogy
of him which I wrote and posted a few months ago), I strongly suspect that
Carl Conrad's acquaintance with non-Biblical Greek is far beyond anything
Robertson possessed. Carl's knowledge of Greek literature is simply
phenomenal, in my view -- and I was trained in Classics, not NT Greek,
and have been in close contact for years with such stellar classicists
at Harvard as Albert Henrichs and the late Zeph Stewart--so I'm not
so easily impressed.

        The comments on the absence of references to other female apostles
are beside the point. Our only "history" of the first generation is by
Luke, who built the theory that the term apostle should apply to none but
the Twelve (hence Judas's betrayal required replacement of #12), which
is why he withholds the title from everyone but the Twelve, even Paul and
Barnabas, with the sole exception of Acts 14:14 (usually explained as a
slip in Luke's editing his source). Not even Silas is an apostle. Since
Paul battles for his right to the term, and refers to other apostles, not
always clearly meaning "the Twelve," we know that the term was applied to more
missionaries than just the Twelve. When we leave Acts, what do we find (i.e.,
in second century literature)? The term apostle is restricted to the first
generation, so of course there are no more of them, male or female.

................

Edward Hobbs

--------------------------------------------------------------

From: IN%"cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu" "Carl W. Conrad" 2-DEC-1995 02:08:02.81
To: IN%"BibAnsMan@aol.com"
CC: IN%"b-greek@virginia.edu"
Subj: RE: Junias Redivivus!

At 9:50 AM 12/1/95, BibAnsMan@aol.com wrote:
>Just a note regarding this discussion of Junias in Romans 16:7. It was
>mentioned previously that the accent is relatively recent (20th century). It
>is my contention that the accent really doesn't have much impact one way OR
>the other so it should be ignored (since it isn't from the early manuscripts
>anyway).
>
>Also, it was noted that the feminine Junias is very common and the masculine
>form is not found. Let it also be known that a female apostle is also not
>found in Scripture. Danker as noted takes the contextual interpretation of
>masculine. Some have opposed this, but I don't see any argument against the
>context. The form itself can clearly support a masculine.

There's a bit of confusion here. The feminine form is NOT Junias but Junia;
Junias, if it were a known name, would be the 1st declension masculine form.
As for the other argument, that "a female apostle is not found in Scripture,"
there's a pretty good chance that there's one found right here in Romans 16:7.
A good deal here depends on what precise sense we attach to APOSTOLOS also:
does it refer to one holding some kind of authority? one of the 12? It
certainly would not appear to be the case here. When Paul uses the term
APOSTOLOS it appears to mean, fundamentally, "missionary."

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
---------------------------------------------------------------------

From: IN%"cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu" "Carl W. Conrad" 4-DEC-1995 22:56:19.21
To: IN%"b-greek@virginia.edu"
Subj: Junia endgueltig!

I have just been on the phone with Fred Danker, who tells me he's been very
busy with proofs of the new BAGD (I asked him WHEN? He wasn't making any
promises, and of course it doesn't all depend on him, but he thought it
might get out by the end of 1996!)

I asked him specifically our question about whether the entry on
Junia/Junias had been changed; he said, "Oh, yes, that's been fixed; it
turns out that the evidence is pretty overwhelming in favor of IOUNIA, the
feminine form, in Rom 16:7." I did not tell him until after he had told me
this that Edward Hobbs had threatened never to drink scotch with him if
this hadn't been corrected, to which he replied that Edward had better be
prepared to buy and to be careful about his brands!

Although I have been aware that Fred is a St. Louisan since his days at
Concordia and later at Seminex (and in fact, took a Ph.D. in Classics at
Washington U. well before I arrived here), my only run-in with him
previously had been during my chairmanship of our department when he was
trying to get our library to make a xerox copy of a missing link volume of
inscriptions from Pergamum. While I was certainly well aware of how much
this Hellenistic lexicography depends upon the new papyri coming out of the
Egyptian sands and slowly being cataloged, dated, and decoded, I really
hadn't been aware of the importance of the epigraphic data for establishing
just such matters as how common a name like IOUNIA or a putative masculine
form like IOUNIAS might be. While I'm sure that the list-people who are
deeply involved in NT textual criticism are well aware of how dependent the
whole field of NT scholarship is upon patient and arduous labors of
lexicographers, papyrologists, and epigraphers. And of course there are
errors in their end-products, but we owe them a huge debt of gratitude.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:45 EDT