An Exegetical Analysis of Romans 16:7: The Identity and Status of Junia
This exegetical study of Romans 16:7 is based on a b-greek discussion from May 12, 2004. The initial query sought information regarding the grammatical form and gender of the name Ἰουνίαν in Romans 16:7 and the interpretation of the accompanying phrase ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, specifically whether it implies apostleship for the individual named.
The central exegetical issues are two-fold: first, the determination of the gender of the individual named Ἰουνίαν (Junia/Junias) in Paul’s greeting, a question significantly influenced by the history of accentuation in Greek manuscripts and the presence of such names in antiquity. Second, the precise semantic range of the phrase ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, which is debated between an inclusive meaning (“prominent among the apostles,” indicating direct apostleship) and an appreciative meaning (“prominent to the apostles,” implying high regard by them), often reflecting underlying theological presuppositions concerning women in leadership roles within the early Christian movement.
Ἀσπάσασθε Ἀνδρόνικον καὶ Ἰουνίαν τοὺς συγγενεῖς μου καὶ συναιχμαλώτους μου, οἵτινές εἰσιν ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, οἳ καὶ πρὸ ἐμοῦ γεγόνασιν ἐν Χριστῷ. (Nestle 1904, representing the critical text tradition with modern accentuation)
- Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- There are no substantial lexical or morphological differences in the printed text of Romans 16:7 between modern critical editions like Nestle 1904 (as represented by NA28/UBS5) and SBLGNT (2010). Both present Ἰουνίαν (accusative singular).
- Historically, however, editorial accentuation in critical editions has varied. Older editions (e.g., UBS3/4, and pre-1998 printings of NA27) often placed a circumflex accent over the ultima (Ἰουνιᾶν), implying a masculine nominative Ἰουνίας (a contracted form). More recent editions (post-1998 NA27, NA28, SBLGNT) consistently use an acute accent on the penultimate syllable (Ἰουνίαν), indicating a feminine nominative Ἰουνία. This shift reflects a re-evaluation of the textual and external evidence.
Textual Criticism (NA28), Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG):
The primary textual issue concerning Ἰουνίαν (Rom 16:7) is not a variant manuscript reading of the letters themselves, but the interpretive addition of accent marks in later Greek manuscripts (from the 9th century onward) and subsequent editorial decisions in critical editions. The accusative form Ἰουνίαν can grammatically derive from either a feminine nominative Ἰουνία (Junia) or a masculine nominative Ἰουνίας (Junias, a contracted form of Ἰουνιανός). Manuscript traditions often vary in accentuation, with older editions sometimes reflecting a masculine interpretation via a circumflex accent, while more recent ones (such as NA28) reflect a feminine interpretation with an acute accent. The NA28, which builds on the Nestle tradition, now consistently prints Ἰουνίαν with an acute accent, reflecting a scholarly consensus that this is indeed a feminine name.
Lexical and historical evidence further illuminates this discussion. The feminine name Junia (Ἰουνία) is widely attested in ancient Greek and Latin literature, with hundreds of known instances. In contrast, the masculine name Junias (Ἰουνίας) is exceedingly rare, with some scholars arguing for only one or no definitive attestations in antiquity as a contracted form of Junianus. Early Christian commentators, notably John Chrysostom (4th century CE), explicitly identified the individual in Romans 16:7 as a woman and recognized her as an apostle, viewing her as an “amazing example of counter-expectation.” This patristic evidence, particularly from a native Greek speaker, strongly supports the feminine reading. Concerns about gender bias in later interpretations, as highlighted by scholars like John Dominic Crossan, suggest that the shift towards a masculine rendering was often ideologically driven, seeking to preclude the possibility of a female apostle.
Regarding the phrase ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, several key terms require lexical attention. ἐπίσημος (episemios) is translated by BDAG as “marked, distinctive, noteworthy, prominent, outstanding.” This adjective clearly indicates high regard. The prepositional phrase ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις (en tois apostolois) is the crux of the second exegetical debate. BDAG provides various semantic ranges for ἐν + dative, including locative (“in,” “among”) and dative of respect/relationship (“in the sight of,” “to”). Grammatically, ἐν followed by a plural dative noun referring to a group of people (e.g., ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “among the Gentiles”) most naturally denotes inclusion or membership (“among”). While some modern translations (e.g., ESV) opt for “well-known to the apostles,” suggesting high esteem without apostleship, this interpretation is often considered less natural than “among the apostles.” A partitive genitive construction (e.g., τῶν ἀποστόλων) would have been a more unambiguous way to express “prominent among the apostles” in a superlative sense, but the chosen construction with ἐν + dative is still very common for “among.” The term ἀπόστολος (apostolos), as discussed in KITTEL (TDNT), carries a broader meaning in Pauline literature than merely the Twelve, encompassing those commissioned by Christ for missionary work (e.g., Barnabas, Silas), thus not limiting apostleship to a select few. The rhetorical impact of translating “among” versus “to” is substantial for understanding the roles of women in early Christianity.
Translation Variants
The interpretation of Ἰουνίαν as feminine and the phrase ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις profoundly impacts the translation of Romans 16:7. Grammatically and rhetorically, the most natural reading of ἐν + dative with a plural noun signifying a group, especially when coupled with an adjective like ἐπίσημοι, is one of inclusion or membership within that group. This is supported by numerous Hellenistic Greek examples and early patristic interpretations.
The alternative, “prominent to the apostles,” requires stretching the semantic range of ἐν + dative beyond its most common usage in such a context. While technically possible in some specific uses of ἐν, it is not the default or most obvious meaning when indicating prominence within a group. Furthermore, if Paul intended to convey only that Andronicus and Junia were held in high regard by the apostles, other grammatical constructions might have been more precise (e.g., a dative of agent or a partitive genitive with a superlative).
Rhetorically, the choice between “among” and “to” carries significant implications for understanding the scope of apostleship in early Christianity and the roles of women within it. An “among” translation acknowledges women in positions of significant leadership, while a “to” translation diminishes that implication. Given the strong evidence for Junia as a feminine name and the natural grammatical reading of ἐν + dative for inclusion, the rendering “prominent among the apostles” is exegetically more robust.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
Based on the textual, lexical, and grammatical analysis, supported by early patristic interpretation and a critical assessment of ideological influences on translation, the most compelling reading of Romans 16:7 identifies Ἰουνίαν as a woman and recognizes her as an apostle.
- “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives and fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, and who were in Christ before me.”
This translation reflects the conclusion that Junia was a woman and that she was herself an apostle, a prominent figure within the broader group of those commissioned by Christ. This aligns with the most natural grammatical reading and the weight of external evidence. - “Extend greetings to Andronicus and Junia, my kinsfolk and fellow captives, who are esteemed by the apostles, having also been in Christ prior to my own conversion.”
This alternative, while grammatically possible but less probable, interprets the phrase as indicating that Andronicus and Junia were highly regarded by the apostles, rather than being apostles themselves. This reading is often adopted by those who hold a restricted view of apostleship or women’s leadership. - “Salute Andronicus and Junia, my relatives and my fellow prisoners, who are remarkable as apostles, and who also came to faith in Christ before me.”
This translation emphasizes Junia’s active role as an apostle, using “as apostles” to highlight their function and status within the apostolic band, consistent with Paul’s broader understanding of apostleship.
Link Hudson and it seems that most leading Greek scholars and professors in America agree A proper examination of thelinguistic evidence regarding the name _Iunia_ shows that the name isfeminine, not masculine. The masculine form of the name is _Iunius_ in Latinand IOUNIOS in Greek (accusative forms: _Iunium_ and IOUNION respectively).There is thus no ambiguity in the morphology of the masculine and feminineforms of this name in either language. The theory that the name is_Iunias_, and may be a shortened form of the masculine name _Iunianus_, isgroundless There is so far no empirical evidence to support such atheory.
Why did you address this to me? The ambiguity I address is whether they were held of note by the apostles or whether they were notable apostles, not the issue of whether Junia was a woman.
You pointed to some article from Bible org which was not able to find Most of their articles are not mature anyway More of a sermon central type. The discussion linked to this post is done by the leading scholars and Biblical Greek professors in the nation Enjoy!
https://bible.org/article/junia-among-apostles-double-identification-problem-romans-167
why am I not one bit surprised that the only reference you have pointed out through the whole discussion is a DTS _baptist_ teacher Why am I not surprised one little bit?
I already addressed the Link and Daniel B. Wallace is no authority on the issue. He also presents evidence from both camps and the only explanation he gives for the latter is that a nickname is used. No such other relative example could be found in the NT
Most if not all scholars in the field recognize that a proper examination of the linguistic evidence regarding the name _Iunia_ shows that the name is feminine, not masculine.
The masculine form of the name is _Iunius_ in Latinand IOUNIOS in Greek (accusative forms: _Iunium_ and IOUNION respectively).There is thus no ambiguity in the morphology of the masculine and feminineforms of this name in either language. The theory that the name is_Iunias_, and may be a shortened form of the masculine name _Iunianus_, isgroundless There is so far no empirical evidence to support such atheory.http://probible.net/romans-167/
Irrelavent to the point I have been making about’of note among the apostles. ‘ Read the end of the article.
Well if you think the Bible is irrelevant what else can convince you?
Troy Day No, the Bible is relevant. The issue I have raised is not whether Junia was a woman, as I have pointed out a few times throughout our discussion. The issue is whether Andronichus and Junia were of note among the apostles or whether they were noted apostles. One could be of note among the apostles without being an apostle. The article presents evidence that they were considered notable by the apostles without being apostles.
Thirty pages of argument that Junia was a woman does not prove that she and Andronichus were apostles. I suspect you know lots of women. If you can prove they are women by the original Greek, does that make them all apostles?
Well the discussion clearly shows that the Bible in Rom 16:7 refers to Unia as a leading female apostle. If you are failing to recognize that read the discussion again and ask questions on what you cant understand http://probible.net/romans-167/
Troy Day Why don’t you deal with the meat of Wallace’s argument in relation to ‘of note among the apostles’, rather than merely trying to characterize him in a negative manner?
Here is a quote from the article I linked above:
“When, however, an elative notion is found, ἐν plus a personal plural dative is not uncommon. In Ps Sol 2:6, where the Jewish captives are in view, the writer indicates that “they were a spectacle among the gentiles” (ἐπισήμῳ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν). This construction comes as close to Rom 16:7 as any I have yet seen. The parallels include (a) people as the referent of the adjective ἐπίσημος, (b) followed by ἐν plus the dative plural, (c) the dative plural referring to people as well. All the key elements are here. Semantically, what is significant is that (a) the first group is not a part of the second—that is, the Jewish captives were not gentiles; and (b) what was ‘among’ the gentiles was the Jews’ notoriety. This is precisely how we are suggesting Rom 16:7 should be taken. That the parallels discovered so far8 conform to our working hypothesis at least gives warrant to seeing Andronicus’ and Junia’s fame as that which was among the apostles. Whether the alternative view has semantic plausibility remains to be seen.”
BEcause I’ve dealt with Dr Wallace for years on levels you may not be even aware The DTS dispensational theology he represents denies any apostles after the first 12 any gifts and so on
Pls noe this example, Greek-speaking John Chrysostom explicitly identified Junia as a woman and an apostle. He appeared to regard her as an amazing example of counter-expectation. I agree with you that this verse does appear to evoke some interesting acrobatics, when someone tries to constrain the semantic range of EN + dative and tries to establish the masculine gender of Junia’s name at the same time
It will do you well to chonsult some Pentecostal theologians in your own tradition – if you are really CoG as you’ve claimed you should be well aware of the writings of Dr C. Thomas on Unia as a leading female apostle in the early church
Link Hudson bottom line – Walles is a baptist who does not believe in apostles or gifts of Spirit (or ordaining women) The Greek comes down to this is Junia feminine dative or masculine accusative ? – answer that and you will have an answer to your dilemma. One way or the other, “ev” + dative denotes the original group – prominent among; not a separate third group which seems to be artificially forced in the construction
Does the en plus dative in Galatians 2:12 prove Paul was a Gentile?
He preached among the Gentiles without being one–or is that not true because of the dative?
If someone can preach among (en) the (dative) Gentiles without being one, then why can’t someone be of note among (en) the (dative) apostles without being one?
No – I answered that already You are comparing
the verb TO BE + dative adjective PROMINENT + en
vs
the verb PROCLAIM + dative noun GOSPEL + en
The adjective is the modifier in this case.
If what you are saying was true we should translate that
Paul was prominent among the Gentiles 🙂
Troy Day Do you have any evidence that ‘en’ plus the dative after a verb means something substantially different from ‘en’ plus the dative after an adjective?
Yes Link I wrote to you about the modifier Anyone who has studied any Greek or any language with cases and inclinations knows that; I feel like I am trying to explain to you how to bench press 405lb but you aint gonna figure it out until you actually get to the point where you are able to bench press 405lb
The difference is I dont need to search for an article to tell me what the Greek says – I see it for myself – it is clear
Junua was a female – no way around that
was notable as a female apostle
It takes a LOT of grammar acrobatics to make Junia male from the way the greek text reads OR to make a just a messenger who carried Paul’s letters as you suggested some
Sure, you can find some non-scholarly articles that go for male-only leadership and twist the text, but reading the Greek this point is just not there. All the translators in English who translated Junia as female apostles for many centuries were not wrong and knew better Greek than you and I ever will !
Troy Day I tire of the straw man. How many times do I have to say I am not arguing that Junia was a man. Again, again, again, I am saying that ‘of note among the apostles’ is ambiguous as to whether these individuals were notable apostles or simply considered to be of not by the apostles.
You keep on repeating the same thing and refuse evidence from the Bible – both most translations and the Greek It is called overwhelming evidence. Basically the Bible says what it says – sure you can try to twist Scriptures. That’s your thing 🙂 But you have to admit what you are tying to claim is just not in the Bible Not there – that simple
Troy Day scolars who write articles on it acknowledge the ambiguity. Not ‘getting it’ and strawmen seem to be your things.
Link Hudson You cannot call the Bible ambiguity and expect to be taken seriously in this group Pls review Margaret Mowczko on JUNIA: THE JEWISH WOMAN WHO WAS IMPRISONED WITH PAUL https://margmowczko.com/junia-jewish-woman-imprisoned/
Troy Day Can you write stuff like “call the Bible ambiguity” and expect to be taken seriously?
Do you seriously believe there are no ambiguities in any passages on scripture? Who did the LORD seek to kill over Gershom not being circumcised?
Why do other Greek scholars acknowledge the ambiguity?
naah … oh well … maybe another time
essential truth for the ministry of the church today
God is not author of confusion. So why this writing is so confusing.??. If Junia was a woman apostle then Pricila and Aquila must also be apostle.
you;ve got it
Apostle is always in the masculine tense a woman can’t be a apostle
Romans 16:5-7 Paul not only acknowledges their ethnicity as Israelites (i.e., countrymen with reference to racial kinship; cf. 9:3; 16:11,21) and bondage with him (cf. 2 Cor 11:23), but as being recognized among the apostles. This does not mean that Andronicus and Junia were apostles, but that the apostles recognized them, probably for their faithful service. Paul also states that these two were in Christ before me, indicating that they had become believers before Paul.
I believe in WOMEN in ministry Jim Price