(13 votes, average: 4.85 out of 5)
Loading...Here now is a final post about an interesting feature of Paul’s letter to the Romans. as you may know, Paul is often considered one of the real misogynists of Christian antiquity. But I’m not sure that’s right. Most of the antipathy toward his views are based on 1 Timothy 2:11-15, a book he didn’t write, and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, a passage that was probably inserted into his letter by someone else.
No one can deny (well, at least I can’t deny) that there are yet other passages in Paul that are completely unacceptable to modern proponents of women’s rights, including, rather forcefully, me. BUT there are other passages that show that Paul not only allowed, but encouraged, women to be leaders of the church, in a world where women’s leadership of most anything outside the private space of the home was both unusual and frowned upon.
A key passage comes at the very end of Paul’s letter to the Romans.
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Really appreciated this. As someone who no longer sees scripture as divinely inspired but still values its historical impact, I find it striking that Paul recognized a woman as a “preeminent apostle.” The way Junia was later erased by translators says a lot about how power and patriarchy shaped the tradition. Do you think Paul’s support for women like Junia reflects a broader openness in his ministry—or was she more of an exception?
The fact that he names so many women in Romans 16 suggest that it was a broader openness.
That is disappointing. I always thought the Revised Standard Version was one of the more accurate to the Greek translated to English Bibles. Are there other words or areas in the RSV that have been changed?
I’d say all translations mistranslate things for one reason or another. I do think the NRSV is the best going for accuracy.
Hmm…Interesting that The Revised Standard Version was one of the translations that turned Junia into a man. Being the predecessor to the NRSV, which by many is a liberal interpretation of the Bible, the RSV would deny Junia was a woman.
I’m not sure what you mean that the NRSV was liberal?
NASB 2020 translates this verse as “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsfolk and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding in the view of the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.” Can you explain how you derive your certainty that she was an apostle?
It’s a mistranslation. These translators couldn’t bring themselves to give a more literal translatoin. they are translation the preposition word “EN” as “in the view of.” It actually means “in” (not “in view of”) or, when the object is a dative plural (as “apostles” is) “among.”
Some evangelical scholars claim that the pastoral letters were reorganized by Paul’s descendants, so the language style is different from the true Pauline letters, but still retains Paul’s authority. What do you think about this?
I think they have to explain it somehow! The problem is not just the language style, though, but also the contents, the presupposed historical situation, the views, and the very words that are used that now mean something different from what Paul used them to mean (e.g. “faith” here means “the propositional content of what we believe”; for Paul it meant something like “trust”)
Is there a book specifically discussing the controversy surrounding the authorship of the New Testament canon? I have read several of your best-selling books discussing this matter, but I feel that there is not enough content in them.
Not enough content? OK then! I wrote one for a general audience that maybe wasn’t enough for you (Forged). But I wrote one that is well over 600 pages that covers a ton of material on the entire NT in substantial detail with massive footntes and bibliography. It’s the largest book written on the topic that I’m award of. It’s Forgery and Counterforgery. You can look up any of the NT books in the index and see the discussion,but it all has to be set in the broader discussoin of forgery that I lay out in the earlier sections.
I am curious about the phrase, “according to the Scriptures” in 1 Corinthians 15:3 and the debate on whether Paul was referring to Isaiah 53. In a post from August 23, 2019 on the subject of Isaiah 53 you wrote,
“It is important as well to note that Jews *never* interpreted this passage as referring to a future messiah and was never read messianically.”
If this is correct and assuming that Paul knew and understood his Hebrew Bible would this not contradict the notion that Paul was referring to Isaiah 53 in 1 Corinthians.
I don’t know if he was referring to Isaiah 53 precisely. In any event, Paul had many views that Jews before him never had, espeically when it came to Jesus, but also other things such as God’s relation to his chosen ones and the need for them to be hardened in heart.
Greetings Bart! I’m just finishing The New Testament by you 6th edition. I’ve really enjoyed it. Can you explain to me how many Christian’s denominations that do have women as leaders in their churches? By leaders I mean priests, bishops, ordained ministers. It would be interesting to have a percentage of the total denominations that have women as priests, and a percent of women to men as priests.
I’m not sure. Neither the Roman CAtholic nor Eastern orthodox churches allow women priests or, obvoiulsy, women in clerical roles at a higher level. Nor do Southern Baptists or most fundamentalist churches allow women preachers. I’m afraid I don’t have a precise answer to your question, other than ordained women ministers tend to be in mainline Protestant demoninatoins (Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Episcopalian, etc.) You may be able to get more innfo here: https://www.christianpost.com/news/7-christian-denominations-that-allow-women-to-be-ordained.html
You wrote, “No one can deny (well, at least I can’t deny) that there are yet other passages in Paul that are completely unacceptable to modern proponents of women’s rights, including, rather forcefully, me.”
What passages do you have in mind, and how do you know that they are not interpolations?
You wrote, “These were the closest followers of Jesus during his public ministry, the ones (all of them men) he chose to be his inner circle.”
Surely all we can say is that the group of male disciples were all male, and the group of female disciples were all female. It is true that the 12 feature prominently in the gospels, but could this be because the gospels were written by members of the 12 and/or from their reminiscences?
Concerning Rom 16, it is important to note that women appear early in the list of those greeted, and name order was always deliberate and signalled importance.
Paul’s discussion of Head coverings in 1 Cor. 11 is simply not something that would be acceptable to most of our culture today.
Sure, if anyone wants to make a case that Jesus spent as much time with his women followers as with the men, that he called ome to be his apostles, and considered them as important to his mission, they can make a case. But without a case, I don’t see it. I wish it were true, obviously, but patriarchy was the rule of the day virtually everywhere, so exceptions need exceptional evidence. I don’t know of any.
You wrote, “Paul’s discussion of Head coverings in 1 Cor. 11 is simply not something that would be acceptable to most of our culture today.”
Yes, but 1 Cor has been altered by a sexist corrupter (and not only at 1 Cor 14:34-35). So we surely cannot know whether 1 Cor 11 has also been interpolated or altered. We both accept that orthodox corruption of scripture happened, so we should not claim to know that Paul would be “completely unacceptable to modern proponents of women’s rights”. We have to live with uncertainty on this, don’t we?
OK, whether Paul wrote it or not it would be unacceptable for most of us today. But I don’t know of any good evidence of interpolations in 1 Cor. 11. I can certainly see why some scholars/readers WISHED parts of it were interpolated!
I agree that Rom16:7 does suggest Junia was an apostle. Another curious aspect of this verse is that Paul goes on to say “they were in Christ before I was”. I place Paul’s conversion c32, so that would mean sometime between 30-32.
Luke claims that at Pentecost, after the first easter, “visitors from Rome” were part of the first wave of Jews who accepted Jesus as the risen Messiah. As Andronicus and Junia are in Rome and accepted Christ before Paul, what do you think the chances are they were part of this early group of Jewish Roman converts?
I don’t think we can take Acts 2 as a historical acocunt of what happened. There are way too many porblems with it.
Who wrote 1 Timothy?
An anonymous Christian from the late first century claiming to be Paul.
Just a quick observation: Jerome in the Latin Vulgate (late 4th c.) translated this as “qui sunt nobiles in apostolis”, which suggests that he also understood Andronicus and Junia to be “distinguished among the apostles” in the sense that they themselves were both distinguished apostles, and not just people whom the apostles thought were great. I think if Jerome had believed the Greek text implied the latter, he would have written something like “qui sunt notabili apud apostolos ipsos” or similar. Origen, the first great Christian exegete, likewise suggests in his commentary on Romans that Junia was a female apostle who may have been one of the 72 followers ordained by Jesus to preach the gospel in Luke 10.
I
Interesting about Jerome. As to the 72, there are actual lists of them in various sources, all of them, of course, made up for the occasion.
I’ve run across a specific issue that I can find hundreds of articles and videos on from apologists but zero from skeptics.
So, the Jewish Talmud Yoma 39b says that for 40 years before the destruction of the second temple that multiple abnormal things started occurring in the temple. Their scarlet thread wouldn’t turn white for sin atonement anymore, the lamps wouldn’t stay lit, the sacrifice would turn up in the left hand everytime, etc.
I find this very odd to admit because Jewish Rabbis or authors would not want public knowledge that pointed to the Messiah being Jesus. And the 40 years lines up very well with the estimated timeline of Jesus crucifixion. So it’s weird that this is from a Jewish source instead of an easily dismissed Christian source.
I can’t seem to find any thing on the opposing side except for Jewish apologists that don’t refute the text. They only state it happened because of Israel’s overwhelming sinfulness at the time and not to do with Jesus.
I can find no info on when this story in the Talmud was written, is there any supporting evidence, etc.
I’m not sure critical scholars take it seriously as an actual event, given what they know about the date and kinds of traditions are found in the Talmud. The best place to start reading is on critical scholarship on the Talmud, something Christian apologists, I’m afraid, know nothing about, but simply repeat something they heard about it. It is a vast field of ongoing scholarship. Among other things, starting with Jacob Neusner many decades ago, scholars came to realize that the Talmud’s comments on events in the time of the NT and earlier are simply not reliable. You may want to read up on that, maybe in one of Neusner’s many, many books written for layfolk.
Ok, just to clarify, are you saying that to be classed as an “apostle” Junia would’ve had to be an actual witness to the resurrection of Jesus? Not just a convert who attained a certain position of trust and was allowed to teach and preach?
I don’t think there was an official job descriptoin anywhere! Different early authors meant different things by it. But usually it meant someone who wsa commissioned by Christ to spread the gospel message.
Professor, above you say:
“ message … to convert others to the belief that in his life, death, and resurrection Jesus had performed the act of salvation, making it possible for people now to have a right relationship with God. ”
did you think the earliest Christians meant salvation from sin or, at that earliest point in time (immediately post PassOver), salvation in general? If in general when did salvation from sin work into the creed!
“Salvation” early in the Xn tradition, and certainly still in Paul, meant being delivered/saved from the wrath of God that was soon to hit this world when he destrooyed all those opposed to him.
This is a little off topic, but it came up recently on the BSA community course replay. Would you explain how and when the use of the word brother or brothers could also mean brother and sisters?
This person pointed out that the gender inclusive language in the NRSV is misleading when it’s clear that they are speaking of a male in a “male club” sort of way specifically in 1 Thess. Is it more obvious in the Greek?
The Greek word means “brothers” and there is a separate word for “sisters.” The issue is not the Greek but modern English. If I say “men” today to mean “men and women” then it is confusing, because many people will think I mean “male adults.” That’s because English has shifted from using only masculine words for groups of people to using words that include men and women (over the past 40 years or so). We don’t have a single word for that (except for “people” or “siblings” – but usually those do not work well). If we, in ENglish, want to refer to a group of people both male and female, we have to say “men and women” (or “humans” or “people’ or other things that usually don’t work well in the context.
So too with “brothers.” If I say I met with my brothers today, most people would think I was talking about a group of males. If I meant males and females, I’d have to say brothers and sisters (or siblings; but if they are “spiritual” brothers and sisters, calling them siblings would be confusing), even though we *used* to say, not long ago, “brothers” and mean both males and females.
This shift to inclusivity has become a dominant element of our language, but the language itself has not developed new words to accommodate it adequately.
Greek never had this inclusive element, let alone words to express it, so when a translator comes across a text that refers to “men” or “brothers” but it is clear the author is talking about both males and females, the only way to communicate that accurately to the reader is by saying “brothers and sisters” (etc.). It should not be objected that it’s not right to translate one Greek word with three English ones, since that happens ALL the time in translations, where it often takes more than one word to translate the meaning of a single word in the source language.
The NRSV went to great lenghts to use male-only language when the author was addressing only males, and inclusive language when it was addressing both males and females. Maybe they botched it some times but I’d be suprised (since I was hired by the committee to make sure they followed their policy on inclusive language, after I had finished my PhD)
Dr Ehrman, why should we not trust Luke’s prologue? I know it’s ambiguous and he doesn’t name his source but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true, he does imply he used an eyewitness testimony.
I know there also others works that did the same thing to give credit to there work but applying that to Luke is a bit speculative don’t you think?
I’m just saying is there any good explanation to it? That isn’t an hypothesis is or doesn’t make it false
Thanks
I don’t recall saying that it couldn’t be trusted? Which element of what he says are you thinking of?
Reading my RSV Bible, I had no idea about this slight but significant change in Romans!
Didn’t you intend the other brother – the Apostle Junius? (damn Textus Receptus and the KJV)
Am I reading this right in terms of the history of translation of Romans 16:7, that as long as Junia was considered a man, the phrase “among” was used, but once scholars pointed out that Junia was a feminine name, alternative phrases such as “outstanding in the view of” or “well-known” are used? If this is true, one can easily follow the layers of translations and see the verse bend to gender bias. As I understand it, the NASB was based on the ASV. So see below:
ASV (1901) which followed the KJV
“Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.”
NASB95
Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
NASB20
Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsfolk and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding in the view of the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
The ESV distorts the verse entirely.
2005
Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.
Yup, pretty much!
I have a question about Junia in Romans 16:7. The text says she was ‘outstanding’ or ‘prominent’ among the apostles, but doesn’t that just mean she had a good reputation with the apostles rather than being an apostle herself? How can we be certain that she was actually counted as an apostle rather than simply being respected by them?
It might mean that it if said they were “remarkable in the view of the apostles” but that would not be the natural rendering of the Greek.
What do you think about the possibility that Junia and Joanna from Luke 8:1-5 and 24:10 could be one and the same person?
The names are different so I don’t think there’s much reason to think so.
Thank you so much, Dr. Ehrman for this post and for your recent misquoting Jesus podcast on “Paul said what about woman”
As I mentioned to you, this topic has been extremely important to me when I first learned of the oppression and the erasing of woman from our bibles.
Dr. Mendez in lesson 19 of the BSA course, while referring to Paul’s letter to the Romans 16:1 “Phoebe, who was a deaconess means someone who serves the church probably in that she’s going around, helping at the dinner table, pouring people‘s wine, bringing them food. Historically, these are tasks done by enslaved persons at Greco Roman meals, she was a volunteer”.
In my understanding, since she was someone who brought the letter to the church and most likely read it for the first time, would make her more of a leader/teacher. What is your understanding of this verse?
Btw, I’m loving the BSA and your Historical introduction to early Christian writings 8th edition. I thought it may be too difficult of a read but like all of your writings you make it accessible to the non educated as well and for that I thank you!
Joann
I’m inclined to think she was a church leader. But I wish we knew for sure.
I’m glad you’re enjoying it all!