In my previous post, I discussed the Gospel of Mary and its portrayal as Mary Magdalene as the one to whom Jesus had revealed the secrets of salvation (as part of a gnostic myth) – -much to the consternation of the male disciples, especially Peter and his brother Andrew. Hey, how could he consider a *woman* more important than us men??? It’s an attitude that appears to have run through the family.
It is striking that there was a much wider tradition in early Christianity that said that Mary Magdalene was the *first* apostle, the one who made the other apostles. Now THAT is a view you don’t hear every day.
To explain it I first have to say something about women apostles more broadly in early Christianity, another topic most people don’t think or know much about. Here is how I explain it in my book Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene.
******************************
The term “apostle” comes from a Greek word that means something like “one who has been sent.” It can refer to anyone who is sent on a mission. In Christian parlance, it is used to refer to those who were specially commissioned and sent by Christ to spread his gospel. The word is sometimes distinguished from the term “disciple,” which means a “follower.” In a technical sense, there were twelve disciples. These were the closest followers of Jesus during his public ministry, the ones (all of them men) he chose to be his inner circle. But in a broader sense, all of the followers of Jesus, men, and women, could be called his disciples.
Who then were the apostles? Normally they are understood to be the closest followers of Jesus after his death, who took his message abroad 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. In other words, the apostles were the first witnesses to Christ, commissioned by him, after his resurrection, to proclaim his gospel.
We usually think of the apostles as men: the eleven remaining disciples (Judas having committed suicide), the one who replaced Judas according to the book of Acts (a man named Matthias), and one or two others like James, Jesus’ earthly brother, and Paul. Early traditions indicate that Jesus appeared to these others after his resurrection, to commission them as missionaries and leaders of the church. What most people don’t realize is that in the early days of the church, there were also women apostles.
There really shouldn’t be any dispute about this matter, since the apostle Paul himself mentions a woman apostle by name in the letter he wrote to the Christians of Rome. At the end of his letter, Paul sends greetings to various members of the congregation whom he happens to know (even though he has never visited Rome: he must have met these people elsewhere). Included in his greetings is the following:
Greet Andronicus and Junia, my compatriots and fellow prisoners, who are preeminent among the apostles. (Romans 16:7)
Andronicus is a man’s name, and Junia a woman’s. We know nothing else about these two: were they husband and wife? Brother and sister? Unmarried missionary partners? Here again, historians can’t help feeling desperately frustrated by the scarcity of our sources. Who were these people? How did they convert to faith in Christ? What did they do with their lives? What was their mission? How did they achieve it? What made them so special in the eyes of Paul? Why were they pre-eminent? Did Paul see them as even more important than, say, Peter, whom he does not mention here? Unfortunately, we will probably never know.
But we do know that one of them was a woman and that she was an apostle and a pre-eminent one at that. I should point out that not everyone has known this. As it turns out, English Bible translators have sometimes allowed their own biases to affect how they have translated this passage (Romans 16:7). In such venerable editions as the Revised Standard Version, Junia has undergone a sex change. In these translations, she is not called Junia (a woman’s name) but Junias (a man’s name).
Why would translators make this change? It is not because of what Paul actually wrote. What he wrote was “Junia,” the name of a woman. In fact, while Junia (feminine) was a common name in the ancient world, Junias (masculine) was not a name at all: it doesn’t occur in any ancient Greek text. And so what is going on with translations like the Revised Standard Version? It is purely a matter of patriarchal bias. The translators couldn’t believe that a woman could be an apostle, so they made the woman Junia into a non-existent man Junias.
Were there other women apostles? Other women, who understood themselves, and were understood by others, to be commissioned by Christ in order to spread the word of his death and resurrection? We know of at least one other, one who could be thought of, in fact, as the original apostle: Mary Magdalene. Mary is called an apostle by some early Christian writers. This would include an anonymous writer sometimes thought to have been Hippolytus, a Christian leader in Rome around 200 CE. In a commentary written on the Old Testament book, the Song of Songs, this writer points out that Jesus first appeared to the women at the tomb and instructed them to tell the disciples that he had been raised. He then appeared to the male disciples, upbraiding them for not believing the women’s report. As the author indicates:
Christ showed himself to the (male) apostles and said to them, “It is I who appeared to these women and I who wanted to send them to you as apostles.”
Mary and the others, therefore, could be thought of as “apostles sent to the apostles,” a title that Mary herself came to bear in the Middle Ages (Latin: apostola apostolorum).
******************************
In my next post, I’ll talk about the tradition that Mary Magdalene was indeed the “apostle of the apostles.”
Pliny the Younger (not to be confused with Pliny the Elder who invented the Hannibal fable) encountered Christianity through two preachers. It was strange to him that here were itinerant preachers who were laying down their own necks for a religion. Doubly strange that they were two women. And especially odd – they were former slaves.
Preaching Christianity at this time often was a death sentence.
He wrote, “Pliny to the Emperor Trajan … I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.”
I think you need to read up more on Pliny the Younger (and for that matter, the elder!); 🙂 . I discuss the persecution in my book The Triumph of Christianity.
It is very intriguing, though, that our first independent account of Christianity from a Roman author seems to strongly suggest that women had a prominent role in a local Christian community in Asia Minor. I’m sure Pliny wouldn’t have wasted his time questioning them if he had thought that they had no particular status within the sect.
Yes, he calls them deacons of the church.
If someone wanted to return to the Christian beliefs and practices of a century or two after Jesus, compared to mainline Protestants or Evangelicals, what would be some major differences?
No church building. No hymnals. No prayer books. Non pulpit. Meeting in a house. No denomination. Communion would be more like a potluck supper. Beliefs: depends COMPLETELY which of the churches it was. It could be one that subscribed to the idea that there were two gods and that the Old Testament was not scripture but the book of a different divinity. Just to pick one example.
Great post Bart, Maybe I know at least partly now why Catholic apologists always recommend the RSV over the NRSV. In Romans 16:7 Junia versus Junias. I checked my 1599 Geneva Bible. It too says Junia. I never cease to learn interesting stuff on the Bart Ehrman blog! On renewal, I’ll upgrade to the top tier.
In 1st Timothy 2:11-15, we see a different perspective on women’s place in the church. I know that this letter is not Paul’s. But do you think that this represents a backlash to Paul’s acceptance of women as preeminent apostles?
I suspect so, yes.
This is a fascinating post. I have to say the editors, who changed Junia’s name to Junias, missed a trick. Had they changed it to Junius (the clan name of Marcus Brutus, who assassinated Julius Caesar) they might have got away with it. I have heard it said that female apostles were necessary in order to baptise female converts as people undergoing baptism were usually naked. Similarly, when there is a reference to apostles being sent out ‘two by two’ (Luke 10:1) it has been argued that this may have referred to male/female couples because of the obvious reference to the OT Noah’s Ark story. These points were made in a British TV documentary hosted by Dr Helen Bond.
The Gospels (frustratingly) give us almost no information about Mary Magdalene, except Luke 8:2 which says, “from whom seven demons had gone out.” As a doctor when I read the Gospels it seems neuro/psychiatric disorders like epilepsy and schizophrenia were commonly ascribed to demon possession (e.g., Matt. 17:14-18, Mark 5:1-20, etc.). Since these disorders tend to be episodic it is easy to see why there could be apparent (but temporary) “healings.” So, if Mary M had some psychiatric disorder, it is not a surprise that she had a vision (hallucination) of the resurrected Jesus after his traumatic death. Once this was shared with other disciples it is again not surprising that they started to have similar visions (whether real in their minds, or they simply didn’t want to be outdone by an unbalanced woman). So, it is not just that Christianity in a sense started with a woman, but a mentally ill woman at that. A lot of speculation, I realize, but I think plausible based on what the Gospels say.
That makes the most sense explaining NT events.
When I took my Intro to the NT course, our teacher (Bernadette Brooten) showed us a commentary that pointed to Rom 16:7 as a very interesting verse.
The point was that it was interesting not because it mentioned a woman as a significant Apostle; but rather because the verse contained the syntactic peculiarity of having a “man’s name with a feminine ending”[!]
That’s interesting. I’m a bit surprised she thought that. She, btw, is a terrific scholar.
Doesn’t Jerome in the Vulgate refer to “Andronicum et I(J)uniam ” which suggest this change came at least as early as the late Fourth Century?
Yup, it probably does. I’ve never done a history of interpretation of the passage, but maybe Eldon Epp does in his book on Junia (he’s a textual critic)
I’m not sure what you mean here. “Juniam” is just the accusative case of “Junia’, just as “Andronicum” is the accusative case of “Andronicus”. The accusative case is required since the names are the direct objects of “Salutate” (Greet).
In those times, is there a possibility that a name, female or male, be given for either gender, like we have today,i.e. Kim, Kelly, Ashley, Jordan, Alexis and Taylor to name a few, and used interchangeably for either sex? Moreover, Ashley, is traditionally a men’s name, but it is given more often to female’s than men.
No, it was different — in Greek every name is automatically masculine or feminine, depending on how it is spelled (nouns in Greek are spelled differently if they are masc., fem., or neuter.)
The fourth season of “The Crown” is now being shown on Netflix. It mixes “story” with “history.” The “story” part embellishes the “history” part. My question is did ancient Christian Bible writers also do this in writing their genre or were they trying to write all history? Thanks
Were there Female Presbyters or Bishops in early Christianity? Did all NT churches have these offices? What was the difference in their duties?
None is named in the earliest sources. The earliest churches didn’t have these hierarchies — they start developing toward the end of the first century, after Paul and before the Pastorals. In the Pastorals, though, the leadership positions were to be held by men.
Since Paul calls Andronicus and Junia apostles, that then means that all three of them believe that Andronicus and Junia both had “visions” of the risen Christ as Paul says he did, correct?
Well, it’s tricky and a lot of scholars haven’t actually worked through this carefully. Paul does say that he’s an apostle and he does say that he has seen the Lord. But — people don’t notice this — he never actually says he was an apostle *because* he had seen the Lord and that this was the requirement.
No. Why would that be the case?
In the Acts of John, Drusiana raises someone from the dead. Are there any other women in early Christian literature that raise the dead to life?
That’s an excellent question, and I need to think about it, since nothing pops immediately to mind. And it’s probably worth noting that she raises the person because John is there and appears to authorize it. It’s a *FANTASTIC* tale, btw, that people need to read. I should post on it — I don’t believe I ever have!
The Book Of Acts narrative may not be historically accurate with the lot, do you still think Matthias did historically get elected as a replacement? There wouldn’t be a need to make it up since he was never mentioned again.
Also, do you think Jesus historically got crowned with the crown of thorns and reed? I doubt it was made up for theological purposes since they embarrassed him with it, and the Romans called him “King Of The Jews”. A saying not used in the early church to praise Jesus since it was more of an insult. Thanks so much Bart!
I rather doubt it, but don’t really now. Crowned? Dougt that too. It’s to heighten the irony: they think they can mock him for claiming to be a king but in the precise mode of mockery they reveal what kind of king he is — one who has to suffer — and thus show their complete ignorance.
I am wondering why you seem so definitive on this passage referring to a female apostle. The NASB translators render this:
“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.”
A couple thoughts here:
1. Junia got saved before Paul so she was saved prior to 3 years post Resurrection. The “outstanding in the veiw of the Apostles” comes right before also telling us she was saved prior to Paul- with punctuation added after obviously. We could look at that as one thought, “Junia was saved before me and she knew the original Apostles well”.
2. Paul doesn’t call anyone else an Apostle except the original Apostles and himself- and possibly Tutus although no translations render it Apostle (2 Cor 8). We see Paul use the term carefully and reverently. He repeatedly makes arguments about his own apostleship making sure his office is understood. It seems very unlikely he throws the label around here towards people we otherwise don’t know as opposed to the renderings that have him telling us that these two were friends with the original Apostles.
1. Interesting point, and yes, others have proosed that. But the translation would require the definite article before the word “fellow prisoners.” Two manuscripts do have the article, but only two out of hundreds, and it is easy to see why scribes would add it but not why scribes would take it out, for precisely the reasons you’re giving: in early Christianity (and forever among scribes) it became a major stumbling block to think that a woman could be an apostle. 2. Yes Paul reserves it for people who were commissioned by Christ to spread his gospel. The fact that we don’t know these people does not mean they weren’t treated reverentially by Paul.disabledupes{7550a5257bb5c067d92301aeefc98784}disabledupes