Junia – A Woman Lost in Translation: The Name IOYNIAN in Romans 16:7 and its History of Interpretation

The name of the second person greeted in Romans 16:7 is given as IOYNIAN, a form whose grammatical gender could be either feminine or masculine which leads to the question: Is it Junia or Junias – a woman or a man – who is greeted alongside Andronicus as “outstanding among the apostles?” This articl...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Hartmann Andrea
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: De Gruyter 2020-11-01
Series:Open Theology
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1515/opth-2020-0138
id doaj-699365fa2cc74f21bad1f5fa51207a81
record_format Article
spelling doaj-699365fa2cc74f21bad1f5fa51207a812021-10-02T17:48:10ZengDe GruyterOpen Theology2300-65792020-11-016164666010.1515/opth-2020-0138opth-2020-0138Junia – A Woman Lost in Translation: The Name IOYNIAN in Romans 16:7 and its History of InterpretationHartmann Andrea0London School of Theology, Green Lane, Northwood, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandThe name of the second person greeted in Romans 16:7 is given as IOYNIAN, a form whose grammatical gender could be either feminine or masculine which leads to the question: Is it Junia or Junias – a woman or a man – who is greeted alongside Andronicus as “outstanding among the apostles?” This article highlights early influential answers to this question in the history of interpretation (John Chrysostom’s commentary, the discipleship list of Pseudo-Epiphanius, Luther’s translation, and Calvin’s interpretation) showing that societal perceptions of women’s roles were a factor in how they interpreted IOYNIAN. The article then summarises the last 150 years of interpretation history which saw (a) the disappearance of Junia from the text and from scholarly discussion due to the impact of the short-from hypothesis in the nineteenth century, (b) the challenge to this male interpretation in connection with second wave feminism, and (c) the restoration of the female reading in the ensuing debate. Bringing together the main lines of the argument, it will be shown that there is only one reading supported by the evidence, the female reading which throughout the centuries was the more difficult reading in light of the church’s and society’s perception of women’s participation.https://doi.org/10.1515/opth-2020-0138juniajuniasromans 16:7female apostlehistory of interpretationchrysostompseudo-epiphaniusluthercalvinshort-form hypothesis
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Hartmann Andrea
spellingShingle Hartmann Andrea
Junia – A Woman Lost in Translation: The Name IOYNIAN in Romans 16:7 and its History of Interpretation
Open Theology
junia
junias
romans 16:7
female apostle
history of interpretation
chrysostom
pseudo-epiphanius
luther
calvin
short-form hypothesis
author_facet Hartmann Andrea
author_sort Hartmann Andrea
title Junia – A Woman Lost in Translation: The Name IOYNIAN in Romans 16:7 and its History of Interpretation
title_short Junia – A Woman Lost in Translation: The Name IOYNIAN in Romans 16:7 and its History of Interpretation
title_full Junia – A Woman Lost in Translation: The Name IOYNIAN in Romans 16:7 and its History of Interpretation
title_fullStr Junia – A Woman Lost in Translation: The Name IOYNIAN in Romans 16:7 and its History of Interpretation
title_full_unstemmed Junia – A Woman Lost in Translation: The Name IOYNIAN in Romans 16:7 and its History of Interpretation
title_sort junia – a woman lost in translation: the name ioynian in romans 16:7 and its history of interpretation
publisher De Gruyter
series Open Theology
issn 2300-6579
publishDate 2020-11-01
description The name of the second person greeted in Romans 16:7 is given as IOYNIAN, a form whose grammatical gender could be either feminine or masculine which leads to the question: Is it Junia or Junias – a woman or a man – who is greeted alongside Andronicus as “outstanding among the apostles?” This article highlights early influential answers to this question in the history of interpretation (John Chrysostom’s commentary, the discipleship list of Pseudo-Epiphanius, Luther’s translation, and Calvin’s interpretation) showing that societal perceptions of women’s roles were a factor in how they interpreted IOYNIAN. The article then summarises the last 150 years of interpretation history which saw (a) the disappearance of Junia from the text and from scholarly discussion due to the impact of the short-from hypothesis in the nineteenth century, (b) the challenge to this male interpretation in connection with second wave feminism, and (c) the restoration of the female reading in the ensuing debate. Bringing together the main lines of the argument, it will be shown that there is only one reading supported by the evidence, the female reading which throughout the centuries was the more difficult reading in light of the church’s and society’s perception of women’s participation.
topic junia
junias
romans 16:7
female apostle
history of interpretation
chrysostom
pseudo-epiphanius
luther
calvin
short-form hypothesis
url https://doi.org/10.1515/opth-2020-0138
work_keys_str_mv AT hartmannandrea juniaawomanlostintranslationthenameioynianinromans167anditshistoryofinterpretation
_version_ 1716850472218787840