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...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
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 |