Wiki vs the NOAB

Forgive me - I know it is time to let Junia sleep but this has got to be one of the oddest items in Bible interpretation. The other day, Iyov contributed excerpts from these volumes, New Interpreter's Study Bible (NISB), The 2nd edition of the Harper Collins Study Bible (HSB), The Augmented 3rd edition of the New Oxford Annotated Bible (NOAB), to the comment section

The NRSV has footnotes at Rom 16:7 giving alternatives of "Junias" or "Julia" for the name and the alternative of "compatriot" for "relatives."

The NISB says "If Junia, a common Latin name for females, is indeed a woman, she is the only woman in the NT who is called an apostle Special Note: The best available mss of Romans have Junia, a feminine name. Several later mss substitute 'Junias,' a masculine name. Some early Christian scribes evidently altered the spelling from Junia to 'Junias' in order to make the individual a male apostle."

The NOAB has: Junia, a woman; many manuscripts read 'Junias,' an otherwise unattested male latin name; our earliest manuscript reads 'Julia.' Relatives, fellow Jews (vv. 11,21; 9:3). The apostles, Paul uses the term to mean more than the twelve (see 1 Cor 15:5,7; Phil 2:25)."

Now I confess that in the past I have made fun of wikipedia. However, more recently I used it as a reference after checking several other sources first. I simply found that the wikipedia entry had information in it that I knew was reliable from cross-checking with books.

Now here is part of the wikipedia entry for Junia.

Epps gives a tedious but thorough textual critical evaluation of the history of Junia in the Greek text and also the search for Junias (the alleged masculine form of the name, which doesn't seem to be found in New Testament times and rarely there after) in non-Biblical Greek literature. He points out that the earliest copies of the Greek texts for Romans 16.7 are majuscules (the Greek is letters are all capitals). There are no accent marks in them. The importance of this is that the gender of the name depends on the accentuation. Hence, the earliest texts are inconclusive and we are very dependent on Patristic interpretation for the gender of Junia.

When the minuscules (using lower case Greek letters) appeared, Junia was accented with a character which indicates the feminine form of the name. Despite the Roman Aegidus, the feminine form of the name was in the Greek text of Erasmus' critical text in 1516 and in all critical Greek texts, with the exception of Alford's 1858 edition, until 1928 when Nestle inexplicably (read, he didn't explain it in the apparatus) went to the masculine form. This remained the case until the 1998, when the edition just as inexplicably went back the other way and the masculine is dropped as even an alternative (not in the apparatus). Hence, the textual weight is for the feminine name Junia, which most scholars accept.

However, the study Bibles depended on the older, 1966, 1968, UBS text which clearly and explicitly stated that the name was accented as a masculine name, when, in fact, it wasn't. This was corrected in 1998. You can see in the image above from this page that it wasn't. It is ἰουνίαν feminine. Also note the diaeresis over the ï to show a syllable/word break between "kai" and "iunia". The image reads ἀνδρόνικονκαιϊουνίαν -Andronikon kai Iounian.

You can now look at some of the manuscripts online here, #676 image 250, top left hand corner second line. and see for yourself. So the primary sources are the manuscripts themselves, as well as the lexical evidence found in other literature archived in Perseus and elsewhere. Neither the critical text nor the lexicons constitute primary sources, but secondary sources. What does that make the study Bibles and wikipedia?

This isn't so much about Junia as it is about what constitutes a primary source and what is likely to be a reliable secondary or tertiary source. What are those things which we can agree on?

It is nice that some of us have an agreed upon a fallback with the King James Bible as a consensus text, even if it is not always the most accurate.

PS This isn't really supposed to be a post about Junia. Maybe it is more interesting to note the use of the diaeresis. Choose what you like out of this post and discard the rest. I don't want to be contentious.

WLBA 12: Junias

If you are finding this tedious think of my position. Here I am writing about something as unimaginative as the petty diminishment of women by Bible translators in my series on the Woman's Literal Bible Assessment, the WLBA. Fortunately I am resurrecting my personal blog to save myself from this dreariness. But sometimes a boring job just has to be done.

The Junia of Rom. 16:7 was recognized as Junia, a feminine name, in the printed versions of the Greek New Testament from the time of Erasmus until 1927. In that year the Nestle-Aland text accented the name Ἰουνιᾶν so it would be masculine in form, Junias. Since the name is in the accusative case in Greek text it appears as either masculine Ἰουνιᾶν or ᾿Ιουνίαν, feminine. That means that, of course, the early texts without accents did not indicate whether it was masculine or feminine. However, no male name Junias has been known in Greek.

From 1927 until 1998, the name had been accented as masculine and entered as a possible masculine name in some lexicons. Now there is a scholarly consensus that it is a feminine name.

I do not find it surprising or out of the way that any translation from 1927 until 1998 has Junias in the masculine. In fact, the Revised versions of 1881 also had Junias. It was certain from the notes of the various Bibles texts and commentaries and from meetings for the RV translation, the N-A 1927 and the lexicons, that the only reason that Junias as a masculine was suggested was because of the belief that a woman could not be an apostle.

Eldon Jay Epp notes that it was the belief that a woman could not be an apostle which influenced translations, lexicions and critical texts. He provides this example from the Hastings Dictionary of the Bible article, 1899, by A. C. Headlam,

There is little doubt as to whether the two [Andronicus and Junia(s)] are to be included among the apostles-probably they are ... In that case it is hardly likely that the name is feminine, although, curiously enough, Chrysostom does not consider the idea of a female apostle impossible.

About more recent translations Epp writes,

What may be more difficult to understand now is that such a socio-cultural environment, one imbued with a view of a limited role for women in the church, still could influence some editors of the Greek New Testament in the mid-1990's to the extent that they could impose the masculine form upon an unaccented Greek name (unaccented at least for the first several centuries of Christianity) (a) when all church writers of the first millenium of Christianity took the name as feminine; (b) when there was ample evidence that the name in question was a very common female name at the time of earliest Christianity; and (c) in face of the fact that the alleged masculine forms are nowhere attested in the Greco-Roman milieu. *

Epp quotes James G.D. Dunn who writes,

The assumption that it must be a male is a striking indictment of male presumption regarding the character and structure of earliest Christianity.**

If readers find fault in my concern that there is now male bias in some of the contemporary Bible translations, they need to be cognisant of the fact that male bias in Bible translation has a proven history; it is not a recently invented conspiracy theory. It did happen and it still happens.

I find it unremarkable that translations such as the RSV, NIV, NEB, NASB, and NRSV, those prior to 1998 have a male Junias. This is in accordance with the critical text, commentaries and lexicons. The translations themselves must be treated as derivative, only guilty in the second degree. But this is not a case of ambiguity, Junia was female.

About the Wallace - Burer hypothesis, that Junia was only "well-known to" the apostles, Epp comments on Belleville's analysis, which I recreated and writes,

So far, this leaves Burer and Wallace's "working hypothesis" somewhat in a shambles and with exceptionally minimal data.

Burer did write to me last month indicating the intent to respond to the critique by Belleville, Epp, Bauckham and points brought up here. In the meantime, this hypothesis is undefended.

It is crucial to realize that a conservative element today does not only want to keep women from being ordained, but they want to restrict the exercise of the very qualities of leadership to men, and relegate women to being receivers and responders or followers. Thus a female apostle is less acceptable now than in the days of Chrysostom and cannot be allowed to remain in the text.

*Epp, Eldon Jay. Junia, The First Woman Apostle. 2005. Augsburg Fortress.
**Dunn, James D.G. Romans 9-16. WBC 38. Dallas. Word, 1988.

WLBA 9: Geneva and Bishops'

Here are the verses relating to women in the Bishops' Bible and Geneva Bible along with the KJV.

Rom. 16:1 Phoebe

minister Bishops' Bible
servant Geneva
servant KJV


Rom. 16:2

hath suckoured many Bishops'
given hospitality unto many Geneva
succourer of many KJV


Rom. 16:7 Junia

well taken among the apostles Bishops'
notable among the apostles Geneva
of note among the apostles KJV

1 Cor. 11:10 - all

have power on her head


1 Tim. 2:12 - all

usurp authoritie

The translations for 1 Cor. 11:10 and 1 Tim. 2:12 are constant, indicating a reluctance to offer an interpretive rendering in the text but a preference to reserve it for the marginal notes.

However, Rom. 16 is more interesting. In Rom. 16:1 the KJV opted for the Geneva version, in verse 2 for the Bishops' Bible. In verse 7, the KJV opted for an ambiguous reading.

It is interesting to see that both the Bishops' Bible and the Geneva Bible did have some difficulty with Junia being an apostle. In light of this information, I feel that I should briefly reconsider the evidence for Junia being among the apostles. They are in the shortest summary form,

1. en plus the dative most commonly means "among" in Koine Greek
2. Crysostom, a native Greek speaker, considered Junia to be one of the apostles
3. The Latin Vulgate has "noble among the apostles"
4. The Greek Vamva versions reads unambiguously "among"
5. The Wallace - Burer hypothesis hangs by this thread,

P.Oxy. 1408 speaks of “the most important [places] of the nomes” (τοῖς ἐπισημοτάτοις τῶν νομῶν). [Ed. - A “nome” was a province in Egypt.] In this text that which is ἐπίσημος is a part of the nome; the genitive is used to indicate this. On two other occasions this same idiom occurs, each time with a genitive modifier: τοῖς ἐπισημοτάτοις τόποις τ[ῶ]ν κωμ[ῶν] (“the most conspicuous places in the villages”) in P. Oxy. 2108 and τ[οῖς ἐπι]σήμοις τοῦ νομοῦ τόποις (“the well-known places of the nome”) in P. Oxy. 2705. In each of these instances, that which is ἐπίσημος is compared to its environment with a partitive genitive; it is a part of the entity to which it is being compared. This was a sufficiently common idiom (though occurring only these three times in the Oxyrhynchus papyri) that the editors conjecture the reading in the lacuna at P. Oxy. 3364, line 22: [τ]ῆς ἐπιστολῆς τὸ ἀντίγραφον ἔν τε ταῖς π[όλεσι καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐπισήμοις τῶν νομῶν τόποις ([Place] “the copy of the letter in the c[ities and in the public places of the nomes]”).

The phrase in P.Oxy. 1408 is governed by ἐν, and the word τόποις is not in the text of the papyrus (although the editors do suggest that its omission was a mistake on the part of the original author of the papyrus); this is a nice parallel to the text in Ps. Sol. 17:30. Thus there appeared to be an idiom in Hellenistic Greek which allowed the adjective ἐπίσημος when it referred to a place to stand alone, the noun τόπος being elided.

I would appreciate some help in ascertaining if I have made an error. However, the way I understand this argument is the following. This phrase τοῖς ἐπισημοτάτοις τόποις τ[ῶ]ν κωμ[ῶν] occurs three times in Greek literature. In two cases it occurs in full and once it occurs as τοῖς ἐπισημοτάτοις τῶν νομῶν with τόποις omitted. The editor of this text considers that the omission is an error and the text is usually presented with τόποις inserted. There were other irregularities in this text to support the notion that the omission was a copyist's error.

However, Burer assserts that the idiom allows τόπος to be elided, in spite of the fact that there is only one instance of this in all Greek literature. This example is two and a half centuries after the text in Psalm of Solomon which Burer claims is a parallel. But we know that the idiom usually occured without the elision. The P Oxy. example is from a text composed in Greek and the example in Psalm of Solomon is a translation of a Hebrew or Aramaic original two and a half centuries earlier. There has been no proposal for understanding the phrase from Psalm of Solomon as a translation of a Hebrew original.

The other problem is that any proof showing that using an adjective with a genitive is inclusive has no bearing on whether the adjective is inclusive or exclusive when it occurs with en plus dative. That is, proving that A is green does not prove that B is red.

I find the various convolutions necessary to follow Burer's argument to be the strongest argument in favour of Junia being one of the apostles. I do not wish to draw any other conclusions as to women in ministry from this verse but would suggest that an ambiguous text at best is the only fair way to deal with the Greek. I believe that this has been a stumbling block for many translators.

There was a disagreement, Junia was force to cross-dress for several centuries to resolve the difficulty, she has been recognized as female once again, now what?

Junia: A Response to Michael Burer

I guess you could call this "Not Junia Again!" I have written about Junia before but the issue is complex and difficult to cover well. Here is a little of the history. I read Romans 16:7 in the NET Bible,

Greet Andronicus and Junia,6 my compatriots7 and my fellow prisoners. They are well known8 to the apostles,9 and they were in Christ before me.

In the King James version,

Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

I then read the NET Bible note, along with the article Was Junia Really an Apostle (see page 4) by Burer and Wallace, which it cites.

Or “prominent, outstanding, famous.” The term ἐπίσημος (epishmo") is used either in an implied comparative sense (“prominent, outstanding”) or in an elative sense (“famous, well known”).

The key to determining the meaning of the term in any given passage is both the general context and the specific collocation of this word with its adjuncts. When a comparative notion is seen, that to which ἐπίσημος is compared is frequently, if not usually, put in the genitive case (cf., e.g., 3 Macc 6:1 [Ελεαζαρος δέ τις ἀνὴρ ἐπίσημος τῶν ἀπὸ τής χώρας ἱερέων “Eleazar, a man prominent among the priests of the country”]; cf. also Pss. Sol. 17:30).

When, however, an elative notion is found, ἐν (en) plus a personal plural dative is not uncommon (cf. Pss. Sol. 2:6). Although ἐν plus a personal dative does not indicate agency, in collocation with words of perception, (ἐν plus) dative personal nouns are often used to show the recipients.

In this instance, the idea would then be “well known to the apostles.” See M. H. Burer and D. B. Wallace, “Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Re-examination of Rom 16.7,” NTS 47 (2001): 76-91, who argue for the elative notion here.

I blogged about this issue here and then commented on Adrian's blog and Michael Burer responded. I am taking this occasion to continue the dialogue. Since the NET Bible note itself has not been altered, I will comment on this first, and then on Burer's response.

Here are the issues.

First, by "comparative" the annotator also means that the noun modifed is "one of the group" - this use of the adjective is inclusive. By "elative" the annotator means that the noun modified is not "one of the group"- this use can be called exclusive.

Wallace and Burer set out to estabish a new rule, that when the adjective ἐπίσημος is followed by a genitive, it is comparative and therefore inclusive. Conversely, when the adjective is followed by ἐν plus the dative, it is elative and therefore, exclusive. The noun modified, in this case Junia, is no longer one of the group. According to the authors, if ἐπίσημος is followed by ἐν plus the dative, Junia is not among the apostles.

Here is a summary of my remarks in response.

1. In the lexicons, ἐπίσημος is an adjective which means "marked on" or "distinguished" as in "having a mark placed on it." Only in the Louw-Nida lexicon does it take on the additional sense of "well known." Here is the Louw-Nida entry.

28.31 Know (28) Well Known, Clearly Shown, Revealed (28.28-28.56) pertaining to being well known or outstanding, either because of positive or negative characteristics - outstanding, famous, notorious, infamous. εἰσιν ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις they are outstanding among the apostles ROM.16:7

At no point does this lexicon collocate "well known" with "to" for ἐπίσημος, since this does not match the Greek sense of the word.

2. I would also suggest that it is not reliable to base an hypothesis on whether a genitive or ἐν plus dative is used. Consider these instances.

ὁ δὲ μείζων ὑμῶν Matt. 23:11 (genitive)
the greatest among you

ὁ μείζων ἐν ὑμῖν Luke 22:26 (en plus dative)
the greatest among you

In view of these examples I cannot give credit to an argument which proposes a difference based on the fact that the adjective is followed by ἐν plus dative rather than the genitive. These two constructions can be used synonymously.

However, here Wallace asks,

would we not expect ἐπίσημοι τῶν ἀποστόλων if the meaning were “outstanding among the apostles”?

The answer must be "not necessarily". Here are a few examples of the comparative form of an adjective followed by ἐν plus dative, but there are more in the Greek NT.

καὶ σύ Βηθλέεμ γῆ Ἰούδα οὐδαμῶς
ἐλαχίστη εἶ ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν Ἰούδα Matt. 2:6

'And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; ESV

ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν οὐκ ἐγήγερται ἐν γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν μείζων Ἰωάννου τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ ὁ δὲ μικρότερος ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν μείζων αὐτοῦ ἐστιν Matt. 11:11

Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. ESV

Ἰούδαν τὸν καλούμενον Βαρσαββᾶν καὶ Σιλᾶν
ἄνδρας ἡγουμένους ἐν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς Acts 15:22

Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas,
leading men among the brothers ESV

The Greek of the New Testament does not support the thesis that ἐν plus dative renders ἐπίσημος elative rather than comparative, and consequently, that Junia is not one of the apostles.

3. The references provided in the note are also problematic. The different versions of the Septuagint render Pss. Sol. 2:6 and 17:30 in a variety of ways. What is certain is that in neither of these cases does ἐπίσημος modify a personal noun. In fact, it is in doubt whether the word is ἐπίσημος instead of its cognate noun ἐπίσημον.

However, if it is the adjective ἐπίσημος, then the modified noun is elided and the entire construction still may not have any bearing on Rom. 16:7. While there is evidence that ἐπίσημος with an elided noun can be used with a partitive genitive, and an inclusive meaning; there is little evidence of the converse, that it has an exclusive or elative sense with ἐν plus the dative.

In fact, it would be quite extraordinary for an adjective modifying an elided noun to have an exclusive sense.

For example,

She is the best known of the teachers.
He is the best known to the teachers.

The first, inclusive, is grammatical without an antecedent - it is implied that she is a teacher; the second, exclusive, is not grammatical without an antecedent - for obvious reasons. What is "he"? The elided noun in an inclusive or partitive expression is implied by the surrounding context, but the elision of the noun in an exclusive phrase does not render a grammatically acceptable result. Although Wallace and Burer have proven that the first exists, they do not provide convincing evidence for the second. For this reason I question their categorization of Pss. Sol. 2:6.

Someone also needs to bring into this discussion the fact that the Psalms of Solomon is considered to be a translation of a Hebrew poetic Vorlage.

4. I have read both studies by Wallace and Burer, listed below, and I understand that the much disputed Pss. Sol. 2:6 and 17:30 are considered to be their best evidence. The other citations, except for one from 5 centuries earlier, are all either somewhat ambiguous or not comparable. This evidence simply does not warrant the terms "not uncommon" and "frequently". Pss. Sol. 2:6, supposedly an example of an exclusive use, which they call "a very close parallel," is in dispute. If there is better evidence then the NET Bible note should be altered to reflect that.

5. There is no verb of perception involved in this Greek expression. Therefore, it is misleading to note that "in collocation with words of perception, (ἐν plus) dative personal nouns are often used to show the recipients." The verb of perception occurs only in the English translation supplied by Wallace and Burer. In Greek, ἐπίσημος is an adjective derived either from a noun best translated as "mark" or from a verb translated as "to place a mark on."

6. Wallace and Burer are aware that there is no scholarly consensus concerning their hypothesis. Wallace in all honesty states this here. They also admit that others have expressed concern regarding their original citation of Pss. Sol. 2:6, in which they simply wrote ἐπισήμῳ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, thus giving the impression that it matched the structure of Rom. 16:7, rather than ἐν ἐπισήμῳ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. They had originally stated that ἐπισήμῳ was an adjective modifyng a personal noun, which it is not.

On Adrian's blog, Burer writes,

We appreciate that several writers have pointed out that our translation and citation of the passage in the original piece were not the best. (In reflecting on this, neither Dr. Wallace nor I could remember who was responsible for this part of the article.) We should have included more of the Greek text, including the preposition ἐν so that readers could see that there was another way of understanding the construction.

If Pss. Sol. 2:6 found its way into the NET Bible notes as a significant citation, then they should both have been familiar with this example.

Burer continues,

The English translation we gave, “a spectacle among the gentiles,” was exactly the wording given in a recent, standard English translation of Psalms of Solomon, in James Charlesworth’s The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (1985), vol. 2, p. 652.

Once again the impression is that they felt confident of the English translation they were using. At no time does Burer quote from the recent and scholarly New English Translation of the Septuagint, not yet published in hard copy but available on the internet at the time that Burer wrote this piece. This is a singular omission.

For Pss. Sol. 2:6, this translation offers, "their neck in a seal, with a mark among the nations," NETS, rather than "a spectacle among the gentiles." This translation fits well with the preceding expression in the line, "in a seal," since in Greek, σφραγῖς, "seal", and ἐπίσημον, "mark", can be synonymous. Therefore, I believe it is more likely a case of poetic parallelism. "Among the nations" would then refer to the location of their "harsh captivity,"

οἱ υἱοὶ καὶ αἱ θυγατέρες ἐν αἰχμαλωσίᾳ πονηρᾷ,
ἐν σφραγῖδι ὁ τράχηλος αὐτῶν, ἐν ἐπισήμῳ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν

Psalms of Solomon needs to be approached as a translation of Hebrew poetry, not originally composed in Greek.

Burer continues,

In retrospect, we now think it would be better to include the preposition ἐν before the word ἐπισήμῳ in our citation, and change the statement to “The parallels include (a) people as the referent of the adjective ἐπίσημος” to reflect that here most likely the referent of the adjective ἐπίσημος is a place, not people.

We would not be willing to change, however, the basic conclusion that this passage confirms our hypothesis that ἐπίσημος plus (ἐν plus) dative personal adjunct should be best understood as meaning “well known to . . .” This is especially so for two reasons.

First, the other use of ἐπίσημος in Ps. Sol. 17:30 uses the genitive case (different from the dative case in 2:6) to show that the prominent place was part of the earth in keeping with our hypothesis about the inclusive use of ἐπίσημος, but this instance in 2:6 uses the dative in keeping with our hypothesis about the exclusive use of ἐπίσημος. Second, point (c) in our initial assessment of Ps. Sol. 2:6 would stand, as it is very reasonable to see ἔθνεσιν here as referring to people.

I would reiterate that the translation of Psalms of Solomon 2:6 is unresolved. It has, therefore, not yet been established that using ἐν plus the dative instead of the genitive is indicative of an exclusive sense. Nor have they demonstrated that the noun can be elided in an exclusive phrase, and so the case falls apart. Wallace and Burer are clear that the hypothesis rests on pitting the dative against the genitive. However, they do not provide data strong enough to support their hypothesis.

On the contrary, early church fathers, themselves native speakers of Greek, recognized Junia as one of the apostles.

Greet Andronicus and Junia . . . who are outstanding among the apostles” (Romans 16:7): To be an apostle is something great. But to be outstanding among the apostles—just think what a wonderful song of praise that is! They were outstanding on the basis of their works and virtuous actions. Indeed, how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle. John Chrysostom (344/54-407)(2)

And here is the Greek Vamva version, 1850, which has unequivocally "among the apostles." Please note that the native Greek translator here considered ἐν plus the dative to be equivalent to μεταξὺ (among) plus the genitive.

᾽Απάσθητε τὸν ᾽Ανδρόνικον καὶ ᾽Ιουνίαν τοὺς συγγενεῖς μου καὶ συναιχμαλώτους μου, οἵτνες εἴναι ἐπίσημοι μεταξὺ τῶν ἀποστόλων οἵτνες καὶ πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἦσαν εις τὸν Χριστόν

There is no mention throughout church history of an alternate understanding of this expression. Overall, I believe too many problems still remain with Wallace and Burer's hypothesis and it is far too early for this innovation to be encorporated into a Bible translation. The research is still in the preliminary stages and has not been recognized by a wider body of scholars.

To use Wallace's own words,

Did God suddenly permit “more light to break forth from his holy Word,” as the old Congregationalist put it? Or is there reason to suspect that the many modern interpretations . . . are primarily the result of certain conscious or unconscious presuppositions?3

Please note that I have not included either Burer's full argument nor all of my counter arguments. I have provided the links and hope that people will bring up questions or point out any weaknesses in this presentation.

On a closing note, I would like to explain that I have recreated Linda Belleville's original research using databases now online. Belleville, Epp and Bauckham have all rebutted Wallace and Burer's articles in a definitive manner. I have yet to see a response to their work by Wallace and Burer. Until further has been written, Junia must remain an apostle.

Bibliography

Internet Resources

Was Junia Really an Apostle (see page 4) Wallace and Burer
Eldon Jay Epp, Junia: The First Woman Apostle A Review
Junia Among the Apostles: The Double Identification Problem in Romans 16:7 Wallace
Junia, the Apostle: Index McCarthy
Burer enters the Junia Debate Burer
New English Translation of the Septuagint
NET Bible

Books and articles which assess and discount Wallace and Burer's Junia hypothesis.

Eldon Jay Epp
R. Bauckham
Linda Belleville. Ἰουνιᾶν . . . ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις:A Re-Examination of Romans 16:7 in Light of Primary Source Materials. New Test. Stud. 51, pp. 231-249. Printed in the United Kingdom. 2005. Cambridge University Press.