Who were Andronicus and Junia?

In Romans 16:7 the apostle sends his greetings to Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me. Even though Paul does not expressly mention their importance for the church in Rome, this is implied by the fact that they have already earned their spurs in the gospel. They are known, or rather renowned (episemoi). A question that is often raised concerns whether this is a reference to two men, or a man and a woman (i.e. a married couple)? Some manuscripts contain the female name Julia, instead of Junia, which would of course quickly resolve the matter. However, the majority of the manuscripts read Iounian (not Ioulian), which means that Paul could either be referring to a man (Junias, NIV), or to a woman (Junia, KJV, ESV). Exegetes have often preferred the name Junias based on the assumption that there could not have been any female apostles. On the other hand, it must also be admitted that the name Junia is much more plausible option from a purely linguistic point of view (Cervin ¹). Moreover, there are a number of textual-historical arguments in favour of Junia, and the German scholar Uwe-Karsten Plisch, ² for example, mentions an old Sahidic translation that unambiguously employs the name Junia. The text therefore indeed refers to a married couple (Andronicus and Junia) who were already renowned in the church. As such, they may be compared to Prisca and Aquila, who are better known and who played a more prominent role in the life and work of Paul. Andronicus and Junia are also from Paul’s own people. He calls them kinsmen (sungeneis). They might have even been family members of his, but in any event, they are certainly Jews who believe in Christ and work for him.

Paul writes that this couple are well known to the apostles, which the NIV renders as outstanding among the apostles. Literally translated, the original Greek reads that they are renowned in the circle of the apostles (en tois apostolois), but this of course raises the question whether they are apostles themselves. The definite article used here renders it unlikely that they are said to merely belong to the broader group of ecclesiastical envoys (apostoloi, see also 2 Corinthians 8:23), or to travelling preachers in general (Köstenberger ³). The text clearly speaks of the apostles. Yet this does not necessarily mean that Andronicus and Junia were themselves apostles and colleagues of Paul and Peter (as claimed by Epp⁴ ). The New Testament scholars Michael H. Burer & Daniel B. Wallace ⁵ have demonstrated by means of parallels that the Greek here can simply indicate that Andronicus and Junia were well known by the apostles (episemoi en tois apostolois), that is, renowned among the apostles, without necessarily implying that they themselves are also apostles (which would have been the case if the text read episemoi ton apostolon, that is, renowned apostles). It is also quite possible that the traveling apostles sometimes even had a higher regard for other workers in the gospel than for their actual apostolic colleagues. Another New Testament scholar, Linda L. Belleville, ⁶ makes a strong case against the position of Burer & Wallace, however. She argues, on the basis of a comparison of many Greek texts, that the expression used by Paul must be interpreted in an inclusive sense, i.e. meaning that Andronicus and Junia themselves belong to the circle of apostles. However, Belleville herself concludes her argument with a quotation from the Athenian playwright Euripides, who describes the goddess Artemis as renowned among mortals. This quotation actually shows that in the context here the phrase renowned among can indeed be understood in an exclusive sense. When readers of Romans 16:7 approach the text with the assumption that the apostles are men, translating the phrase renowned by the apostles is philologically quite possible. In other words, the expression that Paul uses is not in itself decisive for interpretation. Nonetheless, there are indeed other reasons that render it implausible that Andronicus and Junia were apostles in the strict sense of the word. For example, in 1 Corinthians 9:5 Paul assumes that the other apostles are men like himself, who are nonetheless allowed to bring a woman along with them on their travels. In this text he therefore does not even consider the idea of female apostles. The discussion about whether Andronicus and Junia were true apostles, has rather overtaxed the exegesis of Romans 16:7, however. Moreover, the discussion often disregards the possibility that even on the basis of the inclusive interpretation, it is quite possible that Jesus merely named Andronicus as an apostle and that Junia was connected to his apostolic work as his traveling spouse. As such she would be just as highly esteemed as her husband in the circle of the apostles.⁷