Mark makes a good point that he notes is not brought up in the scholarship (I haven’t seen it anyway), and that is, for Paul to make reference to some external group called “the apostles” (if we consider the “esteemed by the apostles” translation) does not make sense. Why would he apparently not include himself in this group of apostles whose authority validates the importance of Junia and Andronicus? You can find Mark noting this point on both his podcast and his blog.

Thanks, Mark!

1. Women clergy, women church professionals, and women religious, or those discerning a call to Christian ministry.
2. Women or men blogging pals of (1).
3. All committed to building a supportive online community for women clergy, women church professionals, and women in religious life.
4. You must be an active blogger for the previous three months in order to join and to maintain membership.

Well, they keep things on a schedule over there and couldn’t get to the topic until today, but the comments have started coming in already. Some of the same themes as before are coming up, but again, these are the voices of women who have some sort of training or interest in theology/biblical studies, but have chosen not to participate in the same sort of discourse as the biblioblogging world (for the most part).

So, if you’re interested in reading more, please take a look at the RevGalBlogPal blog post where the discussion is happening. A big thank you to Songbird who was willing to take up the topic with her RevGalBlogPals. Also, you may be interested to stop by the previous post at Emerging Women, which has continued to gather some helpful comments.

I will leave you with this woman’s comment (leaving you to agree or disagree with her assessment):

I think it’s the academic discipline itself. As a woman who did my doctoral work in biblical studies back in the 80’s, it seemed like a field that both narrowly construed the issues it dealt with and relied strongly on the good-old-boy network. Over the years since, though as I’ve moved into a parish, I’ve largely left that academic discipline (at least as it’s done in traditional academia), it doesn’t seem like much has changed on that front. So, few women in biblical academia, few bibliobloggers.

Carry on.

It is patronizing if you think the people who created these lists seriously had doubts as to whether women really are capable of scholarship. For example, if someone prefaced their list: “You know, when I started out in scholarship, I didn’t think women were capable of forming a logical sentence. I have since been pleasantly surprised that females have been able to do a few decent things. Boy, the gals in this list sure show some initiative.” It doesn’t have to be as blatant as all that, I know. But I think you get the point. For most of us who are participating in this meme, I don’t get the sense that we are either patronizing or offering mere tokens.

These have simply been lists of scholars who have influenced us and who also just so happen to be women. It is not that we are amazed that , “gee, women can write too!” Rather, it is that we want to recognize a few women who have changed the way we look at things. I affirm Mike Kok’s attempt at offering something positive and constructive while some others ratchet up the hostile rhetoric.

Update: Please see the comments below for clarification on James’ post and the “tokenism” issue. This update brought to you by the insistence of Stephanie Louise Fisher.

Now, Rachel, you may be sitting there bewildered by this post. I don’t know if you follow biblioblogs at all, but we are an active community of people who blog about academic biblical studies (though some are more “academic” than others). We have a Top 50 ranking, a monthly carnival, and bibliobloggers of the month. Recently, we’ve been talking about how few women we have in our ranks and some of us are hoping to find some more female bloggers who might unwittingly deserve the label “bibliobloggers.”

All of that said, do check out Rachel’s blog. I’ve added her to my own feed reader and look forward to some interesting conversation. Incidentally, I’ve just noticed that Rachel is not unknown to bibliobloggers as links to her blog show up quite a few times in the biblioblog custom search, but her blog itself is not included in the “official” list.

I want to propose a hopefully constructive way of responding to one underlying issue.  When Ken Brown summarized the results of his fantastic meme on the top 5 books, he noted “a shameful under-representation of women (only Margaret Barker and Toni Morrison received more than one vote, with two each).”  So I want people to list the 5 most influential female scholars on their scholarship and tag 5 or 6 others.

That last line is a little ambiguous, but I think he means for us to share those five female biblical scholars who have influenced us the most. So, here’s my (slightly extended) list:

1. Marianne Meye Thompson (books): Her particular interests in Johannine literature and her emphasis on theology in biblical interpretation are not exactly what set my heart a flutter. But no other female biblical scholar has had a greater influence on my scholarship, research methods, and writing. While at Fuller, I took three master’s level courses (NT 1: Gospels; The Cross in the New Testament; NT Exegesis: Gospel of John) and two doctoral level seminars (NT Research Methods; Johannine Theology) with her. She is known on campus as a stickler for precision, but also one to provide extensive feedback for each paper even for master’s students. While our primary research interests don’t perfectly align, she taught me how to ask better research questions, use primary sources more effectively, and make better arguments. [Update: Nick has reminded me that I should note here my gratitude for all MMT has taught me about John and using theology in biblical interpretation. I don't get as excited about those things as I do social history, identity formation, and apocalyptic thought, but that is precisely why here insight is so valuable to me. She has filled in an area that would otherwise constitute a gap in my attempt to be a generalist.]
2. Adela Yarbro Collins (books): Prof. Yarbro Collins’ is known for her work in apocalyptic literature and thought from a socio-historical perspective. Yarbro Collins is a solid historical-critical scholar and she has been a surefooted guide as I attempt my way around the maze that is apocalyptic thought and social history. She is also a very warm person to talk to in person, which is always a plus for any scholar.
3. Paula Fredriksen (books): Paula Fredrickson is just plain fun. Her scholarship is lively and asks intriguing questions. I appreciate her desire to question the “parting of the ways” assumptions of so many. I think I’m persuaded that, at the ground level, there was no great schism for centuries. Have you seen her most recent book on Augustine and the Jews? Very exciting! Incidentally, she is someone I’d very much like to see with a blog.
4. Martha Himmelfarb (books): I have been introduced to the writings of Prof. Himmelfarb via one of my profs at UCLA, Ra’anan Boustan, who worked closely with her getting his Ph.D. at Princeton. She is a master of apocalyptic thought and literature, writing her scholarship with precision and insight. Precision, when it comes to scholarship on apocalyptic literature, is a scarce resource. What I have appreciated about her scholarship is its ability to navigate visionary symbolism in a manner that makes logical sense! I am very excited about her forthcoming survey of apocalyptic writing.
5. Margaret M. Mitchell (books): Need I say more? I will simply say that I have a deep admiration for her skill with Greco-Roman literature and its relevance for the study of New Testament and early Christian writings, not to mention her seamless (and relevant) use of items from popular culture. Her article in the book that I am indexing is probably the best of the bunch and inspires me to become a better writer. She is another scholar I’d love to see with a blog. There is so much character and insight to her writing.
6. Judith Lieu (books): I am going to cheat and add a sixth. Judith Lieu is a thoughtful scholar, adept at handling complex problems with the utmost care. As I am entering into the fray of social identity and Christian origins, she is one of the able guides I am looking to for help!
7. Reta Halteman Finger (books): I am going to cheat some more and add a seventh. Reta was one of my professors in college. Though my feminism has many roots, her influence is among them. Interestingly, at the time I took her survey course on the New Testament (early as an undergraduate), I was not thinking I would become a biblical scholar. Also, I was not an Anabaptist yet. It was fun to catch up with her for the first time a couple years ago at SBL in DC and again in San Diego. She was surprised to find out that I had not only become an Anabaptist, but had also pursued social history in New Testament studies, which was her approach as well. Feminism, Anabaptism, social history. I can’t let that go unmentioned in this list. If any of those topics interest you, she came out with two books recently with Eerdmans that would be right up your alley.

Now for the tagging. First, I’d like to tag Daniel O. McClellan even though he already completed the meme, just so he knows he’s tag-worthy. Then, let’s see, how about my UCLA colleague Kevin Scull, upcoming SBL roommate Brandon Wason, Julia O’Brien because she’s got a great blog, Loren Rosson III (who extended a nice comment on my Jim West post), and Chris Spinks (who mediated what could have been a disastrous collision with Jim West ). And anyone else who feels like doing this one.

Thanks for getting the ball rolling, Mike.

Update: If I had been thinking clearly, I would’ve included Carolyn Osiek (books) as an 8th. Outstanding stuff.

I’ll break the comments here up into categories:

• Is a stereotype just a stereotype? Someone else can decide whether it’s nature or nurture, but a lot of people want to talk about what women want versus what men want out of blogging or simply life in general.

“Maybe women aren’t as interested in writing straight academic theology, because you can only think about faith so much before experience of faith and theology at work becomes necessary. Many in the women’s movement make a sweeping division between the ‘rational’ male and the ‘mystical’ female (a stereotype and a generalization)–maybe as women bloggers the ‘rational’ exegetical work just isn’t as interesting. I know I’d rather hear the story of someone’s theology at work, than read their carefully studied out interpretation of something.”

~Jessica [Jessica's blog]

“It’s just life happening. Most women are multi-taskers and that shows in their blogs. If you read my blog or . . . any of women in my blog roll . . . you’ll find all kinds of different posts from theology to dinner to shopping to health care to breast feeding. We have a hard time being as focused as men. And men have a hard time reading all that ‘twaddle’. They want some assurance about what’s going to be at a given blog every day. This is not a hard and fast rule by any means, but I think it is a general tendency which effects the way women blog and the way men read. I don’t think either way is good or bad or better … it’s just what is. I read both and enjoy both.”

~Sonja (but read Sue’s valid response) [Sonja's blog]

• The definition of “academic biblical studies” feels too narrow (this is connected to the previous category, and is a part of the second line of thought mentioned in my intro).

“I think the definition of ‘theology blogging…academic biblical blogging’ is too narrowly defined and thus many, not just women but probably a disproportionate amount of women get missed. I feel like my blog is deeply theological it’s just not traditionally written. I write about my real life encounters through the lens of my faith. I work in social services as a professional counselor and I believe my work is deeply theological and missional so when I write about how my faith and work intersect I believe it has deep theological impact…at least it does on me. But I would never be classified as a theological/academic blogger even though I received my masters in counseling from a seminary and took the same theology classes as the M.Div students…and got all A’s if I might add . . . . I think when people are looking for ‘thinkers’ in theology they get stuck on exegesis and academic and thus miss a lot of good writers and theologians out there.”

~Tina Lips [Tina's blog]

• Not enough time to dedicate to it.

“I have 2 little kids and 2 jobs. And my husband is a pastor. If I want to write a thoughtful blog that involves good exegetical work, it’s going to take me a while. And I’m not going to publish bad biblical work. I may write and publish a blog on some political thing or social issue while my children yell during rest time or late at night when I’m tired (and The Daily Show sparks something , but I won’t do that with biblical work. It’s too important. So, I’m kind of on hold a few years until I have that kind of time again. And I can’t tell you how much I look forward to being back in that world.”

~robyn beckley vining [robyn's blog]

• The discrepancy in the ratio of male versus female bibliobloggers is due to social expectations and gender roles within the church (the Biblioblog Top 50 explanation).

“Where are the little girls and young women who have been encouraged to pursue theological education so they can later blog about it? Oh, that’s right, we still have a ratio of 270 to 20 of church leaders who don’t encourage girls/ women into the field.”

~Heather

“I have felt as though there is a narrowing margin of tolerance in the church for the intellectual – which seems to be much narrower for women. . . . It seems there are many outlets for women to feel at church, but not to think.”

~Ruby Leigh

“[W]omen have not always been welcome in Evangelical academia, as either students or as faculty. . . . Why would women want to spend their time engaging men who don’t think that they (the women) have a right to do so?”

~Lainie Petersen [Lainie's blog]

• Feeling the need for an institution to legitimize my voice.

“I have a blog and an MA in Exegetical Theology (aka studying the Bible in Greek and Hebrew). Originally my blog was going to be biblio-ish or at least about theology, but I got self-conscious and I didn’t get into a PhD program like I expected and now the things I blog about are very rarely about theology. I didn’t directing my blog vision very well and got caught up in the crafty parts of my life. And I don’t feel like I have the weight of an institution behind me to give my voice credibility. Maybe if I had started it when I was still getting my degree things would have been different. Maybe if I refocus things will be. But I really miss the voices of women in the biblioblogosphere. It makes me grateful for Emerging Women.”

~Bethany

• I’m not taken seriously by male bloggers (this is connected, I think, to the previous category/comment regarding institutional legitimacy).

Because too often they’re not taken as seriously as a man who blogged on the same topic would be taken. And not only by men – I’ve seen women have the same reaction.

~Lydia [Lydia's blog]

I think there are a few misconceptions here. For instance, Lainie speaks in her comment about women not being accepted in conservative Evangelical academic circles, but being conservative or Evangelical are by no means necessary for joining the biblioblogging community. We’ve got conservatives and liberals alike, as well as many who would not care for either label. I admire someone who doesn’t want to blog about biblical studies because she feels it is too important to do half-heartedly–but those biblioblogs that are written by men are by no means characterized by “carefully studied out interpretation” or even “good exegetical work,” let alone whether they are “focused.”

I have a feeling that many women may be writing what could be considered a biblioblog and do not even realize it. Maybe they wouldn’t care to connect with our blogging community, and that’s fine, but it’s worth a look.

Tim points to my previous post where I am reaching out to the Emerging Women community (see the great comments coming in over there). He highlights something I have said, italicizing it in this way: “I’m not certain that any would qualify as focused upon “academic biblical studies” (I haven’t searched through all of them), but they are definitely a collection of blogs of interest to our field.” Thank you , Tim, for giving me the opportunity to clarify the statement. In response, I would emphasize the words “I’m not certain” and “I haven’t searched through all of them.” Please read on . . .

I had been thinking about the very question that Tim so eloquently states in his post (one of the best posts on this topic thus far). Given the freedom of blogging, I cannot imagine setting a solid boundary line. I think for any blog to be considered a biblioblog, though, a few questions should be pondered:

• How many posts are on biblical studies in a given time period? Say, a month.
• What is the ratio of biblical studies posts to other sorts of posts?
• How tangentially related are those “other sorts of posts” to biblical studies?
• What qualifies as a post about “biblical studies”? We are not including every person on the internet that sometimes says interesting things about the Bible. No, we need some academic interaction.
• What, then, do we consider “academic interaction”?

It’s a bit of a balancing act. The thing with Jim’s blog is that, yes, it’s eclectic. But buried in those posts about the evils of one news bit or another are some posts that do indeed “interact” with academic issues of biblical studies. Maybe Jim’s “interaction” is more ranting than measured dialogue, but apparently that’s acceptable for biblioblogging (since Jim’s blog is accepted as a biblioblog). The key, I think, is that Jim refers to scholars and scholarship and people doing stupid things with archaeology. He addresses issues that are of interest to the academic world.

What I was uncertain about in the quote highlighted by Tim was whether we could all be on the same page about what defines an appropriate focus on academic biblical studies.

I think that if we can find women who are interacting (or ranting or whatever) with academic issues of biblical studies at least a few times a month and those posts are not totally overshadowed by the rest of their other interests (any more than Jim’s academically-related posts are), then we have found new bibliobloggers! So, I am suggesting we place Jim’s blog on the “margins,” in a sense, defining him as a good boundary marker. We are saying, “Okay, we’ll let Jim be Jim, but that’s probably as academically diluted as we want to go.” I mean no offense to Jim when I say these things. He is certainly confident and comfortable with his own approach to blogging and academics!

So, let the hunt go on for new female bibliobloggers! I will suggest two places to begin looking. I have already mentioned the Emerging Women community. I will also highlight the RevGalBlogPals ring of blogs (see the “Our Blogs” section on the right sidebar).

I will try to post links as I see the responses coming through. Thanks for posting the request, Julie!

The publishers (Zondervan and Biblica) are saying that this is the first update of the NIV in 25 years. That is to say, the NIVi and the TNIV do not count as “updates.” Douglas Moo is the chairman (chairperson? ) of the revision and has said the committee is undecided on how much gender-inclusive language the new NIV will include, and that it welcomes input at NIVBible2011.com.

That said, I’m wondering if I am accurately detecting some “code language” here and there in public comments. First of all, Keith Danby, CEO of Biblica said, “We underestimated the public affection for the NIV.” My friend Chris Spinks, who knows something about the publishing business, wonders if the NIV2011 smacks of a marketing fiasco. Along those lines, I wonder if we can translate Danby’s comments here as: “[We didn't realize we would lose our customers to the ESV when we came out with the NIVi and the TNIV.]”

Second, I detect some hints that the folks behind the revision are trying to set themselves up with “excuses” for not going with a gender-inclusive translation. Danby himself says that the TNIV was what they thought was best at the time, but now the inclusive language issue is “back on the table again.” Now for the potential “outs.” Douglas Moo says that “priorities for the new revision include accuracy, clarity and language suitable for in-depth study and outreach for an international audience.”

• “accuracy” = While I think gender inclusive language is an accurate reflection of the meaning behind the words, others would say that inclusive language does not “accurately” reflect the words themselves.
• “clarity” = inclusive language admittedly muddies things up–see my comments below in regard to Bartchy and sibling language.
• “language suitable for in-depth study” = if people want to do in-depth study, they need a more literal translation (i.e., inclusive language could be considered a barrier to in-depth study).
• “outreach for an international audience” = mission. Mission means communicating the Bible for many cultures which have not had the same kinds of social revolutions that the West has seen viz-a-viz gender roles. Therefore, mission may be an excuse to put the ixnay on the endergay inclusionway.
• Within the press release document, Moo says that the committee seeks to make the language “[reflect] the language spoken by the everyday working people of their day” or to use “Koine English” = Alas, popular culture has not exactly kept up with academic discussions of gender inclusivity. In movies, in the evening news, and on the street we still hear people using phrases like, say, ” . . . in the history of Man.” This line may be used as a way to say, gender inclusion is great and all for those fancy types in the ivory tower, but the real hardworking folks in the factories and farms just don’t relate to it.

We can all send in our opinions, and I will, but I have a feeling the traditionalist complementarians will have their followers flocking to the suggestion site, begging/demanding for an end to this “gender neutral” madness. Though it is not perfect, I had some affection for the TNIV for its attempt to move forward with gender inclusivity. Women are not “brothers” and it’s appropriate to allow present day readers of the Bible to understand the underlying meaning of “brothers and sisters” instead. Or to move away from “Man” or “Mankind” and towards “humanity” or “mortals.”

Some attempts at gender inclusivity are utter nonsense, of course (NRSV: “the accuser of our comrades“??). And my own doctoral advisor, Scott Bartchy, has made strong points about the importance of sibling language and the need to keep it sibling language–rather than searching for rhetorical diversity that isn’t in the text (beloved, friends, etc.). [See his "Undermining Ancient Patriarchy: The Apostle Paul’s Vision of a Society of Siblings." Biblical Theology Bulletin 29.2 (1999): 68-78. Or, more accessibly, here.]

Nevertheless, it is better to try your best with gender inclusion than to revert back to patriarchal translations, even if they are popular in “Koine English.” If the NIV2011 does nix gender inclusivity, what saddens me most is the bruised legacy of my late mentor from Fuller Seminary, David Scholer. In his packed-out course on women in the Bible and early church, he told us the story of his role in getting the TNIV published in the US, partially recounted here by John Dart in a 2002 issue of the Christian Century:

In 1995, an inclusive-language NIV Bible was published in the United Kingdom. In 1996, David Scholer, who teaches New Testament at Fuller Seminary, in an article in an evangelical feminist publication praised the new translation but thought it was “mysterious” to keep it quiet. Scholer later published a letter from the then-IBS president saying that Zondervan and IBS would release an inclusive version in the U.S. by 2000. World magazine then wrote about the “Stealth Bible” amid heavy criticism from Focus on the Family’s James Dobson, Jerry Falwell and others. IBS withdrew its publishing plans at that point, but a translation committee quietly continued its work.

Eventually, the voices of Scholer and those like him helped get the TNIV to press . . . for a time. As Julie Clawson of Emerging Women notes, “So to have the anti-female voices of Grudem, and Dobson, and Piper and their followers win out disturbs me. It is just one more example how for many Christians one of the central aspects of their faith is the subjugation of women.” The battle may not be “won” by either side yet. But let’s not give up, my egalitarian/feminist friends.

Yet many in church history could not conceive of a woman apostle and thus they gave her a “sex change operation” (as my advisor Bartchy likes to say). Instead of Junia, they called her “Junias,” and assumed her to be a man. Junia is actually a common female name in antiquity, while Junias is not. The explanation for this was that it is a shortened form of the common male name, Junianus. What was Occam’s Razor again? Oh yes: “All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.” So, either this name is the common female name, Junia, or a strangely shortened form of Junianus. If there were no theological concern here to make sure Paul is not calling a woman an apostle, the argument about a shortened form of Junianus would never be suggested. It is illogical.

Nevertheless, as recently as the publication of the New International Version (NIV) in 1973, translators were using this faulty logic: “Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.” But notice that this “Junias” is indeed “outstanding among the apostles.”

More recently, it has become more and more difficult to defend the idea that female Junia was actually the male Junias. Even conservative scholars with a traditional understanding of female subordination to men are cautious about making such an argument nowadays. So, what’s the traditionalist to do? They can’t have a female apostle in the early church! The up and coming favorite translation of conservative evangelicals these days, the English Standard Version (ESV – published in 2001), reflects another angle on Junia: “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.”

Notice the difference between the NIV (the old conservative standard translation) and the ESV (the new conservative standard translation). In the NIV, Junia is a man (”Junias”) and is an outstanding apostle. In the ESV, Junia is indeed a woman, but she is no longer an outstanding apostle. Rather, she is simply “well known” to the apostles. I might mention that the ESV was originally published first by Crossway publishers, who are also the favored publishers of the conservative Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW). In fact, the CBMW boasts on their blog that many of their team contributed to the ESV Study Bible.

This jump from NIV to ESV is what I noticed while we were discussing the issue in Bartchy seminar on sexuality yesterday. It is probably wise to save the arguments for the second change for a future post, but I will share a passage I found in one outstanding book today. For anyone interested in this topic, I highly recommend Eldon Jay Epp’s treatment in Junia: The First Woman Apostle. I will leave him with the last word here:

I note the juxtaposition of these two interpretations, though I would not presume to judge the motives, but it is interesting to observe that, over time, the male “Junias” and the female “Junia” each has his or her alternating “dance partners”–first one, then the other: first and for centuries, Junia with “prominent apostle”; then Junias with “prominent apostle.” Then for a time Junia disappears from the scene, hoping upon her return to team up once again with “prominent apostle,” only to encounter “known to the apostles” cutting in during this latest “dance.” [72]