April DeConick raises the perennial isssue of the dearth of female bloggers in biblical studies. Deirdre Good follows up. Some time ago (June 2007 – while I was still blogging at Blogger), I raised the issue and got some discussion going. On that old post (now transferred to my new web location), I also summarized an even older discussion on the lack of female bibliobloggers sparked around the time of the Philly SBL meeting (Nov 2005). Looks like we’ve got a good two-year cycle or so.

So many theories have been posited and it’s difficult for any of them to avoid gender stereotypes. Is it that men like the geeky, techy blogging thing more than women? Well, my wife is getting started in the breastfeeding/mothering blogging world and there are tons of female bloggers who are activists for whatever type of mothering meets their passions. So, do we say that women prefer more “emotional” or “personal” sorts of bloggings than their more “intellectual” or “rational” male counterparts? Blech. How’s that for the cream of stereotypes? The percentage of women in biblical scholarship generally debunks the emotional women versus rational men theory. Pointing the finger at men, we all know that blogging is an attractive platform for narcissists. Are more men bibliobloggers because it feeds their male egos? But there are lots of women bloggers out there, just very few blogging on academic biblical studies.

It’s difficult to make heads or tails of this issue by focusing on stereotypes, male or female.

I have one more idea kicking around this time and I’m not certain if someone has mentioned it before–they probably have. This is less related to gender preferences and more so related to social realities. What about the perceived risk involved with biblioblogging? While job descriptions o’ plenty are saying “women and minorities are encouraged to apply,” is there not still an uphill struggle women have to fight to gain the same level of respect as their male colleagues? There is still plenty of doubt in the academy about whether blogging biblical studies is a valid medium for scholarly conversation–and then there are plenty who don’t even know what a blog is and how’s it’s different from a myspace account.

If female scholars are fighting harder for respect than male scholars already, and there is a risk of possibly even losing respect by blogging (or at least that may be the perception), then that may be a contributing factor as well. Just to throw one more idea out there into the ring.

This is the suggestion of Lynn Cohick in a recent post on Zondervan’s blog Koinonia. I have not come to a conclusion myself regarding the citizenship of Paul. His citizenship plays a significant role in Acts, but is nowhere mentioned in Paul’s actual letters. Historically speaking, then, I think those who argue that Acts invented Paul’s citizenship actually have a decent case (Cohick dismisses the idea as a “minority” viewpoint). But it is entirely possible that Paul could have been a Roman citizen, as the empire often used citizenship as a “carrot” or reward for individuals as I understand it. One view is that Paul’s father gained citizenship through his business dealings with the Romans (a view that Prof. Ronald Mellor recently gave in a lecture for the 300+ student course “History of Rome” at UCLA).

Cohick suggests a different take, based upon her understanding of “licit” and “illicit” relationships and the transference of citizenship to children. She suggests that it is more likely Paul’s mother was a citizen and transferred her status on to her son. I am intrigued. I suppose the question then is: how did Paul’s mother become a citizen?

Dr. Cohick is one of the three co-authors of the new textbook The New Testament in Antiquity, about which I am growing more and more excited. The textbook seems to be written from the angle of social history, which is where I am rooted in my UCLA program. This is one of the few New Testament surveys, as far as I can tell, that is both written by evangelicals (all Wheaton profs) and also seeks to incorporate social history so thoroughly.

In order to share with you an observation I had in class yesterday, I have to share a little background about a certain woman who Paul praises in his letter to the Roman church. In Romans 16:7, amidst his chapter of greetings to specific people in the Roman church, Paul mentions “Junia” who he says is “outstanding” (ἐπίσημος) among the apostles (ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις). In his sermon on this passage in Romans, John Chrysostom (c.347–407) wrote, “Oh! how great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!”

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]