It is proposed to add to our comparative investigation of women in the official non-literary field of inscriptions and coins a woman from Corinthians and another from Romans. It is proposed to compare Junia Theodora with Phoebe and Junia as they provide possible evidence of the filteringdown influence of the public role for women. It is not being argued that any women who are mentioned in the Pauline communities held public office or were of the same rank and status as Junia Theodora. The evidence we do have makes no comment on their secular rank or connection with specific areas of politeia we have just examined.
The snapshots that exist provide some details, but we would have wished for further information. Some are so scant that no significant comment can be made by way of comparison with the evidence reviewed in the first three sections.
The number of Christian women whose names and sometimes whose contribution to the Pauline mission and churches we know of suggests that Christian women were not relegated to the private rooms in first-century households. That was an ancient Greek custom, as we have noted, but not the convention that operated in either of the Roman colonies of Corinth and Philippi or Rome itself.
Apart from Junia Theodora of whom the term `patronage' (lrpoGzaafav) was used U. 77), there were others who were officially recognised as having had this role at a provincial level in Achaea or at a civic one in Corinth." There is also an inscription to a private patron in Corinth. `Marcus Antonius Promachus (set up this monument to honour) the [his] friend and patron [ ] because of his virtue and trustworthiness' (Tov 4fXto[v] Kul 7r[po]GT6(Tgv &[pET]gq €vEK[a] K[al] 7rf(yTEWWS).78 Phoebe is called `our sister, being a deacon of the church at Cenchreae', the satellite port of Corinth in the Aegean Sea, and is also called a `patron'; her clients are indicated as being `many, including myself' (Rom. 16:2).
The term `patron' is a surprising one for Paul to have used in sending greetings from Corinth to the church in Rome. It is totally unexpected, given that he sought to undo not only the crucial fabric of the role of clients for Christians,79 but also the traditional role of patronage, and that within the Corinthian community from which he was writing his letter to the Romans. The comment in i Corinthians 16:15 that the senior members of the house of Stephanas set themselves to serve the needs of their fellow Christians does not surprise us. However, in the first century a patron and his immediate family voluntarily placing themselves in a servile position represented a total cultural inversion in a critical domain in Roman society.80
Judge has argued this case thus: `The Corinthian letters show him in head-on confrontation with the mechanisms [of patronage] by which it imposed social power.... His positive response to this collision was to build a remarkable new construction of social realities that both lay within the fabric of the old ranking system and yet transformed it by a revolution of social values .'81 Elsewhere he defined them. "`Rank" is meant to denote any formally defined position in society, while "status" refers to positions of influence that may not correspond to the official pattern of the social order.'82 Secular rank remained for the Christians in society, but now secular status could no longer do so in the Christian community. The maintenance of the latter could only adversely affect how one perceived relationships with others, how one acted towards them and the nature of the contribution that one could make to the welfare of all within the community.
Paul has promoted this radical transformation further by warmly commending Stephanas for taking a servile position, as he did others whom he mentioned in i Corinthians 16:16-17. I have argued elsewhere that this was part of Paul's final solution in 1 Corinthians to the underlying problem of social conflict that was endemic in Corinth. The initiators of social conflict, the patrons, were as Christians now to abandon that role and exchange that function for that of the servant, a paradigm from Jesus and commended as a mindset by Paul to the Philippians (Phil. 2:5). Stephanas has now adopted a servile position with those who formerly had existed primarily to serve his social standing and his political objectives. It is for this reason that the designation and the commendation of Phoebe as a patron is not a little surprising.83
Like Junia, Phoebe is `patron' (lrpoGTdTls) but unlike Junia it is not in a civic or federal capacity that she acts, or with a particular ethnic group. It is to many individuals among whom presumably are `the saints', for we are told that she `has been a patron of many and myself also' (7rpoGTdTls 7roXXthv iyrvjOq Kai fµou auzou) (Rom. 16:2). She may have been a host to many in her home as was Junia, and her sphere of influence was the church in Cenchreae in whose service she operated, possibly in her own home.
Had this been an issue of patronage connected to `the politics of friend ship, to use Rawson's phrase'84 then the other appropriate term to have used would have been `friend' (4iaos, amiculus). Marcus Antonius Promachus described his patron in Corinth as also his `friend'. No such relationship is claimed by Paul with Phoebe, as he uses a distinctively familia term, `sister'. In fact, he appears to have studiously avoided the term `friend, given the reciprocal obligations involved which were created by money.85
Phoebe is called a btaKOVOq of the church in Cenchreae in the same way the abstract noun `service' (btaxovia) was used to describe the intention of the ministry of Stephanas in i Corinthians 16:15. The term was not a status one, as was argued by Collins, but very much a service role, as Clarke has shown by means of his careful philological approach in his refutation of Collins' proposal.86 That conclusion is important, for rank and status went hand in hand in Roman society.87 Phoebe may have possessed the former. The comment on her servile role in the church suggests that she had voluntarily surrendered her secular status.88 This was done in order to engage in the Christian service to others, as was the case in the ministry of Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus, who had, in Paul's words when he wrote to the Corinthians, refreshed `my spirit as well as yours' (1 Cor. 16:17-18).89
The recipients of her patronage were `many' (roXX(v) but the exact nature of it is not specified. It could have been financial or she may have used her contacts and her influence on their behalf. It would have included those residing in Cenchreae, but was not restricted to them. Paul went out of his way to stress to the Roman Christians that he himself had been the recipient of her patronage. His use of the double pronoun (Kal sµ03 auzou) is a way in Koine Greek of strongly emphasising a point - in this case her patronage to him in his apostolic mission.90 Can we assume that he has plundered the 'patronage' terminology to describe Phoebe's support of his mission, not only in Cenchreae and Corinth, but well beyond that Roman colony and its precincts? Elsewhere, he changes the use of the secular concepts of `giving and receiving' in his letter to the Philippians to `fellowship in the gospel' as a way of describing the significance of the gift of money from that church in relation to his ministry in Rome.91
Paul also commends Phoebe to the church in Rome for her visit, the purpose of which is not stated. Seneca, writing in the time of Claudius, gives the following reasons why people moved to Rome, either temporarily or permanently.
From their municipia and coloniae, from the whole world they congregated here. Ambition has brought some; the requirements of public office (necessitas officii) has brought others. For some, it was an embassy imposed on them; for others, it was luxury, seeking a convenient and wealthy setting for its vices. Eagerness for liberal studies brought some; the shows (spectacula) brought others. Some were led by friendship, others by industry taking the ample opportunity for showing virtue. Some have brought beauty for sale, some have brought eloquence for sale. Every race of humans has flowed together into the city which offers great rewards for both virtues and vices.92
Noy indicates the reasons why many moved to Rome and some of the challenges facing those settled there. Phoebe's proposed visit might have related to business matters, given the importance of Cenchreae as the conduit for trade across the Aegean on to Rome overland by the Diolkos of Isthmia or around the Peloponnese.93 The sea route from the other port for Corinth, Leichaion, the port on the o
ther side of the Isthmus, was the fast route to Rome. Phoebe may have, like others, been going to Rome to reside there as a foreigner or citizen. Paul commended her because he wished the church to receive her, given that in her ministry she was the sort of person whose service they should also accept. Noy documents the need for local contacts and be lieves of the early Christians that `Members of the church gave access to a more regularized system of contacts for newcomers. A Christian, at least one of standing, could expect to receive hospitality from fellow-Christians at Rome. Roman members of the Jesus movement met Paul even before he reached the city.'94 One senses that his comments on Christians of status could be a reading into that scene the evidence which he had just reviewed of others who sought to exploit the wealth of visitors in exchange for the promise of Roman networks and reciprocity. That is not to say that Paul would not have expected that Phoebe, who had been the patron of many up to that point, would not continue to serve the Christian cause there in Rome in the same way she had done in Cenchreae as a 616Cxovos.95
Finally, what significance should be attached to the fact that while Paul uses the feminine form of TpoGT&Tfc for Phoebe, he does not do so for btaxoVoc? There is no Christian evidence of the feminine form for the latter before the third century.96 There is a fascinating fourth-century Christian inscription where it was used.
Sophia is called `the second Phoebe' and is referred to as a `servant' and `a bride', both in the feminine; >7 btaxovos is in the same gender form as Paul used in speaking of Phoebe as our sister and patron and btaxovoS, but with the feminine article >7 preceding the latter. Paul used the same gender for Phoebe as he did for himself in Romans as `the servant' (btaxovos) to the Jews (16:1, 15:8), and as he had done for Apollos' and his ministry in Corinth (i Cor. 3:5). From a list of male and female priests and 616KOVOI from the cult of the Twelve gods Horsley cites two women, Elpis and Tyche, who are both referred to as btaxovoc; and he also notes later Christian sources where that form was used for women. He suggests it shows that there was continuity in the use of this term from non-Christian to Christian cultic organization. However the use of the status term with respect to Phoebe is functional in terms of its servile orientation, which was seen as the essence of all Christian ministries (Mk. 10:42-45).98
There are clearly differences between Junia Theodora and Phoebe. In terms of her rank nothing is known, nor is that of the many whom she assisted as their patron, apart from Paul. It has been argued that the Sitz im Leben of the Lycian Federation relates to the relegation of certain members of that league from their homeland and the aim to reverse the unjust decision of Rome through the political networks of Junia Theodora. There is no specific situation known concerning help given to `the clients' in the Christian situation of Phoebe. Both have operated from their own homes and have used them as the base for hospitality and, in the case of Junia, housing those they were connected with; in neither case is mention made of a living spouse.
It is suggested that this comparative approach has assisted in not only recapitulating the high-profile influence of Junia Theodora but also appreciating the significant personal help to many and to the Pauline mission as well as the ministry of Phoebe to the church in Cenchreae. Some have speculated that Phoebe supplied `aid to others, especially foreigners, providing housing and financial aid and representing their interests before local authorities'.99 We would wish for more information on Phoebe, who suddenly appears as a major player in a hitherto unknown Christian church, not unlike Poseidon's rising out of the Aegean Sea at Isthmia, just up the coast from Cenchreae where Phoebe lived. Her residence was in an important satellite and wealthy sea port for Corinth - the ruins of the houses on the seafront indicate its prosperity. The wealth of Junia Theodora suggests that she might have lived in the prosperous Corinthian suburb of Craneion,100 as might Phoebe on the sea front of Cenchreae, but the texts disclose none of that information, for it was not germane to these women's significant contribution in their respective spheres.
In Romans 16:7 mention is made of Andronicus and Junia. Junia is a Latin name, and judge has noted that one third of the names of ninety-one individuals connected to Paul and the Pauline communities are Latin. He regards this figure as very high by comparison with three major collections representing an extensive group, in fact ten times higher.10' The name Junia is well attested in Rome with more than two hundred and fifty examples, according to Lampe.102 There is record of a Junia in Rome who came from Greece.103
Could the Junia of Romans 16:7 be the same person as Junia Theodora? This possibility deserves to be explored, as in the discussions of Junia and Junia Theodora to date the focus has been solely on Junia Theodora and Phoebe.104 Is it possible that by the time Paul had written to the Roman Christians from Corinth Junia Theodora had moved to Rome, as Phoebe proposed to do? Since Junia Theodora had connections with those who were powerful, like Proculus, the other patron of Lycia who operated in Rome, she had every reason to locate herself near the seat of imperial power if she was to be their patron. Noy notes that one of the best-attested reasons for going to Rome was service on embassies, and the time spent in Rome for this purpose sometimes led to an extended stay.105
To what incident or incidents that resulted in Andronicus and Junia being Paul's fellow prisoners could he refer? Is it possible that it had been in some way linked to the near-death experience of Paul to which he refers in 2 Corinthians 1:8-10? This experience was such that he recorded `but we ourselves had received the sentence of death' (&XXa auzol sv sauzois To &nbxptµa TOO Oavazov sO-X Ka IEv) (2 Cor. 1:9).106 It has been assumed that the reference was to Paul and Timothy in Ephesus, given that the letter comes addressed from both of them. This incident may have involved Andronicus and Junia. It could have been part of the reverberations from the assassination of Junius Silanus, proconsul of Asia, at the instigation of Nero's mother, Agrippina.107 Guilt by reason of association with leading figures in Ephesus would have been an indictable offence.108 If the evidence of Acts 19:31 is added, then Paul himself had important connections, `some of the Asiarchs also, who were friends of his, sent to him and begged him not to venture into the theatre, having `despaired of life itself' (2 Cor. 1:8). This could mean that in the subsequent imperial intrigue in Ephesus guilt by association was sufficient to implicate them in a criminal trial involving treason, especially since there was the precedent of the infamous trials involving Sejanus' conspiracy in the time of Tiberius. While the exact reason for the imprisonment of Andronicus and Junia is not spelt out, Junia Theodora's connections were not in that province but in the province of Lycia and Pamphylia. Her reception of Lycian ambassadors and those who were exiles by imperial decree whose federation was in disgrace in Rome could have prejudiced her position with the authorities in the East to whom she had access. That is a case for identification, but not a particularly strong one.
There are reasons that would rule against the identification of the two women as being one and the same person. Andronicus and Junia had long been Christians, in fact before Paul, and they had apostolic connections or knew the other apostles, yet the Lycian inscriptions to Junia Theodora sent gifts to her for when she would go into the presence of the gods (ll. 11, 65). It is possible that these gifts and the identification of her with the ancient gods reflect the Lycian Federation's perception of her religious attachment. If she had been a Christian before Paul's conversion, it is unlikely but not impossible that they did not know this fact.
Andronicus and Junia were Jewish, Paul's `kinsfolk', a wide term but Clarke rightly argues that the reference is to Jews (Rom. 9:3; cf. 16:7,11). They were Paul's kinsfolk as were those who sent their greetings from Corinth, Lucius, Jason and Sosipater (16:21).109 Noy found on the basis of the extensive survey of Roman epigraphic evidence that `the Jews of Rome had Latin names more often than Greek ones, the Greek ones more often than Semitic ones.... Most people are recorded with only one name' in the first century."" So the use of a single Latin name for them, and Paul as well, was not unusual.
<
br /> Another reason for rejecting the possible identification is the fact that there is no husband named in the inscriptions for Junia Theodora, only a male relative, Sextus Iulius, who was a Roman described as `our agent', and not Junia's, and also her heir (ll. 12, 54). The names Andronicus and Junia were linked by the connective `and', just as Prisca and Aquila were (Rom. 16:3), who according to Acts 18:2 were married. This suggests that this male and female, who were Jews, long-standing Christians, prisoners together in detention with Paul in a place other than Corinth and now together in Rome, were also married to each other. The arguments on the present evidence are weighted against the identification of Junia Theodora and Junia.
If the two Junias referred to were not one and same person, what light might be shed on the role of Junia from the epigraphic evidence we have of her namesake? In a very well researched chapter in his book Gospel Women, Richard Bauckham has argued that the Junia of Romans 16:7 is to be identified with Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward mentioned in Luke 8:3. That would make her a woman of status in the East, as was Junia Theodora. Part of Bauckham's grounds for so arguing was the practice in Jewish circles of adopting Latin names that sounded similar to their Semitic names, for which he provides good examples, including Acts 1:23, `Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus.'111 He argues that Joanna had acted in effect as a private patron, along with others, in financing the ministry of Jesus and his disciples from its beginning (Lk. 8:3). She was also a witness to the resurrection, as was Mary Magdalene who is also mentioned as one of the early supporters of that ministry (Lk. 24:10).
Roman Wives, Roman Widows Page 21
