Problems of Translation and Interpretation

Women and Church Leadership by E.Margaret Howe,
a Zondervan Publication, 1982, pp.29-43.
Republished on our website with the necessary permissions.

There are two areas of study which throw considerable light on the leadership functions of women in the context of the church. First, there is the New Testament itself, with its rich variety of documents. Second, there is the broad scope of history—a lengthy time period from the first century to the twentieth century during which the church has struggled to maintain its identity and authenticity. Both of these areas are significant, but each must be approached with caution, for reasons which will be explored in this chapter.

Hazards Along the Way

Those who have taught in a church context know the dismay of turning to a familiar passage of Scripture in order to substantiate a statement, only to find that this particular Bible has it worded differently. Where does one turn from there? The average church member is usually at the mercy of a wide spectrum of Bible translations and has no frame of reference by which to judge which is the most correct. The temptation then arises to select that translation which in most cases seems to agree with what one has always felt to be the truth of a matter. But one’s concept of the truth of a matter might well have been formed through habitual use of a rather poor translation. All English translations of the Bible have this in common: they were made at a particular time and by a particular group of people. Both the time and the people are significant factors. Generally speaking, a good translation will be one produced in comparatively recent times because scholars now have access to much earlier and more accurate Greek and Hebrew texts. It will be a translation produced by a group of scholars holding to standards of academic integrity. An individual translator may sometimes communicate his own slant of meaning rather than the intent of the original author. A translation made by a panel of scholars representing one particular denomination within the Christian faith may suffer from similar problems. Fortunately, many excellent Bible translations are available today, produced by groups of scholars representing a variety of religious viewpoints. Even so, no one of these is, or claims to be, a perfect representation of the original texts.

Unfortunately, some translations of the Bible can be misleading for study of the issue of women and church leadership. In the past, Bible translation has been carried out almost exclusively by men. Occasionally the translator’s preconceived ideas about the role of women have mitigated against his better judgment in the translation process. Reference works and commentaries reflect a similar weakness. It is important to be aware of this. For the purpose of illustration, three significant passages will be examined: Romans 16:1; Romans 16:7; and 1 Timothy 3:11.

Romans 16:1. Heading the list of people commended by Paul at the end of his letter to the church in Rome is a woman named Phoebe. The Greek text describes her as “deacon (diakonos) of the church of Cenchreae.” Cenchreae was a port city east of Corinth, situated in an area where Paul himself ministered for several years. Evidently Phoebe was about to visit the church in Rome. Perhaps she was the bearer of this particular letter. This piece of information appears simple enough until one examines the various translations.

The King James Version (1611) overlooks the fact that Phoebe is characterized as holding an ecclesiastical office and describes her as “a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea.” Elsewhere when the word diakonos occurs in the Greek text, the KJV usually renders it in English as “minister.” Timothy, for example, in 1 Timothy 4:6, is described as “a good minister”; Epaphras, in Colossians 1:7, is commended as “a faithful minister of Christ”; Tychicus, in Ephesians 6:21, is called “a faithful minister” (also in Col. 4:7); Paul, in Colossians 1:25, is designated as “minister”; and Paul and Apollos, in 1 Corinthians 3:5, bear the same title, “minister.”(1) These people are all men. Why, when a woman’s name appeared in the text, did the translators choose to render the word as “servant”? There is a Greek word for servant (doulos), but it is not the word in use here. It is true that in secular usage the word diakonos referred to one who waited at table, but in the context of the New Testament it usually has reference to a particular church office. There is no objective reason why the word when used of a woman would bear the secular meaning, but when used of a man would bear the religious connotation.

The Revised Standard Version (1952) appears to correct this error. Here Phoebe is described as “a deaconess of the church at Cenchreae.” The word most closely corresponding to the Greek diakonos is used. The feminine form of the word was not in use at the time, so it would actually have been more correct to have given Phoebe the title of “deacon,” but at least the RSV enables the reader to determine her ecclesiastical office. However, a perplexing problem remains. When the same Greek word is used of Timothy, of Epaphras, of Tychicus, and of Paul (in 1 Tim. 4:6; Col. 1:7; Eph. 6:21; and Col. 1:25), the RSV translators chose to use the English word “minister” as the counterpart.

The word “minister” implies service and is quite justifiable as a translation of the Greek diakonos. Had the translators also used the word “minister” in their rendering of Romans 16:1, no query would be raised. But the translators of the RSV have left the impression that Phoebe’s office was in some way different from that of her male colleagues. And because in the contemporary church setting the title “minister” is more prestigious than that of “deacon,” Phoebe is placed a little lower on the scale of values than is actually warranted by the text.

When consulting contemporary paraphrases of the Bible, one has cause to be extremely wary. In his Living Bible, Kenneth Taylor describes Phoebe as “a dear Christian woman from the town of Cenchreae”! This, of course, bears no relation to the Greek text. When the same Greek expression is found in 1 Timothy 4:6, but with reference to a man, Taylor paraphrases the office as that of “a worthy pastor.” Clearly the prejudices of the scholar have had sway here.

What light is thrown on this issue by commentators? In his Commentary on Romans Calvin described Phoebe as “an assistant of the Cenchrean church.” In his editorial comments John Owen, the translator of the commentary, acknowledges that the Greek text reads diakonos and concedes that there is some evidence that women held the office of deacon in the early church. He notes that such an office was instituted “to baptize women, to teach female catechumens, to visit the sick, and to perform other inferior offices in the church.” However, Owen goes on to assert that “this was a state of things after the apostolic times, and there is no reason to believe that Phoebe was of this order.” He assumes on the basis of Romans 16:2 that Phoebe was “a woman carrying on some business traffic and that she went to Rome partly at least on this account.”(2)

In 1880, Frederick Godet, while supporting the probability that women deacons were a feature of the primitive church, wrote, “Why should not a rich and devoted woman . . . have borne, even without ecclesiastical consecration, the title of deaconess?”(3) A more modern commentary, The Interpreter’s Bible, is also skeptical about the use of the word “deaconess” in Romans 16:1. Although the commentator, John Knox, is well-aware that deaconesses feature in the literature of the early second century C.E., he feels sure they were not recognized in the Pauline churches. The fact that “there is no other allusion to a deaconess in the N.T.” seems to confirm him in this opinion.(4) William Plumer, commenting on this passage, writes, “Some have attempted to show that [Phoebe] held the office of deaconess. This can hardly be proven.”(5) And H. W. Beyer, commenting on Paul’s use of the word diakonos in this particular instance, states, “It is, of course, an open question whether [Paul] is referring to a fixed office or simply to [Phoebe’s] services on behalf of the community.”(6)

A number of assumptions are being made by these commentators, assumptions unjustified by the text. First, it is assumed that a woman deacon would be involved only with ministrations to other women and to the sick. In communities where there were rigid taboos on the intermingling of the sexes, this might well have been practical. But Paul explicitly includes himself among those to whom Phoebe ministered. And he indicates that her business in Rome involves some specific matters affecting the church as a whole and instructs the church to cooperate with her.

Second, it is assumed that Phoebe was a rich woman. That idea is derived from the use of the word prostatis in Romans 16:2. This word may be translated “patron” and often had reference to a wealthy benefactor or benefactress. However, the word was used in pagan sources to describe an office bearer in a religious association, or, in the secular world, an individual who acted as legal adviser to people classified as aliens and to slaves who had achieved their freedom. Of course, the more general meaning of “helper” need not be excluded and may in fact be the more realistic one here. The idea of a woman patron, however, seems for some reason to be more acceptable in ecclesiastical circles. If the woman was rich, then she could certainly have been given honor and even a title, but this did not necessarily invest her with any spiritual authority! Godet’s comment, “even without ecclesiastical consecration,” is an attempt to assure the reader that this was almost certainly withheld. But the text of Romans does not give grounds for such an assumption.

Third, the assumption that there is no other reference to women deacons in the New Testament is open to question in the light of 1 Timothy 3:11. However, even if this were true, would that be adequate grounds for denying that women held such office in the early church? How many times must a concept be featured in the New Testament documents for it to be recognized as a “truth”? Plumer’s comment that it can “hardly be proven” that Phoebe was a deacon is equally curious. Why would “proof” be necessary? No such proof is necessary in the case of Epaphras or Tychicus. Why in the case of Phoebe? So also with reference to Beyer’s comment: it is not assumed to be “an open question” whether diakonos refers to a fixed office when the word describes the activity of a man. Why does it suddenly become “an open question” when a woman is being so designated?

What does emerge from this passage is that a woman was named as a minister of the church of Cenchreae and that she was much respected. In all probability she was the bearer of Paul’s letter to the church in Rome, which would account for the positioning of the lofty commendation of her in this passage. This was no small honor and may in itself suggest that she bore official title in the church. Often the bearer of a letter was entrusted also with verbal messages of import which were to be communicated in a more personal way. In addition, Phoebe had in mind some concerns of her own which necessitated the cooperation of the members of the Roman church. Paul evidently felt her concerns worthy of his approbation, for he exhorted this church to give her the support she needed.

Romans 16:7. This same chapter in Romans provides another intriguing insight into the practices of Bible translators. Included in a somewhat lengthy list of greetings are the names “Andronicus and Junias.” The RSV reads, “Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners; they are men of note among the apostles.” This gives the clear impression that both were men. Andronicus is certainly a man’s name, but there is some ambiguity concerning the name Junias. There are two possibilities: [1] The name is Junias, a contraction of the masculine name Junianus. [2] The name is Junia, a feminine name common among Roman women. In the Greek language, both names would appear identical, but the contraction of the name from Junianus to Junias is the less common phenomenon; in fact, it is extremely rare if not unknown. Thus, on linguistic grounds it is more likely that Andronicus and Junias were a man and a woman. Interestingly, the KJV even represents the second name as Junia (feminine). However, most of the major Bible translations present the verse as though it had reference to two men. Andronicus and Junias are described as “my kinsmen” and as “men of note among the apostles” rather than as “my relatives” or as “persons of note among the apostles.” Why is this?

The key to the situation is to be found in the fact that apostles are mentioned in this context. Some question has been raised concerning whether the phrase “of note among the apostles” implies that these two people were numbered among the apostles and were indeed outstanding apostles, or whether they were people specially singled out for commendation by the apostolic body. The latter interpretation is generally rejected on the basis that the Greek construction hardly bears such a rendering. Andronicus and Junias are therefore designated as apostles and as very significant apostles.

It is well-known that the apostolic body was not restricted to the Twelve. What is not so acceptable to some people is the possibility that a woman might have been designated as “apostle.” Commentators have gone to interesting lengths to deny this possibility. Godet assumes that if the name is Junia and refers to a woman, she must have been the sister or wife of Andronicus.(7) Other commentators make a similar assumption. It is true that Prisca and Aquila mentioned in Romans 16:3 were husband and wife, but it by no means follows that when a man and woman were mentioned together they were husband and wife. However, even if Andronicus and Junia were husband and wife, the implication is still that both were apostles.

Because of this clear implication, Godet tends toward the opinion that the name Junias was the name of a man. Similarly, William Sanday and A. C. Headlam conclude, “If, as is probable, Andronicus and Junias are included among the Apostles, then it is more probable that the name is masculine.”(8) The same line of reasoning is followed by William Arndt and F. W. Gingrich who write, “The possibility, from a purely lexical point of view, that this is a woman’s name, Junia, is probably ruled out by the context.”(9) In other words, although linguistically it is more probable that the reference is to a woman, the fact that it seems to some people unlikely that a woman was numbered among the apostles leads them to translate the name as though it were that of a man. It is interesting to note that among the patristic writers there were fewer qualms about acknowledging the possibility that a woman could fulfill the office of apostle. John Chrysostom, who was appointed patriarch of Constantinople in 398 C.E., wrote a number of homilies on the biblical texts. In his exposition of Romans 16:7 (Homily 31), Chrysostom comments:

Indeed to be apostles at all is a great thing. But to be even amongst these of note, just consider what a great encomium this is! But they were of note owing to their works, to their achievements. Oh! how great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!(10)

It is hard to know how to reconcile this with other of Chrysostom’s opinions about women. Commenting on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (Homily 37), he writes: “The woman is in some sort a weaker being and easily carried away and light minded.”(11) Presumably he considered Junia to be an exception to the general rule.

1 Timothy 3:11. This verse provides us with another example of misleading Bible translation. In the context, the author is outlining the qualities required of those appointed to the offices of bishop and deacon. The reader using the KJV will observe that in 1 Timothy 3:11 certain qualities are required of the wives of deacons. “Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.” Is this what the author intended? The original text reads, “The women likewise, must be serious . . . ,” and this is the translation featured in the RSV.

It is true that the word woman in Greek is sometimes used to designate wife; but if the author had so intended, then it would have been more natural for him to have introduced a possessive pronoun—and there is no such pronoun in the Greek text (which is why “their” is printed in italics in the KJV). Moreover, the syntax of the passage indicates that the writer intended to direct attention to two distinct groups of people, both falling into a category similar to that of bishop. Verse 8 begins “deacons likewise”; verse 11 begins “women likewise.”

If Paul meant to refer to women deacons, why was he not more specific? The answer to this question is that no feminine form of the word diakonos was in use at this early time. It would be natural, therefore, for Paul to single out this group by referring specifically to those deacons who were women. A comparison of verses 8 and 11 shows that the qualities required of the men and the women are almost identical. One might assume, therefore, that the instructions included in verse 12 should also be considered applicable to women deacons, namely, that they should be selected from the ranks of women who are faithful to one husband (cf. 1 Tim. 5:9). This is not explicitly stated, but neither is it explicitly stated that a woman deacon should be unmarried.

Thus, in addition to the mention in Romans 16:1 of a woman minister of the church of Cenchreae, Romans 16:7 introduces the possibility that a woman was recognized as an apostle, and 1 Timothy 3:11 strongly indicates that women were appointed as deacons. Unhappily, this information has been obscured in some translations of the Bible.

Elusive Historical Data

The leadership roles assumed by women in the church have been obscured not only in some translations of the Bible but also in various historical records. In 1973 Joan Morris, a British scholar, published a fascinating study entitled Against Nature and God (the American edition bears the title The Lady Was a Bishop). “History may be hidden in many ways,” Morris writes. Sometimes this is due to “evasion of facts through prejudice,” and sometimes it is due to “a purposeful malicious hiding of events.”(12) Morris illustrated this by showing how the practice of appointing women overseers of churches, a common practice from apostolic times onward for many centuries, was slowly suppressed. In some cases attempts were even made to obscure the records which witnessed to their work.

Morris records, for example, that in the church of Saint Praxedis in Rome there is a mosaic dating from the fifth century C.E. or earlier. It depicts the head of a veiled woman over which is inscribed the title episcopa (overseer, bishop). Written vertically alongside is the name Theodo(ra). The last two letters, which represent the feminine form of the name, have been removed from the mosaic and cubes from a later period have been inserted. Similarly, in the catacombs of Priscilla in Via Salerio Nova in Rome there is a fresco depicting a group of women conducting a eucharistic banquet at a funeral service. The figure to the left is apparently the chief celebrant. The head has been sandpapered down to obscure the feminine hairstyle, though the length of the dress clearly indicates to historians that this figure represents a woman. These stone and mosaic inscriptions show that “women once held a place in the hierarchical service of the church that is now denied to them.”(13)

Through careful research Morris uncovered evidence which demonstrates that for many centuries women were active in the leadership of churches and of religious communities comprised of both men and women. In fourth century C.E. Asia Minor, for example, a deaconess named Marthana served within a community of men and women which grew up in Seleucia around the shrine of Saint Thecla. The document containing an eyewitness account of this community has been translated and annotated by John Wilkinson, of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, under the title Egeria’s Travels. Egeria writes:

Round the holy church there is a tremendous number of cells for men and women. And that was where I found one of my dearest friends, a holy deaconess called Marthana. I had come to know her in Jerusalem when she was up there on pilgrimage. She was the superior of some cells of apotactites or virgins. ... I stayed there, visiting all the holy monks and apotactites, the men as well as the women.(14)

Morris shows how the presence of ordained women in leadership positions was a common phenomenon in both the Eastern and Western branches of the church. As “canonesses,” women celebrated the divine office, taught in schools, cared for the sick, and baptized catechumens. As “abbesses,” women ruled over communities comprised of both sexes. Although these women did not enjoy the sacerdotal powers of bishops, they fulfilled the duties of bishops in respect to ecclesiastical and civil administration. Many of them were exempt from the authority of a bishop and were directly dependent on the Holy See.

Even though as late as the eighteenth century women were still accepted in leadership positions in the church in England, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, the history of their involvement has been treated lightly. Morris comments, “The Christian tradition is presented as an all-male right of authority as though it had been so always.”(15) For example, many people today would be surprised to learn that the Basilian Order was founded not by Saint Basil but by his sister, Macrina. It is not generally known that Saint Basil in fact lived a monastic life under her guidance. Frequently today the issue of women and church leadership is approached as though women are for the first time in history seeking the right to be appointed to leadership positions. Nothing could be further from the truth. Women are simply seeking to reestablish their claim to leadership positions which were clearly theirs in the early centuries of the Christian Era. These positions were wrested from them by circumstances which do not necessarily bear the mark of divine approval.

What were the factors which brought about a change in the role of women? Morris suggests that the rise of monasticism and the introduction of the rule of celibacy for priests were influential factors. Rather than being permitted to continue their ministry in parishes and cathedrals, women were cloistered and confined to private chapels. In this way they would not be a source of temptation to male ecclesiastics. In this way also their influence would be curtailed. Another factor is that the concept of “ruling” had become paganized, as evidenced by the fact that by the twelfth century questions were being raised concerning a woman’s right to rule over a mixed community. No longer was Christian leadership seen as humble service. Instead, it was regarded as the right of dominion, providing an opportunity for Christians to lord it over one another. Within such an atmosphere as this, male dominance was asserted.

In the debate concerning the leadership of women in the early church, another important factor to consider is that Christian communities evolved from groups of Jews who were regular participants in synagogue worship. The form of synagogue worship influenced the form of Christian worship significantly. It is therefore sometimes thought that the low profile required of women in the context of the Jewish synagogue accounts for the fact that they were denied leadership positions in the church. Women were not appointed as leaders in the synagogues, it is maintained; in fact, they were segregated from Jewish men and took very little part in the public worship patterns of Judaism.

This point of view is open to question. Significant research on the leadership functions performed by women in the ancient Jewish synagogue is being carried out by an American scholar, Bernadette Brooten. In the preparation of her doctoral thesis,(16) Brooten is investigating Greek and Latin inscriptions (contained in Jean-Baptiste Frey, Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaicarum) in which women bear such titles as archisynagogos (ruler of the synagogue), presbytera (elder), mater synagogae (mother of the synagogue), and (h)ierissa (priestess). In the past, scholars have assumed that because these titles were held by women they must be honorific, perhaps as an extension of a husband’s role. Brooten disputes this point of view and assembles evidence to show that women took a much more active part in the ancient Jewish synagogue worship than that which is generally assigned to them by tradition.

As a result of her investigations concerning the function of the ruler of the synagogue, Brooten concludes that this official was a person learned in the Jewish law and was the spiritual director of the congregation. The archisynagogos shared with others the responsibility for the collection of money from the congregation and for the erection of new synagogues and the restoration of old ones. The religious and civic functions of the synagogue ruler were not sharply distinguished. In all probability this official functioned not only as a leader of the congregation within the Jewish community but also as a representative of the congregation in the wider context of non-Jewish neighbors and of Roman authorities.

In three of the inscriptions investigated, women synagogue rulers are named without reference to a husband. In several other inscriptions, each of which names a man as archisynagogos, the wive’s names are mentioned but these women do not bear the title of their husbands. Those scholars who maintain that these titles may be explained away because a woman could not hold such exalted office in the Jewish synagogue are not permitting the evidence to speak for itself. Rather, this evidence supplies traces of a Judaism about which, for lack of sources, we know very little. It is not, for that reason, to be dismissed as inauthentic.

In assessing the influence of Jewish thought on Christian attitudes toward women, caution is necessary. Sometimes the scholar has to admit that there is insufficient evidence from the early centuries to communicate a clear picture of Jewish attitudes toward women in the period which gave birth to the Christian faith. Sometimes, unhappily, the investigator is confronted with evidence that has been influenced by the preconceived ideas of a writer to the detriment of the women concerned.

It is clear that the issues are not as simple as they might appear at first sight. The Bible handled by most churchgoers today is a translation, and caution should be used by those who are not able to consult the original text. Inadvertently or otherwise, translators may sometimes have included readings which are not quite fair to women. Influential commentators have for over a hundred years perpetuated misconceptions in this area of thought, as indeed in some other areas. Discernment is needed when commentaries are consulted. Even historical data is liable to have been colored by prejudice. Scholars of today are endeavoring to uncover these problems and to provide a basis for a more equitable appraisal of the issues.

Notes

1. Even the agents (diakonoi) of Satan mentioned in 2 Corinthians 11:15 are given the title of “ministers” in the KJV. Presumably the translators assumed they were all men!

2. John Calvin, Commentary on Romans, trans. John Owen (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), pp. 542-43.

3. Frederick Godet, Commentary on Romans, trans. A. Cusin (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1956), p. 488.

4. The Interpreter’s Bible, ed. George Arthur Buttrick (Nashville: Abingdon, 1954), 9:655.

5. William S. Plumer, Commentary on Romans (Edinburg: Oliphant, n.d.), p. 638.

6. H. W. Beyer, in TWNT, 2:93.

7. Godet, Commentary on Romans, p. 491.

8. William Sanday and A. H. Headlam, ICC, Epistle to the Romans, p. 423.

9. William Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, s.v. Iounias, 1st ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), p. 380. For a more detailed consideration, see Bernadette Brooten, ”Junia . . . Outstanding Among the Apostles" (Romans 16:7), Women Priests: A Catholic Commentary on the Vatican Declaration, ed. L. Swidler and A. Swidler, (New York: Paulist Press, 1977), pp. 141-44.

10. In a footnote, the nineteenth-century editor has written, “That a woman should have been an apostle is out of the question”! NPNF, 11:555, n.2.

11. NPNF, 12:222.

12. Joan Morris, Against Nature and God (London and Oxford: Mowbrays, 1973); Am. Ed., The Lady Was a Bishop (New York: Macmillan, 1973), p.xi. (Morris’s work has received mixed reviews. See Expository Times 86 (October 1974) :30 and Dialog 13 (1974) :149-50.

14. John Wilkinson, Egeria’s Travels (London: SPCK, 1971), pp. 121-22. In a footnote Wilkinson comments: “Marthana, like Macrina, sister of St. Basil of Caesarea and St. Gregory of Nyssa, was probably made a deaconess through the episcopal laying on of hands.”

15. Morris, Against Nature and God, p. 57.

16. Bernadette Brooten, PhD. dissertation, Harvard Divinity School (Tubingen).

Please, credit this document
as published by www.womenpriests.org!