Phoebe,

from serving to leading

Rom. 16:1-2 reinterpreted

UNIСTHMI
СU FOIBHN
DIAKO
DIAKO
NON

P R O C TAT I C

Master’s Thesis of José C. C. M. Quaedvlieg de Vaan

ANR. 603388
under the Research Master in Theology – Biblical Studies
Graduate School for Humanities, Tilburg University
Tilburg, 25 November, 2011

Supervisor: Dr. H. W. M. van de Sandt

Second examiner: Prof. Dr. W. J. C. Weren
 1

46
* The image on the front page is an edited reproduction of a part of the manuscript î showing the text of Rom.
16:1-2 as published by the University of Michigan.
 2

FOREWORD

From the moment I learned to read I was always searching for stories that would be
forever embedded in my memory. Due to my parish involvements, while walking in the footsteps
of my mother, Scriptures became more and more a source of inspiration. Consequently there was
a growing interest in the origin and the meaning of these writings. I never planned a study
Theology, yet it would appear to be a desire hidden deep within my heart. By coincidence –
though I have stopped feeling it this way – I received a brochure for an Information Day at the
Tilburg Faculty of Theology. On that day the more than inspiring exegetical lecture on Jacob’s
wrestling at Peniel, given by the late Dr. Ron Pirson, made me realise what my dream was:
studying Exegesis, and sharing the knowledge with others.
During the Bachelor Theology I met with an exceptional group of committed fellow
students and with lecturers who showed much love for their profession. Their presence made
studying at this faculty a pleasure. I deeply thank all of them, since this was the foundation upon
which I was able to continue.
I owe my application for the Research Master Biblical Studies to the encouragement and
confidence of Prof. Dr. Ellen van Wolde. Her positive response meant that my initial hesitation
gave way to renewed enthusiasm. I am also very grateful to my supervisor Dr. Huub van de
Sandt for the exceptional way in which he inspired me while I was working on my thesis. He
consistently kept abreast of my writing developments, and he brought me back to reality when I
had my feelings dominating the arguments. I felt challenged in broadening my horizons, and I
was encouraged by his positive comments. I am also indebted to Prof. Dr. Wim Weren, the
second examiner of my thesis. I will always remember his vibrant exegetical lectures on site
during the 2006 Israel Study Tour. I also highly appreciated his teachings on Hellenistic Greek,
an important tool when I was examining parallels in extra-biblical writings.
Finally I want to thank my family and my friends for their ongoing support. My
persistence was kept fuelled by their marks of sympathy. They always wanted to stay informed
of my study progress. And last but not least I thank my husband and our sons for fully accepting
it that over the past years the realization of my dream also affected the rhythm of their lives.
 3

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION p. 5

CHAPTER 1. THE AUTHOR

AND THE PURPOSE OF HIS LETTER TO THE ROMANS p. 8
1.1 The author of Romans p. 8
1.2 The purpose of the letter to the Romans p. 11

CHAPTER 2. A LITERARY CRITICAL CONSIDERATION

ON THE LAST CHAPTER OF ROMANS p. 15
2.1 A text-critical analysis p. 15
Textual criticism of Rom. 16:1-2 p. 19
2.2 A compositional analysis p. 23
The composition of Rom. 15:14-16:16 and 16:21-24 p. 26

CHAPTER 3. THE RELATION A0PO&STOLOS – ENVOY

AND THE RELATION ENVOY – LETTER CARRIER p. 28
3.1 From a0po&stolov to envoy p. 29
3.1.1 The origin and development in the meaning of a0po&stolov p. 29
3.1.2 The usage of a0po&stolov in the New Testament p. 31
3.2 Paul as an apostle p. 34
Paul’s apostolic self image p. 34
3.3 Paul as a letter writer p. 39
The role of a secretary p. 39
3.4 From letter carrier to envoy p. 42

CHAPTER 4. ROM. 16:1 WHO IS PHOEBE? p. 45

4.1 Rom. 16:1ª “I commend to you Phoebe”- Suni&sthmi de_ u9mi~n Foi&bhn p. 46
4.1.1 “I commend” - Suni&sthmi p. 46
4.1.2 Phoebe and Paul’s co-workers in Rom. 16 p. 51
 4

4.2 Rom. 16:1b “Our sister” - th_n a0delfh_n h9mw~n p. 54

4.3 Rom. 16:1c “Being a servant of the church at Cenchreae” –
ou]san kai( dia&konon th~v e0kklhsi&av th~v e0n Kegxreai~v p. 55
4.3.1 “Servant” - dia&konov p. 56
4.3.2. “Servant of the church at Cenchreae” –
dia&konov th~v e0kklhsi&av th~v e0n Kegxreai~v p. 61
4.4 First concluding remarks p. 62

CHAPTER 5. ROM. 16:2 WHY PHOEBE? p. 64

5.1 Rom. 16:2a, “That you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints” –
i#na prosde&chsqe e0n kuri&w? a0ci&wv tw~n a9gi&wn p. 64
5.1.1 i#na in Rom. 16:2a p. 65
5.1.2 “receive her in the Lord, worthy of the saints” –
prosde&chsqe e0n kuri&w? a0ci&wv tw~n a9gi&wn p. 66
5.1.3 Mutual participation p. 68
5.2 Rom. 16:2b, “and help her in whatever she may need from you” –
kai_ parasth~te au0th~? e0n w{? a@n u9mw~n xrh&?zh? pra&gmati: p. 68
5.2.1 What Phoebe needs p. 69
5.2.2 Actions to be made p. 70
5.2.3 The first part of Phoebe’s role p. 72
5.3 Rom. 16:2c, “for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well” -
kai_ ga_r au0th_ prosta&tiv kai_ pollw~n e0genh&qh kai_ e0mou~ au0tou~ p. 72
5.3.1 Phoebe as a “helper” p. 72
5.3.2 Phoebe as a “patron” p. 73
5.3.3 Phoebe as a “leader” p. 75
5.3.4 The kind of leadership needed p. 83
5.4 Phoebe’s role p. 83

CONCLUSION p. 85

BIBLIOGRAPHY p. 87
 5

INTRODUCTION

During the last decades the view on the specific character of Paul’s Letter to the Romans
has changed. His theological message still stands but next to this a number of scholars among
whom Annette Merz and Robert Jewett hear also an impassioned appeal in this epistle, addressed
to the Roman Christians to support his planned mission to Spain.1 This view also affects the
position of Phoebe in this process. From an originally happenstance letter carrier she becomes a
serving leader of the church at Cenchreae who has to explain Paul’s letter in Rome. In my
opinion still not enough justice has been done to her; her task is more than handing over the letter
and revealing its content.
The title prosta&tiv given to her by Paul is a hapax legomenon in the New Testament.
This results in various renderings and explanations. I believe that along with the first word of the
pericope under study, suni&sthmi (“to commend”) it points to an exceptional and vital role for
Phoebe in Paul’s new mission, especially when we notice that the first meaning given to
prosta&tiv is “leader”.
Paul has planned to shift his mission to the west of the Roman Empire, and Rome has to
become the base from where the Spanish mission will be arranged. Some of his loyal and
trustworthy co-workers are already in Rome and yet in chapter 16 he does not commend one of
them but Phoebe:

v. 1. I commend to you our sister Phoebe,

a servant of the church at Cenchreae,
v. 2. that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints,
and help her in whatever she may need from you,
for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well. (ESV)2

1
See A. MERZ, “Phöbe, Diakon(in) der Gemeinde von Kenchreä – Eine wichtige Mitstreiterin des Paulus
neu entdeckt”, in A. M. VON HAUFF (ed.), Frauen gestalten Diakonie, Band 1:Von der Biblischen Zeit bis zum
Pietismus, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 2007; see also R. JEWETT, Romans: a Commentary (Hermeneia), Minneapolis,
MN, Fortress Press, 2007
2
At the beginning of my investigation for the two verses on Phoebe I adopt one of the current English
translations, the English Standard Version (further ESV), Wheaton, IL, Crossway Books, 2001. At a later stage I
will give my own renderings adjusted to the findings.
 6

Therefore the focus of my thesis is:

● Does Rom. 16:1-2, given the situation in Rome

and also given the purpose of the Letter to the Romans
elucidate why Paul sends specifically someone like Phoebe with his letter to Rome?

Different qualifications are given to Phoebe in Rom. 16:1-2. These testimonials might give an
image of who Phoebe is. It might also show for which tasks Paul thinks Phoebe is qualified. The
subsequent questions arise:

* Phoebe is sent on a mission to Rome as dia&konov th~v e0kklhsi&av th~v e0n Kegxreai~v (“a
servant of the church at Cenchrea”). What exactly is the task of a letter carrier or
an envoy in the historic social-cultural context? What is the relation between envoy
and a)po&stolov (“apostle”)?
* What is the meaning of suni&sthmi? This verb is commonly rendered as “to commend”.
In what way is this translation a compelling one? Could it be that Paul means
something else in this particular situation?
* What does pro&stativ signify? This word has no parallel in the New Testament nor in
the Septuagint. Do parallels in other writings, also those using prosta~si&a and
prostate&w, reveal the designation of pro&stativ?

Obviously Rom. 16:1-2 by itself does not provide enough information to answer the
questions above. Therefore I apply both the synchronic and the diachronic methods that alternate
in this study.3 The examining of the two verses in their historical, social-cultural, religious and
philological context may lead to an improved understanding of why Paul entrusted to Phoebe the
specific tasks.
The first chapter presents the status of contemporary research on Rom. 16:1-2 in order to
indicate the premise of my argument. The chapter commences with a description of Paul, the
acknowledged author of the Letter to the Romans. This section (1.1) deals with who he is and

3
See W. WEREN, Vensters op Jezus. Methoden in de uitleg van de evangeliën, Zoetermeer, Meinema, 1999,
tweede druk.
 7

above all with the events or characterizations that are of importance for this thesis. The next
section (1.2) is about the hypotheses on the purpose of this letter and my position on this.
In the second chapter the pericope under study will be established and marked off. This
chapter is devoted to literary criticism and is divided in analyses on the entire Letter to the
Romans and subsequently in investigations on this pericope, Rom. 16:1-2. It starts with a text
critical analysis (2.1) and next the focus is on form criticism (2.2).
Chapter three is about Paul as an apostle. Before the examination of Paul’s apostolic self
image (3.2) there is a semantic analysis on a)po&stolov and its cognates. Biblical as well as extra-
biblical writings might clarify its meaning (3.1). This apostle is well known by his praxis of
sending letters to communities he once founded, a way of staying in contact and teaching them
while being elsewhere himself. In the third section (3.3) themes that are inextricably bound to
letter writing and sending are dealt with. How are letters written, what is the work of a secretary,
and what that of a letter carrier? The last section of this chapter (3.4) is about the relation
between being a letter carrier and being an envoy.
In the fourth chapter the study focusses on Paul’s way of introducing Phoebe. Each part
of the sentences will be treated separately. It starts in the first section (4.1) with the verb
suni&sthmi (4.1.1). Is there indeed another way of rendering this verb in a more authoritative
meaning? The second section is on Phoebe and Paul’s co-workers who are mentioned in Rom.
16:3-16, the immediate context of Rom. 16:1-2 (4.1.2). Why is not one of them chosen to fulfil
the role of Phoebe? A short section (4.2) on Paul’s statement “our sister” precedes the third
section that deals with Phoebe as dia&konov of the church at Cenchreae (4.3).
The last chapter is in search of the reason why Paul chooses Phoebe. It deals with the
second part of Rom. 16:1-2, again by splitting it up in separate elements. Paul asks the Roman
Christians to receive Phoebe in a specific way. In the first section (5.1) his view on Christian
communion will be revealed. In the next section (5.2) there is a proposal for one constituent of
Phoebe’s role. The last section (5.3) focusses on the main topic of this study, the word
prosta&tiv. Has Phoebe indeed become a “leader” of Paul and many others?
 8

CHAPTER 1
THE AUTHOR AND THE PURPOSE OF HIS LETTER TO THE ROMANS

1.1 The author of the Letter to the Romans

There is a widely spread consensus among scholars that the apostle Paul is the author of
Romans. Not only because of the first word of the epistle, Pau~lov (1:1: Pau~lov dou~lov Xristou~
4
0Ihsou~, “Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus”) , and the two passages where he speaks in the first
person singular about his own situation (1:8-15; 15:22-33), but also because style and themes of
the letter are typically Pauline. His usual topics such as the righteousness of God, the relationship
between Jewish and Gentile Christians, the grace of God, unity and equality, and sin, are all
found in Romans too. In order to examine the intentions of this letter, on which a variety of
opinions are held, it is necessary to know more about Paul himself, especially those facts that are
relevant to the letter and the topic of this thesis.
The Acts of the Apostles tell us Paul was born in Tarsus and was sent to Jerusalem in
order to become a pupil of Gamaliel. Apparently he was trained there in the Pharisaic
interpretation of Scriptures which later on he would use in his letters. Paul’s familiarity with both
the Greek (Acts 9:29)5 and the Hebrew (Acts 22:2; Phil. 3:5)6 language made him perfectly fit
for a bridging function between Hellenists and Hebrews. This could well be the background of
his statement that God had chosen him for the Gentile mission (Gal. 1:15: “who had set me apart,
from my being in my mother's womb”).7 Paul seemed the right man in the right place.
Paul was a man of principles. According to his own statement in Gal. 1:13 (“how I used to
persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it”) and to the narrative in Acts
9:1 (“Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord”) he was a
scrupulous prosecutor of the disciples of the Lord. But the miraculous event on the way to
Damascus caused him to convert radically (Acts 9:3-5).

4
Unless it is otherwise indicated, in this thesis I render my own translations.
5
See Acts 9:29: “And he was talking and disputing with the Hellenists”.
6
See Acts 22:2: “When they heard he was addressing them in the Hebrew language…”; see also Phil. 3:5
where Paul states: (I Am) “circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew
of Hebrews”.
7
See also K. HAACKER, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer (THKNT 6), Leipzig, Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt, 1999, p. 1.
 9

As said above, Paul experienced this event as being called by God. The fervent
prosecutor became an ardent advocate of life in Christ. As opposed to the prophets in the
Scriptures, Paul did not protest but almost immediately began his mission that is, preaching the
Gospel to Jews and Gentiles. Paul acted as an apostle and he felt that way (Gal. 2:8: “for he who
worked through Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised worked also through me in mine to
the Gentiles”; 1 Cor. 15:9-10a: “For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an
apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am”). He
was called to go and speak in God’s name;8 the authority of God was in Paul’s preaching.
From his birth onwards Paul held citizenship of both Tarsus and Rome (Acts 21:39;
9
22:28). In legal and political matters he had as many rights as every citizen of Rome. It is most
likely that this citizenship gave Paul access to officials and authorities who were settled in the
capitals of the provinces. These capital cities – Paul’s favourite places for his missionary works –
gave him the opportunity to meet prominent and high ranking people and at the same time they
enabled him to reach a larger audience than just the people in the countryside. Moreover, staying
in cities increased the possibility of finding co-workers for his mission, both men and women.
Paul started his missionary works in the region between Jerusalem and Damascus.10 He
stepped forward as a witness of Jesus as the Christ, and tried to convert his fellow Jews in the
synagogues and win them for the Jesus movement. But many did not accept his gospel. He also
addressed the Gentiles, especially those who sympathized with the synagogue communities, the
so-called God-fearers. In fact, the mission to the Gentiles became Paul’s main task, given to him
by God (Rom. 15:16: “to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles”). But his fellow-Jews
were never really out of his mind and the way he preached shows he was aware of their presence.
He still tried to convince them “and save some of them” (11:14b: “kai& sw&sw tina_v e0c au0tw~n”).
After many years,11 Paul travelled from Jerusalem to the north, first to Antioch and
further on and off around the shores of the Mediterranean world, to cities like Thessalonica,

8
In the third chapter I will deal with Paul’s apostolic self-image more extensively.
9
See Acts 21:39: “Paul replied, ‘I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no insignificant city; and I
beg you, allow me to speak to the people.’ ” Acts 22:28: “The commander answered, ‘I acquired this citizenship by
paying a large sum.’ Paul said, ‘But I am one by birth.’ ”
10
See Gal. 1:17-18: “I went into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. Then, after three years I went up
to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days”; cf. Acts 9:22: “But Saul became increasingly more
powerful, and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Christ” and v. 26: “And
after he had arrived in Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples”.
11
See also Gal. 2:1: “Then, after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem”.
 10

Corinth and Philippi. According to Acts, Paul chose those cities as founding places for new
communities, at first by order of the community in Antioch, and later in growing independence
of the latter. He felt confident that the Gospel would transform the members of the communities
as much as this had worked for him. In this mission he still was a man of principles, though the
principles evidently had changed. He was very keen on earning his own living without being
paid by the communities he visited, and therefore he practised the trade of tent making. As a
matter of fact, he demanded such a principled attitude from every member of the communities,
both towards earning their own living and towards matters of faith. By writing letters he kept in
touch with the communities he once had founded. This worked both ways: the newly-converted
followers were able to get an answer to their questions and Paul was able to inspire them when
he felt they needed more teaching or encouragement.
It is quite understandable Paul desired to visit the capital of the Roman Empire once in
his lifetime. Already before he planned to go to Rome missionary workers had founded
communities there. Therefore he planned the visit not as a mission to the Romans but as a
journey to make a Westwards mission possible (15:24: “as soon as I go to Spain; for I hope to
see you in passing and to be helped on my journey to that place by you”). He felt his work in the
east of the empire was done while a new challenge lay ahead. As a preparation for his visit he
wrote this letter to the Romans while he was still in Corinth. On that moment he was on his way
to Jerusalem to hand on the collection money, gathered from newly-founded Gentile
communities and destined for the predominantly Jewish communities in Jerusalem. This was not
an easy job and Paul was worried if it would be accepted without new disputes and struggle. I do
not think he really feared for his life but obviously he was not happy with the situation and he
asked the Romans for their support in prayers.12
From the last chapter of Romans it appears that Paul had established a large network.
Phoebe is the first person to be mentioned here and Paul had planned a special role for her, as we
will see below. The greeting list shows a number of co-workers and leaders of house churches
whom he had met before. He was looking forward to meeting all of them before he was going to
Spain. But, though Paul had not planned it, Rome turned out to be his final destination.

12
See Rom. 15:30-31: “I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by our lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the
spirit, to support me in prayers to God on my behalf, that I will be spared the disbelievers in Judea, and that my
service for Jerusalem will be acceptable to the holy ones.”
 11

1.2 The purpose of the Letter to the Romans

Most commentators agree that the Letter to the Romans has been composed in early
spring 57 CE.13 In spite of being the first Pauline letter in the Bible, Romans had actually been
the last one he composed. It is the only Pauline letter to an audience Paul did not know. None of
the communities in Rome had been founded by him. Therefore this letter is different from his
other letters. It is lacking the usual answer to questions or problems in the community, and
certainly missing a specific teaching lesson. As Paul himself notices he wrote just to remind
them of some things as a testimony of God’s grace to him (15:15: “because of the grace given
me by God”).
The inquiries into the purpose of the letter have gained renewed attention over the last
decades. It is obvious Paul did not mean to visit Rome for a missionary reason. It would even be
against his principle of non-interference to preach the Gospel where others went before him
(15:20: “And thus I aspired to preach the gospel, not where Christ was known, so that I would
not build on someone else's foundation”).14 Therefore, such a Roman mission could never have
been the purpose of his letter. At this stage of my investigation I call attention to the Spanish
mission coming more and more into sight. But first we have to deal with other theories which
still have their adherents.
For a long time Romans has been given the status of the repository of Christian theology.
In this view the content of the letter has a universal and everlasting meaning as a summary of
Christian beliefs. This theory takes into account neither Paul’s situation nor Rome’s. Ulrich
Wilckens thought that in this document Paul asks the Christians in Rome to support the Spanish
mission but at the same time Wilckens suggested that this would be not the main purpose of his
letter.15 Contrary to Wilckens, however, I agree with Robert Jewett that the support of the
Spanish mission is indeed the main purpose of Romans. Jewett follows the lead of recent

13
See J. R. EDWARDS, Romans (New International Biblical Commentary Series, Vol. 6), Peabody, MA –
Carlisle, Hendrickson – Paternoster Press, 1995, p. 6; see also R. JEWETT, Romans, p. 18. Both commentaries point
to a consensus about the year as well as the place of the composition of the letter.
14
See also R. JEWETT, Romans, p. 82; The meaning of this statement is further explained by Wolf-Henning
Ollrog in W. -H. OLLROG, Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter. Untersuchungen zu Theorie und Praxis der Paulinischen
Mission (WMANT 50), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1979, p. 177, and it will return more extensively
in the section on Paul’s apostolic self-image in the third chapter of this thesis.
15
See U. WILCKENS, Der Brief an die Römer, (EKK, VI / 1, Röm. 1-5), Zürich – Neukirchen-Vluyn,
Benzinger Verlag – Neukirchener Verlag, 1978, p. 34.
 12

developments that view the letter as Christian rhetoric with the purpose to persuade its
audience.16 Paul hoped to gain goodwill and support for his venture and all his words are written
in perspective of this goal.
Other commentators view the letter as Paul’s ‘last will’ and this idea is above all based on
the summarizing repetition of themes of previous letters. Klaus Haacker believes that the time of
writing, just before the journey to Jerusalem, is also of great importance.17 Paul took into account
the life threatening situation in Jerusalem. Would his collection money be accepted or were the
Jerusalem communities still strongly opposed to his Gentile mission? Therefore he asked the
Romans to pray for him. Against this background we could see Romans as Paul’s last will.
Haacker notices that we must take this interpretation seriously since for the writing of a last will
the subjective near-death experience is decisive, not the objective one.
As I said before, I do not think Paul really felt that much of a threat. He was severely
concerned that the disunity in Jewish-Gentile relationships might be a menace to his efforts for a
universal religion.18 It would be a great disappointment to him if the collection would not be
accepted, because then oneness was even further out of sight. So there was a threat, but to him it
was not his life that was at stake. Moreover, in case of an imprisonment Paul would have relied
on his privileges as a Roman citizen if we may believe Acts 22:25 (“Is it permitted to you to
scourge a man if he is a Roman citizen and not condemned?”). If he really felt his life was in
danger, would he then have undertaken all the efforts for the journey to Rome and made the
preparations for the Spanish mission? He not only had to look after himself but he also had to
take care of all the co-workers and others who were involved in this mission. In sum, the theory
of Romans as Paul’s ‘last will’ is a way to look at it in hindsight, once we know the events that
had happened. We now know Paul’s life ended in Rome, and no more letters would follow.
Some scholars conceive of Romans in a sense of a missionary letter. Robert Jewett shows
the different ways commentators interpret its mission.19 One interpretation is dealing with the
conversion of Jews; Paul tried to win the Jews for his Christian movement. One of the verses
indicating this is 11:14: “that somehow I make my own people jealous and save some of them”.
16
See R. JEWETT, Romans, p. 23.
17
See K. HAACKER, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer, p. 9.
18
We must bear in mind that universal in Paul’s days was not the same as universal in our days. His
mission to the Gentiles of ‘all nations’ was limited to the nations on the east and north side of the Mediterranean,
although other nations, within and outside the Roman Empire, were also known. We can only guess what could
have been his next journey if he would have lived longer and had succeeded in Spain.
19
See for this paragraph also R. JEWETT, Romans, pp. 87-88;
 13

And another way of a missionary interpretation is dealing with the coexistence of Jewish
Christians and Gentile Christians; since the conflicts between the conservative Jewish
community and the liberal minded Gentiles threatened the unity of the church in Rome, Paul
tried to make them accept the diversities. This can be read in 14:1: “Accept those who are weak
in faith but not by disputing differences”. These conceptions include a mission that was restricted
to the Romans, thus to communities that were not founded by Paul. The interpretation that is
more and more accepted goes beyond this restriction and therewith it avoids the violation of
Paul’s non-interference principle that is mentioned above. Now the mission to the barbarians in
Spain is seen as the main purpose of the letter. However, until Jewett’s study this theory has not
taken into account the cultural situation in Spain. Without the knowledge of these circumstances
it is not clear why Paul needed the help from the Romans for his mission to Spain.
The cultural situation in Spain at that time shows that a mission there could not succeed
without a financial support.20 Since there were no synagogues or Jewish communities in Spain it
would be impossible to find free shelter for the night in such places, like Paul and other
wandering missionaries were used to in the East. Even Paul’s ideology of self-supporting life and
doing missionary labour alongside with it, seemed to be impossible in Spain, due to language
problems. Before the mission really could get started, many preparations had to be made. Paul’s
desire to visit Rome might therefore have had its ground in establishing a base camp for his
proposed expansion to the West, and arranging all kinds of organizations around this venture. At
this moment the crucial role of Phoebe comes into the picture. Paul requested the Romans to
provide her with whatever she needs “for she has become a prosta&tiv of many and of myself as
well” (16:2: “kai_ ga_r au0th_ prosta&tiv pollw~n e)genh&qh kai_ e0mou~ au0tou~ “).21
Harmony and peace among the members of the various Roman communities is the main
issue in the letter, since, as Paul emphasized, all are equal. Paul addressed the Gentile Christians
in Rome, who at the time were the majority of Christian believers in this city.22 Until then the
circumstances in Rome might have been similar to those threats which Paul had experienced in
Jerusalem. In Rome too there were violent reactions against synagogue members who tried to
win over brothers of the synagogue for the faith in Christ. This elucidates the measure Claudius

20
See for this paragraph also R. JEWETT, Romans, pp. 74-76.
21
Since the rendering of prosta&tiv is one of the main subjects of this thesis, my translation will be given
later on in its related section.
22
See for this paragraph also U. WILCKENS, Der Brief an die Römer, (VI / 1), pp. 35-39.
 14

had taken in his Edict in 49 CE. Since all disturbances had occurred in the vicinity of the
synagogues Claudius regarded these as Jewish riots and answered with expulsion of all Jews and
therewith of all Jewish Christians too. However, the Gentile Christians did not have to leave
Rome, because for Claudius it was not clear that they were part of the Jewish community.23
When a decade later the Jewish Christians returned to Rome they found a strongly organized
Gentile-Christian community and this, obviously, led to increasing tensions between Jewish and
Gentile Christians. This is the tense situation of Paul’s audience when he wrote the Letter to the
Romans.
Throughout the letter, in an ongoing dialogue with and strongly rooted in Judaism, Paul
points to God’s righteousness in his salvation power for both Jews and Gentiles. He urges the
strong, the Gentile Christians, not to boast and to think they have a better position. For God, and
thus for Paul too, all are equal. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, as in Galatia
there is no difference between Jew and Hellene, all are one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28: “There is
neither Jew nor Greek… for you are all one in Christ Jesus”, ou0k e@ni 0Ioudai~ov ou0de_ $Ellhn
…pa&ntev ga_r u9mei~v ei#v e0ste e0n Xristw~? 0Ihsou). Moreover, everyone had to be humble because
one’s position is not obtained by one’s own merits but by the grace of God.
The reason Paul emphasized this harmony and peace has everything to do with the
planned mission to Spain. If the Roman Christians continued to be divided they would certainly
not be willing to join in fellowship with the barbarians, of whom they might have thought that
they could not even be educated as civilized people. Paul had experienced the situation of
divided communities before in Galatia and resolved the problem there. He knew how to cope
with this problem, except here in Rome these communities are not ‘his’. Maybe that is the reason
why Romans has the character of a summarizing repetition of former letters. Paul is trying to
make known to them his way of preaching the Gospel. He reveals to them God’s impartiality and
emphasizes that the faith in Christ is the only condition to be saved.

23
In Paul’s days Christianity was not yet separated from Judaism. Recent studies present the ‘parting of the
ways’ more and more as a long process that goes beyond a few decades; see also J. D. G. DUNN, The Parting of the
Ways : Between Christianity and Judaism and their Significance for the Character of Christianity, London –
Philadelphia, PA, SCM Press – Trinity Press International, 1991, pp. 238-243; see also H. VAN DE SANDT – D.
FLUSSER, eds., The Didache. Its Jewish Sources and its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity (CRINT 5), Assen,
2002, p. 350.
 15

CHAPTER 2
A LITERARY CRITICAL CONSIDERATION
ON THE LAST CHAPTER OF ROMANS

2.1 A text-critical analysis

Text critics have discovered fifteen different forms of the Letter to the Romans, including
one that does not exist anymore and that has been described by the church fathers. A so called
Marcionite edition was supposed to contain chapter 1 to 14, thus without the chapters 15 and 16.
Due to Origen’s testimony, rendered by Rufinus, in which he accuses Marcion of falsifying the
writing by removing the two last chapters of Romans and of some other alterations24, the
fourteen-chapter edition was for a long time attributed to Marcion.25 Much later new evidences
showed this form was geographically too widespread in a too short period to come from only one
source.26 Many vivid debates arose whether Romans originally existed of fourteen, fifteen or
sixteen chapters. Much of the research focussed on the position and the content of the doxology
(16:25-27)27 to establish the original text form of the Letter to the Romans. Some of these
theories will return in this section since the outcome is of great importance for the two verses on
Phoebe.

24
See C. P. HAMMOND BAMMEL, Der Römerbrieftext des Rufin und seine Origenes-Übersetzung (Vetus
Latina,10), Freiburg, Herder, 1985, p. 213: ”Marcion hat die Schlußdoxologie und alles ab omne quod non est ex
fide peccatum est (14:23b) bis zum Ende abgeschnitten”. See also on p. 229 the Latin text of the Origen comment on
16:25-27 with this accusation.
25
Marcion would have made these changes because he ascertained a discontinuity in the God of the New
Testament, the Saviour, good and merciful, and the God of the Old Testament who created the world and ruled it the
hard way. He felt that since the advent of Jesus the God of the Old Testament was replaced by the God Jesus calls
his Father. For this reason Marcion rejected Old Testament references and altered the texts. See also A. VON
HARNACK, Marcion: das Evangelium vom Fremden Gott (TUGAL 45), Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1985; B. ALAND, Marcion / Marcioniten, (TRE 22/1), Berlin – New York, NY, De Gruyter, 1992,
pp. 89-101.
26
See H. GAMBLE, JR., The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans. A Study in Textual and Literary
Criticism (SD 42), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1977, p. 33; see also U. SCHMID, Marcion und sein Apostolos.
Rekonstruktion und Historische Einordnung der Marcionitischen Paulusbriefausgabe (ANTF 25), Berlin – New
York, NY, De Gruyter, 1995.
27
Rom. 16:25-27: “Now to him, who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of
Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages, but has now been
disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the
eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith- to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ!
Amen.” (ESV).
 16

Until about the seventies of the twentieth century there has been a widespread consensus
that Rom.16 originally did not belong to the Letter to the Romans. Up till then it was rather
thought to be part of a Pauline letter addressed to Ephesus.28 The number and the origin of the
people mentioned in the greeting list of chapter 16 have made many scholars move to this
conclusion. But the number of people Paul obviously knew need not be a problem. It is precisely
because he himself was unknown to the Romans that Paul needed friends to recommend him.
The long list would surely provide in this strategy. For some scholars the recommendation of
Phoebe was one of the reasons to adhere to the theory of a fifteen-chapter letter.29 For them it
was more likely that Paul recommended her to a church he knew well and which therefore
recognized his authority. I agree with Donald Guthrie who refutes this theory by remarking that
if Paul had no authority to commend anyone to a church that did not know him, he then equally
had no authority to write to them as he did in the fifteen chapters before.30 It is also likely that if
Phoebe was unknown in Rome this could in fact be the reason why Paul explains so
‘extensively’ to them who she is.
For most scholars the various positions of the doxology in the different manuscripts
constitutes the biggest problem of textual history.31 In the past its position at the end of chapter

28
Some adherents of the Ephesian destination of chapter 16 were Theophilus M. Taylor, Thomas W.
Manson and Walter Schmithals. See T. M. TAYLOR, “The Place of Origin of Romans”, in JBL 67 (1948) 281-295; T.
W. MANSON, Studies in Gospels and Epistles, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1962, pp. 237- 241; W.
SCHMITHALS, Die Briefe des Paulus in ihrer Ursprünglichen Form (Zürcher Werkkommentare zur Bibel), Zürich,
Theologischer Verlag, 1984, p. 158. But also more recent comments support this theory, see for instance C. F.
WHELAN, “Amica Pauli: the Role of Phoebe in the Early Church”, in JSNT 49 (1993) 67-85, pp. 72-73.
29
Next to those mentioned in n. 26 James Moffatt and James I. H. McDonald also rejected the sixteenth
chapter as belonging to the Letter to the Romans. They identified it as an independent letter of recommendation for
Phoebe, although not specifically meant for the Ephesians. See J. MOFFATT, An Introduction to the Literature of the
New Testament, Edinburgh, Clark, 1927, pp. 131-148; J. I. H. MCDONALD, “Was Romans XVI a Separate Letter?”,
in NTS 16 (1969-1970) 369-372.
30
See D. GUTHRIE, “The Epistle to the Romans”, in ID.(ed.), New Testament Introduction, Fourth edition
(rev.), Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press, 1990, p. 413.
31
See J. B. LIGHTFOOT, “M. Renan’s Theory of the Epistle to the Romans”, in Journal of Philology Vol. II,
p. 264 sq., (1869), repr. in ID., Biblical Essays, London, Macmillan and Company, 1893, repr. ID., Grand Rapids,
MI, Baker Book House, 1979, pp. 287-320; F. J. A. HORT, “On the End of the Epistle to the Romans”, in Journal of
Philology Vol. III, p. 51 sq., (1871), repr. in J. B. LIGHTFOOT, Biblical Essays, Cambridge – London, Macmillan and
Company, 1893, repr. ID., Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Book House, 1979, pp. 321-351; see also Joseph B. Lightfoot’s
reaction on Fenton J. A. Hort’s criticism on his theory: J. B. LIGHTFOOT, “The Epistle to the Romans”, in Journal of
Philology Vol. III, p. 193 sq., (1871), repr. in ID., Biblical Essays, London, Macmillan and Company, 1893, repr.
ID., Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Book House, 1979, pp. 352-374; see B. M. METZGER, A Textual Commentary on the
Greek New Testament, London – New York, NY, United Bible Societies, 1975, corrected edition, 533-536, p. 536:
the Editorial Committee of this commentary had decided “to include the doxology at its traditional place at the close
of the epistle, but enclosed within square brackets to indicate a degree of uncertainty that it belongs there”, see also
p. 540 where this comment is repeated; see D. GUTHRIE, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 417; see also K. ALAND, - B.
ALAND, Der Text des Neuen Testaments; Einführung in die Wissenschaftlichen Ausgaben sowie in Theorie und
 17

15 in the papyrus î 46 was reason to opt for a fifteen-chapter letter,32 although î 46 is the only
manuscript that presents it this way. Harry Gamble analysed the position and the content of this
doxology as well as the form and style of the Pauline epistolary conclusions.33 Usually the
Pauline letters end with a grace-benediction and therefore the doxology at this position does not
fit the Pauline style and structure. It also results in too many concluding elements at one place.
Gamble ascribes the changing positions of the doxology to the efforts of unifying the various text
forms. From an added concluding element in the fourteen-chapter editions, where a real Pauline
ending seemed to be lacking, the doxology (16:25-27) became the ending of the-sixteen chapter
text forms. This way it formed a double conclusion, since these editions already hold the
concluding Pauline grace-benediction (16:24).34
Gamble considers this doxology as non-Pauline and not belonging to the original Letter
to the Romans. The Pauline concluding benediction always includes the consistent elements
h9 xa&riv (“the grace”), meta& (“with”) and the ‘addressee’.35 The doxology lacks all these
elements. Others also indicate that the wording of the doxology is not in keeping with Paul’s
teaching elsewhere.36 Like Harry Gamble, Raymond Brown notices that the concluding
doxology is missing from many manuscripts, and that it may well be an earlier liturgical addition
of a copyist or an editor in order to make it appropriate for public reading in church.37 While
among others referring to Peter Corssen,38 Robert Jewett erases the doxology and restores 16:24

Praxis der Modernen Textkritik, Stuttgart, Biblia-Druck, 1982, p. 297, where they speak of this phenomenon as
“völligen Chaos” and “völliges Kunterbunt”.
32
See H. GAMBLE, JR., The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans, p. 96.
33
See H. GAMBLE, JR., The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans. What follows in this paragraph is
also based on Gamble’s study, see pp. 56-95.
34
See also P. CORSSEN, “Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte des Römerbriefen”, in ZNW 10 (1909) 1-45, p. 12:
“Mit diesem Segenwunsch als Schluß des Briefes konkurriert die Doxologie, die implizite einen ähnlichen Wunsch
enthält”. Regarding this, it is noteworthy that v. 24 is omitted in the text according to Nestle-Aland (27th rev. ed.); in
this edition vv. 25-27 form the concluding verses. In the critical apparatus v. 24 is mentioned as a variant reading.
35
See H. GAMBLE, JR., The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans, p. 66. The wording is one of the
reasons why Harry Gamble rejects the doxology as the ending of the Letter to the Romans. The second reason is its
changing position related to the presence of shorter forms of the letter which never can be credited to Paul; see p.
123.
36
Joseph B. Lightfoot supposed “that the doxology belonged to the abridged recension and not to the
original epistle”, and that “it has nothing in common with the usual endings of St Paul’s Epistles”, see J. B.
LIGHTFOOT, “The Epistle to the Romans”, p. 317; Peter Corssen thought the wording was Marcionite, and if not
from Marcion himself then “so muß man annehmen, daß die Doxologie in der marcionitischen Kirche entstanden
ist” in order to end the letter’s edition as the Marcionites knew it. See P. CORSSEN, “Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte
des Römerbriefes”, p. 34.
37
See R. BROWN, An Introduction to the New Testament (ABRL), New York, NY, Doubleday, 1997, p.
575.
38
See P. CORSSEN, “Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte des Römerbriefes”, pp. 11-13.
 18

as the final verse. Also Gamble already noticed that this benediction is only lost or displaced in
those manuscripts where the doxology stands at the end of chapter 16.39 Therefore this verse
most likely constitutes the very end of the letter.
According to Robert Jewett, another passage, Rom. 16:17-20, does not belong to the
original text either; it should therefore be left out.40 He emphasizes the rhetorical state of the
letter. In a rhetorical analysis he points out that 15:14-16:16+21-24 contain the peroratio and
therewith the climax of the letter. He notices that the interpolations corrupt the argumentative
power and the ethos of the author who created this letter. I agree with his statement that if this
has been left out the natural flow of the greetings is restored. However, that does not mean this
interpolation could not be Paul’s words. It may be an excursion prompted after he greeted the
addressees in the name of “All the congregations of Christ” (16:16: e0kklhsi&ai pa~sai tou~
Xristou~) in order to urge them to beware of people who call themselves Christians but are not.41
Therefore I do prefer to leave the passage 15:14-16:24 unimpaired. Moreover, Gamble’s analysis
shows that hortatory remarks like these are appropriate to the pattern of Pauline epistolary
conclusions, even when this time the sequence is unusual.42 It is not right to expect no variations
within a consistent pattern and withhold Paul from adapting the form of the letter to the service
of his gospel.43
All this points to the conclusion that textual evidence for chapter16 as part of Romans,
with the exception of one interpolation (16:25-27), is very strong and that this chapter forms an
integral part of the letter to the Romans. This is of great importance for the words devoted to
Phoebe in this last chapter, since the context is a determining factor to their meaning.

39
See H. GAMBLE, JR., The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans, p. 130.
40
See R. JEWETT, Romans, pp. 6-8.
41
I have come unto this interpretation on the occasion of Friedrich Horn’s statement that if we are too
much focussed on the rhetorical genre while interpreting the letter, we might loose sight of other signs in the text,
see F. W. HORN, “Das Apostolische Selbstverständnis des Paulus nach Römer 15”, in U. SCHNELLE (ed.), The Letter
to the Romans (BETL 226), Leuven – Paris – Walpole, MA, Peeters, 2009, 225-246, p. 227.
42
The Pauline epistolary conclusions usually started with hortatory remarks, where after peace-wish,
greetings, and grace-benediction completed the letter. See H. GAMBLE, JR., The Textual History of the Letter to the
Romans, pp. 82-95.
43
See also H. GAMBLE, JR., The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans, p. 83.
 19

Textual criticism of Rom. 16:1-2

16:144
a Suni&sthmi de_ u9mi~n foi&bhn
b th_n a0delfh_n h9mw~n,
c ou]san kai_ dia&konon th~v e0kklhsi&av th~v e0n Kegxreai~v,

16:2
a i#na prosde&chsqe e0n kuri&w? a0ci&wv tw~n a9gi&wn
b kai_ parasth~te au0th~? e0n w{? a@n u9mw~n xrh&?zh? pra&gmati:
c kai_ ga_r au0th_ prosta&tiv pollw~n e0genh&qh kai_ e0mou~ au0tou~.

Several textual variants need to be discussed here, and the eclectic method will be used.
This method is practiced by the majority of present-day textual critics. The various text witnesses
are weighted against one another.45 The main concerns are identifying unintentional mistakes
such as additions or omissions of a copyist, intentional variants to correct grammar and style
divergences, improvements to conform quotations to other biblical passages, and corrections
made out of doctrinal intentions.46 Only those variants will be discussed here that are considered
to affect the meaning of the pericope under study.
It is not an easy task how to decide between some of the variant readings of 16:1-2. Both
the papyrus î 46 and the minuscule 1739 are of great importance for the Pauline letters.47 The
minuscule 1739 is dated to the tenth century and alongside the text it also provides a marginal
commentary. î 46 is up to now the most original manuscript of the Pauline letters since it has

44
The rendering of the Greek text differs in two words of that in Nestle-Aland (27th rev. ed.), since it is
adjusted to the text critical analysis that follows in this section. It concerns the inclusion of kai_ by removing the
brackets in v. 1c, and the deleting of au0th_n in v. 2a.
45
In order to practice such text critical work, Kurt and Barbara Aland have presented twelve basic rules,
see K. ALAND, - B. ALAND, Der Text des Neuen Testaments, pp. 282-283.
46
Many scholars agree that the interests of the later church are reflected in some of the changes. Some of
them are meant to emphasize the apostolic authority of Paul, e.g. in Rom.15:7 and 16:6 the including ‘us’ is changed
in the excluding ‘you’, so Paul is now ranked above his audience. Some variants in chapter 16 seem to be meant to
downplay the leadership role of women in the early church, e.g. the diminutive form Pri&skillan (Priscilla) in stead
of the polite, formal name Pri&skan (Prisca), and the change in a few manuscripts of the female name Junia in the
masculine Junias. We will see to this later.
47 46
Barbara Aland notices about î that this papyrus is for all Pauline letters “aus vielen Gründen, nicht nur
um seines hohen Alters willen, außerordentlich bedeutsam”, see K. JUNACK – B. ALAND, Das Neue Testament auf
Papyrus; II. Die Paulinische Briefe (ANTF 12), Berlin – New York, NY, De Gruyter, 1989, p. VII.
 20

been dated to the second century. The text is written in majuscules on sheets.48 It would be
tempting to give the highest weight to this oldest manuscript since it is most closely to the time
of the author of Romans. However, it is likely that changes already have been made in the times
before the New Testament had acquired the canonical status. Although other variants may have a
majority, they too are not necessarily more original. Each copy that has been made automatically
adopted the intended or unintended alterations of the former.49 Copies descended from the
original text may be few in number but therefore not less accurate. That creates an impasse.
Maybe a look at î 46 will move our position.
One of the blessings of the worldwide internet is the fact that scholars use the possibility
to present their findings to a wider audience. The University of Michigan is one of the
institutions which provide photocopies of old manuscripts. People can look at the papyri in an
easy chair at home and thus can see for themselves one of those sheets that have been written in
the second century. On the lower part of the thirty eighth sheet of î 46 the two verses about
Phoebe appear.50 On the right sight it is frayed and the final characters of the lines have been
lost. In the reproduction below the brackets and the italics present the characters that are thought
to have been lost.51
:/СUNIСTHMIDEUMEINFOIBH [N

THNADELFHNUMw NOUСANKAIDIA [KO

NONTHСEKKLHСIAСTHСENKENXRAI[AIСINAAUTHN

PRODEcHСTEEN k®w® AcIw СTw N [AGIw N

KAIPARAСTHTEAUTHENw EAN [UMw N

XRHZHPRAGMATIKAIGARAUTH [PROСTATIС

KAIALLw N POLLw NEGEN [HQHKAIEMOUAUTOU

48 46
The University of Michigan presents besides many others also the sheets of î . Rom. 16:1-2 has been
written on sheet LH , and follows to 16:25-27 which is inserted between 15:33 and 16:1-23. Consulted June 2011,
online: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/a/apis/x-3559/6238_38.tif.
49
See also K. ELLIOTT – I. MOIR, Manuscripts and the Text of the New Testament; An Introduction for
English Readers, Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1995, p. 6.
50
The page numbers of this manuscript are not original but from a second hand, see K. JUNACK – B.
ALAND, Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus, p. XLIII.
51
Some of these ‘lost words’ will be examined later in this section, see p. 22.
 21

The problem of the various readings can be solved by simply referring to the Nestle-
Aland critical apparatus and using the great expertise of the editors. Though in the first verse
about Phoebe, even for them it has not been evident which reading is to be preferred. The
brackets in 16:1c, ou]san [kai_] dia&konon (“she is [also] dia&konon”),52 show that there is not yet a
decision made whether kai_ belongs to the original text or not. With regard to the most valuable
manuscripts there are as many witnesses for as against the brackets.53 Bearing in mind the
remark of Barbara Aland that î 46 is extremely meaningful for Pauline letters, and the fact that
the omission in some other manuscripts can be seen as a common slip, I prefer to join the
scholars who argue for the inclusion of kai_ and thus remove the brackets.54 When kai_ is included
the qualification of Phoebe as “dia&konon of the church in Cenchreae” (dia&konon th~v e0kklhsi&av
th~v e0n Kegxreai~v) is more emphasized than without it. The exclusion would merely result in a
blandly remark. If kai_ is included it reads: “she is our a0delfh_n (“sister”), and also dia&konon ” in
stead of “our sister who just happens to be dia&konon ”. Since Paul obviously found it necessary to
introduce Phoebe well to the Romans – why else those two verses – he would have used all the
words needed to inform them correctly.
The presence of the adversative particle de& is also important to this study. Only in a few
manuscripts this particle is omitted, in the original reading of D dating from the sixth century,
and in the Greek-Latin manuscripts F and G, both from the ninth century, and both from western
origin. The Nestle-Aland edition inserts this particle without any doubts. Since this particle is
used when expressing opposition or in transitions, its presence proves once more that chapter 16
could not have been an independent letter.55 Therefore the words devoted to Phoebe cannot be
excluded from the Letter to the Romans.
Then there is also the question about the origin of au0thn (“her”) in 16:2a. In the critical
apparatus of Nestle-Aland we can see that some manuscript copyists have reversed the au0th_n
prosde&chsqe (“her you have to receive”) in prosde&chsqe au0th&n (“receive her”). Robert Jewett

52
I will not yet translate dia&konon since it will be discussed in depth in the fourth chapter.
53 2
Looking to the first four manuscripts mentioned we see the omission of kai_ in ¥*, A, C , and D, and the
46 2 th
texts including kai_ in î , ¥ , B, and C*, see the critical apparatus of Nestle-Aland (27 rev. ed.).
54
See C. E. B. CRANFIELD, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC) Vol.
II: Commentary on Romans IX-XVI and essays, Edinburgh, Clark, 1979, p. 781; see also R. JEWETT, Romans, p. 941.
55
See C. E. B. CRANFIELD, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, p. 780:
“This is simply the beginning of a new section”. See also J. A. FITZMEYER, Romans, A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary (AB 33), New York, NY, Doubleday, 1993, p. 729: ”Note the particle de_, which
implies that something has preceded; hence chap. 16 is hardly an independent composition”.
 22

categorizes this reversal in the same way as the omission of kai_ in 16:1c. The purpose would
have been to de-emphasize the role of Phoebe. In î 46 au0th&n could be lost or in fact even be
absent, and perhaps it is useful to take a closer look at this.
Although in î 46 the line endings do not match exactly as the beginnings do (see p. 20),
you can see one line that is notably longer filled in than the others. In this third line it seems that
originally AUTHN does not fit in, and some scholars conclude that its omission therefore reflects
the original text.56 Moreover, it is not uncommon in Greek that the pronoun is not rendered and
that it is assumed to be understood. Therefore, here the omission in the various manuscripts
could be no common slip but more common practice. For on account of the previous verse and
also the next one there is no doubt that it is Phoebe the Romans have to receive, whether au0th_n is
on the manuscript or not.
Certainly no common slip and not unintentional is the changing of prosta&tiv (“leader;
patron”) in parasta&tiv (“helper”) in 16:2c. While an omission can easily be seen and accepted
as a common slip, an addition or alteration like this can only be achieved by conscious efforts.
The alteration is only attested in two manuscripts, the western Greek-Latin manuscripts F and G.
Although few in number it is important to mention them here. A far-reaching change like this
proves that copyists have been willing to alter the text, whether on their own initiative or on that
of their principals. A misreading of the “O” into an “A” is very unlikely if not impossible, and
with the insertion of another “A” it strongly suggests that interpretation has caused this change.
According to Keith Elliott “medieval manuscripts do represent mostly the relatively standardized
and ecclesiastical approved version”.57 Church leaders based their ideas on the cultural situation
of their own time in which women leadership was accepted neither in society nor in church. This

56
See K. JUNACK – B. ALAND, Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus, p. 140: “aus Raumgründen ist die
Auslassung des authn sicher zu erschließen”. In this context it can also be noted that in the final clause of 16:2 in
46
î one can also think of characters that step out of line (see again p. 20). First a0llwn (“others”) is added before
pollwn (“many”), and at the end also au0tou (“self”). The space needed for au0tou in v. 2c is not as much as for
46
au0thn in v. 2a, but it is slightly more than for the other lines. Perhaps in î au0tou has been excluded. For Klaus
46
Junack and Barbara Aland this stepping out of line seems no problem for adapting the text for î as: kai_ allw~n
pollw~n e0genh&qh kai_ e0mou~ au0tou (“she has become for many others and also for myself”). To me, using both
allw~n pollw~n and e0mou~ au0tou seems superfluous. Both allw~n and au0tou do have the same purpose in this
verse, namely to emphasize the difference between pollw~n and Paul. Using one of these words is enough
46
clarifying for the role of Phoebe as prosta&tiv (“leader; patron”) of pollw~n and also of Paul himself. Since î
is the only text witness using both allw~n and au0tou, and more authoritative manuscripts (e.g. ¥, A, B) present this
text without allw~n, yet with au0tou, I will hold on to the latter, as rendered in Nestle-Aland (27th de. rev.).
57
See K. ELLIOTT – I. MOIR, Manuscripts and the Text of the New Testament, p. 30.
 23

alteration in 16:2 therewith supports the theory that church leaders have tried to minimize the
leadership role of women in the early church, even while Paul himself shows otherwise.

2.2 A compositional analysis

It is likely that Paul’s situation is the very reason why this letter is so comprehensive.
Paul found himself on a turning point in his missionary labour. He was not pushed to give a
quick answer to a community that was in need of his support. This time he thought about his own
past and looked to the future. He had the opportunity to reflect easily upon what he wanted to tell
his audience. The calmly way he was now able to dictate this letter may be opposite to the flow
of words in which he had dictated the others. The result is a letter without interrupted reasoning
or interrupted sentences.
In spite of this, the nature of the text has been identified as equal to most of the New
Testament letters until scholars recently began a renewed study on the purpose of this letter. In
structuring the letter some scholars follow the usual division and show the more-or-less standard
format in New Testament letters and also in Romans.58 In the formal division generally four
parts of the letter are distinguished. First there is the Opening Formula, in which the author tells
who he is and to whom he writes his letter. Then there is the Thanksgiving part, and after this
comes the Body or Message of the letter. As for Paul’s letters this part is considerably longer
than the Bodies of ordinary letters. The letters end with a Concluding Formula, often with a wish
for good health and a word of farewell.
Raymond Brown presents a similar division. He still starts from the traditional view that
this is a letter like all the others in the New Testament,59 which results in the following partition:
1:1-15 forms the introduction and contains the Addressee, the Greeting, the Thanksgiving, and a
Proem about Paul’s wish to come to Rome.
1:16-11:36 is a Doctrinal Section in three parts and the greatest part of the letter
1:16-4:25 The uprightness of God which is revealed through the gospel.
5:1-8:39 God’s salvation for those who will be justified by faith.
9:1-11:36 God’s promises to Israel.

58
See R. BROWN, An Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 407-421.
59
See R. BROWN, An Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 564-575.
 24

12:1-15:13 After the main part there is a Hortatory Section divided into two.
12:1-13:14 The authoritative advice for Christian living.
14:1-15:13 The strong who owe love to the weak.
15:14-16:23 The Concluding Section is divided into two interrelated sections.
15:14-33 Paul’s travel plans and a blessing.
16:1-23 Recommendation for Phoebe and the greetings to Christians in Rome.
He also notices that Romans was meant to be persuasive on several spheres and that this
may explain the heavy use of the diatribe format.60 This is a technique of comprehensive
argumentation that above all has been used in rhetoric. These persuasive fields concern Paul’s
interest firstly, in explaining his pastoral ideas carefully in order to improve the relations
between Christians of different convictions at Rome; secondly, in giving the Romans a correct
perception of his apostolic ministry; thirdly, in stimulating them to become possible
intermediaries with their Jerusalem forbears, and paving the way for a favourable acceptance of
the collection;61 and finally in hoping to start a major mission in Spain by which Rome would
make an admirable base for this venture.
In the Second Concluding Section (16:1-23) Brown also pays attention to the opening
verses 16:1-2 and the role of Phoebe. He notices that since Paul wished to spend some time at
Rome, he also needed a good word put for him at that place. “First, Phoebe, a woman deacon of
the church of Cenchreae a few miles from where he is writing and a great help to him, is going to
Rome (and perhaps carrying this letter); she should be received well”.62 He does not present an
idea about the role of Phoebe in Rome except the possibility of her being the letter-carrier.
For others the persuasive character of the letter is most important. Robert Jewett
elucidates that the two main opinions about the genre of Romans are not in compliance with the
specific relation of Paul and the addressees.63 He does neither agree with the theory of a
theological treatise or a circular letter, nor with the theory of a situational letter equal to the other
Pauline letters. As said before, his commentary on Romans follows the lead of recent

60
In philosophical debates this genre was employed to demonstrate theses and answer objections; see also
R. BROWN, An Introduction to the New Testament, p. 564.
61
Raymond Brown agrees with other scholars who assume Christianity originally has been brought to
Rome by Jewish Christians from Jerusalem. If this is right they still would have influence to the Jerusalem
community authorities.
62
See R. BROWN, An Introduction to the New Testament, p. 574.
63
For this and the next section see R. JEWETT, Romans, pp. 29-30 and pp. 42-46.
 25

developments that view the letter as a work of Christian rhetoric meant to persuade.64 Structuring
the letter from this perspective highlights its purpose. I prefer this structure which also focusses
more on the meaning of the pericope under study.
In Robert Jewett’s view the Dispositio or arrangement of Romans shows a discourse that
is organized in a logical manner:

1:1-12 The introduction which is called exordium. This introduction is meant to establish
a relationship between Paul and his audience in Rome.
1:13-15 It is followed by the narratio which gives the background of Paul’s missionary
project. Paul has often been intended to come to Rome and to preach the gospel
there.
1:16-17 After this the propositio provides a short explanation of the thesis: the gospel as
the powerful embodiment of the righteousness of God.
1:18-15:13 The middle section is called the probatio. This provides the proofs of the thesis in
1:16-17 divided in four separate arguments.
1:18-4:25 Proof of the impartial righteousness of God who will judge both Jew and
Greek through grace alone.
5:1-8:39 Proof of the new life in Christ in which the importance of the observance
of the works of the Law is replaced by the faith in Christ.
9:1-11:36 Proof of the triumph of divine righteousness through the mysterious plan
of God by electing both Jews and Gentiles for salvation.
12:1-15:13 Proof about living together according to the gospel and the relation
between mutual welcome and a global mission.
15:14-16:16 and 16:21-2365 The conclusion is called the peroratio. It contains a summary of the
arguments and an appeal to participate in Paul’s missionary activities.

64
Seeing in Romans a rhetorical composition does not leave out the position of being a situational letter at
the same time. If Robert Jewett concludes that the main purpose of the letter is the Spanish Mission, then this is the
situational position of the letter. He is right when he sees the differences between Romans and the purely situational
letters, responding to questions or problems. In Romans the initiative of addressing the Roman Christians is with
Paul alone.
65
As noticed before, I would prefer to leave the passage 15:14-16:24 unimpaired. See also p. 18. Since this
interpolation (vv. 17-20) is not significant for this study, I adopt Jewett’s arrangement for now.
 26

The Composition of Rom. 15:14-16:16 and 16:21-24

Since this last part includes the verses about Phoebe it will be discussed in more detail. In
Robert Jewett’s proposal the position of the pericope about her demonstrates this woman’s
important role concerning the Letter to the Romans and Paul’s planned mission to Spain. The
peroratio, the climax of the letter, consists of two parts:

I
15:14-33 In the conclusion of his letter Paul reflects on his apostolic mission in the east and sees
his work there as finished. Now he plans to go on a mission to the Gentiles in the far
west. On his way to Spain he wants to stop in Rome and stay there for a while to enjoy
their company and to be supported on his way to Spain (15:24, “to be helped on my
journey to that place by you”). But first he has to hand on the collection in Jerusalem.
He feels most uncertain about this and therefore he asks the Roman Christians for their
prayers on behalf of a good result.
II
16:1-16.21-24
16:1-2 The recommendation of Phoebe and the appeal to provide her with whatever
she needs.
16:3-16 As usual the letter ends with greetings; only this time the list is much longer.
There are many Christians in Rome whom Paul has met before and who are able
to help Phoebe and himself.
16:21-23 Paul also passes greetings of co-workers to the Romans. In v.22 one can see the
unique occurrence of the name of the writer or secretary to whom Paul has
dictated this letter. Tertius is allowed here to write his personal greetings.
16:24 The benediction of the recipients ends this letter.

The verses 1-2 present an exceptional situation. It is very special that Phoebe’s name is
mentioned and that she is warmly recommended. The only other occurrence of such a type of
pleading in Pauline writings is presented in Phm. 10 where Paul does a warmly appeal for
 27

Onesimus.66 Yet the two verses about Phoebe in Rom.16 are the only information we get about
this woman who, until recently, has been persistently undervalued.67

66
Raymond Brown points to this occurrence in Phm. 10: “I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose
father I became in my imprisonment”, in R. BROWN, An Introduction to the New Testament, p. 452.
67
See recent studies as from Annette Merz and Elizabeth A. McCabe: A. MERZ, “Phöbe, Diakon(in) der
Gemeinde von Kenchreä”; E. A. MCCABE, “A Reevaluation of Phoebe in Romans 16:1-2 as a “Diakonos” and
“Prostatis”: Exposing the Inaccuracies of English Translations”, in ID. (ed.), Women in the Biblical World; A Survey
of Old and New Testament Perspectives, Lanham, MD, University Press of America, 2010, pp. 99-116.
 28

CHAPTER 3
THE RELATION A0PO&STOLOS – ENVOY
AND THE RELATION ENVOY – LETTER CARRIER

Being an a)po&stolov was most important to Paul. Throughout the Letter to the Romans
he emphasizes his apostleship (1:1: “called to be apostle”; 11:13: “I am an apostle to the
Gentiles”) and his Gentile mission (11:13; 15:15-16: “the grace given to me to be a minister in
Christ Jesus to the Gentiles”). From the two verses devoted to Phoebe and from her being the
possible letter carrier it may be concluded that one way or another she was going to participate in
this mission.68 Therefore, in order to understand what Phoebe’s role could have been, it is
important to know how Paul saw himself as an apostle. First, by analyzing the development in
the meaning of this noun and its cognates, it will be examined what generally is meant by
a)po&stolov (3.1). In the second section the focus is on what the apostolate meant to Paul (3.2).
From his letters in the New Testament we know that, when Paul was not personally
present, writing and sending letters was the most important way of contact between him and his
audience. These letters allowed him to go on teaching and inspiring the communities he once
founded. It is commonly assumed that the apostle dictated his message to someone else who
committed his words to paper. The process of dictating and writing, and also the role of the
secretary in this process will be investigated in the third section of this chapter (3.3). Finally,
since Phoebe is also sometimes mentioned as the letter carrier, this function will be examined in
the fourth section (3.4).

68
Many scholars consider Phoebe in relation to Romans as the letter carrier, see for instance R. JEWETT,
“Paul, Phoebe, and the Spanish Mission”, in J. NEUSNER – P. BORGERN – E.FRERICHS – R. HORSLEY (eds.), The
Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism, Philadelphia, PA, Fortress Press, 1988, pp. 142-161, 151-155;
see also A. MERZ, “Phöbe, Diakon(in) der Gemeinde von Kenchreä”, p. 129, and her concluding words on p. 140:
“Geblieben ist uns der Brief, den Phöbe im Auftrag des Paulus als Abgesandte der Gemeinde in Kenchreä
überbrachte – und einen größeren Dienst konnte diese Diakonin der Christenheit kaum erweisen”. Although he
suggested another destination for chapter 16 Thomas Manson also recognized Phoebe as letter carrier: “…in chapter
xvi is an introduction of Phoebe, who may be regarded as the bearer of the letter to Ephesus”. See T. W. MANSON,
Studies in Gospels and Epistles, p. 238.
 29

3.1 From a0po&stolov to envoy

An apostle travelled from one place to another in order to fulfil his mission. In this
section I try to find out in what way the sending of an apostle is comparable to the sending of an
envoy. Both terms refer to acting as a representative; do both words also share the same origin?

3.1.1 The origin and development in the meaning of a0po&stolov

In the ancient times of the classical Greek a0po&stolov was a term related to sea-faring
and specifically to military expeditions at sea, and it was used as a terminus technicus in political
language.69 It was almost exclusively applied as an adjective and not as a noun. Later on it
evolved into the meaning of being sent out for a particular purpose. A common feature for the
term is its passive usage. The initiative of the sending never lies with the a0po&stolov. For a long
time the meaning was politically determined by that of the original adjective - send on a military
or colonial expedition. Therefore Greek readers may have found its usage in the New Testament
to describe the wandering missionaries rather unusual. In fact, other words existed to designate
the one being sent as a messenger or an envoy, for instance a!ggelov or kh~ruc.
Although the verb a0poste&llein appeared as marking the activity of being sent by a deity
in Hellenism, and specifically in Cynic philosophy, the messenger was not called an a0po&stolov,
as one would expect, but a kata&skopov (“investigator”). A kata&skopov did not display a purely
passive attitude, since a big part of the initiative of being a messenger lay with the Cynic himself.
The passive character of a0poste&llein was less present.70 However, in their appearance a parallel
is found between a0po&stolov and kata&skopov. In the way Paul and his fellow apostles appeal to
the public they resemble Cynic and Epicurean philosophers, and also the numerous wandering
missionaries of other convictions.71
The Codex Alexandrinus of the Septuagint in 1 Kgs. 14:6 has a0po&stolov for the
rendering of the Hebrew ‫לוּח‬
ַ ‫ ָשׁ‬as a passive participle of ‘to send’ (“what is sent”, thus a

69
This section is in large part based on K. RENGSTORF, “a0po&stolov ktl”, in G. KITTEL (ed.), TWNT,
Band 1, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1957, pp. 406-446; see also J.-A. BÜHNER “a0po&stolov ktl”, in H. BALZ – G.
SCHNEIDER (eds.), EWNT, Band 1, Stuttgart – Berlin – Köln - Mainz, Kohlhammer, 1980, pp. 342-351.
70
This is the opposite of how at least Paul experienced his mission as a servant who is being called (Rom.
1:1: “slave of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle”).
71
See also H. VAN DE SANDT – D. FLUSSER, The Didache, p. 341.
 30

message).72 Here it seems to be used as a noun, for in this case only its relation with “hard;
difficult” (‫)ק ָשׁה‬
ָ can lead to the translation “message of doom” (a0po&stolov … sklhro&v).

Although the term does not yet refer to a person, the meaning of the New Testament a0po&stolov
probably has developed from this Hebrew word. Moreover, it is important to note that in this
verse a0po&stolov in a technical sense points to a messenger of God, since it is the prophet Ahijah
who is commissioned to tell God’s words to king Jeroboam’s wife. This theological meaning of
‫ ָשׁ ַלח‬/ a0poste&llein pushes the non-religious one into the background.

However, the decisive step in the development of the meaning of a0po&stolov is found in
Rabbinic Judaism, as ‫לוּח‬
ַ ‫ ָשׁ‬had assured its position as a noun. This is particularly significant,
since the nearest parallel to the New Testament a0po&stolov can be found here. The effective
relationship between both words was already recognized by the Church Fathers, as seen by
Jerome who tells Slias is a name for Jewish men who can be compared to a0po&stoloi. Slias is
nothing but the Latinized form of ‫יחא‬
ָ ‫שׁ ִל‬.
ְ The agreement in nomenclature is confirmed by the
usage in the Syrian Church of ‫יחא‬
ָ ‫ ְשׁ ִל‬for apostle, while conversely in a Jewish inscription in
Venosa duo apostuli is presented next to duo rebbites.73
All ideas linked to ‫ ָשׁ ִל ַיח‬in its legal base refer to the Semitic law concerning messengers,
as is assumed in the Hebrew Bible. The messenger fully represented the one who sent him,
usually the king. This full representation is exactly the original meaning of an assignee. The way
this envoy was received had to correspond to the way his principal would have been received if
he himself would be present. In Rabbinic writings the term also includes the idea of divine
authorization while concerning a priest or personages like Moses and Elijah.74 In all these
occasions they were sent by God.
Only this type of sending involving authorization is the determinative element for the
standard of the old ‫ ָשׁ ִל ַיח‬institution. Not the sending itself nor the specific task defined its

72
The passage concerns words of the prophet Ahijah to the wife of king Jeroboam. She comes to the
prophet to hear about the fate of her sick son. See also K. RENGSTORF, “a0po&stolov ktl”, p. 413.
73
The inscriptions in Venosa are dated from the fourth century onward and therewith not determinative to
the meaning of a0po&stolov in Paul’s time. However, they are important for the meaning of the ‫ ָשׁ ִל ַיח‬institution.
They are written partly in Greek and partly in Latin, as the one mentioned, and some in Hebrew; see S. T. KATZ ed.,
The Cambridge History of Judaism, Volume 4, The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period, Cambridge, University Press,
2006, p. 500; see also C. K. BARRETT, “ShaliahÌ and Apostle”, in E. BAMMEL – C. K. BARRETT – W. D. DAVIES
(eds.), Donum Gentilicium: New Testament Studies in Honour of David Daube, Oxford, Oxford University Press,
1978, 88-102, p. 97: Charles K. Barrett adds that we even do not know “who or what these apostuli were”.
74
See K. RENGSTORF, “a0po&stolov ktl”, p. 419; see also J.-A. BÜHNER “a0po&stolov ktl”, p. 346.
 31

meaning. Therefore the limitations of this kind of commissioning were a significant

characteristic. The authority was bound to the person who was mandated; hence it could not be
transferred to someone else. Should the envoy retreat from his mission then the authority was
back at the principal who originally had delegated him.75
Actually, the ‫ ָשׁ ִל ַיח‬originally did not belong to the world of religion but to the legal
sphere. The legal element is also given in the nature of the term. You can only send somebody
who is, or who puts himself, under your command.76 Therefore the commission necessarily
included the responsibility for the one who received this task. The one commissioned was also
fully your representative; he or she always represented you and your rights in person. Authority
and responsibility were both placed in the hands of the one commissioned.
It is also known that an envoy could represent a group or a community, in the way rabbis
were sent out to the Diaspora Jews. Noteworthy is the fact that they usually had been sent two by
two (or more together), just like the apostles in the New Testament.77 However, Jewish
emissaries were never called or related to as ‫ ; ָשׁ ִל ַיח‬they were not involved in what we call
missionary activities.78

3.1.2 The usage of a0po&stolov in the New Testament

The rise of the apostolate began in the New Testament when a0po&stolov was the title of a
group of first generation believers who had to fulfil a specific task commissioned to them by
Jesus. Authorization should be apparent in the identification of the one who sent, Jesus, and the
one who was sent, the apostle. Mostly the apostolate is conceived as restricted to the Twelve, the
first maqhtai_ (“pupils; disciples”) Jesus had chosen. This idea is caused by both the Gospel of
Luke and Acts. Luke, who is supposed to be the author of both writings, used a0po&stolov in an
anachronistic way. The Twelve Jesus called to him are named a0po&stoloi and therewith the
apostolate of the early church was projected into Jesus’ lifetime (Luke 6:13: “he chose twelve of

75
See also C. K. BARRETT, “ShaliahÌ and Apostle”, p. 90.
76
It concerns a conscious decision of acting in accordance to someone else’s plan and commission; see also
K. RENGSTORF, “a0po&stolov ktl”, p. 415.
77
See for instance Mk. 6:7: “he called the twelve with him, and he started to send them out two by two”;
and I also bring to mind the couples Paul mentions in Rom.16:3: Prisca and Aquila, and in 16:7: Andronicus and
Junia. There will be said more of them in the next chapter in view of the research on co-workers.
78
See T. W. MANSON. The Church’s Ministry, London, Hodder & Stoughton Limited, 1948, p. 43-44; see
also C. K. BARRETT, “ShaliahÌ and Apostle”, pp. 88-102.
 32

them whom he called apostles”).79 In Mark’s as well as in Matthew’s Gospel Jesus also sends
disciples with full authority. But, this is only for a limited period of time, when they return they
are maqhtai_ as before.80 This brings to light that the term a0po&stolov does not refer to a ministry
but that its focus is on the specific task that is mandated by Jesus. While fulfilling this task the
apostle is representing Jesus.
However, since Paul’s letters were written prior to the Synoptic Gospels, it is most likely
that he was the first one to use a0po&stolov in its New Testament setting. The term then lost its
political usage as terminus technicus in the classical Greek, and also its reference to objects and
acts of sending in the Hebrew ‫לוּח‬
ַ ‫שׁ‬,
ָ as described in the previous section. As of Paul, it was only
used in a theological sense for a person who was sent with God’s full authority. Besides the
biblical writings there are no testimonies of a0po&stolov.81 The New Testament term a0po&stolov
means “the one who bears the gospel” (“good story, message”- eu0agge&lion), but there was more
to it than just telling the message.
Paul’s mentioning of “what Christ has accomplished through me” (Rom.15:18) shows
what he means by a0po&stolov. As a representative, an envoy of Christ, he does what Christ has
done and what he asks Paul to do now. The authority Christ has given to him is implied in him
being chosen for this task (Rom. 1:1: “…called as an apostle and set apart for the gospel of
God”). He is one of the apostles in the early Christian communities who received the apostolate
as a gift of the risen Lord since after Jesus’ death a new situation occurred. As previously stated,
during his lifetime Jesus sent apostles only for a limited period. The post-paschal situation
requires a different way of sending, and the commissioning can only come from the Risen One.

79
See also R. BIERINGER, “Febe, Prisca en Junia. Vrouwen en Leiderschap in de Brieven van Paulus”, in F.
VAN SEGBROECK (ed.), Paulus (Verslagboek / Vliebergh-Sencie leergang, afdeling Bijbel), Leuven – Voorburg,
Vlaamse Bijbelstichting, 2004, 157-202, pp. 196-200.
80
The parallels of Luke 6:13 in Matthew and Mark present the sending of the disciples in their own way: in
Matt. 10:1-2 the twelve maqhtai_ receive e0cousi&a (“authority/absolute power”) and become a0po&stoloi, in 10:21
they are called maqhtai _again, and in Mark 6:7 Jesus called ‘the twelve’ (read: maqhtai_) and starts a0poste&llein
(“sending”) them while giving them e0cousi&a, and in 6:29 it is once again about maqhtai_; see also K. RENGSTORF,
“a0po&stolov ktl”, p. 428.
81
In this context there is a tentative reference to an occurrence of a0po&stolov in Josephus, yet it is
translated as if it were a substantiated infinitive; see Ant. 17.300: “There arrived at Rome a delegation of Jews,
which Varus had permitted the nation to send (to_n a0po&stolon), for the purpose of asking autonomy.” (R. MARCUS,
LCL 410); see also K. RENGSTORF, “a0po&stolov ktl”, p. 413 who translated it as “the sending of emissaries”;
Charles Barrett also has the translation: “the sending”. He emphasises that here Josephus does not describe an envoy
but “to him the word has a different sense”, see C. K. BARRETT, “ShaliahÌ and Apostle”, p. 96.
 33

Therefore apostles were people who had witnessed the Risen One, although not all witnesses
were apostles.
To this Karl Rengstorf comments: “It still did not include any women, though women
were the first to see the Risen Lord and there were also women prophets. Thus it is very doubtful
whether the ‘more than 500’ of 1 C. 15:6 became apostles as a result of Jesus’ appearance to
them”.82 However, present-day scholars have proven that this interpretation is not correct.83
Hence Rom.16:7 is a problem to those who, contrary to the New Testament evidence, confine
apostolate to the Twelve, or at any rate to male disciples. The opponents are growing in number,
for there is great consensus on the biblical evidence for the existence of at least one female
apostle. According to Paul Junia and her partner Andronicus are e)pi&shmoi (“outstanding”) among
the apostles (Rom.16:7). It is most unlikely that among the five hundred Junia has been the only
female apostle, who at first was omitted but now recognized. Also Raymond Brown notices:
“‘apostle’ had many meanings, and for Paul a common meaning is one who saw the risen Jesus
and became a preacher of the Gospel. Since more than five hundred saw the risen Lord at one
time (1 Cor.15:6: “After that he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one
time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep”), it would be rather
surprising if there were no female apostles in this sense”.84 The problem is that we are not able to
see these women called an apostle in the biblical writings that are left to us. But we can identify
them both here in Romans and also in apocryphal writings.85

82
K. RENGSTORF, “a0po&stolov ktl”, p. 431.
83
See among others B. BROOTEN, “Junia…Outstanding Among the Apostles (Romans 16:7)”, in L.
SWIDLER – A. SWIDLER (eds.), Women Priests. A Catholic Commentary on the Vatican Declaration, New York, NY,
Paulist Press, 1977, pp. 141-144; E. SCHÜSSLER FIORENZA, Ter herinnering aan haar. Een feministisch theologische
reconstructie van de oorsprongen van het christendom, Hilversum, Gooi en Sticht, 1988, Vert. van In Memory of
Her. A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins, New York, NY, Crossroad, 1984, [vert. door Ton
van der Stap], pp. 66, 185; U. WILCKENS, Der Brief an die Römer (EKK, Band VI/3, Röm. 12-16), Neukirchen,
Benzinger Verlag – Neukirchener Verlag, 2003, p. 135; R. BIERINGER, “Febe, Prisca en Junia”, pp. 187-196; R.
JEWETT, Romans, pp. 950, 960-961.
84
R. BROWN, New Testament Letters, n. 37, p. 574.
85
Although she is not named as one we certainly may call Mary Magdalene an apostle, since she was an
outstanding disciple and the first to see the Risen One and to spread this message. She surely fits the image Karl
Rengstorf presents of the post-Easter New Testament a0póstolov: she is sent by the Risen One with the
commission to go and tell the good news to others.
 34

3.2 Paul as an apostle

Although the apostle Paul does not belong to the Twelve, he considered himself
an apostle. It was not only because he had witnessed the risen Jesus; there were other signs and
events that made him think that way. This section will deal with this and other views on Paul’s
apostolic self-image.

Paul’s apostolic self image

Many scholars agree that Paul found the concept for his apostolic mission from the start
until the end set out in the book of Isaiah. In his view the events in his lifetime had been narrated
beforehand in Isaiah. The number of Isaiah quotations in Romans shows his special interest in
this book. The intertwining of Paul’s mission and the destiny of Israel seemed of great
importance. He read Isaiah as linking the promise of the redemption and restoration of Israel to
the hope that God’s mercy will include the Gentiles. Richard Hays emphasizes that Paul not only
found a mandate for his apostolic mission to the Gentiles in Isaiah but “also a direct prophetic
prediction of it”.86 Thus, Isaiah announced him as the apostle to the Gentiles (“many nations”,
‫ גּוֹיִ ם ַר ִבּים‬/ e!qnh polla&)87 and helped him to clarify his self-image.
Paul was aware of his exceptional position as a missionary to the Gentiles, and from the
time he travelled to Antioch, where he and Barnabas split up, he strongly felt that he was solely
responsible for the Gentile mission.88 This was at least true for the founding of new
communities, since after travelling on he left the continuation of these congregations to local
leaders or co-workers.89 Moreover, in 1 Cor. 9:2 Paul elucidates the coherence of his apostolate
and the communities he had founded (“If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you, for
you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord”). Acting under the authority of the Risen One he

86
R. B. HAYS, “‘ Who has Believed our Message?’: Paul’s Reading of Isaiah”, in J. M., COURT (ed.), New
Testament Writers and the Old Testament; An Introduction, London, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,
2002, 46-70, p. 47.
87
See LXX Isa. 52:15a: “Thus many nations shall wonder over him”, that is, over ‘the servant of YHWH’;
a term that in the New Testament is applied to Jesus. MT Isa. 52:15a: “Thus he will sprinkle many nations”.
88
See Rom. 15:14-16. In order to emphasize God’s grace given to him as being commissioned to the
Gentiles, Paul is so bold as to write to the Romans about the Gospel, knowing they already heard of it from someone
else; see also W.-H. OLLROG, Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter, p. 17.
89
See the next chapter, specifically section nr. 4.1.2 on the different ways of naming which Paul used for
his fellow workers and their specific tasks.
 35

linked his apostolic authority above all to the acknowledgement of these communities.90 This
shows Paul did not interpret his apostolate as an institutionalized office with all-embracing
validity.
So Paul’s apostolic mission was being a founder (1 Cor. 3:10: “as a skilful master-builder
I have laid the foundation”), or a ‘planter’ as he also explained to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 3:6).
He was the one who laid the foundations of the new communities.91 For him this grounding was
done by preaching the Gospel and therewith disclosing the name of Christ Jesus. Exactly this is
considered to be the meaning of his statement that he did not want to build on someone else’s
foundation (Rom. 15:20). It was not a matter of excluding other apostles, but when it was already
done by someone else at that place there was no task left for him.92 However, the Letter to the
Romans demonstrates the opposite of this statement; there was still a mission for Paul. His
writing and his upcoming visit was indeed meant as a foundation, if only not of a Pauline
community in Rome but of a Christian community in Spain. He expected that at least some of the
Romans would become his ‘fellow workers’ in this and support the founding in any way
whatsoever. So far Paul’s apostolic self-image is associated with his mission to the Gentiles, and
more specifically with his preaching the Gospel to them.93
Not so much the opposite but quite different to what is said until now is the way of
looking at it in a cultic setting, as Friedrich Horn presents it.94 When we only see travel plans and
messages it is most likely we miss the significant way Paul comes to speak of his apostolic self-
image. Its literary expression is in every prescript of his letters, but in Romans this apostolic self-
image goes far beyond what is formally usual. Paul introduces himself as Pau~lov dou~lov
Xristou~ )Ihsou~, klhto_v a)po&stolov a)fwrisme&nov ei)v eu)agge&lion qeou~ (Rom.1:1: “Paul, a slave
of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the Gospel of God”). It describes both
apostolate and the Gospel that is inextricably linked to it. Moreover, in this prescript Paul acts

90
K. WENZEL, “Apostolische Identität; Der Dienst des Amts in der Gemeinde”, in T. SCHMELLER – M.
EBNER – R. HOPPE (eds.), Neutestamentliche Ämtermodelle im Kontext (QD 239), Freiburg, Herder, 2010, 260-287,
p. 263.
91
See W.-H. OLLROG, Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter, pp. 175-178.
92
See also W.-H. OLLROG, Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter, p. 177.
93
While referring to the original legal aspect of its Hebrew counterpart ‫ ָשׁ ַלח‬Robert Jewett closely links
Paul’s self-image as a)po&stolov to the Greek-Roman word for ‘ambassador’ in its legal context. See also R.
JEWETT, Romans, p. 44. This way Paul’s self-image is also restricted to his being sent to proclaim the Gospel.
However, the next paragraphs show there is another way to look at it.
94
This and the next two paragraphs are based on F. W. HORN, “Das Apostolische Selbstverständnis des
Paulus nach Römer 15”, pp. 225-246.
 36

alone, without co-senders, in contrast to what he usually did and this could indicate the position
of his apostleship in this writing.
Rom.15 tells more about apostolate than what is said of it in the prescript of this letter.
Some particular messages within the text seem very essential to the specific apostolic profile of
this writing. Friedrich Horn explains five motives which are important for understanding Paul’s
self-image. First of all there is the priestly motive, in 15:16: where Paul mentions the spreading
of the Gospel among the Gentiles as a priestly service (“to be a minister of Christ Jesus
[leitourgo_n Xristou~ )Ihsou ] to the Gentiles in the priestly service [i(erourgou~nta] of the gospel
of God, so that the offering [prosfora_ ] of the Gentiles may be well received, purified
[h(giasme&nh] by holy spirit.”). As a result the Gentiles are addressed as an offering to God.95
Next, in 15:18 the Christological motive is presented (“For I will not dare to speak of anything
except what Christ has accomplished through my bringing the Gentiles into the obedience, by
word and deed”). Christ realizes in word and deed the Gospel through the apostle. Paul relates
his effectiveness fully and absolutely to Christ. Then, thirdly, in 15:19 we find the missionary
motive. Paul has brought the Gospel from Jerusalem and all the way around to Illyria (15:19:
“…so that from Jerusalem and surroundings as far as Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel
of Christ”). In 15:20 Paul tells he has always focussed on not interfering in foreign mission areas
(“And thus I make it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ is known, so that I
would not build on another man's foundation”). Horn calls this fourth characteristic the motive of
absolute exclusivity. In 15:21 Paul presents his mission as fulfilling the Scriptures, the final
motive that is described (15:21: “but as it is written, ‘Those to whom he has never been
proclaimed will see, and those who have never heard will understand’”, while referring to Isa.
52:15c-d: “For what had not been told to them they will see, and what they had not heard they
will understand”).
Four of these themes have been treated earlier in this chapter, therefore now the focus
will be on the priestly self-image of Paul. It is often stated that in Rom.15:16 Paul specifically
discusses his apostolate in terms of wordings and symbols adopted from cultic and priestly

95
See also H., BALZ, “a#giov ktl ”, in H. BALZ – G. SCHNEIDER (eds.), EWNT, Band.1, Stuttgart – Berlin –
Köln – Mainz, Kohlhammer, 1980, p. 48: “…im kultischen Bild der Darbringung der Leiber zu einem lebendigen
(im Gegensatz zum Tieropfer), heiligen Opfer für Gott”.
 37

vocabulary and images.96 Looking at 15:16 there are four statements in which Paul’s cultic or
priestly self-image is expressed. The concept of leitourgo&v (“minister”) is seen in v. 16a. The
next part of the sentence is needed to explain the metaphor, since ‘minister’ can also be
interpreted in the context of public service. V. 16c speaks of “so that the offering of the Gentiles
may be well received” (prosfora_ tw~n e)qnw~n eu)pro&sdektov). It is noticed that this change into
the cultic context is only to associate with priestly language and not with diplomatic language,
which others prefer.97 The New Testament hapax legomenon i(erourgei~n (v. 16b,”act as a priest”)
is only used as a cultic term in pagan and Judaic-Hellenistic literature.98 This usage in an almost
exclusively cultic context must have its consequences for the other terms in the context of 15:16.
In v. 16c the priestly office in carrying out the Gospel is aimed at providing in a God-pleasing
gift “offering of the Gentiles” (prosfora_ tw~n e)qnw~n). Again one has to read the next part of the
sentence to see its meaning. If one accepts tw~n e)qnw~n as genitivus objectivus99, v. 16d covers the
proper basis on which the Gentiles are recognized as the object of a God-pleasing gift.
Sanctification, that is making holy and thus ready to belong to God, brings the Gentiles in the
status in which Israel finds itself already. Consequently the Gentiles are transferred into God’s
ownership by the priestly office of Paul.
Paul was not a priest who came from a priestly family. However, he could adapt the
cultic images that were widely used in Hellenistic Judaism of the Diaspora. In his prescript of
Romans, in which he presents himself as being set apart (a0fwrisme&nov, 1:1) for the Gospel of
God, this conception may refer to the Aramaic verb with the root ‫“( פרשׁ‬to separate”). It is also

96
See F. W. HORN, “Das Apostolische Selbstverständnis des Paulus nach Römer 15”, p. 239, n. 41; see for
this discussion on Paul’s priestly self-image also ID., pp. 239-243.
97
See R. JEWETT, Romans, pp. 906-907: “The use of this term in 13:6, however, points more clearly to the
role of a “public functionary” of a city, regent, or a God, an agent”. Robert Jewett also concludes that the
specification of Paul’s ministry as mission to the Gentiles is more suitable for the ambassador’s role than for the
priestly one. He rejects this priestly theory, because it ends up “restricting Paul’s mission within institutional
boundaries, contrasted to Judaism and associated with later established churches”. I fully understand his concerns,
but the fact that some misapply the priestly ministry that is meant here may not be the reason for not adopting this
theory. In fact, it even should be emphasized that the outcome is an image of priestly ministry that is completely
different from that of the later established churches.
98
See F. W. HORN, “Das Apostolische Selbstverständnis des Paulus nach Römer 15”, p. 241: Friedrich
Horn mentions numerous documents of Josephus and Philo (an amount of 41 proofs) in which it is used in an
offering context, and at the same time it is remarkable “dass das Verb als kultischer Begriff benutzt werden kann,
ohne mit einem Priester als Subjekt verbunden zu sein”.
99
Friedrich Horn notices that many do not share his analysis of a genitivus objectivus which he presents as
“m.E. zwingend” and resulting in the interpretation: “das Opfer, das in den Heiden besteht und am Tempel
dargebracht wird”. See F. W. HORN, “Das Apostolische Selbstverständnis des Paulus nach Römer 15”, p. 242.
 38

used for separation from all cultic defilement.100 Since Paul felt that he was set apart – separated
– for the Gentile mission it is possible to apply this meaning to 15:16. This offers the following
image: while proclaiming Gentiles the Gospel of Christ Jesus, as a priest Paul brought them
sanctified (h(giasme&nh) as an offering to God, and thus cultic separation from God’s people would
be removed by his priestly office. This also clarifies why his priestly office was strictly applied
to the Gentile mission. And, most importantly, at the same time it clearly expresses that Paul was
far away from acquiring the competence of a general priestly office.
Finally, there is the specific relation between apostolate and suffering, a bond that was
crucial for Paul. Jesus had put his life in complete service to God, and for this he underwent
much suffering up to the crucifixion. As Christ’s representative Paul felt that he, and all apostles,
had to experience the same burdens. Therefore the afflictions and sufferings in his own life
caused by serving the Gospel were no misfortune, but all the more signs that he was a true
representative, a faithful apostle.101
The foregoing examinations provide this apostolic self-image of Paul: Paul was not out of
his own choice an apostle; he was called by the risen Christ, and particularly as an apostle for the
Gentiles. As an apostle he was an envoy of Christ and therewith Christ worked through him; in
fact, Paul’s words and deeds were not his own. He was well aware of that and therefore he
showed himself a humble man. According to him this was an attitude every apostle should have,
for they should realise that everything they accomplished was not by their own merits but
transferred to them by Christ. For Paul the sufferings and humiliations Christ endured were
inextricably bound to the apostolate. The Gentile mission not only made him an envoy of Christ
but also, in a very specific way, a priest. To this mission endowed by God he was capable to
proclaim the Gospel, to make known the name of Christ to the Gentiles. Paul fulfilled his
mission; he led a group of Gentiles to God as an offering, and then they too belonged to the

100
Although this conception does certainly not include a reference to Paul’s past as a farisa&iov (Pharisee)
or to the Pharisees mentioned in the Synoptic gospels, the similarity in the meaning of the verbs ‫ פרשׁ‬and a0fori&zw
is indeed there; see R. MEYER, “farisa&iov ktl ”, in G. KITTEL (ed.), TWNT, Band IX, Stuttgart,
Kohlhammer,1973, p. 13; see also U. WILCKENS, Der Brief an die Römer (Band VI/1), p. 63.
101
Paul told about “afflictions” he endured (qli&besqai in 1 Thes. 3:4 and qli&yiv in 2 Cor. 1:8-10) and in 2
Cor. 11:23 about the many times that he was “imprisoned” (e0n fulakai~v), “beaten” (e0n plhgai~v), and even “facing
death” (e0n qana&toiv), all because of his preaching of the Gospel; See also J.-A. BÜHNER, “a0po&stolov ktl”, p.
346. The service of the Gospel causes the apostle to be destined to bear the suffering: 2 Cor. 4:10: “always carrying
in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies” (ESV). This way of life
shows its greatness in humility (Phil. 2:5-11), wisdom in foolishness (1 Cor. 1:21), and richness in poverty (2 Cor.
8:9).
 39

chosen ones – God’s holy people. From that moment Paul deputed the continuation of the new
community to others, and travelled onward to the next city.

3.3 Paul as a letter writer

Paul’s apostolic self-image as a founder of new communities logically resulted in his

wandering from one place to another. When it concerns the communities he has founded, his
testimony shows an ongoing responsibility. While leaving the guidance of the group of new
believers up to others, it seems that he certainly did not want to lose contact with ‘his’
communities. In his days the only way possible to keep in touch with them was by writing
letters, which he obviously has done given the evidence in the New Testament. However, it is
reasonably apparent he was not literally the writer of all these textual witnesses.
It is very likely that Paul, like many of his contemporaries who sent letters, used
secretaries for his letters. Sometimes in his epistles Paul states that he has written the postscript
in his own hand (Gal.6:11, “See how large the letters are that I am writing to you with my own
hand”), implying that the biggest part was written by someone else, most likely by a secretary. In
Romans it was Tertius who wrote a word of greeting and made himself known as the secretary of
this letter (16:22, “I Tertius, the writer of this letter, greet you in the Lord”). There are various
opinions about who this Tertius might have been, and how he actually had become the secretary
of this letter. First of all, however, it is important to take a look at the role of the secretary in
general.

The role of a secretary

In Paul’s days the role of a secretary in writing letters was commonly known. Being able
to read did not automatically include having the capability to write. It took much effort and time
to write on papyrus. Experts on papyri often describe a secretary’s handwriting as ‘a practiced
hand’.102 Moreover, it also required skills other than the writing itself; the secretary had to
provide for all the tools as well. He had to adjust the sheets of papyrus, which he could buy of

102
Much of the information on the work of a secretary in this section is from E. R. RICHARDS, Paul and
First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection, Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, 2004.
 40

the market, to fit its purpose. He also had to make his own ink, and cut his own pen. This shows
that a secretary must have been educated for this job, and, at the same time, makes it seem
unlikely that a colleague of Paul could have functioned as an amateur secretary.
It is usually assumed that Paul was dictating and a secretary gave a verbatim recording. If
it was done this way he must have employed a secretary trained in a special technique of taking
dictation at the speed of speech. It is suggested that shorthand writing already existed in Paul’s
days in reference to Plutarch’s use of terms to describe this practice: shmeiogra&fov (“shorthand
writer”), and shmei~on (“shorthand signs”).103 Since Plutarch wrote in Greek it was only natural to
name it in Greek. There have been some doubts whether it was a Greek invention or a Latin one.
However, Cicero also has used the Greek description for shorthand in a Latin letter to Atticus. It
is not likely that he described the practice of shorthand writing by Greek names if it had been an
invention of Latin speaking people. This ancient reference strongly points to the use of Greek
shorthand before Christian era. The evidence does not support a general claim that from that time
onward most secretaries took shorthand. It seems rather that only some did. On the other hand it
is unlikely that Paul had dictated slowly to the secretary, and in that way using him as a
transcriber. In that case it would have taken over eleven hours to produce a letter like Romans.104
It is possible that Tertius had been trained in shorthand and that he made the initial draft of
Romans this way.
It is only logical that secretaries had great influence on the letters they wrote. Since they
were familiar with the structure and style of the ancient letter they made minor changes in
vocabulary, syntax and style. According to Ernest Richards their influence went even beyond
this, for he claims they also had an impact on the content of the letters. He suggests that those
clauses we usually call insertion or interpolation are due to the work of Paul’s secretaries. In this
way they became co-authors.105 We do not know how literally Paul would have supplied his
thoughts to scribes, whether working with secretaries or co-authors. He may have dictated some
letters accurately, while allowing freedom in others. In Richards’ view modern understanding of
‘author’ must expand beyond just Paul alone. He presents the writing of the letters as a group
process, and the letters as an “expression of the group’s consensus reached by dialogue”.106

103
See E. R. RICHARDS, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing, p. 69.
104
See E. R. RICHARDS, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing, p. 93.
105
See E. R. RICHARDS, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing, pp. 141-155.
106
See E. R. RICHARDS, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing, p. 27.
 41

Indeed, it also seems plausible that secretaries have adjusted the form of the letters, but
this rule certainly can not be applied when it comes to the content of them. In this respect I think
Richards is too much focussed on the process of creating ‘collectively’ personal letters. He
suggests that Paul was the Patriarchal Voice of a letter, but with insertions from co-authors and
secretaries. However, Paul’s letters are no common personal letters; he is preaching and teaching
his gospel. His mission was not a subject of discourse but was, to Paul, a God given commission.
Of course there had been discussions with members of the community previously, and of course
Paul bore these arguments and debates in mind when dictating his letters. That certainly was the
case in the situational letters which purely answered to existing problems. But I think it is very
unlikely that his message was influenced to the extent that Richards assumes.107
In the end it is evident that Paul had not personally written his letters and that he used
secretaries. For Romans this was Tertius. Some scholars think he was Phoebe’s slave who had
been available to Paul until the letter was finished.108 This view is based on the supposition that
both Phoebe and Tertius were closely involved in the creation of the letter to the Romans. One
may have doubts whether Tertius had indeed been her slave, since it was uncommon for a slave
to have a Roman name while his master did not. As others notice, it is more likely that Tertius
belonged to Gaius, Paul’s host in the time this letter was written (“Gaius, who is host to me and
to the whole congregation, greets you”, Rom. 16:23).
At this point Ernest Richards’ observations are interesting. In the presence of Tertius he
sees an answer to the question how Paul has come to know so many Romans, at least according
to the greeting list, when he had never visited Rome before. Richards notices that Tertius was
also a believer for he sent greetings ‘in the Lord’. However, it was very unusual for a secretary to
send greetings in a letter written for his employer. It also only rarely occurred that the secretary

107
The same goes for his conclusion after discussing the inserted material: “We cannot dispute some of
Paul’s letters as pseudo-Pauline; they are rather non-Pauline, but not un-Pauline”, see E. R. RICHARDS, Paul and
First-Century Letter Writing, p.108. Non-Pauline because it is the result of the contribution of co-authors who
belong to the community, not un-Pauline because, although Paul has not written them they still express his thoughts.
However, a comparison of Col. 3:11, belonging to one of the disputed letters, and Gal. 3:28, of an undisputed
Pauline letter, shows otherwise. Col. 3:11: ” in which there is no Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised,
barbarian, Scythian, slave, free, but Christ is all and in all” is supposed to quote Gal. 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor
Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus”. The
rendering is that much different that the meaning also changes. Next to a number of additions ‘Greek and Jew’ have
been reversed, the pair ‘male - female’ has been omitted, and ‘slave, free’ in this way are not contraposed anymore.
Therefore the meaning of the text has also radically changed and it can no longer be seen as belonging to Paul’s
thoughts; see also E. SCHÜSSLER FIORENZA, Ter herinnering aan haar, pp. 154-155.
108
See R. JEWETT, Romans: a commentary, p. 23.
 42

was known to the recipients of the letter. Moreover, in that case the relationship between the
author and the secretary usually had gone beyond that of employer and employee. According to
Ernest Richards it is therefore more likely that Tertius, having a Roman name, had been a
member of the Roman church. In Corinth he probably had become a member of Paul’s team.109
Paul may have instructed Tertius to greet the leaders of the church in Rome in order to bring
about a relationship between the communities and the apostle. In that case Tertius either knew,
or, as a professional secretary, had found out whom to greet.110

3.4 From letter carrier to envoy

Once the letters had been written they had to be carried to the addressees. The choice of
the letter carrier sometimes was as crucial as the content of the letter in case.111 This was because
letter carrying often included reading the message aloud to the addressee. The letter carrier was
able to add sensitive details on its writer, if it contributed to the purpose, and to carry out tasks
envisioned in the letter. Some say Phoebe took part in this when she carried the letter to the
Romans. She was present when Tertius read out loud the letter and afterwards she is supposed to
have discussed the content with the audience.112 While working ‘in the Lord’, which shows he
was a member of one of Paul’s communities, Tertius would have been the most capable person
to read the letter aloud after it was delivered to the Roman communities by Phoebe. Someone of
her social status would never do that herself, and would instead leave this to the writer. But did
Phoebe actually have the social status these scholars assume?113

109
See R. BROWN, New Testament Letters, n. 37, p. 575: Raymond Brown suggests Tertius sends his
personal greetings “presumably because he was a collaborating disciple in the letter”.
110
See E. R. RICHARDS, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing, p. 152.
111
See R. JEWETT, “Paul, Phoebe, and the Spanish Mission”, 142-161, p. 151.
112
See R. BROWN, An Introduction to the New Testament, n. 37, p. 574: In his comment on Romans
Raymond Brown has made a cursory remark about Phoebe’s role suggesting she is “perhaps carrying this letter”;
Ernest Richards is also not quite certain about Phoebe as letter carrier. First he suggests it is possible that Paul asked
Tertius, to add a recommendation for Phoebe, who was to carry the letter. But when he comes to speak about the
commendation of the letter carrier later on, he mentions here as best examples the commendation of Tychicus in
Eph. 6:21 and Col. 4:7-8 even when these letters are commonly disputed. Phoebe is not mentioned as example of the
commendation of the letter carrier. So is she or is she not the letter carrier? The first suggestion is made on p. 77, the
latter on p. 161 in E. R. RICHARDS, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing.
113
The word prosta&tiv in 16:2 is nowadays mostly rendered as ‘patron’. That is why all assume Phoebe
was a wealthy woman of higher class; hence she would not have read the letter herself. I do not share this view of
Phoebe as a rich benefactress. Consequently in my view she could have read and explained the letter herself. In the
last chapter there will be more on the topic of Phoebe as a prosta&tiv.
 43

Additional comments are made on Phoebe’s role as the letter carrier of Romans. It is
recognized that the letter carrying, although it was a crucial role within her task, may merely
have been a part of Phoebe’s mission.114 That Phoebe, commissioned for this purpose by Paul,
has carried the letter to Rome is, according to Annette Merz, undisputed, but it is certainly not
valued enough.115 Without Phoebe we would never have heard of this letter which according to
many scholars is Paul’s masterpiece. She is the only woman in the list of otherwise male carriers
who have been Paul’s co-workers: Timothy (1 Cor. 4:17: ”That is why I sent you Timothy”),
Titus (2 Cor. 8:17: “for he [read: Titus] not only accepted our appeal, but being himself very
eager he is going to you of his own accord.”), Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:25: “But I thought it
necessary to send to you Epaphroditus”), Onesimus (Phlm. 10: “I appeal to you for my child,
Onesimus”), and unnamed brothers (2 Cor. 9:3: ” But I have sent the brethren”). The letters of
Paul obviously had travelled with trustworthy letter carriers, people certainly well known to
him.116
A letter carrier or a secretary also had to overcome some difficulties in order to read the
letter in public.117 As in Paul’s days the letters were written without spaces between words and
without punctuation, which must have made reading them in public a job for specialists. It is
known that students learned to read aloud a memorized text, including the right tone and the
right gestures. For Paul’s letters hearing was inextricably linked to believing his gospel.
Therefore the role of the letter carrier was significant since he or she was also the one to recite
the letter.118 To this letter, to Romans of different communities that were unknown to Paul, the
letter carrier was even more important than usual, since there was more to explain. The letter
carrier had to represent the sender, and she – Phoebe – was supposed to transfer his thoughts

114
See A. MERZ, “Phöbe, Diakon(in) der Gemeinde von Kenchreä”, p. 129.
115
See A. MERZ, “Im Auftrag der Gemeinde von Kenchreä: Phoebe als Wegbereiterin der
Spanienmission”, in B. BECKING – J. A. WAGENAAR – M. C. A. KORPEL (eds.), Tussen Caïro en Jeruzalem. Studies
over de Bijbel en haar Context (Utrecht Theologische Reeks 53), Utrecht, Universiteit Utrecht, 2006, 83-97, p. 87:
“..doch werden die Implikationen dieses Faktums für die Charakterisierung der Aufgabe Phoebe keineswegs immer
angemessen gewürdigt”.
116
There is perhaps one exception. According to 1 Cor. 5:9 Paul has written a letter to the Corinthians
before. This letter is not retraced. It is suggested though that a part of it may be incorporated in the canonical letter,
cf. 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1 of which it is often thought to be an insertion. See C. WOLFF, Der Zweite Brief des Paulus an die
Korinther (THNT 8), Berlin, Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1989, pp. 146-149.
117
See R. JEWETT, Romans: a commentary, p. 40-41.
118
See also J. BARENTSEN, “Pre-Pauline Leadership and Pauline Constitution in the Roman Church”, in U.
SCHNELLE (ed.), The Letter to the Romans (BETL 226), Leuven – Paris – Walpole, MA, Peeters, 2009, 595-616, p.
596.
 44

beyond that what was written in the letter.119 In this respect she may be called his envoy. Given
the importance of this task, and specifically the part of transferring these thoughts, it is
significant that, as far as is known, Phoebe is the only one who solely – not as a couple –
undertook such a journey and such a mission.
In Paul’s days there was a system of letter carrying that consisted of two kinds of letter
carriers. One was the official postal system of the Roman Empire, which was exclusively used
for imperial letters. The other one was a postal system for private letters.120 Letter carriers also
brought other materials as well, like packages, and once they had delivered these letters or
packages they often waited for the answer to take back to their employers. However, there also
were happenstance carriers who on their way for whatever reason were willing to carry letters
from people they knew.
If this was the case for the Letter to the Romans then it seems more likely to me that
Tertius was accidentally going to Rome and acted as the letter carrier, because Tertius obviously
knew many people in Rome, and may have had plans to visit them. Some suggest that Phoebe
went to Rome on business, and by chance took the letter with her. Nowadays most agree this was
not the case. Phoebe was not a happenstance letter carrier but was specifically appointed for this
task. She travelled to Rome to fulfil the commission Paul had entrusted to her exclusively.
Phoebe was sent to Rome with the letter to the Roman communities. We have not yet
clarified what exactly her role was, though it is obvious she was not only the letter carrier.121 If
she was one of the ‘more than five hundred’ in 1 Cor. 15:6, which is not at all impossible, may
we then call her an apostle too? She certainly committed herself to the message of Paul, which is
also the message of Christ. If she explained the letter to the Romans she also spoke on behalf of
Paul. She is not named an apostle by Paul explicitly, though he introduces her in a very special
way compared to others. The examination of these words in 16:1-2 in the two final chapters
hereafter will help us to get a better picture of Phoebe’s role.

119
In my view this task was appointed to Phoebe; see also n. 113.
120
See E. R. RICHARDS, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing, p. 181.
121
In this stage it is already obvious she had to do more than that, given Paul’s instruction to the Romans in
16:2: “help her in whatever she may need from you”.
 45

CHAPTER 4
ROM. 16:1 WHO IS PHOEBE?

The very special way Paul recommends Phoebe already starts with the crucial position of
this pericope in Romans, which is at the beginning of the second part of the peroratio. While still
addressing the Roman Christians, Paul sends his regards to many people in Rome (16:3-16). At
the same time he informs the Roman communities about his appreciation for those to whom he
gives greetings. He reports about a number of people and the most interesting is that a third of
them are women.122 Of all the named people Phoebe, one of these women, is the first one
mentioned with the following words:
16:1
a. Suni&sthmi de_ u9mi~n Foi&bhn
b. th_n a0delfh_n h9mw~n,
c. ou]san kai_ dia&konon th~v e0kklhsi&av th~v e0n Kegxreai~v,
16:2
a i#na prosde&chsqe e0n kuri&w? a0ci&wv tw~n a9gi&wn
b kai_ parasth~te au0th~? e0n w{? a@n u9mw~n xrh&?zh? pra&gmati:
c kai_ ga_r au0th_ prosta&tiv pollw~n e0genh&qh kai_ e0mou~ au0tou~.
16:1
a. I commend to you
b. our sister Phoebe,
c. a servant of the church at Cenchreae,
16:2
a. that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints,
b. and help her in whatever she may need from you,
c. for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well. (ESV)123

In this chapter, and also in the next one, I will deal with the verse clauses one by one
while focussing on the specific words that in any way whatsoever affect the image of Phoebe. In
the first section (4.1) of this chapter the emphasis is on Paul’s opening word: suni&sthmi, “I
commend”. However, as one would expect there are more details in this first verse that deserve
and get attention as well. Section two (4.2) focusses on her being “our sister”, and the third (4.3)
on v.1c, will focuss on Phoebe as “a servant of the church at Cenchreae”.

122
See E. SCHÜSSLER FIORENZA, Ter herinnering aan haar, p. 193; E. A. CASTELLI, , “Romans”, in E.
SCHÜSSLER FIORENZA (ed.), Searching the Scriptures, Volume Two: A Feminist Commentary, New York, NY, The
Crossroad Publishing Company, 1998, 272-300, p. 276; R. BIERINGER, “Febe, Prisca en Junia”, pp. 164-165.
123
As already noticed in the Introduction for the two verses on Phoebe I start with one of the current
English translations, the ESV. I will use it every time at the beginning of a new verse part until the analysis requires
a revision. In the last chapter, after all the examinations, I will present my own rendering of the pericope 16:1-2.
 46

4.1 Rom. 16:1ª “I commend to you Phoebe”- suni&sthmi de_ u9mi~n Foi&
Foi&bhn

Prior to the extensive list of greetings, Paul notifies the Roman Christians about Phoebe,
as he is sending them a woman with a mission: “I commend to you Phoebe” (suni&sthmi de_ u9mi~n
Foi&bhn). Often Romans is seen as a letter introducing Paul, and the verses 16:1-2 as verses
introducing Phoebe. In my opinion the common translation of suni&sthmi, “I commend”,124 does
not cover the whole meaning of the verb in this particular situation. In case of a commendation
the receiving party usually has a choice whether to approve or to reject the commended person.
In 16:1 Paul seems to have made his choice and the Romans had to accept it. He started the
introductory part of his letter with the explanation that he had been set apart for the Gospel of
God. In the same way we may say Paul now sets Phoebe apart in the verses introducing her. By
means of this introduction she is distinguished from the others mentioned in Rom.16.

4.1.1 “I commend” - suni&sthmi

How do we have to understand this suni&sthmi in relation to Phoebe? Is it the same warm
appeal that Paul does for Onesimus in Phlm. 10?125 Examining Phlm. 10 one reads that Paul in
stead of “commanding” (v. 8: e0pita&ssein) rather addresses Philemon with a request to receive
“my child….Onesimus” (v. 10: parakalw~ se peri_ tou~ e0mou~ te&knou… 0Onh&simon) “as you would
receive me” (v. 17: proslabou~ au0to_n w9v e0me). Remarkable are the words “a beloved brother,
especially to me” (v. 16: a0delfo_n a0gaphto&n, ma&lista e0moi&) since they remind us of “our sister”
(th_n a0delfh_n h9mw~n) of Rom. 16:1b and of “of myself” (e0mou~ au0tou~) of v. 16:2c, be it that in v.
16:2c “of myself” is related to ”patron” (prosta&tiv) and not to “sister” (a0delfh_n). Still the
words used for Paul’s appeal to Philemon are quite different from those used for Phoebe. “I
commend” is not the rendering of parakalw~ as in Phlm. 9, and Phoebe is not named Paul’s
“beloved sister” but “our sister”, consequently a “sister” of Paul and all addressees. Therefore,
his way of appealing in Philemon does not tell us how to interpret suni&sthmi in Rom. 16:1.

124
See also New Revised Standard Version (further NRSV), National Council of the Churches of Christ of
the United States of America, 1989: “I commend”; Die Bibel (further HRD), Herder Editorial, 2005: “Ich
empfehle”; De Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling (further NBV), Nederlands Bijbelgenootschap – Katholieke Bijbelstichting,
Haarlem – ‘s Hertogenbosch, 2008: “Ik beveel…aan”.
125
See R. BROWN, An Introduction to the New Testament, p. 452: “Both Onesimus and the woman deacon
Phoebe … are warmly recommended”.
 47

The dictionary of Liddell-Scott-Jones presents as possible translations of suni&sthmi: “set

together, combine, associate; unite; put together” and when it comes to persons: “bring together
as friends” or “introduce or recommend one to another (tina&v tini); make solid or firm; exhibit,
give proof of”.126 Searching for parallels in the New Testament we find suni&sthmi used sixteen
times, once in Luke 9:32, 2 Pet. 3:5 (as an intransitive verb), and in the deutero-Pauline127 Col.
1:17, and thirteen times in the undisputed Pauline letters.
When analyzing the usage of suni&sthmi in the undisputed Pauline letters one does not
find any parallel with 16:1a. In Romans suni&sthmi occurs in two other verses, 3:5 and 5:8. In
these instances it is not interpreted as “to commend” but as “to show” (ESV both in 3:5 and 5:8),
“to confirm” (NRSV in 5:8: “proof”), “ins Licht stellen” (HRD in 5:8: “beweisen”) and
“bewijzen” (NBV, both in 3:5 and 5:8). Moreover, in those verses suni&sthmi is also not related to
people but to “our injustice” (3:5: h9 a0diki&a h9mw~n) and to “God’s own love for us” (5:8: th9n
e9autou~ a0ga&phn ei0v h9ma~v o9 qeo&v). In 2 Corinthians Paul uses the verb nine times, and eight of
these occurrences regard not only a transitive but also a reflexive aspect.128 It is all about people
“commending themselves” (or not-). An exception is found in 2 Cor. 10:18 where it is used
twice: “for it is not he who commends himself that is approved, but the one whom the Lord
commends” (ou0 ga_r o9 e9auto_n sunista&nwn, e0kei~no&v e0stin do&kimov, a0lla_ o$n o9 ku&riov suni&sthsin).
Here the tenor of “commending” is clearly that only the one whom the Lord commends is
approved. While in 2 Cor. 10:18 the Lord is the authority who commends, in Rom. 16:1 it is the
person calling himself in the letter opening “Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus” (1:1: Pau~lov dou~lov
Xristou~ )Ihsou~). When the Romans accepted this letter as authorized by Paul, they also had to
accept the role of Phoebe, since this was authorized by him too.129
So, of Rom. 16:1 no parallels are found in the New Testament. But are they present in the
Septuagint? There are occurrences in the LXX, specifically in the Pentateuch, where suni&sthmi in

126
See H. G. LIDDELL – ROBERT SCOTT – H. STUART JONES, A Greek-English lexicon; comp. by Henry
George Liddell and Robert Scott; rev. and augmented throughout by Henry Stuart Jones, Oxford, Clarendon Press,
1996, p. 1718.
127
The disputed Pauline letters are usually called pseudo-Pauline or when they are classified in their time
of origin: deutero-Pauline when coming from the so-called Pauline School (Ephesians - Colossians –
2 Thessalonians), and trito-Pauline when having more distance of Paul’s time (the Pastoral letters 1 and 2 Timothy
and Titus); see also R. BIERINGER, “Febe, Prisca en Junia”, p.158.
128
See 2 Cor. 3:1; 4:2; 5:12; 6:4; 7:11; 10:12; 10:18; 12:11.
129
In this stage of the study it is not yet clear what Phoebe’s role is; the examination will be intensified in
the next chapter.
 48

transitive usage is the rendering of a Hebrew verb, and where people are involved.130 The
Liddell-Scott-Jones lexicon points in this regard to LXX Gen. 40:4 and LXX Num. 27:23 for an
extension of the above mentioned meaning “bring together as friends” or “introduce or
recommend one to another”. The lexicon renders the Hebrew as “place in the charge of” (Gen.
40:4), and “appoint to a charge” (Num. 27:23).131 In the Masoretic Text both verses show
different verbs; in Gen. 40:4 ‫( פקד‬various meanings, in this particular case “to assign to”) and in
Num. 27:23 it is ‫( צוה‬basic meaning “to command”).132 This twofold origin with one single
rendering demonstrates the very problem for a translator when trying to find the exact equivalent
for the original word. Next to Num. 27:23 there is also Num. 32:28, where suni&sthmi is the
rendering of the Piel form of ‫צוה‬.133 Both involve a command performed under God’s authority.
There is a slight likeness in the situation of Rom.16:1 where Paul acts as servant of Christ
(1:1), although there is no immediate sign of God commanding him to commission Phoebe. It
could be that Paul’s apostolic self-image as the one in whom Christ is acting may presuppose
such a command. Since there are no indications of Paul favouring the vocabulary of Numbers in
the LXX, it seems more appropriate to examine the meaning of suni&sthmi in transitive usage in
other writings.
In the Septuagint the verb is also used transitively while referring to people in 1 and 2
Maccabees. In 1 Macc. 12:43 Tryphon “commended” (sune&sthsen) Jonathan; in 2 Macc. 4:24
Menelaus is “presented” (susqatei_v) to the king, and in 8:9 Nicanor “associated” ( sune&sthse)
with him Gorgias, a general.134 The verb is also found twenty five times in apocryphal and

130
See E. HATCH – H. A. REDPATH, eds., A Concordance to the Septuagint: And the other Greek Versions
of the Old Testament - Including the Apocryphal Books, reprinted Graz, Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt,
1954, p. 1317 shows the usage of sunistanai and its Hebrew origin. Next to Pentateuch verses and to Psalms in
which the usage is mostly intransitive, the concordance also gives occurrences of the verb in apocryphal writings.
These will be given in n. 136.
131
See H. G. LIDDELL – ROBERT SCOTT – H. STUART JONES, A Greek-English lexicon, p. 1718.
132
See L. KOEHLER – W. BAUMGARTNER , The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament Vol. II,
Leiden, Brill, 2001, p. 956.
133
Num.27:23, “and he laid his hands on him and commissioned him as the LORD directed through
Moses” (ESV), and Num.32:28, “So Moses gave command concerning them to Eleazar the priest and to Joshua the
son of Nun and to the heads of the fathers' houses of the tribes of the people of Israel” (ESV). The basic meaning of
‫ צוה‬is “command” and mostly when it is ‫אלהים‬/‫( יהוה‬YHWH/God) who is commanding (see L. KOEHLER – W.
BAUMGARTNER , The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament Vol. II, p. 1010). There are two renderings
for this verb in LXX, e0nte&llw or sunta&ssw. In these two verses of Numbers however, ‫ צוה‬is rendered by
suni&sthmi. It is Moses who acts as servant of YHWH, and who is putting Joshua in charge as YHWH had told
Moses to do (MT 27:23, ‫)כּ ְַא ֶשׁר ִדּ ֶבּר יְ הֹוׇ ה ְבּיַ ד־מ ֶֹשׁה‬.
ַ By means of Moses Joshua is commissioned in 27:23, and in
32:28 Eleazar, again Joshua and the chiefs of the families of the tribes of Israel are.
134
These translations are based on the NRSV.
 49

pseudepigraphical writings.135 In only one instance given in the concordances suni&sthmi is used
transitively while at the same time referring to people.136 Artapanus 9.23.2 reads: “He [referring
to Josephus] came to Egypt, was recommended (sustaqe&nta) to the king”.137
Flavius Josephus also uses suni&sthmi in his writings but only seven out of ninety nine
times it is both transitive and involving people. In five instances it means “to recommend” (in
Bellum Judaicum 1.556; 4.654, and in Antiquitates Judaicae, 16.199; 18.166; 19.315).138
Elsewhere in Josephus’ Antiquitates (10.220) and Contra Apionem (1.135) the rendering of
suni&sthmi is used in the case of “committing” someone, which recalls the two verses of Numbers
that are mentioned above.139 It concerns two parallel accounts of Josephus’ description of
Nebuchadnezzar’s father – king Nabopolassar – who, after hearing that many revolted against
him, delegates his position to his son.
Thus, out of the more than hundred and fifty examined verses using suni&sthmi,140 in
fourteen of them the verb appears transitive and also referring to people. A recapitulation is
shown in the table below:

135
See A. M. DENIS – Y. JANSSENS, eds., Concordance Grecque des Pseudépigraphes d’Ancien Testament
(Publications de l'Institut Orientaliste de Louvain), Leuven – Leiden, Peeters – Brill, 1987, p. 720; see also E.
HATCH – H. A. REDPATH (eds.), A Concordance to the Septuagint, p. 1317.
136
It is verified in J. H. CHARLESWORTH ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 Vols., London, Darton,
Longman & Todd, 1983-1985. The Letter of Aristaeus 1, 55, 96, 119 and 154; Henoch 101.6; Testament of Job 36.3
(2), 38.1 and 38.3; 3 Maccabees 1.19, 2.26, 4.1, 4.16, 4.18, 5.36, 6.31, 6.32, 6.35, 6.38; Testament of Abraham A
9.6; Testament of Abraham B 10.10; Fragment Ahiqar 102; Artapanus 9.23.2, 9.27.7.
137
See The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 2, Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends,
Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judo-Hellenistic Works,
London, Darton, Longman & Todd, 1985, p. 897.
138
See K. RENGSTORF, ed., A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, Vol. 4, Leiden, Brill, 1984, pp.
126-127; for the renderings of Josephus see also W. WISHTON, The Works of Josephus: New Updated Edition,
Peabody, MA, Hendrickson Publishers, 1987, p. 438: Ant. 16.191, “Herod also recommended (suni&sth)
Ptolemy…to Antipater”; p. 487: Ant. 18.166, “After this, Tiberius Caesar recommended (suni&sthsin) to him his
grandson”; p. 521: Ant. 19.315, Jonathan was put into priesthood against his own will and said to king Agrippa ” I
have a brother that is pure from all sin against God, and of all offences against thyself; I recommend (suni&sthmi)
him to thee, as one that is fit for this dignity”; p. 555: B. J. 1.556, where Herod is remorseful and promises to do
better for his grandchildren: “ It was an unlucky fate that took away from me these children’s fathers, which
children are recommended (suni&sthsin) to me…”; p. 695: B. J. 4.654, after the heavy battle in Rome where many
were killed including Vitellius, and Mucianus tried to stop further killing: “He then produced Domitian, and
recommended (suni&sthsi) him to the multitude, until his father should come himself”.
139
See W. WISHTON, The Works of Josephus, p. 281: Ant. 10.220, “…while he was not himself able any
longer to undergo the hardships [of war], he committed (susth&sav) to his son Nebuchadnezar, who was still but a
youth, some parts of his army...” For the parallel in C.Ap. 1.135, see ID. p. 781.
140
According to the occurrences given in the concordances it is checked 37 times in the LXX, 25 times in
apocryphal and pseudepigraphical writings and 99 times in those of Josephus.
 50

amount of occurrences suni&sthmi suni&sthmi

of suni&sthmi transitively meaning
given in the concordances and referring to people “to appoint
as a representative”
LXX LXX LXX

37 times Gen. 40:4 Gen. 40:4

Num. 27:23 Num. 27:23
Num. 32:28 Num. 32:28
1 Macc. 12:43
2 Macc. 4:24
2 Macc. 8:9
Apocrypha and Apocrypha and Apocrypha
Pseudepigrapha Pseudepigrapha and Pseudepigrapha

25 times Art. 9.23.2 -

Josephus Josephus Josephus

99 times Ant. 10.220 Ant. 10.220

Ant. 16.191 B. J. 4.654 *
Ant. 18.166 C. Ap. 1.135
Ant. 19.315
B. J. 1.556 * B. J. 4.654 could also fit into
B. J. 4.654 this pattern since Domitian was
C. Ap. 1.135 recommended “until his father
should come himself”, hence he
was a representative; see also n. 138.

The six instances with the meaning of being “appointed as a representative” show at the very
least that suni&sthmi used transitively and at the same time involving people has been applied
with a meaning that goes beyond the usual “recommending” or “introducing”.
And there is another thing. Research into papyrus letters of recommendation shows that,
although the basic structure of Rom.16 equals these Greek letters of recommendation, Paul’s
opening formula is not quite the same.141 If the verb suni&sthmi is used in these papyri it is
expressed in a circuitous way. The writer first asks the addressee’s permission to recommend
someone,142 which seems to point to a subordinated position of the one making the request.

141
See KIM, CHAN-HIE, Form and Structure of the Familiar Greek Letter of Recommendation ( SBL
Dissertation Series 4), Missoula, MT, University of Missoula, 1972, pp. 68-70, 132-135.
142
This type of letters of recommendation generally has five elements and starts with “I ask”. The sentence
then reads “With permission I recommend…” (e0rwtw~ se e1xein au0to_n sunistame&non) and it ends with the
personal pronoun or the name of the recommended person. See KIM, CHAN-HIE, Form and Structure of the Familiar
Greek Letter of Recommendation, pp. 68-69.
 51

The verb suni&sthmi is presented then in the periphrastic participle, sunista&menon. Only one
document has it in the present indicative as in Rom.16:1, but even there some kind words
precede.143 So it seems indeed that the straight words in which Paul is recommending Phoebe
does point to an inevitable fact for the addressees. At the same time this formula seems to
indicate at the least a relationship of equality between Paul and the addressees. This is not
surprising with his statement from Gal. 3:28 in mind.
What do these interpretations mean for the translation if it should be something more
forceful than “recommend” and at the same time not as compelling as “appoint”. For it was not
Paul who appointed: people are called and thus appointed by God.144 Phoebe’s mission could
possibly have emerged out of deliberations between Paul and her,145 which is plausible because
of the short distance between Cenchreae and Corinth.146 My proposal is to solve this dilemma by
rendering the verb as “to introduce” in the meaning in which it is nowadays used in business
companies.147 If a new chief officer is appointed by the Board of Directors an introduction round
is held. The employees in the company meet with the new leader, who thereafter starts working.
In the same manner Paul introduces Phoebe, who, as we will see below,148 is called by God, and
who after being introduced can start acting as is agreed.

4.1.2 Phoebe and Paul’s co-workers in Rom. 16

There is more that supports a powerful character of suni&sthmi in 16:1a. Reading it in its
immediate context of chapter 16, one could also conclude that the Romans did not have a choice
in accepting Phoebe as letter-carrier and as the one being commissioned by Paul to explain his
gospel to them and set them in motion for the coming mission. In the greeting list of Rom.16
some of the persons named as co-workers of Paul in Asia Minor are recognized. Next to Phoebe
he describes six named women and four named men. The way Paul mentions them makes it

143
The recommendation is only in the second sentence, after short “greetings” (xai&rein). See KIM, CHAN-
HIE, Form and Structure of the Familiar Greek Letter of Recommendation, p. 215.
144
See also p. 56 in the section on dia&konov.
145
Carolyn Osiek even proposes that “it is likely that Paul is not just commending Phoebe to a new group,
but is participating in some greater plan, which may have been initiated not by Paul but by Phoebe”. See C. OSIEK,
“‘Diakonos’ and ‘Prostatis’: Women’s Patronage in Early Christianity”, in HTS 61 (2005) 347-370, 364.
146
In section 4.3.2 there will be more on Cenchreae.
147
It is obvious I do not point to the way of introducing that is restricted to “getting to know each other”.
148
See section 4.3.1 starting on p. 56.
 52

seem most likely that these are people active in preaching the Gospel.149 What is their
relationship to him, and above all, what does this add to our knowledge about Phoebe?
Prisca and Aquila (v. 3), Urbanus (v. 9), and Timothy (v. 21) are named as sunergo&v of
Paul and of the Romans. What is the meaning of this designation? Mostly sunergo&v is translated
as “co-worker”. The Liddell-Scott-Jones lexicon gives as translations: “helper; person of the
same trade, fellow-worker, or colleague”.150 There is a clear difference between helper and co-
worker or colleague, and therefore translation must be done carefully. As for Prisca and Aquila,
and also for Timothy, we may find an answer in New Testament writings.
Acts 18 does not give any details about kerygmatic activities of Prisca151 and Aquila
which includes co-working with Paul, although Acts18:26 has them explaining to Apollos ‘the
way of God’. However, they are not portrayed as Paul’s fellow-workers but as tentmakers (18:3,
“and because he was of the same trade, he stayed and worked with them; for by trade they were
tentmakers”). His own letters show a different picture, though. He adds “in Christ Jesus” (e0n
Xristw~? 0Ihsou ~) to “my fellow workers” (tou(v sunergou&v mou, Rom.16:3) which makes it clear
that the co-working includes serving the Gospel. Urbanus was also co-worker e0n Xristw~? (“in
Christ”), Timothy was sunergo&v mou (“my co-worker”). However, in his letters Paul has
repeatedly explained to his communities that the people who work with him are not doing it for
his sake but only for God.152 Therefore Timothy may be seen as co-worker in serving the Gospel.
It seems that for Paul the definition of the word sunergo&v is more concentrated on “work”
(e!rgon), commissioned by God preaching the Gospel, than on “with” or “together with” (sun)
which reflects the team aspect.153
Andronicus and Junia are both referred to as outstanding a0po&stoloi (v. 7). This passage
has aroused many discussions, first of all about the name Junia. For a relatively short period in
history this name has been interpreted as masculine in stead of feminine. Patristic writings show
that the name was understood to be that of a woman. In the beginning of the third century, in his

149
See R. BIERINGER, “Febe, Prisca en Junia”, p. 165; see also M. GIELEN, “Die Wahrnehmung
Gemeindlicher Leitungsfunktionen durch Frauen im Spiegel der Paulusbriefe”, in T. SCHMELLER – M. EBNER – R.
HOPPE (eds.), Neutestamentliche Ämtermodelle im Kontext (QD, 239), Freiburg, Herder, 2010, 129-165, p. 149.
150
H. G. LIDDELL – ROBERT SCOTT – H. STUART JONES, A Greek-English lexicon, pp. 1711-1712.
151
In Acts her name is rendered in the diminutive form ‘Priscilla’.
152
See 1 Cor. 3:9: “For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building”; 2 Cor. 1:24:
“Not that we act as a master over your faith, but are workers with you for your joy”; 1 Thes. 3:2: “and we sent
Timothy, our brother and God's fellow worker in the gospel of Christ”
153
See also W-.H. OLLROG, Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter, pp. 67-69.
 53

commentary on Romans Origen wrote about Junia or Julia (a textual variant).154 Later John
Chrysostom wrote: “Indeed, how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was
even deemed worthy of the title of apostle”.155 Moreover, until the fourteenth century when
Aegidius of Rome noted there were two variant readings no commentator questioned the name to
be feminine. After Aegidius, in the sixteenth century, Martin Luther took the name to be the
accusative of the masculine Junias. Throughout the following centuries this hypothesis was
challenged in vain. However, at last, all philological evidence pointing to the feminine Junia has
moved the majority of modern scholars to correct this mistake.156 In the last quarter of the
twentieth century Junias finally became Junia again.
This discussion could only get started because in the minds of the commentators a
woman could not have been an apostle, and therefore in this passage the apostle’s name could
not be that of a woman. One of many things done to avoid a woman apostle in this text was
changing the apostle’s gender. All changes involved the interpretation of e0pi&shmoi e0n toi~v
a0posto&loiv. Some commentators interpreted it as “outstanding in the eyes of the apostles”.157
Related to this interpretation some translations read “well known to the apostles” in stead of
“outstanding among the apostles”. Also the translation “outstanding men among the apostles”
was one of the ways to avoid a woman apostle. On this it can be commented that the masculine
plural e0pi&shmoi and a0posto&loi are equal to the masculine plural of a0delfoi& with the commonly
accepted inclusive meaning men and women,158 as we will see below.
The only possible conclusion out of this analysis is that to Paul both Andronicus and
Junia were “outstanding among the apostles”. Paul was called by God to tell the people about the
risen Jesus Christ. Being an apostle was of great importance to him, because this gave to him,
like to all apostles, the authority of preaching the Gospel to the Christian communities. For him
there was no difference between the Twelve and all other apostles (1 Cor.9:1: “Am I not an
apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?”). It even seems he ranked Andronicus and Junia

154
This section is based on B. BROOTEN, “Junia…Outstanding among the Apostles”.
155
As rendered in B. BROOTEN, “Junia…Outstanding among the Apostles”, p. 141.
156
E.g. the Dutch Willibrord Vertaling 1978 rendered Junias, the edition of 1995 shows Junia, but the New
American Standard Bible 1995 Update (The Lockman Foundation, 1995) still renders Junias.
157
See C. E. B. CRANFIELD, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans Vol. II, p.
789 n. 1, where Charles Cranfield mentions Cornely and Zahn as illustrative supporters of this view.
158
See E. SCHÜSSLER FIORENZA, Ter herinnering aan haar, pp. 62-64; see also A. MERZ, “Phöbe,
Diakon(in) der Gemeinde von Kenchreä”, 125-140, p. 126.
 54

higher than himself since he called them “outstanding among the apostles”.159 This qualification
makes it clear he entrusted both Andronicus and Junia with the preaching of the Gospel to the
Christian communities.
Mary (v. 6), Tryphaena, Tryphosa and Persis (v. 12), four women, are mentioned as
people who worked hard ei0v u9ma~v (v. 6, “for you”) or e0n kuri&w? (v. 12, “in the Lord”). The verb
kopia&w, “working hard”, does have a specific meaning in this context. It was Paul’s favourite
word for illustrating the labour of his own ministry and for that of others.160 As noticed before,
for him serving the Gospel included burdens and much suffering, like Jesus experienced during
his lifetime while he was serving God.161 The hard labour now refers to the spreading of the
Gospel by these four women. For Tryphaena, Tryphosa and Persis this labour was not restricted
to the Roman communities, as it was for Mary (ei0v u9ma~v), since the target group of their labour is
not named. It is significant that Paul uses the verb kopia&w not only for his own preaching and
teaching but also for that of women.162
All qualifications of the ministries named above clearly do have a kerygmatic character,
in this context even the verb kopia&w does. But none of those highly qualified and trustworthy
persons in Rom.16:3-16 seem to become the first to be related to the explanation of this
particular letter, its gospel, and its possible consequences. Why did Paul send and introduce
Phoebe to the Romans if there were so many other highly qualified fellow-workers available?
The explanation must be that Phoebe’s qualities went beyond those of all others, and therefore in
the eyes of Paul she was the only person suited for the task he had in mind. I will try to find out
what these other qualities were.

4.2 Rom. 16:1b “Our sister” - th_n a0delfh_n h9mw~n

Since Paul sent to the Romans a woman that was unknown to them, it was necessary to
introduce her the way he does. The whole description resembles the presentation of the
credentials of an ambassador, telling who this woman is and what she has accomplished at other
159
While also calling himself to the Corinthians the least of the apostles: 1 Cor. 15:9: “For I am the least of
the apostles, not fit to be called an apostle, because I have persecuted the church of God”.
160
See K. A. GERBERDING, “Women Who Toil in Ministry, Even as Paul”, in Currents in Theology and
Mission 18 (1991) 285-291; see for Paul’s use of kopia&w also the examples in 2 Cor. 11:23, Gal. 4:11 and in Phil.
2:16.
161
See also p. 38 n. 101.
162
See also E. SCHÜSSLER FIORENZA, Ter herinnering aan haar, p. 183.
 55

places. Paul explains to them Phoebe is th_n a0delfh_n h9mw~n (“our sister”). The name Phoebe is
obviously not of Roman or Jewish origin, since she is named after a goddess in Greek
mythology.163 Was her pagan name the reason he introduced her as one of them, as a0delfh_n
h9mw~n?
The word a0delfh& is a feminine equivalent of a0delfov (“brother”) and it is rarely used in
the Pauline letters. One very often notices the masculine plural a0delfoi&, commonly used with the
inclusive meaning “brothers and sisters”.164 The word refers to the membership of and the
solidarity with the early-Christian movement.165 Since Paul refers to Phoebe alone, the usage of
the feminine form here is logical. The designation has to be understood in the way of
membership, and not in a way of real kinship. However, this membership is not enough to make
her the right person in the right place.

4.3 Rom. 16:1c “Being a servant of the church at Cenchreae” –

ou]san kai_ dia&konon th~v e0kklhsi&av th~v e0n Kegxreai~v

Paul continues and adds another dimension to his information; Phoebe is not only a
fellow Christian, she is also dia&konon th~v e0kklhsi&av th~v e0n Kegxreai~v (“a servant of the church
at Cenchrea”). Now the importance of kai_ comes into view since it emphasizes her being a
dia&konov, something that cannot be said of every Christian.166 Some commentators nowadays
relate the interpretation of dia&konov to that of prosta&tiv (“patron”) and examine therefore the
one term in light of the other. Their relation is seen merely in spheres of “assistance” and “care”,
in both Phoebe’s way of serving the Gospel and her being a patron. At variance with such
studies, however, I prefer to examine dia&konov and prosta&tiv separately.

163
See also J. R. EDWARDS, Romans, p. 353; J. A. FITZMEYER, Romans, p. 729.
164
Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza noticed that androcentric language includes women although they are not
explicitly mentioned, but when it comes to titles scholars take it for granted they can only refer to men, E.
SCHÜSSLER FIORENZA, Ter herinnering aan haar, p. 64. Contrary to old traditions there is nowadays consensus
among most modern commentators about the inclusive rendering of a0delfoi& as “brothers and sisters”.
165
See also C. E. B. CRANFIELD, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans Vol.
II, p. 780; R. JEWETT, “Paul, Phoebe, and the Spanish Mission”, p. 148.
166
See R. BIERINGER, “Febe, Prisca en Junia”, p. 167.
 56

4.3.1 “Servant” - dia&konov

Many translations give a picture of a subordinated service by rendering a female dia&konon

as “helper” or “deaconess”. Modern scholars realise the consequences of these kinds of
translations that can be categorized as anachronistic.167 Both the term ‘deaconess’ and ‘deacon’
call in mind the ministries of times beyond Paul’s, and they provide a different image of what he
meant while using this title. ‘Deaconess’ immediately brings in mind the women’s care of the
sick and the poor. Even ‘deacon’ nowadays brings up a different picture than in Paul’s time. We
know of deacons as seminarians in the last stage before priestly ordination and of ‘permanent
deacons’ who, in addition to preaching and teaching, care for the poor and the outcast.
Finding a pure and in content proper translation that fits in with its original meaning as
shown in Paul’s own letters is very difficult. To avoid a cumbersome way of writing, from now
on in this study I render it as Deacon – with a capital D – to emphasize that it is the most original
form of this ministry and that it should not be confused with an institutionalized ministry of post-
Pauline origin. In Rom. 16:1 he uses it without any additional explanation, but several
indications of its meaning can be found elsewhere.
The word group diakoni&a / diakonei~n in the New Testament covers a wide range of
meanings: “charitable aid, table service, serving the gospel” and also “leadership”. But what did
practicing diakoni&a, being a dia&konov, mean to Paul? It was obviously clear to his audience what
he meant by telling them Phoebe was a dia&konov.168 In order to discover its meaning, it is best to
analyze other occurrences in the undisputed Pauline letters only, 169 since changes in meaning are
found already soon after Paul.

167
See J. N. COLLINS, Deacons and the Church: Making Connections between Old and New, Leomister –
Harrisburg, PA, Gracewing – Morehouse Publishing, 2002, p. 88. While referring to Phil. 1:1 John Collins notices:
“The many translations of the last fifty years, however, have shown considerable hesitation about using terms like
bishops and deacons, and tend to use alternatives like ‘superintendents and assistants’ or ‘overseers and their
helpers’; Annette Merz’s consequent rendering of dia&konov in “DiakonIn” (and e0pi&skopov in “BischöfIn”) also
touches on this problem, see also A. MERZ, “Phöbe, Diakon(in) der Gemeinde von Kenchreä”, pp. 125-140.
168
Annette Merz has doubts whether it was clear to the Romans what the work of a dia&konov was
“angesichts nicht vorhandener Übereinstimmung in den Funktionsbezeichnungen in den Gemeinden“, in A. MERZ,
“Phöbe, Diakon(in) der Gemeinde von Kenchreä”, p. 136. In my opinion there was not yet a distinction in the work
of a dia&konov at this stage as we would understand it according to Acts 6:1-6 (here, one group is praying and
serving the word and the other is serving tables). In Paul’s days serving the Gospel included both preaching and
serving at the table, as well as everything else needed to serve the Gospel. There are no indications that it was
practiced otherwise.
169
Twice Paul has linked dia&konov to Christ: in Rom. 15:8 he explains “Christ became a servant to the
circumcised” (Xristo_n dia&konon peritomh~v) in showing the circumcised his uprightness, and in Gal. 2:17 he is
 57

Since the passage in 1 Cor. 3:5-9 presents dia&konov, sunergo&v, and ko&pov in relation to
each other, one might try to ascertain the exact meaning of dia&konov by focussing on their
differences.
1 Cor. 3:5-9:
5. What then is Apollos? What is Paul?
Servants (dia&konoi) through whom you came to believe,
as the Lord entrusted to each.
6. I planted, Apollos watered, but God causes the growth
7. Therefore, neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything,
but only God who causes the growth.
8. He who plants and he who waters are one,
and each will receive his wages according to his own labour (ko&pon).
9. For we are God's fellow workers (sunergoi&).
You are God's field, God's building.

In these verses Paul responds to a discussion between adherents of rival groups. He tells them
what both his and Apollos’ positions are. They are both “servants” / dia&konoi (v. 5). Paul plants,
Apollos waters, but only God is capable of letting it grow (vv. 6-7). Both serve in bringing
people to believe; Paul provides the basis while Apollos takes over and reinforces the work.
They both are equal and will receive wages from God according to the “labour” / ko&pon (v. 8) of
each, for they are his “fellow workers” / sunergoi& (v. 9). Since the people come to believe
through the dia&konoi, Paul’s first and direct link of dia&konov is clearly to the preaching of the
Gospel.170 For Paul dia&konov was not only linked to serving the faith of the community but as
dia&konov Xristou~ it was also related to the burdens and suffering for the Gospel of Christ, as it
was with kopia&w (“working hard”).171 When he compares himself to the u9perli&an a0posto&loi
(2 Cor. 11:5, ”super-apostles”) he tells about all he endured for the Gospel of Christ, the hard

suggesting though immediately denying the idea of “Christ as a servant of sin?” (a0marti&av Xristo_v dia&kono&v;).
In Rom. 13:3-4 he links it to the governing authorities (13:3: th_n e0cousi&an) for they are “God’s servant” (13:4:
qeou~ ga_r dia&kono&v e0stin). Although it was not always practiced this way, in his view the authorities had to “serve
God” when ruling the empire. This shows for Paul it was all about serving God in one way or another. But
additional passages are needed to come closer to its meaning.
170
Therefore we must avoid restricting the meaning of dia&konov to caritas, or table service. In a note
Marlis Gielen completes Anni Hentschel’s comment about limited service with: “Schöpfen von Suppe für bedürftige
Gemeindemitglieder”, exactly what many have in mind thinking of a deaconess. M. GIELEN, “Die Wahrnehmung
Gemeindlicher Leitungsfunktionen durch Frauen im Spiegel der Paulusbriefe”, p. 144.
171
See also A. MERZ, “Phöbe, Diakon(in) der Gemeinde von Kenchreä”, p. 127, where she calls the
sufferings the second characteristic of Paul as a real dia&konov.
 58

labour, the imprisonments, the beatings and the danger of death (2 Cor. 11:23), as mentioned
earlier in the context of kopia&w.172
The diakoni&a is one of the “charismatic gifts” (xari&smata) in Rom.12:6-8, according to
the grace given to each. The first three mentioned are profhtei&a (“prophesying”), diakoni&a
(“serving”), and dida&skali&a (“teaching”). All three are involved in the preaching of the Gospel;
prophesying and teaching are obviously related to it, and that serving is related to it is shown in
1 Cor. 3:5 (“Servants / dia&konoi through whom you came to believe”). Since diakoni&a is a gift it
shows that those individuals Paul calls a dia&konov are not appointed by him; their vocation
comes from God. Marlis Gielen notices that it is striking that for qualifying Phoebe Paul uses the
same word for this position as he has done for himself and for Apollos (dia&konoi,1 Cor. 3:5)
when being assigned to it by God.173 It may be less striking looking at the originator of the
charismatic gifts. Paul obviously did not appoint Phoebe; it is likely he accepted she too was
called by God.174 This could be all the more reason to introduce her the way he does. Again, here
with Phoebe, as is the case with Junia, Mary, Tryphaena, Tryphosa and Persis, Paul does not
exclude a woman of serving the Gospel.175
Such a threefold pattern as in the first part of the charismatic gifts also appears in 1 Cor.
12:28, except here it exists of “apostles”, “prophets”, and “teachers”, in this very order made up
by Paul:
And God has appointed in the church first apostles,
second prophets, third teachers,
then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating,
and various kinds of tongues. (ESV)

Each of these three refer to the ministry of the Word,176 fulfilled by individuals who are
appointed by God. Thereafter powers and gifts are mentioned which no longer designate
missionaries but competences, and what is more they are not related to serving the Gospel. It has

172
Here, against his rivals, Paul is less modest than in 1 Cor. 15:9 where he calls himself ‘the least among
the apostles’. See also p. 54 n. 159.
173
See M. GIELEN, “Die Wahrnehmung Gemeindlicher Leitungsfunktionen durch Frauen im Spiegel der
Paulusbriefe”, p. 145.
174
See also E. SCHÜSSLER FIORENZA, Ter herinnering aan haar, p. 67, Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza noticed
that texts like Rom. 16:1-3 and Rom. 7 suggest that the leading women in the mission of ancient Christianity did not
owe this leadership to Paul.
175
In the late second century Clement of Alexandria and after him his student Origen referred without
hesitation to female deacons , see K. A. GERBERDING, “Women Who Toil in Ministry, Even as Paul”, p. 289.
176
See also J. N. COLLINS, Deacons and the Church, p. 82.
 59

to be noticed that in this verse diakoni&a is not mentioned, and the word that designates the
serving or rather the “supporting” of people is a0ntilh&myiv.177 Although both are God given
capabilities, there seems to be a clear difference between serving individuals (a0ntilh&myiv) and
the service of the Gospel (diakoni&a).
Another pattern that includes apostles, prophets and teachers returns in the Didache, in
11-13 and specifically in 15:1-2, where also “bishops” and “deacons” are mentioned.178
Didache 15:
1. Choose, therefore, for yourselves,
bishops and deacons (e0pisko&pouv kai_ diako&nouv) worthy of the Lord,
men meek, and not greedy (a0filargu&rouv), and truthful and approved;
for they also render to you
the service of prophets and teachers (th_n leitourgi&an tw~n profhtw~n kai_ didaska&lwn)
2. therefore, do not look down on them
for they are your honored ones (oi9 tetimhme&noi),
together with the prophets and teachers.179

The common topic of these chapters is the way of receiving itinerant apostles, prophets, and
teachers. The two verses in chapter 15 do not give much information about the practice of
“bishops” (e0pisko&poi) and “deacons” (diako&noi), but they certainly show that both groups
mentioned did the same work as apostles, prophets, and teachers did, which was serving the
Gospel. It is also clear that there was no hierarchy; all belonged to the “esteemed people” (v. 2 oi9
tetimhme&noi) of the community.180 The difference was particularly in the wandering character of
their labour. While “bishops” and “deacons” were tied to their own communities, apostles,
prophets and teachers travelled around. The verses also reveal that “bishops” and “deacons” were
elected by the community members in contrast to Paul’s thoughts. For him practicing these
works belonged to the charismatic gifts of God.

177
See H. G. LIDDELL – ROBERT SCOTT – H. STUART JONES, A Greek-English lexicon, p. 158.
178
See also H. VAN DE SANDT – D. FLUSSER, The Didachè, pp. 331-364. For the rendering of e0pisko&poi
kai_ diako&noi into “bishops and deacons” see also the remarks of John Collins on p. 56 n. 167.
179
See W. RORDORF – A. TUILIER, La Doctrine des douze Apôtres (Didachè), (Sources Crétiennes Nê 248
bis), Paris, Les Éditions Du Cerf, 1998. See for the translation A. ROBERTS – J. DONALDSON, eds., Ante-Nicene
Fathers : the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, Vol. 7, Lactantius, Venantius, Asterius, Victorinus,
Dionysius, Apostolic teaching and constitutions, homily, and liturgies, Buffalo, NY, The Christian Literature
Publishing Company, 1886, repr. Peabody, Ma, Hendrickson, 1994, rendered on BibleWorks 7.0.012g.
180
See also W. SCHÖLLGEN, “The Didache as a Church Order: an Examination of the Purpose for the
Composition of the Didache and its Consequences for Interpretation”, in J. A. DRAPER, (ed.), The Didache in
Modern Research: An Overview, Leiden, Brill, 1996, pp. 43-71.
 60

The difference in the naming of the wandering missionaries and those who worked in
their own community was already present in Paul’s letters. To him an a)po&stolov and a dia&konov
were both involved in serving the Gospel. There is widespread scholarly consensus that in using
dia&konov he referred to serving the Gospel in a specific community, although he did not always
mention it. In using a)po&stolov he also pointed to the service of the Gospel though in a wider
range. As an a)po&stolov / dia&konov he could be the one through whom the people came to belief
and leave the ‘nourishment’ of it to others (like to Apollos in 1 Cor. 3:5-9) but that does not
mean it always happened this way. The dia&konov Phoebe was most likely the one through whom
the belief was planted in the church of Cenchreae and the one who had continued the labour
there.181 And how significant is it that Cenchreae was near to Corinth, the place where Paul
served the Gospel for two years? It is not mentioned that Paul had founded this community. If he
would this was the very place to make it known. So, she was most likely the founder and indeed
the leader of this church.182 Being a dia&konov by vocation, when she got involved in the Roman
mission she could also become an a)po&stolov. How much of this actually had been realized is
unknown to us, since Romans is the first and the last testimony of her activities.
Her continuing praxis of serving the Gospel is best seen in the usage of the present
participle ou]sa (“being”) which emphasizes the duration of the activity. Phoebe is and always
will be “Deacon of the church at Cenchreae” (dia&konon th~v e0kklhsi&av th~v e0n Kegxreai~v). An
inscription on a broken tomb stone on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem shows that long after her
death Phoebe was still highly regarded as dia&konov. The fourth-century inscription is one of the
epigraphic evidences of women being a dia&konov.183 A part of the inscription reads:

181
Up to now there are no indications, neither in the two verses on her in Romans nor in any writing
whatsoever, that someone else founded the church at Cenchreae, or joined in her work. When she travels to Rome
she must have delegated this work, at least for the time of the mission, but nothing is said about this. Is she a leader
‘at distance’, like Paul of his communities?
182
According to Holmberg the serving character of this ministry did not exclude the performers of being
leader of the congregation at the same time, see H. HOLMBERG, Paul and Power. The Structure of Authority in the
Primitive Church as Reflected in the Pauline Epistles (ConBNT 11), CWK, Gleerup, Lund, 1978, p. 102.
183
See E. A. MCCABE, “A Reevaluation of Phoebe in Romans 16:1-2 as a ‘Diakonos’ and ‘Prostatis’”, pp.
100-101.
 61

…С O F I A H D I A K O N O С H D E U
T E R A F O I B H ...
(+ Here lies the slave and bride of Christ)
“Sophia, deacon, the second Phoebe…” 184

The title second Phoebe is seen as a parallel of Hellenistic usages like calling someone second
Homer.185 It has been applied to those who gave outstanding service to their city. Ute Eisen
comments that for Sophia this title ‘the second Phoebe’ could have reflected aspects of Phoebe’s
activity beyond her work as a deacon and may have been pointing to that of a prosta&tiv.
Moreover, it is noteworthy that this ministry for women even over 150 years after Phoebe still
had been described in the masculine term dia&konov.

4.3.2. “Servant of the church at Cenchreae” - dia&konov th~v e0kklhsi&av th~v e0n Kegxreai~v

Firstly, it is necessary to take a closer look at Cenchreae. Archaeological findings attest

that in the time of the Roman Empire Cenchreae was an important harbour.186 It was the Eastport
of the inland city and the commercial centre of the region, and of Corinth, and the centre of trade
routes from Asia Minor, the Near East and also the nearby Aegean islands. This harbour must
have been known to the Romans, although those trading with and travelling to Corinth usually
went ashore in the Westport, at least if there was favourable wind.
On the other hand, when Paul travelled by boat to Corinth he first arrived at Cenchreae.
Therefore he must have met Phoebe more than once. Certain people in Cenchreae must have
heard of his sometimes troubled relationship with Corinth, of which the letters to the Corinthians
testify. And we also may assume the efforts of his co-workers to restore the strained relationships
between Paul and competitive missionaries have been heard and seen in Cenchreae too.187 In all
fields the people of Cenchreae would have experienced the same lively activities as those in

184
See U. E. EISEN, Women Officeholders in Early Christianity. Epigraphical and Literary Studies,
Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2000, p. 161.
185
See U. E. EISEN, Women Officeholders in Early Christianity, p. 160.
186
See CH. K. WILLIAMS, The Corinthia in the Roman Period, in Journal of Roman Archaeology
Supplementary Series Number Eight (1993) 31-46; see also J. L. RIFE – T. PITMAN, Kenchreai Cemetery Project,
Macalester College, 2006. Consulted July 2011, online: http://www.macalester. edu/classics/kenchreai/site.html.
187
See also A. MERZ, “Phöbe, Diakon(in) der Gemeinde von Kenchreä”, pp. 129-130.
 62

Corinth. Thus Phoebe was not dia&konov in an insignificant village but in an important harbour
city, and therefore it is more than likely she was known to many in that region.
Most scholars conclude that the announcement “being Deacon of the church at
Cenchreae” (ou]san kai_ dia&konon th~v e0kklhsi&av th~v e0n Kegxreai~v) means Phoebe exercised this
ministry only within the church at Cenchreae. Annette Merz has another theory, suggesting
Phoebe was sent as an envoy of the church at Cenchreae for a serving task in Rome.188 This
theory is based on the usage of the genitive th~v e0kklhsi&av th~v e0n Kegxreai~v (“of the church at
Cenchreae”). If someone is sent to another place usually the name and function at that time is
followed by the one who is sending, expressed in the genitive. We can see this in sunergo&v mou~
(“my fellow workers”) when Paul is sending co-workers and referring to himself as the sender.
Communities too could be the sender, while being expressed in the genitive. This also might be
the case with Phoebe and the church at Cenchreae. She has been sent by ‘her’ church in order to
fulfil her task in the Pauline mission.
In my opinion however, it seems unlikely that Phoebe was sent by the church of
Cenchreae in her function as dia&konov, since this immediately evokes the following question:
Why does Paul then speak in the first person singular, “I introduce” (suni&sthmi) if she is sent by
him and by the e0kklhsi&a th~v e0n Kegxreai~v? Annette Merz refers to a parallel in 2 Cor. 8:23:
“And as for our brothers, they are messengers of the churches, the glory of Christ”. However,
this situation is different since the preceding verse shows that the sending was not done by Paul
alone. In v. 22 it says: “And with them we are sending (sunepe&myamen) our brother”, with the
verb in the first person plural. Although Rom. 16:1 is not about sending it clearly shows Paul as
the only one who is introducing Phoebe.

4.4 First concluding remarks

Regarding the meaning of suni&sthmi there is strong evidence that the way Paul uses it
here emphasizes the powerful character of his introduction. The fact that Phoebe went on this
mission remains significant. So far we can picture her as an independent woman who had the
charismatic gift of serving the Gospel in the church at Cenchreae. We can also conclude that Paul

188
See A. MERZ, “Phöbe, Diakon(in) der Gemeinde von Kenchreä”, pp. 136-137. Carolyn Osiek also
agrees with those suggesting the ministry’s representation of one church to another. See C. OSIEK, “‘Diakonos’ and
‘Prostatis’: Women’s Patronage in Early Christianity”, p. 364.
 63

not excluded women in being an a)po&stolov, a dia&konov or a sunergo&v. He did not reject the fact
that they too could be called by God. We have seen that for him being a dia&konov was equal to
being a sunergo&v or an a)po&stolov. All this fits really well with his statement about Christians in
Gal. 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male
nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus”. We now may adapt diakoni&a in this statement,
and think of it as: “for you are all one in the service of Christ Jesus”, and find no difference in
ministry between men and women. In the equally valued ministries of serving Christ, however,
we can not find the distinctive quality which made Phoebe more suited for the task than the other
co-workers who were present in Rome. This information might come out of the next verse.
 64

CHAPTER 5
ROM. 16:2 - WHY PHOEBE?

In Rom.16:1 Paul informs the Romans about who Phoebe is, and in 16:2 he starts with
making a twofold request on her behalf. After the second request he gives them the reason why
they should comply with it: because she has become a prosta&tiv (“patron”)189 for many and
also for Paul himself.
As in the previous chapter, also in this one the focus is on the verse clauses one by one.
The first section (5.1) starts with Paul’s first appeal in v. 2a, concerning the way in which Phoebe
has to be received, and the second (5.2) continues with his next request to help her “in whatever
she may need from you”. In the third section (5.3) the attention is drawn to Phoebe as prosta&tiv
of many and also of Paul. What did he mean by calling Phoebe that way?

5.1 Rom. 16:2a, “That you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints” -
i#na prosde&chsqe e0n kuri&w? a0ci&wv tw~n a9gi&wn 190

Keeping in mind the purpose of the letter one could say Paul asked the Romans to start
their cooperation with him by receiving Phoebe, and in a specific way. In this context the nature
of this welcome may be marked as focussing on her religious mission. The sayings “in the Lord”
and “worthy of the saints” support this idea; they do not seem to reveal a commercial purpose for
this visit, but it is obvious that further examination is needed. The first part of this section is a
brief remark on the interpretation of i#na in this verse, and the second part deals with the special
way of receiving, and with the people that are encouraged to do so.

189
“Patron” is the most common translation in modern times as will be shown in the third section of this
chapter.
190
My decision, following Klaus Junack and Barbara Aland, for the omission of au0th_n, against the
positioning before or after prosde&chsqe as the various manuscripts show, has already been discussed in chapter 2
on the textual criticism of Rom. 16:1-2. Hence it is not dealt with in this chapter. See section 2.1, pp. 21-22 and also
n. 56.
 65

5.1.1 i#na in Rom. 16:2a

For this first request from Paul, I prefer the translation “: receive her…” in stead of “that
you may receive her …”191 which would then make this verse the purpose of the introduction of
Phoebe in 16:1.192 My proposal is to interpret i#na as periphrasis for the imperative and not as
denoting a purpose clause.193 For it does not seem logical to see the way of receiving, as Paul
asks the Romans to do, as a purpose of Phoebe’s mission in Rome; Paul simply urges them to
receive her in a way proper to their mutual status as the Lord’s people: “in the Lord, worthy of
the holy ones” (e0n kuri&w? a0ci&wv tw~n a9gi&wn).
Some other examples of the proposed usage of i#na as periphrasis for the imperative are:
1 Cor. 16:16:
i#na kai_ u9mei~v u9pota&sshsqe toi~v toiou&toiv kai_ panti_ tw?~ sunergou~nti kai_ kopiw~nti,
“be subject to such as these, and to every fellow worker and laborer” (ESV)
Eph. 5:33:
e3kastov th_n e9autou~ gunai~ka ou3twv a)gapa&tw w(v e(auto&n,
h( de_ gunh_ i3na fobh~tai to_n a1ndra
“thus, every one should love his wife as himself,
and a wife should respect her husband”.
and also Mark 5:23 where both interpretations occur:
to_ quga&trio&n mou e0sxa&twv e!xei, i#na e0lqw_n e0piqh~?v ta_v xei~rav au0th~? i#na swqh~? kai_ zh&sh?,
“My little daughter is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that she
may be made well and live"(ESV).

191
I prefer also the rendering “receive” in stead of “welcome” as in the ESV heading of this section,
because “welcome” brings into mind the momentary greeting with an embrace and maybe a kiss, while “receiving”
refers to a lasting activity. Given Paul’s requests the latter seems more appropriate.
192
See C. E. B. CRANFIELD, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans Vol. II,
p.781: “ i#na introduces a statement of the twofold purpose of Paul’s commendation of Phoebe”.
193
See F. BLASS – A. DEBRUNNER – F. REHKOPF, Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch,
Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990, p. 313. See also W. BAUER – W. F. ARNDT – F. W. GINGRICH – F. W.
DANKER, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. Translation and
Adaptation of: 'Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der Übrigen
Urchristlichen Literatur', Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1979, p. 767.
 66

5.1.2 “receive her in the Lord, worthy of the saints” –

prosde&chsqe e0n kuri&w? a0ci&wv tw~n a9gi&wn

Already it has been said that Paul felt he was set apart to preach the Gospel of God to all
nations (1:1-5).194 Being aware of this and addressing the Romans, he describes them as “the
beloved of God” (1:7) and “called holy ones” (1:7: klhtoi~v a9gi&oiv)195. In this new situation
where Gentiles were admitted as “the holy ones”, the people of the new covenant consisted of
Jews and Gentiles who were “in the Lord”. With the Pauline expression “in the Lord” (e0n kuri&w?)
he points to those whose faith is in God’s Son, Jesus Christ, the Lord.196 More often Paul used
the expression “in Christ” or “in Christ Jesus”.
This wording covers Paul’s idea about the identity of the Christian communities. The
keyword for this identity is participation (koinwni&a).197 Although he does not use koinwni&a in
this verse when asking the Romans to receive Phoebe “in the Lord in a way worthy of the holy
ones” he does refer to the very meaning of it, that is, its new meaning. The basic meaning of
koinwni&a is “communion, association, or partnership”.198 When Paul adapted this Greek term to
his communities he expanded its meaning.199 From a one-sided act of commitment of one person
to another it became a mutual association between the one originally giving and the one who
received. The roles could constantly switch if necessary, so both parties became responsible for
taking care of each other. These adaptations allowed Paul to express his Christ centred theology
and the corresponding behaviour that he expected from the Christians.200 Christ has suffered, has
been crucified and resurrected from the dead. Sharing in Christ’s suffering means therefore also

194
See also Chapter 3, section 3.2.1 on the apostolic self-image of Paul.
195
Some render tw~n a9gi&wn as “the saints”. Since this too, like dia&konov, has a different understanding in
our time, I agree with those preferring the literal rendering “the holy ones”.
196
For instance Rom. 1:4: “who was declared God’s son (ui9ou~ qeou~) in power according to the spirit of
holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord ( 9Ihsou~ Xristou~ tou~ kuri&ou h9mw~n).
197
See J. M. MCDERMOTT, “The Biblical Doctrine of KOINWNIA”, in BZ 19 (1975) 64-77; see also ID.,
“The Biblical Doctrine of KOINWNIA II”, in BZ 19 (1975) 219-233.
198
See H. G. LIDDELL,– ROBERT SCOTT – H. STUART JONES, A Greek-English lexicon, p. 970.
199
See J. M. MCDERMOTT, “The Biblical Doctrine of KOINWNIA”, p. 69. John McDermott presents three
elements for this typically Pauline usage: koinwni&a with the genitive of the person participated in, or with the dative
of thing participated in, and the disproportionate emphasis on the dynamic meaning of it. With the latter he means
that it moves from “participating” to “to make a participator in”, or “to give a share in”. Before Paul the usage of
koinwni&a was either with the genitive of the thing, or the dative of the person. The change causes the meaning of
the term to move from a one-sided giving to a mutual sharing.
200
See J. M. MCDERMOTT, “The Biblical Doctrine of KOINWNIA II”, pp. 231-233.
 67

sharing in his salvation. The faithful who live “in Christ” do so when they participate actively in
union with each other.201
Thus when Paul asked the Romans to act towards Phoebe “in a way worthy of the holy
ones”, this is what he had in mind. Already in 12:13, while using the verb koinwne&w and relating
the “needs of the holy ones” to “practicing hospitality” he has informed them about this: “share
in the needs of the holy ones, practice hospitality” (tai~v xrei&aiv tw~n a9gi&wn koinwnou~ntev, th_n
filoceni&an diw&kontev). Likewise the communities should also take care of the travelling
missionaries, accommodate shelter and share food with them.202 Since Phoebe would be outside
of Cenchreae during the time of her mission this kind of care is the first thing Paul asked for.
Formulating his request this way Paul addressed the Romans as “the holy ones” (tw~n
a9gi&wn), a term used for the community members whose faith was in Christ Jesus. Those of the
Jerusalem community were “the holy ones” par excellence, since they formed the historical
nucleus of Christian faith.203 Paul specifically applied this term to groups rather than to
individuals.204 In this usage “the holy ones” can be conceived of as a parallel of “the chosen
ones”, “the called ones”, or “the believers”.205 Like Paul himself they were set apart by and for
God, and were brought into the fellowship of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 1:9).206 This relationship of the
Holy One and “the holy ones” has resulted in a closeness that is unprecedented in Judaism.207
The Christian community includes Christ, and its members are called to participate in mutual
love and assistance for each other.

201
See J. M. MCDERMOTT, “The Biblical Doctrine of KOINWNIA”, pp. 75-76.
202
This is also present in other writings, for example in Did. 11 that deals with the behaviour towards
itinerant charismatic leaders. The community members are expected to share food and give shelter to those
preaching and teaching while passing by. See W. RORDORF – A.TUILIER, La Doctrine des douze Apôtres (Didachè)
11.1-2: “Whosoever, therefore, cometh and teacheth you all these things that have been said before…. receive him
as the Lord”, and 11.4: “Let every apostle that cometh to you be received as the Lord”. For the English translation
see A. ROBERTS – J. DONALDSON, eds., Ante-Nicene Fathers, rendered on BibleWorks 7.0.012g. See also H. VAN DE
SANDT – D. FLUSSER, The Didache, pp. 340-350.
203
See J. A. FITZMEYER, Romans, p. 729; see also G. PANIKULAM, Koinōnia in the New Testament. A
Dynamic Expression of Christian Life (AnBib 85), Rome, Biblical Institute Press, 1979, pp. 36-38.
204
See J. AYODEJI ADEWUYA, Holiness and Community in 2 Cor 6:14-7:1. Paul’s View of Communal
Holiness in the Corinthian Correspondence (SBL 40), New York, NY, Peter Lang Publishing, 2001.
205
See also H. SEEBASS – K. GRÜNWALDT, Heilig/Rein, in L. COENEN – K. HAACKER (eds.), Theologisches
Begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament, Wuppertal – Neukirchen, Brockhaus – Neukirchener Verlag, 2005, p. 891.
206
1 Cor. 1:9, “God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ
our Lord”; See also J. AYODEJI ADEWUYA, Holiness and Community in 2 Cor 6:14-7:1, pp. 130-139, 146-151.
207
See J. M. MCDERMOTT, “The Biblical Doctrine of KOINWNIA”, p. 66.
 68

5.1.3 Mutual participation

What did this call mean for the behaviour of the Romans towards Phoebe and vice versa?
Paul sent Phoebe and made her known to them as “our sister”, which clarifies that she also
belonged to the people who live “in Christ”. His request to receive her “in the Lord in a way
worthy of the holy ones” is a call to offer her participation in their communities. He did not only
ask for their hospitality but, since mutuality is the most important aspect and Phoebe brought to
them Paul’s message, he also wanted the Romans to participate in her mission. The latter seems
to be the subject of the next part of the verse.

5.2 Rom. 16:2b, “and help her in whatever she may need from you” –
kai_ parasth~te au0th~? e0n w{? a@n u9mw~n xrh&?zh? pra&gmati:

Since the purpose of Phoebe’s being sent to Rome is not found in v. 2a, it has to be found
in the second request (v. 2b), where Paul asks the Romans to support her with whatever pra&gma
(“matters”) she may need. Although i#na has different functions in v. 2a (periphrasis for the
imperativus) and v. 2b (introducing a purpose clause), which seems to pull the phrases apart, as a
true conjunction it does form a bridge between the two verses. This link is reinforced by the
addition of another conjunction kai_ in 2b. If we bear all this in mind we discover the drift of
these two verses:
It can be read as:
I introduce to you Phoebe (v. 1a)
be hospitable to her in a way worthy of the holy ones (v. 2a),
on grounds that she is our sister (v. 1b)
and also Deacon at Cenchreae (v. 1c)
Subsequently it can be read as:
(I introduce to you Phoebe)
be of service to her in whatever she needs (v. 2b),
on grounds that she has become prosta&tiv
of many and of myself as well (v. 2c)
This way it is also clear that the grounds for granting Paul’s requests in v. 2a and v. 2b are not
the same. Now the real purpose of her being sent to Rome may come to light, if the content of
pra&gma of v. 2b can be determined.
 69

5.2.1 What Phoebe needs

Many scholars link the pra&gma to some kind of support in the personal or business
sphere rather than to Phoebe’s missionary activities. They claim she would have travelled to
Rome for her own business matters and her only task concerning the letter would be to carry it
safely to the Romans, and perhaps also to read it to them. If Paul asks for a welcome worthy of
Christians, as seen above, he obviously does not refer to a welcome of someone who is travelling
on business purposes. He never showed interest in the material wealth of his community
members, as long as they had a place to sleep and enough food to live. He was all the more
concerned about their spiritual well-being as proven by his missionary activities.208 Moreover,
the personal aspect of lodging and food is already included in his request to “receive her in a way
worthy of the holy ones”. There would be no reason to repeat it more extensively by this
pra&gma.
A step forward towards a meaningful interpretation of the pra&gma was the idea of
combining business travel with travel for church purposes.209 In addition to letter carrying and
reading there could be more. As a business woman Phoebe might have both the money and the
contacts to provide a household base and means of securing protection for Paul. However, recent
studies particularly point to the missionary activities necessary for Paul’s planned mission to
Spain.210 A mission like this required thorough preparation. Paul was not yet in Rome, and when
he would be he would stay only for a while (15:24), so there had to be someone else making a
start in taking care of these preparations. It is most likely that this task was assigned to Phoebe,
and that exactly this is the reason of her coming to Rome.
When it comes to the preparation of the mission to Spain a variety of activities211 were
needed, too much for one person, and therefore it is obvious Paul asked the Romans to be of help

208
It is the author of Acts who emphasizes the business activities of Priscilla and Aquila as tentmakers
(18:2-3), while Paul presents them as “co-workers in Christ Jesus” (Rom.16:3).
209
See MARGARET Y. MACDONALD, “Reading Real Women Through the Undisputed Letters of Paul”, in S.
ROSS KRAEMER – MARY ROSE D’ANGELO (eds.), Women & Christian Origins, New York, NY, Oxford University
Press, 1999, pp. 199-220, 209.
210
See A. MERZ, “Phöbe, Diakon(in) der Gemeinde von Kenchreä”, p. 138: Annette Merz notices that
carrying the letter could only be part of the mandate, and according to the situation it was likely Phoebe had to
prepare the logistics concerning Paul’s planned mission to Rome; see also R. JEWETT, “Paul, Phoebe, and the
Spanish Mission”, p. 151: Next to presenting the letter ”her task was to create a logistical base”.
211
H. G. LIDDELL – ROBERT SCOTT – H. STUART JONES, A Greek-English lexicon, p. 1457 presents as
possible translations of pra~gma: “deed, act, the concrete of pra~civ but frequently approaching to the abstract
 70

to her. His request is formulated in the second aorist of pari&sthmi meaning “stand by, help, or
come to the aid of someone”.212 This evokes an image of Phoebe requiring action and
community members willing to respond to her demand, since that is what Paul asked of them.

5.2.2 Actions to be made

One of the actions may have been a money collection like it had been done in Macedonia
and Achaia (Rom. 15:26: “For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make some
contribution for the poor among the holy ones at Jerusalem”). The mentioning of this first
contribution made by the Gentiles for the poor in Jerusalem can be linked to the missionary
purpose of the letter. Paul used the handing over of the collection as an explanation for the
further delay in his planned visit.213 Therefore, he had sent forward Phoebe with his letter. The
emphasis on the collection may also be seen as a preparation of the minds of the Romans for a
collection, only this time for the mission to Spain. This way he showed how all members of the
new Christian movement were supposed to share with the less fortunate communities.214
The word used for “contribution” in Rom. 15:26 is koinwni&a. It has been used before in
other Pauline letters as a noun with the same connotation as the verb koinwne&w, that is “to
participate in”. In Gal. 2:9-10 there is an agreement with James, Cephas, and John. Paul and
Barnabas are allowed to go to the Gentiles, provided that they comply with the request from the
others to remember the poor. This understanding of koinwni&a is also at the basis of Paul’s
statement in 1 Cor. 9:11. He discusses with the Corinthians if it is asking too much to share their
material goods with the apostles in return for the spiritual gifts they bring to them.215

sense; occurrence, matter, affair, or thing”; W. BAUER – W. F. ARNDT – F. W. GINGRICH – F. W. DANKER, A

Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, p. 697: the lexicon renders for
this verse the word “undertaking” under the heading: “that which is to be done, undertaking, occupation, task”.
212
See H. G. LIDDELL – ROBERT SCOTT – H. STUART JONES, A Greek-English lexicon, p. 1340; See also W.
BAUER – W. F. ARNDT – F. W. GINGRICH – F. W. DANKER, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and
other Early Christian Literature, p. 628.
213
Primary there was Paul’s Gentile mission in Asia Minor, and now that there is no further place for him
in that region he still has to go to Jerusalem first before coming to Rome: ”At present, however, (Nuni_ de_) I am
going to Jerusalem serving the holy ones” (Rom. 15:25).
214
In Rom. 15:27 Paul reports that the Gentiles were obliged to this: V. 26: “For Macedonia and Achaia
have been pleased to share some of what they possessed with the poor among the holy ones at Jerusalem”. V. 27:
“They were pleased to do it, but they also owe it to them. For, if the Gentiles have come to share in their spiritual
gifts, they ought also to be of service to them in material gifts”.
215
1 Cor. 9:11: “If we have sown spiritual gifts in you, is it too much if we reap material gifts from you?”
See also J. M. MCDERMOTT, “The Biblical Doctrine of KOINWNIA II”, pp. 223-224.
 71

The most significant is Paul’s statement in Gal. 6:6:

“But the one who is taught the word
must share in (koinwnei&tw) all good things with the one who teaches”

The verses in Rom. 15 maintain this concept of mutual participation. Just a few verses before
introducing Phoebe, Paul once more emphasized this basic understanding of the Christian
identity. In 15:26-27 he actually tells the Romans they too should be pleased to share goods with
the poor because of the spiritual gifts given to them.216 However, this time the collection would
not be for one of the existing communities, but for the founding of new ones. The religious
context of the destination of the collection is once more accentuated by the usage of koinwni&a in
stead of the secular logei&a / logi&a. 217 Collecting money was considered an instrument of unity
between Jewish and Gentile Christians.218 This is the very reason why Paul drew so much
attention to the oneness in the Roman communities. The use of koinwni&a in this situation
demonstrates once more that Paul chose his words with great care.
What kind of goods would be needed in this particular situation? As seen in the first
chapter, without financial support the missionaries who would arrive in Spain probably could not
survive. There would be no base camp with a community to turn to for basic needs, since the
missionaries would lack the usual hospitality and the safe haven in case difficulties arise. The
mission in Spain would certainly last several years, at least similar to Paul’s time in Asia Minor.
It is even more likely that it would be much longer because of language barriers and other
cultural differences which would cause more problems at the start. Such a great undertaking
required an equivalent preparation. This mission needed both financial capacity and human
resources.
The financial needs could be solved by a collection. As for the human resources for the
various responsible positions a selection of capable people had to be planned. Translators had to
be recruited, and people who were able to set up a base camp. Then the search for the right
contacts in Spain had to be started. Leaders for the house churches would be needed, and local
co-workers had to be instructed. All these activities should be well organized to warrant success
for Paul’s mission.

216
They should follow the Macedonians and the Achaians in this; see n. 214.
217
See also J. M. MCDERMOTT, “The Biblical Doctrine of KOINWNIA”, pp. 71-72. However, in 1 Cor.
16:1-2 Paul did use the term logei&a, but it seems to refer to the act of collecting rather than to the purpose of it.
218
See also G. PANIKULAM, Koinōnia in the New Testament, p. 57.
 72

5.2.3 The first part of Phoebe’s role

The foregoing interpretation provides this image of Phoebe: by sending Phoebe off with
his letter, Paul entrusts her a responsible task. Like most letter carriers she would present the
letter and explain its content. She also would read his message, and the Romans hearing it would
conclude that she is Paul’s trustworthy partner. Then she would try to persuade the Romans to
participate in the mission to Spain, and to find the necessary resources to make it successful.
Since the Roman communities had disagreements, it might be difficult to unite them in
supporting this mission. However, without their support the mission could not be realized.
Therefore Phoebe’s negotiations were crucial for the future plans of Paul. Perhaps this is the
reason why his second request is complemented with its unique argument.

5.3 Rom. 16:2c, “for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well” -
kai_ ga_r au0th_ prosta&
prosta&tiv kai_ pollw~n e0genh&qh kai_ e0mou~ au0tou~.

With kai_ ga_r (“for”) the ultimate reason is introduced why Paul requested the Romans to
support Phoebe. First there is her being “our sister” (v. 1b), then secondly her being also Deacon
of the church at Cenchreae (v. 1c), and now the third and last reason, to persuade anyone who
still had doubts: “for she also has become219 prosta&tiv of many and of myself as well” (v. 2c).
Her status is moving along an ascending line. Since the word prosta&tiv is a hapax legomenon
in the New Testament as well as in the Septuagint, possible meanings have to come from other
writings.

5.3.1 Phoebe as a “helper”

Just like old-time interpretations of dia&konov in v. 1c as “helper” or “servant”, for a long

time prosta&tiv has also been interpreted in this sphere. Phoebe has been pictured as an assistant
or helper or even a guardian angel of many and also of Paul, a friendly but not accurate

219
Since e0genh&qh is analysed as deponent indicative aorist, the verb should be rendered here in an active
form, thus ‘has become’ or ‘is’. See F. BLASS – A. DEBRUNNER – F. REHKOPF, Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen
Griechisch, pp. 61-62; see also M. ZERWICK – M. GROSVENOR, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New
Testament, Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2007, p. 495.
 73

translation.220 This is especially true when we know that the masculine form of the word,
prosta&thv, is mostly rendered as: “one who stands before, front-rank man, leader, president,
ruler; guardian, and patron”.221 As some exegetes cannot imagine that Paul could have been
supported or even outranked by a woman, they adapt the translation to what is appropriate in
their view.222 Women leadership is then far out of sight.

5.3.2 Phoebe as a “patron”

As a result of various studies of women leadership in the Roman period scholars have
more and more focussed on prosta&thv as a terminus technicus in the patronage system for “the
one who practices prosta~si&a”. The translations of prosta~si&a presented in the dictionary are:
“standing at the head of, presidency, leadership; authority, dignity; governorship”.223 On the last
but one it offers: “patronage”, and “protection”.224 Yet traditionally most scholars choose the
latter first when women are involved. Epigraphic evidence shows that personal patronage is a
well-established social institution in the first century.225 In a decree of the Lycian city of
Telmessos prostasi&a is used on behalf of Iunia Theodora, a contemporary of Phoebe. Here the
“patronage” (prostasi&a) is related to hospitality to her fellow citizens, for which she is
rewarded.226
The Roman patronage system is not only linked to hospitality. Many scholars also relate
it to financial support. When Paul says that Phoebe has become a prosta&tiv for many and also
for him self, they say it is of importance to notice that this is the only place he refers to funds
received by a patron. Therefore the patronage is likely to have been directly involved in the
220
See Lutherbibel 1912: “denn sie hat auch vielen Beistand getan”; New American Standard Bible 1995:
“for she herself has also been a helper”; Willibrordvertaling 1978: “Zelf is zij voor…een echte beschermengel
geweest”.
221
See H. G. LIDDELL – ROBERT SCOTT – H. STUART JONES, A Greek-English Lexicon, p. 1526.
222
See E. SCHÜSSLER FIORENZA, “The“Quilting” of Women’s History: Phoebe of Cenchreae”, in PAULA
COOEY – SHARON FARMER – MARY ELLEN ROSS (eds.), Embodied Love: Sensuality and Relationships as Feminist
Values, San Francisco, CA, Harper & Row, 1987, pp. 35-49, 45: “It is obvious that an androcentric perspective on
early Christian history does not allow for women in church leadership.”
223
See H. G. LIDDELL – ROBERT SCOTT – H. STUART JONES, A Greek-English Lexicon, p. 1526.
224
The very last one is when it occurs next to qeou~: “one who stands before a god (to entreat him),
suppliant”; see H. G. LIDDELL – ROBERT SCOTT – H. STUART JONES, A Greek-English Lexicon, p. 1527.
225
See R. A. KEARSLEY, “Women in Public Life in the Roman East: Iunia Theodora, Claudia Metrodora
and Phoebe, Benefactress of Paul”, in Tyndale Bulletin 50 (1999) 189-211.
226
See R. A. KEARSLEY, “Women in Public Life in the Roman East”, pp. 207-208: v. 76, “displaying her
patronage (prostasi&an) of those who are present…”, v. 83-84, “that in return our city recognises and will
acknowledge the evidence of her goodwill.”
 74

missionary project mentioned in this letter,227 implying that Phoebe is seen as one of the upper-
class benefactresses. Sponsorship by such a wealthy woman would make of Paul a reliable
partner.228 But nowhere in these two verses anything explicitly is said of Phoebe being wealthy.
And, if it is not patronage we are talking about, what then has richness to do with prosta&tiv? 229
Some scholars also relate the patronage system to the economical and legal representing
of non-citizens towards the governing authorities.230 This has also been said of Paul. Phoebe and
others as well, would have helped him at the times he ended up in prison. Especially the
privileges he had gained during his imprisonment in Rome, according to Acts, are attributed to
Phoebe (28:16: “When we entered Rome, Paul was allowed to stay by himself, with the soldier
who guarded him” and 28:30: “And he stayed two full years at his own expenses and welcomed
all who came to him”). But if we may believe Acts (22:28)231 Paul was a Roman citizen and
therefore not in need of such representation or support.
Many others are emphasizing the reciprocity principle of patronage, sometimes also
called the “exchange law”.232 If Phoebe was a benefactress and helpful to many, she on her turn
ought to receive whatever help she needed of the Romans. However, after the analysis of Paul’s
usage of koinwni&a earlier in this chapter it can be concluded that the mutual aspect in the
Christian patronage is not originating from the reciprocity principle in the Roman world but from
Paul’s understanding of the Christian communion. It is more than repaying for something that

227
See also R. JEWETT, Romans, p. 23.
228
See R. JEWETT, Romans, p. 90.
229
Although Annette Merz has another argument, see A. MERZ, “Phöbe, Diakon(in) der Gemeinde von
Kenchreä”, p. 132: “Die Patronatsthese wird vor allem durch eine weitere Besonderheit unterstützt: Die Tatsache ,
dass Phöbe als einzige der im NT genannten weiblichen Mitarbeiter des Paulus allein eine Fernreise unternimmt,
kann nur bedeuten, dass sie als hinreichend vermögende Frau mit ihrem eigenen Gefolge reiste.” However, it seems
that eu0erge&tiv is the word that is commonly used for “benefactress”, a wealthy woman who assists others to
improve their situation. It is the title of Antonia the wife of Tiberius’ brother Drusus in Josephus’ Ant. 18.181: “She
had also been the greatest benefactress (eu0erge&tiv) to Tiberius”. And of Iunia Theodora it is said that she has
bestowed numerous “benefits” (eu0ergesi&a); see for the latter also R. A. KEARSLEY, “Women in Public Life in the
Roman East”, p. 204.
230
See A. MERZ, “In Auftrag der Gemeinde von Kenchreä. Phoebe als Wegbereiterin der Spanienmission”,
p. 85: “die heutzutage etwa mit ‘Konsulat’ bezeichnet werden.” See also K. HAACKER, Der Brief des Paulus an die
Römer: p. 318: “Dabei ist v. a. an Gastfreundschaft oder Rechtsbeistand zu denken.”
231
Acts 21:39: “Paul replied, ‘I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no insignificant city; and I
beg you, allow me to speak to the people.’ ” Acts 22:28: “The commander answered, ‘I acquired this citizenship by
paying a large sum.’ Paul said, ‘But I am one by birth.’ ”
232
See K. HAACKER, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer, p. 318; A. MERZ, “Phöbe, Diakon(in) der
Gemeinde von Kenchreä”, p. 132; E. SCHÜSSLER FIORENZA, “The “Quilting” of Women’s History”, p. 47; ESTHER
YUE L. NG, “Phoebe as Prostatis”, in Trinity Journal 25NS (2004) 3-13.
 75

has been done; it is participating in each other’s needs and therewith establishing solidarity and
oneness among all Christians.
.
5.3.3 Phoebe as a “leader”

Until now we have looked at patronage as the suitable meaning of prosta&tiv. However,
one question still remains. Is “patroness” the only and for Phoebe most positive interpretation of
prosta&tiv? It is time to return to the dictionary and to look at the first meaning of prosta&thv
and prosta~si&a: “standing at the head of, presidency, leadership; authority, dignity;
governorship”. In the LXX the noun prosta&thv and its cognates are used in this sense. A type of
leadership is confirmed in every instance:
2 Chron. 24:11:
“And it came to pass, when they brought in the box to the officers (LXX prosta&tav,
MT ‫ל־פּ ֻק ַדּת‬
ְ ‫“ ֶא‬into the office”) of the king by the hand of the Levites, and when they saw
that the money was more than sufficient, then came the king's scribe, and the officer
(LXX prosta&thv, MT ‫)פּ ִקיד‬ ָ of the high priest, and emptied the box, and restored it to its
place. Thus they did day by day, and collected much money.” 233

2 Chron. 8:10:
“And these are the chiefs (LXX prostatw~n, MT ‫)שׂ ֵרי‬
ָ of the officers of king Solomon,
two hundred and fifty overseeing the work among the people.”

1 Chron. 27:31:
“And over the sheep was Jaziz the Agarite. All these were superintendents (LXX
prosta&tai, MT ‫)שׂ ֵרי‬
ָ of the substance of king David.”

1 Chron. 29:6:
“Then the heads of families, and the princes of the children of Israel, and the captains of
thousands and captains of hundreds, and the overseers (LXX prosta&tai, MT ‫)שׂ ֵרי‬ ָ of the
works, and the king's builders, offered willingly.”

Next to these occurrences it is seen in some apocryphal writings,234 and again leadership is the
only interpretation:

233
For the Greek and English of the LXX texts in this paragraph see also L. C. L. BRENTON, The Septuagint
with Apocrypha: Greek and English, London, Bagster & Sons, 1851, repr. Peabody, MA, Hendrickson, 1990.
234
See for the occurrences of prosta&thv in the LXX, as presented above, as well as for the occurrences in
apocryphal writings following below: E. HATCH – H. A. REDPATH (eds.), A Concordance to the Septuagint and the
other Greek Versions of the Old Testament, Vol. 2, p. 1221.
 76

1 Esd. 2:11:
“When King Cyrus of the Persians brought these out, he gave them to Mithridates, his
treasurer, and by him they were given to Sheshbazzar, the governor (prosta&th?) of Judea.
(NRSV)

2 Macc. 3:4:
“But a man named Simon, of the tribe of Benjamin, who had been made captain
(prosta&th?~v) of the temple, had a disagreement with the high priest about the
administration of the city market. (NRSV)

Sir. 45:24:
“Therefore a covenant of friendship was established with him, that he should be leader
(prosta&thn) of the sanctuary and of his people, that he and his descendants should have
the dignity of the priesthood forever. (NRSV)

Josephus also used the term prosta&thv.235 In its meaning it varies throughout his
writings from “ruler” and “leader” to “patron” or “protector”.236 However, it is most striking that
“protector” and “patron” are only applied when it concerns God (Ant. 2.122; 4.158; 7.340), or
very high ranked people (Ant. 7.380; 10.161; 12.167; 14.444).237 When Josephus used “patron”
or “protector” (prosta&thv) in relation to God it is obvious this has nothing to do with wealth,
but rather with divine power of the world’s Creator. The same goes for the high ranked people
Josephus called “patron” or “protector”. These instances most likely refer to the power that was
given to them to care for and to protect their own people, and this was implemented in the sense
of leadership.
In the other twelve verses of Josephus the meaning “ruler” and “governor” are dominant:
Ant. 1.87:
Noah was appointed to be “ruler” (prosta&thv) of the people.
15.159:
Arabians made Herod “ruler” (prosta&thv) of their nation.

B. J. 1.385:
Herod was chosen by the Arabians for their “ruler” (prosta&thv).

235
See also K. RENGSTORF, (ed.), A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, Vol. 3, Leiden, Brill,
1979, p. 572.
236
There are also pseudepigraphical testimonies of prostatei~n. They indicate protection as well as
leadership. Apoc. Sedr. 14.1: “And Sedrach said to the archangel Michael, ‘hear me, strong protector (pro&stata);
help me and intercede that God may be merciful to the world’ ”. See J. H. CHARLESWORTH ed., The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 1, p. 612. Let. Aris. 111: “To prevent the farmers and chief men (prosta&tai) of the city
engaging in business”. See J. H. CHARLESWORTH ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 2, p. 20.
237
See for the English translation of the Josephus texts in this paragraph also W. WISHTON, The Works of
Josephus.
 77

B. J. 1.633:
Caesar is called “ruler” (prosta&thv) of the earth.

Vita 250:
The Galileans could not be persuaded to have another “ruler” (prosta&thv) but Josephus
himself.

Ant. 3.98:
The people of Moses felt deprived of a “governor” (prosta&thv) while he was on Mount
Sinai.
7.376:
Solomon felt God had chosen him as a “governor” of the kingdom (prosta&thv).
14.157:
Antipater was a tyrant instead of a gentle “governor” (prosta&thv).

Then there are two verses where the translation is not exactly the same, however, its meaning is
certainly identical:
Ant. 2.89:
Joseph was made “overseer” (prosta&thv) of the crop stores.
B. J. 4.596:
The Roman soldiers did not want to choose Vitellius “presiding” (prosta&thv) over them.

The term prosta&thv also occurs in ancient Greek writings like in Memorabilia of the
historian and philosopher Xenophon, who lived during the last part of the fifth and the beginning
of the fourth century BCE. He reminded his audience of Socrates’ view on true leadership. And
his contemporary Plato used the term in Gorgias in a conversation between Socrates and
Callicles about politicians:
Xen. Mem. 3.4.6:
“…be a sincere leader (prosta&thv)…”238

Plato Gorgias 519c:

“Even so, no politician (“leader of the state”: prosta&thv po&lewv) may say…”239

For some of the previously examined verses there is no indication whether it involves a
man or a woman, most are definitely referring to men. By focussing on the masculine technical
term prosta&thv, one tends to overlook the fact that the feminine usage of prosta&tiv is quite

238
See also Xenophon in Seven Volumes (E. C. MARCHANT – O. J. TODD, LCL 168), pp. 186-187.
239
See E. R. DODDS, Plato: Gorgias. A Revised Text with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford,
Clarendon Press, 1959, p. 175; see also Plato, Verzameld Werk, deel XII, Gorgias, Vertaald door M. MOLEGRAAF,
Amsterdam, Bert Bakker, 2003, p. 112.
 78

different from the usage of the terminus technicus dia&konov concerning Phoebe (Rom.16:1). The
term dia&konov used this way indicates a ministry, a profession. The New Testament does not
offer a specific wording when dia&konov refers to a woman; the term dia&konov is not found here
in a feminine form. Since prosta&tiv surely is feminine it is likely that it does not indicate the
title of a profession.
But what might be of importance for understanding pro&stativ in relation to Phoebe is
the outcome of a study of Bernadette Brooten on an inscription concerning the prosta&thv
Iael.240 Brooten presents a third-century inscription for Iael, a Jewish woman in an Aphrodisian
community who could have been the “president” of the governing board involved in
philanthropic activities, and she also could have served as a “patron” to this board. This shows
that if it was needed the terminus technicus prosta&thv was also applied to women. Therefore in
using pro&stativ for Phoebe Paul might refer to the common meaning “leader” and not to
activities as a “patron”. If he meant to make her known as a “patron” the terminus technicus
prosta&thv seemed more appropriate. Bernadette Brooten rightly remarks that the implications
of the use of prosta&thv for Iael are not the same as those of the usage of pro&stativ for
Phoebe.241 A separate study is required and this section of the thesis may be considered a first
effort.
The Liddel-Scott-Jones dictionary indicates seven extra-biblical occurrences of the
feminine prosta&tiv in various classical Greek writings.242 Once the plural prosta&tisi, rendered
as “protectors” of Oedipus, is found.243 Twice the term does not refer to a person but points to an
act of protection.244 The remaining four occurrences refer to females and are rendered

240
See B. J. BROOTEN, “Iael prosta&thv in the Jewish Donative Inscription from Aphrodisias”, in B. A.
PEARSON (ed.), The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress
Press, 1991, 149—162.
241
See B. J. BROOTEN, “Iael prosta&thv in the Jewish Donative Inscription from Aphrodisias”, p. 162
n. 43.
242
See H. G. LIDDELL,– ROBERT SCOTT – H. STUART JONES, A Greek-English lexicon, p. 1527.
243
For Oedipus Coloneus 458 see R. C. JEBB, Sophocles, the Plays and Fragments. Part II, The Oedipus
Coloneus, London, Cambridge University Press, 1886, repr.1928, pp. 78-81.
244
Once it is found in Appian’s Civil Wars 1.1: see Appian’s Roman History. The Civil Wars: Book I-III,
(H. WHITE, LCL 4), pp. 2-3. The second time it occurs in Porphyr’s Cave of the Nymphs 12; see Porphyrius, De
Grot van de Nimfen: over een passage uit de Odyssee van Homerus, Vertaling door C. VERHOEVEN, Baarn,
Amboboeken, 1984, PORFURIOU PERI TOU EN ODUSSEIAI TWN NUMFWN ANTROU, Griekse tekst
overgenomen uit: The cave of the Nymphs in the Odyssey, Porphyry, Buffalo, NY, Arethusa, 1969, p. 46 and for the
Greek text p. 87.
 79

“patroness” or “protectress”, but, and this is important, they present mythical figures.245
However, these interpretations bring in mind the protection and care that is attributed to God in
some of Josephus’s verses mentioned above. Since these verses do not give much information
about the interpretation of prosta&tiv relevant to an earthly Phoebe the brief mentioning here
will do.
Perhaps the verb prostate&w may provide more clarity. Some scholars do link
prosta&thv to the verb prosta&ssw (“to command”), others to the verb proi3sthmi (“to lead;
stand before, to guard”).246 However, the Liddel-Scott-Jones dictionary relates prosta&thv to
prostateu&w and prostate&w.247 The meaning of prostateu&w given in this dictionary is: “to be
leader or ruler of; to exercise authority, to have authority to provide; to hold office of
prosta&thv; to be guardian of or regent for”.
First the dictionary points to a number of classical Greek writings for the usage of
prostateu&w. Many of these texts are from the historian and philosopher Xenophon. In his
reminiscences about Socrates, Xenophon cites a statement regarding true leadership. The one
who was in control had to know that in any place and at any time he had to do all he was capable
of, and act as a true leader:
Xen. Mem. 3.4.6:
“…be a good controller (prosta&thv), whether he control (prostateu&oi) a chorus, an
estate, a city or an army.”248

245
In two instances it concerns goddesses who are called “patroness”. The first is Lucian’s Charidemus 10:
“each goddess is a patroness (prosta&tiv) of one particular thing”; See Lucian, in Eight Volumes, (M. D.
MACLEOD, LCL 432), pp. 480-481. Along the same line in Porphyr’s Cave of the Nymphs 18 it is read that the moon
goddess is the “patroness (prosta&tida) of the genesis (gene&sewv)”; see Porphyrius, De Grot van de Nimfen, p. 46
and for the Greek p. 87. The third occurrence of the term is found in ancient Greek magical papyri where h9
procta&tic is used in a spell for the support of Myrrh (Smu&rna), who is invoked by one of her titles: “protectress of
Anubis”; see Papyri Magicae Osloenses 1.338 in Papyri Osloenses, Fasc. I, S. EITREM, (ed.), Oslo, Norske
Videnskap-Akademi I Oslo, 1925, p. 16; see also Papyri Graecae Magicae – Die Griechischen Zauberpapyri, II,
Sammlung Wissenschaftlicher Commentare, Translated by K. PREISENDANZ, Stuttgart,Teubner, 1974, pp. 174-175.
The fourth time we see prosta&tiv is in Lucian’s The Double Indictment 29 that presents an allegorical way of
writing. A woman named “Oratory” is calling herself “patroness” (prosta&tiv) of “the Syrian”; see Lucian, in
Eight Volumes, (A. M. HARMON, LCL 130), p. 83 and 136-141.
246
See for the link to prosta&ssw for instance J. MASSYNGBERDE FORD, “Biblical Material Relevant to the
Ordination of Woman”, in JES 10 (1973) 669-694, p. 677; and for the connection of prosta&thv with proi3sthmi:
R. BIERINGER, “Febe, Prisca en Junia, p. 174.
247
See H. G. LIDDELL – ROBERT SCOTT – H. STUART JONES, A Greek-English Lexicon, p. 1526:
prostate&w is presented as both sharing and expanding the meaning of prostatue&w.
248
See also Xenophon in Seven Volumes (E. C. MARCHANT – O. J. TODD, LCL 168), pp. 184-187.
 80

In his writings A History of Greece (Historia Graeca), Ways and Means (De Vectigalibus), and
Anabasis it is also about leading and exercising authority:
Xen. HG 3.3.6:
“…the informer replied that he said in regard to this point that those who were in the
secret with himself and the other leaders (prostateu&ousin) were by no means many,
though trustworthy”.249
Xen. Vect. 5.6:
“Further, after the state had been stripped of her empire through seeming to exercise her
authority (prostateu&ein) with excessive harshness, did not the islanders even then restore
to us the presidency (prosta&tai) of the fleet…”250

Xen. An. 5.6.21:

“…they sent to Timasion and urged him to take in charge (prostateu~sai), for a fee, the
matter of getting the army to sail away.”251

Next to some ancient Greek inscriptions 252 it is also read about Laomedon of Mytilene, the
successor of Antipater, in Appian’s Syrian Wars:
App. Syr. 52:
“…who succeeded the latter as guardian (prostateu&santov) of the kings.”253

The meaning of prostate&w includes all those given at prostateu&w and in the dictionary
of Lidell-Scott-Jones it is also expanded with: “to rule over; stand before (as a defender), to be
guardian or protector over; to be in charge; to act as chief”.254 Successively it can be read in the
examples given by the dictionary as presented below: the writings of the tragedian Euripides, the
philosopher Plato, again Xenophon, and the physician Hippocrates and in one of the papyri
found in Oxyrhynchus in Egypt:
Euripides Heraclidae 206:
“I would show thee, who rulest (prostatei~v) o’er this land.”255
Euripides Electra 932:
“Yet it is a disgrace for the woman, rather than the man, to be the head (prostatei~n) of a
house.”256

249
See Xenophon in Seven Volumes (C. L. BROWNSON, LCL 88), pp. 220-221.
250
See Xenophon in Seven Volumes (E. C. MARCHANT – G. W. BOWERSOCK, LCL 183), pp. 226-227.
251
See Xenophon in Seven Volumes (C. L. BROWNSON, LCL 90), pp. 434-435.
252
See for instance W. DITTENBERGER, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, Leipzig, S. Hirzel, 1915, p. 370:
prostateuo&ntwn (“hold office of prosta&thv”).
253
See Appian’s Roman History, The Syrian Wars: Book IV, (H. WHITE, LCL 3), pp. 202-203.
254
See H. G. LIDDELL – ROBERT SCOTT – H. STUART JONES, A Greek-English Lexicon, p. 1526.
255
See Euripides in Four Volumes, (A. S. WAY, LCL 11), pp. 268-269.
 81

Plato Gorgias 519c:

“Even so, no politician (prosta&thv po&lewv) may say he does not deserve it when the
state that he leads (prostatei~) turns against him?”257
Plato Laches 197d-e:
“Socrates: ‘It is appropriate, my friend, that he who bears the greatest responsibilities
(prostatou~nti) also has been given the greatest mind.’”258
Xen. An. 4.8.25:
“They chose Dracontius…to act as manager (prostath~sai) of the games.”259
Hippocrates Precepts 13:
“…while definitions, professions, oaths…..come from the physician in charge
(prostate&ontov) of the disease”.260
P Oxy 1453.14:
“…that we will superintend (prostath&s[ein]) the lamps of the above mentioned
temples”.261

In the Septuagint as well as in the New Testament the verb is completely lacking.262 It is
found, though, once in Josephus’ Antiquities 6.60263, and in the pseudepigraphical Letter of
Aristeas 81 and 119.264
Let. Arist. 81:
“Everything was done in solemnity and in a manner worthy of the king, who sent,
and of the high priest, who presided (prostatou~ntov) over the place”.265

119:
“…they were abandoned because of the false allegations
by the responsible authorities (prostatou~ntwn) of the time…”.

256
See Euripides in Four Volumes, (D. KOVACS, LCL 9), pp. 252-255.
257
See E. R. DODDS, Plato: Gorgias, p. 175; see also Plato, Verzameld Werk, (M. MOLEGRAAF), p. 112.
258
See P. VICAIRE, ed., Platon, Lachès et Lysis (Erasme 8), Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 1963,
p. 54; see also Plato, Verzameld Werk, deel XV, Charmides, Laches, Lysis, Vertaald door M. MOLEGRAAF,
Amsterdam, Bert Bakker, 2005, p. 71.
259
See Xenophon, in Seven Volumes, (C. L. BROWNSON, LCL 90), pp. 376-377.
260
See Hippocrates in Four Volumes, (W. H. S. JONES, LCL 147), pp. 328-329.
261
“Declaration of Temple Lamplighters” in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Part XII, London, The British
Academy. 1916, pp. 168-169.
262
It is neither found in E. HATCH – H. A. REDPATH eds., A Concordance to the Septuagint and the other
Greek Versions of the Old Testament, nor in W. F. MOULTON – A. S. GEDEN, Concordance to the Greek New
Testament.
263
See K. RENGSTORF, ed., A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, p. 570.
264
See A. M. DENIS– Y. JANSSENS, eds., Concordance Grecque des Pseudépigraphes d’Ancien Testament,
p. 673.
265
For the translation of these two verses see J. H. CHARLESWORTH, ed., The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 1, pp. 18 and 21.
 82

Josephus presents the story of Samuel who, by the command of God, appointed Saul as a king
and spoke to the people of Mizpah:
Ant. 6.60:
“ …they were become unmindful of his benefits, and rejected God that he should not
be their king, as not considering that it would be most for their advantage to be presided
over (prostatei~sqai) by the best of beings”.266

It is noteworthy that in contrast to the specific instances of prosta&thv and prosta&tiv

meaning “patron” / “patroness” the verb prostate&w is not found here with this designation.
Moreover, the dictionary does not offer “being a patron” as an option.267 In some texts, like in
App. Syr. 52, the rendering is “guardian”.268 Guarding a king is obviously not the same as being
his patron. In all other clauses mentioned above the first meaning of the verb prostate&w
designates the practice of being a leader, the one who has authority, which is – not surprisingly –
also the first offered translation in the dictionary of Lidell-Scott-Jones.
From this analysis it seems possible to relate this qualification to Phoebe. It would not be
out of line with the cultural environment of Paul and Phoebe to ascribe such an authority to her.
There are also inscriptions that prove the existence of women leaders in early Judaism. The
existence of women presidents and women elders of synagogues is well known.269 Phoebe surely
would fit in this situation, for in the Pauline letters there are women not only known as wealthy
patrons of the communities, but also as prominent leaders and apostles.270 When Paul calls
Phoebe prosta&tiv he stresses the fact that a woman can assert great authority, something that
was also needed for being Deacon of the church at Cenchreae.

266
See W. WISHTON, The Works of Josephus, p. 156.
267
The Liddell – Scott – Jones dictionary does give the meaning “to be guardian or protector of”, see H. G.
LIDDELL – ROBERT SCOTT – H. STUART JONES, A Greek-English Lexicon, p. 1526.
268
For the rendering of App. Syr. 52, see also p. 80.
269
See B. J. BROOTEN, “Inscriptional Evidence for Woman as Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue S223”, in
SBL Seminar Papers Series 20, 1981, 1-17. She proves that leadership titles like a0rxisuna&gwgov are also borne by
Jewish women during the Roman period and thereafter, and that these titles were not merely honorific but
functional.
270
Think for instance of Prisca and Iunia and the many leaders of the house churches; see also E.
SCHÜSSLER FIORENZA, Ter herinnering aan haar, p. 67.
 83

5.3.4 The kind of leadership needed

In the previous chapter we have seen the list of charismatic gifts of Rom.12:6-8, with the
gifts that differ according to the grace given to people. The last three of the sevenfold list are
o` metadidou.j – “the one who shares” (in sincerity), o` proi?sta,menoj – “the one who leads” (with
enthusiasm), o` evlew/n – “the one who shows mercy” (with cheerfulness). All three of them
involve organizing a community, and in the centre of them is the charismatic gift of
leadership.271 This is the kind of leadership that is needed for being a successful Deacon, who not
only has to take care of the spiritual wellbeing of the community members, but also of the
material goods as well. Since the church at Cenchreae never appears in Pauline letters as a
troubled community, we may say Phoebe had this gift of charismatic leadership. Her community
functioned well.

5.4 Phoebe’s role

While we only know Phoebe from these two verses in Romans, Paul must have known
much more about her. Since he did not have much time and had to hand over the collection
money prior to his visit, he seemed confident to first leave the Romans to Phoebe even though
Rome was not as quiet a place as Cenchreae. It seems he put her in charge as front rank woman
to start up the preparations for the Spanish mission where he would join in later. He entrusted her
that kind of responsibility and the authority to act. He would not be inclined to do so if there was
no faith in a successful outcome. Living at Cencreae and knowing of the things that came about
in her region it is quite possible that Phoebe already guided Paul through the Corinthian area,
showing him the places where people were in need of someone preaching the Gospel to them,
and where he would be welcome. And perhaps she introduced co-workers to him. All these
features fit in with the image of Phoebe being a leader to Paul too.
Especially the Spanish mission involving acts in communities yet unknown required
charismatic leadership. After reading and explaining Paul’s letter to the Romans, the spiritual
part of her task, Phoebe could build on a well known group of co-workers who were already in

271
See M. GIELEN, “Die Wahrnehmung Gemeindlicher Leitungsfunktionen durch Frauen im Spiegel der
Paulusbriefe”, p. 152.
 84

Rome. They always supported Paul, as the long greeting list of fellow workers confirms, and
they also would be willing to assist her after hearing his request and his explanatory reasons:
I introduce to you Phoebe
she is our sister
and also Deacon of the church at Cenchreae

receive her in the Lord in a way that is worthy of the holy ones
be of service to her in whatever she needs from you
on grounds that she has become a leader of many and of myself as well.
 85

CONCLUSION

Some Pauline writings are disputed but no one doubts that Paul is the author of the Letter
to the Romans. Most scholars also agree on the extension of the epistle with the inclusion of
chapter 16. The letter is dominated by Paul’s planned Spanish mission and every topic leads to
the understanding that no Christian community stands on its own. The way Paul mentions and
introduces Phoebe is closely connected to the letter’s purpose, the Spanish mission, as well. It is
likely she had been the letter carrier, the one who read it aloud and explained it to the Romans.
But that is not all.
I started this thesis with the ESV rendering of Rom. 16:1-2. Now, after examining the
various parts and their context, I will set mine next to the ESV to see what the differences in the
interpretation are:

The ESV rendering of Rom. 16:1-2. My rendering of Rom. 16:1-2.

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, I introduce to you Phoebe

a servant of the church at Cenchreae,
that you may welcome her in the Lord
in a way worthy of the saints,
and help her
in whatever she may need from you,
for she has been a patron of many
and of myself as well.
she is our sister
and also Deacon of the church at Cenchreae
receive her in the Lord
in a way that is worthy of the holy ones
be of service to her
in whatever she needs from you
on grounds that she has become a leader of
many and of myself as well.

The question whether Paul meant something else than “I commend” when using
suni&sthmi as I suggested seems correct. His unusual straight way of introducing Phoebe must
have had its impact on the Roman audience. As in one breath he introduces Phoebe and urges the
Romans to act accordingly to his as well as to her instructions.
Phoebe travelled to Rome and offered the local Christians a spiritual gift, which is the
letter that also includes Paul’s gospel. The Romans in turn were expected to participate in
Phoebe’s mission which at the same time would be the start of Paul’s mission. The instruction is
to be of service to her and provide everything she needs. It meant that they had to give financial
aid and also help in recruiting human resources and everything else that would be needed for the
 86

Spanish mission. Paul entrusted to Phoebe the task of supervising all these preparations in Rome
because she had proved herself to be good at this. This might be concluded from his statement
that she had become a leader to many and also to him. Actually she was prior to Paul in Rome
and therewith preceding him, maybe temporarily, maybe for a longer period.
It would be of great help and a significant step forward if archaeologists could offer more
epigraphic evidences like the one on Sophia that is found in Jerusalem. Such witnesses add
important information and they might expand the image that the two verses themselves provide.
It is rather disappointing that there is no further epigraphic evidence concerning Phoebe. Hope is
built on the excavations in Cenchreae.
For most people the last part of Paul’s statement – “she has become a leader of many and
of myself as well” – is unthinkable but most likely it was not to Paul. His apostolic self image
revealed the way he thought about his co-workers. Just like him they too were called by God. To
him that was not unfamiliar, because in his opinion in God’s household all are one. Paul did not
take gender issues in consideration when he needed fellow workers. The charismatic gifts of God
were the decisive factor. The people are called by God and endowed with the talents
corresponding to their vocation.
The institutional church should take Paul as an example. For nearly two millennia she has
not done women justice. And by excluding women from the church offices she does not function
to her full potential. It may be concluded that competent and charismatic leaders like Phoebe
who are called by God – male and female – have been of great significance at the time
Christianity came into being and therewith for the rise of the church as well. Such qualified and
inspiring leaders – male and female – still can be of vital importance to the church in modern
times, if only they were fully admitted.
 87

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ALAND, B., “Marcion / Marcioniten”, in TRE 22/1, Berlin – New York, NY, De Gruyter, 1992,
pp. 89-101.
ALAND, K. – B. ALAND, Der Text des Neuen Testaments; Einführung in die Wissenschaftlichen
Ausgaben sowie in Theorie und Praxis der Modernen Textkritik, Stuttgart, Biblia-Druck,
1982.
AYODEJI ADEWUYA, J., Holiness and Community in 2 Cor 6:14-7:1. Paul’s View of Communal
Holiness in the Corinthian Correspondence (SBL 40), New York, NY, Peter Lang
Publishing, 2001.
BALZ, H., “a#giov ktl ”, in BALZ, H. – G. SCHNEIDER (eds.), EWNT, Band.1, Stuttgart – Berlin –
Köln – Mainz, Kohlhammer, 1980, pp. 38-48.
BARENTSEN, J., “Pre-Pauline Leadership and Pauline Constitution in the Roman Church”, in
U. SCHNELLE (ed.), The Letter to the Romans (BETL 226), Leuven – Paris – Walpole,
MA, Peeters, 2009, pp. 595-616.
BARRETT, C. K., “ShaliahÌ and Apostle”, in E. BAMMEL – C. K. BARRETT – W. D. DAVIES (eds.),
Donum Gentilicium: New Testament Studies in Honour of David Daube, Oxford, Oxford
University Press, 1978, pp. 88-102.
BAUER, W. – W. F. ARNDT – F. W. GINGRICH – F. W. DANKER, A Greek-English Lexicon of
the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translation and Adaptation of:
'Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der
Übrigen Urchristlichen Literatur’, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1979.
BIERINGER, R., “Febe, Prisca en Junia. Vrouwen en leiderschap in de brieven van Paulus”, in F.
VAN SEGBROECK (ed.), Paulus (Verslagboek / Vliebergh-Sencie leergang, afdeling
Bijbel), Leuven – Voorburg, Vlaamse Bijbelstichting, 2004, pp. 157-202.
BLASS, F. – A. DEBRUNNER – F. REHKOPF, Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch,
Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990.
BRENTON, L. C. L., The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English, London, Bagster &
Sons, 1851, repr. Peabody, MA, Hendrickson, 1990.
 88

BROOTEN, B., “Junia…Outstanding among the Apostles (Romans 16:7)”, in L. SWIDLER – A.

SWIDLER (eds.), Women Priests. A Catholic Commentary on the Vatican Declaration,
New York, NY, Paulist Press, 1977, pp. 141-144.
_____ , “Iael prosta&thv in the Jewish Donative Inscription from Aphrodisias”, in B. A.
PEARSON (ed.), The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester,
Minneapolis, MN, Fortress Press, 1991, 149—162.
_____ , “Inscriptional Evidence for Woman as Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue S223”, in SBL
Seminar Papers Series 20, Scholars Press, 1981, 1-17.
BROWN, R., An Introduction to the New Testament (ABRL), New York, NY, Doubleday, 1997.
BROWNSON, C. L., Xenophon, in Seven Volumes, Anabasis (LCL 90), Cambridge, MA – London,
Harvard University Press, 1922, revised by J. DILLERY, 1998.
_____ , Xenophon in Seven Volumes, Hellenica, Books I-IV (LCL 88), Cambridge, MA
– London, Harvard University Press – Heinemann, 1918, repr. 1985.
BÜHNER, J.-A., “a0po&stolov ktl”, in H. BALZ – G. SCHNEIDER (eds.), EWNT, Band 1, Stuttgart –
Berlin – Köln - Mainz, Kohlhammer, 1980, pp. 342-351.
CASTELLI, ELIZABETH A., “Romans”, in ELISABETH SCHÜSSLER FIORENZA (ed.), Searching the
Scriptures, Volume Two: A Feminist Commentary, New York, NY, The Crossroad
Publishing Company, 1998, pp. 272-300.
CHARLESWORTH, J. H. (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with
English Translations Vol. 2, Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents,
Tübingen – Louisville, KY, Mohr Siebeck – Westminster John Knox Press, 1994.
_____ , The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 1, Apocalyptic Literature and
Testaments, London, Darton, Longman & Todd, 1983.
_____ , The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 2, Expansions of the “Old Testament” and
Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments
of Lost Judo-Hellenistic Works, London, Darton, Longman & Todd, 1985.
COLLINS, J. N., Deacons and the Church: Making Connections between Old and New, Leomister
– Harrisburg, PA, Gracewing – Morehouse Publishing, 2002.
CORSSEN, P., “Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte des Römerbriefes”, in ZNW 10 (1909) 1-45.
CRANFIELD, C. E. B., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 2
Vols., Edinburgh, Clark, 1975-1979.
 89

DENIS, A. M. – Y. JANSSENS (eds.), Concordance Grecque des Pseudépigraphes d’Ancien

Testament (Publications de l'Institut Orientaliste de Louvain), Leuven – Leiden, Peeters –
Brill, 1987.
DITTENBERGER, W., Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, Leipzig, S. Hirzel, 1915.
DODDS, E. R., Plato: Gorgias. A Revised Text with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford,
Clarendon Press, 1959.
DUNN, J. D. G., The Parting of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and their
Significance for the Character of Christianity, London – Philadelphia, PA, SCM Press –
Trinity Press International, 1991.
EDWARDS, J. R., Romans (New International Biblical Commentary Series, Vol. 6), Peabody, MA
– Carlisle, Hendrickson – Paternoster Press, 1995.
EISEN, U. E., Women Officeholders in Early Christianity. Epigraphical and Literary Studies,
Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2000.
EITREM, I, S. (ed.), Papyri Osloenses, Oslo, Norske Videnskap-Akademi I Oslo, 1925.
ELLIGER, K. – W. RUDOLPH (eds.), ‫ תורה נביאים וכתובים‬Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia,

Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997.

ELLIOTT, K – I. MOIR, Manuscripts and the Text of the New Testament; An Introduction for
English Readers, Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1995.
FITZMEYER, J. A., Romans. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 33),
New York, NY, Doubleday, 1993.
GAMBLE, H. JR., The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans. A Study in Textual and
Literary Criticism (SD 42), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1977.
GERBERDING, K.A., “Women Who Toil in Ministry, Even as Paul”, in Currents in Theology and
Mission 18 (1991) 285-291.
GIELEN, M., “Die Wahrnehmung Gemeindlicher Leitungsfunktionen durch Frauen im Spiegel
der Paulusbriefe”, in T. SCHMELLER – M. EBNER – R. HOPPE (eds.), Neutestamentliche
Ämtermodelle im Kontext (QD, 239), Freiburg, Herder, 2010, pp. 129-165.
GRENFELL, P. – A. S. HUNT (eds.), The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Part XII, London, The British
Academy, 1916.
GUTHRIE, D., “The Epistle to the Romans”, in ID. (ed.), New Testament Introduction, Fourth
edition (rev.), Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press, 1990.
 90

HAACKER, K., Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer (THKNT 6), Leipzig, Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt, 1999.
HAMMOND BAMMEL, C. P., Der Römerbrieftext des Rufin und seine Origenes-Übersetzung
(Vetus Latina 10), Freiburg, Herder, 1985.
HARMON, A. M., Lucian, in Eight Volumes (LCL 130), London – Cambridge, MA, Heinemann –
Harvard University Press, 1921, repr. 1969.
HARNACK, A. VON, Marcion: das Evangelium vom Fremden Gott (TUGAL 45), Darmstadt,
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1985.
HATCH, E. – H. A. REDPATH (eds.), A Concordance to the Septuagint: And the other Greek
Versions of the Old Testament - Including the Apocryphal Books, reprinted Graz,
Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1954.
HAYS, R. B., “‘Who has Believed our Message?’: Paul’s Reading of Isaiah”, in J. M., COURT
(ed.), New Testament Writers and the Old Testament; An Introduction, London, Society
for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2002, pp. 46-70.
HOLMBERG, H., Paul and Power. The Structure of Authority in the Primitive Church as Reflected
in the Pauline Epistles (ConBNT 11), CWK, Gleerup, Lund, 1978.
HORN, F.W., “Das Apostolische Selbstverständnis des Paulus nach Römer 15”, in U.SCHNELLE
(ed.), The Letter to the Romans (BETL 226), Leuven – Paris – Walpole, MA, Peeters,
2009, pp. 225-246.
HORT, F. J. A., “On the End of the Epistle to the Romans”, in Journal of Philology Vol. III, p. 51
sq. (1871), repr. in J. B. LIGHTFOOT, Biblical Essays, Cambridge – London, Macmillan
and Company, 1893, repr. ID., Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Book House, 1979, pp. 321-351.
JEBB, R. C., Sophocles, the Plays and Fragments. Part II, The Oedipus Coloneus, London,
Cambridge University Press, 1886, repr.1928.
JEWETT, R., “Paul, Phoebe, and the Spanish Mission”, in J. NEUSNER – P. BORGERN – E.
FRERICHS – R. HORSLEY (eds.), The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism
(In Tribute to Howard Clark Kee), Philadelphia, PA, Fortress Press, 1988, pp. 142-161.
______ , Romans: a Commentary (Hermeneia), Minneapolis, MN, Fortress Press, 2007.
JONES, W. H. S., Hippocrates in Four Volumes (LCL 147), Cambridge, MA – London, Harvard
University Press – Heinemann, 1923, repr. 1972.
 91

JUNACK, K. – B. ALAND, Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus; II. Die Paulinische Briefe (ANTF,
Bnd.12), Berlin – New York, NY, De Gruyter, 1989.
KATZ, S. T. (ed.), The Cambridge History of Judaism, Volume 4, The Late Roman-Rabbinic
Period, Cambridge, University Press, 2006.
KEARSLEY, R.A., “Women in Public Life in the Roman East: Iunia Theodora, Claudia Metrodora
and Phoebe, Benefactress of Paul”, in Tyndale Bulletin 50 (1999) 189-211.
KIM, CHAN-HIE, Form and Structure of the Familiar Greek Letter of Recommendation (SBL
Dissertation Series 4), Missoula, MT, University of Missoula, 1972.
KOEHLER, L. – W. BAUMGARTNER , The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 2
Vols., Leiden, Brill, 2001.
KOVACS, D., Euripides in Four Volumes, Suppliant Women, Electra, Heracles (LCL 9),
Cambridge, MA – London, Harvard University Press, 1998.
LIGHTFOOT, J. B., “The Epistle to the Romans”, in Journal of Philology Vol. III, p. 193 sq.,
(1871), repr. in ID., Biblical Essays, London, Macmillan and Company, 1893, repr. ID.,
Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Book House, 1979, pp. 352-374.
_____ , “M. Renan’s Theory of the Epistle to the Romans”, in Journal of Philology Vol. II, p.
264 sq., (1869), repr. in ID., Biblical Essays, London, Macmillan and Company, 1893,
repr. ID., Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Book House, 1979, pp. 287-320.
LIDDELL, H. G. – ROBERT SCOTT – H. STUART JONES, A Greek-English lexicon; comp. by
Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott; rev. and augmented throughout by Henry Stuart
Jones, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1996.
MACDONALD, MARGARET Y., “Reading Real Women Through the Undisputed Letters of Paul”,
in ROSS S. KRAEMER – MARY ROSE D’ANGELO (eds.), Women & Christian Origins, New
York, NY, Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 199-220.
MACLEOD, M. D., Lucian, in Eight Volumes (LCL 432), London – Cambridge, MA, Heinemann
– Harvard University Press, 1967.
MANSON. T. W., The Church’s Ministry, London, Hodder & Stoughton Limited, 1948.
_____ , Studies in Gospels and Epistles, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1962.
MARCHANT, E. C. – G. W. BOWERSOCK, Xenophon in Seven Volumes, Scripta Minora; Pseudo-
Xenophon, Constitution of the Athenians (LCL 183), Cambridge, MA – London, Harvard
University Press – Heinemann, 1925, repr. 1984.
 92

MARCHANT, E. C. – O. J. TODD, Xenophon in Seven Volumes, Memorabilia and Oeconomicus;

Symposium and Apology (LCL 168), Cambridge, MA – London, Harvard University
Press – Heinemann, 1923, repr. 1979.
MARCUS, R. – A.WIKGREN, Josephus, in Ten Volumes, Jewish Antiquities, Books XV-XVII (LCL
410), Cambridge, MA – London, Harvard University Press – Heinemann, 1969.
MASSYNGBERDE FORD, J., “Biblical Material Relevant to the Ordination of Woman”, in JES 10
(1973) 669-694.
MCCABE, E. A., “A Reevaluation of Phoebe in Romans 16:1-2 as a “Diakonos” and “Prostatis”:
Exposing the Inaccuracies of English Translations”, in ID. (ed.), Women in the Biblical
World; A Survey of Old and New Testament Perspectives, Lanham, MD, University Press
of America, 2010, pp. 99-116.
MCDERMOTT, J. M., “The Biblical Doctrine of KOINWNIA”, 2 Parts, in BZ 19 (1975) 64-77, 219-
233.
MCDONALD, J. I. H., “Was Romans XVI a Separate Letter?”, in NTS 16 (1969-1970) 369-372.
MERZ, A., “Im Auftrag der Gemeinde von Kenchreä: Phoebe als Wegbereiterin der
Spanienmission”, in B. BECKING – J. A. WAGENAAR – M. C. A. KORPEL (eds.), Tussen
Caïro en Jeruzalem. Studies over de Bijbel en haar Context, Utrecht Theologische Reeks
53, Utrecht, Universiteit Utrecht, 2006, pp. 83-97.
_____ , “Phöbe, Diakon(in) der Gemeinde von Kenchreä – Eine Wichtige Mitstreiterin des
Paulus Neu Entdeckt”, in A.M. VON HAUFF (ed.), Frauen Gestalten Diakonie, Band 1:
Von der Biblischen Zeit bis zum Pietismus, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 2007, pp. 125-140.
METZGER, B. M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, London – New York,
NY, United Bible Societies, 1975, corrected edition.
MEYER, R., “farisa&iov ktl ”, in G. KITTEL (ed.), TWNT, Band 9, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1973,
pp. 11-36.
MOFFATT, J., An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, Edinburgh, Clark, 1927.
MOLEGRAAF, M., Plato, Verzameld Werk, deel XII, Gorgias, Amsterdam, Bert Bakker, 2003.
_____ , Plato, Verzameld Werk, deel XV, Charmides, Laches, Lysis, Amsterdam, Bert Bakker,
2005.
MOULTON, W. F. – A. S. GEDEN, Concordance to the Greek New Testament, 6th ed., fully
revised, I. H. MARSHALL (ed.), London – New York, NY, T & T Clark, 2002.
 93

NESTLE – ALAND, Novum Testamentum Graece (27th rev. ed.), Stuttgart, Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft, 2001.
NG, E. Y. L., “Phoebe as Prostatis”, in Trinity Journal 25NS (2004) 3-13.
OLLROG, W.-H., Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter. Untersuchungen zu Theorie und Praxis der
Paulinischen Mission (WMANT 50), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1979.
OSIEK, C., “‘Diakonos’ and ‘Prostatis’: Women’s Patronage in Early Christianity”, in HTS 61
(2005) 347-370.
PANIKULAM, G., Koinōnia in the New Testament. A Dynamic Expression of Christian Life
(AnBib 85), Rome, Biblical Institute Press, 1979.
PREISENDANZ, K., Papyri Graecae Magicae – Die Griechischen Zauberpapyri, II, Sammlung
Wissenschaftlicher Commentare, Stuttgart,Teubner, 1974.
RENGSTORF, K. (ed.), A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, 4 Vols., Leiden, Brill, 1973-
1984.
______ , “a0po&stolov ktl”, in G. KITTEL (ed.), TWNT, Band 1, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer,
1957, pp. 406-446.
RICHARDS, E. R., Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and
Collection, Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, 2004.
ROBERTS A. – J. DONALDSON (eds.), Ante-Nicene Fathers : the writings of the Fathers down to
A.D. 325, Vol. 7, Lactantius, Venantius, Asterius, Victorinus, Dionysius, Apostolic
teaching and constitutions, homily, and liturgies, Buffalo, NY, The Christian Literature
Publishing Company, 1886, repr. Peabody, Ma, Hendrickson, 1994, rendered on
BibleWorks 7.0.012g.
RORDORF, W. – A.TUILIER, La Doctrine des douze Apôtres (Didachè), (Sources Crétiennes Nê
248 bis), Paris, Les Éditions Du Cerf, 1998.
SANDT, H. VAN DE – D. FLUSSER, The Didache. Its Jewish Sources and its Place in Early
Judaism and Christianity (CRINT 5), Assen – Minneapolis, MN, Royal Van Gorcum –
Fortress Press, 2002.
SCHMID, U., Marcion und sein Apostolos. Rekonstruktion und Historische Einordnung der
Marcionitischen Paulusbriefausgabe (ANTF 25), Berlin – New York, NY, De Gruyter,
1995.
 94

SCHMITHALS, W., Die Briefe des Paulus in ihrer Ursprünglichen Form (Zürcher
Werkkommentare zur Bibel), Zürich, Theologischer Verlag, 1984.
SCHÖLLGEN, G., “The Didache as a Church Order: An Examination of the Purpose for the
Composition of the Didache and its Consequences for its Interpretation”, in J. A.
DRAPER (ed.), The Didache in Modern Research, Leiden, Brill, 1996, pp. 43-71.
SCHÜSSLER FIORENZA, E., Ter herinnering aan haar. Een feministisch theologische
reconstructie van de oorsprongen van het christendom, Hilversum, Gooi en Sticht,
1988; Transl. of In Memory of Her. A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian
Origins, New York, NY, Crossroad, 1984,[transl. by Ton van der Stap].
_____ , “The “Quilting” of Women’s History: Phoebe of Cenchreae”, in PAULA COOEY –
SHARON FARMER – MARY ELLEN ROSS (eds.), Embodied Love: Sensuality and
Relationships as Feminist Values, San Francisco, CA, Harper & Row, 1987, pp. 35-49.
SEEBASS, H. – K. GRÜNWALDT, “Heilig/Rein”, in L. COENEN – K. HAACKER (eds.), Theologisches
Begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament, Wuppertal – Neukirchen, Brockhaus –
Neukirchener Verlag, 2005.
TAYLOR, T. M., “The Place of Origin of Romans”, in JBL 67 (1948) 281-295.
VERHOEVEN, C., Porphyrius, De Grot van de Nimfen: over een passage uit de Odyssee van
Homerus, Baarn, Amboboeken, 1984, PORFURIOU PERI TOU EN ODUSSEIAI TWN
NUMFWN ANTROU, Griekse tekst overgenomen uit: The cave of the Nymphs in the
Odyssey, Porphyry, Buffalo, NY, Arethusa, 1969.
VICAIRE, P. (ed.), Platon, Lachès et Lysis, Erasme 8, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France,
1963.
WAY, A. S., Euripides in Four Volumes, Bacchanals, Madness of Hercules, Children of
Hercules, Phoenician Maidens, Suppliants (LCL 11), Cambridge, MA – London,
Harvard University Press – Heinemann, 1912, repr. 1979.
WENZEL, K., “Apostolische Identität; Der Dienst des Amts in der Gemeinde”, in T. SCHMELLER –
M. EBNER – R. HOPPE (ed.), Neutestamentliche Ämtermodelle im Kontext (QD 239),
Freiburg, Herder, 2010, pp. 260-287.
WEREN, W., Vensters op Jezus. Methoden in de uitleg van de evangeliën, Zoetermeer,
Meinema, 1999, tweede druk.
 95

WHELAN, C. F., “Amica Pauli: the Role of Phoebe in the Early Church”, in JSNT 49 (1993) 67-
85.
WHITE, H., Appian’s Roman History. The Civil Wars: Book I-III (LCL 4), Cambridge, MA –
London, Harvard University Press – Heinemann, 1913, repr. 1979.
______ , Appian’s Roman History, The Syrian Wars: Book IV (LCL 3), Cambridge, MA –
London, Harvard University Press – Heinemann, 1912, repr. 1972.
WILCKENS, U., Der Brief an die Römer (EKK, Band VI/1, Röm. 1-5), Zürich – Neukirchen-
Vluyn, Benzinger Verlag – Neukirchener Verlag, 1978.
_____ , Der Brief an die Römer (EKK, Band VI/3, Röm. 12-16), Neukirchen, Benzinger Verlag
– Neukirchener Verlag, 2003.
WILLIAMS, CH. K., “The Corinthia in the Roman Period”, in Journal of Roman Archaeology
Supplementary Series Number Eight (1993) 31-46.
WISHTON, W., The Works of Josephus: New Updated Edition, Peabody, MA, Hendrickson
Publishers, 1987.
WOLFF, C., Der Zweite Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (THNT 8), Berlin, Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt, 1989.
ZERWICK, M. – M. GROSVENOR, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, Rome,
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2007.

Online sources:

RIFE, J. L. – T. PITMAN, Kenchreai Cemetery Project. Macalester College, 2006, Online:

http://www. macalester. edu/classics/kenchreai/ < accessed >.
University of Michigan, Online: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/a/apis/x-3559/6238_38.tif.