This page tracks Greek manuscripts with προστάτης, προστάτις, and other variants in Romans 16:2. In this article, I give further evidence that demonstrates why the masculine προστάτης should be the majority reading in the Byzantine Majority Text.

The Critical Text should select the masculine προστάτης reading in Romans 16:2 as the preferred reading since it passes the following text-critical tests:

1. It is by far the hardest reading.
2. It explains the emergence of the other variants.
3. It has sizeable geographic support.

Most importantly, there are a large number of manuscripts that contain the masculine reading. Although this would generally be an irrelevant data point, the variant's distinctiveness sets it apart and makes a compelling case for its validity.

The most explicit statement in early Christianity regarding Phoebe holding the position of elder/overseer/bishop is found in the commentary portion of the ninth-century uncial manuscript GA0142. The manuscript contains two commentary mentions of the masculine προστάτης (in addition to a masculine reference when the manuscript quotes scripture). The manuscript also uses the verb proistēmi as a descriptor of her position. The manuscript states:

οἷον ἵνα χεῖρα νοηθέντας ὀρέξητε οὐκ εἶπεν ἐξήλθετε τῶν ἐπι τιθεμένων ἄλλο ἂν ἐπαχθὲς προστῇ τε· χἐιρa ὀρέξατε· προστάτην δὲ αὐτῆν. ἡ τοι φιλόξενον ὀνομάξει μανάς τὸ πολλῶν αὐτὴν προστάτην αἱ τὸ δὲ καὶ αὐτοῦ ἐμοῦ.

Ensure [you] extend a hand to help those in leadership [like Phoebe]. That is not to say another should replace her. Of course, if she is overburdened with responsibilities from leading [proistēmi] stretch out a hand to help her because she is a bishop [prostatēs; or overseer]. She was called to show hospitality [philoxenos] to you, which was put on display as she [served as] a bishop [prostatēs] over many. She has also shown this hospitality to me [Paul] as well.

Paul used the Greek adjective philoxenos (φιλόξενος) twice in his epistles. Both instances (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:8) referenced the behavior required of an episkopos (bishop/overseer). This connection, made by the author of the commentary, demonstrates that Phoebe was seen as holding the position of bishop. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus (393–466 A.D.), uses philoxenia, which was the feminine cognate of the masculine philoxenos in his commentary on Phoebe, thereby making the same assertion that she was a bishop. He also uses the masculine prostatēs. In the manuscript GA2242, his commentary reads:

προστάτης γάρ, φησὶ, πολλῶν ἐγενήθη. καὶ αὐτοῦ ἐμοῦ. προστασίαν δὲ ὡς οἶμαι τὴν φιλοξενίαν καὶ κηδεμονίαν καλεῖ·

As a bishop [prostatēs], he [Paul] says, she was over many and myself also. She was considered a leader being hospitable [philoxenia] [to others] and this is called taking charge and having concern for the affairs of others.

Why Would Paul Use the Masculine προστάτης?

If the masculine is authentic, which I believe it is, Paul would have used it instead of the feminine as a technical term for a specific position (i.e., bishop/overseer). The second reason may be that prostatēs was being used as an adjective to amplify the masculine diakonos in Romans 16:1. In other words, Paul was saying that in addition to being a deacon, Phoebe was also a prostatēs. In this case, it would also be saying that prostatēs was a technical term for a position in the church. Therefore, Paul notes Phoebe as an officeholder who was both deacon and bishop.

His usage is not foreign to Greek literature. Greek historian Appian of Alexandria (95–165 A.D.) in The Civil Wars (1.1) used the feminine prostatis when referring to a position held by a man. I believe Appian did this to match the case, gender, and number (accusative, feminine, singular) of the feminine nouns archē and dēmarchia. Therefore, Appian used the noun prostatis like an adjective.

Even then no violence was done, but they created a magistrate [ἀρχήν, archē] for their protection [προστάτιν, prostatis] and called him the tribune [δημαρχίαν, dēmarchia] of the plebs, to serve especially as a check upon the consuls, who were chosen by the Senate, so that the political power should not be exclusively in their hands.¹ (1.1)

In my book A Biblical Case for Women Pastors, Elders, and Deacons, I give a long list of references where the church fathers used προστάτης as a technical term for the position of bishop and even used it when referencing the position of the pope as the top bishop.

I would argue that no scribe would purposefully alter the text from the feminine προστάτις to the masculine προστάτης since Phoebe was a woman. The only exception would be if the scribe was aware of significant evidence for the authenticity of προστάτης and/or if it was used as a technical term for a leadership position. Furthermore, no church father would have used the masculine in their commentary unless they were certain of its authenticity. Yet, the masculine variant is found in the commentaries of Chrysostom, Theodoret of Cyrus, Theophylact, and Euthymius Zigabenus.

Although the masculine variant προστάτης meets all the text-critical criteria, it isn’t mentioned in any variant apparatus. The reason for this, I would presume, is that the reading is seen as impossible. However, this is what makes it the hardest reading and therefore almost assuredly the authentic reading.

The manuscript GA61 has προστάτις, and the scribe added ης above the word. The scribe may be footnoting that they were aware of the masculine reading in other sources, or it may be that the scribe corrected the exemplar from masculine to feminine but wanted to note the original reading.

For Family 1424, the primary manuscript GA1424 contains the masculine προστάτης. The three subsequent manuscripts copied in this family, GA517, GA945, and GA2191, include the feminine προστάτις. This demonstrates the propensity of scribes to correct the exemplars. So while GA1424 is the family’s representative manuscript, it only contains a 25% reading which correlates to a 100% correction rate.

John Chrysostom

John H. Parker, in the book Bibliotheca Patrum Ecclesiae Catholicae, notes Chrysostom's commentary contains the masculine προστάτης² in the manuscript Monacensis 457 (formerly Augustanus), which he dated to the eleventh century.³

Euthymius Zigabenus

The twelfth-century monk Euthymius Zigabenus wrote a commentary on Romans that was preserved in GA2008. The commentary was copied one century (13th) after the original was written and contains the masculine προστάτης. Two of the three (67%) extant manuscripts contain the masculine προστάτης (GA 2008 and 2690). The only manuscript containing the feminine (GA1840) is from the sixteenth century.

Theodoret of Cyrus

The church father Theodoret (393–466 A.D.) was the bishop of Cyrus. His commentary is one of the clearest examples of an early masculine reading from the fifth century. All of his early manuscripts contain προστάτης. It wasn't until the fourteenth century that we find the first Theodoret commentary with the feminine προστάτις. Additionally, the eleventh-century manuscript GA606 was corrected from masculine to feminine, which also demonstrates the scribe's proclivity to correct the manuscripts from masculine to feminine.

Graph Showing the Reading of προστάτης as a Percent by Century in Theodoret's Commentary:


Theophylact of Ohrid

The commentary from Theophylact of Ohrid (1055–1107 A.D.) contains scripture quotations alongside commentary. Of the extant digitized manuscripts, twelve contain at least one masculine reading of προστάτης (GA103, GA254, GA891, GA1780, GA1935, GA1977, GA1978, GA1987, GA1994, GA1995, GA2104, GA2482). This includes very early manuscripts, including GA254 (11th), GA1780 (1200), GA2104 (12th), and GA103 (12th).

Of these manuscripts, five (42%) contain at least one correction from the masculine προστάτης to the feminine προστάτις (GA254, GA1977, GA1978, GA1994, GA2104). Of the seven pre-thirteenth-century manuscripts, five (71%) contain at least one masculine reading of προστάτης. These staggering statistics demonstrate an extremely high probability that Theophylact's commentary originally contained the masculine reading.

In GA88, INGTP transcribed the reading as προστάτις. However, the ligature is missing the diaeresis (two dots above the iota) and, therefore, should be προστάτης (See διάκονον τῆς in Romans 16:1 in GA88, which demonstrates the accuracy of my transcription). For GA33 and GA04, INGTP transcribed the reading as προστάτις. However, the ending is unreadable, and therefore, they are assuming the conclusion.

A προστάτις ligature contains a diaeresis, while ligatures of προστάτης lack it. Ligatures of the article τῆς have a circumflex in some manuscripts, while others lack it.

See this article outlining the script encountered in the manuscripts for these transcriptions.

προστάτης

GA 020, 025, 049, 056, 0142, 0150, 0151, 1, 38, 43, 61, 62, 69, 81, 88, 90, 94, 102, 103, 110, 133, 181, 209, 218, 234, 252, 254, 263, 302, 326, 330, 378, 384, 421, 441, 450, 451, 458, 460, 466, 491, 496, 522, 592, 618, 619, 620, 621, 624, 627, 628, 636, 637, 638, 656, 664, 794, 796, 808, 823, 891, 911, 915, 917, 922, 928, 996, 999, 1070, 1094, 1107, 1115, 1162, 1243, 1245, 1311, 1315, 1367, 1390, 1398, 1424, 1425, 1482, 1509, 1598, 1622, 1642, 1646, 1672, 1673, 1678, 1718, 1720, 1734, 1735, 1738, 1751, 1759, 1760, 1762, 1780, 1809, 1827, 1830, 1834, 1836, 1837, 1838, 1845, 1846, 1870, 1874, 1875, 1877, 1886, 1896, 1911, 1912, 1916, 1917, 1918, 1927, 1933, 1934, 1941, 1945, 1959, 1977, 1978, 1980, 1994, 1995, 2004, 2008, 2011, 2012, 2104, 2110, 2125, 2147, 2194, 2242, 2255, 2344, 2401, 2404, 2475, 2482, 2501, 2502, 2627, 2674, 2690, 2696, 2736, 2805, 2926, L809, L1188, L1440, L2058.

Corrected from προστάτης to προστάτις

GA 94, 209, 252, 254, 421, 606, 619, 620, 1642, 1672, 1678, 1762, 1836, 1870, 1927, 1933, 1934, 1977, 1978, 1980, 1994, 1995, 2104, 2401, 2404, 2627, 2736, 2926.

GA606 had a feminine reading in the scripture text, and the commentary was corrected from masculine to feminine.

Possibly Corrected from προστάτης to προστάτις GA 323, 327, 1405, 1744, 1865, 1881.


προστάτις

GA 01, 02, 03, 06, 044, 3, 5, 6, 18, 35, 76, 82, 93, 97, 104, 105, 122, 141, 142, 149, 175, 189, 201, 203, 204, 205, 206, 216, 226, 250, 256, 319, 321, 322, 325, 328, 363, 365, 367, 383, 385, 386, 394, 398, 400, 424, 425, 429, 432, 436, 440, 444, 452, 454, 456, 457, 459, 462, 465, 467, 468, 469, 479, 489, 498, 517, 547, 567, 582, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 608, 614, 615, 616, 617, 622, 623, 625, 629, 630, 632, 634, 635, 639, 641, 642, 665, 676, 680, 699, 757, 801, 824, 901, 909, 910, 913, 914, 918, 919, 920, 921, 935, 941, 945, 959, 986, 1003, 1022, 1040, 1058, 1069, 1072, 1075, 1099, 1100, 1101, 1102, 1103, 1104, 1105, 1127, 1140, 1175, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1244, 1247, 1248, 1249, 1250, 1251, 1270, 1297, 1319, 1352, 1354, 1359, 1400, 1409, 1448, 1456, 1490, 1501, 1503, 1505, 1508, 1521, 1523, 1524, 1548, 1573, 1595, 1597, 1599, 1609, 1610, 1611, 1617, 1618, 1626, 1636, 1637, 1643, 1649, 1652, 1702, 1704, 1717, 1719, 1721, 1722, 1723, 1724, 1725, 1726, 1728, 1729, 1730, 1731, 1732, 1733, 1736, 1737, 1739, 1740, 1741, 1742, 1743, 1745, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750, 1752, 1754, 1761, 1763, 1766, 1767, 1768, 1798, 1828, 1831, 1839, 1840, 1841, 1843, 1847, 1849, 1851, 1852, 1853, 1854, 1855, 1856, 1857, 1858, 1860, 1862, 1864, 1867, 1868, 1869, 1871, 1872, 1873, 1876, 1880, 1882, 1888, 1890, 1891, 1892, 1893, 1894, 1900, 1902, 1903, 1905, 1906, 1908, 1909, 1913, 1915, 1919, 1921, 1923, 1924, 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1935, 1939, 1942, 1948, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1956, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1969, 1972, 1979, 1981, 1982, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1991, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2007, 2009, 2080, 2085, 2086, 2102, 2105, 2127, 2131, 2138, 2180, 2189, 2191, 2197, 2200, 2208, 2218, 2221, 2257, 2261, 2289, 2298, 2310, 2318, 2352, 2356, 2374, 2400, 2412, 2423, 2431, 2466, 2483, 2484, 2492, 2495, 2508, 2516, 2523, 2527, 2541, 2544, 2554, 2576, 2587, 2626, 2652, 2653, 2685, 2691, 2704, 2705, 2712, 2739, 2746, 2774, 2777, 2815, 2817, 2853, 2886, 2889, 2936, L169, L587, L1159, L1178, L2010.

RP Byzantine Majority Text 2018 contains this reading:
ἵνα αὐτὴν προσδέξησθε ἐν κυρίῳ ἀξίως τῶν ἁγίων, καὶ παραστῆτε αὐτῇ ἐν ᾧ ἂν ὑμῶν χρῄζῃ πράγματι· καὶ γὰρ αὐτὴ προστάτις πολλῶν ἐγενήθη, καὶ αὐτοῦ ἐμοῦ.

NA28 and UBS5 contains this reading:
ἵνα αὐτὴν προσδέξησθε ἐν κυρίῳ ἀξίως τῶν ἁγίων καὶ παραστῆτε αὐτῇ ἐν ᾧ ἂν ὑμῶν χρῄζῃ πράγματι· καὶ γὰρ αὐτὴ προστάτις πολλῶν ἐγενήθη καὶ ἐμοῦ αὐτοῦ.

προστάτις Ligatures

GA 57, 393, 404, 455, 886, 927, 1277, 1628, 1889, 1943, 1965, 1973, 1987, 1992, 2143, 2248, 2585, 2659, 2816.

παραστάτις GA 010, 012, 1970.

GA 010 and 012 has παραστάτεις


Unreadable Ending προστάτ__ GA 04, 33, 2716.


Lacks These Nouns. GA 0319, 1108.


Theodoret Commentary προστάτης

GA606 (11th), GA2242 (12th), GA1945 (13th), GA2012 (14th)

In GA606 the scripture quotation is feminine, and although the commentary text was originally written as masculine it was corrected to feminine.

Theodoret Commentary προστάτις

GA1999 (14th), GA1996 (15th), GA1939 (16th), GA1963 (16th)

Euthymius Zigabenus Commentary προστάτης GA2008 (13th), GA2690 (16th).


Euthymius Zigabenus Commentary προστάτις GA1840 (16th)


Theophylact Commentary προστάτης

GA1780 (1200), GA2104 (12th), GA103 (12th), GA1987 (14th), GA1995 (15th), GA1994 (16th), GA1935 (16th)

In GA2104 both the commentary and scripture text was corrected from προστάτης to προστάτις.

In GA1994 the scripture text was corrected from προστάτης to προστάτις, while the commentary text was left untouched.

In GA1987, the text has a ligature with the feminine diaeresis and the commentary has the masculine which lacks it. This demonstrates that the scripture text had been edited by a scribe.

In GA1935 the commenatary text contains προστάτης and the scripture text contains προστάτις.

In GA103 the commentary text is unreadable, but the scripture text contains προστάτης.

In GA1780 the scripture text contains προστάτης, but there is no reading (either masculine or feminine) in the commentary text.

In GA1995, the commentary contains προστάτ—— (which was an intentional marking), and the verse text contained προστάτης but was corrected to προστάτις.

Theophylact Commentary προστάτις

GA254 (11th), GA1988 (12th), GA1798 (12th), GA2936 (1228), GA1991 (13th), GA2576 (1286), GA1913 (13th), GA1943 (14th), GA608 (14th), GA1524 (14th), GA1950 (14th), GA2000 (14th), GA2105 (14th), GA2197 (14th), GA1929 (1387), GA2257 (14th), GA2889 (14th), GA1977 (14th), GA1961 (14th), GA1978 (15th), GA2102 (15th), GA1930 (16th), GA1985 (16th), GA1979 (16th)

Although the commentary in GA254, GA1977, and GA1978 contained the feminine προστάτις, the main text contained the masculine προστάτης and was corrected to προστάτις. This demonstrates these exemplars probably also contained a masculine reading in the commentary text that was changed when copied.

In GA1961, the commentary text contains προ and the rest of the word is unreadable. However, the scripture text contains προστάτις, so I placed this under the feminine list.

Theophylact Commentary προστάτις Ligatures

GA1992 (1232), GA1973 (13th), GA455 (13th/14th), GA891 (14th), GA2248 (14th), GA2482 (14th), GA1523 (13th/14th), GA1965 (14th), GA886 (1454), GA1964 (15th)

Manuscripts GA891 and GA2482 both contain a verse text that contain the masculine προστάτης. This demonstrates the ligatures were probably corrected by merely adding a diaeresis.