In 2020, Esther Yue L. Ng published an article to reopen the “Junia(s) case” of Romans 16.7. In her article, entitled “Was Junia(s) in Rom 16:7 a Female Apostle? And so What?” (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 63/3), she challenged the consensus of 21st-century scholarship that the person named ΙΟΥΝΙΑΝ in Rom 16.7 was a woman apostle active in the first diffusion of the Gospel. As Matt H. Hamilton noticed in a review of recent scholarship over Junia, Ng's article represents the most well-written and most challenging production of the 21st century “anti-Junia” trend. It is the aim of the current essay to provide a detailed response to it. Going through the three lines of argument mobilized by Ng (Junias could be the Greek rendering of the Hebrew masculine name Yehunni; Junia(s) was perhaps only ‘well-known to the apostles’ instead of being an apostle on her or his own; if a woman apostle, Junia did not have the same responsibilities as male apostles), this essay highlights many methodological shortcomings that run throughout her article. It also unveils the rhetoric of doubt used by Ng, which is manifest particularly in the “funnel” dispositio of her article. Finally, this essay exposes the “axiom of unsuspicion” that Ng adopts with regard to the issue of androcentrism and her particularly unsatisfactory treatment of how and why the masculine reading Junias had made its mark in modern scholarship and translations.