Is there any evidence that Junia was not a female apostle?

[mercytruth]

As ConstantineTG has stated, an apostle is not a bishop. As Patrick457 has stated, an apostle is someone who is ‘sent’ (apostello). There are many references to individuals being ‘sent’ (apostello) by various people under various circumstances within the four gospels.

In addition,

God ‘sent’ his only begotten Son. (1 John 4:9)
The Holy Spirit was ‘sent’ down from heaven (1 Peter 1:12)
Angels are ‘sent’ as ministering spirits to those who inherit salvation (Heb.1:14)

’Apostles’ or messengers such as Titus, were sent to gather alms from the the church of Corinth and other churches for the saints who are in need elsewhere. (2 Corinth. 8:23).

Returning to Romans 16:7, hypothetically, Andronicus and Junia may have been messengers who had been sent to Rome to gather alms for the church in Jerusalem.

And who sent this epistle of the Apostle Paul to the church in Rome? It was sent by
Phoebe of the church of Cenchrea, adjacent to Corinth. Who is Phoebe?

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me. (Romans 16:1-2)

Romans 16 concludes with: **Written to the Romans from Corinthus and sent by Phoebe servant of the church at Cenchrea. **

Even if Andronicus and Junia were not apostles, that is, messengers sent to Rome, (as someone else has stated), they may have been notable servants of God among the twelve apostles.

God’s peace be with you

micah

 

[patrick457]

Absolutely.
Some questions may have been answered in the context and as best as they could have been at the time, but not always correctly. Like when that pope Gregory declared around year 600 that Saint Mary Magdalene was a prostitute and it wasn’t reviewed again and cleared up until 1969. For 1300 years, people thought of her as a prostitute–it was weaved into art and culture and stories—but it was inaccurate and unfair. Poor Mary.
It was good to re-question that one, for example.

And some questions cannot be answered at all, which is why there continues to be much healthy debate on many topics.

In the West yes. But in the East…? (Letting you or someone else give out this one)

 

[Christianus_Dei]

And given that the only suggestion of Junia’s supposed apostleship comes from one of multiple translations of a half-sentance, and that female apostleship is impossible, it should be obvious what the answer is to the Original Poster’s question is.

 

[fnr]

Come on gang. The Church has been going strong for two thousand years. Do any of us really think we can think up a question that hasn’t been asked and answered a hundred times by the many Saints, scholars and Doctors of the Church?

Actually, I think it’s utterly crucial that we do keep asking the question.

As other posters in this thread have noted, Paul uses the term “apostle” in multiple contexts.

“Paul, an apostle not from human beings nor through a human being but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead,”
Galatians 1:1

“On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter to the circumcised, for the one who worked in Peter for an apostolate to the circumcised worked also in me for the Gentiles, and when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.”
Galatians 2:7-9

Elsewhere, he’s more guarded about using the term “apostle.”

“Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days. But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.”
Galatians 1:18-19

This is very notable, for he excludes James from the term “apostle.” So Paul isn’t throwing the term around lightly.

There is definitely tension around Paul’s use of the term “apostle”:

“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.”
1 Corinthians 9:2

1 Corinthians is notable for other reasons. In Chapter 11, he describes the Eucharist, which Paul describes as something he “handed on” to the Corinthians. This strongly suggests that he was ordaining priests.

‘For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.’
1 Cor 11:23-26

So, rather than evidence of a messy use of the term “apostle” by Paul, what I think we see is evidence (with which scholars seem to agree) that there were multiple types of clergy in the early Church. There were mobile clergy like Paul and there were stationary clergy.

If we look at the way Paul greets the Christians in his letters, the concept of a central bishop isn’t really there. Romans 16 is a litany of names reflecting what seems to be a church community that wasn’t very hierarchical. In that regard, Junia and the other non-apostolic women mentioned seem not to be controversial.

This ambiguity in the central authority of clergy like bishops is found when comparing the letters of Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna from the early second century (about 50 years after Paul’s genuine epistles). Ignatius, a bishop with strong central leadership over his church emphasizes the centrality of the bishop. Polycarp doesn’t seem to have this centralizing tendency.

The Church didn’t just pop into existence with its modern day structure. The central role of the bishop, the mechanism of apostolic succession, the centrality of the papacy, and many other elements of the modern Church evolved over time, up to and through the centralizing reforms of the Council of Trent. Given those changes that occurred over time, it’s certainly not out of the question that women were clergy in the first century.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Actually, I think it’s utterly crucial that we do keep asking the question.

Why?

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Why?

In the hopes we might finally get it wrong.

 

[ConstantineTG]

There were twelve Apostles. No woman has ever been ordained to the clerical state. This is what the Church has always taught. If you are trying to build a case for female ordination forget it. The infallible teaching of the Church is that only men can be ordained.

There were more than 12, though the 12 occupy an office higher than any, there were surely others who were called Apostles but was not part of the 12. We can start with St. Paul.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Even so a woman can be neither. Do the EO take a different view?

Not that I know of, but I am just clarifying that an Apostle is not automatically a bishop. A bishop is a chief elder. In the early days of the Church, all elders were called “presbeutros” or presbyters, literally “elders”. There was a chief elder among them who eventually will be given the title “episkopos”, overseer, bishop. A great example here is in the Greek in Acts, St. James was called a “presbeutros” rather than an “episkopos” even though we know he was the first Bishop of Jerusalem.

While the Bishops succeeded the Apostles in authority and honor, they are not Apostles in the sense. Apostles were reserved to those sent by Christ himself. Tradition would place some of the others identified as Apostles (Mark, Timothy, Barnabas, etc.) as part of the 70 disciples Christ sent. Most if not all of them left Christ at the conclusion of the Bread of Life discourse in John 6, but they were reinstated after the Resurrection (there were 120 in the upper room by Pentecost).

 

[Linusthe2nd]

There were more than 12, though the 12 occupy an office higher than any, there were surely others who were called Apostles but was not part of the 12. We can start with St. Paul.

Yes, of course. After Barnabas we would have to say thirteen counting Paul.

 

[mab23]

This is quoted from another member on this forum I don’t remember but I saved it in regards to Junia ( I keep files on my computer with questions I have and I though this dealt with it well)

All this means is that Andronicus and (his wife?) Junia were important in the Jerusalem city-church, just as Prisca (or Priscilla) and Aquila (another husband-and-wife team) were “prominent” within the Roman (see: Romans 16:3) and Ephesian (see: 2 Tim 4:19) city-churches. And this fact is hammered home by Paul’s comment “they were in Christ before me.” …meaning that they were members of the earliest Jerusalem city-church, and not that they were Apostles chosen by Christ during His earthly life.

Note that “Junia” is not called a “fellow apostle”. What we know from the text (Romans 16:7) is that this “Junia” is paired with “Andronicus,” who is listed before “her”. We are also told that Andronicus and “Junia” are St. Paul’s “relatives” and that they were Christians “before” St. Paul was. The natural conclusion here is that “Junia” (if it is “Junia”) was Andronicus’ wife, and they were “prominent among (or before) the apostles” in one of two senses: 1) Either they were regarded as a “husband and wife team” (with Andronicus being the primary figure as an evangelist -
i.e., women were not permitted to preach publicly or have authority over a man). In this, they would have been no

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Given those changes that occurred over time, it’s certainly not out of the question that women were clergy in the first century.

Consider that the very same Paul wrote this (RSV: 2CE):

1 Timothy 2: 11-12

“[11] Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. [12] Permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to remain silent.”

1 Corinthians 14: 33-35

“[33] For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, [34] the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. [35] If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”

It seems very much to me that, as always, obedience to Church teaching on faith and morals is the path to take. They have not erred on such an important Tradition. Both men and women are very important in the Church, but we both have different roles. This is how God made us, and it should be pleasing to us that God has made it so.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Consider that the very same Paul wrote this (RSV: 2CE):

1 Timothy 2: 11-12

“[11] Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. [12] Permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to remain silent.”

1 Corinthians 14: 33-35

“[33] For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, [34] the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. [35] If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”

It seems very much to me that, as always, obedience to Church teaching on faith and morals is the path to take. They have not erred on such an important Tradition. Both men and women are very important in the Church, but we both have different roles. This is how God made us, and it should be pleasing to us that God has made it so.

I’d like to see the OPs response to this post.

 

[po18guy]

In Romans 16:7, Paul writes:
"Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives and my fellow prisoners; they are prominent among the apostles and they were in Christ before me. "

Junia is a woman’s name. I don’t think there’s any serious scholarly debate about that. Some translators over time have translated it as “Junias” to make it a man’s name, but that’s not what the original Greek said, as far as I understand the scholarship on the subject.

Are there holes in my reasoning? Is there evidence Junia was not a female bishop?

If Junia(s) were a female Bishop, it would then be strange and contradictory for Paul to write this to Titus:

Titus 1:6
“An elder (Bishop) must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.”

 

[po18guy]

I’d like to see the OPs response to this post.

Well, since Junia was “clearly” female, this would have been the beginning of sign language?

 

[po18guy]

Consider that the very same Paul wrote this (RSV: 2CE):

1 Timothy 2: 11-12

“[11] Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. [12] Permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to remain silent.”

1 Corinthians 14: 33-35

“[33] For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, [34] the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. [35] If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”

It seems very much to me that, as always, obedience to Church teaching on faith and morals is the path to take. They have not erred on such an important Tradition. Both men and women are very important in the Church, but we both have different roles. This is how God made us, and it should be pleasing to us that God has made it so.

I’d like to see the OPs response to this post.

Well, if Junia(s) was “clearly” female, this would have been the introduction of sign language???

 

[fnr]

Consider that the very same Paul wrote this (RSV: 2CE):

Actually, I think there’s fairly good evidence and scholarly ageeement that Paul wrote neither of these passages and reflect (1) Pseudonymous authorship of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus (attributed to Paul but written by later Christians with sometimes opposite messages) and (2) interpolation/editing of 1 Corinthiand by later Christians trying to make Paul seem to advocate silence of women.

1 Timothy 2: 11-12

“[11] Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. [12] Permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to remain silent.”

In all likelihood, Paul did not write 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. This is a conclusion held by most Bible scholars. There are numerous extra canonical epistles attributed to Paul that are widely agreed as pseudonymous.

1 Corinthians 14: 33-35

“[33] For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, [34] the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. [35] If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”

I’ll let the notes in the New American Bible speak on this:
** [14:33b–36] Verse 33b may belong with what precedes, so that the new paragraph would begin only with 1 Cor 14:34. 1 Cor 14:34–35 change the subject. These two verses have the theme of submission in common with 1 Cor 14:11 despite differences in vocabulary, and a concern with what is or is not becoming; but it is difficult to harmonize the injunction to silence here with 1 Cor 11 which appears to take it for granted that women do pray and prophesy aloud in the assembly (cf. 1 Cor 11:5, 13). Hence the verses are often considered an interpolation, reflecting the discipline of later churches; such an interpolation would have to have antedated our manuscripts, all of which contain them, though some transpose them to the very end of the chapter.*

It seems very much to me that, as always, obedience to Church teaching on faith and morals is the path to take. They have not erred on such an important Tradition. Both men and women are very important in the Church, but we both have different roles. This is how God made us, and it should be pleasing to us that God has made it so.

It seems very clear that between Paul and later centuries, there was evolution in the church away from women’s equality, including inserting texts into genuinely Pauline letters like 1 Corinthians. Paul brought a radical egalitarian message to the Mediterranean world, which opposed him with extreme conservatism aimed at protecting pagan and Pre-christian convention. The threats to his life throughout Acts and the uncontested Pauline letters attest to this. The insertion of text into Corinthians and likely pseudonymous authorship of the only epistles in which women are explicitly barred from ministry make it seem very probable that women’s role in the early church was not as clearly restricted from pastoral ministry as it is today.

 

[fnr]

I’d like to see the OPs response to this post.

I’d like to get your take on my reply!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’d like to get your take on my reply!

I did. I asked why it was ‘crucial’ to keep asking the question?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’d like to get your take on my reply!

Oh, that response. You claim ‘most’ scholars deny that Paul wrote, but you provide no sources.

Your claims seem to indicate that we cannot trust scriptures, because we don’t know who actually wrote what, and the insertion of other materials; without any sources.

These claims would seem to indicate that even the writings of the early Church fathers are not dependable.

What is your goal?

 

[Ignatius]

In Romans 16:7, Paul writes:
"Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives and my fellow prisoners; they are prominent among the apostles and they were in Christ before me. "

Jesus Called twelve Apostles and their names are given in the Gospels, contrary to your subject title, there is no evidence whatsoever that there were any other then the twelve Apostles.