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

[fnr]

Are you kidding me??? You ask, “Is it credible that forgiveness of sins was granted or that the rebirth of the saving waters was duly accomplished in a case where everything may have been done in semblance of the truth but was in fact done though (sic) the agency of the demon?” Here is you answer, NO, it is not at all credible. Demons mock God and by their very nature are incapable of any salvific acts

I didn’t ask the question, it is Firmilian the excommunicate’s question. Here’s the text in full. He asserts that the woman is controlled by a demon (section 10 of the letter). I will note that his excommunication is due to his argument over the validity of baptism of people who later recanted their Christian faith under Roman persecution (see section 8-9). Firmilian compares the woman’s story (which he says occurred 22 years before his letter) with those of the contemporary “heretics” over whose baptismal and confessional validity he was excommunicated by St. Stephen I.

This is the very cause of the schism in the church that led to St. Stephen I (whom Firmilian attacks) citing Matthew 16:16-18 as the basis for papal authority for the first time in recorded history. Should we take Firmilian’s description of the woman as demon-possessed and licentious, when he said argued similarity between her and the contemporary people he called heretics, for whom St. Stephen excommunicated Firmilian?

I will point out that there are other cases of women baptizing. In the Apocryphal “Acts of Paul,” St. Paul’s virginal companion St. Thecla baptized herself, in a minute of exigency. That apocraphyl document is the only historical documentation of St. Thecla, who is recognized as a saint by the Roman Catholic Church. The Greek Orthodox Church commemorates her as “equal to the apostles,” as the title of the apocryphal document states.

Now I stated before this case is closed and I know you did not like my choice of words especially when I said to “get over it.” But the fact remains that the Pope has infallibly declared that the church has no authority to ordain women as priests and has imposed penalties of excommunication to any woman who undergoes such an ordination ritual as well as the person who officiates.

Yet many theologians contend that this teaching does not qualify as infallible.

So again I say, the case is closed for all eternity and we should all “get over it” and if that upsets your sensibilities then I think you got bigger problems than you would like to admit.

Then I ask you to pray for me.

I know: perhaps I’ll write a book on the topic and only publish it if I can get an imprimatur. That will make me have to use proper research methods and theology, right? Would that make you happy?

 

[PJM]

THE OP ASKED:
“Are their any holes in his position”

The answer is a definitve YES; and this fills it

2 1 Timothy 3:2 “It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, **the husband of one wife, **sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher”

God’s continued Blessings,

=PJM;BY FOLLOWING THE ONE INFALLIBLE RULE FOR RIGHT UNDERSTANDING OF THE BIBLE; WE KNOW WITH CERTAINTY BECAUSE ONLY CHRIST CHOOSE “APOSTLES”

Never Ever, can. may or does one part of the Bible make void, invalidate, or overrule another portion. such would render the entire bible as worthless; USELESS FOR TEACHING OR LEARNING THE FAITH."

Mt. 10:1-8
*Christ sends out his twelve apostles, with the power of miracles. The lessons he gives them. *

“And having called his twelve disciples together, he gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities. And ***the names of the twelve apostles are these: ***The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. These twelve Jesus sent: commanding them, saying: Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter ye not. But go ye rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And going, preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils: freely have you received, freely give”

SHE WAS A DEACONESS

Concerned about possible impriorities with “mixed gender” instruction; she and other wpmen were charged with Instruction to WOMEN ONLY. This postion has NOT existed for a very long time.

I pray this answers your question.

Pat /PJM

 

[inkaneer]

I will point out that there are other cases of women baptizing. In the Apocryphal “Acts of Paul,” St. Paul’s virginal companion St. Thecla baptized herself, in a minute of exigency. That apocraphyl document is the only historical documentation of St. Thecla, who is recognized as a saint by the Roman Catholic Church. The Greek Orthodox Church commemorates her as “equal to the apostles,” as the title of the apocryphal document states.

Yet many theologians contend that this teaching does not qualify as infallible.

First of all, the sacrament of Baptism can be administered by anyone. A man, a woman, a child, an atheist, a Muslim, a Jew or anyone else can administer the sacrament of Baptism. The only necessities are that of form and order. It must be of water and in the name of the Trinity. It need not be by full immersion.

Second, As far as St. Thecla is concerned, she was the reputed pupil of the Apostle Paul, and is the heroine of the apocryphal “Acts of Paul and Thecla”. Our knowledge of her is derived exclusively from these Acts, which appeared about 180AD. That puts it in the Gnostic period and well beyond the time of the Apostles. The tale had tremendous popularity in the early Eastern Church but was rightly labeled apocryphal by St. Jerome. The Acts of Paul and Thecla are considered apocryphal by the church and are not to be used to formulate doctrine. In addition, you state that Thecla baptized herself. This is not a valid baptism by any means.

Third, you state, “Yet many theologians contend that this teaching does not qualify as infallible.” That is correct and for good reason. The “Acts of Paul and Thecla” is not inspired writing and is regarded as a nice story but nothing more. The fact that Paul, who wrote over one half of the New Testament books, does not mention her in any of his works does not help. The “Acts of Paul and Thecla” should be considered to be on the same level as a fairy tale.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Inkaneer,

I really do not see the feminists getting over this - at least in my life time. The sound and fury will continue - and accomplish nothing positive and many hurt feelings in the process.

God bless

The article is wrong. The article refers to Canon 749.3 and states:

"But canon 749.3 stipulates that if there is any doubt about the infallible nature of a teaching, it is not infallible. The canon reads: “No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such.” [Infallibility on women’s ordination in question by Richard McBrien (Fr.)

But that is not what canon 749.3 states. Canon 749.3 states the following:

“§3 No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly demonstrated.” [Code of Canon Law]

“Manifestly demonstrated” does not mean that everyone agrees with it as Fr. Obrien thinks. If so there would be no infallible doctrines as no infallibly defined doctrine ever enjoyed unanamous support. The doctrine on the prohibition of women to the priesthood was manifestly demonstrated when Cardinal Ratzinger declared it to be an infallible teaching. The term, “manifestly demonstrated,” means that the teaching meets the set criteria for an infallibly defined doctrine. So at the risk of being redundant, this case is closed. Get over it.

 

[inkaneer]

Hi, Inkaneer,

I really do not see the feminists getting over this - at least in my life time. The sound and fury will continue - and accomplish nothing positive and many hurt feelings in the process.

God bless

I agree. The issue is a dead horse that they continue to beat in hopes it will get up and run again. But it won’t. That is why I said the case was closed and we should all get over it.

 

[edwest2]

First of all, the sacrament of Baptism can be administered by anyone. A man, a woman, a child, an atheist, a Muslim, a Jew or anyone else can administer the sacrament of Baptism. The only necessities are that of form and order. It must be of water and in the name of the Trinity. It need not be by full immersion.

Second, As far as St. Thecla is concerned, she was the reputed pupil of the Apostle Paul, and is the heroine of the apocryphal “Acts of Paul and Thecla”. Our knowledge of her is derived exclusively from these Acts, which appeared about 180AD. That puts it in the Gnostic period and well beyond the time of the Apostles. The tale had tremendous popularity in the early Eastern Church but was rightly labeled apocryphal by St. Jerome. The Acts of Paul and Thecla are considered apocryphal by the church and are not to be used to formulate doctrine. In addition, you state that Thecla baptized herself. This is not a valid baptism by any means.

Third, you state, “Yet many theologians contend that this teaching does not qualify as infallible.” That is correct and for good reason. The “Acts of Paul and Thecla” is not inspired writing and is regarded as a nice story but nothing more. The fact that Paul, who wrote over one half of the New Testament books, does not mention her in any of his works does not help. The “Acts of Paul and Thecla” should be considered to be on the same level as a fairy tale.

Baptism administered by anyone? Source please?

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Hi, Inkaneer,

I really do not see the feminists getting over this - at least in my life time. The sound and fury will continue - and accomplish nothing positive and many hurt feelings in the process.

God bless

The reason feminists will never get over this is the same reason radical, anarchist, Marxist feminists will not stop until the world “that is run by men” is overthrown and a woman is put in charge. Positive? They mask that by calling it Progressive. By definition, they are fanatics. And we can’t get over it. We must meet every attempt by these people to promote their experiment with a firm response. Not, oh well. If we stop, they’ll stop. Not going to happen.

Peace,
Ed

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
First of all, the sacrament of Baptism can be administered by anyone. A man, a woman, a child, an atheist, a Muslim, a Jew or anyone else can administer the sacrament of Baptism. The only necessities are that of form and order. It must be of water and in the name of the Trinity. It need not be by full immersion.

Second, As far as St. Thecla is concerned, she was the reputed pupil of the Apostle Paul, and is the heroine of the apocryphal “Acts of Paul and Thecla”. Our knowledge of her is derived exclusively from these Acts, which appeared about 180AD. That puts it in the Gnostic period and well beyond the time of the Apostles. The tale had tremendous popularity in the early Eastern Church but was rightly labeled apocryphal by St. Jerome. The Acts of Paul and Thecla are considered apocryphal by the church and are not to be used to formulate doctrine. In addition, you state that Thecla baptized herself. This is not a valid baptism by any means.

Third, you state, “Yet many theologians contend that this teaching does not qualify as infallible.” That is correct and for good reason. The “Acts of Paul and Thecla” is not inspired writing and is regarded as a nice story but nothing more. The fact that Paul, who wrote over one half of the New Testament books, does not mention her in any of his works does not help. The “Acts of Paul and Thecla” should be considered to be on the same level as a fairy tale.

Baptism administered by anyone? Source please?
Peace,
Ed

Look in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1256 which states as follows:

"The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.

 

[edwest2]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
First of all, the sacrament of Baptism can be administered by anyone. A man, a woman, a child, an atheist, a Muslim, a Jew or anyone else can administer the sacrament of Baptism. The only necessities are that of form and order. It must be of water and in the name of the Trinity. It need not be by full immersion.

Second, As far as St. Thecla is concerned, she was the reputed pupil of the Apostle Paul, and is the heroine of the apocryphal “Acts of Paul and Thecla”. Our knowledge of her is derived exclusively from these Acts, which appeared about 180AD. That puts it in the Gnostic period and well beyond the time of the Apostles. The tale had tremendous popularity in the early Eastern Church but was rightly labeled apocryphal by St. Jerome. The Acts of Paul and Thecla are considered apocryphal by the church and are not to be used to formulate doctrine. In addition, you state that Thecla baptized herself. This is not a valid baptism by any means.

Third, you state, “Yet many theologians contend that this teaching does not qualify as infallible.” That is correct and for good reason. The “Acts of Paul and Thecla” is not inspired writing and is regarded as a nice story but nothing more. The fact that Paul, who wrote over one half of the New Testament books, does not mention her in any of his works does not help. The “Acts of Paul and Thecla” should be considered to be on the same level as a fairy tale.

Look in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1256 which states as follows:

"The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.

Thank you for the reference.

Best,
Ed

 

[fnr]

The reason feminists will never get over this is the same reason radical, anarchist, Marxist feminists will not stop until the world “that is run by men” is overthrown and a woman is put in charge. Positive? They mask that by calling it Progressive. By definition, they are fanatics.

Well, thanks for the compliments.

And we can’t get over it. We must meet every attempt by these people to promote their experiment with a firm response. Not, oh well. If we stop, they’ll stop. Not going to happen.

What I’ve been told is that to discuss this topic is verboten. I’ve been told that even asking to discuss the question is fanaticism. All I’m trying to do is to take a serious look at the evidence, which seems to be anathema to anyone brandishing the flag of a “true Catholic.”

I have yet to hear a single reasoned response to the footnote in the USCCB’s own New American Bible at 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36 that says that those verses are inconsistent with the rest of Corinthians, and that many scholars feel those verses are insertions of “the discipline of later churches.” The footnote further states that the insertion is in ALL existing manuscripts of 1 Corinthians, the earliest of which most scholars date to around 200 AD. Any reason why that might be? Doesn’t it bother you that the epistles of Paul were edited to serve someone else’s aims for orthodoxy and practice? Or is my even asking it fanaticism?

Maybe Junia isn’t an apostle, maybe she’s just well-known among the apostles. But it’s awfully curious when you see Paul referring to her as such, and then contrast that with the way that Church Fathers like Tertullian and Origen talk about the inherent inferiority of women (itself an extrabiblical import into Christianity from Platonic thought). Or Paul in Galatians 3 saying that the new covenant is marked by baptism, not circumcision, making all Christians, “neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, nor woman and man,” in direct parallel to the prayer Jewish men prayed in synagogues thanking God for not making them a Greek, slave, or a woman. Or Jesus himself letting Mary of Bethany sit as his feet like a Jewish rabbinical or Greek philosophical student while she’s simultaneously violating the social taboo of women and men being in the same part of the house.

What about the fact that the priestly act of anointing, literally making Jesus “the Messiah” and “Christ” (anointed one), was carried out by a woman in all four Gospels. It bothers me that in Mark and Matthew, “Amen, I say to you, wherever the gospel is proclaimed to the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her.” Yet her name is missing from both gospels that contain that line. Isn’t there something peculiar about that?

Who’s more fanatical? People who ask those questions or people who refuse to even consider them?

I am going to try to get an imprimatur if I decide to write a book, so just rest assured… I’m not “going rogue.”

 

[Truthstalker]

Hi,

There has been a lot of ground covered on the assumption that Junia was a woman. How about the idea that it was Junias, a man, or a man whose name just happened to be interpretable by later generations as female? I mean, in Latin the word “agricola” means ‘famer’, but it is a first declension noun. Most first declension nouns are feminine but that does not mean that all farmers are female. I see a presupposition in this thread: that Junia was a female. It is entirely likely that you have overlooked that it may have been the man Junias, who would not particularly appreciate getting called a sister. Until someone proves that this individual was definitely female, most of the argumentation here is meaningless.

People may have names that mislead you as to their gender. Ask Dana. Or Marion. Or Beverly. A boy named Sue, thanks to Johnny Cash. There are others. My userid might lead you to think I am a guy.

If someone covered this ground I apologize. Silly me.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Truthstalker,

You brought back some very old and mostly favorable memories of my struggle with 1st year Latin! How well I recall old ‘Agricola’ and having to write sentences about this guy! And, yes, I do recall … all the farmers were male! even though there was this feminine ending. Imagine that!

One of the things I have found most tragic is the arguments today - if brought back to the 1st and 2nd Century - would have struck the ears of those early Catholics as really strange - because they were addressing really big issues (Christ is True God, Christ is true man, the Trinity, and Mary is the Mother of God) and here some group is wondering if there was a female apostle. So often there is such a loss of perspective that it is frightening on where the argument will flop next.

Again, thanks for bringing back my ‘old frined’ Argicola. The most famous ‘farmer’ I recall from that long-ago period was Cincinnatus who live 500 years before Christ Here is a link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnatus. The idea of someone - telling others he would serve as ruler only for the period of crisis and then return to his farm when the crisis was over - and do it! Wow! Can anyone imagine such a politician like that today!
Maybe the spirit of this guy - a pagan…but with principles - can plow up some sense in the Christian Community that seems to only thrive on strife and division.

God bless

Hi,

There has been a lot of ground covered on the assumption that Junia was a woman. How about the idea that it was Junias, a man, or a man whose name just happened to be interpretable by later generations as female? I mean, in Latin the word “agricola” means ‘famer’, but it is a first declension noun. Most first declension nouns are feminine but that does not mean that all farmers are female. I see a presupposition in this thread: that Junia was a female. It is entirely likely that you have overlooked that it may have been the man Junias, who would not particularly appreciate getting called a sister. Until someone proves that this individual was definitely female, most of the argumentation here is meaningless.

People may have names that mislead you as to their gender. Ask Dana. Or Marion. Or Beverly. A boy named Sue, thanks to Johnny Cash. There are others. My userid might lead you to think I am a guy.

If someone covered this ground I apologize. Silly me.

 

[inkaneer]

What I’ve been told is that to discuss this topic is verboten. I’ve been told that even asking to discuss the question is fanaticism. All I’m trying to do is to take a serious look at the evidence, which seems to be anathema to anyone brandishing the flag of a “true Catholic.”

The question you asked was, “Is there any evidence that Junia was not a female apostle?”
Thus far you have received no evidence at all. But the lack of evidence does not establish that Junia was either female or an apostle or both. What you are asking is essentially for someone to prove a negative. What you should be doing is trying to prove a positive. So I turn your question back on you. "Is there any evidence that Junia was a female apostle?
The answer is no, there isn’t. Paul’s words in Romans 16:7 may present problems when translated into English. Many verses in scripture do. But when translated into other languages the apparent problem disappears. In the Latin Vulgate Romans 16:7 is stated thusly:

“salutate Andronicum et Iuniam cognatos et concaptivos meos qui sunt nobiles in apostolis qui et ante me fuerunt in Christo”

Notice the words "cognatos et concaptivos’ these are translated as “relatives and prisoners”. In English the words “relatives and prisoners” do not denote any gender but in the Latin they do. Both cognatos and concaptivos are nouns of the male gender
So Andronicum and Iuniam are males. Note that the Latin alphabet does not have a letter “J” [or for that matter a letter “U” or “W”]. So Iuniam is translated with a Letter “J” added instead of the “I” and the spelling differs in various translations from Junia to Junias, Junias, Juntas and maybe a couple of others.

What about the fact that the priestly act of anointing, literally making Jesus “the Messiah” and “Christ” (anointed one), was carried out by a woman in all four Gospels. It bothers me that in Mark and Matthew, “Amen, I say to you, wherever the gospel is proclaimed to the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her.” Yet her name is missing from both gospels that contain that line. Isn’t there something peculiar about that?

Nothing peculiar at all. But you make one fatal error. You say the woman anointed Jesus as Messiah. But did she? Jesus said what the anointing He received was for and it wasn’t as Messiah. In Mark 14:8-9 He says:

“8 She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for burying. 9 And truly, I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her.”

As for any Messiah anointing, Jesus tells us also who did that. In Luke 4:18 Jesus says:

"“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed,” [RSV]

This is confirmed in the Book of Acts 4:24-27:

"24 And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, "Sovereign Lord, who didst make the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, 25 who by the mouth of our father David, thy servant, didst say by the Holy Spirit, ‘Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples imagine vain things? 26 The kings of the earth set themselves in array, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed’ – 27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, " [RSV]

So the anointing was a burial anointing. She was not annointing Him as Messiah. That was done by The Father.

Who’s more fanatical? People who ask those questions or people who refuse to even consider them?

I am going to try to get an imprimatur if I decide to write a book, so just rest assured… I’m not “going rogue.”

I guess fanatics can be considered to be the only one in the parade that is ‘in step’. Everybody else is wrong or out of step.

 

[tabycat]

Hi,

People may have names that mislead you as to their gender. Ask Dana. Or Marion. Or Beverly. A boy named Sue, thanks to Johnny Cash. There are others. My userid might lead you to think I am a guy.

If someone covered this ground I apologize. Silly me.

My aunt’s first name was Marion. One family story was when she was Baptisted, the priest said the she had to be named Mary or Mary Ann, because there no such name as Marion!

 

[Truthstalker]

My aunt’s first name was Marion. One family story was when she was Baptisted, the priest said the she had to be named Mary or Mary Ann, because there no such name as Marion!

Funny!

Thanks for sharing that!!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Inkaneer,

Great post!

This may have been a ‘tempest in a tea pot’ all along!

God bless

The question you asked was, “Is there any evidence that Junia was not a female apostle?”
Thus far you have received no evidence at all. But the lack of evidence does not establish that Junia was either female or an apostle or both. What you are asking is essentially for someone to prove a negative. What you should be doing is trying to prove a positive. So I turn your question back on you. "Is there any evidence that Junia was a female apostle?
The answer is no, there isn’t. Paul’s words in Romans 16:7 may present problems when translated into English. Many verses in scripture do. But when translated into other languages the apparent problem disappears. In the Latin Vulgate Romans 16:7 is stated thusly:

“salutate Andronicum et Iuniam cognatos et concaptivos meos qui sunt nobiles in apostolis qui et ante me fuerunt in Christo”

Notice the words "cognatos et concaptivos’ these are translated as “relatives and prisoners”. In English the words “relatives and prisoners” do not denote any gender but in the Latin they do. Both cognatos and concaptivos are nouns of the male gender
So Andronicum and Iuniam are males. Note that the Latin alphabet does not have a letter “J” [or for that matter a letter “U” or “W”]. So Iuniam is translated with a Letter “J” added instead of the “I” and the spelling differs in various translations from Junia to Junias, Junias, Juntas and maybe a couple of others.

Nothing peculiar at all. But you make one fatal error. You say the woman anointed Jesus as Messiah. But did she? Jesus said what the anointing He received was for and it wasn’t as Messiah. In Mark 14:8-9 He says:

“8 She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for burying. 9 And truly, I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her.”

As for any Messiah anointing, Jesus tells us also who did that. In Luke 4:18 Jesus says:

"“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed,” [RSV]

This is confirmed in the Book of Acts 4:24-27:

"24 And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, "Sovereign Lord, who didst make the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, 25 who by the mouth of our father David, thy servant, didst say by the Holy Spirit, ‘Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples imagine vain things? 26 The kings of the earth set themselves in array, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed’ – 27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, " [RSV]

So the anointing was a burial anointing. She was not annointing Him as Messiah. That was done by The Father.

I guess fanatics can be considered to be the only one in the parade that is ‘in step’. Everybody else is wrong or out of step.

 

[fnr]

The question you asked was, “Is there any evidence that Junia was not a female apostle?”
What you are asking is essentially for someone to prove a negative. What you should be doing is trying to prove a positive. So I turn your question back on you. "Is there any evidence that Junia was a female apostle?

A truly excellent point, Inkaneer. I am sincerely humbled. The framing of the question is often the most important point of all. And as you point out, the question in my OP is poorly-framed.

“salutate Andronicum et Iuniam cognatos et concaptivos meos qui sunt nobiles in apostolis qui et ante me fuerunt in Christo”

Notice the words "cognatos et concaptivos’ these are translated as “relatives and prisoners”. In English the words “relatives and prisoners” do not denote any gender but in the Latin they do. Both cognatos and concaptivos are nouns of the male gender
So Andronicum and Iuniam are males. Note that the Latin alphabet does not have a letter “J” [or for that matter a letter “U” or “W”]. So Iuniam is translated with a Letter “J” added instead of the “I” and the spelling differs in various translations from Junia to Junias, Junias, Juntas and maybe a couple of others.

Here, of course, translation is problematic. Jerome’s Vulgate needs to interpret from Paul’s Greek. Yet St. Jerome himself (and St. John Chrysostom) call her female.

I think it’s very difficult for us to understand the cultural milieu of the early Church. The more I look at this, there are Bible verses that make modern readers have to stand on their heads to interpret. In particular, the distinction between public and private social worlds has largely been forgotten in Western culture. This distinction is an important mediator of male-female social relations in the ancient world (and I dare say, a huge factor in reading the Bible). In the modern world, the closest analog we have of this separation of public and private is in the Muslim world. There’s a Victoria’s Secret in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, but in public, Saudi women are covered from head to toe. I think understanding that distinction in the ancient world may actually help understand what Junia was.

Another interpretation I’ve found of Junia is that she was a “sister-wife,” a term that shows up in writings of the early Church fathers and in 1 Corinthians 9:5
"Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? "
This was even a topic of speculation in the 2nd century. Here’s Clement of Alexandria on the topic:
“*Peter and Philip had children, and Philip married his daughters off to men. And Paul is not afraid in one of his letters to call a woman his ‘wife’ whom he did not take with him on his journeys, because she was not of use to his great ministry. Does he not say in the same letter: ‘Don’t we have the power to take with us a sister wife, as the other apostles do?’ For these apostles, giving themselves without respite to the work of evangelism as befitted their ministry, took with them women, not as wives but as sisters, to share in their ministry to women living at home: by their agency the teaching of the Lord **reached the women’s quarters **without arousing suspicion’. *”
This explanation depicts the Apostles as having “partners” who could enter the women’s part of a private home, which would be unseemly for the Apostles themselves. In such a case, Andronicus and Junia could have been a man-woman evangelical team that ministered to male and female parts of private spaces.

I’ve actually been reading the Mary-Martha story in Luke 10:38-42 where Jesus visits their house.
*"38 As they continued their journey he entered a village where a woman whose name was Martha welcomed him. 39 She had a sister named Mary [who] sat beside the Lord at his feet listening to him speak. 40 Martha, burdened with much serving, came to him and said, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me by myself to do the serving? Tell her to help me.” 41The Lord said to her in reply, “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and worried about many things. 42 There is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part and it will not be taken from her.”
*

Mary sitting at Jesus’ feet was a breach of the “male quarters” by a woman. Read in this way, Martha’s excitement about Mary not working with her seems to be a face-saving move for her sister having violated a social taboo with Jesus, whom she respects greatly and doesn’t want to give offense.

More later on the later part of your reply. Thanks again for pointing out my framing flaws.

 

[Paul_Edwards]

There is nothing here that refutes my point. The ordination I talk about is to the diaconate, not to the order of presbyter or episcopate.

Canon 19 “We refer to deaconesses who have been granted this status, for they do not receive any imposition of hands, so that they are in all respects to be numbered among the laity.” council of nicae

 

[Paul_Edwards]

I was referring to female deaconesses by the way and replying to a very old comment

 

[edwest2]

I would respectfully like to add the following:

ncregister.com/site/article/vatican_letter_censures_women_deacon_courses/

This topic has been brought up before.

Peace,
Ed