Junia the female apostle

[christcnection1]

religioustolerance.org/femclrg5.htm

Romans 16:7: Paul refers to a male apostle, Andronicus, and a female apostle, Junia, as “outstanding among the apostles” (NIV) Every Greek and Latin church Father until Giles of Rome (circa 1000 CE) acknowledged that Junia was a woman. 2,3 After that time, various writers and translators of the Bible resorted to deceptions in order to suppress her gender. For example…

These are certainly bold statements by those who are promoting female ordination.

Was it true that all the church fathers prior to 1000 believed Junia was a female?

Even is Junia was a female, is the Bible saying she was an apostle?

---

If the Church was suppressing the truth for over a thousand years, would anyone accept that the Church is a divine institution guided by the Holy Spirit, and worthy of our time and efforts? I certainly would not…

However, if female ordination was part of Sacred Tradition, I would whole-heartedly embrace it.

 

[AspiringDeacon]

Some Christians believed it could be a female, some believed it was Andronicus’ wife. More believed the translation was Junias. Moreover, the RSV-CE says this:

Greet Androni’cus and Ju’nias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners; they are men of note among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.

HOwever, there are other women’s names mentioned in this area of scripture, commentators believe the message is not that these are apostles, but these are members of the local Church, and what is significant is that Paul knew so many of them by name even though he had not visited there.

Lastly, our church teaches that no apostles nor ordained people were female. We are compelled to believe that.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

religioustolerance.org/femclrg5.htm

Romans 16:7: Paul refers to a male apostle, Andronicus, and a female apostle, Junia, as “outstanding among the apostles” (NIV) Every Greek and Latin church Father until Giles of Rome (circa 1000 CE) acknowledged that Junia was a woman. 2,3 After that time, various writers and translators of the Bible resorted to deceptions in order to suppress her gender. For example…

These are certainly bold statements by those who are promoting female ordination.

Was it true that all the church fathers prior to 1000 believed Junia was a female?

Even is Junia was a female, is the Bible saying she was an apostle?

---

If the Church was suppressing the truth for over a thousand years, would anyone accept that the Church is a divine institution guided by the Holy Spirit, and worthy of our time and efforts? I certainly would not…

However, if female ordination was part of Sacred Tradition, I would whole-heartedly embrace it.

I found in my notes from the NJB this:

They claim that the reference to Junia in Romans 16:7 means apostle in the “wider sense”, citing you back to Romans 1. If you examine the notes there, you get the suggestion that Paul means apostle in two senses. At least that is what one is asked to conclude.

The first sense of apostle is one who has either been a personal eyewitness to Jesus pre/death and resurrection and one who knows the Risen Lord as Paul claims. Paul claims he not only saw the Risen Lord but was commissioned by Christ to mission to the Gentiles. So the argument is that big Apostle is personal witness and personal commission.

The Junia reference to apostleship is little apostle meaning called to preach the Gospel.

Thats as they explain it, who ever they are. I think you are right that at least its a bit of an argument for those who would have a priesthood open to women. I think the general references through the NT indicating women were in both leadership and preaching positions. This suggests as I understand the Magisterium to have said…that the conclusion for a male priesthood lies essentially in tradition rather than scripture.

 

[Leopard]

…that the conclusion for a male priesthood lies essentially in tradition rather than scripture.

Tradition, not tradition. This is somethind handed down to us that we do not have the authority to change, according to Pope John Paul II

 

[christcnection1]

Tradition, not tradition. This is somethind handed down to us that we do not have the authority to change, according to Pope John Paul II

This has also been spoken infallibly, correct?

Hypothetically then, if it was to change, this would undermine the entire structure and authority of the Church. Therefore, the issue of female ordination would be small relative to the visible crack in the foundation of the Church’s supposed authority.

Of course, I don’t forsee this ever happening.

 

[FCEGM]

religioustolerance.org/femclrg5.htm

Romans 16:7: Paul refers to a male apostle, Andronicus, and a female apostle, Junia, as “outstanding among the apostles” (NIV) Every Greek and Latin church Father until Giles of Rome (circa 1000 CE) acknowledged that Junia was a woman. 2,3 After that time, various writers and translators of the Bible resorted to deceptions in order to suppress her gender. For example…

These are certainly bold statements by those who are promoting female ordination.

Was it true that all the church fathers prior to 1000 believed Junia was a female?

Even is Junia was a female, is the Bible saying she was an apostle?

---

If the Church was suppressing the truth for over a thousand years, would anyone accept that the Church is a divine institution guided by the Holy Spirit, and worthy of our time and efforts? I certainly would not…

However, if female ordination was part of Sacred Tradition, I would whole-heartedly embrace it.

If female ordination was part of Sacred Tradition we would have known it long ago and the Magisterium of the Church would not keep telling us that it never was, never will be.

Regarding “Junia”, some ancient codices read “Junias” rather than “Junia.” So, it is a matter of debate whether this person is a man or a woman. It could easily be either one. But, even if it is a woman, so what? She 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 different than Aquila and his aristocratic Roman wife Priscilla, who are likewise always paired together, and mentioned in this same Epistle to the Romans only a few verses earlier (Romans 16:3), where they together are called Paul’s “co-workers”; and this by a Paul who does not permit women to preach; or, 2), “prominent among (or before) the Apostles” can mean that Andronicus and “Junia” were held in high esteem among the Twelve, just as Priscilla and Aquila were “prominent” among the disciples of Paul. This would make sense if they were “in Christ before [Paul],” since that would mean that they were early members of the Jerusalem church, and probably the Apostles’ first emissaries to the Jews of Rome, if not among the very Roman Jews who were converted on the day of Pentecost (see Acts 2:9-10, where Roman Jewish pilgrims are mentioned).

Paul, of course, was a Roman citizen, and so it would make sense for his relative Andronicus and his wife Junia (if it is a woman) to be Roman citizens as well, and so residents of Rome. So, there is no “feminist super-hero” to be found in this verse.

 

[christcnection1]

If female ordination was part of Sacred Tradition we would have known it long ago and the Magisterium of the Church would not keep telling us that it never was, never will be.

Regarding “Junia”, some ancient codices read “Junias” rather than “Junia.” So, it is a matter of debate whether this person is a man or a woman. It could easily be either one. But, even if it is a woman, so what? She 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 different than Aquila and his aristocratic Roman wife Priscilla, who are likewise always paired together, and mentioned in this same Epistle to the Romans only a few verses earlier (Romans 16:3), where they together are called Paul’s “co-workers”; and this by a Paul who does not permit women to preach; or, 2), “prominent among (or before) the Apostles” can mean that Andronicus and “Junia” were held in high esteem among the Twelve, just as Priscilla and Aquila were “prominent” among the disciples of Paul. This would make sense if they were “in Christ before [Paul],” since that would mean that they were early members of the Jerusalem church, and probably the Apostles’ first emissaries to the Jews of Rome, if not among the very Roman Jews who were converted on the day of Pentecost (see Acts 2:9-10, where Roman Jewish pilgrims are mentioned).

Paul, of course, was a Roman citizen, and so it would make sense for his relative Andronicus and his wife Junia (if it is a woman) to be Roman citizens as well, and so residents of Rome. So, there is no “feminist super-hero” to be found in this verse.

I appreciate it

 

[FCEGM]

I appreciate it

 

[christcnection1]

Would anyone care to disagree???

(Afterall, this is among the supposed best arguments for the pro-female ordination crowd.)

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

I checked at new advent dot org and only one church father uses that name Junia and in context Junia is female,

CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 31 on Romans (Chrysostom

Ver. 7. “Salute Andronicus and Junia my kinsmen.”

This also looks like an encomium. And what follows is much more so. And what sort is this of? “And my fellow-prisoners.” For this is the greatest honor, the noble proclamation. And where was Paul a prisoner, that he should call them “my fellow-prisoners?” A prisoner indeed he had not been, but he had suffered things worse than prisoners, in being not an alien only to his country and his family, but in wrestling with famine and continual death, and thousands of other things. For of a prisoner the only misfortune is this, that he is separated from his relations, and often has to be a slave instead of being free. But in this case one may mention temptations thick as snow-flakes, which this blessed person underwent by being carried and taken about, scourged, fettered, stoned, shipwrecked, with countless people plotting against him. And captives indeed have no further foe after they are led away, but they even experience great care from those who have taken them. But this man was continually in the midst of enemies, and saw spears on every side, and sharpened swords, and arrays, and battles. Since then it was likely that these shared many dangers with him, he calls them fellow-captives. As in another passage also, “Aristarchus my fellow-prisoner.” (Col. iv. 10.) Then another praise besides. “Who are of note among the Apostles.” And indeed to be apostles at all is a great thing. But to be even amongst these of note, just consider what a great encomium this is! But they were of note owing to their works, to their achievements. **

Oh! how great is the devotion (φιλοσοφία ) of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle! But even here he does not stop, but adds another encomium besides, and says, “Who were also in Christ before me.”**For this too is a very great praise, that they sprang forth and came before others. But let me draw your attention to the holy soul, how untainted it is by vanity. For after glory such as his in kind and degree, he sets others before himself, and does not hide from us the fact of his having come after them, nor is ashamed of confessing this. And why are you surprised at his not being ashamed of this, when he shuns not even to parade before men his former life, calling himself “a blasphemer, and a persecutor?” (1 Tim. i. 13.) Since then he was not able to set them before others on this score, he looked out himself, who had come in after others, and from this he did find means of bestowing a praise upon them by saying, “Who were in Christ before me.”

Ver. 8. “Greet Amplias my beloved.”

newadvent.org/fathers/210231.htm

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

---

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Greet Andronicus and Junia, who are Jewish by birth like me. They are prisoners like me and are prominent among the apostles. They also were Christians before I was.

King James Bible
Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

American Standard Version
Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also have been in Christ before me.

Bible in Basic English
Give my love to Andronicus and Junia, my relations, who were in prison with me, who are noted among the Apostles, and who were in Christ before me.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and fellow prisoners: who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Darby Bible Translation
Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and fellow-captives, who are of note among the apostles; who were also in Christ before me.

English Revised Version
Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also have been in Christ before me.

Tyndale New Testament
Salute Andronicus, and Iunia my cousins, which were prisoners with me also, which are well taken among the apostles, and were in Christ before me.

Weymouth New Testament
and to Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen, who once shared my imprisonment. They are of note among the Apostles, and are Christians of longer standing than myself.

Webster’s Bible Translation
Salute Andronicus and Junia my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

World English Bible
Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives and my fellow prisoners, who are notable among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Young’s Literal Translation
salute Andronicus and Junias, my kindred, and my fellow-captives, who are of note among the apostles, who also have been in Christ before me.

One can be of note among those who are apolstles without oneself being an anpostle too.

Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament

Andronicus and Junias (Andronicou kai Iounian). The first is a Greek name found even in the imperial household. The second name can be either masculine or feminine. Kinsmen (suggenei߼/B>). Probably only fellow-countrymen as in Luke 9:13. Fellow-prisoners (sunaicmalwtu߼/B>). Late word and rare (in Lucian). One of Paul’s frequent compounds with sun. Literally, fellow captives in war. Perhaps they had shared one of Paul’s numerous imprisonments (2 Corinthians 11:23). In N.T. only here, Philemon 1:23; Colossians 4:10. Of note (epishmoi). Stamped, marked (epi shma). Old word, only here and Matthew 27:16 (bad sense) in N.T. Among the apostles (en toiߠapostoloi߼/B>). Naturally this means that they are counted among the apostles in the general sense true of Barnabas, James, the brother of Christ, Silas, and others. But it can mean simply that they were famous in the circle of the apostles in the technical sense. Who have been in Christ before me (oi kai pro emou gegonan en Cristwi). Andronicus and Junias were converted before Paul was. Note gegonan (Koin? form by analogy) instead of the usual second perfect active indicative form gegonasin, which some MSS. have. The perfect tense notes that they are still in Christ.
bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/RobertsonsWordPictures/rwp.cgi?book=ro&chapter=016&verse=007&next=008&prev=006

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Tradition, not tradition. This is somethind handed down to us that we do not have the authority to change, according to Pope John Paul II

aren’t we being just a tad picky? As if someone were trying to achieve a certain outcome rather than examining the evidence and letting the resultant truth be what it appears to be.

 

[catharina]

aren’t we being just a tad picky? As if someone were trying to achieve a certain outcome rather than examining the evidence and letting the resultant truth be what it appears to be.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you. Is it picky to stand with the Church’s defintion of the Twelve Apostles? Even though Paul has been called in the honorary sense, Apostle to the Gentiles, and Mary Magdalene has been called in the honorary sense, Apostle to the Apostles, at no time has the Church pretended to change the number and names of the Twelve Apostles. Even Judas was cast out and replaced, maintaining the count of the Twelve. As Israel knew twelve tribes, the RC Church has always acknowledged TWELVE Apostles.

 

[christcnection1]

You would think that the pro-female ordination folks would be breaking down the door if they really had a solid argument here.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you. Is it picky to stand with the Church’s defintion of the Twelve Apostles? Even though Paul has been called in the honorary sense, Apostle to the Gentiles, and Mary Magdalene has been called in the honorary sense, Apostle to the Apostles, at no time has the Church pretended to change the number and names of the Twelve Apostles. Even Judas was cast out and replaced, maintaining the count of the Twelve. As Israel knew twelve tribes, the RC Church has always acknowledged TWELVE Apostles.

Far as I can see no one attacked the Church on this issue at all. It was a scriptural question.

You would think that the pro-female ordination folks would be breaking down the door if they really had a solid argument here.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a pro-female ordination folk on this site. Are there any? LOL

 

[catharina]

Far as I can see no one attacked the Church on this issue at all. It was a scriptural question.

Maybe your questioning of the use of the word Tradition on this Catholic sight led to my misunderstanding about your use of “picky.”

 

[Peregrino]

I found in my notes from the NJB this:

They claim that the reference to Junia in Romans 16:7 means apostle in the “wider sense”, citing you back to Romans 1. If you examine the notes there, you get the suggestion that Paul means apostle in two senses. At least that is what one is asked to conclude.

The first sense of apostle is one who has either been a personal eyewitness to Jesus pre/death and resurrection and one who knows the Risen Lord as Paul claims. Paul claims he not only saw the Risen Lord but was commissioned by Christ to mission to the Gentiles. So the argument is that big Apostle is personal witness and personal commission.

The Junia reference to apostleship is little apostle meaning called to preach the Gospel.

Thats as they explain it, who ever they are. I think you are right that at least its a bit of an argument for those who would have a priesthood open to women. I think the general references through the NT indicating women were in both leadership and preaching positions. This suggests as I understand the Magisterium to have said…that the conclusion for a male priesthood lies essentially in tradition rather than scripture.

Making sense out of “senses”. It often seems that anything that might contradict the church is “being taken in the wrong sense”. The Church has Clinton beat cold on definitional manipulations…

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Making sense out of “senses”. It often seems that anything that might contradict the church is “being taken in the wrong sense”. The Church has Clinton beat cold on definitional manipulations…

Yeah, sigh it does seem so. It’s like being lined up in the cross hairs before even uttering a word. But I guarantee one thing, I am becoming a better and better debater, I spend about 2 hours a day in pure research now. I’m motivated as never before. LOL…I doubt that was desired.

 

[christcnection1]

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a pro-female ordination folk on this site. Are there any? LOL

Yeah… I agree. Why do you think that is???

 

[adrift]

The verse in question is

Greet Andronicus and Junia, 5 my relatives and my fellow prisoners; they are prominent among the apostles and they were in Christ before me.

What does prominent mean

Merriam-Webster

Defines it as

2 a: readily noticeable : conspicuous b: widely and popularly known : leading

Replace prominent with this definition and it reads
Greet Andronicus and Junia, 5 my relatives and my fellow prisoners; they are widely known among the apostles and they were in Christ before me.
It isn’t that she is being called an apostle but that she is known by the apostles.