It is an enduring question.
- A FEMALE APOSTLE?: A Lexical-Syntactical Analysis of Romans 16:7 …
- Junia, A Female Apostle
- Female Prophets, Disciples, Ministers & Apostles Mentioned in the …
Junia, btw, is an early Eastern Orthodox Saint.
If you click on the links (note, the first is a pdf paper), you will find that the first one disagrees with the thesis. Well, it is one thing to make a comment on a humor site, it is another to be certain as to the conclusion. I’m not certain at all, though it does make for interesting reading.
Do I know what Paul meant when he wrote: “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.” No, I don’t.
Nibley gave examples of female deacons and prophets and thought other priesthood positions may well have been held by women in the Church in other ages (though, with Nibley you have to be careful because what he thought was constantly changing).
What do you think?
Wheat & Tares 
No question about it. Junia was a woman, and was referred to by Paul as an apostle. Paul’s definition of apostle may have been more inclusive than his other contemporaries (c.f. Paul’s own claims for being an apostle even though Jesus or the 12 never apparently called him as such). Nevertheless, Paul’s inclusion of women in leadership or prominent positions in the churches he created isn’t limited to this single reference. In all the letters of Paul that scholars have reached consensus about confirming his authorship, his treatment of women is quite radical in its emphasis on equality, even for the time he lived. It was other later letters that were attributed to Paul wherein we see a repudiation of women’s roles and equality in both family and church relationships. For an excellent treatment of Paul and women, see Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan’s book “The First Paul” (HarperOne, 2009).
Steve,
No. There is no such thing as a female Apostle.
I am sure Pat Holland or Francis Monson are prominent among the Apostles; but, that does not mean they are Apostles.
Will, you ought to read something before you make statements that show you’re completely uninformed (even though that’s never stopped you in the past.) Bridget Jack Myers shows Women with leadership positions in ancient Christianity. If the definition of apostle is “special witness of Christ”, then Mary Magdalene is properly recognized as “THE apostle of the apostles.” I’d put her higher up than Junia.
The phrase “they are prominent among the apostles” can vary greatly among the different translations one chooses — in addition to the rendering quoted in the OP there are:
They are highly respected among the apostles (NLT)
They are well known to the apostles (ESV)
Who are of note among the apostles (KJV)– which backs up Young Literal Translation of the verse.
Does it say that Junia was not an apostle? No
Does it say that Junia was definitely an apostle? No
Given that Paul meant to say that Junia was an apostle — does that mean for them what the term means for us? No
For example, Paul lists Peter and the twelve as a group distinct from “the apostles” — meaning that [for him at least] “apostle” may not have meant what it means for us:
Do I think [like Will] that there can be no such thing as a female apostle [as we use the term today] — No I don’t think that.
However, I do think that the case of Junia is weak evidence to base a claim that we ought to start ordaining female apostles.
But I think that she is a good way to start the discussion on the current patriarchal oligarchy’s grip on power.
Justin: I don’t think the intent of this post or my comment were to advocate for the ordaining of female apostles. There is simply good evidence from more than one ancient source that females held offices such as deacon and apostle in the early Christian churches, but that by the end of the 1st century, those privileges vanished.
As for comparison of lots of bible translations, in general I think it a good practice. But you have to understand that bible translations don’t appear in a vacuum: they represent the prevailing attitudes and perspectives on doctrinal issues contemporary with their translation date and the communities who sponsored their translation. It isn’t surprising when a conservative evangelical translation differs in wording from a mainline liberal protestant translation when it comes to gender inclusivity. I’m no expert on ancient Greek, so I can’t read primary sources and compare their wording to the multiple English translations, but translation is more than simply changing words from one language to another.
SteveS:
“Justin: I don’t think the intent of this post or my comment were to advocate for the ordaining of female apostles”
You may be mis-reading me. I did not say that I believed that that was the intent of the OP — nor did I reference your comment.
What lead you to believe that my comment was directed towards you?
…but translation is more than simply changing words from one language to another.
My point in showing the different translations was to point out that the scripture is ambiguous. I’m aware of how the process of translation works.
Because of the ambiguity in the verse, to defend not having female apostles in the quorum of the 12 based on Romans 16:7 is as baseless as calling for female apostles in the quorum of the 12 based on Romans 16:7. [Not that I think you or Stephen were trying to do that].
FWIW, I noted that Young’s literal translation of the Greek renders the verse as our KJV does [“Who are of note among the apostles”], which does not support Junia being a female apostle.
I don’t have a dog in the fight one way or the other with regards to what you or the OP was trying to say we should do with women and apostleship. My comment was meant only to demonstrate the complete ambiguity of the verse.
Further — I “liked” your comment b/c of your reference to “The First Paul” — which I enjoyed.
My comment was meant only to demonstrate the complete ambiguity of the verse.
Nicely said.
I think the use of the term ‘apostle’ had a much wider definition in the ancient church than is used in the church today. it is evident to me, however, that women participated in priesthood ordinances (such as the sacrament) much more than current church practice. having met susan skoor, apostle for the rlds church, I think it would be nice to follow their lead in ordaining women to the priesthood. john hamer has said that it is through the study of ancient christianity that the rlds embraced the ordination of women. I think the evidence is weak, but supportive of women holding some sort of priesthood in ancient christianity.
MH/Steve:
Do we have to go to the missionary scripture “Surely the Lord God will do nothing; but he revealeth his secret unto HIS servants the prophets”
By the way, the King James Version says “Who are of note among the apostles”. This is way different in terms of its meaning and the reason the Church suggests its use as the canonized translation. These other translations totally change the meaning. It is like getting your taxes done – you send it to five different CPA’s and you will get five different answers. Use the right version.
MH,
“Will, you ought to read something before you make statements that show you’re completely uninformed (even though that’s never stopped you in the past.)”
Blah, blah, blah..
will,
did you forget that ‘we believe the bible to be the word of god as far as it is translated’? did you forget that joseph corrected the kjv? obviously mormons are well aware of problems in biblical translation. I am amazed that we think a 400 year old bible is held as a standard or infallibility when other translations have corrected many known errors.
so will, when the bible refers to the ‘four corners of the earth’, are we to assume that the earth is flat because the bible says so? are we to get upset when gallileo contradicts scripture by proclaiming that the earth is the center of the universe, contrary to currently erroneos biblical interpretation?
when scholarship shows that women clearly baptized, or administered the sacrament, doesn’t that require re-evaluation of previous biblical interpretations? perhaps we can correct errors in poor flat-earth biblical interpretations if we open our eyes to the evidence, rather than relying on known poor translations in the kjv.
I don’t think that new testament writers used the term ‘apostle’ the same way we do. rather than denying junia was an apostle, perhaps it would be better to attempt to understand what paul meant. after all, paul said a bishop should be the man of one wife, yet in the 1800s, a mormon bishop was required to be a polygamist. theology and terminology change over time, and sometimes we are comparing apples and oranges when we span millenia.
“Junia — was she a female apostle?”
No.
“um, Jettboy, I think you mean “New Order Mormons..”
No I don’t. In fact, I try not to think of them at all. They aren’t Mormons.
Justin: once again, I don’t think this post, or any of my comments (I single them out because they are the only ones for which I can take full responsibility in this conversation, and not to suggest that you were addressing me personally) are arguments for ordaining women to apostleship. I was simply stating my opinion that that’s the way it wasin one or some of the early Christian churches. I respect your ideas, and agree that the language of the Junia reference isn’t unambiguous.
And Will, I have no idea the context from which your comments arise, but they appear to deliberately incite others to react. You may consider the possibility that you do not know what is going on in this conversation, in which case it might be best to sit this one out instead condemning others for what you think they believe.
The hidden subversive element in all this is simply that Paul had a wider view of “apostle” than the makeup of a Quorum of Twelve. He apparently looked at enhancing the boundaries of the church rather than returning to a lost organizational form.
It was later followers who tried to rain in the church.
It was later followers who tried to rain in the church.
Chalk it up to 1st century correlation.
Well, I wrote a long reply, submitted it, and it was eaten.
Basically, one of the things that really inspired me about Hugh Nibley was his way of changing his mind and continually rethinking things.
He would often present things as “source x is consistent with later y” rather than “x = y” or “x requires y.” I have found that useful and a way to think of things myself.
I’m also glad no one rained on the discussion in such a way I was forced to rein it in.