I see Ehrman use a translation of “Junia… foremost among the apostles.”
I think most conservative Christians will resist the idea of a female apostle. A lot of them attempt to say the verse is ambiguous, if not outright deny that Junia was an apostle.
Is Junia’s apostleship a closed case?
What is interesting to me about Junia is all the questions she raises.
If she is indeed an “apostle” then what does Paul mean when he uses the word “apostle”? Obviously not one of he original twelve, did she have a vision of the resurrected Jesus and subsequently authorized to proclaim the gospel? Is so then this certainly contradicts the view against women speaking or having authority in the Pastorals. (Another reason to consider the Pastorals to be forgeries.)
Paul doesn’t know about the women at the tomb. But by his own criteria wouldn’t they be “apostles”? They witnessed the resurrection and were authorized to proclaim it!
RE: If she is indeed an “apostle” then what does Paul mean when he uses the word “apostle”? Obviously not one of he original twelve
Well, the Apostle Paul was also not one of the original twelve. I expect he used it to mean a person who was spreading the word, as the original 12 (or 11) did.
It’s a word that doesn’t have a very specific meaning, and has been repurposed a lot (Missionaries to distant countries, centuries after Jesus, were often referred to as apostles). Christianity in its formative stages had no central authority, people were all over the place. So being able to refer to this or that person as having special ‘apostolic’ authority due to his or her connection to Jesus (Paul’s being post-mortem) was important. Disciples while Jesus was alive–Apostles after he’s gone, and they carry on the work. So if Junia was a follower of Jesus, who converted people, she’s a fair candidate for Apostle-hood. It’s an honorific, at most. Difficult dangerous work then–sometimes now.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert