Posted on 07/05/2002 7:21:05 PM PDT by aculeus
EVIDENCE that one of the Apostles of Jesus was a woman is being examined by leaders of the Church of England, who are debating whether women should be ordained bishops.
Joanna, who was close to Jesus during His ministry, changed her name to Junia and was recognised by St Paul as an Apostle, research to be published later this year found. Her role was ignored for centuries because medieval scholars altered the name to Junias to make it masculine.
Joanna, who was with Mary Magdalen when the empty tomb was discovered and taken as proof of the Resurrection, changed her Hebrew name to a Latin name to fit in with the Romanised culture of Tiberias, where she lived, Richard Bauckham, Professor of New Testament Studies at St Andrews University, says.
As Junia, she was described by St Paul in a letter to the Romans as “prominent among the Apostles”. She was a wealthy woman from King Herod’s court who turned to Jesus after seeing Him heal a friend’s wife, he says.
The defection of the powerful courtier to the new Christian movement was seen as even more scandalous because she was married to Chuza, one of Herod’s most influential stewards. Joanna converted her husband, changed the way she dressed and used her own money to support the mission.
Although it has been previously suggested in theological circles that the Apostle Junia was a female, she has never previously been linked to Joanna and the Herodian upper class of Tiberias.
The discovery suggests that not only was society far less patriarchal than previous research has shown, but that women such as Joanna may have used their wealth and standing in society to convert others to their cause. Joanna and Chuza were among the large numbers of disciples who gathered when Jesus appeared to rise from the dead. She witnessed the Crucifixion and Chuza later changed his name to Andronicus, Professor Bauckham says.
Professor Bauckham’s paper, Junia the Apostle, will be discussed during the meeting of the General Synod. Its presentation to a bishops’ working party on the theology of women in the episcopate will challenge the perception of the apostles that has dominated the Church since AD400.
Although Jerome, regarded as the most important religious scholar of that time, considered Junia to be a woman, subsequent translations in the Middle Ages and the King James Bible changed her name to the male Junias.
Robert Bartlett, Professor of Medieval History at St Andrews University, said: “If a name like Junia was a little ambiguous, the medieval scribes were quite likely to make mistakes. Certainly the medieval Church was male-dominated and wanted it to stay that way, but whether someone was cooking the books to make it appear that the Apostles were all men is not yet certain.” Medieval scribes were known for their inaccuracies, he said.
The assumption that the leading Apostles were all men has been one of the most unassailable arguments against the ordination of women bishops.
If the claim that Joanna and Junia were the same person, and that Junia was a woman and an Apostle is accepted, the argument for women bishops will have been all but won.
The “greatest surprise”, Professor Bauckham said, was that St Paul knew one of them “and considered her an outstanding Apostle”. Her high status would have conferred social legitimacy on the new religious movement.
After witnessing the Resurrection she left for Rome with her husband. Both were imprisoned for their beliefs and never heard of again.
The lady was a pope
The Straight Dope / Was there once a female pope?
Pope John -- Or Joan? (written by a feminist/athiest)
Did the Vatican ever formally renounce the silly idea that the sun revolved around the Earth?
Romans 16:7 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.
Adronicus and Junias are: (1) Paul's kindred or relatives. (2) Prisoners with him, (3) two persons whom the apostles have noticed...i.e., 2 non-apostles who have been noted by the apostles is the most comfortable reading of this text, (4) they were Christians before Paul was a Christian.
There is no female apostle in this text AND everything else is absolutely pure conjecture that will be thrown out of serious theological discussions, not because of sex bias, but because of the paucity of the argument.
I wonder what surprises liberal theologians and hostorians have up their sleeves. Will we one day learn that "Christ" was in fact "Christina," the daughter of God?
who cares what some pointy-headed academic 2,000 years after the fact hypothesizes? Certainly has no effect on what I believe.
Suffering here from what C.S. Lewis called "Chrisitianity and ...". That is, in this case, it's "Christianity and feminism" that the author here brings to the table. Her agenda is radical feminism, and she sees Christianity through that political ideology.
Academia struggles from a shoddy hermaneutic that colors all they see in the Bible. I find it fascinating that my car mechanic, with little formal education after high school, knows and can handle the Scriptures far, far better than this intellectual.
I stopped here. Why is there any discussion about this article at all?
We've heard that Jesus was a homosexual before also. No limit to the attempts to "PC" the Bible.
I've wondered the same thing (often) and for a long time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.