Duvduv

Who could possibly believe that these two letters or parts thereof were written by the same person having the same theology in both places. Andronicus and Junius are both "apostles" who were "IN CHRIST" before Paul:

Galatians 1: 1:6 I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from him that called you in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel; 1:7which is not another gospel only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.....1:12For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ.

Romans 16: 16:7 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.

sotto voce

Paul was a comparative latecomer to the church. He held the coats of those who stoned Stephen, and for some appreciable time afterwards (sufficient to get a reputation) persecuted the Jerusalem church.

Duvduv

.....AND as a "late-comer" he both praised these two people as "apostles" who had been "in Christ" before him, and insisted that his gospel was exclusively revealed to him as the true one.....??

sotto voce

He did not say that the gospel was exclusively revealed to him. It was the gospel that he persecuted, and the Twelve, Stephen, Philip and many others had accepted that gospel before Paul. Paul eventually preached what they preached, alongside Barnabas and Silas.

Duvduv

So how would you interpret those explicit verses in Galatians 1, Sotto Voce?

GakuseiDon

Maybe Paul believes that the gospel revealed to him personally was relevant to the Gentiles, and that he was the first one to receive that revelation?

Paul writes:

Gal 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood

and

Gal 2:7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles)...

Duvduv

Does kinsmen in Greek mean a family or ethnic relationship?
And of all the people who Paul claims to know, these two are in Christ? I don't recall that the so-called preaching to Jews involved a doctrine of faith equivalent to Paul's revelation but to Jews rather than gentiles applicable to these two people. And are they involved with gentiles from their earlier connection to Christ?. There are no such epistles specifically for Jews from some other preacher.

Duvduv

And why would these two people enjoy greater praise for being in Christ than the apostles in Jerusalem who surely were in Christ long before Junias and Andronicus and who are never praised that way?!

judge

Maybe Paul thought their faith was greater?

Duvduv

Even if "Paul " thought he had an advantage over the Jerusalem apostles because he could preach the risen Christ salvation to Jews and gentiles equally, one would assume that the Jerusalem apostles would be deserving of at least as much reverence and praise as these two people in Romans IF the same person wrote Galatians.
Indeed, if he believed he was given the extra task of preaching to gentiles, then he could also be working on Jews as well just as the Jerusalem apostles who came before him.
But lo and behold, these great apostles of Jerusalem didn't even deserve the praise he lavished on Junias and Andronicus, two relatively unimportant people in comparison with those of Jerusalem.
Besides, why would his special revelation be placed entirely on his shoulders? Surely once permission was granted to preach to gentiles, then all preachers would be able to do it, not just Paul and some single chosen companion for the entire world. He wasn't awarded some personal magic unavailable to anyone else as a one-man show. That would be illogical.