Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: [Corpus-Paul] Junia/s

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "simon.jones27" <simon.jones27 AT ntlworld.com>
  • To: "'Corpus-Paul'" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: RE: [Corpus-Paul] Junia/s
  • Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 08:42:59 +0100

In a message dated 5/28/03 13;48 Frich107 AT aol.com writes:

>I am unfamiliar with that article. What sort of line does Bauckham take
>there
>with regards whether one should take Junia/Joanna to be an apostle or
not, >and
>on what grounds?

It's hard to summarise a 90 page article in a few words, but here goes.

Bauckham argues that the women named in Luke 8:1f form a group of
disciples as significant for Luke's story as the 70/72 and even the 12.
This group is with Jesus all through the journey to Jerusalem and are
witnesses to the major events - especially the cross and resurrection.

Having made a strong case for seeing these women as fully-fledged
disciples and not just a group of 'supporters', Bauckham goes on to
argue that Joanna's husband, Chuza, a steward in Herod's court was also
a follower of Jesus - though possibly at a distance.

Having established that this couple - Joanna and Chuza - moved in the
upper echelons of Galilean society and that they would have taken some
risk in identifying themselves with the Jesus movement, Bauckham goes on
to examine the idea of whether Joanna was a patron or 'deacon' in the
early messianic movement that sprang up in the wake of the resurrection.

He then moves on to argue that it was common for high status Galileans
of the time to have a Semitic and Latin name. He argues that Junia was a
female and an obvious sound equivalent for Joanna.

>From there he makes a good case for Joanna being seen as an 'apostolic
witness' on the grounds that she was present at the empty tomb and was a
teller of that story in the nascent Christian movement. Indeed he shows
that Luke 24:10 is a chiasm with Joanna's name at the centre giving her
a prominence among the women that few have noted.

>From there he argues that Junia (Joanna) and Andronicus (Chuza) became
one of the husband and wife travelling teams of missionaries working
around the empire and mentioned in various places in Acts and Paul.
Their presence in Rome (assuming Romans 16 is written to the Roman
Christians) is thus explained and Paul's designation of them as apostles
and as 'in Christ before I was' makes perfect sense.

Bauckham argues that 'relatives' in Romans 16:7 means 'fellow Jews' and
that reference to the couple being fellow prisoners indicates that at
some stage they had been in prison rather than they were in prison with
Paul now.

That's the gist of it. It is well worth reading.

Greetings and all joy
Simon Jones
Dmin student Spurgeons College/University of Wales





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page