Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Junia=Joanna and Andronicus=Manaem?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Frich107 AT aol.com
  • To: corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Junia=Joanna and Andronicus=Manaem?
  • Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 05:59:04 EDT

Dear Richard,

Thanks for posting your interesting ideas on the list.

>I would like here to consolidate this theory
>by proposing that Manaen (Acts 13:1) is the
>very same person as Andronicus.

I must admit that, as yet, I haven't read Bauckham's article, but hope to do
so soon. However, I still feel the need to comment on what you have said
below.

>Paul writes:
>"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".

Little side point - that is what the NRSV says, and not Paul. I think that
the NRSV twists the text into its own ideological framework, by in my opinion
mistranslating the 'prominent among the apostles' part. It should rather be
translated as 'well-known to the apostles'.

>Luke writes:
>"Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers ... Manaen,
>a SUNTROFOS (foster-brother?) of Herod the tetrarch".
>We see immediately that both Manaen and Andronicus were Jews and were
>important figures in the church. Secondly, we note that Manaen, like
>Andronicus was probably 'in Christ' before Paul. He was, presumably, from
>Palestine, and is likely to have come to Antioch at the time of the
>persecution following the death of Stephen (see Acts 11:19), which was
>before the Paul was 'in Christ'. Thirdly, both Manaen and Andronicus
>probably lived in the same city as Paul for some time. This is significant.

Although nothing you have said above is in any way inaccurate, I believe that
you are making an extremely large jump to suggest that Manaen and Andronicus
were one and the same man. I'm not entirely sure what the size of Antioch was
in the First Century CE, (and I would like to know), but presumably it had a
population of a few thousand people at least. Within this, a number may have
become early Christ-believers, and of those a few may have been prominent
people
in the society. That does not mean that there could not have been two, or
more, men who would have been prominent in society at large, who had been 'in
Christ' for some time before Paul. Without further evidence, this seems too
much
of a jump to me.

>It is probably only in Antioch that Paul spent an extended period of time
>with people who were 'in Christ' before him.

You say 'it is probably'. I believe that that is very significant. To suggest
that Paul spent extended periods of time elsewhere, would be an argument from
silence, but surely not a completely unreasonable one.

>Manaen seems to fit the
>requirements. There cannot have been many prominent Jewish Christians who
>spent a lot to time with Paul and were 'in Christ' before him.

I agree that there 'cannot have been many' who 'were in Christ before' Paul,
but to my mind it is perfectly plausible that there were two or more who
would
fit this description, ie. Manaem and Andronicus.

>The suspicion that Andronicus was Manaen is further strengthened by the
>Herod connection. Manaen was SUNTROFOS of Herod Antipas, and Andronicus
>is associated with Joanna-Junia, who was married to Antipas's steward.

I think that that connection is highly subjective, and circumstantial.

>That one man should bear both names is not at all surprising. Manaen means
>"comforter" or "leader" and is therefore just the sort of name that we
>might expect the believing community to give to Andronicus. It was common
practice
>for the leaders of the early church to be given names to
>reflect their roles in the believing community. e.g. Simon-Cephas-Peter,
>Joseph-Barnabas, Titus-Timothy, and Crispus-Sosthenes. Indeed, "Barnabas"
>may mean exactly the same thing as "Manaen", so it may repressent an exact
>parallel.

I think that this is probably one of the stronger parts of your argument,
though I believe that it is far from conclusive. I was never very convinced
with
your Titus-Timothy hypothesis, let alone your Crispus-Sosthenes one. However,
in both cases there is a reasonable amount of evidence to suggest that you
may
be correct in your suggestions. I don't really believe that is so here,
though.

Regards,

Fred Rich
Ph.D. Student,
Department of Biblical Studies,
University of Sheffield,
Sheffield,
UK.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page