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: Richard Fellows <rfellows AT shaw.ca>
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Junia=Joanna and Andronicus=Manaem?
  • Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 17:27:46 -0700

Fred,

thanks for your thoughts.

Was Andronicus Manaen? Our data on Manaen does fit our data on Andronicus,
but that is not sufficient to secure the identification. To answer the
question we must ask how many people there would have been who would have
fit the data that we have on both Andronicus and Manaen. It is always
instructive to run some numbers, even thought it is a very subjective
exercise, so here goes.

Firstly we have reason to believe that both Andronicus and Manaen were
prominent Christians from Palestine. How many men would have fit that
category? My guess is 50.

Secondly, we know that they were early converts, and this fact may narrow
the field to about 25 individuals.

Thirdly, we know that both spent time with Paul. Let's guess that this
applied to 4 men out of the 25.

Fourthly, if Bauckham is right in equating Joanna with Junia, then both
Andronicus and Manaen had close connections with Herod. At the very least we
can say that both men would have had connections with Rome. We know that
Andronicus had moved to Rome, and Manaen, being a close associate of Herod,
would have had contacts in Rome. I think it is unlikely that this Herod/Rome
connection would apply to more than 1 of the 4 men who fit the other
categories.

Fifthly there are hints (albeit weak) that both Andonicus and Manaen were
prophets. Manaen is, of course, listed in the group of prophets and
teachers. If Junia was Joanna then Andronicus could well be Chuza, whose
name may well mean 'prophet' or 'seer'. Bauckham suggests that Andronicus
could be Chuza, but does not explain how one man might have come to possess
both names. Andronicus is not close to Chuza in either sound or meaning. It
seems to me that the best explanation is that Andronicus was named 'Chuza'
in adult life (perhaps by Herod) because he was a seer. Bauckham is one of
those who believes that Chuza means 'little jug', but others relate the name
to Chozeh (prophet or seer). See
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=02374 and
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5529&version=kjv

> 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.

For the reasons given above, I do not think it is an extremely large jump to
equate Manaen with Adronicus. In fact it may actually be probable.

> >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.

You need to say WHY you think it is highly subjective and circumsantial.

> >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.

Again, it would be helpful if you could explain WHY you were not fully
persuaded by the Titus-Timothy and Crispus-Sosthenes hypotheses, and which
evidence you found substantial.

>I don't really believe that is so here,
> though.

The case for Andronicus-Manaen is, I agree, much weaker than the case for
Titus-Timothy or Crispus-Sosthenes.

Regards,

Richard.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page