(20 votes, average: 4.85 out of 5)
Loading...Last week Prof. James McGrath, PhD in New Testament studies and long-time member of the blog, provided us a humorous guest post “50 Ways to Forge A Gospel.” And now he turns serious. James has just published a book What Jesus Learned From Women, and one of the women he discusses is Junia, mentioned by Paul in Romans 16:7. Paul calls her his “relative.” And says she was one of the foremost apostles.
In this post James discusses an intriguing hypothesis that I had never heard before — mainly because he just came up with it while writing his book. It’s not only highly provocative but also … well, possible! Read and see what you think. James will be happy to respond to comments.
******************************
Seeking the Historical Jesus Through Women’s Eyes
I’m delighted to have been invited by Bart Ehrman to offer a guest post on his blog. Bart and I share an array of interests in common, most if not all of them tied to Jesus in some way. Both of us care quite deeply both about trying to ascertain as accurately as possible what Jesus was like as a historical figure, and to do what we can to promote the understanding of historical research—its methods and its results—for a broad audience. All of that and more is at the heart of my recent book, What Jesus Learned from Women. Rather than talk about the project in general ways, let me throw you in at the deep end, as it were, into a chapter that I initially didn’t expect to be part of the book. I thought there wasn’t enough information to go on, and my investigation into the subject surprised me and led me in directions that I never would have anticipated.
Let me take you there by way of Paul, our earliest source of information about Jesus and the early Christian movement. He did not, as far as we know, ever meet the historical Jesus in person during his lifetime, or even catch a glimpse of him from a distance for that matter. He may have, there is nothing implausible about it, but he doesn’t tell us so and neither does any other relevant source from around his time.
We learn from his letter to the Romans, however, that he had relatives who were part of the movement that eventually became known as “the Christians” before he was. That might, I think, give us some indication as to why he opposed the movement, and I suggest this in the book. We may have dislike for a religion that we’ve heard about. But if we find out that a relative has joined it, that dislike may turn into active opposition.
Paul’s relatives, mentioned in the greetings he sends them in Romans 16:7, are there called Junia and Andronicus. Paul says they were in Christ before him and are prominent among the apostles. Whoever Junia was, she was not merely a fellow Jew but an actual relative in the narrower sense of that term. Paul greets many Jews in this passage, but only singles out some of them as “relatives.”
Paul’s switch from persecutor to adherent doesn’t take place long after the crucifixion is supposed to have occurred. There is a window of a few years in which these relatives could have joined the movement and yet not encountered the historical Jesus before his death. That’s possible but not probable.
If one or both of these individuals were involved in the movement that early and prominent among the apostles in the way Paul says, then we wouldn’t be surprised if they were mentioned elsewhere. Indeed, we might be surprised if they were not.
That is where a really interesting suggestion comes into the picture, one that I was initially inclined to dismiss.
Saul of Tarsus, like many Jews who moved in both Aramaic-speaking circles and beyond, had a second name he used, namely Paul. Individuals like him often chose a name that either sounded similar to or had the same meaning as their traditional Jewish name.
In the Gospel of Luke, the Gospel that is linked to a second volume that tells Paul’s story, we have mention of a woman called Joanna. It has been suggested that she could be the same person as Junia, like her relative using a Latin name that sounded like her traditional Jewish one. The way Joanna is described in Luke 8:1-3 is a close fit to what Paul says in his letter, “prominent among the apostles.”
My initial reticence was due to the seemingly speculative nature of the suggestion, as well as the propensity of Christian interpreters to blur women together. (Three Marys feature in my book and there have been attempts to identify some of them with one another, but that’s another story for another day). But as I looked more closely at the possibility, wanting to discuss it even if I ended up not embracing it, I found natural connections appearing, things that made sense of other details that otherwise remain puzzling.
Paul mentions being of the tribe of Benjamin (Philippians 3:5). That tribe historically lived in the region around Jericho. That is an area where Jews, Idumaeans, and Nabataeans coexisted. Joanna married a man named Chuza who served as part of Herod’s household as his property manager. Chuza is a Nabataean name. Herod had Nabataean and Idumaean connections through ancestry and/or marriage, as well as Jewish heritage.
The Nabataeans lived in what in that time was referred to as Arabia. Scholars have long wondered why Paul went to Arabia after he ceased persecuting the church. Was it because he had been persecuting a movement associated with his relatives who had not only his shared Jewish/Benjamite ancestry but also Nabataean connections? Is that why he went to Damascus, a city under the control of Nabataean king Aretas, and were Paul’s movements on that ruler’s radar because of his relatives and their connection with the household of Herod, since Herod had been involved in tensions with Aretas not least because of his divorce of his daughter (in order to marry his brother’s former wife, Herodias, a story you likely know).
There is so little said about either Junia or Joanna. But when we bring them together and bring Paul into the picture, some connections begin to emerge and some aspects of each of their stories begins to make sense. Who this Junia was that was prominent among the apostles. Who was Joanna who supported and funded Jesus’ activity. Why Paul went to Arabia. Why his persecution of Christians took him to Damascus from Jerusalem.
I haven’t even begun to talk about what I think Jesus may have learned from Joanna/Junia. I explore that in the book. Here I thought I’d focus on these preliminary matters which are also in the book, because they explain why I wrote the chapter about Joanna that I didn’t initially think I would. I didn’t expect to have enough to go on to write a chapter. It turned out I was wrong, and that was one of many moments of discovery for me as I worked on this project.
I also share these things here because I suspect that there are readers of this blog who share the interest that Bart Ehrman and I also have in the historical Jesus and the evidence for him. The attempt to deny he even existed fails to take seriously that we have as our earliest source Paul, someone who had met Jesus’ brother as well as the apostle Peter, but more than that and too often neglected, had relatives who were connected with the movement. Paul was in a position to know that Jesus was historical (and the attempt to deny that was what he meant in various things he wrote fails to convince time and time again).
Lastly, I share these things because they may sound speculative, daring to connect threads in ways that go beyond what the evidence clearly indicates. That’s necessary very often in investigating ancient history. But it is particularly necessary when we turn our attention to ancient women. Their stories were often neglected by ancient authors. If we allow their silence to impose silence on us as modern historians and scholars of antiquity, we participate in the silencing of women. That is why in the book I dare to connect dots, to fill in around the things we are specifically told things that we know to generally have been true, and things that seem plausible in connection with those.
I will leave it to readers of the book to decide how much of that effort is persuasive. But I think the effort was and is necessary. And I think the approach I adopt and the results of it will be of interest to readers of this blog, whether their focus is on the historical Jesus, Paul the apostle, or women in early Christianity. And if like me you find all of those interesting, this is the perfect book for you!
Dr. Ehrman in the previous comments said he was skeptical about the tradition that Paul was a Roman citizen. But let’s look at this information. Junia, as you note, was a Latin name. But not a first name, or praenomen. It is a gentilicium, or nomen: that is, a family name. ‘Junia’ means a woman of the gens Junius. Alternately, it could refer to a freedwoman given manumission by a Roman of that family. Taken at face value, it suggests that she was a Roman citizen. And if she were a Roman citizen, then that must raise the likelihood that Paul was, too.
Dr. McGrath here suggests that it was a ‘variant name’ of ‘Joanna’. Is there epigraphic evidence of non-citizens, particularly Jewish non-citizens, taking Latin gentilicia? Later in the Empire older patterns broke down, but this early I wouldn’t expect it to be common. If there is scholarship on this point, I would love to have a reference, as I am unaware of any. I do not dismiss the possibility, but I would dearly love to know the answer.
Fascinating question! Using an alternative name more familiar outside of one’s Aramaic or other regional language environment was quite common, and seems to me to be something different from the practice of naming associated with citizenship. I don’t know whether people in parts of the Roman Empire where citizens were few even knew which Roman names denoted what. They may have, but I don’t know that there is evidence one way or the other. I also don’t know whether there were laws regarding naming and citizenship that would have been widely known throughout the empire. My instinct is to say that unless we had evidence that Junia was not merely something adopted from Latin because it sounded similar to the given name Joanna, but a nomen that was recognized and used as such, then we probably cannot surmise anything from it. But the question is a fascinating one and there’s definitely more here that is worthy of further research!
Dr. McGrath, your hypothesis could help answer the following questions, which you list: “Who this Junia was that was prominent among the apostles. Who was Joanna who supported and funded Jesus’ activity. Why Paul went to Arabia. Why his persecution of Christians took him to Damascus from Jerusalem.”
In your judgment, have scholars put forth other hypotheses that collectively answer these questions with a higher probability than your single hypothesis does?
Not in my judgment. These really are questions, each asked mostly separately without lines being drawn between them. Why Paul would go to Arabia has been particularly puzzling and there have of course been speculations and guesses but nothing that connects in an obvious way with other things we know about Paul and/or his family.
Thank you for a very interesting post. I notice with Romans 16:7 that some translations use the word compatriot, some use kinsmen and other translations use the word relative. Your thought is that Junia and Andronicus are relatives of Paul, were Jesus followers before Paul and apostles before Paul?
Also, you state, “Why his persecution of Christians took him to Damascus from Jerusalem.”
When was Paul in Jerusalem?
Before going to Damascus…
I notice with Romans 16:7 that some translations use the word compatriot, some use kinsmen and other translations use the word relative. Your thought is that Junia and Andronicus are relatives of Paul, were Jesus followers before Paul and apostles before Paul?
Yes. I just explained the rationale in another comment. I was probably typing that as you were typing yours!
“If we allow their [ancient authors] silence to impose silence on us as modern historians and scholars of antiquity, we participate in the silencing of women.”
So at what point do historians begin filling the silence with modern concerns and run the risk of anachronism? I ask this question not to undermine your project – it all seems fascinating – but with the assumption that scholars of ancient history must have to deal with this issue all the time. I realize this subject might be a bit much for post comments but any thoughts after writing this book?
Thanks
Great question! Historians and other readers of texts always fill things in. It is best when done by drawing on what is known generally about the ancient world. An example I have been using of late is the shape of the cross. We aren’t told that specifically in the Gospels. The tradition about this is plausible based on what we know. Filling in this detail in our mental image of the crucifixion doesn’t distort our perception of history, and not filling in anything would only be possible if we largely ignore the matter and avoid thinking about it. Doing that also distorts and impoverishes our perception of history. Our only means of avoiding excessive anachronism is by drawing as heavily on what we know in order to present the past. Even when we seek to do so, we view the past from our place, time, and culture and the lenses we bring to the text inevitably distort it in some ways (not always detrimental to our perception, I might add, as someone who wears glasses and benefits from the distortion they effect!).
So much is contradictory. Jesus in the gospels is portrayed as “popular”, and yet he seems to have had few problems with Roman rule. Goes against the grain. Most Palestinians of the time hated the Romans, and wanted them out. Maccabean/anti-roman sentiments were popular, not the sorts of things Jesus had to say, according to the gospels. James is referred to as James the Just and James the Righteous. Ascetic. Celibate. Obsessed with ritual purity– shunning wine and women and gentiles, and probably animal food. How could he have gotten along with the gospel Jesus? That doesn’t parse. Jesus touching and associating with the ritually impure, like the sick, goes against the grain– those who were respected at that time did no such thing. Consider John the Baptist, a zealot, an extreme ascetic. That doesn’t square with the gospel Jesus– who would have been considered a breaker of the law and not ritually pure. Not a John the Baptist kind of guy. Discords like these are numerous. It really doesn’t add up. One can only conclude that the gospel Jesus is a fictional overlay, obscuring the historical reality.
You make lots of generalizations about how people viewed the Romans, and you draw on significantly later sources about James, and then use those to dismiss sources closer in time to the Gospels. It is certainly the case that the Gospels distort things. All tellers of stories about the past do. What leads you to judge the sources you draw on as engaging in less distortion?
You are certainly not correct to say that “one can only conclude that the gospel Jesus is a fictional overlay.” You have chosen an approach that leads you to that conclusion, or more likely confirms that prior assumption. The manner in which you do so is extremely problematic.
I agree that Paul met James and Peter. He does not seem to have been impressed. They could have, and probably did tell him, who Jesus really was and what he was actually like. Paul does not convey any of that information, nor does he seem to have been interested because he had his imaginary Jesus, like an imaginary friend, and the visionary experiences trumped any actual data he might have had about a veridical Jesus. Given that, and Paul’s personality, combative, rebellious, self-aggrandizing– and his intellect and command of Greek, Paul and James didn’t have a chance. Nor did the Jesus they knew. This sets up a position one could defend as a kind of intermediate mythicism, admitting a historical Jesus, but denying that the historical Jesus made it into the gospels. In other words, whoever the real Jesus was, he got buried in the Pauline myth– the imaginary Jesus. And Paul’s imaginary Jesus is what Christianity got stuck with. I think a scholar could defend this line of thought and be rather less of an outcast than Carrier and Price.
Carrier and Price are not “outcasts.” They are, like many other academics, individuals who hold views that hardly any of their academic peers find persuasive. You can find such individuals in every field of study. That is how academia works. We all try to propose new possibilities, and most of them are found unpersuasive by our peers. Often those who proposed them are persuaded to reconsider, but by no means always. What pushes someone into the realm of pseudoscholarship is when individuals like Price and Carrier, in a mirror image of what conservative religious people do, claim that the academy is simply inhospitable and closed-minded and so refuses to admit how persuasive their arguments supposedly are.
What you describe is historical minimalism and it is a perfectly plausible stance that has been and continues to be held by scholars in the mainstream. It is the procrustean approach of the mythicists that is really fringe, because they don’t just say “we know little about the historical figure of Jesus” (I am practically paraphrasing Rudolf Bultmann) but the mythicists go from there to saying “let’s work really hard to deny the little we do know so that we can just reject the existence of a historical figure behind the myths and legends altogether.”
“significantly later sources” Great point! had never thought about that in my conception of James seemingly taking a Nazarite vow.
So hi, Professor McGrath, I’m Nabataean obsessed. As an appreciative Bart subscriber, just found this in my exploration of Chuza being Nabataean! Turns out I read this post when I first came out. Enjoyed the focus on women so I missed it.
Did you know that Nabataeans marrying into the Hasmonean finance ministry is one of the first accounts of Nab influencers? So, Chuza seems to be apropos.
James and Jesus have different daddys — this explains cultural differences besides Jesus in bridegroom mode.
One is Joseph. Likely an Essene (exonym) Nazarene.
The other maybe a deified Nabataean king.
Since religion is about woo, I hope I can explain what woo led me to this. As a yogi, I am taught to look to the future, and, especially not the past. I also have had too many odd “signs” (miracles) and it seems most/virtually all people do not experience these.
Last year I had an online/phone romantique relationship with a boy portrayed as a neo-Jesus in the media. ( minor celeb. didn’t discuss Christianity with him, btw!)
Couldn’t shake that he reminded me of a reincarnated James, not Jesus
Dr. McGrath –
Very interesting! I do wonder, though, why you mention Peter as our earliest source for the existence of Jesus. And is there really any serious scholar who questions Jesus’s existence?
Dankoh, I believe he was referring to Paul, but wrote it in a slightly confusing way. I think Dr. McGrath intended to say that our earliest source was Paul, who knew Jesus’ brother, knew the apostle Peter, and had relatives who were part of the early Christian movement.
Yes, Peter was someone that Paul spoke to in addition to James the brother of Jesus. I have tried to improve the clarity of how that sentence is worded.
No, there is hardly anyone even among non-scholars/non-serious individuals who doubts it given the evidence we have. I did not suggest that Peter was our earliest source. I mentioned that Paul had spoken to Peter and more importantly to James, Jesus’ brother, and that provides evidence that is as clear as one could dare to hope for when it comes to ancient figures who were not rulers or something similar.
Prof. McGrath, could you say a little more about Paul’s travels to Arabia and your possible explanation for that journey? Are you suggesting that he went there to visit his relatives and to learn more about the Jesus movement? I’m not entirely clear.
I am suggesting that Paul’s virulent opposition to the Jesus movement was motivated at least in part by the involvement of his family in the movement; that his connection with the tribe of Benjamin in Jericho and its vicinity, and Joanna’s marriage to a Nabataean in the employ of Herod Antipas, dovetail nicely; and that Paul’s focus of his persecution in Damascus which was under the rule of Aretas, his journey to Arabia after his shift from persecutor to adherent, his being known to and sought by Aretas when he later went to Damascus, and his focus of activity along trade routes between Benjamin and Tarsus converge on what we know about him and Joanna/Junia and make even more sense and become clearer when considered together. I don’t think Paul needed to go visit relatives in Arabia or Damascus to find out about Jesus, although he may have learned things he didn’t already know when he visited them, or reconsidered and been offered a different perspective on things he had heard before and perceived negatively. Presumably his visits to family were initially to express remorse and seek to make amends for his previous opposition to them and the movement they were part of.
I wonder if Paul was also employed by the authorities in Judaea as a police officer of some kind; it would be remarkable for a mere tent-maker to put himself at so much risk in persecuting a movement merely for personal reasons. It *can* happen, but his pre-conversion conduct (including going up to Damascus with official letters, etc.) seems better explained by the supposition that he was part of the state security apparatus, so that it was just his job to round up the pesky Jesus believers, (even if he also had a personal grudge against them).
What do you envisage being the ancient equivalent of “police officer” in that time and place?
You seem to envisage Paul as either involved in tent-making (or theatrical set-making as the term usually indicates), or an individual who might oppose a religious movement opposed to his own. If you imagine Pharisees and others as independently wealthy and rarely employed in some profession or other, you are mistaken.
The ancient equivalent of “police officer” would be anyone paid by the authorities to take on the ongoing role of enforcing their will.
There is surely a distinction to be made between opposing a religious movement through arguing or preaching against it, on the one hand, and, on the other, what is reported of Paul in Acts: that he “he made havoc of the church, entering every house, and dragging off men and women, committing them to prison” (8:3), all this with the authority of the high priests (26:9).
The combination of extreme physical coercion (entering houses, dragging people into prison) and the mention of backing from the chief priests (also when Paul was going to Damascus) sounds more like police activity than just another Pharisee opposing a movement he disagreed with….doesn’t it? The Pharisees didn’t run their own private prisons, did they?
No, and in fact my point was that there was nothing like modern-day policing nor modern-day prisons. One might end up imprisoned while awaiting trial, but it was rarely if ever a long-term punishment. The Pharisees had no authority as such, which is why it mentions the high priest as the authority behind what was being described.
It’s an interesting hypothesis. I can see the connections and the possibilities but how sure can we be that Junia and Joanna are the same person? It would explain something puzzling. Why did Paul take three years before visiting the apostles at Jerusalem and why only Peter and James? Wouldn’t he want to talk to the apostles as soon as possible after his conversion since they knew Jesus personally? However if one of his relatives also knew Jesus personally that would reduce the urgency to make the trip.
There is little that we can be sure of in ancient history, and so it isn’t a question of certainty but of how we evaluate the level of probability. As I indicated, I initially responded with skepticism to this proposal myself. I do think that Bauckham is right to say that the description of Joanna in Luke as a prominent supporter of the activity of Jesus mentioned alongside the male apostles is as close a fit as we could hope for to Paul’s description of Junia as “prominent among the apostles.” There is surmise and deduction here, obviously, but when the number of details seem to connect naturally that do between Paul, Junia, and Joanna, it strikes me as probable rather than merely possible, even if only marginally so.
I have read somewhere about debates as to whether “Junia” was a woman. And in fact, my Oxford English Bible gives the name as “Junias”. It also uses the term “kinsmen”, i.e., male, here and in a couple other places, and a footnote refers to “kinsmen” as fellow Jews. Obviously you believe Junia really was a woman. Would you comment on this controversy? Also as to whether “fellow Jews” is more accurate than the closer relationship you imply.
It is not the case that Paul refers to Junia with the masculine singular “kin.” He refers to Junia and Andronicus as his kin, and when referring to multiple people of mixed gender the masculine plural is the form used in Greek as in many other languages. The rendering “Junias” began to be used in English translations because there were translators who could not accept that a woman could have been “prominent among the apostles.” The evidence regarding ancient names supports it being Junia, a woman’s name, and even the copying error that led to “Julia” appearing here in the manuscript tradition indicates that the scribe thought it was a woman’s name here.
As for rendering it “fellow Jews,” language of family can be used narrowly or broadly at times. The most typical usage is for relatives rather than members of the same ethnic group. That seems to be confirmed here by the fact that Paul only singles out a few individuals as “kin” even though we know that others he does not designate as kin were also “fellow Jews.” And so typical usage and context both converge on the conclusion that here he meant “relatives” in the narrower sense.
Why are all NT papyri dated with paleography? Wouldn’t radiocarbon dating be more accurate? Aren’t there any other methods?
And where do we find these papyri in the first place? I heard we use mummies somehow?
You’ve probably been listening to the fundamentalist Christian claims about an alleged first-century Gospel of Mark fragment purportedly recovered from mummy cartonnage. That’s not a credible source of information, nor are mummies the source of most of our ancient papyri. You might want to read about Oxyrhynchus for instance.
In answer to your other question, let me quote Larry Hurtado: “Many major libraries (e.g., the British Library) have a policy that does not permit any destruction of an item in any measure. So, since Carbon-dating requires that a tiny piece of an item be cut off and burned, hardly ever are we going to have Carbon-dating of items in these major collections.”
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2014/04/01/carbon-14-and-palaeographical-dating-of-papyri/
I was aware about fundamentalist claims about a first century Mark– and how they turned out to be bunk. I’m subscribed to this blog, after all, and Bart got quite pissed at the fundamentalists for that lie.
So are most of our Papyrus fragments coming from Oxyrhynchus? Where else do we find them? How often are new ones found?
Sorry if I’m asking too many questions. It’s just a very interesting topic to me.
I am glad you are interested! This is why I am suggesting that you read a book or some other overview introduction to this topic. Egypt’s climate has led to many more papyri having survived there than elsewhere, but there is no one place that papyri are found, and no way to talk about the frequency with which new ones come to light since that is (as with all discoveries of things from the past) something unpredictable. This is a huge topic, and so I really do encourage you to get a good book on the subject from your local public library to start with, and then if you still have specific questions beyond what is included there, by all means ask those!
I think it worth adding that the alleged first century Mark that James mentions here is not the same as the alleged first century Mark that Bart has written about elsewhere. To what extent it’s fair to associate the propagation of the former claims with fundamentalists I cannot say; evangelicals certainly.
What led you to believe I was referring to a different purported first century fragment of Mark than the one that Bart has written about?
“What led you to believe I was referring to a different purported first century fragment of Mark than the one that Bart has written about?”
Because the one Bart has written about was not linked to mummy cartonnage, and has not been mentioned in conjunction with mummy cartonnage, at least not by Bart.
Another alleged fragment which *was* linked to mummy cartonnage has been mentioned on the blog, but that only once, by a guest blogger.
I have a personal reason for my interest, as several years ago my preacher cousin gave a sermon alluding to a first century copy of Mark having been discovered in mummy cartonnage. (I didn’t hear the live sermon, just the online audio archive.) So my ears pricked up when I learned, soon after joining the blog, that no such fragment in fact exists. My cousin was wrong. I don’t know what his sources were, but he is himself no fundamentalist, more liberal evangelical I would say.
I believe that the one that Bart was addressing was the same one that was purported to have come from mummy cartonnage. The fact that so many of the early claims evaporated under scrutiny has caused a fair amount of confusion.
I would add to Dr. McGrath’s note about the destructivity of C14 dating (although the amounts required have gone down over time), there is a significant error bar involved with radiocarbon dating. For something from the 2nd century CE, the error bars could easily be 75-100 years in either direction, or no better precision than you’d get from palaeography.
Thank you, Dr McGrath. The possible connection between Joanna and Junia is both intriguing and persuasive. I think attempts have been made by some translators, who are determined to downplay the role of women in the early Church, to rename her as a man (Junias, or more correctly Junius, as in Marcus (et tu Brute) Brutus’ clan name). Do you have any thoughts on whether women were involved in leadership roles in the early church (which I appreciate is a contentious issue, particularly in the Catholic church)?
I think they were, and I think we see in the Pastoral Epistles (among other places) indications of the efforts to counter the elevation of women, slaves, and others who were marginalized in that era in the wider society. Ally Kateusz and Karen Jo Torjesen have done important work on this.
I should also emphasize that the wider society was not uniform. Bernadette Brooten’s work on women in leadership roles in Judaism is important.
In ways that are neither entirely unlike nor entirely like our own time and setting, there were instances of individuals in leadership roles and of elevated status that did not mean there was no general widespread inequity.
“Three Marys feature in my book.”
Just a note, but Joseph Atwill suggests that the NT prevalence of Marys, a name meaning “rebellious,” is a reflection of the pro-Roman skew of the gospels and the anti-roman sentiment of the general Jewish populous. He suggests that Roman soldiers probably called all women “Marys,” or “Rebels,” just as American soldiers have always come up with derisive nicknames for their adversaries, i.e., “Rebs,” “Krauts,” “Japs,” “Gooks,” “Hajis,” etc. No matter what you may think about Atwill’s ideas as a whole, I find this to be a persuasive solution to the “Multiple Marys” problem.
I might add to the above that Josephus tells of another “Mary,” a Jewish mother who, during the famine associated with Titus’ siege of Jerusalem, eats her own son and offers half of the meat to her accusers. Atwill suggests this as a connection to the story of Mary the mother of Jesus and to the Christian symboligy of “breaking the bread (in half)” and “eating the flesh of the Son of Man.”
Why on earth would you trust the views of Joseph Atwell?
This is nonsense of the sort Atwill is infamous for. First, there needs to be evidence for this practice. Second, Miriam, the sister of Moses, is documented as a popular name in this period. Nothing particularly remarkable, but that has never stopped Atwill and others like him from engaging in idle speculation unsupported by evidence.
“Idle speculation unsupported by evidence?” You yourself say, “I share these things because they may sound speculative, daring to connect threads in ways that go beyond what the evidence clearly indicates. That’s necessary very often in investigating ancient history,” and you go quite a ways out on several limbs by connecting “Junia/Joanna” to everyone from each other, to Paul’s relatives, to Herod’s household. I merely pointed out Atwill’s, in my opinion, much simpler, considerably less speculative, and, to me, more persuasive theory about the “Multiple Marys.” The name does mean “rebellious,” look it up. As for “Why on earth would I trust Atwill?” I never said I did. But I am willing to read his book, as I have, and consider his ideas before I dismiss them out-of-hand. Have you read Atwill’s book? I’m guessing no, but you are quick to mock and condemn him, even after commenting that academia is falsely accused of being “inhospitable and closed-minded” to ideas that are outside the academic mainstream. In my opinion, Atwill has some ideas that are worthy of consideration, just as both Bart–in his prologue to your post–and I are willing to consider the ideas that you’ve posted above.
Thank you for illustrating the kind of Wikipedia-based pseudoscholarship that Atwill engages in and that one has to be inclined towards in order to find him remotely plausible.
You found one possible etymological source for the name Miriam among many, one that was even abandoned by the person who proposed it and isn’t widely accepted, and said that that is the meaning of the name without qualification, telling me to “look it up” presumably forgetting that you’re talking to someone who won’t just click on the top result from Wikipedia or one of the sites with baby names that draws on its content.
Even just relying on more detailed but still problematic sources that can be found online, you would have known that your claim as worded is simply false: that isn’t what Mary ‘means,’ but at best what Mary has at best a slim chance of having meant at some point well before the time period under discussion.
Thank you for responding to least significant point of my latest post. To clarify, I’m seeing a lot of hypocrisy here, and a lot of derision in your answers to my posts and to some of the posts of other commenters with the slightest point to make contrary to your own. And to think that all I did in my original comment, before you went on the attack, was to mention Atwill’s theory of the Mary’s, thinking that you likely were not aware of it, and might find it interesting. Confronted with this “I’m always right, you’re always wrong” attitude, I think it best that I stop wasting my time in further interaction. Instead, since I’m just an uneducated moron who doesn’t buy into your chain of—by your own admission—“marginally probable” “surmise and deduction,” maybe I’ll go read some fact-based Wikipedia articles, or as you suggest, scan some baby name websites in search of esoteric knowledge.
There is no sense in which I think I’m always right, nor did I say that you are always wrong. What I did was provide a brief indication of why Atwill’s claim is based on no evidence, and a poor fit to the evidence we have.
It is interesting that you prefer to embrace Atwill’s claims uncritically and yet here you react defensively when challenged and offered a different viewpoint that seeks to take our ancient evidence seriously, instead of merely making things up the way Atwill tends to.
This is a modern translation of Romans 16:7
“Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.” (NIV)
What do you think the likelihood is that Paul meant they were fellow Jews rather than family?
I replied to this in the comment thread already. Let me know if you can’t find it!
(It is also discussed in further detail in my book.)
Great to see you posting here, Professor McGrath and I heartily recommend your new book to others here.
Being a polite, gracious, and welcoming host, Bart does not like to challenge his guest posters with whom he disagrees, but I would love to see this point debated debated further:
Bart: “Well, he greets 26 people and indicates that 6 of them are Jewish. Since this is an explicit identity marker, it must mean the others are not Jewish.”
James: “The most typical usage [of συγγενής] is for relatives rather than members of the same ethnic group. That seems to be confirmed here by the fact that Paul only singles out a few individuals as “kin” even though we know that others he does not designate as kin were also “fellow Jews.” And so typical usage and context both converge on the conclusion that here he meant “relatives” in the narrower sense.”
I’m not sure how to get that conversation started. I thought about leaving this comment until Bart sees it. But perhaps if you leave a comment on the post where he said what you quote, with a link to this one, that will draw it to his attention more quickly, since he may be leaving comments on this post for me to respond to.
I do wonder whether there was some Nabataean minority group or other which had connections to Judaism. The two peoples were in close contact, after all.
That would explain why the tombs at Qumran are much more similar to Nabataean tombs than to most Jewish ones (the skeletal remains there are not typically Jewish either); and why Petra has a tomb believed to be that of Aaron; and why the Petra district called ‘Wadi an-Nasara’ reminds one of the pre-Christian heretics called ‘Nasaraioi’. It might explain why Paul went ‘at once’ to Arabia.
Perhaps further digging in Petra will reveal something along these lines; in the meantime, it is an intriguing speculation.
As much as I would love to connect a site at Petra with the Mandaeans (Nasurai/Nasaraioi) the name seems to be later and indicate a connection with Christians living in the region.
The Idumeans/Edomites were even more closely related to the Israelites, and so one finds in the region a lot of related customs and beliefs which slowly blend and blur from one region to another. Modern national borders and other aspects of modern life have obscured the extent to which this has been typical in most parts of the world throughout history.
Interesting thoughts, Dr. McGrath, I’m inclined to agree with you, and I’d add another data point in favor:
Joanna is only mentioned in one gospel, Luke.
But within Luke, she is the only woman listed along Mary Magdalene in both of the occasions that the latter is mentioned. Arguably, the impression given purely from Luke is that she is Jesus’ 2nd most important female follower, after only Mary Magdalene.
That she is mentioned prominently in Luke but not the other gospels suggest to me that she was important to Luke’s community, but not to the communities of the other gospels.
Of course, Luke seems to have a keen interest in Paul, as he was the only Evangelist to write about Paul. Luke also seemed to be the favorite gospel of the Paul-fanatical Marcionites. And of course traditionally Luke was assumed by the Church to be a follower of Paul. In other words, Luke seems to be more linked to Paul than the other gospels/evangelists.
If Joanna= Junia, that would explain the evidence. As a relative of Paul, she would be of particular interest to Luke, though not necessarily the other evangelists.
Yes, thank you for adding these details here! I do mention in my book What Jesus Learned from Women the way Luke’s mention of Joanna and connection with Paul also fits this scenario.
Thanks for the response! So you think the Mandaeans might be connected to the Nasaraioi? Very interesting!
The name “Nasara” in Petra is usually understood to mean “Christians”; if the district were named after Christians, though, wouldn’t it have more likely been called “Wadi al-Masihiyun” (Arabic-speaking Christians never identify themselves as “Nasara”, though Muslims call them that)?
Naming of the areas in which minority groups live is often done by the majority population, in their preferred terms.
Mandaean texts use nasurai and related terms, and it seems to me likely that, even though his description is not at all a perfect match, Epiphanius’ reference to Nasoreans probably had them in view.
Prof. McGrath, you’ve got my mind spinning! I purchased your book and 1/3 through.
Speaking specifically of the NT trying to understand how followers of “the way” became Christianity. We know the records in the gospels are written by various sects of these followers. And, we know that the letters we believe were actually penned by Paul, are as close to the beginning of Christianity time as we have.
What’s curious, from the thinking you’ve given us, is this. Do we have in front of us, especially considering the gospels, a rise of women? In a male dominated culture, was “the way” an attempt for women to form their thoughts from the underground? So many examples from the woman with the issue of blood, to the woman at the well, woman taken in adultery, etc. Was the “start” of Christianity the messages of women to say this is how we see the best of a society operating?
In other words, it’s not necessarily what did Jesus learn from women, but a rise of a belief system led by women? Does this explain why women like Lydia of Philippi, Joanne, and others were the financers of this belief system?
Glad you’re finding the book thought-provoking – I hope that your head is spinning in a good way! 🙂
Are you suggesting that women financed Jesus and then the movement centered on him as a means of fostering their own interests? I am sure that there was at least as much of that, as one might see in the current “complementarian” and other patriarchal movements an effort by white men that is motivated on some level by self-interest.
The events recorded specifically in the gospels probably didn’t happen (Bart’s books help us). For example, did the real Jesus go to Samaria, probably. Did he talk with a women at the well? Probably not? Were there women coming to the well all the time, yes.
What I’m wondering is if we have a belief system that was heavily created by women, women that were so oppressed they found a way out?
Jesus didn’t physically rise from the dead, but probably as Bart points out, psychological separation of an esteemed rabbi of many of his followers he showed up in their dreams. I’m guessing the physical Jesus did have some radical ideas, he did allow women in his group of followers. Something happened that made Jesus different because of this. Women flocked to him, or at least as much as they were comfortable in doing so in their culture.
As Christianity became Christianity, what was at first the oral creation of belief, time 0+ after Jesus was died, if this belief system allowed women to be a strong influence and thus what become the gospels has a lot of belief system based on women’s freedom from patriarchy?
To continue comment (thank you, Dr. McGrath) I used to consider equanimity *the* sign of spiritual mastery. Never stopping to think this might be a School of Aristoppus’ narrow definition until like, this week.
I understand that my hero, Dr. Ehrman considers the Epistle of James to be pseudoepigraphia, maybe forgery, but in all cases, there’s dialed-in character traits that are either expressed or showed off as Ya’akovian.
Beyond the public figure in my last comment being raised Veggie with olive oil, no condiments beyond salt and herbs, (who does that) etc, dude posts neo-Jamesian style. This caught my imagination/attention, because I would expect a reincarnated master to have “evolved”/softened in ~2,000 years. Interestingly, cannot find James’ reincarnation in the Cayce readings.
When we broke off, that’s when I returned to researching for fun. This month, Nabataea epiphany. I can now plug in every custom that differentiates Early Christianity from Second Temple Judaism and cleanly show its Nab parallel.
Using amazing nuggets found in scholarly sources and loooooots of original research — the Northern Aramaic dialect, Nabataean gematria, genetics, graffiti, coins; the general material culture inside and outside the trade route, and lineages that stretch to the Anatolian Zagros.
Peace out 🙂
https://www.antiquities.co.uk/shop/ancient-figurines-statues/western-asiatic-nabataean-statuette/?utm_source=pocket_mylis
That Paul heard about Christianity through a relative is one hypothesis. Another hypothesis is that Paul heard about Christianity elsewhere, and being confronted later with the fact that some of his relatives were members of the group he despised so much led to a crisis of conscience that contributed to an emotional state wherein he was susceptible to experiencing visions. We will never know why Paul experienced a vision of Jesus (unlike Peter, it could not have been grief over Jesus himself) but if anyone has a better idea I am interested.