The Last Chapter of Romans: Greetings to Andronicus and Junia(s) (Romans 16:7)

“Greet Andronicus and Junia[s?], my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me” (Romans 16:7, ESV).

“Andronicus” [Ἀνδρόνικος], whose Greek name means “male victor” or “victor of men,”¹ was a Hellenistic Jew like Paul. Based on inscriptional evidence and his connection with the apostles, it is almost certain that he was a migrant from the east.² He is mentioned in the NT only here,³ coupled with the lone occurrence of the name that follows.

The main challenges of this text concern whether the adjoining name is the feminine “Junia”⁴ or the masculine “Junias,”⁵ and what is meant by the phrase, “of note among [ἐν] the apostles.” Are Andronicus and Junia(s) counted among the apostles as outstanding apostles themselves, or are they simply esteemed by the apostles?⁶ Any dogmatic assertion, scholarly or otherwise, that Junia(s) was a woman, a man, an apostle, or not an apostle, is an indicator of the asserter’s theological leanings.  

Male or Female?

Whether the accusative Ἰουνιαν is feminine or masculine depends on where the accent is placed. The acute accent over the iota makes this a female name (Ἰουνίαν), whereas the circumflex over the alpha makes it a male name (Ἰουνιᾶν). The interpretive and translational conundrum is the inconvenient reality that diacritical markings were not added to the Greek NT until the ninth century! There were no accents or breathing marks or punctuation in Paul’s original text, so the name in question, written in uncial script, would have simply been ΙΟΥΝΙΑΝ. Paul could readily assume the original readership already knew this person, but for modern interpreters to make definitive claims about the name’s gender is presumptuous.⁷   

Percentagewise, inscriptional evidence from Rome favors the Latin female name Iunia (over 250 inscriptions), although the Greek Ἰουνία is rare,⁸ and no first-century Jewish woman is confirmed as having this name.⁹ The masculine Iunias is a contracted form of Iunianas; the former is practically unattested, while the latter appears in twenty-one Roman inscriptions.¹⁰  Can we be confident that the mere counting and comparing of Latin names outside the biblical record is decisive? What if ΙΟΥΝΙΑΝ in Paul’s Greek text is not a Latin name at all but the Hellenized form of the Hebrew Yěḥunnī?¹¹ Moreover, the NT manuscript and versional evidence and patristic commentators, whether early or late, reflect little more than subjective guesses.¹² The fact of the matter is, “the data on whether ᾿Ιουνιαν is feminine or masculine are simply inadequate to make a decisive judgment.”¹³

If the female name is in view,¹⁴ Junia may have been Andronicus’s wife (note v. 3), or daughter (note v. 13), or sister (note v. 15). If the male name is in view, Junias could have been kin to Andronicus or simply his ministerial colleague.

Relation to the Apostles

What about the phrase, “of note among the apostles” [ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις]?¹⁵ The adj. ἐπίσημος, occurring only twice in the NT,¹⁶ has been rendered in English: (a) in the comparative sense, “prominent” (ISV, NRSV), “outstanding” (NASB, NIV); or (b) in the elative sense, “of note” (ASV, N/KJV, RSV), “noteworthy” (CSB), “notable” (WEB), “well known” (ESV, NET), “highly respected” (CEV, NLT). The preposition ἐν (“in”), if used of agency, can be rendered “by,” and its locative use with a plural object usually means “among.” 

Interpreters who favor the comparative sense often claim that Andronicus and Junia(s) are included in the apostolic circle as prominent apostles, even though nowhere else in the biblical record are these two named where the apostles are clearly identified and listed together.¹⁷ Are we to believe that Paul is ranking the apostles and placing Andronicus and Junia(s), who are never mentioned elsewhere, above all the others? And if the pair were in fact outstanding apostles, why would it have been necessary for Paul, “a called apostle,” to travel all the way to Rome to impart a spiritual gift to strengthen the Roman saints (1:1-11)?

In Galatians 2:6-9 Paul has outlined a threefold assessment of his fellow apostles: (a) ranking “the ones seeming to be something” is the tendency of judaizing instigators; (b) “whatever then they were matters nothing to me” is Paul’s viewpoint; (c) “God shows no favoritism” is the divine perspective.¹⁸ When on the defensive Paul is quick to affirm (perhaps sarcastically), “For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles” (2 Cor. 11:5, NASB). Contextually, however, the allusion here is more likely in reference to the “false apostles” [ψευδαπόστολοι] deceptively claiming to be official delegates of Christ (vv. 12-15; cf. 12:11). Under less combative circumstances, Paul’s rhetoric is notably humble (1 Cor. 3:7; 15:9; cf. Eph. 3:8; 1 Tim. 1:12-16).

If, in Romans 16, Paul is employing the term “apostles” [ἀπόστολοι] generically as “sent ones” or “envoys,”¹⁹ no superior apostolic authority is implied. In fact, the only use of the verb form [ἀποστέλλω] in the letter is in this broader sense (10:15). Otherwise, Paul’s frequent assigning of the noun to himself (as in 1:1; 11:13, its only other occurrences in Romans) almost certainly carries the special sense of God’s authoritative representative.²⁰ And when he mentions his fellow apostolic colleagues, male gender is presupposed: “Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles …?” (1 Cor. 9:5). 

With multiple variables in play, therefore, being highly regarded “among [ἐν] the apostles” does not necessarily identify Andronicus and Junia(s) as members of the apostolic band but can be easily understood as how the apostles regarded them.²¹ At best the statement is ambiguous, but it is certainly not a foregone conclusion that the wording does not and cannot allude to knowledge or esteem shared among the apostles toward Andronicus and Junia(s).²² Seeing that less than three decades earlier there were “visitors from Rome” in Jerusalem in the company of the apostles (Acts 2:10), it should not be surprising that there were believers in Rome known to the apostles.

Ethnicity and Spiritual History

Andronicus and Junia(s) are Paul’s “kinsmen” [συγγενεῖς],²³ a descriptive term appearing twelve times in the NT. Mark, Luke, and John use it in the sense of blood-related family.²⁴ Paul, however, the only other NT writer to employ the expression (all in Romans), applies it in a different historical and literary context for a different purpose. His first use of the word is in chap. 9, clearly in the ethnocultural sense of “my brothers, my kinsmen [συγγενεῖς] according to the flesh. They are Israelites …”  (9:3-4a; cf. 11:1, 14). The rest of the word’s appearances in Romans are in the final chapter (16:7, 11, 21), with no suggestive change of meaning.²⁵ Aquila (v. 3) and Herodion (v. 11) are the only ones besides Andronicus and Junia(s) among Paul’s acquaintances in Rome who can be positively identified as Jewish. The same ethnic distinction is made of certain others of his associates in Colossians 4:10-11, with the qualifier “of the circumcision” [ἐκ περιτομῆς]. 

Andronicus and Junia(s) are also referred to as Paul’s “fellow prisoners” [συναιχμαλώτους].²⁶ Similar to “slave” imagery (cf. 1:1; 6:6-22), if viewed metaphorically²⁷ this could be descriptive of heartfelt conviction in having been taken captive by Christ (cf. 1:14).²⁸ But if literal incarceration is in view, Andronicus and Junia(s) were either imprisoned together with Paul at the same time and place, or they shared a similar experience.²⁹ Prior to the writing of Romans, even though Paul’s only documented confinement was with Silas at Philippi (Acts 16:23-25), he alludes to multiple (unrecorded) imprisonments (2 Cor. 6:5; 11:23).³⁰

As a chronological aside, Paul adds, “they were in Christ before [πρό] me,”³¹ placing their conversions within an approximately three-year window of time between the founding of the church in Jerusalem and Paul’s baptism in Damascus (Acts 2:41–9:18; cf. 21:16).³² This further underscores their eastern connection, Jewish affiliation, and rapport with the original apostles.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ A combination of the gen. ἀνδρός (“of man”) + νίκη (“victory”). During the reign of Ptolemy Philometor of Egypt (180-145 BC), a dispute arose between Samaritans and Alexandrian Jews over the temple’s rightful location, and the Jewish spokesman before the king was named Andronicus, son of Messalamus (Josephus, Ant. 13.3.4).  

     ² There are around twenty Roman inscriptions, approximating this time period, bearing the name Andronicus, about half of which are slaves or descendants of slaves, incl. a freedman named C. Iulius Andronicus (see P. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus 169-70, 178; “Andronicus” in Anchor Bible Dictionary 1:247-248). Another possible connection is Nicanor in the early Jerusalem church, known among the apostles (Acts 6:2-6), whose compound name (νίκη + nom. ἀνήρ) is the reverse form of Andronicus. Especially in Jewish circles, names had special communicatory meaning. Note, for example, the father of Bathsheba is recorded in 2 Sam. 11:3 as Eliam, a combination of el [אֵל] (“God”) + am [עם] (“kinsman”), meaning “God is [my] kinsman.” However, in 1 Chron. 3:5 the name is rendered Amiel, which is the same name with the component parts transposed: am [עם] (“kinsman”) + el [אֵל] (“God”), meaning “[my] kinsman is God.” Similarly, might Nicanor of Acts 6:5 be Andronicus of Rom. 16:7? 

     ³ Later tradition places Andronicus among the seventy(-two) disciples of Luke 10:1 and allegedly appointed bishop of Pannonia.

     ⁴ CJB, GNT, EHV, ERV, ESV, EMTV, GW, H/CSB, ISV, JUB, MEV, NASB20, NET, NMB, NABRE, NCV, NIRV, NLT, N/KJV, NRSV, NTE, REB, TMB, T/NIV, WEB, Weymouth. The name is a variant of Juno, the Roman goddess of love and marriage and protector of the state, comparable to the Greek goddess Hera.

     ⁵ AB, ASV, BLB, Darby, Douay-Rheims, ERV, LSV, NAB, NASB95, NEB, NLV, Phillips, RSV, TLB, YLT. The RSV reads, “Andronicus and Junias … men of note …” 

     ⁶ For each side of the debate, see E. Staggs and F. Staggs, Woman in the World of Jesus 162-86 (identified as apostles); and A. A. Dos, Solving the Romans Debate 127-36 (not identified as apostles).

     ⁷ The UBS text committee has given the “A” rating to the spelling Ἰουνιαν but could not come to an agreement on how the name should be accented (B. M. Metzger, Textual Commentary [2nd ed.] 475-76). The NA²⁷ and UBS⁴ read Ἰουνιᾶν, whereas the NA²⁸ and UBS⁵ read Ἰουνίαν.

     ⁸ See NET footnote; B. M. Metzger, Textual Commentary (2nd ed.) 475-76; J. Piper and W. Grudem, 50 Crucial Questions 79-80. The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG) documents only three occurrences in Greek literature of the Greek form of the name (between the ninth century BC and the fifth century AD), the only one of which close to Paul’s time period is Junia [Ἰουνία] Tertia or Tertulla (ca. 75 BC – AD 22), younger half-sister of Marcus Junius Brutus, recorded in Greek by Plutarch (AD 46-119) in Life of Brutus 7.1.

     ⁹ E. Y. L. Ng, “Was Junia(s) in Rom 16:7 a Female Apostle?,” JETS 63.3 (2020): 521-22. 

     ¹⁰ From the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (CIL). See P. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus 176; and D. B. Wallace, “Junia Among the Apostles,” also observing that Junias is attested as a Latin nickname. The prestigious family name Junius was not uncommon, e.g., Lucius Junius Brutus (founder of the Roman Republic), and two of Julius Caesar’s assassins, Marcus Junius Brutus and Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus.

     ¹¹ Reportedly inscribed on ossuaries in the time of Paul. See A. Wolters, “ΙΟΥΝΙΑΝ (Romans 16:7) and the Hebrew Name Yěḥunnī,” JBL 27.2 (2008): 397-408.

     ¹² On the whole, scribal accentuation has historically favored the male name, whereas ecclesiastical writers have favored the female name (see J. A. Fitzmyer, Romans 737-38). As to the former, accusing scribes of gender bias or patriarchal suppression is not only speculative and pejorative but unnecessarily assumes all copyists were men and unscrupulous ones at that! The majority of so-called “church fathers” advocating the name’s feminine form were Latin, dating from the fourth century onwards. Among the Greek patristic authors espousing this interpretation, the earliest possibility is Origen of Alexandria (185-254), although most of his words are preserved in Latin translation, particularly by Rufinus of Aquileia (340-410). Citing Origin as evidence of the name Junia in Rom. 16:7 faces the twofold challenge of (a) whether Rufinus is actually the one responsible for the spelling; and (b) variant readings among surviving manuscripts with the masculine form (cf. J. P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca 14.1289). Stronger support is provided by John Chrysostom (347-407), who just so happens to represent the same time period as Rufinus and the earliest Latin supporters of the name’s feminine form, such as Ambrose of Milan (339-397) and Jerome (340-419). Other Greek commentators followed suit, like Theodoret of Cyrus (ca. 393-458/66), John of Damascus (ca. 676-749), etc. Conversely, the earlier Greek author Epiphanius (310-403) accepted the masculine name.

     ¹³ D. B. Wallace, “Junia Among the Apostles,” <Web>. “It is impossible to tell from the Greek form used here whether the name was Junia (feminine) or Junias (masculine)” (F. F. Bruce, The Pauline Circle 83 n.4).

     ¹⁴ Presumed to have been a freed person from the east connected to the Iunia family (P. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus 169-70, 176).

     ¹⁵ For a scholarly and thorough treatment of this text, see M. H. Burer and D. B. Wallace, “Was Junia Really an Apostle?” NTS 47 (2001): 76-91; followed by Burer’s “Ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς Ἀποστόλοις in Rom 16:7,” JETS 58.4 (2015): 731-55, extending the research with additional data, responding to criticisms, and building an even stronger case.

     ¹⁶ Here, and in Matt. 27:16 with the negative connotation of “notorious.”

     ¹⁷ See Matt. 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:13, 26; 1 Cor. 15:7-11. 

     ¹⁸ God’s impartiality is a common theme in the teachings of Paul (Rom. 2:11; 3:22; 10:12; Eph. 6:9; Col. 3:25), as well as Peter (Acts 10:34; 15:9; 1 Pet. 1:17), James (Acts 15:13-19; Jas. 2:1-9), and John (John 1:9-13; 1 John 2:2; 3:1-3; 4:7-9; Rev. 5:9; 7:9-10). Paul’s standing in the Lord’s church was not dependent on the Jerusalem leaders (cf. Gal. 1:1, 10-17), even though some deluded persons were enamored with them beyond what was reasonable.

     ¹⁹ The noun ἀπόστολος and cognate verb ἀποστέλλω (to “send out or away”) are used generically in Paul’s writings with reference to anyone who is sent as a delegate or messenger (cf. 2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25; 1 Thess. 2:6). The verb ἀποστέλλω is applied to Paul’s commission to the Gentiles (Acts 26:17); accordingly both he and Barnabas are described as ἀπόστολοι (Acts 14:4, 14), lit. “sent ones” (cf. 13:2-3). In 1 and 2 Thessalonians, the earliest extant Pauline documents, Paul is mentioned by name only (without the designation “apostle”), while the term ἀπόστολοι is applied generically to the three missionary co-authors (1 Thess. 1:1; 2:6).

     ²⁰ 1 Cor. 1:1; 9:1-2; 15:9; 2 Cor. 1:1; 11:5; 12:11-12; Gal. 1:1, 17; Eph. 1:1; 2:20; 3:5; Col. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:1, 11; Tit. 1:1. On the word ἀπόστολος and its various uses, see BDAG 122; D. Müller, NIDNTT 126-35, with C. Brown’s addendum 135-37; K. H. Rengstorf, TDNT 1:407-45; J. A. Kirk, “Apostleship since Rengstorf” 249-64; also J. D. G. Dunn, Theology of Galatians 10-11; J. B. Lightfoot, Galatians 95-99. J. Murray reasons that if Andronicus and Junia(s) were in fact “apostles,” then the term “would be used in a more general sense of messenger …. it is more probable that the sense is that these persons were well known to the apostles …” (Romans 229-30).

     ²¹ D. J. Moo opines, “if Paul had wanted to say that Andronicus and Junia were esteemed ‘by’ the apostles, we would have expected him to use a simple dative or ὑπό with the genitive” (Romans 923). However, D. B. Wallace has shown this is not always true and gives examples to the contrary (“Junia Among the Apostles,” <Web>). 

     ²² To say that a particular European politician in New Zealand is “esteemed among the Māori people” does not imply that the politician is of Māori heritage.

     ²³ Variously rendered “kinsmen” (ASV, ESV, NASB95, KJV, RSV), “countrymen” (HCSB, NKJV), “compatriots” (NET), “fellow Jews” (CSB, ISV, NIV, NLT), “kinsfolk” (NASB20), “relatives” (CEV, LSV, NAB, NRSV, TLB, WEB).

     ²⁴ Mark 6:4; Luke 1:36, 58; 2:44; 14:12; 21:16; John 18:26; Acts 10:24. All that can be known for certain about Paul’s blood-relatives is his Benjamite/Pharisee father (Acts 23:6; Rom. 11:1; Phil. 3:5), and his sister and nephew (Acts 23:16).

     ²⁵ Contra H. A. W. Meyer, Romans 567-68; J. Murray, “Romans” 229-31, arguing for a “closer relation of kinship.” E. F. Harrison, however, points out, in view of Paul’s loss of everything from his material past (Phil. 3:7-13), “the improbability of his having three kinfolk in Rome (cf. v.11) and three more in Corinth (v.21)” (“Romans” 164-65).

     ²⁶ Combination of σύν (“with”) + αἰχμάλωτος (“captive”); cf. also Col. 4:10; Philem. 23.

     ²⁷ G. Kittel, TDNT 1:196-97.

     ²⁸ Cf. 1 Cor. 9:16-17; 2 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 4:8; Phil. 3:12.

     ²⁸ Imprisonment in the Roman world was not designed as punishment or rehabilitation but as a temporary measure (albeit drawn out at times) while the accused awaited trial, followed by release, judicial fine, beating, exile, forced labor, enslavement, or execution. As to the “Junia/s” debate, prisoners were not separated by gender. See F. Millar, Rome, the Greek World, and the East 2:128-31; M. A. Powell, “Prison Conditions in the Roman World” 23.6; G. Türkoğlu and B. Dönmez, “Judicial Fines and Imprisonment Penalty in Roman Law” 121-38.

     ³⁰ Clement of Rome reported that the apostle was in bonds a total of seven times (I Clement 5:6). After Paul sent his letter to the Romans, he spent two years as a prisoner in Caesarea (Acts 24:27), another two years in Rome (Acts 28:30), and after apparent release he was imprisoned again at Rome (2 Tim. 1:16-17; 4:16-17). Some have suggested Ephesus as another possibility, but there is no definitive record of an Ephesian internment, although Paul did suffer many afflictions there (Acts 19:23-41; 1 Cor. 15:32; 2 Cor. 1:8-10). At least five of Paul’s extant letters were composed while he was incarcerated (Eph. 3:1, 13; 4:1; 6:20; Phil. 1:7-16; Col. 4:3-18; Philem. 9, 10, 13, 23; 2 Tim. 1:8, 12, 16-17; 2:9; 4:6, 16), all of which were written after the letter to the Romans.

     ³¹ The prepositional phrase “in Christ” [ἐν Χριστῷ] (cf. vv. 3, 9, 10), as a sphere of reference equivalent to the adjectival “Christian” [χριστιανός] (M. J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology 124), is comparable to “in the Lord” (vv. 2, 8, 11, 12, 13) and implies that they were Christians before Paul’s conversion, while the perfect tense γέγοναν is descriptive of “having become” in the past and continuing in the present. Nevertheless, the “in Christ” expression “can hardly be reduced over all to a mere label, or its significance be satisfactorily grasped in such a desiccated formulation” (J. D. G. Dunn, Theology of Paul the Apostle 399-400). 

     ³² For chronological details and approx. dates, see K. L. Moore, A Critical Introduction to the NT 38-42.

Related Posts: Phoebe Commended (Rom 16:1-2), Epaenetus & Mary (Rom 16:5-6), Greetings to Brothers & Sisters (Rom 16:8-13)

 

Image credit: https://clipart-library.com/clip-art/two-people-silhouette-14.htm

Harmonizing Luke and Paul (Part 2 of 2)

     Luke makes a clear distinction between the brothers of Jesus and the apostles of Jesus (Acts 1:13-14). Who, then, was the James whom Paul seems to include among the apostles and identifies as the Lord’s brother (Gal. 1:19)? Before this question can be answered, at least three more questions need to be considered: (1) Is adelphos (“brother”) used here in its literal sense, or is a more general usage intended? (2) What is meant by the term apostoloi (“apostles”) in this context? (3) Does ei mê (“except”) necessarily include James among the apostles?

     1.  If adelphos is used here in a more general sense, it is possible that the Lord’s “cousin” is intended and thus Paul may be referring to the apostle James, son of Alphaeus (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). The word adelphos, according to H. K. Moulton, may be used in the broader sense of “near kinsman or relative” (Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised 6). There was a Mary (not Jesus’ mother) who was the wife of Cleopas and mother of James and Jose[s/ph] (Matt. 27:56; John 19:25). If “Cleopas” is the Graecized form of the name “Alphaeus,” as some suggest, it is possible that James, son of Mary and Cleopas, is the same as the apostle James, son of Alphaeus. Furthermore, the wording of John 19:25 may suggest that Mary, the wife of Cleopas, was the sister of Jesus’ mother, which would then make Jesus and the apostle James first cousins.

     This view, however, is considerably weakened by the number of unprovable suppositions upon which it is based, plus other information that argues strongly against it. First of all, there is no evidence in the New Testament that the word adelphos (“brother”) is used in a broad sense to include near relations. Paul was familiar with the word “cousin” (anepsios), as we see in Col. 4:10, and could have used that word in Gal. 1:19 if that is what he intended. While the Hebrew ach (“brother”) is used loosely in isolated cases to designate male relatives of various degrees (cf. Gen. 13:8; 14:14; etc.) and is translated into Greek as adelphos, the New Testament usage does not appear to be as general (cf. BAGD 16). Even in the Old Testament, the context makes it clear whenever the word “brother” is used in any but its normal sense, which we do not find in Gal. 1:19. The word adelphos simply means “a brother (whether born of the same two parents, or only of the same father or the same mother)” (J. H. Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon 10).    

     Furthermore, the idea that James was the cousin of Jesus depends on the assumption that three rather than four women are mentioned in John 19:25. If it is concluded that Mary is the sister of the Lord’s mother, the problem is the unlikelihood that two sisters would have the same name! Since Salome was also present on this occasion (Mark 15:40), could she not be the sister of Jesus’ mother (making the sons of Zebedee [James and John] the Lord’s cousins)? Another difficulty is the uncertainty that the names Cleopas and Alphaeus are identical, and even if these appellations are derived from the same source, there is no evidence that they belonged to the same person. Finally, if James and his brothers were merely the Lord’s cousins, it is hard to account for the fact that they were regularly in the company of Jesus’ mother (Matt. 12:46-47; 13:55; Luke 8:19-20; John 2:12) rather than their own mother, who was still living at the time (Mark 15:40-41). When Paul speaks of the Lord’s “brother,” he is apparently referring to James, the literal half-brother of Jesus.

     2. The next question is how the word apostolos (“apostle”) is used by Paul in Gal. 1:19. If it is used in a generic sense, then it is possible for James to be called an “apostle” without being included among the twelve. In the New Testament the word apostolos generally refers to one who is sent and thus can be used in the sense of a delegate, envoy, or messenger (BAGD 99). Epaphroditus, having been sent by the Philippi church, was their apostolos or “messenger” (Phil. 2:25). Brethren who were sent to distribute relief aid were called apostoloi (“messengers”) of the churches (2 Cor. 8:23). Barnabas and Saul are called apostoloi (“apostles”) after being sent out by the church at Antioch (Acts 13:3; 14:4, 14). Jesus Christ, having been sent by the Father (John 17:3), is described as the apostolos (“apostle”) and high priest of our confession (Heb. 3:1).

     While it is plausible that James is referred to as an apostolos in the broad sense, it is not likely. For one thing, James does not appear to have been sent out anywhere, but remained in Jerusalem (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; Gal. 1:19; 2:9, 12), although it seems he did “take along” a believing wife (1 Cor. 9:5) and may have gone out to the areas surrounding Jerusalem (cf. Acts 8:14, 25; 9:28). But Paul appears to be consistent with his use of the word apostolos in his epistle to the Galatians (1:1, 17, 19; 2:8), the most obvious sense of which is not generic. Therefore apostolos in this passage evidently means “apostle” in its official, customarily understood sense.

     3. The final consideration is the meaning of ei mê in Galatians 1:19. The combination of ei (if) and mê (not) is used in a negative statement to mean “except” or “but.” In Galatians 1:19 the footnote of the ASV suggests “but only” as an alternate translation, and Hugo McCord renders this verse: “I saw no other apostle, but I did see James (the Lord’s brother).” If this is what Paul had in mind, then James is not included among the apostles and the problem is solved.

     Bear in mind that the easy answers are not always the right answers, but the integrity of scripture is not impugned when alleged discrepancies are more carefully investigated. It is reasonably clear that when the accounts of Paul and Luke are interwoven, the harmony of events may be summarized as follows. Paul went to Jerusalem about three years after his conversion. He was briefly introduced to the apostles, but spent most of his time with Peter and preached to unbelievers in Judea. He did not get to know the other apostles during this visit, but he did become acquainted with James, the Lord’s brother. Luke and Paul highlight different aspects of the same historical events, but they complement rather than contradict each other.

--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Harmonizing Luke & Paul Part 1, The Epistle of Jacob, James of Alphaeus

Related articles: Barry Newton's Did Paul Agree with Luke?

Image credit: Franz Mayer’s St. Luke and St. Paul, <http://www.oakbrookesser.com/images/restoration/trinity/th_lukeandpaul.jpg>.

Harmonizing Luke and Paul (Part 1 of 2)

     The activities of Paul after his conversion at Damascus are briefly detailed in Galatians 1:15-24. The problem is, Paul’s version of events is different from the historical information provided by Luke, and the two accounts are difficult to harmonize. Apparent discrepancies include the following:

First, Luke gives the impression that Paul went to Jerusalem shortly after his conversion (Acts 9:26), but Paul says there was at least a three-year interval (Gal. 1:18).

Second, Luke reports that Paul “was with them at Jerusalem, coming in and going out” (Acts 9:28)¹ and preached “in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea” (Acts 26:20), whereas Paul claims that he “was unknown by face to the churches of Judea ...” (Gal. 1:22).

Third, Luke mentions that Paul met “the apostles,” implying that he met all of them (Acts 9:27), yet Paul affirms that he saw only Peter and James (Gal. 1:18-19).

Finally, Paul seems to include James “the Lord’s brother” among the apostles (Gal. 1:19), while Luke does not (Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:13).

     The first two difficulties are reasonably simple to resolve. Luke’s purpose in writing the book of Acts was not to give an intricately detailed description of the early church’s activities. In fact, he covers approximately 32 years of history in only 28 chapters. His brief historical overview is easily filled in with information recorded elsewhere in the New Testament. The statement, “And when Saul had come to Jerusalem …” (Acts 9:26), does not indicate whether this was immediately after his initial stay in Damascus or after a few years. No time period is specified, therefore no discrepancy exists between the respective accounts of Luke and Paul.

     Next, how could Paul have preached “in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea” (Acts 26:20) and yet be “unknown by face to the churches of Judea” (Gal. 1:22)? First of all, Jerusalem is often distinguished from the rest of Judea (Luke 5:17; 6:17; Acts 1:8; 2:14; 8:1; 26:20). Secondly, Paul was preaching to non-Christians in Judea, not to the churches (Acts 9:29; 22:18; 26:17-23). Again, Luke’s version of events is easily harmonized with Paul’s.

     A more challenging dilemma is Luke’s intimation that Paul met all the apostles (Acts 9:27), while Paul claims that he saw only Peter and James (Gal. 1:18-19). The word translated “to see” (NKJV) in verse 18 is historeô, which actually means to visit for the purpose of getting to know someone (BAGD 383). The NASB renders this word, “to become acquainted with.” Paul did more than just casually observe Peter. He spent time with and got to know him.

     When Paul writes that he did not “see” the other apostles (Gal. 1:19), the word he uses here is eidon. Like historeô, the term eidon has a broader range of meanings than simply to view with one’s eyes. It can also carry the idea of experiencing something or visiting with someone (cf. Luke 8:20; 17:22; 1 Thess. 2:17; 3:10). For Paul, “seeing” (eidon) the brethren in Corinth meant spending time with them (1 Cor. 16:3-7). It is also used in the sense of getting to know someone (cf. Luke 9:9; 23:8; John 12:21; Acts 28:20). Paul wanted to “see” (eidon) the saints in Rome, which involved much more than just looking at them (Rom. 1:10-15). Paul seems to be saying in Gal. 1:18-19, considering that eidon is so closely connected with historeô, that he simply did not get acquainted with the other apostles. Apparently he was briefly introduced to them (Acts 9:27), but he only spent considerable time with and got to know Peter and James.  Thus, the accounts of Paul and Luke are not inconsistent.

     The final and more difficult challenge is determining which James is referred to in this passage and whether or not he was actually included among the apostles. There is more than one person identified as “James” in the New Testament. One is John’s brother, the son of Zebedee and Salome (Matt. 4:21; 27:56; cf. Mark 15:40), killed by Herod Agrippa I in the year 44 (Acts 12:2). But it is highly unlikely that he is the one considered by Paul in Galatians 1:19. Another of the twelve apostles was also called James, namely the son of Alphaeus and Mary (Matt. 27:56; 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). He is probably the one also known as “James the Less” (Mark 15:40). Could this have been the James identified by Paul in Galatians 1:19 as the Lord’s brother?

     Jesus was not an only child, and he did have a brother named James. Joseph had no sexual relations with Mary until she had given birth to Jesus, her firstborn son (Matt. 1:25; Luke 2:7). If Jesus had been her only child, he would have been described as her huion monogenê (“only son”) rather than her huion prôtotokon (“firstborn son”). There is a strong implication here that Mary had other children after Jesus was born. Moreover, the Gospels reveal that Jesus had at least four half-brothers and at least two or more half-sisters, and the brothers were named James, Jose[s/ph], Simon, and Judas (Matt. 13:55-56; Mark 6:3).

     It is interesting that among the apostles were those who also wore the names James, Simon, and Judas (Luke 6:15-16), and attempts have been made to identify them as the Lord’s brothers. One argument against this conclusion is the distinction made between the apostles and the brothers of Jesus (Acts 1:13-14). But this objection is not conclusive since the same apparent distinction is also made regarding the apostle Peter (1 Cor. 9:5; cf. Mark 16:7). However, that the half-brothers of Jesus were not counted among the original apostles is evident from the fact that even after the twelve had been chosen (John 6:67), the Lord’s brothers did not believe in him as the Christ (John 7:5).² The next article will consider this further.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:
     ¹ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are from the New King James Version.
     ² Neither is there sufficient data to support the hypothesis that Joseph and Alphaeus were brothers and James was the product of a Levirate marriage between Joseph and Alphaeus' widow. 

Related Posts: Harmonizing Luke & Paul Part 2, James and the Law of Moses, The Epistle of Jacob, What did Paul do in Arabia?

Image credit: Rembrandt’s “Two Old Men Disputing,” <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Rembrandt_van_Rijn_185.jpg>.