dzim77

There seems to be a variety of uses for the term apostolos in the NT. I might roughly categorize the use of the term into three:

1. The Twelve
Seem to be attributed with a kind of 'foundational' role and authority.

2. Paul
Seems to be a kind of 'abnormal apostle', perhaps a transition between the Twelve, and the other, later 'apostles'. (??)

3. Other 'apostles'
Those such as Apollos, Barnabas, Silas, possibly Andronicus and Junias and so on. Seem to have a sort of groundbreaking role of starting churches in new areas.

My question is, do we have any other examples in the ancient writings of the use of the title "apostolos" in a similar way (preferably before the Pauline usage of the term)?

Also, any recommendations on good books or papers on how this term came to be applied to the Twelve, Paul, etc...?

Thanks

Malachi151

There is even more to this issue, this Catholic website actually does a good job addressing it:

http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Disciples.htm

Basically, apostles and disciples are not the same thing, and we don't see the term disciple come into the mix until we get to the Gospels.

dzim77

Thanks for the link.

My interest is more concerning how the term 'apostolos' came to be used in the Pauline epistles and in the gospels. I would be especially interested to know if the term was used as a kind of title, prior to Paul in a context unrelated to Christianity.

Toto

There's an article on that subject in JSTOR. You can read the preview here.

The Origin of the NT Apostle-Concept: A Review of Research
Francis H. Agnew
Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 105, No. 1 (Mar., 1986), pp. 75-96
doi:10.2307/3261112

The term apostolos means "messenger" and was used in seafaring.

dzim77

Hi Toto,

Excellent. Looks like a good place to start. Thanks

JoeWallack

The Shadow Knows

JW:
All bible scholarship, but especially Christian Bible Scholarship (Christian BS) operates under the Cloud of thinking of the term "Apostle" as used post-"Mark". "Mark", the Original Gospel though, seems very reluctant to describe the Disciples as "Apostles".

In the first supposed use of the offending word in "Mark":

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_3:14

"And he appointed twelve, that they might be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, (ASV)"

The not-Protys Textual Expert in the World, "The Metz", has this to say:

"3.14 δώδεκα, [οὓς καὶ ἀποστόλους �*νόμασεν,] ἵνα ὦσιν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ {C}

Although the words οὓς … �*νόμασεν may be regarded as an interpolation from Luke (6.13), the Committee was of the opinion that the external evidence is too strong in their favor to warrant their ejection from the text. In order to reflect the balance of probabilities, the words were retained but enclosed within square brackets."

{C} {C} The letter {C} indicates that the Committee had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text.
Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. 1994. A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition; a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) . United Bible Societies: London; New York


JW:
My translation of the above is that "Apostles" has been Forged into 3:14.

The only other supposed use of "Apostles" in "Mark" is 6:30:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_6:30

"And the apostles gather themselves together unto Jesus; and they told him all things, whatsoever they had done, and whatsoever they had taught." (ASV)


JW:
Note that if "Mark" was going to use "Apostles" the context to use it would have been 3:14:

"And he appointed twelve, that they might be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, (ASV)"

JW:
If "Apostles" is not original in 3:14, and I, Myself and Irenaeus and Modern Christian BS think it's not, than the offending word in 6:30 also looks to be Forged because:

1) "The Apostles" would not have been previously introduced in "Mark".

2) The context here is not as good as 3:14 for the word.

3) This would be the only use of the word in "Mark".

4) No Church Father refers to 3:14 or 6:30. Origen especially, with his like for the Mystical, predictably has had his Commentary on "Mark" (Origen commenting on "Mark", what a commentary that must have been) removed to wherever the Hell Jesus has been for the last 2,000 years.

5) Lack of the use of "Apostles" to describe "The Disciples" by "Mark" fits perfectly with his major theme that "The Disciples" were not Qualified to be Teachers of Jesus.



Lamont

"All we have to fear are the fearful, unbelieving, mongerers themselves" - JFK (KJV)

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

gdeering

5) Lack of the use of "Apostles" to describe "The Disciples" by "Mark" fits perfectly with his major theme that "The Disciples" were not Qualified to be Teachers of Jesus.


I've always wondered, in as much as Jesus chose his disciples, isn't that like saying the Jews aren't qualified to know God since they seem to be such screw-ups?

It seems a similar convention?


Gregg

JoeWallack

JW:
In the words of that great 20th century philosopher, Kramer, "Uh, Bingo!". "Mark's" (and Paul's) Spin is that the purpose of the "The Jews" in being Chosen is to be the Archons-type Negative example of how to be God's chosen. Subsequent children of God can than learn by the supposed proof-text book example of "The Jews" Failure.

Similiarly, "Mark" has cast his "The Disciples" in the same role as "The Jews". The purpose of the "The Disciples" in being Chosen is to be the Archons-type Negative example of how to be Jesus' chosen.
Subsequent Disciples can than learn by the supposed proof-text book example of "The Disciples" Failure.

Therefore, proper Understanding of Jesus and related Reaction needs to come not from those that Jesus chose but from "Mark". At least According to "Mark".

Paul does the same thing but to a lesser extent. He couldn't straw son of man people who really knew Jesus like James and Peter because they were contemporaries to him. "Mark", representing the next generation, could.

The Transition from Historical Jesus to Mythical Jesus was feuooled by Paul and "Mark". Peter and James were behind Q, Teachings, which represented the Possible, Historical Jesus and as Teachings, didn't need a Jesus or any other person to give it substance. Paul and especially "Mark" made the Transition from emphasis of Q, Teachings, to Jesus, an Impossible, Unhistorical one. "Mark", the first Gospel than, Rejected the Historical witness to Jesus and therefore discredits it by showing Peter/James as Negative examples and largely ignoring Q except where useful to his Narrative.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

DCHindley

This might give it a context appropriate for Paul, but I believe that in contemporary non-christian contexts "Apostolos" was usually used to denote persons representing others who are engaged in sea voyages, or at least a trip to a far away place.

In later times, around 3rd or 4th century CE, it was used to denote the representative of the Jewish ethnarch who collected freewill offerings sent to the holy land.

While similar delegations are known to have transported offerings to Jerusalem prior to the destruction, and that the Roman emperors actually had to make exceptions to usual laws that governed the movement of large sums of money (at least one provincial governor is known to have tried to confiscate such money), it is not known whether these were formally organized and if so, by whom and any "offical" titles those moving the funds may have used.

Dave

Solo

To my mind there is a great deal of difference from the way Paul uses the term "apostle" and how it is later deployed by the gospels. Paul's usage denotes authority to make rulings in theological matters coming from a special "gift" or election (by God). It is clear from his letters that the "apostles" are envoys of the Jerusalem church directing the Diaspora communities or freelancers like himself who seek commission from the Nazorean leaders.
The later church traditions reflected in the gospels (or inserts like 1 Cor 15:3-11), on the other hand, re-inforced the myth of apostolic succession as originating from direct appointment of the historical Jesus. Their most likely starting point were cultic turns of phrase, in which Jesus "calls" on his disciples to "join" him or "be with him". These I interpret as the "proto-gnostic" bodily knowledge of mystical phenomena attached to episodes of nervous excitement with complex partial seizures in the temporal lobe.

There is quite a remarkable variation of the Lukan version of the "miraculous haul of fishes" (5:1-11) in an old Irish variety of the Diatessaron, known as the "Magdalene Gospel". Luke's frightened Simon Peter who in Luke prays to the Lord to depart from him, but who then leaves everything and follows Jesus permanently (5:11) gets a break in the Magdalene version of the gospel:


Mgd 15:10: And when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down on his knees before Jesus and besought him that he may get out of the boat for he was sinful
15:11 And they were all astonished at the catch of fish
15:12 And Jesus answered Simon, and said "Do not be afraid", because he shall fish after men from that time onwards.
15:13 And right away , they had brought their boats to land, and left everything they had, and followed Jesus for a while. And then they returned to their affairs, until such time when Jesus would call them again.

(translation by Yuri Kuchinsky)

Well, the Irish knew the gospel well. Epilepsy has been called "St.Paul's illness" in Ireland ever since the early missions.

Jiri