Agnew NT research of apostles

JBL 105/1 (1986) 75-96

THE ORIGIN OF THE NT APOSTLE-CONCEPT: A REVIEW OF RESEARCH

FRANCIS H. AGNEW, C M . Kenrick Seminary, St. Louis, MO 63119

Before its use in the Christian scriptures the word apostlos had an extremely meager history in secular Greek.1 This history is bound up with the experience of seafaring and is not closely related to Christian usage.2 Only in Herodotus, who employs it twice in the sense of messenger (1.21; 4.38), does nonbiblical Greek show some relationship to that of the NT. OT Greek is not much more productive of information on the origins of Chris-tian usage The LXX and Symmachus each have the word once, also in the sense of messenger.3 Against this background it comes as something of a surprise to discover the term apostlos eighty times in the NT. It is found in most of the NT books and across the time span that they represent, with concentration in Paul (35x) and Luke (34x), near the beginning and end of the period.4

Terms that rise to importance with a movement are ordinarily of special significance to it, and it is clear from NT usage that this is true of the term apostlos.5 There are NT texts that employ the word with technical

1 LSJ gives a fairly complete listing. The word does not appear in the pertinent fascicle

of B. Snell-H. J. Mette, Lexikon des frhgriechischen Epos (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979-). F. Preisigke-E. Kiessling, Wrterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden (3 vols.; Berlin: Privately published, 1925-1931) with its supplementary vol. (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1971) provides a considerable number of references to a secular use of the term in the nonliterary Greek of Christian times.

2 The word arose as a designation for a kind of transport ship and came, in turn, to indicate

the dispatch of a fleet, the fleet itself, a naval expedition, the admiral of such an expedition, a passport, a bill of lading, etc. For a fairly thorough review of recorded usage, see K. H. Rengstorf, "Apostlos" TDNT 1. 407-8.

3 The LXX at 1 Kgs 14:6; Symmachus at Isa 18:1. Josephus, more or less contemporaneous

with the NT, has it twice in the sense of a sending of emissaries, Ant 1, 146; 17, 30 (but the first text is uncertain).

4 Moulton-Geden (excluding variants) shows incidence as follows: Paul: 35 times, includ-

ing 1 Thessalonians: 1, 1 Corinthians: 10, 2 Corinthians: 7, Galatians: 3, Romans: 3, Philip-pians: 1, Colossians: 1, Ephesians: 4, Pastorals: 5; Luke: 34 times, including Luke: 6, Acts: 28, otherwise 11 times, including once each in Mark, Matthew, John, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and Jude; twice in 2 Peter; and 3 times in Revelation.

5 For discussion of the factors that promoted the choice of this term with references to

75

76 Journal of Biblical Literature

and solemn theological significance as a designation for leading figures of early Christian times. The importance of these figures is paramount: they are a crucial factor in the life of the NT church for Paul, for Luke, and for the later NT.e

Modern study of apostleship began in 1865 with the publication of J. B. Lightfoot's commentary on Galatians and its excursus "The Name and Office of Apostle."7 Since then the subject has remained a source of continu-ing fascination to NT scholars. A veritable flood of literature has been produced with divergent and often contradictory opinion advanced on all of its many problems,8 representative of practically every trend in contem-porary theology and exegesis.9

Although most of these problems lie beyond the immediate interest of this paper, several must be mentioned here for the sake of orientation. It is now generally agreed, though with considerable variation in detail, that the NT uses the word apostlos with some variety of meaning. Chief

literature and a proposal developed from the papyrus evidence, see F. Agnew, "On the Origin of the Term Apostlos," CBQ 38 (1976) 49-53.

6 For Paul, apostleship heads the list of charisms in 1 Cor 12:29-31 and is the title most

expressive of his own vocation (1 Cor 1:1; 9:1; 15:1-11; Gal 1:1, 15-16; Rom 1:1; etc.), a title to be jealously guarded and sharply defended (Galatians 1-2; 2 Corinthians 10-12). For Luke, the apostles are the leaders of the Jerusalem church, official witnesses to the lifetime of Jesus, responsible for the spread of the gospel throughout the world (Luke 24:47-48; Acts 1:7-8, 13-14, 21-22, 26). In the deutero-Pauline imprisonment letters they are the foundation of the church (Eph 2:20; 3:5). In the Pastorals, Petrines, and Jude, the apostle is the guarantor of the tradition, the source of sound teaching and sound praxis; see the greetings of these letters et passim.

7 St. Pauls Epistle to the Galatians (10th ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957) 92-100.

8 Extensive listing of older literature will be found in Rengstorf's now classic article for

TDNT (1933, see n. 2 above). The Literaturnachantrge of TWNT 10/2 (1979) adds six cols, of materials from the period 1934 to 1977. Each subsequent number of EBB and IZBG lists later additions to this now immense collection.

9 There is no full-length bibliographical study of this material. A number of shorter studies

aiming at survey of the whole question have appeared, among which may be mentioned: O. Linton, Das Problem der Urkirche in der neueren Forschung (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1932) 66-101, a discriminating chapter on the older research; F. M. Braun, Aspects nouveaux du problme de Vglise (Fribourg: Libraire de l'universit, 1942) 68-80; A. Verheul, "De moderne exgse over apostlos" Sacris Erudiri 1 (1948) 176-83; E. M. Kredel, "Der Apostel-begriff in der neueren Exegese," ZKT 78 (1956) 169-93, 257-305, the most comprehensive survey to the date indicated, if somewhat weak in its sampling of the then more recent literature; G. Klein, Die zwlf Apostel Ursprung und Gestalt einer Idee (FRLANT 59; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961) 20-62, useful but tendentious in classification and perspective; J. B. Roloff, Apostolat-Verkndigung-Kirche (Gtersloh: Mohn, 1965) 9-37, very careful and full of insight; E. Gttgemanns, "Literatur zur neu testamentlichen Theo-logie," VF 12 (1967) 61-79; R. Schnackenburg, "Apostolicitythe Present Position of Studies," One in Christ 6 (1970) 243-73, which is more concerned with systematic and ecumenical issues; A. Lemaire, "The Ministries in the New Testament: Present Research," BTB 3 (1973) 140-43, concise but questionably nuanced; J. A. Kirk, "Apostleship since Rengstorf: Towards a Synthesis," NTS 21 (1974-75) 249-64, also somewhat tendentious.

Agnew: The NT Apostle-Concept 77

interest here is in its solemn technical sense, but the whole range of usage is significant to the discussion.10 The exact character of apostleship is debated. Described as a general NT phenomenon in a way that would win broad approval, the apostle is one who, through a vision of the risen Lord, has become an official witness to his resurrection and who has been commis-sioned by him to preach the gospel in a way fundamental to its spread.11 But granting this, it is now recognized also that even the major NT witnesses, Paul and Luke, do not present an entirely unified view of its meaning.12

10 Almost all scholars would agree that it sometimes appears in the simple, nontechnical

sense of messenger, as in a text like John 13:6. Some see only this nontechnical usage alongside the solemn usage; see, e.g., H. von Gampenhausen, "Der urchristliche Apostelbegriff," ST 1 (1947) 104-5; Verheul, "Kent Sint Paulus buiten 'de twaalf nog andere Aposteln?" Studia Catholica 22 (1947) 65-75, 23 (1948) 145-57, 217-29; J. C. Margot, "Lapostolat dans le Nouveau Testament," VCaro 11 (1957) 216-17; Klein, Zwlf Apostel, 54; W. Schmithals, The Office of Apostle in the Early Church (Nashville and New York: Abingdon, 1969) 58-95. Others, probably with better arguments, see a range of usages between the nontechnical use and the solemn use; see, e.g., Rengstorf, "Apostlos" 422-23; . L. Schmidt, "Le ministre et les ministres dan l'Eglise du Nouveau Testament," RHPB 17 (1937) 332-33; A. Fridrichsen, The Apostle and His Message (UUA 1947:3; Uppsala: Lundquistska, 1947) 7, 18-19; H. Mosbech, "Apostlos in the New Testament," ST 2 (1948) 170-72; L. Cerfaux, The Christian in the Theology of St Paul (London: Chapman, 1967) Ul-15; C. K. Barrett, The Signs of an Apostle (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972) 71-73; U. Brockhaus, Charisma und Amt (Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1972) 112-16; F. Hahn, "Der Apostolat im Urchristentum," KD 20 (1974) 56-61.

11 R. E. Brown notes: "The two major constituents in being'an apostle of Jesus Christ* . . .

seem to have been (1) a vision of the risen Jesus . . . ; (2) a commission by Jesus to preach" ("The Twelve and the Apostolati" JBC 2. 798). See also Hahn, "Apostolat," 56-60. The views of these scholars are representative. Membership in the apostolic group is uncertain. Most scholars would now maintain a more extensive group than the twelve and Paul, though the identity of the others remains a problem. Some would deny that the twelve were apostles in any historical sense. For discussion see Roloff, Apostolat, 57-82. Most would maintain that the group was closed, though some continue to think of it as open. For discussion see Brockhaus, Charisma, 112-116; Hahn, "Apostolat," 56-61.

12 That Paul and Luke are in general agreement on the description given above may be

verified from the texts listed in n. 6, but they differ in detail. Luke introduces the qualification that the apostle must have been witness to Jesus from the earliest days of his ministry (Acts 1:21-22). This would exclude Paul, and in fact he is only once called apostle in Acts (14:4, 14), probably in a semitechnical sense. Paul would hardly have been willing to admit such a qualification. On the differences between Paul and Luke, see H. Schrmann, Das Lukas-evangelium (HTKNT 3/1; Freiburg: Herder, 1969) 314-15. Schnackenburg comments on this whole question: "In this discussion, in the course of which many modified definitions have been brought forward, one fact becomes constantly more clear: in the New Testament we have no unified concept of the 'apostle' but rather a number of definitions which seem to stand in contradiction to one another. The clearest conceptions are to be found in Paul and Luke . . ." ("Apostolicity," 246). S. Dockx attempts to evade this problem by arguing that the primary characteristic of apostleship for Paul and Luke is authoritative leadership of a mission and that the two characteristics mentioned above represent a broader and less authentic usage, admitted by Paul in the heat of argument with his adversaries ("Evolution smantique du terme aptre," Chronologies notestamentaire et vie de Vglise primitive [Paris: Duculot, 1976] 255-63). But the premises of this position are very questionable. The


Finally, it follows from what has been said that apostleship must be re-garded as a phenomenon of the post-Easter period.13

The following paper deals with only a small part of the general research on apostleship, its linguistic and religionsgeschichtlich back-grounds, the derivation of the concept apostle in its Christian sense. Though not so crucial to the overall discussion, this topic is yet quite fundamental to it.14 Such study represents the first step toward the under-standing of the whole subject, providing a context in which the more sig-nificant aspects of apostleshipits historical character, theological value, etc.can be discussed and understood.15

Research on this subject has produced a surprising range of opinion.16

differences between Paul and Luke noted above are points well made against any uncritical reading of the texts, but there is perhaps a tendency at present to give less attention than is deserved to the wide areas of agreement within the NT on the character of apostleship. The points upon which the major witnesses agree should not be minimalized, however their differences are to be approached.

13 An older scholarship with an inadequate view of the Gospel as a literary type traced

apostleship to the earthly Jesus on the basis of such texts as Luke 6:13 and Matt 10:2. A more contemporary view regards such texts as a projection of post-Easter vocabulary on the life-time of Jesus; see especially J. Dupont, "Le nom d'aptres a-t-il donn aux douze par Jesus," Lorient chrtien 1 (1956) 266-90, 425-44. However, many earlier scholars look upon Jesus' choice and sending of the twelve as an anticipation of apostleship; see Rengstorf, "Apostlos," 424-30. In fact, the historical reality of the choice and sending of the twelve was once seri-ously questioned; see especially P. Vielhauer, "Gottesreich und Menschensohn," in Festschrift fr Gnter Dehn (Neukirchen: Moers, 1957) 51-79. But, with the decline of historical skepti-cism signaled by the fundamental consensus now reached on the Jesus-of-history question, the position represented by Rengstorf has been reasserted; see H. Kraft, "Die Anfnge des geistlichen Amts," TLZ100 (1975) 85-86; . . Schelkle, "Charisma und Amt," TQ 159 (1979) 249-51. For review of this whole question see Roloff, Apostolat, 138-68.

14 Roloff, Apostolat, 10.

15 There is currently no full bibliographical study of this question. H. Hola, "H. Rengstorf s

[sic] Konzeption des ntl. Apostolats und ihre Auswirkung in der protestantische Literatur vor dem IL Vat. Konzil," [German title of Polish original] Analecta Cracoviensia 9 (1977) 165-206, appears to deal with this material partially [abstract, IZBG 26 (1979/80) 184].

16 Scholarship is in general agreement on the fact that neither the language nor the culture

of the contemporary Greek-speaking world provides any significant basis for Christian developments. The rarity of the substantive apostlos in any sense like that of the NT has already been noted. Although there are occasional uses of the verbal form apostelleinwhich, as Rengstorf ("Apostlos," 398) says, implies " . . . a commission bound up with the one sent" secular Greek offers only a hint of NT usage. Neither do any of the numerous itinerant philosophical and religious figures of the time (on which see M. Albertz, Die Botschaft des Neuen Testament 1/2 [Zurich: Zollikon, 1951] 39-40) provide a significant type for the NT apostle. There is a certain parallelism with the cynic-stoic kataskopos tn then, ("heavenly inspector"), but Rengstorf, who has studied the figure carefully, concludes that the likeness is at best formal and this is the usual position of research ("Apostlos," 410-11); see G. Wetter, Der Sohn Gottes (FRLANT 26; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1916) 27; K. Deissner, "Das Sendungsbewusstsein der Urchristenheit," ZST 7 (1929/30) 786; G. Sass, Apostelamt und Kirche (Munich: Kaiser, 1939) 12; A. Wikenhauser, "Apostel," RAC 1. 554; Schmithals, Office, 100-102.


Its development can be sketched in three phases. Earlier scholarship, quite diversified in general theological outlook, traced the origin of the NT apostle-concept to the sending convention of OT and rabbinic Judaism with particular reference to the slah-ftgure which emerges with some degree of clarity in the rabbinic period. This position was dominant through the first half of the twentieth century and has never been without defenders. However, it has always had opponents and during the middle decades of the century met serious opposition from a large group of scholars, also quite diversified in theological outlook, who rather trace the apostle-concept to the Christian experience or, in one case, to gnostic sources. During this period the notion of a Christian origin of the concept came to prevail. After these challenges, more contemporary research has returned, if with qualifi-cation, to the theory of the Jewish origin of the concept, though the theory of Christian origins still finds defenders.

The development of opinion is sketched below in the three phases sug-gested with concentration on the work of writers who have contributed to it more significantly.

I. Origin of the Apostle-Concept in the Sending-Conventions of OT and Rabbinic Judaism

Lightfoot was the first to draw the attention of modern scholarship to a certain parallelism existing between the NT apostle and a figure of late rabbinic Judaism designated slah, sent man.17 The contributions of sev-eral writers mark stages in the development of this theory. Their studies are primarily influenced by the image of the apostle in the NT narrative litera-ture. After Lightfoot the parallelism of the slah- and apostle-figures was further evidenced in the work of A. von Harnack and S. Kraus, largely in the addition of further details to the comparison. H. Vogelstein put the discussion on a more solid basis with the contention that the relationship of the two figures was to be discovered primarily in a comparison of their formal elements rather than in comparison of their concrete phenomeno-logical characteristics. Both figures, however they may differ, involve the same formal sending-convention, which Vogelstein maintained could be traced far back into the OT period. Rengstorf has given the most thoroughly elaborated version of this theory, adding depth by study of its linguistic backgrounds and of significant phenomenological likenesses. A later essay of H. von Campenhausen may be regarded as marking the conclusion of

17 Galatians, 93-94: "With the later Jews . . . and it would appear also with the Jews of

the Christian era, the word was in common use. It was the title borne by those who were dispatched from the mother city by the rulers of the race on any foreign mission. . . . Thus in designating his immediate disciples 'Apostles,' our Lord was not introducing a new term but adopting one which from its current usage would suggest to his hearers the idea of a highly responsible mission."


the first phase of research and the opening to later thought on the question. The general opinion of these writers was widely shared.18

To show the relationship that they claim between apostlos and saltati, these scholars investigate the latter phenomenon as it appears in three settings: in the rabbinic and related materials, where it first emerges clearly; in its OT roots; and in the NT itself. This pattern, basically that of Rengstorf, can be used to provide a more detailed review of their position.

The substantive slah is not found in the OT and came to prominence in the rabbinic period. It is abundantly witnessed in the Talmud with technical implication to describe a commissioned agent, one sent to act in the name of another. Such agents served in private and in institutionalized capacities. As a private agent the slah might, for example, contract an engagement of marriage, manage a divorce proceeding, slaughter the paschal lamb, etc., in the name of a principal. As an institutional agent, he might undertake liturgical actions or represent the Jerusalem authorities

18 A. von Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity (2d ed.; New York: Harper,

1962) 327-31; S. Kraus, "Die jdischen Apostel," JQR 17 (1905) 370-83; idem, "Apostel," Encjud (1927) 3. 1-10; H. Vogelstein, "Die Entstehung und Entwicklung des Apostolates in Judentum," MGWJ 49 (1905) 427-99; idem, "The Development of the Apostolate in Judaism and its Transformation in Christianity," HUCA 2 (1925) 99-123; Rengstorf, "Apostlos" 413-24; von Campenhausen, "Apostelbegriff," 97-104; idem, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power (London: Black, 1969) 22.

This position is widely represented in dictionary articles; see W. Mndel, RGG (2d ed.) 1. 434-35; H. Riesenfeld, RGG (3d ed.) 1. 497; Schelkle, UTK (2d ed.) 1. 735; G. Kredel, Sacramentum Verbi (ed. J. B. Bauer; New York: Herder & Herder, 1970) 1. 33; X. Lon-Dufour, Dictionary of Biblical Theology (1st ed.; New York: Descle, 1967) 19; M. H. Shepherd, IDB 1. 171. It is also commonly supported in monograph and essay literature; see W. Seufert, Der Ursprung und die Bedeutung des Apostles (Leiden: Brill, 1887) 8-14; E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfnge des Christentums (Stuttgart: Cotta'sche, 1921) 1. 265-67; R. Schtz, Apostel und Jnger (Giessen: Tpelmann, 1921) 8-9; J. Wagenmann, Die Stellung des Apostels Paulus neben den Zwlf in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (BZNW 3; Giessen: Tpelmann, 1926) 23; F. Gaven, "Schaliach and Apostlos," ATR 9 (1927) 250-59; K. Lake, "The Twelve and the Apostles," in The Beginnings of Christianity, Vol. 5 (ed. F. J. Foakes Jackson and K. Lake; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1965/66) 46; G. Dix, "The Ministry in the Early Church," The Apostolic Ministry (ed. . E. Kirk; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1946) 227-30; idem, "The Christian Shaliach and the Jewish ApostleA Reply," Theology 51 (1948) 249-56; S. Hanson, The Unity of the Church in the New Testament (Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1946) 33-37, 91-94; Albertz, Botschaft, 1/2. 42-45; Mosbech, "Apostlos," 168-69; E. Lohse, "Ursprung und Prgung des christlichen Apostolates," TZ 9 (1953) 260-65; Barrett, "The Apostles in and After the New Testament," SE 21 (1956) 30; idem, Signs, 12-15; J. Colson, Les fonctions ecclsiales aux deux premier sicles (Textes et tudes thologiques; Paris: Descle de Brouwer, 1956) 11-19; idem, "La succession apostolique au niveau du premire sicle," VCaro 15 (1961) 138-41; Dupont, "Le nom d'aptres," 270-71 n. 7, 272 n. 9; Margot, "L'apostolat," 138-41; A. T. Hanson, The Pioneer Ministry (London: SCM, 1961) 9-10; F. Neugebauer, In Christus (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961) 113-19, with careful qualification; P. Blser, "Zum Problem des urchristlichen Apostolates," Uni Christi-anorum (Jaeger Fs.; Paderborn: Bonifacius, 1962) 105-6; F. Klostermann, Das christliche Apostolat (Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1962) 66; A. G. Hebert, Apostle and Bishop (London: Faber & Faber, 1963) 22-23.


to the Jews of the Diaspora.19 This last example of the phenomenon is clearly institutional in character. It is witnessed in a series of Christian and Roman texts which translate slah as apostolos/apostolus.20 The general signifi-cance of the SZi^-convention may be gauged from the frequently repeated legal maxim "The-one-whom-a man-sends [slah] is like the man himself." It is this maxim, variously realized, sometimes for private sometimes for institutional purposes, which forms the background of the Christian apostle-concept for the writers here surveyed.

The sZia/i-convention is significant for the Christian apostolate in its formal element. It is the relationship between sender and sent, not the content of the commission given, that is primarily important. The slah is the authoritative representative, the surrogate of the one who sends him, within the limits of the commission given. His status as slah is entirely determined by this relationship, and it is in this respect only that he is empowered to act. Volgelstein was the first to call attention to this fact, and it has been repeated by most scholars after him, especially by Rengstorf.21

This is a legalprimarily secularnot a religious convention.22 Still, as the examples given above suggest, the commission of the slah was often enough specifically religious or invested with religious overtones. In these instances, reference is always to a human sender, and the act of sending is never ascribed to God, though the title is applied to figures who were in fact divinely commissioned. Priestly and prophetic figures of great importance are so designated; however, the title is never used of Jewish missionary figures.23

A matter of major significance is the dating of the slah phenomenon. It is clear that the institutionalized form mentioned above cannot have ante-dated the destruction of Jerusalem.24 Further, no document using the word can be dated earlier than the canonical literature. The talmudic materials cited above took shape in the second century and the Christian and Roman texts mentioned are fourth-century or later. This fact is recognized and

19 Examples with comment are conveniently gathered in Rengstorf, "Apostlos" 414-20;

StrB, 3. 2-3. 20

These texts are conveniently gathered in Harnack, Mission, 327-30; Schmithals, Office, 98-100.

21 "Entstehung," 428; see Linton, Problem der Urkirche, 92; Rengstorf, "Apostlos," 414-15:

" . . the point of the designation . . . is . . . simply assertion of the form of sending, i.e., of authorization. This is the decisive thing."

22 See Rengstorf, "Apostlos," 418: "The term is legal . . . and if the shaliach has religious

significance this is . . . because . . . he is entrusted with a religious task"; von Campenhausen, "Apostelbegriff," 99. For analysis of the Slah institution from a strictly legal point of view, see M. Cohn, "Die Stellvertretung im jdischen Recht," Zeitschrift fr vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft 36 (1920) 124-213, 354-460. Something of the kind appears in a variety of cultures; see, eg., A. Watson, Contracts of Mandate in Roman Law (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961).

23 See Rengstorf, "Apostlos," 418-20; Dix, "Christian Shaliach," 256 n. 2.

24 See Vogelstein, "Entstehung," 438; Rengstorf, "Apostlos," 417.


admitted by the defenders of the theory. On the other hand, they note that documentation for this period is sketchy and that the talmudic material is certainly representative of an earlier period than its documentation.25

Despite the reservations implied in the last two paragraphs, the vast majority of these scholars undoubtedly see a direct link between these slah-ngures and the Christian apostle, in such a way that the latter is derived from the former, conceived as concretely existing phenomena of the NT period. Efforts to trace the roots of the slah-convention in the OT and to discover traces of it in the NT (see below) are based on this conclusion.

To support their position, the proponents of this theory attempt to trace this rabbinical practice into the OT period.26 They call attention to the frequent use of the verbal root slh in the OT, rendered about seven hundred times in the LXX by (ex-)apostellein. This root often expresses the notion of sending with a special mission, authorization, or responsibility with particular reference to the sender.27 The usage is secular in origin. God is the sender in only about one-quarter of these texts. But it is employed in connection with significant religious phenomena and ". . . has an assured place in most important religious contexts. . . ."28 This verbal usage is taken as a semitechnical anticipation of what later crystallized in the slah-convention and institution.29 Its use in connection with the prophets is particularly significant, especially in view of the fact that Paul uses the prophetic vocation as a model for the description of apostolic vocation.30

25 See E Lohse, Die Ordination im Spatjudentum und im Neuen Testament (Gottingen

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1951) 51 "Die Institution des judischen Apostolates ist alt In der neutestamentlichen Zeit ist jedenfalls das shaZiac/i-Institut in Judentum berall be-kannt", and so commonly among the defenders of this theory

26 The word itself does not appear m the OT The single appearance of apostlos m LXX,

1 Kgs 14 6, renders a participial form slah 27

See Rengstorf, "Apostlos," 400-401 "The emphasis rests on the fact of sending m con-junction with the one who sends, not on the one who is sent slh is less a statement concerning the mission than a statement concerning its initiator and his concern, the one who is sent is of interest only to the degree that m some measure he embodies m his existence as such the one who sends him Even in the consciousness of the bearer of the commission the emphasis lies on its author

28 See Rengstorf, "Apostlos," 402

29 See Rengstorf, "Apostlos," 400-403

30 A small group of writers accept this theory of the origin of the apostle-concept only

insofar as the prophet can be considered a Slah-ftgaie, so E Haupt, Zum Verstndnis des Apostolates im Neuen Testament (Halle Niemeyer, 1895/96) 106-10, H Windisch, Paulus und Christus (Leipzig Hinnchs, 1934) 147-53, Wikenhauser, "Apostel," 555, E Pax, EPIP&ANEIA (Munich Zmk, 1955) 206-7 Others think that only the name of the rabbinic slah is important for the NT apostle-concept, the theological roots being located m the OT idea of prophetic vocation, so Albertz, Botschaft, 1/2 43, Prumm, Diakonia Pneumatos (Rome Herder, 1960) 1 121, 125 But it is more common to see the prophet, rabbinic slah, and apostle as links m a continuing chain of conceptual development, so Rengstorf, "Apost-los," 438-41 and most of the writers named m 18 above There is considerable literature on the parallelism between the vocation of the OT prophets and the apostleship of Paul,


Whether the convention itself can be traced to OT times is debated.31 Finally, the defenders of this theory attempt to show that the evidence

of the NT supports it, both at the linguistic and at the phenomenological levels. From this most important of sources, they attempt to show the cur-rency of the sZiafr-convention in the early Christian period and its concrete realization in the Christian apostle.

In a little-noted but careful and solid piece of research H. Bruders calls attention to NT use of apostellein.32 In the majority of cases, this verb conveys not just the simple idea of sending but also that of commission. In this respect it preserves the characteristic connotation that it has in the OT/LXX.33 The appearance of the substantive apostlos is easily explained as a derivative of the cognate verbal form in this characteristic sense.34 Once again it should be noted that this usage is not specifically religious, though it often has profound religious implication.35

Very significant for all these writers is what they take to be the appear-ance of the slah/apostolos in a series of NT texts. The most evident example of this kind is the text of John 13:16 "Amen, amen I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master nor a messenger [apostlos] than the one who sent [tou pempsantos] him." The text recalls the maxim "The one whom a man sends is like the man himself."36 Two Pauline texts are also put

produced to some extent by writers who deny or take no position on the theory discussed here; see nn. 59 and 92 below.

31 Vogelstein ("Development") attempts to show that the SoZuz/i-institution itself can be

traced to the early postexilic period and that it is rooted in an institution of the contemporary Persian governmental system. His theory is based entirely on verbal usage which he claims led to the development of the nominal form in the rabbinic period. This theory has not won much support.

32 Die Verfassung der Kirche (Forschungen christlichen Literatur und Dogmengeschichte

4/1-2; Mainz: Kirchheim, 1904) 18-29, 336-48. 33

Bruders, Verfassung, 20: "Das wort apostell gibt also durch seinen Literalsinn an, dass der . . . Auftraggeber an den Orte, wo er seine . . . Gesandten hat, durch letztere seine Befehle und Wnsche ausfhren lasst"; Rengstorf, "Apostlos," 406.

34 Bruders, Verfassung, 344-45. It is probable that this sending-convention is also expressed

in the NT by pempein, especially in the Fourth Gospel; see Rengstorf, "Apostlos," 403-6. 35

See Rengstorf, "Apostlos," 406; Bruders notes of such texts that they show "wie tief der Gedanke einer 'sichtbaren Vertretung Gottes auf Erden' in der neuen Lehre Wurzel gefasst hatte" (Verfassung, 21).

36 See von Campenhausen, "Apostelbegriff," 101: "Es ist allgemein zugestanden, dass hier

mit dem apostlos schlecterdings nicht ein Trger des christlichen 'Apostelamtes' als solcher gemeint sein kann. . . . Der Evangelist lsst Jesus vielmehr eine ganz allgemeine Sentenz, einer annerkannten Rechtsgrundsatz aussprechen, den er auf sich und seine Jnger lediglich anwendet: ein Bevollmchtiger kann niemals mehr vorstellen als der, der ihn 'gesandt'. . ."; Rengstorf, "Apostlos," 421; Mosbech, "Apostlos," 170; Lohse, "Ursprung," 261. Several syn-optic texts are often understood in the same way, e.g., Mark 6:30; Luke 11:49, but opinion is less certain than in the case of John 13:16. Besides such passages in which 8-%8 are (or may be) given the name apostlos, a variety of other passages are adduced as evidence


forward as evidence The apostoloi ekklesin of 2 Cor 8:23 and Epaphro-ditus, hymn apostolon, of Phil 2:25 are hardly apostles of Christ in the fullest sense; they are, rather, the sent men of the community.37

But, what is most significant, these scholars maintain that the clearest proof of their theory is the general image of the apostle found in the NT. There the apostle is consistently presented as one sent and empowered to act in the name of another, on whom his whole situation as apostle depends and to whom he is responsible for the fulfillment of his appointed task. In this respect they are primarily influenced by the NT narrative literature, especially Luke-Acts, whatever the historical value of the texts in which Luke uses the word apostle.38 But they would also see the same basic pattern realized in the solemn usage of Paul.39 Many would maintain that the Johannine commission texts, which frequently use the verbs apostellein/ pempein, imply knowledge of the same ideas.40 Evidently NT usage so understood involves a supreme phenomenological deepening of the formal sending-convention represented by the legal maxim "The one whom a man sends is like the man himself."

This position might be summarized as follows: The sltaft-convention appears clearly in the rabbinic period. As commissioned and sent to act for another, each figure so named is formally like every other, whatever the specific task undertaken. The basic sending-convention at the root of the concept involves a strong sense of solidarity between sender and sent. Although the concept is formally secular and legal, it could be and often was employed in a religious context. This convention was already used in the NT period, although the word slah cannot be clearly traced in the literary remains of the time. There is considerable evidence for its origin in the OT period. This evidence is to be found in the at least semitechnical OT sending-convention expressed in the verbal use of the root slh. It is also evidenced in the NT in a variety of ways. The NT use of apostellein, the use of the word apostlos of slah-Rgares, and the general description of

of early Christian awareness of the SZift-convention; see Bruders, Verfassung, 20-21; Rengstorf, "Apostlos," 426; von Campenhausen, "ApostelbegrifF," 102-3.

37 See von Campenhausen, "Apostelbegriff," 102: "Es handelt sich hier einfach um bevoll-

mchtigte Gemeindevertreter, jdisch gesprochen um Slhm"; and so most of the writers named in the previous note.

38 See Vogelstein, "Development," 113-14; Rengstorf, "Apostlos," 425; Colson, Fonctions

ecclsiales, 14. Most of these writers would regard the use of the word apostlos in its full Christian sense (especially in Luke) as a retrojection of post-Easter language upon the life-time of Jesus.

39 Rengstorf writes of the position of Paul in the apostolic circle: "It is . . . determined

. . . by his calling to be a messenger in the sense of the shaliach institution, as in the case of the other apostoloi" ("Apostlos," 441); see Lohse, "Ursprung," 271.

40 See Rengstorf, "Apostlos," 434-35, 444-45; Albertz, Botschaft, 1/2. 57-58; Colson,

Fonctions ecclsiales, 13-14.


the apostle of Christ are factors in this evidence. NT apostleship represents a singular and profound expression of the SZiaft-convention.41

II. Origin of the Apostle-Concept in Christianity Itself or in Gnosticism

In the middle decades of the twentieth century, the position discussed above met with serious objection. A typical expression of the problems raised against it may be found in the work of J. Munck.42 A number of scholars have produced work of particular significance in this respect. Their studies are primarily influenced by the image of the apostle found in the authentic Pauline literature, which, as they observe, represents the earliest NT witness. An older anticipation of this position is found in the work of H. Monnier.43 Among more recent writers who have contributed substan-tially to the development of this position are A. Ehrhardt, L. Cerfaux, G. Klein, and W. Schmithals. Their views are also widely shared.44

41 The factors that led to the choice of the word apostlos by the NT writers are variously

assessed by the writers of this group. Some trace it to an underlying Semitic usage of Jesus; so Rengstorf ("Apostohs," 429); and with more reserve, K. H. Schelkle (Discipleship and Priesthood [New York: Herder & Herder, 1965] 30). Harnack claims that Hellenistic Jews of the pre-Christian era had already adapted it as a translation of Slah and that it was taken over from them by Christians, but he offers no evidence for this position (Mission, 327 n. 2). Von Campenhausen maintains that the usage witnessed by Herodotus had survived into the koine and was taken over by Christians ("Apostelbegriff," 100). He cites a series of texts to show that the word would have been understood in the Greek language in that fundamental sense. This position may be supported by the fact that the word survived with this sense in secular Greek of the Christian period; see Agnew, "Origin," 51-53. Still others trace it to biblical use of apostellein; see Mosbech, "Apostlos," 187-88. It may be noted that these views are not mutually exclusive

42 "Paul, the Apostles, and the Twelve," ST 3 (1949) 100: "Far too much importance has for

some time now been attached to these Jewish apostles. . . . The Christian apostles are part of something entirely new and dynamic in that the whole Christian religion is something to be spread abroad. It is not mere chance that this is stressed by a number of important terms: it is the gospel, the good news which must be announced (keryss) by heralds. . . . The word apostohs has been determined by this steady sending forththe mission if one likes, so characteristic of Christianity. Compared with this, the Jewish use of the apostolic idea is a rule as far removed from the Christian usage as a diplomatic envoy is from a missionary to the heathen."

43 Notion de l'apostolat des origines Irne (Paris: Leroux, 1903) 1-22. Monnier is

interested in showing the totally charismatic character of apostleship as against the Roman Catholic contention that apostleship is primarily an office.

44 A. Ehrhardt, The Apostolic Succession in the First Two Centuries of the Church

(London: Lutterworth, 1953) 15-20; idem, The Apostolic Ministry (SJT Occasional Papers 7; Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1958) 4-5; L. Cerfaux, "Pour l'histoire du titre apostlos dans le Nouveau Testament," RSR 48 (1960) 76-92; idem, The Christian in the Theology of St. Paul (New York: Herder & Herder, 1967) 109-10; Klein, Zwlf Apostel, 22-52 et passim (this is a major monograph on the question of apostleship from a later member of the Bultmann school purporting to show that the notion of the twelve apostles is a Lucan invention based


The approach of this group consists mainly in criticism of the previous theory. Rejecting it, they opt for the Christian origin of the concept on the principle that the new experience of Christians generated a new leadership figure, the apostle. For the most part they offer only conjectural explanation of specifics. The notable exception is W. Schmithals, who develops the theory that the apostle-concept must be traced ultimately to gnostic sources. The points sketched here offer a suitable framework for the following review of research.

The evidence put forward in favor of the slah theory is attacked at every point. Two particular lines of argumentation are developed against it: the inadequacy of its documentary evidence and the phenomenological disparity of slah and apostle.

The supposed development of the slah-convention in the OT period is denied because of the absence of the substantive form in the OT. The single appearance of apostlos in the LXX as the rendering of a participial, not a substantive, form may be without technical significance and at any rate provides too slight a basis for support of the claim that the convention was developing45 or already present in the OT.46 Only W. Schmithals deals with the issue raised by the OT use of the root slh, particularly in connec-tion with prophetic sending. He denies that the prophet can be considered a sZia/i-figure, largely on the basis of the difference between the profound religious content of prophetic vocation and the generally far less significant

upon an original Pauline model); Schmithals, Office, 98-110 (this too is a major monograph on apostleship, also from a later member of the Bultmann school, dealing specifically with the derivation of the apostle-concept).

This view is represented in several dictionary articles; see A. Mdebielle, "Apostolat," DBSup 1. 565; J. L. McKenzie, "Apostle," Dictionary of the Bible (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1965) 46-47. It is also supported in monograph and essay literature; see E. Loening, Die Gemeinde-verfassung des Urchristentums (Halle: Niemeyer, 1888) 33; P. Batiffol, "Eapostolat," RB 3 (1906) 522; K. Holl, "Der Kirchenbegriff des Paulus in seinem Verhltnis zu der Urgemeinde," Gesammelte Aufstze zur Kirchengeschichte (Tbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1928) 2. 52 n. 1; Sass, Apostelamt, 24, with hesitation; . Dahl, Das Volk Gottes (2d ed.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1963) 189, apparently; E. Ksemann, "Die Legitimitt des Apostels," ZNW 41 (1942) 51-52, but with qualification that recognizes the impact of the i/ta/i-convention on early Christianity; H. St. J. Hart, "Correspondence," Theology 51 (1948) 342-43; J. W. Hunkin, "The Hebrew Word Shaliach " Theology 51 (1948) 166-70; idem, "Correspondence," Theology 51 (1948) 341-42; G. Lampe, Some Aspects of the New Testa-ment Ministry (London: SPCK, 1949) 15; C. T. Craig, The One Church in the Light of the New Testament (New York: Abingdon/Cokesbury, 1951) 58; B. Rigaux, Les ptres aux Thes-saloniciens (EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1956) 157; idem, "The Twelve Apostles," Concilium 34 (JL968) 6-7; J. Bonsirven, Le rgne de Dieu (Paris: Aubier, 1957) 191; M. Ashcraft, "Paul's Understanding of Apostleship," Rev Exp 55 (1958) 400-403; E. Schweizer, Church Order in the New Testament (SBT 32; London: SCM, 1961) 202-3.

45 See Hart, "Correspondence," 342-43; Ehrhardt, Apostolic Succession, 17; Ashcraft,

"Understanding," 402; Schmithals, Office, 97. 46

Vogelstein's theorizing (see . 31 above) is severely and pointedly criticized; see Lampe, Aspects, 15; Schmithals, Office, 107.


content of the commission given the slah.47 The significance of the rab-binic shaliachate is also denied because of its late attestation. A. Ehrhardt notes that the word slah does not appear in any document that can be dated earlier than A.D. 140, and this line of argument is frequently re-peated.48 Schmithals treats the issue with a nicer degree of precision. He recognizes that it is the institutional slah that clearly postdates the NT period and that there is a need to consider the possible influence of the general legal sending-convention, which cannot be rejected as providing a basis for apostleship on consideration of dating alone,49 though he denies its relevance on other grounds. Nor does the evidence put forward for NT acquaintance with thesZih-convention fare better. The relevance of such texts as John 13:16, 2 Cor 8:23, Phil 2:25 is denied50 or relativized as nontechnical.51 Ehrhardt concludes: "Our evidence suggests that the term apostlos was earlier than the term shaliach. It is therefore hazardous to use the latter term for the interpretation of the earlier."52

Besides the criticism of the documentary evidence, these writers stress repeatedly the absence of true phenomenological parallelism between the slah-ftgures and the apostle. The most thorough presentation of this evi-dence is that of W. Schmithals. Starting from the Pauline literature, he describes apostleship in eighteen points.53 Later, after describing theslah-figure and convention, he compares it to this description of apostleship from the authentic Paul. Some of the more significant elements of the com-parison may be noted. The importance of the apostle lies always in the religious order, that of the slah wholly in the juridical. The function of the apostle is lifelong, that of the slah limited. The apostle is always a missionary, the slah never. The apostle is an eschatological figure, but it can hardly be suggested that the slah has eschatological import. In fact, from a phenomenological point of view there is little that the two figures have in common.54 Schmithals concludes his survey of differences cate-gorically: "I should like . . . to assert that the late Jewish legal institution of the saliach has not even the least to do with the primitive Christian

47 Office, 107.

48 Apostolic Succession, 17; see H. Monnier, who, criticizing A. von Harnack, says: "II

prouve l'existence d'une institution du premire sicle par une texte du second, et il interprte ce texte l'aide d'un crivan du quatrime" (Notion, 16); Hunkin, "Shaliach," 170; Klein, Zwlf Apostel, 27.

49 Office, 101-3.

50 See Ashcraft, "Understanding," 402: "As yet no evidence has been shown that apostlos

was used to translate shaliach, nor has any evidence appeared to show that Jesus or his followers knew of such an institution."

51 See Schmithals, Office, 109-10. Claims made on the basis of other texts (see n. 36 above)

are rejected because of the late origin of these texts; see Klein, Zwlf Apostel, 28-31. 52

Apostolic Succession, 18. 53

Office, 21-57. 54

Office, 103-6.


apostola te."55 Though very strongly stated, this position is basic to the writers here surveyed.56

Beyond their rejection of the slah-theory most of these writers do little more than state their basic position. The apostle is a figure whose origin is to be traced to the Christian religion.57 Some would allow the influence of the OT, for example, in its use of slh/apostellein,58 or, especially, in its description of prophetic vocation.59 But they do not regard these influences as strong enough to speak of derivation from an OT type. A new experience has generated the new Christian leadership figurethe apostle.

W. Schmithals claims otherwise. In the most extensive study ever devoted to this subject, he claims that the apostle-concept is derived from gnosticism.60 Schmithals first advanced this position in a study of gnostic influence on the Corinthian correspondence61 and then in the monograph The Office of Apostle in the Early Church. This piece has already been cited for its rejection of the sl ta h- theory, and in this respect it has had con-siderable influence. But Schmithals's own theory has found little support.62

55 Office, 105.

56 See Monnier, Notion, 10; "Entre les plnipotentiaires du Christ et les autres, il y a toute

la diffrence qui spare le message du Christ d'un message quelconque"; see also 8-16; Lampe, Aspects, 15; Schweizer, Church Order, 202-3; Klein, Zwlf Apostel, 27.

57 See Monnier, Notion, 9, 22: "Lapostolat chrtien reste chose originale et neuve. C'est une

institution qui n'a point de racines dans le milieu judo-hellnique . . . Nous nous con-vaincrons que rien de pareil ne pouvait exister antrieurement Jsus-Christ. . . ."

58 See Ehrhardt, Apostolic Succession, 19.

59 Several writers of this group have written profoundly on Pauline usage of texts from the

OT describing prophetic vocation, as, e.g., Gal 1:15-16. See J. Munck, "La vocation de l'aptre Paul," ST 1 (1947) 131-45; idem, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (London: SCM, 1959) 15-27, 48-53; L. Cerfaux, "S. Paul et le 'Serviteur de Dieu' d'Isaie," Miscellanea Biblica et Orientalia A. Miller (Studia Anselmiana 27-28; Rome: Ataneo de S. Anselmo, 1951) Sol-eo; idem, Christian, 72-93, 223-34.

60 Office, 115: "It is one of the remarkable characteristics of the New Testament research

of the past decades that the attention of the researchers has not been drawn to that figure who not only actually presents the precise counterpart of the primitive Christian apostle, and who not only (like the Christian apostle) is native to the Syrian setting, but who indeed employed the title 'apostle' as a self-designation with great emphasis: the Gnostic apostle. . . . The actual function of the Gnostic apostle is his activity as redeemer. Redemption is the central concern of the Gnostic religion. An investigation of the Gnostic thought concerning redemption will thus necessarily take the Gnostic apostle into consideration, and indeed will treat of his most essential function."

61 Gnosticism in Corinth: An Investigation of the Letters to the Corinthians (Nashville:

Abingdon, 1971) 279-82; and see his earlier studies of this theme: "Die Hretiker in Galatien," ZNW 47 (1956) 25-67; "Die Irrleherer des Philipperbriefes," ZTK 64 (1957) 297-341; "Zur Abfassung und ersten Sammlung des paulinischen Hauptbriefe," ZNW 51 (1960) 225-45.

62 He claims that his research is rooted in G. Widengren's comparative religion studies of

various Near Eastern apostle-figures: The Great Vohu Manah and the Apostle of God (UU 5; Uppsala: Lundequistska, 1945); The Ascension of the Apostle and the Heavenly Book (UU 17; Uppsala: Lundequistska, 1950); Muhammed, the Apostle of God (UU 1; Uppsala: Lundequistska, 1955).


Schmithals's monograph is impressively organized and developed. As already noted, he begins with a long description of apostleship from the Pauline letters. Then recognizing that the concept is not an original crea-tion of Paul or his churches, he looks elsewhere for its origins. In a second part of his work Schmithals attempts to show that the primitive apostle-concept represented in the Pauline letters is, in fact, the only authentic NT notion of apostle. He allows the existence of "congregational apostles" as in 2 Cor 8:23 and Phil 2:25, which he connects with the "general use of the word" as in John 13:16. But he denies that Paul looks upon the twelve as apostles and considers the use of the word in their regard (especially in Luke) as late in origin. Syria, not Jerusalem, is the homeland of the apostle-concept. The Jerusalem community, Jewish Christianity, cannot be its origin.63

The heart of Schmithals's research is in the third part of his work. After dispensing with possible derivation of the apostle-concept from secular Greek usage or from the sZo/i-concept (see above), he presents his argu-ments for its derivation from gnosticism. The type of the apostle is the gnostic redeemer-figure (sent-m an), a frequent though not inevitable element of the gnostic systems. Among the different representatives of this general phenomenon he distinguishes two basic typesthe heavenly redeemer-figure and the earthly redeemer-figurethe former of divine origin and the latter of human origin. It is the second type that is particu-larly important for his theory. After describing this figure in its various manifestations, Schmithals compares the results of his research with his earlier description of the Christian apostolate isolated from the Pauline letters. At every point he finds similarity. The gnostic earthly-redeemer figure is a member of the community of the "spiritual"; so the Christian apostle. He undertakes a worldwide mission; so the apostle. His reception of the gnosis that he communicates is described in the same terms as the call of the apostle (though he cannot be said to receive a call in the same sense as the apostle). His reception of gnosis and his "call" coincide as do conversion and call in the apostle. Ecstatic experience is a sign and proof of his status, as with the apostle. His authority is absolute, as that of the apostle. His work is characterized by eschatological urgency like that of the apostle (though in a spatial rather than in a temporal sense). The homeland of this gnostic type is Syriaalso the homeland of the Christian apostolate.64 Schmithals admits that there is no extant documentary evidence for the existence of this gnostic figure from the period of NT origins outside of the NT documents themselves. He depends heavily upon NT materials for his characterization of the earthly redeemer-figure, as, for example, Paul's

63 Office, 58-95.

64 Office, 96-230.


description of his adversaries in Corinth.65 The word apostlos is used of the heavenly-redeemer figure with some frequency, though never in materials earlier than the NT.66 It is used only rarely of the earthly redeemer-figure and then for the most part in the NT documents.67

Schmithals's position may be stated sharply in his own words.68 Considering the numerous phenomenological contacts between redeemer-figure and apostle, ". . . there can be no doubt that the primitive Christian apostolate was an appropriation of the missionary office of Jewish or Jewish Christian Gnosticism." Considering the use of apostlos and apostellein in gnostic materials and in the Christian documents, "a glance at this termin-ology should destroy even the last vestige of doubt whether the apostolate is of gnostic origin. . . ."69

The viewpoint of the scholars whose opinion has been presented above may be summarized as follows. The slah-theory is objectionable on two grounds: the inadequacy of the documentary evidence proposed for it, and the absence of significant concrete parallelism between the commissioned apostle and the commissioned slah. The apostle-concept must be traced to its origins in early Christian experience or, according to Schmithals, to a form of gnosticism present in the Syrian milieu from which the Pauline mission took its start.70

III. Reemergence of the Theory of Jewish Concept Derivation

In more recent years, especially under the impact of the research just reviewed, a number of scholars continue to question whether there is a significant relationship between the sl ta ^ -convention and the apostle-concept. However, there has been little effort to specify further the circum-stances of early Christian life that produced it. The theory of gnostic origins proposed by Schmithals has found no support, but during this same period a number of new studies have undertaken to defend the relationship of the Christian apostle-concept to the sending-convention realized in the slah-concept. With some variation, their tendency is to concentrate less on the

65 Office, 115.

66 Office, 147-48; examples cited are often from Christian literature.

67 Office, 191-92.

68 In the final part of his study (Office, 231-88) he shows how Christian use of this gnostic

concept, developing first in the Pauline communities and especially under the influence of Paul, was then transferred to the twelve and eventually limited to Paul and the twelve.

69 Office, 229-30.

70 Factors that led to the choice of the word apostlos by the NT writers are not much

discussed. L. Cerfaux notes the natural derivation from the verbal cognate with its important place in the NT and claims that it was preferred to angelos, the more ordinary designation for a messenger, because that word already had a specific meaning (Christian, 120). Schmithals claims gnostic influence.


specific significance of the slah-Rgure of rabbinic times for their argu-ment. Rather, they tend to see both apostle and slah as developments of the same OT-Jewish sending-convention observable far back into OT times. They take their point of departure from the authentic Pauline letters. These positions allow them to deal with the objections raised against the earlier presentation of the theory, namely, that the slah-Rgure is at most a juridical phenomenon witnessed only in materials later than the NT, and that the theory operates primarily on a later view of apostleship found in the NT narrative literature. These positions are anticipated in the work of H. von Campenhausen, who notes the need to start from the Pauline writings.71 B. Gerhardsson is particularly eager to show the use of the OT sending-convention at stake in connection with religious phenomena of profound significance.72 J. Roloff presents an early summary of this posi-tion.73 G. Schule, in criticism of Klein and Schmithals, offers a very care-fully developed defense of this position, in some ways more in touch with the earlier phases of its development.74 Most interesting and substantial is the contribution of F. Hahn developed with broad insight and careful attention to detail.75

Work on the subject is reviewed in the order of the previous paragraph. The viewpoints expressed by Hahn will be used to provide a framework for presentation of later thought on the slah-theory.

The impact of criticism directed against connection of the apostle-concept and the slah-convention is clear. The work of Klein and Schmithals has been particularly significant in this respect, though, of course, not all who take this position do so under their influence.7e These

71 "Apostelbegriff" esp. 104-15.

72 "Die Boten Gottes und die Apostel Christi," SE 27 (1962) 89-131, the first part of which

is a review and critique of the work of Klein and Schmithals mentioned above. 73

Apostolat, esp. 9-15, 38-41, 272-74 et passim. This is the latest major monograph on the subject of apostleship.

74 Die urchristliche Kollegialmission (ATANT 48; Zurich: Zwingli, 1967) 7-18.

75 "Apostolat"; see esp. 69: "Wir kommen bei der Frage nach den Voraussetzungen zu dem

Ergebnis, dass es im Urchristentum einerseits eine in Abhngigkeit von jdischer Rechtspraxis durchgefhrte Sendung der Gemeinden gab. Andererseits gab es eine Sendung, die mit einer Christophanie in Zusammenhang stand und als stndige Beauftragung durch den Aufer-standenen in Entsprechung zur Sendung der alttestamentlichen Propheten verstanden wurde. Beides geht auf dieselbe Wurzel zurck, nmlich auf den Grundsatz von der im Auf-trag begrndeten Vollmacht und der stellvertretenden Wahrnehmung der bertragenen Aufgabe, ist aber aus sehr verschiedenen Bereichen der jdischen berlieferung vom ltesten Christentum aufgenommen worden."

76 It is represented in more recent dictionary articles; see D. Mller, "Apostle," Dictionary

of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975) 1. 134: "The present writer considers that the investigations of Schmithals and Klein make it impossible to take the institution of ie Slah as the basis of apostleship in the Church"; and 128-35 generally (but with qualification, on which see n. 93 below); G. Klein, BHH 1. 111. It is also supported in monograph and essay literature; see W. Kramer, Christ, Lord, Son of God (SBT 50;


writers largely repeat the arguments outlined above77 Beyond its impact as indicated above, the theory of Schmithals has

been almost universally rejected. Reviewers have generally presented it as fantastic.78 Criticism on methodological grounds is devastating. Schmith-als's composite of the "gnostic apostle" is derived from a welter of often conflicting gnostic materials spanning the whole history of gnosticism, all characterized by the common trait of postdating the phenomenon of which they are purported to explain the origin. Use of the NT itself in the develop-ment of the theory begs the question. Further, Schmithals's claim to have established the close phenomenological likeness of Christian and gnostic apostles is at best exaggerated. Likenesses, when they can at all be claimed, are most often formal in character. Moreover, his claim to have shown linguistic dependence of the NT on gnosticism in this respect rests almost entirely on the very problematical use of the NT evidence.79 Schmithals's theory is an obvious casualty of the general withdrawal of contemporary scholarship from the position of those who make exaggerated claims for the significance of gnostic influence on the NT.

Since the eclipse of the Bultmann school with its frequent atomizing, hypercritical, and tendentious exegesis, the more balanced critical approach that has emerged, stimulated and sharpened by its dialogue with the Bult-mannians, began to make itself felt in this area of discussion. The scholars who have revived the theory that apostleship is connected with the sending-convention of OT and rabbinic Judaism manifest in the slah-Rgure do not, in fact, add a great deal to the developments summarized by Rengstorf. But they put the various relevant materials together in a more coherent and

Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1966) 55-63; J. Giblet, "The Twelve in History and Theology," The Birth of the Church (ed. J. Giblet; New York: Alba House, 1968) 66-68; W. Schneemelcher, "Apostle and Apostolic," New Testament Apocrypha (ed. E. Hennecke and W. Schnee-melcher; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975) 2. 27; D. Lhrmann, Das Offenbarungsverstndnis bei Paulus und in paulinischen Gemeinden (WMANT 16; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965) 93 n. 1; S. Freyne, The Twelve Apostles and Disciples (London: Sheed & Ward, 1968) 50-51; Lemaire, "Ministries," 141-43; Kirk, "Apostleship," 250-52, who does not cite any of the writers named in nn. 72-75 above.

77 Most recently, K. Waif, "Das jdische Schaliach-Institut, Rechtsinstitut und Vorbild das

Apostelamtes?" Christianismo nella Storia 1 (1980) 391-99, available only in abstract, IZBG 28 (1981/82) 217.

78 See, e.g., Schweizer, TLZ 78 (1962) 837-40; Gerhardsson, "Boten," 95-105; L.-M.

Dewailly, RB 71 (1964) 468-70; E. Gttgemanns, "Literatur," 64-69. This is also true of later studies, including those that show sympathy for Schmithals's criticism of the sZi/i-theory; see D. Georgi, Die Gegner des Paulus im 2 Korintherbrief (WMANT 11; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964) 40-42; Lhrmann, Offenbarungsverstndnis, 93; Roloff, Aposto-lat, 20; Brockhaus, Charisma, 117-18, etc.

79 A noncommittal but generally friendly reviewer, G. Haufe (ZRGG 14 [1962] 286) calls

this the thinnest element in his theory.


methodologically appropriate way. Some account of this newly expressed position must be given here.80

Responding to the criticism, in significant ways quite legitimate, that older study of the question started with the later and historically problem-atical NT narrative literaturewhereas the earliest available information is from Paulalmost all these scholars look first to the Pauline witness.81 Starting from the generally accepted position that the use of the word apostle is earlier than Paul, they attempt to survey the different levels of his usage.82 They show that Paul clearly knows a broader and less technical use of the term alongside his solemn technical usage. Although there is some difference in assessment of the evidence for this more general use, there is agreement that the community apostles of 2 Cor 8:23 and Phil 2:5 are examples that others are called apostles in a less than solemn sense.83 However the details are to be settled, they insist upon the interrelationship of these different uses of the word. And it is precisely the OT-Jewish sending-convention expressed in the root slh that binds together the different stages

80 It appears in later dictionary articles; see Roloff, "Apostel/Apostolat/Apostolizitt I.

Neues Testament," Theologische Realenzyklopdie (ed. G. Krause and G. Mller; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1978) 3. 432-33. It is also found in more recent monograph and essay literature; see P.-A. Harle, "La notion biblique d'apostolicit," ETR 40 (1965) 135-37; G. Gaide, Des aptres aux pasteurs (Evangile 64; Paris: Ligue catholique de l'vangile, 1966) 11-12; Brown, "Twelve and Apostolate," 798: "The Jewish concept shaluah (shaliah) still seems the most plausible background for the New Testament apostolate, even though the latter has aspects not found in the former"; H. Kasting, Die Anfnge der urchristlichen Mission (BEvT 55; Munich: Kaiser, 1969) 71-75, a well-stated summary; Brockhaus, Charisma, 117-19, apparently; T. Weiser, "Notes on the Meaning of the Apostolate," International Review of the Missions 64 (1975) 129-30; R. D. Culver, "Apostles and Apostolate in the New Testament," BSac 134 (1977) 132-33.

81 See Gerhardsson, "Boten," evident in the way the essay is developed; Roloff, Apostolat,

38; Schule, Kollegialmission, 7-18; Hahn, "Apostolat," 56: "Bei der Frage nach dem Apostolat der vorpaulinischen und paulinischen Zeit sind die Aussagen ber die ddeka beiseite-lassen. . . . Zur Beantwortung stellen wir die Evangelien zunchst ganz zurck und be-schrnken uns auf die Paulusbriefe. . . ."

82 Schule, Kollegialmission, 13-18; Hahn, "Apostolat," 56-61.

83 Schule, Kollegialmission, 13; Hahn, "Apostolat," 56. Schule refers also to "missionary

apostles," examples of which he sees in 1 Cor 15:7, Gal 1:17, 19, and would consider the usage "false apostles," e.g., 2 Cor 11:13, as deriving from this general category (p. 13). He ascribes the development of the solemn usage to Paul (p. 14). Hahn distinguishes further a group of wandering "charismatic apostles," e.g., 1 Cor 12:29, with which he would connect the "false apostles" of 2 Corinthians and the apostles of Eph 4:11, Rev 2:2, and Did. 11 (pp. 58-61). He ascribes the solemn use of the term to the pre-Pauline stage of concept development and would include as examples of this usage such texts as 1 Cor 15:7; Gal 1:17, 19 (pp. 56-58). His position seems preferable, though one may question aspects of it. Would Paul have main-tained the noncharismatic character of his apostleship? Most scholars would regard 1 Cor 12:29 and Eph 4:11 as examples of full technical usage. These questions lie beyond the more immediate interests of this paper.


of Pauline usage.84 All from the community apostles to the apostle of Jesus Christ are commissioned agents sent to act in the name of others/another.85

Particular attention is given by these scholars to the criticism raised against conceptual derivation from the slah-Rgures of rabbinic times as postdating the development of NT apostleship and to the absence of the nominal form slah in literature previous to or contemporary with the NT. These facts are scarcely to be questioned.86 But they take issue with the willingness to dismiss the theory of relationship between apostleship and the slh sending-convention in all its forms because of the absence of the form slah in the extant documentation. The connection of apostle and slah lies not, or not necessarily, in the immediate derivation of the former from the latter, as often suggested by older proponents of the theory, but in their common relationship to the sending-convention expressed in the slh/apostellein word group. In the more recent period of research Ger-hardsson is the first to stress this point, which lies behind the title of his essay "Die Boten Gottes und die Apostel Christi," and it is generally supported by these scholars.87

Along lines suggested in the last paragraph these writers attempt to show that, although the rabbinic slah-Rgure is the delegate of a human sender with largely juridical significance, the sending-convention that lies behind it has in fact been used to describe figures of profound religious and theological significance. Granting the ultimate newness of the NT apostle-concept, and so the valid observation of those who in this respect maintain

84 Schule (Kollegialmission, 12-14) claims derivation of the technical and solemn usage

from the less technical with criticism of Schmithals, who, recognizing a nontechnical usage in the NT, denies any connection between it and the more specifically Christian use of the term. Schule writes: "So erscheint der technische Gebrauch des Apostelbegriffs bei Paulus als eine Vertiefung des allgemeineren. Das ist historisch zehr wichtig" (p. 14). This position appears to lie behind the thought of other scholars in this group, but it is not an inevitability for them.

85 Hahn, who also discusses synoptic usage in this connection ("Apostolat," 64), writes:

"Die herangezogenen neutestamentlichen Belege verweisen in ihrer Gesamtheit auf eine jdischen Rechtsgrundsatz, die sich durch mehrere Jahrhunderte hindurch verfolgen lsst" (p. 65); and see references in the following notes.

86 The nominal form apparently does not appear in the Qumran materials.

87 "Boten," 109-10: "Aber die Kategorie Apostel Christi'muss mit der jdischen Kategorie

der Boten Gottes zusammengestellt werden. Die Ursache, dass man dies nicht allgemein eingesehen hat, liegt darin, dass man im jdischen Material bisher allzu einseitig nach dem Terminus Schaliach Gottes gesucht hat, anstaat phnomenologisch vorzugehen und die Sache selbst zu untersuchen . . ."; he sees the categories "Boten der Menschen" (e.g., the "commu-nity apostles") and "Boten Gottes" as closely related (pp. 108-9). See also Roloff, Apostolat, 272-73; Hahn, "Apostolat," 65-66. Schule is less interested in this point and appears to argue from the conjectured presence of the rabbinical sending-convention in the NT period, more in the style of the older research. For him, this concept, which was known in the Pauline congregations as indicated by the references to "community apostles," was then employed by a process of "inner-community development" for "missionary apostles" and by Paul for "the apostle of Jesus Christ" (see Kollegialmission, 15-18).


its Christian origin, the point is surely not without relevance. It allows an answer to the criticism directed against this theory on the grounds that the s/iah-convention is basically legal, whereas apostleship is basically reli-gious. The use of the general sending-convention in the OT provides a variety of important analogues to apostleship as a religious phenomenon. In this, these scholars are in touch with the older phase of research, but they illustrate their point by reference to a broader and richer assemblage of OT references. Gerhardsson calls attention to the frequency with which slh/ apostellein is construed with maVk/angelos and especially with nhi /pro-phtes, and in other significant ways.88 In this respect, the importance of prophetic vocation is paramount.89 Hahn calls special attention to the fact that NT use of apostellein/pempein frequently echoes OT usage of slh with reference to prophetic sending. In what is among the most innovative sections of his essay, he calls attention to the particular importance of Isa 61:1 in this regard.90 This usage is first christological,91 but the NT connec-tion of all sending with the sending of Jesus makes it important for consideration of apostleship as well. This is especially so in view of the well-known fact that Paul describes himself in his vocation as apostle in terms derived from OT description of prophetic vocation.92 OT usage, especially represented in the descriptions of prophetic call, involves employment of the word group slh/apostellein, which is continued in the NT. It provides reference to OT and NT figures (including Christ himself) who represent highly significant phenomenological parallels to NT apostleship.93

88 "Boten," 110-13.

89 See Hahn, "Apostolat," 66-67.

90 Ibid., 69-75.

91 The usage of the Fourth Gospel in this respect has given rise to several interesting studies;

among which see J. Radermakers, "Mission et apostolat dans l'vangile johannique," SE II (=TU 87 [1964]) 100-121; J. Khl, Die Sendung Jesu und die Kirche nach dem Johannes-Evangelium (Studia Instituti Missiologici Societatis Verbi Divini 11; St. Augustin: Stegler, 1967), with extensive citation of literature.

92 See Hahn, "Apostolat," 68. A number of scholars who take no position on the question

discussed in this paper have written significantly on the prophetic background of Paul's description of his own vocation; among whom see A. M. Denis, "Laptre Paul, prophet 'mes-sianique' des gentils," ETL 33 (1957) 245-318; idem, "Election et la vocation de Paul, faveur cleste," RevThom 57 (1957) 405-28; idem, "L'investitur de la fonction apostolique par 'apoca-lypse,'" RB 64 (1957) 335-62, 492-515; J. Cambier, "Paul, aptre du Christ et prdicateur de l'vangile" MRT 91 (1959) 1015-16; T. Holtz, "Zum Selbstverstndnis des Apostels Paulus," TLZ 91 (1966) 94-126. This has been a recurrent interest of scholars representing various points of view on the religionsgeschichtlich question; see nn. 30 and 59 above.

93 The value of this position is now recognized by scholars who continue to deny a connec-

tion of aposde and Slah; see D. Mller, "Apostle," 134-35 and n. 7 above; E. Ksemann, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 5-6: "It seems fairly certain that the Semitic idea of sending with an authoritative commission determined the NT under-standing of apostle. . . . The influence of the Jewish institution li(a)h . . . may be present when the NT refers to the sending out of the apostles two by two. Elsewhere however it is to be rejected . . ."; this because of the absence of significant phenomenological parallels.


With the development of these points, the writers whose opinion is surveyed here rest their case for the position that, after all, what is basic to the older research of the slah-theory does provide the background for the derivation of the NT apostle-concept. They give ample response to the criticism raised against the older research by beginning with the Pauline witness, by loosening dependence upon the rabbinic slah-Rgure with a conjectured use of the nominal form slah in the period contemporaneous with the NT, and by showing the existence of the slh/apostellein sending-convention in the OT and the NT with reference to figures of profound religious and theological significance.

It is difficult to speak of consensus on anything in biblical studies, but if the position taken in the more important recent research done on this question may be considered indicative, it can at least be said that there is a growing consensus on the connection of apostleship with the OT sending-convention expressed by use of the word group slh-apostellein.

SCHOL/RS PRESS Vision and Discernment: An Orientation in Theological Study Charles M. Wood Advances a broad and integrated orientation to theological education and practice After briefly sketching the history and incoherent situation of contemporary theological education, the author develops an understanding of Christian inquiry that utilizes the twin judgments of "vision" and "discernment" A work certain to be useful to both beginning theology students and the mature scholar alike "Clearly written and forcefully argued "Schubert Ogden Code: 00 08 02 Paper $12.95 (8.95)

Unfinished Man and the Imagination: Toward an Ontology and a Rhetoric of Revelation Ray Hart Issued again nearly twenty years after its initial appearance, this volume stands as a landmark in fundamental theology Defining a course between neoorthodoxy and liberalism, Hart utilizes the insights of philosophers, poets, and literary writers alike in articulating an imaginative union of aesthetic sensitivity and theological analysis Mark C Taylor's introductory essay, written specifically for this edition, describes the continuing relevance of Hart's concerns Code: 00 07 15 $12.95 (10.95)

*( ) denotes price available to members of sponsoring societies and subscribers to Scholars Press jour nais Write for information Prepayment (check M/C or Visa) required GA residents add 4% sales tax Postage/handling first item $1 00 $ 50 for each thereafter $4 00 maximum Outside US $2 00 surcharge

_ Scholars Press Customer Services P.O. Box 4869, Hampden Station, Baltimore, MD 21211

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.

Agnew NT research of apostles

Documents

Transcript of Agnew NT research of apostles