[B-Greek] "episemoi en tois apostolois"
CWestf5155 at aol.com
CWestf5155 at aol.com
Sun Aug 29 02:11:27 EDT 2004
<<In a message dated 8/28/2004 8:06:47 PM Mountain Standard Time,
slovullo at mac.com writes:
On Aug 28, 2004, at 11:15 AM, CWestf5155 at aol.com wrote:
> Yes, I heard a paper given at ETS supporting this reading, where
> Wallace was
> one of the co-authors (but not the reader). I did't find it
> convincing, since
> in Bencancon-Spencer's paper it was shown with repeated citations that
> occurrences of EN + dative do support "among" rather than "in the
> presence of,
> particularly when the research included Hellenistic literature beyond
> the NT and
> LXX. There were at least several clear examples of the same
> construction that
> meant "among". This must be the basis of any decision rather
> concluding than EN
> + genetive meaning "among" in one occurence precludes the possibility
> of EN +
> dative meaning "among" in any occurrence.
>
> I'd like to have both papers in my hands, but when the reader was
> questioned,
> the position seemed more based on how the naked dative functions than
> how EN
> + dative functioned.
>
> The distinct impression left was that the research and the call in the
> Net
> Bible was results-driven. I'd like to see that further tested.
This is a good point, Cindy. I think, though, that just as important as
the syntactic question is the semantic question: What does APOSTOLOS
mean here? Is it to be taken more strictly, as Paul seems to take the
term APOSTOLOS in, say, 1 Cor 15.7 and 9, or more loosely, as he seems
to take it in, say, 2 Cor 8.23 and Phil 2.25? Surely he does not mean
the term in the same way in 2 Cor 8.23 and Phil 2.25 as he does
elsewhere when he asserts his special authority. There seems to be a
degree of authority in one use that does not coincide with the other.
Indeed, it seems at that any authority on the part of the one is
dependent on the other. I think that other evidence of this sort from
other parts of the NT could be proffered. BDAG brings this distinction
out well in definitions 1 and 2, s.v., APOSTOLOS:
1. of messengers without extraordinary status *delegate, envoy,
messenger*
2. of messengers with extraordinary status, esp. of God's *messenger,
envoy*
It is not hard for me to see a distinction between authoritative
spokesmen for God on the one hand, and an identifiable cadre of
messengers to the widespread churches on the other. In recent years
there has been an acknowledgment that the early church, though
separated geographically, was much more mobile and interconnected than
previously thought. In this context these "messengers" would have
served an important role--to keep the wider church informed of plans
and developments crucial to the spiritual good and geographic spread of
the faith.
============>>
Steve, greetings!
OK, now we're looking at Paul's usage of the term APOSTOLOS. So let's
concentrate first on the usage in 1 Corinthians.
Coming from a discourse analysis mindset, the semantic content of APOSTOLOS
in 1 Cor 15:7, 9 is constrained by the occurrences of APOSTOLOS in chs. 9 and
12. I hope that the discussion of semantic constraint of a word by its
co-text is not beyond the purpose of the list.
1 Cor 9 is concerned with the rights of an apostle, and Paul and Barnabas'
choice not to exercise their rights. 1 Cor 9:5-6 indicate the Paul believes that
Barnabas also has an apostle's rights: MH OUK EXOMEN EXOUSIAN...hWS KAI hOI
LOIPOI APOSTOLOI...H MONOS EGW KAI BARNABAS; That is, the first person plural
refers to Paul and Barnabaas.
In I Cor 12:28-29, the term APOSTLE refers to a messenger/authoritative link
between churches with a kind of first rung underpinning ministry It is
considered by Paul to be a spiritual gift distributed sovereignly by the Spirit. It
is comparable to PROPHETHS, which is on the second rung. APOSTOLOS is not
excluded when Paul tells the Corinthians to eagerly desire spiritual gifts
(14:1).
At the point of Christ's resurrection (1 Cor 15:7), there were at least 11
APOSTOLOS. And is James necesarily excluded from this list? Possibly the
phrases EPEITA WFQH IAKWBW EITA TOIS APOSTOLOIS PASIN can infer that James was the
first apostle that Jesus appeared to, and then he appeared to all of them.
There is no reason to conclude that, in Paul's use of the term, there were no
more people who received that gift--certainly the gift of prophecy was still
open (1 Cor 14). I Cor 12-14 seems to indicate that it is not a closed set.
If APOSTOLOS is not a closed set for Paul, I have no trouble at all seeing
Titus and Epaphraditus in that role (2 Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25), particularly since
Barnabas had the role also. And in the follow-up letter (2 Cor) we have the
"super apostles" hUPERLIAN APOSTOLWN (11:5) who are really Satan's servants;
Paul's argument against them is not that apostle is a closed set.
Granted, Luke's use of the term APOSTOLOS seems restricted to the 12, and it
is possible that the two may use the term differently. There should be no
compulsion to harmonize Luke and Paul's terminology.
Cindy Westfall
Denver Seminary
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list