[B-Greek] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12
CWestf5155 at aol.com
CWestf5155 at aol.com
Tue Aug 31 13:38:12 EDT 2004
<<In a message dated 8/31/2004 9:57:56 AM Mountain Standard Time,
eddhanganu at hotmail.com writes:
Usually, and unless otherwise specified by the writer, the current "sense"
of a word is most likely also the writer's intended meaning of that word in
a certain context. You state:
"APOSTOLOS, which involved"commissioning" and "sending" could have a broad
range of functions and applications--not all apostles functioned like Paul."
I believe this is an interesting opinion, but which cannot be supported from
the Bible. Jesus selected the "APOSTOLOS" personally from all the people
that gravitated around him, lots of men and lots of women. The "APOSTOLOS"
mandate was handed down to others in special circumstances and with great
solemnity, because it somehow represented the ultimate role and authority
the apostolic church had. To claim that the title did not always mean what
it meant is to distort and pervert the clear meaning of the Biblical text
and to force on the text an idea that doesn't result from the semantic
content of the text and is not the intended meaning of the author.
As a parenthesis, this kind of text manipulation has led some "scholars" to
claim that there is evidence for a "female apostle." As you know, APOSTOLOS
is a MASCULINE (nominative) (singular) (common) noun. "Female apostle" or
"GYNE APOSTOLOS" is a contradiction in terms, similar to the expression
"female man" or "GYNE ANDROS" ( MASCULINE singular common noun). Given the
social context of the first centuries to claim that there was a woman who
fulfilled the role of a FATHER in the church is not absurd, it is totally
and completely inconceivable. "Junia" could have well been a "Junias"(
common Roman name at the time), but no matter what the word is to attach it
to the function of an APOSTLE denotes a complete lack of understanding of
the Bible and especially the New Testament times.
Regards,
Eduard Hanganu>>
Eduard,
Now here about the meaning of the word, we really differ. One of the
principles of discourse analysis is that the context selects the meaning of a lexical
item and the co-text (most powerfully the preceding co-text) constrains the
meaning of any term. My linguistic commitment and presupposition is (and the
it is widespread in linguistics): A word has no meaning apart from its context.
And so, an author can take a word and in effect turn it on its head, such as
the word "honorable" in the phrase "Brutus is an honorable man" in Mark
Anthony's speech in "Julius Caesar. As the speech develops, "honorable" becomes
ironic, so that in effect it infers Brutus' dishonor. An author can place a word
in a category by putting it in a "pile" that is unrecognizable apart from that
context (such as the things that cannot separate us from the love of Christ
in Rom 8:31-35). And so it goes...
Now, you must remember that we are talking about Paul's use of the term
APOSTOLOS; I'm not referring to Jesus' appointment of the 12 in the gospels at all.
My linguistic presuppositions here: Every writer in Scripture does not
necessarily use the same word in the same way. I believe that there is compelling
evidence, which I have tried to discuss, that indicates that Paul's use of the
term is distinctive from APOSTOLOS referring to the Office of the Twelve as a
closed set. But neither am I placing Paul in contradiction with the gospel
writers, in my opinion. I think what makes this discussion particularly
difficult, is the extra-biblical terminological baggage of "apostolic authority"--not
that I don't believe in it, but that it doesn't necessarily constrain Paul's
usage (or the Didache's usage, or Chrysostom's usage).
I can say with a clear conscience that my discussion on APOSTOLOS has been an
ongoing interest that predates any concern with Rom. 16:7, driven, well,
primarily by re-examining the Scripture in I Cor. 12-14. For years, I didn't see
it or pursue it as a gender issue, because that wasn't my focus. But I will
also say that I do recognize the implications--that is that it leaves the
possibility open that Junia could be exercising some kind of commissioned authority
(if indeed she's a woman and EN + dative means "among"). But that doesn't
justify "drawing a fence around the Torah". Good grief, even the eminent
complementarian Tom Schreiner supports all three aspects: woman, an apostle, and
authority in his commentary on Romans (pp. 795-97). Actually, I probably agree
with Schreiner's conclusion point for point--he pretty much says the same
things that I've been saying.
And wait a minute...you can't have a masculine title applied to a woman? But
Phoebe in Rom 16:1 is a DIAKONON and THN ADELFHN I think you need to rethink
your position on grammatical gender.
If someone makes a case (which is the pursuit of scholarship) and you aren't
convinced, that's fine, make your own case. But to call it "text
manipulation" is very problematic--actually a no-no in scholarly discussion. And I take
it that you think Fiorenza specializes in text manipulation, you believe I'm
manipulating the text (because you don't agree with my case) and I'm a woman, so
it follows that I belong to her camp. Yes, I had a feeling you weren't
complimenting me. Interesting. And labelling in order to dismiss.
So is Schreiner in Fiorenza's camp? Hmmmmm....
Cindy Westfall
Adjunct Denver Seminary
Adjunct Mars Hill Graduate School
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list