[B-Greek] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12
George F. Somsel
gfsomsel at juno.com
Tue Aug 31 15:25:43 EDT 2004
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:38:12 EDT CWestf5155 at aol.com writes:
> <<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
> ---
BTW: Be aware that I know about the incorrect setting of my system
clock. There is a (hopefully temporary) reason for this and it will be
corrected as soon as the reason no longer exists.
Especially in light of Carl's caution, let us keep this to the discussion
of the Greek and its meaning.
Cindy is correct that not all writers use words in the same way. Even
one writer may use a word in different senses in different circumstances.
Let us, however, see how Paul uses APOSTOLOS -- particularly in one
significant passage.
In 1 Cor 9.1, 2 he writes
OUK EIMI ELEUQEROS? OUK EIMI APOSTOLOS? OUXI IHSOUN TON KURION hHMWN
hEWRAKA? OU TO ERGON MOU hUMEIS ESTE EN KURIWi?
EI ALLOIS OUK EIMI APOSTOLOS, ALLA GE hUMIN EIMI; hH GAR SFRAGIS MOU THS
APOSTOLHS hUMEIS ESTE EN KURIWi.
Here Paul asserts his apostleship and gives a nod to the (probably later)
account of the selection of a new 12th apostle in Acts 1.21, 22 where the
condition is that the selection must be made from those who (for the
whole time of his ministry?) have been witnesses to Jesus when he states
Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?
He then seems to indicate that he is not necessarily speaking of
APOSTOLOS in the sense of one of the 12 when he sets up the condition
If to others I am not an apostle
and the apodosis
at least I am to you.
george
gfsomsel
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list