1 Corinthians 12:28

[] “episemoi en tois apostolois” CWestf5155 at aol.com CWestf5155 at aol.com
Sun Aug 29 02:11:27 EDT 2004

 

[] Tips on Memorizing Adverbs [] “episemoi en tois apostolois” <<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 WestfallDenver Seminary

 

[] Tips on Memorizing Adverbs[] “episemoi en tois apostolois”

[] “episemoi en tois apostolois” George F. Somsel gfsomsel at juno.com
Sun Aug 29 07:28:11 EDT 2004

 

[] TR text? [] TR text? On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 02:11:27 EDT CWestf5155 at aol.com writes:> <<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> —I’m glad you mentioned that, Cindy. Although I knew that there was arestrictive use of APOSTOLOS and a looser usage, I had forgotten aboutthat particular passage and would have considered Paul to have used it inthe restrictive sense. Perhaps there is need to examine whether there istruly a restrictive sense outside of Luke. Also, I plan to take a closer look at the use of EN + dat pl. You couldbe right on that, but, since I am relying of what I considered to be areasonably reliable source, I didn’t actually examine it myself. When Iget a little time I’ll do so.georgegfsomsel

 

[] TR text?[] TR text?

[] “episemoi en tois apostolois” Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Mon Aug 30 01:38:33 EDT 2004

 

[] “episemoi en tois apostolois” [] “episemoi en tois apostolois” [Steve:]> 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.> ============>>> [Cindy:] OK, now we’re looking at Paul’s usage of the term APOSTOLOS. Solet’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 ofAPOSTOLOS> in chs. 9 and 12. I hope that the discussion of semantic constraint of aword by its> co-text is not beyond the purpose of the list.Coming from a discourse analysis mindset, I would say that the immediatesemantic and syntactic context carries more weight than the wider context.The two senses of APOSTOLOS can only be distinguished by context. Sense 1APOSTOLOS refers to someone who was sent by someone (often a local churchleadership) with a specific task. It could be bringing a letter, a message,news or a donation. These people were not sent or commissioned by God/Jesusand did not have an authoritative ministry or extraordinary status. Thissense is normally rendered in English translations as “sent one”,”messenger”, “delegate”, “representative” (see John 13:16, 2 Cor 8:23; Phil2:25).As far as I can see all the 10 occurrences of APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor are used insense 2, and all are translated by “apostle” in English versions. Up to themiddle of Acts, when Paul and Barnabas were commissioned by God/Jesusthrough a prophetic call, the word is restricted to the first 12 plusMatthias from Acts 1:26, but after that it includes Paul and Barnabas,possibly a few others. (Gal 1:19 suggests that James, the brother of Jesus,was counted among the apostles.) There is no indication that Apollos,Prisca, Aquilla, Titus or Timothy were counted among the apostles. From theimmediate contexts, it also seems fairly clear that the three occurrences inRomans all refer to sense 2 as confirmed by all translations. The sameapplies to all 28 occurrences in Acts.> In I Cor 12:28-29, the term APOSTLE refers to a> messenger/authoritative link between churches with a kind of first rungunderpinning 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 eagerlydesire> spiritual gifts (14:1).I wouldn’t quite agree with this description. In 1 Cor 12:28 the apostle ismentioned together with the prophet and teacher as one of the ministriesplaced by God/Jesus for an authoritative ministry in the church. Eph 4:11adds two more such ministries. These ministries ought to be distinguishedfrom the many and varied spiritual gifts. Gifts are meant as tools forministry, not identical to it. The apostolic ministry is not primarily alink between churches, but a representative of Christ, ministering to thechurches – as well as to non-believers. They normally have a ministry whichgoes beyond the boundaries of a local church, and therefore often travel.So, in a secondary sense they help to link and unify the various localchurches.> 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.I would have trouble with that as do all Bible translations that I havechecked. These two references use sense 1 as indicated by their contexts.Coming back briefly to Rom 16:7, which has been discussed before on thislist (in June 2002 as well as March 2000), I would say that it is not just amatter of EN plus the dative, but the whole construction and in particularthe collocation with a word like EPISHMOS.EN has a enormous array of senses as listed in Louw and Nida: (a) in (location) 83.13 (b) among (location) 83.9 (c) on (location) 83.47 (d) at (location) 83.23 (e) in (state) 13.8 (f) into (extension) 84.22 (g) in union with (association) 89.119 (h) with (attendant circumstances) 89.80 (i) with (instrument) 90.10 (j) with (manner) 89.84 (k) with regard to (specification) 89.5 (l) of (substance) 89.141 (m) to (experiencer) 90.56 (n) by (agent) 90.6 (o) by (guarantor) 90.30 (p) by (means) 89.76 (q) because (reason) 89.26 (r) so that (result) 89.48 (s) when (time) 67.33 (t) during (time) 67.136 (u) in (content) 90.23It is possible to use “among” in English as long as it refers to theirfame/reputation. (E.g. “They have a good reputation among the apostles” orNLT: They are respected among the apostles). The following is a briefexcerpt from the Wallace article: “That the parallels discovered so farconform to our working hypothesis at least gives warrant to seeingAndronicus’ and Junia’s FAME as that which was among the apostles.” The notein the NET gives a lot of good background and also refers tot he fullarticle about it.Sense number (m) in L&N tends to be overlooked, but it is fairly common. L&Ncite the following examples, not an exhaustive list:EN: a marker of an experiencer of an event – ‘in relation to, with respectto, to.’ EPOIHSAN EN AUTWi… ‘they did to him as they pleased’ Mt 17.12;KALON ERGON HRGASATO EN EMOI ‘she has done a fine thing to me’ Mk 14.6;…hOSTIS hOMOLOGHSEI EN EMOI EMPROSQEN TWN ANQRWPWN ‘therefore everyone whoconfesses me before people’ Mt 10.32; …hINA hOUTWS GENHTAI EN EMOI ‘I havenot written these things in order that this might happen to me’ 1 Cor 9.15;APOKALUYSAI TON hUION AUTOU EN EMOI ‘to reveal his Son to me’ Ga 1.16.This sense fits the immediate and wider contexts of Romans 16:7 well, butthe question has been discussed for many centuries, and we won’t be able toknow for sure one way or the other. Which option is preferred or deemed tobe “results driven” depends on one’s own presuppositions about apostleshipas well as gender issues.Iver Larsen

 

[] “episemoi en tois apostolois”[] “episemoi en tois apostolois”

[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 CWestf5155 at aol.com CWestf5155 at aol.com
Mon Aug 30 03:41:39 EDT 2004

 

[] a question in LXX [] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 <<In a message dated 8/29/2004 11:39:54 PM Mountain Standard Time, iver_larsen at sil.org writes:I wouldn’t quite agree with this description. In 1 Cor 12:28 the apostle ismentioned together with the prophet and teacher as one of the ministriesplaced by God/Jesus for an authoritative ministry in the church. Eph 4:11adds two more such ministries. These ministries ought to be distinguishedfrom the many and varied spiritual gifts. Gifts are meant as tools forministry, not identical to it. The apostolic ministry is not primarily alink between churches, but a representative of Christ, ministering to thechurches – as well as to non-believers. They normally have a ministry whichgoes beyond the boundaries of a local church, and therefore often travel.So, in a secondary sense they help to link and unify the various localchurches.> 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.I would have trouble with that as do all Bible translations that I havechecked. These two references use sense 1 as indicated by their contexts.>>Iver,Particularly in Eph. 4:7-12, APOSTOLOS is listed as a spiritual gift. In 1 Cor. 12, gifts, services and working are interchangeable manifestations of the spirit (I Cor 12:4-5) which the Spirit distributes (1Cor. 12:11). They are clearly treated in one category in 12:27-30. I suggest that the distinctions you make are not based on the the text. The ministries are the gifts, and the other gifts are equally used in the congregation as ministries. Regardless, the way they are handled and distributed by the Spirit is indistinguishable, so other than categorization, what is the point?Yes, the translations have generally treated apostle as limited to the 12 and Paul (as a special case), but now there has been a more widespread recognition that that is a reflection of Luke’s terminology and that Paul utilizes the terminology differently (as Paul and James use “grace” differently). I learned Greek in part so my perspectives in such things would not be limited to the translations. I Cor. 9 refers to Barnabas as an apostle with apostle’s rights. What about the context in 2 Cor. 8:23 makes Titus, for instance, not a similar authority with similar rights to Barnabas? He was sent in an authoritative capacity to Crete, among other places. In these cases, the translations miscue the readers, not making a good interpretive decision, though I understand the basis of the interpretation.Cindy WestfallDenver Seminary

 

[] a question in LXX[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12

[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Mon Aug 30 12:46:38 EDT 2004

 

[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 [] “episemoi en tois apostolois” > [Cindy:]> I Cor. 9 refers to Barnabas as an apostle with apostle’s rights.As does Luke in Acts 14:14.> What about> the context in 2 Cor. 8:23 makes Titus, for instance, not a> similar authority> with similar rights to Barnabas?I don’t think we can deduce that from KOINWNOS or SUNERGOS. Only 23a talksabout Titus. 23b talks about the two other unnamed co-workers who had beensent/commissioned by the churches, so APOSTOLOI EKKLHSIWN in this verserefers to the two church emissaries, not Paul’s assistant, Titus.> He was sent in an authoritative capacity to> Crete, among other places.No, he was left by Paul in Crete to wrap up some unfinished business withclear instructions from Paul on what to do. (Tit 1:5). And then Paul givesfurther written instructions in his letter to Titus. Titus is here portrayedas an assistant to an apostle rather than an apostle in his own right. Paulgives similar written instructions to his other assistant, Timothy.> In these cases, the translations miscue the> readers, not making a good interpretive decision, though I> understand the basis of the interpretation.If you are referring to 2 Cor 8:23, I don’t see the basis for yourunconventional interpretation. I believe all the versions have made a goodinterpretative decision here.I think the definition of apostle and the distinction between ministries andgifts go beyond b-Greek parameters, so will respond more fully off-list.Iver Larsen

 

[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12[] “episemoi en tois apostolois”

[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 CWestf5155 at aol.com CWestf5155 at aol.com
Mon Aug 30 20:09:17 EDT 2004

 

[] “episemoi en tois apostolois” [] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 <<In a message dated 8/30/2004 10:47:59 AM Mountain Standard Time, iver_larsen at sil.org writes:> [Cindy:]> I Cor. 9 refers to Barnabas as an apostle with apostle’s rights.As does Luke in Acts 14:14.> What about> the context in 2 Cor. 8:23 makes Titus, for instance, not a> similar authority> with similar rights to Barnabas?I don’t think we can deduce that from KOINWNOS or SUNERGOS. Only 23a talksabout Titus. 23b talks about the two other unnamed co-workers who had beensent/commissioned by the churches, so APOSTOLOI EKKLHSIWN in this verserefers to the two church emissaries, not Paul’s assistant, Titus.> He was sent in an authoritative capacity to> Crete, among other places.No, he was left by Paul in Crete to wrap up some unfinished business withclear instructions from Paul on what to do. (Tit 1:5). And then Paul givesfurther written instructions in his letter to Titus. Titus is here portrayedas an assistant to an apostle rather than an apostle in his own right. Paulgives similar written instructions to his other assistant, Timothy.> In these cases, the translations miscue the> readers, not making a good interpretive decision, though I> understand the basis of the interpretation.If you are referring to 2 Cor 8:23, I don’t see the basis for yourunconventional interpretation. I believe all the versions have made a goodinterpretative decision here.I think the definition of apostle and the distinction between ministries andgifts go beyond b-Greek parameters, so will respond more fully off-list.>>Iver,You’re right that Luke refers to Barnabas as an apostle in Acts 14:14–also in v. 4, so that’s one correction. I was parroting what I’d heard in the discussion–that Luke generally refers to the 12 as apostles. These two verses are certainly the exception. I also agree with your correction that in 2 Cor 8:23, the two other ADELFOI are described as APOSTOLOI here–that was sloppy perusal on my part. The EITE…EITE signals a contrast between the description of Titus and the description of the other two. The ADELFOI was most likely not inclusive of Titus, as I first assumed.But the germane part of my argument is that the ADELFOI are APOSTOLOIS. I hope that my sloppiness doesn’t mess up the point–for me this isn’t about Titus (though I disagree that being “left” could not the same as “sent” as a representative–I don’t think that this has to be technically spatial). This is about the “title” or designation of apostle/sent one, which is included in the list of spiritual gifts, being applied outside the circle of “the twelve” and Paul.I think that the best discussion on 2 Cor 8:23 (that I’ve seen today) is in the Anchor Bible Commentary on 2 Cor 8-9 by Betz. He states that this is a formula of authorization, based on Hellenistic legal and administrative texts. In effect, Titus is given Paul’s power of attourney/apostleship. As far as the ADELFOI are concerned, Paul gives their official title and functions, and their title reflects their authorizing institution. They are APOSTOLOIS of the churches, which he restates as representatives or delegates (note that this is really quite different than “messenger” (like mail carrier), but quite consistent with discussions in commentaries). There follows a rather brilliant analysis: “One cannot fail to notice the descrepancy between the high rank given them by the churches and the somewhat lower rank granted them by Paul”. Paul calls them ADELFOI not “fellow apostles”. Titus is given the higher endorsement: Paul’s representational status. The apostles do not have equal authority to Paul over the Corinthians–they don’t have the same historyOK, so note that APOSTOLOIS is given a title status here. I part ways with Betz when he says, “As has often been pointed out, this concept of apostle has little in common with Paul’s use of the term”. So you’re right that the consensus lies with you. However, I contest that Paul’s application of the title APOSTOLOIS to these brothers is consistent with the term APOSTOLOS in I Cor. 12, 9, 15 etc. as well as 2 Cor 1:1. And while I don’t agree with you that it is idiosyncratic (there has been diversity on this passage–I’m taking it literally), it is not the consensus. APOSTOLOS has a full range of meaning. Coincidentally, so does PROFHTHS. I suggest that the term in 1 Cor 12 encompasses that range. Not every APOSTOLOS has the same function (or field, in Pauliine terminology). The two common elements appear to be commissioning (by primarily the Holy Spirit and secondarily the churches), and “sent” = the geographic crossing of boundaries between the local churches. The authority of any apostle would be in direct proportion to the assigned field.Cindy WestfallDenver Seminary

 

[] “episemoi en tois apostolois”[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12

[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 Eduard C Hanganu eddhanganu at hotmail.com
Mon Aug 30 22:31:05 EDT 2004

 

[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 [] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 Dear Cindy:I believe you make the mistake so common among people who lack basic linguistic knowledge and mix the “sense” of a word with its “meaning.” You state:”APOSTOLOS has a full range of meaning. Coincidentally, so does PROFHTHS. Isuggest that the term in 1 Cor 12 encompasses that range.”You are probably referring to the “senses” or “denotations” of the word “APOSTOLOS,” but the confusion is serious. “Sense” is the dictionary definition or a word, its “denotation.” Most words are polysemic and have 1, 2 or n “senses” or “denotations.” One other important thing to know about the “sense” of a word is that “sense” is context independent.The “meaning” of a word, on the other hand is entirely dependent on context, and is defined and limited by the context. A word cannot have “a full range of meaning” in a certain context, because this would lead to text ambiguity and make communication at least difficult if not impossible. To state that the word PROFHTS “encompasses that (full) range (of meaning)” in 1 Cor 12 is equal to affirming that the word PROFHTS has in that context multiple “meanings.” If this is so, how can the reader figure out what is the writer’s intended meaning for the word in that context? Does the writer use a pun, or double meaning? Does he mean what he says, or he plays with words?I don’t know where this discussion is going, but it seems to me that the hermeneutic used is similar to the one employed by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza. Are you familiar with her writiings?Regards,Eduard HanganuFrom: CWestf5155 at aol.comTo: iver_larsen at sil.org, at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: Re: [] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 20:09:17 EDT<<In a message dated 8/30/2004 10:47:59 AM Mountain Standard Time,iver_larsen at sil.org writes: >[Cindy:]> I Cor. 9 refers to Barnabas as an apostle with apostle’s rights.As does Luke in Acts 14:14. > What about > the context in 2 Cor. 8:23 makes Titus, for instance, not a > similar authority > with similar rights to Barnabas?I don’t think we can deduce that from KOINWNOS or SUNERGOS. Only 23a talksabout Titus. 23b talks about the two other unnamed co-workers who had beensent/commissioned by the churches, so APOSTOLOI EKKLHSIWN in this verserefers to the two church emissaries, not Paul’s assistant, Titus. > He was sent in an authoritative capacity to > Crete, among other places.No, he was left by Paul in Crete to wrap up some unfinished business withclear instructions from Paul on what to do. (Tit 1:5). And then Paul givesfurther written instructions in his letter to Titus. Titus is here portrayedas an assistant to an apostle rather than an apostle in his own right. Paulgives similar written instructions to his other assistant, Timothy. > In these cases, the translations miscue the > readers, not making a good interpretive decision, though I > understand the basis of the interpretation.If you are referring to 2 Cor 8:23, I don’t see the basis for yourunconventional interpretation. I believe all the versions have made a goodinterpretative decision here.I think the definition of apostle and the distinction between ministries andgifts go beyond b-Greek parameters, so will respond more fully off-list.>>Iver,You’re right that Luke refers to Barnabas as an apostle in Acts 14:14–alsoin v. 4, so that’s one correction. I was parroting what I’d heard in thediscussion–that Luke generally refers to the 12 as apostles. These two verses arecertainly the exception.I also agree with your correction that in 2 Cor 8:23, the two other ADELFOIare described as APOSTOLOI here–that was sloppy perusal on my part. TheEITE…EITE signals a contrast between the description of Titus and the descriptionof the other two. The ADELFOI was most likely not inclusive of Titus, as Ifirst assumed.But the germane part of my argument is that the ADELFOI are APOSTOLOIS. Ihope that my sloppiness doesn’t mess up the point–for me this isn’t about Titus(though I disagree that being “left” could not the same as “sent” as arepresentative–I don’t think that this has to be technically spatial). This isabout the “title” or designation of apostle/sent one, which is included in thelist of spiritual gifts, being applied outside the circle of “the twelve” andPaul.I think that the best discussion on 2 Cor 8:23 (that I’ve seen today) is inthe Anchor Bible Commentary on 2 Cor 8-9 by Betz. He states that this is aformula of authorization, based on Hellenistic legal and administrative texts. Ineffect, Titus is given Paul’s power of attourney/apostleship. As far as theADELFOI are concerned, Paul gives their official title and functions, and theirtitle reflects their authorizing institution. They are APOSTOLOIS of thechurches, which he restates as representatives or delegates (note that this isreally quite different than “messenger” (like mail carrier), but quiteconsistent with discussions in commentaries). There follows a rather brilliantanalysis: “One cannot fail to notice the descrepancy between the high rank given themby the churches and the somewhat lower rank granted them by Paul”. Paul callsthem ADELFOI not “fellow apostles”. Titus is given the higher endorsement:Paul’s representational status. The apostles do not have equal authority toPaul over the Corinthians–they don’t have the same historyOK, so note that APOSTOLOIS is given a title status here. I part ways withBetz when he says, “As has often been pointed out, this concept of apostle haslittle in common with Paul’s use of the term”. So you’re right that theconsensus lies with you.However, I contest that Paul’s application of the title APOSTOLOIS to thesebrothers is consistent with the term APOSTOLOS in I Cor. 12, 9, 15 etc. as wellas 2 Cor 1:1. And while I don’t agree with you that it is idiosyncratic(there has been diversity on this passage–I’m taking it literally), it is not theconsensus.APOSTOLOS has a full range of meaning. Coincidentally, so does PROFHTHS. Isuggest that the term in 1 Cor 12 encompasses that range. Not every APOSTOLOShas the same function (or field, in Pauliine terminology). The two commonelements appear to be commissioning (by primarily the Holy Spirit andsecondarily the churches), and “sent” = the geographic crossing of boundaries betweenthe local churches. The authority of any apostle would be in direct proportionto the assigned field.Cindy WestfallDenver Seminary— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/_________________________________________________________________Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

 

[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12

[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 CWestf5155 at aol.com CWestf5155 at aol.com
Tue Aug 31 02:16:21 EDT 2004

 

[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 [] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 In a message dated 8/30/2004 8:31:37 PM Mountain Standard Time, eddhanganu at hotmail.com writes:I believe you make the mistake so common among people who lack basic linguistic knowledge and mix the “sense” of a word with its “meaning.” You state:”APOSTOLOS has a full range of meaning. Coincidentally, so does PROFHTHS. Isuggest that the term in 1 Cor 12 encompasses that range.”You are probably referring to the “senses” or “denotations” of the word “APOSTOLOS,” but the confusion is serious. “Sense” is the dictionary definition or a word, its “denotation.” Most words are polysemic and have 1, 2 or n “senses” or “denotations.” One other important thing to know about the “sense” of a word is that “sense” is context independent.The “meaning” of a word, on the other hand is entirely dependent on context, and is defined and limited by the context. A word cannot have “a full range of meaning” in a certain context, because this would lead to text ambiguity and make communication at least difficult if not impossible. To state that the word PROFHTS “encompasses that (full) range (of meaning)” in 1 Cor 12 is equal to affirming that the word PROFHTS has in that context multiple “meanings.” If this is so, how can the reader figure out what is the writer’s intended meaning for the word in that context? Does the writer use a pun, or double meaning? Does he mean what he says, or he plays with words?I don’t know where this discussion is going, but it seems to me that the hermeneutic used is similar to the one employed by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza. Are you familiar with her writiings?Eduard,Actually, linguistics is one of my interests, particularly discourse analysis. I don’t always use technical vocabulary, because defining the terms makes the post so long.This statement about the full range of meaning presumes the previous statements that I made about the constraint of the context has been processed. As I said earlier, the context selects and constrains the meaning of a word. In the case of 1 Cor 12, (or really we’re looking at the later occurrences which were constrained by 1 Cor 12) the meaning was both constrained by the preceding co-text and by the “sent” status and the commissioning. In the context of what I’ve said, “full range of meaning” doesn’t mean mulitple denotations, totality transfer, or that all possible glosses can be applied to it. I was “echoing” Ralph Martin here on 2 Cor 8:23, who processes at least two other studies and concludes something like APOSTOLOS has a full range of meaning within terms of a delegate or messenger; it says noting about the content of a person’s duty, only that the enterprise had been commissioned. But he distinguishes the meaning of apostolos in 8:23 as “non-specific” in contrast with 2 Cor. 1:1 which is “specific”, which is what I have been contesting.What I’m saying is that in Paul’s writings1. Apostle was a spiritual gift 2. It extended beyond the circle of the 12 and Paul to include others, some of which are identified (add to the list Timothy and Silvanus in 1 Thess. 2:6). 3. He saw it as still being sovereignly distributed by the Holy Spirit at the time of writing.4. While apostles were sent and commissioned by the Holy Spirit and the church, not all apostles had the same authority, function or status; it all depended on the commission.Let me suggest that the “titles” or designations of PROFHTHS and APOSTOLOS activate a complexity of associations and functions (for which I favor the word scenario–check out Brown and Yule’s “Discourse Analysis”), much like the title “Messiah” did in the second temple era. APOSTOLOS, which involved “commissioning” and “sending” could have a broad range of functions and applications–not all apostles functioned like Paul. Possibly I don’t know Fiorenza well enough, because I haven’t a clue as to how this resembles her writings or her hermeneutic. Do you really have anything specific in mind? I think I much more resemble Fee’s and Thistleton’s commentaries on 1 Cor.Cindy WestfallDenver Seminary

 

[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12

[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 George F. Somsel gfsomsel at juno.com
Tue Aug 31 09:33:53 EDT 2004

 

[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 [] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 03:41:39 EDT CWestf5155 at aol.com writes:> <<In a message dated 8/29/2004 11:39:54 PM Mountain Standard Time, > iver_larsen at sil.org writes:> I wouldn’t quite agree with this description. In 1 Cor 12:28 the > apostle is> mentioned together with the prophet and teacher as one of the > ministries> placed by God/Jesus for an authoritative ministry in the church. Eph > 4:11> adds two more such ministries. These ministries ought to be > distinguished> from the many and varied spiritual gifts. Gifts are meant as tools > for> ministry, not identical to it. The apostolic ministry is not > primarily a> link between churches, but a representative of Christ, ministering > to the> churches – as well as to non-believers. They normally have a > ministry which> goes beyond the boundaries of a local church, and therefore often > travel.> So, in a secondary sense they help to link and unify the various > local> churches.> > > 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.> > I would have trouble with that as do all Bible translations that I > have> checked. These two references use sense 1 as indicated by their > contexts.>>> Iver,> > Particularly in Eph. 4:7-12, APOSTOLOS is listed as a spiritual > gift. In 1 > Cor. 12, gifts, services and working are interchangeable > manifestations of the > spirit (I Cor 12:4-5) which the Spirit distributes (1Cor. 12:11). > They are > clearly treated in one category in 12:27-30. I suggest that the > distinctions > you make are not based on the the text. The ministries are the > gifts, and the > other gifts are equally used in the congregation as ministries. > Regardless, > the way they are handled and distributed by the Spirit is > indistinguishable, so > other than categorization, what is the point?> > Yes, the translations have generally treated apostle as limited to > the 12 and > Paul (as a special case), but now there has been a more widespread > recognition that that is a reflection of Luke’s terminology and that > Paul utilizes the > terminology differently (as Paul and James use “grace” differently). > I learned > Greek in part so my perspectives in such things would not be limited > to the > translations. > > I Cor. 9 refers to Barnabas as an apostle with apostle’s rights. > What about > the context in 2 Cor. 8:23 makes Titus, for instance, not a similar > authority > with similar rights to Barnabas? He was sent in an authoritative > capacity to > Crete, among other places. In these cases, the translations miscue > the > readers, not making a good interpretive decision, though I > understand the basis of > the interpretation.> > Cindy Westfall> Denver Seminary> —Cindy,You state that the apostle is not primarily a link between the churches. This may be true; however, the early tradition regarding the apostolateshould not be ignored. In “The Lord’s Teaching Through the TwelveApostles to the Nations” (which seems to be quite early) it is noted (ANFvii. 380) “1. Whosoever, therefore, cometh and teacheth you all these things thathave been said before, receive him.? 2. But if the teacher himself turn?and teach another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not; butif he teach so as to increase righteousness and the knowledge of theLord, receive him as the Lord. 3. But concerning the apostles andprophets, according to the decree of the Gospel, thus do. 4. Let everyapostle that cometh to you be received as the Lord.? 5. But he shall notremain except one day; but if there be need, also the next; but if heremain three days, he is a false prophet. 6. And when the apostle goethaway, let him take nothing but bread until he lodgeth;? but if he askmoney, he is a false prophet.” Therefore, while being a link between the churches may not be part of thejob description, it would practically produce such an effect.georgegfsomsel

 

[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12

[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 Eduard C Hanganu eddhanganu at hotmail.com
Tue Aug 31 11:56:09 EDT 2004

 

[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 [] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 Dear Cindy: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 andapplications–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 HanganuFrom: CWestf5155 at aol.comTo: eddhanganu at hotmail.com, at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: Re: [] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 02:16:21 EDTIn a message dated 8/30/2004 8:31:37 PM Mountain Standard Time,eddhanganu at hotmail.com writes:I believe you make the mistake so common among people who lack basiclinguistic knowledge and mix the “sense” of a word with its “meaning.” Youstate:”APOSTOLOS has a full range of meaning. Coincidentally, so does PROFHTHS.Isuggest that the term in 1 Cor 12 encompasses that range.”You are probably referring to the “senses” or “denotations” of the word”APOSTOLOS,” but the confusion is serious. “Sense” is the dictionarydefinition or a word, its “denotation.” Most words are polysemic and have 1,2 or n “senses” or “denotations.” One other important thing to know aboutthe “sense” of a word is that “sense” is context independent.The “meaning” of a word, on the other hand is entirely dependent on context,and is defined and limited by the context. A word cannot have “a full rangeof meaning” in a certain context, because this would lead to text ambiguityand make communication at least difficult if not impossible. To state thatthe word PROFHTS “encompasses that (full) range (of meaning)” in 1 Cor 12 isequal to affirming that the word PROFHTS has in that context multiple”meanings.” If this is so, how can the reader figure out what is thewriter’s intended meaning for the word in that context? Does the writer usea pun, or double meaning? Does he mean what he says, or he plays with words?I don’t know where this discussion is going, but it seems to me that thehermeneutic used is similar to the one employed by Elisabeth SchüsslerFiorenza. Are you familiar with her writiings?Eduard,Actually, linguistics is one of my interests, particularly discourseanalysis. I don’t always use technical vocabulary, because defining the terms makesthe post so long.This statement about the full range of meaning presumes the previousstatements that I made about the constraint of the context has been processed. As Isaid earlier, the context selects and constrains the meaning of a word. Inthe case of 1 Cor 12, (or really we’re looking at the later occurrences whichwere constrained by 1 Cor 12) the meaning was both constrained by the precedingco-text and by the “sent” status and the commissioning. In the context ofwhat I’ve said, “full range of meaning” doesn’t mean mulitple denotations,totality transfer, or that all possible glosses can be applied to it.I was “echoing” Ralph Martin here on 2 Cor 8:23, who processes at least twoother studies and concludes something like APOSTOLOS has a full range ofmeaning within terms of a delegate or messenger; it says noting about the content ofa person’s duty, only that the enterprise had been commissioned. But hedistinguishes the meaning of apostolos in 8:23 as “non-specific” in contrast with2 Cor. 1:1 which is “specific”, which is what I have been contesting.What I’m saying is that in Paul’s writings1. Apostle was a spiritual gift2. It extended beyond the circle of the 12 and Paul to include others, someof which are identified (add to the list Timothy and Silvanus in 1 Thess.2:6).3. He saw it as still being sovereignly distributed by the Holy Spirit atthe time of writing.4. While apostles were sent and commissioned by the Holy Spirit and thechurch, not all apostles had the same authority, function or status; it alldepended on the commission.Let me suggest that the “titles” or designations of PROFHTHS and APOSTOLOSactivate a complexity of associations and functions (for which I favor the wordscenario–check out Brown and Yule’s “Discourse Analysis”), much like thetitle “Messiah” did in the second temple era. APOSTOLOS, which involved”commissioning” and “sending” could have a broad range of functions andapplications–not all apostles functioned like Paul.Possibly I don’t know Fiorenza well enough, because I haven’t a clue as tohow this resembles her writings or her hermeneutic. Do you really have anythingspecific in mind? I think I much more resemble Fee’s and Thistleton’scommentaries on 1 Cor.Cindy WestfallDenver Seminary_________________________________________________________________Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

 

[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12

[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Tue Aug 31 12:10:36 EDT 2004

 

[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 [] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 > > However, I contest that Paul’s application of the title> APOSTOLOIS to these brothers is consistent with the term> APOSTOLOS in I Cor. 12, 9, 15 etc. as well as 2 Cor 1:1. And> while I don’t agree with you that it is idiosyncratic (there has> been diversity on this passage–I’m taking it literally), it is> not the consensus.This is the claim that I would like to see evidence for, especially since itgoes against the consensus.> APOSTOLOS has a full range of meaning. Coincidentally, so does> PROFHTHS. I suggest that the term in 1 Cor 12 encompasses that> range. Not every APOSTOLOS has the same function (or field, in> Pauliine terminology). The two common elements appear to be> commissioning (by primarily the Holy Spirit and secondarily the> churches), and “sent” = the geographic crossing of boundaries> between the local churches. The authority of any apostle would> be in direct proportion to the assigned field.The common element to the two senses of APOSTOLOS is the sending orcommissioning which does imply a good deal of travel.What distinguishes the two senses is partly who has commissioned them: 1)the local church leadership or 2) God or Jesus either directly or throughdivine intervention such as casting of lots or prophetic calling.Another distinctive feature is their ministry/task and level of authority.These distinctions are the ones that cause all versions to use the term”apostle” for sense 1 and another term like representative/envoy for sense 2(I agree with you against (N)RSV and NET that “messenger” misses the markfor both senses.)Iver Larsen

 

[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12

[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 CWestf5155 at aol.com CWestf5155 at aol.com
Tue Aug 31 12:33:30 EDT 2004

 

[] THREAD CLOSED: APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 [] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 In a message dated 8/31/2004 7:34:07 AM Mountain Standard Time, gfsomsel at juno.com writes:Cindy,You state that the apostle is not primarily a link between the churches. This may be true; however, the early tradition regarding the apostolate should not be ignored. In “The Lord’s Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations” (which seems to be quite early) it is noted (ANF vii. 380) “1. Whosoever, therefore, cometh and teacheth you all these things that have been said before, receive him. 2. But if the teacher himself turn and teach another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not; but if he teach so as to increase righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord. 3. But concerning the apostles and prophets, according to the decree of the Gospel, thus do. 4. Let every apostle that cometh to you be received as the Lord. 5. But he shall not remain except one day; but if there be need, also the next; but if he remain three days, he is a false prophet. 6. And when the apostle goeth away, let him take nothing but bread until he lodgeth; but if he ask money, he is a false prophet.” Therefore, while being a link between the churches may not be part of the job description, it would practically produce such an effect.George,I fully agree with this. Actually, I do think that the commissioning as sent representatives/delegates/authorities/church planters/whatevers involves precisely this effect and function–it makes no sense without it. And the didache the itinerant ministers apostles and prophets (with the warning that they could be false). I think it is part of the job description inferred in the commission + send. Are you refering to my spatial statement about Titus? In the case of Paul’s team on the field, if one of the sent out team is “left behind” on the field to consolidate the ministry, I don’t think that would negate a sent status. Otherwise, I wonder if I had a typo somewhere or a brain freeze. I didn’t mean to say or even think the opposite. Thanks for giving me an opportunity to clarify and emphasize.Cindy

 

[] THREAD CLOSED: APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12

[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 Arie Dirkzwager dirkzwager at pandora.be
Tue Aug 31 13:33:03 EDT 2004

 

[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 [] WARNING Re: APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 Eduard (and others of course),I think we have to make a difference between the possibilities of the Greektext and the exegesis after comparing this text with other biblical texts orthe possibilities of ancient society.I do not think that Junia, if this is the nominative, was an apostle in thestrict sense of the 12 with Paul and James. I do not think that in the NTwomen had the position of elders, apostles, bishops (if you like) etc.But …If we have a group of men and women the Greek language uses the masculine todesign them. So APOSTOLOI *can* mean masculine and feminine apostles. I donot think it does, but that is my conclusion after studying other texts too.There is however another interesting thing.EN with dative can mean many things. That has been written by many otherlist members before me.I found however in R.C. Jebb – E.S. Shuckburgh, The Antigone of Sophocles,Cambridge 1963, ad vs. 458f.:EN QEOISI, the forensic EN, denoting the tribunal: Plat. Legg. 916 BDIADIKAZESQW DE EN TISI TWN IATRWN: Gorg. 464 D EI DEOI EN PAISIDIAGWNIZESQAI: Lys. or. 13 § 35 hO de DHMOS EN TWi DIKASQHRIWi en DISCILIOISEYHFISATO (sc. POIEIN THN KRISIN).That are texts in classical Greek. But it is clear that the “forensic” useof EN is attested too, if the “tribunal” is not an official one.And …In 1 Cor 6: 2 we have an exemple of forensic EN in biblical Greek: H OUKOIDATE hOTI hOI hAGIOI TON KOSMON KRINOUSIN? KAI EI *EN hUMIN* KRINETAI hOKOSMOS, …..So we have a clear *possibility* (not the proof, I regret) that EN TOISAPOSTOLOIS can mean “in the judgment of the apostles”.ArieDr. A. DirkzwagerHoeselt, Belgiume-mail dirkzwager at pandora.be

 

[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12[] WARNING Re: APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12

[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 CWestf5155 at aol.com CWestf5155 at aol.com
Tue Aug 31 13:38:12 EDT 2004

 

[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 [] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 <<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 WestfallAdjunct Denver SeminaryAdjunct Mars Hill Graduate School

 

[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12

[] WARNING Re: APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Aug 31 14:05:53 EDT 2004

 

[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 [] THREAD CLOSED: APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 I would urge list-members involved in the current thread stay closelyfocused on the meaning of words in the immediate syntactic context of thepassage(s) under discussion and avoid extension of the discussion intodoctrinal issues of gender roles and ecclesiastical office. Perhaps part ofa message I sent out just over a year ago may help to clarify this for anywho are unsure:At 4:46 PM -0400 8/20/03, Carl W. Conrad wrote:>ers:> >While most of those who post to with some regularity have a pretty>good sense of what sorts of questions and comments are appropriate for this>list and what sorts are not, there is some measure of confusion about the>parameters. We do spell out general guidelines in the FAQ>(http://ibiblio.org/.faq.txt), but when we say in that document,>” is not a forum for general Bible issues, except insofar as they>may bear specifically upon interpretation of a particular Greek text.>Neither is it a forum for general or specific hermeneutical or theological>issues,” it is evidently not clear to a few what is meant by crossing the>line into hermeneutical or theological issues.> >There’s actually a relatively simple test that any list-member may use to>gauge the probability of his/her question or comment being deemed>appropriate:> >“Does the question or comment focus upon the Greek text of a biblical>passage AS A GREEK TEXT?”> >If the question or comment could just as well be asked regarding any>translation of that Biblical passage into the writer’s own language, then>it’s almost certainly not properly a question or comment.— Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12[] THREAD CLOSED: APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12

[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 CWestf5155 at aol.com CWestf5155 at aol.com
Tue Aug 31 14:35:12 EDT 2004

 

[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 [] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 <<In a message dated 8/31/2004 10:19:57 AM Mountain Standard Time, iver_larsen at sil.org writes:> > However, I contest that Paul’s application of the title> APOSTOLOIS to these brothers is consistent with the term> APOSTOLOS in I Cor. 12, 9, 15 etc. as well as 2 Cor 1:1. And> while I don’t agree with you that it is idiosyncratic (there has> been diversity on this passage–I’m taking it literally), it is> not the consensus.This is the claim that I would like to see evidence for, especially since itgoes against the consensus.> APOSTOLOS has a full range of meaning. Coincidentally, so does> PROFHTHS. I suggest that the term in 1 Cor 12 encompasses that> range. Not every APOSTOLOS has the same function (or field, in> Pauliine terminology). The two common elements appear to be> commissioning (by primarily the Holy Spirit and secondarily the> churches), and “sent” = the geographic crossing of boundaries> between the local churches. The authority of any apostle would> be in direct proportion to the assigned field.The common element to the two senses of APOSTOLOS is the sending orcommissioning which does imply a good deal of travel.What distinguishes the two senses is partly who has commissioned them: 1)the local church leadership or 2) God or Jesus either directly or throughdivine intervention such as casting of lots or prophetic calling.Another distinctive feature is their ministry/task and level of authority.These distinctions are the ones that cause all versions to use the term”apostle” for sense 1 and another term like representative/envoy for sense 2(I agree with you against (N)RSV and NET that “messenger” misses the markfor both senses.)Iver Larsen>>Iver,I think I’ve made about as much as a case here on as I’m going to, but I agree that I should do an article or appendix on it. I’ll try to remember to send you a copy, and we could discuss further if you’d like. But I am very close to other positions such as Schreiner, Fee and Thistleton (whom I’m probably very close to–see p. 672 of I Cor). You and others have helped me by your discussion.I agree with you too here. “Delegate” was another term put forward that was very good, but any of these terms used alone probably define APOSTOLOS too narrowly, if the function for which they are commissioned is a variable. But I think particularly that dissassociating the application of the title to Paul from all other occurrences of APOSTOOS in his letters (or particularly within the same letter) is questionable as a starting point. Cindy WestfallAdjunct Denver SeminaryAdjunct Mars Hill Graduate School

 

[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12

[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 George F. Somsel gfsomsel at juno.com
Tue Aug 31 15:25:43 EDT 2004

 

[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 [] 2 John 2:15 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 systemclock. There is a (hopefully temporary) reason for this and it will becorrected as soon as the reason no longer exists.Especially in light of Carl’s caution, let us keep this to the discussionof the Greek and its meaning.Cindy is correct that not all writers use words in the same way. Evenone writer may use a word in different senses in different circumstances. Let us, however, see how Paul uses APOSTOLOS — particularly in onesignificant passage.In 1 Cor 9.1, 2 he writesOUK EIMI ELEUQEROS? OUK EIMI APOSTOLOS? OUXI IHSOUN TON KURION hHMWNhEWRAKA? OU TO ERGON MOU hUMEIS ESTE EN KURIWi?EI ALLOIS OUK EIMI APOSTOLOS, ALLA GE hUMIN EIMI; hH GAR SFRAGIS MOU THSAPOSTOLHS 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 thecondition is that the selection must be made from those who (for thewhole time of his ministry?) have been witnesses to Jesus when he statesHave I not seen Jesus our Lord?He then seems to indicate that he is not necessarily speaking ofAPOSTOLOS in the sense of one of the 12 when he sets up the conditionIf to others I am not an apostleand the apodosisat least I am to you.georgegfsomsel

 

[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12[] 2 John 2:15

[] THREAD CLOSED: APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Aug 31 15:58:21 EDT 2004

 

[] WARNING Re: APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 [] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12 In my judgment what can be affirmed in one sense or another about themeaning of APOSTOLOS has been fully set forth in the thread. Other issues,doctrines, and arguments based upon one or another hermeneuticalperspective that must lie outside discussion parameters of B-greek haveintruded into the thread, and for that reason I am asking all participantsheretofore and lurking to desist from continuing the thread. I appreciateyour cooperation.– Carl W. ConradCo-Chair, ListDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] WARNING Re: APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12[] APOSTOLOS in 1 Cor 12