The Origin of the New Testament Apostolate

By Robert W. Herron, Jr.

6008 Longhorn Lane, Houston, Texas 77041

Over a century ago J. B. Lightfoot published a commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians in which he included an excursus entitled “The Name and Office of an Apostle.”[1] It demonstrated that Lightfoot was probably the first scholar to fully appreciate the historical and theological difficulties connected with the NT apostolate. Lightfoot’s exposition also became the initial statement in a scholarly debate which has continued into our day. It is this wide diversity of opinion which justifies a survey and evaluation of current scholarship.

This essay has two objectives. The first is to categorize the secondary sources according to the positions taken regarding the origin of the apostolate. This criterion yields three categories: (1) the apostolate originates from an appointment by the historical Jesus; (2) the apostolate is a post-Easter development within the early church; (3) the apostolate reflects in a significant way the theological creativity of Paul.[2]

The second objective is to interact critically with the various hypotheses in order to determine the weight of probability and plausibility. Hopefully the thrust of one or another hypothesis will have fresh appeal in light of a sober assessment of over a century of scholarly research.

I. Survey of Current Scholarship

1. The Apostolate as an Appointment by Jesus

In the preface to his scholarly work, The Office of Apostle in the Early Church, Walter Schmithals notes that J. B. Lightfoot’s “research provided the foundation—which, though considerably enlarged, has hardly needed serious correction—for the great number of later works on the figure of the apostle and on the concept of the apostolic.”[3] His single most important contribution was his explication of the use of the term in Judaism. Lightfoot identified the figure of the šaliaḥ as the Jewish prototype and equivalent of the Christian apostolos.[4] In the Septuagint (1 Kgs 14:6) apostolos appears as a translation of šaliaḥ, “where it has the general sense of a messenger, though with reference to a commission from God.”[5] The most common use, however, was as a title given to those who were dispatched from Jerusalem on some special mission.[6] Further, Judaism after AD 70 knew of “Apostles” in the sense of counselors or assistants to a Jewish patriarch.[7] Lightfoot concludes that “in designating His immediate and most favored 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.”[8]

Perhaps the definitive statement of the šaliaḥ thesis is by Karl Heinrich Rengstorf in his celebrated article in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.[9] Rengstorf attempted to shore up the thesis by demonstrating (a) the terminological dependence, (b) the functional affinity, and (c) the reasons for discontinuity between the šaliaḥ and the apostolos.

In Rabbinic Judaism, notes Rengstorf, “the term [šaliaḥ] has an assured place as a noun, and in such a way that we have in it the closest parallel to the NT [apostolos],”[10] Jerome wrote of Jews who could be compared to apostoloi and who bore the title Slias, “and this is simply a Latinized form of [šaliḥa].”[11] Further, in the NT of the Syrian Church apostoloi are called šaluḥim, “and it must be granted that those who translated the New Testament into Syriac knew what they were doing when they chose this word for [apostolos].”[12]

Functionally, šaliaḥ is a legal term which dates back to at least the Exile.[13] Its chief characteristic is neither the act of sending nor the nature of the task, but the form of the sending, namely, with authorization. This is because the šaliaḥ is essentially secular rather than religious, and possesses religious significance only insofar as the particular task is religious. The key phrase used to characterize the nature of the šaliaḥ was: “The one sent by a man is as the man himself.”[14] This entire legal framework “goes back to the Semitic law of the messenger as presupposed in the OT. Here the messenger fully represents in his person the one who sends him, usually the king.”[15]

Rengstorf thinks it is within this context that the mission of Jesus’ disciples is cast. The Synoptists record Jesus calling the Twelve to himself in order to “send them out” (Matt 10:1ff; Mark 6:7ff; Luke 9:1ff). While Mark uses apostellein, Matthew and Luke note the exousia with which they are commissioned. “From the way in which their mission is described,” comments Rengstorf, “the men thus sent out are to be described as [šaluḥim] in the legal sense of the term.”[16]

This is underscored by other traditions. For example, the disciples are outraged by an unknown exorcist (Mark 9:38ff; Luke 9:49f) who was “casting out demons in your name”; that is, usurping authority reserved for themselves as plenipotentiaries. Secondly, Jesus’ words to the effect that treatment of the disciples is considered as having been done to himself (Matt 10:40ff; Mark 9:41; Luke 10:16) assumes the validity of the rabbinical dictum: “The one sent by a man is as the man himself.” Rengstorf concludes:

It may thus be accepted not merely that the apostolate itself derives from Jesus but also that the name apostle is used by Him [cf. Luke 6:13]. If he did not use the Greek term, or speak in terms of an office, at least He applied the [šaliaḥ] institution to the relationship between Him and His disciples at the time when, assigning them His full authority, He brought them into full participation in His work.[17]

The discontinuity between the distinctively Christian apostolate and the Jewish šaliaḥ lies in the permanent religious nature of the former. The chiefly “missionary element is something which radically distinguishes the NT apostolate from the Jewish [šaliaḥ] institution.”[18] This in turn is due to the permanent recommissioning of the apostles by the risen Lord: “The act of the risen Lord…was the renewal of the commission of the disciples in their definitive institution as [apostoloi]” (Matt 28:16ff; Luke 24:48f; Acts 1:8);[19] “with personal encounter with the risen Lord, personal commissioning by Him seems to have been the only basis of the apostolate.”[20] As representatives of the Lord the Christian apostle executes his responsibilities for an undetermined period of time, namely, until the parousia (Acts 1:6–11).

There were scholars before Rengstorf who thought such a dependency between the šaliaḥ and apostolos was present. Samuel Krauss[21] and Hermann Vogelstein[22] each published articles at the turn of the century developing such a connection, although neither “went beyond a comparison with individual forms of the institution.”[23]

In a later article Vogelstein’s analysis of the Jewish concept of apostle and passages in the Synoptic Gospels (e.g., Mark 6:7) leads him to conclude:

that the apostolate of the early Church, despite the essential changes which it underwent within such a brief period of time, must be understood from a historical point of view as having developed out of the Jewish institution.[24]

In 1927 F. Gavin published a paper as a sequel to Vogelstein’s article. He concludes that although the dependency cannot be proven,

the weight of probability as of plausibility lies on the side of a Jewish indebtedness rather than the borrowing from non-Jewish institutions, ideas and customs.[25]

We have found that scholars who locate the origin of the apostolate in the ministry of Jesus himself almost invariably also imply a dependency on the šaliaḥ institution. For example, A. M. Farrer notes: “Now although there is not good evidence that the Lord used the noun [i.e., apostolos] of His twelve, there is evidence good enough that He developed in reference to them the notions of ‘sending’ and ‘being sent.’“[26] When he goes on to cite Matt 10:16 and 40 as evidence (“He that receiveth you receiveth me”) he adds, “For according to Jewish custom, the emissary is to be treated as the principal.”[27]

In his work Tke Church’s Ministry, T. W. Manson states: “The present discussion [re: the function of the šaliaḥ] will follow in the main the classification adopted by Rengstorf.”[28]

More recently J. Andrew Kirk has contributed to the discussion by identifying “an underlying unity” which would allow for alleged variations in the concepts of apostle in the NT. In doing so Kirk is reluctant to derive the word apostle from šaliaḥ, although this “is probable within defined limits.”[29] He nevertheless feels that “no good grounds exist for denying its origin in the first mission of the Twelve.”[30] The distinctions drawn between the Twelve, Paul, and other church delegates is undergirded by “the unity of the special call of Christ and the one apostolic mission. The distinction appears in the chronological sequence of the call.”[31]

It remains the case, therefore, that the majority of sources which trace the apostolate to Jesus have modified or supplemented Rengstorf’s basic thesis; namely, that the Christian apostolate finds its direct prototype in the Jewish institution of the šaliaḥ. This in turn cannot be separated from the historical act of Jesus in calling and commissioning the Twelve. For many scholars “the question of the rise of the apostolate must begin here.”[32]

2. The Apostolate as a Post-Easter Development

A number of scholars contend that the evidence available to us from extant sources does not support the conclusion that Jesus transmitted to his disciples the office or title of apostle. Rather, the Christian apostolate is a post-Easter development which was read back into the Jesus tradition. This usually also involves the rejection of the Jewish šaliaḥ as a prototype for the apostolos. The question, therefore, is: What source should be identified as the origin of the early Christian apostolate?

In his 1921 commentary on Galatians in the celebrated ICC series, Ernest de Witt Burton devoted over twenty pages to an excursus on the technical term apostolos.[33] Burton ascertained that while the existence of a circle of disciples in Jesus’ ministry which numbered twelve is probably historical, as is their designation “the Twelve,” all references to the role and title of apostles in the Gospels reflect the understanding of the authors at the time of composition.[34] The crucial event which tended to displace the importance of the number and title “Twelve” was the rising prominence of the brothers of Jesus, especially James, to a status equal to the Twelve. “This fact gradually led to the adoption of the term ‘apostles,’…as the title of all who shared the functions of the Twelve.”[35] This term may have become titular because of its previous use “as a term descriptive of the function of the Twelve.”[36]

A unique interpretation was added to the discussion by Anton Fridrichsen in 1947. According to Fridrichsen, if Jesus designated his disciples šaluḥim it was a temporary appointment and did not adequately foreshadow the “permanent, fully eschatological apostolate…in the real sense of the word.”[37] Fridrichsen’s thesis rests,,on an exegesis of Gal 2:7–8 which pictures a parallel apostolate of two men, Peter and Paul. Taking clues from Paul’s desire to be equal to Peter and from traditions about Paul’s own calling, Fridrichsen reconstructs Peter’s calling to include: a special revelation similar to Paul’s and a commission to “Feed my sheep.” In an italicized sentence Fridrichsen proclaims:

So the apostolate in its full and definite sense began with the calling of Peter. Thereby the church of Christ received its first great apostolos, Kephas, one of the Twelve, and the idea of an [apostolē] comprising the entire existence and activity of a chosen instrument for the development of things in the last days.[38]

In a footnote Fridrichsen suggests that the title eventually passed over to the eleven from Peter.[39]

Holger Mosbech published an article shortly after Fridrichsen’s agreeing that during Jesus’ lifetime the Twelve were not known as apostles, and references to them as apostles in the Gospels represents a later understanding.[40] The situation which gave rise to the designation of certain men as apostles was the ardent Christian missionary effort:

Some of the traveling preachers quite naturally wanted to emphasize the authority of their message by pretending to have got an official mission, either by being sent out by a congregation, preferably the Primitive Church of Jerusalem, or by being called by God or by Christ himself to bring out the Christian message. In this way there arose a certain difference between missionaries who felt themselves rightfully called or officially sent out for their activity, and other Christians who more accidentally happened to propagate their faith when they, on commercial trips or other visits, came to foreign tracts; and to mark this difference professional missionaries may have felt it necessary to get a special name.[41]

On this account the choice of the word apostolos was happenstance, probably originating in Antioch. It became limited to the Twelve as a result of Paul’s conflict with Judaizers who wanted to deprive Paul of this title.

The ongoing debate received an important contribution in 1961 with the publication of a critical investigation by Walter Schmithals.[42] His work reflects a significant departure from the methodologies and conclusions of previous scholars. For example, an important facet of his preliminary work is ascertaining exactly who was an apostle at the time of Paul’s writings (i.e., before the writing of the Gospels and Acts). Schmithals’ conclusions are unprecedented and crucial to his overall thesis: (a) The “Twelve” are not original to the Jesus tradition. They are a group formed after the resurrection which has been read back into the tradition.[43] (b) When first formed the Twelve were not considered apostles. For example, 1 Cor 15:5–7 clearly differentiates between apostles and the Twelve. And 1 Cor 9:5 also excludes Cephas from the circle of the apostles. (c) The circle of apostles was limited, without exception, to Jewish Christian missionaries in the area of Antioch.[44]

With this working hypothesis Schmithals challenges Rengstorf’s šaliaḥ thesis. His objections are, briefly: (a) although Judaism knew of apostoloi, there is no evidence of their existence before AD 70;[45] (b) the Jewish šaliaḥ in existence before 70 differs too greatly from the Christian apostle to be seriously considered a prototype;[46] and (c) apostolos is too unlikely a term to become a recognized translation of šaliaḥ.[47] Schmithals’ summary statement includes this firm conviction: “If there were any two ‘sent ones’ who had nothing to do with each other, they would have been the Christian apostle and the Jewish Schaliach.”[48]

The third and major section of the book presents Schmithals’ central thesis:

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.[49]

Schmithals’ presentation and exposition of the primary evidence for the Gnostic apostle consists of two components: identification and comparison.

The identification of “The Apostle in Gnosticism”[50] is an intriguing display of scholarly investigation which clearly demonstrates the author’s expertise in the ancient Gnostic sources. The most important note, however, is the basic presupposition with which he is working, namely, that there were in existence Gnostic communities contemporaneous with the primitive Christian communities. Schmithals feels justified in assuming this because, he says, many of our extant Christian sources were occasioned by conflicts with Gnosticism, and these writings “permit us to gain a knowledge of the Gnostic apostolate with hardly less clarity than we have concerning the primitive Christian apostle.”[51] Moreover, reminiscences of Gnostic thought in Pauline literature are sometimes held to be material which, upon misapplication, evolved into post-Pauline Gnosticism. “Against this is raised the irrefutable objection that the Gnostic terminology in Paul cannot have first created the Gnostic myth, but presupposes it!”[52]

After demonstrating the existence of the Gnostic apostolate, which is best attested in the Syrian region, and which Schmithals contends precedes the first Christian century, he embarks on the task of comparing the Gnostic and ecclesiastical apostles.[53] Schmithals’ conclusion: If there existed in Syria a Gnostic apostolate prior to Christianity, and if Paul found and acquired his concept of apostle in Antioch, and if the Gnostic apostle and Christian apostle possess eighteen similar characteristics,[54] then the Gnostic apostle must be the prototype for the Christian apostle. Schmithals’ claim is to have discovered the true origin and nature of The Office of Apostle in the Early Church.

3. The Apostolate as a Reflection of the Theology of Paul

A number of scholars contend it is either not possible or not helpful to discover a prototype for the Christian apostle. For a better understanding of the origin and function of the apostolos we should look to the Christians themselves, especially the Apostle Paul. The underlying conviction of three scholars surveyed below is best expressed by Johannes Munck:

The word apostle, apart from the basic meaning “messenger,” has in the New Testament a pre-Pauline, a Pauline, and a post-Pauline use. It is Paul who is the decisive factor in the development of the apostolic idea.[55]

At the time of Paul’s conversion, says Munck, the word apostolos was being used in two ways: “1) messenger, and 2) apostle, of the wider circle of apostles whom we prefer to call missionaries sent out by Christ.”[56] That the Twelve were not apostles before Paul’s conversion can be ascertained from 1 Cor 15:3–9. Here “the Twelve” and “the apostles” are juxtaposed so that the reader learns that “the twelve in v 5 are the twelve disciples of Jesus, while all the apostles are the missionaries sent out by Christ.”[57]

It is Paul’s passionate conviction that he has been called by God as a special messenger of Jesus Christ to preach to the Gentiles which makes him the “decisive factor in the development of the apostolic idea.”[58] There developed subsequently a post-Pauline use of apostolos in which the Twelve, who are not apostles originally, are called the Apostles in Acts 9:27.[59] The final picture of the Twelve (Matt 28:9; Eph 2:20; 3:5; 4:11) is that of the Apostolic missionaries to the Gentiles. “In this way Paul’s apostolic idea has won…because all the twelve have become as Paul.”[60]

A similar view is taken by Hans Küng.[61] The college of Twelve existed very early as founders and leaders in the primitive community. But the earliest and most prominent characteristic of the circle of the Twelve according to tradition (1 Cor 15:5) is their primary function as “the fundamental witnesses of Christ’s resurrection.”[62] Although they may have been called apostles in a general sense, the term was without special theological implications.[63] “It was Paul who from the first associated the word with the idea of an authorized representative, and defended it in this sense against the Galatians (Gal 1 and 2).”[64]

Paul possessed a strong conviction regarding the impending eschaton, the mission of the church, and his mission to the Gentiles. It was in the expression of this conviction that Paul revalorized the concept of an apostle. “The strictly theological concept of apostleship was founded, developed, and saved from decay by Paul above all in connection with his mission to the Gentiles.”[65] Although with time the concept became widely accepted, it was, ironically, transferred and limited to the Twelve. Luke plays a vital role in this process. Only in some circles was the idea still applied to Paul himself.

Another scholar who views the development of the apostolate in this basic tripartite schema is C. K. Barrett.[66] Although the Twelve (in number and title) were established very early, perhaps even by Jesus himself,[67] they certainly were not, at least not at first, missionaries. How a mission to the Gentile world began is unclear, but a principal figure in its development was Paul. Paul believed himself to be a special agent of the risen Christ whose task involved the evangelization of the entire world before Christ’s return. In a lengthy but crucial sentence Barrett states his theory:

Paul, then, was now the leader of another apostolic group, using the Greek word [apostolos], for their work took them to the Greek-speaking world, but in a sense not unrelated to the Jewish shaliah, though, as we have seen, for Paul it meant not ‘agent’ simply but specifically ‘missionary agent’, and his understanding of the often-quoted rabbinic dictum, ‘A man’s shaliah is as himself’, was (if he thought about it at all) determined by the fact that the person whose shaliah he was was Christ crucified, so that his apostleship meant placarding Christ crucified in the sight of the world (Gal 3:1)—placarding the crucifixion in his preaching but no less in his person.[68]

It was Paul, therefore, who struggled with internal convictions and external conflicts to arrive at a concept of apostleship commensurate with his view of the world and his obligation to win it for Christ. The literature of second generation Christianity reveals the extent to which Paul influenced the concept of apostle.[69] “It shows that the word ‘apostle’ (whether in Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic), though it originally bore a different meaning, came to be interpreted in the Pauline sense.”[70] If we desire to uncover the origin and nature of the early Christian apostolate, says Barrett, we must look to the Apostle Paul. The concept as we have it in the NT is his.

II. Critical Reflections and Conclusions

Regarding the numerous theories about the early Christian Apostolate Holger Mosbech stated: “It has therefore proved extremely difficult, or even impossible, to arrive at results that may count on general recognition.”[71] The above “Survey of Current Scholarship” has made the truth of this assertion especially relevant. Hopefully we are in a better position to interact critically with these various hypotheses due to the wealth of information and insight offered to us by these scholars.

1. Twelve Disciples

It should first of all be noticed that the majority of scholars do not hesitate to date the formation of the Twelve back to the earthly ministry of Jesus. The notable exception to this statement is Walter Schmithals who considers the Twelve to have been an authoritative body formed within the early Christian community after the resurrection.[72] In view of the evidence his position must be ruled untenable.

Chronologically the earliest reference to the Twelve is found in Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians (15:5). The significance of this reference to the Twelve is their inclusion in a tradition-formula which Paul himself had “received” and was passing on to his readers (15:3).[73] That this formula is pre-Pauline, and therefore very early, raises the question as to how this group acquired their prominence so soon after the death of Jesus. Schmithals thinks “they have their significance as witnesses of the resurrection.”[74] The implication is that they came into existence because “A resurrection vision was shared with them.”[75] The shared resurrection vision was their raison d’être. But a resurrection appearance was experienced by as many as “five hundred brethren” (1 Cor 15:6). How did twelve men out of over five hundred witnesses of the resurrected Lord come to be honored as the leaders of the early Christian community with the titular designation “the Twelve”? The answer must be that their raison d’être is not as witnesses to the resurrection, although this is an important responsibility of theirs thereafter. The most natural reading of this text is that the Twelve form an already existing circle to whom the resurrected Lord appeared, perhaps to legitimate its continued existence after his death, but certainly not to create it.

If this conclusion is correct then wherein lies their raison d’être? For this answer we must consider the explanation of the origin of the Twelve in the Synoptic tradition historically very probable. As a teacher and preacher Jesus must have had an occasionally large following. We agree with Barrett that, “It is stated in the gospels, and can hardly fail to have been true, that some of these stood closer to him than others; out of the total company a smaller group was formed.”[76] It is our contention that the earthly Jesus did indeed designate twelve disciples to be his companions and pupils (Mark 3:13ff; Matt 10:1ff; Luke 6:12ff). The number twelve reflects Jesus’ understanding of his eschatological message and is connected with the hope of a restored Israel. For this we note the saying preserved in Matt 19:28: “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”[77]

The historicity of the appointment of the Twelve by Jesus is corroborated by the preservation of the tradition of Judas as one of the Twelve. According to Schmithals, “since the old tradition speaks of an appearance of Jesus before the twelve, Judas must have been present at this appearance (1 Cor 15:5).”[78] In other words, Judas must in reality have been an apostate of the early church whose betrayal of the Lord consisted of his apostasy from faith in the risen Lord. “When the existence of the twelve was projected back into the life of Jesus, Judas and his betrayal found a place in the passion narratives.”[79] We note that this supposition is lacking any evidence whatsoever to support its claim, and is rather itself an attempt to account for the Judas tradition within Schmithals’ larger schema. Had Judas been an apostate of the early church, we think it inconceivable that the early community would have projected him back into the tradition as one chosen by Jesus himself! As a member of the Twelve Judas was rather a source of embarrassment to the church which the writers of the Gospels felt compelled to explain (Matt 27:3–10; John 13:21–30; 17:12; Acts 1:16–20). The explanation for the expression “the Twelve” rather than “the eleven” must lie in its function as a terminus technicus of an already quasi-institutional entity. Notes one scholar, “Twelve is used substantivally, not adjectivially.”[80] At any rate, the insistence on Judas as one of the twelve disciples of the earthly Jesus and his role as the traitor can only be adequately explained if this was indeed the way things happened. This much we consider certain.

2. Pauline Apostolate

We owe a debt of gratitude to those scholars who have emphasized the Pauline influence on the concept of apostle. Much of our knowledge of what it meant to be an apostle is due to his reflection on the matter. However, the question as to whether and how far the NT apostolate is a Pauline innovation, or whether later writers of NT documents applied his concept anachronistically, depends largely upon what concept of apostle Paul himself received upon entry into the church. Here we must reckon with two factors in Paul’s thinking. On the one hand, it is clear that Paul was deeply convinced of a special calling from the risen Lord to a personally commissioned ministry. On the other hand, this must be viewed against his awareness of a larger apostolate of which he was only a part.

(1) Unique commission. Paul’s conception of the uniqueness of his apostolate is summed up in Gal 1:15–16:

But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles…

Paul knew himself to be an apostle—”not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead” (Gal 1:1). He frequently characterized his position as apostolou Cristou Iēsou, a genitive which expresses Christ Jesus as both the subject responsible for the commission and as the one who possesses Paul (cf. 1 Cor 1:1).[81] Although God had chosen Paul even before he was born, the actual historical moment when God “was pleased to reveal his Son to me” (Gal 1:16) made Paul’s calling appear to man as “one untimely born” (1 Cor 15:8).

But the most important point is the purpose for which Paul had been called as an apostle of Jesus Christ, namely, “that I might preach him among the Gentiles” (Gal 1:16). Fridrichsen is probably correct when he says Paul thought of himself as an eschatological person, that is, “a man who has been appointed to a proper place and a peculiar task in the series of events to be accomplished in the final days of this world.”[82] At one place Paul refers to himself as “an apostle of the Gentiles” (Rom 11:13). In doing so Paul is delineating the primacy of his commission from the risen Lord. By offering salvation to the Gentiles it is God’s ultimate objective to save both Gentile and Jew. Thus Paul emphasizes this aspect of his ministry as a part of God’s overall plan “in order to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them” (Rom 11:14). For this cause and to this end Paul devoted himself life and limb (2 Cor 11:24ff).

(2) Larger apostolate. Although Paul was conscious of a highly personal calling, he did not think himself the recipient of a unique, i.e., exclusive, apostolate. This may seem to be belaboring an obvious point, but Paul clearly thought himself to be one of a larger but limited apostolate with the proviso that God’s eschatological plans necessitated the concentration of his missionary efforts to the Gentile population. The best evidence for Paul’s consciousness of his inclusion in a larger apostolate is the Corinthian and Galatian correspondence. In 1 Cor 15:7 Paul is aware of a closed circle to whom he could refer as “all the apostles.” Now to this recognized group of apostles one more must be added: “Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God” (1 Cor 15:8–9).

No doubt the timing of Paul’s calling was a source of difficulty in establishing the legitimacy of his apostolate to those who questioned it (1 Cor 9:1ff). This at least appears to be the case in Galatians 1–2 where Paul deals with opponents who have undermined “his gospel” by apparently calling into question his apostolate:

Not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ…. For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from men, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ. [Gal 1:7, 11–12].

Paul is always aware that even at the moment he receives his calling and message there are already apostles before him in Jerusalem (Gal 1:17). And it remains the case that whenever Paul feels compelled to defend his apostolate he always proffers his arguments on grounds which he expects his readers readily to recognize. In other words, in order to validate his own apostolate Paul must meet certain widely acknowledged criteria as to what constitutes an “apostle of Jesus Christ.”

For example, his apostolate is “not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the father” (Gal 1:1). There were apostles from men (humōn de apostolon, Phil 2:25) and envoys of churches (apostoloi ekklēsiōn, 2 Cor 8:23). But these figures are not to be confused with the “apostle of Jesus Christ” (Gal 1:12). It seems that certain individuals in the Galatian congregations had cast doubts upon Paul’s apostolic authority. Perhaps they had asked, How could Paul be an apostle of Jesus Christ? Had Paul ever walked and talked with the Lord? When he did become a believer long after the Lord’s death, did he not travel to Jerusalem to confer with the true apostles? If he is an “apostle” at all, must he not be only an “envoy” of the apostles of Jesus Christ? It is in the light of these questions that Paul’s reply is fully intelligible:

But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia: and again I returned to Damascus. [Gal 1:15–17].

Paul traveled to Jerusalem years later (Gal 1:18f; 2:1f) not to receive instruction in the gospel message or validation of his apostolate, but in the interest of assuring continuity between his and the Jerusalem missionary efforts, that the gospel might be preached to both Jew and Gentile without strife or division (Gal 2:1–10).

Paul’s testimony of the revelation of God’s Son is also asserted in his First Letter to the Corinthians. Here the implication is that his apostolate is integrally connected with this experience, for “Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me” (1 Cor 15:8). Paul concedes that he is “the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God” (1 Cor 15:9). But he is an apostle nevertheless, because “by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain” (1 Cor 15:10). And as an apostle he is entitled to certain rights: “Do we not have the right to our food and drink? Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas” (1 Cor 9:4–5)? These are his rights even if he chooses not to exercise them (1 Cor 9:12). “Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord? If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord” (1 Cor 9:1–2). Paul could ask such rhetorical questions anticipating affirmative answers because he expected his readers to accept the validity of his reasoning.

Moreover, it seems that an effective ministry was proof of a person’s truth-claims (Acts 5:33–42). If certain envoys of men and congregations were wont to carry and produce letters of recommendation, the apostle of Jesus Christ is not compelled to do so, for “You yourselves are our letter of recommendation,” wrote Paul to the Corinthians, “written on your hearts, to be known and read of all men” (2 Cor 3:2). Almost as a last resort Paul admonishes these Christians to recognize the “signs of an apostle,” for they “were performed among you in all patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works” (2 Cor 12:12).

It seems clear the early Christians were aware of an office or function of apostle which could be distinguished from an envoy in a general sense (1 Cor 15:7). The challenge to Paul’s apostolate and his struggle to secure recognition for it is, as we have seen above, good evidence that this circle was exclusive; and that it was possible, at least in principle, to identify an apostle on the basis of certain accepted criteria. Paul did not think himself the recipient of a new concept of apostle, but rather defended his claim to be included in an existing and acknowledged circle on the grounds of a sovereign act of God. The uniqueness of Paul’s concept of apostle lay not in the apostolate per se, but rather in the primacy of his ministry to the Gentiles as an apostle.

3. Pre-Pauline Apostolate

The next logical step in our discussion brings us to a consideration of who were the “apostles before me” mentioned by Paul in Gal 1:17. The more focused question, of course, is whether this group consists, even in part, of the Twelve. Traditionally the answer has been in the affirmative,[83] although our study has shown that this position is no longer uniformly accepted.[84] Besides the fact that the evangelists each assign the Twelve both the title of apostle and the function of being “sent ones” (Matt 10:2, 5; Mark 6:7, 30; Luke 6:13; 9:10) without the theological connotations of a post-Easter commission, there is additional indirect evidence of their role as Uraspostel.

(1) 1 Cor 15:7: “all the apostles.” It is sometimes asserted, as by Munck[85] and Schmithals,[86] that the construction of 1 Cor 15:3ff is intended to distinguish and exclude the Twelve from the phrase “all the apostles.” According to Schmithals, since the appearance of the Lord to the apostles is not qualified with the word ephapax, “at one time,” we cannot think of this as a manifestation to a massed group as with the five hundred brethren (“he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time,” v 6; “then to all the apostles,” v 7).[87] In other words, Paul is expressing in one phrase a number of different manifestations to those who would thereby become apostles. “If then [hoi apostoloi pantes] actually means ‘all the apostles,’ the concept in this passage excludes James and Peter, for it is not to be assumed that the two of them were, in the opinion of Paul, accounted worthy of a second manifestation, a special manifestation as apostles.”[88] By extension this reasoning also excludes the Twelve because they too had received their vision earlier.

But Schmithals’ argument appears to us especially tenuous for several reasons. For example, if Schmithals is correct in saying that Paul meant to distinguish the appearance to more than five hundred brethren from all the others as being en masse (ephapax), then a consistent application of this principle would have the appearance to those of “the Twelve” occurring on several occasions also, since it is not qualified with ephapax. But this seems clearly counter to Paul’s intention and the meaning of the tradition-formula. Further, we must ask how Paul’s readers would have understood this. Here it is clear that Schmithals has ignored the obvious and natural understanding of the text in favor of a questionable grammatical exegesis which only serves his own purpose. The uniqueness of the appearance to more than five hundred brethren lies not in its occurrence “at one time” as opposed to the other appearances which did not occur “at one time.” Its uniqueness lies rather in the extraordinary size of the group. This is very much the way one would expect to hear this tradition orally: “The Lord appeared to more than five hundred brethren,” and anticipating that this appearance, rather than another, is most likely to be misunderstood, the speaker might add, “and it occurred at one time!” By the same token, in the clause “all the apostles,” pantes has the effect of contrasting this appearance to all the apostles with a previous appearance to a limited group of apostles, i.e. Peter and the Twelve.

We should not expect the phrase “all the apostles” to necessarily exclude “the Twelve” any more than “the Twelve” intends to exclude Peter. Indeed, there are two reasons why we should expect this delineation. First, it appears that the formula was not intended to be a simple enumeration of witnesses to the resurrected Lord with each element to exclude another. It seems rather to present (even if roughly) a chronological sequence of the Lord’s appearances.[89] Thus, the intention of the wording of this formula is to record the appearances of the Lord to several persons and groups of persons in the order in which they actually occurred. We should expect exactly this wording if the Lord appeared to the Twelve once as a closed circle of disciples and on a second occasion as a part of a larger apostolate. One should even conclude that the Lord appeared to Peter on a minimum of three occasions! Secondly, if this understanding of the text is correct, it must be remembered that at the time this tradition-formula came into use (not very long after the events themselves), reverence for the original twelve disciples of Jesus had not yet usurped completely the memory of the other apostles. Thus, the title “the Twelve” had not yet come to be equated with “apostles” as it does later in the second century.[90] At this time it was naturally a more coveted title and served as a terminus technicus to distinguish this smaller group from “all the apostles” as no other title could.

There is nothing in the grammatical construction of this formula that denies the apostleship of the Twelve. In fact, if we assume the apostolate of Peter,[91] we are forced to ask: Who were “the other apostles” in Gal 1:19? Küng reasons as follows:

At 1 Corinthians 15:5 Paul refers to the appearances of Jesus to Peter and the twelve; these are therefore the first witnesses of the resurrection. If they are so important to Paul and yet are not named in connection with his first visit to Jerusalem it can only be because they were included in the words “the other apostles.”[92]

We think Küng’s point is well taken. In other words, if the Twelve were the first and most revered of a larger apostolate, then the late tradition (second century) which limits the apostolate to the Twelve (and sometimes Paul)[93] can be fathomed. The reverence for the Twelve and their association with the historical Jesus eventually usurped the memory of the other apostles (with the exception, of course, of the lasting influence of Paul’s apostolic ministry). If, on the other hand, “the apostles” are such a venerated and authoritative body, but do not include the Twelve, how could their influence and identities have so completely faded and their title been transferred to a non-apostolic group like the Twelve? Attempts to explain this unlikely turn of events have been completely unsuccessful.[94]

Schmithals answers this by severely qualifying the apostolate of Peter. He reasons that one cannot move from the apostolate of Peter to the apostolate of the Twelve if the former is in doubt. And Schmithals thinks it an unwarranted conclusion to deduce Peter’s apostolate on the basis of 1 Corinthians. By his reasoning,

The [apostoloi pantes] are actually all the apostles; and that the twelve should have belonged in that company is not indicated by anything, and there is nothing to make it likely. On the contrary, it is ruled out by the fact that Peter himself is not reckoned among the apostles in 1 Cor 15:7.[95]

Earlier we assumed the apostolate of Peter in anticipation of demonstrating its certainty on the basis of Paul’s Galatian correspondence. And it is this evidence which presents the most serious challenge to Schmithals’ denial of the apostolate of the Twelve. But it is necessary first to consider Schmithals’ exegesis of Galatians 1 and 2 .

(2) Gal 1:17: “apostles before me.” According to Schmithals, since Paul does not count the Twelve among the apostles anywhere else, one must conclude that “he quite certainly does not count them in that company in Gal 1:17, 19.”[96] And since “elsewhere he plainly distinguishes Peter and James, as he does the twelve, from the apostles (1 Cor 9:5; 15:1ff),”[97] it must be that Paul reluctantly applies the title to Peter on the basis of his later missionary activity.

Peter had no actual connection with the primitive Christian apostolic circle…. Only in view of his activity in the Jewish mission can Paul concede to him whose “revelation of Jesus Christ” is indeed well established, the professional designation of an apostle.[98]

The problem with this conclusion is that it assumes that Paul would confer (or allow to be conferred) the title of apostle to someone who previously was not an apostle and had not received a specific commission to that end.[99]But everything we know of Paul’s thought militates against such an assumption. We have seen earlier that the concept of apostle was not so fluid that such a conference would have gone unchallenged. But more importantly Paul himself is convinced that an apostle is a specially called messenger of God so designated by an appearance of the resurrected Lord, and that he was himself the last (chronologically) to be included in a clearly defined apostolic circle.[100] That Paul would assume the responsibility of conferring the title of apostle on anyone on the basis of “merit” or “missionary activity” is inconceivable.

(3) Gal 2:8: “apostleship of the circumcision.” What is the relation of Peter to Paul and his apostolate? Paul says, “When they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised…they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship” (Gal 2:7, 9). It is clear that Paul is not “conceding” the title of apostle to Peter. On the contrary, it is Peter’s apostolate which is well established and Paul who is arguing for recognition as Peter’s equal with a parallel apostolate: “For he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles” (Gal 2:8).[101] Of course, this parallel has been recognized by others. This concept forms a central thesis of Fridrichsen’s work.[102] According to Fridrichsen, “Paul expressly parallels his own apostolate with that of Peter…which was of course older than that of Paul.”[103] Stated summarily:

Obviously Paul pictures to himself the eschatologic situation of the world in this way: In this world, soon disappearing, the centre is Jerusalem with the primitive community and the Twelve, surrounded by the mission field divided between two apostles: one sent by the Lord himself to the circumcised, the other to the Gentiles.[104]

We think Fridrichsen has correctly noted the “parallel apostolate” and the chronological priority of Peter’s appointment. We do, however, have reservations with Fridrichsen’s apparent attempt to limit the entire Christian apostolate at the time of the composition of Galatians to only two men: Peter and Paul.

Paul is clearly drawing a parallel between himself and Peter, but he does not think of himself and Peter as the only apostles: “But other of the apostles I saw not” (Gal 1:19). Paul does not have in mind here two “apostles,” but rather two “apostolates” (i.e., groups of apostles), of which he and Peter were the respective “heads”:[105] Peter “heads” the apostolate of the circumcision, while Paul “heads” the apostolate of the uncircumcision (Gal 2:7–8). When we attempt to name those who constitute the apostolate of the uncircumcision we think immediately of Barnabas (Gal 2:9; Acts 14:14) and of Andronicus and Junias (Rom 16:7). Although there may have been others, their identities are lost to us. When we turn to the apostolate of the circumcision there remains no alternative but to think of the Twelve. There may have been other “apostles of the circumcision” which were not members of the Twelve. This may be the way Paul thinks of James the Lord’s brother.[106] And it is certain that the Twelve as a collegium had already begun to dissipate due to missionary activity (implied in Gal 1:19) and perhaps martyrdom (Acts 12:2). But it remains the case that Paul can think of Peter as the head of an apostolate of the circumcision which undoubtedly consists primarily of the Twelve precisely because Peter had filled this function from the time of Jesus’ earthly ministry.

Tradition consistently places Peter as the first among the Twelve (Matt 10:2; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13). And Peter plays the primary role in exactly those traditions which have to do with apostolic authority. Cullmann has demonstrated this notion in a forceful way.[107] For example, although all twelve disciples are given “the power of binding and loosing” (Matt 18:18), Peter is singled out as the one who bears primary responsibility for this task (Matt 16:19).[108] Likewise, “1 Cor. 15:5 and Lk 24:34 mention an appearance of the Lord to Peter and thereby show that this important though not exclusive precondition of apostolic calling applies to Peter in a special way.”[109] From the beginning of Jesus’ ministry throughout all of the NT literature Peter is revered for being the first among equals. Cullmann notes:

The apostles are the one foundation on which the community is built, Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14. Among them Peter is the first and chief eyewitness of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.[110]

This only serves to emphasize the point we made earlier that Paul did not think himself either the recipient or creator of an original concept of apostle. The formal commission by the risen Lord and his office of apostle itself finds its exact counterpart in the prior appointment to Peter (and by extension all other apostles). Paul is here attempting to defend his apostolate by drawing parallels with Peter’s commission and by appealing to a sovereign act of God. Again, the uniqueness of Paul’s calling lay not in the apostolate per se, but rather in the primacy of his ministry to the Gentiles (1 Cor 1:10ff). This is the most plausible explanation of Paul’s understanding of the Christian apostolate, and undoubtedly reflects the larger understanding of the apostolate circa the mid-first century. That these primary roles were played by Peter and Paul in this regard is strengthened by the fact that several of the Apostolic Fathers know only them by name (Ign. Rom. 4:3; 1 Clem. 5:3ff). And even here they serve as exemplars of a larger apostolate (Ign. Smyrn. 3:2; Ign. Eph. 12:2; 1 Clem. 42:1f).

4. Remaining Alternatives

We have tried to demonstrate the solidity of the concept and function of apostle at the time Paul began his ministry, and the primary role of the Twelve as the Urapostel. To our mind there is no reason to deny the appointment of the Twelve as “apostles” by Jesus as historical. Attempts to do so only result in an unwarranted distortion of the tradition which affirms the apostolate of the Twelve. To be sure the concept was completely refurbished after the resurrection. But if the question as to how the concept of apostle changed after the resurrection is suspended, the question of whence it derives is appropriate. Further, recognition of a certain influence on the way later generations understood the concept of apostle is not to say with Munck, Küng, and Barrett that the Christian apostolate as found in the NT originated with Paul. To find the origin or prototype for the Christian apostolate we have to go further back than Paul. The results of our survey of scholars in section I above yield three options: (a) that the Christian apostolate finds its prototype in the Jewish institution of the šaliaḥ; (b) that although the apostolate as reflected in the writings of the New Testament is due to the ecclesiastical needs and theological creativity of the early Church, the origin or likely prototype of the apostolate has either eluded modern scholarship or the choice of the word apostolos to describe this ecclesiastical function is an inexplicable phenomenon (e.g., Burton, Mosbech): (c) that the precise counter-part and prototype of the primitive Christian apostle is the Gnostic apostle.

(1) Gnostic apostle. In consideration of these options we begin with Schmithals’ thesis of the Gnostic apostle. One of Schmithals’ objections to Rengstorf’s šaliaḥ thesis is that the Jewish practice of commissioning representatives does not follow the distinctive pattern of the Christian apostolate. But if we take seriously the rabbinic dictum “the one sent by a man is as the man himself,” then this objection seems beside the point. Two points must be kept in mind. First, the šaliaḥ institution is primarily legal rather than religious in nature. But it reflects the distinctive purpose of the sender, and we are not without examples where the šaliaḥ thus becomes a religious figure.[111] Secondly, no one has argued that the Christian apostolate as a post-resurrection institution duplicates exactly either the Jewish šaliaḥ institution in general or the relationship between the earthly Jesus and his disciples specifically. At this point, notes Rengstorf, “We reach the rationalistically determined limit of the Jewish conception of the [šaliaḥ] and it is here that, for all formal kinship, the NT [apostolos] both opposes and transcends this view.”[112]

Schmithals’ exegesis of Galatians 1 and 2 is also vulnerable. We have already discussed this at length. In summary it should only be noted that Schmithals insists that there was no pre-Pauline apostolate in Jerusalem. But he cannot adequately explain what nonapostolic group would merit a visit from Paul when they are even described by him as “those who were apostles before me” (Gal 1:17). Once it is realized that Schmithals’ argument demands that the only existing apostolate is that of the Pauline circle in and around Antioch, and that this crucial point cannot be defended, the likelihood of Schmithals’ thesis is fatally diminished.

Thirdly, we question the very foundation on which the argument is based: that Gnosticism (in the matured stage which Schmithals portrays it) existed during or before first-generation Christianity. None of the material cited by Schmithals which is symptomatic of a developed Gnosticism can be dated as early as the NT.[113] Schmithals waves the issue aside in a footnote:

In the following I presuppose [my emphasis] the existence of Gnostic communities for the early period of Christianity—just as ancient, then, as the Judaistic and Hellenistic communities. Without labeling the contesting of this presupposition as unscientific, I think I may claim for its champions at least the same scientific seriousness as for its opponents.[114]

Even if evidence should come to bear that would unquestionably place Gnosticism in a contemporary setting with the ecclesiastical apostolate, a logical influence would still have to be demonstrated beyond the comparisons proffered by Schmithals. He consistently underscores the fact that his proposal is itself based on assumption and comparison rather than a demonstrated dependence. Prior to his section on the connection between the Gnostic and Christian apostles he states:

This is to be assumed [i.e., the above mentioned connection] as a matter of course when we reflect on what has been said so far, and this assumption will be confirmed in the course of the comparison which now follows [my emphasis]. At the same time, it will follow that the dependence lies on the side of the church’s apostolate.[115]

But the reader is aware of this dependence only because Schmithals tells him of it. One could as easily adduce the same evidence and comparisons to demonstrate the dependency of the second-century Gnostic apostle on the first-century Christian apostle.

In light of this it is ironic that one of Schmithals’ objections to the šaliaḥ thesis is the lack of sources which clearly date the Jewish apostolate before AD 70. Nevertheless, it has yet to be explained under what circumstances the Jews would have created an office with the title apostolos when it was so well established among the “heretical” Jewish sect of Christians. J. B. Lightfoot anticipated this criticism at the very outset:

There is no direct evidence indeed that the term was in use among the Jews before the destruction of Jerusalem: but it is highly improbable that they should have adopted it from the Christians, if it had not been current among them before; and moreover Christian writers speak of this Jewish apostolate, as an old institution which still lingered on.[116]

(2) Post-Easter apostolate. There are two interesting features common to the theses of Burton, Fridrichsen, and Mosbech. First, they all agree that the Christian apostolate may have been foreshadowed to some degree by the use of apostolos or šaliaḥ in a descriptive mode, perhaps by Jesus himself. But secondly, they contend that the distinctly post-Easter apostolate owes its existence to some set of circumstances accruing within the early Christian community after the ministry of the earthly Jesus.

It is our contention that the positions of these three scholars are untenable because of a lack of hard evidence. They have failed to substantiate any real motivation for the church in “creating” this ministry. Burton suggests that rising prominence within the church of the Lord’s brothers created a circle of leaders who were no longer identical to “the Twelve.” The term “apostles” was adopted to designate membership within this circle. The problem is that it is doubtful whether James or Jude were ever known unquestionably as apostles.[117] Neither is it clear that the rising prominence of the Lord’s brothers was a contributing factor in the eventual dispersement of “the Twelve.” Further, why should apostolos be chosen over another term, especially since it appears that James was anything but a “sent one”?[118]

We have already discussed the flaws with Fridrichsen’s position. We only ask here that if Peter was the first of two apostles (the other being Paul) called in a manner similar to Paul after Easter, how has all evidence of such an event been so completely lost to us? This aspect of Fridrichsen’s thesis is simply too speculative.

We have similar misgivings with Mosbech. According to Mosbech, when a distinction arose between the occasional missionary and the missionary by profession, the more devoted itinerant sought to credit his efforts by highlighting the distinction with the new term apostolos. But this again is mere conjecture. It cannot explain how the term crystalized so early as to become part of a pre-Pauline tradition (1 Cor 15:5), nor why a visit to Jerualem is synonymous with a visit to “apostles before me” in Gal 1:17.

(3) Jewish šaliaḥ. Rengstorf’s position has been reviewed sufficiently in section one to forego a restatement of it here. But it is the opinion of this writer that not enough attention has been paid to a crucial aspect of the šaliaḥ thesis, namely, the radical change the apostolate underwent as a result of the renewing of the commission by the risen Lord: “The act of the risen Lord…was the renewal of the commission of the disciples in their definitive institution as [apostoloi].”[119] Schmithals dismisses this as inadmissible evidence:

[This stage] in which the concept of apostle in Christianity is supposed to have been so greatly altered [does] not exist…. I can only continue to be amazed at the unabashed certainty with which Rengstorf holds the reports of the Synoptists and of the book of Acts to be historically unassailable.[120]

Of course, this makes it obvious that the question of the origin of the apostolate, as with so many other questions in NT theology, depends largely upon the presuppositions one brings to the task. We are unwilling to rule out a priori the historicity of the event which provides the foundation for any valid estimation of the Christian faith. Birger Gerhardsson words it well when he notes that the church’s concept of the apostolate was “primarily based on the teachings and actions of Jesus, and on those events, so difficult for the historian to estimate, which are described as being direct meetings with the Risen Lord.”[121] Herein, undoubtedly, lies the crucial transformation of the pre-resurrection “apostle” (šaliaḥ) in the general sense of “messenger” or “commissioned one” to “apostle” in the sense of the specially commissioned servant of the Resurrected One.

In our concluding remarks we should reiterate a point often overlooked, namely, the tentative nature of a hypothesis. Biblical scholars often discuss a hypothesis (such as any of those discussed in this essay) with the definitive language that should be reserved for algebraic equations. It would be unfortunate if in our evaluation of the current scholarship of the origin of the apostolate we will have appeared to succumb too readily to this temptation. But in our evaluation of the hypotheses available we have been persuaded by the šaliaḥ thesis and the concomitant conclusion that the origin of the apostolate lies in the will and actions of the historical Jesus. The words of F. Gavin express our sentiments, that given the evidence, “the weight of probability as of plausibility lies on the side of a Jewish indebtedness rather than the borrowing of non-Jewish institutions, ideas and customs.”[122]

Notes

1. Joseph Barber Lightfoot, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians (1st ed., 1865; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957) 92–101.
2. This is essentially a chronological distinction. The placing of a source in one or another category depends upon the main emphasis of the position. The categories are, therefore, somewhat subjective.
3. Walter Schmithals, Das kirchliche Apostelamt (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961); English translation by John E. Steely, The Office of Apostle in the Early Church (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1969) 20. NOTE: The paginations in this paper will follow the English edition.
4. Cf. M. Delcor and E. Jenni, “šlḥ,” Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Tpstament (2 vols.; E. Jenni and C. Westermann; München: Chr. Kaiser, 1976) 2.909-16.
5. Lightfoot, Galatians, 93.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid., 93-94.
9. “Apostolos,” TDNT 1.407–45. See also K. H. Rengstorf, Apostolate and Ministry (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1968), and “The Election of Matthias,” in Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation (ed. G. F. Snyder and W. Klassen; New York, 1962) 178–92.
10. Rengstorf, TDNT 1.414.
11. Ibid.
12. Rengstorf, Apostolate and Ministry, 29. Rengstorf also notes that “on a Jewish inscription at Venosa dating from the 5th or 6th century AD there is a reference to duo apostuli with duo rebbites” (TDNT 1.414).
13. Cf. H. Vogelstein, “The Development of the Apostolate in Judaism and its Transformation in Christianity,” HUCA 2 (1925) 100.
14. Rengstorf, TDNT 1.415: Ber. 5.5; Menaḥ. 93b; Mek. Exod 12:6; Qidd. 41b; B. Meṣ. 96a; Hag. 10b; Ned. 72b; Nazir 12b. The powers of a šaliaḥ are so extensive that an act accomplished or initiated by him cannot be reversed by the sender. One could, through a šaliaḥ, become betrothed, divorced, make purchases, or perform any legal transaction.
15. Ibid., 416. Cf. B. Qam. 113b: “The emissary of a king is as the king himself.” Also, see the Tannaitic Midrash on Num 12:9 (Sipre 103): “With what is the matter to be compared? With a king of flesh and blood, who has an epitropos in the land. And the inhabitants of the land spoke against him. Then the king said: You have not spoken about my servant, but about me.”
16. Ibid., 425.
17. Ibid., 429.
18. Ibid., 432.
19. Ibid., 430.
20. Ibid., 431.
21. Samuel Krauss, “Die jüdischen Apostel,” JQR 17 (1905) 370–83.
22. Hermann Vogelstein, “Die Entstehung and Entwichlung des Apostolats im Judentum,” MGWJ 49 (1905) 427ff.
23. Rengstorf, TDNT 1.414 n. 54.
24. Vogelstein, “The Development of the Apostolate in Judaism and Its Transformation in Christianity,” HUCA 2 (1925) 99–123.
25. F. Gavin, “Shaliach and Apostolos,” ATR 9 (1927) 250–59.
26. A. M. Farrer, “The Ministry in the New Testament,” The Apostolic Ministry (ed. K. E. Kirk; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1946) 124.
27. Ibid. In the same volume D. G. Dix states in his article “The Ministry in the Early Church”: “Since at least the time of St. Jerome, it has been recognized that the Christian ‘apostle’ had his prototype in the Jewish shaliach” (p. 228).
28. T. W. Manson, The Church’s Ministry (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1948) 39.
29. J. Andrew Kirk, “Apostleship Since Rengstorf: Towards A Synthesis,” NTS 21 (1975) 259.
30. Ibid.
31. Ibid., 262.
32. Rengstorf, TDNT 1.424. See also Kirsopp Lake, “The Twelve and the Apostles,” in The Beginnings of Christianity: Part I. The Acts of the Apostles 5 (London: Macmillan, 1933) 51–52.
33. Ernest de Witt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (ICC; New York: Scribner’s, 1921) 363–84.
34. Even though the author of Acts also thought of them as apostles, “the evidence indicates that in the period of the events here recorded the Twelve were probably not yet known as apostles” (ibid., 368).
35. Ibid., 377.
36. Ibid., 376.
37. Anton Fridrichsen, “The Apostle and His Message,” UUÅ 3 (1947) 5.
38. Ibid., 7.
39. Ibid., 18f. n. 12.
40. Holger Mosbech, “Apostolos in the New Testament,” ST 2 (1949–50) 166–200.
41. Ibid., 187-88.
42. Walter Schmithals, The Office of Apostle in the Early Church; see n. 3 above.
43. Ibid., 67ff.
44. Ibid., 89ff. Cf. Phil 3:5 (Paul); Rom 16:7 (Andronicus and Junias); Acts 4:36–37 and Gal 2:1ff. (Barnabas); and Acts 15:22 (Silvanus).
45. According to Schmithals, the Jewish apostolate was created for the specific purpose of collecting monies after the destruction of the Temple. “But since before the year 70 a need for such an apostolate did not exist and therefore this institution naturally is not recorded so early, this apostolate is ruled out as a source for the New Testament concept of the apostle” (ibid., 101).
46. For a list of contrasting characteristics see ibid., 103ff.
47. Given the need to translate šaliaḥ, says Schmithals, “[angelos] or [presbeutēs] would have lain much nearer at hand than the uncommon [apostolos], especially for one who had an [euangelion] to proclaim” (ibid., 109–10).
48. Ibid., 110.
49. Ibid., 115.
50. Ibid., 114-92.
51. Ibid., 115. Schmithals has also published two works identifying Paul’s opponents in Corinth and Galatia as Gnostic apostles: Gnosticism in Corinth (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971) and Paul and the Gnostics (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1972).
52. Schmithals, The Office of Apostle, 115 n. 72.
53. The “model of the ecclesiastical apostle” is Schmithals’ reconstruction of it from early Pauline writings and which yields the narrowly defined Jewish Christian missionaries in the area of Antioch. See n. 44 above.
54. Chap. 1 of Schmithals’ work is an eighteen-point list of characteristics of the Jewish Christian missionary (apostle) in Syria. It is extracted and used in chap. 4 to show how the Gnostic apostle possesses the same eighteen characteristics.
55. Munck, “Paul, the Apostles, and the Twelve,” ST 3 (1950–51) 101.
56. Ibid. Examples of apostoloi as messengers are Mark 6:30; Luke 9:10; John 13:16; 2 Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25. Examples of apostoloi as missionaries are Acts 14:4, 14; Rom 16:7; 1 Cor 4.9. Says Munck of the Jewish apostolate: “Far too much importance has for some time been attached to…Jewish apostles [as prototypes for Christian apostles]…. The Christian apostles are part of something entirely new…” (p. 100).
57. Ibid., 105.
58. The emphasis, according to Munck, is the call (Rom 1:1: “called to be an apostle”; 11:13 : “I am an apostle of the Gentiles”). “In this perspective of the history of salvation Paul appears not only as the one who is able to survey it in its phases and possibilities, but also as the one who has the call to take an active part in God’s plans” (ibid., 97).
59. Contrast this account in Acts 9:27 (also 15:2–16:4) with Gal 1:18–19 where Paul says he only met Peter and James in Jerusalem. “When the college, which does not consist of travelling missionaries, is given a name which denotes exactly this, the reason must be that this name has acquired a special implication, a degree of dignity belonging to the highest in the church” (ibid., 109).
60. Ibid., 110.
61. Hans Küng, The Church (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1967) 344–59.
62. Ibid., 349.
63. Cf. 2 Cor 9:2–3; Phil 2:25; John 14:16.
64. Küng, The Church, 351.
65. Ibid.
66. C. K. Barrett, The Signs of An Apostle (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972).
67. Ibid., 68.
68. Ibid., 70. See also pp. 41-44.
69. The Pastorals portray Paul as the apostle par excellence (1 Tim 1:1; 2 Tim 1:1; Titus 1:1). Acts portrays the Twelve as the original apostles with a mission to the Gentiles. In 1 Peter, “Peter is made to appear as a second Paul” (ibid., 57f). Even the Synoptics and John have a Pauline concept of apostleship (Mark 13:10; Matt 28:10; John 13:34f; 15:12; 17:11, 21). See pp. 54-76.
70. Ibid., 69.
71. Mosbech, “Apostolos in the New Testament,” 166.
72. Schmithals, The Office of Apostle, 67ff.
73. Hans Conzelmann, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975) 251ff.
74. Schmithals, The Office of Apostle, 70.
75. Ibid.
76. Barrett, The Signs of An Apostle, 67.
77. Cf. Hans Küng, The Church, 344-59.
78. Schmithals, The Office of Apostle, 69.
79. Ibid.
80. Robert P. Meye, Jesus and the Twelve (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1968) 202–9.
81. Barrett, The Signs of an Apostle, 45ff.
82. Fridrichsen, “The Apostle and his Message,” 3.
83. See, for example, Küng, The Church, 348.
84. As, for example, Schmithals, The Office of Apostle, 73ff.
85. Munck, “Paul, the Apostles and the Twelve,” 104ff.
86. Schmithals, The Office of Apostle, 73ff.
87. Ibid., 79.
88. Ibid.
89. Schmithals recognizes this (ibid., 73).
90. See, for example, Justin’s First Apology, esp. 31, 39, 66. Also Barn. 5:9 and 8:3.
91. The apostolate of Peter will be discussed below in reply to Schmithals.
92. Küng, The Church, 348.
93. See Ign. Eph. 11–12.
94. See for example Schmithals, The Office of Apostle, 23lff.
95. Ibid., 79.
96. Ibid., 82.
97. Ibid., 86f.
98. Ibid., 95.
99. Schmithals says: “Everything argues for the view that this title was first applied by Paul in Gal 1–2 to the members of the Jerusalem community who merited it” (ibid., 86).
100. 1 Cor 15:8ff.
101. Birger Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, n.d.) 266f. Gerhardsson argues that Paul is aware of the tradition which affirms Peter as “the bed-rock of the Church, as the prince of Apostles” (Matt 16:17–19), and on this basis Paul “proceeds from Peter’s apostolate as a given and accepted fact, the legitimacy of which he has no need to demonstrate. Nor does he attack it. But he sets himself up as a parallel to Peter, his Gentile apostolate as a parallel to Peter’s Jewish apostolate, his gospel for the Gentiles as a parallel to Peter’s gospel for the Jews.” Gerhardsson emphasizes key elements in the parallel as (1) confession of Jesus as the Son of God (Matt 16:16; Rom 1:4; Gal 1:16), (2) “gnosis” which was not received by flesh and blood (Matt 16:17; Gal 1:11, 15), and (3) revelation by the Heavenly Father (Matt 16:17; Gal 1:12, 15).
102. Fridrichsen, “The Apostle and His Message,” 6ff.
103. Ibid., 6.
104. Ibid.
105. This is the view of Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript, 270 n. 5. For the concept of “head” in early Christianity and Judaism see H.-P. Müller, “rô̄š,” Theologisches Handwörterbuch 2.701–15, esp. pp. 714f for the use in Middle Hebrew, i.e., the language of the Talmud and Midrash.
106. One cannot, of course, conclude that Paul thought James was an apostle on the basis of the grammatical construction of Gal 1:19. See George Howard, “Was James an Apostle? A Reflection on a New Proposal for Gal 1:19, ” NovT 19 (1977) 63–64.
107. Oscar Cullmann, “Petros,” TDNT 6.100ff.
108. See Joachim Jeremias, “Kleis,” TDNT 3.744ff.
109. Cullmann, TDNT 6.103f.
110. Ibid., 108.
111. Rengstorf, TDNT 1.419ff.
112. Ibid., 420.
113. In a review of Schmithals’ book, Howard Clark Kee (Int 25 [1970] 226) makes the following comment: “The pre-Christian Jewish Christ-Gnosticism is declared to be, but not demonstrated to have existed. In addition to dubious inferences which, at most, point to gnostic tendencies, documentation for a developed Gnosticism of the early first century AD consists in large measure of post-Islamic texts (p. 194); and Schmithals himself admits the dubiousness of the studies of Widengren on which the pre-Christian apostolate is based (p. 193, n. 425).” See also Edwin M. Yamauchi, “Some Alleged Evidences for Pre-Christian Gnosticism,” New Dimensions in New Testament Study (ed. R. N. Longenecker & M. C. Tenney; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974) 46–70.
114. Schmithals, The Office of Apostle, 115 n. 72.
115. Ibid., 198.
116. Lightfoot, Galatians, 94.
117. Jude 17 clearly distinguishes this brother of James (and therefore of Jesus) from the apostles. On the ambiguity of Gal 1:19 and James’ apostleship see n. 106.
118. James’ ministry is consistently identified with the seat in Jerusalem: Gal 1:18, 19; Acts 15:13; 21:17, 18 .
119. Rengstorf, TDNT 1.430. Cf. Matt 28:16ff; Luke 24:48f; Acts 1:8.
120. Schmithals, The Office of Apostle, 108-9.
121. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript, 265.
122. F. Gavin, “Shaliach and Apostolos,” 258.