New Testament Apocrypha, Vol. 2: Writings Relating to the Apostles Apocalypses and Related Subjects

NEW TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA

II

NEW TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA Revised Edition of the Collection initiated by Edgar Hennecke edited by Wilhelm Schneemelcher English translation edited by R. McL. Wilson

II WRITINGS RELATING T O THE APOSTLES APOCALYPSES AND RELATED SUBJECTS

James Clarke & C o

W|K

WESTMINSTER JOHN KNOX PRESS LOUWILZJi • KINTUCXT

P u b l i s J ^ in Great Britain by J u n e s Cterke & Co. Ltd P.O. Box 60 Cambridge C B l 2NT

Pubiished in the United Sutes by Westminster Jolm Knox Press Louisville, Kentudty 40202-1396

British Ubrary CauUoguing in Publication Data A catalogiM rccwd for tlus bocA is avulaMe the British LJlwy ISBN 0-2276-7917-2

Ubrary of Congress CauJogingm-FiMicatkm

Data

A catalog record fot this book is avaiWik from the Librvy of Congress ISBN 0-664-22722-8

Copyright O J.C.B. Mohr (PMII Siebeck) "nibingen. 1989 English TYanslaiion C o p y r i ^ O James ClaAe A Co. Ud, 1992

Papcfbacke Westnunster John Knox Prras. MtB

Printttl in the United Smt% of America 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 1 0 11 1 2 — 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

AU ri^ r n « ^ No p v l of ^ t m A m y Iw fq«ro(kiced or t n a t o B ^ is aay form or t>y aay K c k i ^ a l . tocludiag p k o i o o o f ^ ^ reconfag. or by aay k

Table of Contents Foreword Preface Abbreviations B. WRITINGS RELATING T O T H E APOSTLES Introduction (Wilhelm Schneemelcher)

1

Xm. The Picture of the Apostle in early Christian Tradition {Wolfgang A. Bienerl) 1. The concept of the Apostle in primitive Christianity 2. The Apostles as bearers of the tradition and mediators of revelation 3. 'Apostolic' as a norm of orthodoxy

5 14 25

XIV. Apostolic Pseudepigrapha Introduction (Wilhelm Schneemelcher) 1. The Kerygma Petri (Wilhelm Schneemelcher) 2. The Episde to the Laodiceans (Wilhelm Schneemelcher) 3. The Correspondence between Seneca and Paul (Cornelia Romer) 4. The Pseudo-Titus Episde (Aurelio de Santos Otero)

28 34 42 46 53

XV. Second a n d Third-Century Acts of Apostles Introduction (Wilhelm Schneemelcher and Knut Schaferdiek) 1. The Acts of Andrew (Jean-Marc Prieur and Wilhelm Schneemelcher) 2. The Acts of John (Knut Schaferdiek) Appendix (Ruairi 6 hUiginn) 3. The Acts of Paul (Wilhelm Schneemelcher and Rodolphe Kasser) 4. The Acts of Peter (Wilhelm Schneemelcher) 5. The Acts of Thomas (Han J.W. Drijvers)

75 101 152 210 213 271 322

XVI. The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles (Hans-Martin Schenke)

412

XVn. Later Acts of Apostles (Aurelio de Santos Otero) XVm. The Pseudo-Clementines (Johannes Irmscher and Georg Strecker) Introduction (Georg Strecker) 1. Introductory Writings (Georg Strecker) 2. The Clement Romance (Johannes Irmscher) 3. Kerygmata Petrou (Georg Strecker)

426

483 493 504 531

C. APOCALYPSES AND R E L A T E D SUBJECTS Introduction (Philipp Vielhauer f and Georg Strecker)

542

XIX. Apocalyptic in Early Christianity Introduction (Philipp Vielhauer t and Georg Strecker) 1. The Ascension of Isaiah (C. Detlef G. MuUer) 2. Apocalypse of Peter (C. Detlef G. MQller)

569 603 620

XX. Apocalyptic Prophecy in the Early Church Introduction (Wilhelm Schneemelcher) 1. The Fifth and Sixth Books of Esra (Hugo Duensing and Aurelio de Santos Otero) 2. Christian Sibyllines (Ursula Treu) 3. The Book of Elchasai (Johannes Irmscher)

639 t 641 652 685

XXI. Later Apocalypses Introduction (Wilhelm Schneemelcher) 1. The Coptic Gnostic Apocalypse of Paul (Wolf-Peter Funk) 2. The Coptic Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter (Andreas Werner) 3. Apocalypse of Paul (Hugo Duensing t and Aurelio de Santos Otero) 4. Apocalypse of Thomas (Aurelio de Santos Otero)

691 695 700 712 748

Index of Biblical Passages Index of Names and Subjects

753 757

Foreword

The prescmVolumencomptetes the revised ecUtkMof the c o l l e c t ApokryphenindeutscherObersetzungJotmiMinl9(HbyEi^ the fint voliane of the coUectioo (NTApo* 1,19S7.* 1990; ET1991). this volume too hadK>bedwrou^y revised and tatnight up to date widi die jreseot «ate graphks. They are intended u> put ^ reade^ m a pofition to fcdk>w t^ die protriom whidi qjedaUy intta^ him, beyond die necesarily cooqsressed presentadoos in such a coUecdon. Hue die reader will certainly be strwk by mmy a diffemice hi die a s s e s s n ^ die textt. These differencxs (e.g. on die
Wilhelm Schneemelcher

FreiBce to the E n g l i ^ Edition

Over die pest thiity years or so 'Hemieclu-SchneefiMlcha-' taa become a tiandaRi tool for dtoie woridi^ in die field of die NT Apoaypha. Much has h^ipened, however, in these d m e de«ides. and die dnw was ripe for a revision m d up-cbMing. to bring it abreast of recent rewaidL The two Gennan vohimes have now been c o m p l e x r e v M and to U t^ipropriate diat die English eifidoa also should be upd a t e bring it mio line. The policy a d o p ^ in dds book is diat whicfa governed die ffa« vohmie. and indeed right hack to die two vohmies (rf die previous English edition: to presem die w o t (rf oiff G e r m « ccrfleagues Bi m English verskMi, chedced n d c o r r e c t to it in evoy way p o u i t ^ an artfupiaty tooi for die EngUah-qpukkfaig m d o - . The tevtni imnxhictkm sne ttrai^ tramUKkms fkom ^ German; die mu have beoi diedced against die originals in Ladn. Greek or Copdc. to ensure diat diey are tmly English iramlttiaas uid not merdy >w^^)ia at second or durd hsad. The eMem of die revision varies: some partt we endrdy new, in wme c u e s by new comribiMn, and t h o e have beta trai^Med from saatch. In odier cases, pattcuhuly where the okier texts are concerned, it has been possible to retain much from die earlier editkxi, and here doe acimowled^meiK m u ^ tie (Mid to my ctdUborttcn in that eifflier vohime. P r e f e r Ernest Best and G. C. S i n d . Dr Dimd mil. and die laie Dr Geocge The wh(>ie h t t however been very thoroughly checked and r e v M and die iramlatkin editor muA now accept fidl r^xmsilHlky. The production o( such a book as diis invc^ves die work o( many hands, not only die editors and comributors and die translators but alK) die staff of die publishers, who are not accorded die credit which diey deserve. I can name only two. widi whom I have been in more direct contact: Miss Juie K. Hodgart, die copy edtor. snd M i n Sarah Briericy, die desk editor who saw diis volume dirough die press. To diem and to ^ d r cf^Ueagues the reader and die tnatslation editor are mudi inddsicd.

R. KfcL. WUson

AbbreviatkHis For abbrevUtkmsctf the tittes (^journals ( » ^ s a ^ the UsttttfSc^werti^ ReaUnzyklopdetie. AbkHnungsvenekhnis, 1976) and RGO» (1957) have generally been used. For die texts ftom Nag Hammadi teferaice may be made to die list of abfaKviadons in T V Nag Hammadi Library in English (General EcUtor James M. RotMnson), 1 ^ , pp. xiii-xiv. A few aM»^iadons frecp^y used are adduced below. Aa

/4cbi A p o c r y i ^ Acts) Analecta BoUandiana AufstUg luid Niedergang der Rdmischen WeU Apocalypses Apocryphae. ed. C. Tiscbendorf. 1866 BibUodwca hagiognphica graeca. > 1937 BililkXheca hagiographica ladna. M949 BibUotfieca hagiogrephica orientalis. 1910 Corpus Chrisdanonmi. Series ladna, 1953fr. Corjxtt Ctoi^ianorum, S e r ^ graeca, 197^. Corjius QirisdMwrum. SCTMS Apocryphorum. l%3ff. Corpus acripionmi Chrisdanonim orientaUum Cotpas scriplorum ecciedi^icorum Uttfaiorum Dictionnaire iTarchiologie chritUnne et de titurgie EvangelM apocrypha, ed. C. Tischendorf, M876 Mtfio Eitetta. Gli Apocrifi del Nuovo Testamento. I-m. 1966-1981 Festschrift DiegriecfaischenchrisdichenSchriftstellerdererstendreiJahrhundene Berlin GKT Gfundlcurs T l i e o k ^ Stuttgart 1989ff. GTA GCttinger Tbeologische Aibetten 197Sfr. Graf G. Graf, Ceschichte der christlkhen arabischen Literatur. 1-5. 19441953 Hvnack, Lit. gesch. Adolf Hamack, Ceschichte der altchristlichen LUeratur bis Eusebius.

AGG AnalBoll ANRW Apa BHG BHL BHG CChrSL COtfSG CQffSA CSCO CSEL DACL Ea Ert)«ta FS GCS

M958 James MA. James, The Apocryphal New Testament. 1924 (reprim 1955) KIT Kleine Tcxte fOr V o r l e « m ^ und Obungen Upsius. Apostelgesck RJi.UpsM&,Diecpokr^>henApostelgexhichten undApo^Uegenden. 2 vols., 1883f.: supplemott 1890 McNamara Mardn McNamara, The Apocrypha in the Irish Church. Dublin 1975

B. Writing Relating to the Apostles Die Apocryj^n Schr^en zum Neuen Testamem. Obers. und eri. von W. Michadis. M958 MorakU Luigi Moraldi. Apocr^ del Nuovo Testamento. 2 vols.. 1971 NHC Nag Hammadi Codex NHLE The Nag Hammadi LOtrary in English.oL}mesU.^ijak«D^ Leiden 1 ^ NHS Nag Humnadi Studies NTApo' Neutesiamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Oberseaung. ed. Edgiff Hennecke. 1904 NTApo' id.. 2nd edidon 1924 NTApo* id.. 3rd edition, ed. W. Schneen^cher. 2 vols. 1959/64 (reprim M968; ET 1963. 1965; leprinted 1973. 1974) mApoHiauibHandtmchaidenNeiaestamendichenApobyphen.ed.Bii^Ha^^ 1904 PG Patrok)giae cursus conqiletus. accunnto J P . Migne. Serks & i e c a Fl. y±. Series Ladna PO Patrologia orientalis. Paris PTS Patrisdsche Texte und Studien. 1964fr. PWRE RealencycUjpadie der cUissi«hen AUertimumssenschqften. Naie Beaito. (Pauly-Wissowa) RE RealenzyclopMefur proteOantische Theohgie und Kirche. »189«r. RGG» Die Religion in Ceschiclue und Gegenwtm. M956ff. de Sam(» Aumlio de Santos Oiero (ed.), Los Evangelios Apdcrifos (BAC 148), •1984. •1988 de Samoa. Obertirferung Aurelio de Santos Otero, Die handschrifiUche Oberlieferung der altslavischen Apokryphen I (PTS 20), 1978; U (PTS 23). 1981 TDNT Theological Dictiimary of t^ New Testtmefa,tr.Q.'W.Btxxaaey(PT of Theohgische Wdrterbuch zum Neuen Testament. 1933fr.) TRE Theohgische RealenzyUopOdie. 197«f. TU Texte und U i m s K h i m ^ z u r G e s c h k d t t e d o - a l t d m ^ l k ^ L i t e r a t u r NT^httier. Lit. gexh. PhUipp Vielhauer. Ceschichte der urchristlichen Literatur. M981 VigChr Vigiliae Christianae. 1947ff. MkhMUs

B. WRITINGS RELATING TO T H E APOSTLES

Introductkm Wilhelm

Schneemelcher

The texts b r o u ^ VogtHha in Pan B of the ptesau oolkction do not any m n n s oonnitute a unifonn Utenry Gtutung. They are r ^ w r very d i v e r t works, which however becwoe of dieir c o o c ^ widi one or more vposdes may be incliukd undodie v o y ^ n e r a l heading d '^ottcAic'. Certainly dw apotiles to swne extau also jday an impcwtam r c ^ in d « ' g o ^ l U t o t i u r e ' u K m t ^ hi voiunw I. u guannton (tf die true iradidai. whkh is iittOKted to be titosted as and ^ u i n e die fact diat an ^xxote is nwwd as its audxxity. Bitt diese toxtt in vdume I relate abito^ exclu^vely to die life, irack md preachir^ (before and after die resurrecdoo) of Jesus. Tlie texts which here follow have die aposttes as die nibjed oi dieir preseittttion hi a d ^ e r o t t way. Ffere die bounduks cannot always be s h u j ^
B. Writings relMing to the AposUes oonoepts '»postie' and ' a p c ^ l k ' w o e ihaped and (kvek^ied. and what uptifKance dtey K>ok <m in dw COUTK dw 2nd comuy (see below, pp. SfT.), is die necrasuy pieaippodtkm fcN- an ^ipitHxiate intopretadoi ctf die texts. For fmaidMptXUA'K ligature in its diverse forms could indeed only come am bai^ after a d ^ i i t e ofNOMMi had been formed as to wtutf wi» meam *«4>o«le' and 'aposttrfic'. It is dier^txe not naprising ditf diis litoahire came into v < ^ in die ^ century, dius in die period in which - as W A . Bienert shows below (pp. 25ff.) • die idea of die ' a p o t t d k norm' was d e v e k ^ g . In diis period, in which die soM stnioures peal to a wittim firom die be^immg, v/ho sM stood in ckxe i^i»xiittkM wift Jesus, finally led b) die writings in whkh old tracUdons w o e frequetttly comMned widi n e w a loidaicks. This hokb for all groupsfanCSui^Mkmi, whedier diey must now be described as'cadiolic'or as'gnostic*. The boundaries in die 2nd cotfury are in any c i ^ not so clear as a lata- perkxl was to diink. The inteittioftt which brouglu about diis litenuure w o e certtinly not uniform. Thus die •Teaching erf die Lord for die Oemiles dirough die Twelve Aposdes* (die socalled Dktache) is concerned fw omduct of Ufe uid chiaich otdet. In die Paaoral Episdes die aims of 'Church law' emerge stiU more ckarly, bitt combmed widi donarcadon o v o against'heroics'. This ttuiheredcal tendency occurs to Kxne extern also in worlcs whkh owe dieir origin to an increased i ^ r e s t in the perxm m d work of indivkhial apo^les (so for e x a m i ^ in die five groa acts (d t^togdes), but diere it is ptcbabiy not die d i ^ nKXive. Luke already in his A m took up sevoal legoKb about die aposttes whkdi correspond to a concern of diis sort (Acts 5: IS: 19:llf.). However, he did not regard die populfi-nsradves about miraodous powers of die apoMles as die mate theme, but loed dion sporadKaUy. to imderUne die e d i ^ g d u u a c t o (rf his work. T h o e wtt a danger here, diat die aposdes might become miracle-workers such as die envmmmott of eariy C3iri«ianity also knew, a d a n ^ whkA in later works WM fuidio In die 2nd c»iniry, as ahe«fy indkated. p e c ^ e in the diffa«tt Qiristian gnmps appealed to die aposdes as guarantors for the correct doctrine and preaching. With diis is botmd up die attempt to rqport somethii^ more about die life (rf die afXMtes. Here many factors may have {dayed a part: die difhiskm (rf Oaisdmity. die c o i ^ k » o v o die cornet doctrine, die rise of die veneratkxi of martyrs, etc. It was probaUy importmt d i « kleas about the ' ^ x m o l k ncxm' required, as it w^re, a sub^ructure whkh wouW not only ^ f«di die ' a p o ^ i c doctrine' but aim give to die figures of die ^xisdes a omcreie form. In die process, not only w o e hteary nKidels taken over from die siBixxmding vrarkl. bix noo-Chr^ian k i ^ also (towed in. Thus we cm demonttrtte from die apocryphal a o s of aposdes not only die use
Introduction Christianity (as we a m on anodier level widi die Apologists of die 2nd centtay). The relation of dito Utcranire to die canon cannot be described in a single sentence, but must be clarified for each indivi(hial doctanent SQMratoly. Thus die Letter to die Laodiceam (see below, pp. 42ff.) is nodung but a comjnladon of quotations from Pauline letters, hence pre-suppotes die canon and is ir^nded to fill an alleged gap in i t The acts of apostles on die odwr hand are not shaped after die pattern of die canonical Acts, even d i o u ^ lotowled^ of it ouutot be excluded. Widi r e p r d to dits que^icm it mu^ be dbsaweii Hm. die canon (rf die NT only developed in die comse of die 2IK1 cetmay (cf. voi. I. pp. ISff.). and diat for a Icmg time its limits w o e still uncertain. Also we can scarcely assume rial all aimmunities immediately pMs^sed a comptoe txanjAar
B. Writings reUting ta the Apostks This Ulenture been witness thai, akmgside the tbeok>gical ref^^ led m the Cbiirch 10 the nonn (rf the *ai»sit>lk\ there was also a I x D ^ the apostles, nurtured also in special groups. Much of it was soon condemned as •heredod* and'^x)ciyphal\ and exchided from die 1 ^ of die d i u R ^ Biit cenain elements siBvived modificadoos « d reworidnp of various kinds, and conlittM^ to die consolidation of die 'apostolic norm*. They are also still operadve in die later hagiography of die 'cadiolic Apostolic Church'.

XnL The Kcture of the A p o ^ in Eariy Christian IVaditk^ Wolfgang

A.

Bienert

1. The concept of the aposUe in primitive Christianity Uler«tuf«(withipecialconsklc«tk)nofiTX)re TDl»n"1.4lat im Urchriaennmi'. KuD 20.1974.54-77; F. Agnew. 'On d>e Origin of die Term Apostotos'. CBQ 38.1976.49-53; K. Kertelge (ed.). Das tircMiche AmiimNr(WdFA39). 1977 (Ut); J.A. Babna.DerCesandte undsein Wegim4.Evangelium (WUm U. 2). 1977; W. Trilling. 'Zur Entstefaimg des ZwSlferioeises'. in Die Kirche des Aftfangs (FS H. SchOrmann) (EThSt 38). 1978.201 -222; J. Roloff. art'Apostel/ApMtoIat/ ApoetoUzidU L Neues Testamoit'. TRE 3. 1978. 430-445 (Ut); D. LOhrmann. Das MarkusevangeUum (HNT 3). 1987; K. Hanker. 'Verwendung und Vermeidung (tes Apostelbegriffs im lukanischen Werk'. NT 30.1988.9-38. Cf. further die relevant articles in TBLNT, 2 vols.. M977 and in EWNT. ed. H. BalzAS. Schneider. 3 vols. 1980-1983 as well as W. Bauer-Aland. Wb. z. NT. •1988 and G.W.H. Lampe. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. 1961. The quesdcMi of die primitive Christian aposde concept is ctosdy connected widi diat erf die origin of die (3uT«ian Oiuich and die begiiuiing of its (rffices and norms (rf fsidi; it ttnadoy ftlls (rf n e < ^ t y into diat 'dangoous diicko erf reci{xocally contradkUMy hypodiraes' whkh aill siarwmds d » investigation
XnL The Picture of the Apcmle in early Christian Traditifxi p o s s i l ^ but any definite iiUeipr^aticm of the whc^ leatte inunediately into boundless controversies*. This remaA by H. von Canipenhausen(StTh 1.1947/48.96) has lost nodiing of its fundaroeMal significants even after forty yean, ^lecially anoe W. SchmidtaU even in 1961 wrote ofdie origin of dwChuich*sapostolate (p. 12):'The debue over oar p n ^ ^ m i s . . . still not ^jproaching cmdu^xL* Indeed, the ^ u t k x i he prcqxMes, to doive the aposiie concqM from Jewish or Jewish Qmmim Gnosis (cf. p. 216), hss m o widi abito^ uiianuncm rejectkm. Its ba»s in the sources is iriadet^iaie, and die argioneM dierdbre remains largely hypodiokal. His book, howevo, has drawn aitottkin to a ^ k l (rf prc^ilom whKh is none dte less (rf c m r a l unporunce for die lUKJo-^ancUng (rf die ^ y Chriaian i^^ire (rf die apo»k as a W ^ K ^ namely die q u e « k » erf its rdMton to Gnosis and Q i o s d c ^ . In our comtext it is not possibk to give a critk:al evaluiukxi (rf recent discu^km (rf the e«1y Christian apostte conce{N in doail. It can oidy be a matio (rf discussing die New T e ^ u n ^ conixptual in i b hu^vkal conteixt against die teckgrcMmd (rf die resdts (rf reoott m e u c h and naming die areas which are of ripwficance for its imderttuiding and dial (rf die history of its influoice, and whkdi (xxttribute to the outcxxne diat « ^ i s ' a p o ^ c * fhiaUy becwite die bask norm of Offisdm faidL Here it already deserves to be noticed diat die adjective'apostolk* (djKXTToXuu^ does not occtff all in die New TestamoK,' whik dte »ib»atttive datSmokoi ^^xars reUtivdy freqiundy in die New Te^antem litertfwe, and diM, in corttn^ to seculv Gredc, always widi reiervxx to persoiK. In die first (rface it desoibes goioaUy an oiv(^. a messengo. L a t o it is sakl in Oiigoi (3nl cexA.): 'Anyone who is soA by uiy person is «i "sfio^** (rf die one who sott him* {Cemun. in J<^. 32.17). Its use for die p r o c l a i m s of a leUgkMis rmssage ^ipean to be a ^wc^fkally Otfittitta coinage. ICHaacker speaks in diis connecdoa of an'early Christian neotogism'(pp. 12f.),a remiittir^ (rf die coiicefN, wiudi had bec(Mne nec^sary. «iKng odter reasoiB. becuise con^mbie CJredc toms like &f(tkoq or x*K?v5 ^ aheady in ^ m s of coiMent become sO in odwr ways. It is at any rate beyond di^xite dutt in Ctei^itti usage die term ' a p o ^ * took on a special namp. And it is certainly no acckiott tiM - just like die terms fo«xX»ioia ( w W o x o n o s - it was not transUrted u t o Latin, but simjrty takoi o v o . Nevettbele^ it is necessary to keqi in vkw die wkkr Unguuok and ctmceptual fiekl in whkh it was originally u home. In addition it r m u i m also to be noted diM in die New Testaniott i t ^ f the i^xmle conce[H is variously interproed. in Paul odteTwise duui. for examfrfe. in die UK:an writinp (cf., e.g.. Gal. 1:1 and Acts 1:2 If.). l:C^i&kkoflHblkalus^dievyord&n6(noXog has a wkk-ranging and imiaUy technkal dgnifkancs, e.g. 'covoing ktto*. 'bUl of Idling', 'pasqxxt' or the like (rftoi in connectkm widi dw U n g u i ^ of ^ p f n n g and navi^ukm, w^ioe it can also describe a cargo ship or a naval expedition. Occasionally it is also app^ed to persons, for e x a n q ^ to describe die ( » m m « i d o (rf a fleet. ( M y rarely dOK it have dte meaning 'emissary* (attested only at two places in Herodotus; cf. W. Bauo. W W ^ s.v.). Only in a later period does it appoo-widi diis significamx in p ^ i ^ also ((rf. F. Agnew). and here die mefiiii^ 'audiorised a ^ * is liuent. a use rooted in die anckm oriottal law r e a d i n g n t e s s o i ^ (cf. e.g. 1 Sam. 25:40f.; 2 Sam 10: Iff.), according to wWch an emissary rqiresoits his princqial with full authority. In ctxr^xxidoice with die I m k lute: T h e agem (shaluach) is lUw die man himselT (Berachodi 5 J ) dioe later

The c<MKX[M of the A j x ^ e in jwimitive Oiristianity devek>ped out of this - in Rabbinic Judaism - die so-caUed 'shaliach' insdtudon (named after die Hebrew substantive to die passive particijde of die verb shaUKh, v^adtk in (jredc - e.g. in die Septuagint - is ^ i m d l y roKtered by Anoor^XXav). The proximity to die New T c m n « n t ^loale a»ice{K is n « to be overlodced. However, die conviction that the Christian apostle concept goes back directly to the Jewish institution of die ^ i o c / i (Rengstorf «/a/.) has proved untenable. Two diinp above all tell against dus assumptkxi: a) as a desigmai(Hi fra- a partkular (rffke-bnrer widi an (rffkial oMnmisskjn, d » t o m shaliach is attested in Judaian only idter die destruction of die Second Temple (after A.D. 70). Here it is in general a question of an a ^ aidiorised 1^ die Great SanhetMn. wtu> had to cvry out visitatkms (»-gadier in collections. A direct influence on die early Christian apoMle concept or upon Paul. had a fimdainaital share in c(»ning die torn, is on diis excluded, b) OvoaiKl above diat. die shaliach as a rute is giv«i a clearly delimited and tonporaUy rearkted oxnmisskxi l ^ die in^Qiti<m whkh soids him. On die (Mho- hand, he luis no divine commission for preaching or even for mission, which for die early Christian apoMotae and partkularly for Paul is (MW (rf die characteristic a t h i b u ^ Desptee diese difldnenora, wlw^ become aU die more clear die incie p r e c a ^ we mquire Btt^ r ^ i o i s pnjfile in each certain aructural sanihaities still remain recofftmaMe, e.g. die niodf of Mdhoristtion Bid (rf personal pqnsentaticxi, «4ik:h poiitis to ajnencn w^uch hai« nfluenced Jewi^ «id e»ly Ovistiai d w u ^ probably more A r o f ^ di»i has often been assumed inresearchhidnto. I^iguistically at any rate, j/ufia^ die e t ^ v a k m erf d o c b c m ^ T h ^ (XxnnK»i roots Ik in Old Testamoit ideas about onissaries aiKi intemwdiaries. which are just as characteristic for die poUtical and tegal life n from G<xl'(V. Campoihausoi, StTh 1, p. 99). This evkJeice. howevo, only takes tm important from die fact diat inLXXdieverb&;iocrt^XX£iv appears Mnmedum 700 places instead (rf die H d n w shalach, 'and indeed predominandy in jmt such a way di« it designees a formal c(Mnmissk»ung widi a message or stmt (Xho tesk' (v. Campodiausoi.
XIII. The Picture of the Aptwtle in early Christian Tradition conunonly assumed. It remains i K w e v o - for us to take M x o u n t of dw differoit linguistk area, which naturally ccmtribitted to tlx particultf ccMiung and to die dehmitatkxj trf one apinM dw ahor. 2: Of die 80 examples in all for die apostle concept ia the New Testament. 34 in each case fall to die Pauliiw (inclwling die Deuteo-Pauhnes and 5 c a s « in die Pastorals) and to die Luciui wriungs. Widi diat we can rect^iise die two - v o y distinct (see above, p. 6) - centres of p-avity for definitkm wexampies-not,asoccask)n^aIle^oidyonKM«k 3:14 is in diis respect, widi D. Ulhmiann.'to be regarded as original* (HNT 3. p. 70). 2.1: The ea-liest and at the sanw time the most nuanced ^imral |»ctiae of the early Christiai s^iooolate is to be found in PauL For dw Deutoo-PsMilmes aid especially fcM- die PasttMids. he is quite simjrfy die itteal and epitonw erf die Otfistian ^ x i a o l ^ aid for them already possesses a nomuttive si^iificance widiin the Christiai traditkxi (cf. 1 Tim. 2:7; 6:20; 2 Tim. 1:11-14). He himself, however, in his apostolae sees himself exp(»ed to a peculiar pressure for tegitimatkxi. He describes himself with p m x p t i t ^ oni^iasis as'^xisde of Jesus Ctmst'(2 Cor. 1:1), and a m s ^ t h a he was called *n(« by men ordirough men. but by Jesus Chriaand God'(Qd. 1:1). Atdwsanw time he c o m « to grips widi cqjponents. whom he (adls'false aposdes • ( i t w v & W K k m A o s - 2 Cor. 11:13) or even super-apostles' (^nepXiav dji6owAoi - 2 Cor. 11:5; 12:11) (cf. F. Hahn, p. 60). Evoydiing points to die ctmclusion diat dw ap(»de corwqM was still iKA iwecisely (kfuwd in terms (rf cxMitent. but dial Paul h ^ taken it o v o from a traditi(m exiaing bdore him, e^secially since he himself oni» speaks of predecessors (ol JiQb ^wO duidoTC^ - Gal. 1:17). Thtwe intoided in dus co(mecti(m arc dw aposdes in Jerusatem and Cephas/Peta- (Gal. 1:18f.). an cvklendy ctosed circle (F. Hahn. p. 58), in regard to which one itminctively diinks - in view of 1 Cor. 15:5 - (rf 'dw Twelve' aid in a wi(kr sense also (rf Janws dw Lcml's b n ^ w r (cf. 1 Cor. 15:7). If we examine Paul's usage more carefully, we can (hstinguish in it daee levels of significance for dw coiwept. which are however linked widi cme aiKNho and infliwnce one anothoi a) in a very gowral and non-specifw soise Paul can fcM- examine describe Epafrfmxlitus, dw emissary of dw community in PhUi{^, as an 'apostie* (Phil. 2:25), just as in 2 Cor. 8:23 he can ^leak erf dwoenoXcx ^xxXijoifirv. H o e dw l»sic nwaning of the torn - 'emissay', 'messengo-' - is still clearly r e o ^ i s a b l e . b) Beside this t h o e is amxho. specifically Qiristian Ixjt likewise IHA pecisely defined, apostte concqit. which 1^1 has evkierttly taken ova-, for it (xxurs also outside the I^uline OMpiK (e.g. Acts 14:4.14, wlwre 1^1 and Bamabas are so named; cf. also Acts 2:2). This is used to (tescribe |»e«;hers of dw Gospel, who know themselves to be omimissicMwd by tlw

T t e ccMicqx of the Apoale in jMimitive C3iristianity Holy Spirit or the risen Lcxd and eqmpped widi special gifts (cf. 1 Cat. 9:5). to ymxk in his nanw - as miukmuies - m dw workL To dirae certainly b ^ g die 'aiper^lostks' so named Paid, but uldmatdy also Paul himself, a l d i o u ^ for his part he rqieaiedly has to take i^iw widi dicir ^ m a l claims. In a positive soise Paul mottions AndbvMUcm and Junia^ as his ck»e kinr|TT^ dua is chosoi m dw <^)p(»ite erf ' a p o a k ' . A p o a k and prophet are here evidendy imdersuxxl as equivaloiL The fdioKxnaKxi of itiiwrant Q u i a i a n pnqriios can howevo be d o c u n ^ t e d (town to dw 2IK1 coilury (cf. Celais in Origen, c. Cels. v n 9). c) In so far as dw refoence to prophets docs not relate to Old Testamem figures (e.g. Lk. 11:49; cf. also Eph. 2:20). dw pair (rf concqjts 'i4x>aks and prof^wts'. by making diis distinctiexi atKi giving i»«cedence to dw ^ x i a k s , abo poims to d i a toidoicy in primitive C^iriaianity which wouW re«rto dw ^ ) o « k s to dw beginnings (rf dw Clum:h and to a particular circk of w i t n e s s to dw reaarectitm. I^ul already owountoed diis toidowy. and baskally assented to U (cf. 1 Cor. 15:1-11), but widi his understanding erf himself as an ^losde came nevodwkss into confUct widi it. In dw struggle foe dw recognitkm erf his i q i o ^ ^ - ultimately a singuha (xw - dw (siteria at dw sanw tinw onerge by which for him dw i^xmks m dw n a n o w o soise are difiinguislwd firom all (Xbo groiq» in dw C3iurdi. I k r e dw nto^ impoitaru cntavxi is itot dw commissi(m to preach dw G o ^ among dw natiems and to fouiKl new communities, but personal encounter widi dw risen Lord (cf. i Cor. 9:1; 15:8). That is. dw aposde of Jesus CSirist is first and above all a wimcss to dw resurrection of Jesus ftom dw dead The special precedence accorded to Cephas/Peto and'dw Twelve* (1 Cor. 15:5) is evkkndy grounded in dw fact dutt dwy w o e dw fira to bear witness to dw resimectkm (rf Jesus. But IK}W can anyeme who - Uke Paul - n e v o dw earddy Jesus credibly b e » witrwss to dw resurrection (rf Jesus? On what l»Ms is Iw to reex^iiM diat dw risen Lord who reveals himself to him is no odwr dian dw crucifkd? Paul was conscious (rf dw resultam probkmatic characto of his apostohite, and dwrefore even describes himself as 'dw kast among dw aposdes* - not only because he had

xm. The Picture of the Apoale in early ChriMian Tr«litiOT previously persecuted die Church of God (1 Cor. 15:9). The ^XMtolate in die narrower sense recalls die necessary connectkin (rf die Easter eveitt widi die Jesus commimity before Easlo-. For dus naaon Luke couW not widi oxtti^aicy describe die Paul wh(»n he attoured and revered as « i apoKle in dus soise (odierwise only in Acts 14:4,14). At any rate Paul had his audwrity for mbsion unong die Gendles(dno(rcoX3^confirTned by die Jerusalem aposdes (GaL 2:8: (rf. Rom. 1:5). But f(]r him diat was not die basis f(v his qwsdeship. His uidwrisation and call to be an q x ) ^ he owed to God Himself (GaL 1:1). But diis was « die s m e d m e d K basis f(jr die petadiM-freedom (rf his miaskmary activity, whkh p v e a ^lecial a ^ i a e to the early Qm^m tpoexaim whkh he helped lo d u p e , «> di« Paul, a l d i o u ^ he had not been a d i s c ^ (rf die earddy Jesus. couW quite s i n ^ y become foe certain cindes the aposde (rf Jestn Christ. Ttus coukl Uter - as die exaiTi[4e (rf Marckxi shows • also lead to a narrowingKtown (rf die ^x>sUe ccmcqx. 2 J : The bracketing to^dier of die early Christian 4»8K>late and die pre-Eastcr Jmm cmnBMmtty finds itt ckarest expresskn in die notkxi erf die twdve iqioatka, a combinatKxi (rf the apostle conceit with *die Twdve*. Tlie two elemotts appear originally to have been ind^ieiident; for Paul clearly (ttstinguishes them fkim one anodio- (1 Cor. IS.5-7) aid at die sane tune los it be seoi diti not every witness to die r e a u r e c ^ is also an 'i^xiate*. The formula 'die TwWe* b for die r e a a designation e^iecidly favtMoed by MaA Ux die narrower c o d e (rf die discifries of Jesus (cf. G. Sdmiahl), but also occtffs in die odier evaigelbts - not only die Synoptics, but also in John (Jn. 6:67-71) - aid originaUy probably hal its roots in die early cofnmimity'sapocalypdcvraridorkieas(cf.Mt 19:28/Lk. 22:28-30 from die Sayings source Q)- 'This passage (kes indeed staid in die context erf die Sayings soiace's polonk againa Israd. but neverdidess comains die (rid motif duu dte r i ^ ^ o t a a die end (rf days wall sit in judgmem over die inuigltteotn; die tweNe here ttais repreaent diat true l a a d (rf die righteous' (D. UUumarai. HNT 3. p. 71) in symbolk coniraa lo die twdve tribes of Israd. die anckm people of God (cf. also Rev. 21:14). The red hiaorkal iMckpound erf die circk (rf dte Twfdve can no knger be discovered widi any preciaon. Wh«i Paul travels to Jerusakm for die first time, lo sedc out 'die ^ » a k s * (Gd. 1:17fr. - interestingly he does not speak at dus poirtt of *tfie Twdve*: diese appear only in die traditiond formuU 1 Cor. 15:5). he meets only whh Peter and James die Lord's brodier - who dkl not bekxig lo die d r c k of die T v i ^ e . It s e a i » as if a diis eariy pcMM die institution (rf'die Twdve* ataeady bekxigs U) dte past This inqxesaon is strengdiened by dte fact dutt die four catakigues of die Twdve (Mk. 3:16-19; M l 10:2-16; Lk. 6:14-16; Acts 1:13) piesoit 'probkms in die history of tradition whkh can scarcdy be resolved* (J. Rokiff. TRE 3, p. 434). The fact dua die traitor Judas also b e k x i ^ to die origind cirde of die Twdve ('one of die twdve* - cf. Mk. 14:10,20, 43; M l 26:14; Lk. 2 2 J ; Jn. 6:71), and - according to Luke*s accoutt - was rejdaced by M^duas (Acts 1:26). tdls against die conjecture (G. Kkin) diat die d r c k of die Twdve f»M arose afte- E a ^ . Radier it embodies, as a symbtd for dte e s c t o t ^ i g k d peopk (rf God, dte ekct. dw coittinuity boween dw pre-Easter and dw post-Euter fdtowship widi Jesus, dw Offia. Widi dw decUne of apocdyptic expectations in eariy Chriaianity. dus circk very soon \osx its (xigind significttice. In place (rf dw (rffke (rf j t K ^ ((rf. Rev. 21:14) dw ofTwe (rf i ^ x ^ now moves into dw for^round.

The concept of tlw A p < ^ e in primitive Qiriaianity The desaiptiai of the Twelve as 'apoales' occurs fira