Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
The historian has difficulty detecting the personal influence exercised in the post-Easter community by ‘the apostles’, at least as this group is identified in Christian tradition. The only individuals from this group whose historical role in the church's missionary activity can be clearly discerned are Peter and Paul. Nevertheless, for the church of the second and succeeding centuries, the New Testament is a collection of ‘apostolic writings’: the twenty-seven books are attributed either to Paul, or to one of the twelve, or to a disciple of one of ‘the apostles’ – to Paul's disciple, Luke (Col. 4. 14), or to Peter's disciple, Mark (1 Pet. 5. 13). Moreover, as early as the year 96, Clement of Rome asserts that the apostles appointed their first converts to be bishops and deacons, with the condition that if these should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.
[1] This identification includes the twelve, with Matthias substituted for the traitor Judas (Acts 1. 15–26), together with Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14. 14).
[2] John and Barnabas appear in Acts as missionary associates of Peter and Paul, respectively.
[3] Eusebius writes: ‘We have now described the facts which have come to our knowledge concerning the apostles and their times, and the sacred writings which they have left us’ (HE Book III, xxxi.6).
[4] 1 Clement 42. 1–4; 44. 1–2.
[5] Rom., 1–2 Cor., Gal., Phil., 1 Thess., and Philem.
[6] The scholarly consensus does not appear to have shifted significantly since the publication of J. A. T. Robinson's Redating the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1976).Google Scholar
[7] Three Pauline epistles seem to represent more than a single letter: Philippians (two or three letters); 2 Corinthians (as many as five letters); Romans (ch. 16 is a separate letter of recommendation).
[8] See especially Klein, G., Die ZwölfApostel: Ursprung und Gestalt einer Idee (Göttingen: Van-denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961).Google Scholar
[9] The apparent exception (Acts 14. 4, 14) really proves the rule, since Paul and Barnabas are ‘apostles’ of the Antiochene community, which sent them out on the mission (13. 1–3). Paul is familiar with this meaning of ‘apostle’ (2 Cor. 8. 23; cf. Phil. 2. 25).
[10] Against Brown, R. E., Priest and Bishop: Biblical Reflections (Paulist Press: Paramus/New York/Toronto, 1970), pp. 58–9.Google Scholar
[11] Matthew (Mt.), Peter (1–2 Pet.), John (Jn., 1–3 Jn., Rev.), James (Jas.), and Jude (Jude). In three instances this process was facilitated by the fact that the author, real or pseudonymous, had the same name as one of the twelve (the pseudonymous authors of the epistles of James and of Jude; the real author of Revelation: John the seer). An eleventh New Testament book is attributed to Peter's ‘son’ Mark (1 Pet. 5. 13).
[12] The beloved disciple, not Peter, is present beneath Jesus' cross (Jn. 19. 25–27). Moreover, if the ‘other disciple’ (18. 15) is the same as the beloved disciple, we have another scene in which Peter, who denied his Lord (v. 17), fares badly by comparison.
[13] Brown, R. E., The Community of the Beloved Disciple (Paulist Press: New York/Ramsey/Toronto, 1979), pp. 93–144.Google Scholar
[14] Köster, H., Einführung in das Neue Testament (de Gruyter: Berlin/New York, 1980), p. 717Google Scholar: ‘Aus den Jahrzenten, die auf den Tod der ersten Generation der christlichen Apostel folgen, also aus der Zeit von etwa 60–90 nChr, kennen wir keinen einzigen Namen. Die zweite christliche Generation bleibt vollkommen anonym.’ The beloved disciple is very likely an example of this anonymity of second generation church leaders.
[15] This is true even if the author of the epilogue is identical with ‘the elder’ (2 Jn. 1; 3 Jn. 1).
[16] This is a particular problem in the use by the Pastorals of seemingly untendentious personal remarks by ‘Paul’ (2 Tim. 4. 9–21; Tit. 3. 12–13). The problem is not removed by the hypothesis that such passages are fragments from genuine letters of the apostle.
[17] Aland, K. (‘The Problem of Anonymity and Pseudonymity in Christian Literature of the First Two Centuries’ in The Authorship and Integrity of the New Testament [SPCK: London, 1965], p. 13)Google Scholar refers to the account in Tertullian (de Baptismo, 17) of the excommunication of a presbyter because he had composed a writing under the name of Paul. Though pleading that he had done it from love of Paul (amore Pauli), he was not saved from punishment. That happened at the end of the second century, perhaps about 180/90.’
[18] Such historicization is illustrated by the later traditions that the twelve scattered to various corners of the world. See Bauer, W., ‘The Picture of the Apostle in Early Christian Tradition’, in Hennecke, E. and Schneemelcher, W., New Testament Apocrypha (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965), 2, pp. 43–4.Google Scholar
[19] Prologue to the Commentary on Romans: ‘Nulla insignia virtutum videntes nee aliquem apostolum susceperunt fidem Christi.’ Cited in A. Wikenhauser, and Schmid, J., Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Herder: Freiburg/Basel/Wien, 6 1973), p. 450, n. 1.Google Scholar
[20] Even though 1 Peter is pseudonymous, the fact that the author has ‘Peter' send greetings from the church which is ‘at Babylon’ establishes the apostle’s connection with the imperial capital.
[21] Suetonius, Vita Claudii, ch. 25: ‘ludaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit.’Cf. Acts 18. 2.
[22] Origen (horn. 6 in Luc., cited by Cullmann, O., Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr [London: SCM Press, 2 1962], p. 54, n. 60Google Scholar) is the first to refer to Peter as ‘first bishop’ of Antioch. For the claim that Peter was ‘first bishop’ of Rome, see O'Connor, D. W., Peter in Rome (New York: Colum bia University, 1969), p. 207.Google Scholar
[23] Der johanneische Kreis (Mohr, J. C. B. [Paul Siebeck]: Tübingen, 1975), pp. 41–52Google Scholar. Two points of contact are a common interest in a mission to the Samaritans (Jn. 4. 31–42; Acts 8. 1–25) and a shared hostility for the temple cult (Jn. 4. 20–24; Acts 7. 44–50).
[24] A concern that Paul be approved as a missionary by ‘the apostles’ seems to lie behind Acts 9. 26–28.
[25] Tetlow, E. M., Women and Ministry in the New Testament (Paulist Press: New York/Ramsey, 1980), pp. 120–1.Google Scholar
[26] This theological claim becomes historicized in Clement's assertion that the apostles appointed their successors (note 4). Cf. Acts 14. 23; Tit. 1.5.
[27] It must remain an open question whether Paul considered the twelve to be apostles, or, for that matter, whether the twelve considered Paul to be an apostle. But even if ‘those [in Jerusalem] who were apostles before me’ (Gal. 1. 17) is Paul's way of referring to the twelve, the restriction of the ‘apostle’ title to the twelve (with exception made for Paul and Barnabas) is a later development.
