What do you think?
Rate this book
The Office of Apostle in the Early Church
"...a thorough study of the office of apostle in the early church, early Christian mission, and church order..."
288 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1971
7 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
July 17, 2018
Good references to primary sources and secondary literature. Schmithals’ own judgments and opinions are, however, perverse and wrongheaded. As W. Bienert puts it in Schneemelcher's _The New Testament Apocrypha_, "the solution [Schmithals] proposes, to derive the apostle concept from Jewish or Jewish Christian Gnosis, has met with almost unanimous rejection. Its basis in the sources is inadequate, and the argument therefore remains largely hypothetical." I would go further: by committing serious missteps in his evaluation of other theories, Schmithals wrongly rejects the likeliest and truest account of the origin of the Christian apostolate: namely, the Jewish institution of the shaliach. Among his mistaken judgments:
"The apostolate has a purely religious character; the meaning of the Schaliach lies altogether within the realm of the juristic." But this is to confuse the legal regulation of shelichim with the concept's use within Jewish life in the 1st century.
"The Schaliach always has a commission that is limited in time; the apostle always has a life-long calling." But that is because apostles of Jesus represent a sender, a principal, who lives forever.
"The apostolate is an eschatological phenomenon all the way through; an eschatological character does not belong to the institution of the Schaliach, not even by way of suggestion." Again, this difference is not due to a difference in the sort of representation at work, but to a difference in who is represented. The apostles were agents of the eschatological Messiah of Israel; to be a shaliach of such a person will necessarily involve "an eschatological character."
The Gnosticism hypothesis that fills the latter half of Schmithals' book is utterly incredible and tries the patience of the reader. It does not explain any of the NT texts; it produces no satisfying ring of truth. Well has NT Wright said, ““It is remarkable, looking back, to see how strong the ‘gnostic hypothesis’ was in the years of Bultmannian dominance (notably in the works of W. Schmithals). Its demise marks a victory for sheer history.” (Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God)
"The apostolate has a purely religious character; the meaning of the Schaliach lies altogether within the realm of the juristic." But this is to confuse the legal regulation of shelichim with the concept's use within Jewish life in the 1st century.
"The Schaliach always has a commission that is limited in time; the apostle always has a life-long calling." But that is because apostles of Jesus represent a sender, a principal, who lives forever.
"The apostolate is an eschatological phenomenon all the way through; an eschatological character does not belong to the institution of the Schaliach, not even by way of suggestion." Again, this difference is not due to a difference in the sort of representation at work, but to a difference in who is represented. The apostles were agents of the eschatological Messiah of Israel; to be a shaliach of such a person will necessarily involve "an eschatological character."
The Gnosticism hypothesis that fills the latter half of Schmithals' book is utterly incredible and tries the patience of the reader. It does not explain any of the NT texts; it produces no satisfying ring of truth. Well has NT Wright said, ““It is remarkable, looking back, to see how strong the ‘gnostic hypothesis’ was in the years of Bultmannian dominance (notably in the works of W. Schmithals). Its demise marks a victory for sheer history.” (Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God)
Displaying 1 of 1 review