 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza
from Women Priests, Arlene Swidler & Leonard
Swidler (eds.), Paulist Press 1977, pp. 135-140. Republished on our website
with the necessary permissions
Elisabeth Schuessler Fiorenza studied at the Universities of Wuerzburg and
Muenster, earning a Licentiate in Pastoral Theology and a Doctorate in
Theology. Her books include Die Getrennte Schwestern, and many books
since then. An Associate Professor at the University of Notre Dame, she was at
the time associate editor of the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Journal of
Biblical Literature, and Horizons.
The
Vatican Declaration and Commentary appear to assume that the Twelve and the
apostles were essentially one and the same group of people (cf. n. 10). Since
no woman was called to be a member of the Twelve, no woman received the
apostolic charge. This conclusion is, however, not cogent if initially the
terms the Twelve and the apostles were not coextensive but designated different
leadership circles in early Christianity which only partly overlapped. It must
therefore be asked whether women might have received the apostolic charge even
though they were not among the Twelve. In the following we must discuss more
carefully how the NT writers understand the function and the office of apostle
and whether or not, according to the NT, women were entrusted with the
apostolic function and office in primitive Christianity.
From
the outset we can say that the NT writings contain several different
conceptions rather than a singular interpretation of apostleship. They give us
neither a clear definition of apostolicity nor a simple definition of apostle.
While non-specialists may feel certain who the apostles were, the numerous
exegetical studies of the last twenty-five years(1) demonstrate that the case
is not at all so clear. There is neither consensus on the origin and derivation
of the Christian designation “apostle” nor agreement on who belonged
to the circle of the apostles in early Christianity. The use of the designation
in pre-Christian Hellenism and Judaism does not explain the meaning of the term
and its origin in early Christianity. The majority of scholars would agree
today that neither the function nor the self-understanding of the Christian
apostle can strictly be derived from the use of the “ambassador” term
in Rabbinic Judaism, since the Jewish missionaries were never called
“apostles” and use of the term is not documented for pre-Christian
Judaism. The use and meaning of the designation “apostle” has a
peculiar Christian origin and emphasis.
On
the other hand the majority of scholars studying the problem agree that the
generally assumed, popular understanding of apostleship limiting the circle and
function of the apostles to that of the Twelve does not stand at the beginning
of the development of the apostle-concept but at the end. In the Pauline
letters, the oldest NT sources available to us, the term is still very fluid
and not clearly defned.(2) These letters give evidence that Paul had a
different understanding of apostleship than Luke. Moreover, Paul did not
introduce the term and function but had found it already given in his
tradition. Finally, the Pauline texts also indicate that many more apostles
existed in early Christianity than we now know by name.
The
following does not intend to trace the origin and development of the concept of
apostle(3) in early Christianity but simply to list the different types and
understandings of apostleship encountered in the NT writings. Only then can we
raise the question of which criteria for apostleship the NT writers propose and
whether women fulfilled these criteria and functioned as apostles.
1.
Apostleship based on the resurrection appearance of Jesus Christ
The
references to the circle of apostles in 1Cor 15:7 and Gal 1:17-19 understand
the apostles to be a cohesive group that was in existence before Paul and lived
probably in or near Jerusalem. Its claim to apostleship appears to be based on
the resurrection appearances of Jesus. There is no way to decide definitely
whether or not in the pre-Pauline tradition and Paul’s own understanding
women were members of this circle of apostles in Jerusalem.(4) It is true that
the masculine form of the noun is used, but the masculine form also permits a
generic usage of the word. What speaks in favor of such a generic
interpretation of the term is that the NT often uses masculine terminology in a
generic sense to include and to address the female members of the community.
Otherwise we would have to assume that most letters, sayings, and admonitions
expressed in masculine terminology would not pertain to Christian women. In
other words, the NT preaching and the gospel message would be inherently
sexist, if we would insist that all masculine forms in the NT are restrictcd to
males.
Since
according to the canonical and apocryphal Gospels women are the first
eyewitnesses to the resurrection and are sent to the male disciples to proclaim
the Easter message(5) women could have been members of this circle of the
Jerusalem apostles. This is suggested by the summary account of Acts 1: 14 The
germ-cell of the primitive Church consisted of the Eleven, the women witnesses
with Mary of Magdala,(6) and the mother and brothers of Jesus. According to
1Cor 15:5, 7 and according to Mark, Matthew and John, it was the Eleven, the
women witnesses, and James the brother of the Lord who experienced a
resurrection appearance and were witnesses to the resurrection. The summary
description of Acts reflects traditions in which women were a part of the
nucleus of the primitive Church. This is significant because Luke attempts to
play down the qualification of the women disciples for apostleship (cf. Lk 24).
2.
A postles—charismatic missionaries
It
appears that a second group of apostles did not so much base their apostolic
claim on a resurrection appearance as derive it from their missionary success
The apostles of the Hellenistic missionary field appear to have been itinerant
preachers whose proclamation was confirmed by mighty signs and wonders. The
so-called “super-apostles” or “false apostles” or the
“other apostles” against whom Paul might be polemicizing in 1Cor 9:5
and to whom he certainly refers in 2 Cor 10-13, probably understood themselves
in such a way. They seem to have placed special emphasis upon missionary
success as the legitimization of their apostleship. They travelled from city to
city, relying on the communities for their support and for letters of
recommendation. They appear to have travelled with women missionaries or as
missionary couples (1 Cor 9:5).(7)
Paul
does not dispute their claim to apostleship as itinerant missionaries for he
calls himself and other co-missionaries apostles in the same sense. Such
missionary apostles were Barnabas (Acts 14:4, 14), Timothy and Silas (1Thess
2:6f.) and Andronicus and Junia (Rm 16:7). Just as Paul emphasized in his
dispute with the Jerusalem apostles that he too has seen the risen Lord so he
insists vis-a-vis the super-apostles that he can claim for himself the signs
and visions of an apostle (1Cor 2:4; Rm 15:19; 2 Cor 12:1-7). Paul acknowledges
that the apostle has the right to refrain from working for a living. Yet he
emphasises that he himself consciously has not made use of his right.(8) For
Paul apostleship is not proved by exclusive claims and rights but by the fruits
of the missionary work (1Cor 9:15-18). Its decisive mark does not consist in
signs and mighty speech but in the conscious acceptance and endurance of the
labors and sufferings connected with the missionary task (1Cor 4:8-13; 2 Cor
11-12). Andronicus and Junia,(9) mentioned in Rm 16:7, fulfill these criteria
of Pauline apostleship. They had become Christians even before Paul and they
had suffered prison for their missionary activity. They probably were
Hellenistic Jews who had become highly respected among the apostles and are
fellow prisoners of Paul.
3.
Apostles of the Churches
2 Cor
8:23 and Phil 2:25 mention “apostles of the churches,” who appear to
be most similar to the emissaries of the Jewish community.(10) They are the
official messengers or delegates of the Christian churches of Macedonia (2 Cor
8:23) or of the church at Philippi (Phil 2:25); Paul recommends them highly. A
woman appears to have had a similar role in the church at Cenchreae. In Rm 16:1
Phoebe is called the diakonos of the church at Cenchreae and she too is
highly recommended by Paul. In NT Greek the title diakonos means not
primarily “servant” or “deacon” but “herald” or
official messenger.(11) The term, however, is almost never used for charitable
service 1Cor 3:5, 9 indicates that Paul uses this term exchangeably with
synergos (12) (i.e., missionary co-worker). Moreover, 2 Cor 11:13
documents that Paul uses the titles apostolos and diakonos
interchangeably to address the same circle of persons. It can therefore be
assumed that the diakonos title characterizes Phoebe as official
messenger and missionary apostle of the church at Cenchreae. Since the
diakonos title can be used interchangeably with the apostolos
title she is characterized as fulfilling the function of an apostle of the
Church. Like other missionaries and apostles she has received a letter of
recommendation.
4.
The Lukan understanding of apostleship
A
very late stage in the development of the apostle-concept and function is found
in the Lukan writings.(13) Luke not only identifies the apostles with the
Twelve but also spells out criteria for apostleship. To become one of the
twelve apostles it is necessary to have accompanied Jesus from his baptism to
his ascension and to become a witness to his resurrection. According to
Luke’s traditions women have fulfilled these criteria and functions of
apostleship. Women accompanied Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem (Mk 15:40f.) and
they were the first disciples to receive the resurrection message (Mk 16:7) and
to have seen the Lord (Mt 28:9f.; Jn 20:18). Why then does Luke limit
apostleship to men (Acts 1:21)? The answer might lie in his identification of
the apostles with the Twelve. Luke was aware that women fulfilled the
conditions for apostleship. However, he was also aware that according to
tradition no women were members of the Twelve. Thus he felt compelled to give
the women disciples a preeminent place equal to that of the Twelve (Lk 8:1-3),
while not calling them apostles and deemphasizing their resurrection witness
(24:11.34). It becomes apparent that Luke’s theological redaction had to
formulate maleness as an additional criterion for apostleship because of the
peculiar Lukan understanding that the circle of the apostles was co-extensive
with that of the Twelve. It is, however, extremely significant that in the
Lukan writings the twelve apostles fade from the picture once the Gentile
mission is under way. Moreover, Luke’s theological conception of
apostleship as limited to the Twelve has no historical foundation, since the
Pauline letters indicate that the circle of apostles was much wider in early
Christianity, and that even in Paul’s time apostleship was not yet clearly
defined and limited. Finally, later writings still know of apostles as
itinerant missionaries (Rev 2:2; 18:20; Didache 11:6).
In
summary: A careful study of the NT writings demonstrates that different types
and understandings of apostleship were present in early Christianity. Whereas
the Pauline writings attest to a wider circle of apostles, Luke considers the
Twelve to be the apostles par excellence. The Pauline letters know of two types
of apostles. Whereas the Jerusalem type bases its claim to apostleship upon a
resurrection appearance of the risen Lord, the itinerant missionary type
derives its claim from the success of missionary work. In connection with these
different types of apostles the NT writers spell out the following criteria for
apostleship.
1.
Apostles must be witnesses of the resurrection.
2.
Apostles must be witnesses to the life and ministry of Jesus.
3.
Apostles must be sent to missionary work and exhibit the charisma necessary for
this work.
In
arguing with his opponents at Corinth and in Galatia, Paul stresses that on the
one hand he experienccd resurrection appearance and that on the other hand he
was sent to do missionary work and has proven himself an outstanding
missionary. The requirement of personal involvement with the earthly Jesus and
his ministry seems not yet to have been a necessary criterion for apostleship
in Paul’s time, since in no way could Paul have fulfilled this criterion.
The NT writings however indicate that women fulfilled all these criteria of
apostleship. Women accompanied Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem, they were the
primary witnesses of the resurrection, and they were outstanding missionaries
in the early Church. On biblical grounds it would be easier to prove that Paul
was not entrusted with the “apostolic charge” than to demonstrate
that women were excluded from apostleship.
Notes
1.
For surveys of research cf. H. Mosbech, “Apostolos in the New
Testament,” StTh, Vol. 2 (1948), pp. 166-200; E.M. Kredel,
“Der Apostelbegriff in der neueren Exegese,” ZKTh, Vol. 78
(1956), pp. 169-193, 257-305: J Roloff, Apostolat, Verkündigung,
Kirche (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1965), pp. 9-37; R.Schnackenburg,
“Apostles Before and During Paul’s Time,” in Gasque Martin,
Apostolic History and the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970) pp.
287-303; R.E. Brown, Priest and Bishop, Biblical Reflections (New York
Paulist Press, 1970), pp. 47-86; C.K. Barrett, The Signs of an Apostle
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972); J.A. Kirk, “Apostleship since
Rengstorff,” NTS, Vol. 21 (1975), pp. 249-264.
2.
Cf. H.Greeven, “Propheten, Lehrer, Vorsteher bei Paulus,” ZNW Vol. 44
(1952/53), pp. 1-43; D. Georgi, Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief
(Neukirchen: Vluyn, 1964), pp. 42f.; R.Schnackenburg, “Apostles,”
p. 289.
3.
K.H. Rengstorf, TWNT, Vol. I (1933), pp. 406-448 (=TDNT I
407-447); L. Cerfaux, “Pour l’histoire du titre Apostolos dans le
Nouveau Testament,” Rech SR, Vol. 48 (1960), pp. 78-92 and J.A.Kirk
4. On
the basis of this text it should therefore not be argued that the NT writers
give a secondary position to the appearance to a woman or to women and that
women were not “official” witnesses of the resurrection. The
distinction between “official” and “unofficial” witness to
the resurrection appears to reflect our contemporary church institutions and to
project our situation back into the first century.
5.
According to the critical criteria of historical authenticity, women were the
primary witnesses to the resurrection. The criterion of distinctiveness
or dissimilarity maintains that those NT materials can be considered
to be historically authentic that are dissimilar to well-known
tendencies in Judaism or in early Christianity. In the Judaism of the time
women probably were not admitted as official witnesses. Moreover, because of
apologetic reasons the early church played down the Easter witness of the women
disciples (cf. already Lk 24). the criterion of distinctiveness would
indicate that the women’s witness is probably historically authentic.
Secondly, the criterion of multiple attestation also speaks for the
historicity of the women’s witness, since all four Gospels know that women
disciples first received the message of the resurrection. This knowledge
likewise can not be due to a widespread Church practice of the time. Finally,
the criterion of cohesiveness supports the historicity of the
women’s witness, since this tradition about the resurrection witness of
women coheres with the information of the Gospels that in his itinerant
ministry women disciples accompanied Jesus, contrary to the customs of the
time.
6.
The most prominent of the women must have been Mary of Magdala, since all four
Gospels transmit her name while the names of the other women vary. The
Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel according to Mary and the Pistis
Sophia understand her leadership as co-equal to that of Peter, who sees her
as a rival. The tradition calls her “apostle to the apostles.” This
title is accepted by the statement of the Pontifical Biblical Commission: Part
III. In my writings I have consistently pointed out the importance of Mary of
Magdala: cf. E. Schüssler, Der vergessene Partner (Düsseldorf:
Patmos, 1964), pp. 57-59; E. Schüssler Fiorenza, “Feminist Theology
as a Critical Theology of Liberation,” in W. Burkhardt, ed., Woman: New
Dimensions (New York: Paulist Press, 1977), pp. 48-50; “Die Rolle der
Frau in der urchristlichen Bewegung,” Concilium, Vol. 12 (1976),
pp. 3-9.
7.
Their self-understanding and ministry appears to have been patterned after the
itinerant ministry of Jesus. Cf. G. Theissen, “Itinerant Radicalism. The
Traditions of the Jesus Sayings from the Perspectivc of the Sociology of
Literature,” Radical Religion Reader: The Bible and Liberation
(Berkeley, 1976), pp. 84-93.
8.
Cf. G. Theissen, “Legitimation und Lebensunterhalt: Ein Beitrag zur
Soziologie urchristlicher Missionäre,” NTS, Vol. 21 (1975),
pp. 192-221.
9.
See essay by Bernadette Brooten on the woman apostle Junia, pp. 141-144.
10.
Cf. Rengstorf, op. cit.
11.
Cf. J. Gnilka, Der Philipperbrief (HThNT X, 3; Freiburg: Herder, 1968),
p. 39.
12.
See essay by Mary Ann Getty on synergos, pp. 176-182.
13.
G. Klein, Die Zwölf Apostel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1961), pp. 202ff. maintains that the apostleship of the Twelve had
its origin in Lukan theology. J. Roloff, op. cit., p.232, argues that
Luke used existing traditions to develop his theological concept.
Contents of “Women
Priests” book
Support our
campaign
Sitemap
Contemporary
theologians
Join Campaign
activities
Go back to home
page
Join our Women Priests' Mailing List
for occasional newsletters:
An email will be immediately sent to you
requesting your confirmation.
Please, credit this document
as published by www.womenpriests.org!