Paul the apostle or the apostle Peter etc

Most of the time, we hear of "the apostle Paul / Peter etc" but to my knowledge, the english translations always put Paul the apostle.

It seems the Lord Jesus Christ is the only one that is given this title of Apostle, unless some would see Rom 11:13 otherwise.

Heb 3:1 seems to be the only other place where "apostle" is given for a title Am I correct on this or in error. Please advise. Also, is there anywhere in the Greek NT where we could read it as "the apostle Paul" etc?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Matthew C Jones

Please advise. Also, is there anywhere in the Greek NT where we could read it as "the apostle Paul" etc?

In most of Paul's epistles he identifies himself as an apostle. Peter does the same in his two epistles.

Bootjack

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/718144#Comment_718144

I understand Paul or Peter identify themselves as apostles ... I'm asking if there is any Greek Text that would word it as i.e. "the apostle Paul" ... or is it as in our English versions "Paul an apostle" or "Paul as the apostle" ...

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/718148#Comment_718148

I understand Paul or Peter identify themselves as apostles ... I'm asking if there is any Greek Text that would word it as i.e. "the apostle Paul" ... or is it as in our English versions "Paul an apostle" or "Paul as the apostle" ...

One placed to start, perhaps is Luke 6:13, where Jesus designates the twelve as apostles. This seems to be a title, not merely an adjectival description. Paul, is the 13th apostle of Jesus (as one untimely, or abnormally born - 1Cor 15:8).

Beyond that, without getting into much more detail, I'd suggest looking up "Apostle" in a good Bible Dictionary/Encyclopedia.

Rosie Perera

What difference does it make whether it is translated "Paul the apostle" or "the apostle Paul" in English? Neither one implies that it is a title. It's a position or role. Here's the word order in Greek for every time Paul and apostle appear in the same verse (and it's always when Paul is identifying himself).

Now the one time when this word is used of Jesus, it is also hard to argue that it's a title:

The word is far separated from the name in the Greek text; it's only the English translations that bring them closer together.

I don't know much Greek, but I suspect it doesn't have the same concept of apostle as a "title" as we do in English when we call Paul "the Apostle Paul." That has to do with our capitalization more than anything. But it doesn't look to me that the word apostle is being applied to Jesus any differently than it's being applied to Paul, namely as an identifier of what he is, a position or role he plays.

Gal 2:8 is another place where Paul uses "apostle" of himself; both here and in Rom 11:13, he calls himself an apostle to the Gentiles, but again it doesn't appear to be necessarily a "title" as we would think of it:

And the Greek word order is different so it doesn't even come across as a phrase the way we translate it in English:

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/718160#Comment_718160

This seems to be a title, not merely an adjectival description.

It's not even an adjective so it couldn't be seen as an adjectival description, but the alternative isn't necessarily a title. It could be just a noun which is a position or role. I.e., in the sentence "Paul was an apostle" the word apostle is just a noun, not a title. One if we were to call him "the Apostle Paul" would it be his title. It's not clear that the NT Greek text ever uses it as a title in that sense of either Jesus or Paul. But again, I don't know Greek very well, so I can't be sure.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/718148#Comment_718148

I believe I understand what you are getting at, Bootjack. Let me ask you this question, to help tease out your own thinking. The Apostolic writings refer to "Christ Jesus" and "Jesus Christ". Do you consider these to be substantially different forms of address?

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/718163#Comment_718163

It's not even an adjective so it couldn't be seen as an adjectival description, but the alternative isn't necessarily a title.

The word that I think is in view here is "appositive". In the construction..."Mr. Smith, the bellman, opened the door for us."..."the bellman" is an appositive. In a sense, it is an equivalent of a predicate noun, which is what Rosie is presenting in her example...

I.e., in the sentence "Paul was an apostle" the word apostle is just a noun, not a title.

...where "apostle" is a predicate noun. It does "describe" the subject, Paul, in a sense, but by using another noun to do so. The more correct way to reference what is taking place would be to say "apostle 'tells' what Paul is." A predicate adjective would be as follows..."Paul was little."...where "little" describes Paul.

I concur with Rosie about the uncertainty of the use of "apostle" as a title...it isn't clear, as regards disciples. In Hebrew, however, I think it is clear that the equivalent term is used as a title of Messiah...perhaps of others as well. The thing about this term "title" is that I'm not all that sure it has as much significance as people want to ascribe to it in any case.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/718166#Comment_718166

The word that I think is in view here is "appositive".

Yes, that's the word I was forgetting. Thanks!

Messiah

What?! Are my eyes deceiving me? DP spelled "Messiah" the way the rest of us do? [:P] Going for understandability over esoteric knowledge? I like it. I don't have any illusions that it will stay, though. I'm guessing it was just a slip-up. [:)]

The thing about this term "title" is that I'm not all that sure it has as much significance as people want to ascribe to it in any case.

Agreed.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/718168#Comment_718168

DP spelled "Messiah" the way the rest of us do? Going for understandability over esoteric knowledge? I like it.

It was a judgment call. It's still the Hebrew version of the English term. I wouldn't call it "esoteric", though. My transliterations are simply literal, one-to-one transferences from Hebrew to English. A six-year-old child, with a chart showing my translit scheme, could translate any word that has been transliterated into English using my method back into fully-pointed Hebrew with almost 100% accuracy. No other "method" (and I use the term tongue-in-cheek, as there is no other actual method to my knowledge), can even contemplate doing that.

Bootjack

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/718168#Comment_718168

Thank you people for the replies. This is informative! David, my question actually was an honest one! :-)

I didn't know of anywhere in the NT Testament where two Gk words for the so called phrase "apostle Paul" were used or if used the way we coin it ... or even as it is put in our English translations, i.e. 2Cor 1:1 "Paul an apostle" ... but then again, "in the multitude of counsellors there is safety" and so my question to you folks.

I've heard it said many times that "apostle Paul" is giving him a title - Paul the apostle is not. I suppose, by the same reasoning, I could say that 'brother Saul' is giving a title Saul (Acts 9:17/ 22:13) which personally I would have difficulty in accepting.

So in all this thus far, I am safe in saying that the Greek does not use the two words together such as the "apostle Paul" ... or as Rosie has pointed out, the two words are far apart on the Greek page.

Thank you again for your excellent help & pointers! :-)

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/718175#Comment_718175

I would think you're right in that reasoning. Just juxtaposing two nouns together does not make the first a title. We do it all the time, and as David pointed out, it is called an appositive. Sometimes a comma is used to make us pause in pronouncing the two words together, but not always, and it doesn't really matter. "My brother Rick" and "my brother, Rick" are both equivalent. He is my brother, but that is a noun describing him, it isn't his title. On the other hand, Brother can sometimes be used as a title, as with monks (e.g., Brother Andrew (God's Smuggler) or Brother Roger (of Taizé)). In English we can usually tell when a noun before a person's name is a title. If there is no article (a or the) or possessive pronoun, then it is a title; otherwise it's usually not (one might quibble over the phrase "the Apostle Paul" -- in that case, even though it comes with an article, since the A is capitalized it's probably intended as a title). I don't know if the same can be said of Greek.

As David said, I don't think much can be made of whether something is a "title" or not, and we're even casual/inconsistent in what we apply that term to in English and what it means.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/718175#Comment_718175

See Acts 14:14 for a case where apostle immediately precedes a proper noun

Apostolic fathers includes those who did not know Jesus directly but did directly know an apostle.

Apostolic writings generally includes the entire New Testament i.e. writings of the apostles (directly or indirectly

Bootjack

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/718179#Comment_718179

Good point(s) Rosie & MJ Smith. Appreciate your insights.

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/718163#Comment_718163

This seems to be a title, not merely an adjectival description.

It's not even an adjective so it couldn't be seen as an adjectival description,

That was my point.

but the alternative isn't necessarily a title.

This is also true. However when Jesus calls the twelve and designates them (gives them the name) "apostles" it sure sounds title-like to me. We could quibble about the difference between a title and a designation, but I'm not sure how meaningful it would be. Is an "elder" or a "deacon" a designation or a title? How about "pastor?" All of these words can be used in a non-title sense, but when someone calls me "pastor Rich" they're using a title.

As I read the NT, I see the term "apostle" (especially "apostle of Christ Jesus") used to describe a discreet function in the Church, and that only certain people, who were in some way vetted, could legitimately claim that designation. That gets pretty close to the notion of a title, in my small brain. There's another use of the term apostle in the NT that may not be so discreet (e.g., Rom 16:7 - depending on one's interpretation there), in which case the term is used as a general descriptor (one who is sent).

I think Paul uses the term of himself as a title, and I believe it's proper to give him that title. This doesn't depend on the Greek grammar as much as it does the context in which Paul uses the term, and the context in which he defends his right to it (especially in Galatians).

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/718193#Comment_718193

This seems to be a title, not merely an adjectival description.

It's not even an adjective so it couldn't be seen as an adjectival description,

That was my point.

but the alternative isn't necessarily a title.

This is also true. However when Jesus calls the twelve and designates them (gives them the name) "apostles" it sure sounds title-like to me. We could quibble about the difference between a title and a designation, but I'm not sure how meaningful it would be. Is an "elder" or a "deacon" a designation or a title? How about "pastor?" All of these words can be used in a non-title sense, but when someone calls me "pastor Rich" they're using a title.

As I read the NT, I see the term "apostle" (especially "apostle of Christ Jesus") used to describe a discreet function in the Church, and that only certain people, who were in some way vetted, could legitimately claim that designation. That gets pretty close to the notion of a title, in my small brain. There's another use of the term apostle in the NT that may not be so discreet (e.g., Rom 16:7 - depending on one's interpretation there), in which case the term is used as a general descriptor (one who is sent).

I think Paul uses the term of himself as a title, and I believe it's proper to give him that title. This doesn't depend on the Greek grammar as much as it does the context in which Paul uses the term, and the context in which he defends his right to it (especially in Galatians).

Rich, I am willing to concede pretty much everything you say here, even the last sentence. I agree that Paul's role as an abortion is a highly unique and specialized kind of apostleship. The Twelve (which I believe is the best specific unique designation of the twelve) likewise had specialized kinds of apostleships. What I don't see any evidence of anywhere is that these specialized apostleships (or Apostleships, if we insist on giving the word the status of "technical term"), are in any significant way materially different than little "a" apostles. Go ahead, talk about big "A" authority if you want, but it seems to be the same kind of authority that little "a" apostles have, only with a different message. Ultimately, they are exactly what the non-technical term denotes...messengers having the authority of the one who sent them. That's my point. I don't see anything in Paul's or Peter's roles that makes them something significantly other than "messengers sent with a message", no matter what specific special sauce may be slathered on them. And as far as authority goes, both Peter and Paul heeded themselves to the authority of Jacob.

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/718198#Comment_718198

I don't see anything in Paul's or Peter's roles that makes them something significantly other than "messengers sent with a message", no matter what specific special sauce may be slathered on them. And as far as authority goes, both Peter and Paul heeded themselves to the authority of Jacob.

It's Paul's argument about his rights as an apostle in Galatians that I am thinking about. It seems clear to me, that the big "A" apostles were sent/commissioned by Jesus Himself and given not only a message but also the authority and power, to demonstrate it (cf. 1Cor. 2:4). Acts, while not denying that other Spirit-filled believers performed miracles (e.g. Phillip), there is a marked emphasis on what the twelve did and the effect those miracles had on those around them (Acts 2:43).

In my view, the uniqueness of the 12 (plus Paul), meant that they had authority other, small "a" apostles didn't (Paul's point in Galatians). Paul's authority rose to a level of equality with even Peter's, whom he confronted Apostle to Apostle (Gal.2:11,ff). The way that this big "A" apostle term is used, looks to me as it becomes a technical designation for certain, limited and vetted individuals.

The small "a" apostles just don't look the same--in context, I mean. They appear to be qualitatively different than the big "A" apostles.