The Jewish Agent as New Testament Background?

From Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of John, "The Motif of Agency," 2 vols. introduction. 

In a detailed study of shaliach and its cognates, K. H. Rengstorf contended that the Christian “apostle” is a close adaptation of the Jewish institution of agency.272 Some of his OT data may reflect the custom. His use of rabbinic literature (especially dating it around the beginning of the Christian era) is questionable at points, but some of the evidence more strongly supports his position.

Although many scholars follow Rengstorf in defining the mission of Jesus or NT “apostles” in terms of the Jewish institution of the shaliach, or agent,273 many others reject this background.274 The objections are, however, questionable. As we have pointed out above, the relevant Jewish evidence is early enough that date is not a valid criterion for rejection. Some arguments, such as the lack of a Hebrew equivalent for the adjectival cognate,275 are completely irrelevant to the existence of the concept of a “sent” or commissioned messenger in both Jewish and Greek cultures. Nor does Schmithal’s objection that the shaliach’s authorization is juristic rather than “religious” carry much weight.276 A better objection is that "apostle" and "presbyter" are more common equivalents than "apostles" before 70 C.E.,277 but early Christianity hardly limited its choice among synonyms to standard translations of the day.

Rengstorf was hardly the first to recognize a connection between Christian apostles and the Jewish legal institution of agency; the latter as the former’s prototype was recognized at least as early as Jerome.279 The idea was also recognized by Lightfoot in the nineteenth century, in part through his vast knowledge of patristic sources.280 Lake recognized that "apostle" designated a mission in classical Greek, although "apostle" means “messenger” only rarely.281 The LXX uses apostello so frequently that it rarely employs pempo, but normally renders “envoy” as "angel," using "apostle" for this only once.282 The one use of the term by Josephus, however, for the leader of a Jewish delegation, is significant.283

The strongest argument in favor of drawing the connection between apostleship and agency is that Jewish (and more broadly Greco-Roman) agency supplies the most obvious general cultural context for the Christian conception of a commissioned messenger:

In every language there is a word to describe a person who is sent by the king or by the magistrates to act as their authorized representative....There is nothing unusual about it, and if Jesus sent out authorized representatives as Mark says that he did, this is the name which he would naturally have used. In the New Testament this is generally rendered into Greek by "apostles," but this word, though etymologically correct, is not customary in non-Christian Greek.284

Having argued that the shaliach provides a general context for the NT idea of agency (particularly apostleship), however, it is also important to recognize the quite different conception of agency in the NT. Conzelmann and Bultmann, for instance, observe that the shaliach is often a temporary position, whereas that of NT apostles is permanent.285 While this need not affect the derivation of the image, it does affect the sense. Others also insist that the different NT usage qualifies the meaning, and they are right.286 The synthesis noted by J. A. Kirk is helpful; the rabbinic institution provides an analogy to apostleship, but neither the word nor the function of an apostle of Christ can strictly be derived from.

As Rengstorf himself suggests, although the idea may have come from rabbinic Judaism its characteristic use in the New Testament has a peculiarly Christian origin and emphasis. Like many other words which occur in contemporary literature, its characteristic meaning in the New Testament is quite unique.287

The general institution of agency therefore informs the early Christian, including Johannine, conception of agency, but specific nuances of agency, which early Christian writers may have adopted and adapted, remain to be examined.

Footnotes

272 Rengstorf, Apostolate, 27. For one comparison of Johannine and rabbinic agency as well as questions of dating, see Friend, “Agency.”

273 E.g., Dix, Ministry, 228–30; Wanamaker, “Agent”; Witherington, Christology, 133–35; Meier, Matthew, 115; Grayston, Epistles, 125; Hunter, Romans, 24; Héring, 1 Corinthians, 1; Ladd, Theology, 381; Ellis, Paul, 30; De Ridder, Dispersion, 124–26; Bruce, History, 184.

274 E.g., Richardson, Theology, 324; Malan, “Apostolate,” 57 (contending, probably wrongly, that most now reject it; see Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:153, who suggest that most rightly connect “apostle” with shaliach).

275 Ehrhardt, Ministry, 5.

276 Schmithals, Apostle, 106.

277 Wilson, Gentiles, 114.

279 Comm. in Ep. ad Gal. 1.1, cited by Dix, Ministry, 228.

280 Lightfoot, Galatians, 93–94, citing Epiphanius Haer. 30.

281 Lake, “Twelve,” 46, finding only Herodotus Hist. 1.21 (cf. 5.38) for the latter usage.

282 Lake, “Twelve,” 46, the one occasion being 3 Kgdms 14:6.

283 Lake, “Twelve,” 46, citing Josephus Ant. 17.299–303.

284 Lake, “Twelve,” 46. Anderson, Mark, 171, thinks it unlikely that Jesus regarded the Twelve as shaliachim, but reasonable that the Jerusalem church saw them in these terms.

285 Conzelmann, Theology, 45–46; Bultmann, Theology, 2:105 (Bultmann accepting the derivation from the shaliach).

286 E.g., Käsemann, Romans, 5–6.

287 Kirk, “Apostleship,” 252.