by Adolph (von)
Harnack
translated and edited by James Moffatt
Second, enlarged and revised English edition;
Theological
Translation Library, volumes 19-20
From
the German, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den
ersten drei
Jahrhunderten (1902, revised 1906, 1915, and finally 1924)
Book 3 (scanned by Moises
Bassand and
Amna Khwar; part edited by Liz Rosado; further editing by
Amna
Khwar, October 2004, and Chris Segal, Spring 2006)
BOOK
3
THE
MISSIONARIES: THE METHODS OF THE
COUNTER-MOVEMENTS
CHAPTER I
THE CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES
(APOSTLES,
EVANGELISTS,
AND PROPHETS OR TEACHERS: THE INFORMAL MISSIONARIES)
I
BEFORE entering upon
the subject
proper, let us briefly survey the usage of the term “apostle,” in its
wider and
narrower senses, throughout the primitive Christian writings.\1/
\1/
Though it is only apostles of Christ who are to be considered, it may
be
observed that Paul spoke (2 Cor. 8.23) of ἀπόστολοι ἐκκλησιῶν,
and applied the title “apostle of the
Philippians” to Epaphroditus, who had conveyed to him a donation from
that
church (Philip. 2.25). In Heb. 3.1 Jesus is called “the apostle and
high-priest
of our confession.” But in John 13.16 “apostle” is merely used as an
illustration: οὐκ ἔστι δοῦλος μείζων τοῦ κυρίου αὐτοῦ,
οὐδὲ ἀρόστολος μείζων τοῦ πέμψαντος αὐτόν.
For the literature on this subject,
see my edition of the Didachê (Texte u.
Untersuchungen, vol. 2, 1884) and my Dogmengeschichte
I.3 (1894), pp. 153 f. [
1. In Matthew,
Mark, and John, “apostle” is not a special and distinctive name for the
inner
circle of the disciples of Jesus. These are almost invariably described
as “the
twelve,”\2/ or the [[320]]
twelve
disciples.\3/ As may be inferred from Matt. 19.28, the choice of this
number
probably referred to the twelve tribes of Israel.\4/ In my opinion the
fact of
their selection is historical, as is also the tradition that even
during his
lifetime Jesus once dispatched them to preach the gospel, and selected
them
with that end in view. At the same time, the primitive church honored
them
pre-eminently not as apostles but as the twelve disciples (chosen by
Jesus). In
John they are never called the apostles;\5/ in Matthew they are
apparently
called “the twelve apostles” (10.2) once,\6/ but this reading is a
correction,
Syr. Sin. giving “disciples.” At one place Mark writes “the apostles”
(6.30),
but this refers to their temporary missionary labors during the life of
Jesus.
All three evangelists are thus ignorant of “apostle” as a designation
of the
twelve: there is but one instance
where the term is applied to them ad hoc.\7/
\2/
Matt. 10.5, 20.17, 26.14, 47; Mark (3.14), 4.10,
6.7, 9.35, 10.32, 11.11, 14.10, 17, 20, 43; John 6.67, 70, 71, 20.24.
\3/ Matt. 10.1, 11.1, 26.20. -- Add further the instances in which they
are
called “the eleven” (Mark 16.14) or “the eleven disciples” (Matt.
28.16).
\4/
This is explicitly stated in Barn. 8: oὖσιν δεκαδύο εἰς μαρτύριον τῶν φυλῶν ὕτι ιβ’
αἱ φυλαὶ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ
(“They are twelve for a testimony to the tribes, for
there are twelve tribes in
\5/
This is a remarkable fact. In the Johannine epistles “apostle”
never occurs at all. Yet these letters were composed by a man who,
whatever he
may have been, claimed and exercised apostolic authority over a large
number of
the churches, as is plain from the third epistle (see my study of it in
the
fifteenth volume of the Texte and
Unlersuchungen, part 3). More on this point afterwards.
\6/ Not “the twelve” pure and simple. Elsewhere the term, “the twelve
apostles,”
occurs only in Apoc. 21.14, and there the “twelve” is not superfluous,
as the
Apocalypse uses “apostle” in a more general sense (see below).
\7/ The phrasing of Mark 3.14 (ἐποίησεν
δώδεκα, ἵνα
ὦσιν μετ’ αὐτοῦ
καὶ ἵνα ἀποστέλλῃ
αὐτοὺς
κηρύσσειν καὶ
ἔχειν ἐξουσίαν ἐκβάλλειν
τὰ δαιμόνια)
corresponds to
the original facts of the case. The mission (within
2. With Paul it is
quite otherwise. He never employs
the term “the twelve” (for in 1 Cor. 15.5 he is repeating a formula of
the
primitive church),\8/ but confines himself to the idea of “apostles.”
His
terminology, however, is not unambiguous on this point. [[321]]
\8/
From the absence of the term “twelve” in Paul, one might infer (despite
the
gospels) that it did not arise till later; 1 Cor. 15.5, however, proves
the
reverse.
(a) He calls
himself an apostle of Jesus Christ, and lays the greatest stress upon
this
fact.\9/ He became an apostle, as alone one could, through God (or
Christ); God
called him and gave him his apostleship,\10/ and his apostleship was
proved by
the work he did and by the way in which he did it.\11/
\9/
See the opening of all the Pauline epistles, except 1 and 2 Thess.,
Philippians
and Philemon; also Rom. 1.5, 11.13, 1 Cor. 4.9, 9.1 f., 15.9 f., 2 Cor.
12.12,
Gal. 1.17 (2.8). It may be doubted whether, in 1 Cor. 4.9 (δοκῶ, ὁ θεὸς ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀποστόλους ἐσχάτους ἀπέδειξεν ὡς ἐπιθανατίους), ἐσχάτους is to be taken as an
attribute of ἀποστόλους or as a predicative. I
prefer the
former construction (see 1 Cor. 15.8 f.), and it seems to me
therefore
probable that the first person plural here is an epistolary plural.
\10/ Gal. 1.1 f., Rom. 1.5 (ἐλάβομεν
χάριν καὶ ἀποστολήν). It is hard to say whether
ἐλάβομεν is a real plural, and, if
so, what
apostles are here associated with Paul.
\11/ 1 Cor. 9.1, 2, 15.9 f., 2 Cor. 12.12, Gal. 1.2.
(b) His fellow-missionaries -- e.g., Barnabas
and Silvanus -- are also apostles; not so, however, his assistants and
pupils,
such as Timothy and Sosthenes.\12/
\12/ 1 Cor. 9.4 f. and Gal. 2.9 prove that Barnabas was an apostle,
whilst 1
Thess. 2.7 makes it very probable that Silvanus was one also. In the
greetings
of the Thessalonian and Philippian epistles Paul does not call himself
an
apostle, since he is associating himself with Timothy, who is never
given this
title (1 Thess. 2.7 need not be taken as referring to him). It is
therefore
quite correct to ascribe to him (as in 2 Tim. 4.5) the work of an
evangelist.
Apollos, too [see p. 79], is never called an apostle. As for εὐαγγελιστής, it is to be noted that,
apart from 2
Timothy, it occurs twice in the New Testament; namely, in the
We-journal in
Acts (21.8, as a title of Philip, one of the seven), and in Ephes.
4.11, where
the reason for evangelists being mentioned side by side with apostles
is that
the epistle is addressed to churches which had been founded by
nonapostolic
missionaries, and not by Paul himself -- just as the term οἱ ἀκούσαντες (sc. τὸν κύριον) is substituted for
“apostles” in Heb.
2.3, because the readers for whom the epistle was originally designed
had not
received their Christianity from apostles.
(c) Others also -- probably, e.g.,
Andronicus and Junias\13/ -- are apostles. In fact, the term
cannot be sharply
restricted at all; for as God appoints prophets and teachers “in the
church,”
so also does he appoint apostles to be the front rank [[322]]
therein,\14/ and since such charismatic callings depend upon the
church's
needs, which are known to God alone, their numbers are not fixed. To
the
apostleship belong (in addition to the above mentioned call of God
or Christ)
the wonderful deeds which accredit it (2 Cor. 12.12) and a work of its
own (1
Cor. 9.1-2), in addition to special rights.\15/ He who can point to
such is an
apostle. The very polemic against false apostles (2 Cor. 11.13) and
“super-apostles”
(2 Cor. 11.5, 12.11) proves that Paul did not regard the conception of
“apostle”
as implying any fixed number of persons, otherwise the polemic would
have been
differently put. Finally, a comparison of 1 Cor. 15.7 with verse 5 of
the same
chapter shows, with the utmost clearness, that Paul distinguished a
circle of
apostles which was wider than the twelve -- a distinction, moreover,
which
prevailed during the earliest period of the church and within
Palestine.\16/
\13/ Rom. 16.7 (ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, οἳ καὶ πρὸ ἐμοῦ γέγοναν ἐν Χριστῷ); ἐν is probably (with Lightfoot,
as against Zahn) to be
translated “among” rather than “by,” since the latter would render the
additional phrase rather superfluous and leave the precise scope of ἀπόστολοι unintelligible. If ἐν means “by,” this passage is
to be correlated
with those which use οἱ
ἀπόστολοι for the
original apostles, since in the present case this gives the simplest
meaning
to the words. At any rate, the οἳ
refers to Andronicus and Junias, not to ἀποστόλοις. [Add
note on
Junias/Julia.]
\14/
1 Cor. 12.28 f; Eph. 4.11. Even Eph. 2.20 and 3.5 could not be
understood to
refer exclusively to the so-called “original apostles,” otherwise Paul
would
simply be disavowing his own position.
\15/
It cannot be proved -- at least not with any great degree of
probability --
from 1 Cor. 9.1 that one must have
seen the Lord in order to be able to come forward as an apostle. The
four
statements are an ascending series (οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐλεύθερος; οὐκ εἰμὶ ἀπόστολος; οὐχὶ Ἰησοῦν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν ἑόρακα; οὐ τὸ ἔργον μου ὑμεῖς ἐστε ἐν κυρίῳ), as is proved by the
relation of the
second to the first. It is clear that the third and fourth statements
are meant
to attest the second, but it is doubtful if they contain an attestation
which
is absolutely necessary.
\16/ Cp. Origen,
Hom. in
Num., 27.11 (vol. 10 p. 353, ed. Lommatzsch):
“In quo apostolus ostendit [sc. 1 Cor. 15.7) esse et alios apostolos
exceptis
illis duodecim.”
(d)
But in a further, strict, sense of the
term, “apostle” is reserved for those with whom he himself works,\17/
and here
some significance attaches to the very chronological succession of
those who
were called to the apostleship (Rom. 16.7). The twelve who were called
during
the lifetime of Jesus fall to be considered as the oldest apostles;\18/
with their qualities and functions they [[323]] form the pattern and
standard for all
subsequent apostles. Thus the twelve, and
(what is more) the twelve as apostles, come to the front. As
apostles Paul
put them in front; in order to set the dignity of his own office in its
true
light, he embraced the twelve under the category of the original
apostolate (thereby allowing their personal discipleship
to fall into the background, in his terminology), and thus raised them
above
all other apostles, although not higher than the level which he claimed
to
occupy himself. That the twelve henceforth rank in history as the
twelve
apostles, and in fact as the
apostles, was a result brought about by Paul; and, paradoxically
enough, this
was brought about by him in his very effort to fix the value of his own
apostleship. He certainly did not work out this conception, for he
neither
could nor would give up the more general conception of the apostleship.
Thus
the term “apostle” is confined to the twelve only twice in Paul,\19/
and even
in these passages the reference is not absolutely certain. They occur
in the
first chapter of Galatians and in 1 Cor. 9.5. Gal. 1.17 speaks of oἱ πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀπόστολοι (“those who were apostles
before me”), where in all likelihood
the twelve are alone to be understood. Yet the subsequent remark in
verse 19 (ἕτερον τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου) shows that it was of no
moment to
Paul to restrict the conception rigidly. In 1 Cor 9.5 we read, μὴ οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα περιάγειν, ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ Κηφᾶς; the collocation of λοιπῶν ἀποστολῶν with the Lord's brothers
renders it
very probable that Paul here is thinking of the twelve exclusively, and
not of
all the existing apostles, when he mentions “the apostles.” To sum up
our
results: Paul holds fast to the wider conception of the apostolate, but
the
twelve disciples form in his view its original nucleus.
\17/
1 Cor. 9.2 and Gal. 9 (a Jewish and a Gentile apostolate); cp. also
Rom. 11.13,
ἐθνῶν ἀπόστολος. Peter (Gal. 2.8) has the ἀποστολὴ τ. περιτομῆς. Viewed ideally, there is
only one apostolate, since there is only one
church; but the concrete duties of
the apostles vary.
\18/
The apostolate is the highest rank (1 Cor. 12.28); it follows that the
main
thing even about the twelve is the fact of their being apostles.
\19/
Apart from 1 Cor. 15.7 (cp. verse 5), where the twelve appear as the
original
nucleus of the apostles; probably also apart from Rom. 16.7 (cp. p.
321, note)
and 1.5.
3. The
terminology of Luke is determined as much by that of the primitive age
(the
Synoptic tradition) as by the post-Pauline. Following the former,
he calls the
chosen disciples of [[324]]
Jesus “the
twelve,”\20/ or “the eleven;”\21/ but he reproduces the latter in
describing
these disciples almost invariably throughout Acts as simply “ the
apostles” --
just as though there were no other\22/ apostles at all -- and in
relating, in
his gospel, how Jesus himself called them apostles (6.13). Accordingly,
even in
the gospel he occasionally calls them “the apostles.”\23/ This would
incline
one to assert that Luke either knew, or wished to know, of no apostles
save the
twelve; but the verdict would be precipitate, for in Acts 14.4, 14, he
describes not merely Paul but also Barnabas as an apostle.\24/
Obviously, the
terminology was not yet fixed by any means. Nevertheless it is
surprising that
Paul is only described as an “apostle” upon one occasion in the whole
course of
the book. He does not come\25/ under the description of the qualities
requisite
for the apostleship which Luke has in view in Acts 1.21 f., a
description which
became more and more normative for the next age. Consequently he cannot
have
been an apostle for Luke, except in the wider sense of the term.
\20/
Luke 8.1, 9.1, 12, 18.31, 22.3, 47; Acts 6.2. Only once, then, are they
called
by this title in Acts, and that in a place where Luke seems to me to be
following a special source.
\21/
Luke 24.9, 33 (cp. Acts 2.14, Πέτρος
σὺν τοῖς ἕνδεκα).
\22/
Acts 1.2, 2.37, 42-43, 4.33, 35, 36, 37, 5.2, 12, 18, 29, 40, 6.6, 8.1,
14.18,
9.27, 11.1, 15.2, 4, 6, 22, 23, 16.4. In the later chapters “apostle”
no longer
occurs at all. Once we find the expression of οἱ ἕνδεκα ὰπόστολοι (Acts 1.26).
\23/
Luke 9.10, 17.5, 22.14, 24.10. The gospel of Peter is more cautious; it
speaks
of μαθηταί (30), or of οἱ δώδεκα μαθηταί (59), but never of ἀπόστολοι. Similarly, the apocalypse
of Peter
(5) writes, ἡμεῖς
οἱ δώδεκα μαθηταί.
\24/
With both Paul (see above) and Luke, then, the apostolic dignity of
Barnabas is
well established. -- In regard to the Seventy disciples Luke does speak
of an ἀποστέλλειν and calls them “seventy
other”
apostles, in allusion to the twelve. Yet he does not call them
explicitly
apostles. Irenaeus (2.21.1), Tertullian (adv.
Marc. 4.24), Origen (on Rom. 16.7), and other writers, however,
describe
them as apostles, and people who were conjectured to have belonged to
the
Seventy were also named apostles by a later age.
\25/
The apostle to be elected must have companied with Jesus from the date
of
John's baptism until the ascension; he must also have been a witness of
the
resurrection (cp. also Luke 14.48, Acts 1.8). (Paul simply requires an
apostle
to have “seen” the Lord.) This conception of the apostolate gradually
displaced
the original conception entirely, although Paul still retained his
apostolic
dignity as an exception to the rule.
4. The
apocalypse of John mentions those who call themselves [[325]]
apostles and are not (2.2),\26/ which implies that they might be
apostles.
Obviously the writer is following the wider and original conception of
the
apostolate, The reference in 18.20 does not at least contradict
this,\27/ any
more than 21.14 (see above), although only the twelve are named here
“apostles,”
while the statement with its symbolic character has certainly
contributed
largely to win the victory for the narrower sense of the term.
\26/
Cp. (above) Paul's judgment on the false apostles.
\27/
Εὺφραίνου οὐρανὲ καὶ οἱ ἀποστόλοι καὶ οἱ προφῆται. For the collocation of the
Old
Testament prophets, cp. also Luke 11.49, 2 Pet. 3.2. But in our
passage, as in
Eph. 3.20, 3.5, 4.11, the writer very possibly means Christian prophets.
5. In First
Peter and Second Peter (1.1), Peter is called an apostle of Jesus
Christ. As
for Jud. 17 and 2 Peter 3.2 (τὰ
ῥήματα τὰ προειρημένα ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰηστοῦ Χριστοῦ, τὰ προειρημένα ῥήματα ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν καὶ ἡ τῶν ἀποστόλων ὑμῶν ἐντολὴ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος), in the first passage it
is certain,
and in the second very likely, that only the twelve disciples are to be
understood.
6. That the
epistle of Clement uses “apostles” merely to denote the original
apostles and
Paul, is perfectly clear from 42.1 f. (the apostles chosen previous to
the
resurrection) and 47.4 (where Apollos, as ἀνὴρ δεδοκιμάσμενος παρ’ ἀποστόλοις, a man approved by the
apostles, is
definitely distinguished from the apostles); cp. also 5.3 and 44.1. For
Clement's conception of the apostolate, see below. The epistle of
Barnabas
(5.9) speaks of the Lord's choice of his own apostles (ἴδιοι ἀπόστολοι), and therefore seems to
know of some
other apostles; in 8.3 the author only mentions the twelve “who
preached to us
the gospel of the forgiveness of sins\28/ and were empowered to preach
the
gospel,” without calling them expressly” apostles.”\29/ As the
Preaching of
Peter professes to be an actual composition of [[326]]
Peter, it is self-evident that whenever it speaks of apostles, the
twelve are
alone in view.\30/
\28/
Of οἱ ῥαντίζοντες παῖδες οἱ εὐαγγελισάμενοι ἡμῖν τὴν ἄφεσιν ᾀμαρτιῶν καὶ τὸν ἁγνισμὸν τῆς καρδίας, οἷς ἔδωκεν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τὴν ἐξουσίαν – οὖσιν
δεκαδύο εἰς μαρτύριον τῶν φυλῶν, ὅτι δεκαδύο φυλαὶ τοῦ Ἰσραή’—εἰς τὸ κηρύδσσειν (“The children who sprinkle
are those
who preached to us the gospel of the forgiveness of sins and
purification of
heart; those whom he empowered to preach the gospel, being twelve in
number for
a testimony to the tribes -- since there are twelve tribes in Israel”).
\29/
As 5.9 shows, this is merely accidental.
\30/ See von
Dobschütz
in Texte u. Unters. 9.1. Jesus says in this Preaching:
Ἐξελεξάμην ὑμᾶς δώδεκα μαθητὰς κρίνας ἀξίους ἔμοῦ καὶ ἀποστόλους πιστοὺς ἡγησάμενος εἶναι, πέμπων ἐπὶ τὸν κόσμον εὐαγγελίσασθαι τοὺς κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην ἀνθρώπους, κ.τ.λ. (“I have
chosen you twelve disciples, judging
you to be worthy of me and esteeming you to be faithful apostles,
sending you out into the world to preach the gospel to
all its inhabitants,” etc.).
7. The passage
in Sim. 9.17.1 leaves it ambiguous
whether Hermas meant by “apostles” the twelve or some wider circle. But
the
other four passages in which the apostles emerge (Vis.
3.5.1; Sim. 9.15.4,
16.5, 25.2) make it perfectly clear that the author had in view a
wider,
although apparently a definite, circle of persons, and that he
consequently
paid no special attention to the twelve (see below, Sect. 3, for a
discussion
upon this point and upon the collocation of apostles, bishops, and
teachers, or
of apostles and teachers). Similarly, the Didachê contemplates
nothing but a
wider circle of apostles. It certainly avows itself to be, as the title
suggests, a διδαχὴ
κυρίου διὰ τῶν ιβ’ ἀποστόλων (an instruction of the Lord
given
through the twelve apostles), but the very addition of the number in
this title
is enough to show that the book knew of other apostles as well, and
11.3-6
takes apostles exclusively in the wider sense of the term (details of
this in a
later section).
8. In the dozen
or so passages where the word “apostle” occurs in Ignatius, there is
not a
single one which renders it probable that the word is used in its wider
sense.
On the contrary, there are several in which the only possible
allusion is to
the primitive apostles. We must therefore conclude that by “apostle”
Ignatius
simply and solely understood\31/ the twelve and Paul (Rom.
4.3). Any decision in the case of Polycarp (Ep. 6.3,
8.1) is uncertain, but he would
hardly have occupied a different position from that of Ignatius. His
church
added to his name the title of an “apostolic
and prophetic teacher” (Ep. Smyrn.
16.2).
\31/
Ignatius disclaims apostolic dignity for himself, in several passages
of his
epistles; which nevertheless is a proof that there was a possibility of
one who
had not been an original apostle being none the less an apostle.
This
survey of the primitive usage of the word “apostle” [[327]]
shows that while two conceptions existed side by side, the narrower was
successful in making headway against its rival.\32/
\32/
During the course of the second century it became more rare than ever
to confer
the title of “apostles” on any except the biblical apostles or persons
mentioned
as apostles in the Bible. But Clement of Rome is called an apostle by
Clement
of Alexandria (Strom. 4.17. 105), and
Quadratus is once called by this name.
ΙΙ
One other
preliminary inquiry is necessary before we can proceed to the subject
of this
chapter. We are to discuss apostles, prophets, and teachers as the
missionaries
or preachers of Christianity; the question is, whether this threefold
group can
be explained from Judaism.
Such a
derivation is in any case limited by the fact that these classes did
not form
any triple group in Judaism, their close association being a
characteristic of
primitive Christianity. With regard to each group, the following
details are to
be noted: --
1. Apostles.\33/
-- Jewish officials bearing this title are unknown to us until
the
destruction of the temple and the organization of the Palestinian
patriarchate;
but it is extremely unlikely that no “apostles” previously existed,
since the
Jews would hardly have created an official class of “apostles” after
the
appearance of the Christian apostles. At any rate, the fact was there,
as also,
beyond question, was the name\34/ -- i.e., of authoritative
officials who
collected contributions from the Diaspora for the temple and kept the
churches
in touch with
\33/
The very restricted use of the word in classical (Attic) Greek is well
known
(Herod. 1.21.5.38; Hesychius: ἀπόστολος
· στρατηγὸς κατὰ πλοῦν πεμπόμενος). In the LXX.
the word occurs only in 1 Kings 14.6 (describing the prophet Abijah:
Hebrew <h> שלוה </h>).
Justin has to fall back on ἀποστέλλειν
in order to prove (Dial. 75) that the
prophets in the Old Testament were called άπόστολοι. Josephus calls Varus, the
head of a
Jewish deputation to
\34/
If Judaism had never known apostles, would Paul have spoken of
“apostles” in 2
Cor. 8.23 and Phil. 2.25?
\35/
The passages have been printed above, on pp. 57 f.; χειροτονήσαντες denotes the apostolate (cp.
Acts
13.3).
\36/
For this intercommunication see, e.g., Acts, 28.21: οὔτε γράμματα περὶ σοπῦ ἐδέξαμεθα ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰουδαίας (say the Roman Jews, with
regard to
Paul) οὔτε παραγενόμενος τις τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἀπήγγειλεν. A cognate reference is
that of 2 Cor.
3.1, to ἐπιστολαὶ συστατικαί.
Eusebius (in Isa. 18.1 f.) proves that the chosen persons whom Justin thus characterizes are to be identified with the “apostles” of Judaism. The passage has been already printed (cp. p. 59), but in view of its importance it may once more be quoted: εὕρομεν ἐν τοῖς τῶν παλαιῶν συγγράμμασιν, ὡς οἱ τὴν Ἱερουσαλὴμ οἰκοῦντες τοῦ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἔθνους ἱερεῖς καὶ πρεσβύτεροι γράμματα διαχαράξαντες εἰς πάντα διεπέμψαντο τὰ ἔθνη τοῖς ἁπανταχοῦ Ἰουδαίοις διαβάλλοντες τὴν Χριστοῦ διδασκαλίαν ὡς αἵρεσιν καινὴν καὶ ἀλλοτρίαν θεοῦ, παρήγγελλόν τε δι’ ἐπιστολῶν μὴ παραδέξασθαι αὐτήν . . . . οἵ τε ἀπόστολοι αὐτῶν ἐπιστολὰς βιβλίνας κομιζόμενοι\37/ ἁπανταχοῦ