Monday, September 9, 2013

'Disciple' as a Self-Designation in the New Testament

Some time ago, I posted on the word 'disciple' (μαθητής) in the Bible, noting that it does not appear in the LXX, and in the NT it shows up only in the Gospels and Acts. I wanted to know whether the Gospels and Acts think of Christians in general as disciples, or whether they reserve this term for the apostles. But at the time I had not done all the research necessary, so the post was very rough and preliminary.

I'm thankful that Paul Trebilco has done the research for me in his book Self-designations and Group Identity in the New Testament (Cambridge, 2012). Trebilco here includes chapters on ἀδελφοί, the believers, οἱ ἅγιοι, ἡ ἐκκλησία, μαθηταί, ἡ ὁδός, and Χριστιανός. So far I have read only the chapter on the μαθηταί, which is excellent. Here I'll give a few notes and excerpts.

Trebilco concludes that Jesus did use the term 'disciples' (the Aramaic talmidayya) for his own followers, but he defined this in a very narrow way: to be a disciple of Jesus meant to literally follow him around, leaving homes and facing persecution. But one did not necessarily have to be a 'disciple' of Jesus (in this narrow sense) to be an adherent of Jesus' teaching. Some people in the Gospels are represented as staying in their homes and still supporting Jesus, though the word 'disciple' would not apply to them.
These [‘sedentary supporters’] are people who did not leave their homes but rather offered Jesus hospitality when he visited their town--people like Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10), Lazarus (John 12:1-2), Mary and Martha (Luke 10:38-42; John 11:1-45; 12:1-8), and the anonymous host of the Last Supper (Mark 14:13-15). Decisively, these people are not called ‘disciples’ in our Gospels; they ‘lack the conditions … necessary for being considered disciples’ [citing Meier, p. 80]--a call from Jesus, abandonment of home and family, the risk of danger and hostility. Everyone who was in some way a ‘committed adherent’ is not thereby necessarily called a disciple. (p. 219)
Trebilco believes that it is because Jesus used the term 'disciple' in such a narrow sense that it did not become popular in earliest Christianity to designate believers generally. Paul, for instance, apparently felt it inappropriate to use the term 'disciples' for Christians in Ephesus, or Galatia, or Rome, since they were not literally following Jesus and had not actually left their households and livelihoods. Trebilco goes on to suggest that the term ‘disciple’ was too weak for Paul to express what he meant by being committed to Jesus. Rather, Christ lives in me. Moreover, ‘disciples’ might live separately, but Paul needed to emphasize community, and so family language and ἐκκλησία worked better. Finally, as Jesus was no longer thought of as a διδάσκολος (never used of him outside the Gospels), so his adherents were not thought of as disciples.

The usage in Acts is owing to Luke's theological program to show continuity between the earliest church and the time period of Jesus. Trebilco also sees various indications in the Gospels--at least, Matthew, Luke, and John--that the Evangelists wished for Christians in their own day (a generation or more after the time of Jesus) to think of themselves and call themselves 'disciples'. This is most clear with the broadening of the term 'disciple' in Luke 6:17; 19:37, the use of the verbal form in Matt 28:19 (cf. 13:52; 27:57), and the very different way of defining 'discipleship' in John.
So, although μαθηταί in John 1:35-51 are called by Jesus to ‘follow me’, and they do this literally (e.g., John 1:37; 2:12; 3:22), in some passages in the Gospel being ‘disciples’ is defined more broadly so that it involves other things that are not tied to itinerancy (such as ‘continuing in my word’, loving one another and being loved by Jesus) or in fact to being present with the historical Jesus and so can apply to a larger group. (p. 241)
Mark is the only Gospel for which it is not clear that he wants his readers/hearers to think of themselves as ‘disciples’, though Mark 13:37 implies that Mark wanted his audience to put themselves in the place of Jesus' disciples and recognize that (some of) the teachings delivered to the original disciples also applied to the later church. 

Trebilco then goes one step further, into the Apostolic Fathers to see if anyone at that time had started using the term 'disciples' for Christians generally. The terms μαθητής and μαθητεύω are absent from the Apostolic Fathers except for Ignatius (noun 9x, verb 4x) and The Martyrdom of Polycarp (noun 2x). Ignatius is especially interesting because several times he links discipleship to martyrdom (his own), thus reflecting the ‘cross-bearing’ sayings in the Gospels and perhaps Luke 14:27. But Ignatius can also use the noun for all Christians. The same is true, later, for Justin (p. 245 n. 213). So Ignatius re-introduces the term as a general one for Christians perhaps having picked up on this theme in the Gospels. But he is the only one at this early time.

8 comments:

Theseed said...

Thanks for this great article. Please how can I get a copy of Trebilco's Self-designations and Group Identity in the New Testament. Amazon is not selling and could not get any other seller.
Thanks.

Ed Gallagher said...

Thanks for reading. Trebilco's book is available on Amazon.com.

Eduardo Prado said...

Dear Professor Gallagher:

It really is interesting this topic about this early designation Chrisitians used when they referred to themsleves as "disciples". Trebilco also talks about the name "Christian" in the book you mentioned.

I would like to ask you what is your opinion about the idea according to which, the fact that Acts 11:26 uses the Greek verb chrematizo is evidence that the disciples in Antioch were first called "Christians" by God himself. Some people I know say that there is no question about who gave this name to the followers of Jesus in Antioch because it is wirrtten in this verse in the Bible and also because of the verb that was employed there.

I hope you have time and opprtunity to answer my question,

Best regards from Mexico,

Eduardo Prado

Ed said...

Dear Eduardo,

I have not researched this view sufficiently (the view you mention), but I am skeptical that Luke intended to communicate that the name Christian was ordained by God. If that's what Luke meant, it seems strange (to me) that he never uses the term again, and that the term is used so infrequently in the NT. On the other hand, the verb he uses is interesting and I wonder why he chose to use that particular verb.

Those are my thoughts without doing further research.

Blessings,
Ed Gallagher

Eduardo Prado said...

Dear Professor Gallagher:

Thank you very much for your response. It always is refreshing to hear a scholar admit that something needs further research.

A few days after I asked you my question about Acts 11:26, I found these lines written by Professor Everett Ferguson:

“The means by which the name ‘Christian’ came into use in Acts 11:26 - whether given by pagans (not likely by Jews) or chosen by Christians (whether through Paul and Barnabas or others) - is disputed, but Luke's use of the verb often used for a divine oracle (chrematizo) may indicate that he wanted to suggest that, whoever first employed the name, its use carried divine approval or authorization.”
Everett Ferguson, The Church of Christ, A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996) p. 101-2.

The problem that I see with Professor Ferguson’s approach is the fact that he clearly falls into a fallacy that Donald Carson explains in this way:

13. Unwarranted adoption of an expanded semantical field.
The fallacy in this instance lies in the supposition that the meaning of a word in a specific context is much broader than the context itself allows and may bring with it the word’s entire semantic range. This step is sometimes called illegitimate totality transfer.
D.A., Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984) p. 62

The verb used by the author of Acts means two very different things as it is used in the NT. I think that that may be the reason why you are sceptical about an interpretation like the one proposed by Professor Ferguson. The only reason that I can see for assuming that Ferguson’s interpretation is a reasonable possibility (I liked the fact that he was not dogmatic here) is the assumption that Luke was using double entendre here. The problem is that there are no reasons to understand Acts 11:26 this way: The context does not allow double entendre and neither the author’s style nor the genre demand such a thing.

I would like to know, if you don’t mind, what you think about this.

Thank you very much, again, for your patience and kindness, Professor Gallagher,

Best regards,

Eduardo Prado

Ed said...

Eduardo,

Sorry for delay in responding. I got caught up with the start of the school year.

I agree with you, Eduardo, that Luke possibly used double entendre, but such an interpretation would be hard to demonstrate since there is little evidence either for Luke's use of the entire semantic range of this verb in this particular verse or for an early Christian belief that "Christian" as a designation had been ordained by God. I do appreciate Ferguson's caution in suggesting this possibility.

By the way, you may have noticed that Danker's lexicon mentions the possibility (supported by the Moulton Greek Grammar) that there are two completely different verbs at play, not etymologically related. I don't know how widely accepted such a view is for this word (or these words). Of course, there's still the possibility that later Greek speakers assumed the two forms were related.

Blessings,
Ed Gallagher

Eduardo Prado said...

Dear Professor Gallagher:

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Of all the commentaries that I have consulted, only Craig Keener’s enormous commentary on Acts (Vol. 2, p. 1850, n. 178) considers the possibility that Luke intended double meaning here. I asked him how likely he considered that interpretation and he replied: “Luke is much less known for double meanings than Mark and certainly John. So though I wouldn't rule out double entendre here, I don't have sufficient evidence to affirm it.”

When I answered his email to thank him for his response, I realized how lucky I was the first time I wrote an email to him: the second time I received an automatic response explaining that he wishes he could answer all his email, but he has to limit himself to his own students. He really is a rock star in Bible studies!

I would like to share with you something that I included in my second email to Professor Keener:

I am doing some research on this topic. Apparently, in the case of the first Church fathers who cited or alluded to Acts 11,26 it did not occur to them that Luke was intending double entendre, and, of course, they did not understand chrematizo as having an oracular connotation. When some church fathers did start to teach that the name “Christian” was a God-given name, they thought the Bible passage that supported this was Isaiah 62,2, but, as far as I know, they did not use Acts 11,26. If the latter statement is correct, it would be additional evidence against the oracular interpretation of Acts 11,26. I still have to check the ancient versions of the New Testament. I think the Vulgate translated it just like the great majority of modern translations do.

Regarding your commentary: “there's still the possibility that later Greek speakers assumed the two forms were related”, I asked two scholars about Moulton’s Grammar proposal: Neither of them thought it was likely, but both of them thought there are two basic and distinct meanings of chrematizo in the New Testament that cannot be confused.

I remember reading somewhere (maybe Moisés Silva or Louw and Nida) that when words are homonyms (as opposed to mere polysemy) native speakers tend to conceptualize those words as if they had different spelling: so clear is the distinction in their minds. I suppose this is what happens when a native speaker of English, for example, uses a word like “bank” for a financial institution and later for the side of a river and then realizes with surprise that the spelling and pronunciation of the word is exactly the same in both cases.

I hope you have a very good school year.

Blessings,

Eduardo Prado

Ed said...

Eduardo,

I'm impressed by your research on this topic. It sounds like you know how to pursue the question in a useful way (ancient history of interpretation), and you've already done some of the work. I'd encourage you to write up an article and submit it to a journal. (Maybe you're already working on that.)